Caring for migrants and the poor is as holy a pursuit as opposing abortion, Pope Francis declared in a major document issued by the Vatican on Monday morning.
Pushing back against conservative critics within the church who argue that the 81-year-old pope’s focus on social issues has led him to lose sight of the true doctrine, Pope Francis again cast himself, and the mission of the Roman Catholic Church, in a more progressive light.
“The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist,” Pope Francis wrote in an apostolic exhortation on the subject of holiness issued Monday morning. “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.”
The pope’s vision of holiness explicitly highlights migrants, whose plight he has sought to elevate to global attention perhaps more than any other issue.
The pope’s 103-page document — an apostolic exhortation titled “Gaudete et Exsultate,” or “Rejoice and Be Glad” — is less authoritative than a papal encyclical, but is nevertheless an important teaching pronouncement. At its outset, Francis makes clear that it is not meant “to be a treatise on holiness” but to “re-propose the call to holiness in a practical way for our own time.”
As he put it elsewhere in the document, “Seeing and acting with mercy: That is holiness.” That statement is a distilled expression of Francis’ vision of the church, which is consistent with a view articulated by Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin, the archbishop of Chicago who died in 1996, and who called for a “consistent ethic of life” that wove issues of life and social justice into a “seamless garment.”
When asked if the document on holiness was a response to Pope Francis’s conservative critics, the panelists at the Vatican news conference on Monday, including Archbishop De Donatis, looked uncomfortably at one other for several seconds before giving a roundabout answer.
But some of the passages seemed intended as a rebuke to the canon lawyers and archconservative cardinals leading the opposition to Pope Francis.
In the document, the pope excoriates Christians taking the path of “an obsession with the law, an absorption with social and political advantages, a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige.” They should instead be passionate about “seeking out the lost,” he writes.
He is also withering in his criticism of the hostile tenor that often reverberates throughout the conservative Catholic blogosphere.
“Christians, too, can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet,” Francis said, citing vicious examples of defamation in some Catholic outlets where “people look to compensate for their own discontent by lashing out at others.”
The pope has been less critical of his liberal interlocutors, including those who sometimes put words in his mouth. One favorite, if infamously unreliable, narrator of the pope’s conversations, recently caused a controversy when he asserted that the pontiff did not believe in hell.
But in “Rejoice and Be Glad,” Francis indicated that he had no doubt the devil is real.
“We should not think of the devil as a myth, a representation, a symbol, a figure of speech or an idea,” he writes. “This mistake would lead us to let down our guard.”
In the devil’s arsenal is the spreading of gossip, which the pope disdains, but he also expresses an intolerance for the intolerant and close-minded.
In another poke at conservative critics inside the Vatican hierarchy, he bemoans those who would prefer a self-righteous and orthodox minority to the tough work of spreading peace by embracing “even those who are a bit odd, troublesome or difficult.”
“Sowing peace all around us,” he writes. “That is holiness.”
Full story at The New York Times.
All life is sacred. However he sounds like Cardinal Bernadine who left an out for those Catholic politicians who proclaimed that they were personally opposed to abortion.
Bernardin noted: “I know that some people on the left, if I might use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way, but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.” (National Catholic Register, June 12, 1988). Moreover, the Cardinal said, “I’ve made it very clear that at any given time, one issue may have to be given much higher priority than others. I’ve never said they were all equal or required equal attention.”
The critics of the Holy Father bring to mind Matthew 5:11 -“Blessed are you when people persecute you, insult you and say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” Pope Francis is certainly our “Holy Father”. The critics have not even read the document and already they are attacking the Pope. God Bless him
“The critics have not even read the document and already they are attacking the Pope.”
Have you read his critics’ criticisms? It doesn’t sound to me like you have. (Perhaps we have different critics in mind?) The criticisms I’ve noticed are intellectual, not personal, and I’ve yet to see how they lack any due knowledge. See, for instance, the critical commentary at LifeSiteNews. A basic criticism you’ll find there is that “Pope Francis deviated from a principle his predecessors have taught for centuries: abortion is today’s most pressing and grave human rights abuse.” The claim is duly documented and stands without any need of personal attacks.
Dollars to donuts you haven’t read it either.
