When he defended the appointment of a scholar who favors legal abortion to the Pontifical Academy of Life (PAL), Archbishop Vincenzio Paglia compounded the offense by adopting the rhetoric of the abortion lobby.
In his remarks to the Catholic News Service Archbishop Paglia, the president of the PAL, said that it was inaccurate to describe Mariana Mazzucato as a proponent of abortion. “Her tweets may have been ‘pro-choice,’ he said, but they were not ‘pro-abortion.’”
For more than 40 years, the abortion lobby has promoted the use of the term “pro-choice” to describe someone who supports legal abortion. That rhetorical gambit has been eagerly embraced by the Democratic Party, the mainstream media. But to see it accepted by the Vatican—and, worse, by the very Vatican office created by Pope St. John Paul II to protect the truth about the value of human life—is appalling.
But the appalling Archbishop Paglia was not finished. He reminded CNS that the members of the PAL are not chosen because of their religious affiliation. “They are not all Catholics and do not profess all the tenets of the Catholic faith,” he said. Here he comes perilously close to accepting another canard advanced by the abortion lobby: the notion that it is a matter of religious belief, rather than scientific fact, that an unborn child is a human being.
While they may differ on the tenets of faith, the archbishop continues, the PAL members all “defend life in its entirety.” Here is yet another popular ploy of abortion defenders: the “seamless garment” suggestion that supporting human dignity in other ways might be enough to outweigh support for the slaughter of the unborn.
So someone who supports legalized abortion on demand, and wants you to pay for it, regardless of your “choice” (to say nothing of the “choice” of the unborn baby) may be eligible for the PAL. Someone who apparently does not know when human life begins may qualify as an “expert” to advise the Vatican on matters of human life. Someone who campaigns against malnutrition (as Mazzucato does) can be forgiven for campaigning for abortion. And all this comes from the president of the Vatican body dedicated to the defense of life? With friends like these…
Archbishop Paglia says that the PAL, in studying Mazzucato’s academic work, never saw that she had “taken a position against life.” No doubt that is true, by the lax standards the archbishop sets. He continued: “You cannot judge the deepest convictions of a person by four tweets.”
That last statement is especially revealing, for two reasons:
First, Archbishop Paglia’s criticism appears to be aimed directly at Catholic World News, since our report on the Mazzucato appointment called attention to the times (seven, actually) when her Twitter account clearly showed her pro-abortion sympathies. It is gratifying to know that at least the Vatican is sensitive to our criticism.
Second, the tweets that our report cited do not involve expert opinions or abstruse economic analysis. In every case, they convey fairly standard pro-abortion talking points and slogans.
Is it astonishing that a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life would applaud the rhetoric of the abortion lobby? Alas, not really. So does Archbishop Paglia.
The above comes from an Oct. 21 posting by Phil Lawler on CatholicCulture.org.
seamless garment
OR
faithless varmint?
So sad when Vatican clerics sound like leftist politicians.
This defense /explanation of what this woman obviously meant is pure gaslighting from this poor shepherd’.
If you get enough people to complain about The website
“I repented of cursing god blaming him”
That website gets taken down I promise I’ll give $27000
To and abortion clinic
Dear Promise Keeper, I have read and reread your post and can’t make out a single idea in it. Can you help me?
There’s a gaping hole in the garment if millions of babies fall through it and are brutally killed. Bishops, including the pope, are betraying the vision of St. John Paul and, infinitely more importantly, life.
The Smoke of Satan is now a Bonfire burning within the heart of the Church.
Yes, the Smoke of Satan is now a blazing bonfire, burning the very foundations of the Vatican! The Church badly needs good ecclesiastical leadership, fidelity to Church teachings required of all clergy and laity, and good discipline– “medicine for the soul”– for all, with the Code of Canon Law. No more secularism and worldliness, no more babyish laxity, weakness, and permissiveness, of the post-Conciliar era. Close the doors and windows to the world, and start leading the world to Christ, in a mature, manly fashion, worthy of good, mature Catholic clerical leaders. Everyone can and should practice the simple spiritual disciplines given to us by Our Lady– prayer, penance, and reparation for sin. Turn away from the sinful world, turn away from sin, follow Our Lady and her Divine Son, Jesus– no more babying, no more “me-me-me-generation” garbage, no more excuses, no more nonsense– get on with it! Only then, will Christ have His victory!
