Reuters: Three years on, pope leaves Catholic conservatives feeling marginalized

[graciew]

Aciprensa
Catholic source
**
Pope Francis never promoted “civil unions” as an alternative to gay “marriage”**

translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/el-papa-francisco-nunca-impulso-uniones-civiles-como-alternativa-a-matrimonio-gay-62294/&usg=ALkJrhgq6fA8Ft5v70a8e7Y5W3X9JPBLMQ
“marriage”

El Papa Francisco nunca impulsó “uniones civiles” como alternativa a “matrimonio” gay
BUENOS AIRES, Apr 24. 13 / 4:01 pm ( CNA / EWTN News ) .- As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio , the now Pope Francisco, defended the real marriage consists of a man and a woman and never supported the idea of " civil unions "as an acceptable alternative, CNA said several sources close to the then Primate of Argentina.

In an interview with CNA, national Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, he explained the intervention of Cardinal Bergoglio, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and the battle that he had to face both against the government of Kirchner husbands favorable to the law finally legalized homosexual “marriage” in Argentina.

Recalling that always received the support of the Archbishop and other prelates from Argentina, the senator said the now Pope who "was always a person who had a lot of courage and a lot of courage to be raised against the powerful and say what he thought. The voice of those who had no voice was Cardinal Bergoglio. "

Before the issue of unions homosexuals , said the legislator, the government "had identified as the number one enemy Bergoglio because, logically, he raised what the Church raises about it, " that is, that marriage consists of the indissoluble union of a man and a woman who are the foundation of the family , the basis of society.

Negre said the July 14, 2010, one day before the approval of gay “marriage”, “started the day (in Parliament) to win by nine votes and ended up losing by three votes”.

“To give you an idea of how terrible it was that: the ex-president Kirchner as the new national deputy had never been to the House was only twice. When he swore and vote for the” marriage “of same-sex” .

Liliana Negre de Alonso explained that his party had managed to “reach consensus on a project to achieve the majority” and unite “who voted against the legalization of” marriage "of same sex and who wanted to vote in favor of a draft civil union he was signed by eight senators ".

“Then it was to recognize some rights that people of the same sex were asking, for example, that the health law was changed, allowing people could accompany their partners during hospitalization, which the Supreme Court in Argentina and recognized” .

However, remember, the night of July 14 "President of the Senate violating all the rules, violating the Argentina Constitution, me notifies me as President of the Commission, which has decided to eliminate that project, which had a 80 percent votes, leaving us well against a polarized choice: either yes or no to the “marriage” homosexual ".

Negre said that Cardinal Bergoglio had encouraged Congress to find a solution that would prevent the legalization of gay marriage. That is, the Cardinal never supported civil unions as an ideal alternative from the legal point of view. "Then the tension that was there was very strong to the point that I started me crying. They barely won the vote by three votes, the first thing they said (Kirchner) was ‘already reduced to Bergoglio’. So they had faced this struggle by this law as if it had been between them and Bergoglio. ‘Now we cut to Bergoglio’ that was the expression of the president of the ruling bloc ".

The senator also recalls that the now Pope Francisco “was reviled, insulted, sullied … the things I heard those 24-hour session on the Cardinal to defend marriage as a natural institution are unrepeatable”.

“That’s indescribable what it means to watch it blow chosen by the Lord as successor of Peter and Vicar on Earth”.

For his part, Miguel Woites, director for 57 years of the Catholic Information Agency Argentina (AICA) ago, said the then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio never pushed gay unions.

Woites, working in direct contact with the Argentina Episcopal Conference, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the Apostolic Nunciature, acknowledged that the origin of the “myth” that Cardinal Bergoglio supported civil unions as an alternative to gay “marriage” is journalist Sergio Rubin, co-author of the biographical book “the Jesuit” about Cardinal Bergoglio.

In an article entitled “A pope with reform-minded who wants to go to meet people” published on March 14 in the newspaper Clarin, one day after the election of Pope Francisco, Rubin wrote that "when it began to be debated the draft gay marriage in the country, Bergoglio all bishops proposed opt for a moderate style. Perhaps leave open the middle way of de facto unions . "

Days later, Rubin told the Associated Press that when Cardinal Bergoglio was faced with the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage, it would have suggested that the Church would support civil unions in Argentina, a position that according to journalist was rejected by the bishops.

