The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied,”Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
– Mk. 10:2-12 – Gospel for October 4, 2015 (27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Missal of Paul VI)
Round two of the Synod on the Family begins today. We know there will be struggle and strife because it makes no sense to dialogue about a matter that was settled by the Church long ago. Nonetheless, the debate will go on.
It would seem that there are three possible outcomes:
(1) The Synod will simply reaffirm Catholic doctrine on the family; or
(2) The Synod will explicitly change Catholic doctrine on the family; or
(3) The Synod will reaffirm Catholic doctrine but change pastoral practice in such a way as to weaken and undermine doctrine.
The first outcome is highly unlikely. If Pope Francis were not in favor of a significant change with respect to the Church’s stance toward the divorced and remarried (and possibly homosexual unions), then he would have long ago made it perfectly clear that there are definite boundaries that cannot be crossed when it comes to further dialogue about these matters.
The second outcome is also highly unlikely. The plans of the modernists would then be fully exposed for all to see, and formal schism would soon follow once faithful cardinals, bishops and priests refused communion to those living publicly in the mortal sin of adultery and sodomy.
The third outcome, about which Cardinal Burke has warned the faithful, is the most likely. Francis will probably follow the example of John Paul II who did not and could not change Church doctrine on the death penalty, yet gutted the teaching by proclaiming that modern times had rendered it virtually unnecessary in practice. Francis will likewise reaffirm the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage while hollowing out its core through some labyrinthine means by which divorced and remarried Catholics can receive communion. The change will be peddled to the faithful as an expression of our Lord’s “mercy” toward sinners. More chaos and confusion will then follow as orthodox Catholics are further divided against each other as they debate the proper response to the new “pastoral” practices, and attempt to reconcile what cannot be reconciled.
Pray that the orthodox bishops at the Synod have the courage to defend our Lord and His Church against the modernists.
I think there is no disputing Dr. Bond’s analysis. All the evidence points to this and to Pope Francis’ connivance with this outrage. As Bond indicates, Francis could have stopped this subversion dead in its tracks if he had really wanted to. But this ugly subterfuge tends to undermine the pope’s credibility across the board. It forces one to wonder, for example, if he really means what he is saying about mercy. Is his talk genuine or is it merely another ploy to effect some secondary agenda?
It worries me that the Synod is being manipulated to end up adopting the practice of the Greek Orthodox to divorce and remarriage, in the pursuit of false unity. This could be the “justification” at any rate. Don’t get me started on why this would be a disaster.
I should have thought of that. It makes good sense and, from this papacy, that is the kind of explanation we have come to expect. I agree that the Orthodox practice is impossible to square with Christ’s words. (Truthfully, even though I’ve read about it, I cannot yet understand how the Orthodox themselves justify this practice.)
You may well have hit on one of the “justifications” they will use. However, the Holy Ghost saved the Church from a false reunion with the eastern heretics after the Council of Florence – even though it was the heretical Mark of Ephesus He used to bring it all to a grinding halt.
It is in His power to save us again by whatever means He deems necessary. After all He is the “God of surprises.”
Thank you both for your comments. Unity would be wonderful, but the disaster of Vatican 2, in which the liturgy was trashed to appease Protestant sensibilities should be a terrible warning that compromises of this sort do not work.
I am a priest at a parish, but not a pastor. What should I do when #3 happens? That is, what would you all WANT to see out of your parish priest in this present crisis as a result of #3 (which already has been happening, but) when it is endorsed by the hierarchy much, much higher than this church mouse?
I hear your distress, Father. For what it’s worth, even though we laymen are not in your place, we are very upset by this treason as well. What should you do? Well, it really depends on what kind of subterfuge the Bergoglio Brigade eventually decides upon. Personally, I think the rebels will proceed slowly knowing that, over time, water wears away rock as surely as dynamite, but that it draws much less attention. You should still be able without much flak to advise penitents living in adulterous unions that absolution is contingent on their living in total sexual continence. The full evil effect of this assault on marriage will take years; time is on our side. In the not too distant future there will have to be another conclave, and perhaps at that time chastened cardinals will choose more wisely than they did in the last one. We all have to keep our heads and understand that the Brigade is storming walls that have stood for over two millennia. That’s not as easy a task as many of their liberal minds seem to assume it is.
Thank you. When something sounds odd, I occasionally verify whether or not someone is, in fact, married in the Church. Although I suppose I will do that more often and take the further step to ask if they are still with that same spouse.
May that wall fall upon them and crush them if they do not turn back from this attempted rape of the Bride.
Oremus pro invicem!
Father, I suggest you look past the clamoring adults, and always direct your attention to teaching children about the truth of marriage, and the goodness and beauty of chastity. Even in a room full of clamoring adults, pitch your words to an audience consisting of a 12 year-old girl and a 15 year-old boy. The world is telling them every day and in every way that she can kill her baby and he can have sex with a man. So, you tell them differently every chance you get. God bless you and keep you.
The youth are so hard to reach! The parable of the sower and the pathway, rocky ground, thorns, and/or good ground could not be more apropos. (Sometimes it is a combination of the first three.) I simply hope that some fruit is born from them and harvest several priests later. Thanks for the response.
I would like to see any priest worth his salt bear witness to Christ and him crucified by preaching CHRIST’S definition of marriage, through the truth of the letter and spirit of the unchanging law. Even if that lands you in a parish on an iceberg near the north pole.
I did it three months ago and I just did it again this weekend – in particularly strong ways, that is.
And I like the cold. 😀
Father, I hear your anguish and understand that your question is mainly rhetorical. You will be severely chastised by the one who has power over the legitimate exercise of your priesthood if you speak the truth.
“You will be severely chastised by the one who has power over the legitimate exercise of your priesthood if you speak the truth.”
If it were me, I’d be more worried about the chastisement waiting for me in the afterlife if I didn’t speak the truth.
You imply the good priest doesn’t hold this to be true… or isn’t worried about “chastisement waiting…” !!!!! Aren’t you insulting the good priest’s sincere question??? If it were only as simple an answer as a platitude. You’re missing the strategic advice of Mathew 10:14 – 16. Read Matthew 21:25 where the Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus up but He was clever…He didn’t tell them the Truth directly – He was prudent.
A priest who sincerely wants to continue in the exercise of his priesthood will not carelessly throw away his privilege if he can find a way between a “rock and a hard place” A bishop, after all, can simply reassign the good priest to a desk job in the attic of the Chancery – no questions asked – and the priest must be obedient !
I took no offense by Manny’s reply – although I am sitting in my office desk chair typing this. 😉 I have suffered a few knocks, but my diocese is a safe haven compared to many others alternatives.
Your use of Matthew 10:14-16 is all the more relevant when considering verse 15: it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in their chastisement than it will be for Rome who unofficially endorses and allows it.
Regarding the chancery, I prefer Psalm 118:8-9: it is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in men or princes (even of the Church).
For the record I meant no slight against Fr. J, and your statement about what I imply is false.
“I have only contempt for the world’s threats; I find its blessings laughable.” (Saint John Chrysostom)
🙂
While I exercise my faculties through the permission of the Holy Mother Church and my Ordinary, I still answer to Christ the King Who has eternal power. My bishop is a good one, but I hope he is as tough and faithful as I have been led to believe these past several years of knowing of him.
Thank you for including me in your morning offering! As a parish priest, I get a sort of eagle’s eye view of the anawim/little ones and also those that are not only “regulars” at the parish by habit but those that are sincerely devoted to Jesus. Pray God there wind up being more than I think there are!
Father…..I pray you would preach the truth about marriage and not give into moral relativism.
After the Supreme Court debacle in June and after this past weekend with the Gospel on Jesus’ own words on marriage, divorce, and children, I have brought the “fire and brimstone.”
Although simple Catholic teaching these days is considered “fire and brimstone.” Thanks for responding.
Speak the Truth always and be ready to accept the white martyrdom that will surely follow. This is what we all must do as the conciliar church will continue in it’s informal schism, barring a severe chastisement from almighty God. Prayers for you, Father.
Thank you for your prayers. I had to undergo a small trial awaiting my priestly ordination. It did not weaken me; it only made me tougher in adversity. (Thanks be to God for any small sufferings which weather us up for the big ones!)
My heart goes out to you, you and those like you are in my Rosary every day. You guys are the ones on the front line. You are called to preach the true Gospel of Christ and to impart the true precepts of the Church. If you do that, you will be pleasing to God number one, and number two the truth you speak will attract many! May Jesus through Mary guide and protect you and give you the grace needed for this onslaught. God Bless you MOST ABUNDANTLY!
May God reward you for your prayers and encouragement!
Today’s Ordinary Form reading was on Jonah running from his call. I can understand his weakness and his flee now more than ever. And stunningly the people actually listened to him when he finally got around to it!
Begin Adoration once a week in your parish, pastor’s permission hopefully. As others will say, you may have to go to the mat for this. What can they do to you? Kick you out? Make your life miserable? Give you the silent treatment? Reduce your duties to the bare minimum? Remember THEY need YOU. And if you do have to suffer because of your pastor, or your bishop you know that your reward will be great.
We have perpetual adoration in a small chapel – though I do not at all like some procedural things about the chapel, at least it’s there and used with some frequency at various hours of the day when I pop up there.
