Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

Could it be that the time has come for the Catholic Church and all Christian religions to take a fresh new look at some of the teachings, doctrine and dogma that is based on the work of the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.

The result of the Council was the adoption of the earliest Bible and founding principles of Christianity.  A series of subsequent Councils, initiatives, Papal pronouncements and revelations has allowed the Church doctrine and dogma to be updated over the centuries including the clarification in Vatican II on the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.

This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

 
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.

Therefore, his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." 

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). 

What is the difference between Church doctrine and dogma?

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

Dogma

According to the Cambridge Dictionary “dogma” is;

Dogma noun [U]

us /ˈdɔɡ·mə, ˈdɑɡ-/

​

A fixed belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts: [U] liberal/conservative dogma.

What a novel way to control one’s belief system. 

Dogma in ancient Greek was something that “seems true.”  Another Greek meaning literally is "that which one thinks is true."

Religious dogma concerns religions, which may or may not include the following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Heathenism (Germanic paganism), Semitic neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism (Egyptian paganism), Hellenism (Greek paganism), Italo-Roman neopaganism.

Why would such a review be necessary?

For one, the world has changed dramatically since the founding of the Church.  We have advanced in many scientific and technological areas where things are possible that did not exist 2,000 years ago.  Some even have resulted in positive contributions to the message of Jesus and the Bible, while others have given us insights into Creation and evolution, both spiritual and physical, of mankind.

Just one example, the dating of Creation, was maybe 6,000 years based on Genesis but modern physics has estimated it to be at least 13.4 billion years old, with some estimates 16 billion years.

The dating of humans remains a difficult task because the physical body deteriorates and disappears in time, while the surface of the Earth is in a constant state of change through natural events.

Homo Sapiens, which carry the human DNA, have been recently discovered that are over 315,000 years old.  Previously, the oldest was 195,000 years old.  Yet we know the human body would not survive much beyond because of natural decomposition.

The truth is, we have no idea when homo sapiens first appeared on Earth.  What we do know is the Earth is at least 3.4 billion years old and the galaxies of which we are a part are 13.4 billion years old.

That would seem to be the moment of Creation as far as we know but we are constantly revising the date based on new scientific measurements and archeological findings.

I find it inconceivable that God created our galaxies 13.4 billion years ago then waited 13 billion years to create humans.  We have yet to explore the depths of the Earth for evidence of human activity so it is entirely possible God created humans 13.4 billion years ago, or more, and we have simply not discovered a way to document it, yet.

In the world I envision humans were indeed a part of the Big Bang of Creation as suggested by the Creation story, and our failure to document it is simply a matter of not having developed the technology to document it.

It also would mean there may very likely have been numerous civilizations that evolved and then disappeared in the course of human history, that we are yet to discover.

In the evolution of our galaxy and very own Earth there have been many natural cataclysmic events that might have substantially wiped out much of civilization, thus causing the human race to start over many times.

Science has proven there were four Ice Ages that made much of the Earth uninhabitable in those times.  We know super volcanoes such as Yellowstone have erupted and blocked off the healing energy of the Sun for years.  Meteors striking such as the one forming the Gulf of Mexico might have wiped out the mighty dinosaurs that once ruled the Earth and may have reduced human life.

History, as we know and prove it, has radically changed all we know about Creation and the evolution of humans, and if current trends continue we will continue to rewrite history as we seek out the moment of Creation.

Could Reincarnation be a viable Concept to explain Spiritual Evolution?

Our Bible details 6,000 years, we must unveil the truth about the remaining 13 billion years of time since Creation.  Until we do, reincarnation may be one of the best and most logical ways to explain human spiritual evolution available.

First, when I say reincarnation, I am not talking about coming back as an animal or rock, nor am I talking about coming back as or in the same human body.  What I understand it means is the soul finds a new body (fetus) to form a union with and be born.    

In spite of our bias, understanding, or convictions, reincarnation is not prohibited by either Catholic Church doctrine or dogma.  Over the years the Church has attempted to address it without much success.

Theological arguments against it seem hollow, especially in light of the potential that God created humans billions of years earlier than we think and the Bible said.  It only makes sense that an all-powerful God did not wait 13 billion years to add humans to his creation, but created them at the same time. Nothing can prove He did not.

Only Church dogma and doctrine not directly related to reincarnation but used to condemn the idea stands in the way of accepting the plausibility.  The union of body and soul when God breathed life into humans, accounts for the first humans, who were not even born but created.

