20 votes

Pope Francis' Message To Atheists and Agnostics: Live A Moral Life and listen To Your Conscience

The Pope has struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone towards atheists and agnostics, saying that God will "forgive" them as long as they behave morally and live according to their consciences.

By Nick Squires, Rome | 11 Sep 2013 | The Telegraph

The unprecedented gesture came as his incoming number two, the Vatican's newly-nominated secretary of state, said that the rule that priests should be celibate was not "a dogma of the Church" and could be open for discussion.

Francis, who has won praise for spontaneous and unusual moves during his six month papacy, wrote a lengthy letter to a newspaper, La Repubblica, which the Italian daily printed over four pages, including page one, under the simple byline "Francesco".

"God forgives those who obey their conscience," he wrote in the unprecedented letter, the latest example of the markedly different tone and style from his predecessors that he has set since being elected in March.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/P...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Mark of the Beast

on the forehead and the hand will be who we serve with our mind and conscience, and what works we do with our hands, were they of good or evil. It's not a chip, it's a choice. It could not possibly be a chip, if it were a chip, what if they knocked us out and chipped us? How would that work towards condemnation? Satan always goes for the mind first, then the hands are easier for him to control.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

He promises no rewards that I saw.

He offers a challenge to all men of good will.

"[L]istening and obeying [our own conscience], means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision."

He shows no interest in foolishness. Being of contrite heart is nothing less than honest; Admitting even to oneself a misunderstanding, a hopelessness or carelessness.

There is no such thing as false honesty. It's just a deception. People can fool themselves and others forever.

Free includes debt-free!

Integrity

1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonyms see HONESTY

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Morals and conscience are products of knowledge - not things

people are inherently born with.

And where pray tell does that knowledge come from?

Well, the bible Mr. Pope.

Men who stone women to death in certain countries believe they ARE being moral and following their conscience. What say ye to that?

I stopped going to church a long time ago - I have no time to sit in a building for hours with a group of hypocrites - but not believing in the church as an organization, does not mean I do not believe in the teachings of the bible. It is a guide to better humanity - think of it as the first self help book or first guide to parenting.

It is merely one more step towards looking to your government for your morals and conscious - instead of an age old book based upon solid values - or silly pieces of paper written a couple hundred years ago.

It is pride that causes these stonings,not conscience,imo.

Those men who stone women to death in certain countries usually claim that the woman has 'shamed" them,their family or their religion.In other words,someone has offended their "feeling" or "spirit" of pride.Pride is what makes people unwilling to forgive or admit any wrongdoing,as well as cause jealousy,hatred,lust for power and lust for money.IMO,pride is the most destructive force to the human race,and many people are unaware that it even exists.
I would suggest that it is pride that is in direct conflict with our conscience.It seems obvious to me that we are born with a conscience,but when I look back at my life I can see so many examples of this conflict and many instances where I went wrong.When you see someone who seems to have no conscience,I think you will usually find that they are totally consumed with pride.Of course,some people are brought up to value pride and not their conscience,one more reason why I think this is a topic that is so important to discuss with others.

Once I became aware of my own pride and tried to keep it in check,it made it so much easier to understand myself,as well as others and why we sometimes do,think and say the things we do.The video linked at the bottom of this post talks specifically about this topic.

Wow.

That is a great assessment. I especially like the part where you say you will usually find people who have no conscience are totally consumed with pride. So very true, and when you are presenting the truth down to the fundamentals it becomes apparent and undeniable (well only deniable to the extremely prideful!).

Anyways, I too have noticed that pride is extremely hurtful to our world, but I think maybe there is such a thing as good pride....it's just when you hold pride above God....or above your morals, that's when it really turns ugly. Put God first, then again maybe there is not such a thing as good pride? IDK. But isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins? I'm gonna have to look into that.

C.S. Lewis on the law of human nature(Conscience)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KdH... This is an excerpt from "Mere Christianity",but I think many would find this very thought provoking whether Christian,atheist,etc..

C.S. Lewis on pride(skip to 3:11:43)

This is a link to the full audio book of Mere Christianity.The section on pride is at 3:11:43.Another very thought provoking chapter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DisnMGV6EmI

But what if a man's conscience be seared?

I left the Roman Catholic Church about 5 years ago because of stuff like this, and for everyone's general information, I did peruse the entire letter that Francis I wrote. I left said Church primarily because of the incoherent insanity that was both Vatican I & II, as well as reading some antiquated Papal Bulls that are still celebrated to this day, one particular of note being Unigenitus, which was a condemnation of the Jansenist priest Pasquier Quesnel for, among other things, suggesting that women be permitted to read the scriptures.

