I don’t want to spend a great deal of time on the text of the speech. You can read it for yourself. But there are a few of points I want to highlight and ask questions about.
First, I said in my post yesterday morning that the White House address was a missed opportunity to talk about abortion in a week when Congress was duking it out over defunding Planned Parenthood. People got angry with me. I said at the end of the post, “Here’s hoping that in the Congressional address tomorrow, our modern holocaust gets more than a passing mention.”
I was forcing myself to be optimistic. There’s a reason why I usually don’t do that. Today, what we actually got — in terms of references to the pro-life position — was this:
Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12).
This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.
This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.
In addition to the fact that this is the most bare-bones acknowledgement of the sanctity of life one could get in a speech before a governmental body that sends half a billion dollars a year to an organization that kills millions of children and sells their parts to the highest bidder, the entire emphasis was placed on abolition of the death penalty, which is not even consonant with the long-held teaching of the Church. (And as a friend asked me after reading the speech, “When did ‘murderer on death row’ become a stage of human development?”)
Statistically speaking, another friend of mine pointed out that more than twice as many babies are killed every day in the U.S. through legalized abortion than there have been criminals executed in the four decades since the re-introduction of the death penalty. (2,800+ legal abortions every day [reported] vs. 1414 executions since 1976.) Why is capital punishment the priority?
Second, we have the issue of marriage, which is under the most ferocious attack it has ever weathered since the 3rd chapter of Genesis. On that topic, the pope said:
I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.
Read those words and tell me what they mean. Don’t project your own interpretation or bias — words in themselves signify something. Do these three sentences signify a defense of marriage in a country that just legalized sodomite relationships under that same definition? Particularly when you take this into account?
Life and family leaders worldwide are alarmed by a list the Vatican released today containing the names of those who will participate in the upcoming Synod on the Family, including a special list of 45 prelates handpicked by Pope Francis, many of whom publicly support positions contrary to the teaching or practice of the Catholic Church.
“The Ordinary Synod has a heterodox agenda and many of the prelates attending it have already shown themselves either supportive of that agenda or unwilling to resist it,” stated Voice of the Family, a group of Catholic laity from major pro-life and pro-family organizations worldwide, in a press release today.
“The family is now under grave danger from within the Church, as well as from international institutions and national governments,” the group said.
The list of “members by Papal appointment” includes a number of controversial figures whose actions or statements have caused Catholics from different parts of the world to question their orthodoxy…
You should really follow the link and read the roster, making note of each man’s record of opposition to Church teaching on marriage. If the Holy Father is concerned about marriage, my suggestion would be to start by culling that list – and soon, because the Synod is only 10 days away.
My third point would be simply to note the issues that got the bulk of his air time: labor, the elderly, immigration, refugees, indigenous peoples, the environment, the arms trade, war, dialogue between nations, economic injustice, etc. There are a number of important things to discuss in these arenas, but isn’t it odd that the Vicar of Christ never once mentioned Christ as the answer? That the Holy Name of Jesus was not spoken? That the four Americans used as the basis for his remarks (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton) were favorites among political and religious progressives, and none of them were saints? (We do have American saints. The pope just canonized the most recent one yesterday.)
Finally, when the pope came out to address the crowds gathered outside the Capitol, he said, “I will ask God to bless” those present. But he did not bless anyone. There was no sign of the cross. And then, at the conclusion of his prayer, he said, “I ask you all please to pray for me, and if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way.”
See it for yourself:
I’ve written about this last part before:
If thinking positively can have such a profound effect on your own life, what of thinking positively on behalf of others? I’m not talking about offering a person going through a crisis good advice, or rousing your team with an inspired pep-talk; I’m speaking of the mental exercise of sending “good vibes” in the direction of someone experiencing hard times. To me, this sounds a great deal like what many people callprayer. Only not. It’s directed from person-to-person, rather than from person-to-God-to-person. As such, I can’t help but wonder why a person would skip the God step in this equation unless they either:
a.) Don’t believe in Him
b.) Are afraid that others might be offended if they were to admit that they do believe.
