The following comes from a June 30 story by Michael Cook on Mercator.nst.
Pope Francis keeps making headlines, but not in a way that soothes all Catholics. This week CNN reported that “Pope says Christians should apologize to gay people”, a story which was relayed by NPR as “Pope Francis: Church Should Apologize To Gays And Other Marginalized Groups”.
As usual, this upset a few Catholics who have been muttering that this upstart Argentine Jesuit is selling the family silver. Amongst some malcontents, you might even hear demands for his resignation, so exasperated are they with press reports in which he appears to contradict or weaken traditional Catholic teaching.
And this is just the latest controversy. The long list of surprises that the Pope has sprung on his faithful began in 2013 with his comment in an airborne press conference: “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, well, who am I to judge them?” Those words have been quoted so often that they have defined his Papacy.
Well, I’m a fan of Pope Francis and I don’t think that there is anything to worry about. Perhaps he should get a new press secretary, but his Catholic critics shouldn’t get their knickers in a knot. Here are seven reasons why.
- THE POPE IS often badly misreported. Take his recent comment about gays.
We Christians have to apologize for so many things, not just for this [treatment of gays], but we must ask for forgiveness. … I think that the Church not only should apologize … to a gay person whom it offended, but it must also apologize to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologize for having blessed so many weapons.”
He clearly said “we Christians”, meaning us individuals, not the Catholic Church as the teacher of truths revealed by Christ. Doesn’t that make sense? If I have ever slighted a homosexual, I ought to apologise for my lack of charity. But what the Pope did not do and had no intention of doing was apologising for the Catholic view that homosexual acts (not persons) are “intrinsically disordered”.
Gay journalist German Lopez recognised this instantly. “The pope gets a pass on his anti-gay views, simply because, in comparison to his predecessors, his rhetoric is nicer. That may make him slightly progressive compared to some members of his church, but it’s far from liberal on gay issues.”
- ALTHOUGH HE IS accustomed to public speaking, Pope Francis is not a polished performer. John Paul II was a trained actor; Benedict XVI was an academic with an extraordinary gift for precision. Pope Francis is spontaneous and sometimes makes mistakes.
Earlier this month, in response to a question in an open forum, the Pope said that “the great majority” of Catholic marriages are invalid because the couples do not enter the union with an expectation of permanence. “Great majority”? That sounds odd — and it was odd. He corrected it in the official version to “some”, which any experienced canon lawyer will agree with.
Don’t forget that despite his Italian heritage, he was educated in Spanish. Nowadays he mainly speaks in Italian, but sometimes he falters. In his “great majority” remarks he even had to create a word, “ingabbiante”, to express himself.
Cut him some slack, people! Scrutinise his written documents, not off-the-cuff comments.
- THE POPE BRINGS a new spontaneity to the Papacy. Well, it’s not altogether new. John Paul I, who died after 33 days on the job, was a delightfully spontaneous, deeply pastoral, priest who seemed much like Pope Francis. John Paul II often spoke off the cuff, mingled with the crowds, and spoke with the press. Benedict XVI was ill at ease with the media but pushed himself to engage in open forums. He made gaffes as well. The increasingly open and engaged style of the modern Papacy has evolved still further with Pope Francis. He clearly wants to be both a pastor and a theology professor. But he’s just a Pope not Superman; he can’t do both equally well.
- FRANCIS IS THE spiritual father to 1.2 billion people. For him the word “father” is not an empty honorific, but a weighty duty. Fatherhood is in crisis in our culture and he feels deeply his personal responsibility to embrace his children and offer them the warmth of God, but also of his own self. A real father is not supposed to be a buttoned-up, dogma-spouting robot. Let him speak his mind, even if he has to backtrack occasionally to clarify some of his words.
Do his critics want to return to the days of Pius XII who was carried into St Peter’s Basilica on thesedia gestatoria, a ceremonial throne, by 12 chamberlains, in unapproachable Byzantine splendour? Until a few decades ago the Popes were “prisoners of the Vatican”; now they are expected to be fathers to the world.
- CATHOLICS LEARN MORE about what the Pope says from CNN and social media than they do from Sunday homilies in their local church or eventhe Vatican’s website. And the media willalwaysframe the words of the Pope as controversies; that’s how the media works. Would you read an article headlined: “Pope endorses perennial validity of Sixto-Clementine version of Vulgate translation of the Bible”? In the vast majority of the Pope’s pronouncements he is reaffirming Catholic doctrine or exhorting his faithful to lead lives worthy of the Gospel, not creating controversies. Don’t be suckered by click-bait headlines.
- THE SKY IS not falling; the sky is not falling; the sky is not falling.Just in case, that isn’t clear for all the Chicken Littles in the Catholic media, let me say it again: the sky is not falling. What the Pope says at a press conference or at a Q&A after a first communion Mass is not, to resort to theological jargon, “definitive Papal Magisterium” or even a proposition which requires “religious submission of intellect and will”. If you want to know what Pope Francis thinks, read documents which he has signed and sealed, not CNN reports.
The Pope is not the only public figure to make gaffes. Remember when the Leader of the Free World, the Man with the Finger on The Button, President Ronald Reagan, said “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Dumb? Yes. Damaging? No.
- THERE ARE PUBLIC men who have a gift for precision, forle mot juste, for pleasing with polished phrases, for sound bites which win votes without making waves, for promises so vague they need never be kept, for words so vacuous they can never be criticised. Spineless creatures like this are called politicians. Do Catholics really want a politician for a Pope?
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
No, I don’t want a politician as Pope, and being unamused at his “gaffes” doesn’t mean I think the sky is falling. How insulting to those of us who believe this pontiff is a real cause for concern.
Actually – the article on Mercator Net (based in Australia) had a different headline and was much clearer about the situation with a situation faced by Catholics dealing with a bought and paid for ‘free press’ that is deeply hostile to the Catholic Faith.
The actual Heading was:
The Pope needs a communications Swiss Guard to protect him – from himself.
