Left-wing Catholic news outlets such as the National Catholic Reporter and the Jesuit-run America Magazine have been gathering their efforts and funding to ensure they control the narratives surrounding the upcoming synod of bishops.
Joe Ferullo, the recently appointed publisher of the Reporter published an article boasting of the publication’s plans to cover the synod. The October meeting “will consider, among other issues, priestly celibacy, the role of women in the church, and the status of LGBTQ Catholics,” Ferullo wrote:
“frightened” describes well the reaction by some in the U.S. hierarchy. Words like “schism” seem to get tossed around freely by conservative leaders who insist the synodality process will erode long-held Catholic traditions.
Several Church authorities from leading cardinals to Pope Francis himself have denied that the synod will focus on the controversial issues Ferullo mentioned, much less make doctrinal decisions about them.
Arguing that “[conservative] voices can have an outsized global influence, given the outsized support they receive,” Ferullo announced that the for the synod and will assign one permanent commentator in Washington DC.
The Reporter will also broadcast “a weekly podcast from Rome, examining and interpreting what’s going on inside the meeting hall, and looking at issues that still lie ahead.” Finally, Ferullo promised,
our social media feeds — including Facebook, Instagram, Threads and X (formerly Twitter) — will give readers our most up-to-the-minute information and analysis. a weekly podcast from Rome, examining and interpreting what’s going on inside the meeting hall, and looking at issues that still lie ahead.”
“It is an enormous undertaking for NCR, equal to the importance of this event,” wrote Ferullo.
An expert on internet marketing consulted by Catholic Vote explained that “if you currently see an oversized presence of both the National Catholic Reporter and America when you Google search for the word ‘synod,’ is because both organizations are spending money in Google ads to associated everything synod to their brands.”
From Catholic Vote
A key point is, “if you currently see an oversized presence of both the National Catholic Reporter and America when you Google search for the word ‘synod,’ is because both organizations are spending money in Google ads to associate everything synod to their brands.”
I discovered this when trying to research an issue and found that virtually all the articles that came up were from the same side of the issue. It’s not censorship (although some internet platforms clearly do that based on ideology). But, let’s be honest, it’s about buying ads and media “space;” not having real, open discussion and debate about issues.
As Google for Small Business sells itself: “Show customers that your business is a safe space. Add the ‘LGBTQ friendly’ attribute to your Business Profile in Google Maps and Search.” But, there is not a way to add a “Christian friendly” or “Catholic friendly” or “family friendly” attribute to one’s Google profile or Google map.
This Bay Area mega-company has an agenda (besides simply making money). And, the Reporter and America (magazine) seem to have similar agendas.
Nope. Ads are clearly marked.
So is sponsored content.
If you are getting a lot from one side, it is because that is what you look at usually.
You can always clear your history and it will start fresh.
I hear you, but I’m not convinced it’s based on my browsing history. I put in key words on a specific topic and got only one side of the story. And, I remember reading “the other side” previously. So, with that in my browsing history, why couldn’t I find it or anything even similar? I was going to do a little further research and realized I’d be using Chrome as my browser! You’ll find it interesting if you Google “what’s bad about Google.” The first thing that comes up is pretty mild criticism and the second (from 9 year ago) is:
But this year, research organisation Ethisphere have voted Google one of the world’s most ethical companies (WME).Apr 2, 2014
I’ll leave the tech questions to those of you competent in such matters. We’ll see what kind of coverage the synod receives. But, I suspect much of it will have an agenda from long before it occurs.
And, still, why can’t addresses and other places indicate they’re “Catholic friendly?”
I googled synod.
In the news section, there was one story from America and one from National Catholic Reporter, which would be expected.
There were 5 others-Vatican, Register,
Either their anonymous source misled them or they misunderstood.
Please use better sources for information.
Still praying for the Synod. It and all its delegates are under the protection of St. Joseph.
Anyone who runs a mid-sized company or NGO knows that the more you post on Google the higher you will be on the list of sites that customers search for. Websites need to be updated at least three times per week to get traction in search results. Ads on Google will get additional traction. It is important to remember that Google and similar sites make money from advertising. Yes, they have copied every book in the world, so they claim, but they do it to gain advertising dollars. One must ask why “conservative” sites don’t do the same as “liberal” sites. EWTN has the ability to knock NCReporter and America down several levels in the search stream. It is interesting that the article didn’t mention the other side of the issue; how much EWTN and other like-minded groups were spending to report on the synod.
Oh, you bet your booties that EWTN will be there. The papal posse is going to report on everything after they finish fisking Laudato Si 2.
Ancient Gnostic adherents of Hermes Trismegistus would meditate upon the image of two perfect mirrors face to face, infinitely reflecting their infinite, empty images. Thus is it with those two rags.
