Another intended gossip piece that turns a serious expression of our Pope into mockery... and we know how Pope Francis characterizes gossip....oh, forgot, you don't listen to him because he doesn't fit your personal description of "humility"....ha!
It seems appropriate to add into the discussion here from the Crux website in June. Here is a quote from it: Pope Francis has not done or said anything to indicate that he thinks the moral law does not apply to all. He bases his own understanding directly on that of John Paul, referring back to his remarks distinguishing between the “law of gradualness” and “gradualness of the law.” In Familaris Consortio 34, Saint John Paul wrote, “what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.” Gradualness of the law means that what is objectively wrong for some is not objectively wrong for others, whereas the law of gradualness means that while the objective demands are the same for everyone, there are various mitigating circumstances that might lessen the culpability of someone as they begin the process of conversion. Pope Francis has not called heretical those who believe in the objectivity of the law, but those who deny that there is a legitimate law of gradualness. It is this law of gradualness that underlies his entire remarks regarding what he terms “irregular marriages” in Amoris Laetitiae. In fact, Pope Francis says that as part of conversion, the person in question cannot claim that their state is objectively moral (AL 297). They may not yet realize that it is immoral, but the community must speak the truth in love. No one can say that something always immoral is, on the other hand, moral for some people. However, the reality is that the situation exists, and how to begin to rectify it will take on various forms, and with a competent confessor or spiritual director they are to be guided to an “awareness of their situation before God” (AL 300). This is not anything radically new. In a 1997 document from the Pontifical Council for the Family entitled “Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life,” the same reality of mitigating factors and subjective culpability is present along with the acknowledgment that the law is objective. https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/
But in either case the True Pope , when he is elected will let us know where to go and what to do. It will be a wonderful change having a Catholic as Pope again. May God grant us he be a Great Saint... and not give out any press conferences in air planes. Please God. Please.
I always thought such a "concession" would be one demanded by the state....like forcing the clergy to reveal information over the seal of the confessional or marrying gays, etc. Otherwise it would be a demand made by the Clergy to the Clergy which doesn't seem to fit such a prediction....unless it meant "false" clergy vs "true" clergy which also doesn't fit the over all consideration of all those who are consecrated.
Really, Pope JPII was the one who really put the emphasis on availability to the media....he said that in this day and age if you weren't seen via the media in some way you didn't exist....the way to be known to the world these days.
So lets break out your position here. Assuming you are referring to whether a divorced and remarried person can receive communion. They go to a Pastor of the Catholic faith (this is the dialog that Pope Francis speaks of in AL). Father listens to your story of your divorce and remarriage. (Scenario #1) Based on the fact that he can determine that in your first marriage, you were not married into the Church , but had a civil marriage, he asks you to go to confession repent of your fornication and live in your current relationship as "brother and sister" (as is suggested by Pope Francis), until you get married in the eye's of God through his Church. (Scenario #2) Based on the fact that Father can determine in your first marriage, you were married in a Church, but with some questionable circumstances may invalidate your vows, so Father asks you to go through the Churches annulment process to determine whether your first marriage was valid or not. Father, via the Churches teaching, should ask you to not participate in any sexual activity with your new spouse and live as brother and sister (as suggested by Pope Francis), until and unless the Church grants you annulment. If no annulment is granted you must remain as brother and sister. Under these situations, Pope Francis has now allowed for "pastoral discernment". Here is the reality of it going forward. Father Nice will not say anything about abstaining from sexual relations and most likely will not ask you to go to confession. Father False Compassion will say nothing either, unless he respond "who am I to say"? How do I know this? Because I have had Father Nice and Father False Compassion for 30 years and they are seemingly the predominate priests today (I could tell you stories that would shock you on this). Father Strict is not sought out for counseling, because he goes by the 'book'. Everyone who goes to the Catholic Church knows which parish you will attend, based on what you are looking for in a priest. We live in confusing times. We live when many priests are not inclined to follow the 'black and white' of the faith, but prefer the shade of grey. The proof of AL will be in the practice of the priest and what his preference is for. Father Nice and Father False Compassion will read into AL what they want, as Father Strict will keep watching his flock get smaller and smaller as the world becomes more secular and less dogmatic. That is what "grey" does and that is what I miss about Pope St. John Paul and Pope Benedict. We all knew where the Church stood. Clarity is what is called for in confusing times. Pray, pray, pray.