It was Pope St. Paul VI who coined the phrase “smoke of Satan” in a homily in June 1972. By “smoke of Satan” Pope Paul meant those who attack the Church; he meant those who distrust the Church; he meant those who would stifle the good achievements of the Second Vatican Council.
Read the Pope’s words yourself: “We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is no longer trusted….How did this happen?….We believe in something preternatural that came into the world precisely to disturb, to stifle the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from bursting into the hymn of the joy of having fully regained self-awareness.”
jon, the expression of Pope St. Paul VI in the early 1970s is well-known. Also, the saying, “The Smoke of Satan has entered the Church” has also been used by many others to express their own ideas. Many authors, including Philip Lawler, have written books using “The Smoke of Satan” expression in their titles. And the Papal exorcist, Fr. Gabriel Amorth, declared in 2010, in an interview with Italian publication, “La Repubblica,” that “Satan resides in the Vatican.” Here is a link to the article about Fr. Amorth:
https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/chief-exorcist-rev-gabriele-amorth-devil-vatican/story?id=10073040
And here is a link k to an article about Pope St. Paul VI’s famous remarks:
https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/
How to get rid of Satan? Simple. Get rid of sin. And don’t just talk about it, or the situation will only get worse. As Christ said, “a man cannot serve two masters.” The Church must engage directly in the ancient, perenial spiritual battle, against the Devil and sin. This world is ruled by the Prince of Darkness to begin with. Mankind, since Adam’s Fall, is basically very weak, selfish, and easily prone to sin. Pride, and the world, the flesh, and the Devil, are the Christian’s chief enemies! Only Christ can conquer the Devil and sin, and lead us to holiness and to Heaven. Our Church must be totally committed to Him, with great strength, total dedication, and lots of prayer, penance, good discipline, ascetical practices, rejection of the world and its sins– and selfless love and adoration of Him alone– and a firm resolve to love, serve and obey Him each day. The spiritual pathway is perilous– we need a good Church, to help. No nonsense, no babyishness, no excuses, no silly, irresponsible, “but Vatican II means I can do as I please, decide for myself,” as Nancy Pelosi says defiantly, along with many other clerics and laymen. No way! The Holy Spirit is 100% exact. No excuses, nothing has changed– nor ever will…
To get Satan to flee: love and humble prayer
It is best to go back to Pope Paul VI’s original intent for the meaning of the phrase “smoke of Satan” and not obfuscate its meaning. By this phrase, Pope Paul VI meant those who would derail and stifle the achievements of Vatican II. We should resist putting added, unintended meaning into the phrase.
The whole point, jon, is that our Church has many serious problems, today. Philip Lawler wrote a book with a long title, starting with the phrase, “The Smoke of Satan,” explaining his views on the problems, and suggesting some good ideas on how to fix these problems. Many others have done the same. Anyway, the Holy Spirit is GOD– eternal, unchanging, always exactly the same– regardless of any Church Council. Nothing has changed, with God. Although some people, like Nancy Pelosi– as well as many others, among clergy and laity– seem to think the Council changed Christ’s religion, giving Nancy the “freedom” to “do as she pleases,” according to “what she thinks is right.”
“..Satan is active in the world today precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking into a hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness her awareness of herself.”
The smoke of Satan homily as translated in Cardinal Sarah’s book God or Nothing p. 222.
An excellent book!
Legitimate and proper use of the phase “Smoke of Satan” Jon. Go ahead and agree with me without the chastisement, you know I’m right.
The cause of the dignity of human Life in all its phases is served by faithfulness to the truth–the truth about when human life begins, the truth in big matters and the truth in minor matters. If those who cannot even acknowledge the true and only meaning of Pope Paul VI’s phrase “the smoke of Satan,” and remain faithful to the Pope’s meaning of that phrase, (which is a small matter admittedly) can they be said to be strong and authentic witnesses to the truth in big matters, as in the oirgin of human life at the moment of conception? I daresay no.
