--
Updated (May 28): The Vatican Press Office issued an apology on Tuesday:
Posted on 05/28/2024 10:18:50 AM PDT by ebb tide
Very harsh attack by Pope Francis against the presence of homosexuals in seminaries. In the closed-door meeting with the more than 200 Italian bishops that opened the General Assembly of the Italian Bishops' Conference on Monday in the Synod Hall, the Pontiff on this topic launched into very serious calls toward greater selection in access to seminaries, not without using even colorful terms and even pointing the finger at the excess of “faggotry.” The Pontiff's stern intervention, which did not fail to surprise those present, is confirmed by several sources. Thus, for Bergoglio, homosexuals should not be allowed in seminaries. From “who am I to judge” to a now much more stern stance, if only regarding the selection and training of priests.The IssueThe issue has been debated for many years, and already an instruction from the Vatican's dicastery for the Clergy in 2005-under Benedict XVI-confirmed in 2016 under Pope Francis, stipulated that “the Church, while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the Seminary and to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture.” The Italian bishops, for their part, at their last assembly in Assisi had debated the possibility of more nuanced restrictions, feeling encouraged precisely by Bergoglio's past openings on the issue of homosexuality. Although amid much contestation, an amendment had thus been approved that merely distinguished between “acts” and “tendencies,” reaffirming the obligation of celibacy for all seminarians, homosexual and heterosexual, and thus opening the door of seminaries to gay candidates for the priesthood committed, however, to the option of celibacy. But in the hour-and-a-half-long discussion with the prelates, the Pope in fact barred the way: so respect, yes, for the gay person knocking at the seminary doors, but placing firm stakes on access to prevent the homosexual who chooses the priesthood from ending up leading a double life, with all the negative consequences of the case.The Reactions
And to reinforce his opinion and be clear even with a joke, Francis reportedly recriminated explicitly about the excess of “faggotry” in certain Italian seminaries. On the Pope's exit both the Cei and Holy See circles avoided comment today. A certain nervousness, however, was manifested in the blunt manner in which the gendarmes removed journalists, cordoning off Cardinal Pietro Parolin, during Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore for the 61st Africa Day. Reactions, and of diametrically opposite sign, were not lacking instead from the Lgbtq world as well as from Catholics in the “Family Day” area. “The Pope is backtracking on Lgbt+ rights and discriminating against gay seminarians,” said Fabrizio Marrazzo, spokesman for the Gay Lgbt+ Party, and “if such a discriminatory statement is confirmed by the Church, we ask that the government block the 8x1000 funds.” In addition, “we would like to understand how gay seminarians will be identified: will they conduct searches? Will they use the Holy Inquisition? Or will they subject priests to hits of songs by Lgbt+ singers to see their reactions? This is not only discriminatory but also ridiculous.” “Standing ovation for the Pope. It's about time. Absit iniuria verbis. Just a few days before Pride. And now everyone to get blessed,” former League senator Simone Pillon, on the other hand, commented on X.
Well, he was more or less kicked out of the Jesuits in the ‘90s.
“I don’t buy that he said it.”
I bet he did say it. He’s capable of surprising moments. In private conversation he is said to have called money “the devil’s sh*t” and he called abortion a Nazi practice and compared it to hiring a hitman to solve a problem. What is funny is how liberals will run from this moment like the plague.
It must be really bad
I don't recall posting those articles, Nick.
Could you please refresh my memory?
I do remember posting articles about the pervert pope's infatuation with "coprophagia" and other such vulgarities:
I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into – no offence intended – the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true. And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done.
Could you ever imagine a Catholic prelate, let alone a "pope" utter such words? How could he even dwell on such sickness, Nick?
I think it was a rather long article in the last month or two, giving a rundown about Pope Francis, and they specifically mentioned how he used this word in private conversations, and didn’t appear to be pro-gay o a personal level. Maybe I can find it.
Thanks for looking.
But maybe you won’t find it.
Do you remember a very long article that went in depth on him? I’m note sure the source.
No, I don’t remember.
But I do resent your rash, and false, judgement of me.
What rash judgement?
You made a false statement about my posting history.
Please put up or apologize, Nick.
I'm tired of your personal pot-shots.
Which pot shot are you referring to?
Which false statement?
The one I just quoted.
What is your problem?
How was that a potshot at you? You didn’t write the article. I am trying to find it, but I don’t remember what the title is. It’s very hard to search for old articles on FR.
You (Nick) has even posted articles before that Francis is a homosexual and that you are one of his many lovers.
Although that is not true; that would be false witness, just as you have borne false witness against me.
Yet you stated above, "I think it was a rather long article in the last month or two, ...
Do you not understand what "rash judgement" is?
I'll give you hint to a shortcut. Search under the keyword "frankenchurch".
Let's see how far back you can go!
I don’t understand the comparison. I said nothing about you personally. There was a long article about Pope Francis earlier this year. I remember wanting to come back and read it again, because there was a lot of good info in it. But it also included a part where it said that despite what he said publicly, Pope Francis in private conversations was not pro-gay. They said he used the word he was reported to have used today and say disparaging things in private conversations. It may have mentioned that he said this to Argentinians or in Argentina. I would really like to find this article. I don’t understand why this would be an insult to you at all. It wasn’t a bad article, and as far as I know, you did not write it.
Yes, you did.
You said,
You’ve even posted articles before that Francis has used such language in personal conversations, and isn’t gay-friendly in such conversations."
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.