I

(Please excuse , it is translation.)

 

[graciew]

Continues…
n this regard AICA director told CNA that told by Rubin on the now Pope “is not true, is totally false”.

“(Rubin) who said never said or when he said it. It is not correct to write such a thing taking her air. (Rubin) by that article was criticized by the bishops.”

About Heaven and Earth

The position of the then Cardinal Bergoglio is also evident in the book interview “On Heaven and Earth”, in which the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, in conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, addressed, among other issues, that of the unions homosexuals:

"It always was gay. The island of Lesbos was known because there lived homosexual women. But it had never happened in history that sought to give the same status as marriage. Would tolerated or not tolerated, I admired or He not admired, but it is never equated. we know that in times of epochal changes growing phenomenon of homosexuality.

But at this time it is the first time the legal problem of assimilating marriage arises, what I consider a desvalor and anthropological retreat. I say this because it goes beyond the religious question is anthropological. "

In the book, the then Cardinal Bergoglio said that homosexual relationships can exist, while not taking any legal form: “if there is a union of private type, there is a third party not a society affected,” implying that the relationship between homosexuals.

Now, if given the marital status and are eligible for adoption, it could have affected children. Everyone needs a male parent and a female parent to help shape its identity. "

"I insist that our view of marriage between same sex has no religious, but anthropological basis. When the head of government of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, not appealed the ruling of a judge of first instance authorizing wedding I felt I had something to say, to guide, I was obliged to express my opinion. it was the first time in eighteen years of bishop pointed to an official.

If you analyze the two statements that I made, at no time spoke of homosexuals nor did any pejorative reference to them.

The first statement said it was worrying to the opinion of the judge because it indicated a certain detachment to the law, as a judge of first instance can not touch the Civil Code and was playing.

In addition, he warned about the fact that a head of government, custodian of the law, prohibiting appeal that ruling. Macri told me they were his convictions; I will respect them, but a head of government does not have to move their personal convictions law. In no time I spoke disparagingly of homosexuals, yes intervened, pointing to a legal question.

Often it argued that a child would be better raised by a couple of the same sex as if you were in a nursing home or an institute. The two situations are not optimal. The problem is that the state does not do what you have to do. You have to look at the cases of the guys who are within certain schools, where less is done is recovered.

There must be NGOs, churches and other organizations to take charge of them. It would also speed up the adoption process, which are eternal, so these guys could have a home.

But the lack of State does not justify another failure of the State. We must address the underlying issue. More than a marriage law so that they can take people of the same sex must be improved adoption legislation, which is overly bureaucratic and that in its current implementation facilitates corruption.

Part of the adventure, as you say, is decipher each other…
…,…,…"

 

[graciew]

Bergoglio said that gay marriage “is the destructive pretension of God’s plan”

In a letter to which he agreed lanacion.com, Archbishop of Buenos Aires said that the project “is the envy of the devil that seeks to destroy the image of God”
THURSDAY JULY 8, 2010 • 13:51
translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1282778-bergoglio-dice-que-la-boda-gay-es-la-pretension-destructiva-del-plan-de-dios&usg=ALkJrhi4Ic8AZRd7cxn6EGpNEwNLdi1HgQ
La Nación. This is one of our most serious newspapers.

And now , if you do not mind , I d.prefer not to get into further translations that may be a bit difficult or inaccurate to read. Thank you.

 

[JPUSC]

Damage done.

Sign at an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas (Source: NBC News)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[graciew]

Damage done.

]

This one,same as the Who am I to judge were quickly snatched out of wider context.

I personally loved this interview and listened to Father Baron afterwards explaining the context of the Church as a battlefield hospital.

Yes,I understood then immediately that it could be used. How can we stop persons from chopping interviews? In a way,we all do. Hopefully to reflect truth and not water for our wells.
Also yes, and this is personal,I had just arrived from living in US so I knew the effort,huge effort people had made in life issues. Yes,my heart shrank a bit for all those persons,and I also knew how much the Pope had struggled for the same issues.
But it was already said…maybe room from improvement,yes. Just my opinion,delete it.
Here is the whole interview, " A big heart open to God"

americamagazine.org/pope-interview

And here is the Jesuit post about that particular phrase.

thejesuitpost.org/2013/09/must-read-the-pope-francis-interview/

God bless you.

