My feelings are pretty much the same as you Chiara. 1929 is a strong contender and if pushed to the wall I would probably pick that date. I simply offered up the 2016 date as it came to me while I was ruminating last night. It is definitely significant, in any case, as that is when things began to spiral out of control. I think Pope St. John Paul II's Consecration gained many Graces, but did not fulfill what was asked for by Our Lady. Sister Lucy specifically stated in one interview that the conversion of Russia would be to Catholicism, not to Orthodoxy. Also, there has been no period of peace either. The years since the fall of communism have been some very bloody ones. I'm not sure if we will miss the deadline as France did. Fr. Gruner was of the opinion that we would not. We are told the Consecration will be "late". He felt that meant "late, but not too late". Of course late can mean either late in the time period or late meaning too late. I think we are unsure. All we know is that at some point it will be done.
Pope Francis on the ‘Gay Mentality’ That Has ‘Influenced the Church’ COMMENTARY: The Pope has spoken out against the double lives of priest and religious since his days as archbishop of Buenos Aires. Father Roger J. Landry, Commentary | Dec. 12, 2018 | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...-gay-mentality-that-has-influenced-the-church On Dec. 3, The Strength of a Vocation, a book-length interview with Pope Francis by Father Fernando Prado, a Spanish Claretian Missionary, was published in 10 languages. Father Prado, a theology professor at the Pontifical University of Salamanca, asks 60 questions on a wide range of topics, including priestly, religious and consecrated vocations, but the only subject that made headlines was what Pope Francis said with regard to priests, religious, seminarians and candidates with same-sex attractions. The context was a conversation Pope Francis said he had had with a bishop who didn’t think it was a problem that several priests in his diocese were “openly gay” because it was just an “expression of affection.” The Pope corrected him, saying, “This is a mistake. It is not just an expression of affection.” Neither the bishop nor the Bishop of Rome defined what was meant by “openly gay” — whether it meant participation in unchaste homosexual practices or publicly identifying oneself by his same-sex attraction and aligning oneself with the “gay movement.” Whatever the definition, however, the Pope declared, “In the consecrated life and in the priestly life, there is no place for that kind of affection,” meaning, it seems, no place for same-sex sexual activity, same-sex public displays of affection, or affection for the “gay lifestyle.” With regard to priests and religious engaging in same-sex sexual activity, Pope Francis called them to stop living as hypocrites and make a choice whether to live a Christian lifestyle or one at odds with Christian belief. “I say to the priests, gay religious men and women,” the Holy Father forthrightly stated, “we must urge you to live fully celibate and, above all, to be exquisitely responsible, trying not to scandalize your communities or the holy faithful people of God by living a double life. It is better that you leave the ministry or consecrated life rather than live a double life.” Concerning candidates for the priesthood or religious life, Pope Francis said, “Homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates,” adding, “The Church recommends that people with this ingrained tendency not be accepted into the ministry or the consecrated life. The ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.” “It’s something that worries me,” he continued. “We have to discern with seriousness and listen to the voice of the experience that the Church has. … It may be that at the moment they are accepted they don’t exhibit that tendency, but later they come out.” For that reason, he said, we must “very much take care of human and sentimental maturity” when training future priests and religious, and “be demanding,” because “in our societies it even seems that homosexuality is fashionable, and that mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the Church.” None of what he said was really new. With regard to priests not living chastely, Pope Francis has regularly called priests living unchastely either to repent and thoroughly convert or have the integrity to leave. Before the papacy, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio said in a book-length interview with Sergio Rubin and Francesca Ambrogetti that a priest “cannot scandalize a community and abuse the souls of the faithful,” which is why “the great hypocrisy of the double life” cannot be tolerated. In another book with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, he said that if a priest violates his commitment to chaste celibacy, he tries to “help him to get on track again” through penance and chastity, but that one who proves incapable of observing celibacy must leave. None of this is a contradiction of Pope Francis’ well-publicized 2013 statement, “Who am I to judge?” There, he was referring to a priest who had been previously caught in homosexual activity whom the Pope implied “committed a sin … [and] repented, sought forgiveness and received it.” Mercy was offered and received. Pope Francis, however, certainly is one who judges, and judges negatively, as the Church always has, hypocrisy, infidelity to one’s priestly promises, and same-sex sexual activity by priests. The Church has never considered kicking faithful priests out of the priesthood or faithful religious out of religious life simply for same-sex attractions. But if priests or religious want to identify with that lifestyle or live a double life, the Holy Father is underlining that it is incompatible with what they promised at their ordination. Concerning candidates for the priesthood and religious life, there is a stricter standard because we are not dealing with those who are ordained or in final vows who have made public commitments in the Church. What Pope Francis said is consistent with the Congregation for Clergy’s 2016 instruction for seminary formation that he approved and ordered to be published. That document, “The Gift of the Priestly Vocation,” reiterated the Church’s positions from 1962 and 2005, emphasizing: “The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’” The reason is because “such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women,” and “one must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” The instruction considers a few different situations. continued...
