Our discussion of Hawaii’s new assisted-suicide law induced my Catholic friend Joe Nelson to cite all sorts of Catholic doctrine, which led to an interesting conversation about applying the Catechism to public policy.
Pope Francis has all that doctrine memorized, so he needs no footnotes to assure a little Italian boy in a poor Roman parish that the boy’s non-believing and now deceased father is in Heaven:
“How beautiful to hear a son say of his father, ‘He was good,’” the pope told the children. “And what a beautiful witness of a son who inherited the strength of his father, who had the courage to cry in front of all of us. If that man was able to make his children like that, then it’s true, he was a good man. He was a good man.
“That man did not have the gift of faith, he wasn’t a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart,” Pope Francis said.
“God is the one who says who goes to heaven,” the pope explained.
The next step in answering Emanuele’s question, he said, would be to think about what God is like and, especially, what kind of heart God has. “What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?”
“Does God abandon his children?” the pope asked. “Does God abandon his children when they are good?”
The children shouted, “No.”
“There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” the pope told the boy. “God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.”
Pope Francis encouraged Emanuele to “talk to your dad; pray to your dad” [Cindy Wooden, “‘Is My Dad in Heaven,’ Little Boy Asks Pope,” America, 2018.04.16].
Pope Francis didn’t say, “Emanuele, God took your papa into heaven.” But when he says, Parla con tuo papa, he gestures with his right hand toward the sky.
An atheist saved? Perhaps the heavens don’t forfend.
It is quite a site to see the Pope comforting the boy, and he was certainly motivated from a place of love and compassion.
It is a but of a stretch to say the Pope has all of Catholic Doctrine memorized though, on par with saying President Trump has the Constitution memorized.
The Church says a lot about these things, in fact you could say that it is the crux of theology. But the Church never will say a particular person is in Hell, and the process of declaring someone is in Heaven is much more stringent i.e. the canonization process (devil’s advocate, investigations, et cetera.)
This story will certainly have conservative Catholics in an uproar. I see it as the Pope being nice to a young boy. It’s akin to the saying “When a two year old hands you their ringing toy phone, no matter how badass you think you are, you answer it.”
When I was a kid our pastor said that God has children but not grandchildren. Each individual has to find and accept God on their own. The only exception was there is a verse in the Bible that says that if a child dies before the age of discretion(old enough to understand) that they will go to heaven if at least one parent is saved. I am not positive if the parent has to be saved by the time the child dies or if they are by the end of their life.
Why are we to assume the boy’s father was an athiest and not an agnostic? Both are nonbelievers. If the father didn’t know if there was a heaven, then proclaiming that God welcomed him into Heaven is possibly justifiable. However, if the father was adamant in his belief that there is no God and no Heaven then saying the father is in Heaven anyway is as morally wrong as Mormons secretly baptizing dead Jewish victims of extermination camps (or anyone, for that matter) into the Church of Latter Day Saints without notifying their Jewish relatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html
I was always taught that God decided who did and didn’t get into heaven. Clearly I missed something.
Roger, this is an intriguing post, which is probably why Cory presented it. The FreePress is very far ahead of the competition, although Power’s Blog, being predominantly Catholic doctrine posing as politics will surely be paying attention.
If this post was a ski hill it would have a double fault line, meaning if you navigate a sideways turn you’re still going downhill.
There’s the part about who goes to Heaven. Do athiests? Do agnostics? Do you get a pass if your children are baptized (I’d say it was probably the boy’s Mother who got her kids baptized, rather than the Father who was probably not against it so in that culture whatever happens the male is responsible for it and takes credit.)
And there’s the part about the kindness of Pope Francis in comforting a child, even if a white lie is the best tool.
Hopefully the born again Evangelicals and Catholics that read it will have opinions, as well as the “non believers”.
Good lord and now I’m crying. I hope you’re happy Heidelberger!
Joe Nelson writes:
Conservative Catholics have been in an uproar over the statements of Pope Francis for a while now. Just a few days ago, three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan addressed the topic in his Easter column, “Does the Pope Believe in Hell?”:
It genuinely baffles me that Buchanan and so many other reasonable people continue to profess the religion of the Catholic popes and councils when, as Martin Luther famously noted 497 years ago this Wednesday, “it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves.”