The Church does not have wings. It has members, not wings.
The Synod does not have sides. There are people (some members, some not) who have opinions about the Synod (some favorable, some unfavorable, some truthful, some not.)
I googled if you could pay google to increase your position in searches. the answer was no.
You can buy ads on google.but that does not increase your position or traffic.
These answers came from quora.
I have never seen an ad for NCR or Amerca, however I may not be part of the audience their ads would be targeted to.
Google ads, in my opinion, is for sales. You pay for how many people click on it and you need to be able to make money off the clicks
I think Catholic Vote got bad intel.
“… Ferullo announced that the for the synod …” Am I getting senile or is there a word or idea missing between the words “the” and “for?” If not I am missing the idea of this sentence.
I just read a NCReporter piece on the initiation of the Synod proceedings.
The title is odd and it says that no one knows what the Synod will be talking about.
Read the Instumentum Laboris. That is what they are going to be talking about.
A delegate gets 3 minutes for their speech but not for every question of course.
The headline was “No one knows about the Secret Synod going on in Rome right now.”
Yes, they do. It is not a secret synod. It is the prayer days before the Synod.
It was announced many months ago.
People need to stop going all drama queen over this meeting.
Have any Cal Catholic readers read about the recent dubia, sent by five cardinals to the Pope, in regards to the Synod?? IlThere is an article on this, in the Oct. 2nd issue of EWTN’s “Catholic News Agency.”
I read that there was a dubia but that the Pope answered the questions without saying YES or No so they resubmitted it.
Yes, I read that too. There is another article about this, in EWTN’s “National Catholic Register,” today. And here is the Pope’s reply, posted on the Vatican website:
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responda-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html
This link says “Page Not Found”
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/10/02/read-pope-francis-response-to-the-dubia-presented-to-him-by-5-cardinals/
I think there was a typing error in the link ro the Vatican website, in my comment of Oct. 2, at 7:24pm. I will try again:
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html
The behavior of the cardinals by publishing the dubia by initially giving only a partial and therefore slanted version of the Pope’s answer was most, most dismaying. Not only this, but the fact that they asked questions to which the Pope had already responded is perplexing. This is not their shining moment, sad to say. We must all admire the patience and the forbearance of the Pope.
I want to downvote this comment, but it’s not letting me, so I’m typing a comment to say down vote. I’d downvote it 100 times if I could.
Given the centrifugal forces seemingly at work in the upcoming synod, the 5 cardinals desire greater clarity from the very pope for whom ambiguity has long been associated. They write: “With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them.” It is their estimation that the pope’s original answers were insufficient given the climate surrounding the synod wherein many want to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which concern the dubia. The cardinals have clarified or crystallized the issues to the extent that, as they see it, a simple yes or no answer may be given. The pope as a leader of the faithful owes his flock the greatest clarity possible, and it seems to me that the cardinals are inviting the pope in this regard to step up to the plate. I hardly see this as dismaying. Rather I see it as a bold attempt to prevent Jesuit casuistry from harming the church further. As I have often thought of this pontificate: better the wounds of a friend than the kisses of an enemy–that is to say, these 5 cardinals are at present the pope’s best friends, even if he doesn’t know it.
The answers that the Holy Father gave to the dubia are on-point, clear, sufficient, and faithful to the orthodox theology of the Church. Read it. If the cardinals wanted to “crystallize” the issue, why did they intend not to publish the Pope’s complete answers to their questions (answers which were perfectly good)?
These cardinals instead published a very small snippet of the Pope’s response, putting his words out of context, thereby distorting it. It was not until the Holy See published the entirety of the Pope’s response that we see the clarity and the correctness of the Pope’s answers.
I am not yet accusing these cardinals of duplicity and disloyalty, but their dubious behavior here had the effect of confusing people even more. They should have consoled the faithful by affirming the theology of the Church as expressed in the Pope’s answers.
This was not these cardinals’ finest hour. God bless Pope Francis.
“Read it.” I did, jon, with an effort to understand what it was in the pope’s answer, say, in dubia 1,that caused these 5 to say “Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them.” For dubia 1: about the claim that we should reinterpret divine revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue; Francis answers, with time,”the judgment of the Church may mature,” that is, ” she never exhausts [revelations’] unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding,” ” to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.” Add to this the cultural conditioning of Scripture and that the “hierarchy of truths” which the “Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal.” In other words, Francis creates enough room for change in divine revelation without directly answering dubia 1. So that he affirms dubia 1 without saying so directly. It is well and good that Pope Francis be made to give a clear yes or no, IMO.
Requiring “yes or no” answers to the dubia is a ludicrous position on so many levels. For example, just read the first question. The way it is composed and crafted requires a thorough treatment and exposition (which the Holy Father succeeded in doing), not a “yes or no” answer.
