Irish archbishop horrified by confirmation of unmarked babies' graves [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shattered said:
Rosebud77, you said, “It is too much; and I join others in severing my ties with the Church here.”
Sever ties huh? To whom then shall you go.
I ask you Rosebud77 (and everybody else who feel that way) to please read epostle’s beautifully written post right before your 2 posts here, and please scroll up 4 posts to read mine. Please read them now?

Finally just for the record, Christ, the founder of the Catholic Church in fulfillment of the old order, promised that his Church will not teach erroneous doctrines. He did NOT promise good Catholics. (Didn’t He Himself select Judas? Weren’t the others knuckleheads at times?)

"When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.“This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself” (extracted from the CCC 891)

To whom shall we go?
Click to expand...
2 words.

Amoris Laetitia.
 
JPUSC said:
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
Click to expand...
Saint Symeon the New Theologian (949 - 1022 AD) is one of the most revered saints of the Orthodox Church (in his time still undivided as yet from Roman Catholicism). He us one of only three saints of the Orthodox church to have been given the title of Theologian (the others are St. John the Apostle and St. Gregory Nazianzen).

In an incendiary hymn denouncing corrupt clergy, Saint Symeon had Christ speak the following rebuke to the bishops of his Church:
**"…They (the bishops) unworthily handle My Body
and seek avidly to dominate the masses…
They are seen to appear as brilliant and pure,
but their souls are worse than mud and dirt,
worse even than any kind of deadly poison,
these evil and perverse men!"
Click to expand...
(Hymn 58)**
Click to expand...
He didn’t abandon the Byzantine Church because of these Bishops, even though his denunciation of their abuses brought him into conflict with church authorities, who would eventually send him into exile.
 
JPUSC said:
2 words.

Amoris Laetitia.
Click to expand...
Off-topic but AL is a masterpiece of theology.

Pope Francis has been condemning from day one the very “clericalism” and “church of power” mindset that made the abuse this thread is discussing not only possible but, in a sense, inevitable in Ireland.

The judgementalism towards unmarried or divorced women by clerical authorities, “doctors of the law” too obsessed with extrinsic concerns rather than respect for the conscience, even if erring, of the faithful, is a great concern of his.

The key to the apostolic exhortation, for me anyway, lies in these three crucial paragraphs:

"Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. (paragraph 301)…it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (paragraph 305)…A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, ‘sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families’". (paragraph 305)

Pope Francis is not in this document denying the validity of the Church’s moral doctrines in the realm of human sexuality.

He criticizes (very harshly) what he calls "excessive idealization" which results in a “far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families”. When people fail to conform with perfection, due to the pressures of modern living and societal mores among other factors, the Church has in the past clung to its ‘laws’ so ferociously as to turn them into “stones to throw at people’s lives”.

The Pope wants this practice to end. He desires that the Church become less (seemingly) judgemental as an institution, and dare one say as to its members hypocritical, without compromising doctrinal purity.

You are condemning the very document that if it had been implemented 70 years earlier could have helped to prevent the culture that resulted in the Tuam tragedy and the scorn with which pregnant, unmarried women and their children were held by society at large, including the Church. How ironic!

Pope Francis should be commended, not attacked, for his valiant attempts to reform the Church.

But this is entirely off-topic, so I will end this foray here.
 
Vouthon said:
Off-topic but AL is a masterpiece of theology.

Pope Francis has been condemning from day one the very “clericalism” and “church of power” mindset that made the abuse this thread is discussing not only possible but, in a sense, inevitable in Ireland.

The judgementalism towards unmarried or divorced women by clerical authorities, “doctors of the law” too obsessed with extrinsic concerns rather than respect for the conscience, even if erring, of the faithful, is a great concern of his.

The key to the apostolic exhortation, for me anyway, lies in these three crucial paragraphs:

"Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. (paragraph 301)…it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (paragraph 305)…A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, ‘sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families’". (paragraph 305)

Pope Francis is not in this document denying the validity of the Church’s moral doctrines in the realm of human sexuality.

He criticizes (very harshly) what he calls "excessive idealization" which results in a “far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families”. When people fail to conform with perfection, due to the pressures of modern living and societal mores among other factors, the Church has in the past clung to its ‘laws’ so ferociously as to turn them into “stones to throw at people’s lives”.

The Pope wants this practice to end. He desires that the Church become less (seemingly) judgemental as an institution, and dare one say as to its members hypocritical, without compromising doctrinal purity.

You are condemning the very document that if it had been implemented 70 years earlier could have helped to prevent the culture that resulted in the Tuam tragedy and the scorn with which pregnant, unmarried women and their children were held by society at large, including the Church. How ironic!

Pope Francis should be commended, not attacked, for his valiant attempts to reform the Church.

But this is entirely off-topic, so I will end this foray here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this; and no not off topic in any way. Total sense and the tragedy of “if only…”

Maybe folk here just cannot face the human reality of Tuam and Bessborough and now the hospital at Tuam also…

Maybe folk just cannot believe the horror?

