The rumors that Humanae Vitae is going to be revised and undermined seems it is becoming a reality...Edward Pentin is not the kind of vaticanist journalist that likes to exaggerate things so I think the issue is real - the attackers of Humanae Vitae are going for it and they are advancing faster than we think. Their approach seems to be to show sensibility and great appreciation towards HV but in order to undermine it even more... Humanae Vitae Comes Under Fire Posted by Edward Pentin on Monday Sep 11th, 2017 at 5:48 PM COMMENTARY: Recent developments in Rome indicate a campaign is underway to challenge the encyclical’s prohibition against artificial contraception. VATICAN CITY — Half way through the first synod on the family, when it was becoming clear that heterodox agendas were being pursued in heavy-handed and deceptive ways, a well-respected Church figure took me aside at a reception with a pained expression on her face. “Of course, you realize this is all aboutHumanae Vitae,” she said. “That’s what I think they’re after. That is their goal.” What she meant was that the many dissenters of Blessed Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical wanted the Church’s ban on artificial contraception — which Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth) reaffirmed — softened and ultimately undermined. At the time, her prediction seemed plausible, but too speculative. The synod participants didn’t seem too exercised by the issue, and Humanae Vitae was largely left alone, at least directly. German-speaking prelates, who took a leading role in the controversies during both synods on the family, even spoke warmly of the encyclical at a closing press conference of the second synod. But as the Church prepares to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae in 2018, the recent revelation of a four-member stealth commission to study the document — and other subtle and less subtle attempts to weaken the Church’s moral teaching — are making the concerns of the Church figure at the 2014 synod look ominously prescient. In his encyclical, Paul VI re-affirmed the Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception, approved natural family-planning methods, and upheld the Church’s teaching on conjugal love and responsible parenthood. It caused a sensation when published: In the wake of the sexual revolution — when much of the world had accepted birth control — and after a five-year study by a pontifical commission that appeared to be vying for the Church to also approve it, Paul VI’s reaffirmation that contraceptive use is “intrinsically wrong” made it one of the most controversial encyclicals in Church history. Immediately, many clerics and academics outright rejected Humanae Vitae’s teachings. And yet many, particularly those who have devoted their lives to defending life, vigorously uphold Humanae Vitaeas prophetic. They argue that the widespread acceptance of artificial birth control, revolutionized by the contraceptive pill for women, has separated the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual relations. This, in turn, has fueled the sexualization of culture and promiscuity now prevalent in the West, precipitating legalized abortion, the collapse of marriage, and inflicting deep harm on the family. By contrast, the encyclical’s dissenters have pressured the Church for its teaching on artificial contraception to be loosened, arguing it is unrealistic, out of touch with people’s lives, and needs “updating.” A 2014 poll of Catholics in five countries by left-leaning broadcaster Univision found that 78% supported artificial contraception. Now, dissenters — who today hold positions of influence and enjoy support from some in the highest ranks of the Church — appear to be viewing the upcoming anniversary as a golden opportunity, half a century in the making. Evidence to show that efforts are underway to exploit this opportunity is not hard to discover. One of the most visible has been the creation earlier this year of the four-member commission, quietly established by the Vatican with the Pope’s approval, to study Humanae Vitae. The commission was never formally announced: The veteran Vatican correspondent Marco Tosatti first reported rumors of it, and the Vatican only confirmed its existence after the Italian website Corrispondenza Romana was able to verify the rumorsin June, after it obtained a classified memorandum, circulated by Archbishop Giovanni Becciu, the sostituto or deputy, secretary of state. The memorandum states that the commission is to “promote a comprehensive and authoritative study” of the encyclical to coincide with the anniversary and listed its four members. They include Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo, the commission coordinator who is professor of theological anthropology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, and Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, appointed dean of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute last year. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, was the first to publicly defend the commission’s work after news of it was leaked, telling Catholic New Agency that the initiative aimed at “studying and deepening” the encyclical. But he denied it was a “commission” whose purpose was to “reread or reinterpret” the document. Msgr. Marengo further played down its influence, explaining its purpose is simply to carry out a “work of historical-critical investigation,” reconstructing the “whole process of composing the encyclical.” Continues here http://m.ncregister.com/54483/d#.WbktJEGxXYU
You can bet on it happening, just like everything else under Pope Francis' minions. So cunning is he that he leaves all of this underhanded work of dissension to be orchasreared by his puppet cardinals, bishops and priests. This way he doesn't take the upfront criticism, but gets what he wants in the end. The method he employs is so consistent now that no one with their eyes open can help but see.
Stephen Walford's writings have become 'no go' areas for most posters on this thread but for the benefit of the guest readers, let me mention a new piece from him at: http://www.lastampa.it/2017/09/13/v...an-problem-zWxS6HqNGDSjgeyqkH6xAI/pagina.html Here are a few paragraphs from the article: For the majority of Catholics, I would suggest, Pope Francis is a prophet in the truest sense of the word; one who has put heart and soul into carrying out the divine mandate he has been given. Yet prophets always leave one uneasy. They invariably come with a message many do not want to hear; they pierce the conscience in a way others do not, and they appear like a comet, ready to cause havoc for the unprepared. This, of course, explains why they usually end up wearing the crown of martyrdom. The key distinguishing feature of these luminous figures is a steely courage, and a focus that cares not for worldly adulation or concern about possible persecution. No, they come in the name of God in order to sweep clean the historical path that leads to eschatological newness. Prophets are also sent at specific times; times when the people of God have turned away, or are sleeping in a “safe” and cosy Christianity that is oblivious to the sufferings of the poor or the outcasts of society. They come with two main messages linked to salvation history: justice and mercy. But as the Crucified Christ shows, God’s justice is manifest in divine mercy, “where sin abounds, grace even more abounds!” The prophet’s message therefore will always contain a message of hope, based on God’s desire to bring salvation to all. If we take authentic private revelation into consideration, alongside many prophetic statements of a succession of popes, then we begin to understand that we live in a Kairos of mercy; a season of advent that will eventually lead, in God’s own time, to the making of all things new. Anyone who has studied Divine Mercy in my Soul by St. Faustina Kowalska cannot fail to see this momentous element. Indeed, St. John Paul II while dedicating the new Shrine of Divine Mercy in 2002, recalled Jesus’ famous prophecy about a “spark from Poland” that “will prepare the world for my final coming”, calling it a “binding promise.”