(https://www.gotquestions.org/Diet-of-Worms.html)
Roger Elgersma writes:
No offense intended, Roger, but I’m pretty sure there’s no verse in the Bible that says that.
It must be a slow news day, Cory?
As a nonbeliever after growing up ina crazy dysfunctional catholic family, I feel the utmost sadness that this little boy has worried himself to tears if his non believing dad is in heaven. This is exactly what religion does, divides us and makes us paranoid and unworthy as human beings. What this little boy needs is lots of love and security instead of anxiety and stress about where his dad is.
Religion has really messed up humans.
My nonbaptized daughter is a nonbeliever like me and I am fine with that, just like I would be fine with her being a lesbian or bisexual or transgender. It’s called love.
Or I should say agnostic, my daughter is the nonbeliever.
Porter,
When it comes to the matter of spiritual beliefs, like many things in my life, I like to keep things as simple as possible.
I’ve never been one for long drawn out discussions about religion, life is a complex enough and I find no need to further clutter it with religion doctrine.
I invite the doctrinal discussion. But for a moment, let me focus on effective pastoral care marked by empathy.
This priest sees a boy in obvious pain. His first reaction in this very public setting is to comfort him.
He treats the boy with respect, gains his trust so the boy will whisper to him what is on his mind and causing him such pain, and then asks—the Pope, asking a child for permission—if it is o.k. to share with the people watching (and that includes us, includes billions) what the boy has told him in confidence.
The first thing the priest speaks of is not Church doctrine, not abstract theology, but more pastoral care for the boy. Any theological response will be lost unless the priest first deals with the emotions that overwhelm the boy. The Pope recognizes this Italian boy may feel ashamed for crying in front of others. In a remarkable moment of empathy and recognition of his most literal duty, the Holy Father says what this boy may need most to hear, words that could only come from a father:
If there are children thinking they should tease the boy for being a crybaby, the Holy Father, the teacher, turns their childish perception upside down. He has affirmed this boy’s manhood, something the boy’s father is not there to do, something the boy needs to have done by a father. Emanuele’s tears signify love and courage to which we all should aspire.
To reinforce that message in a way that will stick with the boy, Pope Francis says the boy inherited that strength from his father. His tears are not cause for shame; they are a tribute to the departed father whom he so cherishes.
I’ve been sitting here for an hour thinking of all the ways Pope Francis connected with and supported this boy. Pope Francis did all this on the fly. Posed with a hard, grief-filled question, Pope Francis tended to the emotional, intellectual, and developmental needs of a child and offered a sensitive, decent, and humane (if debatable) theological answer in language that children could understand. He even worked in a couple of Socratic questions to engage the children—
Ma forte, con coraggio—but loudly, with courage—Pope Francis says to the children to get them to answer the question. Even that simple phrase has deep, memorable meaning.
—His questions make it sound to the boy as if the answer didn’t come from the Pope but from his fellow children. “There, Emanuele, that is your answer”—do you see the brilliance in that response? The teacher turns the other children from potential teasers to immediate helpers, fellow congregants who help Emanuele find strength.
(I don’t want to mess up this analysis of the lesson with too much theological poking, but the Pope almost crafts a priesthood of all believers that could darn near make him Lutheran.)
All that, without a lesson plan, and he says it with heart, and in the right places, a smile. Teachers and preachers should all take note—Pope Francis shows us here how to do our job. This brief ad-libbed lesson is brilliant.
Ma forte, con coraggio.
Jenny, I’d stop on a busy news day to spotlight this high-quality pastoring.
Hey, Sioux Empire Podcast, I’m very happy if people remember this lesson.
And notice, the Pope gets through it without a tear. He has a hard job to do, and he keeps it together while he does that job.
I do like Pope Francis and believe that he is sincere, and I like a lot of his political beliefs which lean liberal. But Cory this is the Pope’s job and I agree that he definitely has the charisma, but remember it is his job to groom the children into good future Catholics.
Catholicism is the biggest business in the world and the Pope does indeed have a huge job to do.