But unless we do?
 
rose_kelly said:
There’s definitely some truth in this Irish Times article.

’ Rush to marginalise over Tuam has run ahead of the facts’.
irishtimes.com/opinion/rush-to-moralise-over-tuam-has-run-ahead-of-the-facts-1.3002786
Click to expand...
No not true. WHY do they try to evade the truth?

Why minimise the sheer evil and horror of this?

What more facts than babies dumped in a sewage system by those paid and trusted to care for them?

Oh and the vaccine trials too? And the baby trafficking?

And in the Name of Jesus they did this?

Poor Jesus. Poor poor Jesus.

We have let Him down and this article endorses that
 
JurisPrudens said:
You are the sign that the devil is quite efficient by turning people away from the Truth, by a combination of lies, shame and moral pressure.
Click to expand...
‘A combination of lies’ - the atrocities committed in Ireland, the sexual abuse, the cover up of sexual abuse by the hierarchy of the church, the abuse of unmarried women who were worked as slaves in laundries by nuns, the selling of children, the neglect of children to the point that they were dying in the ‘care’ of nuns at 4 or 5 times the national infant mortality rates in Ireland at the time, the selling of children to the USA without their mother’s permission; none of these are lies. These are** facts.**

Shame? Yes, the church should be ashamed. They claim to do God’s work on earth but this was the devil’s work.

It is the actions of the catholic church that are turning me away from it, not the devil.
 
Vouthon said:
his valiant attempts to reform the Church.
Click to expand...
Oh really?
Perhaps because the CDF has taken a tough, rules-based approach to the issue of child abuse, which clashes with the more personal autocratic style of this pope. Or perhaps because reforming the reform would reward his allies, and humiliate an antagonist.
Click to expand...
Rumors of this reform have been circulating in Rome for months. And not happily. Pope Francis and his cardinal allies have been known to interfere with CDF’s judgments on abuse cases. This intervention has become so endemic to the system that cases of priestly abuse in Rome are now known to have two sets of distinctions. The first is guilty or innocent. The second is “with cardinal friends” or "without cardinal friends."
Click to expand...
And indeed, Pope Francis is apparently pressing ahead with his reversion of abuse practices even though the cardinals who are favorable to this reform of reform have already brought him trouble because of their friends.
Click to expand...
Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname “Don Mercedes.” He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.
Click to expand...
But Don Mercedes was “with cardinal friends,” we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a “a life of humility and prayer.” These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.
Click to expand...
This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.
Click to expand...
It’s astonishing that after giving in to requests for intervention by Coccopalmerio and Pinto — requests which were unjust and humiliating — the pope would proceed to give authority over some child abuse cases to Pinto. But perhaps that isn’t the first thing on his mind. Doing so would reward one of Pope Francis’ friends and humiliate someone he sees as an antagonist.
Click to expand...
The veteran church reporter John Allen recently noted in Crux that Pope Francis doesn’t always take the direct approach when trying to kneecap his critics within the church, or the obstacles to his reform in the Vatican. Sometimes, he goes around them. Allen wrote that “it means formally keeping people in place while entrusting the real responsibility to somebody else and thus rendering the original official, if not quite irrelevant, certainly less consequential.”
Click to expand...
That has been Francis’ approach with CDF, led by the German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, in the past. When Pope Francis wanted to change the process for declaring marriages null, he essentially skipped over Müller, a constant critic of the pope’s views on marriage and the sacraments. Instead the pope went to Cardinal Coccopalmerio. The loyalty of Monsignor Pinto is unquestioned. It was Pinto who lashed out at four cardinals who publicly questioned the orthodoxy of the pope’s recent document, Amoris Laetitia. The four cardinals criticized the document for encouraging changes to Catholic sacramental practice they held to be impossible given Catholic doctrine. Pinto reminded them that the pope could remove their status as cardinals. Meanwhile Cardinal Müller seemed to be giving aid and comfort to these cardinals, saying that the sacramental practice of giving communion to people in adulterous relationships could not be endorsed.
Click to expand...
In any case, on abuse, the justice dealt out by Müller’s CDF seems to be too harsh for the pope and his allies. And so, the pope hopes to render the CDF irrelevant in these cases.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been decided with any finality, and it is possible that saner heads will prevail and remind Pope Francis which cardinals and offices are really serving his best interests and doing justice in the name of his authority. Or at least remind him that while the press may cheer him for undoing John Paul II’s teaching on communion for the divorced, they may not cheer him for lightening the penalties on child molesters who happen to have friends in his inner circle.
Click to expand...
theweek.com/articles/670249/child-abuse-scandal-coming-pope-francis
Click to expand...
See:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30867

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/pope-reduces-sanctions-against-some-paedophile-priests