And reducing my duties right now would be a most welcome punishment. 😉
Option 3, I think, so they can continue the charade.
3 seems the likely outcome. That means heretical schism.
This latest intervention by Charamsa makes that more likely. Active homosexuality will be in the air whether the bishops like it or not.
On the other hand let’s noty forget the Holy Ghost!
I would respectfully offer another possible outcome, outcome (4): We experience a more dramatic ‘God-strikes-the-Vatican-with-Lightning’ moment and all the plotters’ works are reduced to dust.
Well that would be awesome 🙂
While I doubt this is the opinion of most on this site, there are other possibilities, such as: the Church will reaffirm doctrine and change pastoral practice in a way that does not undermine it.
Well the problem is, the annulment reform has already done some damage. So the trend seems to point toward this doing some damage too.
But it is a possibility, just the same.
Well if we think solely in terms of possibilities, aren’t they infinite? 🙂
Pastoral practice is the method of choice, since Vatican II, to Protestantize the Church. It will be used again and again to de-facto change doctrine by changing practice.
“follow the example of John Paul II who did not and could not change
Church doctrine on the death penalty, yet gutted the teaching” What? The Church has “doctrine” about the death penalty. I never heard this before. Are you sure? I understood the Church was anti-death penalty before JPII ever came along.
In any case, this is hardly analogous to divorce. The death penalty is more analogous to slavery. Ancient societies had slavery and the death penalty, and the Church started in ancient times and was in that world. Over time, we have come to know that both are sins.
There was never a church teaching discussing slavery and approving it. There has been however church teaching discussing the death penalty and explaining its validity.
As far as I am aware, the pre-VII Popes were never against the death penalty. Pope Pius II said the following
Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. (Pope Pius XII, Address given September 14, 1952)
That is very much different from the stance of St. JP II.
The death penalty is not a sin, nor has the Church ever taught it is a sin nor does the Church even today teach that it is a sin, despite Wojtylaist doublespeak that attempts to confuse the issue.
The problem with what you say here is that the Church always taught that the death penalty was legitimate; perhaps lamentable, but fully legitimate. I am old enough to have learned this in my catechism classes back when nuns preferred to teach the truth rather than indulge liberal sentimentalism. Tony Jokin offers a sample of this teaching from as recently as 1952, but with a little research that quote can be multiplied by hundreds and will include things like this from St Augustine:
“The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.”
If the Bishop of Hippo’s words aren’t explicit enough for you, try these from St. Thomas Aquinas:
“The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.”
John Paul and Francis are offering us their own OPINIONS, nothing more, nothing less; they are entitled to them, but all of us are free to consider them and then reject or accept as we see fit. As someone elsewhere on this site noted, the true tragedy in all this is that John Paul saw fit to put his own musings in the CCC, thus misleading people like you into thinking this was somehow the teaching of the Church. Of course, this is assuredly not the most foolish act of St. John Paul. The prize for that has to go to his kissing the Koran in public.
– God explicitly commands the death penalty for certain offenses in the Mosaic Law.
– What God commands cannot be intrinsically evil or sinful.
– Jesus Christ is God Incarnate.
– Therefore…?
By contrast, it could be argued that God permitted slavery, in the same way that he permitted polygamy for the Davidic kings, as institutions allowable for people with a more primitive understanding of the moral law. I am unsure if the Church has ever condemned slavery per se (rather than just particular forms of slavery), but in either case it is not analogous to the death penalty.
Important points. Thank you for making them.
And didn’t St. Paul tell the runaway slave to return to his master? And of course he told the master to be fair and just. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Kinda like marriage: if each one GIVES all to please God, and the partner, God is pleased and each one RECEIVES all.
There is also the example of Maestro Titta, the executioner for the Papal states
And, as Jesus pointed out, God permitted divorce under the Mosaic law because of human hardness of heart. But Jesus explicitly revoked that particular permission. End of discussion. So the question now becomes, why does a cohort of cardinals think they can open the discussion again? Why does the Vicar of Christ not remind them — publicly, just as Jesus once did — that the question is simply beyond the pale, and that those living pertinaciously in mortal sin cannot reasonably expect to receive our Lord’s body and blood?
“through some labyrinthine means by which divorced and remarried Catholics can receive communion”
I think you’re being optimistic here. I have my doubts the ‘penitential path’ will be all that penitential or a lengthy path.
…and all this talk about ‘re-marrieds’ receiving communion is just a stalking-horse for homosexual ‘partnerships’ being blessed, informally, and then formally. That’s what is driving this train.
And you know this how?
If you are a Catholic believer it seems to me that the second outcome is not only highly unlikely, but absolutely impossible given what Catholicism believes about the Church’s indefectability.
It’s #3 at a minimum. In addition to this fine article, John Vennari over at CFN has written a superb article in Q&A format that is a must read for everyone. It’s a road map that is invaluable.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/5d1240f5e4617968a70cf1a0b1e85e90-450.html
He also posted a quote from St Catherine of Sienna which is a keeper and rebuttal to all those well meaning but misinformed folks about criticizing the actions of the Pope.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fdf39b12f8bc323e4f28b297f752a381-454.html
Prayer, Fasting and the Rosary are necessities….not options.
Yes, the article on Catholic Family News is a must read!
I think all of this is already cooked and baked and all that remains is delivery. It will be the third option which is the method of choice by the Modernists. Since Pope Francis has already changed the annulment procedure there is little left to do. What will be the reaction of most Catholics? Why, good feeling about Pope Francis the Merciful as he is so understanding of modern day life. Who will complain? A few Bishops, Cardinals, and some orthodox Catholics. What action will they take? More complaining, some will join SSPX, some will leave the Church, most will stay put and wait for the next outrage.
What should we do. Prayer and penance and hope for a miracle that shines a light on the immorality of it all.
Just watched a good clip on The Votex which I saw on ‘What’s Up With the Synod’ website. The Synod is being lovingly coined: ‘The Sodomy Synod’ by most. I guess that sums it up, eh? In other words, the ‘Homoclerics’ have taken over.
Let’s hope not. It’s not over till it’s over. Miracles do happen. Let us pray.
I wonder if, while everyone is transfixed by the homosexuality sideshow, they will sneak through Catholic “Divorce” on the nod.
That has already been done by Pope Francis through his latest fiats on annulment. That takes it off the table. It will not even be discussed by the Sin-Nod
So, you are a canon lawyer? Do explain!
Most canon lawyers seem to be biding their time before discussing this…
I agree – The Motu Proprio was rather a plot spoiler : D . What was the rationale, I wonder? It surely has to be discussed this month in the context of Communion though? Or has it been knocked off the table for a more sinister reason?
The MPs are invalid as they attack the essence of marriage – part of the Deposit of Faith, and unchangeable.
Do not forget that Our Pope and Our Cross has repeatedly spoken about surprises, so, maybe one of the surprises will be a bolt out of the blue (prolly on the last day of the Synod) when Franciscus will issue a Motu Proprio granting full faculties and restoring Full Communion to the SSPX, and he will issue another Motu Proprio eliminating Celibacy/Continence for Latin Rite Priests.
The resulting Chaos would act like a shroud covering anything and everything untoward actualised by the Synod and the resulting infighting over all of these matters would provide Franciscus with the golden opportunity to publicly appear and appeal for calm and peace and claim that, as the principle of unity and stability, he would do whatever it takes to restore peace and calm to the Church.
Thanks to Jacobum. This quote is far too good to withhold from everyone (remember, Catherine is a Doctor of the Church and the other patron saint of Italy along with….Francis of Assisi):
Saint Catherine wrote the following in a letter to Pope Gregory XI:
“Most Holy Father,… because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul…. If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me…Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
Wow!
With all due respect, I have to completely disagree with comparing this Synod with what John Paul II did with the death penalty teaching. John Paul II, a Thomist, understood that the morality of human acts can be evaluated by looking at the object, intention, and circumstance. With the death penalty, the object (just punishment) is good, intention (redressing the wrongs) is good, but today’s circumstances (maximum security prisons & flawed judicial systems) calls into question whether the death penalty is right in our modern world. John Paul II did not gut the teaching on the death penalty as good actions must have a good object, intention, and circumstance.
On the contrary, certain actions by virtue of their object are always intrinsically evil (intention or circumstance do not change this). Examples of intrinsically evil acts include adultery and homosexuality.
It was right for John Paul II to ask for an evaluation of circumstances with regard to the morality of the death penalty. It is a heresy for Bishops to ask for an evaluation of circumstances with regard to adultery or homosexuality. Adultery and homosexuality are always and in every case wrong, to approve of these in certain circumstances would be to commit apostasy.
Fair enough, but this sentence reveals a certain lack of good information about what is really afoot in the world: “…but today’s circumstances (maximum security prisons & flawed judicial systems) calls into question whether the death penalty is right in our modern world.” Reflect that too often, both here and in Europe, incarceration has been challenged by the very liberals who are touting its virtues (including the very liberal former Bishop of Buenos Aires). John Paul’s call for “an evaluation of circumstances with regard to the morality of the death penalty” leads this Catholic to conclude that society needs as never before protection from an especially violent criminal element and from terrorists who announce their goal to be the destruction of society. It is not my view that JP II gutted teaching on the death penalty, something he could not do. But he was wrong, I believe, to introduce what is a highly debatable notion into the CCC. He had to know that liberals everywhere would maliciously misinterpret his words and then use them to equate the death penalty with abortion (but, of course, not with an eye to ending the latter practice, not at all).
