This post needs to be read within the context of two preceding posts:
Pope Francis: Rupture vs. Change
Pope Francis: Ongoing Fallout (Part I)
Building on what has been said in the first two posts, we continue with the fallout from the pope’s interview with atheist publisher Eugenio Scalfari.
If the pope’s refusal to take the bait on preaching specific moral norms didn’t make many tear their hair out in anger, then this little nugget has caused a near-revolt in certain quarters:
Pope Francis told me: “The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem is they don’t even look for them any more. They have been crushed by the present. You tell me: can you live crushed under the weight of the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to look ahead to the future by building something, a future, a family? Can you go on like this? This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.”
No mention of war, hunger, divorce, abortion, cohabitation, fornication, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, gay marriage, etc… Now, if this isn’t the definition of the shallow, liberal, social worker, anti-magisterial Jesuit priest, what is? Right?!
Wrong!
Once again, Francis nails it, and consider for a moment that this blog for the past four years has not dealt with youth unemployment or the loneliness of the elderly. I have consecrated my doctorate to advancing the Culture of Life as articulated by Pope John Paul II. How then to reconcile this blog, my ministry, and my agreement with Pope Francis? The answer lies in the Broken Windows Theory utilized by New York’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani.
Simply stated, if a community tolerates broken windows and graffiti it will soon become afflicted with all manner of serious crimes. What we communicate by permitting defacing the facade of that which should be beautiful and noble is that we will tolerate assaults on all that is beautiful and noble within. Prosecuting and not tolerating the seemingly lesser crimes serves to prevent far more corrosive actions from ever occurring. Giuliani proved it worked, and converted one of the most dangerous and blighted cities in the world into one of the safest and cleanest cities in the world.
It is much the same with Francis’ broken windows. When through neglect we assault the beauty of our elderly, tearing at the great dignity that is their due, when we ignore the needs of our young, we break the windows of the House of God, allowing the winds of despair to blow through freely, and despair is what drives all of the issues this blog tackles which Francis didn’t mention. Despair blows in the rot that disintegrates the Church from within.
He is driving at root causes, and again, I invoke the seven years (’83-’90) in the 1980’s that I spent working at Covenant House in Times Square. I saw more prostitution among children, more drug addiction, more violence, more abortion, more despair than I really care to remember. When children feel that they have no hope for their future, no means of employment, no loving and mentoring adults in their lives, they become easy prey. And before Covenant House, I worked a weekend job (’80-’83) at a nursing home on Staten Island as an orderly, bathing, feeding, dressing, and changing the diapers of old men. Most of our nursing homes are great dumping grounds, warehouses for the elderly cast aside in their age and infirmity with no visitors, save an infrequent hour here and there from their many children and grandchildren.
One could argue rightly that this or that particular child rebelled against good parents, or this or that old person in the nursing home alienated their children through cruel and thoughtless parenting, and I’ve seen plenty of that to know that it’s true. However, Francis is pointing to phenomena that have become universal. They are phenomena perpetuated and tolerated by those of us who occupy that middle ground between youth and old age. His clarion call echoes that of Jesus in Matthew 25 in the Last Judgement:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Note that Jesus doesn’t mention adultery, fornication, abortion, etc. Perhaps neglect of the corporal works of mercy leads to all the rest.
Perhaps Jesus and Francis are both getting at a spiritual version of broken windows. We can more easily tolerate war and its deprivations when the plight of the elderly, the homeless, the unemployed, the hopeless have become part of the normal background of our lives. If this sounds like some liberal ’70’s screed, it isn’t. The anger at this pope reveals the truly revolutionary effect Francis is having on the Church here in North America.
We have labored for over forty years under a false dichotomy of social justice and the corporal works of mercy. The anarchists (they really aren’t liberal) within the Church got caught up in Marxist and socialist theory and brought that into their view of ecclesiology. They took up several great social justice causes, such as workers’ rights (which Pope Leo XIII did as well), and women’s rights, and succeeded in contaminating them with the radioactive fallout of their hostility toward the Magisterium. Traditionalists took up the banner of the life issues (which are also social justice issues). Thus, social justice was artificially divided and the issues used as pawns in a proxy war between the traditionalists and the anarchists, with more moderate people of good will caught in the crossfire.
However, as Jesus points out in the criteria by which He will judge us, those issues had better be our issues while we have life and breath. If they aren’t our issues in life, they most certainly will be for eternity. Therefore, we on the orthodox side of the aisle need to reclaim those issues we have let slip away from us in the wake of Vatican II. That will necessitate a reintegration and recalibration of our own worldview and ecclesiastical worldview. This is the direction Francis has been leading in. At first, it will seem strange, as though seeing the world from within the opposition’s encampment, and that would be an accurate assessment. We are being led into the opposition’s encampment precisely because we need to heal and unify the Church, and because the opposition has nurtured that which we let slip away.
Imagine, common ground.
