The Pope Francis Thread

[Del]

Now that the dust has had a couple of days to settle...

Faithful Catholics jumped for joy that Pope Francis had clearly closed the door on quasi-liturgical pseudo-wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, gay activists, secular media, and National Catholic Reporter were cheering Pope Francis's liberal position allowing 'blessings' for same-sex couples.

It's like each side was reading different documents.

One observer remarked that Pope Francis has mastered the art of "weaponized ambiguity." He wants to allow that which cannot be allowed, so he publishes a statement that can be read both ways. He will likely not discipline anyone, no matter how they act -- as long as they don't question him to be more clear, or accuse him of being unfaithful.

Jesus said, "Let your 'YES' mean 'YES,' and your 'NO' mean 'NO'." Good advice to follow.

But Pope Francis is a Jesuit.

[jmg]

National Catholic Reporter is going to twist the Pope's words to suit their agenda, no matter what. Their editors and publishers have already been excommunicated. There's not much else we can do about them.

I don’t have enough intelligence to insult, so you’re good. I appreciate the response. It makes more sense. Though I still have disagreements, at least so much as I am understanding this. I will reply in more detail later today after work.

I'm coming around to your point of view, and Hovannes'.

This was stated in Francis's usual double-speak, without clearly saying "yes" or "no." Technically affirming the truth -- while opening the door to abuse and lies.

It is likely that there will be marriage-like blessings of gay unions, and I doubt those unfaithful priests and bishops will be disciplined or expelled like the faithful Bishop Strickland or Cardinal Burke.

I guess we'll see, soon enough.

Sorry for the delay. Life has been kicking me squarely in the sack lately. I'll keep this short. After reading your response/explanation, it seems part of my problem was one of semantics between that of the Catholic and Protestant worlds. When I read the word "bless" in the article, I took it to mean something more along the lines of affirm or allow. For example, as a father might be asked for his blessing (approval) by a young man to marry his daughter. I assumed that it meant to bless/approve of the sinful, homosexual relationship. Though if he is saying that it is permissible to pray for someone should they ask, even though they are gay, I'm certainly not against that. However, was that not already an acceptable thing to do? Also, I still may not be totally grasping the concept of someone asking a priest to bless them.

Lastly, and this is my real concern, we are most certainly in a time, at least in Western culture, where sexual perversion has been thrust onto the main stage of society. It is being crammed down the throat of culture so violently, that it is choking out the holy narrative of biblical marriage. If there was ever a time to be defiantly clear with our speech as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the eyes of God, I believe it is now. Personally, and I mean no offense to you or other Catholic members, I think it would have been better had the pope said nothing on this matter at this time than to leave such a large crack of ambiguity.

[Del]

Sorry for the delay. Life has been kicking me squarely in the sack lately. I'll keep this short. After reading your response/explanation, it seems part of my problem was one of semantics between that of the Catholic and Protestant worlds. When I read the word "bless" in the article, I took it to mean something more along the lines of affirm or allow. For example, as a father might be asked for his blessing (approval) by a young man to marry his daughter. I assumed that it meant to bless/approve of the sinful, homosexual relationship. Though if he is saying that it is permissible to pray for someone should they ask, even though they are gay, I'm certainly not against that. However, was that not already an acceptable thing to do? Also, I still may not be totally grasping the concept of someone asking a priest to bless them.

Lastly, and this is my real concern, we are most certainly in a time, at least in Western culture, where sexual perversion has been thrust onto the main stage of society. It is being crammed down the throat of culture so violently, that it is choking out the holy narrative of biblical marriage. If there was ever a time to be defiantly clear with our speech as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the eyes of God, I believe it is now. Personally, and I mean no offense to you or other Catholic members, I think it would have been better had the pope said nothing on this matter at this time than to leave such a large crack of ambiguity.

You saw the problem clearly before I did.

- The priestly blessing is a short, powerful prayer for God's guidance, protection, and peace.

- Gay activists want to abuse this rite to be a sign that the Church affirms them in their disorder and sin.

- Pope Francis said, "Sure, go ahead. But just don't be too obvious about it."

