Faith in the news

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

It says "[T]he Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel …" and not "Francis teaches, in the light of his own prudential judgement …".

[…]

The text can be restored. It's just the Catechism... not Scripture or a Council or even a Teaching from the Chair.

[…]

"The Church formerly taught, but no longer teaches, as Gospel-truth …" is one helluva revision.

[Del]

+JMJ+

"The Church formerly taught, but no longer teaches, as Gospel-truth …" is one helluva revision.

That is the scandal of Francis's revision, yes.

St. John Paul the Great formulated the Church's teaching and modern judicial practice, succinctly enough:

Capital punishment is permissible, after just conviction by civil authority and when necessary to keep society safe. However we now have means to keep society safe by humanely holding the convict in prison for as long as justice demands, with the hope of repentance and salvation. So the sentence of death should be rarely applied, and only under the most extreme circumstances.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

"The Church formerly taught, but no longer teaches, as Gospel-truth …" is one helluva revision.

That is the scandal of Francis's revision, yes.

[…]

Hold yer horses.

Before, you were apparently of the opinion that the Catechetical Revision merely represented Francis' personal judgment — topically significant, but negligible in the big picture.

Now, you're characterizing it as a "scandalous" reversal of solemn Church teaching, amirite?

You don't seem to have yer story straight.

[Del]

+JMJ+

Hold yer horses.

Before, you were apparently of the opinion that the Catechetical Revision merely represented Francis' personal judgment — topically significant, but negligible in the big picture.

Now, you're characterizing it as a "scandalous" reversal of solemn Church teaching, amirite?

You don't seem to have yer story straight.

Let me put it this way: You and your party have your opinion, and I and my party have ours.

Francis should have avoided yet another cause for discord and schism. He screwed this up. That is the scandal.

I reckon the next Pope will either ratify or clarify Francis's bumblings on many concerns. In particular, I expect that the Latin Mass will be honored and no longer treated like a stepchild of faith.

[Hovannes]

My Diocese files Chapter 11
https://kmph.com/news/local/fresno-dioc ... use-claims

[Hovannes]

Well, this is significant---

[Del]

Well, this is significant---

Dang it. Just yesterday, devout religious press and conservative media were grateful to Francis for speaking plainly against all the "faggotry" in the Vatican and renewing his opposition to ordaining gay men or admitting them into seminaries.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/pope-fra ... he-vatican


There's a simple principle at work here: When a gay man is put into a position of authority, he will surround himself with other gay men. This is as true of a gay bishop or cardinal promoting young gay priests around him as it was with Ernst Rohm and Hitler's Brownshirts.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: Crux
Link: cruxnow DOT com/church-in-the-usa/2024/06/pro-life-groups-say-u-s-supreme-court-decision-puts-women-and-girls-at-risk

Pro-life groups say U.S. Supreme Court decision puts ‘women and girls at risk’

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Jun 14, 2024 — A decision by the United States Supreme Court relaxed chemical abortion drug regulations to continue will put the “health of women and girls at risk,” according to the U.S. bishops.

On the Thursday, a 9–0 decision was made in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, which had aimed to roll back access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions.

[…]

“Today’s Court ruling on procedural grounds will continue to put the health of women and girls at risk,” said Chieko Noguchi, executive director of public affairs, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“As the USCCB’s pro-life chairman has said, abortion is not health care. The Church will continue to advocate for women’s health and safety, and to lovingly serve mothers in need,” Noguchi added on Thursday.

After the ruling, the Texas Alliance for Life issued a statement noting that chemical abortion drugs have been shown to have a significantly higher complication rate than surgical abortion, and a 2009 peer-reviewed study from Finland published by the ACOG in Obstetrics & Gynecology found that chemical abortions have a 20 percent complication rate, four times greater than surgical abortions.

The pro-life group said without the in-person physician visit requirement, allowing a doctor to confirm gestational age, whether the patient is Rh-negative, and whether or not the pregnancy is ectopic, women and girls are at risk of increased complications, including the potential loss of fertility, hemorrhaging, and even death.

The FDA removed adverse reaction reporting requirements, removing the ability to track women and girls in our country harmed by the chemical abortion drug regimen and any increase in those reactions since the relaxed regulations were instated.

However, the Supreme Court case has no effect in Texas because state law completely protects unborn children from abortion by both surgical and chemical methods after the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

“We are disappointed by the opinion released today by the Supreme Court allowing dangerously lax chemical abortion drug regulations to stand at the expense of the health, lives, and future fertility of women and girls in our country,” said Amy O’Donnell, the Communications Director of the Texas Alliance for Life.

“It’s important to note that the opinion should not be misconstrued as saying the relaxed FDA distribution regulations are safe. Despite the outcome of the case, this does not mark the end of our and others’ efforts to protect women and girls from the harms of chemical abortion drugs, especially when distributed irresponsibly,” she added.