This has to be a wind up. Pope Francis is no more a sign of contradiction than a pig in a pig sty. It would be difficult to imagine a more conformist world figure than Francis
lol, what? Yes.....Francis the prophet, for some reason I don't think that's how he'll be remembered. Also, how does this man simultaneously say that the majority of Catholics think of him as a prophet and that prophets aren't received in their time?! Double think, much? Or is it just the pride of him thinking that he is in the know of what God's plan is? Unbelievable.
Here's a wee article on the said Mr Walford that is quite revealing: https://dsdoconnor.com/stephen-walf...-and-the-polish-canadian-and-african-bishops/
Oh no, how mistaken you are. The tremendous opposition to him on this forum would not be possible if he were a conformist!! He is upsetting many of the religious people just as Jesus did 2000 years ago.
Your laughter means you don't think that Francis is upsetting many who call themselves Catholic?? Pope Francis is indeed providing the same challenge to Catholics as Jesus did to the Jews of his time.
Oh, wait, you are serious. Everyone is in love with the man where I'm at...Father at the Newman Center thinks that he's finally doing things that should have been done a long time ago, opening up the Church, blah blah blah
en.news 5 hours ago Pope Francis: Forbidden Question After Dubia Cardinal Carlo Caffarra's death on the first day of the Apostolic Journey to Colombia, Pope Francis let the journalists, who accompanied him, know, that he would not accepted any question regarding Caffarra during the press conference in the plane on his way back to Rome. The Italian blog Anonimi della Croce writes, that Francis was afraid of the question why he did not answer the doubts ("dubia") of the four Cardinals concerning his controversial document Amoris Laetitia.
I don't think we should indulge in basically laughing at the Pope, as maybe some are doing here indirectly? He does challenge and disturb people, its true, but maybe actually that is a good thing sometimes? Maybe some people, like the 4 dubia Cardinals, are/were more vigilant and more vocal in defence of Church teaching since Pope Francis arrived because they have been so disturbed, hence we can see how good is being drawn out of this confusion?
Not laughing at the Pope but Laughing at the concept that he is upsetting Religious people like Jesus did 2000 years ago Absurd
In defense of the "religious people" I would say that they are hardly comparable to the Pharisees of 2000 ago - people like JPII, St Padre Pio, St Faustina Kowalska, St JoseMaria, St Mother Theresa, St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict, and many other blessed or sanity figures of the XX century fully embraced the Doctrine, the Sacred Doctrine handed on to them from the Church - they embraced it till it hurt - and they exhorted others to do the same. Like the people of The Roman Empire, the Pharisees wanted Jesus to be more accommodating of worldly and very understandable demands from a human perspective, human positive laws (not divine revelation), such as the possibility to divorce and remain in good terms with God, which Moses allowed "because of their hardness of heart". That is for instance sth both Pharisees and Roman society had in common - strict fulfillment of the laws while accommodating human basic passions. However Jesus dramatically said no and went even further, by attacking sin at its root (i.e. when he refers to committing adultery in your heart). That is why the comparison between 'religious people' and the Pharisees is so odd. But defending the truth handed on to them by the Church and living according to it (or attempting to) usually comes with the condemnation and scandal of the world - now it seems it also comes with the condemnation of high prelates in the Church itself. The 'pharisee' namecalling is but a much perfected and very well disguised form of scapegoating. It is interestin to note that those same accusations (including that of "rigidity" and "lack of pastoral concern" and "breaking the unity of the Church") were used by the Arian bishops against the laity in the 4th century, including Pope Liberius - as told by Cardinal Newman, the Arians were the merciful, the ones really willin to compromise in orther to find a solution that will keep the Church together and avoid a conflict among the laity. The parallelism with the present is staggering - yet we don't have the perspective of time to judge as we are literally in the middle of this confusing fog.
Ok, so, coming out of Protestantism....what I'm hearing from Francis' reign is a gradual Protestanization of ideas like sin, Salvation, Hell, gravity, and something like Sola Fidé being hinted at under the guise of "mercy".
Protestantism simply can not find a way around the tangle of sin. Sure, one repents of sin to *become* a Christian, but if you teach that present sin in Christ can not damn you to Hell or condemn you, beyond a pure and unselfish love of God, what truly motivates a soul to avoid sin? If you go to Heaven no matter what, why worry about remarriage, pornography, lying, vanity, greed, or materialism? None of these activities can send you to Hell, as we're saved by grace alone through faith alone, and nothing we do or fail to do ultimately contributes to our final place of residence. I can hear something similar developing from the Vatican. Replace "faith" with "mercy", and you've basically got the same idea.
God always draws good out of a situation because He is ALL Good, and deserving of All Our Love. However, I reject outright that a Pope has to challenge and disturb Catholics.
