Stupid question but as someone who enjoyed your shower posts and also would rather read than cook dinner, I have to ask.
How do you read those articles and digest, retain and apply what you read? My attention span is cooked and I consume far too much and retain far too little. I need Auntie Leila advice to help me read properly. Thanks!
I really curate what I read. I do NOT read it all. Usually I can skim to figure out if the author is taking me somewhere. If something is worthy of sharing, it's also bookmarked somehow (for me it's in these posts or on my blog or in my Instapaper which is the replacement for Pocket). I often take hints about what to read from those I follow.
I have my trusted authors (you will see them pop up again and again) and one thing I appreciate about them is they do NOT go on and on. There is meat but most are not super lengthy.
And you will note that I don't have these posts all the time (the open tabs ones). So it's not really that many articles. If I think of more criteria, I will pass them along!
It might be good to read the catechism and other church documents before spreading misinformation about Catholic moral theology. I think we ought to err on the side of caution when considering publicly criticizing the pope and instead attempt to live in unity and pray for him.
Regarding immigration, neither the USCCB nor any other authority can equate that question with the grave and intrinsic immorality of taking the innocent life of the unborn intentionally, nor do I think your link implies it.
Leila, thanks for the response. Perhaps I wasn't clear as to what I was trying to articulate.
You quoted a piece that states:
"The pope conflated abortion—the intrinsic evil of child murder—with capital punishment and immigration policy, both of which are issues of prudential judgement, not intrinsic evil.".
I am attempting to clarify that the Pope's statement:
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life”
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
The Pope's statement is in fact a one on intrinsic evil, not prudential judgement. The dignity of the human person is something that must be upheld, even for those who break laws or are not legally in the country. That is well spelled out by The Church. The Church and The Pope are not trying to equate grave evils, but clarify teaching on morality. Immigration itself is an issue that requires prudential judgement, but mistreating individuals because they are migrants rises to a level of intrinsic evil. Pope Saint John Paul II spells out the evil of the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae.
I also take issue with this criticism:
"There is no longer any doubt that the theological confusion and blurred lines of morality from the previous pontificate will continue in the new one, and, as has been the case for too long now, the opportunity to save souls diminishes."
We, as Catholics, are called to greater unity. This statement directly criticizes the Pontiff for stating things that are clearly spelled out in Church teaching. Disliking the Pope's rhetoric on a subject is not sufficient to speak ill of him. We, as Catholics, are called to look beyond the politics of the day and see the issues as they are from a moral perspective. Abortion is not the only intrinsically evil act that is done in society and we must be able to see others without the need to equate them.
Sorry, we totally disagree. Abortion is indeed the one intrinsically immoral act when the subject is the death penalty and immigration, as clarified over and over by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and obvious to anyone over the age of 7.
Pope Leo's comments in context are incredibly disheartening, not only to the faithful but to the ten bishops who spoke out, rightly so.
The disunity is, in this case, clearly NOT brought by those standing up for the unborn against a venal bishop (as Phil and I will explain in our podcast posting later today).
This is actually very simple. If we cannot see that honoring (with a LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT award, no less) an extreme proponent of murdering the unborn in their mothers' wombs, then we are moral monsters.
Also, neither I nor Leila Miller are "speaking ill" about the Pope. Please don't conflate a valid critique and moral clarity with somehow badmouthing someone.
I apologize then. To me the below seems to be badmouthing the Pope since it is a claim that he will continue to blur the lines of morality.
"There is no longer any doubt that the theological confusion and blurred lines of morality from the previous pontificate will continue in the new one, and, as has been the case for too long now, the opportunity to save souls diminishes."
That is the author's point of view regarding the Pope's statement. An entirely valid one.
I assume he is a grown mature man who can handle this criticism, should he ever hear it, and I hope he does, and be able to address it in conscience without getting his feelings hurt.
With regards to intrinsically immoral acts, you seem to be confusing immigration as a whole with the Pope's specific comment on inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States. Abortion is intrinsically immoral because it first and foremost denies the intrinsic dignity of the human person. The same is true when we dehumanize immigrants by treating them inhumanely. This is not to say they are the same or equal in gravity, but they are both intrinsically immoral. To my point earlier, it is not a matter of prudential judgement as to if we can treat immigrants without the dignity they have as children of God. That does not mean we can't have immigration policy or deportations, just that all must be done with the understanding that we are called to love as Christ loved.
I'm not sure how the Pope's words advocate for giving a lifetime achievement award to Durban. He says he is unfamiliar with the situation and even says, “I understand the difficulty and the tensions. But I think as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church.” Nowhere does he endorse or condone. It seems like he is shying away from giving his perspective because of his lack of familiarity.
You insist on putting two things on the same level that are not the same. I can't respond to that anymore. "the same is true... " no. It is not the same.
If you listen to our podcast this week, you will understand better why I don't regard the church's current attitude towards immigration with any respect, least of all as an expression of morality or care for the poor. And we will explain yet again why these issues are not commensurate -- as two very careful and theological popes have *already explained*!
The Pope's answer to the question was unmanly, frankly. The issue is killing babies in the womb. Again, this is not hard.
