Posted on 02/18/2016 3:50:56 PM PST by NYer
Another trip, another presser, another post.
A priest friend wrote to me:
I’m writing a new prayer for all of us … a “Nine Hour Pope Plane Ride Novena.â€
I will write now what I have written before.
Again, when I am elected Pope, We shall take the name of Pius X-II (“Pius Decimus Secondus†– or maybe “Clement Ganganelliâ€), We shall not give interviews or press conferences.  We shall forbid the Lord Cardinals from speaking to the press without permission.  We shall disappear into the Apostolic Palace for lengths of time so long that the press will begin to speculate that We may have died.  Our encyclicals will be limited to five pages in Latin.  And Our first act as Supreme Pontiff will be to suppress the Jesuits.
Now … gulp… to this presser. And these remarks aren’t intended to reveal everything I think about it.
First, I read the transcript. I posted the link above.
Next, and this is important, I remind everyone that the Roman Pontiff doesn’t teach doctrine on faith and morals through off-hand comments to journalists ON AN AIRPLANE RIDE!  So, relax about the contraception comment.  It was meaningless.  Moreover, I am pretty sure that that anecdote about Paul VI giving permission to African nuns to use contraceptives is an urban legend.  We had a discussion about that in the COL Forum, which I ran for a long time.  One of the former staffers is now working to dig up the files on that.  More later, I hope.
As far as weighing into the issue of the American Presidential campaign and Donald Trump, after having celebrated Mass virtually on top one of the most politicized lines in the world, the US/Mexican border, I found his assertion that, as Pope, he doesn’t get into politics (“[I]l Papa è per tutti, e non può mettersi nella politica concreta, interna di un Paese: questo non è il ruolo del Papa.) fairly amusing.  Moreover, his quip about building walls not being Christian is odd, considering that right outside the door of Santa Marta, where His Holiness lives, is a Big Damn Wallâ„¢ that encircles the Vatican City State and that after Francis’ election the Holy See had to buy an entire street from the City of Rome that runs alongside that BDW near to Santa Marta in order to create a secure No Man’s Land.
In any event, I don’t believe for an instant that the Holy Father understands anything about the positions of the any of the candidates in this presidential election cycle in any comprehensive way.  He seems to have been reacting only to what the journalist included in his question about Trump.  So his answer… meh.   Unfortunately we are now going to have to hear incessant commentary on it.
And he really doesn’t know the 2003 CDF document on “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Status To Unions Between Homosexual Persons”? Â Okay. Â Maybe he doesn’t. Â Who cares? Â WE know it! Â And it is online right HERE.
That 2003 CDF document, especially addressed to politicians, says:
10. If it is true that all [ALL] Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, [!] in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public moralityâ€, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition†to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Finally:
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Now that this document has come up again, people will look at it again.  That’s a good thing that came from this presser.  So, maybe Francis doesn’t recall immediately the content of the 2003 document, but he did affirm that Catholic politicians have to vote according to their conscience, and that their consciences have to be properly formed.  ”
[U]n parlamentare cattolico deve votare secondo la propria coscienza ben formata: questo, direi soltanto questo. Credo che sia sufficiente. E dico “ben formataâ€, perché non è la coscienza del “quello che mi pare.  …  A Catholic member of parliament must vote according to his own well-formed conscience.  That’s it. I would say only that.  I think that’s enough. And I say ‘well-formed’, because it isn’t the conscience of ‘whatever I like'”.
Right.  Well-formed according to the mind the Church.  And the mind of the Church on homosexual unions and our obligation to resist any of that business is certainly and clearly spelled out in the 2003 CDF document.  NO! to homosexual unions.
Also, Francis did a pretty good job with the response about civilly remarried people receiving Communion. Â He said, among all the verbiage, “No”.
And he couldn’t have been clearer about what he thinks about abortion.
In sum, the Pope went to Mexico and he emphasized a few things which he thought were important to communicate there.  Fine.  However, those things will now be buried in the news cycle because of his off-the-cuff quips.  The sliver of the MSM news cycle that includes the Pope will now obsess mostly about things that the Pope probably didn’t want to emphasize with his Mexico trip.
Catholic ping!
Thank you NYer for posting the wonderful, but quirky Father Z. He is an authentic expounder of the Truths of Catholic teaching.
Hope that all who read this will read it with that understanding of Father’s orthodoxy on things Roman Catholic.