I’ll wait to read it. No serious Catholic gets their Catholic News from the New York Times.
They like to stir things up. (like paragraphs 6-8)
It is here:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html
The Holy Father has the right to speak his mind on matters of faith and morals. But he has no divinely-granted right to destroy the centuries-old distinction between intrinsic evils [those always gravely wrong in the objective order, IRRESPECTIVE of good intention or circumstances—viz., directly procured abortion] and matters which may become evil, depending upon intention and circumstances, [viz., restricting migration, aid to migrants], because the latter are fact-bound decisions open to differing but licit prudential analyses and solutions.
The Pope isn’t teaching Catholic social justice doctrine here; he offers his own singular and idiosyncratic version of it, and demands we accept it. The Church itself holds that such a…
teaching does not bind in conscience.
Agreed; this is Papal opinion, not teaching authority. The Holy Father is not using teaching authority. It has the same authority if the Holy Father stated that the local high school football team is equal to the Dallas Cowboys in terms of ability.
The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart.
The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy
But he has no root and lasts only for a time. When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately falls away.
The seed sown among thorns is the one who hears the word, but then worldly anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word and it bears no fruit.
But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.
The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals.
What paragraphs are you referring to in your charge that the Pope is trying to destroy the distinction between intrinsic evils and matters which may become evil?
An apostolic exhortation is not a new teaching. It is not an opinion. It is an exhortation. This one is an exhortation to be holy.
Why any Catholic would have a problem with that is beyond me.
Anonymous, your first sentence is partially true—but only when the Holy Father explicitly states that his teaching invokes the magisterium of personal papal infallibility. He does not do so here. My own distinction between the binding effect—IN THE OBJECTIVE ORDER—of intrinsic evil, and evils which depend on relevant intentions and circumstances to assess their gravity, is attested to in any standard work of Catholic moral theology. I suggest that you consult one.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 890 Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine…
You did not answer the question on where the Pope was trying to blur this distinction.
I do not see anything in the document even closely resembling this.
Are you talking about the paragraph where he says we must defend the lives of the unborn and also the lives of the poor?
Almost everything in the document comes from Holy Scripture and writing of the saints.
I think you are trying to twist something. This document is about becoming holy; not about moral theology. It is about incorporating the teaching of Jesus into your life.
I think you just aren’t ready for the document.
If you are combing the document “straining out a gnat” to catch Pope Francis doing something wrong, you are not ready for it.
If you are hoping to find some paragraph that you can use to try to manipulate someone out of a behavior you don’t like, you are not ready for it.
Read the document with the desire to become holy and you will understand it.
Read no further than paragraph 2: “What follows is not meant to be a treatise on holiness, containing definitions and distinctions helpful for understanding this important subject, or a discussion of the various means of sanctification.”
So a papal exhortation about holiness is not about what is most helpful for understanding holiness.
Please read further than paragraph 2. It is your duty.
You seem to be on a mission to harm souls.
Do you really believe Pope Francis writes these things himself?
You didn’t even read to the end of paragraph 2. You pulled a sentence out of context to distort the modest reflection he offers us. Here is all of para 2, which changes entirely what he is saying:
“2. What follows is not meant to be a treatise on holiness, containing definitions and distinctions helpful for understanding this important subject, or a discussion of the various means of sanctification. My modest goal is to repropose the call to holiness in a practical way for our own time, with all its risks, challenges and opportunities. For the Lord has chosen each one of us “to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph 1:4)”
I thought people who wrote like this were conservative faithful Catholics but I see now that they are right-baiting leftists. I believe that the Lord wishes us to react to those people with silence.
This Apostolic Exhortation is so good.
This is just common sense. Catholics don’t get to pick and choose what teachings they want to fight for. We want a Catholic society, nothing more and nothing less. Fighting only to end abortion, while ignoring the poor, is wrong. Fighting only for the poor, while ignoring abortion, is wrong. We will not compromise. Society will bend its knee towards Christ the King.
As Amoris Laetitia set the groundwork for undermining Catholic moral theology, Gaudete et Exsultate sets the groundwork for undermining Catholic dogmatic theology. In particular, the section about doctrinal answers in the past not being applicable today due to changed circumstances is the time bomb that will upend everything in Catholic Tradition prior to Francis.