Pope St. Paul VI was tortured by what happened in the Catholic Church, after Vatican II– the Church was badly, badly shaken. Thousands of priests, nuns, and even some bishops resigned, and vocations severely dwindled. There were many closures of Catholic schools, churches, and seminaries. Religious orders collapsed, and convents and religious order houses were sold. Dissident, immoral, and liberal leftist anti-Catholic educators who were priests and nuns, abounded, with little Church discipline. Abuses of the new Mass were everywhere. Many Catholic laymen and clergy attacked Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae,” and many Catholic married couples either ignored and rejected Church teachings on birth control– or left the Church. Pope St. Paul VI had a very difficult pontificate! Of course– attacks on Christ and His Church are always attributed to Christ’s archenemy– the Devil.
And Pope Paul VI’s legacy continues to be tortured, this time by those who would re-translate erroneously his phrase “smoke of Satan,” a phrase which the saintly Pope coined to mean those who stifle Vatican II. The “smoke”, the obfuscation, continues, folks.
You are hyper-defensive about Vatican II. The “smoke of Satan” idea does not at all refer to your perceived rejection of Vatican II by anyone. The “smoke of Satan” comment refers to the perilous situation in the Catholic Church, with many terrible problems– probably caused by Satan– during the time after the Council occurred. And the Church continues to have many serious problems– the situation has been ongoing. It upsets millions of good Catholics, both laymen and clergy.
“Hyper” is wrong. By “smoke of Satan” Pope Paul VI did refer only to those who reject Vatican II. Read his homily for yourself. The Pope was very specific. I quoted him in my first comment. The perilous situation of the Church is promoted by those who continue to reject the teachings of Vatican II, because they sow division and discord within the Church knowingly or unknowingly. Division, people, is deadly for the Church. You must all be “hyper-sensitive” about division of any kind in the Body of Christ. Therefore, stay close to the Pope, stay close to the Magisterium and its teachings, the highest form of which is an ecumenical council such as Vatican II.
You don’t get it. The Church literally collapsed after the Council, and everything was in a terrible chaos. Thousands of nuns and priests– even some bishops– resigned, worldwide. And many who remained, were unfaithful to Catholic teaching. A great many Catholic schools, without teaching orders of nuns, were forced to close. Catholic churches, schools, seminaries, convents, and other Catholic institutions began to close, worldwide. Many Catholic laymen and their families stopped Mass attendance, and gave up. A severe priest shortage started. Church unity was severely broken. Can you imagine, the great difficulty of trying to manage, as the top religious leader– of such a gigantic, diabolic catastrophe? A big headache– to say the least! No doubt, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope St. Paul VI, and the the Fathers of Vatican II, never anticipated such a diabolic, worldwide catastrophe!
The Church has not “literally collapsed” after Vatican II. Not everything was “in a terrible chaos.” The Church was not in a “worldwide catastrophe.” What pope Paul VI meant by the “smoke of Satan” are those who want to derail and stifle Vatican II’s work.
Yes, the Catholic Church has definitely been in a state of crisis since the end of Vatican II. During the pontificate of Pope St. Paul VI, the crisis was particularly severe, right after the end of the Council. Many famous books have been written about it. The clergy sex abuse cases of recent years, only worsened the crisis. The Catholic Church, like all Christian denominations in the Western world– has also been in decline, since the time of the Council, in the 1960s era. Since 1970, Mass attendance has dropped from 55% to 30%; the number of priests has declined from 59,000 to 35,000. And since 1975, the number of Catholics leaving the Church has grown from under 2 million, to 30 million. Current studies show, that Pentecostalism, or the “born again” Christian movement– is the fastest-growing religious movement in the world, today– adding 35,000 “born again” converts, each day.
My post of Oct. 31 at 3:15pm has an error. Catholic Mass attendance since 1970 has dropped from 55% to 20&, according to statistics.
To those who lament the decline in the Catholic Church…please note your stats refer to the US, not the universal church. The us is catching up to the decline that happenned in Europe in prior decades, but hides growth in areas like Africa. It just happens that the American decline happenned after Vatican II but that is likely a coincidence.