– Or at least a cynical press secretary, says a communications professional.
by Alistair Nicholas https://www.mercatornet.com/above
The quote from the movie ‘Cool Hand Luke’ included as illustration was most appropriate: “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
Pius XII (called “Byzantine” by someone who seems to know little of Byzantium) saved hundreds of thousands from death, so the slam was not appreciated.
The standard of worldly politicians is not enough; the Pope directs me in the salvation of my soul and has no right to make gaffes as frequently as he seems to make them. When EWTN has to take an entire program with three educated Catholics to straighten out “what Pope Francis meant”, something is wrong.
A Pope should be able to express himself. Pope Francis´s Italian is rudimentary, his Latin, English, and French negligible. We have a problem.
kristin, i think that michael cook is addressing this article to several different audiences. there are bloggers out there who are making use of the gaffes as a way to discredit the holy father and undermine his authority. this article helps in some ways that are positive. i would ask you to write mr cook and let him know where he failed you. it might prompt him to cover this area again with more precision. he does try to keep his articles, i have noticed, to a certain length. and he does tend to take a posiitive view of things, believing that God is working despite the chaos in the world.
Writing Mr. Cook, or rather commenting on his articles on his website, gets the comments section locked down. But only after the “editor” poses an obtuse question. Like, “What name calling? Where?” after writing an article wherein he correlates Catholics to detractors, Chicken Littles, and malcontents.
Sorry, david, but the guy doesn’t seem capable of honest discourse wherein “he” takes responsibility for his own words and their implication.
Michael Cook is yet another apologist for a Pope who often speaks inelegantly and from the hip. So david drewelow, my hope in commenting is that CalCatholic readers might see another perspective on what “gaffes” have done to diminish the Pope’s ability to shepherd souls to heaven. He must teach clearly and truthfully and avoid confusing those in his spiritual care. He must not be a part or a cause of the chaos you mention.
To add to your point, Kristin, it is not fatherly leadership to double down on the speaking style that has shown itself to be gaffe-prone. So even if the issue with Pope Francis was merely gaffes – which it isn’t – then there would still be a real problem with an intelligent man who seems incapable and unwilling to remove himself from the occasion of being misinterpreted.
Kind of like insisting one will go to the bar every night even though one has gotten drunk and scandalized the children on all previous occasions of doing so.
The Pope makes so many ‘gaffes’ (over 4 years now) AND refuses to modify his comments with the press. That is NOT a positive. Yes, he does have big shoes to fill. But to KNOW that one’s comments create confusion & continue in THAT MODE is insensitive & insane. Also, the Pope insults, what he calls, “The Ultra Conservative Wing of the C. Church” & that is just WRONG on so many levels. It is NOT an over-reaction to say, the ‘Sky is Falling’ when your Church leader seemly attacks doctrine & everything you hold dear! So call me ‘chicken little’ if you insist on messing with Ultra Conservatives & Church Doctrine. Sorry but that is troubling & should not be taken lightly by any serious Catholic in the pew.
Continued…….Pope’s GAFFES are troubling. Per an article from a priest in Africa found @ http://www.canon212.com
“THANK GOD I LIVE IN AFRICA, WHERE WE BASE
OUR FAITH ON THE SCRIPTURES AND CHURCH TEACHING,
AND NOT EVERY PAPAL INTERVIEW”
Continued…….correction, the comment above is from an ArchBishop in South Africa.
“…Pope Francis keeps making headlines, but not in a way that soothes all Catholics.”
Catholics don’t need soothing; they need, like the world, the truth.
The demonstrable lack of receiving it – for far longer than Francis has been Pope – is why someone could dismiss the Pope’s repeated use of the “media” as a vehicle of confusion by saying look at his writings.
No, the Sky is not falling. The ruse, however, is. That’s why pandering articles like these are popping up all over. To pretend that fatherhood is about hugs, cuddles, and accessibility and not the job it really is. The job that increasing numbers – and this is for all the Chicken Livered out there – refuse to do because it is hard. Much like it is hard to face…
Amen sister!
Why publish this tripe? Francis is the Pope and is owed our love and obedience (to a point). However, he is also a deeply flawed liberal man, stubborn and vainly liberal, showing a love of Latin America’s Liberation Theology. Francis also reflects the Jesuit Order’s lack of devotion to the liturgy and to most things Traditional.
Certainly give Francis a break regarding his off-the-cuff remarks. But he must also exercise caution in making such remarks. Also, FYI, Reagan’s comment about Russia was an exercise in humor, not a gaff. Francis usually means what he says.
Pope Francis is from Argentina! Latin America doesn’t think and speak the same as the United States. The U.S., in its infancy, a Protestant country. Everything was/is black and white. That is not the way the southern hemisphere thinks and speaks. We need ti remember that the U.S. represents only 6-7 percent of the Church. The majority of Catholics are from the southern hemisphere. They have different traditions. different cultures, different languages, different approaches to religion, etc. We north American Catholics don’t even come close- to representing the Catholic Church in the world.
The Pope is not representing his particular “brand” of Catholicism. We don’t get to have our own brand. We are orthodox or we are heretics, that’s it. There is a difference – yes. Southern Hemisphere “Catholics” are into synchronism, Macumba, Condomble, Santaria, Astrology, New Age, yoga and others. Virtually no one goes to Church in Argentina. My Catholic Southern hemisphere cousin is divorced and promotes abortion as her profession. My ex was prone to cults. There is a lot of “cultural” Catholicism. We are not talking about an “average” guy, here, we are talking about a former Archbishop in probably third largest city in SA. Even amongst his own people there and among Jesuits he is seen as his own man, a maverick. So…
If it were only North Americans reacting to the Holy Father’s cultural peculiarities, you may have a point, Bob One. But pretending that a man from Argentina is somehow limited in his understanding of the duties of the Pope to uphold, defend, and pass on the fullness of the Faith is nothing short of discrimination.
We need to remember that educated Catholics, be they from Italy, America, Argentina, or Africa, and yes, even Germany, are called to profess the same faith. And prelates are required by the very nature of their office to exercise prudence.
Amen Bob.