Francis and his ghostwriters know exactly what they are doing. The goal is to make a completely new church.
Slander, Oliver, Slander.
I don’t find that in it. What paragraph are you referring to?
173: It is not a matter of applying rules or repeating what was done in the past, since the same solutions are not valid in all circumstances and what was useful in one context may not prove so in another. The discernment of spirits liberates us from rigidity, which has no place before the perennial “today” of the risen Lord. The Spirit alone can penetrate what is obscure and hidden in every situation, and grasp its every nuance, so that the newness of the Gospel can emerge in another light.
IOW: they want to say gay sex isn’t sinful anymore. Changed circumstances and all that.
You left out the first sentence:
173. Naturally, this attitude of listening entails obedience to the Gospel as the ultimate standard, but also to the Magisterium that guards it, as we seek to find in the treasury of the Church whatever is most fruitful for the “today” of salvation.
They are not trying to say gay sex is not sinful. How could you possible get that out of this?
And to the original point, it does not say that doctrinal answers of the past are not applicable today.
This section is on prayer and discernment. As you know, the Holy Spirit cannot teach something contrary to the Truth.
Wake up! Francis and his ghostwriters are not going to write anything baldly heretical. They write with deliberate, studied, purposeful ambiguity so that an orthodox interpretation can be given but a heterodox interpretation is not excluded. That was the strategy in Amoris, and we see that people in the Church, even bishops, have used Amoris to support Communion for public, unrepentant adulterers in defiance of Scripture and Tradition. With Gaudete they will use #173 to ignore past Magisterium. What is considered no longer applicable will be ignored and new, heretical teachings will be proposed.
If you believe this, then you are called to pray and sacrifice for them.
Anonymous at April 11 at 11:12 am. Oh for crying out loud. The catechism takes this up directly. We are called to assume the best intentions of others, most especially our Bishops. You kid yourself that you have some ability to read things into the text that are CLEARLY not there. We don’t need you to be some kind of conspiratorial visionary seeing demons where they do not exist and undermining our Holy Father.
Read the document to find what the Holy Spirit wants of you. Do good.
There have been attempts to change the faith and morals of the Church since she began.
Stand firm in the Faith. Do not assume things.
If you find someone who says gay sex is not sinful, correct them.
The Pope has never said that. He has said:
Sin is sin. And tendencies or hormonal imbalances” create problems “and you cannot say, ‘it’s all the same, let’s throw a party.’ No.”
Today we find that a facebook BLM page is run by a white man in Australia. Just a reminder that you can be anybody on the Internet. The Church has always had enemies and has the infernal enemy. They are your enemies, also.
Learn the Faith and keep renewing it by everyday reading from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Add some more truly spiritual reading (15 minutes is recommended.) Pray the Rosary and the Chaplet of Mercy every day. Pray the Angeles. Consecrate yourself to the Immaculate Heart. Make the Morning Offering. Pray the Prayers to St. Michael and to St. Joseph for yourself, for your family, for priests, for the Pope and for the Church. Please pray for the conversion of sinners and for the relief of…
Isn’t magnitude relevant in prioritizing our actions?
Nowhere near 3,000 persons are dying daily due to immigration policies or poverty daily in the U.S.
I agree with the Pope’s statement, as I think almost all Catholics and many others do, that all of life is sacred. We’re prolife. We care about the unborn, the poor, the elderly, the ill; all persons. Yet, it does seem we need to prioritize our efforts. When a great number of lives are being destroyed, literally, daily, that would make that a priority. In my secular vocation for a Fire Dept., for example, cardiac arrest and a broken leg both need attention. Yet, one is given priority.
Yes, saving a human life is more important than alleviating pain. And you should do both. But if all you do to save the unborn is vote every 4 years, you have lots of time to help the poor and the elderly and the ill. If you have $100 dollars to give, it could be given to the poor rather than add it to the coffers of pro-life groups that take in millions per year. Maybe you can give it to a poor mom who is struggling to feed the kids she did not abort. Or to a pregnant woman who cannot afford a doctor.
Every life matters. You do the best you can and beg God to guide you.
I was just on CCD Facebook page. There are a lot more comments than appear here. Worth a look.