Thanks for the response Leila. I want to be clear that I am not putting two things on the same level. I clarify that they are not equal in gravity. They can both be intrinsically evil. The USCCB holds abortion as the preeminent issue, but not the only issue.
I don't think the Pope denied in any way the evil of abortion. I don't really see how his words even attempt to lessen the evil of abortion or bring other things to the same level. I see different political news reports about how the Pope is supporting something, but I don't see his words mirroring the reporting.
Thank you for the responses. I understand if this is the end of the discussion.
John, I am not sure where to start. First, on the death penalty, "inadmissible" is a legal term, not a theological term. Can you imagine the CCC saying that adultery is inadmissible, or theft is inadmissible. It is not a synonym for immoral. When a bishop presented this change to the CCC several years ago a bishop asked what the word meant. The answer was the it was an example of "exquisite ambiguity." In a Catechism.
If someone is going to make accusations of inhumane treatment of immigrants he should at least give some examples (as this referred to government inhumane treatment).
"We as Catholics are called to greater unity." Very true, but that would be unity around truth.
Cardinal Cupich's proposed lifetime achievement award to a militantly pro-murder of the unborn politician and then the pope's agreement of it is a scandal, and I would suggest that it will be the biggest Church scandal in the USA in 2025.
In 1999, JPII said the need for the death penalty (in the US at least) is "non-existent practically". We can fight over if the catechism needed to change to reflect how society has bettered its ways of non-violent contentment, but I think that is beside the point. I think it would be difficult in today's society to argue that depriving someone of their life and the ability to repent in this life is the correct way to satisfy justice while preserving the dignity of the human person. If we want to disagree on that, fine.
I don't know that the Pope needs to give examples of inhumane treatments by the government when they appear to be common knowledge?
If you can show me where the Pope stated he agrees with the award, I will agree that it is scandalous.
If it's so irrelevant, why bring it up in this context? That is the issue. You know what is not irrelevant? The ongoing murder of babies in the womb, which Sen. Durbin has always said he wholeheartedly supports.
I never said Pope Leo agreed with the award, nor does Leila Miller, so please do not put words into our mouths. Nevertheless, it has already caused great scandal. I will now leave you to go look up how the world is interpreting his words and then I will rest my case. And yes, that is absolutely on him, because it is, as you no doubt know, entirely predictable.
Stupid question but as someone who enjoyed your shower posts and also would rather read than cook dinner, I have to ask.
How do you read those articles and digest, retain and apply what you read? My attention span is cooked and I consume far too much and retain far too little. I need Auntie Leila advice to help me read properly. Thanks!
I really curate what I read. I do NOT read it all. Usually I can skim to figure out if the author is taking me somewhere. If something is worthy of sharing, it's also bookmarked somehow (for me it's in these posts or on my blog or in my Instapaper which is the replacement for Pocket). I often take hints about what to read from those I follow.
I have my trusted authors (you will see them pop up again and again) and one thing I appreciate about them is they do NOT go on and on. There is meat but most are not super lengthy.
And you will note that I don't have these posts all the time (the open tabs ones). So it's not really that many articles. If I think of more criteria, I will pass them along!
My kids and I were reading an old Nancy Drew novel where even Nancy herself has an early version of a credit card called a charge plate.
It might be good to read the catechism and other church documents before spreading misinformation about Catholic moral theology. I think we ought to err on the side of caution when considering publicly criticizing the pope and instead attempt to live in unity and pray for him.
Specifically reading CCC 2267 about the death penalty and the USCCB on the morality involving immigration issues. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
You are no doubt aware of the controversy surrounding the changing of the Catechism on the death penalty. If not, I direct you here: https://onepeterfive.com/horns-death-penalty-dilemma/
Regarding immigration, neither the USCCB nor any other authority can equate that question with the grave and intrinsic immorality of taking the innocent life of the unborn intentionally, nor do I think your link implies it.
Leila, thanks for the response. Perhaps I wasn't clear as to what I was trying to articulate.
You quoted a piece that states:
"The pope conflated abortion—the intrinsic evil of child murder—with capital punishment and immigration policy, both of which are issues of prudential judgement, not intrinsic evil.".
I am attempting to clarify that the Pope's statement:
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life”
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
The Pope's statement is in fact a one on intrinsic evil, not prudential judgement. The dignity of the human person is something that must be upheld, even for those who break laws or are not legally in the country. That is well spelled out by The Church. The Church and The Pope are not trying to equate grave evils, but clarify teaching on morality. Immigration itself is an issue that requires prudential judgement, but mistreating individuals because they are migrants rises to a level of intrinsic evil. Pope Saint John Paul II spells out the evil of the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae.
I also take issue with this criticism:
"There is no longer any doubt that the theological confusion and blurred lines of morality from the previous pontificate will continue in the new one, and, as has been the case for too long now, the opportunity to save souls diminishes."
We, as Catholics, are called to greater unity. This statement directly criticizes the Pontiff for stating things that are clearly spelled out in Church teaching. Disliking the Pope's rhetoric on a subject is not sufficient to speak ill of him. We, as Catholics, are called to look beyond the politics of the day and see the issues as they are from a moral perspective. Abortion is not the only intrinsically evil act that is done in society and we must be able to see others without the need to equate them.