For a better understanding, please read “10 things Michael Cook gets wrong in his criticism of papal critics” at https://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4889/10_things_michael_cook_gets_wrong_in_his_criticism_of_papal_critics.aspx
Thank you Fr R.P. for the link to this article, a better, balanced evaluation. The last sentence is:…..compounding matters further, is that John Paul II & Benedict XVI were not only quite brilliant, they were remarkably clear & consistent. Francis is often neither. Fine—we’re used to some clarity & consistently. At some level, we should be getting it. My premise: Cutting the Pope slack worked for a while. Blaming the press, language etc, worked for a while too. Now, after 3/4 years of all these types of adjustments (ahem…excuses), I wish for more clarity less ‘gaffs’. Love him, pray for him, but it is exhausting.
Thank you for the link, Fr. Perozich.
So good to know not every male isn’t bamboozled into believing he must devolve into a pudding filled cuddle cake to be considered good father ;^)
But Mr. Cook’s article does have value. It is a clear demonstration of the dearth of genuine masculinity. Perhaps the result of too many Hallmark specials and sappy television commercials.
This article is spot on. Cut Pope Francis some slack. After all, Jesus has done so for you!
Hear, hear! Goodness, some people here talk as if they have no sin at all.
Sorry, Bob– but much more is expected, of one of the highest posts of religious and moral leadership, on Earth– to be Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, is NOT like being some illiterate “straw boss” of a baby operation, in Tim-Buc-Tu!!
While the rest of the world embraces Pope Frances, the Philistines wish to cast him out. Welcome to the the 21st Century.
What, rest of the world, exactly? Have you seen or read this? (Or hundreds of other articles like it out there?) This one is from an ArchBishop in S. Africa found @ https://www.canon212.com
“THANK GOD I LIVE IN AFRICA, WHERE WE BASE
OUR FAITH ON THE SCRIPTURES AND CHURCH TEACHING,
AND NOT EVERY PAPAL INTERVIEW”
“While the rest of the world embraces Pope Frances, the Philistines wish to cast him out. Welcome to the the 21st Century.”
PantherMom? Is that a take on tiger mom? If so, I’d think your objective would be excellence, not status-quo kabuki theater.
That said, your focus seems to be on the person of the Pope, not the function of the Papacy. Nobody is wanting to reject your new best friend, but rather do whatever is necessary to ensure that your “pal” does the job he was ordained and elevated to the Papacy to do. Not just build a personal following.
The gaffes are not the issue. Pope Francis has a deep rooted dislike for the traditions of the Catholic faith. He is the first pontiff who was ordained a priest in the Post Vatican II era. He is from Peronist Argentina. He sees the Church’s timeless teachings as “rigid”. He often mocks those who engage is piety, such as the Altar Boy who had his hands clasped in prayer in Rome (Nov. 2013). The Pope accused him of having his hands “stuck”. He treats his spiritual children quite roughly. So it is these and so many actions and questionable (if not heretical) writings that have given faithful Catholics cause for alarm.
I agree, and I think we should simply practice our Faith— and ignore this Pope, as he is only one Pope, in a long line of them, historically! That is all we can do– ignore him! He has nothing to offer, to help us with our Catholic Faith, for myself, and many others! The only good thing I can see, that he does, is that he tries to practice Mercy and Love, and that is good, although he has that wrong, too– he denies the concept of sin, and rectification of sin, in a believer’s life! He also has turned away many Latin American believers, sadly– they know he is wrong, and a “liberal-lefty!” So, who will be the next Pope? And then, we will forget about this one!
You call this good manners, Linda Maria? You would publicly call on people to “ignore” the Supreme Pontiff? You dare say the Holy Father has “nothing to offer”? You don’t know anything except from what you read in the media that is biased against Francis. This is not only bad manners, Linda Maria, this is gross sin. Catholics are called to revere their spiritual shepherds, not trash them as you just did.
Christ warned us, centuries ago, that there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing, imposters (like Judas!) attacking His followers! We can only place our trust, ultimately, in Christ, and be very careful, of clergy and lay leaders, who are the “wolves.”
What is being offered can and does present an occasion of sin, jon. Whether you view it that way or not. You are not father confessor here. And whereas some may be able to visit the nude beach and feel completely at home, others, quite justifiably stay away. Not because the human body is vile and evil and has nothing to offer. But even the best of things can be used poorly, leading others to fall into error and sin.
Catholics who do revere the ecclesial office are precisely those who do what needs must to call attention to the dignity of said office by teasing out the man from the job.
You don’t know anything save what you’ve allowed yourself to be poisoned with, jon. And it is precisely because of what you write here that others…
… are even more inflamed to disregard what is so clearly sinful. Especially when it is issued from a “shepherd”.
Translation: Dad’s on a bender, just ignore the behavior and wait until the morning. That’s the most charitable thing to be done. Not executing the ridiculous while Dads under the influence.
Who said anything about ignoring? WHo said anything about doing nothing. Your trashing the anointed clergy publicly does NO GOOD. Plus, it’s prohibited. Read Canon 1373.
More canonical non-sense=jon-sense about canon 1373, which is now a talking point of the embattled Francisistas.
This uninformed person is utterly incompetent to interpret and apply any canon, doesn’t understand the rules of strict interpretation of the canons, doesnt ken canon law, and is merely, typically, trying to threaten fellow Catholics into silence. Ed Peters, a true canonist (that’s a ‘canon lawyer’ for the short-on-facts/make-up-the-rest, jon-the-prelate crowd) blows up this usage of c.1373, as did also EWTN some time ago, that the canons cannot prohibit in anyway the right of Catholics to voice and address errors — and publicly, that is, not in some quashable dead-letter process that is intended to be futile…
Jon, you say to ignore. The anointed are TRASHING themselves by fomenting PUBLIC scandal by their incoherent projections. Public scandal requires public correction – and in some instances public declaration from informed Catholics that drivel is precisely that – drivel.
You may be aware that Dad’s on a bender, but if you don’t do some damage control to give explanation for his outrageous behavior you’re contributing to the spreading of error. You’re behaving much like the deadening alcohol that is degrading the whole purpose of authority.
