I vaguely recollect saying this before, but I'm not going to damn the pope on the word of a heretic. Particularly one with such a vested interest in following this particular line.
Your quote, Mac, is from the 'Remnant Newspaper', a junk shop if ever there was one. Here is a reasonable account of Pope Francis' position on gay adoption: Pope Francis offered his sharpest critique against so-called nontraditional families on Friday morning, suggesting that the church must advocate for the rights of children to be raised "in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother." The pope condemned child labor and child soldiers, and then said that "it is necessary to emphasize the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity," according to the Vatican Information Service. Speaking to a delegation from the International Catholic Child Bureau, Pope Francis continued, "Working for human rights presupposes keeping anthropological formation alive, being well-prepared regarding the reality of the human person, and knowing how to respond to the problems and challenges posed by contemporary cultures and mentalities that are spread by the mass media." Recalling his time as archbishop of Buenos Aires, the pope said, "At times it is necessary to flee; at times it is necessary to stop to protect oneself; and at times one must fight. But always with tenderness." Back in December, Bishop Charles Scicluna of Malta said he discussed adoption of children by same-sex couples with Pope Francis. The bishop said the pope was "shocked" by the idea, and that he was encouraged to preach against the idea during Christmas services. As archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, before he was elected pope, then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio said children raised by same-sex parents were suffering a form of discrimination. Speaking out against a proposed law to legalize same-sex marriage in Argentina, Bergoglio said, "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.” http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/04/11/pope-francis-kids-must-have-moms-and-dads
What are you talking about now?!? No, the quote is NOT from the Remant (which is not "a junk shop" regardless of your liberal/progressive opinions), it was posted when the quote was first posted. The source is the Brazilian former priest Leonardo Boff, quoted in http://www.periodistadigital.com/re...eral-de-lo-que-se-piensa-papa-francisco.shtml
This "former priest" is a personal friend of Pope Francis, who the pope went so far as to invite to write part of his encyclical on the environment. So his credibility cannot be impeached so easily if one accepts his contributions to the pope's encyclical. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...volution-even-started-catholic-church-vatican "He has rehabilitated liberation theology. Rome sought in the 1970s and 80s to emasculate the movement, which grew up in South America and aimed to place the church on the side of the poor in struggles for justice and social change in the developing world. Bergoglio, as leader of the Jesuits in Argentina three decades ago, was part of the move to suppress it as a cover for Marxist class struggle. But as pope he has invited the father of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, to Rome and had the Vatican pronounce that liberation theology can no longer "remain in the shadows to which it has been relegated for some years". He has also asked another key figure, Leonardo Boff, who was once condemned to "obsequious silence" by Rome, to contribute his writings on eco-theology to a documentFrancis is planning on the environment.
Well, Brian, you quote from a leading left wing newspaper in the UK which certainly hoped for a pope who would support its agenda when the article was written 2 years ago. It wrote: One year on, everyone agrees Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air for the Catholic church, but there is less clarity over who he really is. Is he liberal or conservative – or is he something altogether more unpredictable? And the answer to their question is that he is somebody much more unpredictable than they thought. The Pope's position on adoption by same sex couples certainly doesn't fit into their agenda. And going back to Leonardo Boff, the Pope certainly encourages those who, while not following Church teaching fully, nevertheless follow much of it in their heart.
Leonardo Boff writes of his friend Pope Francis, and even quotes several of the pope's documented (material) heresies (in bold) approvingly: http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/pope-francis-restores-the-good-sense-of-jesus-by-leonardo-boff "Filled with mercy in the face of the dangers of the zika virus epidemic Pope Francis opens a space for the use of contraceptives. It is about saving lives: «to avoid a pregnancy is not an absolute evil», the Pope said in his visit to Mexico on February of the current year. To the new cardinals, he admonishes them with the words:«The Church does not condemn forever. The punishment of hell used to torment the faithful is not eternal». God is a mystery of inclusion and communion, never of exclusion. Mercy always triumphs." Mercy is approvingly promoting heresy, huh? This is the caliber of man the pope has contributing to his encyclicals? When he is quoted here at MOG, we are supposed to doubt the validity of his statement on the pope and homosexual adoption but accept his contributions to the climate encyclical as true? You folks make the wider world question papal positivists' credulity.
