This morning at mass our priest told us that it was his duty to let us know that even if Pope Francis believes in Civil Unions for homosexuals— the Church absolutely does not— in any way, shape or form. This is a man who usually goes out of his way to be non-confrontational— so I was very pleasantly surprised.
Russia is more christian then any country in the world. I dont like blaming them now. You can blame the cover up.
Looks like the people who said this trailer of the documentary was released to deflect from the sell-out of the Catholics in China were spot on. If we ever again get a faithful Catholic Pope, he will need to organise an exorcism of the entire Vatican city state, starting in the gardens. I don't think we will get a kick-ass Pope, at least not of the faithful kind in the mould of St. Pius X and not in our lifetime. It's pretty clear now, especially in light of the fact that the documentary makers were honoured in the Vatican gardens, that we have a Pope spearheading the attack on Catholic teaching on marriage and the family. Clear, too, that only a handful of Bishops are willing to defend that teaching. I'm not a big follower of private revelation other than the major approved apparitions like Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, but a person would have to be blind not to see this as yet another indication that we are living in the times of the prophesy (was it at La Salette?) that the great apostasy in the Church would begin at the top. The Pope is at the "top" of the Church on earth. Some comments by people familiar with all of the Fatima secrets have intimated that the message of Fatima was along similar lines although they didn't go as far as saying that a Pope will lead the apostasy. We know for sure that Sr. Lucia believed that the final battle against Satan would be over marriage and the family. Pope Francis has consistently encouraged anyone opposing that Church teaching, and he has done so since the year he was elected. Many people recognised his intent in Amoris Laetitia, not least those demanding that the Catholic Church introduce divorce and gay marriage and were very pleased with it, but those who pointed out the danger were denounced by believing Catholics who would rather bury their heads in the sand than face reality. If there are any fence sitting Bishops out there who actually believe what the Church has always taught, they need to stop whitewashing this undermining of the Faith, stop hiding behind supposedly respectful silence, and start defending the Faith openly and unambiguously. Will they be persecuted? Undoubtedly. Will the Catholics who stand with them be persecuted? Yes. Which is better, an easy life on earth or eternity in Hell? The jury's out on whether Pope Francis believes that Hell, if he believes it exists, is empty. Any shepherd leading souls there by his heresy or ambiguous statements, needs to be reminded of what the Church teaches about it before the Cardinals appointed by Pope Francis elect a successor who will change that section of the Catechism. Otherwise, there's a good chance they will spend eternity finding out the hard way that Hell does indeed exist and it is far from empty.
Excellent Dolours. If anyone believes this pope is really orthodox and not out to destroy orthodoxy they are in for a major disappointment. Is he even pro-life. Please don't quote his every other year announcement. What has he done? As Fr Malachi Martin told me, Paul don't listen to what they say watch what they do or don't do. Case closed for this imposter.
UGH. Cardinal O'Malley, forever the apologist. The Cardinal knows exactly what the Holy Father's intentions were when he made that statement. We are not fools. I happened to see this in my Twitter feed this morning... @EricRSammons "Francis apologists demand we consider every papal misstep in isolation, as if it’s the first he committed. That’s like seeing a drip under the sink and saying, “It’s no big deal,” even though there’s a whole puddle formed below. The story is the puddle, not the individual drips."
Catholics Will Convert to Orthodoxy Over Pope’s LGBT Support, Russian Church Predicts https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020...s-lgbt-support-russian-church-predicts-a71828
"Lo que tenemos que hacer es una ley de convivencia civil" = "what we need to make is a law for civil cohabitation". How does that differ from a Civil Union, or does it? Civil union in Spanish is unión civil. I think he chose his words very carefully here, clever man. Edited to add: I listened to the clip from Lifesite News video, the quote above is exactly what Francis said. I teach college-level Spanish, I'm not a native speaker... but there is a term for Civil Union in Spanish and it is Unión Civil. He didn't use that term. But I'm not sure how a law for civil co-habitation would differ from a civil union or why he chose different terminology, I think he's good at playing semantics.
There is so much truth to this! Prior to my conversion to Christianity, one of the biggest problems I had with Christianity was that Christians were very quick to speak out against homosexuality but said nothing about divorce and remarriage which is just as scriptural. That was one of the things that drew me to Catholicism - it was consistent in upholding truth regardless of shifts in culture.
Yes!!! This is a definite and objective given at this point. It’s a useful political tactic. Those who elected him knew he would be good at this, from what I have heard. It fosters ambiguity and confusion within our Church. Jesus, have mercy on us!