For people like me who read the questions and the Holy Father’s response objectively and faithfully, without any kind of ideology, the answers given were superb, such as the answer to the first question. How can a person even presume to say that he, in his human mortality and limitations, has exhausted the unfathomable richness of the mystery of God and of salvation.
God bless the Holy Father.
“Francis creates enough room for change in divine revelation without directly answering dubia 1.” This statement is wrong, very wrong. Pope Francis did no such thing.
Rather, the Holy Father in answer #1 explicitly states that “Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding…”
People, what does “immutable” mean? It means “unchanging”. It comes from the Latin “immutablis” which means “unchangeable.”
Then the Pope adds the Church nonetheless must be humble by recognizing that she never exhausts the richness of Divine Revelation, but must always grown in her understanding.
The Pope answers the question point-blank. He positively affirms the unchangeability of Divine Revelation
Who are you to judge the Cardinals’ motives?
jon, there is a page linked here that gives the new questions.
I cannot even begin to think what the Cardinal’s motives might be.
The five Dubia questions are excellent.They are directly related to the upcoming Synod. I read the Pope’s answers on the Vatican website. I do not like this Pope’s approach to guiding the Church. But he did take the time to carefully answer all the questions, and lay out his approach, publicly, for all to see. That is a good thing, especially before the Synod. We all have something very clear to work with. Whether you like his approach or not– at least we all have his answers, for all to see. I am glad that at least, this pope does know correct Catholic teaching. However, in my opinion– his interpretations and leadership style– are just terrible. And I am entitled to my opinions. The next pope will have a different style. And the Church marches onward. I believe in a strong, manly pope, who expects clergy and laity to live according to Church teaching, and guides and helps clergy and laity to be excellent in the practice of their Catholic Faith, for Christ– and makes a strong and true Church for Our Lord. No “baloney.” No lazy, weak, dumb excuses for a worthless, unChristian life, of constant, selfish, horrific sins, and total enslavement to the flesh. Repent, do your penances, reform your lives. Grow up. Practice the Faith! Save souls, make more holy Saints for Our Lord. Get on with it.
Many long years ago, when I was in college, a boy who was in one of my classes, who was dating a friend from high school, approached me. He was an athlete. He told me that he was having trouble writing a paper, and told me that he would give me a huge sum of money, to write the paper for him, so that he could get a good grade. Otherwise, he might not pass. I was horrified. I said, “You mean– cheating and bribery to get your grade? Is that what you do in sports to succeed? You are a cheater. Shame on you. Be a man. Not a baby. You must face your problems yourself, go talk to the professor, identify your weaknesses– and go to work to improve yourself. I am going to report you for this despicable attempt at bribery and cheating.” He was quite hardened in poor character, determined, not affected in the least. He would simply try to bribe another student. Another student, weak in character, might “feel sorry” for him, and join him in committing sins, and take his money– with plenty of excuses for cheating and bribery. When they would get caught—- for this crime, (and possibly many others, later on in their adult lives)– they would be flunked and thrown out of school, with tarnished academic records. “Crime does not pay.” And God sees your every move You cannot fool Almighty God. You have to grow up, face your weaknesses, and get to work to improve yourself.
The final sentence in my comment of Oct. 3, at 3:48pm, was omitted by the editors. I said something like, “that is exactly how I feel about the current Church leadership.” This is in relation to my comment, “The Pope’s answers to the Dubia,” on Oct. 3, at 1:13am.
And what exactly are we totally clear about, with the Pope’s answers to the Dubia questions? It is perfectly clear– that the pope is ambiguous, with no intention to give an honest, true answer of “Yes” or “No” to anything at all. We’ve clearly got that. So we now clearly know what to expect: AmbiguNot Truth.
That is not ambiguity.
If you do not understand the answer, just admit it.
Read the answers again and again until you understand
The Pope was very kind and patient with these Cardinals.
Would that everyone was so kind and patient with him.
You need honesty with yourself. God knows your every thought, word and deed. Christ expects honesty and integrity of His followers and Church leaders. The greatest kindness you can ever receive, is your mom telling you “no” to sin– and the priest at church telling you the same thing, exactly. No babying. You must grow up straight abd tall, honest, mature and straightforward. No lies, no excuses. Let your “yes” mean “yes,” and your “no” mean “no” — just as Christ said, in the Gospels.
You need honesty with yourself. God knows your every thought, word and deed. Christ expects honesty and integrity of His followers and Church leaders. The greatest kindness you can ever receive, is your mom telling you “no” to sin– and the priest at church telling you the same thing, exactly. No babying. You must grow up straight and tall, honest, mature and straightforward. No lies, no excuses. Let your “yes” mean “yes,” and your “no” mean “no” — just as Christ said, in the Gospels.
