Skip to comments.Don't be shocked by Pope Francis
Posted on 09/20/2013 9:48:28 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
CNN) -- Not in my lifetime have I witnessed a pope who has so quickly succeeded in making more Catholics, and non-Catholics, hyperventilate than Pope Francis. Indeed, some are ready to jump off the bleachers. They all need to calm down.
Pope Francis is delightfully frank, and that is what makes him positively engaging. He is also provocative in the best sense of that word. He seeks to challenge us and shake us out of our comfort zone. But he is not about to turn the Catholic Church upside down and inside out. Such talk is pure lunacy.
In a three-part meeting in Rome with Catholic journalists last month, Pope Francis offered his thoughts on a wide range of subjects; they were published Thursday by America magazine, the Jesuit weekly. Everyone should read it for themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Bill Donohue. Another water carrier for the folks who have sold out our Church.
You Freepers should always believe whatever those of us in the mainstream media report about Christianity in general and the pope in particular ... especially what you see in the editorial pages of the New York Times ... because we are totally unbiased and we never get our facts wrong.
I don't think ANY religious leader should be issued a Taser.
Isn't that what Moochelle said about her candidate husband? How did THAT work out...
Pope Francis, Later in the interview, when talking about how the church must drop worn out dogmas...
The situation was that people of Israel had taken to Baal worship, a faith that added a lot of whores to its rituals and thus gained immediate popularity. Elijah (not the one with the bears, that was Elisha) decided that the people had to choose between Baal and God.
Rather than write a series of books or give a bunch of boring speeches, Elijah invited 450 Baal prophets to a contest, where both sides would set up an animal sacrifice. Whichever God could rain down fire on its sacrifice would be the one everybody worshiped.
It's brilliant in its simplicity, and we're surprised religious debates were ever carried out any other way after that. You can raise all the intellectual challenges you want about faith and the origins of the universe, but at the end of the day, you have to worship the god who can set you on fire. It's common sense.
We like to think Elijah stood in front of the howling column of heavenly fire, straightened his robes, turned to the crowd and said, "Thus, my opponent's argument falls." Then, he finished the debate in the way that all debates should be finished: by having the losers slaughtered.
-- from the thread The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses
Zakeet, You have nicely summed up what I have spent so many long Saturdays arguing here on this beloved Free Republic site.
The monkey says it all, down to his glassy-eyed stare, or is it steely-eyed?
Bill Donahue has not sold out from any awareness I have. Pope Francis is making it difficult for us to defend him and the Church by speaking at all to these people, but so what.
The original statement is the only document to read.
Nowadays we have to be ashamed of “dogmas” and not of shifting our consciousness to animal behavior... or, rather, God never promoted shame but merely opening one’s eyes and restoring sight, but we have to be ashamed of not sharing in the blindness.
This is tyranny of Sodom irony.
You can use quotation marks all you want, but the pope NEVER said “the Church must drop worn out dogmas”
If you did not read the original document, what the Pope said, then your commenting on it is pure silliness.
You may as well be angry at Ted Cruz for what the NYT says about him.
I take it you didn't read the article. Are you thinking of Phil Donahue? Bill Donahue is head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
Pope Francis, Later in the interview, when talking about how the church must drop worn out dogmas...
And miele man, do you believe everything you read on the Web site of the BBCthe New York Times of England? There's no quotation backing up that little summation, you notice. Read Donohue's piece, and don't be fooled by Communists trying, as usual, to distort what Catholic authorities say, as they did during and after Vatican II.
After Francis was elected, the Culture of Death press was up in arms when they discovered he hadin writingdescribed the campaign for same-sex marriage as the work of the devil. But now they're hoping we've forgotten that.
Who here can read Italian?
I need a concise translation of the questions and answers from the original.
Kind of makes “...is the Pope Catholic?” ... take on new meaning. Now it is a REAL question.
The Pope certainly has often been misquoted and misrepresented by the best in the business. When we start seeing him proclaim that 90% of the Commandments is a passing grade; then worry.
WHO REALLY IS POPE FRANCIS?
Pope Says Church Is Obsessed With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic Church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown obsessed with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.
“OBSESSION” in defense the unborn baby and opposing abortion, the most abominable of crimes, as stated in Vatican II, is not a sin but a virtue, and Pastors of the Church who disparage those who fight for the unborn, are betraying one of the main tenets of the Catholic Church.
The BBC reported that Pope Francis turned down the red cape with ermine by saying this: No thank you, Monsignore. You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!
And he walked into the papal apartments and said Theres room for 300 people here. I dont need all this space.
ISN’T to brag about your own humility denoting a form of arrogance? Isnt Pope Francis in fact belittling the virtues of previous Popes?
Pope Francis: I have never been a right-winger
By Steve Ahlquist on September 19, 2013
In an almost direct rebuke to critics, including Rhode Islands own Bishop Thomas Tobin, leader of the Providence Diocese, Pope Francis, in his first extensive interview since being elected to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, has said, we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
SHOULDON’T Bergoglio rather answer that a Pope must be above labels and state firmly and clearly that his duty is to defend unequivocally the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Magisterium of the Church?
What was the position Bergoglio had then regarding Liberation Theology?
