It was arguably his most stunning statement to date as pontiff.
As I reported last week, while in Chile, the pope accused victims of clerical sexual abuse perpetrated by Fr. Fernando Karadima of “calumny” for alleging that his protege, papal appointee to the Diocese of Osorno, Bishop Juan Barros, of having either known of or even observed the abuse being performed. “There is not one shred of proof against him.” Francis said.. “It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”
The most vocal accuser, Juan Carlos Cruz, offered a stinging rebuttal, saying, “As if one could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros standing next to him watching everything.”
Barros maintains his innocence, but Karadima, despite his crimes falling outside the legal statute of limitations, was ordered by the Vatican, following an investigation, to retirement and “a life of prayer and penance” and a “lifelong prohibition from the public exercise of any ministerial act, particularly confession and the spiritual guidance of any category of persons”. A judge in Chile also said that while she could not legally move the case forward, proof of Karadima’s crimes “wasn’t lacking.”
So, in a situation where both the state and ecclesiastical courts have found evidence of guilt, the pope effectively called one of the victims a liar because he cannot bring “proof” that his hand-picked bishop stood by and watched while the young man was abused.
There has been more pickup in the secular media than the last time Francis lashed out at the victims in Chile, calling them “dumb” or “stupid” (depending on the translation), but why isn’t every media outlet everywhere running this story? If pope Benedict had said this, they would have been digging up the most hideous pictures of him they could find and splashing them across front pages everywhere.
Meanwhile, the pope hasn’t learned his lesson. He was chastised in the most pusillanimous way by Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston over the weekend. O’Malley — who chairs the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM) — said in a statement that “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator”.
A good start, right? But O’Malley didn’t stop there:
What I do know, however, is that Pope Francis fully recognizes the egregious failures of the Church and it’s clergy who abused children and the devastating impact those crimes have had on survivors and their loved ones.
Accompanying the Holy Father at numerous meetings with survivors I have witnessed his pain of knowing the depth and breadth of the wounds inflicted on those who were abused and that the process of recovery can take a lifetime. The Pope’s statements that there is no place in the life of the Church for those who would abuse children and that we must adhere to zero tolerance for these crimes are genuine and they are his commitment.
Having sufficiently ameliorated his criticism, “Cardinal Sean” was allowed to remain a useful minion of the papacy, and the pope decided to use his comments as a teachable moment. A moment in which he could say he was sorry – and then double down on what he did wrong in the first place.
During today’s plane presser, the pope explained (full text link) how he had had the case of Bishop Barros “studied” and “investigated.” He went on:
I had it worked on a lot. And truly there is no evidence. I use the word evidence. Then I will speak about proof. There is no evidence of culpability, it seems that it will not be found.
He said he would follow the maxim of “no one is guilty until it is proven.” But he also admitted that
When the scandal with Karadima was discovered, we all know this scandal, we began to see many priests who were formed by Karadima who were either abused or who were abusers.
He then discussed how Barros had tried to resign more than once, but Francis had turned him down, saying it would make him look like an admission of guilt. He then continued:
I will pass to a third point, that of the letter I explained clearly: what those who have been abused feel. With this I have to ask forgiveness because the word “proof” wounded, it wounded many people who were abused, but I must go to look for the certificate, I have to do that — a word on translation, in the legal jargon, I wounded them. I ask them for forgiveness because I wounded them without realizing it, but it was an unintended wound. And this horrified me a lot, because I had received them. (But) in Chile I received two [abuse victims] as you know, I met others that I kept hidden. In every trip, there is always some possibility. The ones in Philadelphia were published, three (meetings) were published, then the other cases no… And I know how much they suffer, to feel that the Pope says in their face ‘bring me a letter, a proof.’ It’s a slap. And I agree that my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think, and I understand how the Apostle Peter, in one of his letters, says that the fire has been raised. This is what I can say with sincerity. Barros will remain there if I don’t find a way to condemn him. I cannot condemn him if I don’t have — I don’t say proof — but evidence. And there are many ways to get evidence. Is that clear? [emphasis added]
Note that he is not apologizing for accusing them of “calumny” (or “slander”, depending on the translation) but for insisting on “proof” instead of “evidence.” And note that he is only apologizing for the offense, not for the belief he still holds that caused it.