There is a typing error in my final sentence in my comment of Oct. 4, at 11:50am. The final sentence should read, “So we now clearly know what to expect: ambiguity, not Truth.”
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html
In January of this year, Jesuit Fr. James Martin sent the Pope three Dubia questions to answer, regarding the pope’s recent comments to the press, on homosexuality. The Pope replied to Fr. Martin in a handwritten letter, two days later. Sounds like giving Dubia questions to the Pope has become a popular thing to do. Has anyone seen a published copy of the Pope’s reply to Fr. Martin’s three Dubia questions?
https://outreach.faith/2023/01/pope-francis-clarifies-comments-on-homosexuality-one-must-consider-the-circumstances/?_thumbnail_id=4545
jon: Father James Martin is dubious.
Maybe you scared them off because everyday I look for their domination and it ain’t never there.
You should re-read this news story on the Dubia. The very nature of this Dubia, submitted by the five Cardinals, is much simpler, and very direct– not as you might have thought. It requires only simple “yes” or “no” answers to the Dubia questions. Best to see this “as is,” and avoid your own personal interpretations. The Dubia questions are related to the Synod. The Cardinals have the right to receive answers to their questions. And so do you, myself, and everyone else. Very straightforward and simple. That’s fair.
That’s fair? I beg your pardon, but you and the people who are expecting simple “yes or no” answers are the ones not being fair. Not fair to the Holy Father. If you want a simple religion suitable only for children with clear-cut “yes and no” answers then Catholicism is not for you. Catholicism deals with reality, and reality is complex. The Holy Father’s answers are eminently satisfactory, faithful, correct, adequate, pastoral, and orthodox.
No, jon. Children are extremely complex and challenging, too. Good, responsible parents get to work from Day One, to handle all the complexities of child-rearing. Parenting, teaching, and clerical leadership are big adult responsibilities! Permissive, immature, irresponsible parents turn out irresponsible, immature, misguided kids, who usually end up as selfish, self-indulgent misfits, indulging in sins and crimes– and are a terrible burden for the schools, the police, and for all society.
Children are called to be obedient to their father and mother. As children, you must obey your spiritual father on earth, the Pope. Don’t second guess him. Don’t lie about him. Respect, defend, and love him. By doing so, you are loving and respecting your Heavenly Father.
Jon, you are flat wrong. A child deserves an honest parent, priest, teacher, policeman, and pope, who will always tell him the truth, exactly. No BS. If a child is only given a bunch of BS– he cannot obey. He will just be confused. Unfair. Confusion is dishonest, it is of the Devil, not of God.
jon, there was a lot of opposition to John Paul II and Benedict XVI but people did not just outright lie about them. The differences were on doctrine and they bore some kind of hope that the Church “would change its mind.”
These people online really play on people’s ignorance of the Church and Scripture and Tradition. Some of them, like reply to, seem like they really do not know any better. Some of them should know better. Some of them make money doing it.
I am grateful to the Pope for answering the dubia, although I am troubled that men who I admired like Cardinal Burke and Sarah, did this.
They in turn should have properly explained it to others who think it is ambiguous. They should be helping these people who are so confused and using the word ambiguous when they don’t even know what it means.
You need honesty with yourself. If you are dishonest and cheat, and are irresponsible– and make up terrible excuses for not doing things right– you will get caught and punished. God knows your every thought, word and deed. Don’t try to be untruthful and ambiguous and play games with God. It doesn’t work.
To “grateful for the Pope”: I say, commentators like “reply to” need to learn not to attack the Pope unjustly. It is wrong and it is sinful. It’s like attacking your father who has done nothing wrong.
For example, this false allegation that the Pope is being ambiguous is flat wrong. The Pope as proven in his answers to the dubia that he has not been ambiguous, contrary to some of the false “Catholic” pundits in the media and in the blogosphere.
Some people sadly (like “reply to”) seemingly only listen to the media and the vlogs instead of doing the necessary research in order to form the right opinion; necessary research such as reading the Pope’s response directly and reading the dubia directly.
Don’t rely on the media people, and the so-called “experts” and bloggers. They have been leading you people astray.
Do not lie about the Holy Father, “Reply.” Stop your calumny.
” The Holy Father’s answers are eminently satisfactory, faithful, correct, adequate, pastoral, and orthodox.” As I tried to point out, perhaps without much success, is that Pope Francis’ reply to dubia 1 was in fact vague in this sense: in his allowing the richness of revelation to give birth to new insights as the Church grows in understanding. Such a position seems to me to be the breeding ground for novel declarations of faith contradicting earlier ones. Note that in the case of capital punishment, and communion for the divorced and remarried, this has already occurred. How does the Church “grow in understanding?” I fear in these times by taking on a new definition of Natural Law which admits of alliance with the LGBTQ+ cultural juggernaut to a new ecclesiology, a new definition of marriage, beginning with the blessing of same-sex unions, and a new sexual ethics. There is nothing in the pope’s answer that precludes any of this, or so it seems to me. Hence I question jon’s characterization of Francis’ answer, and I welcome the new dubia wherein the pope is required to give a simple yes or no, and as far as dubia 1 is concerned, he must answer Yes, upon which he can expound further to his heart’s content.
