Is he? You haven't disproven what Magister said. He said that Pope Francis has spoken 40 times since October on sex/marriage topics like contraception, divorce/remarriage, "gay" "marriage," etc. and has each time taught Catholic doctrine, and in no case supported the sexual revolutionaries' agenda. Have you shown that he did not address those topics 40 times, and in the manner described? No, you have not.
"Since the Synod, Francis received a transgendered woman and her soon to be finance (another woman) in a private audience. She left the meeting in “a period of peace” with the impending “wedding” still on."
You do not know what Pope Francis said, since it was a private meeting; neither do you know whether this woman is confused, deluded, or has a conscious agenda and is lying. This is not a proven departure from Catholic doctrine by the Pope.
"The Rabbitgate affair that Fr. Clovis mentions above also occurred after the Synod."
Once again, Pope Francis did not make an erroneous doctrinal statement here. Granted, it's stupid for Pope Francis to phrase that as infelicitously as he did--- "in order to be good Catholics [do] we have to be like rabbits? No! Responsible parenthood!"--- but that's actually true: we are not to indulge in rabbit-like copulation which is all-instinct and no-forethought in bringing forth progeny. Especially if there is a real health issue involved: seven consecutive Cesareans was mentioned, an objectively heightened risk of uterine rupture, especially during a VBAC. In such case, the woman and baby would die quickly and badly.
The Pope said people could consult to find a licit way to postpone or limit pregnancies to avoid this life-threatening risk, and he was right. That's what NFP is all about.
"Just recently, despite thousands of protests from both Catholic clergy and laity, Francis went ahead and promoted a man, with credible allegations of immoral sexual indiscretions in his recent past, as a bishop in Chile."
This is disturbing on the face of it, since the allegation is that Bishop Juan Barros knew about and even witnessed disturbing misconduct by a priest who the Vatican found guilty of sexual abuse. However,the Pope says he has gone over the facts in detail and he is convinced that Bishop Barros was blameless. Here is a matter where judgments will differ, but I don't believe I (or you) have access to all the facts.
In some aspects, the Barros case seems to be the defense of a Bishop against a mob of people who are not particularly defenders of Catholic faith and morals. There's this from The Eponomyous Flower" (LINK):
"SANTIAGO, Chile — Hundreds of demonstrators dressed in black barged into a cathedral in a city in southern Chile on Saturday and interrupted the installation ceremony for the city’s new Roman Catholic bishop, Juan Barros, whom they accuse of complicity in a notorious case of clerical sexual abuse, blocking his passage and shouting, “Barros, get out of the city!”"The scene inside the Cathedral San Mateo de Osorno was chaotic, with television images showing clashes between Barros opponents, carrying black balloons, and Barros supporters, carrying white ones. Radio reports said several protesters tried to climb onto the altar where Bishop Barros was standing. After the ceremony, he left the cathedral through a side door escorted by police special forces. Outside, about 3,000 people, including local politicians and members of Congress, held signs and chanted demands that he resign."
Hundreds of protesters dressed in black barging into a cathedral, fighting with congregants and desecrating the altar, doesn't sound like loyal supporters of the Catholic faith.
In this article, the Catholic New Agency reports that:
"The media coverage on Bishop Barros’ appointment as Bishop of Oserno is taking place in the midst of the debate on legalizing abortion as well as bills on euthanasia and homosexual unions in Chile. The Church is one of the few voices that is speaking out against these proposals."
And they say that the media and politicians are using the Barros thing to discredit the Church in hopes of silencing the one voice which opposes legalizing abortion, homosexual "marriage", and euthanasia.
That's the oldest trick in the Leftists' book. It's at least something that should be investigated!
"And finally, although Archbishop Bergoglio did publicly decry homosexual marriage in Argentina, he did encourage his fellow bishops to encourage support for civil homosexual unions. Fortunately, the other bishops did not heed his advice."
From what I read, it was not that Bergoglio was pushing Civil Unions in general, he was asking whether the proposal on the table was the kind of civil union the Church could support. An example would be a "Civil Union" law not predicated upon a sexual relationship, but upon any two people who want to enjoy certain legal benefits sch as shared health insurance coverage, survivor's right to a deceased partner's pension or military benefits, shielding from inheritance tax, joint banking and taxation, medical and financial powers of attorney, and similar provisions.
This is the type of partnership which could accommodate two elderly spinster ladies sharing their family home; an adult son or daughter who is caregiver to a disabled parent; or any other two people, with no requirement that they necessarily form a sexual couple -- just that they are durably committed to a shared life.
It is my understanding that he was asking whether there were a kind of civil partnership which the Church could sport without formal cooperation with sexual vice. I'm guessing that the answer was "No --- that's not what this legislation is about."
Whatever the case, Bergoglio dropped this as a hypothetical solution, and most recently (i.e. Feb. 2015) Pope Francis came out against both marriage AND civil unions AND gay adoption --- the successful Slovakia referendum --- and this is his position to this day.
"Magister, like others, seems to wear rose-colored glasses."
Since, even with what was presumably your best evidence, you could not refute what Magister actually said; and since you did not mention looking into other interpretations of what's happening (like with Bishop Barros), I have to say I remain unconvinced.
I didn’t get past your first sentence. Neither Magister nor yourself has listed the “forty times”. Magister was wrong on what I pointed out, so I doubt he’s right on this one either.
You do not know what Pope Francis said, since it was a private meeting; neither do you know whether this woman is confused, deluded, or has a conscious agenda and is lying.
Two can play your game. Since it was a private meeting you don't know whether Francis is confused, deluded, or has a conscious agenda of lying.
All I know is the woman said she left the meeting in peace with intentions to marry another woman. And the Vatican has not made one peep saying the Pope discouraged her or disapproves of the upcoming marriage. Silence in many cases is complicit to the actual sin.
Look at you; judging the poor woman just like Francis did. How do you what type of copulation she engaged in?
And it appears you selectively quoted Pope Francis.
Francis accused her of tempting God. That's horrible advice from a Pope.