I care. And any orthodox Catholic should care that this man, Francis, who currently occupies the chair of Peter, continuously speaks heretical nonsense.
So he singles out Trump for wanting to uphold the right of a sovereign nation to defend its borders, but no words for pro-abort Hitlery or Batshit Bernie??? Mmmmm Kay.
Now, it is true that a pope doesn't "teach" doctrine on faith and morals on an airplane ride. But please do not insult my intelligence nor my Sensus Catholicus and tell me Francis' non-Catholic comments are meaningless. What a crock.
Now, now ebb, Fr Z says you need to “relax”.
His comments are damaging.
VATICAN SURROUNDED BY WALLS...
Has most restrictive immigration, citizenship policies of any nation in world...
Until the Pope sells off the billions of dollars worth of treasures in the Vatican and helps the poor, takes down HIS walls and revises his immigration policy, he should SHUT HIS MOUTH AND TEND TO HIS OWN BUSINESS.
.
His comments are damaging because he leads Catholics to believe that what Francis said is completely in line with the Catholic Faith. Of course, perhaps he agrees with him.
Sometimes a 2 x 4 is the best answer.
Another trip, another presser, another post.
A priest friend wrote to me:
I'm writing a new prayer for all of us ... a "Nine Hour Pope Plane Ride Novena."
I will write now what I have written before.
Again, when I am elected Pope, We shall take the name of Pius X-II ("Pius Decimus Secondus" - or maybe "Clement Ganganelli"), We shall not give interviews or press conferences. We shall forbid the Lord Cardinals from speaking to the press without permission. We shall disappear into the Apostolic Palace for lengths of time so long that the press will begin to speculate that We may have died. Our encyclicals will be limited to five pages in Latin. And Our first act as Supreme Pontiff will be to suppress the Jesuits.
Now ... gulp... to this presser. And these remarks aren't intended to reveal everything I think about it.
First, I read the transcript. I posted the link above.
Next, and this is important, I remind everyone that the Roman Pontiff doesn't teach doctrine on faith and morals through off-hand comments to journalists ON AN AIRPLANE RIDE! So, relax about the contraception comment. It was meaningless. Moreover, I am pretty sure that that anecdote about Paul VI giving permission to African nuns to use contraceptives is an urban legend. We had a discussion about that in the COL Forum, which I ran for a long time. One of the former staffers is now working to dig up the files on that. More later, I hope.
As far as weighing into the issue of the American Presidential campaign and Donald Trump, after having celebrated Mass virtually on top one of the most politicized lines in the world, the US/Mexican border, I found his assertion that, as Pope, he doesn't get into politics ("[I]l Papa è per tutti, e non può mettersi nella politica concreta, interna di un Paese: questo non è il ruolo del Papa.) fairly amusing. Moreover, his quip about building walls not being Christian is odd, considering that right outside the door of Santa Marta, where His Holiness lives, is a Big Damn WallTM that encircles the Vatican City State and that after Francis' election the Holy See had to buy an entire street from the City of Rome that runs alongside that BDW near to Santa Marta in order to create a secure No Man's Land.
In any event, I don't believe for an instant that the Holy Father understands anything about the positions of the any of the candidates in this presidential election cycle in any comprehensive way. He seems to have been reacting only to what the journalist included in his question about Trump. So his answer... meh. Unfortunately we are now going to have to hear incessant commentary on it.
And he really doesn't know the 2003 CDF document on "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Status To Unions Between Homosexual Persons"? Okay. Maybe he doesn't. Who cares? WE know it! And it is online right HERE.
That 2003 CDF document, especially addressed to politicians, says:
10. If it is true that all [ALL] Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, [!] in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, "could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality", on condition that his "absolute personal opposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Finally:
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Now that this document has come up again, people will look at it again. That's a good thing that came from this presser. So, maybe Francis doesn't recall immediately the content of the 2003 document, but he did affirm that Catholic politicians have to vote according to their conscience, and that their consciences have to be properly formed. "
[U]n parlamentare cattolico deve votare secondo la propria coscienza ben formata: questo, direi soltanto questo. Credo che sia sufficiente. E dico "ben formata", perché non è la coscienza del "quello che mi pare. ... A Catholic member of parliament must vote according to his own well-formed conscience. That's it. I would say only that. I think that's enough. And I say 'well-formed', because it isn't the conscience of 'whatever I like'".
Right. Well-formed according to the mind the Church. And the mind of the Church on homosexual unions and our obligation to resist any of that business is certainly and clearly spelled out in the 2003 CDF document. NO! to homosexual unions.
