Another Pope Francis Interview, Strap On Your Seat Belts!

[Apotheoun]

You don't think that he is making conscience autonomous as the interviewer intimated? And did Cardinal Ratzinger in his speech say that each person "has his own idea of good and evil"? Pope Francis seems - intentionally or unintentionally - to be reducing good and evil to subjective qualities of the individual, and that is one of the things Cardinal Ratzinger attacked at erroneous. Deadened conscience can even impact the Church's missionary efforts as people begin to see faith itself as a burden, and so people should just be left in ignorance so that they can be saved more easily. Cardinal Ratzinger sounds very prophetic on the issue of conscience, while Pope Francis is vague and sounds a bit modernist.

[Aloysius]

it seems that way, taken by itself... but the way it was said would be a perfectly valid beginning point to make... he never got around in this interview to close that beginning point by suggesting that there should be a well-informed conscience and that there can be an ill-informed conscience, which I would've liked to have seen him do.  I will have to look around to see if I can find anything else written or said by him about conscience that would shed light as to whether this was, as it seemed to me, simply an incomplete starting point where he just went up to the point of how it would make the world a better place if everyone followed their conscience, or if he is indeed going down some of the errors Ratzinger has pointed out.

 

I mean, I'm reading this not as a theological treatise... if he had put that into an encyclical and not clarified it, I'd have freaked out.  but I've certainly had discussions with non-believers where I've tried to start them out on the idea of conscience and good and evil, so reading this as a conversation it really looks much more like a starting point that never got closed out in the course of the conversation.  but like I said, finding some other things he's said would be helpful to clarify this.

[Apotheoun]

it seems that way, taken by itself... but the way it was said would be a perfectly valid beginning point to make... he never got around in this interview to close that beginning point by suggesting that there should be a well-informed conscience and that there can be an ill-informed conscience, which I would've liked to have seen him do.  I will have to look around to see if I can find anything else written or said by him about conscience that would shed light as to whether this was, as it seemed to me, simply an incomplete starting point where he just went up to the point of how it would make the world a better place if everyone followed their conscience, or if he is indeed going down some of the errors Ratzinger has pointed out.

 

I mean, I'm reading this not as a theological treatise... if he had put that into an encyclical and not clarified it, I'd have freaked out.  but I've certainly had discussions with non-believers where I've tried to start them out on the idea of conscience and good and evil, so reading this as a conversation it really looks much more like a starting point that never got closed out in the course of the conversation.  but like I said, finding some other things he's said would be helpful to clarify this.

Perhaps if Pope Francis cannot treat the subject well, because of the interview format, he should refrain from giving interviews and write an encyclical on conscience. That way also his ideas will not be mediated through the lens of another person who may not share his own agenda. There comes a point when Pope Francis himself must be held personally responsible for the imprecise nature of his own remarks. I mean he is the one choosing to give these interviews. No one is forcing him to present his ideas in this way. His approach seems very imprudent, and maybe he should remember that he is not just Jorge Bergoglio anymore. He is Pope Francis and that means being more precise and even careful when he speaks.

[Aloysius]

you may be right, I don't know.  but in any event, the point he made about conscience is a good starting point... here's another thing he's said about conscience, to understand where he's coming from and what he means:

 

"So we also must learn to listen more to our conscience. Be careful, however: this does not mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever pleases us. That is not conscience. Conscience is the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful.

 

Pope Benedict XVI has given us a great example in this sense. When the Lord had made it clear, in prayer, what was the step he had to take [i.e. to resign the papacy], he followed, with a great sense of discernment and courage, his conscience, that is, the will of God that spoke to his heart – and this example of our father does much good to all of us, as an example to follow.

 

Our Lady, with great simplicity, listened to and meditated deep within herself upon the Word of God and what was happening to Jesus. She followed her Son with deep conviction, with steadfast hope. May Mary help us to become more and more men and women of conscience – free in our conscience, because it is in conscience that the dialogue with God is given – men and women able to hear the voice of God and follow it with decision." -Pope Francis, June 30, 2013

 

I'm perfectly willing to grant you the possibility that the things he is saying are confusing to many people especially in this format because it's a conversation, the possibility that he's not being understood correctly or that he shouldn't give interviews in this format and leave discussions that would take this kind of format to a private setting, maybe you'd be right about that.   but I do feel the need to point out that he's not trying to divert from Benedict's teaching on conscience, and it's important at least for the Catholic faithful to understand that so that we can correct those who misunderstand... ie if some wayward Catholic says to you "it's okay, the pope told me to just follow my conscience"--we should point out to him NO, Pope Francis himself would call what you're trying to follow right now your "ego", not your "conscience" which is the place in your mind where you should be open to hearing the voice of God.

 

if he gives some incomplete point as a starting point in a conversation/dialogue with an atheist, but he still teaches the right thing consistently, we may criticize the approach he has with atheists but to jump from that to some broad conclusion that he's trying to change the whole tradition on conscience, conversion, and evangelization, I think that's dangerous and wrong.

[Apotheoun]

So we also must learn to listen more to our conscience. Be careful, however: this does not mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever pleases us. That is not conscience. Conscience is the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful.