Yes. My point is that (whether we agree or not), it was ok for Pope John Paul II to call for an evaluation of modern circumstances with regard to the death penalty. But, it is not ok, actually heresy, for Bishops to call for an evaluation of modern circumstances with regard to adultery or homosexuality. Thus, we cannot in any way compare this Synod to JPII’s teaching on the death penalty.
To condone sinful acts, is to condone sin.
As has been mentioned there are NO ‘modern’ circumstances to be taken into consideration. The justice system is at fault for sloppy methods at the start of a case, injustice done by those in the system, and molly-coddling by liberal do-gooders.
Short fair trials, one appeal that must be tried on legal grounds only, and then the march to the gallows.
We can have disagreements about circumstances when evaluating the moral goodness of an act and still be Catholic. We cannot claim that intrinsically evil acts are not always evil (as is happening in Rome) and still be Catholic. My point is that disagreements about the death penalty does not equal disagreements about adultery and homosexuality.
They are equal in the important sense that they are both based on disagreeing with prior church teaching. If one can undermine one Church teaching to say the opposite by bringing in the modern times (as in the case of the death penalty), then inevitably a question would be raised regarding any of the other teachings.
Ah, but humans being what we are, can there even be such a thing as a ‘fair trial’? And if there is doubt, wouldn’t mercy be our best course?
JPII was a Phenomenologist and Personalist, not a Thomist. And the question about whether the death penalty is morally licit is not principally a circumstantial consideration. That reduces the DP to something that is simply a means by which the state can render a dangerous criminal harmless, but Thomas actually argues that a guilty criminal who accepts the just punishment for his crime derives from it an expiatory value for his sins.
We’ve covered this issue in some depth here:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/getting-it-wrong-about-the-death-penalty/
My point is not to argue about the death penalty, but to claim that what JPII did with the death penalty teaching is not even close to and has no comparison with the current Synod. JPII was questioning whether a good action (death penalty) was to always be considered good. We can certainly have our disagreements with this. The current Synod is questioning whether intrinsically evil acts are always evil. The former is not an act of apostasy, the latter is. To compare the current situation with JPII’s teaching on the death penalty is to downplay the seriousness of what the Church is currently facing (divorcing Christ and marrying the devil).
The analogy wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t that far off. The idea is that a long-held teaching can be hollowed out through a series of mental gymnastics that don’t change doctrine but do change practice. JPII didn’t take it all the way, but he created a sort of alternative magisterium on this, one that has now led to a majority of Catholics believing that the death penalty is not compatible with a “consistent ethic of life.”
St JP2 was no Thomist. His philosophy was heavily influenced by Descartes and Kant. More here:
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3454462.0 (the website this was posted from seems to be temporarily down, but this link works)
What is always left out is the mercy we give to the person to allow him or her to pay for the crime with his or her life. This is fitting expiation for the mortal sin. If we take that away and keep the person in jail for the rest of the natural life we do no favours.
There are three principles involved: punishment for the crime, redressing the wrong done to society and the expiation for the sin.
Why should we leave that last out because we can’t mention sin in the public square? I say that John Paul II did grave harm with his teaching on this.
Forgive my nit-picking, but while adultery and homosexual intercourse are indeed always wrong, they may not always be mortal sins. It bears repeating that mortal sins require serious matter, knowledge and consent, properly determined by the confessor.
.
Interesting analysis regarding Pope St. John Paul II and the death penalty.
They [so-called Trads?] always have to drag in the name of the saintly and great Pope.
For crying out loud. Did it occur to anyone of the “non-trads” that the only reason why the name gets dragged in, is because he did do and say some very confusing things that lends itself to the erroneous position? I can understand you being upset if he did not do these things. But it so happens that he did do and say these things.
If he actually did and say the things he is accused of, he is a saint now, so let it go …
*
I can’t help but thing that the so-called Trads are themselves getting ensnared on account of a great and saintly pope.
So let me understand you. You have no problem with the fact that he actually did those things and that many who will come across the truth will end up thinking what he did was good?
Instead, you have a problem with those who point out that those particular things he did was wrong? Its not like what he did and say was not public. In fact, what he said and did are causing problems today. So in order to solve them, you do need to drag out the past and hammer out those things as wrong. You may not like it but that has to be done.
Also, please ask yourself how can he be “great” if he did do those things. You will run out of superlatives for those saints who did not do such things then.
Perhaps your real issue should be with the Vatican for rushing a canonization process without answering these glaring issues with his actions and sayings? Instead, you blame trads…
More importantly, are you actually aware of the things he said and did that “trads” find problematic?
You haven’t understood at all! Please see my views and defense of the great and saintly pope here and elsewhere.
*
PS This comment of mine here, for those who grasp it , should show the at the very least the shallowness of those determined to disparage the great and saintly pope.
Oh I see what you are saying now.
First, the teaching that the Death penalty is an acceptable punishment and that it is fully compatible with being respectful to life IS part of Catholic doctrine. But St. JP II has unfortunately lead most Catholics to believe that the death penalty is irreconcilable with being pro-life.
Second, if you really want to defend St. JP II, you have way more things to defend than his position on the death penalty. There are questions from his statements and actions on ecumenism, interreligious dialogue to liturgical matters (most of these are not single occurrences but repeated). So if you are under the impression that trads are upset solely because of St. JP II and his views on the DP, then I must humbly advise you that you are mistaken.
Thirdly, please do not take this as me saying that St. JP II is not a saint. I consider him to be a saint insofar as him being in heaven and being able to intercede for us. But I do certainly have grave reservations in regards to encouraging anyone to imitate him. Why? Because of his problematic sayings and actions on ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and other religious matters. If you were to do a Google search on those topics and see why trads have issues with St. JP II, I have a feeling that you might also understand where we are coming from. Anyway, this is why I find it hard to accept the word “great” as a superlative to describe St. JP II. To praise him in this way raises the possibility of some Catholic imitating the problematic stuff he did and said as well.
Let’s keep this simple shall we? I have referred you here [1P5] and elsewhere [e.g. The Remnant Newspaper] on my defense of the saintly pope. Let’s deal here with what the article did in dragging the saintly pope here and what you have said on the account of the great and saintly pope’s perspective on modern society and the death penalty. I won’t make comments in reply to you but as a newer general comment, but before that, I would like you to look up on exactly what Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] said and for that, you may want to start here: John Paul II > Encyclicals > Evagelium Vitae (25 March 1995).
I am not sure what part of my reply seemed complicated to you. Let me try and make it simple as I can.
1) It is Church teaching that the Death Penalty is a JUST form of punishment that respects life
2) St. JP II has done much to make the Death Penalty look like it is incompatible with respect for life. This is why we have movements today protesting and trying hard to get rid of the Death Penalty as if it was some crime against the respect for life.
3) Therefore, St. JP II undermined Church teaching on Death Penalty at a pastoral level.
Finally, I honestly don’t care who you want to address as you reply. Frankly, it really matters not. The fact remains that while St. JP II is guaranteed to be in heaven, there is a lot to doubt regarding whether he is great and worthy of imitation. Would you like me to give you a full list next time containing the problematic actions and sayings of St. JP II that are not only NOT worthy of imitation but probably should be shunned as imprudent and offensive to Catholic piety?
I also think that your standard for measuring greatness must be pretty low.
I believe you would do well to start departing and refraining from the sound bites and oft-repeated phrases that go around in the Trad circles and actually learn for yourself and stick to what the Church teaches and be edified by the example of and avail yourself to the intercession of the said Church’s canonized saints.
Hey, I presented the argument as simply as possible for you. But you are trying to make presumptions on how I acquired my knowledge which is an entirely different topic altogether.
Anyway, bottom line here is that you cannot imitate a saint (in this case happens to be St. JP II) when the saint is publicly known to have
1) done the very things that many saints and popes had repeatedly pointed out as imprudent and leading to the destruction of the Church
2) said things that would scandalize any Catholic with a sense of piety
3) done things that would scandalize any Catholic with a sense of piety
4) promoted things that indirectly undermined doctrine (like his promotion of the idea that the Death penalty is incompatible with respect for life).
I don’t think anything above should be that difficult to understand.
Dan,
You are not looking at the fact that John Paul II called the death penalty ” cruel and unnecessary” in 1999 in St. Louis. Ccc#2267 is a fantasy regarding secure prisons because northern Catholic Latin America has no such thing as secure prisons and 40% of Catholics live in Latin America as a whole and the northern part is the worst murder rate in the world by UN figures from Brazil to Mexico which just had Pablo Guzman escape maximum security for the second time. Brazil solves 8% of their murders and Guatemala 5%. Ccc #2267 was fantasy.