You said it yourself “I fear”
And there’s nothing wrong acquiring “new insights into Divine Revelation.” To despise that is to despise the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church who leads the Church into greater understanding of God Almighty.
“Dan’s” point here (“Pope Francis’ reply to dubia 1 was in fact vague in this sense: in his allowing the richness of revelation to give birth to new insights as the Church grows in understanding’) is false. I already answered this in one of my comments above. Read it.
But to recapitulate. The Pope very clearly states in answer #1 that “Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding.” People do check out what the word “immutable” means. It means unchanging. The Pope answers point-blank there the cardinal’s question.
The Holy Father then add that because of the unfathomable richness of Divine Revelation, Church never exhausts its richness but must grow in its understanding and in its expression. That’s a perfectly orthodox, perfectly faithful, and solid answer.
What is going on here is the seeming refusal of some people to read the Pope’s words without bias, without antipathy, without any of their inappropriate ideology creeping in to their reading. They simply have become incapable of reading things, especially this Pope’s words, “as is” and objectively.
For example, just note where “Dan” is attempting to bring Holy Father’s words into inappropriate areas, essentially putting words in the Pope’s mouth. I mean, a “new ecclesiology”? Where did that come from? Certainly not from the Pope’s response to the dubia. Might I propose it’s coming from “Dan’s” own irrational fears?
This whole hullabaloo about the dubia for the past couple of days sadly reveals the need for some people in the media and in the commentariat here to improve their reading-comprehension skills. Sad.
“The Holy Father then add that because of the unfathomable richness of Divine Revelation, Church never exhausts its richness but must grow in its understanding and in its expression. That’s a perfectly orthodox, perfectly faithful, and solid answer.” Yes, solid from the point of view of one who would grow revelation so as to contradict previously held views, as with the death penalty and communion for divorced and married people. The question is what’s next? Are the pope’s words to be trusted, and are his motivations pure?
Take the pope’s castigating the United States in Laudate Deum: ” If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries, [44] we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact. ”
It is a melancholy fact, but a very obvious one, that China emits more greenhouse emissions than any other country, and they are one of the largest coal producers in the world and are one of the largest coal consumers in the world and become the world’s biggest importer of crude oil. And they finance billions of dollars of coal consumption around the globe. So not only are they themselves a user, they are encouraging or helping other countries do the same. And many Asian countries desire to utilize fossil fuels to grow their economies the way the West has. But does the pope take note of China’s role in this? Has he criticized the Xi Jinping government which has always prioritized energy security above climate goals? always persecuted faithful Catholics while playing the pope for a fool?
jon, you trust this man because he is the pope. I don’t trust him because he is a Peronist and a Jesuit first. I’ll leave it at that.
Because the Holy Spirit leads the Church to grow in knowledge of Divine Revelation, there will never be a contradiction in the Church’s teachings.
For example, the teaching on the death penalty today is in wonderful harmony with the Church’s perennial teaching on the dignity and necessary protection of all human life, firstly of society in general (from a perpetrator) and subsequently (in our time) also of the perpetrators themselves (once the safety of society is secured by means other than the death penalty).
As for China, the Holy Father I am certain has prudent reasons to treat China as he does. He has a vantage point that “Dan” here can only imagine that he thinks he also has.
Imagine a hardline approach to the Chinese regime as people like “Dan” here would want of the Pope. Who do you think will suffer? The faithful Catholics in China no doubt, and all the other Christians living there of other denominations.
So people, there is a reason for the Pope’s demeanor vis-à-vis China, which neither I, nor “Dan”, nor any other arm-chair pundit sitting at his desk in front of a computer has. The Holy See I am certain has information about what’s going on in China that none of us has. Hence, the need for prudent and cautious treatment of the Chinese.
So, yeah, you bet I trust the Pope, as all Catholics are called to do: not only because of his office as the Vicar of Christ, but also because he has been endowed with the charism of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church.
jon, you did a good job answering with kindness.
I got so upset with the lie about the teaching on communion for the divorced and remarried being changed that I could barely get anything out.
I know the Pope in his intention for this month and his patient answer to the dubia, asks us for listening and patience and dialogue but we have corrected that lie so often and they just stick with their lies.
I have a relative who does that so I associate it with mental illness. But that is not to say the people here are mentally ill, but just that there can be more to it than just poor comprehension.