If we resist Francis every step of the way, then we usurp that role, that authority, that charism that belongs to Peter. If Francis says we don’t need to discuss matters of abortion, etc. all the time, he is right. I and others spend a great deal of time on these issues professionally because someone has to. That doesn’t leave too much time for the other great issues of the day, and I leave those issues to people who have been called to that work. (Also, the absolute number of unemployed young and cast-aside elderly eclipses the number of abortions, etc in dramatic fashion). However, in my own time I do make sure that I engage in all of those other issues championed on the left. They were very much the center of my life as a young man, and remain near to my heart. We can only do so much in a day, and each of us is called to specific tasks. This is true.
However, we need to stop throwing rocks at the pope who points out the Church’s broken windows.
For the sake of our own souls, we need to stop it now.
Coming Home 
[…] Pope Francis:Rupture vs. Change Pope Francis: Ongoing Fallout (Part II) […]
OK. But it still strikes me as decrying the symptom rather than addressing the disease. This matter of emphasis and the back and forth is quite a phenomenon. I’m speaking here only of faithful Catholics of goodwill. Faithful Catholics parsing and rightly showing to other faithful Catholics what the Holy Father did not say, despite the spin of the secular media. And other faithful Catholics struggling to sincerely understand where the Holy Father is coming from.
If it is this difficult for faithful Catholics of goodwill, who are not angry, I can’t imagine the secular world getting it right. But who knows? I sense he is expressing nuance of the Church’s teaching instead of the doctrine from which it flows. Heaven knows the secular media ignored and vilified the central doctrines, perhaps they will pay attention to the nuance and then the rest can be heard.
As I said, I’m speaking of faithful Catholics of goodwill who are not angry at the Holy Father. Therefore, as I struggle to understand his emphasis, I’m confident that you and others are not accusing me of harming the faith.
Not at all, Dan. I’m addressing the rock-throwers. I guess it comes down to what we believe serves as the catalyst. I don’t think abortion leads to unemployment and hunger. But I have seen unemployment, hunger, and their despair drive women to abortion.
I don’t believe abortion leads to unemployment and hunger either. I do believe that the breakdown of the family and a selfish materialism (among other things) does lead to those.
Another excellent post! The words of Pope Francis have called me to seek out working with the poor more. I have made a call to do work with the Missionaries of Charity here in Phoenix. Soon I will write about all of this on my blog. Thank you.
I would add that abortion itself is also a symptom.
The Sophism continues! The very liberal (I use that
term for charitable purposes only) Cardinal
Bernadine coined the phrase, “seamless garment”
and lumped all issues of immorality
together. There is a hiearchy in morality.
Bernadine also steered the Vatican in
Selecting every liberal Bishop that’s still here today.
Pope Francis’ mantra is the same.
All the ground we have gained against
abortion is huge, too much to reiterate
here. We will begin to lose again, many Bishops are delighted. When society says
it’s OK to kill the most innocent of all
innocents, then anything else is OK.
Sorry, the Pope is wrong in what he saying.
Pope’s have been wrong before. Benedict XVI
said when he was in seminary that the
Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas
was “boring”. Really? At the great council
of Trent Holy scripture were placed
on one side of the altar the Summa was
placed on the other. So much for the
error of popes.
When the enemy begins to thank the
Pope , I dare say we are in great turmoil
that sofism will not fix. Only Truth will
prevail in the end. Pray we are on the
right side.
One last point – St. Athanasius was ex-commucated
by Pope Liberius. Pope Liberius is the first pope
after St. Peter that was not canonized and
St. Athanasius – – – –
Beverly, to attack this Pope on this blog, you’ll have to convince me that he has green-lighted abortion. I have sacrificed a great deal professionally as a scientist to defend the Catholic Church and attack abortion… more than you’ll ever know. So, please, can it with the name-calling. I’m a pretty experienced warrior who sees what many, yourself included, do not see in your blind spot. So far, this pope has said nothing that encourages abortion.
Does it gall you that he speaks in a manner that liberals are open to?
Does it gall you that he might just bring them along and you’ll have to sit at the same banquet table with them?
In all of my work, I have endeavored to not come off as haughty while engaging in mortal combat. It isn’t easy to do, and I have several well-grounded friends who help me in this regard. You could use a dose of humbling yourself, because I see no love in your comments…
Just haughty, self-righteous condemnation. They are ugly adornments on your beautiful soul.
“I have seen unemployment, hunger, and their despair drive women to abortion.”
Funny; they didn’t use to. Not in the number we have now — nowhere even close. Unemployment, hunger, and despair have been around a long, long time. Until quite recently, abortion was chosen by only a tiny minority of women, most of whom were well off or at least well-connected. Does anyone really believe that full employment and three squares a day will drive abortion from this world?
Wow! What an inditement from someone
who really doesn’t know me. This is the problem
when trying to converse on the Internet.
I’m 83 years old, have counseled. at the
abortion mill here some 15 years or so, worked
with almost all Priest for Life, spoke at many
places on life issues (contraception, abortion,
etc.) prayed the rosary at a local nursing
home, every Thursday, for 30 years. I do not
know why I have to defend myself and
my name when speak the truth. Having
said that please tell me exactly where. I
have attacked the Pope and lied.