JPII called “cruel” something that God repeatedly mandated to the Jews over 33 times and once to gentiles and Jews in Gen.9:5-6. It is a deterrent according to the 1976 US Supreme Court after they studied comparative studies for four years and then reinstated a penalty they had halted. It is a deterrent that the two largest Catholic countries …Brazil and Mexico…need badly. Look at the UN figures on world murder rates. Northern Latin America largely nominal Catholic and non death penalty for acatholic reasons…is the worst area of the world for murder….Africa with few death penalty countries is second worst. East Asia largely death penalty BUT including over a billion poor…is the safest area of the world for murder…1 per 100,000 murder rate whereas Brazil is 24 per 100,000 and Mexico is 20 per 100,000. Europe is quite safe because it has no large poor population. Middle class dominance or the death penalty in poor populations results in low
murder rates. But substantial poverty populace plus no death penalty results in the two worst areas on earth for murder…northern Latin America and Africa. Japan is always in the top ten safest countries if not the top five….she has middle class dominance plus the death penalty combined and has .3 per 100,000 murder rate which is 60 times better than Catholic Mexico and 72 times better than Catholic dominant Brazil.
In order for a human act to be good, it must have a good object, intention, and circumstance. JPII was calling into question the circumstances surrounding the death penalty, not the object. He was free to do this, as is everyone else. Whether he was right or wrong about this is another discussion, not the concern of my point.
This is very different than the current synod which is calling into question objectively sinful actions, adultery and sodomy. Neither the Bishops nor we are free to look at modern circumstances to try to justify these sins. They are evil by virtue of their object.
A Pope can call the death penalty wrong based on modern circumstances and still be a saint. One who wishes to find goodness in adultery or homosexuality is a heretic
And I showed he did no research at all on world circumstances….he made them up…perfect prisons everywhere deterring the one murderer you caught while begging the question whether you deterred a single murderer who is yet uncaught. 95 out of a hundred murderers in Catholic Quatemala are never caught…similar in the largest Catholic country…Brazil where 92 out of a hundred murderers are never caught.
I would add a fourth possibility, what I consider most likely:
The Synod “attempts” to change doctrine: In other words, the Synod issues a final document that is completely opposed to the doctrine of Christ. Faithful Catholics understand that the Synod has as much doctrinal authority as the USCCB, in other words, none. Since the Synod has no real doctrinal authority and no charism of infallibility, faithful Catholics are free to completely resist and ignore this document. The problem will be trying to convince other faithful Catholics of this ability and duty to resist.
There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.
Most likely the result will be consistent with this statement from Francis made prior to his election:
Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity.” – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Why not tell the truth and say something like this:
It is because God Loves you and we Love you and respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, that we cannot condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans your inherent Dignity as a beloved child of God. The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the act. We Love you, and because we Love you, we desire that you will always be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. We will not tolerate behavior that does not respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter.
And then, why not make it clear that one cannot be a disciple of Christ if one denies that God Is The Author of Love, Life, and Marriage. To deny that God Is The Author of Love, Life, and Marriage is apostasy.
“We will not tolerate behavior that does not respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter.”
But the very behavior these individuals engage in violates their dignity far more than any form of discrimination could.
It is not unjust discrimination to discriminate between acts that respect the inherent Dignity of the human person as a beloved son or daughter, and acts that do not respect our inherent Dignity as beloved sons and daughters, and thus can never be acts of Love. It is unjust discrimination to not desire that all our beloved sons and daughters, including those who have developed a same-sex sexual inclination, overcome their disordered inclinations and become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.
Well said. I would however, point out that we all have sinful inclinations against which most of us fight for a lifetime. Anyone fighting his sinful inclinations is a welcome and equal brother, no matter what those inclinations are. Yet as you say even those who are lost in the wiles of the world and who perhaps call evil good deserve our prayers, teaching, and mercy.
Yes, but not all sinful inclinations are equal, correct? The Church clearly teaches so. Hence, the degree of response should also be moderated according to the sin, its effects on the individual, families, society, right? You are not suggesting a moral equity between different sins are you? Indeed you did not specify any other sins.
A couple of thoughts. First, I have enough trouble examining my own conscience and policing my own soul to want to worry about what sins my neighbor might be inclined to. We take too much on ourselves when we try to do our Holy Mother’s job for her by pointing out individually, “that sinner over there,” or “those sinners over there.”
.
Second, so what do you think we should do then, to discriminate against, for example, those who defraud the laborer of his just wages?
Having trouble with one’s own conscience does not absolve an individual from the responsibility to make righteous distinctions between sins. A parent, for instance, hardly has that excuse when it comes to raising children. I simply asked you questions which you have declined to answer. Are all sinful inclinations equal? Should the degree of responding to sin be moderated according to the degree of that sin and its effects?
Regarding the sin of defrauding a laborer of his just wages, are you equating that with the sin of homosexuality?
My answer is that the degree of a sinful inclination should be determined between penitent and confessor, as also degree of actual sin.
.
How an individual or community responds to sin depends on so many variables I have neither time nor space to discuss.
.
The Church lists sodomy among the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding the laborer of his just wages is another, so there certainly seems to be some equivalency, at least in the mind of the Church.
You are talking hearts, I am talking behavior. We have seen the results of the idea that we are not to judge the behavior of others. It has wrought “gay marriage” among other troubles too numerous to discuss here, to say nothing of the souls destined for Hell.
You are setting up a straw man argument regarding wages. I would say that there are differences even among the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Regardless, the idea that we should not speak out against one because the other is not routinely discussed is a fatuous argument.
You keep asking about both sinful inclinations and sinful behavior. Pardon me if I was focusing on the first, but I thought it important to clarify that first. I was answering your question about sinful inclination, not “focusing on hearts.”
I guest I just think it goes without saying that a Catholic has the duty to admonish the sinner. How that plays out in the family, community, parish or larger society depends on a variety of factors. We must keep at the front of our minds, however, that our purpose is always and everywhere to call the sinner back to God.
Our purpose is to know, love, and serve God. We are called to be a separate people, to be in the world, but not of the world. We are called to forsake sin. The terrible problem with homosexual behavior is that it sears the heart. Other forms of sexual sin do that, too. Here though, we are speaking particularly of homosexual attitudes and behavior. Within the Church, the unrestrained actions of homosexual priests has wrought a catastrophe that continues almost unabated today and now brazenly attempts to upend Christ’s teaching on marriage and the family. The weak response of “call[ing] the sinner back to God” is not enough. There must be a rooting out of the culture of homosexuality that has taken deep root within the Church. The Church must heal herself of this issue before she can reach out to others. Mundabor the Magnificent reprints an article by Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D. on the grave issue facing the Church regarding the sins of an active homosexual culture within her: https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/homoheresy-homoideology-homopropaganda-and-homomafia-father-oko-speaks/
It’s sad that you think “calling the sinner back to God” is a weak response.
.
Look, I have no problem with “rooting out of the culture of homosexuality.” But some of your fellow commenters appear to be calling for, actively or passively, actual discrimination against individual homosexuals. That I will not condone.
Well, I like to look at the fruit. Weak, passive, and no doubt some sodomitical bishops spent decades “calling the sinner back to God.” It was and is an unmitigated disaster, one that allowed homosexual priests to continue harming innocents, as well as themselves. The fruit of the methods to deal with the sin was/is rotten to the core. Calling the sinner back to God is not a robust or definite method to deal with the sin of homosexual actions. Weak. Weak. Weak. I am not responsible for what others say regarding “actual discrimination”, however, it is time to man up. I believe fawning pity for the sinner can do more harm than good. In fact, fawning pity, with its companion Political Correctness, has gotten us to “gay marriage,” persecuted Christians and a Synod that as I write is spiraling out of control as evil bishops seek to destroy marriage and the family.
Not sure what planet you’re typing from, but I lived through decades in the U.S. of bishops preaching that sin was a rather outmoded concept, that confession was all but unnecessary, and that we were all really good people, basically. I think we might try calling for true repentance for a change before giving it up as a bad job, just as we might try giving the Synod a chance to work before declaring it ‘spiraling out of control.’
Well, you keep saying that wiser heads than yours should be deciding these things, presuming that you mean bishops and such. And yet, those very wiser heads you are touting are just now advocating for polygamy, according to some reports. I may perhaps not be as ‘wise’ as some of our Synod organizers, but it seems to me that true repentance involves reformation–not something seen much today regarding this sin, which is ascendant among society and its structures, including the Church.
You continue to dance around the fact that sodomic tendencies indicate a disordered personality. That is different from, say, the sin of cheating workers, something you mention frequently. This disorder, from my personal observation, often invades other aspects of the homosexual’s life. his work ethos, for example. I know first hand of two cases where sodomite priests have stolen parish funds to lavish on their “boyfriends”; of a business owner whose company is disintegrating because he is too busy attending to his “amour” in another state to deal correctly with customers; of a teacher whose homosexual tendencies have driven him to use antidepressants so strong they have almost cost him his job. For me, this knowledge alone is enough to conclude that those with sodomic inclinations have absolutely no place in holy orders.
There are also cases where alcoholic priests have stolen parish funds, alcoholic business owners whose companies have disintegrated due to their alcoholism, teachers whose alcoholism cost them their jobs…. This knowledge alone is enough to conclude that those who drink to excess have absolutely no place in holy orders.
.