Your approach is demonstrably that of feigning that the effects of an inebriated brain is really the promptings of the Holy Ghost. That is absurd and grotesque error that ignores intellect and…
…will.
You need to get over the collar worship, jon. You’re not helping them.
LM, Sound like the prelates in S Africa are using the ‘ignoring’ technique you mentioned. S. African ArchBishop recently said: “THANK GOD I LIVE IN AFRICA, WHERE WE BASE OUR FAITH ON THE SCRIPTURES AND CHURCH TEACHING, AND NOT EVERY PAPAL INTERVIEW” Source @ https://www.canon212.com
From the Pew– that is EXACTLY what I am saying! Better to focus completely on your Faith, and ignore things, like the crazy press conferences, and various problems of the Pope, as much as you can! These “crazy things,” are a serious detriment to our Faith! And we only have a short amount of time, to work out our Salvation, with Christ, while on Earth! Cardinal Sarah wrote a very good book, “God or Nothing,” which is a big help, to many clergy and laymen! I want to read it! A Pope who is off-kilter, will do absolutely NOTHING, to help us all get to Heaven!!
Thanks be to God for Cardinals like Sarah.
Yeah, just like the tactic of the fallen angels: make them appear like they’re against each other.
The jon-type pro P. Frank defenders have a problem: the supreme teacher of the Faith evidences a style that speaks against the defined doctrines of the Faith, apparently carelessly, but the division and confusion nonetheless originates from the pope’s modus operandi. Defending a wrong effects their complete loss of credibility. The next pope will have to correct this deviation.
Wrong again Campion. I am more pro-papacy, pro-the office of pope, than the man Bergoglio. Ok? OK. I am pro-obedience to the pope whoever he is. Ok? OK.
…then be pro-Pope. Help the man do his job by discouraging outrageous habits that don’t bespeak humility, but rather singularity of “Look at me!” I’m in the driver’s seat everybody. Now it’s time for Mr. Toad’s wild ride because I’m all about having people in the bus feel the Adrenalin of being freaked out as I skirt as close to the cliff as possible.
What’s wrong kids? Don’t you have Faith? Well, don’t ya!!!
Why Papal “Gaffs’ don’t help? Somebody has to clean up the confusing messes of the Pope. Article dated July 6th, 2016: Archbishop Charles J. Chaput issued a new set of pastoral guidelines on Friday in which he says that Catholics who are divorced and remarried, cohabitating and unmarried, or in a same-sex partnership must “refrain from sexual intimacy” to participate in Holy Communion. @ https://www.pennlive.com/news/ by Lizzy Hardison. God bless him for being a good shepherd. So concerned, he issued a CLEAR pastoral guideline for his flock. (Guess he does not want to go to hell for anybody or the sin of omission.)
Sadly, many get sick of all the “Pope Francis confusion,” even in his own Latin America– and DO leave the Church, taking their families to Protestant fundamentalist churches, that are strong, and supportive of basic Christian truths. They need something strong and helpful, for their marriages and family life! Something strong and sure, and helpful, to guide their kids by, too!
Based on all the divided comments above. There is a great divide between modern V2 members: conservatives vs liberals. The liberals want more change as much going astray as Frank will let them go, they love him for doing so. The conservatives are trying to drag their feet and slow down or reverse the liberal changes over the last 50 years. There is only one hope as proven by all the discourse and sacrileges, the Great Apostacy predicted in the Holy Bible has arrived. For the greater part of the V2 members, their best hope is Blessed Mother and praying many Rosaries to her.
Yes, Tom, although “liberal/conservative” relates to political views–“traditional/non-traditional” is more accurate perhaps.
Meanwhile, the holocaust goes on in the Middle East. Of all the “Syrian refugees” allowed into the US in May and June, 1 Christian (count ’em), 1 was allowed in May, and none at all in June. “Pope Frank” could be beating the drum for those who are being murdered, the females and children pressed into the most Satanically vile prostitution for Islam, and the Catholic ordinary/ies in the Middle East ask why the silence.
“And [the martyred witnesses under the altar] cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the…
“And [the martyred witnesses under the altar] cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” Rev. 6:10
At least, PF could be as adamant about this as he is about his new-found moral imperative for global warming, no? (A. No)
Canon 1373: “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”
Provide the canonical case law defining “animosity “, O jon, the Threatening. Also the application of c.1373 in actual canonical cases. What were the actual penalties? And who alone is canonical competent to judge them (hint: not you)?
Oh, you don’t know the cases and the views of the different canonists, do you? (Do you heat a fevered scurrying sound, anyone?)
Well, Justin K. if you really want to know the answers to those questions why don’t you post your real name next time in a future post and we’ll see: we’ll go from there. OK? Ok.
I still think it is highly insulting to millions of good, devout practicing Catholic married couples, deeply involved in their parish churches and schools– for the Pope to state that maybe their marriages are “not valid,” and not as good as some dumb “hippie liberal” couple, that “shacks up,” detests the Church and Christian morality, practices birth control and abortion– and has kids out-of-wedlock, too! The Pope owes good Catholic married couples a PUBLIC APOLOGY– and lots of SUPPORT for them, and their children!!
The Pope has instigated animosities. He provokes disobedience by his continuing to use the media as a tool to create confusion while he feigns innocence.
As expected, when asked to produce facts on his canon law interpretations, jon runs away–from issue. Same way when Sawyer cornered him on capital punishment, same way when Campion did the same on the non-“boom” in US vocations.
This classic is for you, “My Little Runaway”, by Del Shannon, canon jon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziLagAgoPCE
“I wonder, wa-wa-wa-wa-wonder, why he ran away… My Little Runaway.”
Running away? In your dreams. Sawyer was found completely wrong on capital punishment. It was he who ran away making an excuse that because the article is dropping from the front page of this blog, he’s no longer commenting.
You also ran away when confronted with Canon 1373 in the article on Truelson, proving that the Canon TOTALLY applies to you.
As for issue on vocations, it turns out that Campion didn’t even read carefully my point that the stats also showed places with high ratio of seminarian vs. Catholic population.
