Pope Francis thread

Politics and religion
101

Maybe. You can read what he said and make up your own mind:

"On Paul VI: It’s true that openness to life {that’s Catholic-speak for not using artificial contraception} is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman, and the woman cannot give it to him, if they are not in accord on this point of openness to life. If it can be proved that he or she married with the intention of not being Catholic (on this point) then the matrimony is null. (It is) a cause for the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life.

"Paul VI had studied this with the commission for life, what to do to help many cases, many problems, no? The important problems that make for the love of life; the problems of every day—but many, many.

"But there was something more. The refusal of Paul VI was not only about the personal problems, that he then tells the confessors to be merciful, to understand if this is true, and then (he tells them) “you can be merciful, more understanding.” He was looking at the Neo-Malthusianism that was underway worldwide. What do you call this Neo-Malthusianism? Less than one percent of birth rate in Italy. The same in Spain. {Pope Francis has spoken out against Italian families having too few children.} That Neo-Malthusianism that seeks to control humanity on behalf of the powers (that be).

“This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series. I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). “But do you want to leave seven orphans? That is to tempt God! (Paul VI) speaks of responsible parenthood. What I wanted to say was that Paul VI was not antiquated, close minded. No,(he was) a prophet again who with this (encyclical) told us to watch out for the Neo-Malthusianism that is coming. This is what I wanted to say.”

(Later) "I think the number of 3 (children) per family that you mentioned, it is the one experts say is important to keep the population going, three per couple. {Notice he’s most concerned here with maintaining the population, not avoiding overpopulation.} When it goes below this, the other extreme happens, like what is happening in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners (because of) the fall in population.

"Therefore, to give you an answer, the key word is the one the Church always uses all the time and even I use it: it is responsible parenthood. how do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.

"That example i mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) ‘no but I trust in god’ But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if i use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and i know so many, many ways out that are licit {a little vague, but presumably he means natural forms of birth control} and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

“Another thing in relation to this is that for the most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too but for them a child is a treasure. (Some would say) ‘God knows how to help me’ and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother that see a treasure in every child.”

102

Weird, here (Spain, pretty rooted in Catholicism) his statements are understood as fundamentally pro (non-abortion) birth control. And very strongly so. Different views of Catholic doctrine? I don’t know, but I suspect so.

But bringing children into the world IS the reason for the sacrament of matrimony. The sacrament, not the legal framework, which is a different thing altogether (this is why I also understand him being accepting of LGTB people while rejecting Church matrimony for them). That is, if you don’t plan to have children, you shouldn’t marry under the Church, since the marriage will be void anyway.

This says nothing about the use of contraception inside matrimony (as long as you are open to life, that is, as long as you have children whithin responsibility, as he expands on later). And definitely I read nothing in this statement against contraception outside the matrimony. For the Church, it’s perfectly ok to choose to not have children. The Church even has institutions set up to help those who choose to do so!

Again, this is true (well, the date given -not his- might be too alarmist, but the tendency is there). Whithin the context he is talking about (Italy and Spain) there’s an underpopulation that is indeed troublesome and makes the countries unviable as political entities and unable to sustain the future well-being of its citizens. My solution is different to his (just accept way more immigration NOW). But it’s true that the economic and social framework of Western societies leads to unhealthy levels of underpopulation that needs to be addressed (it’s inhumane, since the lack of children tends to be because of economic inability to do so, not because of lack of want). This has little to do with birth control.

See my new bolding. I read more than natural birth control in this statement. What God’s gives you is not necessarily just things present in pnature. Science is also given by God (this is Catholic doctrine, science is a tool of understanding the world God gave us), and natural birth control is as godly as a condom or a pill (if you accept one there’s no real reason to not accept the other, even whithin Church doctrine).

Previously Church doctrine was against all birth control, but with this statements there’s a pretty big shift towards it’s acceptance (or at least it’s understood that way around here), and making the assumption it’s a partial acceptance seems weird to me (since there’s no real basis for that assumption, abortion and day-after pills excluded for the above reasons -it IS morally wrong if you believe in the soul-).

