Pope Francis 'refuses' gay French ambassador

The Telegraph ^ | 04-10-2015 | Henry Samuel

[samtheman]

Post #3... excellent!

LGBT cat fight in the Vatican!

[CWW]

It doesn't take long for the Catholic bigots to show their faces on FR even when the Pope does the right thing. Sheesh!!

And you wonder why Christianity is attacked when we eat our own.

Did it ever occur to any of you that the Pope has never changed his position on gays, but that the media and secularist were just wishcasting?!

Wake up, folks.

And for the record, the rate of homosexuality, adultery and pederasty is higher among other Chrisitian denominations.

Let's change the tone, acknowledge good decisions where we can, and pray for one another instead of taking cheap shorts at one another.

I

[Montana_Sam]

Did it ever occur to any of you that the Pope has never changed his position on gays, but that the media and secularist were just wishcasting?!

Well said.

[samtheman]

You make some good points but let me ask you this: is the Pope repeatedly and often (or even at all) proclaiming “bloody murder” at the genocidal acts of Islam against Christians and Jews around the globe?

I don’t think he is. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

[Verginius Rufus]

I think most of the popes during the Avignon papacy in the 1300s were French (Avignon is geographically in France, but at that time was papal property, not part of the Kingdom of France). Then during the Great Western Schism, one line of popes resided in Avignon.

Of course there is no reason why a Frenchman could not be a good pope.

[chajin]

But...but would he bake him a cake?!?

Since it's Italy, the real question is would he bake him a pizza.

[Morpheus2009]

Indeed

[chajin]

Of course there is no reason why a Frenchman could not be a good pope.

The only French cardinal I can see being a decent pope would be Philippe Barbarin, assuming he can recover completely from his heart operation, though whether the college of cardinals would pick him, assuming Francis were to either resign or die, is debatable.

[Morpheus2009]

Indeed they were wishcasting, like they usually are, then, after a while, it’s back to the same old contempt they have for not being what they wished for.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Pope Francis" and killing of Christians

Google. About 2,220,000 results in 0.57 seconds.

[samtheman]

Addressing pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square, Francis praised those who were "sensitizing public opinion about the persecution of Christians in the world."

While not suggesting any particular course of action, he urged "concrete participation and tangible help in defense and protection of our brothers and our sisters, who are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian."

-- Vatican City, April 6

I guess it's stronger wording than Lurch would use... but not by much.

Anyway, I'm underwhelmed. And I hope you realize the 2,220,000 results really doesn't mean all that much.

The fact is, he's not making it "his issue". And he's definitely not out there PROCLAIMING that what is going on is "bloody murder".

Imagine Winston Churchill alive today.

What would Churhill do? He would not let the complacency of the leftist media and the complacency of the leftist governments of the West stand.

Pope Francis is a major player in the game of leftist media and leftist policy-making in the West today. His statements on the ongoing bloody mass murders of Christians seem pro-forma to me. Not anything he's really all that excited about.

[samtheman]

And BTW, in my original post I mentioned Christians AND Jews.

Google the same thing about Pope and Israelis. This is the top hit:

Pope Francis’s unfriendly visit

This story IS right in line with Lurch.

The Pope doesn't ask "what would Churchill do", but he does seem to ask, "what would Kerry do".

[Mrs. Don-o]

I dunno. He spoke out very strongly in his public liturgies on Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday, to the press in a separate interview, and again at the Divine Mercy Vespers 8 hours ago.

That's 6 times in a week.

Didn't see that on the news? Imagine my surprise.

I share the frustration, but it's certainly a head-scratcher when people who don't think the Pope's infallible expect him to be omnipotent.

And that Jerusalem Post #1 hit? 5/27/2014. That's some algorithm Google has, there.

[samtheman]

I don’t expect him to be omnipotent. I don’t expect him to be anything. But I do believe that he is showing great weakness of spirit in a time of great evil. He’s just another bureaucrat in a world of weak-willed bureaucrats. He fits right in. Which is fine, I guess. The church is a huge institution and there are thousands of daily bureaucratic issues. I’m sure the Pope is a fine manager. I bet he gets along well with his subordinates.

[Mrs. Don-o]

We have different perspectives.

[samtheman]

Yes, we do.

[piusv]

I’ll ask the same question here that I asked in a similar thread: How do we know that the reason why he was rejected was because he was gay? So far there have been no official statements: the rejection is a rejection because there has been no acceptance.

[NRx]

Because there is no other plausible explanation. Rejecting an ambassador is a pretty serious act in the diplomatic world. It is not done because you don’t like his haircut or the color of his tie. Beyond which there have been plenty of leaks from “highly placed Vatican officials” that leave no doubt whatever as to the reason.

[piusv]

What “highly placed Vatican officials”?

Sorry, if that same answer was given to certain other Catholics on here about something the pope said that was not seen as a positive thing for him, they would question the source.

In my mind, there could be another explanation. I’m not up on Vatican rejections of ambassadors, but perhaps there were other reasons in the past that could apply here.

[piusv]

And another thing. If this rejection was because the man is openly gay, why not state it? Let’s stop pussy footing around and speak boldly. That is if the Catholic Faith is what is most important.