Since all succeeding generations were conceived and born on Earth, there is a clear distinction between the original humans created and all others to come being born.  Yet it is clear the soul representing the spiritual side of the union could have come to Earth in many bodies over time without changing any concept in Church dogma or doctrine.

If each soul is unique as we are taught, and was created by God initially, that means there might have been many Adam and Eves seeding the Earth in order to have 7.6 billion souls walking the Earth today.

Bear in mind that as late as the time Jesus walked the Earth there were only 300 million inhabitants of Earth, fewer than in the United States alone today.  Where did all the new souls come from?

If you believe God took a personal interest in every unique soul and that all souls were created during the Creation process, the Big Bang, then the same God, all powerful and all knowing, might very well have made a sacred compact with the soul covering as many lifetimes as needed for the soul to complete or fail, the physical mission on Earth.

Such a scenario does not preclude or prohibit the concept of Heaven and Hell nor does it conflict with any other doctrine or dogma of the Church.  It simply makes sense that God would give all souls the chance to use their free will on earth and earn their place in the Kingdom.

Physical death is not a bad thing but a necessary step toward spiritual evolution.  Yet babies that die in childbirth or from abortion never have an opportunity to experience or evolve in their one lifetime on Earth.  Why would God deny them the chance to experience life when the soul, which is forever, could come back?

The same is true of the many souls that do experience life on Earth.  They have no control over their death, and often times can be a victim of others (a car wreck or terrorist explosion), or lured into drugs and death by Satan.  Surely God knows His creations and if his intent is love and good, he would give them a chance to live life in order to redeem themselves.

Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

.

Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

Could it be that the time has come for the Catholic Church and all Christian religions to take a fresh new look at some of the teachings, doctrine and dogma that is based on the work of the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.

The result of the Council was the adoption of the earliest Bible and founding principles of Christianity.  A series of subsequent Councils, initiatives, Papal pronouncements and revelations has allowed the Church doctrine and dogma to be updated over the centuries including the clarification in Vatican II on the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.

This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

 
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.

Therefore, his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." 

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). 

What is the difference between Church doctrine and dogma?

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

Dogma

According to the Cambridge Dictionary “dogma” is;

Dogma noun [U]

us /ˈdɔɡ·mə, ˈdɑɡ-/

​

A fixed belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts: [U] liberal/conservative dogma.

What a novel way to control one’s belief system. 

Dogma in ancient Greek was something that “seems true.”  Another Greek meaning literally is "that which one thinks is true."

Religious dogma concerns religions, which may or may not include the following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Heathenism (Germanic paganism), Semitic neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism (Egyptian paganism), Hellenism (Greek paganism), Italo-Roman neopaganism.

Why would such a review be necessary?

For one, the world has changed dramatically since the founding of the Church.  We have advanced in many scientific and technological areas where things are possible that did not exist 2,000 years ago.  Some even have resulted in positive contributions to the message of Jesus and the Bible, while others have given us insights into Creation and evolution, both spiritual and physical, of mankind.

Just one example, the dating of Creation, was maybe 6,000 years based on Genesis but modern physics has estimated it to be at least 13.4 billion years old, with some estimates 16 billion years.

The dating of humans remains a difficult task because the physical body deteriorates and disappears in time, while the surface of the Earth is in a constant state of change through natural events.

Homo Sapiens, which carry the human DNA, have been recently discovered that are over 315,000 years old.  Previously, the oldest was 195,000 years old.  Yet we know the human body would not survive much beyond because of natural decomposition.

The truth is, we have no idea when homo sapiens first appeared on Earth.  What we do know is the Earth is at least 3.4 billion years old and the galaxies of which we are a part are 13.4 billion years old.

That would seem to be the moment of Creation as far as we know but we are constantly revising the date based on new scientific measurements and archeological findings.

I find it inconceivable that God created our galaxies 13.4 billion years ago then waited 13 billion years to create humans.  We have yet to explore the depths of the Earth for evidence of human activity so it is entirely possible God created humans 13.4 billion years ago, or more, and we have simply not discovered a way to document it, yet.

In the world I envision humans were indeed a part of the Big Bang of Creation as suggested by the Creation story, and our failure to document it is simply a matter of not having developed the technology to document it.

It also would mean there may very likely have been numerous civilizations that evolved and then disappeared in the course of human history, that we are yet to discover.

In the evolution of our galaxy and very own Earth there have been many natural cataclysmic events that might have substantially wiped out much of civilization, thus causing the human race to start over many times.