continued from above... The first is with regard to those who are engaging in unchaste and sinful homosexual activity or those who are living or promoting a lifestyle in opposition to Church teaching. It would be insane for the Church to ordain those who do not practice what they are called to preach. Likewise, those who support a “gay culture” — and look at a same-sex lifestyle as something that should be celebrated, either by living it themselves or encouraging those who do — simply are not thinking with the mind of the Church they have sworn a solemn oath to represent. The second is for those whose same-sex attractions are “ingrained,” “deep-seated” or profoundly rooted, in contrast to “transitory.” The Church recognizes that there is a huge difference between one who experiences some fleeting same-sex attractions — which, because of their ephemeral character, can and “must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate” — and another whose attractions are strong and seemingly a permanent part of one’s self-identity. The Church has established the bar not at whether a man can practice continence (the abstention from sexual activity), but at whether he is free of what the Catechism calls “intrinsically disordered” same-sex affections. Does this mean that the Church thinks that someone with same-sex attractions cannot be a good, holy and chaste priest or religious? No. Some are. The question is not whether it’s possible, but whether it is prudent and likely, for there have also been priests with same-sex tendencies who have not served with the same distinction. For one with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to become a holy priest, for example, he needs much greater humility and has to overcome many more obstacles than a typical heterosexual candidate. For him to believe and teach the Catholic faith, he must be able to say with integrity, “I have a disorder in my emotions and attractions that is not my fault, but which I have to work to overcome.” Otherwise, he will be tempted to conclude that the Church is wrong about her constant teaching on homosexuality, and therefore can be wrong on other matters of faith and morals about which she definitively teaches. Likewise, he must also overcome greater challenges in seminary formation and priestly living. While it is of course possible with God’s grace for a man with profoundly rooted same-sex tendencies to remain chaste, seminary and rectory living would provide temptations to him that a typical heterosexual seminarian or priest living in those same circumstances would not face. Failure here, too, would be grievous for both the man and the Church. The scandals of recent months, beginning with former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and exacerbated by the report of the Pennsylvania grand jury, have revealed the problem in the Church of “lavender mafias” in various seminaries, religious houses and dioceses, which has brought this issue of the inadvisability of ordaining those with deep-seated same-sex attractions to the forefront. The Church has not yet dealt adequately with the reality that four of five cases of the sexual abuse of minors are same-sex in nature; and four of five of those are not of children, but of post-pubescent boys. Many in the Church are in denial that there is any connection between same-sex attractions and activity with adults and the abuse of teenage boys, a connection that the notorious case of McCarrick has plainly illustrated. Whether the denial is ideological or simply a legitimate desire not to scapegoat all priests with same-sex attractions unjustly for the abuse crisis, it has prevented the Church from confronting at its roots the culture of sexual infidelity that allowed the abuse of minors to happen. The source of the denial of such a connection is a 2010 report by the John Jay College on the causes and context of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the U.S. The report had two methodological flaws. The first was that the authors denied that most priests who molested boys could necessarily be classified as homosexual; the second was that if there were a connection, there should have been a linear growth between priests self-identifying as same-sex-attracted and higher rates of abuse of boys, which they said didn’t exist. The report, however, examined no data on sexual identification, just some generic estimates. Father D. Paul Sullins, in an important study last month entitled, “Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests?” looked at the available data and showed indeed that the “increase or decrease in the percent of victims who were male correlated almost perfectly (0.98) with the increase or decrease of homosexual men in the priesthood.” The John Jay College report, however, did provide some data about behaviors that confirmed the wisdom of Pope Francis’ and the Church’s approach to those who have engaged in a same-sex lifestyle. The study revealed that priests who engaged in same-sex sexual behavior before ordination were significantly more likely (than heterosexuals) to continue to engage in similar unchaste behavior both in seminary and after ordination; priests who identified as gay, bisexual or confused, as well as those with positive views toward homosexuality, were more likely to engage in seminary and post-ordination sexual behavior than those who consider themselves heterosexual or had negative views toward homosexuality; and if priests with pre-ordination same-sex sexual behavior did abuse a minor after ordination, it was much more likely to be a male victim. Some have tried to accuse Pope Francis and the Church of an un-Christian animus toward those with same-sex attractions, speaking about chastity for one and not the other. The Church indeed calls all priests, religious, seminarians, postulants and novices to chaste celibacy — something that, frankly, everyone knows. The issue is not that the Church treats heterosexual and homosexual unchaste behavior differently — the Church considers both sinful — but that the Church objectively treats heterosexual and homosexual attractions and “identity” differently, something that is offensive to “gender ideology,” which maintains that same-sex attractions are merely “differently ordered” than opposite-sex attractions. The Church, however, holds that they’re rather “intrinsically disordered” at the level of their “affective and sexual complementarity,” and that when someone identifies deeply with them, it is germane to the question of fittingness for the priesthood or religious life. As the Pope candidly affirmed, these matters are indeed highly relevant to the “strength of a vocation.”
