Posted on 09/23/2015 5:48:32 PM PDT by Biggirl
Pope Francis praised Americas Roman Catholic church for its unfailing commitment to the pro-life cause on Wednesday, saying it was the primary reason for his visit to the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I agree he should speak out more forcefully on the abortion issue.
That being said, its interesting that Isreaeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said absolutely nothing about his country starting one of the most pro-abortion government policies in the world under his watch. Israeli is killing more baby Jews than the Palestinians could ever dream, and he doesn't utter a peep about it. If the current demographic trends continue, Israel will be majority Muslim in 2050. Its cultural suicide.
Not only are social conservatives not "threatening" to "boycott" Netanyahu's speeches to Congress because his "failure" to speak on social issues, but he is actively applauded as a conservative savior whenever he comes here.
Hey Frankie, no biggie bro! You an O, have a good time, on the world stage!...... Our Father, will lead us, as always.
Prolefeed.
He appoints bishops who give Communion to pro-aborts.
He doesn’t mention the unborn at the White House.
He promotes the Global Warming Hoax, one of the primary hoaxes of the abortion movement.
He promotes open borders, when immigrants vote 80% pro-abortion—which means immigration is the Democrat party’s best hope of crushing the pro-life movement.
Turns out NR’s headline is a lie. The Pope did NOT say that the PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT was the primary reason for his visit.
....Yet he is going to Philly for a pro-family conference. Would that surprise you?
Please see post number 45, thank-you!
Having said that, apparently he believes that allowing pro-abort politicians to receive communion is an example of "unfailing commitment" to the pro-life cause. Again, what a joke.
You responded by calling me a propagandist or a liar. This is really unacceptable.
You followed this up by your own proffered evidence, all of which was from the U.N. and its related SDG agencies, and none of which dealt with Pope Francis' position on these SDG policies. Therefore, it did not actually refute my points or justify your original statement that Pope Francis is all for de-population.
The fact is, that the Vatican has been strategically, and with some success, opposing the inclusion of population-control and sexual perversion in the SDG and related U.N. programs.
As you know, such terms as "reproductive health" and "sexual rights", are used in UN and globalist documents as euphemisms for contraception, sterilization, abortion, sodomy and other perversions. The fact is, since the very beginning of Francis' pontificate--- and in fact, since years before that, stretching across the regnal years of the two previous popes --- the Holy See has been faithfully blocking "reproductive health" and "sexual rights" from inclusion in the SDG documents. Together with many mainly African countries, sometime (under Bush) with the U.S. delegation and sometimes (under Obama) against it, and cooperating with NGO's such as C-Fam, the Vatican has provided the main push-back to the whole program of de-population of which you speak.
Just a couple of days ago, C-Fam noted that the results have been teeter-tottering back and forth: for instance, the Vatican + African + C-Fam coalition stopped the inclusion of LGBT Agenda language, but the Western elites retaliated by blocking any mention of the family --- a big set-back for the Vatican and the pro-family delegations.
This has been a two-decades-long, hard-fought, very close-run thing. Sometimes the Western elites win --- as when they excluded any mention of the family --- and sometimes the Vatican-prolife delegations win, as when population control and LGBT perversions were excluded from the SDGs mandates.
One could argue that the Vatican should wash its hands of the UN and the SDG and abandon the whole process. Let the population-bombers and the buggers take it over, and let them go to the devil. I think a case can be made for that.
One could argue that if Pope Francis is on the level, he should not be associating with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs in the promotion of his encyclical. I would agree heartily with that.
One could even argue that if Pope Francis thinks he can simultaneously hit the accelerator (by supporting SDG) and stomp on the brakes (by opposing population-control, which many say is a core component of SDG) , hes a strategic noncompoop because the Western elites will get what they want anyway, chew up his feckless conscientious objections and spit out the splintered bones.
And --- prescinding from questions of population control --- one can argue against the SDG on its own terms. It's not all Plumpy-Nuts for the kids in Malawi, after all!
Those would be good positions debate about.