What do you think it was about Vatican II (which is an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church) that caused all of these issues?
To say that Vatican II caused “all of these issues” is like saying that the Council of Trent “caused” the rise of Protestantism in Europe. There may be correlation but not “causation.”
Pope St. John Paul II often lamented what he called the “silent apostacy” splitting his Church, in the Vatican II.era. When asked what he planned to do about it, he said that he declined to take action, fearing things would only worsen– and the Church might really split asunder, and fall apart, for all the world to see– very scary, to him.
Looks like I misspelled “apostasy” in my last post! Both Pope St. John Paul II and also, Cardinal Sarah ( in his book, “God or Nothing”) wrote and spoke about the “Silent Apostasy,” especially in our European-based Western Civilization. Modern, highly secularized, “post-Christian” Europe has lost touch with God. Western Civilization has been consumed with the Culture of Death. In 1981, Pope St. John Paul II lamented that heresy and error had infected and poisoned nearly every aspect of life in the Church. He said, “We see spread abroad, ideas that are contrary to the truth which God has revealed, and which the Church has always taught. Real heresies have appeared in dogma and moral theology, stirring doubt, confusion, rebellion. Even the liturgy has been harmed. Christians have been plunged into an intellectual and moral illuminism, a sociological Christianity, without clear dogma or objective morality.”
The fact remains though that Pope Paul VI called the efforts of those who would derail the work of Vatican II for the Church as “the smoke of Satan.” There is only one Satan, and he has only one “smoke”, and that is those who would stifle the results of Vatican II.
Of course, the Council Fathers hoped for much good to come, when they sought to “open the windows and doors of the Church to the world.” But when you do that, you open yourself to all sorts of things, good and bad, out there in the world– including secularism, skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, apostasy– and the Devil. “The “world, the flesh and the Devil”– and Pride and rebellion against God, the downfall of mankind– are all waiting, in the world, along with the Devil, to destroy mankind. Today we have a civilization that has a profound loss of God, with rampant violence, filth and sin, ruled by the Culture of Death. We need the Church to bring Christ to the people, and reform their lives in Him– and make a new and glorious, Christ-like civilization, dedicated to the Lord.
The documents of Vatican II are not the problem. The true problem is the Silent Apostasy, the descent of so many Catholics, laymen and clerical, into the evils of pride, rebellion, and sin– “the world, the flesh, and the devil”– the Death Culture– are huge culprits. And very little good Catholic catechesis has been available for decades, few Catholic schools and colleges are faithful, and there is very little correction for serious problems and serious sins. No discipline. No true faith in Christ. I have read that many Protestant denominations have been in crisis, struggling with the same thing.
Of course, Pope St. Paul VI had his own views, when using the terrn, “the Smoke of Satan.” But others have their own views of things, too– and use that same phrase to express their own thoughts. That phrase, “the Smoke of Satan”– is very old. The problem as many see it, is not the documents of Vatican II. The problem is the descent into pride, rebellion, and sin, “the world, the flesh, and the Devil”– the Death Culture– and the “Silent Apostasy of many in the Church, laymen and clerics. With no discipline, no consequences for sin, and very little guidance to bring souls back to Christ. Too many faithless clerical leaders! Let’s start with the Jesuits….
Sorry, but despite “Reply’s” words here it will not erase the fact that by “smoke of Satan” Pope Paul VI is pointing to those who would stifle the fruits of Vatican II. The “smoke of Satan” includes the excommunicate Lefebvre who disobeyed John Paul II and as a result Lefebvre died with his soul in perdition. The “smoke of Satan” includes Lefebvre’s followers, namely those who belong to the beloved SSPX. This group continues to deceive unsuspecting Catholics by not telling them that the sacraments they offer are not licit, not lawful in the eyes of God and the Church. The “smoke of Satan” includes those who reject the Mass of Pope Paul VI and who use the TLM as a way of registering their dissent from Vatican II. Using the what is sacred and holy, such as the sacraments, in order to divide the Church is most abhorrent. It is demonic. A pure work of the devil whose “smoke” seeks to obfuscate the true meaning of Pope Paul’s phrase the “smoke of Satan.” By the way this phrase is not old. That’s false. Pope Paul VI coined it. It started with him.
jon, really, that was not what he was talking about. That was not a pressing problem in 1972.
