Washington Post article: Pope lectures Catholic elders at closing of synod on family

Pope Francis on Sunday appeared to lecture church elders at the closing of a landmark summit on the family here, suggesting they should not be quick to exclude a broad array of people deserving of God’s grace.

In a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica to mark the end of the three-week summit — known as a synod — Francis seemed to target narrowness, focusing his homily on the biblical story of a blind man named Bartimaeus whom Jesus engages during a journey.

“None of the disciples stopped, as Jesus did,” Francis said in what at times appeared to be a scolding tone.

washingtonpost.com/world/europe/vatican-synod-calls-for-a-more-welcoming-catholic-church/2015/10/24/f98c83b6-71b9-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html

What are your thoughts? (I mean besides the fact that the WaPo is a very liberal publication… :D)

Not much.

So many Catholics are struggling to maintain their faith, and they try their best to avoid prejudice, not label people, and take care of their own, their schools, their parishes, and live their faith in a world increasingly hostile to any faith.

I think Catholics in America are doing their best to not mistreat anyone, including those with gender issues.

The bishops are concerned that any changes pastoral practices will cause confusion to the laity. The bishops are the one closest to their people and know their struggles.

The popes and bishops have gone back and forth for ages…it is nothing new.

Pope Francis and his focus on compassion and mercy has made an impact on not only practicing Catholics, but people of all faiths. God Bless him!

It could at least in part the American media trying to match the beat of Pope Francis to progressive social values. :yawn:

I agree with #2 in the sense that the Pope may not be as familiar with other countries or that his advisers don’t always have the whole scoop.

I learned nothing from the article. It was an opinion piece rather than “news,” and the author regurgitates the standard “I’m Catholic but I don’t like Catholicism” types of opinions.

It has been a long time, perhaps never, since I last heard Catholic bishops referred to as “elders”, although look where we got the word “presbyters”.

We have to be always cautious that there aren’t false expectations,” said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington. “One false expectation is that Catholic teachings would be changed. That is not going to happen.”

Cardinal Wuerl seemed to address the expectations of at least one Mormon who frequents CAF.

First - The reading for Sunday were about Bartimaeus so the Pope using this story in his homily is not as contrived as the WP would have you believe.

Second - When I want valid interpretation and correct news of what the Pope said I go to a reliable Catholic news site, not main stream mediaw

Go to National Catholic Register www.ncregister.com. Fr Mitch Pacwa strongly endorses them and they themselves state they seek to report objectively without any politics.

Here is a much better article regarding the synod.
ncregister.com/daily-news/synods-final-report-rests-with-pope-francis/#ixzz3pn19WvBd

In his homily at the closing Mass of the synod Oct. 25, the Pope warned against speaking and working for Jesus while living “far from his heart, which is reaching out to those who are wounded.” A faith that “does not know how to root itself in the life of people remains arid and, rather than oases, creates other deserts,” he said.
The Pope’s words followed the publication Saturday of the synod’s final report, published so far only in Italian, in which all of its 94 paragraphs received more than the required two-thirds majority. The document covered a range of issues such as domestic violence, violence against women, incest and abuse within families, poverty, families facing persecution and war, marriage preparation and pornography.
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told reporters Oct. 25 the synod had been a “very rich experience.” Probably the “richest” element “was being in the small groups”, he said. Unlike previous synods, the 13 small language groups met for most of the three weeks rather than just the second half of the synod, so they would, in Pope Francis’ words, foster a more “intense” debate.

IMHO - A much better synopsis of the synod than what the WP or other secular media report.

It seems to me that “lecturing” can be considered part of the Pope’s job (now, and back when Benedict XVI was Pope, and back when John Paul II was Pope, and back when John Paul I was Pope, and back when Paul VI was Pope, and so on).

Of course, I guess there’s also a whole can of worms about connotations of the word “lecture”.

Life is a whole lot more boring when you go to the reliable news site, rather than to one that has an agenda to twist the truth. :wink:

:smiley: Sometimes it’s funny to see how the secular media reports on Catholic news

I think it was unfortunate and likely did more harm than good. My suspicion is that it came from exasperation. But every workplace I have been in has had a policy about reprimanding employees in private, not public to avoid demoralization. Also make it very clear, preferably in writing, what the issue is and who is doing it. Just good policy. To be honest, I think it is a little tactless and petulant. I’ve done it myself - and regretted it. Sometimes I wonder if the Pope realizes that so many lay persons empathize with the “conservative” bishops. Where does he stand with them - in his view?

Also, because it is so off the cuff, I think it often is not intended with the gravity that we take it with. And it is not always clear who is the intended recipient. The Pope is a great defender of orthodoxy - usually. So along with dejection, people are very confused - usually the next comment we hear is different anyway. We breath sign a relief that the other side is taken aback and confused.

Calling names without naming names: What I like least about Pope Francis -
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1335

they should not be quick to exclude a broad array of people deserving of God’s grace.

This goes to the heart of the problem. It seems to me, one group wants deprive some of grace by leaving then in grave sin and then encouraging them to heap sin upon sin by making sacrilegious communions and confessions (ie confessions without the firm purpose of amendment). The other group wants to encourage people to partake of the grace of the sacrament of penance (which necessarily includes a firm purpose of amendment) and then fruitfully receive the grace of Holy Communion.

Using the analogy of the blind man, one group wants to simply accompany the blind man as he blindly stumbles into the pit (Matt 15:14) rather than actually help heal the blind man so he can see Jesus and be led through the narrow gate to eternal life.

Exactly. How can allowing the divorced & remarried (without annulment) partake of the Eucharist be merciful? It’s merciful to enable or even encourage another to commit more mortal sin? I get the annulment process may need to be streamlined or changed in someway to expedite decisions, but allowing communion without at least attempting a petition to a tribunal would be not only bad for the Church but bad for the individuals.

The ones I have the most issue with are the ones who are Catholic at the time of marriage, knowing what marriage means in the Catholic Church, then divorce and scream “not fair”. (In no way do I mean to say all Catholics who divorce do this, but I’m sure most of us know of one or two.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.