The Pope’s Warning About Homosexuals in the Clergy Facts do not cease to be true because they hurt someone’s feelings, and speaking the truth is neither bigoted nor hateful. Msgr. Charles Pope | Dec. 8, 2018 | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr...popes-warning-about-homosexuals-in-the-clergy The recently published book The Strength of Vocation: The Consecrated Life Today is the result of a multi-hour interview of Pope Francis by Fr. Fernando Prado. The interview covered a wide variety of topics, one of which was the challenge of homosexuality in the clergy and consecrated life. Here are a few excerpts: “[Homosexuality is] not just an expression of an affection. In consecrated and priestly life, there’s no room for that kind of affection. Therefore, the Church recommends that people with that kind of ingrained tendency should not be accepted into the ministry or consecrated life. The ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.” “[We] have to urge homosexual priests, and men and women religious to live celibacy with integrity, and above all, that they be impeccably responsible, trying to never scandalize either their communities or the faithful holy people of God by living a double life. It’s better for them to leave the ministry or the consecrated life rather than to live a double life.” “The issue of homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates, if that is the case. We have to be exacting. In our societies it even seems that homosexuality is fashionable and that mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the Church” These comments by the Pope are a glimmer of hope in the midst of the current sexual abuse scandal. Understandably, there have been a variety of reactions to those remarks. Fr. James Martin wrote that the Pope’s comments (particularly about homosexuality being fashionable) are “not only wrong but hurtful.” Fr. Martin tried (unsuccessfully, to my mind) to interpret the Pope’s statements as merely calling gay priests, like all priests, to be celibate. Others opined that the Pope’s remarks seemed to be a deflection, not backed up by his actions or supported by those with whom he has chosen to surround himself. In the Pope’s statement that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be accepted into the clergy or the consecrated life, I see a ray of light — not full noonday sun or even dawn, but a single ray of light. We should affirm what is true even if we know that a great deal of work will be needed for the Pope’s well-stated view to become a policy that is understood and followed. We live in an age of identity politics. So many people stake their entire identity and dignity on a single aspect of their life. This is especially true today among homosexual (and now transgender) activists. Anyone who questions or criticizes their behavior is accused of being “hateful” because this is seen as an attack on their very identity. Advocates for those with same-sex attraction have often responded to the current sexual abuse scandal in the Church by pointing out that the majority of homosexual priests have not abused anyone and claiming that attempting to link the crisis to homosexuality among the clergy is just a form of “homophobia” and scapegoating. Not only does this involves faulty logic, it misses the point of our concerns. Consider the following example regarding lung cancer: Most smokers never contract lung cancer. In fact, even among heavy smokers, fewer than 25% get lung cancer. However, more than 80% of lung cancer deaths are linked to smoking. Smoking is by far the number one risk factor for lung cancer. If doctors and researchers were to refuse to identify smoking as the number one cause of cancer because it might be upsetting to smokers, we would call that deceptive or even a case of malpractice. We would likely denounce them for hiding the facts from us and might accuse them of being in league with the tobacco industry. If we want to reduce the incidence of lung cancer, we ought to begin by addressing the number one risk factor: smoking. This does not mean that there are no other causes or that other risk factors should be ignored, but it makes sense to focus on the primary cause. It is not reasonable to label someone who presents these facts as “bigoted” or “anti-smoker.” Facts do not cease to be true because they hurt someone’s feelings, and speaking the truth is neither bigoted nor hateful. Similar logic applies in analyzing the current sexual abuse crisis in the Church. The fact that about 80% of the victims of clergy sexual abuse were male indicates a homosexual connection that must be studied and addressed. Even if most priests with same-sex attraction have not abused anyone, the fact remains that 80% of the abuse cases involved homosexual acts perpetrated on the victim. Refusing to discuss this or diverting the conversation to lesser, statistically-unverified connections to things such as “clericalism” is the equivalent of ignoring the link between smoking and lung cancer. To bar any discussion of the link between clergy sexual abuse and homosexuality amounts to a kind of malpractice. It endangers potential