103

It’s not, actually. Christ raised the contract to the dignity of a sacrament (as the catechism puts it), but it remains in its essence a contract. Perhaps you mean that secular society has developed a quite divergent understanding than canon law of what this contract is about; that’s certainly true.

That is, if you don’t plan to have children, you shouldn’t marry under the Church, since the marriage will be void anyway.

Keep in mind that the infertile can marry, but the impotent cannot. The law requires the ability to perform procreative acts. It does not require a particular outcome.

natural birth control is as godly as a condom or a pill (if you accept one there’s no real reason to not accept the other, even whithin Church doctrine).

I’m always surprised how difficult it seems here to see the categorical difference between omitting a certain act and manipulating it. By itself, this should be a factual observation quite independent of all social or moral consequences. Anscombe famously compared the situation to that of a striking worksman intending to harm his employer:

If a man is working to rule, that does no doubt make a difference to the customary actions he performs in carrying out the work he does. It makes them also into actions in pursuit of such-and-such a policy. This is a matter of “further intention with which” he does what he does; admittedly it reflects back on his action in the way I have stated. That is to say: we judge that any end or policy gives a new characterization of the means or of the detailed things done in executing it. All the same he is still, say, driving this vehicle to this place, which is part of his job.

If, however, he tries to sabotage his actions - he louses up a machine he is purporting to work, for example - that means that qua intentional action here and now his performance in “operating” the machine is not a doing of this part of his job. This holds quite without our having to point to the further intention (of industrial warfare) as reflecting back on his action. (And, N.B. it holds whether or not such sabotage is justified.)

104

Natural infertility (that might be overcome), never voluntary infertility. The purpose of matrimony (for the Church) is still procreation and upbringing of children, or the intention thereof. Thus, infertile people can marry if they still think about the possiblity of having children (which sound like a logical impossibility, but there you have it).

No, I do see the difference. I just don’t think that when Francis states that…

But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if i use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and i know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this.

…he is referring to avoiding the act. The guy seems to be a realist when it comes to human behavior.

105

Juan, I agree with pretty much all of your analyses of Church doctrine (with Nezz’s clarifications, which I think are right). Now, when you say Pope Francis didn’t say anything about contraception outside of marriage, it’s true, but it’s ignoring the fact that the Church very explicitly sees matrimony as the only licit context for sexual behavior and Pope Francis presumably maintains that position, right? That, and I still think that the phrase “open to life” has a very specific meaning, derived from Humanae Vitae’s actual text (I believe), which is to not use artificial means to obstruct fertilization. Practicing NFP is still being “open to life”–at least that’s how it was taught to me. Or do you think Francis is actually trying to subtly redefine the phrase?

106

Yes, what’s being pushed here is that he basically subtly insinuated that it might be ok to include non-abortive, non-irreversible artificial methods on NFP, if the matrimony already has beared enough children for more to be considered responsible (that is, after the “openness to life” has actually been acknowledged, and when the need to properly educate the offspring actually might conflict with the intent of bearing new life).

Francis has a story of, while not refuting doctrine, making it clear that not following that doctrine is not the end of the world and even understandable from a humane point of view.

However, the above is how the interview is being pushed in Spain. For clarification, I just read some Latin American media, and they indeed do push the other angle (that he is still condemning artificial contraception), and the conservative reading. So I guess it’s open enough that it depends who is reading in-between lines.

Still, I find the fact that it is even possible to read in-between lines quite telling, but it’s definitely a biased look at it… (it is, after all, what I want to read).

But only he can clarify all this points when he actually stablishes doctrine on paper. It seems clear he’s preparing himself and the Church for a deep reform, but whether this is going to be an important part of it is left to be seen.

107

I can see the rationale behind what you’re saying, and maybe you’re right. It’s certainly the case that contraception gets a lot of emphasis because of the strong disconnect between the official doctrine and the practice of the laity (and the general countercultural thrust of the doctrine) but that doesn’t mean it’s the gravest of sins, and in the context of marriage I think you’d have to say it’s just not. When Pope Francis speaks, what I hear is usually that the doctrine hasn’t changed really at all, but he is either trying to reframe the conversation about it to dispel certain bad assumptions or to discuss specifically how to administer to the faithful in a more merciful, caring way. All of which is very valuable.