Once again, trading misinformation which sometimes gets used because the completeness of the event goes unreported. Anyway, the Pope's own response to the initial liquefaction (really a miracle in itself if left at that alone) was one that demonstrated his true humility; an example that also shows the error of the comment about his so called lack of such. He never makes it about himself....gives such occurrences away or treats it as unimportant other than what God permits Himself for others.
I'm enjoying the reading of this very active and thought-filled thread. I knew who Smudger was at the first glance of his first post, I'm surprised everyone doesn't... but enough of that. I only wanted to respond to this one thing. "So you are able to judge the interior disposition to every person in that situation in the world-even though the Church clearly states:God judges the heart, man by appearances. Foolish in the extreme!" I don't think that it is judging anyone's heart to feel the (critical) necessity of spelling out to every soul on earth the eternal dangers of what Jesus, Himself, warned would be living in perpetual adultery, when most people on earth today never hear it. People need to know. We must assume that living in adultery will result in eternal consequences, call it what you will, the term "mortal", or whatever term. Even the temporal consequences of adultery are life-shattering and will naturally spur eternal effects. The pebble dropped, ripples outwards forever and ever. And it's all daring a future in Hell. A sacramental marriage is life-lasting, and it's not enough to simply say -- as if one had stolen something (a non-sacramental sin) and been genuinely sorry -- that one is sorry they made a first "marriage" and repented, "just get on with a happier marriage", or at least keep on trying, however many tries it takes. A sacrament is a sacrament -- a holy and binding oath made to God Almighty. You don't negate it because you're sorry; a lot of people are sorry they married a certain somebody. But people are never hearing this these days, they really do not know. So do we gloss over this serious sin of abused vow, with all the damage it causes, by letting people conveniently claim "invinceable ignorance? Or do we do our jobs by gently, but firmly, explaining the truth of it to the ignorant? The Pope needs to spell it out, that's his job. Is it my job to call him on it? No, but it is certain others', and I'm silently rooting for them who have the integrity, and the courage. Yes, I did go through all of this myself, I had to come to understand it. I wish someone had helped me understand it decades earlier. But nobody wanted to hurt my feelings, it was my "freedom", resulting in decades of pain that shaped the rest of my life, right through today. For myself, I'm finding that I need to just ignore Pope Francis, and that is sad, because otherwise I'm getting too angry at him, and I shouldn't go there. Sad, because I came into the church under Pope John Paul 2, and I embraced him with full confidence and joy, as it should be for a convert. I think it is a valid fear to wonder / notice what damage Pope Francis is causing the church with what appears to be wishy-washiness. Maybe it's not really w-w, but the suffering world sees it that way. That's none-the-less damaging. And it does sound like the damage we've heard prophesied, for days when "even the elect" would become deeply confused, even lost. Lord, have mercy; but let us aim for the Truth that sets us free.
Oh no....now you have to allude to those who tried forcefully to bring JPII's "friend" to his attention in order for justice and truth to be honored....having to finally resort to the UN to bring their evidence since so far the Pope wasn't buying it. Not everyone knows all details of everything....at least before hindsight steps in....like apparently you do.
Padraig, the link to the Msgr. Michelini messages is a pdf file which may be found here: [PDF] I THOU KNOWEST THAT I LOVE THEE atonementbooklets.com/p/confidences.pdf I Thou knowest that I love thee If the link above doesn't work, I will try to post a different one http://www.warriorsofmary.com/letterstomypriestsons (the pdf is at this website, but I don't recommend this website, it is just that the link to the pdf is here). The messages were originally called 'Confidences to a Priest' and reading them gave me great assurance about the times and purpose of these trials. They talk a great deal about what Jesus expects for the purified Church, about what Jesus says about pastoral practice, about satan's fruitless plan to destroy the Mystical body of Christ. There are more than 800 pages of messages. The last book of the series of messages has poor editing/translation from Italian with lots of misspelling, but I have read and reread some passages and have written many down in a notebook in case things get much worse. Thanks for asking, Padraig. Have a blessed New Year.