future victims as well as the souls of potential abusers. It also seriously damages the credibility that will be necessary for any proposed solutions and policies. Although some people object to the Pope’s statements about homosexuality, taking his words as a personal affront, the care of souls does not always involve doing or saying what pleases people or makes them feel accepted and approved. In fact, it often involves saying no with an eye to the moral condition and ultimate salvation of those souls. Most of us would agree that bartending would not be a particularly wise choice of occupation for an alcoholic — even a reformed one. It would threaten his sobriety with unnecessary temptation. In a slightly different way, it would not be a good idea for someone with a weakened immune system to work in a hospital. Not only would it endanger him, but it would put others at risk as well because he might more easily transmit infectious diseases. There is a strong and rather obvious danger to the souls of people with same-sex attraction when they live in close quarters with one another in a single-sex environment. It would be much like a heterosexual man living in a women’s dormitory, sharing shower facilities and the like. Even if he had the intention of remaining chaste, it would prove difficult. It would be even more difficult for him if some of the women started winking at him and indicating that they were interested and willing to engage in illicit intimacy. When considered in that vein, the words of the Holy Father reiterating the general policy of the Church make sense: “Therefore, the Church recommends that people with that kind of ingrained tendency should not be accepted into the ministry or consecrated life. The ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.” The policy is designed to protect the moral and spiritual well-being of all and should be followed. As the summit of the presidents of the Catholic bishops’ conferences of the world approaches (Feb. 21-24, 2019), there will surely be attempts to influence the outcome. The protests by supporters of the homosexual/transgender cause will be loud and strident. They will insist that the connection between homosexuality and the clergy sexual abuse scandal be suppressed, absent from consideration by the assembly, and certainly absent from any conclusions or policies that result from the gathering. We must conscientiously and charitably demand that homosexuality among the clergy as a central cause of the crisis be considered frankly and forthrightly. No real solution will be found if this is not done. The outcome of the February meeting must be a set of policies that address homosexuality in the priesthood and which will be firmly enforced. The Holy Father’s recent remarks deserve our support, even if some wonder how firmly he believes them or whether he will apply them. The fact is that he made the statements and approved their publication. He may say other things in the weeks ahead that confirm his recent remarks or create a distance from them. Either way, we must continue to be part of the international conversation, supporting what is good and true and speaking out against what is incomplete or misleading. We loyal and faithful Catholics must insist upon being heard. Others are speaking up — are you?
es..well...errr...did you ever hear the boxing expression, 'Bobbing and weaving'? 'In boxing bobbing moves the head laterally and beneath an incoming punch. As the opponent's punch arrives, the fighter bends the legs quickly and simultaneously shifts the body either slightly right or left.' It basically means when your opponent goes to hit you, you are not there when he tries to land the punch. Francis stays very light on his feet. It is probably the best definition of the Argentinian political philosophy of, 'Peronism', I know. Pope Francis is a bobbing and a weaving once more. He would make a great boxer, he never stays in the one lace for two seconds. He is breath taking in his inconsistency.
I never thought to see the day when I would be less cynical than Padraig but that date seems to have arrived. My thoughts were that with so many people praying for Pope Francis' conversion or removal, these prayers had finally started to have an effect. Whatever his reason for saying what he said about homosexuality (and I was initially very cynical about the reason for them) he has given strength to those fighting in the seminaries, dioceses, chanceries and the Curia against the homosexual cliques holding power and exercising influence in those places. People can finally say, this Pope doesn't want this situation to continue and quote his words to those who say (as one priest apparently said to the Pope) that such activities merely involved the 'showing of affection'. If that is 'showing affection' then child abuse, bestiality, incest and adultery become the most innocent of innocent pastimes. Who knows, our prayers may be keeping him awake at night and slowly turning his heart towards the truth and this might be the first sign and maybe he is to be the Pope who, in the midst of civil wars and great confusion, DOES finally make the consecration.