Option “b” may not be particularly courageous, but it is, at least, understandable. Option “a,” though? To not believe in God but offer to do something that looks very much like praying just doesn’t make any sense.
Our society values niceties over virtues. We embrace being crass while doing everything in our power not to offend. We tolerate everything but believe in nothing. And when these paradoxical forces converge, they cancel each other out and create a potent strain of mediocrity that dilutes the meaning of all human interaction.
It was, I suspect you’ll agree, a very strange thing to do.
At the end of the day, I’m left struggling with what to make of it. Based on the reactions I’m seeing online, it seems events like today are a sort of Rorschach test, devoid of much real meaning, but vague enough that those who wish to project their own interpretation on them may do so. There’s a lot of gushing in the Catholic social media sphere today. It’s a pretty big head-scratcher considering the meager fare we were offered on the big issues of our day.
You can certainly find good in what Pope Francis said today. There are just enough touch points to find — if you’re looking for it — some Catholic influence here. But this speech could almost as easily have been given by a non-denominational member of Congress. The “blessing” afterward wasn’t; it was really just a prayer of the sort that a sitting president could say without technical violating the First Amendment. It’s the kind you might hear in a huddle at your average public high school football game in the Bible Belt.
I’ll get kicked in the teeth for saying it, but this simply wasn’t an impressive outing for Pope Francis. He had an opportunity, and he didn’t take it. We need firm moral leadership from our pope. When are we going to get it?
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
“We need firm moral leadership from our pope. When are we going to get it?”
After the next conclave?
That was pretty much going to be my reply – “From the next Pope?”.
Has Bergolio actually mentioned the Holy Name of Jesus yet? I am dead serious.
I haven’t heard it myself, and not having heard it loud and strong and often from Francis’s lips when he has this supremely golden moment for world evangelization, I wonder if Bergolio is embarrassed or ashamed to publicly proclaim Christ.
If I remember correctly, his response to hearing the crowds chanting “Francisco, Francisco” upon his election was to urge them to instead chant “Jesu Christo”.
A Way To Get Paid $97/hour And More…….After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 97 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online.….. Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…earn upto $16k to $19k /a month……….Only a few hour required to understand and start working…….look over here …
Of course he hasn’t, do you actually expect him to? That might offend some of the muslims and other infidels and heretics he’s currently hobnobbing with.
We can certainly hope and pray so, but we have no guarantee. The Church has gone decades with morally bankrupt popes.
Here’s some real breaking news for you:
The National Catholic Register (9/20/2015) – “Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of ‘Mafia’ Club Opposed to Benedict XVI”
I would think that if that were the case, i.e. Daneels’ admissions, then he and the cardinals involved would have been ineligible to vote in the conclave that produced pope Bergolio as would Bergolio. In fact, they would have been excommunicated under Canon Law.
Just by way of addendum to my earlier comment:
John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution of 1996 makes canvassing before or during a papal conclave a high-crime, punishable by automatic excommunication.
“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.”
I was going to write about this today, but I thought I’d give everyone a breather. It’s a big story lost in the noise of the papal visit.
Sorry to jump the gun. Notwithstanding, the ramifications of the story it make one wonder if this is indeed a ‘papal’ visit.
Easy answer: it’s not. Watching the heretic address the UN right now and it makes me want to vomit.
Just a reminder for newcomers: this is not a sedevacantist publication. We tolerate a certain degree of speculation (yesterday’s piece in La Stampa and Ed Pentin’s coverage of Daneel’s admission of manipulation require as much) but we do NOT place ourselves in a position to judge whether the occupant of the Petrine Throne is, in fact, a valid pope or a manifest heretic.
It’s fine to ask questions. Making pronouncements indicates an authority none of us have, however.
Sedevacantist rants and tangents derail combox discussions faster than almost anything else. They *will* be deleted and commenters banned if necessary.
Use common sense. Reserve judgment. Be circumspect even if you strongly believe a thing like this is true. Wait for the proper authorities to determine such things. That’s the rule of thumb here.
