Intelligent discussion overdue |

Intelligent discussion overdue

In his column “The price of papal popularity” , Pat Buchanan offers his personal opinion that Pope Francis is harming the Catholic Church, mocking other leaders of the church and creating confusion. This, because the Holy Father led a synod of bishops in discussion about family issues. What kind of honest discussion would not include divorce and remarriage, gay marriage and all matters pertinent to family life in the 21st century?

To say that God is not afraid of new things and that the church might need to adapt only recognizes that, from the time of Jesus, and with the leadership of Peter, Paul and James, the church has changed with the time, problems and people of every era. The pope is not confusing us; the issues are confusing us. That’s why we need to look at them carefully and not dismiss them nor the people who are facing them.

If there are “explosions” today, they are caused by people deciding on their own what they will do or not do, believe or not believe, without moral guidance. How could a universal church ignore any longer the complexities of our time?

No one would deny that there are moral absolutes. The question is, what moral teachings are absolute? An intelligent discussion of these matters is long overdue. As Buchanan says, if not his holiness, who? And I would add, if not now, when?

As for the harming and mocking, I don’t know too many who believe Pope Francis would do either.

The Rev. Jeffrey J. Noble


The writer is pastor of the Church of Notre Dame in the Diocese of Erie.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.