These folks, people, RUN AWAY when confronted with objective facts. They slither away cowardly, castigating the Magisterium, hiding being their anonymity. Pathetic.
As I said O Justin, if you really want to know the answers to your Canon Law questions, such as penalty, go ahead and post under your real name and give us your diocese or parish name. The only way you can know is having your case prosecuted. Ok? Ok. Otherwise, yeah, you’re just blowing hot air, as usual.
Justin K, no matter how much you may disagree with him, Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and deserves respect. He is not Frank! Think His Holiness, Pope Francis!!!!!
Bob One, you and your twin, jon the pious, notably avoid addressing the policy and leadership failures of this pontiff. It is almost always the case the two of you twist it into a defense of a perceived “personal attack.” That is just a mask and a cover for not addressing P Frank’s executive failures. Please address the point: why has PF been mostly silent while Christians die, horribly, every day?
Well it is a personal attack in the case of many here, including you. How do I know that? Simple look at how you write about him. Your words and the sentiments implied therein indict you. They are words of animosity, not the words of a faithful Catholic who seeks to discern from the Holy Father’s teachings what the Holy Spirit is challenging the Church to do. No. Be under no delusion about yourself. Your words harbor contempt. Repent while there is time O Justin K., repent.
You’re assuming that the Holy Father in departing from what has been previously taught by way of the Holy ghost is a sign that the Holy Ghost is challenging us to do a 180. Sorry, jon, but the “challenge” is to perceive and cling to the truth and recognize error. No matter whether that error or “gaff” comes from an Angel of Light.
Judge with right judgment, jon. Do not encourage the blind to follow the blind where both shall fall into the pit. Judas was an Apostle. Repent, jon, repent and see the light.
The truth will set you free not those words that come from the mouth of men.
And your final question there O Justin reveals further that you are indeed coming from animosity against the Holy Father. How so? You ask why he has been silent while Christians die horribly. He has spoken about this several times, such as on Easter Sunday where he said, “Those Christians who were celebrating Easter in Pakistan were martyred because they were celebrating the Risen Christ. Thus, the history of the Church goes ahead with its martyrs.”
He spoke about this when he traveled to Armenia recently where he said that even more than at the time of the first martyrs Christians experience discrimination and persecution for the mere fact of professing their faith. He got in trouble from the Turkish government for using the…
… word “genocide.”
He spoke about Christian persecution last year when he offered Mass with Patrirarch Gregory Peter XX Ghabroyan when he said “there is no Christianity without persecution.”
This proves that you comment without looking at the facts.
There have been other occasions when Pope Francis has decried Christian persecution, Justin. It is breathtaking that you, who denounced him on this very point, have failed to know that the Holy Father has spoken about this. Therefore I reiterate my point that you have lost your credibility. And not only that, you have opened yourself to the question of your intent for saying unfounded derogatory statements about the visible leader of the Catholic Church.
What is breathtaking is the lack of culpability a leader engages when he endorses wholesale open borders regarding real threats and then pretends upset at the fallout of massacre.
Therefore I recite the reality that the Holy Father is losing his credibility by virtue of his own double speak and stubborn insistence in blaming so called conservative Catholics for his unrepentant attitude toward causing demonstrable scandal by imprudent off-the-cuff speeches to a hostile press.
You seem to forget that St. Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ 3 times. He also had to be encouraged by Christ to return to share the fate of the Christian flock being crucified in Rome.
At last, jon wishes to debate facts, tho’ perhaps momentarily: As far as can be determined P Frank has only spoken re. ME Christians: 1x (Nov 2013) in 2013; 4x in 2014; 6x in 2015, and now, at last after much letter writing (what jon recommends)about once a month in 2016.
What is notable is his silenc when it might have had a real effect: Were ME Christians discussed with Pres. Obama Sept., 2015? Before the US Congress? No mention. (He didn’t even mention Jesus Christ.) When he met Jan 26, 2016 in a smiling meeting with the funder of ISIS, Iranian Pres. Hassan Rouhani, P. Frank was dutifully silent about ME Christians. When he had a big photo op on the Greek island of Lesbos(5/10/16) about ME refugees he took back to the Vatican…
..Vatican….ZERO (jon likes caps), that is -0- Christian refugees taken back to the safety of the Vatican.
Yes, under much pressure, finally in 2016, PF, having been distracted for much of 2015 with his re-designing Catholic marriage, global warming and world income redistribution, PF occasionally says something now. But most of the last 3 years, he has dithered on his pet projects: he OK’d Bp. “Marvelo” Sorondo-Sanchez spending millions of euros on illuminating the Vatican walls with an ecology sound-and-light show—while Christians were being beheaded, or now, in May 2016, ISIS is dropping people in vats of battery acid, or burning Christian girls alive (5/16/16). He spent useless time and attention on the Synod on the…
…family.
So the question is fairly asked, as we will all be asked: “What did you do, Pope Frank, with your awesome leadership and influence, to save lives of ME Christians?
The glaring fact revealed here is that you O Justin K. are TOTALLY WRONG. You have proven to be mistaken. The Pope has spoken several times about Christian persecution, notably in his last trip, which totally demolishes your point. It reveals you as truly lacking in credibility, it reveals your groundless hostility and animosity against the Pope, and it reveals that you merely are blowing air–without substance to your points. Pathetic you are.
Yes, jon, in the words of the immortal Elmer Fudd: “Ooh, my, I am tewibly fwightened.”
The Pope just appointed DISASTER as head of the Congregation of Bishops– Chicago’s Cardinal Cupich! Not too long ago, the Pope got rid of good Churchmen, like Cardinal Burke, who would have been terrific, in that capacity! No doubt– Cardinal Cupich will bring worldwide DISASTERS everywhere, that we shall have to endure, for years to come– in episcopal appointments! No orthodox Catholic bishops/archbishops, I bet, for years to come! And some of them will also eventually enter the College of Cardinals, too— and be eligible for election as Pope! Well I have decided to ignore His Holiness’ “disasters”– and simply be a good, practicing Catholic!
Actually, I read the news too fast– Cardinal Cupich will just be a MEMBER of the Congregation of Bishops, and not the head, or Cardinal-Prefect.