I am using common sense, if you don’t like the truth or it’s too frightening, may God have mercy on your soul.
Do I come across as someone who is frightened to you? There’s a difference between courage and hubris; a distinction between suspicion and certainty. Prudence dictates we walk a delicate and respectful line on these matters, even though we must not bury our heads. This is what I’m asking. If you can’t manage that, I have to ask you to take your comments elsewhere. I can’t afford to let every comment thread become toxic – I simply don’t have the time to deal with that.
In all honesty I could care less what you think. Prudence is for the weak when souls are at stake. Souls are being lead to Hell each and every day because of “prudence”. Sorry, the time for prudence is long past. You can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem…which will you choose?
“We like to appreciate not-so-subtlety around here.”
The unbiased truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, derails deflectiion and misdirection and lies and slander by its very nature, also…..
Steve, please continue to express your opinions and help us to come to understand this pope’s mission. I find so much in what he says and has written about inspirational – and, yet, controversial. Have you read “Lord of the World,” the pope’s recommended novel to the press? This presents a tremendous contradiction and challenges my mind and my spirit as to where this pope is coming from and where his teaching is leading me. I believe he is a true “distributist.” That this is his real economic philosophy; not socialism or communism. I was going to write about this before his visit, but instinctively knew that you and others are much more capable of doing so than I am. I’m just a story teller. Help us to understand before we pass judgment and thank you.
I may be beating you to the punchline, but having listened to Pope Francis’ homily given at St. Patrick’s this evening, I think that there may be something equally as pressing. His words are echoing in my ears and causing me great sadness. I was actually watching it on my lunch break and saw the words scroll across a TV in a pizza place as it was closed captioned through all the noise. I read “And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the crosscross.” Words can’t begin to describe how dire that statement is. I’m tempted to ask if in fact the cathedral would have to be rededicated, but I can’t even make the leap still being in utter shock.
Is there anyway to know exactly what it is that this group may have coerced him with. I mean, what was their leverage? Benedicts weakness or were there actual threats made to him if he did not in fact abdicate?
Seriously? The previous two Popes where morally bankrupt?! Please.
No, not the last two, I meant that the church has gone decades at various points in Her history.
Sorry. I was surprised. I agree with you then. We all know that has been the case.
Actually the last several have been a motley collection of heretics, blasphemers, apostates, and ecumenical goons all rolled into one giant fiery heresy, but hey who’s counting.
Easy to just say something like that. Back it up.
Do your homework, you’ll come to the inevitable conclusion. It’s all out there for the world to see, blatant and unabashed. The Post V2 “Church” is a Modernist heretic sect of deceivers bound for Hell for all eternity. That is the truth.
We aint going to get much from Pope Francis; I would love to know why he felt the need to be SO vague. What is it going to take for SOMEONE to state the blunt truth that babies are being murdered and their body parts are being harvested! Any bishops? Pope Francis? Nope. Ugh! Why is everyone soooo afraid to speak up???
A few things to flesh out after this debacle…1. OnePeterFive is now needed even more these days. It is refreshing to not feel alone physically, if not spiritually. 2. We now can even work harder to show the true faith, and be unabashed in our love of man through Christ. 3. Prophesy is being fulfilled before our eyes. And we all know that the devil roams during these dark days, but his time is short and our Bride always prevails. God Bless and Thank you. Steve and staff….
I’m going to say it, I miss Pope Benedict XVI, he called out those who needed it, corrected those who needed corrected, and confirmed the Faith of the brethren. I’ve decided to not watch anything regarding these papal trips.
And yet, he also abandoned us.
All things considered though, he probably wouldn’t still be alive today if he hadn’t abdicated (his health isn’t particularly good.) I suspect he genuinely felt he could no longer fulfill his duty, as he said, and resigned. That said… I miss him.
Since when do fathers get to resign from fatherhood?
How he deceived you. As much as a false prophet as the current one.
It seems you really don’t know him. Have you read him? He was always orthodox, faithful. A great moral voice and intellect.