So upset. You damn us here with faint praise, with your glancing blow about mental illness not being really about any of the posters here. Oh, and “jon” answering with kindness? When did that ever happen?
So Upset. You damn us here with faint praise with your glancing blow about the posters here not really being mentally ill. Oh, and when did “jon” ever answer anyone with kindness?
Some questions are phrased such that the only possible answers are “yes” or “no”.
The pope and Tucho are being evasive. With deliberate intent.
Either gay unions can be blessed by the church or they cannot. Don’t pussyfoot by saying, “Well, um, you see, if such and such is the case, then it might be possible and pastoral to do this, of course without implying what we don’t want to communicate, but nevertheless we must not rule it out completely in advance even though it is clear what doctrine is.”
That’s not the way a leader nor a father nor a teacher speaks.
They are being deliberately evasive because they hope that neglect and disregard of the church’s doctrines about marriage and the sinfulness of homosexual sex will change doctrine on the sly, in practice, even if on paper nothing changes. In the hearts and minds of many of the “faithful” it will have changed. And that’s what they are hoping for and going for.
He did not say that it might be possible and pastoral to bless gay unions.
What did he actually say?
I agree with you jon but I also think that there are a lot of Catholics who cannot understand and are at the simple child phase.
What a snide put-down of inelligent Catholics.
It is not a put down.
“… Catholics who cannot understand …” I would infer from this judgment of yours that the 5 dubia cardinals are first and foremost on your list of those in the “child phase,” with those of us who see the value of their dubia listed next. Well, that’s one way to avoid addressing the issues, to be sure. I hope, and I trust, it is not because you do not understand them, but rather because you would rather choose another time and place to discuss them, if you want to discuss them at all.
The dubia cardinals are not in the child phase. I do not think you are either.
https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/notification-to-christs-faithful
The “Dubia” Cardinals are still asking for definitive “Yes” or “No” answers to their Dubia questions– but the pope insists on ambiguity, instead. Ambiguity is not a good leadership style, in my opinion.
The Pope took time out of his busy schedule to answer them honestly and completely.
Then they send back those questions and tell him to say “yes” or “no”?
Really disappointing.
The pope is ambiguous. He will not answer you straightforwardly. That is why the Cardinals are asking for a “Yes” or a “No” to their questions. Ambiguity leads nowhere. Ambiguity is not fair.
The pope is ambiguous. He will not answer you straightforwardly. That is why the Cardinals are asking for a “Yes” or a “No” to their questions. Ambiguity leads nowhere. Ambiguity is not fair.
Those answers are as clear as can be. They are not ambiguous.
They were kind of stupid questions and not very truthful either.
I think the people here using the word ambiguous should look up its meaning.
You need honesty with yourself. I bet your mom and dad were straightforward with you and your siblings when growing up. If you cheat, you lie, you are irresponsible– and make up bad excuses for not doing things right– you will get caught and punished. God knows your every thought and action. Don’t play games with God. It doesn’t work.
What are they really up to?
Why would they do this?
Why release it now instead of when it happened?
Doesn’t look good.
Have you even read the dubia, that is the first version and the reformulated version? If you have, you will find that the way the cardinals phrased and composed the questions cannot (read that people, cannot) be answered by a simple “yes or no.” Read it.
For example, dubia #1 is phrased in a “whether this or that” style (“hoc aut illud”). People, you can’t answer “hoc-aut-illud” questions with a simple “yes or no.” The cardinals themselves didn’t say they want a simple “yes or no.” I mean “come on, man” (thank you Joe Biden).
For complex questions dealing with deep, profound concepts like Divine Revelation, culture, Magisterium, Scripture (all of which is brought up in question 1), answering this requires exposition, which the Holy Father successfully did.
God bless the Pope.
God bless the Cardinals.
At the rate they’re going, they certainly need God’s help.
The Pope needs God’s help.
The cardinals need it more.
We all need God’s help and we have it.
I don’t have enough of it.
To be a Christian means you do not lead a worldly life, as others do. You must give up worldly ways, and lead a very different life, a life that Christ has called you to. You must separate yourself from the ways of the world. You need lots of grace and strength, dedication and commitment, to follow Our Lord, and to be willing to do as He commands. You are no longer a servant of the world and its ignorance, pleasures and sins. You are a servant of the Lord. It is like a man who is living a bad life, who has a heart attack, and his doctor tells him he must change his life, ASAP. He must adopt a different diet, lose 50 lbs., give up smoking and drinking, give up partying and womanizing, settle down and live right, start an exercise routine, and end his extremely competitive, stressful ways at work. If he obeys the doctor, he will live. And if he disobeys the doctor– he will probably soon die. No ambiguities, no excuses, no babying, no lies, and no cheating. All of that is of Satan, and leads to Death. If you are truly serious about following Christ and changing your life– you must pray, go to Confession, grow up as an adult, and change your life. No cheating, lying, babying, deceptions, excuses, and “baloney.” No childish “back-talk” to Christ. Doing horrific gay sex sins– and lying, cheating, and making excuses, will only get you a horrible result of Death from AIDs, Death to all your gay pals that you slept with– and Death to your soul, and a trip to Hell. Gay relationships cannot be falsely “blessed” by the Catholic Church, for any reason on this earth. Do not let anyone “pull a fast one” on you, and cheat you and deceive you– with the Devil’s lies, cheating, and deceptions.