That is better, but it is too bad he didn't say that in the interview, because the interview has gotten tons of coverage in the media while his June 30th remarks have not. For whatever reason Pope Francis seems to like sensationalism, and I am sorry but that type of behavior is not simply imprudent; rather, it is reckless and destructive.

 

It looks like his June 30th remarks were more exact (or at least thoughtful). I wish he would find a different way - i.e., not through this thoughtless interviews - to convey his message. Sadly, I have been told that more of the interviews are coming.

[KnightofChrist]

Maybe after the Pope said he had no intention of converting the man, he said but I hope you will be converted or saved in the Church, or but I do welcome you to be converted should you wish. And the reporter just didn't report that part. Idk.

The Pope is a fisherman of men all christians are, yes we must attract the catch but we still need a hook or a net and bring them in.

[John Ryan]

I don't think that priest is in good standing with the Church.

 

 

Ok, so the Pope is not infallible as defined by Vatican I and neither is an Ecumenical Council. I presume you don't believe the Roman Catholic church is necessary for salvation either, and that one may be saved following their conscience sincerely for example. I have to ask then John, why be Catholic? If the official teachings of the Catholic Church disagree with your personal beliefs, and you feel the RC has erred, why not find a Church more suitable to your worldview? I'm asking seriously here, I never understood why people decide to stay.

 

Father Alison is not in poor standing as far as I am aware. He is a priest and performs the Mass. 

 

I would not say all that is necessary for salvation is to follow one's conscience. I am a Freudian, so for me the conscience is synonymous with the superego and therefore dependent upon a person's infantile experiences. What I think is necessary for salvation is for a person to cooperate with the Grace of God in their life. I do not believe that grace only appears in a Roman Catholic form. 

 

I am a Roman Catholic because I believe that God's Grace flows through it. I firmly believe in transubstantiation and the ability of the priest to stand in persona christi. I believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. For me the Church is my spiritual home. We are the body of Christ united around a common mystical union that is the Mass. I believe in the Essence of the Church. Where else am I to go but Christ's Church, though it has its flaws?  

[Apteka]

Father Alison is not in poor standing as far as I am aware. He is a priest and performs the Mass. 

 

Apparently he openly disagrees with the Church's position on homosexuality.

 

I would not say all that is necessary for salvation is to follow one's conscience. I am a Freudian, so for me the conscience is synonymous with the superego and therefore dependent upon a person's infantile experiences. What I think is necessary for salvation is for a person to cooperate with the Grace of God in their life. I do not believe that grace only appears in a Roman Catholic form. 

 

Is it necessary to be Catholic?

 

I am a Roman Catholic because I believe that God's Grace flows through it. I firmly believe in transubstantiation and the ability of the priest to stand in persona christi. I believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. For me the Church is my spiritual home. We are the body of Christ united around a common mystical union that is the Mass. I believe in the Essence of the Church. Where else am I to go but Christ's Church, though it has its flaws?  

 

 

Why not be an Episcopalian or Anglican or Orthodox? Don't they fit more in line with your view concerning the Papacy and dogma?

[Aloysius]

John Ryan, be careful not to go with too materialist of a view of conscience, I don't know if you read up to date on the thread or were just responding to the last part you were involved in, but Pope Francis's words from my post 244 seem uniquely important to supplement your view of the conscience as being related to the superego... I don't mind an idea that the conscience is related to the superego, but I would mind very much anyone who said that the conscience was synonymous with the superego.  the origins of the superego in parents/society/infancy relate to the way the conscience is formed, of course, and we must always seek to better inform our conscience, to let the Church teach and form and reform our conscience so that it might conform more perfectly with Christ and be truly open to listening to the voice of God.   but this may be diverging too much... it satisfies me to some degree that you did say that grace flows through it from God though the total equivocation of conscience and superego rings far too materialistic to me at first.

 

grace of course doesn't only "appear in a Roman Catholic Form", but we do believe that Christ's Church is the only way God made known to us for salvation... God has bound salvation to the Church, and there is of course nothing wrong with saying God is not bound by such limits, but it is important that we do recognize that He gave us the Church as the known means of salvation, and we should be zealous about trying to bring everyone aboard this ark of Noah because we know of no other way by which a man can be saved, though for all who die outside the ark we hope and pray that God's mercy will find them.

[John Ryan]

Apparently he openly disagrees with the Church's position on homosexuality.

 

 

Is it necessary to be Catholic?

 

 

Why not be an Episcopalian or Anglican or Orthodox? Don't they fit more in line with your view concerning the Papacy and dogma?

 

(1) I am aware. He is a powerful proponent of LGBT rights within the Church. 

(2) No. 

(3) I disagree with the Anglican/Episcopalian conception of Eucharist, which is a cornerstone of my Roman Catholic Faith — the stark materialism of transubstantiation is central in my humble opinion. Besides that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church has become very secular in its teachings on social justice. I feel that they are too liberal, in the sense that they embody a notion of the good life that is based on preference set, non-perfectionist ethics — and thus equate human liberation with the same value-system that plagues our modernist culture. As far as the Orthodox Church, I am comfortable with them. In a very real sense they are Catholic. I borrow a lot of my theology from the Eastern Church in fact. Yet, I feel that they tend to be quite nationalistic and exclusivist. The Roman Catholic Church is a universal church, which very important for me.