Also, Francis did a pretty good job with the response about civilly remarried people receiving Communion. He said, among all the verbiage, "No".
And he couldn't have been clearer about what he thinks about abortion.
In sum, the Pope went to Mexico and he emphasized a few things which he thought were important to communicate there. Fine. However, those things will now be buried in the news cycle because of his off-the-cuff quips. The sliver of the MSM news cycle that includes the Pope will now obsess mostly about things that the Pope probably didn't want to emphasize with his Mexico trip.
VATICAN SURROUNDED BY WALLS... - The Vatican is the smallest country in the world at 0.2 miles. When and why were the walls erected? Is the Vatican fully surrounded by walls?
Until the Pope sells off the billions of dollars worth of treasures in the Vatican and helps the poor, takes down HIS walls and revises his immigration policy, he should SHUT HIS MOUTH AND TEND TO HIS OWN BUSINESS.
But, since you brought up this topic ... you might want to propose it to these pastors. Moreover, the Catholic Church is the Largest Charitable Organization in the world.
Facts vs fiction ... a noble pursuit to counter propaganda.
Hi everybody,
The only thing I could find in the presser about “civil unions” was this exchange: (Google translated)
“Holy Father, my question is about the family, the theme that you have faced on this trip. In the Italian Parliament was discussing the law on civil unions, an issue that is leading to strong clashes in politics, but also to a strong debate in the society and among Catholics. In particular, I wanted to know your thoughts on the subject of adoptions of civil unions, and so on children’s rights and children in general. Thank you.
“Pope francesco
“First of all, I do not know how things are in the Italian Parliament. The Pope does not meddle in Italian politics. In the first meeting I had with the Bishops [Italian], in maggio2013, one of the three things I said: “With the Italian government, arrangiatevi you.” Because the Pope is for everyone, and can not get into practical policy, internal to a country: this is not the role of the Pope. And what I think is the one who thinks the Church, and who said on so many occasions. Because this is not the first country that makes this experience are many. I think what the Church has always said.”
My question is: Where did he say he wasn’t familiar with the CDF document Fr Z talks about? Anyone know?
Is it this exchange Fr Z is talking about? Since Francis says he “shouldn’t get involved” this means he’s not familiar with the CDF document?
Thanks,
Here is what I asked about before. This must be what Fr Z was talking about:
Franca Giansoldati, Il Messaggero (Italy): Holiness, good evening. I return back to the topic of the law that is being voted on in the Italian parliament. It is a law that in some ways is about other countries, because other countries have laws about unions among people of the same sex. There is a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith from 2003 that dedicates a lot of attention to this, and even more, dedicates a chapter to the position of Catholic parliamentarians in parliament before this question. It says expressly that Catholic parliamentarians must not vote for these laws. Considering that there is much confusion on this, I wanted to ask, first of all, is this document of 2003 still in effect? And what is the position a Catholic parliamentarian must take? And then another thing, after Moscow, Cairo. Is there another thawing out on the horizon? I’m referring to the audience that you wish for with the Pope and the Sunnis, let’s call them that way, the Imam of Al Azhar.
Pope Francis: For this, Msgr. Ayuso went to Cairo last week to meet the second to the Imam and to greet the Imam. Msgr. Ayuso, secretary to Cardinal Tauran of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. I want to meet him. I know that he would like it. We are looking for the way, always through Cardinal Tauran because it is the path, but we will achieve it.
About the other, I do not remember that 2003 document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith well but every Catholic parliamentarian must vote according their well-formed conscience. I would say just this. I believe it is sufficient because – I say well-formed because it is not the conscience of ‘what seems to me.’ I remember when matrimony for persons of the same sex was voted on in Buenos Aires and the votes were tied. And at the end, one said to advise the other: ‘But is it clear to you? No, me neither, but we’re going to lose like this. But if we don’t go there won’t be a quorum.’ The other said: ‘If we have a quorum we will give the vote to Kirchner.’ And, the other said: ‘I prefer to give it to Kirchner and not Bergoglio.’ And they went ahead. This is not a well formed conscience.
On people of the same sex, I repeat what I said on the trip to Rio di Janeiro. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To be fair, the reporters asked him about Trump hoping for something like this. They got their headline. I would suggest that you read the remark in its entirety, it is much more qualified than the MSM wants you to think. Don’t fall into their trap, let’s leave that to non-thinkers.
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.