The Vatican and the Pope have said “No blessing of gay unions.”
Is someone telling you otherwise?
Get away from them.
No. The pope is ambiguous, deceptive — read the whole thing. He implies that such blessings– of gay couples– can be done. This is not true.
For the pope and Tucho to imply that gay unions can be blessed it completely wrong of them. They will be considered gay weddings by the parishes that celebrate them. It will be seen as the church approving of their unmentionable private acts. The pope and Tucho are wrong, and so is jon.
They did not say that. But now the lie has spread to the mainstream media.
Congratulations.
Sorry, but neither the Pope nor Cardinal Fernandez implied that “gay unions” can be blessed. That is one of those lies you hear from fake “Catholic” news sources and blogs. Sadly, many people are falling for these lies.
jon, you are unwilling to honestly and intelligently read the ambiguous disinformation which the pope and Tucho are continuously putting out to the public. You pretend they are what they are not. You live in a make-believe church of your own self-deception. Blinded to reality. You’ve been scammed and cheated and deceived! All for nothing! Sold your soul to scammers– and for what?
jon, the pope says to listen. So I am going to listen.
Why do people fall for this bunk?
What the Pope does, God supports. It is an infallible declaration in Scripture.
Also in Tradition, is the primacy of Peter.
Matthew 16:9
Beware. Mankind has God’s gift of free will. And all mankind are sinners– including whoever sits in the Chair of St. Peter. There is no “magic formula” regarding the papacy. That is superstitious, childish thinking. Only Christ’s words are true, in the Holy Bible, and sacred tradition handed down orally, from the time of the Apostles– and we depend upin this sacred, preserved Magisterial treasure. Every priest, prelate and pope must be carefully watched– they all are prone to sin. Jesus chose Judas as an Apostle– and the Apostle Judas became probably the biggest sinner of all-time, betraying Our Lord to His capture and death, for filthy money.
Christ entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. But the whole Church is His Bride. And St. Peter is just standing in for the Bridegroom, Christ– until He comes again. After the Last Supper– the Apostle Judas shamefully betrayed Christ with a kiss. And after the Roman soldiers arrested Our Lord– St. Peter denied Him three times. Our religious leaders all must be carefully watched. They are all human beings, not God. Are they diligently following Christ?? Who ordained them? Who selected the popes, century after century? Were some of these popes– just a few– wayward clerics, leading extremely sinful lives??? Christ is our only true Leader, in the very end. The popes have all had a big responsibility to uphold. And some have failed. Catholic Teaching stands eternally on its own. It is of Christ– and it is changeless, eternal. It stands eternally apart from any Catholic cleric, whether he is a Saint or a sinner. The Keys do not belong to St. Peter– they belong to Christ alone. The Church is His. Christ will take back His Keys when he returns to earth, in His Glory. He will come as the Bridegroom for His Bride. There will then be no more Masses nor Sacraments, no more sermons nor Catechism classe, no more clergy. His job will be completed. That is the way I see it.
Can I please remind people that the Pope answered the questions posed by senior Cardinals of the Catholic Church? They have degrees in canon law, philosophy, theology.
These men understand those answers perfectly.
If you don’t. please go to your pastor (assuming you go to the Catholic Church and not a chapel run by suspended priests or a different Christian denomination).
He will help you to understand it.
Big questions in life regarding big sins are not at all complex. Mankind is weak, easily prone to sin, deceptions and errors. Mature people do not make excuses for themselves or their children, to sin. If a mom catches her seven-year-old child stealing a bag of candy, while they are shopping in a store, let’s say– she immediately tells the child that stealing is wrong. Then she instructs him to say he is sorry, and return the bag of candy to the store owner. She makes him promise to never steal anything again. She also makes it clear, that the child is forgiven. She also may tell him that he must forfeit a certain favorite activity, as a consequence, a penance, for his wrong-doing. He must grow up and learn to accept the consequences of his actions! The mom does not say, “Oh, it’s just a little bag of candy. We can make an exception in this case. Let the child steal it, poor thing.” Yes, stealing is always wrong! Mankind must not make any personal, foolish exceptions to the Ten Comnandments, out of “human” weakness, babyishness, and stupidity.Making foolish “exceptions” for himself will only worsen his state of stupidity, “human” weakness, and sin.