 

John Ryan, be careful not to go with too materialist of a view of conscience, I don't know if you read up to date on the thread or were just responding to the last part you were involved in, but Pope Francis's words from my post 244 seem uniquely important to supplement your view of the conscience as being related to the superego... I don't mind an idea that the conscience is related to the superego, but I would mind very much anyone who said that the conscience was synonymous with the superego.  the origins of the superego in parents/society/infancy relate to the way the conscience is formed, of course, and we must always seek to better inform our conscience, to let the Church teach and form and reform our conscience so that it might conform more perfectly with Christ and be truly open to listening to the voice of God.   but this may be diverging too much... it satisfies me to some degree that you did say that grace flows through it from God though the total equivocation of conscience and superego rings far too materialistic to me at first.

 

grace of course doesn't only "appear in a Roman Catholic Form", but we do believe that Christ's Church is the only way God made known to us for salvation... God has bound salvation to the Church, and there is of course nothing wrong with saying God is not bound by such limits, but it is important that we do recognize that He gave us the Church as the known means of salvation, and we should be zealous about trying to bring everyone aboard this ark of Noah because we know of no other way by which a man can be saved, though for all who die outside the ark we hope and pray that God's mercy will find them.

 

I am sorry if I gave that impression of the superego. It was not my intention. I do very much believe that God's Grace is a part of the superego. 

 

I tend to think that the way Protestants talk about salvation is a stumbling block for understanding its reality. And this error stems from Martin Luther's insistence that justification is a singular event upon becoming a Christian. You are either justified or you are not. It creates a very wicked dichotomy. Yet, once we understand that salvation is a process, and that final justification only occurs in Heaven, after the impurities have been purged from our souls, the picture looks very different. The idea of mortal and venial sins makes me think of an Orbit of Grace. It is not necessarily how far we are along the path, but that we are caught in God's gravitational pull. And I find it quite absurd to say that kindhearted and loving Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Daoists and Atheists are outside God's Orbit. But that's merely my humble opinion and the faith I try to live, by God's grace, every day.

[Aloysius]

[attachment=3211:spock_fascinating.jpg]

[Apteka]

(1) I am aware. He is a powerful proponent of LGBT rights within the Church. 

 

 

In my opinion John, for a theologian to hold a pro-homosexual stance thoroughly discredits them. The scriptural evidence against homosexual acts in both the OT and NT is so thorough that I don't know how anyone can support it from a Christian perspective, and this is not even mentioning the arguments from natural law. Again, this is just my personal litmus test, since the mental gymnastics involved in trying to justify homosexual acts are of such great magnitude, I would be weary of anything else such a theologian believes.

 

(2) No.

 

By rejecting even one dogma you put yourself outside of the Church and in essence create your own version of Christianity. I know in your next quote you try to explain why you remain attached with Catholicism, but you seem more like a High-Church Anglican than a Roman Catholic, I think you would find their positions very agreeable with your own. Again, I don't understand why a person would remain in a religious community they disagree with, I presume you were raised Catholic?

 

(3) I disagree with the Anglican/Episcopalian conception of Eucharist, which is a cornerstone of my Roman Catholic Faith — the stark materialism of transubstantiation is central in my humble opinion. Besides that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church has become very secular in its teachings on social justice. I feel that they are too liberal, in the sense that they embody a notion of the good life that is based on preference set, non-perfectionist ethics — and thus equate human liberation with the same value-system that plagues our modernist culture. As far as the Orthodox Church, I am comfortable with them. In a very real sense they are Catholic. I borrow a lot of my theology from the Eastern Church in fact. Yet, I feel that they tend to be quite nationalistic and exclusivist. The Roman Catholic Church is a universal church, which very important for me.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken more conservative branches of the Anglicans do accept the transubstantiation, and you may also consider Western Rite Orthodoxy (both groups reject the Papal claims.) Anyway John, you choose to stay and call yourself Catholic, I'm not going to push you out since I'm not inside myself! I just find it peculiar when people choose to remain, or at least portray remaining inside, when they disagree with the fundamentals of what makes Catholicism. In the old days if you didn't agree with the Church, you left!

[Apotheoun]

Substance in Scholasticism is immaterial, so I don't believe that transubstantiation, properly understood, is materialist. 

[Apotheoun]

In my opinion John, for a theologian to hold a pro-homosexual stance thoroughly discredits them. The scriptural evidence against homosexual acts in both the OT and NT is so thorough that I don't know how anyone can support it from a Christian perspective, and this is not even mentioning the arguments from natural law. Again, this is just my personal litmus test, since the mental gymnastics involved in trying to justify homosexual acts are of such great magnitude, I would be weary of anything else such a theologian believes.

Perhaps this is something that will be changing in the coming years.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

This distinction is absolute nonsense (or better "solemn nonsense") because no one can tell if another person is sincere or not. Only God can see the secrets of the heart.

 

 

St padre pio supposedly was a great reader of the hearts of others.