So we have a known victim of sexual abuse by a Chilean cleric — a cleric whose abuse, the pope admits, produced subsequent abusers, as is often the case — and that victim also accuses one of that abuser’s proteges of standing and watching while the crime takes place. And the pope accuses the man of making it all up to slander a man.
It is certainly a possibility that the pope is right. In the absence of evidence, accusations like these have been used to destroy reputations before.
But if it is true, what proof can possibly be brought forward? What evidence? What does the man have to gain by saying it? And what benefit did the pope derive from appointing such a controversial figure in the first place over the protest of his would-be diocese — protests that have made him unable to effectively lead his flock? Why would the pope continue to leave him in place after all of this?
Marie Collins, the abuse survivor who quit the PCPM in 2017 over obstacles to its mandate that included limitation of resources and curial interference, said at the time of her resignation that she believed “the pope does at heart understand the horror of abuse and the need for those who would hurt minors to be stopped.”
She tweeted some quite different messages this morning:
The Pope is reported as unconcerned by the month long delay in member appointments to PCPM, the proposed names are being vetted by the Roman Curia. These facts says all that is needed to be said about the priority being given to this Commission and this issue in the Vatican
#PCPM[…]
I have been asked by media to comment on the words of the Pope today on the Commission for Protection of Minors and Barros “evidence”. Why comment? It’s a pointless waste of effort. Sorry for such a negative non comment it’s just the way I feel right now.
Even though this story isn’t showing up as broadly or in as damning terms as one might expect were Francis an orthodox Catholic, for some, his papacy has more than lost its luster.
Notice the editorializing language in the Reuters piece I cited above. It shows how serious a stumble this has been for a man who has been a non-stop media rock star:
“the pope replied in a snippy tone”
“in an extremely rare act of self-criticism”
“an unusually contrite pope”
These are not complimentary phrases.
In another piece entitled, “Pope Francis, Company Man“, Kevin Cullen of the Boston Globe takes an even bigger swing at the pontiff:
Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018.
When Pope Francis slandered victims of sexual abuse, ironically by accusing those very victims of slandering a Chilean bishop who was complicit in that abuse, he confirmed what some critics have said all along, what I have always resisted embracing: Pope Francis is a company man, no better than his predecessors when it comes to siding with the institutional Roman Catholic Church against any who would criticize it or those, even children, who have been victimized by it.
I offer my hearty congratulations to His Holiness, His Eminence, or whatever self-regarding, officious title that his legion of coat holders, admirers, apologists, and enablers insist we, the great unwashed, call him. Because he has revealed himself like no one else could.
By saying he needs to see proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the abuse perpetrated by the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Francis has shown himself to be the Vatican’s newest Doubting Thomas. And it’s not a good look.
“He has revealed himself like no one else could.” Indeed he has. And now the narrative is beginning to fall apart.
The ironic thing is that to assert they are guilty of calumny is calumny.
Often it does not stop with asserting that the accuser is guilty of calumny but continues with an all-out war of slander against that person which can go on for years.
From the article:
O’Malley — who chairs the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM) — said in a statement that “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse…..
Francis’ statements are typically “a source of great pain” for somebody, your Eminence. Usually, faithful Catholics.
Ooh…You pack a wallop, kiwi.
SJWs always, ALWAYS, double down. They also always, always lie.
Pope Frankie the Evil is an SJW. He will not ever stop. He will continue to kick and beat and spit on the dog that he sees as the “other,” that is lesser to him, not worthy of his time or attention. He will continue to beat the dog to prove how much the dog deserves it. He gets adulation from those standing around cheering him on. He takes strength from those who don’t agree, but don’t make a move to stop him. He will beat that dog, until the dog bites, attacks, and mauls him.
When that dog turns, they are all going to smell the same in his nostrils, those that beat him, those that cheered, and those that did nothing. Someone’s throat is going to get ripped out if the beating isn’t stopped. There will never, ever be peace between the dog and those that beat him or were complicit in the beating. There will be no peace, no justice, no possible separation and agreeing to live and let live. There will be war, and death, until one or the other is completely destroyed.
For the love of all things holy and sacred, Frankie, stop beating that dog!