Joe: “It is a but of a stretch to say the Pope has all of Catholic Doctrine memorized though, on par with saying President Trump has the Constitution memorized.” Really, Joe? That seems like a cheap shot at the Pope.
I appreciate how he does not often allow dogma obstruct message.
Joe, even I, a merciless pitcher of unpleasant truths, recognize the heartlessness and fruitlessness of telling a crying child, “God sent your dad to Hell,” or even, “Not believing in God put the status of your dad’s soul in serious doubt.”
But as you can see from my analysis of the lesson, I think the Pope did a lot of work in his response to this boy, work that goes beyond just being nice. The hug, the private whispers—that would have been enough to just be nice. If his mere niceness involved any theologically unrigorous statement, he could have kept that between himself and the boy. Ma forte, con coraggio (I’m going to memorize this phrase and use it), the Pope springboards from private niceness to a remarkable public lesson about God, fatherhood, and that really interesting point about the greater courage and effort required to do what’s right absent belief.
I think there’s more than just being nice in the Pope’s lesson to Emanuele.
I’m with O: I am confident that the Pope can correctly cite much more of the Catechism, and cite it to teach and do good, not to promote his own gain, than Trump can cite of the Constitution.
Cory and o,
What I said about memorization was not been to be a cheap shot, but I apologize if it came across as such. I should have used a better analogy.
And Cory, I agree with your analysis. I think you do an amazing job of seeing what the Pope did there, and it is certainly deeper than the Pope just being nice to a kid. Please consider my above comment as my initial impression of the situation before giving any deeper thought. Admittedly, my mind first went to all the ways my Traditional Catholic friends would react, instead of seeing the beauty of life on display.
Pope and God have both gone very soft, lately.
In or out. Pick a side. That Pope his ownself is now wishwashy shows how political correctness is wrecking much of what was right in this world.
““God is the one who says who goes to heaven,” the pope explained.”
What?! I thought it was Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Falwell Jr and the Southern Baptists!
Pope needs to be careful to tell the truth. That boy will remember the encounter and years later, if he is taught something different in confirmation, he’s going to doubt the whole thing in its entirety. He’ll be wondering what else is a lie. Pastoral care and truth can fit together, but very carefully.
I’m in agreement with Jenny. If your religion, denomination or individual church leaves you feeling tormented about the fate of your loved ones, there is something terribly wrong with it and you should get out ASAP.
Very early on in the history of the RCC the leadership figured out that fear was the great motivator and worked best when installed at a very young age. That’s when the imagery and language turned it’s focus to suffering and death. Witness the words of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
After the Reformation many of the new Protestant denominations came to the same conclusion. I argue that the current direction of the GOP/Evangelicals is a logical outgrowth of that fear-mongering.
The Mainlines have turned away from fear and returned to the pastoral and salvific message of Jesus. And been thoroughly condemned for it.
Debbo, good point about the Pope’s obligation in that moment. He crafted this lesson to be memorable. He could not give the boy bad theology that could later be characterized as a lie.
Joe, thanks for appreciating my analysis. I’m more amazed with the empathetic and pedagogical richness of his response than with the possibility that he’s cutting me personally some slack on salvation. I recognize the theology here is debatable, but the quality of the teaching and pastoral care is much harder to deny.
One theologian with whom I enjoy particularly good relations reminds us that the Pope is preaching salvation by works, which, of course, is bunk. :-D
An atheist saved? Perhaps the heavens don’t forfend.
Really Cory? This Pope doesn’t have the highest IQ, but do you really expect him to tell a kid his father is going to hell?
Of course, the Pope might not believe in hell according to rumors but that has nothing to do with my above statement.
Jason,
Do you have evidence of the Pope’s IQ?
Yeah, good question Cory. Funny comment from Jason considering he is the one always telling us we make all kinds of accusation we can’t prove.
Cory, I have evidence it’s not the highest.
http://www.truthandaction.org/pope-francis-honors-feminist-abortion-activist-with-the-pontifical-medal-of-knighthood/2/
Now will you answer my question to you?
Jenny,
Was there any reference to the pope’s IQ in the truthandaction article posted above?