 

[kyrie03]

As someone who loves the Church and the Holy Father, this thread leaves me saddened, and very disappointed. What has Pope Francis, as a man who has devoted his entire being to the spreading of the Gospel, with passion, patience, and fidelity, ever done to deserve such slander? And, what offends me most is the fact that this slander comes from those who identify themselves as fellow “Catholics”.

If this is the level to which this site has descended, then perhaps a new, less polarized, site needs to be developed. If someone without any formation would happen upon this thread, they could possibly take away the false impression that Pope Francis is some sort of “antipope”.

Restraint needs to be a part of any debate regarding the Vicar of Christ, regardless of the polemics being discussed. Respect is part of the Catholic ethos. There is a need for a sense of decorum; there is a need for more understanding relative to the station of the man being vilified.

Agree respect should temper the debate -especially when discussing our Holy Father. We are in no position to judge him. Yes, it is damaging to discuss such things! The quandary is that refusing to shine the light of truth on the “fruits” he cultivates is even more dangerous for unformed, poorly formed, and even well-formed souls.

Slander is malicious, false and defamatory statements. Are any of the reports false? Malicious means evil intent -I cannot judge others’ intent but my personal hope is to wake souls up to the danger to their immortal souls if they follow false doctrine (contraception, Communion while in state of mortal sin, entertaining thoughts that doctrine evolves, placing selves in situations to receive erroneous confessional advice, etc… Defamatory -yes. He can clarify the misperceptions he has caused and right the sinking ship of our Church. Then he will be overwhelmed with the support of faithful Catholics.

I also love and pray daily for Pope Francis. He is infinitely valuable to God and destined for heaven as he has been baptized, redeemed by the blood of Christ, sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ, and forever has the special mark of an “alter Christus” (another Christ). The difficulty is that millions of other souls are also valuable to God…and they deserve to be protected from false doctrine.

I am not aware of people in this thread calling him an anti-pope. If that is the impression I have given to anyone, I apologize! I try to believe he was catechized poorly with the liberation theology fashionable in South America and among the Jesuits during and after his seminary days. He does seem to genuinely be concerned about the unjust treatment and exploitation of people. He has been a champion of the unborn, the marginalized, and the elderly. He displays concern for the health of our earth. Where is the evidence that he is passionate about the only life that matters…eternal life?

 

[graciew]

I try to believe he was catechized poorly with the liberation theology fashionable in South America and among the Jesuits during and after his seminary days. ?

Poorly catechised.?Not exactly…

m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/biography/documents/papa-francesco-biografia-bergoglio.html

No. Liberation Theology wasn t " fashionable" . Teens like me then could tell the difference thanks to adults surrounding us at home and school. So much more could an adult and priest like him.

And sorry,I realize now I used too big a headline In post 99… I ll work on that. Sorry.

 

[otjm]

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that"

I agree this statement is about the issue, but disagree that it says he will not address the topics.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules.”

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently…We have to find a new balance…"

The first does not show any relationship to the issues of abortion/gay marriage/contraceptives; unless it is out of context, it is irrelevant to those issues. You will need to show context to relate it to those.

The second matter is not some new theological opinion; it predates Vatican 2.

Pope Francis, America Magazine

“I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through - not you, because you are not old - to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…”

Pope Francis

This appears to be something from the SSPX; if not, it is identical to other comments emanating from them. And they are in no different position with this pope than they were with three out of the last four popes; I exclude JP 1 simply because he wasn’t around long enough to have made any significant comments or interactions with them.

 

[kyrie03]

I am Catholic. This is our family. And there is room For all humanity. Trust God and God bless you.

May God bless you, too! Thank you for taking time to translate from the Spanish -enjoyed reading through your posts. And I did read the whole interview (not slices) of Pope Francis by Fr Spadaro you linked. It confirmed the Pope seems well-intentioned.

No doubt there is sometimes a “spin” applied to his statements. It’s confusing to ascertain where he really stands on certain issues as he speaks, at times, in an ambiguous and even contradictory manner -which is why there is even a debate. How difficult is it to recognize that people are confused about serious matters and to just speak plainly? How difficult is it to simply reiterate clear teaching that has already been defined by the Church? It’s negatively impacting the dynamics of the Church family. It is the God-given role for the father to protect and lead the family. The children are dying!