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/25/pope-quietly-trims-sanctions-sex-abusers-seeking-mercy/98399022

amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/15/catholic-church-not-done-enough-to-tackle-abuse-claims-new-book

ibtimes.co.uk/pope-francis-reduces-penalties-paedophile-priests-lifetime-prayer-1608591
 
Vouthon said:
his valiant attempts to reform the Church.
Click to expand...
Oh really?
Perhaps because the CDF has taken a tough, rules-based approach to the issue of child abuse, which clashes with the more personal autocratic style of this pope. Or perhaps because reforming the reform would reward his allies, and humiliate an antagonist.
Click to expand...
Rumors of this reform have been circulating in Rome for months. And not happily. Pope Francis and his cardinal allies have been known to interfere with CDF’s judgments on abuse cases. This intervention has become so endemic to the system that cases of priestly abuse in Rome are now known to have two sets of distinctions. The first is guilty or innocent. The second is “with cardinal friends” or "without cardinal friends."
Click to expand...
And indeed, Pope Francis is apparently pressing ahead with his reversion of abuse practices even though the cardinals who are favorable to this reform of reform have already brought him trouble because of their friends.
Click to expand...
Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname “Don Mercedes.” He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.
Click to expand...
But Don Mercedes was “with cardinal friends,” we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a “a life of humility and prayer.” These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.
Click to expand...
This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.
Click to expand...
It’s astonishing that after giving in to requests for intervention by Coccopalmerio and Pinto — requests which were unjust and humiliating — the pope would proceed to give authority over some child abuse cases to Pinto. But perhaps that isn’t the first thing on his mind. Doing so would reward one of Pope Francis’ friends and humiliate someone he sees as an antagonist.
Click to expand...
The veteran church reporter John Allen recently noted in Crux that Pope Francis doesn’t always take the direct approach when trying to kneecap his critics within the church, or the obstacles to his reform in the Vatican. Sometimes, he goes around them. Allen wrote that “it means formally keeping people in place while entrusting the real responsibility to somebody else and thus rendering the original official, if not quite irrelevant, certainly less consequential.”
Click to expand...
That has been Francis’ approach with CDF, led by the German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, in the past. When Pope Francis wanted to change the process for declaring marriages null, he essentially skipped over Müller, a constant critic of the pope’s views on marriage and the sacraments. Instead the pope went to Cardinal Coccopalmerio. The loyalty of Monsignor Pinto is unquestioned. It was Pinto who lashed out at four cardinals who publicly questioned the orthodoxy of the pope’s recent document, Amoris Laetitia. The four cardinals criticized the document for encouraging changes to Catholic sacramental practice they held to be impossible given Catholic doctrine. Pinto reminded them that the pope could remove their status as cardinals. Meanwhile Cardinal Müller seemed to be giving aid and comfort to these cardinals, saying that the sacramental practice of giving communion to people in adulterous relationships could not be endorsed.
Click to expand...
In any case, on abuse, the justice dealt out by Müller’s CDF seems to be too harsh for the pope and his allies. And so, the pope hopes to render the CDF irrelevant in these cases.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been decided with any finality, and it is possible that saner heads will prevail and remind Pope Francis which cardinals and offices are really serving his best interests and doing justice in the name of his authority. Or at least remind him that while the press may cheer him for undoing John Paul II’s teaching on communion for the divorced, they may not cheer him for lightening the penalties on child molesters who happen to have friends in his inner circle.
Click to expand...
theweek.com/articles/670249/child-abuse-scandal-coming-pope-francis
Click to expand...
See:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30867

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/pope-reduces-sanctions-against-some-paedophile-priests

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/25/pope-quietly-trims-sanctions-sex-abusers-seeking-mercy/98399022

amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/15/catholic-church-not-done-enough-to-tackle-abuse-claims-new-book

ibtimes.co.uk/pope-francis-reduces-penalties-paedophile-priests-lifetime-prayer-1608591
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post
 
Rosebud77 said:
No not true. WHY do they try to evade the truth?

Why minimise the sheer evil and horror of this?

What more facts than babies dumped in a sewage system by those paid and trusted to care for them?

Oh and the vaccine trials too? And the baby trafficking?

And in the Name of Jesus they did this?

Poor Jesus. Poor poor Jesus.

We have let Him down and this article endorses that
Click to expand...
“We have let Him down”? Of whom does this “We” refer? Please don’t include me, or any other of my faithful Catholic brothers and sisters, the living stones in the pews, praying for the world, living the witness to the Lord. The Roman Catholic Church is in the world, but not of this world, and “We” who make up the body of the church are the salt of the earth, lights in a dark world.

The egregious mischaracterization, and seemingly calculated misuse of the word “we” impunes only you, not all of us lay Catholics out there living and breathing our faith on a daily basis. After this, any other statement you make must be viewed with extreme skepticism. You have betrayed a strong bias, which seems to have spawned an agenda.
 
Are people sure this isn’t just propaganda from the “orangemen”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top