It was more secularization and distrust or rebellion.
https://catholicstand.com/109/
Well, jon, you have your own concerns regarding the Church. Mine are not the same. I do not care about the things that bother you so much, such as Catholics who take their families to an SSPX Mass. My concerns are much deeper! You cannot marry and try to raise a family in a fraudulent Nancy Pelosi/Joe Biden/Gavin Newsom-style church, with poor leadership, that is getting more and more corrupt and wrecked every day, with no end in sight. You cannot bring kids into such a farce. Ideally, I personally favor the beautiful, holy Tridentine Latin Mass– with a holy, dedicated priest, not a corrupt one. But first and foremost, you have to think about the needs of your family, and what is best. You don’t want your family (your spouse, kids, mother, mother-in-law, grandma, etc.) anywhere near the gutter– whether the gutter is out in the secular world– or in a corrupt church. No evil Drag Queens and filthy books in the children’s library– nor in the school, nor in the parish church. A church needs to respect its parishioners and their families. Tell them the Biblical truth, guide them spiritually, give them a safe, holy, and trustworthy environment, with trustworthy clerics you can depend on. If the leading Catholic clerics and pope all want to have a Vatican II or a Synod on Synodality, or whatever– to satisfy their own needs– we have no choice but to follow what they want to do. But no matter what– those clergy leaders have a responsibility to God, and to His people– to do the job right. All for His glory, not their own desires. It is a big responsibility.
jon, don’t buy into the hype and fraud of the so-called “fruits of Vatican II.” Lefebvre’s soul is not “in perdition;” his soul is probably either in heaven, or on the way there. Fruitcakes like Paglia, Hollerich, Jesuit Fr. James Martin, many other Jesuits, German bishops, McElroy, etc., peddling your tainted “fruits of Vatican II” are all on their way to hell.
jon, if you ever take your family to Italy to see the Pope and Vatican– don’t ever take your dear wife, mother, grandma, or mother-in-law– or your precious children — to Mass at Abp. Paglia’s Cathedral He paid an artist to paint that homoerotic, giant fresco in his cathedral, with a picture of himself among the nude and semi-nude, erotic figures. Did Paglia use parishioners’ money to pay for that fresco?
My comment of Nov. 3 at. 1:35pm was edited. At the end I noted that the blasphemous homoerotic fresco in Abp. Paglia’s Cathedral is definitely a work of the Devil.
You think the “hype and fraud of Vatican II” says that people go to hell for schism. That pre-Vatican II. Check out the Catechism of Pius V.
I didn’t mean that Vatican II is “all bad,” and produced no good fruits— I was just angry at the constant occurrences of sexual sins, very serious and highly damaging to all– of Catholic clerics in recent years. If they are unrepentant– and die in a state of mortal sin– yes, most likely, they will go to Hell. Of course– God is the Just Judge of all souls. Our Church needs good discipline. And children and families all need to be safe, at Mass, and given Christ’s true teachings and holy Sacraments. No hype, no baloney and lies about sin– sexual sins, particularly, are a horrible thing, before God– and destroy innocent lives. Whether it’s the sin of gay sex acts, fornication, pornography, abortion — a horror, before God. Paglia and many Vatican leaders today– are immoral, faithless to Christ.
To pre-Vat. II– During the time of Pope Pius V, sinners who committed gravely immoral sexual sins– fornication, adultery, etc — could go to Confession, and perform big penances, afterwards. Sexual sins do not usually involve heresy or schism– just sinful behavior. However, those who committed sins of heresy against Catholic teaching– such as Catholic intellectuals and university professors like Martin Luther– faced a trial, excommunication if they failed to repent of their heretical beliefs and teachings– and, tragically– capital punishment, to be burned at the stake.
One of the devil’s best tricks is to tell you “Look, there I am over there in that person.”