The idea of the pontiff entertaining simply asserting that people listen to their consciences without any assessment of what the state of their respective consciences actual are is foolhardy at best, and dangerous at worst. And for all of you saying that this was just a letter to the editor and not official doctrine, this is a false distinction. Any leader of any flock under the Christian faith commits apostasy if he contradicts the general tenets of the faith. The Bishop of Rome (Christ has no vicar, though I do believe that Rome's historic role as first among equals was valid during every properly observed ecumenical council) should be calling for faith and repentance, not placating the church's enemies for the sake of political popularity or expediency.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Does the mercy of God have limits?

-nt

Yes and No.

Within Christ's spiritual body, God's mercy is as infinite as his nature. Outside of Christ, God's mercy is non-existent. The Gospel is pretty clear on this point, and it was further expounded upon in the writings of theologians from the early days of Iraneus and Justin Martyr, and was re-iterated by Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and a number of more Augustinian-leaning Protestant Reformers.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

What is it limited by?

Does God's capability of mercy have limits?

Does God's application of mercy have limits?

By election.

God's capability of mercy is limitless, but God's application of mercy has a very clearly set limit, and that is bound by his freely willed choice. For New Testament reference, Romans 9:15 covers the basic spirit of this concept, while Romans 9 as a whole deals with how election determines who receives the expiatory blessing of Christ's sacrifice. This tends to cut against what Francis I and his Jesuit brethren teach about the universal nobility of mankind even within a fallen state, and this notion of depravity being cured through either attrition-based confession or rhetorical appeals outside of the Gospel message.

Now, before I get a massive diatribe about how this is some call for me to eradicate all the unbelievers or to take up with the hyper-Calvinists in Fred Phelps' flock and simply yammer about damnation and how all of mankind should despair and prepare for the brimstone, I'll point you to Matt 5:45 regarding the spirit of the Gospel message, whereas the whole of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7:27) covers the overall scope of how a recipient of God's mercy is expected to make his calling in election sure.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

If there is a god who gave me

If there is a god who gave me logic and reason to think that same god would expect me to ignore it always made me roll my eyes at the idea of religion. As a logical reasonable person the only conclusion I can come to about an afterlife or god is that "I just don't know." I think that's the only honest answer anyone can give. Give me any child and let me raise it from telling them about the great horned bunny Jackalope god and they would be sitting here today telling all of us who don't believe in the "Great Jackalope" we are crazy.

So it's good to see a Pope like this who actually seems like a truly humble person, but more importantly, RATIONAL. If you can't reason to why you have rights, then it's all arbitrary. Anyone can point to their religious text of choice and make any claim about morality and you can't argue with that.

If there is a god and he's moral and just then he will realize all I can try to do is be a moral and just person based on logic and reason. Any "supreme being" that would fault a human who lived a moral and just life just because they they picked the wrong religious group out of the thousands to choose from or because they didn't pick any, wouldn't be a moral or just god.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

+100 points

One could say that god is disappointed when you don't use the gift of reason you have.

Christianity and my conscience lead me to the same conclusion.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.Treat others with goodwill,kindness,compassion,forgiveness and mercy.Admit and repent of your mistakes and the wrong things you have done ,said, and thought.Swallow your pride and let your conscience be your guide to truth and to what is right or wrong.That is what being a Christian and following Christ means to me.To me,it has nothing to do with religious denominations.With all due respect,if you consider yourself a follower of Christ(Christian)I cannot see any good in putting yourself in religious categories such as catholic,protestant,mormon,Jehovah's witness etc.
If you are atheist and reading this,please hear me out..While I can see many wrongs in myself,others,organized religions and political power structures,I honestly cannot see any wrong in Christ and making the effort to follow His example which rings true to my conscience.Even if you don't believe in God,does it not make sense to live by these principles anyway?(See above)Can we at least agree to unite behind and promote those principles,including liberty and non-aggression,whether we believe in God or not?We know our conscience is real,whether we believe in God or not.Conscience being defined as our inner sense of right and wrong,good and evil,better or worse,fair or unfair and just or unjust.If this makes sense to you,you might appreciate the video linked at the bottom of this post.
I don't know for sure who is going to heaven or hell,or how old the earth is.I only know that I am here now and will try to live by the principles mentioned above.For now, that is the best I can do.