A P.S. I should clarify something I wrote in my post -- when I said I find myself wanting to "ignore" Pope Francis. As troubling as I find some of his words and actions -- as we all do here, I expect -- and am concerned for the state of the Church, I don't disrespect him, and I don't think he is a "false Pope". Or at least, I'll hope and pray he isn't. I only mean that I don't find it good for me to take on all of the news and rumors. Take the good, turn your ear away from the bad, kind of thing. I could wish there were not so much of the bad.
https://newera.news/attack-on-pope-...olics-distort-information-to-defame-the-pope/ I thank MS7 for providing this link in the MALTA thread. Here's how I responded: Thanks, MS7, this article does provide information I have not seen before, especially the quote from a letter of St. John Paul II. I have to apologize for not pursuing the footnotes more thoroughly. AL does include a call to couples to live lives of continence in order to receive the Eucharist. If they fail, then the document reminds them to first seek the mercy found in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This doesn't mean I stand against the dubia in that the four cardinals are only seeking further clarification, but my being upset with Pope Francis appears premature. Unfortunately, you cannot cut and paste with this article. I would hope that Padraig and Brian would take a close look and let us know what they think of these points which haven't come up in the discussion so far. One may argue that certain prelates will misuse AL to bolster an agenda that contradicts Church teaching, but that sort of rebellion had been already evident in St. John Paul II's and Benedict XVI's pontificate. Safe in the Barque of Peter.
There lies the problem...you don't like half the priest. Father nice is doing what he thinks is right in the eyes of God. Father strict is doing what he thinks is right in the eyes of God. Both are doing Gods will. Just because you personally don't like one or the other. It doesn't mean you are correct. And to speak bad about one... attacks God himself. I smell arrogance and pride. You wouldn't speak to family members in the tone you speak about our holy father. And to attack smudger, the person, only because he is spiritually correct and in line with scripture, tradition and the magisterium.,.shows there is no changing your point of view. For this debate to take place on Christmas Day is Brian the cross you are personally carrying is great... but if people leave the church. Then your soul is in jeopardy. Our Catholic Church is based on debate. Debate leads us to truth and to God. If one has open heart. But there is a fine line between debate and the demon of arrogance and pride. In my opinion, the gates of hell have opened and our Holy Father is trying to save souls to the best of his ability. It is happening on his shift. He has to TRY to save ALL souls. All I am saying is for the attacking three to be more cordial. This is the debate currently going on in the Vatican. I await the opinion of the African church. Your friend, Brother Al
Really earthtoangels? The architect of Pope Francis papal election: Of all Pope Francis' controversial appointments to the Synod on the Family, that of Cardinal Danneels is surely the most scandalous. Why would the pope personally invite a dissident cardinal embroiled in a sex abuse scandal to the Synod? Catholic , Godfried Danneels , Pope Francis , Synod On The Family September 16, 2015 (VoiceoftheFamily) -- Voice of the Family reported yesterday on the special appointments made by Pope Francis to the Ordinary Synod on the Family to be held in Rome this October. A significant number of the appointed prelates openly reject the teachings of the Catholic Church on questions relating to sexual ethics and the family. The appointment most likely to cause scandal however must be that of Godfried Cardinal Danneels, Archbishop Emeritus of Mechlen-Brussels. Here are just some of the many questions that those concerned with the protection of children and the family will be asking in the light of Pope Francis’s invitation to Cardinal Danneels to attend a synod supposedly called to find solutions to the problems facing the family. Did Cardinal Danneels protect clergy accused of child abuse? Elizabeth Yore, an international child rights attorney who has provided legal and technical assistance to families of victims and the Belgian government in child abuse and child murder cases, provided Voice of the Family with the following report: On April 8, 2010, the newly retired Cardinal Danneels received some visitors at his home. They were the relatives of the Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, Danneels’ close friend. At this meeting, the nephew of Vangheluwe described a long and sordid 13 year molestation by his uncle, the Bishop of Bruges. Cardinal Daneels advised the nephew not to go public with the sexual abuse. During the meeting, Danneels advised the young man not to “make a lot of noise” about the abuse he endured from his uncle bishop because Vangheluwe was scheduled to retire in a year anyway. “It would be better that you wait,” advised Danneels, while also urging the young man to forgive his uncle. The conversation was tape recorded by the nephew and subsequently released to the press. Cardinal Danneels, the former head of Belgium’s Roman Catholic Church for 3 decades, could be heard on tape urging this sexual abuse victim to stay quiet and not disclose the abuse until after the bishop who repeatedly molested him over a span