This is not a trick of the Devil. It is a corrupt, dishonest– and sinful!! — top Vatican leader, who is doing seriously dishonest and horrible things, and misleading good people on Christ’s teachings. Hope he isn’t guilty of gay sex sins and crimes, especially on minors and children. “The Gay Lavendar Mafia,” plus– “the Abortion Mafia,” now corrupting the Vatican.
There’s nothing more deadly to the Body of Christ than division and unfaithfulness. As Pope Paul VI noted the effort to stifle the Council–which is heretical in and of itself–was, and is, the “smoke of Satan.”
This really is hard to bear. IF Archbishop Paglia had just issued a strong defense of the unborn and offered another rationale for Mazzucato’s appointment, such as her economic expertise, I might still have hope for the PAL. Instead, we have the Archbishop playing word games with the lives of unborn children, and all this on Pope Francis’ watch and presumably by his design. Unless P. Francis denounces Paglia’s foot in mouth disease quickly and forcefully, I shall construe his silence to be consent. What say you, Holy Father?
Rome is in apostasy
Would you believe in the state of Jalisco the church is promoting the method of Billings method and they are tell the young people getting married that they control whether they are having a boy or girl that 90 per cent is there’s and God only has 10 per cent off the control whether it’s a boy or girl , that here in Mexico, I had to go through there teaching so I could get married, I’m 64 years old and my wife to be is 61 years old
Joe, it seems you might have misunderstood some of the teachings, but there do seem to be certain conditions in a woman’s body that might be more conducive to having one sex or the other. Maybe the teachers want older people to be able to recommend the Billings and other more scientific forms of Natural Family Planning to younger people, so older couples need to know more about them.
Look at the literature you should have received in your class, have others help explain it to you better and compare it to the Natural Family Planning websites here in the U.S.
Thanks for the update Joe.
And…… Congratulations!
Natural Family Planning should only be used by married couples for serious reasons. Catholics couples should be open to life. Natural Family Planning is called “natural” because it is does not harm the woman’s body, while chemical contraceptives and other such methods can. The IUD causes serious infections at times.
]
One of my relatives used an IUD earlier in her life. When she got a serious infection, the doctor who put it in told her the IUD was not causing it. When she went to a Catholic doctor, he took it out, gave her medicine, it healed and did not come back.
I think all of the people on the Pontifical Academy for Life should be unconditionally pro-life.
We all can grow in our understanding of what it means to be unconditionally pro-life.
But God’s precious unborn infants cannot wait. Many are daily on Death Row– and time is too short for them. We need a crew of strong, dedicated Catholic Vatican leaders, particularly at the PAL (Pontifical Academy for Life) to work very hard for the cause of Pro Life, worldwide– and help to end the evil of abortion. Just think of all the young, dedicated, hard-working Catholic Pro Life workers in our country– and some elderly Pro Life workers, too– who have endured even physical as well as verbal assaults– and even death threats, and dangerous vandalism incidents– yet, even the lady Pro Life worker in her 80s who was shot, and elderly workers who were beaten physically, while campaigning for Pro Life– remain so strong, courageous, and totally dedicated. Now– how about the PAL of Pope St. John Paul II?
I think you do not understand what the Pontifical Academy for Life is.
It was established by Pope John Paul II in order “to study and provide information and training about the principle problems of law and biomedicine pertaining to the promotion and protection of life, especially in the direct relationship they have with Christian morality and the directives of the Church’s Magisterium.”
me, I do not think you understand the great responsibility to God of Vatican organizations such as the PAL. The PAL is not a secular organization.
There is no type of abortion that is moral. There is no circumstance that makes abortion acceptable.
The decision is made.
You do not an academic committee to discuss it much.
Health care workers are not to participate in abortion.
Abortion is immoral. Gravely immoral.
So basically Phil Lawler wants her cancelled because of a tweet.
Because, no, it because of numerous Tweets and public advocacy of killing babies and violating women and girls. And, I’m sure he desires her conversion, not her cancellation. Will you join me and others in praying for Ms. Mazzucato’s conversion?
Please provide links to your allegations. All I found was one retweet of a retweet.