[Jocose]

https://x.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/17 ... 68911?s=20

The Jesuits put this paid adversing in The New York Times.

You know…the Jesuit Order to which Francis Bergoglio belongs:

“The Catholic Church is changing”

[Del]

The Jesuits put this paid adversing in The New York Times.

You know…the Jesuit Order to which Francis Bergoglio belongs:

“The Catholic Church is changing”

So disgusting.

This isn't our first great apostasy. But it might be our last.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

The Jesuits put this paid adversing in The New York Times.

You know…the Jesuit Order to which Francis Bergoglio belongs:

“The Catholic Church is changing”

So disgusting.

[…]

"Disgusting??!? Which part?

• The part where they emphasized the Dynamic aspect of the Church (rather than the "Semper Idem" aspect)?
• Or the part where they had the temerity to advertise in The TImes?

[Del]

+JMJ+

The Jesuits put this paid adversing in The New York Times.

You know…the Jesuit Order to which Francis Bergoglio belongs:

“The Catholic Church is changing”

So disgusting.

[…]

"Disgusting??!? Which part?

• The part where they emphasized the Dynamic aspect of the Church (rather than the "Semper Idem" aspect)?
• Or the part where they had the temerity to advertise in The TImes?

The sin of public scandal, you Christmas Troll.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

"Disgusting??!? Which part?

• The part where they emphasized the Dynamic aspect of the Church (rather than the "Semper Idem" aspect)?
• Or the part where they had the temerity to advertise in The TImes?

The sin of public scandal, you Christmas Troll.

I'm not seein' it.

Some German bishops ordering their priests to scour the highways & byways to bless every anomalamorous sitch they can find is scandalous.

And some African (and American?) bishops ordering their priests to ignore Fiducia Supplicans is equally scandalous.

But what America did here is sound Catholic praxis.

[Del]

+JMJ+

"Disgusting??!? Which part?

• The part where they emphasized the Dynamic aspect of the Church (rather than the "Semper Idem" aspect)?
• Or the part where they had the temerity to advertise in The TImes?

The sin of public scandal, you Christmas Troll.

I'm not seein' it.

Some German bishops ordering their priests to scour the highways & byways to bless every anomalamorous sitch they can find is scandalous.

And some African (and American?) bishops ordering their priests to ignore Fiducia Supplicans is equally scandalous.

But what America did here is sound Catholic praxis.

you know what "scandal" is. It means behaving in a way that leads innocent, misguided, poorly formed people into sin -- because a Christian who should know better made it sound like it was okay for them to do so.

The gay Jesuits at America are putting themselves forward as authoritative experts on Catholic faith, and advertising now that same-sex relationships are being blessed by the Catholic Church. Advertising with paid-for ad space in the nation's most anti-faith secular newspaper.

Now some bishops are going to be compelled by duty and conscience to walk that back. And the pagans are going to call us 'bigots' all over again. And probably vandalism of some churches. You know the drill.

It is never loving to confirm sinners in their sin. The gay Jesuits did not pay for this ad with the hope of saving a single soul. They have a different agenda entirely, a political agenda.

And to make this personal, I think you know all of this without my telling you. You keep your own agenda very well hidden.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I'm not seein' it.

Some German bishops ordering their priests to scour the highways & byways to bless every anomalamorous sitch they can find is scandalous.

And some African (and American?) bishops ordering their priests to ignore Fiducia Supplicans is equally scandalous.

But what America did here is sound Catholic praxis.

you know what "scandal" is. It means behaving in a way that leads innocent, misguided, poorly formed people into sin -- because a Christian who should know better made it sound like it was okay for them to do so.

[…]

[J]esuits did not pay for this ad with the hope of saving a single soul. They have a different agenda entirely, a political agenda.

[…]

There's nothing scandalous about receiving Papal magisterium with docility and sincerity.

And there's nothing fundamentally political about propagating the same teaching.

However, both transgressing the Pope's manifest mind & will (à la the German bishops) and cockblocking the Pope (à la the African/American bishops) are both scandalous and reductively political (i.e. ideological).

Let us remain vigilant against rigid ideological positions that often, under the guise of good intentions, separate us from reality and prevent us from moving forward.

     — Pope Francis