He was completely against it. In fact, as Theology students, we had never studied a single book by, for instance, Gustavo Gutiérrez, one of the founders of Liberation Theology, of by [Leonardo] Boff, or by Paulo Freire, with his studies on an education that is not a cultural “dependency” [of the “imperialistic powers”]. In Philosophy, we had read little, very little, of Heidegger and Kierkegaard, one single chapter of Thus Spoke Zarathustra... Not to mention Marx, Engels, Sartre, Foucault, the Post-Moderns, etc. Nothing that could contradict Catholic doctrine or dogmas. All that under strict orders of Jorge Bergoglio.
BERGOGLIO was against Liberation Theology before he was for it. Why, otherwise, Leonardo Boff, the Maryknolls, and all the main advocates of Marxist Liberation Theology, are elated with the new Pope?
“Worn out dogmas’’. Like what? The Sermon On The Mount? The Fishes And Loaves? The Hail Mary? Christians are being persecuted and killed all over the world and this pope wants to be cool. Good God.
And so on with the BBC and Ahlquist mentions. Are your own remarks in there somewhere, too? Anyway, I read the man's own words, and avoid reporters' paraphrases of them, because reporters when talking about things Catholic are ignorant and dishonest.
Here is the interview as published in the Jesuit magazine America:
It’s actually quite beautiful, and moving. There is nothing inconsistent with the Church’s firm teachings, or with the full expression of God’s mercy for us sinners.
I strongly encourage everyone who wants to understand Pope Francis to read it, rather than reading the Guardian’s take on it.
I think that America is planning to publish an actual transcript of the interview in English, but in the meantime I doubt they are hiding anything here, even though they are a left-leaning publication.
“Bill Donohue. Another water carrier for the folks who have sold out our Church.”
You seem to be suggesting that you know something about Donahue that the rest of us don’t. Do tell us.
Or are you just reacting to this one article, and assuming a whole bunch of other things about Donahue?
Please, if you have some facts to mention to support your insult, we are all ears.
“He seeks to challenge us and shake us out of our comfort zone.
Isn’t that what Moochelle said about her candidate husband? How did THAT work out... “
Let me answer your question: it worked out very badly because that is not the job of the President or any other elected offical in a Constitutional republic. His job, and all of their jobs, is to do what we tell them to do while safeguarding our liberties.
The job of Jesus Christ, however, is different, and it indeed involves getting all of us sinners out of our selves, out of our comfort zones, and into a loving relationship with God and our neighbor. That’s the job that Pope Francis (and frankly all Christians) are tasked by God to cooperate with.
If you don’t understand the difference between the salvific work of Jesus Christ (which all Christians are called to cooperate with) and the role of President Obama in our Constitutional republic, then you should send your resume to Organizing for Action because they might just make you Executive Director.
Obviously, you didn’t see the sarcasm...
He (Pope Francis) wants us to oppose same-sex marriage. He also doesn't want us to reject lesbians and gays because they are homosexual. This is sound Catholic teaching.The Bible has a markedly different view from that teaching.
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: / Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. / But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.The types therein mentioned that remain unrepentant cannot stay in the church. They have to be rejected precisely because of what is in their heart, especially if it gets expressed in practice.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11
Read the last paragraph in that article.
And now, of course, he'll cover for the present Pope, who is himself causing grave scandal by his words and actions. Because the donations will stop pouring in if he calls a spade a spade, and realizes that some of the most egregious attacks on the Church are coming from within,as Pope Benedict himself said when he visited Fatima a few years ago.
There is nothing about Pope Francis' statement that implies other than the above. Just because someone has homosexual TENDENCIES, they should not be disparaged. Practitioners of an active gay lifestyle are to be rejected.
My wife gets the Catholic League newsletter (which I also read). I have seen nothing there that supports your contentions.
Yeah, Donohue is abrasive, and "in your face" in his activism, which I find somewhat off-putting. But sometimes those tactics are needed.
Think of it in terms of Matthew 5:28. The “tendencies” have to be gone out of one’s heart to be truly repentant.
Having such tendencies and resisting the temptation to dwell act on them reduces the severity from mortal to venial sin.
Still sinful, yes....but the difference "is" significant.
You won’t find it in the newsletter, but when the scandals were breaking in the press, Donohue was all over the airwaves accusing the MSM of bigotry. Don’t get me wrong, I know that the MSM loved exposing the dirty laundry of the Catholic Church. But the reality is that the leaders of the Church were at fault here, and they didn’t deserve to be defended.
Nope. Sorry. But the "reality" is that the only fault of the Church as a whole was to buy into the false meme of the efficacy of modern psychology, which was selling the idea that homosexuals could maintain chastity as easily as heterosexuals, and to drop the screening-out processes that had been present in seminaries for centuries specifically to keep such people out of the priesthood. Such processes having been instituted by those who knew from experience that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and such disordered people did not belong in the priesthood.
Perhaps some of those allowed in could control their disorder, but too many could not, and once "in" the church, many of them reached the levels of bishop and other leadership position...some in seminaries. How many of those who protected the offenders were also of the same persuasion?
"When the scandals were breaking" was twenty or thirty years ago. The seminaries have since been or are being reformed, and the scrutiny is much tighter.
So, my take on it is that some leaders deserved to be defended and some not, depending on circumstances. But there is no question that the current hoopla TODAY is almost entirely ginned up by the queer-loving media.
Certainly the media is ALWAYS out to discredit the Church, by any and all means possible. So I think that initially, Donohue was working under the idea that this was just another scandal whipped up with the media. I would also bet that Donohue dropped any "protectiveness" of any leader once reasonable proof surfaced.
Note...."when the scandals were breaking" I wasn't a Roman Catholic, and MY opinion at that time was that the situation was grossly exaggerated by the media.