Possible rift in US and Vatican communication

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My experience has shown me that those who complain the loudest come from on of 3 camps:
  1. They are still upset Benedict resigned and no one would be a good replacement.
  2. They are confused/intimidated by the Jesuit charism
  3. They have no dog in some of the fights, but still want everyone and everything to be black & white.
 
I don’t know what that means. Seems to be another of those -isms like modernism and relativism that people trot out when they don’t like the Pope or disagree with somebody else.
 
StAugustine said:
How can we who refuses to judge pass on judgment on those he refuses to judge?
Click to expand...
The context of the Pope’s comment, “Who am I to judge,” is rooted in the very words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Judging situations that need to be addressed temporally is an entirely separate use of the word “judge.”

On a different note, it is always disappointing to see Catholics in the United States devolve into a gossip circle. Of all the dangers of the internet, I can’t help but think that the explosion of the sins of gossip and rash judgment is the most ignored.
 
Last edited:
After the Pontiff returned from Ireland, I saw a video clip of him apparently making a statement that the Bishops in Ireland would have to solve the sexual abuse crisis there.

That makes a lot of sense because the Bishops oversee who gets into the seminary and is eventually ordained.

My view: THE POPE APPOINTS BISHOPS. THE BISHOPS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO GOD. CANON LAW HAS NOT PRESERVED THE CHURCH FROM THE ABUSES OF CLERICALISM, SUCH AS THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL, THE SCANDAL OF BILLIONS BEING SPENT TO COMPENSATE AND AT THE SAME TIME SILENCE THE VICTIMS, AND IN PARTICULAR, CANON LAW DID NOT PREVENT THE MCCARRICK DEBACLE.

The USCCB needs to throw off the strictures of canon law and DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Get homosexual bishops and priests out of the ministry. I think there is PERFECT communication between the Pope and the Bishops of the world to wit, DO IT, clean up this mess that you have created.
 
Read Pascal to understand the “Jesuit Charism.” Doesn’t seem to have changed from its casuistry.
 
Careful there, the Jesuits at that time were fighting Jansenism, which was a Catholic version of Calvinism. Although I am a fan of Pascal’s writings, and I don’t consider him a Jansenist, he certainly supported them in their fight against the Jesuits. The Jesuits were right, he was on the wrong side.
 
Last edited:
Saying that about a particular source rather than making a response regarding the article in question is actually against the rules of this forum. Seems there’s a double standard though when it comes to certain sources. If you would think MSN (Microsoft Network) is more reliable than Lifesite, OK then?!?
 
Last edited:
No, the Jesuits were legitimately falling pray to abuse.

While the Jansenists were wrong for their denial of the infallibility of dogmatic facts, they were only imprecise in their soteriology. Most of what passes for “Jansenism” is just particular overemphasis on some of St. Augustine’s points.

I hold to the teaching of Cardinal Henry Noris, Berti and Belleli, all Italian Augustinians accuses of Jansenism and then exonerated by the Holy Office. They made the right distinctions.
 
I’m unaware of any rule against criticism of a source.
Criticism of the person posting is forbidden.
Criticism of Lifesite News is not.
 
I had been privately messaged on the previous platform by moderators on more than one occasion for noting a particular “Catholic” source being owned by a liberal news outlet rather than saying something regarding the articles posted. Thankfully that source has changed ownership and seems to have improved.
 
Last edited:
ConcernedConvert said:
Just because someone sees and reports a lot of problems with the pontiff (several are very real and very concerning by the way) doesn’t mean they are automatically unreliable.
Click to expand...
But when every article from a particular source is both highly hostile to the Pope, and consistently gets key facts wrong when discussing the Pope, that should mean anything they publish about the Pope should be automatically suspect.

Their reporting is always negative and openly hostile. I actually assumed for the longest time that Lifesitenews was Evangelical based on how they consistently misrepresent the Pope. Publishly quality content in some areas does not mean there isn’t bias when reporting on other topics.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it was more due to the use of the word “Liberal” rather than unreliable? There are certain sources, including Lifesitenews, National Catholic Reporter, and Church Militant, that everyone recognizes as having some bias or unreliability thar needs to be taken into account, the same way as we realize that Vox, Breitbart, Fox, Huffpo, MSNBC etc all have a bias.

Also, it seems like there are some topics now allowed to be discussed on the new platform that weren’t on the old (for example, sedevecantism).
 
No, they are not.
Lying is wrong.
Lying to save another’s life, would be a morally gray area.
Stealing is wrong, stealing food to feed your hungry children is a morally gray area

Shall I go on?
 
My use of the word “Liberal” was here only and certainly the site in question was unreliable when looking at it with even a semblance of knowledge of Church teaching. Any outlets without a bias one way or another simply wouldn’t produce anything.
 
Last edited:
I don’t watch Fox News so they didn’t shape my political views which could’ve been very toxic.
 
You could use the example of deliberately not going to Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation. It is a sin if you skipped because you wanted to watch football. It is not if you had the flu.

You are obligated to go, but certain circumstances dispense you of that obligation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top