"Begone, the one you seek is a myth! So says a Prince of the Catholic Church."
Posted on 02/22/2005 12:46:48 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
ROME (Reuters) - Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday.
In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.
He also reveals that he is convinced the Turkish gunman who shot him in 1981 did not act alone and suggests that the former Communist Bloc may have been behind the plot to kill him.
The 84-year-old Pontiff's book, a highly philosophical and intricate work on the nature of good and evil, is based on conversations with philosopher friends in 1993 and later with some of his aides.
In one section about the role of lawmakers, the Pope takes another swipe at gay marriages when he refers to "pressures" on the European Parliament to allow them.
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
The Pope's fifth book for mass circulation, issued by Italian publisher Rizzoli, sparked controversy in Germany and elsewhere after Jewish groups protested against leaked excerpts comparing the Holocaust to abortion.
In at least two sections of the book, the Pope talks about the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews and the wholesale slaughter of political opponents by Communist regimes after World War II.
"LEGAL EXTERMINATION"
In following paragraphs he says that legally elected parliaments in formerly totalitarian countries were today allowing what he called new forms of evil and new exterminations.
"There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born," he writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.myway.com ...
What's wrong with the Queen of England? You forget that the Church is also a monarchy, not a democracy, and the Pope is its monarch. He is also the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City and therefore it would be entirely appropriate for him to dress the part.
Thank God Paul VI rid the Papacy of its monarchical trappings.
Oh yes, the replacement of monarchical splendor and grandeur with phony democratic humility (as you know, the post-Vatican II Church still displays truly reprehensible "clericalism" in its protection of wrongdoing bishops and priests) has been such a blessing to the Church, with most Catholics now under the erroneous impressions that they can believe and do whatever they like, and that "Democracy" is the Church's preferred form of government.
Paul VI did his best to destroy everything beautiful and impressive in Catholicism, and therefore was a far more despicable figure than the most corrupt or extravagant Renaissance pope. At least Alexander VI and Leo X understood that people who aren't naturally spiritual or religious need displays of earthly magnificence to help them elevate their thoughts towards the Kingdom of Heaven.
The same goes for Paul VI's deplorable disbanding of the Noble Guard and the Palatine Guard of Honor. Ancient aristocratic families that had served the Church for centuries were sent packing without a hint of gratitude, supposedly to improve the Church's credibility in the Third World (as if it had ever occurred to anyone in Africa to be bothered by the ceremonial privileges of Roman nobility). The real motive, as with much else since Vatican II, was hatred of tradition and embarrassment about anything that linked the Church with pre-1789 Europe--her most glorious era.
"If this is true, is it possible he writes one thing (beautifully), but does another? It's just so confusing! How is one to know the real Pope, by what he says or what he does?"
This has always been the problem. He will not explain his actions. How are we to reconcile his encyclicals admonishing priests against liturgical abuses with his own outdoor papal Masses which are scandalous, sometimes in the extreme? Eyewitnesses tell of bikers chasing down the Blessed Sacrament with beer, of Sacred Hosts falling into the mud and being trampled upon while being distributed like potato chips from cardboard boxes. How are we to reconcile Dominus Iesus with his offering of our sacred altars to witchdoctors and Hindu priests for the worship of false gods? It makes no sense. You are not the only one with questions. I myself have been wrestling with these facts for years. Nobody has come up with a good explanation--and yet the facts are there--staring us in the face. What kind of a pope elevates heretics to the cardinalate or prays in a synagogue with rabbis their prayer for the coming of a different Messiah or canonizes more saints than all the other popes put together while doing away with the safeguards guaranteeing the integrity of the process? Certainly not one who respects Catholic tradition.
Great news but will his Bishops listen?
The "earthly magnificence" of which you speak reeks of decadence and is not uplifting to the vast majority of Catholics.
But, you're a monarchist, and will defend the dying English model at all costs.
"Pope as monarch" is not the model for the Church. Christ was a suffering servant, not a prince.
I don't buy your argument since he doesn't do what is immediately under his control. Nobody twisted his arm to organize Assisi--twice. Nobody twisted his arm to give the pectoral cross to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nobody twisted his arm to invite our cardinals to Rome to address child sex abuse scandal--only to treat it as a p.r. stunt. Granted it may take years to silence some small fries in Chicago--but what is stopping him from silencing somebody like Kasper who does far more harm right there in the Vatican? For two thousand years popes kept a tight ship doctrinally--why all of a sudden all these loose cannons?
You seem to want him to cover all bases every time he speaks,while at the same time you want him to be clear and on point. Whether you realize it or not you want the impossible.
I'm not sure why you think it's impossible when all that is expected of the Pope is to do what his predecessors did. They seemed to be able to do the job without creating so much confusion. He made one statement that any number of Pope's would have either have so drummed into the heads of the people of the world that it would have been unnecessary. The result is this outpouring of exaggerated emotion about how wonderful and saintly he is. I'm sorry, I just can no longer buy that line. I believed it for a while, then I read his work, and I read the works of the greatest Popes before him. Sorry.
Allow me to clarify. She is not the head of a valid Church. That is what I meant by "fake". She also is not the sovereign of the land. She is a figurehead.
"Begone, the one you seek is a myth! So says a Prince of the Catholic Church."