Sorry, we totally disagree. Abortion is indeed the one intrinsically immoral act when the subject is the death penalty and immigration, as clarified over and over by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and obvious to anyone over the age of 7.
Pope Leo's comments in context are incredibly disheartening, not only to the faithful but to the ten bishops who spoke out, rightly so.
The disunity is, in this case, clearly NOT brought by those standing up for the unborn against a venal bishop (as Phil and I will explain in our podcast posting later today).
This is actually very simple. If we cannot see that honoring (with a LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT award, no less) an extreme proponent of murdering the unborn in their mothers' wombs, then we are moral monsters.
Also, neither I nor Leila Miller are "speaking ill" about the Pope. Please don't conflate a valid critique and moral clarity with somehow badmouthing someone.
I apologize then. To me the below seems to be badmouthing the Pope since it is a claim that he will continue to blur the lines of morality.
"There is no longer any doubt that the theological confusion and blurred lines of morality from the previous pontificate will continue in the new one, and, as has been the case for too long now, the opportunity to save souls diminishes."
That is the author's point of view regarding the Pope's statement. An entirely valid one.
I assume he is a grown mature man who can handle this criticism, should he ever hear it, and I hope he does, and be able to address it in conscience without getting his feelings hurt.
Leila, thanks again for the response.
With regards to intrinsically immoral acts, you seem to be confusing immigration as a whole with the Pope's specific comment on inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States. Abortion is intrinsically immoral because it first and foremost denies the intrinsic dignity of the human person. The same is true when we dehumanize immigrants by treating them inhumanely. This is not to say they are the same or equal in gravity, but they are both intrinsically immoral. To my point earlier, it is not a matter of prudential judgement as to if we can treat immigrants without the dignity they have as children of God. That does not mean we can't have immigration policy or deportations, just that all must be done with the understanding that we are called to love as Christ loved.
I'm not sure how the Pope's words advocate for giving a lifetime achievement award to Durban. He says he is unfamiliar with the situation and even says, “I understand the difficulty and the tensions. But I think as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church.” Nowhere does he endorse or condone. It seems like he is shying away from giving his perspective because of his lack of familiarity.
You insist on putting two things on the same level that are not the same. I can't respond to that anymore. "the same is true... " no. It is not the same.
If you listen to our podcast this week, you will understand better why I don't regard the church's current attitude towards immigration with any respect, least of all as an expression of morality or care for the poor. And we will explain yet again why these issues are not commensurate -- as two very careful and theological popes have *already explained*!
The Pope's answer to the question was unmanly, frankly. The issue is killing babies in the womb. Again, this is not hard.
Thanks for the response Leila. I want to be clear that I am not putting two things on the same level. I clarify that they are not equal in gravity. They can both be intrinsically evil. The USCCB holds abortion as the preeminent issue, but not the only issue.
I don't think the Pope denied in any way the evil of abortion. I don't really see how his words even attempt to lessen the evil of abortion or bring other things to the same level. I see different political news reports about how the Pope is supporting something, but I don't see his words mirroring the reporting.
Thank you for the responses. I understand if this is the end of the discussion.
John, I am not sure where to start. First, on the death penalty, "inadmissible" is a legal term, not a theological term. Can you imagine the CCC saying that adultery is inadmissible, or theft is inadmissible. It is not a synonym for immoral. When a bishop presented this change to the CCC several years ago a bishop asked what the word meant. The answer was the it was an example of "exquisite ambiguity." In a Catechism.
If someone is going to make accusations of inhumane treatment of immigrants he should at least give some examples (as this referred to government inhumane treatment).
"We as Catholics are called to greater unity." Very true, but that would be unity around truth.
Cardinal Cupich's proposed lifetime achievement award to a militantly pro-murder of the unborn politician and then the pope's agreement of it is a scandal, and I would suggest that it will be the biggest Church scandal in the USA in 2025.
In 1999, JPII said the need for the death penalty (in the US at least) is "non-existent practically". We can fight over if the catechism needed to change to reflect how society has bettered its ways of non-violent contentment, but I think that is beside the point. I think it would be difficult in today's society to argue that depriving someone of their life and the ability to repent in this life is the correct way to satisfy justice while preserving the dignity of the human person. If we want to disagree on that, fine.
I don't know that the Pope needs to give examples of inhumane treatments by the government when they appear to be common knowledge?
If you can show me where the Pope stated he agrees with the award, I will agree that it is scandalous.
If it's so irrelevant, why bring it up in this context? That is the issue. You know what is not irrelevant? The ongoing murder of babies in the womb, which Sen. Durbin has always said he wholeheartedly supports.
I never said Pope Leo agreed with the award, nor does Leila Miller, so please do not put words into our mouths. Nevertheless, it has already caused great scandal. I will now leave you to go look up how the world is interpreting his words and then I will rest my case. And yes, that is absolutely on him, because it is, as you no doubt know, entirely predictable.
Thanks for the response Leila. I'm responding to the other commenter who said the Pope's agreement with the award causes scandal.