I don’ t usually don’t do this, I would rather
speak to someone in person .
It’s amazing how you can read. my
heart to tell I have no humility. But you have
the power I don’t. What I said was the
truth. I don’t say any of. this on my own.
St Teresa of Avila said, “He who has himself
as his own spiritual director, has a fool for
a director.
I wish you luck with the sofism. I have
Other things to do such praying the rosary.
I knew I never should have even tried.
Beverly
Beverly,
At 83 you should know that hurling the title sophist at someone YOU don’t know would provoke a response that would not entirely be to your liking. My blog is an extension of my home, and visitors are expected to comport themselves as guests at my table. Now, If you care to retract your obnoxious snarks, we can have a civilized discussion Otherwise, I’m done.
Romulus,
Abortion was also not legally available in times past, but has been condemned in every age of the Church. So we can assume that when something like the legalization of abortion runs up hard against poverty and despair, we’ll see new phenomena. Welcome to social disintegration.
If we pro-lifers are honest with ourselves, we haven’t done such a great job at evangelizing or stopping abortion. Therefore, I’m more than open to new ideas and approaches, especially from the Vicar of Christ.
Then Gerard, it would seem to me that the problem is not poverty of means but the kind of spiritual impoverishment Mother Teresa was talking about. I doubt very much that social uplift will stop abortion or any other evil. In any case, social improvements — including fighting poverty — belong to the secular sphere. They are not the business of the Church.
Romulus, You had better read Matthew 25 closely. Your Judge has spelled out exactly how He is going to evaluate you. You can’t kick the poverty can down the ecclesiastical road. That’s self-delusion with eternal consequences.
What a terrific blog. Thank you, Dr. Nadal.
Thank you, Tito. Come back and make yourself at home. Lots of pro-life science, etc. Now, if I could figure out how to serve espresso…
Gerard, I have read Matthew 25. It is quite clear. I am going to be judged according to my acts in aiding the poor, feeding the hungry, etc. Not in eliminating poverty or otherwise transforming society. These are not even remotely the same thing. Poverty is not objectively evil in itself. Indeed, many people embrace it as a path to sanctity. Christianity is not a social services movement to make this world tolerable. That would be one of the NGOs Pope Francis has mentioned. The point is quite simple: the call is to meet Christ, who is specially present among the poor. This is something objectively important to my wellbeing — not that of the poor. You appear to be missing a very important distinction.
Romulus, I need to pick up my children from dance school and grab dinner. I’ll be back at 9 PM EST. Till then, God Bless. 🙂
Hats off to Dr. Nadal for a very thoughtful and informative post. Romulus, all too obviously, there are many mechanisms today (more so than yesteryear) by which poverty may lead to abortion, such as those that include drugs, alcohol, depression and other psychiatric illnesses, child neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, nutritional deficiency, intellectual and educational deficiencies, infirmity, early death of loved ones, on and on. To distinguish poverty from spiritual indigence as you do with a wave of the pen is not beyond the ability of his pope, it is merely beyond his human sensibilities. Would that it was as simple as you suggest. Then the human condition wouldn’t exist as we know it, good blogs like this wouldn’t be necessary, and instead of doing his best to treat a symptom, as Dan Kennedy calls it, Dr. Nadal would be spending his days in a laboratory, dreary and hallucinating over a beaker of boiling volatile compounds… But, fortunately, the blog exists, and at 9 PM (EST), boy are you’re gonna get it!!!!
I’ve never read a more ridiculous article defending the indefensible in all of my life. Thanks you for such creativity.
[You’re welcome. I aim to please. G.N.]
sorry Gerard, how many times will the Catholic bloggers have to go around cleaning up his messes… There is already a very low percentage of faithful attending daily mass and he decides to go after them. Stupid. You know, the pro-lifers in our church are also involved in helping the poor, knights of Columbus, etc. He is the first Pope to become a priest after V2, and it’s showing. He has Obama and Naral’s approval. Yuck.
This is amazing Doctor. You say I attacked you – I did ‘t. You said I have no humility – I also happen to. be in MY home. To hone in on the word “sofis” is very interesting. When one doesn’t like the message. attack the messenger. Coming from a doctor,very educated person, I am a little surprised. However, my son’s an MD considered one of the best in his field if not the best, I’m told by others and articles – never from him.
Just to set the record straight on humility. However, I changed his diapers and nursed him and he has always treated me with great respect.
I could go on but I’ve been around long enough trying to defend The Faith, not my opinion. My opinion is worth nothing. If anyone doesn’t want to listen and attacks me I know from past experience
It’s useless.
I know when I am speaking to a person who is going to search
every way possible to attack me when don’t want to hear .)
I’m fine with that.
You do not have to respond cause my statement stands on sofism.
Domminus Vobiscum
[ From Merriam-Webster: Definition of SOPHISM 1. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive. So, Beverly, using the spelling you used in your first post on this thread, you came here and accused me or the pope of sophism? Either way, people who deal that dirty card from the bottom of the deck get little respect from me, as they are fundamentally dishonest in their dealings. God Bless you too.]
