The Advocate (gay magazine) said Francis tilts toward the LGBT agenda.
On the other hand, The Advocate $#!+$ in the woods.
Posted on 11/12/2014 4:47:52 PM PST by ebb tide
There, fixed it for you.
That’s because some Canon law says that bishops are not to be questioned and they are the final authority on who can receive communion. This was never in Canon law before. It is assuming that all bishops will do the right thing and deny communion to pro-aborts, when we know that is not the case.
The law should be changed. They should be called on the carpet by the Pope and told to knock off their open defiance of Church teachings. But with the current pope no way in the world that will ever happen. He could care less.
The part of doctrine I was referring to is the all the sudden compassion for practicing homosexuals and saying these sinners have “gifts” to offer the church. What gifts, a spreading of aids and dying a slow death. The Catholic Church has always said to love the sinner and hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin and Francis does not seem to understand that fact. He and his leftist cohorts are bound and determined to turn the Catholic Church into a larger version of the Anglican Church, which is dying a slow death because it has allowed open homosexuality and caved into the homosexual agenda. Francis will go down as the worst pope in the last 500 years.
Francisco is the real pope name he chose. The media renamed him. hmmm.
The Advocate (gay magazine) said Francis tilts toward the LGBT agenda.
On the other hand, The Advocate $#!+$ in the woods.
Uh... what?
No. Francis is a useful idiot for the Marxists. The position of the Pope is not, and never should be viewed as, a CEO.
He never did ANYTHING to oppose the Peronistas in Argentina. He is an enabler of tyrants.
What can one expect from a priest who says, “Who am I to judge?” The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy.
Catholics should never enable tyrants and dictators by standing aside and allowing them to harm the laity without protest.
He real chosen pope name is Francisco. Look it up. The reason the leftist American media changed it is obvious. If someone named Francisco comes to America they don’t answer to Francis. Nobody ever left their heart in Francis. Americans know how to pronounce Francisco and don’t need any helpful translation from the urban central planners.
I still have no clue what you are trying to say.
Sad. I keep reminding myself that God works all things for the good...
That John Paul was Ioannes Paulus II (L)? Also known as Jan Paweł II (Polish)?
That Paul was Paulus PP VI; and in Italian: Paolo, Paolino; in Russian: Пол (Pol), Pavel, Pasha; in Spanish: Pablo?
You think his is some kind of trick?
You honestly have a problem with this?
Francis said these words about same-sex “marriage” when the bill was being debated in Argentina. He HAS NEVER AS POPE came out with such strong language about marriage. As a matter of fact when Francis was speaking about evils of same-sex “marriage” in Argentina, at the same time he was floating the idea of the Church condoning same-sex “unions”, which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
In an interview granted to the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa, Woites said that the story "isn't true. It's a complete error."
So there are conflicting claims.
We do know that in some instanes, competing versions of "civil union" have been proffered. Some of them are not predicated on a sex-themed realtiosnship, and center on insurance and inheritance entitlements, such as might benefit non-sexually linked people, like a disabled adult and caregiver, or elderly widowed or spinster sisters sharing a house. It could benefit anyone signing up for it, e.g. by being allowed to designate one non-relative as being under family coverage for insurance purposes.
That a person is exploring such contract arrangements, or discussing them, or urging careful consideration of different options, does not mean they are for accepting/normalizing unions based on sodomitic vice.
The implication that Bergoglio would do so (normalize sodomy) would need more specific and detailed evidence. I would not believe it without such evidence.
I said he floated the idea. It was shot down by the other bishops.
But no bishop has the authority to COMMAND that all his priests give Communion to pro-aborts--and yet nearly all American bishops DO command that.
Here is the relevant document on the interpretation of Canon 915. Although the document focuses on the divorced-and-remarried, Canon 915 is NOT about the divorced-and-remarried. Canon 915 is about ALL manifest grave sinners, no matter what KIND of sin they may be involved in.
http://tinyurl.com/pont915
4. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
Notice that Cardinal Wuerl and most bishops DEFY this authoritative interpretation of Canon 915 by PUNISHING priests who obey Canon 915.
Here is Cardinal Burke's famous article:
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
Don't underestimate the role played by simple lack of courage--the courage to face facts.
http://tinyurl.com/pont915
The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.
It may be exactly as you say. If I had sufficient evidence of that, I'd gladly give you credit for timely insight. But as of now, I haven't seen the words, the actually words of what Bergoglio was proferring in Buenos Aires.
You may think I'm a stickler for words. But I remember that St. Thomas More was even willing to sign Parliament's Act of Supremacy, IF he could limit the oath "as far as the law of Christ allows."
The exact words always count.
“Notice that Cardinal Wuerl and most bishops DEFY this authoritative interpretation of Canon 915 by PUNISHING priests who obey Canon 915”.
You’re right, I’m wrong, so then the problem is too many parish priests are scared of the bishops. This I can understand. It’s nice to see a local parish priest actually acting like a Catholic. Before I moved to where I live now, my parish priest actually gave homilies on life and marriage and other “hot button” issues. He would say “I can’t tell you who to vote for but if one of the candidates is for abortion and the other one is against it, the church is very clear that you have to support the candidate that is against abortion”. The priest I have now NEVER talks about abortion, marriage, or anything else that might be controversial. I asked him his reasoning and he said “I don’t want to run people away from the church”. He had a stack of pro-marriage signs in his office during the build-up to vote on same-sex “marriage” in the state. I asked him what he was doing with the signs that were hidden away in a corner. He said he didn’t really know. I told him I would put them up to promote real marriage and his answer was “I don’t want to run anyone away from the church”. I felt like saying “why don’t you try acting like a Catholic for a change”. He’s a big fan of Francis.
That "coterie" of heterodox destroyers was hand-picked by Pope Francis to surround his throne. He personally assembled the unholy alliance, which he has since deployed to undermine the perennial teachings of the Church, allowing his mouthpieces to promote heterodoxy in his name without contradiction. Yet we should assume that the demotion and banishment of Burke is somehow intended to accomplish the exact opposite? Where is the logic in that theory?
Burke proclaims the Gospel in season and out of season.
Kasper and the admirers of his "serene theology" scheme to lead us away from the narrow gate by launching a direct attack on the 6th commandment.
"Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit."
The fact that he promoted a statement in the relatio post disceptationem which imputes good to what the Church has always taught is intrinsic evil shows an obvious lack of constraint on his part. He has already crossed an inviolable line. This being the case, there is no reason to presume he will refrain from further pushing the envelope.
"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners."
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.