Pope Benedict XVI gave public and full-throated support to the Americanist position when he was in America and he was a very firm supporter of Religious Liberty which fit hand in glove with the American Proposition and which reality reduces Jesus Christ to but one voice amongst many while America sets the worldwide agenda for all men.
We are going to have to wait until the 12th of never to hear a Pope condemn American ideology – religion is a private affair and must not be allowed to influence the govt – and we are gong to have to wait until the 13th of November to hear a Pope stand in front of the public in America and declare that the way America legislates is directly opposed to the Divine positive law of Jesus Christ who said – that all power has been given unto me…
Jesus Christ is King of Heaven and Earth and to is Catholic Doctrine that EVERY SINGLE COUNRY must not only acknowledge that infallible truth, EVERY COUNTRY HAS THE DUTY TO WORSHIP HIM PUBLICLY but our Popes – Pope Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI included, not only never said that truth publicly, there is no indication they believed that privately…
O, and if you say – they did believe that privately but it is too fractious to say that publicly – you are just admitting the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has accepted the American proposition, including the demand that religion be private and that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church with authority directly derived from Jesus Christ who founded it, but within the pluralism of the world’s religion it must just try its best to make peace and construct that peace on whatever natural law one can get all of the false faiths to agree to.
Excellent comments; spot on. Having read Malachi Martin’s The Keys of This Blood and while currently reading Windswept House, I see the Pope’s refusal to do more than a barely cursory display of his Catholicism as part of the failed strategy of “dialog” that our Bl. Pope St. John Paul II started. Of course, this approach is a natural for a modernist, or one who leans towards modernism, by dropping all overtly religious symbols and themes in favor of addressing everyone in a comfortable “ecumenism”.
But in the end all will be disappointed. Clearly there are limits to what any Pope can offer or promise without breaking the faith to such a degree that he’ll have no credibility. I think we’ve been seeing that for a while now, with the Pope giving from both hands to different groups, but that’s coming to an end. At some point the progressive (modernist) and conservative camps will demand a commitment.
All I feel from this speech is anxiety. I’m not even asking why anymore. There is no point in “why” when you are tied to the whipping post. You just have wait for it to end.
Yes. I’m feeling anxious, too.
Anxious…or energized? You see, prior to this, we here in the US have been wondering about Pope Francis and pundits and Vatican officials have been trying to clarify or tell us what he really said. Now, after today, we can all agree and know the truth that, at the very least, Pope Francis is not a leader.
Bergolio’s US tour seems the antithesis of St. John the Baptist’s witness to Christ:
“He must increase but I must decrease.” John 3:30
Many of us here in the US have not wondered about him. We knew the man.
One observation which strikes me particularly with this pope: he never gives a proper blessing. I remember when JP2 passed by when he visited the UK, to a man everyone around me said “he looked at me” when he gave the blessing. Everyone felt that particular iteration of the sign of the cross was ‘just for them’. I never see Francis giving the sign of the cross as his procession passes along, he just waves. Weird.
“I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.”
Typical ambiguity that the JA’s of the Church will try to spin in the most positive light. But what does this mean? It’s obviously a true statement but empty. I’m sure same-sex couples believe this and wouldn’t object to what he just said. No doubt they believe that their family life is beautiful and rich. Does a couple need to be married in order for their family to be rich and beautiful? Or how about the divorced and remarried families, same thing. In fact I bet you won’t find anyone who would dispute that sentence.
Yes, because they have corrupted the objective meaning of words, such as “family” to their own ends.
And just before reading your post, Steve, I saw a headline from some pious group that read, ”Congress Hears Pope Francis Defend Marriage and Family.” Even if it weren’t a gross exaggeration of what really happened on Capitol Hill today, why should this even be a headline? Isn’t it a lot like headlining the sun rising in the east this morning? Things only got worse as I read into the first paragraph of the accompanying missive:
”Pope Francis gave a historic address to Congress and other political leaders in Washington just minutes ago and made it clear in his own words that the overall theme of his visit to America is that he wishes to uphold the family, and support marriage.”