Science has proven there were four Ice Ages that made much of the Earth uninhabitable in those times.  We know super volcanoes such as Yellowstone have erupted and blocked off the healing energy of the Sun for years.  Meteors striking such as the one forming the Gulf of Mexico might have wiped out the mighty dinosaurs that once ruled the Earth and may have reduced human life.

History, as we know and prove it, has radically changed all we know about Creation and the evolution of humans, and if current trends continue we will continue to rewrite history as we seek out the moment of Creation.

Could Reincarnation be a viable Concept to explain Spiritual Evolution?

Our Bible details 6,000 years, we must unveil the truth about the remaining 13 billion years of time since Creation.  Until we do, reincarnation may be one of the best and most logical ways to explain human spiritual evolution available.

First, when I say reincarnation, I am not talking about coming back as an animal or rock, nor am I talking about coming back as or in the same human body.  What I understand it means is the soul finds a new body (fetus) to form a union with and be born.    

In spite of our bias, understanding, or convictions, reincarnation is not prohibited by either Catholic Church doctrine or dogma.  Over the years the Church has attempted to address it without much success.

Theological arguments against it seem hollow, especially in light of the potential that God created humans billions of years earlier than we think and the Bible said.  It only makes sense that an all-powerful God did not wait 13 billion years to add humans to his creation, but created them at the same time. Nothing can prove He did not.

Only Church dogma and doctrine not directly related to reincarnation but used to condemn the idea stands in the way of accepting the plausibility.  The union of body and soul when God breathed life into humans, accounts for the first humans, who were not even born but created.

Since all succeeding generations were conceived and born on Earth, there is a clear distinction between the original humans created and all others to come being born.  Yet it is clear the soul representing the spiritual side of the union could have come to Earth in many bodies over time without changing any concept in Church dogma or doctrine.

If each soul is unique as we are taught, and was created by God initially, that means there might have been many Adam and Eves seeding the Earth in order to have 7.6 billion souls walking the Earth today.

Bear in mind that as late as the time Jesus walked the Earth there were only 300 million inhabitants of Earth, fewer than in the United States alone today.  Where did all the new souls come from?

If you believe God took a personal interest in every unique soul and that all souls were created during the Creation process, the Big Bang, then the same God, all powerful and all knowing, might very well have made a sacred compact with the soul covering as many lifetimes as needed for the soul to complete or fail, the physical mission on Earth.

Such a scenario does not preclude or prohibit the concept of Heaven and Hell nor does it conflict with any other doctrine or dogma of the Church.  It simply makes sense that God would give all souls the chance to use their free will on earth and earn their place in the Kingdom.

Physical death is not a bad thing but a necessary step toward spiritual evolution.  Yet babies that die in childbirth or from abortion never have an opportunity to experience or evolve in their one lifetime on Earth.  Why would God deny them the chance to experience life when the soul, which is forever, could come back?

The same is true of the many souls that do experience life on Earth.  They have no control over their death, and often times can be a victim of others (a car wreck or terrorist explosion), or lured into drugs and death by Satan.  Surely God knows His creations and if his intent is love and good, he would give them a chance to live life in order to redeem themselves.

My next article will discuss the wonder of the soul, our golden thread to God, and how it can function “in time” here on Earth, and “out of time” in the Kingdom or waiting to return to Earth.                      

Obama & Pope Francis - what happened?

.

As I recall President Obama went to Rome to hobnob with the Pope in order to shore up the Catholic vote for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.  No sooner had the White House gotten the prized photo op of the Prez and Pope than the story disappeared.

The next thing we heard is that Obama came back and gave the gift he received from the Pope, a Rosary blessed by the Pope, to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a self-acclaimed Catholic who disagrees with about all the teachings of the Catholic church just like her Catholic side kick Vice President Joe Biden.

Now let me get this straight.  Obama receives a very rare gift from Pope Francis then turns around and gives it to a political crony who is in hot water with the Bishops of America for all but abandoning her faith by backing abortion and forcing the church facilities to give out contraceptives against the church teaching.

Where I come from such a gesture might be interpreted as an insult to the person who gave it to him.  Now I understand Obama, who has demonstrated his progressive agenda by drifting farther and farther from church attendance ever since his fire and brimstone preacher Jeremiah Wright said, well, let ABC News tell you.

ABC News, 2008

"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism." 