God has heard little children crying out and He’s revenging for them now. All sodomites in the world and in the Church one by one from the top down are exposed and cleansed. “Che” Bergoglio and the rainbow priests should watch out: justice will be done. Repent.
Well said. That is was this is all about. Protection of the rainbow priests in the fold.
Sorry, what is an SJW?
Please avoid using acronyms,
thank you.
Social Justice Warrior.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e6b61b646f062007ecf3af4da261fbccd29440d1fb696e4d6b290d835a1d809.jpg
SJW is an acronym for social justice warriors. It’s in widespread use on Twitter where brevity is much more than simply the soul of wit.
Make them show themselves for who and what they are by their own words and actions, Lord.
I do not think following what this man does blow by blow daily is helpful. It makes what is clearly illegitimate look like it is legitimate.It is the cult of man that gave us the sex abuse crisis in the first place. Now they are doubling down on the gay mafia’s place in the Church. That means more boys will be abused and the abuse crisis is on going by choice. The whole program of novelty that is the Vatican II revolution is illegitimate. Just because he is the Pope does not make any of this madness legitimate. I say let them sodomize and new mass themselves into oblivion. Two things make liberals climb the walls 1) laugh at them 2) Ignore them
The Barros controversy reminds me greatly of what happened in my own diocese long ago. Through the influence of powerful Cardinal Law of Boston, one of his faithful lieutenants was appointed ordinary of our nearby state. It wasn’t long before Law’s former right-hand man was deeply involved in priestly scandals here; accusations of his participation in the cover-up of horrific crimes and sins in his new episcopal see dominated headlines around the state for months. Finally, the bishop and his cohort cut a deal with the state’s AG and turned over to him all the chancery’s secret documentation of abuses stretching back to the sixties. In return, the state refrained from visiting indictments on leaders of the diocese.
During this time of turmoil, in the company of another concerned Catholic, I made an appointment at the chancery to see the bishop. Once there, this friend and I talked to him in a completely private meeting. We explained to him that, even if one believed his denials of any knowledge of the many crimes that had come to light — NOT an easy thing to do! — he had lost all moral authority and could no longer successfully govern the diocese. For the good of the Church, we argued, he should step down.
Of course, he did not do as we suggested. Instead, he soldiered on and dragged the diocese through many more months of embarrassment and shame. (Several years after the bishop finally retired because of age, his former chancellor, a man who had vigorously, at times viciously defended him against all charges, was himself arrested for financial skulduggery. In the ensuing court proceedings, it was revealed that he had stolen money and squandered it …on a sodomite boyfriend. Ask me if I was surprised.)
I recount all this because, as I said initially, the Barros case reminds me of what happened here. Pope Francis, were the good of the Church his highest concern, would tell Barros it’s past time to leave, that his moral authority in Osorno is exhausted. Unlike the suggestion my friend and I, mere laymen, gave to our bishop, Francis’ advice would immediately become Barros’ command. Instead, the pontiff chooses to fight to prove a point only he seems to understand. If I’m to judge by the response of the Boston Globe, a daffy-liberal rag, this is one fight he cannot win. How ironic that this same newspaper once sealed the fate of Cardinal Bernard Law. It was largely thanks to the Globe’s reporting and editorializing that the cardinal finished out his days in the Vatican instead of Boston.
This sounds like a wonderful exercise of legal powers. So if you hand over evidence of your crimes, you get off scot free?
As for the thieving chancellor with the boyfriend……yet another example of financial and sexual corruption going together like horse and carriage. Usually it’s the sexual corruption pulling the carriage – you have a boyfriend/mistress and need some extra cash (OK, loads of extra cash) above your honest income as a single guy. Michael Ryan gives numerous examples of how corrupt priests (and occasionally laity) can abuse the collection plate on an industrial scale.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_06_17_Ryan_TheSecond.htm
The AG’s office figured, Bill, that this was their best chance to finally get those documents. Yes, some real criminal conspiracy went unprosecuted, but the truth was there for everyone to read and the criminals were publicly disgraced. (On the other hand, some in the Church asked what right the bishop and his cohort had to reveal privileged documents in order to save their own hides. Good question.)