What I said above regarding admission to seminary was that in the case of a chaste man who experiences same sex attractions, other factors in addition to that fact should be considered before accepting or rejecting him as a candidate. To clarify, its the job of someone more qualified than either of us, but what I’m seeing here, and what I’m warning against is using a particular sinful inclination as a stick with which to beat the sinner.
As others here have already pointed out to you, this debility has no place in a seminary where there are nothing but men. How you plan to get them into the priesthood without passing through a seminary should make for interesting reading. Alcoholics may also have problems once they are priests, but the chances they will attack young boys aren’t really significant; you cannot say the same about homosexuals, as the recent sodomic scandals prove in spades (that is why liberals and other cheerleaders for the “normalization” of sodomy in society were so eager to point to the occasional cases of priests who preyed on girls). I am astonished by Catholics like you who, after homosexuals in ministry brought the American Catholic Church to its financial knees, still insist on playing with fire. Some people evidently never learn.
You don’t think alcoholics should be encouraged to work in liquor stores?
Exactly. I’ve noticed that pyromaniacs working as firemen can also be problematic.
Cute.
No, actually this is quite helpful. It reveals that you think there’s only one kind of ‘alcoholic.’ It reveals that you don’t think there’s any difference between an alcoholic and a recovering alcoholic. It reveals that you don’t think that a recovering alcoholic, no matter the circumstances of his alcoholism or the degree of his recovery should work around alcohol. And that anyone who says, “Hey, maybe there’s other factors we should consider here!”. Is actively encouraging the alcoholic to work in a liquor store.
I’m being intentionally simplistic since you seem obsessed with unnecessarily complication. The fact remains that homosexual inclinations are unlike other temptations insofar as they *fundamentally* orient a person toward intrinsically disordered appetites. The prevent the formation of the “integer homo” (no pun intended) and preclude, by necessity, admission to holy orders.
I’m not going to go round and round with you on this. Take it up with Pope Benedict:
“this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. ”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Finally!
I’ve been waiting for someone to get to this. This is what I’ve been talking about when I’m saying that it’s not up to us, but wiser heads and other factors.
But if you want to take this to support a notion that homosexuals are somehow deserving of the kind of discrimination I Am Not Spartacus advocates, or insist that all same sex attractions are equal, or that a sinful inclination is equal to sin (but only regarding same sex attractions), then I still respectfully, but vehemently disagree.
So now you are in to degrees of sin…
Try again.
What I said above regarding admission to seminary was that in the case of a chaste man who experiences same sex attractions, other factors in addition to that fact should be considered before accepting or rejecting him as a candidate. To clarify, its the job of someone more qualified than either of us, but what I’m seeing here, and what I’m warning against is using a particular sinful inclination as a stick with which to beat the sinner.
Be very careful here. For many, it’s a short hop from “But the very behavior these individuals engage in violates their dignity far more than any form of discrimination could.” to “…therefore we can indeed practice any form of discrimination against them.”
Well, we can certainly practice just discrimination against them.
And what form would that take?
There is a pretty striking precedent: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/official-document-from-rome-on-homosexual-activity-by-clerics/
That’s not discrimination, that’s just punishment as decided by a lawful superior. There’s a rather big difference.
Discrimination relates to the setting apart or noticing the difference among various things. In itself it does no harm; for example, noticing the difference between chocolate and strawberry ice cream and preferring one to another .
Regarding people, however, discrimination has taken on an ugly meaning of setting a group apart for ridicule or unfair treatment. The way you worded your statement above invites a sort of “go-get-em” mentality that seems contrary to the gospel. I’m sure that’s not what you’re going for, but there exist many who are just looking for an excuse to treat others badly. Don’t give them one!
The actions of Pope St. Pius V would certainly be considered discrimination — of the worst kind — by our contemporaries.
I’m still trying to figure out where you fall on the ideological spectrum.
Possibly, but it doesn’t change the issue of legitimate authority vs. individual activism.
Re: my “ideological spectrum,” if you figure it out, let me know, too! I’m just a Catholic who loves the faith. The more I learn, the more I love our Holy Mother Church.
Prohibit any sodomite from entering a seminary for there is no legitimate call to the Priesthood for a sodomite.
Refuse them the franchise.
Refuse them any position of authority anywhere
Reader Yesterday laughingly cites the Bible as being contrary to discrimination yet it teaches we Christians to not only identify heretics but to shun them entirely
And you seem to be exactly the sort I was warning Mr. Skojec to be careful not to encourage.
.
First, how do you define the term “sodomite?” If you mean someone who is an unrepentant practitioner of same-sex intercourse, then of course such a one should be forbidden the seminary, as should his heterosexual counterpart if he is unrepentantly sexually active. If you mean a chaste man who experiences same-sex attractions, it would depend on other factors.
.
Second, are you going to refuse the franchise to every other sinner as well? In your perfect little world, who would be left to vote? And what about that particular sin makes extending the franchise to them a bad idea?
.
Third, it wasn’t so long ago that Catholics were forbidden positions of authority in many countries. So you just sound nasty and vindictive here.
.
Finally, (and I promise you that I’m not laughing), it’s up to the Church to decide who we shun and when. It’s our job to see Christ in our brothers, no matter how sinful they may be.
Sodomites are sui generis and unlike other sinners as one knows from reading the Church Fathers.
Women ought not be allowed to vote either, nor should single men ,but to explain why would lead us too far afield.
So, other than ignoring the Church Fathers on sodomy and misreading the new testament on shunning heretics what is it you are contributing here that will build-up the Body of Christ?
Admitting sodomites to seminaries, is that it?
Thinking that sodomites can have a legitimate call to the priesthood, is that it?
Thinking the catechism – and which text had as its general editor, Cardinal Schonborn, who says that committed sodomites are to be valued – represents the entirety of Tradition when it comes to sodomites?
First of all, it bears repeating since you apparently missed what I wrote earlier regarding what you call “sodomites” and seminaries:
It occurs to me that your way of talking here is merely a reflection of the modern liberal tendency to believe that everything is amenable to legislation. In other words, liberals believe the world can be made perfect and that they are its perfect recasters. That is why we now hear their protests ad nauseum against things like “bullying” and “sexism”, and their incessant demands for laws to correct these ”abuses”. While some of these things are mostly imaginary problems (e.g. the nonsense about widespread bullying), others are perennial societal conditions like ridicule of perverts. It’s not nice and it may even be sinful, but you’re making far too much of it. This “anti-discrimination” talk has become, in fact, agit-prop, not for tolerance, but for acceptance of the unacceptable, both inside and outside the Church.
Where have I called for legislation? You are badly misreading me.
I never said you called for legislation. Perhaps you skim read what I said. Here it is: “…your way of talking…is…a reflection…of the …liberal tendency…to believe …everything …amenable to legislation…..In other words, liberals believe the world can be made perfect…” Your words give that same impression, viz. that the world can somehow be made perfect, that “unfair treatment” and “ridicule” can be magically eliminated from human society.
Thank you for clarifying. No, I’m certainly not trying to give the impression that the world can be made perfect or that unfair treatment and ridicule can be magically eliminated from human society.
.
As a Christian, it is our job to work toward transforming the world in Christ. The work is ours; the magic, if you will, is His.
.
The problem I have can be summed up in your use of scare quotes around the words unfair treatment and ridicule. It seems as if you believe that homosexuals should be treated unfairly , that they deserve ridicule and marginalization, and that certainly seems at odds with how Christians are supposed to treat each other.
Scare quotes? No, quotation marks indicating only what you said. I do not treat the several homosexuals that I personally know unfairly nor do I ever ridicule them or put them on the margin; one of them, in fact, has been my close friend for over 35 years. In all cases though, we have never discussed their problem nor do I wish to discuss it with them. When I see them, I do not and do not want to have the thought, “Oh, here’s the homosexual” come to mind. I like them for other personality traits. I prefer to believe they have overcome those temptations that bedevil them. As you well know, it’s not my prerogative to judge them in any way. To judge the disease that is homosexuality? Of course; there is no way to avoid that.
I’m very glad to hear that. I really think that we’re pretty much on the same page in reality, barring a few minor quibbles regarding use of language.
Funny how you are so terribly concerned that all avowed homosexuals be treated with the utmost respect, indeed with kid gloves one could say. Considering that it is Christians right now who are being sued, fired, called terrible names and even getting death threats for merely disagreeing with the homosexual agenda. Additionally, most employers are scrupulously attentive to the homosexual agenda in the workplace. Civil government is certainly supportive of the homosexual agenda. So, tell me, where are all the disrespected homosexuals out there? Don’t tell me you are going to name Catholics as the primary boogeyman?
Just discrimination could take a multitude of forms. For instance, I’d be happy to revert to the legal prohibitions on same-sex behavior that existed only a few decades ago in the West. We know that these laws were rarely enforced, and that homosexuals had their own “speakeasies”, and many people have stories of knowing cohabiting “bachelors” in their neighborhood who were generally left to themselves, even though everyone knew the truth of the situation. But it sends a strong signal as to what society considers to be the boundaries of acceptable public behavior.
