Posted on 07/08/2020 5:55:50 AM PDT by ebb tide
July 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier strongly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement for its “dismantling” of civilizations and cultures.
Napier, himself a black man and archbishop of Durban on the South African coast, tweeted that a “ brief study of the founding statement of ‘Black Lives Matter’ indicates the movement is being hijacked by the interests & parties committed to dismantling the very values, structure & institutions which have over the centuries undergird the best civilisations & cultures!”
After his original tweet on July 4, Napier followed up on the Black Lives Matter movement two days later. He said, “Another crucial test of the authenticity of the Black Lives Matter movement will be its stance vis a vis Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry!”
Napier added, “The same test applies when assessing the sincerity of those who voice thunderous condemnation against Domestic Violence, (erroneously called “Gender based Violence) as opposed to the absolute silence concerning Violence inflicted upon Babies in their mother’s womb!”
As pointed out by Illinois Right to Life, abortion center Planned Parenthood is actually a danger to the black community. Not only was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger a racist. The organization also targets minority communities. Among the black community, the abortion giant is the leading cause of death.
“According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control, there have been over 15.5 million abortions performed on African Americans,” Illinois Right to Life said. “These 15.5 million Black lives lost to abortion outnumber the deaths of Black people due to AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease combined.”
US Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, also criticized the movement. Bishop Strickland talked about the platform of the Black Lives Matter movement, which contains several positions Catholics can in no way support. Linking to the movement’s website, he tweeted, “Please educate yourself on this!”
He then pointed out that Black Lives Matter’s statement of belief mentions two points “that are contrary to FAITH...#1 opposing the nuclear family (where is dad?) and #2 opposing God’s plan for sex as a union of male & female.”
“This agenda is DANGEROUS!” Strickland emphatically concluded.
Black Lives Matter, according to its own website, wants to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
The term “villages” likely refers to Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village,” the title of which was based on the African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Clinton argued for society’s shared responsibility for successfully raising a child. Catholic Senator Rick Santorum eventually wrote a rebuttal, titled, “It Takes a Family.”
In addition to wanting to “disrupt” the traditional family, Black Lives Matter fosters “a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”
The website’s section on “What We Believe” mentions transgenderism in several other places. “We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead,” the movement stresses. “We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”
The term “cisgender” simply means that a person does not buy into gender ideology, but science, instead. In other words, a “cisgender” woman is a biological woman, and a “cisgender” man is a biological man.
The Black Lives Matter movement claims that liberation movements for black people “in this country have created room, space, and leadership mostly for Black heterosexual, cisgender men — leaving women, queer and transgender people, and others either out of the movement or in the background to move the work forward with little or no recognition.”
Alicia Garza, one of the founders, openly admits to being a homosexual. She claims her “leadership and work challenge the misconception that only cisgender Black men encounter police and state violence.” Accordingly, in order to “truly understand how devastating and widespread this type of violence is in Black America, we must view this epidemic through a lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
Not all Church leaders are as critical of the Black Lives Matter movement as Cardinal Napier and Bishop Strickland.
Bishop George Leo Thomas of the diocese of Las Vegas had released a pastoral letter on June 10, arguing that the Church “holds that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception until natural death. Under the banner of Catholic Social Teaching, we say with resounding voices, ‘Yes! Black Lives Matter!’”
Ping
Cardinal Napier has figured it out.
The Cardinal in South Africa knows more than the dumb white twenty-something father-hating karens in the U.S.
I think the African Catholic Clergy is going to save the Catholic Church.
They still represent the Church dogma, tenets and culture best. Perhaps America will benefit from their lead.
I would actually be pleased if the next pope (if there is one) comes from Africa.
If you need a color in front of those words YOU are a racist
“I think the African Catholic Clergy is going to save the Catholic Church.”
Between him and Cardinal Sarah, it is the ONLY HOPE for the church. The question is whether either will get to the top job, while there is still some hope for the West.
WOW!! There IS HOPE!!!
Why do I have this strange premonition that it’s going to be sensible black people who will save the white race and western civilization from white stupidity?