And yes, I will pray for her conversion.
I found them. The first blue link has them.
Try the first link in the posted article.
“Mariana Mazzucato, one of the new ordinary members, is an economist at University College London. Around the time of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Mazzucato’s tweets and retweets manifested a support for abortion ‘rights’:
On June 23, the eve of the decision, she retweeted a tweet by Robert Reich: ‘So states can decide you must carry a fetus but not whether you can carry a concealed gun?’
On June 24, the day of the decision, she retweeted a tweet by Nicola Sturgeon: ‘One of the darkest days for women’s rights in my lifetime. Obviously the immediate consequences will be suffered by women in the US—but this will embolden anti-abortion & anti-women forces in other countries too. Solidarity doesn’t feel enough right now—but it is necessary.’
On June 24, she retweeted a tweet by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: ‘Safe #abortion is health care. It saves lives. Restricting it drives women and girls towards unsafe abortions, resulting in complications, even death. The evidence is irrefutable.’
On June 25, she tweeted, ‘So good!’ in commenting on an anti-Christian harangue about abortion.
On June 25, she tweeted, ‘Excellent @ewarren’ in reaction to comments about abortion made by pro-abortion Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
On July 2, she retweeted a tweet by Bloomberg Quicktake: “’Safe abortion is health care. It saves lives.’ Earlier this week, WHO’s @DrTedros blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to end the constitutional right to an abortion as a ‘setback’ for the decades-long trend toward safer access.’
On July 3, she retweeted a tweet by Robert Reich: ‘Call me a radical lefty, but I think it should be easier to get a life-saving abortion than an assault rifle’.”
More abuse and contempt for the laity and the faith from this hireling , we deserve better leaders then this.
Not surprising, these comments from an archbishop who commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a homoerotic mural behind the altar in his Cathedral — right over the tabernacle. Paglia himself is portrayed in the mural.
https://onepeterfive.com/blasphemous-disgusting-demonic-archbishop-paglias-homoerotic-mural/
Pro choice? Absurd. Choice is simply the option to do one thing or another when there are several options. For example, if the cardinal is driving down a street and ,hanging above his traffic lane is a round RED bulb, he has a choice. He can drive straight on through or he can halt until a GREEN light appears in front of him. It is his choice. Are they equal options? You figure it out, cardinal.
Shouldn’t the headline read, “Pro-choice rhetoric from the heartless, spineless, mindless, faithless? Vatican”?
Pope Francis could put a stop to this appointment if he wanted to. But . . . .
It is already done.
They could ignore it.
They could remind her that there is a required commitment of members to promote and defend human life. She could accept it. Or she might resign. She may not resign and not accept it.
They could remove her.
They did not seem to know about the tweets when they appointed her.
There was nothing in her academic work that indicated a problem.
Give them a minute to have their phone calls and their meetings and make their decisions.
Cardinal Hollerich, the Synod on Synodality’s Relator General, recently gave a lengthly interview to the Vatican newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano,” restating his belief in and support for homosexuality and homosexual unions. He said that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in Church institutions than in civil society. In Hollerich’s interpretation, the message of the Gospel is this: “living in the footsteps of Christ means living well and enjoying life.” Quite shocking! He says he “wants to welcome everyone,” and is not in favor of “rules and prohibitions.” He is calling for a “change of cultural paradigm, and a conversion of spirit,” in the Catholic Church, regarding homosexuality. He stated that “homosexuality is a fruit of creation.” And that “God is pleased with His work (of creation).” Hollerich also favors women priests and married priests. Here is a link to the disturbing article: https://www. lifesitenews.com/news/top-synod-cardinal-calls-for-change-of-cultural-paradigm-on-homosexuality-latest-scandalous-remarks/?utm_source=daily-catholic-2022-10-27&utm_medium=email
Looks like the other link has a problem. Here is a better link to the article on Cdl. Hollerich:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-synod-cardinal-calls-for-change-of-cultural-paradigm-on-homosexuality-in-latest-scandalous-remarks/
The link in the article is to an Italian edition and I cannot find the interview in the English edition.
Is there are link to that?