The Greek translation

of the word repented is metanoeo, meta "after," implying change," and noeo, "to perceive," nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection" hence signifies to change one's mind or purpose. So repentance is not continuing that same behavior over and over and never changing our course of action. Repentance is actually the action of not continuing to do the sin which we are doing. Many people feel that repentance is just committing the same sin over and over and just feeling bad and praying about it, and you are saved, this is not the case. It is not to say God does not know our struggles, in fact there were times in the Bible Jesus was tempted and did not sin. The only way you can stop sinning is if you allow God to rule your life, it is impossible otherwise. Repentance is changing the course of our actions. You cannot repent if God doesn't come first, you will never be able to stop sinning on your own. I always recommend people read their Bible alongside a Strong's Concordance which gives the translation of every word in the Bible and their original meaning. It is actually very interesting and really helps decipher the whole Book. Words you look up will move you all around the Bible and really make you to understand how much it truly confirms itself. It was written in parables for a reason, so only the one's who diligently spend time with the Lord will understand it. God wants to hang out with the people He knew here on earth, as weird as that may seem.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Nice.

I agree with what your saying, but the problem is that so many are not honest. They skew their own judgement. You are absolutely right here, but people have to be honest with themselves and others, consistent, and not a bunch of hypocrits. Well that would be awesome, and guess it's what we strive for.

I'm still slightly hesitant to bring atheists into the same group as theists, is the goal to put theists on a slippery slope, skewing their judgement to allow even more evil to be accepted? Now don't get me wrong....that's pure speculation, but I'm just cautious.

Anyways, I feel very much like you explain here, and think it's actually a great thing to be more accepting of atheists so long as they have constant morals. Maybe religion would be more acceptable or appealing. In fact, as I've grown closer to religion I've had to see it in a more believable way than the average church (or mainstream religion) portrays it.

For example, all the Christians who say because they've vocally declared that they've accepted Jesus into their hearts they are automatically saved and will go to heaven no matter what they do in the future. That is not appealing to non believers at all cause it sounds like a crock. So I've discovered that maybe it actually means something really deep when you accept Jesus into your heart...you have to accept his way as right and your conscience knows it's right.

Seems like many people come to similar conclusions on their own or in other religions....so if it's in a different language but it's the same thing...wouldn't they also be saved? Sorry if this post is kinda gibberish, I got a long way to grow and can barely put these ideas into words.

If the Pope said this ver batim, then he cd be off-

I hate to say this, as I am a Catholic, but our Catholic Church is falling apart at the seams , just as it appears that bishops and priests have united over these past few decades to change their approaches to the "world" which are pagan ultimately.

No one knows just WHO will go to heaven, purgatory or hell, NOBODY. Only GOD,

If you are an atheist or agnostic, I hope it doesn't mean you are close-minded. Read the turn of the century G.K. CHESTERTON's books. He used to be agnostic, but he was brilliant. Look him up in Wikipedia.

However, I will reserve judgment until I read the Pope's entire comments regarding this. The Pope does not speak English but I do think he should learn the language.

Not agnostic...

Certain events and hallucinogenic trips have revealed the existence of God to me, and have shown me that....'oh, that's what people have been talking about for thousands of years'. Started with just an acknowledgment of God, and later started to find ways to believe a lot of Christianity (not that I necessarily exclude other religions). Honestly, most of what held me back was the whole mystical, super-natural stuff that people believe so literally from the Bible. I do see the stories as possibilities but not really absolute fact in my mind. A lot of the claims some Christians make are repulsive to 'non-believers'. Anyways, too much about me.

I really appreciate your post and it's realism. I'm also very grateful to your recommendation of G.K. Chesterton, just what I needed. I downloaded his book Orthodoxy (found it for free). I've seen the term Christian apologetic before (just last week), but didn't think much of it but it's awesome! Thanks for revealing it.

Partial agreement

in that civically speaking, I believe that distilling conscience would be the true role of government (ex. just trials, constitutional amendments etc)

Further argumentation
http://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=273608469445881

Lest there be any confusion, here is Pope Francis actual letter

http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_...

Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica:
"An open dialogue with non-believers"
Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" Pope Francis (ap)

Lo leggo dopo

Dear Dott. Scalfari,
I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that then continued to enrich the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.

First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth".

Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us, but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a matter as important as faith and which refers to the teachings and the figure of Jesus.

In particular, I think there are two circumstances which today cause this dialogue to be precious and necessary. This is one of the principal aims of the Second Vatican Council, convened at the behest of John XXIII as well as by the Apostolic Ministry of the Popes who, each with their own sensibility and help have since then continued in the course traced by the Council.