In tandem with the prohibition of public same-sex behavior, I would favor the banning of all efforts to present same-sex behavior as legitimate, desirable, or in any way on the same level as heterosexual behavior. Were that law to be revived, we would see an end to (e.g.) gay pride parades, gay marriages, gay adoptions, homosexual indoctrination in school curricula, efforts to pressure other countries to liberalize anti-sodomy laws, same-sex propaganda in the media and popular culture, and a host of other pernicious garbage.
Homosexual behavior is also a hazard to public health, and the increased same-sex activity fostered by the gay liberation movement has caused these risks to skyrocket: male homosexuals are, on average, incredibly promiscuous and subject to a range of diseases and physical conditions that were previously forgotten by the civilized world. Homosexuals, both male and female, also experience a much higher prevalence of mental illness, suicide, and domestic violence than heterosexuals. These are further just grounds for discrimination.
Finally, and most importantly, people who engage in same-sex behaviour are, by definition, engaging in objectively sinful acts, putting their eternal souls in the gravest peril. For their own sake, they should be vigorously discouraged.
I know I’ve asked this before, but *why* aren’t you writing for us above the fold? I’ll give you the keys to the blog. I don’t care if your efforts are succinct.
Perhaps because I have no significantly interesting ideas of my own, just an encyclopedic memory and a talent for synthesis?
But in light of your kind promptings, I’m thinking that I might just have to take the brave and original step of making my own blog. If it turns out I actually have interesting things to say, we can go from there.
I don’t really have any problems with your suggestions listed above, except to note that it will take a lot of ground work to pass legislation or even get a parade cancelled. Any of this can only be done while affirming the dignity and value of individual persons suffering same sex attractions, just as we do for people who have problems with alcohol, drug abuse or any other sinful inclination. The two biggest problems I keep seeing with conservatives is that they often confuse homosexuality with homosexual behavior, and that many, though not all, would like any excuse to push them away and deprive them of any voice at all in the Church or the world.
Leaving aside the question of the accuracy of your portrayal of “conservatives” (however defined), I was not presenting a practical program for achieving these reforms, merely listing off the top of my head some examples of just discrimination.
What would their “voice” in the Church sound like? I mean, if we allowed a “voice” to, say, pyromaniacs, I assume you’d not be happy if the criminals defended their sparky behavior in Church forums. For the same reason, I have to assume you wouldn’t appreciate persuasive speeches concerning the joys of sodomy or fisting at parish council meetings or study groups. Since homosexuals already can avail themselves of Confession as other Catholics do, what would that “voice” of theirs be reclaiming exactly?
So in your book someone who identifies as ‘gay’ or same-sex attracted is no different from a pyromaniac or an unrepentant sexually active homosexual?
.
We welcome and encourage recovering alcoholics and invite them to give talks. Do you think a chaste homosexual has no place in Catholic life (or only if he keeps his mouth shut)?
Your questions are already answered in the post you are replying to. Advocacy of these vile practices has no place in any Catholic parish anywhere. And I mean advocacy of any description, including accompanying a “partner” (another English word the sodomic crowd is gradually sullying) to Church functions. If, on the other hand, a homosexual (please don’t play the sodomite game by using their twisted language; there’s simply nothing “gay” about this sordid condition) wanted to start a chapter of Courage or to otherwise use personal misfortune to help others, of course there is a place for him or her in every parish. Unfortunately, when Pope Francis allowed a practicing and boisterously-proud-of-it sodomite to read at a much publicized Mass, we were all treated to what the “pro-sodomy” legion inside the Church really intends, viz. acceptance, not just tolerance, for the sin itself. That is why you read in documents during the first half of the Synod heretical talk about the positive aspects of sodomoshackups.
In my experience, most of the “short hops” today are from vaguely worded Church documents (many of them come from Vatican II) to self-issued license to do pretty much what wants and still be a “Catholic in good standing.” The stingy, vitriolic Christian who judges his neighbor at every turn is a figment of the imagination, at least in the Catholic Church. (It’s also a figment that plays a prominent role in the thinking of Jorge Bergoglio, from the available evidence.)
Keep reading, neighbor. Figment of the imagination “I Am Not Spartacus” below would not only deny those he identifies as “sodomites” entry into the seminary, but also the franchise, and any positions of authority.
The homosexual inclination is, itself, a grave moral defect, inasmuch as it inclines one towards disordered passions. It also impedes the development of an authentic masculinity, which is a prerequisite of healthy fatherhood, whether actual or spiritual.
Homosexuals should not be allowed into the seminary, full stop. If the reasons just stated weren’t enough, putting men into living arrangements with other men to whom they are sexually attracted just begs for trouble.
I’d have a hell of a time keeping a vow of celibacy living in a convent. Why create an occasion of sin?
The homosexual inclination is as grave a moral defect as the inclination to murder, oppress the widow, or defraud the worker of his just wages. We don’t however, tend to fail to distinguish between the murderer and the guy with a bad temper, or treat everyone who blows his stack as someone to be castigated and shunned.
.
And just because you’d have a hard time keeping a vow of celibacy in a convent how does that qualify you to discern the spiritual strength of another? Your opinion duly noted, it isn’t really up to either of us, and I for one would rather leave such a decision to wiser heads than mine.
.
But a question: Are you really defending “I Am Not Spartacus”? Because there’s nothing Catholic, or even Christian about his proposals.
Once again, you ignore the fact that this inclination is part and parcel of a disordered personality, the kind of personality we DO NOT want in seminaries. If the recent sodomite scandals taught us nothing else, they made the necessity of that prohibition extremely clear.
Once again you attempt to make equivalent that which is not. An “inclination” to murder in most cases happens just once. The serial murderer is a rare sinner. The “inclination” to act out sexually as a homosexual is often a chronic problem. Following the pathology of homosexuality, it can happen with hundreds, even thousands of individuals, in essence murdering the souls (and bodies) of not only the individual but whomever they engage in with this sinful behavior. Your insistence on making equivalencies is a modernist construct. It works to distract and not further the discussion.
“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.” Mt.5:21-22
This is why we are taught that anger is a sin against the fifth commandment, and why anger is one of the seven deadly sins.
.
Making equivalencies is not a “modernist construct.” On the contrary, it is an aid to clarification. For example, if you think it is morally praiseworthy to discriminate against homosexuals and people with homosexual tendencies, then you must explain why it is not morally praiseworthy to discriminate against other sinners and people with sinful tendencies. I have given you examples to aid your thinking.
Please do not get into a Scriptural battle. You will lose. You conveniently left out this part of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:21-22): “…whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause…” So our Lord is speaking of being angry with a brother without a reason. He is not saying that we can never be angry. Satan has taken a softer tact in these latter days. He seeks to neuter Christians with a false Jesus. And the Scriptures also say, “Be angry and sin not.” (Eph. 4:26)
Lies of ommission are also a sin…
All good modernists speak of “aids to clarification” and other such things. I think it is morally praiseworthy, even loving to make it difficult for a sinner to be comfortable in his sin.
You argue like a Jehovah’s Witness. I answer your question, and off you go down the rabbit hole!
So you think it morally praiseworthy, even loving, to ‘make it difficult for a sinner to be comfortable in his own sin’. So you agree, then, with I Am Not Spartacus that homosexuals should be forbidden to vote or hold positions of authority. Or would you go further?
Hahaha!! You made me laugh out loud! When one stoops to name-calling (those poor Jehovah’s Witnesses) I usually take that to mean he/she has run out of cogent arguments. I never said or implied that I agree (or disagree) with I Am Not Spartacus. I merely stated it is praiseworthy to make the sinner uncomfortable with sinning. Do you disagree with that? In general, of course. 🙂
Disagree. In general, as I don’t know what you have in mind by “make the sinner uncomfortable.” You could mean anything from a sad face to severe corporal punishment. The Church uses the term ‘admonish the sinner’, and She seems pretty clear in Her teaching that sinners are to be given mercy and forgiveness. If someone is in spiritual fatherhood over another he may impose a discipline or a penance, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about here.
You are speaking then, of mercy and forgiveness without reformation. This is not the Way of Christ. You seem to be saying that you wish sodomy was not a sin at all. There is no calling back a sinner to God while he aggressively identifies with and adheres to the sin and/or inclination. Sin is that thing that separates us from God. All the human “mercy” and “forgiveness” in the world will not bridge that separation. There is a big difference between feeling good about yourself and your sin and what eventually may happen to those who go against God’s plan for mankind.
No, I’m not speaking about mercy and forgiveness ‘without reformation.’ Where are you getting that?
Because of your fawning effeminate pity for sinners, instead of godly compassion that demands reformation. Because you left out some of our Lord’s words when speaking of anger, thereby presenting us with a neutered Jesus who tells us we can’t be angry. Because you are towing the exact line that the evil bishops are with regard to homosexuality, a line that is destroying the Church’s doctrine of the family. Just for kicks, the definition of admonish includes words like “rebuke,” “scold,” “reprove,” “reproach,” “upbraid,” “berate,” “chastise,” “castigate” and even “give someone hell.” Your approach is decidely weaker.
