Posted on 06/28/2004 6:36:11 AM PDT by AAABEST
Why is it that homosexuals seem to have a distinct proclivity to denigrate whatever it is they have their way with?
Our earliest record of homosexuals having their way with others is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Today we’re watching them have their way with the institutions of marriage and education. They’re also attempting to have their way with other various institutions such as the Boy Scouts and the military.
We’ve seen what happens to children when they have their way with them. We've seen the resulting debauchery when they have their way with amusement parks (Disney), art galleries and parades. They’ve had their way with the Catholic and Episcopalian churches, with disastrous consequences for these two prominent religious institutions.
God warns us of homosexuality for good reason and He does so clearly and very unambiguously in scripture. If you’re a Catholic or Christian of any kind, there can be no mistake made about the fact that it is an abomination to the Lord and a grave sin of which you are to repent and seek forgiveness.
It is also an unnatural disorder that can literally be spread like a disease from men to the young boys whom they exploit and abuse, ruining their lives in the process. And abuse they do. Homosexuals are statistically far more promiscuous and abuse minor children at a far higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts within and outside of the clergy.
Despite how it’s portrayed in Hollywood and elsewhere, homosexuality is not funny or cute or by any means "normal". Nor is it a simple parallel lifestyle. It’s dangerous, destructive, and unhealthy and as Dr. Laura put it before she was brutally set upon "deviant". Homosexuals die younger, are less physically and mentally healthy and are less happy than heterosexuals.
In other words, homosexuality is – say it with me now - "bad". It’s bad for society, bad for individuals, bad for children, bad for institutions, bad for your physical health, bad for your metal health, bad for your soul, bad for the Saint Patrick’s day parade and as is glaringly apparent, very bad for the Catholic church.
The independent lay panel that was recently charged with investigating the church "child abuse" scandal found that the Catholic church’s problem was not a "child abuse" scandal at all, it was in fact a homosexual abuse scandal. An incredible 87% of the criminal abusers were guilty of man-on-boy incidents. As it turns out, if were to take homosexuals out of the sample, "child abuse" rates among clergy would be far lower than the child abuse rates of comparable secular vocations, such as education etc. In fact, there would have been no "child abuse" scandal at all. Life for Catholics would be much better and we’d have a much healthier church.
The undeniable truth is that if it weren’t for the disproportionate number of homosexuals who have infiltrated our clergy, we wouldn’t be suffering with the crisis we’re embroiled in now. We would still have the millions upon millions of dollars paid in legal fees to go to helping the poor, building churches and expanding the flock. We wouldn’t have to wonder how much money parishioners have withheld in donations or how many just left Catholicism altogether in disgust. We wouldn’t be hearing the "you have no moral authority" argument (which will be used for generations to come) from our detractors when we speak out on moral issues as an institution.
Gays do not make nearly the sacrifice that straight men do from the get-go. When joining the seminary, a heterosexual male forever gives up the dream of having a wife and family to go and live with men, while the homosexual gives up nothing to go and live with the same men, which are potential sex partners. Such could be compared to putting a young hormone laden straight male into a convent full of young nuns.
Having gay men living in all-male seminaries is an obvious recipe for disaster if the goal is to have a Godly training environment for our future leaders and teachers. In his book "Goodbye! Good Men", Michael Rose documents how we now have a homosexual subculture, which is referred to by many within it as the "sisterhood". They give each other female names, fornicate in the dorms and "dress up like gays from the village" as the well-known and respected reverend John Trigilio from EWTN tells us.
Incidentally, Trigilio was suspended for his comments recorded in the book by the same bishop who allowed a priest to continue giving mass after being charged with having images on his computer of an adult male sodomizing a 5 year old boy.
The Catholic priesthood is becoming known as a gay profession, right up there with design, retail and hairdressing. St. Mary’s seminary in Baltimore is known as the "pink palace" and Notre Dame seminary in New Orleans is known as "Notre Flame". If they bother to apply at all, straight priests who don’t tow the modernist lavender line at our seminaries are being persecuted and driven out.