The light-fingered chancellor had been especially nasty over the years to the faithful who in any way questioned chancery practices. His was the face of denial on the cover of every newspaper every time there was a new, shocking revelation. Then, many years later, he was caught. As with Al Capone, it was the financial hanky-panky that brought him down, not the more deeply immoral aspects of his secret life. Those of us who had fought the homo-scandal wars with the chancery 10 years earlier felt no satisfaction at his demise. Too many years had passed and too much devastation had been visited on our Church. Nobody “won” except Satan.
And old Hob will take that win, too, for his basic goal is to spite God. Making God’s Church look so stinking putrid as this definitely is a spite home run. Not only do the bad guys in the Church “reveal all” their dirt but the good guys look incapable of stopping it at all.
RC
To be fair to the late Bishop Law of Boston, EIGHTY percent of pederast priests were running loose during the misrule of Laws predecessor Cushing and Meideiros……… To be honest Bergoglio Francis will go down in infamy . He clearly and repeatedly is Ignoring warnings about bishops cover-ups of pederast clergy. Worst examples are promoting Maradiaga of Honduras, two now infamous Chilean bishops and three in Belgium AFTER they, horrible and woeful bishops were implicated in denigrating victims as Bergoglio Francis has done. Most Notorious was his Bergoglio rehab of Daneels of Belgian cino church covering up for Daneels predecessor…….. His promotion of Infamous Involio defrocked by Pope Benedict, 16th.,plus Martin of Amer. Mgz. Fagoli ,Radcliffee, Roisicia, Farrells of Ireland and the Vatican , Tobin Nj. Paglia, Dew, DeKessel ,Koch and Cupich shows a Ridiculous lack of knowledge of their self destruction of the faith. Obviously these homosexual apostates clerics and cino bishops bring down to the fading dying rump scarcely roman or catholic church throughout the western world. …… Sadly par for the course of the papacy denigrating faithful Rc bishops in Red China to promote Gov. stooge bishops there. Or Luther statue and stamps in the Vatican. Lord have mercy. Founders etc. of the Jesuits, Francis Xavier, Father Marquette, and Ignatius Loyola must be Spinning in their graves or in heaven at the dismal papacy and Jesuits of Bergoglio and Martin of Amer, Mgz, etc..
Can’t help thinking the good bishop ‘has something’ on Francis. Now, I wonder what that could be?
What gives you that idea? Just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
It is just that this man, Bergoglio, speaks with a forked tongue and seems bound by no objective standards other than what suits him at the particular moment.
This leaves one with the impression that, you know, there may be more to this than meets the eye.
A reasonable conclusion… but apparently the Bishop has asked to be set aside but Francis insists?????
He (Francis) comes from a banana republic to now lead a banana republic with all the attributes of a banana dictator
THIS was my very first thought on the matter. Barros has something BIG on Francis. This is the M.O. of the sodomites in the Church. Exactly the way they operate.
It might be this shockingly disrespectful speculation that’s been floating around for a few years:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A536-Pedo.htm
Or there might be some other respectful explanation as to why PF has been so merciful to so many dodgy characters….Monsignor Ricca, Father Inzoli, Bishop Barros.
There might, Mr. Murphy, but I wouldn’t bet on it
Why be coy about it, DO? Read my msg directly above yours.
Here in the U.S.A. it is common to hear about convicted pedophiles who blame their victims for their crimes. I remember hearing of a pedophile who tried to claim in court that a 9 year old boy propositioned him and he felt obliged because he had been asked. Is it really any different than someone else defending criminals? There may be no proof, the bishop may not be guilty but a person in authority does not openly accuse especially children who even may be victims. A child victim could have been taken with parents into a private setting and questioned without antagonism. If, in the presence of parents the child recanted, then he could be told how offensive false accusations are. The way this was handled has cemented the accusation into fact so it may never be known whether it be guilt or innocence. The way it stands now how can anyone in the world, including me, doubt the accusation?
Hey, your unlucky pedophiles should call some of our respectable UK gay campaigners as expert witnesses! Apparently, gay sex can bring great joy to nine year olds. It might be difficult to trace some of these expert witnesses, as they may be more reluctant to risk public exposure than a few years ago. It really is a huge problem trying to defend gay rights and lower the age of consent and simultaneously demonise Catholic priests for similar activity.
http://www.holliegreigjustice.uk/hgj/?p=15401
Any sexual activity outside the Sacrament of Matrimony is wrong and Matrimony can only exist between one man and one woman. Deep down inside regardless of their claims to the contrary, everybody knows that. The problem with this case, however, is that children are involved and the perpetrator was a priest. If the bishop knew, outside of confession, he had an obligation to report the crime and also proceed with sanctions against the priest. No one has a right to sexual contact with minors. Pedophile and Pervert are synonymous. Actually the same goes for their defenders.