The politicians actually present at the speech must be wondering what Catholics put in their drinks, wondering if perhaps the DoJ should be notified. If it’s powerful enough to cause this level of delusion, chances are it’s also illegal.
I feel so very conflicted these days. I read the address at the White House with some initial excitement that ended up falling flat. I read the Congressional address with even more excitement as it seemed a slightly more appropriate time to hit crucial issues, thinking that perhaps he was saving those remarks for that opportunity (and for which I actually wouldn’t fault him… trying to be strategic in delivering his remarks, whether the best way or not.) Throughout the address there were moments of hope regarding his statements, particularly when he delivered that line regarding the sanctity of life… and then he talked about the death penalty. I felt like a whoopie cushion – getting excited and then I start making funny sputtering noises as it fell flat.
I desperately WANT to love Pope Francis and his pontificate. Regardless of what we may think of the man or his policies, he is the Holy Father. Many people in my life, very good traditonal leaning catholics, are so excited with him here in the country and exclaiming “I love Pope Francis!” but I just can’t feel that same excitement and more often than not just keep my mouth shut as I know they’re not open to my assessments. I’ve tried to make every excuse I can for him, and I’m tired. I believe he’s a very good man, very well meaning, I would venture to say even a holy man (feel free to disagree with my comments), but he’s simply not effective at being Pope.
I look at Father Benedict (as he prefers to be called now) recalling his papacy and it was spectacular. He did what was needed, he upheld the teaching of the church, he reached out to those hurt, appointments of bishops were spectacular… I look back to St. John Paul the Great, and that was something altogether different. He made mistakes, but there was something like the human excitement around the “Francis Effect,” except it was in the spiritual realm. He changed the world. If the Roman Exorcist is to be believed, the demons hate him terribly. St. John Paul II was just that, a saint. I don’t know that there’s been another Pope like him. Francis follow-up is just so lackluster. Perhaps he would have been a good pope at another time in history, but right now… I’m just tired. I want a Successor to Peter I can trust.
“… [H]e’s simply not effective at being Pope.” You nail it in less than ten words. And, like you, many of us are simply exhausted, fed up with a sub par performance.
Love Christ, not men.
We now have the power of positive thinking theology. Pope Francis is careful to tell people how wonderful they are and to takes stands like climate change that show him to be concerned about the planet, that he cares, and no one will be faulted for pleading on behalf of poor refugees. Notice Pope Francis telling the U.S. Congress and President to accept refugees and treat them well. Notice that he did not tell the president and Congress that they should not engage in wars with so many countries and indulge in assassinations that also kill many innocents, and that these actions have produced refugees. The unnecessary invasion of Iraq by the wonderful forces of the United States resulted in the possible elimination of Catholics who lived in Iraq for thousands of years, and since some of the Iraqi Christians took refuge in Syria, now our efforts to overthrow Assad has made Syrians refugees along with the Christians who were given refuge in Syria under Assad. Now Pope Francis had a chance to tell the Americans they shouldn’t destroy countries just because they could, but he didn’t. It would not make him popular with the American mob. So instead of denouncing destructive wars that ruined vast areas, the number of birth defects in Iraqi’s living in Fallujah where a lot of depleted uranium shells fired by American forces polluted the area for years to come, he preached concern about the environment, as that won him the applause of the numerous greenies. I am a Catholic and I expect Catholic Popes to take stands on matters of justice that will not make him the toast of the town. I heard nothing about Pope Francis’s humility but a wouldn’t a truly humble person be made uncomfortable by all the celebrity treatment given him. So he rides in a Fiat. I am a Catholic who gets very worried to see the head of the Catholic Church feted by the world which is otherwise quite anti-Catholic. Pope Francis is more the politician than Pope. I have nothing against being nice, I try to be nice myself, most of the time anyway, but there is more to the Catholic faith than being nice. To save the world from all sorts of disaster we need to have the world recognize the Kingship of christ over all nations, not just a carbon tax.