Well, actually I got my temper cleared. On the subject of Latin Masses: One reason Latin is (and still is in many areas, like encyclicals, i think) used (especially in the Mass) is to abide by the four marks of the church: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. A universal church has a universal language. People in Spain can (or could) go to Mass in Germany and the essential Mass would be the same (the sermon would be a different matter). secondly, the use of an unchanging language helps protect the dogmas that are in the Mass from any corruption by modernizing the language (ICEL let the crap hit the fan on this one). I cant answer the rest because I dont have the time to do it.
Yeah, the Council of Trent said that externals are important. And despite your ardent wish, the Church isnt a democracy, as royalcello has pointed out.
"I'm a traditionalist Catholic as well, but that doesn't mean I slander the Pope as some do here!"
I am stating facts about what this pope does. He elevates heretics. He offers heathens our altars. He prays in synagogues with rabbis THEIR prayer for a different Messiah. How is it slander to say these things? If you think this, then you must have a problem with the actions themselves--which only proves my point! They are scandalous because he DID them, not because I say he did them!
Only because Britain, like the rest of the Western world, is under the impression that power should only be wielded by those who have won elections, and so does not in practice allow the monarchy to exercise its still theoretically supreme powers. Having been brought up to believe that she is obligated to approve whatever the Government decides, and knowing that doing otherwise would cause enough outrage to bring down the monarchy, the Queen does not challenge this. But legally she is still the Sovereign.
"Tiaras, gloves, and jeweled rings are for the Queen of England."
And a whole hell of a lot of Popes up to and including Paul VI. But, you must infer that they are all "equal" to the Queen of England. You sound like Martin Luther.
I agree with you on that.
I remember the liberals blasting JPII when he had a pool installed in the Vatican. They were railing on about the costs. JPII said, "It's cheaper than a Conclave." Of course not cheaper than a billion in sex scandal settlements. Decadence means to be in a state of decline. Providing aesthetic experiences and high forms of art is definitely uplifting on a purely natural level and can be an icon for approaching the supernatural. St. Peter's Basilica creates a more profound impression as "God's House" than does the local Church that has no reference to Christ in it's architecture but rather looks like a Drive Thru Bank built in the 1970's. THAT is decadence. The vast majority of Catholics are Decadent because they have been deprived of offering their best to God as Abel did. Instead they give him the garbage left over like Cain.
St. Charles Borromeo lived in poverty in a palace. Celestine V did the same. The essential difference is they knew their offices had splendor for God and not themselves.
"Pope as monarch" is not the model for the Church. Christ was a suffering servant, not a prince.
You want to do away with the Kingship of Christ it seems. The Church has always had orders with various missions which provided the balance. Franciscans give testimony to the fact that the Church is not vulgar in conspicuous consumption and the heirarchical structure gives testimony and balance to prevent the Franciscan model from turning the Church into a strictly socialist organization. Stop looking at price tags and start looking for the spiritual value and maybe a light will go on.
Beautiful image.
How do you know? Have you taken a poll? Was Paul VI responding to any great popular clamor when he renounced the tiara? Even if you could prove that most Catholics agree with you, that would show only that they have succumbed to the pernicious modern fallacy of egalitarianism which has never been taught by the Church.
dying English model
It didn't seem to be "dying" in 2002 when over a million people lined the streets of central London (I was one of them) to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Even republicans were surprised at how much feeling for the monarchy there still is. Same when the Queen Mother died a few months earlier. The heavily republican media are determined to bring down the British monarchy, so they always make things look worse than they are.
Christ was a suffering servant, not a prince.
He also rebuked Judas when Judas rebuked the woman who brought Him an expensive ointment. When worshipping God we should offer Him the best we can do--in ritual, art, architecture, and music. When resources are limited, simplicity is acceptable, but when grandeur is possible, it should be celebrated, not shunned.
Yes, Henri IV had to convert. But that was French law, not the Pope's. There is a difference between monarchies in Catholic countries, where the succession is properly restricted to Catholics (as it still is in Spain), and monarchies in predominantly non-Catholic countries like Russia, where non-Catholic sovereigns can legitimately rule and are entitled to the allegiance of their Catholic subjects as long as they do not attempt to force them to renounce their faith or otherwise sin.
Well there is not point in debating with you because you won't listen. I told you before that faithful Catholics know the Church is in trouble and know that there have been many dubious things done by the Vatican. The Pope has been far from perfect, but by selectively only repeating his actions which you disagree on (and I may too) and leaving out all the other ones you are slandering the Holy Father. I would not like to have that sin on my soul when I die!
You are spreading scandal because the people that read these posts (most of them at least) will become hostile to entering the Church or will think about leaving the Church if they read posts like yours.
By the way, I didn't see you over at the thread today where the Pope condemned the errors of democracy. Maybe you just missed it though. Anyways, the Pope does many great things too.
Ok, thank you for the information. I have one last question if you don't mind. If the Pope excommunicated a king back centuries ago and told Catholics that they no longer had to obey him, when does this stop and Catholics have to start obeying the monarchs again. When Elizabeth I was excommunicated for example, when did Catholics have to start obeying the English monarchs, assuming they are not overly anti-Catholic (which many unfortunately were)?
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.