Good News Atheists:Pope Says Abide By Own Conscience (doctrine, church, believe)

[gonpostal]

Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences | World news | theguardian.com

"Given – and this is the fundamental thing – that God's mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart," the pope wrote, "the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil."

[Torpedos]

It would have been nice to hear him say " if you have no faith , it is not your fault. The giver of faith just did not give you the gift"

[Supine]

I'm not sure there is much of a problem here. The problem may not be his message but your "ears," how you interpret what he has said. Maybe. I'm not a theologian nor the most knowledgeable on Church doctrine.

But I remember from taking a semesters speech class that communication is a two-way street and often hampered by the "noise" of our own personal experiences, backgrounds and so forth, so, we filter what we hear through those things and make interpretations.

For many years I've heard it stated by my Catholic mother (though liberal) that the Bishops of the Church in the United States have said Catholics must vote for gun control, for unions, for policies benefiting the poor, vote against abortion, vote against gay marriage, when voting for candidates and must vote with their conscience.

So, when I read the Pope's words that's partly what I "hear." But I can tell you "hear" something far differently.

One must bear in mind the Church subscribes to "Natural Law" which many secular/atheist philosophers do, and Natural Law suggests people of any religion or lack of religion can ascertain certain things are fundamentally wrong like stealing or murdering someone for their car. They can ascertain it through their conscience.

Of course, a good conscience often needs good "formation" which comes through rearing, culture, and teachings.

The article also stated this:

In May, however, relaxed remarks during a homily, which appeared to imply that non-believers could be "saved" if they did good, prompted a swift clarification from the Vatican that he meant nothing of the kind.

The pope had had "no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation", it said, adding: "They cannot be saved who, knowing the church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her."

[pcamps]

I think he's close to the truth with his comment.

[lovesMountains]

Originally Posted by Torpedos

It would have been nice to hear him say " if you have no faith , it is not your fault. The giver of faith just did not give you the gift"

But why should he have said that when it is not true or accurate?

People have to CHOOSE faith or they will not have it.

[Supine]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

But why should he have said that when it is not true or accurate?

People have to CHOOSE faith or they will not have it.

With the caveat faith stems from the grace of God. Catholicism remains perplexed with this paradox, chalks it up to a mystery (and rightly so I would say), and does not subscribe to the Calvinist conception of predestination as we know it. However, and Catholicism admits this, there are ample examples in Catholic history of people destined for certain roles in prophecy, from the Virgin Mary to St. Joan of the Arc.

Catholicism does not dismiss the need of God's grace nor its affects on the individual, however, Catholicism teaches each individual must cooperate in the grace given, through their free will, and for practical purposes Catholicism emphasizes the need for individual choice and actions. What some Protestants deride as works.

When it comes to Pope Francis (or Pope John Paul II for that matter) and Pope Benedict, in my opinion, it is important for non-Catholics to bear in mind that Pope Francis chooses to speak to the theologically uneducated masses--such as myself (I'm not not formally educated in theology)--in language they understand. Whereas, Pope Benedict tended to speak giving the audience in the world the benefit of the doubt they were more intellectual than they were. He was and is a very intellectual, scholarly man that is at home inside a university classroom. In one of his book's on the life of Jesus I read, as I recall, he remarked that he was not a very good administrator (i.e., manager in a corporate or ecclesiastical sense).

Benedict tended to speak in terms that required deeper reflection. And he spoke plainly on some moral points with no regard as to whether it would infuriate many people. John Paul II and Pope Francis have chosen to use more conciliatory language that will less likely invoke the rage of the masses as well as the world's powerful behind media, $$$, and political offices.

That may not be a bad route, if Pope Francis senses of perceives Satan and his earthly minions conniving and duping the masses, and Satan and his minion already more or less positioned as the princes of this world. You can't persuade 99% of the masses not to follow the teachings of Satan by plain talk. You need the conciliatory language that appeals to their inner child.

[MysticPhD]

In my view this is doing nothing more than affirming that Christ abides with us in our consciousness as the Comforter and will guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts" under the New Covenant. What else would that inner voice (conscience) be but Christ's Holy Spirit?

[lovesMountains]

Originally Posted by macpherson

I talked to my parents about all these things who are devout peaceful non accusatory type well educated people and came to the conclusion the best thing for a Catholic to do is ignore all vatican and papal stuff that gets published, don't even bother reading it. Reason being the personalities and examples that come through in many of the Saints writings and experience's in translating a belief, has nothing to do, is rarely seen in these BS publications...including the registrar who my father who is highly educated in finance and history professionally...refuses to contribute any more whatsoever. Also in the last 25 years a massive amount from the family was diverted from seminary charity. I'm not sure where thats at...but the point is these guys are ok...but they are political translations of what the cloth represents. Without judging in any way at all...yuh gotta pay att these days to what in fact the bottom line is.

Well that's throwing the baby out with the bath water, lol

[lovesMountains]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

In my view this is doing nothing more than affirming that Christ abides with us in our consciousness as the Comforter and will guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts" under the New Covenant. What else would that inner voice (conscience) be but Christ's Holy Spirit?

THANK YOU

People really do like to over-complicate God don't they?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Supine

One must bear in mind the Church subscribes to "Natural Law" which many secular/atheist philosophers do, and Natural Law suggests people of any religion or lack of religion can ascertain certain things are fundamentally wrong like stealing or murdering someone for their car. They can ascertain it through their conscience.

Of course, a good conscience often needs good "formation" which comes through rearing, culture, and teachings.

The article also stated this:

The latter mandatory clarification by the hierarchy (not the Pope) illustrates the primary concern of the Church hierarchy . . . attaining and retaining membership . . . which this Pope seems unconcerned with.