Popes do not invite theologians who are not "following Church teaching fully" to contribute part of an encyclical, an "infallible" magisterial teaching document. At least they never did in the 2000 year teachings of the Church. But with this pope, apparently, anything goes.
I have read the article by Leonardo Boff and was impressed. When I see how Brian and Mac respond to an article like this, I am reminded of the famous example of how different people can view a glass of water as half full or half empty. If I may expand that example into the mystical. I believe that God looks at the glass seeing it to be half full whereas the devil views it to be half empty. Similarly, Pope Francis looks for the love of Jesus in Leonardo Boff's beliefs whereas Brian and Mac are looking for examples of error. I believe that when you die God will primarily be looking at the degree to which we loved. God is not a legalist yet the 'traditionalists' would have us believe He is. As padraig's signature quotes at the bottom of his postings "At the end of the day we shall be judged on love"
Are you saying, David, that the God who gave us the Ten Commandments doesn't take issue if we ignore or try to circumvent them so long as we claim to have done so out of "love" for Him. The God who said "if you love me, keep my Commandments" is a legalist insofar as He expects us to keep the Commandments. When He said that the the greatest commandments are love of God and love of neighbour, he wasn't telling us to ignore the other eight commandments. Incidentally, I have no problem with Pope Francis taking the good from liberation theology so long as he doesn't forget that without Jesus we make ourselves slaves to the prevailing man-made version of what is good. Sometimes people who devote their lives to alleviating poverty lose sight of Jesus and they forget to ask themselves "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and lose his immortal soul". With his experience of Godless communism, Pope St. John Paul recognised the dangers of believing that mankind can eradicate poverty if we adopt socialism/communism. That's the kind of belief that ignores what Jesus said about the poor always being with us and leads to God being labelled as the sky fairy. We can only hope that Pope Francis isn't blind to the dangers and by promoting some of Boff's goals doesn't lead Catholics to believe that everything he says or has said in the past is worth a second look.
No, Dolours, I am not saying we can ignore the Commandments. When Jesus tells us "if you love me, keep my Commandments", he is explaining how we show our love for Him. But He knows full well that it is possible to obey his Commandments but without love. God looks at the heart - always. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they 'followed the rules' but without love.
Don't forget that Jesus also said "do what they say, not what they do" when referring to the scribes and pharisees. You always quote Jesus condemning the Pharisees, but you always leave out that when he referred to the hardness of their hearts he was talking about Moses having allowed divorce due to popular demand. Edited to add that it is most certainly not possible to keep all ten Commandments without love because that would mean ignoring the first and second Commandments. It takes love of God and love of neighbour to keep all ten Commandments in both spirit and deeds.
What gives the game away is the word 'oppressed'. This word was never uttered by Christ and where the Lord was referring to our individual relationship with our neighbour, the Marxist heretic Boff surrounds this collectivist, communist doctrine with the words of the Lord as the devil would use scripture to serve his own purpose. But Boff only intends the words of Christ as a decorative mask to sweeten his true message-the Marxist revolution of envy. 'Oppression' is a humpty-dumpty word that can mean just about anything the user wants it to mean and we see it in full force nowadays as the pretext for any group with a grievance, no matter how immoral or unjustified, to impose their thinking upon society. Oppressed Islamists, oppressed homosexuals, oppressed gender dysphorics, oppressed feminists, oppressed police-killers and so on. To fall for this kind of so-called theology is to repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the seventies and eighties which mostly led to the slaughter of the people it claimed to wish to help.
I'm waiting for a new Conclave! I'm not going to fast for our Pope. Nop. I pray and ask God to prevent the Pope from doing more harm to the Church. And I'm praying for a good Pope (like St. JPII and our emeritus pope Benedict). And this means a new conclave. Yep.