Or maybe not. America may need to hit its rock bottom.
“Third world” Christians will increasingly be sending missionaries to the United States and Europe and those missionaries joined there by the remaining Conservative Christians.
Already Conservative Korean Christians send missionaries to the U.S. Others will come from Africa, like the Methodists in Africa that recently joined with the U.S. “traditional” Methodists in stopping the “LGBT” changes demanded by the “Liberals”; ending this year in an “agreement” to split up the United Methodist Church.
>> Between him and Cardinal Sarah, it is the ONLY HOPE for the church. The question is whether either will get to the top job, while there is still some hope for the West. <<
Cardinal Napier is a few months shy of 80, which makes Cardinal Sarah (age 75) look like a spring chicken in comparison. I don't think either would be a serious contender for Pope (of course, nobody thought Francis would be seriously considered either, due to him being in his 70s)
Also, Cardinal Napier's views on "Climate Change" ARE similar to Francis. Though otherwise he is much more conservative and in the Benedict XVI mold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Napier
Outspoken Trump supporter & former U.S. Ambassador (2011-2016), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is also pushing 80, and is NOT a member of the College of Cardinals, so selecting him would be akin to the FReepers fantasizing about the U.S. House of Representatives picking a non-member as Speaker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Vigan
I agree the ideal choice would be a Cardinal from a Sub-Saharan African nation though, preferably one in his 50s or 60s. Most of them are very conservative, REGARDLESS of which Pope appointed them. And I think the trend is still to find a Pope from that region/age for the next conclave.
Impy asked a couple months ago how anyone can expect a good Pope with Francis having appointed most of the Cardinals. You could ask the question in reverse, how could Francis be anything but a rock solid conservative when 90% of the Cardinals that voted for him were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
Papal conclaves are a lot like SCOTUS appointments, except with the involvement of the Holy Spirit. A Pope can turn out very differently than what the Cardinals had in mind when they voted for him.
Point. But I see Frank's homo Cardinals as being less likely to make a "mistake" than conservative Cardinals, they certainly know who their fellow butt muchering sj warriors are. I also find it less likely that he accidentally appointed many good Cardinals while JP and Ben surely let some fags slip in.
I seem to recall that Frank was definitely on the "Papabili" list for 2013, perhaps not at the tip top but he was on it. And at least one guy older than him for on it too, Cardinals are worse than Senators.
Here's what an article said from Business Insider.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio AP Country: Argentina
Position: Archbishop of Buenos Aires
Age: 75
Likelihood: 16/1 according to Paddy Power.
What His Election Would Mean: Social Justice moves to the front of the Church's concerns. He'd also carry out a humble papacy. Say goodbye to Benedict's ostentation in papal clothing.
Reasons He'll Get Elected: Bergoglio was rumored to be the (weak) second place finisher in the conclave of 2005.
Reasons He Might Not Get Elected: His "moment" seems to be over.
Supposedly other main vote getters were Angelo Scola (Italy), Marc Ouellet (Canada) and Odilo Scherer (Brazil)
BTW I discovered that while Popes need to Priests and Bishops but they do not actually need to be Cardinals (it's unlikely non Cardinals will be considered however, these dudes elect from within). So if a Priest who was not a bishop was selected he would be ordained a bishop prior to unpopement but wouldn't need to be made a Cardinal. Cardinals of course don't need to be bishops but I don't think there are many of those and most are very old and thus none have been electors in recent conclaves.
I saw a cool movie about a Papal Conclave, it was called......oh "The Conclave".
What you youse guys make of this ?
They like to retweet peeples with lotsa followers
The "Catholics officials inside the Trump White" raise some valid points, but I don't see how Trump's "Catholic outreach" could be better. Archbishop Carlo Viganò and Taylor Marshall (the latter of whom I never heard of until this article) might not be "mainstream" popular Catholic celebrities with a big following, but neither are wacko fringe figures with crazy beliefs that most Catholics would be embarrassed by. Archbishop Carlo Viganò in particular is the former Ambassador to the U.S., and obviously a church "insider" and very high up in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, though obviously he's since fallen out during the Francis era and had an axe to grind with the current "powers that be" at the Vatican.
