Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil'

Reuters ^ | Feb, 22, 2005 | Philip Pullella

[CitizenM]

What a great comment. I applaud your observations and recognition of a saintly man. I was one of thousands who saw him in Baltimore. I stood along the road and could still "feel" the aura of spiritualness that surrounds him. We are fortunate he is the leader of the Catholic Church in this time of many conflicts.

[AlguyA]

"Pope as monarch" is not the model for the Church. Christ was a suffering servant, not a prince.

Wow! And to think all these centuries the Church has celebrated the end of its liturgical year with the Feast of Christ the King.

[broadsword]

That's all fine, my friend, but why on THIS thread?

[ultima ratio]

Listen, the Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. If he is not strongly Catholic--what hope is there for the rest of the Church? Do you think the systemic collapse of the Church in its liturgy and culture and doctrinal and moral integrity in the past forty years has been accidental and has not been the result of a purposeful agenda set at the very top? That seems highly unlikely. It is not slanderous to point this out--it is necessary. The Pope disdains Catholic Tradition. That is a calamity for all of us.

[royalcello]

Elizabeth I was illegitimate from a Catholic point of view because she was born to Anne Boleyn while her father's first wife (Catherine of Aragon) was still alive. Therefore for Catholics she was not the lawful monarch of England, even if she had not suppressed the Catholic religion. The Catholic claimant to the throne during that time was Mary, Queen of Scots, whose Protestant son James I finally became King of England of 1603.

While anti-Catholic laws remained on the books until 1829, these laws merely prevented them from voting or wielding power (rather than requiring them to sin) and so were not in themselves grounds for withdrawing obedience.

James I's son, Charles I, married a Catholic and was tolerant of Catholics (one reason why the Puritans hated him so); his two sons Charles II and James II converted to Catholicism, so there was obviously no problem there from a Catholic point of view.

With the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" and the 1701 Act of Settlement which displaced the Catholic Stuarts and (eventually) brought in the Protestant Hanoverians, the British monarchy again became problematic for Catholics, many of whom supported the Jacobite cause, initially I think with Rome's blessing. But at some point (I'm not sure when), Rome recognized the Hanoverian succession and since then the British monarchy has been entitled to the allegiance of British Catholics.

[clearsight]

I apologize for dragging the perverbial "stick of controversy" up and down your fence slats, just to see you gnash your teeth and seethe at me. I do not usually say and do things to provoke "nasty scenes" or in this case "retaliatory notes" on a blog, but I just succumbed to the temptation. This topic can really "weird one out" if you know what I mean ?????? Like a bad day at the office....or better yet a nightmare during a high fever that keeps looping back to the beginning over and over and over again till you decide to simply get up and watch tv or read a good book till the alarm goes off and it is time to go back to work.

[ndkos]

You are supposed to show obedience to the Pope when he speaks as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Christ told us the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church. If the Pope makes mistakes in matters of faith and morals when he speaks as head of the Church than he is not infallable, Vatican I was not a valid ecumenical council, and Christ is a liar.

Regardless of what the Pope does you refuse to listen to him. Christ did not found His Church upon laymembers like you and me just as He did not found it upon Sola Scriptura.

There is a difference between pointing out mistakes that have been make by this Pope on one hand, and mentioning nothing else but these mistakes and rubbing it in everyone's faces in almost every post you make here on the other hand. The Koran is not the word of God and I don't think it was a good decision to for the Pope to kiss it (using your example which I have heard maybe 100 times). However this does not mean that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, is not infallible, and should not be obeyed by Catholics. If he makes mistakes in discipline (which even I think he has - he's been presiding over a Church in crisis for over 26 years which means it is hard not to make mistakes), it is not a sin for Catholics to obey him, as God will blame the Pope and not us. It would be a sin if we didn't obey the Pope.

Again, was St. Faustina or St. Margaret Mary wrong for obeying their superiors when their superiors told them not to believe in the apparition that the saints saw with their own eyes or when their superiors condemned at least part of it?

Let me make an analogy. Taxes in this country are too high, politicians are corrupt, and we are aborting over 1 million unborn babies per day. Does that mean I don't have to listen to or obey any laws in this country? Does this mean I should blame President Bush for this? Why doesn't he sign executive orders banning all of the above abuses?

So if we have to and obey the Pope on matters of faith and morals and we have to do obey him with regards to Church discipline, why do you not obey the Pope?