Archbishop Cupich is not a cardinal — at least not yet.
Sorry, Wm. Hamilton– it is easy to make mistakes, when you type fast, and have little time! Anyway– Cupich is a DISASTER!!
Since now we are allowed to have an intellectual discussion about P. Frank’s gaffes, esp. his distraction on non-essential issues (“anthropogenic” global warming, wealth-redistribution, redesigning sacramental marriage), instead of helping dying ME Christians, here’s what the Bob One’s and the jon’s can really do (of course they have already done these things), to try to help our Christian martyrs in Syria and Iraq:
1) e-mail your senator or congressman. Dianne Feinstein is very good about her office responding to every e-mail. Good luck, with Barbara Boxer, or Kamala Harris, or Zoe Lofgren. (You’ve both done this, right, Bob and jon?)
2) Contribute to the Knights of Columbus relief fund: the KOC is really saving people, as are…
..the Melkite and Maronite eparchies:
https://www.kofc.org/en/christianRelief/hope.html
Bob One and jon, you can contribute monthly, with a credit card, too; of course you are already doing this, right? Right? BO, jon, right?
The KOC site details the disaster in Syria and Iraq, while P Frank dithers to gather Euro and US elites’ praises:
* Syrian Christian population: has dropped from 30% to 10%.
* Mosul, Iraq: Before PF’s and Obama’s administration, there were 30,000 Christians: now there are ZERO.
* 80,000 of the Christian refugees are children between the age of 3 and 17. Does anyone care?
* As of Mar. 2015, 220,000 Christians have been executed. 220,000 souls.
“And [the martyred witnesses under the altar] cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” Rev. 6:10
By the way, the recommendations to help ME Christians are all simple steps I have already taken myself: I would never recommend something to others without doing it myself first. Just like jon and Bob One. Right? Right, Bob One and jon?
Think of ME Christians: P Frank should be screaming every day for them. Think what he could do to focus world attention…if he wanted to do so.
Usquequo, Domine? How long, O Lord?
Justin K., just to remind you that your credibility has been totally obliterated by your careless denunciations of the Holy Father. You claimed he has been silent about Christian persecution, when the reality is that he hasn’t been silent. You yourself are proving yourself wrong. Pathetic. I daresay you have no grounds to be trashing any of the Church’s spiritual shepherds, your accusations have been found wanting, and you are only speaking from hostility. Lost credibility. Pathetic.
Jon, the actual statement was Pope Francis has been “mostly silent,” relative to the gravity of the genocide of Middle East Christians and the relative paucity (shown by the dates) that PF has addressed this issue, until 2016. It shows his distraction with world-elite issues.
Since you like the word “mostly,” I must say that you here have been MOSTLY wrong, most glaringly by saying that the Holy Father has been silent on this issue of Christian persecution. He has not been mostly silent. He has spoken about it several times. Why don’t you castigate the Western leaders such as Obama or Cameron who have fighter planes instead? You have proven to us here that YOU ARE WRONG. You’ve shot your own credibility on the foot.
Additionally, There is totally no doubt that Canon 1373 applies to you and mostly like to many here who without concrete facts unjustifiably denounce their own spiritual shepherds.
“A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.” Canon 1373. Repent.
BTW, in an effort to clarify matters, Pope Frank indeed met with the new Armenian Patriarch Gregory Peter XX Ghabroyan —but that was way back on 9/7/2015. In a homily at that concelebrated Mass, PF spoke in a rare way of the persecution of Mid-East Christians–but no one pays attention to those homilies except us Catholics. Note too: it is one of the only 6x’s during the year 2015 that he devoted any time to this issue (if anyone knows of additional occasions, and has a copy of his address(es) during 2015, please, we will add them in).
As of Mar. 2016, 220,000 Christians have been EXTERMINATED by Sharia Muslims. The only other occasions PF devoted any attention to the matter in 2015, that I have recorded, are: 2/15/15,…
.. 4/11/15, 7/10/15, 8/20/15, and at Christmas 2015. 6x’s in 2015—only 6x’s is all that nearly a quarter of a million Christians dying, many more women and children unbelievably brutalized and forced into Satanic prostitution and enslavement, many more tortured and maimed and wounded, deserve?
Imagine, if the main daily focus of this pontiff were on ME Christians, instead of phony global warming, socialist-state wealth redistribution, or re-designing Catholic marriage: and why were those non-lethal issues so terribly much more important—except to gain the praise of world global elites, like George Clooney, Richard Gere (I guess for “Pretty Woman”, and Salma Hayek?
Yes, Pope Frank-defenders, you have a lot on your…
O Justin K: You say that no one pays attention to the Pope’s homilies except Catholics? You’re totally wrong there. The world pays attention to whoever is on Peter’s throne, except those who are hell-bent to dissent from whatever he has to say. Totally wrong you are. Totally. The fact is that the Pope has spoken about Christian persecution many times, thereby totally demolishing your point that he has been silent on this issue. Lost credibility O Justin. Time to change your name to another one.
…..you mistake those who are Heaven bent to do what Christ says who are hell bent in rejecting obfuscation and error – even when it comes from the mouth of the Pope. Be not a respecter of persons, jon. Do not accept a different gospel – even if it should come from an Angel of Light.
Wrong. The question here is YOUR REACTION, YOUR BEHAVIOR in the face of whatever a pope or a bishop or a priest is saying. They may say whatever they want to say. You have no control over that. Their judge is God. You have control over how you react, what you say, how you respond.
Plus, have you ever tried to discern Ann Malley, what it could be that the Holy SPirit is trying to get through to folks like you through the successor of St. Peter? I can tell from your being upset all the time with Francis that he is probably the best person on Peter’s throne, judging on how dismayed, upset, and hysterical people like you have become.
Here is one of the occasions when Pope Frank could have spoken up about Middle East Christians, certainly publicly, esp. because he was meeting, smilingly, with the funder of ISIS, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Jan. 26, 2016:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/world/pope-iran-rouhani/
Even though P. Francis ordered the Vatican staff to cover up the “nudes” in the art work (heavens, we wouldn’t want the esteemed President Rouhani to be offended), P. Frank didn’t want to challenge old rogue about funding ISIS, even though funding weaponry and armaments is one of his usual rants. Here he missed a prime occasion.
