Even the secular press are covering the so called 'Catholic civil war'. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9361502/watch-out-pope-francis-the-catholic-civil-war-has-begun/
That was one of Francis' first headline comments as Pope. since then he has repeatedly supported all 'life' issues. Aborted babies have nothing to fear. Aborting mothers, fathers, doctors, and abortion advocating politicians have everthing to fear. Their souls may be lost forever if they do not repent. What do we want, what do we really want in this regard? Justice or mercy? What we want for others is what we will receive. I am afraid, I am very, very, very afraid.
As I say, it is not as simple as you put it above "If you were divorced from civil marriage you can recieve sacraments. (In Gods eyes you were never married in church)." Canonically "clean" is not to be confused with being free of mortal sin. Canonically "unclean" is not to be confused with committing mortal sin. The right to reception or non-reception of Communion hinges on a bit more than the Canon Law regarding Catholic Marriage.
Then what is your point other than you like Cardinal Burke more than Pope Francis since you back your point of view with disparaging articles about our Pope and a rather sycophantic/beyond critical following of C. Burke? Since Pope Francis has been vehement in purifying the positions of authority of the Church of anyone who may be seen as keeping a lid on the question of the abuse scandal while in such positions in the past....hiding or giving the impression that this scandal was simply due to priests "not following Canon law" rather than seeing the depth of disgust and horror against the law of God Himself, he is more than likely making a judgement about just who should represent the Church in its highest position of judgement. Thus it only makes it prudent for any Pope to choose those who will represent him, be a loyal collaborator with him, without a division, of spirit if nothing else. And C. Burke's outspoken public proclamations of his version of what the Pope can and cannot do going at least as far back as various interviews of last spring make him accountable then for his own dismissal. Then why would you even use Pell as an example that would fit BH's "criteria" when he obviously doesn't.
I think this is a good angle Fatima. Its interesting that the Church, like global warming and sunspots, has always had a waxing/waning cycle on this reality - now pure small and holy, now broadly gathering into her arms all and sundry...that as many as possible may be saved according to the times. Different times/breads require different amounts of leaven for all to rise I suppose. In this connection I recently came across a little known yet ancient Latin title of the Church as "Casta Meretrix". It translates, if you will excuse the political incorrectness to modern pious ears, as "Chaste Courtesan" (or as some might put it, "Pure Prostitute.") It expresses the contradictory reality that the Holy Church in some way has to, materially at least,"get dirty" if it is to save sinners wallowing in the mire. This is a difficult reality to understand/accept in the right way, even Padraig has been going on pejoratively about ... yet there is a very real sense in which this is correctly said of the Church if it is to be effective in its mission to poor sinners. Yet the Pharisee in each of us finds this so hard to accept....as they too were unaccepting of Jesus's "selling out" to sinners. We are a Church of ongoing sinners who are purified and kept holy regardless by staying within the bark of Peter. Yet, if we are honest, few of us actually live that. Deep down, emotionally, we live like we are already canonised, believe ourselves holy and pure by our own hard work and that Communion with a feeling of justification/closeness to God is our fair and just reward...and its not fair that the riff-raff get to enjoy with less effort the same lollies Jesus gave us.
You obviously know very little if anything about the abuse scandal. Nobody did more to clean up the mess than BXVI. Nobody. And he did it with the assistance of good men like Burke. The abuse scandal was at its root a homosexual abuse scandal and BXVI knew that and said homosexuals are not to be admitted to seminaries. Period. Pope Francis blithely reversed that prudent decision with his "who am I to judge" nonsense." And he has appointed known homosexuals to important positions (Vatican bank) and known dissenters on homosexual issues (Bruno Forte) to important positions in the Synod. It's no coincidence that Forte, a known dissenter on homosexuality, was purposely placed in a position to insert pro homosexual paragraphs in the interim relatio. Because I no more fit BH's nonsense criteria than Pell, Schneider or Burke. Sometimes you gotta point out nonsense with nonsense.
When Pope Francis is vehement about acting re: those in authority who attempt to keep the lid on the facts of abuse: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/paraguayan-bishop-who-shielded-priest-abuser-removed-office How then should he keep someone at the highest justice post who is considered by many as somewhat similar with many more examples: http://www.snapnetwork.org/vatican_cardinal_burke_to_be_ousted_by_pope_abuse_victims_respond The dissenters to this Pope's actions who insist on the letter of the law....but not past the binders of the Canon Law book.....should perhaps get up to snuff themselves on the real facts and go beyond any idol worship within the realm of that nasty clericalism. IOW, don't allow the facts to interfere with your personal prejudices.
You quote NCR as if it is authoritative or in any way trustworthy?!? Sorry but I have no common ground with which to have a conversation with someone who quotes that rag with a serious face. Again, you don't know of what you speak, only of the propaganda you've read. I've served as a victims advocate at the diocesan level. I've interviewed victims and helped them navigate the system. I've also been involved in getting rid of abusive homosexual clerics, for which efforts the local diocese labelled me and those I was working with "enemies of the diocese." I've known priests who were credibly accused, and I've helped priests who were falsely accused. And if you honestly think anything you've read from NCR or SNAP has any reflection in the reality of the clergy abuse crisis you are simply deluded.
