I get it. I'm down with conversations, a pastoral sensitivity towards unbelievers who've been burned by the bigots. However, why must the only world-approved conversations flirt with untruth?UncleBob wrote:I think that many Christians are more concerned that the Pope "gets the doctrine right" than how he is engaging people. He is trying to help people heal, he is actually listening to them--my God! He is actually in a conversationwith the world rather than just declaring how the world needs to conform. I can understand how that may make the fundamentalists nervous but this approach is better for both the RCC and the world.Eric wrote:I saw what tuttle saw, but didn't post on it as I wasn't sure about Francis's point. On the face of it, Francis sounds incorrect even with respect to Catholic theology alone.
"everyone should follow the good that they have conceived" this is already the state of the World.
Had the Pope responded in a way which made the truth of the situation clearer, 1) he wouldn't be getting the headlines of confusion that announce the Pope is a gay-lovin, athiest-embracin', fundamentalist-hatin', revolutionary and 2) a clear portrayal of such truth (if it grabbed any headlines at all) would likely be equated with Fred Phelps.
Again, I'm all for a fresh breeze of God's grace to blow through a world disenchanted with the idea of Christ and the church. I am for the Pope and those who stretch a hand out in the attempt. But one who is sent by Christ cannot be simply harmless as a dove and never wear the battle gear of wisdom that ought be wielded like a serpent.
When the pope says 'everyone must choose the good and fight the evil. That would make the world a better place' the world shrugs and moves on.
If the pope defines 'good' and 'evil' with words like 'God' and 'sinful man' the world rages.
If the pope defines 'good' and 'evil' with phrases like 'his own idea' and 'as he conceives them' the world stands up and applauds.