Here is the only mention of IQ I could find in the truthandaction link, Roger……But Ms. Ploumen and just about every other thinking homo-sapiens with an IQ over 5 feels differently
Then toward the bottom of the page it says source Breitbart. I should have known.
Anybody with an IQ over 5 would realize I answered Cory’s question.
mike from iowa
An IQ of 5 would apply to any number of people I’m familiar with.
If the pope ever tells you his IQ, mike, will you let me know?
Here is another link to a low IQ person.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/former-texas-emergency-operator-jailed-hanging-thousands-calls-151446574.html
Deb writes:
Great insight, Deb.
Cory writes:
I’m pretty sure the theologian Cory means is his wife, who’s a Lutheran pastor. If so, the ladies appear to have gone two-for-two making excellent points.
Jason,
Does a cheap verbal insult constitute “evidence” of a scientific claim.
You claimed the Pope has low IQ. You simply provided a link from someone who disagrees with an action the Pope took. If disagreement is a sign of low IQ, then you must be the stupidest person I know.
The fact that the Argentinian Pope can speak Italian and other languages indicates a high IQ. His ability to execute the improvised lesson that is the subject of this blog post is further evidence of a quick and rich intelligence, both intellectual and emotional.
Cory,
The Pope took action against the Catholic religion.
You can have a high IQ, but if you don’t have common sense than you’re dumber than a rock.
Are you ever going to answer my question or do I have to assume you would agree with someone telling a kid their father is going to hell?
Thank you, Kurt, for sticking germane questions rather than sidetracking into cheap headbutting.
Deb recognizes an important point here. I don’t think that, even in this situation, the Pope can go on public record with a theologically incorrect statement. Even in grief, a congregant deserves honest theology. I thus must conclude that the Pope offered honest theology.
Jason, I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to get at, but I answered your question about talking to kids in my 4/16 21:58 to Joe.
Great point, Debbo. Thank-you, mucho. 👍 To paraphrase your wisdom …
– The current direction of the GOP/Evangelicals is an outgrowth of manipulative fear-mongering.
We Mainlines have turned away from that concocted fear and returned to the pastoral and salvific message of Jesus. And been thoroughly condemned for it.
– I say, “We mainliners will accept being condemned for teaching salvation, love and empathy and rejecting GOP/Evangelical fear, hate and division. It’s what Jesus taught us to do.”
Porter Lansing writes:
Christ didn’t teach you to lump His traditional evangelical followers in with any political party, Porter, much less to smear us with insinuated accusations of hatred and manipulative fear-mongering.
Kurt, I say that no one outside of evangelicals is doing anything to them. It is evangelicals themselves who continue to support the president even though his extremely sinful and unrepentant ways are well known. They have openly and vocally aligned themselves with the GOP. They are not the victims here; they are the actors.
It is a fact that there are evangelicals who abhor what the most vocal and well known among them have done politically and theologically. They find themselves tarred with the same brush and struggle to make their dissent heard.
Many experts in the field of religion in America are predicting that the current debasement of evangelicalism for purposes of political power and wealth are leading to that version of Christianity all but disappearing from the American landscape by mid century.
My knowledge and experience leads me to agree with that assessment, though I think that something similar to evangelicalism, known by another name, will arise, perhaps by the 22nd century.
It’s a sad thing happening to evangelicalism. Though I believe they make several errors of translation, interpretation and theology, I take no pleasure in this catastrophe be falling them.
Deb writes:
“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now.”
—John Lennon (1940-1980), making the claim that caused his touring career to vanish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_1966_US_tour
Religious “experts” have been anticipating the demise of traditional evangelical Christianity for nearly 2,000 years, and they’ve been consistently wrong for nearly 2,000 years.
Cory,
My point was the Pope did something against the Catholic rules.
That means he has a low IQ. The stupidity of what he did is astounding.
The problem is most Catholics don’t know it.
Cory,
Are you in favor of every Catholic knowing that?
http://juanitajean.com/sunday-morning-toon/
This is a good summary of what has happened to the evangelical “brand.”
Excellent find, Debbo.