 

[JPUSC]

I don’t remember any corrections. Explanations are sometimes forthcoming, mostly because people don’t want to accept what he said. The usual pattern is something like: 1) he didn’t say that, the media is lying, 2) OK, he said that, but it was mistranslated, 3) he said it, it was translated properly, but taken out of context, 4) he said it in context, but the Pope was confused or unsure what he was saying, 5) OK, he said what he appears to have said, and meant it.

We sometimes need an “explanation” simply to skip down to stage 5. That is what happened with his comments on contraception, for example.

Going back to the early days of the papacy, I think that what many conservatives found so alienating was the way the pope stated that he wanted to change the conversation away from abortion and marriage and the issues of social Catholic conservatism.

I think that a lot of people took that to mean that the highest echelons of the Church did not had their backs anymore.

It is one thing to be a pariah on these issues from society in general when conservatives stick their necks out on these issues in defense of Church teaching and morality. But t is very disconcerting to see that this is no longer a deep and abiding interest of the papacy itself in standing with conservatives on the issues of the day.

It is never easy to swim upstream against the currents of culture, to be labeled as a hater and a bigot just on account of putting Church belief over personal belief.
And virtually every conservative, like everyone else, has personal associations with homosexuals, with divorced, with people who have vehement disagreement with Church doctrine. To the extent that conservative Catholics choose to talk about these things at all, it has meant putting themselves on the line, and subjecting themselves to friction and vehemence and accusations of self-righteousness, hypocrisy,heartlessness, etc., etc. etc.
With the Church’s assurance that this was the path of Christ, the teaching of Christ, courageously advocating for the Church was tolerable. To see Pope Benedict, for example, being treated with the same derision and contempt when he took his stance against condoms as being the solution for African AIDS pandemic, people were given the feeling of solidarity with the Church and the papacy itself here. Conservatives were not alone in the difficult and often demeaning venture of standing up for a higher morality, against the morality of the world, which the world itself advocates as a higher morality.

Right from the beginning of his papacy however, Pope Francis re-aligned himself. Conservatives were left alone on these issues, as the Pope became the media darling for leftist causes.

I don’t know if I should thank you or not for posting all of those statements made by Pope Francis…I’m now nauseous.

JPUSC & Darryl, you probably just shut down this thread. For how can one defend, unless to claim you aren’t getting the quotes from a news outlet controlled by a bishop?

Perhaps the reason people ignore what is happening in the Church, explain it away, or attack those who point out the harsh reality is because it’s too painful to admit. Yet meditation on the Passion and uniting our prayers and sufferings to those of the crucified Bride of Christ can merit graces and hopefully redemption for the persecutors and the sleeping. There, but for the condescension of Christ, would I also be.

“Forgive them, O Lord, they know not what they do.”

Difference- when Jesus spoke He didn’t contradict the Law or Commandments of God. When Pope Francis speaks and acts- he seems, at times, to contradict what is established Doctrine of the Church. He hasn’t corrected the “misperceptions” leaving most to believe in new doctrines

This only further proves your ignorance of Catholicism (not to be rude, but it is true. You are not alone though).

Papal infallibility does not mean that everything the pope says, whether in an interview or even in a homily, is automatically dogma, and it does not mean he cannot make personal mistakes. The pope can even believe in a heresy and that will have no effect on Catholic dogma. When it comes to teaching authority, the only way that something can be defined as authentic Church teaching is if the Pope explicitly declares it ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter. Furthermore, the pope is not able to declare something ex cathedra that contradicts earlier teachings. So if the Pope were to try to declare ex cathedra that contraception is OK, then that could not be valid because it contradicts official Catholic social teaching.

 

[JPUSC]

Going back to the early days of the papacy, I think that what many conservatives found so alienating was the way the pope stated that he wanted to change the conversation away from abortion and marriage and the issues of social Catholic conservatism.

I think that a lot of people took that to mean that the highest echelons of the Church did not had their backs anymore.