Search hard enough, and you can probably find a Catholic or two who thinks shooting Mohammedans is a crackerjack idea, but they aren’t just a minority, they are a infinitesimally small minority. If you read my first sentence, you will find “…most of the ‘short hops’….” The kind of solicitous concern you evince for sodomites (a completely legitimate word) should be reserved for truly persecuted minorities like Christians in Muslim dominated lands around the globe.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to direct me to the discussions on this site regarding persecuted Christians in Muslim lands. As they are constantly in my prayers I’d be more than happy to show my support and encouragement!
.
But you quite mistake the matter if you think I have only a limited amount of, as you called it, “solicitous concern” that I must reserve it for only one group.
.
But what I think you really meant was, “Shut up,” wasn’t it?
I defer to your evident talent for succinctness.
God bless you.
All this talk of ‘dignity’ is bogus. The closer a soul resembles Jesus Christ in the Father’s Eyes the greater his dignity. A soul in wilful mortal sin has only a very basic ‘natural’ dignity because as a creature of the Creator, he has an intellect and a will. A soul in mortal sin has no life – we must be in the state of grace to have life in us – and to have dignity.
And yet most of us are not given the gift of reading souls. So this ‘dignity’ thing becomes essential as we are all created in His image and likeness and must treat one another accordingly. The essence of dignity is “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
See#6
A few weeks ago, I visited with a cousin of mine, who’s been a fallen-away catholic for decades because she divorced & remarried without having obtained an annulment. When I asked her why she never went through the annulment process, she complained of it being “too much work & too expensive.” When I told her she is welcome to attend Mass (but not to receive Holy Communion), she said, “Pope Francis’ decision on annulments” will ultimately determine whether or not she comes back home. She raved about Francis (“I love him!”) and all the wonderful changes he appears to be making in “getting with the times.” No doubt, Francis is sorely confusing the consumer mentality with religion! Our Church is not a business! The flock are not customers who are always right & should be given whatever they want so they’ll keep coming back for more! Woe to Francis for scandalizing the Church…..
We can look at the example of Humanae Vitae. Orthodox Catholics point out that HV did not relax the Church’s official position on artificial birth control one bit, yet fifty years later something like 90% of Catholics ignore it. It didn’t matter what the document actually said, because by the time it was released, everyone assumed what its purpose was. Its very existence convinced people the Church’s position was going to change, and they acted accordingly. Priests who didn’t like the teaching told their parishioners not to worry about it, that the Church was changing anyway.
That’s what seems likely here. Everyone assumes that the Synod will relax the restrictions somehow (without knowing just how), so once it finishes, regardless of what it says, more divorced Catholics will begin receiving Communion thinking that it’s okay now. More priests will openly give it to them, either assuming that it’s okay now or feeling that the Synod gives them cover. Those who were already flouting the rules will be more brazen, recognizing this as tacit permission from the Vatican; and those who honestly want to follow the rules will find it harder to get someone to define them properly.
And again, that will all happen regardless of what the Synod says. The Synod could end by releasing a single sheet of paper with one line: “Communion is forbidden for those in sinful relationships,” and it would still have this effect. That’s why it’s being held.
Exactly this.
The suggestion mooted today (apparently) at the Synod that it be left to local areas to make “pastoral” practice rules absolutely bears out your assertion. This is going to make for pockets of Zombie Catholicism in places like Germany.
And? The fact that a lot of Catholics flout the teachings of the Church is less important than the chance the Church’s current caretakers might pretend to change those teachings. If someone today understands the Church’s thinking on marriage and yet ignores Humanae Vitae and uses artificial contraceptives, that person is flirting with relocation in Hell. Same for an adulterer who justifies himself and refuses confession of his sin and receives Communion. Ditto for a priest who knowingly gives Communion to said adulterer.
Absolutely. But how many Catholics do know the true teaching of the Church on contraception? A friend of mine, after his eighth child was born, was told by a priest that the priest would give him a dispensation to use artificial birth control. My friend is educated enough to know that no such thing is possible, but how many Catholics are? And contraception is a pretty simple issue — it’s not allowed. How many issues are much more complex, and how many Catholics have the time and/or ability to educate themselves well enough to know when their pastors are lying to them about those?
If the Synod releases some 200-page document, and Mark Shea and Fr. Z. say that under all the flowery language it just affirms Catholic teaching on marriage and the family, but liberal pastors and RCIA directors and counselors and diocesan administrators and annulment boards all say, “This changes everything,” what will most Catholics believe? That’s why it doesn’t matter what it says. What matters is what the people in positions of influence say it said, because we don’t have a pope who will enforce clarity on doctrine. We have a guy who says clarity and doctrine are unmerciful relics of the past.
Another thing I expect from this: Although the Synod has no actual power and can do nothing without Francis’s permission, it will release recommendations, and then its “liberal” members will be blamed for the more radical aspects of those. That will allow Francis to be portrayed as one of the “conservatives.” Some of the worst extremes will be trimmed away, and then what Francis wanted from the beginning will be presented as a compromise, after he wisely — even dogmatically! — pulled it back into line with supposed Church teaching and tradition.
This sounds eerily familiar. It is, put simply and clearly,what happened last year in the trial run. Well said.
It’s also possible, though unlikely, that Francis has called the synod because he sincerely and genuinely fears for the future of the family, and views it as being under satanic attack. He has called gender ideology, which has driven the latest big media push for transgenderism, “demonic.” He also called legalized homosexual marriage a product of the “father of lies.” Perhaps we are underestimating the extent to which faithful Catholic priests and prelates are genuinely alarmed by attacks on the family through legislation, courts, and the media.
I takes all of 20 minutes to access the Catholic Encyclopedia online and to clink on “P” and then click on “Pastoral theology” and read the entry and then you will realise that any change in our multi-millennial year praxis is complete and utter bull shit having not the least bit to do with mercy and all of the emotional and flowery language intended to mask the dead corpse of doctrine only lasts for a few hours…them the corpse begins to stink.
A change in the multi-millennial year praxis resulting in dispensing Holy Communion to Adulterers is a toe tag affixed to the Indissolubility of Marriage Doctrine and so innumerable will be the attempts to distract from the change by changing the subject under discussion; “well, it is no different than (insert distracting object) ” and then one can get people ontoTHAT subject while ignoring the subject matter Adultery/Sodomy.
It NEVER happens the other way; that is, one is never invited to speak about adultery or sodomy in a discussion of climate change/death penalty/slavery etc but our sexual sins must be clothed in the bloody rags of other subjects because we just can not stand the nekkid truth.
C’est la vie
That there is or isn’t a death penalty is part of the deposit of faith?
It took more than 2,000 years to have what we have now as church doctrines and dogmas.
You really think that the Atheist clergy can change that overnight? We’ve said it before, the only plausible solution, the one that will go smoothly without a shock is the “pastoral care” solution or as Bergolgio and his buddies call it, “mercy.”
For the naive Catholics, the uninformed, the word “mercy” in the Vatican’s dictionary means, “being nice to everybody to fill up the pews and take their money. And to continue submitting to government and secular, powerful and rich authorities to keep the church coffers full and consequently the clergy’s personal bank accounts bulged.”
More Protestant boilerplate. Don’t you ever get tired of this mendacious and sanctimonious tommyrot?
Somebody doesn’t get tired of pretending to be “catholic” and jealous.
Cool it. Johnny hasn’t made public proclamations of his disavowal of the Church. You have. This is a Catholic website, and if I have to play referee in the com box, my bias is going towards the faithful.
The Vatican is a political body.
So, acting as someone who has the power to control people, ask yourself:
What this powerful body can do if it wants to pass something that could be controversial or might stir rebellion or division among some factions of the population?
Well, the only solution, the best solution is to throw CONFUSION.
We all know this is being done under the guise of ‘Synod for the Family’ with the ultimate goal of gaining acceptance for homosexuality within Church leadership.
The same is true to just war. Since John XXIII, at least, popes try to destroy what many saints and doctors of the Church argued. They can not win, but they propagate words againts just war in every oportunity.
The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment
1) What it is: The infliction [by a Public Authority via] due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment for crime.
2) Which peoples have had it in their penal system: Jews, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc. In the Old Testament and in the New Testament. It is of great antiquity and has existed throughout human history.
3) Whose prerogative is it?: The State has the power to put or not to put people to death.
4) What does the Church teach?:
– Source: Capital Punishment | New Advent.
Your mistake, is that you are missing the core basis of St. JP II’s argument that the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity. That is in contrast to what the Popes in history have said in defense of the death penalty.
I am also puzzled as to how you missed the reply to Objection 3 by St. Thomas Aquinas on the same article:-
Anyway, apart from St. Thomas, numerous Popes have spoken on this topic in the history of the Catholic Church. We can’t just say that they were unaware of human dignity. That is preposterous.
Also, please take a look at my reply to your other comment.
There isn’t much else to say to you on this matter.
*
In matters of faith, plain arguments by themselves are not sufficient. Grace plays a part and a man may resist it.
Perhaps you have difficult reading your own quotations from Evangelium Vitae as you did with St. Thomas’s work. So let me point you to the excerpt:-
So he did clearly suggest to the faithful that Death Penalty is NOT in line with human dignity or God’s plan for society. That is preposterous considering that the Catholic Church defended the death penalty through the centuries.
Do you see the problem? You aren’t even aware of everything St. JP II said though you seem to quote it to me.