Its really quite odd that none of the AUS news sites have the conviction news posted online for Pell. I am sure they are trying to stop his other trial from being tainted but I don't think this is going to work. https://www.news.com.au/world/europ...l/news-story/f6ef172907f55a0b009bd0aa242a1595 Pope Francis cuts George Pell and two other cardinals from Vatican council Australian Cardinal George Pell and two other cardinals have been removed from a Vatican council tasked with reforming the Catholic Church. AP news.com.auDecember 13, 20188:49am Cardinal George Pell has been removed from an informal council at the Vatican.Source:AFP Australian Cardinal George Pell has been removed from the Vatican’s inner circle of advisers by Pope Francis. The Vatican said Wednesday that Francis in October had written to Chilean Cardinal Javier Errazuriz, Congolese Cardinal Laurent Mongengwo and Australian Cardinal George Pell thanking them for their five years of service on the so-called Group of Nine, or C-9. Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, who at age 79 recently retired as archbishop of Kinshasa. Cardinal Pell is facing prosecution for historical sexual offences in the County Court of Victoria. He denies the charges. Francis appointed the C-9 in 2013 to help him reform the Vatican and reorganise its bureaucracy. That work is wrapping up, with the finalising of a new document outlining the work and mission of the various congregations that make up the universal government of the 1.2 billion-strong church. A statement from the Vatican press office noted that the cabinet members asked Francis in September to reflect on the future composition, structure and work of the C-9, taking into consideration especially the advanced ages of some of its members. Though he has been away from Rome since announcing his leave of absence in June 2017, Pell technically remains prefect of the Vatican’s economy secretariat. The Pope was shedding advisers ahead of a high-stakes Vatican summit on abuse early next year. Errazuriz, 85, has been accused by Chilean abuse survivors of having covered up for predator priests while he was archbishop of Santiago, a charge he has denied. Pell, 77, took leave from his job as the Vatican’s economy minister to stand trial in Australia on historic charges of sex abuse, which he denies. Francis himself was criticised after he strongly defended a Chilean bishop accused of covering for the country’s most notorious predator priest - a position he took apparently on the advice of Errazuriz. After Francis realised his errors and apologised, he summoned the presidents of all the world’s bishops conferences to Rome for a three-day meeting in February to discuss protecting young people from paedophiles. That summit has taken on enormous weight given the eruption of the scandal in the US. The Vatican said the three cardinals wouldn’t be replaced on the council.
Whatever Pope Francis' motivations, he has exposed to the light of day a goodly number of the lavender faction in the Church to the light of day. I don't know if he has had any intention to do so, but it might well be God's intention to expose the poison, through Pope Francis, that most of us could not have believed possible to exist in such a scale until relatively recently. There is a concrete difference with this new book. Firstly, it is a written document. Secondly, the quotations with which we have so far been presented seem untypically unambiguous and candid compared to what we have become used to with Pope Francis, including such previous documents as Amoris Laetitia. These statements seem too straight to possess expedient deniability. Whatever is happening, the liberal factions are dismayed; that can't be a bad thing. There has been some talk of this being a 'pilon', a sop to distract us before the Pope presents another doctrinal horror. This would not be a surprise, but I am praying that 'who am I to judge' will turn out to have been the 'pilon', one directed at the sodomites. Let us pray harder than ever for Pope Francis.
I read that the Aussie government put some kind of blackout on the news regarding this. Not sure exactly what that means.
*** Three Cardinals Dropped From ‘C9’ as Vatican Reform Process Nears End Hannah Brockhaus/CNA/EWTN News | December 12, 2018 *** Vatican, US Diverge on UN’s ‘Global Compact on Migration’ Edward Pentin | December 12, 2018
That UN declaration on migration is the practical application of what is the polar antithesis of the Tenth Commandment. The new secular commandments are all lining up like ducks in a row. There are such examples as the apparent rise of satanism, the ultimate homage to a false god. Not only is the name of God being taken in vain, He is mocked everywhere. 'Thou Shalt Kill', but only if the victim is harmless, voiceless and innocent. 'Thou Shalt Commmit Adultery', especially for the sake of the children. I could go on and on, but so much are our morals being inverted, it seems the Gates of Hell are having a right go at trying to prevail. Note: the UN declaration on migration does not apply to Palestinians,who must not dream of migrating to a better situation, ever, but must instead remain in their refugee status indefinitely.
Cardinal Muller has now stated in an interview that priests must rightfully disobey prelates ordering them to give Holy Communion to Protestants. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...d-to-resist-bishops-demanding-protestant-comm
Great teaching from Cardinal Müller Thanks for posting. I agree with you about please God, send us this Pope.
I think that's the way the Aussie court system works in general.....so harder for public/media to find out what goes on within trials.