Since I don’t think anyone has mentioned it in this thread, it seems certain that his next encyclical is going to be about environmental stewardship, including climate change. This is something Pope Benedict spoke out about quite frequently, but I expect certain anti-green voices out there to rise up and say that Pope Francis has suddenly betrayed the Church to a radical liberal cause. Oh, look, someone already has!

108

Where is my facepalm gif when I need it???

That was an… interesting read. Is that a Catholic magazine? It feels more like a non-denomination Christian attack on Catholicism as a whole, weirdly personified in Francis (because he’s getting more airtime than previous Popes??? When it doesn’t seem he’s saying anything particularly new whithing the Church in regards to the environment or wealth (which seems is the real focus of the article).

109

First Things was founded by a Catholic priest but prints articles by members of all Christian denominations and Jewish writers as well. It’s conservative, but of the intellectual stripe. I don’t think that blogger is a great example of the rest of the magazine (which I used to read, but don’t any longer). The Editor of the magazine criticized the post later.

110

Yeah, he reads much more reasonable than that first article you posted.

111

Pope Francis keeps speaking his mind, but this time the media’s not quite swooning. First, he endorsed a Slovakian referendum to refuse recognition for gay marriage and to forbid adoption by same-sex couples. And right afterwards, he voiced the opinion that physical discipline of children can be "beautiful"if it is done justly and in a way that preserves the child’s dignity. I’m linking to more even-handed reports, but not surprisingly you can find a lot less even-handed ones out there, on both sides.

112

I guess the “expect a punch” remark makes more sense now.

Snark aside, the full quote is worse than I expected. While the “beautiful” remark clearly refers to “preserving dignity” rather than hitting kids in general, it’s still ugly. “Never in the face” is rather shocking in our culture, if not the Pope’s. The debate here tends to be over spanking, so the implications of “not in the face” are that elsewhere is OK, and refraining from hitting a kid in the face is somehow exceptional.

The intolerance for gay marriage and adoption by gays is less surprising. The tone has been softer, but still that homosexuality is immoral. It’s been more “we’ll let you in to the church even though you’re sinners” than “we accept you.” It’s just that anything less than total condemnation is so new in a Pope that people have read it as nicer than it actually was.

113

Yeah, I was guessing that “never in the face” phrase sounds less shocking in Italian or to Italians than it does to us!

114

I never beat my wife with a rod thicker than my thumb, so as not to humiliate her.

115

Rhetorically, the Pope’s comment is on a level with St Paul’s admonition to treat slaves kindly, which liberals tend to find insufficiently revolutionary as well.

Philosophizing about punishment and dignity in the abstract is one thing; but if I was judged guilty and had to choose between a fine, a prison or a cane, I would choose the cane, because it’s the quickest option. Some pain is always inflicted upon an evil-doer in retribution, and which kinds of pain are worse than others is a very subjective assessment.

116

Depends on how they use the cane. That dude in Singapore would’ve rather paid a fine I’m betting.

117

Do this dude really said “If you insult my mother you can expect a punch.”. It seems really out-of-place for a Pope. I mean, they are into this cristianism thing,all offer the other side.

118

See my explanation above, Tieman. Part of it is that this Pope speaks pretty impulsively. The other part is that he was talking about your average person, not what the Pope himself would do so much (although he was using “I” rhetorically) and simply trying to show how deeply people feel about their religion, that insulting it is like insulting someone’s mother.

119

We’ve gone over this ground, but I think that it’s also indicative of how Pope Francis thinks. That is, he might not actually throw a punch if you insulted his mother, but he might want to. Or at the very least, he grew up in a culture where that kind of physical response to an insult is considered normal.

It’s not an example that would even cross my mind, personally, even if I were speaking rhetorically. Just as striking a child in the face is not even on my mental horizon.

120

I don’t want to say I told you so (but if you search this thread, i probably did), but can we finally admit that he is just more of the same, but a bit more charismatic than normal for his position and unlike his… questionable predecessor, not a complete asshole.