Juanita Jean is the best!!!
Deb writes:
That’s more an example than a summary, but yes, the “brand” of traditional evangelical Christians has been damaged by people like Garry Trudeau and Deb Geelsdottir ruthlessly and relentlessly smearing us.
I can’t believe this is a thread. No decent human person would tell a kid their father is going to hell.
Trump would tell a kid to go to hell and order Franklin Graham to make it happen.
Roger,
Can Cory use your statement in his campaign?
Cory is free to use any of my comments and observations as he sees fit, although I would discourage him from using some of my saltier ones.
Which ones are those Roger?
Jason
You aren’t the brightest bulb in chandelier.
I’m puzzled.
Jason says the Pope violated Catholic rules.
Jason says no decent human would tell a child his dead father is in Hell.
Are we to conclude that Jason thinks it is a Catholic rule to tell a child his dead father is in Hell and that Catholics are thus not decent humans?
No one has established that the Pope has said something contrary to Catholic rules. The Pope may be incapable of saying something contrary to Catholic rule.
Cory,
To clarify, the pope is still a human, and capable of making mistakes. This includes, from time to time, saying things or doing things that might not be completely in line with Catholic teaching. He is not infallible in everything, nor is he perfect. In fact, he regularly goes to confession in order to confess his sins.
What are your thoughts on the Catholic pedophilia scandal, Joe? Does it give you great sadness or anger at the Catholic hierarchy? Why do Catholics on here never comment on my questions about their scandal? Are they ashamed to talk about it? Not talking about it isn’t going to make it go away. What changes have come from it? Are they still hiding Priests? So many questions, and not any answers from this bitter recovering Catholic.
Of course this is all typical silent Catholic treatment. Mustn’t ever talk about scandals. Mustn’t shame our beautiful Church, but we must keep up the façade.
Jenny,
I will respond to you, but I do not think it will satisfy you or answer your questions.
I made a decision a few months ago, and with some success, to try to only have fruitful and respectful dialogue on the internet. A part of this means not responding to baited questions or to people who call me names or show prejudice against me.
I heartily enjoy talking about my faith, theology, the Church, as well as the ways things need to improve and get better. I am from Minnesota, although I have not lived there for a while, and I was not even tracking the cover-up that had occurred there. Thank you for sharing that, as it is something I would have likely never come across in my ambling on the internet.
If you honestly would like to have a conversation about Catholicism, I will gladly talk to you. Thus far though, you have called me names and labeled me. Your questions do not present a person who is interested in answers, rather you present a bitter recovering Catholic interested only in expressing their anger, mistrust, and pain. I hear you, and feel bad that you have been hurt. But I am not sure that I am the person that can bring you solace, and answering your questions will likely not bring you peace either. I encourage you to talk to someone who knows you and is someone you can trust with your most intimate feelings and pain. You may never trust the Church again, but at least you will have started resolving some of these issues and can live a fruitful life free from bitterness.
Kurt, this is simply not true:
“Garry Trudeau and Deb Geelsdottir ruthlessly and relentlessly smearing us.”
I have not smeared evangelicals one bit. I have pointed out that evangelical leadership is doing it to themselves and I have included examples to show that I’m not simply blowing smoke. It is a widespread problem. I have said that it gives me no pleasure to see evangelicalism damaged in this way.
You, Kurt, have now smeared me with your false accusation. You owe me an apology.
Joe may I ask what names I have called you?
Again, this is typical Catholic silent treatment. Even from my own family I never get answers if they are upset about the pedophilia scandals that have come out the last decades in The Catholic Church by priests.
Catholics need to talk about it openly. Please show vulnerability and express that sadness and hurt that maybe you have felt about hearing about such atrocities in your church.
If Proud loyal Catholics like you openly expressed your disappointment with the pedophilia priests that abused children for decades, recovering Catholics like me would have greater respect for you.
It is only by talking about it that will help people move forward. This is why victims never report abuse in the first place, the fear shame and vulnerability, and getting the silent treatment.
The USA Gymnastics scandal has beencompared to the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal which I can see the comparisons very much so. The victims for years could never tell anyone and that is just so so sad. We need to teach our children that you always need to tell someone that that is the right thing to do! We are sure as hell not doing a very good job about educating young children to tell somebody if they are being abused .