I can see how this website took things that Cardinal Muller said in an interview and distorted it for clickbait so I do not trust their interpretation of the Cardinal Hollerich interview and would like to see it for myself.
Try the above link again– and be sure to set your computer to “English.” Of course, the original article, from the Vatican newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano,” is in Italian. The source I gave, is from LifeSiteNews– American edition (in English). They are Canadian-based. You can also get the English online version of “L’Osservatore Romano,” from the Vatican– it contains the same information as the LifeSiteNews article. .
I have tried to find it but it must be from a daily edition that you need to subscribe to.
A better source that shows that the Cardinal does not support homosexual unions:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252640/cardinal-hollerich-church-blessings-for-same-sex-unions-not-a-settled-matter
I suggest you reread that article. The cardinal doesn’t support same-sex marriage but he does support same-sex unions being blessed, which is a canard because that’s just same-sex marriage by another name or as far as they think they can get away with.
It absolutely does not say that.
In reply to “better source”, here are direct quotes from the article that show Hollerich supports same-sex unions:
“In an interview with Vatican media, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., said he believes Church blessings for same-sex unions, which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled against, is not a settled matter.
The cardinal’s answer came in response to an interview question about the decision last month by Belgium’s Catholic bishops to support the possibility of blessings for unions of same-sex couples — in defiance of the Vatican.”
“Frankly, the question does not seem decisive to me,” Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, told L’Osservatore Romano in an interview also published on Vatican News Oct. 24.”
“The cardinal specified that he does not think “there is room for a sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex,” because same-sex unions lack the procreative character of marriage.
“But that does not mean that their affective relationship has no value,” he added.”
—
The only way Hollerich could not think the Church’s previous statements on same-sex unions are not decisive and the only way he would state that same-sex affective relationships not have no value is if he supports same-sex unions being blessed by the Church.
Think, man! Read with understanding.
None of that supports same sex unions. At. All.
You are committing a grave sin. Stop.
Try re-reading the article, objectively, factually– setting aside all personal biases and pre-conceptions. You will see, that Cdl. Hollerich does believe in gay sex unions, yet such unions cannot correspond to the Church Sacrament of Matrimony, as no natural procreative union exists — it can only be an affirmation of feelings of love between two people of the same sex. And please– stop telling other commenters that they are “committing a grave sin.” Ridiculous. It is much better, to read things objectively– and face hard truths– even if it is unpleasant to do so.
Bearing false witness is a grave sin. It is a sin against justice and as such, is worse than a sin of the flesh.
Cardinal Hollerich has stated earlier this year that he personally believes the Church’s teaching about homosexuality is false. Combine that with his recent comments, and you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to conclude Hollerich supports blessings for same-sex unions, even if his support is convoluted and devilishly obfuscated. This synod will be the end of the Church.
I read the article and you are misinterpreting it. Do you associate or conflate homosexuality with sodomy? They are not the same thing.
Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows that those in gay unions, commit acts of unnatural gay sex perversion, that are mortal sins. A big problem has existed in our Church, with gay clergy who have evilly committed sins and crimes of clerical sex abuse. Many lives of children and teens have been tragically ruined. Cdl. Hollerich says that there is a much larger percentage of homosexuals in Church institutions than in civil society. That is a big worry. Pope Francis has said that he is “concerned” about that, and about the fact that homosexuality is “fashionable.” The Catholic Church has indicated it is best not to ordain homosexuals.
So it really just something you are thinking, not anything he said.
Hollerich is a Jesuit. Enough said. The pope is a Jesuit too. Jesuits are a scourge on the church and the world.
In the better source, it is not homosexuality that is called a fruit of creation, but the people.
There is quite a bit of hyperbole in this article and the comments.
Hyperbole???
Surely you exaggerate !
It must be an embarrassment to write about, yet so fundamentally misunderstand, a concept like the seamless garment. Pity to be Phil Lawler.
“Seamless Garment”
It ain’t a concept – it’s a ruse!
It is from the Gospel.
I hope she realizes that most Catholics are not like this and would be interested in her input.
These kinds of bullies on the internet are not a representation of Catholics or pro-life Catholics.