[patriot_wes]

"Sarcasm alert?"

definitely.....sorry, I have this thing about the suffering and sacrifice of the Messiah.

[Pyro7480]

It's ok. No offense taken.

[clearsight]

1. I cannot imagine that Lord Jesus meant having the same language when he prayed "Father I pray that they may be one even as we are one" To me this is so superficial and earthly. Our oneness, I believe is in the "indwelling Holy Ghost" who would inhabit all who believed on the Lord Jesus. Paul stated "He who hath not the Holy Ghost is none of His" The Holy Spirit is the indelible? mark which identifies for God all who are true believers. 2. Jesus Christ died once for all; for sins of the past, present and future, thereby showing that an unending requirement for daily unbloody sacrifices at the mass is unnecessary and may reveal a misunderstanding of the nature and scope of His death burial and resurrection. 3. The early church for the most part recoiled at the idea of the transubstantiation (the pagans at the time did the same things with their deities), very much like the church reacted in the U.S. in the mid 1800's to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Jesus made it clear after he said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" that he wasn't speaking of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood, when he said "The flesh profits nothing, the words I speak to you, they are spirit and life." We feed on His life through faith in His name not eating supposed transformed bread and wine. Oh well that is enough for now to stoke the fires of retribution.

[clearsight]

"Keep dreaming, it's been around for over 2000 years"
What a lame statement to use to give credence to the doctrines of the catholic something or other. Satan worship has been around longer than that and it's tenure on the earth has not in and of itself proved that it espouses valid truth. I suppose if one tells a lie over and over again, long enough, someone will eventually believe it.

[nmh]

I can't disagree with this:

"Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil' "

I add that priests molesting kids is ALSO an ideology of evil.

[John Lenin]

See post 231. Read it reeeeal sloooow. If you still don't get it, oh well, shame on you.

[CouncilofTrent]

Are you an anti-catholic Troll?

[ultima ratio]

"You are supposed to show obedience to the Pope when he speaks as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Christ told us the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church."

But Christ didn't promise we'd always get good popes. What you do is assume that because I criticize the Pope for his bad behavior, I have somehow denied some teaching on faith and morals. This is complete nonsense. What teachings on faith and morals do you imagine I don't accept? Name them. Name one article of faith I have denied. You can't--because I haven't denied any. I have simply criticized the Pope for his scandalous behavior.

[ultima ratio]

"If the Pope makes mistakes in matters of faith and morals when he speaks as head of the Church than he is not infallable, Vatican I was not a valid ecumenical council, and Christ is a liar."

This is another statement by you that makes no sense. Do you think popes cannot make mistakes? Of course they can--and they do, very often. A pope is only divinely protected from error when he speaks EX CATHEDRA on faith and morals--which is very rare. A Pope must intend what he says for the universal Church, and as far as I know, this Pope has never so spoken, except in encyclicals--and even here, he is infallible only when he repeats a universally held teaching of the Church. Novel ideas are never protected in any way. Here is how Vatican I defined the matter:

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith."

In other words, when the Pope introduces new ideas--he is not infallible and what he says may very well be mistaken. Such doctrines therefore cannot be binding. The charism of infallibility is given only to GUARD what has already been transmitted, passed down from the apostles--in other words, by means of Sacred Tradition, something this Pope shows little interest in protecting.

[CouncilofTrent]

Hasnt Papal Infallibility been used once since Vatican I: Dogma of the Assumption?

[ultima ratio]

"It would be a sin if we didn't obey the Pope."

Not necessarily. Disobeying a pope is not inherently evil. That is to say, it is not always wrong. Normally speaking, of course, it is wrong. But if the Pope should command someone to harm the Church in some way, or do harm to souls in some way, it would be wrong to obey. To obey would be a false obedience.

This is only to say that authority has its limits. Popes are not limited from below--but they are limited from above and thus may not violate divine law. It is quite possible for a pope, therefore, to abuse his office by issuing unjust or evil commands. In such cases, commands would lose their legitimacy and need not be obeyed. One would not be denying the Pope his authority per se when this happened, but would only be denying the legitimacy of a wrongful command. Here are some great Renaissance theologians on the subject:

"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)

"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense" (Fr. Francisco Suarez).

"A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. 'What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?' His answer is: 'He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently, . . . if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented'" (Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.).

[ultima ratio]

Yes--though there are those who claim infallibility covers encyclicals as well--but this can only be for doctrines which are consistent with previous teachings of the Church.