Jasper,
I’m not sure the mess is his. More than 30 years of John Paul and Ratzinger/Benedict has conditioned folks like us to expect a certain style, a certain delivery. Yes, the media love him. They loved JP II, if you recall… until they discovered to their horror that the smiling, youthful, charismatic “people’s pope” had pro-life, orthodox fangs. Then they started a twenty-year death watch in the papers and on TV.
I honestly think many on the orthodox side of the aisle have become addicted to their anger at the folks on the other side of the aisle and can’t let it go. That’s the real mess. As for the media, if Francis were the reincarnation of John Paul II, they would misrepresent him. We faithful who are informed need to take the time to explain Francis to our other brothers and sisters; just as we did for John Paul and Benedict for more than three decades. We’re old pros by now 😉
Thank you, Dr. Nadal for such an insightful analysis with the right touch of Christian compassion . Keep going, do not let the rock throwers rattled you from your unassailable post in defending the Vicar of Christ. May St. Michael aid you in all that you do.
BTW, are you related to Rafael Nadal? I root for his rival Roger Federer. But I’m rooting for you here.
[Thanks, Gemma. Raphael is younger, better looking, more athletic, and wealthier… but no relation. On the other hand, I have the best wife and children a man could hope for–so I have him there! God Bless. G.N.]
(((For the sake of our own souls, we need to stop it now.)))
I recall in the eighties when I use to make little donations to our Canadian Covenant house and mainly because the sister in charge would not give up and I loved her honest warm true stories and being a father of five girls back then and our youngest was born in 1980 and thinking about some of the things that took place back then still gives my Guardian Angel the chills.
Long story short, I saw a young man last night in reality and he literally believed that I had not seen him and started to give me a blast for thinking that I was going to run him over. Anyway, it took only a comment for him and I to start laughing when he saw that I was still wearing my Montreal Canadian Hockey hat after the first lost that they suffered to Mother Nature’s Leafs. After I explained in so many words that Mother Nature had cheated by using the ice to throw a punch, let’s say that we seem to become friends. 🙂
Anyway while my wife insisted that she go in to pick up my six pack of beer, I kept talking to this young man and we couldn’t keep our eyes off each others eyes. While I was yacking away, I couldn’t help noticing that now he could barely keep his left eye open and longer story short, our good Bishop can tell YA that I’ve been crying to The Good Lord for years now because society took control of our children at too early an age. What I am trying to say is after what I saw last night in that young man’s eyes, I’m just wondering if GOD (Good Old Dad)’ Angels have not already started separating the sheep from the goats. 🙂
Who’s laughing? 😦
God Bless
Romulus,
pt-109 speaks great truth, but not about you getting it upon my return. He’s a great guy!
Regarding your 5:30 PM post, I’m not sure where to begin. Here…
“Christianity is not a social services movement to make this world tolerable.” Yes and no. No it is not a social services movement, but the poverty the pope speaks of is not the aesthetic type embraced by others as a means toward sanctification. It is the type that crushes the soul, as Francis points out. It malnourishes the body and tortures the soul. In large swaths of India, families earn just enough each week to either buy food or firewood. If they buy food, they can’t cook or boil water to sterilize it for drinking purposes. If they buy the food, they have no potable water for the week and risk diarrheal disease from their contaminated water, diarrheal diseases that kill 760,000 children globally each year.
That kind of poverty and despair is the kind God finds hateful, and yes, it is a form of evil. It has its own intrinsic malignance and violence. Once, while addressing homelessness in America, former NYC Mayor, Ed Koch, said that if every church, synangogue and mosque in America adopted two homeless families and supported/mentored them, homelessness would become a thing of the past.
I think that we on the right have become so resentful of the antics of those on the left that we have lost sight of the scriptural imperatives to aid the poor, and that our eternal fate depends on our performance. Yes, we ARE supposed to transform society. That’s what building the Kingdom of God on earth is all about.
[…] Read Part II here. […]
[ From Merriam-Webster: Definition of SOPHISM 1. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive. So, Beverly, using the spelling you used in your first post on this thread, you came here and accused me or the pope of sophism? Either way, people who deal that dirty card from the bottom of the deck get little respect from me, as they are fundamentally dishonest in their dealings. God Bless you too.]
Gerard, we are Christians, not pelagians.
Dr. Nadal~Thank you for your brilliant posts. It is hard to watch/read/listen to fellow Catholics insult Pope Francis. Your responses are well thought out and persuasive. I have a few friends/acquaintances who follow MDM and I am at an absolute loss as to what to say to them. I keep you in my prayers. Thank you for your good work on behalf of the Church, the unborn, and the Body of Christ!
I found another very encouraging perspective on this Italian interview vis-à-vis evangelization: http://cvcomment.org. An excellent read by Ivereigh of Catholic Voices UK.