Well we can certainly expect that the United Nations will bring peace to the world. All of the popes since Paul VI told us that this organization is the one we should turn to. It is the UN which serves humanity with light, life, and truth. The Catholic Church is simply a political/social organization with one voice among many and has no desire, also according to the popes. to convert the sinner to the true Catholic faith, which is, also according to the popes, merely a part of the larger Church of Christ which one assumes is the whole of humanity, considering how these same popes publicly practice in praying and worshipping with those of other religions.
Unfortunately this is the impression that is being conveyed..
“It’s the kind you might here in a huddle at your average public high school football game in the Bible Belt.”
You’re insulting the south. You would have a much better chance of hearing Jesus mentioned, or the Our Father recited, at a football game in the Bible Belt than you would during a papal address. Catholics should be ashamed. You also spelled ‘here’ wrong.
You’re correct on both counts. I fixed the typo. The other mistake, you’ve corrected here.
Do you actually believe that we will get it from him??? Seriously? Not gonna happen! He is the worst pope in the history of the Church and we are in for some very bad times.
No, Karen, let’s be fair, there were popes far worse than this one. But that’s about as positive as I can get.
Fair?? Why does anyone even have to be positive about him? You can claim there were worse popes than him if you want to but how does that do us any good? Okay, so I’ll change it to he’s the worst pope in my lifetime and that’s a long, long time. So what? He’s lousy and we need some holiness! We need true Catholicism. I can’t even read or listen to him just like I can’t read or listen to Obama. They are one and the same to me, except Francis is morally worse as he is supposed to be the leader of the one True Church.
Very good Steve. When it’s all said and done what we are left with is a whole lot of nothing from this Pope. When it comes to spiritual solutions to our many problems, he tends to distance him self from Christ and God while embracing materialist solutions, as if to say he doesn’t believe in the helpful grace of God. There is something deadening and depressing about the joy he expresses. It doesn’t seem to be based on the love of God but rather on the public adulation he receives for honoring the gods of Modernism. Let us pray for him and hope his reign ends soon. And let us also pray that God gives us some saints who will lead us in the battle against Satan.
I listened to Kresta spinning this today. Fascinating! …
So now we have the Pope of Good Vibes? Gooood, Gooood, Gooood, good vibrations… No blessing! That’s the icing on the cake.
What are the three ideologies that have served to destroy the Catholic faith, the mind, heart, and soul? Modernism/Masonry, Communism, and Socialism.
The unholy trinity was on display for the world to see these past few days.
There was no there there.
I had similar thoughts. Pope Platitude. Pope It’s All Good. Pope Not a Problem.
In the new Catholic Church, change means not to offend people’s sensitivities. Because the church lost a lot of money due to the sex scandal and closings. To bring people back, you have to please them by saying and doing what they like. That’s it. That’s the Catholic Church of today.
An excellent summary. It seems in NYC, he praised women, but did not mention that in most Christian churches , they seem to be the backbone of the church. One could read, he was for female pastors or deacons or bishops or something. He was not clear on abortion , was on capital punishment which is a fine little liberal item, but not so on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION OR MUSLIM MIGRANTS WHO ARE ISIS INSPIRED.
Can Benedict hop on a plane and maybe fill in the blanks we so desperately need filled?
I kept waiting for him to make a sign of the cross, and it never came. I kept waiting for a simple acknowledgment of Jesus Christ before the greatest secular power on earth, and it never came.
And yet, did we really expect anything different?
No, he didn’t, and that should be a HUGE red flag for any normal sane person left in this world that is a TRUE Catholic.
The man is clearly not Catholic. How much more evidence is needed to prove it?
“We need firm moral leadership from our pope. When are we going to get it?”
We won’t. The shepherd has walked away. Unfortunately for us, it is not really within the scope of the sheep to transform into shepherds, nor is it realistic for the sheep to democratically come to conclusive decisions that will guide them to safety. Such is a very Freemasonic concept.