One would have to wonder if this is how we’re training our future leaders, are we intentionally trying to destroy the church? No wonder we’re having trouble attracting good straight priests.
The flock can no longer carry the homosexuals’ crosses for them under the false banner of Christian charity. There is nothing Christian or charitable about destroying the church that Christ founded in order to give sexually disordered men some non-existent right to lead our masses. Allowing depravity to metastasize and ruin our spiritual livelihood is not kind or righteous in any way whatsoever.. If we are to begin healing, gays must be removed from the clergy and from the seminaries to whatever degree possible and at all costs, ASAP. Our clear choice is to either see that this is done or face ruination.
Further, we shouldn’t let any PC gunk lead us to believe that prohibiting gays from the clergy would be mean-spirited or intolerant, because it wouldn’t. In fact it would be just the opposite; a wise and prudent move that would be good for everyone. Life will go on for the gay male without having the priesthood in his repertoire of career choices, his world won’t collapse around him There are many factors that preclude one from becoming a Catholic priest; homosexuality should simply be made one of them. If they have such a desire to serve, they can do as those of us in the laity do; Volunteer, join the choir, become ushers etc.
I doubt however that we’ll ever find gays in large numbers among the laity if they aren’t allowed into the priesthood. You don’t find them in large numbers among the laity now and you don’t find them in large numbers amongst the gay community outside the church. For some odd reason, the only place we find large (and very disproportionate) numbers of gays in the Catholic Church seems to be in the clergy. That just doesn’t compute. If the reason we find so many homosexuals in the priesthood were because there are so many with a burning desire to serve the Lord, then San Francisco would be the evangelized gem of Catholicism. It’s not, in fact it’s just the opposite.
The process of cleaning up our priesthood doesn’t have to be a weighty thinking problem either. There doesn’t have to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and tearing at clothes and there doesn’t have to be a lot of painful machinations involved in doing so. If you’re gay, you should not be allowed to be a priest… period. If the rules don’t accommodate such, then we must change the rules.
Remove the homosexuals from the seminaries and clergy ASAP. We’ve been forced to carry their crosses long enough, now it’s time to give them back.
© Copyright 2004 angelqueen.org. This information may be reproduced at will providing the content remains intact and a link is provided to the original.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Good overview about the Catholic Church and the homosexual problem. Written by a Freeper of long standing, too!
Do read this one. Explains very clearly that the abuse problem within the Catholic Church is because of infiltration by homosexuals.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
What the ---? It seems many of my posts are duplicating themselves. Sorry! (Fingers working when I don't notice it??)
That's a great compliment and a nice thing to say coming from a gal I've grown to respect.
This is not stupidity on Cardinal Laws part it is gross dereliction of his duty to be a shepherd and protect the little ones from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Fr. Shanley and Geohgen were priest perverts and Law knew it. The buck stopped with him. You are taking a very worldy view on this. Jesus said, "If anyone harms one of these little ones it would be better that he have a millstone tied round his neck and caste into the sea." This was a form of capital punishment in Christ's time. Little ones mean those in the flock of Christ and children.
You are minimizing what Law did. Just look at this http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/courtdocs/LawDeposition-2002-06-07.htm. The Court transcript of Law who was really Lawless in God's eyes because he let children be victimized. Law promoted Shanley even after he heard of gross complaints about him. Cardinal Law covered dirty things up and he was promoted for his efforts. Law has plenty of money and he doesn’t need anymore from the Vatican.
You let Cardinal Law off the hook when you say he was hoodwinked by shrinks everyone who is a Christian should know that God's law is above the Law of the human science psychology which is extremely flawed at best in understanding fallen man.