The first circumstance - that refers to the initial pages of the Encyclical - derives from the fact that, down in the centuries of modern life, we have seen a paradox: Christian faith, whose novelty and importance in the life of mankind since the beginning has been expressed through the symbol of light, has often been branded as the darkness of superstition which is opposed to the light of reason. Therefore a lack of communication has arisen between the Church and the culture inspired by Christianity on one hand and the modern culture of Enlightenment on the other. The time has come and the Second Vatican has inaugurated the season, for an open dialogue without preconceptions that opens the door to a serious and fruitful meeting.

The second circumstance, for those who attempt to be faithful to the gift of following Jesus in the light of faith, derives from the fact that this dialogue is not a secondary accessory in the existence of those who believe, but is rather an intimate and indispensabile expression. Speaking of which, allow me to quote a very important statement, in my opinion, of the Encyclical: as the truth witnessed by faith is found in love - it is stressed - "it seems clear that faith is not unyielding, but increases in the coexistence which respects the other. The believer is not arrogant; on the contrary, the truth makes him humble, in the knowledge that rather than making us rigid, it embraces us and possesses us. Rather than make us rigid, the security of faith makes it possible to speak with everyone" (n.34). This is the spirit of the words I am writing to you.

For me, faith began by meeting with Jesus. A personal meeting that touched my heart and gave a direction and a new meaning to my existence. At the same time, however, a meeting that was made possible by the community of faith in which I lived and thanks to which I found access to the intelligence of the Sacred Scriptures, to the new life that comes from Jesus like gushing water through the Sacraments, to fraternity with everyone and to the service to the poor, which is the real image of the Lord. Believe me, without the Church I would never have been able to meet Jesus, in spite of the knowledge that the immense gift of faith is kept in the fragile clay vases of our humanity.

Now, thanks to this personal experience of faith experienced in Church, I feel comfortable in listening to your questions and together with you, will try to find a way to perhaps walk along a path together.

Please forgive me if I do not follow the arguments proposed by you step by step in your editorial of July 7th. It would seem more fruitful to me - or more congenial - to go right to the heart of your considerations. I will not even go into the manners of explanation followed by the Encyclical, in which you find the lack of a section specifically dedicated to the historial experience of Jesus of Nazareth.

To start, I will only observe that such an analysis is not secondary. In fact, following the logic of the Encyclical, this means paying attention to the meaning of what Jesus said and did and after all, of what Jesus has been and is for us. The Letters of Paul and the Gospel according to John, to which particular reference is made in the Encyclical, are in fact created on the solid foundation of the Messianic Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth which culminated in the pentecost of death and resurrection.

Therefore, I would say that we must face Jesus in the concrete roughness of his story, as above all told to us by the most ancient of the Gospels, the one according to Mark. We then find that the "scandal" which the word and practices of Jesus provoke around him derive from his extraordinary "authority": a word that has been certified since the Gospel according to Mark, but that is not easy to translate well into Italian. The Greek word is "exousia", which literally means "comes from being" what one is. It is not something exterior or forced, but rather something that emanates from the inside and imposes itself. Actually Jesus, amazes and innovates starting from, he himself says this, his relationship with God, called familiarly Abbà, who gives him this "authority" so that he uses it in favor of men.

So Jesus preaches "like someone who has authority", he heals, calls his disciples to follow him, forgives... things that, in the Old Testament, belong to God and only God. The question that most frequently is repeated in the Gospel according to Mark: "Who is he who...?", and which regards the identity of Jesus, arises from the recognition of an authority that differs from that of the world, an authority that aims not at exercising power over others, but rather serving them, giving them freedom and the fullness of life. And this is done to the point of staking his own life, up to experiencing misunderstanding, betrayal, refusal, until he is condemned to die, left abandoned on the cross. But Jesus remained faithful to God, up to his death.

And it is then - as the Roman centuriun exclaims, in the Gospel according to Mark - that Jesus is paradoxically revealed as the Son of God. Son of a God that is love and that wants, with all of himself that man, every man, discovers himself and also lives like his real son. For Christian faith this is certified by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead: not to be triumphant over those who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worthwhile to give one's life, to the end, to witness this great gift.