Both are traditionalist Catholics. While I'm not one, a lot of FReepers are, and while I disagree with the "if the Mass ain't in Latin, it ain't the TRUE Catholic mass" crowd (they'd have a rough time in they got in a time machine and went back to the 3rd century, finding masses were usually in Greek back then), they nevertheless have a respectable POV. It's not Trump is retweeting some goofball spewing anti-Jewish garbage like Mel Gibson's dad, or some "Catholic" figure known for calling John Paul II a heretic and an instrument of Satan.
Yes, Trump would probably be better off being associated with popular and powerful Catholic figures, but who would they get? As the article itself notes, probably 90% of the current U.S. Catholic Bishops are pretty worthless. The handful of ones who are decent, solidly patriotic conservatives, like Charles Chaput and Salvatore Cordileone (the latter of whom went to seminary with my pastor) ain't gonna get involved in partisan politics.
Overall I think Trump's "Catholic outreach" for the 2020 campaign has been poor, but its still a VAST improvement over his "Catholic outreach" in 2016, when it was basically non-existant. I thought it was totally valid to criticize Trump back then when his "advisory board" for "Christian outreach" was 90% white southern Evangelical protestant megachurch celebrities who go around preaching the prosperity gospel. That is hardly "representative" of "Christians" in America as a whole, and the vast majority of us did NOT enjoy having guys like Jerry Falwell Jr. (I'm a famous preacher cuz of my daddy!) lecture to us who to vote for. I gotta love the irony how Evangelical protestants get outraged if a Catholic religious figure addresses Christians as a whole, but they have no qualms about doing it themselves and pretending that all "Christians" on the planet believe in the sola scriptura stuff that they believe in.
Of course I wrongly predicted Hillary would win huge, so Trump clearly DID win the "Catholic vote" in 2016. Since then, he's probably improved quite a bit and he's made inroads with Catholics all over the country, and probably earned a lot of good will when the First Lady "came out" as Catholic during a trip to the Vatican, making her the first Catholic first lady since Jackie Kennedy. Even though she's probably purely a secular Catholic, I can't imagine "Catholic" Joe Biden is going to win over any new "Catholic voters" aren't already a hardcore braindead DemonRats.
If I had any advice for Trump, it wouldn't be NOT to retweet Carlo Viganò and Taylor Marshall, but to distance himself from any overtly anti-Catholic loudmouths on "our side". The left LOVES to paint Trump as a mean nasty racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semetic bigot, etc., etc., but they've brainwashed a lot of people into accepting this "fact". Again, 2016 was particularly embarrassing because the GOP tried to get everyone "outraged" by people like Diane Feinswein questioning a judge's Catholic beliefs, while turning a blind eye to Trump supporters spewing far WORSE anti-Catholic bigotry and saying crap like Catholics aren't even Christians. "It's OK when our guys do it" didn't hold water. Particularly embarrassing was Trump's White House "Bible Studies" director going around spewing crap like Catholicism is "one of the world's great false religions". Totally unacceptable to single out an entire denomination like that. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Trump appointed some Catholic as "White House chaplin" who public stated that the Southern Baptist Convention is "a phony so-called Christian organization created solely to glorify slavery". I would have demanded the guy's resignation immediately and issued a statement apologizing to the nation's 16.8 million Southern Baptists. Not said "oh well, he wasn't attacking INDIVIDUAL Baptists for THEIR faith. And hey look, some liberal Congressman said something much more mildly critical of a Baptist minister. Let's get outraged about THAT instead!"
This anti-Catholic crap from "our side" needs to be addressed and denounced. What's really pathetic is they won't even stand by those beliefs when they are challenged. I asked the "Catholics ain't Christians" crowd if they sincerely believed that Islamic terrorists were targeting a "non-Christian" gathering when they bombed a Catholic Church on Easter Sunday, or if Notre Dame catching fire means a "non-Christian" historic building in Europe was the target of arson.
No response.
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.