of 13 years could retire. After the release of the recording, Danneels did not dispute the authenticity of the conversation. A media firestorm was unleashed in Belgium, a country still reeling over institutional cover ups of child sex abuse. Bishop Vangheluwe admitted to the sexual abuse of his nephew and stepped down from his post shortly after the April 8 meeting between his nephew and Danneels. Because of the statute of limitations law, the Bishop of Bruges was never charged with the crime. However, the plot continues to thicken. The daily De Standaard newspaper reported that two former Belgian priests, Fathers Rik Deville and Norbert Bethune had personally informed Cardinal Danneels about Bishop Vangheluwe’s child sexual abuse several times between the mid-1990s and early 2000s. Father Deville told the Associated Press that he told Cardinal Danneels about a number of sexual-abuse cases. “The cardinal sometimes got angry and said it was not my job, that I should not get involved,” Deville said. The Belgian Police conducted a surprise raid on the Cardinal’s residence and office looking for documents relating to clergy abuse and questioned the Cardinal for 10 hours. Although the Cardinal was never charged, the Catholic Church’s own investigation commission issued a 200 page report on 10 September 2010. According to the report, the commission heard allegations from 488 complainants, concerning incidents that took place between 1950 and 1990. The report contained testimony from 124 people. Two-thirds of the complainants were men, now aged in their 50s and 60s. As head of the commission, Dr. Peter Adriaenssens, a prominent and respected psychiatrist, disclosed that Cardinal Godfried Danneels name surfaced in 50 cases, not as an abuser, but as someone who knew of the sexual child abuse by the clergy. Did Cardinal Danneels support the use of immoral, pornographic, “educational” materials in Belgian Catholic schools? Dr. Alexandra Colen, a member of the Belgian House of Representatives, wrote about the problem of immoral “educational” materials in the Belgian Catholic Church, and the role of Cardinal Danneels, in the Brussels Journal in June 2010. Here are some important extracts from her article: The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: ‘Stroking my pussy makes me feel groovy,’ ‘I like to take my knickers off with friends,’ ‘I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.’ The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are ‘playing doctor’ and the little boy says: ‘Look, my willy is big.' The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the ‘correct’ attitude reply: ‘Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun.’ This ‘catechism textbook’ was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying: When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy genital stimulation. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is “groovy”, while the opposite is the case. I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent ‘who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way.’ I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: ‘This is why I insist – yes, the days of meekly asking are over – that you forbid the use of this “catechism book” in our children’s classrooms.’ … Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text ‘Respect for parents and children,’ and we said the rosary. Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. ‘I shall not be pressured,’ he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop’s door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997. … On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels’s door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner. Does Cardinal Danneels support homosexual unions? In May 2013 expressed his support for homosexual unions to Dutch language newspaper De Tijd. He said: “I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want,” the cardinal told the newspaper , even as he said he thinks such unions should be given a different name than marriage. The French language paper L’Echo, also quoted the cardinal saying that the French people should “obey the law” and not oppose “gay marriage.” France just recently passed a gay “marriage” law after a heated debate that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the street in protest. “We need to understand: The Church has never objected to the fact that there is a sort of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals – however we’re talking about a sort of marriage,” the cardinal said. “This is not the same as the true marriage between a man and a woman, so we need to find another word for the dictionary.” “However, insofar as it is legal – that it has been rendered legitimate by law – the Church has nothing to say about it.”
Our , 'Yes' must mean, 'Yes' and our , No', mean , 'No'. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/martyrs-know-apostasy-can-not-justified Blessed Cardinal Newman, from chapter 5 of his Apologia, describes this doctrine thus, in a way that I would presume the “world” will never get: The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse. ....as Pope John Paul described in Veritatis Splendor: It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: “Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Ps 19:12) (#63).
I note the headline in, 'Spirit Daily'. http://spiritdaily.org/blog/uncategorized/bishops-versus-bishop-cardinal-versus-cardinal http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/05/will-pope-francis-break-the-church/389516/