Now Pope Frank’s defenders will say, “How do you know he didn’t mention ME Christians to Rouhani?” So you think…
..Rouhani would have been smiling contentedly if P Frank had laid into him on funding ISIS and the killing of Christians? Really? Look at those contented grins.
O Justin K., since you quoted Ed Peters the canonist, why don’t you read what he actually wrote about violations of Canon 1373. “To be sure, hateful speech directed against any one is objectively sinful, and if directed against a man of God, let alone a pope, it is especially wrong. Occasionally, speech might rise to level of crime (see e.g., Canon 1369 on expressing insults against the Church or Canon 1373 on inciting animosity against the Apostolic See) but the penalties in such cases are not automatic and do not extend to excommunication. Usually, verbal hate is just a sin (if I may put it that way) not a crime.”
So the question begs to be asked: O Justin K., are you going to persist in your sin?
Laughably vicious, My Little Runaway. Judge on, little man!
For the record O Justin: It is YOU who ran away after I pointed out that your misinterpretation of Canon 18 is WRONG. I had to find you commenting here and re-posted Canon 1373 to inform you conscience. Sin is a sin, an offense against God, and the activities of many of you people here, maliciously and unjustifiable trashing the Pope and the bishops and priests are sinful. Repent.
jon, repent of your contribution to manufactured ignorance.
Your opinion holds zero weight in determining what is justifiable and what is considered trashing.
Public scandal calls for public refutation.
Repent of your aiding and abetting blind guides.
The man who didn’t know a thing about c. 18 (which states:
“Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”), a rule of which he demonstrates he has absolutely no understanding.
“Strict interpretation” to jon means what he lusts for: draconian and mean-spirited punishment of his perceived enemies (=those who disagree with his twisted interpretations). In actual fact, “strict interpretation” means the application of the law only to cases that absolutely and in the most narrow sense conform to the situation of the law. That means it is based on canon law history and application of prior cases. In this case, jon is all for…
… for “restrictions to the free exercise of rights”, namely right to petition a grievance, right to speech and expression of ideas, because he is a classic authoritarian repressionist.
O Justin K., there is no protection in Canon Law for the animosity that folks here are inciting against the Holy Father and our bishops. NONE. Canon 18 DOES NOT PROTECT the sin of dissent, the sin of engendering hatred and animosity against the anointed shepherds of the Church. Penal laws Canons such as 1373 have to be interpreted strictly to protect rights. But there is NO RIGHT to dissent, NO RIGHT to incite animosity against bishops and the Pope. You stand OBJECTIVELY in sin.
I’m still confused. What has His Holiness Pope Francis ever said that was not straight down the line teachings of the Catholic Church? Can anyone give specific examples of where he has led anyone astray of Church dogma? Specifics, not oh-I-wish-He-hadn’t-said-that stuff. Specifics!
How about pointing to Cardinal Kasper as the authority on the reception of Holy Communion, the very same who advocates the Blessed Sacrament for the Divorced and Remarried.
How about His Holiness pointing to Cardinal Schonborn as the theological authority on AL who now attempts to foist ambiguity of the above as some “pastoral practice” to trump Catholic doctrine. And Our Lord’s own words in scripture with regard to adultery.
How about the idea that it is somehow unChristian to build a wall to defend a sovereign nation? How about the pretense that one should fall on one’s knees to worship the poor all the while advocating unrestrained influx of those from a culture diametrically opposed to the West whose own people – black youth…
… to be specific – suffer an unemployment rate upwards of 50%
How about the ludicrous changes to the annulment process wherein it is theoretically impossible to have a valid marriage due to the myriad – could be – affixed now to the reasons for getting an annulment.
How about his pretending that clear doctrine is the only heresy. While at the same time asserting that the majority of Catholic marriages are invalid because, well, adults who enter into marriage don’t know what marriage means. Well, if you can’t teach the new “heresy” of clarity, I guess that’s consigning everyone to live in adultery and/or sin. No?
How about the discombobulated malarkey about atheist going to Heaven. There is no salvation outside the Church,…
…., and yet the man tasked with teaching the truth opts for recess so all can play – kind of like a Disney kid mom – and have fun spending the $$$ until it all runs out. But being friends at the cool parties is so hip and trendy and “humble”.
Is that specific enough for ya, Bob? And yet there are none so blind as those who will not see. So the information is out there for you to research. You just choose not to. Manufactured invincible ignorance. But feigned ignorance doesn’t count as it is nothing more than a sin of omission.
Nice try Ann M. but some people seem to be perpetually confused, as you said. Along the way, many Catholics, perhaps without even realizing it, have lost the ‘truth’. A neighbor yelled at me after she asked about Sunday mass obligation due to a 1st Holy Communion on Saturday at noon. She didn’t like hearing, the 1st HC mass didn’t count for the Saturday vigil. God’s commands are simple & for the benefit of our immortal soul. Why look for an ‘out’? Better to error on the side of your immortal soul then foolishly thinking you are getting ‘away’ with something on a wishful technicality.
….I’ve personally been scandalized too often with priests, bishops, etc who are opting for some interpretation that makes for anything but a peaceful conscience. Gotta love it when the holy folks yell at you.
Interesting, however, that she thought to ask you when she likely already knew the answer. Translation: The yelling was really meant for herself, but its easier to blame someone else.
These spineless wonders are really a marvel. They disagree with John Paul II and Benedict concerning important teachings of the Magisterium such as abolishing capital punishment which would have been a complete recognition of the dignity of all human life. Then they also disagree with Pope Francis on a host of other things. The disagree with this pope and that pope, this bishop and that bishop. There’s no satisfying them. Be under no illusion folks, they are the ones who have left the Church, not the other way around.