Great image. Sums up this papacy.
I liked it when Winston flashed this signal to the Nazi world; here, not so much.
But it was for “victory” in Churchill’s case.
I know, Simon. In the movie The Darkest Hour (GREAT theater!), one of Churchill’s secretaries breaks up laughing when she sees a photo of the PM making this gesture. She explains to her puzzled boss that, in the humbler districts of London, it means “up yours.” He finds this very amusing. I’m less conversant with British symbols of this type surely than you are, Simon, but my understanding is that the hand reversed meant one thing while two fingers and palm showing meant “victory.” Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re not wrong.That’s a gesture of defiance, and the precursor to many fights. Or runnings away.
Have only seen the trailer and won’t see the movie. I can’t stand the Americanized oration and specifically the crescendo in Churchill’s famous speech. In fact it has a rise in tone and a falling away that in the original is so much more powerful.
Original:
https://youtu.be/MkTw3_PmKtc?t=104
Movie Trailer version:
https://youtu.be/eFFj2gS9UWs?t=124
Not strictly speaking original, of course, having been recorded some years later, but I take your point.
Heard some criticism of the Darkest Hour. Historical inaccuracies, virtue signalling, etc. A scene on the tube cited in particular.
Haven’t seen it, myself.
The only inaccuracies I noticed were a line where Churchill says Halifax was the son of an earl (his father was a viscount) and the depiction of the PM arriving in France aboard a DC-3 [or C-47] in military guise (the RAF had no Dakotas in 1940; Churchill made several trips to France, always in a D.H. 95 Flamingo). As a whole, though, it’s very engaging even though we all know the outcome of the situation depicted. It’s what the pictures used to be, no gore, no gratuitous sex, just great acting.
One detail you seem to have missed is that they seem to have confused the Chartwell and Downing Street cats.
The criticisms I have read are about bigger-picture issues to do with culture and politics. The criticism has been – and I agree in principle that this is significant, although my knowledge of the period is not great and I have not seen the film – that the film misrepresents an important period of history and has a misleading agenda. I read this criticism at the Conservative Woman and Peter Hitchen’s Daily Mail column.
Thumb outward, V for victory. Thumb inward, up yours. Churchill used both but the victory sign most often.
If it’s genuine (not photoshopped) it is very disturbing indeed.
Can anyone imagine a more sickening presence than Pope Francis? An utterly disgusting person, completely unimaginable as the Pope. God must have a reason for this, perhaps a test. Do you accept or reject Francis?
I doubt you’ll find anyone on this site who does not reject Bergoglio. He is, indeed, a sickening man, rotten to the core. He is taking my absentee bishop, Sean O’Malley, on the road to hell with him.
It is axiomatic that homosexuals in authority advance the careers of their homosexual friends and protect them when they need protection. Bergoglio has done both since the day the northern European homosexual clique snatched the Chair of Peter away from the Church and sat him in it.
Exactly correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNZxyIsWdlc, Churches/Holy Sites in Ecuador-Fr. Michael Rodriguez
133 visningar
10
0
DELA
JMJHFPRODUCTIONS
Publicerades den 22 jan. 2018
6,9 TN PRENUMERANTER
Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe
+J.M.J.+ These are just a few of the many Churches, convents, museums, etc. visited and prayed at in the Old Town of Quito, Ecuador, and the surrounding area while on pilgrimage with Fr. Rodriguez to attend the Feast of Our Lady of Good Success on Feb. 2nd.
There are numerous towns nearby, each with their own character and unique attractions.
Conceptionist Monastery Church (Iglesia de La Limpia Concepcion), home of Our Lady of Good Success, in which Our Lady appeared to Mother Mariana.