It first appeared as a failure to grasp plain arguments, then it was perhaps a resistance to grace, now it seems it just plain English.
*
If the readers here were to say Tony Jokin is more Traditional than @FMShyanguya, it does mean that @FMShyanguya is NOT traditional, but there on the traditional scale, Tony Jokin ranks higher.
??
Ah I see. So your argument now is that St. JP II only said that abolishing the DP is more in line with human dignity. So he did not actually say that the DP is not line with human dignity.
My response is that you seem to have difficulty understanding English.
When someone says that A is more in line with X compared to B, it means that B was indeed not exactly a good reflection of X.
So in other words, St. JP II is basically saying that applying the death penalty is not entirely in line with human dignity. That is false. Why? Because the Church has repeatedly explained why the Death Penalty is fully in line with human dignity.
It seems to me like your issue is not English but a misconception that you must somehow defend St. JP II as if his having an impeccable character was an article of faith. May I ask if you are Polish?
Again, these are the facts and argument..
At least you admit that what I have presented are the facts. I think that is progress. So I think any reasonable person who does not have some misconceived view that St. JP II’s papacy being impeccable is an article of faith, will be able to see the issue.
Thank you for your time and the discussion.
On Pope St. John Paul II [the Great], please see the links on Disqus that I have provided here:
“The Church has no authority…”: On the Limits of the Pope | CWR [http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4234/The_Church_has_no_authority_On_the_Limits_of_the_Pope.aspx]
First off, lets get this great business out of the way. Do you think a great Pope would do the following?
a) Kiss the Koran and pray to St. John the Baptist to protect Islam
b) Hold prayer gatherings like Assisi and encourage everyone to engage in their false worship as a request for peace
c) Promote positions (like being against the death penalty) that undermine the doctrine of the Church and create a dichotomy between doctrine and practice
For violating the above, St. John Paul II should NEVER be called great. Oh and that is not even an exhaustive list of the problematic things ST. John Paul II did. To keep insisting that he be called great is diabolical of you.
Second, it is you who suggested that we refrain from discussing the faults of St. JP II because he was canonized. You even asked me to abandon facts and arguments and put my faith in the Church. I suppose you had an episode of selective amnesia?
Anyway, I pointed out to you that impeccability was not an article of faith in regards to canonization. The impeccability is something the Church should verify with something like the devil’s advocate process they had for canonizing saints. But hey, what do you know. St. John Paul II got rid of that process and his own canonization got rushed to the front without nobody even bothering to address the glaring problematic elements in his life.
All I have to say you need to stop worshiping St. John Paul II and start seeing the destruction he wrought upon the Church through his imprudent ecumenism and pandering to Liberal ideas.
If you are unwilling to do that, there is nothing more to discuss and stop reviving dead threads.
You wanted links to my defense of the great and saintly pope, I have provided them.
I browsed through your comments in that article. Nothing you have provided shows that St. John Paul II did not commit those acts or say those things.
Please note that the point here is that St. John Paul II should not be called “great” because he committed and said those things. So if you want to defend JP II, you have to first show that
1) He did not commit those acts or say those things (Good luck with that)
2) What he did and said was never warned by Popes as leading to indifferentism, agnosticism, and loss of faith and destruction of the Church (Good luck with that one as well!)
Unless you can do the above, it is pointless to link me to your personal arguments with other persons.
As it stands, St. John Paul II should not be called great because he did many destructive things to the Church through his words and actions.
As you would have it. Thank you for browsing.
..and so should it be…..
A personal reason why I defend the great and saintly Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]: https://thewarourtime.com/my-mission/the-mission-foreseen/
For crying out loud, St. John Paul II laid the way for everything we see today. He had the opportunity to stop things. But no, he promoted the very errors that lead to this mess.
1) He promoted ecumenism as if it was the greatest thing in the world
2) He kissed the Quran, visited Mosques, apologized for the crusades and made a mockery of the history of the Church
3) He held prayer meetings like Assisi through which he laid the foundation for many others who will later adopt his actions
So whatever your personal bias might be, it is time to WAKE UP! St. John Paul II made it to heaven. That is great. But his life was not so great. To call him Great as you do is an insult to the Popes and saints who have that title. I find it repulsive that you would use the title.
Why don’t you just call Pope Francis as ‘the great’ while you are at it because he is just the natural culmination of everything St. John Paul II laid the foundation toward.
You will get to see an excellent example of St. John Paul II’s achievements when Pope Francis holds a joint lutheran celebration in a few months praising Luther, the heretic. Such a thing would not have been possible without the labors of the St. John Paul II. So maybe you are OK with that sort of a thing. But I am not, and I think no sane Catholic should be.
P.S. In case you are about to type the “St. Peter denied Christ 3 times…” story, please do note the glaring difference. St. Peter repented of his act, wept over it, and acted in the opposite manner to which he had sinned. In the case of St. John Paul II, there is no evidence that he wept over what he did considering he continued to push toward such scandalous behavior throughout his life. So please, give this some thought.
I am glad you got to meet him personally. But don’t let that cloud your judgement about what he did and the disastrous effects of his papacy.
?!
I apologize if my reply last night was strong. Let me try and explain myself a bit more precisely.
Let us take the example of Familiaris Consortio that you have quoted in one of the articles of your blog. In fact, it is something many Catholics today quote as an objection against Pope Francis’s document. But what many of them miss is that this very document was the first document that used language which tried to make the divorced and remarried feel very welcome in Church. If you think about it, it was essentially trying to make the divorced and remarried feel like everything was OK. One might even get the idea that the Pope was so OK with the whole remarried state that he would even want to give communion if not for the obstacle from Church tradition and doctrine.
This is not the only place where we saw St. JP II act this way. He acted the same when it came to non-Catholics. He praised them so much in his documents that one could hardly see any solid reason for them to actually consider converting.
I guess its also worth pointing out that it was St. JP II who made Kasper a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He would have also made Hans Urs Von Balthazar a Cardinal of the Church if Balthazar had not passed away before being made one. What a choice of Cardinals!
Then there were weird initiatives that he started too. The whole idea of Youth gatherings where youth of both sexes would flock to some far away place from home was imprudent. Then there was the approval of the charismatic movement which pretty much created a breeding ground for dissenting lines of thought by using the Holy Spirit as the excuse.
Pope Francis has simply taken all of this to the next level. He can do so with some level impunity because St. JP II already made the Church feel like their goal was to try and make unrepentant sinners feel welcome. There is a large number of priests and Bishops within the Church that have gotten into the mindset of thinking like St. JP II. They want to try and make everyone feel welcome. Their hearts are being torn between doctrine and their desire to welcome everyone.
But Pope Francis comes along and proposes that we might be able to keep doctrine and also welcome them on the basis of being pastoral. They love him for it, even if he is wrong, because he has fulfilled the deep desire that to welcome everyone that St. JP II had instilled in them. Meanwhile, the other movements like the charismatic movements, youth movements, keep doing the damage among the lay Catholics as well.
Part of me actually thinks that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI would not have even resigned from the Papacy if St. JP II had not explored the question of retirement during his own papacy and answered the question in the positive. Talk about setting a platform for disaster.
For these reasons, and others that I do not think is worth going into in a simple comment post, is why I despise the idea of you wanting to call St. JP II great. He was canonized, which must mean that he made it to heaven. Praise be to God! But what he did was not great. It was terrible. One would even be tempted to say that he prepared the way for Pope Francis.
Thank you for your reply comment. I want to acknowledge it and let you know it may take time for me to respond, and the response will be an edit of this comment of mine. In brief my disappontment was I regreted having shared a personal [and mystical] experience because of how you received it …
If it is any consolation, I do not take anything away from the mystical experience you had. To have such a blessing from the Vicar of Christ, regardless of how he lived his office, is something great! I apologize for getting fixated instead on the title “the great” you used.
In all honesty though, St. JP II’s greatness or lack of it does not detract in anyway from your mystical experience. One can easily envision God giving you a blessing through his Vicar for the mission you were to carry out. That mission has nothing to do with the greatness of the holder of the office but the greatness of the office itself (Vicar of Christ) and the things you will visibly or invisibly achieve.
I have just met too many close friends, priests and even Bishops by now that use St. JP II and his canonization as approval of their imitation of his problematic actions. Any attempt at questioning their actions have ended with them appealing to St. JP II’s example and his subsequent canonization. This is why I tend to get a bit hard on the use of the title “the great”.
But as I said before, perhaps it is time you stopped defending St. JP II because of your personal mystical experience. You could have received the blessing in that special way from Pope Honorius and it would still be a great mystical experience.
This is the second example I’ve seen of fruitless punctiliousness among those who post here: “…the author [a Dr., who refers to a saint of the Catholic Church as just “John Paul II”]….” The other instance involved someone’s not using “Pope” before Francis’ name. So, be warned, all — it’s no longer Augustine, Aquinas, or Pius X, but St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Pius X. Never mind that many if not most Catholic publications dispense with the title. They don’t have Reverence Police on staff.
This comment is the context for that part of my post which unfortunately it appears you now want to derail. You also want to see Tony Jokin’s comment below.
??
Figure it out.
*
Perhaps this revelation is about this Synod