No. At this point, the wolves move in and eat the sheep. And once all the sheep are devoured, there will be no more bleating. No more complaints or worries any longer. Once the sheep are gone, there will be peace.
I can only conclude that this is the kind of peace that Freemasonic secularists–and Pope Francis–is aiming for.
I think http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sentimental-theology could be relevant in explaining some of it. Why “proselytism” = bad, and Jesus’ name being MIA when unbelievers are present.
“There’s a lot of gushing in the Catholic social media sphere today. It’s a pretty big head-scratcher considering the meager fare we were offered on the big issues of our day.”
That’s because the vast majority of Catholic social media are de facto Ultramontanists who have confused faith in Christ with worship of the ecclesiastical institution. Sadly, their behavior is the logical consequence of the blind deference to ecclesiastical authority that the clergy has inculcated into Catholic minds for centuries.
Not for nothing was Rex Mottram a literary metaphor.
When you profess to love our Blessed Mother so dearly, abortion should be a first priority.
It wasn’t for Pope Benedict in his speech to British Parliament.
“But this speech could almost as easily have been given by a non-denominational member of Congress. The “blessing” afterward wasn’t; it was really just a prayer of the sort that a sitting president could say without technical violating the First Amendment.” My thoughts also
Oops, sorry about the huge photo. Can you delete it? I can’t.
The Pope addressed the national leaders and didn’t once mention Christ, and only gave passing reference to the culture of life and never said the word abortion.
Pope Francis today? Yes, but also Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 when he spoke to the British parliament.
When Popes speak to government officials publically, the tone of their discourse has *always* been different – because the body being spoken to does not always share the Faith, and the Pope is also there as the Head of State of the Vatican.
It is every Catholics spiritual obligation to encourage every soul they encounter that is not of the one true Catholic Chuch to fear for their immortal soul. Ecumenism is absolute and utter heresy. Other “faiths” are schismatic at best, and utter heathens and blasphemers at worst, and yet they all will share the same fiery fate if they do not Confess of their errors and return to the bosom of the Mother Church founded by the Son of God Himself. It really is just that simple. Sometimes you tell a person the truth not because it makes them “feel good” but because it’s what they need to hear for their own benefit, whether they can see that or not. Anything less is a sin. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
The official teaching of the Church disagrees with you. Yes, one has to speak the truth. But knowing your audience and how you shape your message is an important toll of conversion.
Case in point – lets say someone in my family has fallen away from the Church, and I point out that I fear for his or her immortal soul, and that he or she is on the path to hell. Chances are, rather than help my family member back to the Church, I’ll instead push them further away. But what if I go to then where they are, engage in dialogue and try to show them the beauty of the Church and how life saving Christ’s Gospel is, over time? That has a better chance of success in my opinion than the blunt approach.
Which would God rather have? A blunt approach that bears no fruit, or a softer approach that does? I think he’d want the one that got results.
It’s similar to me in how sexual morality is portrayed. Often, it’s a list of don’ts that seem like they are just arbitrary commands. Yet if one reads JPIIs Theology of the Body, one reads about a beautiful tapestry and purpose for sex in God’s plan for humanity. Yet that understanding is rarely presented, and as a result you have a culture that has lost its way in this realm.
Presentation matters. We are called to spread the ‘Good News’, not the ‘Scary News’ or ‘Depressing News’. That doesn’t mean we throw out anything – morals are morals, the teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church. But if people don’t have a solid foundation, no amount of admonition will ever register.
I suggest you read St Pius X’s encyclical Pacendi Dominici Gregis and you will see how the sweet perfumed venom is no less deadly when not nearly as sweet. Sad that the Church did not need his warning about the Modernist infiltration that he knew was coming. He was right about everything.
I have read it. I suggest you read UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, along with LUMEN GENTIUM, which were promulgated at the Second Vatican Council, an ecumenical council of the Church. Encyclicals can contain error unless the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, which was not dome in Pacendi, but Ecumenical councils are guaranteed to be free from doctrinal error by the teaching of the Church. Now, Pacendi has a lot of value, but it doesn’t override the pronouncements of Vatican II, and to cite it in opposition to the council is an error and contrary to the longstanding teaching of the Church.
