Twitter is full of bigots making incoherent arguments. One of those people is the attorney general of Michigan.
The CNN headline is a bit reductive, but for a moment, let’s posit that Dana Nessel, the attorney general of Michigan, believes that CNN is accurately characterizing Pope Francis’s argument.
She objects to the characterization that choosing pets over children is “selfish.” Fine, lots of people object to that. But then, Nessel posits that people who don’t want children are selfish if they have children.
What sense does that make? How could taking on a burden you don’t want be a selfish thing? It could be imprudent. It could be thoughtless. It isn’t by any stretch “selfish.”
Then she posits that lots of people — presumably the parents she encountered in the foster care system — have children they don’t want because “the Pope thinks you should.”
She seems to believe that a significant number of children end up in the foster care system because the parents are devout Catholics. If Nessel has data on this, I’d be intrigued. I assume most children in foster care come from unmarried parents, and approximately nobody believes that “the Pope thinks you should” be getting pregnant with or impregnating someone who’s not your lawfully wedded spouse.
So, what was the point of this nonsense tweet by the attorney general? Was it merely to air her disdain for Catholics and their church?
“Because the Pope thinks you should” is not an accurate description of Catholic hierarchy. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it say that Catholics should do whatever the pope thinks we should do. The pope is not our commanding officer. He does not unilaterally set church teaching. Certainly, the thoughts of a single pope don’t bind the conscience of the faithful.
“Be fruitful and multiply” is not a quotation of the pope, but of God. It was the first commandment God ever gave humanity, and it is told to us in the Book of Genesis. Church teaching that marriage is properly oriented toward family formation doesn’t come from the proclamation of any one pope but from the Bible and centuries of tradition and teaching. If anything, Francis is talking about the need for married couples to have babies because the Bible and Catholic teaching tell him so….
The above comes from a Jan. 10 story in the Washington Examiner.
“Forget it Jake….It’s CNN…”
I noticed on a lot of social media and TV that people took so much offense as if the Pope was criticizing their pets.
In case anyone else can’t make sense of this, Dana Nessel is the attorney general of Michigan and she tweeted this:
Having done a great deal of work with the foster care system, I can tell you nothing is more “selfish” than having kids you don’t want just bc the Pope thinks you should. Your children will know they weren’t wanted, and it leads to terrible outcomes for both the kids & parents.
In the blue link CNN, this paper calls the childless ‘sociopaths.”
Why would you want sociopaths to bear children? They are just going to hurt them and use them to hurt others.
“Then she posits that lots of people — presumably the parents she encountered in the foster care system — have children they don’t want because “the Pope thinks you should.” ” If these people are truly sociopaths, they are not going to care what anybody says about their conduct, least of all the Pope.
She didn’t say sociopaths. the author at Washington Examiner did.
This person just reacted based on their life experience which is helping children whose parents have been addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill, or who have abandoned their children, abused their children,
It is not about the Pope. If the President or the Mayor or a celebrity had said it, she would have reacted the same.
” Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it say that Catholics should do whatever the pope thinks we should do. The pope is not our commanding officer. He does not unilaterally set church teaching. Certainly, the thoughts of a single pope don’t bind the conscience of the faithful.” An interesting take on things. On the furious back and forth on Pope Francis’ Tradionis Custodes, I was given to believe the above conclusion was approaching error or actually in error, given that T.C. clearly changed Church teaching on poor Benedict’s .hermeneutic of continuity. Just wondering…
Dan, the author’s point was that the Pope represents God.
You don’t have to do what the Pope says. You can commit sin. Lots of people do.
There are consequences.
When the Popes teach, they are usually clear on what level of teaching it is.
You seem really confused on TC.
TC did not change any church teaching.
The hermeneutic of continuity is not an infallible church teaching or even a church teaching, It is correct, tough, and TC would not change it just as Summorum Pontificum did not change it. The opposite thought leads to schism.
I am sure that Pope Emeritus Benedict is in accordance (though with sadness, possibly) with Pope Francis on TC.
We are not customers of the Catholic church. Mass is prayer, not entertainment. The Pope has the job of doing God’s Will not ours.
Your posts on the Pope and the Church always leave me feeling like you just don’t get it.
The hermeneutic of continuity is correct, though. Not tough.
The opposite thought can also lead to error.
The idea that the Church after Vatican II is a different Church is heresy.
The idea that the Church threw out the past and is starting over led to a lot of error and liturgical abuse.
I believe you said that you entered the Church in 1978 which is the year that Pope John Paul II became Pope.
I am studying a document from around that time Catechesi Tradendae. It may be unique in that it was worked on by three different Popes
This has nothing to do with anything-just making conversation.
cton, I was not clear myself on whether TC, representing the hermeneutic of rupture, and that in spades, rose to the level of one Pope teaching contrary to his predecessor. Behind the hermeneutic of rupture and that of continuity are perspectives on tradition that are diametrically opposed. One would like to embrace the treasures of the past, the other would see such thrown overboard. How does this not foundationally imply differences in teaching? At this point you are right: I just don’t get it. On another note: The author says that the Pope is not our commanding officer, but I think you are saying he is. The author says the thoughts of a pope don’t bind the faithful, but if words are an expression of thoughts, and you argue his words bind the faithful, then you disagree with the author, or so it seems to me. For myself, I am much more interested in actions rather than words. I shall say no more with regards to this. Finally, thanks for remembering I entered the Church in 1978. That was really a miraculous occasion, and I wish I had the opportunity from Cal Catholic to share that experience.
Dear Dan, to your last sentence – Cal Catholic is launching a writing contest of conversion/reversion stories next month. Watch for announcement in these pages.
Does this help?
Were Paul, Catherine of Siena, and Robert Bellarmine wrong?
St. Robert Bellarmine who said that it is not for the sheep to tell the shepherd that he is wandering?
This is the kind of stuff the rebellious like to bring up. If you are a schismatic or heretic or have otherwise separated yourself from Christ’s Body, please repent or you will go to hell.
1) “St. Robert Bellarmine who said that it is not for the sheep to tell the shepherd that he is wandering?”….is that all Robert Bellarmine said?
2) “This is the kind of stuff the rebellious like to bring up.”
…so everyone who asks a question is “rebellious”?
3) “If you are a schismatic or heretic or have otherwise separated yourself from Christ’s Body, please repent or you will go to hell.”….are ultra-montanes required to repent?
3) Don’t know what you mean by ultra-montane. It is not in the Catechism or Canon Law where the gravity of the sins of heresy and schism are.
“3) Don’t know what you mean by ultra-montane. It is not in the Catechism or Canon Law where the gravity of the sins of heresy and schism are.”….get a refund from your instructor
Hi Dan, I just want to share a personal story with you. My mom stopped going to Church because she said “It’s not the same church.” I thought it was weird because this was 2010 or so (can’t remember the date for sure) and she had been going to Mass for 40 years after the change in the liturgy. In 2017 she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and people with that disorder can remember things from childhood better than they can remember their adult life. So, it was an early sign that we did not understand the significance of.
Again, not pertaining to anything. Just wanted to share.
I would love to hear your conversion story.
I am a revert-it was intense and miraculous (at least to me.)