Agreed, Romulus, but Paul tells us that we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Jesus tells us that only those who do the will of the Father will enter Heaven. James tells us that faith without good works is thoroughly lifeless. The entire arc of the scriptures tells us that our salvation depends on how we live our lives with regard to the corporal works of mercy. Yes, we have been redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice, and that cannot be earned. However, our salvation depends also on our obedience to the will of the Father. That’s Core Catholic and not Pelagian.
Charstar87, You have no idea how much I appreciate those prayers, or how much they strengthen me. Thank you, too, for your words of encouragement. God Bless.
Great post! Thank you for it. I also don’t think that people truly realize how much danger their souls are in from their comments on blog posts. Yikes.
“Gerard, we are Christians, not pelagians.”
He’s got a point there, Dr. Then again, we’re not penguins or storks either.
I *also don’t think* (sorry, I missed a word)
[Fixed it. :-)]
Gerard,
I’m Indian, so I read your comments at Ocober 3, 2013 at 8:34 pm with some interest/bemusement. I lived the first 30 years of my life in India and have lived these last 30 years in Australia. What I’d like to point out is that even the poorest of the poor in India aren’t as (spiritually) crushed as the affluent in the West. They have a greater sense of God and respect for His laws, and share whatever little they have more generously than most in the “first world”. Which leads me to the certainty that the first will indeed be last and the last first in the final count. “Blessed are the poor…” I’ve often found more joy and hope in the hearts of the poor than I’ve witnessed in the depressed and cynical lives of our youth.
Before we embark on lifting others out of poverty, we in the afluent and increasingly decadent West need desperately to embrace for ourselves genuine poverty of spirit. For someone possessed of humility (such as Pope Francis AND his predecessors) a focus on the needs of others is natural and honorable; for many among us it can often be merely self-serving or self aggrandizing. I won’t name names, but the richest man in Australia (now dead) used to write large checks in donations to hospitals and the like – almost as easily as he’d lose 25 million dollars in a casino in your country in a single night! What I’m trying to say, I guess, is it’s not simply helping the poor that’s going to do heaps for the salvation of our fellow man – or oursleves. (The Catholic Church, as you know, is already the biggest charitable organization in the world.) Rather, and more importantly, it’s our own materialism and narcissism that we need to face up to and tackle first. Not that I believe you disagree with me on this, but what I’m trying to stress here is that we’ve got to recognize the (spiritual) ills in ourselves first, before we attempt to fix the (temporal) ills of others…
Hi Dr. Nadal, Thank you for this article. Pope Francis is certainly giving believers and non-believers alike much to think about. I am among the many confused faithful, and I appreciate how well you’ve explained the Holy Father’s words. Your statement here has me thinking:
“Note that Jesus doesn’t mention adultery, fornication, abortion, etc. Perhaps neglect of the corporal works of mercy leads to all the rest.”
At first I appreciated it, then I thought, well, it is not as if the rich are unlikely to commit adultery, fornication and abortion. The poor certainly have not gotten a corner on those sins. On further thought, though, I realized something Pope Francis certainly knows, having lived among the very rich and very poor of Argentina. The rich can be guilty of those sins, but they can and often also are guilty of the sin of ignoring the needs of the poor, and that fault will be considered very serious at the time of their judgement. Of whom much is given, much will be expected.
Thanks for helping me to think all of this through. As confusing as his words are at the surface, I think we have a gem of a Holy Father.
Francis,
We’re not so far apart on matters. The spiritual ills and narcissism NEED the practice of charity as the tonic to heal the ills within us in the decadent west. It is impossible to grow in the spiritual life without the practice of gratitude and charity.
Gerard and pt-109, I don’t know why, but you are not reading me. I have no idea why you think I’ve missed out on the moral teaching about good works, unless it’s because you prefer to battle a reductionist argument of your own construction rather than the one I’ve set before you.
I am not the one dismissing the corporal works of mercy. I am not the one dismissing the truth that if we turn our backs on the poor we’re going to hell. I am pointing to a non-trivial distinction that you are refusing to acknowledge, that aiding the poor and seeking to transform society through the elimination of poverty are entirely different things.
Anti-poverty programs *can* be a prudential means of serving the poor, but are not essentially so. The critical question is intent. None of us has the ability to make the poor “better off” in a way that’s meaningful sub specie aeternitatis. It is a temptation of pride that we like to imagine we can do so. The pelagianism is in the mistaken notion that God’s kingdom is incomplete till we all have access to certain (arbitrarily determined) material comforts which the world provides. We need to help the poor not because a bourgeois utopia is God’s will for them, but because an encounter with Jesus is God’s will for us.
I can’t speak for Dr. Nadal, nor would I, given his ample writing and thinking capabilities. For myself, I can’t buy into your environment-spirit dualism, perhaps because of my own intellectual limitations. You are a dualist, sir, which is why I challenge you to a duel! I can see the weapons! Yours, a philosophical mind and exceptional theological education. Mine, a life lived stirring (and stirred into) the turbulent soup of environment and spirit. By the way, sorry about my last post: I thought you said we were not pelicans! Ha! Need new glasses…. I couldn’t see that you said plagiarism. But, really, sir, why are you accusing me of the wrongful appropriate of other people’s work?