It is one thing to be a pariah on these issues from society in general when conservatives stick their necks out on these issues in defense of Church teaching and morality. But t is very disconcerting to see that this is no longer a deep and abiding interest of the papacy itself in standing with conservatives on the issues of the day.

It is never easy to swim upstream against the currents of culture, to be labeled as a hater and a bigot just on account of putting Church belief over personal belief.
And virtually every conservative, like everyone else, has personal associations with homosexuals, with divorced, with people who have vehement disagreement with Church doctrine. To the extent that conservative Catholics choose to talk about these things at all, it has meant putting themselves on the line, and subjecting themselves to friction and vehemence and accusations of self-righteousness, hypocrisy,heartlessness, etc., etc. etc.
With the Church’s assurance that this was the path of Christ, the teaching of Christ, courageously advocating for the Church was tolerable. To see Pope Benedict, for example, being treated with the same derision and contempt when he took his stance against condoms as being the solution for African AIDS pandemic, people were given the feeling of solidarity with the Church and the papacy itself here. Conservatives were not alone in the difficult and often demeaning venture of standing up for a higher morality, against the morality of the world, which the world itself advocates as a higher morality.

Right from the beginning of his papacy however, Pope Francis re-aligned himself. Conservatives were left alone on these issues, as the Pope became the media darling for leftist causes.

 

[JPUSC]

I don’t know if I should thank you or not for posting all of those statements made by Pope Francis…I’m now nauseous.

JPUSC & Darryl, you probably just shut down this thread. For how can one defend, unless to claim you aren’t getting the quotes from a news outlet controlled by a bishop?

Perhaps the reason people ignore what is happening in the Church, explain it away, or attack those who point out the harsh reality is because it’s too painful to admit. Yet meditation on the Passion and uniting our prayers and sufferings to those of the crucified Bride of Christ can merit graces and hopefully redemption for the persecutors and the sleeping. There, but for the condescension of Christ, would I also be.

“Forgive them, O Lord, they know not what they do.”

 

[JPUSC]

Difference- when Jesus spoke He didn’t contradict the Law or Commandments of God. When Pope Francis speaks and acts- he seems, at times, to contradict what is established Doctrine of the Church. He hasn’t corrected the “misperceptions” leaving most to believe in new doctrines

 

[JPUSC]

This only further proves your ignorance of Catholicism (not to be rude, but it is true. You are not alone though).

Papal infallibility does not mean that everything the pope says, whether in an interview or even in a homily, is automatically dogma, and it does not mean he cannot make personal mistakes. The pope can even believe in a heresy and that will have no effect on Catholic dogma. When it comes to teaching authority, the only way that something can be defined as authentic Church teaching is if the Pope explicitly declares it ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter. Furthermore, the pope is not able to declare something ex cathedra that contradicts earlier teachings. So if the Pope were to try to declare ex cathedra that contraception is OK, then that could not be valid because it contradicts official Catholic social teaching.

 

[graciew]

May God bless you, too! Thank you for taking time to translate from the Spanish -enjoyed reading through your posts. And I did read the whole interview (not slices) of Pope Francis by Fr Spadaro you linked. It confirmed the Pope seems well-intentioned.

No doubt there is sometimes a “spin” applied to his statements. It’s confusing to ascertain where he really stands on certain issues as he speaks, at times, in an ambiguous and even contradictory manner -which is why there is even a debate. How difficult is it to recognize that people are confused about serious matters and to just speak plainly? How difficult is it to simply reiterate clear teaching that has already been defined by the Church? It’s negatively impacting the dynamics of the Church family. It is the God-given role for the father to protect and lead the family. The children are dying!

Thank you and you are welcome…
I cannot answer much of what you ask because I just do not know the answer.
But with you and all,in whatever language,we’ ll be praying for all those that need prayer the most.
Nice to meet you here!

 

[kyrie03]

This appears to be something from the SSPX; if not, it is identical to other comments emanating from them. And they are in no different position with this pope than they were with three out of the last four popes; I exclude JP 1 simply because he wasn’t around long enough to have made any significant comments or interactions with them.

I take it you disregard the quote because it might come from SSPX. Please don’t disrail this thread discussing them. To insinuate they may be source of JPUSC’s point of view looks like an ad hominem attack. I learned from my father that if someone has to resort to that type of argument, they do so because they cannot debate the issue.