It's fairly obvious why he chose that terminology. His Argentinian Bishop friend put out the usual CYA spiel of an explanation published in the National Catholic Register. The next stage will be one or two dioceses permitting ceremonies blessing these unions but they will stress that it isn't a mockery of the Sacrament because they won't call it marriage - not yet. Haven't some of the Bishops closest to him already said that they want such ceremonies.? And it will happen thanks to "those who should speak out" remaining silent. Aren't they the words of another prophecy?
This article from the UK Catholic Herald is helpful in unravelling the confusion about the remarks: https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-roun...nZVfHJoDRh5_Q1tJRJsfKQolGVdywah_L7ToLN4Xu77Es The most salient passages would seem to be these: "Though Afineevsky told multiple news outlets that he himself had conducted the interview, without specifying when, later analysis indicated that the heavily edited comments had actually been taken from a 2019 interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa, in which the Pope stressed that he “doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.” Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ, one of the Pope’s closest communications advisors, told The Associated Press as much at the film’s premiere: “There’s nothing new because it’s a part of that interview,” he said. Still, as the AP noted, Pope Francis’s two sentences “about the need for legal protections for civil unions apparently never aired until the documentary.” The Washington Post said that this notable absence from the original 2019 Vatican transcript and its inclusion in the new film “raises questions about whether the Vatican had initially been uncomfortable with the remarks” just as much as it raises “questions about the filmmakers methods.” It remains impossible to fully answer such questions, of course, without the full context of the sentence on “civil unions” remarks. After all, the Pope’s comments about a homosexual person’s “right to be in a family” turned out originally to have been a simple request that families are welcoming to children with same-sex attraction, not, as The Washington Post speculated, an encouragement to open “adoption or foster programs to same-gender couples”." So, in a nutshell: a) The Pope's words had been taken from an earlier interview and edited by Afineevsky for his documentary and b) 'the right to a family' was a clumsy way of saying 'to be accepted by one's own kinfolk' and not 'the right to adopt or foster children'. This being the case WHY DIDN'T THE VATICAN clarify MUCH earlier what Francis really said and when, and in what context?? Why just leave it out there for the likes of James Martin to attach their own narrative to?
The documentary makers wouldn't have been treated to an award ceremony in the Vatican if the documentary didn't send the precise message the Pope wanted transmitted. And the ceremony would have been cancelled had he been displeased with the headline grabbing trailer.
https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-bergoglio-wishes-to-expel-his-adversaries-from-the-church/ Viganò: Bergoglio Wishes To “Expel His Adversaries from the Church” Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganòOctober 23, 2020 0 Comments Yesterday, on the occasion of the Rome Film Festival, the director Evgeny Afineevsky presented a documentary called Francesco, which proposes several interviews done with Jorge Mario Bergoglio over the course of the last few years of his pontificate. Among other disconcerting statements, there are several about the legitimization of homosexual civil unions: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they [homosexuals] are legally covered. I stood up for that.” I think that both the simple faithful as well as bishops and priests feel betrayed by what Bergoglio has affirmed. It is not necessary to be theologians to understand that the approval of civil unions is in clear contradiction of the Magisterial documents of the Church, including recent ones. Such approval also constitutes a very grave “assist” to the LGBTQ ideology which today is being imposed on the global level. In the coming days the Italian Parliament will be discussing the approval of the so-called Zan law [against so-called “homophobia”] proposed by the Democratic Party (PD). In the name of protecting homosexuals and trans-sexuals, it will be considered a crime to affirm that the natural family is the building block of human society, and those who affirm that sodomy is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance will be punished. Bergoglio’s words have already been received by the gay lobby worldwide as an authoritative support for their claims. Carefully reading Bergoglio’s statements, someone has already observed that it does not include an approval of homosexual marriage, but only a gesture of welcome – perhaps poorly formulated – towards those who ask the secular state for juridical protection. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already unequivocally clarified that in no case may a Catholic approve of civil unions, because they constitute a legitimization of public concubinage and are only a step towards the legal recognition of so-called homosexual marriages. So much so that in Italy today it is even possible for people of the same sex to “marry” each other, after having been assured for years – even by self-styled Catholic politicians – that [civil unions] would in no way question marriage as it is defined in the Italian Constitution. After all, experience teaches us that when Bergoglio says something, he does it with a very precise purpose: to make others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers all over the world are announcing today: “The Pope Approves Gay Marriage” – even if technically this is not what he said. But this was exactly the result that he and the Vatican gay lobby wanted. Then the Vatican Press Office will perhaps say that what Bergoglio said was misunderstood, that this was an old interview, and that the Church reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. But the damage has been done, and even any steps backwards from the scandal that has been stirred up will ultimately be a step forward in the direction of mainstream thought and what is politically correct. Let us not forget the nefarious results of his famous utterance in 2013 – “Who am I to judge?” – which earned him a place on the cover of The Advocate along with the title “Man of the Year.” Bergoglio has declared: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.” All the baptized are children of God: this is what the Gospel teaches. But these children may be either good or evil, and if they break God’s Commandments, the fact that they are His children will not prevent them from being punished, just as an Italian who steals does not avoid going to prison solely because of the fact that he is a citizen of the nation where he commits the crime. The Mercy of God does not prescind from Justice, and if we think of how in order to redeem us the Lord shed His Blood on the Cross, we cannot but strive for holiness, conforming our behavior to His will. Our Lord has said: “You are my friends, if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:14). If familial or social exclusion results from provocative behaviors or from ideological claims that cannot be shared – I am thinking of Gay Pride – this is only the result of an attitude of challenge, and thus such exclusion has its origin in those who use that attitude to hurt their neighbor. If instead that discrimination results only from being a person who behaves like everyone else with respect for others and without any imposition of one’s own lifestyle, it should be rightly condemned. We know very well that what the homosexualist lobby wants to obtain is not the integration of normal and honest people but rather the imposition of seriously sinful, socially destabilizing models of life that have always been exploited to demolish the family and society. It is no coincidence that the promotion of the homosexual agenda is part of the globalist project, in conjunction with the destruction of the natural family. One of the most ardent supporters of the LGBTQ agenda and of the indiscriminate welcoming of homosexuals in the Church, the Jesuit James Martin, has been made a Consultor in the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See. As soon as the news came out about Bergoglio’s statements, Martin stormed social media with tweets, expressing his uncontainable satisfaction with this action which, in contrast, scandalized the majority of the faithful. Along with father Martin, there are cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, and other clerics who belong to the so-called “lavender mafia.” Some of these have been investigated and condemned for very grave crimes, almost always linked to homosexual environments. How can we think that a clique of homosexuals in the command post does not have every interest in pushing Bergoglio to defend a vice that they share and practice? In fact, I would say that it is part of Bergoglio’s intended behavior that he plays with equivocation and provocation – such as when he said, “God is not Catholic,” or when he leaves it to others to finish a discourse which he initiates. We have seen this with Amoris Laetitia: although he did not clearly contradict Catholic doctrine on the impossibility of the divorced and remarried accessing the Sacraments, he allowed other bishops to do so, later approving their statements and stubbornly remaining silent in response to the Dubia of the four Cardinals. It may be asked: why would the Pope act in this way, especially when his predecessors were always very clear on moral matters? I do not know what Bergoglio has in mind: I limit myself to making sense of his actions and words. And I think I can affirm that what emerges is an attitude that is deliberately two-faced and Jesuitical. Behind all of his utterances there is the effort to arouse the reaction of the healthy part of the Church, provoking it with heretical statements, with disconcerting gestures, with documents that contradict the Magisterium. And at the same time, his statements please his supporters, above all non-Catholics and those who are Catholic in name only. By dint of provoking, he hopes that some bishop will grow tired of daily feeling afflicted by his doctrine and morals; he hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his deposition. And by doing so, Bergoglio would have the pretext of accusing these prelates of being “enemies of the Pope,” of placing themselves outside the Church, of wanting a schism. Obviously, it is not those who want to remain faithful to the Magisterium who separate themselves from the Church: this would be absurd. Read the rest at the link
The same people claim that if one is born a man, one is not 'born that way' and may instantly become a woman, if that's the way one feels. If biological anatomy is so easily mutable, surely behaviour is something that can be much more easily acquired?
Gotta hand it to Archbishop Vigano. He has the measure of this dreadful Pope and the diabolical agenda being implemented in Christ's Church. Think I'll start praying that the God of Surprises arranges an expose of the St. Gallen/Catholic Spring group(s).
Unfortunately, because the Church has let artificial contraceptors off the hook in recent decades and has tended to focus its condemnations solely on the homosexuals, it now provides a plausible reason for the secularists to accuse the Church of discriminating against homosexuals. This would not be so plausible if heterosexuals were getting it in the neck just as much as homosexuals for 'spilling semen'.