Thank you for this series of posts, Dr. Nadal. Ever since the (in)famous “Who am I to judge?” interview, I kept asking myself, “Why does Pope Francis keep walking right into these traps? He’s not stupid… he knows how this is going to be interpreted by the MSM, right??!!” But upon further reflection (including reading his interviews in their entirety and your blogs), I’m beginning to realize that he may not be walking into traps as much as setting them…with Peter’s net, no less!
Thank you. I am enjoying your posts.
Early in Benedict’s pontificate (I believe it was then, anyway), he was musing that the Church would become a smaller church, one in exile in the hills, so to speak. I think some of us pro-lifers may have taken that as an invitation to view our battle with the evil of the world is lost, that civil society just cannot be saved by even by our best efforts of persuasion and witness.
Anyway, that is how I took it. I had concluded that the wonderful light of Thomistic reason would never penetrate the darkness “out there”. What I didn’t realize was that I was developing an inner “darkness”– a despair of being able to do good on the big “life issues”. Along with that (perhaps partly because of it), I found myself alternating between anger and indifference toward the women who were choosing abortion, and–further–developing an all-consuming anger toward everything I viewed as not beautiful, not true, and not good. I knew these were not Christlike attitudes, but I found them very hard to resist.
So when you said this:
“I think that we on the right have become so resentful of the antics of those on the left that we have lost sight of the scriptural imperatives to aid the poor, and that our eternal fate depends on our performance.”
you were talking about me. Pope Francis has been a Godsend for me in this regard, allowing me to see again the wisdom in 1 Corinthians 13.
If I may presume to speak to our friend Beverly, above: we must forget our hurts, the pain, the insults, the indignities we have suffered trying to “fix the world”. I believe that a righteous anger, when too long enkindled, becomes just as bad–for us and for everyone else– as the non-righteous kind.
In Christ,
-C. Lynch
I thank you and bless you. I am enjoying your posts.
Early in Benedict’s pontificate (I believe it was then, anyway), he was musing that the Church would become a smaller church, one in exile in the hills, so to speak. I think some of us pro-lifers may have taken that as an invitation to view our battle with the evil of the world as lost, that civil society just cannot be saved by even by our best efforts of persuasion and witness.
Anyway, that is how I took it. I had concluded that the wonderful light of Thomistic reason would never penetrate the darkness “out there”. What I didn’t realize was that I was developing an *inner* darkness– a despair of being able to do good on the big “life issues”. Along with that (perhaps partly because of it), I found myself alternating between anger and indifference toward the women who were choosing abortion, and–further–developing an all-consuming anger toward everything I viewed as not beautiful, not true, and not good. I knew these were not Christlike attitudes, but I found them very hard to resist.
So when you said this:
“I think that we on the right have become so resentful of the antics of those on the left that we have lost sight of the scriptural imperatives to aid the poor, and that our eternal fate depends on our performance.”
you were talking about me. Pope Francis has been a Godsend for me in this regard, allowing me to see again the wisdom in 1 Corinthians 13.
If I may presume to speak to our friend Beverly, above: we must strive mightily to forget our hurts, the pain, the insults, the indignities we have suffered trying to “fix” a world that does not often show “proper” response to our efforts! I believe that any anger–even a righteous anger–when too long enkindled, becomes just as bad–for us and for everyone else– as the non-righteous kind. This should give us serious pause as we “crusade” for “justice”.
In Christ,
-Chris
Apologies for the double post, above!
C. Lynch,
Thank you for your introspection and experience. In confession today my confessor shared that without charity and giving of oneself, chastity is impossible. He was right on target. You invoke the true, the beautiful, and the good.
Charity, unreserved and from the heart, is what helps the abortion-minded woman see the true, the beautiful and the good within her. It also liberates our own captive spirits, really allowing us to love those who are not pro-life with the full beauty of chaste love. I know how black and discouraging it can get. For what it’s worth, the battle isn’t ours, but God’s. All He asks is our very best effort, which is all we can give.
Let’s keep each other in prayer.
God Bless,
Gerard
Until we believe in the mission of creating “on earth as it is in heaven” with our actions, we will continue to “save places” in heaven for those who agree with our own strict rules. How horrible it must be for those who believe there are only so many chairs in “heaven” and they may not get theirs if too many are let in before them.
Pope Francis is threatening their reserved spots at the table of “God” with his words and actions. Bravo for him.
With Christians being murdered in Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and other countries, that would seem to me to be the most urgent problem the Church needs to face.
The Pope brings us valid problems, but ignoring the atrocities and murders of Christians today, concerns me
The Roman Catholic Church has often been the authors of these atrocities. I think the strongest position the pope can take is to admit the Roman Catholic Church’s wrongs in pursuing these militaristic solutions and to completely change the course of conversion to one of nonviolence, as did Gandhi and MLK.
That’s ridiculous.
PS: You might read some history before invoking Ghandi as a moral exemplar.
I have read much of non-violent change history. I know that Gandhi was a very flawed (human) man, but his leadership in non-violent achievements in change still stands as a good example of alternatives to war.