Santo Domingo (St Dominic)
San Agustin (St Augustine)
Carmen del Atlo (Carmelite – where St Mariana, Lily of Quito used to live)
San Francisco
Santa Catalina
La Merced
La Compania (Jesuit, perhaps most glorious Church in the Americas…)
National Basilica to the Sacred Heart
(Cathedral Metropolitana), Basilica of the National Vow
Santa Barbara
Carmen del Bajo
Santa Teresita in La Mariscal
Church & Monastery of Guapalo
The Jesuit School where miraculous image of Our Lady of Quito is kept.
Fr. Michael Rodríguez offered daily Traditional Latin Mass in the Conceptionist Church & Convent–home of Our Lady of Good Success. The technical name of the Church is “Iglesia de La Limpia Concepcion”. This first monastery in Quito was established in September of 1575.
The miraculous statue of Our Lady of Good Success is taken from the cloistered upper choir three times a year and placed above the main altar of the Convent Church to be venerated by the public.
Fr. Rodriguez also led pilgrims daily in praying the Holy Rosary and Novena to Our Lady of Good Success in front of the miraculous statue and gave spiritual conferences every evening on the major themes of Grace, Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Blessed be Jesus Christ and His most pure Mother!
More on Our Lady of Good Success:
Our Lady of Good Success appeared to a Conceptionist nun, Venerable Mariana de Jesús Torres (1563–1635), in Quito, Ecuador, who was allowed to see what would occur in the 20th century and therefore offered her life and sufferings for the crisis within the Church. Mother Mariana de Jesús Torres was bestowed with many singular gifts from heaven and received numerous prophecies of the future, especially in the 20th century. It is amazing how accurate Our Lady’s predictions for the 20th century have been.
Our Lady of Good Success commanded that a statue be made. In her right hand, she carries a Crosier as Abbess of the convent and Queen of Heaven and Earth. In her left arm, she carries her Divine Son so that, “All will know that I am merciful and understanding. Let them come to me for I will lead them to Him.” The statue was completed miraculously by the Archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Saint Francis of Assisi.
Many people have never heard of her message, apparitions or prophecies. Yet she is a powerful complement to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima (1917) and indispensable for understanding what is taking place in our own time (20th/21st century).
Learn more about Our Lady of Good Success on these sites:
http://jmjhfproductions.weebly.com/qu…
http://www.traditioninaction.org/OLGS…
http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/
http://www.quito-colonial.com/Concept…
http://svfonline.org/missions-confere…
Private Revelation & Our Lady of Good Success – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkPp0…
Monthly Tridentine Masses are offered for all our benefactors who are also remembered in our daily prayers. Deo grátias! Thank you!
Please visit our GoFundMe page; http://www.gofundme.com/bpq7mo
—or—
To help defray the cost of making these videos possible, please consider donating on our website: http://jmjhfproductions.weebly.com/
—or—
Donations can be sent to:
St. Vincent Ferrer Foundation of Texas
3155 David Ct.
Edgewood, KY 41017
Phone: (915) 541-5853
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://svfonline.org/
Please indicate donations are for support of the JMJ HF videos. The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Non-profit Corporation. You will receive a receipt for your donation.
VISA MER
1 kommentar
SORTERA EFTER
Suzana saloma
Lägg till en offentlig kommentar …
Suzana saloma
Suzana saloma
för 1 sekund sedan
“Zar će katolici pokazati manje žara za stvar neba negoli krivovjerci i nevjernici za stvar pakla?”
Översätt
Delades ursprungligen av Ivan mi je ime – 2 kommentarer
Sveti Vinko Palotti
Osnivač Družbe katoličkog apostolata
(1795. – 1850.)
Spomendan 22. siječnja
_______________________
Životni tijek ovog Sveca od g. 1795. do g. 1850. odvijao se u veoma teškim vremenima. U djetinjstvu je doživio da su Napoleonovi vojnici osvojili Rim, papu Pija VI. odveli u sužanjstvo u Francusku, a papinsku državu likvidirali. Kad je kao rimski svećenik u Vječnom gradu kao dušobrižnik mladeži, bolesnika, zatvorenika, kao vođa duhovnih vježbi i pučki misionar, kao duhovnik svećeničkih pripravnika i kao utemeljitelj Družbe katoličkog apostolata razvio najveću djelatnost, doživio je burnu godinu 1848. s revolucijom u Rimu i bijegom Pija IX. u Napuljsko kraljevstvo u Gaetu. Svi ti udarci s jedne strane utvrđivali su ga u vjeri da Crkvu paklena vrata neće nadvladati, a s druge strane u ljubavi prema rimskom prvosvećeniku, papi. U tim po Crkvu teškim vremenima svetac je svojim duhovnim sinovima, a i svim katolicima dobre volje, dovikivao: “Zar će katolici pokazati manje žara za stvar neba negoli krivovjerci i nevjernici za stvar pakla?”