At the press conference the Cardinal Prefect did inform the journalists about the canonical procedure that is based on the canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law represented in the Code of 1983 and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Already in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, Canon 2359 § 2, stated. "If they were to admit an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with minors under 16 years of age ... they must be suspended, be declared infamous, be deprived of any office, benefice, dignity or function that they might hold, and, in more serious cases, be deposed". The canon 1395 § 2 of the 1983 revised Code: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years, must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state, when the case requires it" and the same is said in canon 1435 § 1 of the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). see http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PRSHLYTH.HTM. When you compare the two codes the Newer Code is more vague. See below
Substantively, canon law has, of course, always considered the sexual abuse of a minor to be a grave crime and grievous sin. Canon 1395 of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici (the “1983 Code”) establishes that sexual contact with a minor qualifies as one of four classifications of sexual offenses for which a man may be permanently removed from the clerical state.14 The other three grounds include any form of coerced sex, a public offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, and continued open concubinage with a woman after an official warning. Permanent removal from the clerical state constitutes one of the most serious penalties contemplated by canon law.15 Canon 2359 of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (the “1917 Code”) contained provisions similar to those stipulated in the present statute.16 The substantive provisions of canon law also envision penalties for ecclesiastical authorities who fail to apply canon law. Canon 1389 of the 1983 Code provides for a penalty, including deprivation of ecclesiastical office, for an official who abuses ecclesiastical power or who omits—through culpable negligence—to perform an act of ecclesiastical governance.17 A bishop who fails to employ the appropriate provisions of canon law in a case of sexual abuse of a minor is liable to penal sanctions imposed by the Holy See. See.http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/44_4/03_TXT.htm. "THE CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS AND THE SPIRIT OF CANON LAW" Rev. John J. Coughlin, O.F.M.
"The code's canon 1395:2 specifies that sex between priests and minors is an ecclesiastical crime. Yet the 1985 code see alterboys.tripod.com/Faith/Priests_protex.html - 19k (for below) “commentary stated that an initial charge of molesting "is not viewed as seriously" as "concubinage" (cohabiting with a woman) or "attempted marriage" (a priest's civil marriage, which the church does not recognize). The distinction is apparent because a priest involved with an adult woman is penalized with suspension, while one who molests a minor faces lesser and undefined "just penalties," the commentary says. The Canon Law Society produced a revised commentary in 2000 that says this about molestation: "Somewhat surprisingly, the code does not seem to view such delicts (offenses) as seriously as other violations of clerical continence."
“The Rev. Thomas J. Green of the Catholic University of America wrote the commentary on sex abuse for the 1985 and 2000 editions. He thinks the canon seems to distinguish between a priest's "ongoing relationship" with a woman and "what could be an individual act. The seriousness of the breach might be more clear."The Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canonist who has advised hundreds of Catholics taking molestation claims to civil court, says that canonical thinking on sex abuse is misguided. "Even occasional acts of sex with a minor are far more devastating than habitual sexual contact with a consenting adult of either gender," he says. Canon law thinking shows "more concern for the clerical establishment than for the victim." Monsignor Kenneth Lasch, a canon lawyer for the Paterson, N.J., Diocese, agrees. He believes the commentary downplays
the damage clergy abuse does to the Catholic community." see alterboys.tripod.com/Faith/Priests_protex.html - 19k Catholic Church Law Gives Abusive Priests More Protection Than Their Victims, Some Specialists Complain
By Richard N. Ostling The Associated Press
Published: Apr 18, 2002
Cardinal Law clearly violated the moral, civil (even though the state won't touch him) and Church law and it seems that in today's Church too many clerics are a law unto themselves.
Catholics are sending their bishops a message without writing anything, including those checks...
Boston has been hit hard in the pocket, not just in terms of settlements paid, but in terms of ongoing fundraising.
Thank you for your documentation, and in particular the Canon Law cites.
It is my practice not to judge someone guilty of something unless they've done me wrong, or if they have been found guilty by an appropriate Court with the usual process.
Thus, while I will not defend Cdl. Law, (except to advance the possibility of invincible ignorance, as earlier) I cannot as easily conclude that he's culpable of major crimes, either civil or Canonical.
But one thing's for certain: whatever happened, happened under his watch and those of a couple of predecessors.
AAA the BEST,Thanks for the ping.
Pope Leo I: "He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error."
