Here, I have partially copied post 15382. I just wanted to say that I printed out Cardinal Zen's letter and began reading it to my wife. In doing so I started weeping tears of both great sorrow and anger. We can discuss heresy 'til we're blue in the face. For my Church to make secret pacts that contribute to the direct persecution of its own members and then refuse to respond to a faithful cardinal's questioning letter is simply diabolical. If anything would drive me from the Church, it would be this: complicity in the face of persecution! Psalm 80:7 Restore us, O God of hosts; let thy face shine, that we may be saved! 8 Thou didst bring a vine out of Egypt; thou didst drive out the nations and plant it. 9 Thou didst clear the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land. 10 The mountains were covered with its shade, the mighty cedars with its branches; 11 it sent out its branches to the sea, and its shoots to the River. 12 Why then hast thou broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit? 13 The boar from the forest ravages it, and all that move in the field feed on it. 14 Turn again, O God of hosts! Look down from heaven, and see; have regard for this vine, 15 the stock which thy right hand planted. 16 They have burned it with fire, they have cut it down; may they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance! Lord have mercy!
I just wanted to say that my sentence above was "exaggeration to make a point". I will be a faithful Catholic unto death! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I have never hit a woman my entire life and may God forgive me but some of them were asking for it. I doubt I ever will. Hitting women is bad news, no matter what the provocation. Maybe I am old fashioned on this. But I don't think there's ever an excuse for it. His so called apology struck me as less contrition as self rationalisation and justification. He was kinda saying everybody does things like this some time or other. But many men have never hit a woman. Many, many men. Plus the look on his face after he hit her was not good, not good at all. I'd like to give the guy a break but I'm being honest. Hitting women is a big turn off for me. I don't think it is ever justified. God give us feet so we can walk away. He should have used his feet to walk away. Men can hit men. Women can hit other women and men. A man, a real man, will never hit a woman. Period. This should have ome naturally to him. He shouldn't have to even think about it. Plus he wasn't just any guy hitting a woman. He was a Pope hitting a woman.
Yes it's his face that says everything. He is not annoyed he is furious. He looks scary. The mask slipped
You're right, but I hate being down on him the whole time. Like you, I have never hit a woman and couldn't envisage doing so. That a pope should do so, and in public to make it even more scandalous, must surely be a first. Then again, he is also the first pope to pay homage to idols. Just as his Pachamama antics were terminal for his relationship with serious Catholics, this incident might be equally damaging for his love-in with the secularists.
My son just returned from a Knights meeting. The priest in charge said that the Archdiocese of Washington is down 6,000 members since the October census. I just read your reference to the Pachamama scandal and I am now thinking there is a correlation.
A new commandment? 'Our duty is to obey international institutions', such as the UN and EU. That's the UK excommunicated then, for starters. Where is this all going to end?
this is all going to end when the Church becomes very small yet very holy. And then we rise again. In the meantime, we have a lot of wood to chop so gird the loins, brother, and start chopping
Has anyone ever considered the possibility of a future union between Church and state (following Pope Francis' policy) which would make the true religion clandestine
It looks like a face of thunder!! He slapped 3 times in 3 different videos in you tube at different times. He has the form.
I understand what everyone is saying, but then the Pope is under a microscope...and one can stop the camera at any point to show the most dastardly of expressions! There are two positions I would never accept in today's "instant news" world: a politician and/or a pope. Never! Remember, among popes, this constant in your face coverage only began with John Paul II. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
He is under a microscope but much of it was self-inflicted. The difference between now and the papacy of John Paul 11 is that JP11 didn't go looking for attention. Young, naturally charismatic, from a Communist country and unashamedly anti-Communist, the first non-Italian pope in centuries, it would have been impossible for the press to ignore or write him off as a has-been. And he was a godsend to the Western powers seeking an end to the cold war. He even survived a serious assassination attempt. Naturally, the press made the most of him, especially in the years before his illness took hold. Pope Benedict didn't get the same kind of media celebrity. He wasn't so young, his election wasn't a surprise, a non-Italian was no longer a novelty, and not only was he orthodox but he was German and orthodox. Pope Francis didn't have the papacy thrust upon him. He sought it. Then he courted the press with his supposedly off-the cuff comments, controversial photo-ops, attention grabbing Vatican gimmicks, and love-in with everything and eveyone his predecessors had opposed. People who court the media have to keep on delivering, otherwise, the same adoring media will turn on them. Thus far, from a secularist media point of view, Pope Francis has promised a lot more than he has delivered. If he doesn't deliver something concrete soon, they will turn on him. Let's hope that his post-Amazonian Synod document isn't the pay-off they have been waiting for since his election.
The entire church is IMO. There isn't a thing done good or bad that is not under a microscope and hyper analyzed by the media. Constant accusations are levied and spun. I think in general there has been a civility practiced in most of the media in regards to some things which by their station appeared to be considered above reproach. The Church being one of them but that has been revoked it seems and now the media is constantly accusing. I have wondered why is it that God has allowed this? When did it begin? That might be a better question and it may help answer the first. I don't have the answers but I observe that this is a common theme now among most positions of authority. It's pretty easy to see that she certainly was in the wrong to have grabbed him like this. He however never should have slapped at her in response, it was a purely emotional reaction unbecoming a man of peace, unbecoming a man of his position and he should have had the stoic composure to act instead in a dignified and measured way yet he did not. Would any of us have acted differently? I hope so but I can say that when I have bad days and don't sleep well, or am hungry and when I am in a lot of pain I struggle in situations such as this. I am not scrutinized or in a position of great authority though. To his credit he did say that he regretted his action in hindsight. Let's hope that in the future he has the peace and composure to not react but act instead in a measured and loving way.
I don't think we have to do any chopping. These people seem to be sitting on the end of their branch and are busily sawing away their connection to the tree.