Give me a Yes or No answer to the classic question to politicians: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Too many folks want the Pope to give Yes or No answers to complicated questions. He did that. His answers were clear and definitive. So let’s move on. We have a lot of discerning to do.
You cannot cheat, lie, be permissive, immature and irresponsible, make up excuses, baby yourself, and never grow up to adulthood and adult responsibilities. All in the name of so-called “love.” Phony! Leading a good life, following the right path (the “Narrow” path) leads you to happiness, success, and eventually– the Kingdom of Heaven. Leading a dishonest life, with plenty of excuses, babying yourself, cheating, lying, being phony and ambiguous, no integrity — leads to Hell. Read Psalm 1 (“Beatus vir”) I know this Psalm from great works of music, but you can read it in a modern Catholic Bible. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate, day and night. He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaffe which the wind driveth away. Therefore, the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” And here is another good Biblical verse– “And if it seens evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve…but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15) Read the whole verse! Make up your mind– Whom shall you serve? Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (St. Matthew 7:13-14) “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Anything more than this comes from the Evil One.” (St. Matthew 5:37)
KJV?
My quote, from memory, of Psalm 1 (“Beatus vir,” in Latin– memorized long ago, from musical settings in English, of the Psalms) is from the King James version of the Bible.
CBS News ran a story saying the Pope Francis had OK’d blessing gay couples.
It is not true.
Here is a news report from the UK’s “Catholic Herald,” of the Pope speaking to a group of seminarians from Barcelona, Spain, in which he horrifyingly curses priests who refuse to give absolution in Confession to all, even if the penitent is unrepentant. It hurt my heart greatly to read this. This material is part of the “Dubia” questions of the Cardinals. Here is the link:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-francis-rants-against-delinquent-priests-who-withhold-absolution-2/
I am hurt very badly by this pope, now. I hurt so much, that I will do something that I have never done before. I am going to write a letter to the pope, in English, of course, and tell him how he has hurt me– and politely beg him to please amend his behavior. I am in tears.
Apparently there is a serious problem here– a history of habitual vulgarity with this individual… unholy and unacceptable! Worse than I thought. I do not write to such people– nor to the Rupniks, McCarricks, etc. etc., and other criminals. I am done with the mainstream Church. Not a penny more, nothing. Will now look to join a small Catholic community in another Rite, connected to Rome, with a small, stable group of good, sincere, devout families, deeply practicing their Faith, with deep respect and reverence to God, and excellent, holy clerical leadership. Perhaps the Anglican Ordinariate. Would seek a Latin Tridentine Mass group, but they are too destabilized, ignorantly persecuted by Rome– and too close to the mainstream Latin Rite Church.
I’m including a link to a very interesting conversation among seminarians re the Pope speaking in Barcelona. It seems the contention is with the issue of absolution and his seeming use of a vulgarity. http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2023/01/what-did-he-say.html
I want no more of any of these so-called “holy men.” None of them are holy at all. Holy men, who live deeply in the Divine Presence of God, are well-mannered, excellent gentlemen, and they deeply, sincerely respect God, Christ, and His Most Blessed Mother– and respect their fellowmen and women. They do not use foul language, like evil, Godless, Satan-drenched, lawless, filthy juvenile delinquents in the Death Culture. Young people and seminarians need holy men who are mature adult men, who are great Role Models to look up to, and to inspire them. Fr. Hunwicke also has no business writing such horrific words, nor discussing them, in any language. I am done with the mainstream Church. Unacceptable. God sees all, knows all, and the McCarricks, Rupniks– and many others (and that includes “you-know-who”) have their punishments waiting for them. Will look to join a small community of Catholics in communion with Rome who are serious about their religion, who quietly, responsibly, daily practice it sincerely– and deeply respect Our Lord and His Blessed Mother– holy Catholic families of married couples with children, good people, led by a good cleric. Perhaps the Anglican Ordinariate… we’ll see.
I think “you-know-who” needs a typical Jesuit penance of about 100 years ago, in the 1920s, for habitual vile vulgarity— especially, vile vulgarity and profound disrespect, concerning holy priests, of the holy Catholic Church, administering the holy Sacrament of Confession. Sacrilege.
How many evil heterodox or heretical Catholic clerics might now be considered among Vatican future papabili? Fernandez? Spadaro? Paglia? Hollerich? And many more. Our Church needs a thorough scrubbing and cleaning job– or it cannot stand before Almighty God, Who is Holy. God will have to “dynamite” it with a disaster, to force a proper clean-up job.
A week later, still no domination.
The Pillar wins.