Ahhhh…. The troll who comes to derail the thread…..
I’m not sure what you are referring to.
Unemployment creates a whole lot of idle hands, and we know what they say about idle hands…
We have youths roaming the street, harassing and even killing people out of ‘boredom,’ for lack of anything productive to do. Not that I accept that claim completely at face value (boredom doesn’t seem to be the only thing going on there), but still, I think of Fr. Greg Boyle who created Homeboy Industries to get young people out of the gang life. We don’t talk about the dignity of work for nothing.
To enness;
Until we understand that we are all born as animals that need to be brought up as individual humans by responsibly compassionate humans who decide how many children they and their communities can actually manage, we will continue to have animals in human form roaming our streets. Responsible parenting doesn’t automatically come with faith. It comes with physical resources and supportive community. The RC church denies that it is responsible to limit the size of one’s family, but nothing is further from the truth on this earth.
Your last sentence is misinformed.
Cf. the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.”
The methods of regulation are laughable, especially when one considers spouses who must travel to make the money that supports the family. Is this supposed to follow one of Jesus tongue-in-cheek directives tat we are told about to explain parables? I object to the idea that Jesus gave tongue-in-cheek directives because he knew that they wouldn’t be followed. I also object to giving orders, under penalty of sin, that can’t reasonably be followed.
Y, you are very good at what you do. Almost perfect. When it comes to derailing a thread with subjective drivel, insults, and mindless platitudes, you are, as they say in South Central LA, “da bomb.” However, there is always room for improvement! As an eternal optimist, and a well-established expert in the field, let me perhaps give you three small pointers about how to derail a thread. First, you can’t come across as too derisive without inserting more “facts” into your posts. Of course, the facts need not be accurate — but there is a certain, let’s call it a stylistic imperative, when it comes to relying too heavily on absurd rhetorical questions. Second, “playing dumb,” such as you did above at 8:01 CST, can only be effective when it has some credibility; not a gushing stream of credibility, which may smack others the wrong way, but at least a tiny trickle of credibility. And third (and this is important if you wish to remain a member of good standing in the Amalgamated Union of Troll Workers), using your personal victories to “win” an argument, such as…. oh….. for example, bragging about how much you have read on a particular subject, to serve as any basis of your argument, is deeply frowned up by the rank-and-file Union members. After all, we in the Troll Workers Union don’t have the words “humilitate potissimum” on our bowling shirts for nothing.
The Pope is only following the messages of Our Lady of Fatima as to pray and save all souls and leads those in need of mercy as not send any type of person to hell
Here is a major issue that I hope this pope will address. The RC church has no special power to send anyone to heaven or hell. Neither does it know whose spirit is where after death, even though individual members may feel the deceased’s spirits still alive within themselves.
Y,
Why don’t you actually learn what it is the Church teaches before making a wish list. If you are unsure of what it is we believe, then ask a question instead of throng down half-baked challenges. Beyond that, read some of the other material on this blog to get a better idea of what it is I do. I don’t play pseudo-Catholic trivia games.
As for the Roman Catholic Church’s special powers. Jesus gave Peter broad power to to declare things bound on earth and in Heaven (generally understood to be in the area of faith and morals). Peter transmitted that to his unbroken chain of successors.
Jesus gave the Apostles the power to bind and forgive sins in His name.
Jesus gave his Apostles to the power to transform bread and wine into His Body and Blood.
And that’s just for openers. Those issues are not open to debate here on this blog. Period. If you believe otherwise, Mazel tov. I respect your beliefs, but visitors of other faiths are required, REQUIRED to take a RESPECTFUL approach to mine and those of anyone else here at Coming Home. Attacking and mocking the faith of others through thinly veiled ‘questions’ doesn’t fly here. My ecumenism is authentic and rooted in the rich soil of respect.
I was educated for 12 years in Catholic schools before Vatican II. By the RC church’s standards, I’m still a Roman Catholic, so I have every right to question the authority of the church. These are real questions. The fact that they make RC members uncomfortable doesn’t make them less in need of addressing by a church that says it wants her children to come home.
I have attempted to get an annulment of the sacraments administered to me by the RC church, but there is no cure for my Catholicism. Like an adult who grew up in an abusive family, I continue to hurt because I cannot go home because the abuses have not been publicly admitted and purged from the home.
I well remember my uncle’s family being denied a Catholic burial for him because he committed suicide. I well remember my unborn sibling being relegated, for eternity, to a place other than heaven (then called Limbo). I well remember being taught that we could not attend any non-Catholic services, even the wedding of my mother’s brother when he married a Methodist, under penalty of mortal sin. I well remember being told that nobody could get to heaven who was in the state of church-defined mortal sin. I well remember being taught that nobody could get to heaven who was not baptized into the Roman Catholic church. I know the church continues to canonize people as if they have a special line on who is in heaven.
[Content Edited: Allegations against priests, founded or otherwise, not permitted here. This is not the appropriate forum. G.N.]
Do people retroactively get taken out of hell when the church re-decides what mistakes they made?