Anyway in the interest of political expediency Obama promptly dumped his lifelong preacher and friend in order to get elected and pretty much quit going to church so it is not surprising he didn't know what to do with a Rosary and maybe one blessed by a Pope was a little out of place in the White House hip hop memorabilia.

That little story is hardly what I expected out of the Main Street media as the sum of the results of the Obama and Pope Francis meeting.  So I searched the Internet and finally came across a story from The Boston Globe that actually gave an in depth report of what transpired.  Fancy that, real journalism.

In the interest of informing my readers of the truth I am crediting and running the excellent story.  Funny that it took a paper from the home of our revolution and one much more aware of the Catholic power and policy to tell us what we deserved to know.  What happened to the guardians of freedom and defenders of the truth, The New York Times and Washington Post?

The Boston Globe

Obama, Pope Francis both win in summit meeting

Philadelphia lobbies for 2015 papal visit; Bishops lead border protest on immigration

By John L. Allen Jr.

MARCH 29, 2014

When Barack Obama met Pope Francis on Thursday, it was the 28th encounter between a US president and a pope since Benedict XV received Woodrow Wilson in 1919. By now, the post-game analysis in America has become almost as predictable as the protocol in the Vatican.

What American pundits inevitably want to know is, “Who won?” That is to say, who got the biggest political bump out of the meeting?

That sort of quick take can be fun and provocative, but, honestly, it is probably not the best way to look at it. For one thing, you’d like to believe that presidents, and certainly popes, are capable of a loftier perspective. For another, the full range of Catholic social teaching isn’t really a good fit for either major political party in America, so these encounters are always a mixed bag capable of being read in different ways by different constituencies.

That said, the scorecard on Thursday’s first meeting between Obama and Francis has to be that each man got something important out of it, which is often what happens when two shrewd political operators intersect.

Obama, of course, is struggling at the moment to maintain Democratic control of the Senate in the midterm elections, which looks like an uphill battle. Both his own political troubles and those of his party are related in part to antipathy among religious voters, including a fairly big chunk of the Catholic vote.

To take just one example, prominent American Catholic writer George Weigel opined this week that Obama’s policies, especially the controversial contraception mandates imposed as part of health care reform, have put the church “on a collision course with the government unparalleled in US Catholic history.”

In that context, smiling shots of Obama and Francis together may help reframe impressions. It’s harder to style the president as an enemy of the faith in light of pictures of him and the pontiff yucking it up, which could help among Catholic moderates. Perhaps even more importantly, the images complicate efforts by Obama’s Catholic foes to whip up opposition.

The meeting probably also delivered a boost to Catholic Democrats, who have come under increasing pressure to explain how they can stay loyal to a party perceived by some as hostile to the church. When L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, ran a picture of Obama and Francis on Friday under the headline “Shared Commitment,” it gave those Catholic Democrats something to work with in arguing that their party can, after all, “do God.”

Francis had less to gain on Thursday, largely because he entered the meeting in a much stronger position; he is, at the moment, just about the most popular public figure on earth. Yet he did have something to lose, both among the Catholic bishops of the United States and the church’s wide antiabortion constituency.

With regard to American bishops, they’ve made the defense of religious freedom their new signature issue, symbolized by the stand-off with the administration over the contraception mandates. If the take-away from the Obama summit had been that they didn’t have the support of the pope, it would weaken their position, and might have soured a few of them on the new boss.

As for abortion opponents, many were already wary about Francis because of his repeated calls to dial down the rhetoric in the wars of culture. If they got the sense that he had given Obama a free pass on the life issues, their wariness might begin to turn into overt estrangement.

Francis deftly avoided those outcomes, signaling the American bishops that he has their backs while reassuring abortion opponents that a softer tone doesn’t imply softer substance.

He did that in two ways, first by handing Obama a copy of his recent apostolic exhortation Evangelium Gaudium. The president said he’d read it in the Oval Office when he’s “deeply frustrated,” in the hope that “it will give me strength and calm me down.”

One wonders, however, how much calm he’ll draw from this sentence: “It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.” The pope bluntly says that on abortion, “the church cannot be expected to change her position.”

(As a footnote, using documents to make statements vis-à-vis Obama is becoming a fine Vatican art. When Obama called on Benedict XVI in 2009, the pontiff handed him a copy of Dignitas Personae, a document on bioethics. Then as now, the pope didn’t have to say anything more because the gift spoke for itself.)