Pope St. Felix III said "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, AND INDEED TO NEGLECT TO CONFOUND EVIL MEN WHEN WE CAN DO IT, IS NOT LESS A SIN THAN TO ENCOURAGE THEM."
St. Augustine: "Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others ... Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him." A Treatise on rebuke and grace,by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo; In One Book,addressed to valentine, and with him to the monks of adrumetum.a.d. 426 or 427.
"The floors of Hell are littered with the skulls of bishops" is attributed to St. John Crysotystom, 300-360 A.D
Pope Pius XI: "The two opposing camps are now clearly marked; each man should choose his own. Men of good will and men of evil will face one another. The uninterested and the cowards face their fearsome responsibility. They will have their names changed if they do not change their behavior: they will be called traitors."
Yes Tuco I know that Boston has been hit in the pocket book of course Catholics should still continue to give to the Poor (this is part of the problem) but all Bishops who allow this sourt of terrible abuse of Children should be hit. But come to think of it the members of the flock whether they are adults are not are God's Children and we have been doctrinally abused, and spiritually abused and liturgically abused for 40 years of the post Vatican II wandering in the desert. I think that we should be withdrawing our purse from the Novus Ordo system and say NO to the experimentation with Modernism- the bad theology in Catholic schools, and homilies at Mass and the do it yourself New Order Mass which is endemic to the New Rite. Say NO to the religious syncratism and indifference- and yes to the faith of our fathers and our mothers who died rather than turn pagan or Protestant over the centuries. We have to get back to our Catholic roots instead of put up with the uprootedness and rotten chaff they have been feeding us which will eventually be thrown into the fire. We need another Joan of Arc, a Savonarola, a Vincent of Ferrar to wake us up from our stupor. The problem is too many Catholics today don’t even know these Saints and great Catholics. The problem is that everyone is so steeped in Modernism and their own “little parish community” because that is what the Authorities have been shoveling us for 40 years and we have forgot to pray our Rosary. We let the floodgates of the World burst in and we are drowning in a deluge!
There was "angelic" phenomena associated with Pius XII during the entire duration of his papacy (1939-58). After one of these mystical visions he reportedly told one of his assistants, "Mankind must prepare itself for sufferings such as it has never before experienced." He expressed dismay at what he saw facing humanity in the not so distant future, describing those times as "the darkest since the deluge "the hour has struck--the battle, the most widespread, bitter and ferocious the world has ever known, has been joined. It must be fought to the finish.” See http://www.maxkol.org/tchap02.htm
And Ninenot, since you are a “Torquemada gentleman” I thought I would throw in a few quotes from your patron Saint a truly great man who probably will be declared a Saint someday-
“Although it clearly follows from the ircumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not
be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: "One ought to obey God rather than man"; therefore, were the Pope to command
anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)....” --
Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (Turrencremata), Summa de Ecclesia (1489)
“ In this way, the Pope could, without doubt, fall into Schism.... Especially is this true with regard to the liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church.... The same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion.... By separating himself from the observance of the Universal customs of the church, and by so doing with obstinacy, the Pope is able to fall into schism. Such a conclusion is only just because the
premises on which it is based are beyond doubt. For, just as the Pope can become a heretic, so he is also able to do so with the sin of obstinacy. Thus it is that Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to
obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed...." --Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (Turrencremata), Summa de Ecclesia (1489) and Commentarii in Decretum Gratiani (1519)
Thanks for your kind response and God bless you both during your spiritual pilgrimage..
Thanks for the quotes, although Tomas and Juan were different Torquemadas (I think.)
We are working on the cause for beatification of Tomas, which is slightly controversial insofar as he was the Grand Inquisitor, and utilized methodologies which are no longer PC.
Should you happen to have engineering drawings for the Iron Maiden handy, please forward.
Blessings!
Here are some more politically incorrect quotes for you. Can I put you on my Ping list? Some of these below folks were also made saints so I hope your guy gets in. I think they were related- good family.