Our Lord knew all about them when he said: “For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a…
“…wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners.” THese folks behave in accord with their spiritual ancestors. Repent.
jon, better for you to get on a plane, and go to Rome, straight to the Vatican— and argue with the Pope himself, about his very own “bashing” of the Papal office (he won’t even live in his own Apostolic Palace!)— and “bashing” of his very own Catholic teaching! Go argue with the Holy Father– instead of arguing with poor Catholic laymen, suffering under his multitude of “mistakes” and abuses!!
Wait, forgoing living like royalty, when you are the Servant of the Servants of God, is an abuse? Under who’s catechism?
YFC, Pope Francis has his very own concept of the Papacy, and of the Catholic Faith. It is not traditional, nor what most of us expect, by any means! Some might say, from that viewpoint, that he has no right, to abuse the Papacy, by designing it to meet his own ideas! Likewise, some people think that to have TWO Popes, one as a “Pope emeritis,” is an abuse of the Papacy! This Pope is not at all, what jon is vigorously, pointlessly defending! jon sadly defends a Pope only of his own imagination! Pope Francis would rebuke him for his ideas, as they are incorrect, to this Pope!
Jon, I am not SSPX, but you, too, push for things that are against Church teaching — such as the birth control pill, which sometimes is an abortifacient and has led to the death of many women and is alos polluting our waterways, not to exclude the immorality to which it has contributed. Perhaps if you cleaned up your own house first, some of us who are not SSPX would listen to you more. Just a thought.
“…Jon, I am not SSPX, but you, too, push for things that are against Church teaching”
With all due respect, Anne T. what is the Society pushing for that goes against binding Church teaching?
“Perhaps if you cleaned up your own house first, some of us who are not SSPX would listen to you more.”
What you say here is a serious issue. For the ambiguous referral to “conscience” without proper formation is exactly how one like Jon can push his agenda that is clearly against immemorial Catholic teaching.
The aura of perceived disobedience of others who only seek clarity on what has proved to be demonstrably responsible for bad fruits has got to go. Otherwise, there will be more like jon who are confirmed by those Bishops,…
….Cardinals, and priests who have no love of Catholic Faith, but seek to change by way of sophistry.
AL is just another document embracing the tool of ambiguity to foment change without appearing to change. Nothing new. Just more visible what with daily pressers and Church documents that now finagle around with marriage.
And with bishops now openly opposing each other with regard to AL implementation, it’s a free-for-all. No need to push anymore, just do whatever you feel is good.
Ann Malley, Jon was the one accusing you of teaching against the Church. I do not know all the reason why the SSPX have objected to what some of the popes have taught. I do know, though, that many times the SSPX are right in their criticisms and sometimes wrong. An example: many blame Pope Francis for not genuflecting at the Consecration. Well the man has had serious trouble with his knees since his younger days, and often cannot do so, so he bows deeply.
I agree that I did not word my post this morning at 10:15 a.m. very well. I reacted to Jon’s use of the word spineless for others when he himself is guilty of anonymity and going against Church teaching at times..
I was trying to express that there is a problem with Pope Francis’s clarity at times, but making nitpicking comments about him does not help the cause of those who do need to correct what he says or writes, whether they be SSPX or others
Hope that clears up anything I wrote.
Thank you for responding, AnneT. It is precisely that you assume with regard to jon’s posts that I asked you specifically what you believed the SSPX was pushing for that went against binding Church teaching.
There is zero that is being pushed for that goes against binding Church teaching. This is precisely why jon’s assertions need to be refuted. Sawyer’s too when he incorrectly asserts that if one doesn’t accept VII then they are not Catholic.
That is rather a limited stereotype not based on reality, but one perpetuated so as to smear another and keep the truth from being explored or revealed. As for blaming the SSPX for criticisms against the Pope’s not genuflecting, that is not a Society “position” but an observation of…
… individuals. One made in conjunction with his spoken positions that seem, at least on the surface, to forestall a deep reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
Thanks again for your post!
I would add that maybe the SSPX would listen to you more, too.
Anne T, the Society is not about to listen to jon. The full Deposit of the Faith and the Magisterium (that is authentic magisterium that doesn’t double-back or contradict) is what is necessary.
As we can clearly see today what is authentic magisterium and what is not is increasingly called into question. Why? Because pastoral ambiguities are making for documents that can – and therefore are – interpreted myriad ways. That is a appeasement tactic, not clear doctrine.
And now below you’ll have jon getting all incensed because you’re intimating the reality of his squishy positions.
Entirely FALSE Anne T. Me? Support BIRTH CONTROL?? Prove it. Quote me.
I got into an argument on here a few years ago with a Jon who said he was part Asian and part Caucasian about the birth control pill. I am assuming that was you.
For the true, untwisted context of canonist Ed Peters’ article, which jon the pious has grossly distorted by selective citation, readers should see Peter’s article, “Most Words Are Not Crimes”, Dec. 7, 2015.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/most-words-are-not-crimes/
Besides jon the pious’ disregard of Peters’ many careful qualifications (“speech MIGHT rise to level of a crime”; “occasionally”; and esp. “the penalties in such cases are not automatic and do not extend to excommunication.”
That leaves only to jon, as someone else called him, the bishop of Seal Rock, to so perfectly judge “sin” in others, something he thinks he is eminently qualified to do. So much for “Judge not and you shall not be…
Thanks Justin K for the link to this site. It is good to hear that ‘most words are not crimes’ in this well balanced, thoughtful article.
This article does point out Pew, that inciting animosity against the Magisterium is sinful. Note that.
jon, note that ambiguity about what constitutes magisterium is inciting animosity. For an authority that fights internally about what is required will have a flock that wanders off. Not out of malice, but out of self preservation on the most basic level.
You may be accustomed to incapacity borne out of acting on a yes only to be slammed that it’s a no only to be scolded because it’s a yes, etc. But that’s CRAZY making. And it’s intentional crazy making, Sir. An age old tactic to unsettle the masses so that they are more easily controlled.
Time for you to go back to tradition and let those clerics who wish to duke it out on Mt. Vatican have their fight. But feigning that one must tender obedience to confusion is absurd. That’s…
…why canon law provides for times of crisis and why we are admonished to run to the hills when we see the abomination of desolation.