Consdiering both Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium are riddled with so many heresies and contradictions to the previous..oh..I don’t know….1600 or so years of previous Catholic Doctrine…you’re going to have to do better than that. They are utterly laughable in their ridiculousness. Councils done by the true Church ARE free of doctrinal error, and these are LOADED with them…so what does that tell a normal person about the legitimacy of the “Council” that wrote them? All the Protestants…Masons..and the list goes on and on. Pull the liturgical blinders off and think for a moment.
Ah. I see. You’re a Sedevacantist. You don’t accept the magisterium of the church unless it fits your own worldview.
From Pastor Aeternus: “For this reason it has always been necessary “for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with [the Roman Church] because of its pre-eminent authority.” In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which “the rights of sacred communion” flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.”
If you reject the Bishop of Rome and his authority, you are not Catholic.
Vatican II was not a dogmatic or doctrinal council but only a pastoral council. Therefore, we are not obligated to follow any of its promulgations. They are not binding and our obedience should always be to the true teachings of the Catholic Church.
If the encyclicals written by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII which identified the serious and varied attacks on the true faith through the dissemination of heretical materials that could destroy one’s Catholic faith “contained error”, I would like you to point out those errors. Then I would like you to defend the changes in the Vatican II Council documents which were used to clearly announce that the Catholic Church was defective in every way-her liturgy, her Sacraments, her governance, her laws, her understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture, her relationship with those of other religions, her error in her claim that the Jews should convert to the Catholic religion as well as all other people’s of the world, and her teachings regarding eternal salvation.
This visit was about as much pomp and splendor as any pope has been accorded or part of in history. How about all the $$$s spent for this? How did this help the poor and downtrodden. This pope is a tragedy for the Church. Some popes in our past were truly ‘bad’ or evil. This pope tries to hide behind benign positions, confusion by articulating vague murmurings, and plain outright deception. He will be the cause of schisms, not the healing of the Church.
As in the words of a prelate from Kazakhstan in a recent video on the forthcoming Synod, “…beautiful words without the spirit of the Gospel.” http://www.pch24.pl/tv,kryzys–dokad-zaprowadzi-nas-synod–,38081
Sometimes a priest of a certain ago will, instead of giving us his priestly blessing at the end of Mass, will say something like “May God bless us all”. That is not a blessing. Our pope waves at people and does not give his blessing. Why not?
Sans commentaire inutile:
“Pope Francis is more than head of the Catholic Church — he’s also the head of state of the Vatican, which as a government has possibly the most restrictive immigration and citizenship policies of any nation in the world.
The pope, traveling to the U.S. for the first time, has made a special appeal to Americans to welcome immigrants, using his address to a joint meeting of Congress Thursday to invoke the Golden Rule in demanding generosity toward the millions of Central and South Americans seeking to come to the country.” (Washington Times)
Not to mention that flooding a country with immigrants with already high unemployment and cost of living where health care costs are rising and an out of control welfare state. Also consider crowded schools, hosptials, and roads. Not exactly what I call humane for our so called “pilgrims” and more importantly: Citizens
Nobody addresses this better than Dr. Kelly Bowring:
“We need firm moral leadership from our pope. When are we going to get it?”
Fr. John Riccardo: When is Pope Francis going to give it to ’em?
It would seem you are under the mistaken impression that the pope is catholic.
Perhaps the Holy Father is trying a new approach to engage those who have proved themselves intransigent on abortion — cultivating common ground in the hope of opening doors that have been firmly shut for the last several decades… as in the spirit of leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one that is lost. In God, all things are possible!
[…] And once you say that, you stop listening, with open ears, to what the pope does say. You hear him only so that you may find something to pick apart and criticize and deconstruct. You become his critic, not his sheep. You become the pope of the pope. Why, the pope said nothing about abortion! Why, he did not even mention the name of Jesus! […]