Heretics deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much more serious matter to corrupt the faith than to counterfeit that which supports temporal life. Wherefore, if counterfeiters and other evil-doers are immediately condemned to death by secular authorities, there is much more reason for heretics to be put to death. (St. Thomas Aquinas) see Thomas Aquinas: STL II-II, Q.11, art.3
No one is as far from the Pasch of the Lord as heretics. They can have no part with Him who are enemies of this saving Mystery. For they deny the Gospel and contradict the Creed, and they cannot celebrate the Paschal Feast with us. And though they dare to claim the name of "Christian," nevertheless every creature whose Head is Christ scorns them. Pope St. Leo the Great
I pray to God that some of us, as high as we seem to sit, treading heretics under our feet like ants, live not to see the day that we would gladly wish to be at league and composed with them; to let them have their churches quietly to themselves so that they would be content to let us have ours quietly to ourselves. I entirely detest heretics and, as Magistrate, do promise assiduously to perform my duty in investigating them. Heresy is a kind of treason, and if a heretic persisteth in his false belief, he may be handed over to be burned. [This is the essence of Liberalism, a condemned heresy] St. Thomas More.
That it is againsts the will of the Spirit to burn heretics [at the stake] is condemned as false. Pope Leo X "Exsurge Domine; Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther." (www.ewtn.com)
Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him at the stake. Pope Paul IV [ Paul IV: JAMES LAYNEZ, JESUIT, Fr. Joseph Fichter, SJ, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1944, p.179]
The only way to argue with a blasphemer is by running your sword through his bowels, as far as it will go. St. Louis, King of France
Right Reason: No man should be forced to become Catholic, but all men should be forcibly restrained from attacking the Faith in any fashion. Otherwise, it logically follows that either the Faith is not true or that Truth is not worth fighting for. That greatest of prophets of the Old Law, St. Elias, gave us perhaps the greatest object lesson when he did not hesitate to order the killing of 450 ministers of false religions (III Kings 18:40).
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth" (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I).
"I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I say "Amen" to your prayers, nor shall you to mine. (St. Margaret Clitherow) Margaret: Cf. MARTYRS, Attwater, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1965, p.122; The Marytaithful, Fr. Fred Nelson, Powers Lake, ND: July-August, 1984, p.59, col.1
Predestinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves! (St. Louis Marie de Montfort) . Louis Marie: SOR p.99
We have become cowardly, faint-hearted, and, so often, for some reason or another, we keep silence. We let ourselves be overcome by human respect, and cease to show ourselves as true followers of Our Lord. Why? Because we are cowards! Oh, how we need to renew our faith, to rekindle our hearts in the sublime principles of our holy religion! (St. Frances Xavier Cabrini) 23. Frances Xavier Cabrini: SKL p.155
Eugene IV: All outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Innocent III: If anyone patronizes heretics, he is a heretic. (Readings in Church History, Fr. Barry, Westminster, MD, Newman Press, 1965 vol 1:441)
Pius VI: Only Catholics can be Christians (sec.1500 of "Densinger," B. Herder Book Co., Imprimatur, 1955)
I'd be happy to be on your pinglist and thanks for a hatful of REALLY neat quotes, which I will ping to the TTGC membership.
TTGC members: please see antecedent post.
Now you have got me curious about TTGC members do you just meet on line at this chat room, or is it in your diocese? You know the famous song "What's it all about Alfie????"
The one I really liked was the St. Thomas Aquinas quote. When you think about it eternity is far more important than anything. So what we do here is VERY important and what we believe and how we act determines our eternal destiny. Even the ancient Greeks understood the eternity of the soul. Heresy kills the soul and so does the spread of heresy. Don’t get me wrong I am not like the sick ladies who knitted in “A tale of two Cities” who laughed and smiles as the aristocracy was being led to get their heads chopped off nor would I have enjoyed see any heretic burn or innocent Saint such as Joan of Arc. St. Joan drew more people to Christ and to the Holy Catholic Church despite the evil Churchman who burned her. Good always triumph’s over evil. This of course gets back to the issue of Capital punishment when anyone talks about how heretics used to be burned. The Catholic Church has never taught Capital punishment is intrinsically evil as is abortion and has always granted the states right to use it under certain circumstances.
