Posted on 01/16/2015 8:46:35 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Some good news. Thanks for posting.
And entrusted it to Peter and his successors. Nobody said it was going to be easy to follow the rules, but it is a blessing and a joy to those who choose to follow it; a burden to carry out of love for God, as in the "easy" yoke of Matthew's Gospel.
Peace be with you!
I thought we weren’t pinging or posting to each other. Why did you just ping me?
Thank you for posting! God bless you!
Catholic ping!
God bless Pope Francis. I believe that he is a good and kind man.
This is why I think Pope Franky is more stupid than evil. He's a putz. He doesn't understand that the logical conclusions of some things he thinks contradict other things he thinks. As an example, in allying with the climate hoaxers and anti-frackers and other people who are against plentiful, cheap energy, he is allying himself with population controllers, abortionites, human-haters, euthanasianists, and folks who wish to keep the most impoverished folk son the earth in poverty (or eliminate them, outright).
As an example his desire to somehow square the circle with regard to divorce/remarriage/communion allies him with the homosexualists, the polygamists, and others who are the enemies of the family.
He just isn't very bright.
sitetest
No. Not a putz at all. This is how modernists operate.
I’m not persuaded.
Of course not.
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful.
Well, this time his talk (which I just read in Spanish) was very good, on both the family and the population control issues. It was a prepared talk, of course, and I doubt that he wrote it himself, although he may have added some of the personal anecdotes to it. It’s when he’s allowed to speak spontaneously - for example, in his interviews or weekday homilies - that he really runs amok.
That said, this was good, although I notice on the birth control issue we had the urging for a “merciful pastoral approach” on the issue from confessors. It sounded like the Kasper technique: in other words, keep the doctrine or law but don’t actually put it into practice or even recommend that your clergy help people put it into practice. And nobody confesses using birth control anyway, because they have been badly taught to begin with.
But at least he didn’t oppose the doctrine, he had very nice words about families and he seemed to be supportive of natural marriage (although he described poverty and materialism as one of the “ideological deformations,” so I don’t know exactly what he meant by it).
On the whole, I think it was good, though, and his speechwriter deserves thanks!
That stood out to me as well.
I generally avoid imputing evil intentions when stupidity will do.
I'm not saying that I think Pope Franky is “pure of heart.” I think he's shrewd in a political way, crafty in that way. I think he has an authoritarian streak that is a mile long. I also think he's very vain.
But I also think that if you were walk through his deepest theological thoughts, you wouldn't get your ankles wet.
This is why he often dichotomizes between the “teachers of the law” and the “faith of old women.” He's just not smart enough to keep up with the “teachers of the law,” so he denigrates them, and discounts their knowledge and expertise. This helps him to believe that his own deficient theological understanding is not problematic, and gives him the confidence to pronounce things that are flying 30,000 feet over his head. It also means that he sincerely doesn't understand the doctrinal implications of everything he says or does, and actually believes that his understanding is compatible with Catholic faith.
It may be that the overall effect on the Church will be little different between whether he's a full-blown, evil modernist, or just a dumb material heretic, as it appears that the actual modernists may be leading him around by the nose.
Nonetheless, charity requires me to give the benefit of the doubt - he's stupid, not evil.
sitetest
“It was a prepared talk, of course, and I doubt that he wrote it himself, although he may have added some of the personal anecdotes to it. It’s when he’s allowed to speak spontaneously - for example, in his interviews or weekday homilies - that he really runs amok.”
I've noticed that. That's why I think he's stupid, not a formal heretic. He reads the speeches they write for him, and he says, “Oh, yeah, this is good Catholic stuff.”
Then he speaks nonsense off the cuff, and I think in his own mind, the two are the same. I think he fails to understand how what he says is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
So then, Cardinal Kasper comes along and says, “Let's do it this way, and this is how it's in accord with Catholic doctrine,” and Franky says, “Oh, yeah, that sounds good, too!”
As for the remark on a merciful approach in the confessional to artificial contraception, that's just a reiteration of the guidance given by the Vatican from the time of Pope Paul VI. I don't think there's anything new, there.
sitetest
How long does one give the benefit of the doubt? What line have you drawn, if any?
It's not a timing thing but a fit thing. Which theory better explains the data in a more fitting way.
I expect Pope Franky will be a putz till the day he dies. I expect him to be a poor pope for the rest of his reign.
sitetest
Tagline: read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.