Osnovavši Družbu katoličkog apostolata svetac je htio ujediniti sve katolike u apostolskom radu za Crkvu. Težio je svim silama za obnovom Crkve i to po jednom općem saboru. U tom smislu pola godine prije smrti na Duhove godine 1849. napisao je opširno i sadržajno pismo dekanu kardinalskog zbora kardinalu Vinku Macchiju. U njemu se svetac pita koji su uzroci tadašnjih buna, nećudoređa, propadanja vjere, te odgovara da su naročito zatajili duhovni pastiri, neposredni dušobrižnici. K tome su pridošli i nepravedni zakoni koji su jako ometali rad biskupa.
Svetac nije dočekao I. vatikanski sabor. Umro je 20 godina prije njega, ali je njegovo pismo proučavao ne samo kardinal naslovnik već i papa Pio IX., koji će na svetkovinu Bezgrješne godine 1869. otvoriti I. vatikanski sabor. On je naročito utvrdio papin primat i nepogrješivost, a to je urodilo katoličkom obnovom na svim područjima. Nju je svim svojim silama pripremao i sv. Vinko Palotti, taj sveti rimski svećenik, čovjek malena stasa, ali velika duha, obdaren mističnim darovima, ponizan do krajnosti, nazivajući samoga sebe “ništavilom i grijehom”. Njegovo djelo nastavljaju njegovi duhovni sinovi, a njegov duh živi u svima onima koji se trude oko promicanja i razvijanja katoličkoga apostolata te koji u njemu aktivno i sudjeluju.
“I’m sorry your face got in the way of my fist.”
“I’m sorry you made me hit you.”
With every word he reveals what he is.
Steve,
I have to disagree with one passage:
““in an extremely rare act of self-criticism”
“an unusually contrite pope”
These are not complimentary phrases.”
Surely these words can be instantly spun to show how truly humble and open to correction PF is? Thus a galaxy-sized ****-up can be immediately transformed into more praise!
But I agree that the five-year long honeymoon is finally coming to an end. Even the media types who adore every dodgy quotation from the Papal lips and pen will run out of excuses sooner or later.Though the likes of Stephen Walford, Austen Ivereigh and Ron Conte will plug on regardless of the evidence.
Even witches had a trial. No punishment without a trial.
No trial is needed to remove a bishop.
Hey Steve, what is your take on this?
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/The-Vatican-asks-legitimate-bishops-to-step-aside-in-favour-of-illegitimate-ones-42896.html
Did the pope really just sell out Catholics to the commies?
birds of a feather flock together
“my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think”
The summary of this entire papacy.
Francis thinks alright, but like satan.
See, this is what happens when you think nothing can hurt you. You mess up so much even your own “allies” find hazardous your own remarks and inaction. Some sins cry to heaven for vengance…and sometimes the cry is so loud even the secular world has pity…so, in a defining moment when Pope Francis had the opportunity to at least appear sincere to victims of such horrendous crimes, he shows up like a clown at a funeral. It’s so bad, so humiliating as a Catholic…let the light shine on this defining moment, not because I take pleasure in it but as act of Justice.
Headline from today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “Pope sorry for remarks made in Chile.”
And the Francis-spin continues apace…
St Pius V: “we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime [sodomy], by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”
Oh how times have changed.
St. Pius V, Ora pro nobis.
The St. Gallen group heavily influenced the election of Jorge Bergoglio and his actions are in keeping with his inner circle of friends and supporters. It becomes clearer day by day that he is not interested in the faithful nor anyone who is not in keeping with the doctrine of the church of St. Gallen and company.
Forgive me, Holy Father, but you rarely do seem to think before you speak. Perhaps, you could not hold a conference on your flights, as this Flying Magisterium is always very traumatic for someone!