In early Catholic Church history, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Pope Leo I (440-461) condemned capital punishment outright.
In contrast, all of the approximately 164 popes who ruled the Papal States (754-1870) included capital punishment as part of their penal systems. There was one exception. Pope St. Nicholas I (856-867) condemned capital punishment outright. But, Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) made up for all the other popes by ordering the execution of 7,000 bandits over a two-year period. Pope Sixtus V expressed his regret that the number was not larger.
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/2002-07-18/editorial.html.
Pope Innocent VIII: However , he dealt mercilessly with a band of unscrupulous officials who forged and sold papal Bulls; capital punishment was meted out to two of the culprits in 1489. see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08019b.htm.
St. Thomas Aquinas when he wrote: "In this life, however, penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution; rather, they are meant to be corrective by being conducive either to the reform of the sinner or the good of society, which becomes more peaceful through the punishment of sinners." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, 68, 1; tr. Marcus Lefebure, O.P. (London, Blackfriars, 1975).
Pius XII presented a more explicit defense of the lawfulness of capital punishment. He states that ““as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable,”” and adds that ““God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.””Pius XII, To the San Luca Medical-Biological Union, (12 November 1944), VI, 191.
"The Pope cares so little about this homosexual and pedophile issue that he gave a promotion to Cardinal Law"
_________________________
Oops! Careful there!
The press hated Card. Law's guts for his orthodoxy and his pro-life position, NOTHING ELSE! They used an opportune moment reinforced with propaganda to overthrow him. It was easy thank to the American Catholics' naivete.
Remember, Law was the one who openly criticized Bernardin when he traveled to Bubba for his presidential "Medal of Freedom" thingy in the middle of the partial birth abortion debate and when Bernardin already knew he was about to meet his Maker.
Shanely was cofounder of NAMBLA the man-boy love association, official sponsor of pedophilia. The only time I heard of NAMBLA in the press was when Law was attacked for not being tough with Shanely. Today NAMBLA is alive and well with active website doing its mission of screwing little boys but you never hear about it in the American press again.
See my post about the scope of sexual abuse in schools,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1162616/posts
You will never hear about it from the American press.
There is so much love "for the children" out there that the Supreme Court just blocked a federal law that could shield minors from Internet pornography. Here you go!
I become extra-suspicious when "Catholics" attack the Pope.
I understand your wanting to defend the papacy this is praiseworthy on your part. All Catholics should love the papacy and have charity towards the Pope to pray for him EVERY DAY WHICH I DO. I do not have to like what he has allowed. Here is some food for thought after you have read every one of these quotes we can have a “dialogue in solidarity” and ask for guidance from some of these great Doctors and Saints which I have quoted for our mutual spiritual benefit. May we all meet with them some day in heaven with all of the other angels and Saints for which I pray for the salvation of his “Holiness Pope John Paul II every day.
Do you know that Savanorola who was burned by a rotten pope Alexander a Borgia Pope was a Seda Vecantist Catholic. Do you know that in Dante’s Inferno some Pope’s burned in hell?? I am sure in reality this is the case. This is what a saint had to say about Bishops of which the Pope is one. "The floors of Hell are littered with the skulls of bishops" St. John Crysotystom, 300-360 A.D. There have only been a few Popes declared Saints. Now I am NOT taking a seda vecantist position so don't accuse me of taking that position. Well Savanorala's cause for beatification is coming up- they are studying him now. Get off your high horse and look at the facts. If you don't think that the past 25 years under Pope John Paul II's reign has not been scandalous for so many particularly all of the young people who have been molested both spiritually and physically then well this would be a problem for you. If you don’t think that large sectors of the Church are in rank heresy well what can I say to convince you. Some say Pope John Paul II hands were tied by others and he can do nothing with wayward prelates. Lets look at what his predecessors said:
Pope Leo I said, "He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error."
Pope St. Felix III said "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, AND INDEED TO NEGLECT TO CONFOUND EVIL MEN WHEN WE CAN DO IT, IS NOT LESS A SIN THAN TO ENCOURAGE THEM."