Brian what are you even on about? What criteria about what? At least deal with an accurate grasp of what people actually write ... otherwise your contributions are meaningless shadow-boxing .
The same facts have been reported in whatever your choice of reportage so don't hide behind another one of your prejudices, this time of print, when you can't deny the facts reported. Would you then prefer the Wash. Post, Reuters, NYTimes, Wall Street Journal or http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2004-08-25/news/immaculate-deception/ And if you support those who advocated in any way or used influence for keeping the lid on for any of the abusers then you must not be the greatest "advocate" for the abused out there. Just which of the noted facts of transfer reported by this particular SNAP report do you deny?? And btw, what's wrong with Jean-Baptiste de Franssu, head of Vatican Bank?? You seem to wish to also criticize the Pope's handling of the Vat. Bank as well. And if you are referring to Ricca: According to Magister, the new pontiff hadn’t heard of the scandals surrounding Ricca and saw nothing to give him concern in the man’s Vatican personnel folder. Magister says that some of the pope’s senior advisers, or “bosses,” as he puts it, have “hatched against Jorge Mario Bergoglio the cruelest and most subtle deception since he was elected pope. “They kept in the dark important information that, had he known it before, would have kept him from appointing Monsignor Battista Ricca ‘prelate’ of the Institute for the Works of Religion.” http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/21/Francis-Gay-Scandal ......... But his appointment as prelate of the Vatican Bank is understood to have led to bitterness among “many” persons who “knew about his scandalous past,” and Pope Francis was finally made aware of it, Magister said. He wrote that Pope Francis responded to the information with “sadness over having been kept in the dark with regard to such grave matters and the intention to remedy the appointment he had made.” Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...rounding-vatican-bank-appointee#ixzz3Id6d1lws
BrianK.....about your "who am I to judge nonsense"..... The full quote so conveniently limited by the Pope dissenters: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"
And now the full quote in its proper context, and compared to the perennial teachings of the Church: Pope Francis gave a surprising response to reporters who asked him, essentially, what his views are on homosexual priests. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" the Holy Father answered in Italian. Which must be compared to the teaching Magisterium: Pope, in book, says homosexuality incompatible with priesthood In his new book, Pope Benedict XVI strongly reaffirmed church teaching that homosexual acts are "disordered" and said homosexuality itself is "incompatible" with the priesthood. The pope's comments came in his new book-interview, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times," which was published Nov. 23. This is the constant teaching of the Church. Homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. From Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders Congregation for Catholic Education: Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.7 In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question,9 cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called ‘gay culture’. Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
Again, context: July 28, 2013: Pope downplays "gay lobby". During the press conference in the return flight from Brazil, the Pope is asked about Msgr. Ricca. He says the following: In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?As it can be seen, the now famous "Who am I to judge?" was indeed a specific answer to Sandro Magister's accusation, and to the "gay lobby" expression mentioned by the Pope himself to CLAR. The previous pope handed a 300 page dossier to this pope about, among other things, the homosexual infiltration of the Vatican. What has this pope done about it? Promoted men like Forte, Baldiserri and Ricca to positions of power and authority.
BH said to Brian...'Of course that will prob mean you are in informal schism with us and the Church' Well at least your helping fulfill prophecy BH... 'Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics' St Francis.
A bit more general I'm afraid than you would insist upon: "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby," the pope said. "If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (to be homosexual) is not the problem. They are our brothers." Thus the Pope said nothing that would disagree with "deep seated" or "practice" or supporting "agenda". So, keep projecting something that's not there. The term "homosexuality" can assume or not that the activity is completely accepted as normal or inevitable within the person's identity. The "tendency" or "orientation" is something that the Church defines separately for all persons....and to various degrees. It doesn't insist upon some assumed fatalistic inclusion of activity for all such.
I grasp quite well what you wrote in the first quote above. Because you disagree with my position, you attempt to marginalize it by pretending I've said something I've never said, and building on that lie you label your opponent a schismatic who should/will eventually be banned, further stating that your oppent's Faith is lukewarm because they do not agree with you. That's called ad hominem attack and erecting stawmnen. Its an old trick.
He's set far greater example of action, once the evidence is presented to him, than his predecessors and in a very short time from his appointment. He removes even Bishops who have covered and another American bishop is currently under such examination. Sandro Magister is the one who within the context of his investigation and reporting included his conclusion that the Pope was NOT given the evidence and deliberately so and when he was he immediately worked to correct. So take it up with Magister since you are using him, apparently out of his context, for your own points that seem to change each time....re: their various "contexts" of the moment.
You're very confusing and not easy to follow. You imply that the Pope is deliberately acting outside of eternal truths or something and very dangerous, but when called to state where you are going with that opinion you either back away or obfuscate. It sounds then more like gossip than anything really that serious enough for you to act upon. IOW, you don't put your money where your mouth is. Not very courageous.
Utter and complete nonsense. Monsignor Battista Ricca remains in his places of honor and power despite the voluminous evidence against him. Click on "Prelate": https://www.ior.va/en-us/governance.aspx#PersonDetails635