Pope Francis is all for de-population is not a good position. It is particularly egregious because under Pope Francis watch, the Vatican has been actively organizing against the de-population agenda and in favor the pro-life, pro-family agenda.
Its no use biting the Holy See, the one indispensable ally the pro-life and pro-family movement has got in these perilous international circles; an ally which is still able to speak and operate freely.
Do you get Austin Ruse's C-Fam communications? I rely heavily on him and Stefano Gennarini for the insiders' view.
When I first read of this, I thought Pope Francis' concerns were medically justifiable --- that after 7 Cesareans the woman must have known she was facing a high risk of uterine rupture, in which case both she and the baby would die quickly and badly. However I have since then been given good evidence that some women do just fine with multiple C-sections, and the Pope should not have presumed that this particular woman was a high-risk case.
So, Pope Francis spoke wrongly in this case based on his evaluation of the woman's planned 8th C-section. He was operating on an outdated view of the risk of multiple surgical deliveries, just as I was. I hope somebody has corrected him --- particularly the lady herself.
Nevertheless, I think his intention was to express a serious concern for her as well as to underline the Catholic teaching that it is sometimes, in view of grave medical risk, licit to postpone or to prevent entirely, another pregnancy.
"Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood."
This, Pope Francis' concluding remark, is accurate from the doctrinal standpoint. Those who say the Church teaches that we should breed 'like rabbits', are wrong. Those who say the Church upholds responsible parenthood, e.g. for serious reasons, through the licit use of periodic abstinence--- are right.
And how does this differ from the PP position? Here's how: because Pope Francis, upholding Catholic doctrine and the objective moral law, opposes nonmarital sex, contraception, sterilization, abortion, sodomy and the other sexual peerversions --- all of which are promoted by PP.
In other words, this Pope is Catholic.
“You responded by calling me a propagandist or a liar. This is really unacceptable.”
I am very surprised that that post didn’t get the attention of the moderator.
Indeed, it is really unacceptable.
Thhank you, asyouwish.
Is the Pope the woman’s personal Ob-Gyn? If not, it’s none of his business.
The same applies to “globull” warming and national economic policies.
His Synods imply otherwise.
And as for "his Synods," there was not one word spoken in favor of contraception, sterilization, abortion, or the vile practice of sodomy -- as you know.
As for his commenting on her situation (without mentioning her name) as an example, he neither violated her privacy nor insulted her person. He did convey, I think, that if you're in a grave medical situation, it is permitted to use licit means to avoid pregnancy.
He conveyed no such thing.
He said:
>> ‘This is to tempt God,’ he said, adding later: ‘That is an irresponsibility.’ <<
Let’s not try reading minds.
He said “Responsible Parenthood.” In Catholic circles, we Catholics think of NFP, where there are serious reasons to postpone or avoid pregnancy, to be part of “responsible parenthood.”
You are wrong.
There was mention of the vile practice of sodomy. There was mention of the “gifts” offered and recognizing the “value” in sodomite unions.
>> 50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?<<
There was mention of recognizing “positive aspects” in unmarried fornicators.
>> 36. A new element in todays pastoral activity is a sensitivity to the positive aspects of civilly celebrated marriages and, with obvious differences, cohabitation. While clearly presenting the ideal, the Church needs also to indicate the constructive elements in these situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.<<
There was mention of giving Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers.
Is the Pope Catholic?
I don’t think you really want to claim that you speak for the vast majority of “practicing” Catholics, who do practice artificial birth control.
And once again, you can’t read the Pope’s mind.
As far as your “catholic circle”, I think Francis is at that “periphery” that he is so fond of speaking about.
As for "reading the Pope's mind," I don't read his mind. I read his words.
This discussion started off with your query as to where Pope Francis' stance differed from that of Planned Parenthood. My response was (and is) that he has never favored\, and has often explicitly rejected, contraception, steirlization, abortion, sodomy, and radical "gender theory'. You can ignore that only by ignoring his words.
That puts him on the opposite side of the fence from Planned Parenthood.
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.