The Vatican also flashed support for the American bishops in its statement after the meeting, citing “the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life, and conscientious objection” as matters of “particular relevance” in the conversation. To be sure, they were listed along with other matters where Obama and Francis are more in sync, such as immigration reform, but nobody could accuse the pope of going quiet on the life issues.

At the end of the day, Francis could hardly be said to have taken Obama to the woodshed, but abortion opponents couldn’t have asked for much more by way of raising the flag.

Summing up, Obama got a picture with a smiling pope splashed across the front page of every American paper, while Francis avoided some needless internal heartburn. The meeting may not have changed the world, but it was still fun to watch two savvy tacticians operate, both aware of the other’s agenda and both purposeful in pursuing their own.

Big push for Francis to visit Philadelphia in 2015

If Pope Francis doesn’t come to Philadelphia in September 2015 for a Vatican-sponsored World Meeting of Families, it won’t be for lack of trying on the part of either church or state in Pennsylvania.

This week a remarkable delegation visited the Vatican to meet with officials about the 2015 event, led by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a Democrat, along with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia. (Both Corbett and Nutter are Catholic, and on Wednesday Nutter gave Francis a jersey from the Jesuit high school the mayor attended.)

The obvious agenda was to pitch Francis on coming to Philadelphia, and while the Vatican won’t ever confirm a trip this far away, the signals look encouraging.

God knows the church in Philly could use the shot in the arm.

Chaput, who arrived in Philadelphia from Denver in 2011, has been struggling to right the ship in the wake of two separate grand jury investigations related to clerical sexual abuse, the first-ever indictment of a senior church official for failure to protect children, and massive deficits that have forced the closure of parishes and schools and even the sell-off of the archbishop’s residence.

Locals are pulling out all the stops to persuade Francis to make the trip, including a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #PopeInPhilly. There’s much at stake, because the presence or absence of the pope is the difference between an insider Catholic event that might draw a few thousand folks, and a major national happening that might bring out 1 or 2 million.

At the moment, the leading theory is that if Francis comes to Philadelphia in September 2015, the trip would likely be bundled with a stop in New York to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. The pontiff probably couldn’t avoid also making a stop in Washington, especially after House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to him to address a joint session of Congress.

On the Vatican end, the top official responsible for the 2015 event is Italian Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family. He met with Corbett, Nutter, Chaput and the rest of the Philadelphia delegation this week, and afterwards he spoke to the Globe.

Q&A with Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia

Globe: How likely is it that Pope Francis will be in Philadelphia?

Paglia: If you look at how welcoming he was to the delegation today, it certainly makes one think he’d like to come. Both the governor and the mayor had a long time to talk with him. Given that human warmth, along with the importance of the theme of the family and how focused the Catholic church now is on it, I think it’s reasonable to imagine the presence of the pope in Philadelphia. That said, these trips are never confirmed more than four or five months in advance, and I don’t want to speak for the pope. We have to leave him the freedom to make the decision himself.

Globe: If he does come, it would be the first time in his life that Francis has visited the United States. Do you think that might be an extra reason he’d be inclined to do it?

Paglia: Certainly that’s an additional reason to do it, though I believe the fundamental point is how important the theme of the family is to Pope Francis and to the church. I think all these reasons contribute to an environment in which it’s okay to hope for a positive decision.

Globe: You also know that the pope has been invited to address a joint session of the American Congress. Does that also make the trip more likely?

Paglia: It adds to the weight of the moment. I can tell you the pope is well aware of the attention being given to the possibility of his coming, not just in the archdiocese but throughout American society.

Globe: When talk turns to the family in American politics, people often assume it’s all about the press for gay marriage. Are you at all concerned that this event could be misunderstood as a huge anti-gay-marriage rally?

Paglia: I want to do everything possible to avoid falling into that trap, because this isn’t an ideological exercise. I hope what we can do is to lift up the hopes and the anguish, the joys and the fears, of real concrete families. There are millions and millions of elderly persons, young adults, children, babies, immigrants, and so on, all around the world, who depend on their families. The family is not an abstract idea. It’s something that everyone experiences, and our greatest effort must be to lift up the world’s most beautiful and most important source of human solidarity.

This is not a political rally. The World Meeting of Families never has been, and it isn’t now, a demonstration against someone or something. It’s a meeting of thousands of men and women who want to testify to the beauty and the possibilities of the family. It’s also a chance to enter into dialogue with all Christian traditions and all religious traditions who share our interest. I hope we can have a frank dialogue with the American media so they see this clearly.

Globe: What do you hope will be the most important result from the event?