Christian faith believes in this: that Jesus is the Son of God who came to give his life to open the way to love for everyone. Therefore there is a reason, dear Dr. Scalfari, when you see the incarnation of the Son of God as the pivot of Christian faith. Tertullian wrote "caro cardo salutis", the flesh (of Christ) is the pivot of salvation. Because the incarnation, that is the fact that the Son of God has come into our flesh and has shared joy and pain, victories and defeat of our existence, up to the cry of the cross, living each event with love and in the faith of Abbà, shows the incredible love that God has for every man, the priceless value that he acknowledges. For this reason, each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting. This is faith, with all the expressions that have been dutifully described in the Encyclical.

* * *

In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.

I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others: but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.

Of course a consequence of this is also - and this is not a minor thing - that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed by Jesus and upon which, the history of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.

At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them: Has this been forgotten? And this - believe me - is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved.

As for the three questions you asked me in the article of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

Second of all, you ask if the thought, according to which no absolute exists and therefore there is no absolute truth, but only a series of relative and subjective truths is a mistake or a sin. To start, I would not speak about, not even for those who believe, an "absolute" truth, in the sense that absolute is something detached, something lacking any relationship. Now, the truth is a relationship! This is so true that each of us sees the truth and expresses it, starting from oneself: from one's history and culture, from the situation in which one lives, etc. This does not mean that the truth is variable and subjective. It means that it is given to us only as a way and a life. Was it not Jesus himself who said: "I am the way, the truth, the life"? In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed. Therefore we must understand the terms well and perhaps, in order to avoid the oversemplification of absolute contraposition, reformulate the question. I think that today this is absolutely necessary in order to have a serene and constructive dialogue which I hoped for from the beginning.

In the last question you ask if, with the disappearance of man on earth, the thoughts able to think about God will also disappear. Of course, the greatness of mankind lies in being able to think about God. That is in being able to experience a conscious and responsible relationship with Him. But the relationship lies between two realities. God - this is my thought and this is my experience, but how many, yesterday and today, share it! - is not an idea, even if very sublime, the result of the thoughts of mankind. God is a reality with a capital "R". Jesus reveals this to us - and he experiences the relationship with Him - as a Father of infinite goodness and mercy. God therefore does not depend on our thoughts. On the other hand, even when the end of life for man on earth should come - and for Christian faith, in any case the world as we know it now is destined to end, man will not finish existing and, in a way that we do not know, nor will the universe created with him. The Scriptures speak of "new skies and a new land" and confirm that, in the end, at the time and place that it is beyond our knowledge, but which we patiently and desirously await, God will be " everything in everyone".

Dear Dr. Scalfari, here I end these reflections of mine, prompted by what you wanted to tell and ask me. Please accept this as a tentative and temporary reply, but sincere and hopeful, together with the invitation that I made to walk a part of the path together. Believe me, in spite of its slowness, the infidelity, the mistakes and the sins that may have and may still be committed

by those who compose the Church, it has no other sense and aim if not to live and witness Jesus: He has been sent by Abbà "to bring good news to the poor... to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour" (Luke 4: 18-19).

With brotherly love,

Francesco

(Translated from Italian by Sara Cecere)

Beautiful

Thank you.

Thanks!

-

Free includes debt-free!

Difficult

Very tricky to try and come up with a way to appeal to new age culture and pluralism without giving up the essence of what differentiates catholicism from anything else.

23

Sorry Catholics, this is poor doctorine

I would never imagine Jesus telling the masses he witnessed to, "to follow their conscience". He was purposeful in his message. God is to be the King of our lives, not man.

To break this down more clearly for non-believers on a political site I would say, do you think the architects of the Constitution just thought people could figure this government thing out for themselves if they just followed their conscience; that our leaders would just do the right thing? C'mon, we all know this to be false as we all understand that no man is perfect. Power corrupts. This is basic libertarian philosophy.

Jesus taught us that He was the way. Why would he come down to Earth, perform miracles, die on a cross, and conquer death if not to illustrate this point? This is progressive thinking. There are consequences in life, we all sin, and we need the blood of Christ to save us. Being a nice person is not enough. Sorry, that's what the Bible teaches and this man is supposed to be representing that book. It is basic Christian doctrine.

It appears we have a Progressive as the Pope but it should really come as no surprise.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

This is not doctrine it is a letter to the editor.

Did you read the letter or the pitiful telegraph summary?

Free includes debt-free!

wasnt paul

following his conscience when he was killing christians, and Jesus knocked him off his high horse on the road to Damascus. (not a question so no question mark)

No, he was not following his conscience

He was following is greed and selfishness and ego, not his conscience.

I still think he might be the

I still think he might be the anti-christ