Were my parents Pelagians because they had us do spiritual bouquets of offering up rosaries, Holy Communions, and prayers for those in need? I do know they rejected the population myth and breeding like rabbits argument to trust that the Creator of life knew better than their well-formed consciences to be open to the 17 pregnancies (now 13 adults) with which they were blessed. They also found time to dumpster-dive rescuing relics, sacramentals, statues, and books that were being tossed out in the 60’s and 70’s. The disciplines and practices of Catholics were unjustly forbidden and a New Mass was enforced. They couldn’t find a reverent Liturgy in which to raise their children. (Byzantine Catholic now - no iconoclasm or re-organizing the Scripture readings). If some folks felt it necessary to flee to SSPX, who are we to judge? Even Pope Francis doesn’t seem to be aware of the damage inflicted on the faithful during those years. He sees tremendous fruits from the liturgical reform. Pope Benedict didn’t just allow a wider usage of the Traditional Mass, he stated it had never been abrogated. Almost 40 years of unnecessary misinformation and repression of the Mass.

Taken from American magazine pope interview linked by Gracie:
“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”

 

[JPUSC]

I take it you disregard the quote because it might come from SSPX. Please don’t disrail this thread discussing them. To insinuate they may be source of JPUSC’s point of view looks like an ad hominem attack. I learned from my father that if someone has to resort to that type of argument, they do so because they cannot debate the issue.

Thank you Kyrie!!

This appears to be something from the SSPX; if not, it is identical to other comments emanating from them. And they are in no different position with this pope than they were with three out of the last four popes; I exclude JP 1 simply because he wasn’t around long enough to have made any significant comments or interactions with them.

It’s actually from Catholic World Report, which claims to be an “online news magazine that tells the story from an orthodox Catholic perspective,” and I know you can’t complain about it because it is published by the Jesuit-inspired Ignatius Press.

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2319/report_pope_francis_acknowledges_curia_gay_lobby_expresses_concern_over_pelagian_traditionalists_updated.aspx

 

[otjm]

I take it you disregard the quote because it might come from SSPX. Please don’t disrail this thread discussing them. To insinuate they may be source of JPUSC’s point of view looks like an ad hominem attack. I learned from my father that if someone has to resort to that type of argument, they do so because they cannot debate the issue.

Were my parents Pelagians because they had us do spiritual bouquets of offering up rosaries, Holy Communions, and prayers for those in need? I do know they rejected the population myth and breeding like rabbits argument to trust that the Creator of life knew better than their well-formed consciences to be open to the 17 pregnancies (now 13 adults) with which they were blessed. They also found time to dumpster-dive rescuing relics, sacramentals, statues, and books that were being tossed out in the 60’s and 70’s. The disciplines and practices of Catholics were unjustly forbidden and a New Mass was enforced. They couldn’t find a reverent Liturgy in which to raise their children. (Byzantine Catholic now - no iconoclasm or re-organizing the Scripture readings). If some folks felt it necessary to flee to SSPX, who are we to judge? Even Pope Francis doesn’t seem to be aware of the damage inflicted on the faithful during those years. He sees tremendous fruits from the liturgical reform. Pope Benedict didn’t just allow a wider usage of the Traditional Mass, he stated it had never been abrogated. Almost 40 years of unnecessary misinformation and repression of the Mass.

Taken from American magazine pope interview linked by Gracie:
“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”

I did not insinuate any such thing - calm down. JPUSC quoted from America Magazine and I simply responded to the quote in terms of identifying who it appears to refer to. How you get from my response to anything being said about JPUSC is beyond me. Nor did I make any comments that could be carried over to an attack on you or your parents. I pray for the Pope too - okay? And I am not the one getting into an exposition of the liturgical reform, or what happened 40 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 20. We are talking about Pope Francis.

 

[pnewton]

Damage done.

Sign at an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas (Source: NBC News)

Do you believe everything NARAL says? Abortion clinics and those promoting abortion can and do use prejudicial rhetoric. This is nothing new and is indicative of nothing.

 

[Seamus_L]

If anyone of us, whether ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal was totally misunderstood on what we believe to be an issue of the utmost importance, I tend to strongly believe we’d go out of our way to clarify things for those who got it wrong.