Pope St. Pius V:"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."
St. Augustine: "Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others ... Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him." A Treatise on rebuke and grace,by Aurelius Augustin, bishop of hippo; In One Book,addressed to valentine, and with him to the monks of adrumetum.a.d. 426 or 427.
"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See -- they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."
Melchior Cano, theologian at the Council of Trent
"If either the Pope or the Queen (of England) demanded of me an absolute obedience, he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither." Cardinal Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace, the Duke of Norfolk (This was the last book he personally wrote and published and certainly is the fruit of his mature thought.)
"Pope is not inspired; he has not an inherent gift of divine knowledge. When he speaks ex cathedra, he may say little or much, but he is simply protected from saying what is untrue. I know you will find flatterers and partisans such as those whom St. Francis de Sales calls the Pope lackeys, who say much more than this, but they may enjoy their own opinions, they cannot bind the faith of Catholics." Cardinal Newman,
letter quoted by B. Ward in her biography.
"It is no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century." said Cardinal Newman
www.seattlecatholic.com/ article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html - 74k from "A Brief Defence of Traditionalism" p.4 Seattle Catholic 21 Dec. 2001
ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430)
GREAT WESTERN DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH "By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and with charity,
inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear." (Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum)
POPE INNOCENT III (CA. 1160-1216) "The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by
man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and
trampled under foot by men.'" (Sermo 4)
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)
THE "ANGELIC" DOCTOR AND PRINCIPAL THEOLOGIAN OF THE CHURCH
"Hold firmly that you faith is identical with that of the ancients.
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a
subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St.
Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example
to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way,
they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from
their subjects....'
"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was
not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth....
The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest.
For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter,
'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was
fraught with danger to everyone. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A.
4)
"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the
prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven,
or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their
subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the
prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected.
And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against
them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own
sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of
fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be
corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)
DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"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. (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)
"Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal
damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)
(UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR)
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"
"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ
despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity
of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope
can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ,
or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law.
by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church
because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In
this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal
customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way,
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope
could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been
established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope]
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
ST. ANTONINUS, O.P. (1389-1459)
BISHOP AND THEOLOGIAN
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would
find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,
separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off. "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy,
therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the
Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is
outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
(Summa Theologica)
GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA (1452-1498) He was a SEDA VECANTIST
DOMINICAN PREACHER (CAUSE FOR CANONIZATION PENDING)
The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for
some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear
witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and
cannot be.... This I declare in the first place and affirm it with all
certitutde, that the man is not a Christian; he does not even believe
any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of
infidelity and impiety." (Letter to the Emperor)
POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond
question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this
when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman
pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."
(Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the
Syllabus, 1908). "[Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the East. We must remember
that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of
inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious
doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)
CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required....
Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's
person,
so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls or troubled the state
(turbanti rempublicam) and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It
is
lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands, and hindering the
execution of his will." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to
be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano
Pontifice, II.30)
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)
(UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR)
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"
"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ
despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity
of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope
can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ,
or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law.
by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church
because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In
this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal
customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way,
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope
could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been
established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope]
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
May I put you on my ping list as I see you are a defender of the faith??
Cardinal Law was responsible for those bad priests. He allowed homosexuals in the priesthood to flourish and he promoted them to administrator of parish possitions. See his deposition to the courts in my previous post. Jesus said you will know them by there fruits.
You can correct me if I am wrong but he did nothing about Ted Kennedy and he cozied up to the Kennedy family (who are very pro- abortion). Didn't Ted end up getting his annulment under Law? I might be wrong on that one. Some one can correct me on that if I am wrong. It is easy to say you are against abortion but it is quite another to allow pro-abortion politician to receive communion and to encourage Catholics to vote for them as some so called Cathlic prelates have.
I know that Popes are human, sometimes quite sinful, nonetheless they are endowed with the Authority that comes from Christ Himself. Nothing beats that; not even an article in the "Boston Globe."
Yes I am with you there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.