Y,
So where have you been in the half-century since Vatican II? Have you read the encyclicals since then? What about the documents of Vatican II? What about the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II? Your list of issues has been addressed tens of thousands of times on thousands of blogs and other forums. But I’ll address it here.
Jesus promised the Apostles that He would send His Holy Spirit, who would lead them to all truth. While I find that it would have been convenient if He had done so all at once, His ways are better than mine. So, in the context of an organic Body of Christ, Universal truths already revealed (and the content of all revelation ceasing with the death of the last apostle) become known at a deeper level and seen in new light as humanity’s understanding of itself deepens. Such is the case with the funerals of those who commit suicide.
The Church has NEVER pronounced who is in hell. Perhaps idiot priests might have spoken otherwise, but if so they only spoke for themselves. Yes your uncle was denied a funeral mass. Do you know why? Do you know what the symbols at the mass signify? We bless the body with the waters of baptism, cover it with the garment recalling baptism, and wheel the body up to the Paschal candle (symbolizing the light of Christ) that was lit at baptism. The symbols are there to mark that which was given at baptism and recall that they were presumably present in the life of the deceased.
It used to be thought that suicide was a sin of despair, a loss of faith in the saving power of Christ and a usurping of the power over life and death that is His alone. Since then, over the last fifty years, we have come to know through psychology and neurobiology that there are neurological mechanisms involved in suicide and that the person may well have diminished capacity for full reflection and full consent of the will (two of the three required elements for mortal sin). So, in light of modern scientific evidence, was the Church wrong? Not at all.
It may well be that people who commit suicide have gotten wrapped up in sin and left themselves open to forces of demonic oppression, and in some cases, possession. (Though oppression is far more common and very, very real). Through rejection of God and engaging in a life of sin, many fall victim to the helplessness and hopelessness that are characteristic traits in suicide. So, no, we cannot rule out that people in a state of free will may have become agents in their ultimate demise. That said, the Church has always said that God is merciful and we cannot be certain of who is in hell. As for who is in Heaven, the canonization process looks to a life of heroic virtue and faith. “Nuff said on that.
I edited out your comments on priest abuse. See your bishop and local D.A. if you really have a case.
As for your annulment, I presume that after a thorough investigation the Church did not find any factors that would have precluded the valid exchange of vows. If that’s the case, are you angry at the Church for leaving you sacramentally saddled with a wife whom you divorced civilly?
As for your uncle’s wedding, would you prefer that the Church had not grown beyond the hostility and suspicion in the wake of the Protestant Reformation? Judging from the thousands of Protestant ministers converting in the past two decades, it would seem that the clarity wrought by Vatican II and the ecumenical dialogue has had an effect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Church having adopted a posture that protected her children from errors that could lead to watering down the faith. However, over the past fifty years in the Vatican Council itself and in the papacies that followed, apologies by the Church for her sins of intolerance by her sons and daughter have substantially cleared the air.
In all of your comments, there is very much a spirit of brooding resentment that sounds as if it is being fueled by ignorance of history and Church teaching that can only be rightly understood in the light of the organic development of the Body of Christ, with the Holy Spirit leading her to all truth, as promised. I have my own laundry list of issues with bishops and priests, but I don’t air that one publicly. I seek the counsel and direction of people far wiser and more knowledgable than myself. There is no short supply of such people in the Church, Y. I suggest you find one or two and get to work on healing.
Y, although I have overstayed my welcome on this thread (which is usually the case), I see in the last post by Dr. Nadal a heart-felt gift to a stranger whose social and rhetorical deficiencies were graciously tolerated. So, my last piece of advice to you, assuming you reply to those comments, is to consider using the words “thank you.” That you may not agree with anything said in his comments is absolutely irrelevant.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Thank you, Dr. Nadal for allowing me to sit at your table. I’m sorry if I have offended you.
No offense taken, Y.
Blessed are the peacemakers!
Dr. Nadal your article was very uplifting & encouraging. I Love our Holy Father! Thank You & God Bless
Youth unemployment and being lonely are not intrinsic evils against the natural law written into each man’s heart. Abortion and sodomy are.
Jesus came and wrote only two laws on the hearts of the new humans, “Love The Creator of the Universe, and your neighbor as yourself.” Lack of compassion for The Sacred Spirit in which each human is endowed is the new natural law for those who say that Jesus is their “Christ.”
Y.
Jesus is The Word of God. All of law in scripture comes from Him. “And the Word was made flesh, and made His dwelling among us,” as John says in his gospel. Jesus also said that the two greatest commandments were:
1. “Love your God with all your heart, with all your soul.”
2. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Then He said that all the rest were based on these. He did NOT say that all the others were optional or anachronistic.
I don’t take the bible literally, especially in light of the many translations and interpretations. I do not believe that every word that was chosen for inclusion is divinely inspired, nor do I believe that all divine inspiration is limited to the words in the bible. I do believe that Jesus was a sterling example of living by the word that was most abundantly stamped on his heart. I will sign off with agreeing to disagree about the nature of Christianity and Roman Catholicism.