Paglia: Obviously, what we’re trying to promote is a sort of springtime for the family, a renewal of the family across the entire world. When families are strong, they give life in a very concrete way to the all of society. We’d also like to raise the cultural profile of the issues facing the family. Ideally, we can help promote the same centrality that Pope Francis has given to the family in the Catholic church in other institutions, such as politics, the economy, cultural institutions, and the legal system.

Globe: During his comments at the Vatican press conference on Tuesday, Archbishop Charles Chaput said the event is especially important for Philadelphia because of the way it’s been affected by the sexual abuse scandals. Are you aware of how much impact those scandals have had in Philadelphia and other parts of the United States?

Paglia: We’ve certainly spoken about it. The World Meeting of Families actually can be very sensitive to it, because in a way the scandals have caused a weakening of the sense of family within the Christian community. It’s important that we foster co-responsibility, mutual support, reciprocal respect, and honesty as part of a family spirit in the church, which I hope in some way can help heal the wounds of the past.

Globe: If Pope Francis does come to the United States next year, do you believe he understands that he’d have to address the sexual abuse scandals?

Paglia: I believe so, and I think the sensitivity of the pope on this issue is very clear. The recent creation of a new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors is already a sign of that concern. If he comes to America, I’m sure the pope wouldn’t fail to take account of how important all this is.

Bishops on the Border to push immigration reform

American Catholic bishops often complain about media bias in styling them as “partisan”, which in their case usually means pro-Republican. The bishops insist that if one looks at all the issues they care about, from immigration reform and overseas development to abortion and gay marriage, it’s clear they’re not in anybody’s pocket.

Here’s the usual reply from media types: As soon as we see you guys putting the same energy into those other issues as you do the antiabortion agenda, we’ll reconsider.

This week a group of nine Catholic bishops are aiming to do just that, by staging a series of dramatic made-for-TV events on both sides of the US/Mexico border to show their support for immigration reform. It’s a matter of both humanitarian and practical concern for the bishops, given that fully one-third of the 70 million Catholics in America today are Hispanic, many of them recent immigrants.

The prelates say the purpose of the outing is “to bring attention to the human consequences of a broken immigration system and call upon the US Congress to act to fix the system.”

Led by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, whose own pastoral roots lie in work with Latino immigrants and refugees in Washington’s Centro Católico Hispano in the 1970s, the bishops are gathering in an area on the border between Arizona and Mexico where scores of migrants have died trying to make the crossing. (The US Border Patrol pegs the death count at 6,000 over the last 15 years, though many observers believe the real number is much higher.)

The trip will culminate on Tuesday morning with a Mass in the desert near Nogales, Arizona, and the laying of a wreath to commemorate the dead. The bishops have invited media organizations to tag along, and will hold a press conference after the Tuesday Mass.

The bishops are consciously imitating Pope Francis, who traveled on July 8 to the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa to show his solidarity with immigrants. The island is a major point of arrival for impoverished migrants from Africa and the Middle East seeking to reach Europe, and some 20,000 are believed to have died over the last two decades trying to make the crossing.

During that trip, his first outside Rome as pope, Francis laid a wreath in the sea for the dead and also delivered a speech blasting what he called the “globalization of indifference” to immigrants.

“The US-Mexico border is our Lampedusa,” said Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio L. Elizondo of Seattle, a Mexican-born prelate who serves as chair of the US bishops’ Committee on Migration. “Migrants in this hemisphere try to reach it, but often die in the attempt.”

In addition to O’Malley and Elizondo, the bishops taking part are:

►Bishop Gerald Kicanas, Tucson, Arizona

►Bishop John Wester, Salt Lake City, Utah

►Bishop Mark Seitz, El Paso, Texas

►Bishop Cirilo Flores, San Diego, Calfornia

►Bishop Oscar Cantú, Las Cruces, New Mexico

►Bishop Ricardo Ramirez, Las Cruces, New Mexico (retired)

►Auxiliary Bishop Luis Rafael Zarama Pasqualetto, Atlanta, Georgia

Francis is a pope of the social gospel, of special concern for the poor, and there’s been an undercurrent of speculation for a while now about how much enthusiasm American bishops might feel about those priorities. This week’s outing would suggest that these nine prelates, at any rate, have gotten the memo.

John L. Allen Jr. is a Globe associate editor, covering global Catholicism. He may be reached at john.allen@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JohnLAllenJr and on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/JohnLAllenJr.

.