Catholics believe they need to suffer to get to Heaven and they see no problem with everyone else suffering, too. Case in point … women’s rights. Case in point … silence about pedophile Priests at Indian boarding school. Case in point … Support for Islamophobia. And the suffering feel no remorse.
Catholics actually don’t believe in all the nonsense in their books, they just pretend to. German Catholics, at least those in South Dakota where Mr. Lansing’s goats live, don’t believe it twice as much.
Jenny,
To quote “Joe is the typical Catholic sheeple that ignored my question about the pedophilia problem.” You also call me a self-righteous Catholic.
You impugn me and my character, and then ask that I show vulnerability. Not going to happen. And I will certainly not express that vulnerability on this blog. As much as I commend Cory for his commitment to the exercise of the 1st amendment, I encounter far to much bigotry and prejudice from commentators just by identifying as Roman Catholic. Maybe if I converted to Islam, Cory would put the kibosh on those types of comments.
If you sincerely want to know my thoughts, PM me on Facebook. I only ask that you respect me as a fellow human being, and not pigeon-hole me because I am Catholic.
Scandals in the Catholic Church do not negate the quality of the Pope’s spontaneous lesson for Emanuele and the other children present at this remarkable event. The miserable failure of many sinful men to live out God’s word and love do not negate Pope Francis’s pastoral care of this boy, expressed in both words and in his physical embrace.
I’m the atheist in this room. My Roncalli neighbors would assume that I’d eagerly join the romp-and-chomp on Catholics for the sins of their hierarchical church. But I don’t. Catholics err in their theology (well, in my world, everyone with a theology errs on at least one fundamental point, but even within theologies, salvation by works seems illogical). Some Catholic priests, like some powerful people in all systems, abuse their power and hurt those whom they are supposed to use their power to protect.
But Joe is a Catholic, and from my observations, he kicks butt as a husband and a dad.
Gerry Lange is a Catholic, and he’s a good and fearless man with an enormous heart.
Mike Rounds is a Catholic… oops… but he ignores the truest tenets of his faith to countenance corruption in his state and incompetence, vanity, and venality in his party’s man in the White House.
The Presentation Sisters up my street are Catholic, and they are good fighters for social justice in this state.
Pope Francis is a Catholic, and in his talk with Emanuele, he showed he’s a darn good teacher.
Out of all those Catholics, Mike Rounds is the only sheeple. There are sheeple in every church, wallowing in moral and mental weakness. There are some dumb-ass atheists, too.
Pope Francis models for all of his priests the proper care and respect they should show to their young charges.
Joe Nelson writes:
“Three days ago I took the second look at a woman’s profile photo on Facebook. Also, I’m leading 1.2 billion people in the false religion that condemned Martin Luther as a heretic.”
(https://www.gotquestions.org/Diet-of-Worms.html)
Deb had posted this:
I’d written:
Deb writes:
I said “people like” you and Trudeau. The two of you alone presumably lack the stamina to smear us relentlessly.
The Doonesbury strip at the link you posted smears both evangelical leaders and rank-and-file evangelicals.
We obviously disagree.
I guess it all depends on the authority you believe in. Is the Bible the authority? Or is man (the Pope) th authority?
“Only God can know,” does not contradict the Bible. Leading the boy to believe that Jesus dies for no reason (i.e. unbelievers go to heaven) does contradict the Bible. I won’t list the multiple verses that support this, but feel free to look if you doubt. Why would you love someone who did something that really didn’t do anything for you? Why follow Jesus when what the Bible says he did (take the punishment for sins) really didn’t do that.
I love the humanity and genuine care with which the Pope handled and loved the boy. And “Only God can know,” is an answer that is gentle and perfect in that situation. But implying to the boy (and thus all Catholics) that Jesus’ death was worthless because any unbeliever has the same access to heaven as a believer does is dangerous. “Only God can know. Continue to search the scriptures,” is an answer that doesn’t contradict the Bible. The only thing is the second part was exchanged for a wrong implication.