the incessant whining by the God hating, especially Catholic hating, left. please...
Posted on 03/27/2010 6:07:28 AM PDT by Teófilo
Edited on 03/27/2010 1:27:49 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Folks, can you believe it? Well, OK, there’s precedent. I remember clearly how after Pope Benedict’s election the BBC journalist practically wished him a short tenure via natural causes, as he continuously spoke about his advanced age and the fact that Benedict’s was a “transitional election”.
(Excerpt) Read more at vivificat1.blogspot.com ...
My bet is on Pope Benedict....a HOLY man.....THAT”S WHY HE MUST BE DESTROYED!!
PING!
The same ones seek to destroy Israel as well. Pope Benedict should never give in.
He won’t....but they won’t stop trying.
Benedict’s was a “transitional election”.
The Church never made a stand against Homosexual Deviants and now they are paying the price for playing by man’s rules and not God’s.
Pray for America and the Church
What might their motivations be? Could the various "comedies" the BBC have aired mocking the Church and the Christian faith in general provide a clue? Does the timing coincide with the near-collapse of the Church of England and subsequent flight of their few remaining orthodox believers to the Catholic Church? Could it be the Church's opposition to gay marriage and gay clergy rubs the entertainment industry, a notably "gay-friendly" enterprise, the wrong way? Or perhaps it might have something to do the Church's opposition to EU notion of abortion being a "human right"? Maybe it's a delayed reaction to the calls of John Paul II, of blessed memory, and of Pope Benedict for Europe to remember and treasure its Christian roots, since England seems to be embracing the "new atheism" with such enthusiasm?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You are taking NO gamble at all with that response. ;-)
Oh these anti-Catholics are just insane.
The Church is in the business of proclaiming forgiveness, redemption, and restoration, not in consigning whole categories of sinners into hell.
If the Church is going to err, let her err on the side of forgiveness. These are God's rules, not man's, as you equivocate.
-Theo
I think the Pope knows exactly where this is coming from. The Prince of the Air doesn't like it at all that there are a few holy institutions left that don't march to his tune. So he turns all his wrath and fury on them.
But isn't repentence necessary first? The Church doesn't have the power to forgive an unrepentent open homosexual (or any sinner for that matter) - only the power to pray for them.
the incessant whining by the God hating, especially Catholic hating, left. please...
Yes, inquiring minds want to know.
The homosexual issue and the woman priest agenda have served to destroy the COE and the RCC is the last soldier standing in England. Islamic adherents are beginning to wonder when their turn comes from the secular media. When it does you can expect violence and at that time should the Church join forces with Islam to smite the secular humanists? Maybe not today but perhaps in the future. Improbable today but tomorrow?
“But isn't repentence necessary first?”
In the case of the late Fr. Murphy of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, about whom the latest dustup revolves, the evidence is that he abused many, many children from the mid-1950s to about 1974.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was made aware of his case in 1996. Fr. Murphy communicated with Cardinal Ratzinger, expressing his repentance for his crimes, and declaring that he had since amended his life. I haven't seen anyone claim that this wasn't the case. Further, Fr. Murphy was apparently terminally ill at the time.
Pope Benedict is now criticized for failing to pursue Fr. Murphy further, not laicizing him at that late date, merely banning him from public ministry and ordering him to spend his remaining days in prayer and repentance, and permitting him to die some months later without prosecuting him canonically.
Perhaps Fr. Murphy was lying about the fact that he had ceased abusing children, or perhaps he really wasn't repentant. But without evidence to the contrary, in light of these facts, it seems that the Church came down on the side of forgiveness.
sitetest
I understand and my comment wasn’t directed to these matters. I realize this whole brewhaha is old news and much ado about nothing. 0 just has the long knives out for the Church in general and Pope in particular.
Ephesians 6:12
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”
The Enemy attached the Church 30 years ago. It’s only now the attack is bearing fruit. What a patient old demon he is.
The Beeb wants to destroy him because he DARED to invite the agitated Anglicans into the Catholic Church, and is bold enough to actually visit England in September.
Catholicism, the most obvious Christian target in the world.
attached = attacked.
Catholicism, the most obvious Christian target in the world.
Remember, there was a British government investigation that confirmed BBC reporting on the Iraq war was heavily biased in favor of the anti-war position. The top two BBC executives resigned in the wake of that investigation.
If only they'd run a similar investigation here in the United States ...
Prudential errors were made, but Benedict has done more to address the problems in the priesthood in his short pontificate than were ever addressed in the years previous. This is a campaign to demoralize Catholics(and in effect other Christians) during the holiest time of the Church year, and to inflict damage on the Church as payback for opposition to pro-abort Obamacare. That’s not to say that a good scouring of the Church doesn’t need to be done. There is always sorrow and death before resurrection.
Pray for the Pope, and for all people of good will. I think that, with the magnitude of the crisis in the world and church at the present time, that perhaps God’s justice and mercy are soon to fall on the world.
I remember when Pope Benedict was elected, he asked us to please pray for him, that he would “not flee for fear of the wolves.”
Well said.
One is the rhetoric of the Reformation (which is tied to the "Glorious Revolution" in England) coupled with the rhetoric of the "Enlightenment", which primarily arises from the French Revolution. Both "traditions" identify Catholicism with authoritarian control, opposition to "free thought" and scientific inquiry, economic backwardness, etc. These are false ideas, but they served the interests of the ruling classes and made for good propaganda among those less inclined to dispassionate analysis. After the Pilgrimage of Grace was put down, opposition to Catholicism became part and parcel of English nationalism, i.e., "Englishness" necessarily entailed opposition to Rome.
These attitudes persist to this day, even as the UK has become thoroughly secularized. The destruction of the family, which is the last bulwark against the incursions of state power, is nearly complete. It's no longer common for the English to speak of someone's spouse, but of their "partner", who may possibly be of the same sex, who may or may not be a parent of the couple's children, if there are any, etc. Presumably in the future one's partner need not even be human or animate.
France has the highest proportion of Islamic immigrants in Europe, as they've arrived from former French colonies. Once one holds an EU passport, though, he is free to settle in any of the member states. The UK is one of the lowest-taxed countries in the union, so a lot of immigrants go there for financial reasons.
I don't think there's much danger of Muslims getting the same treatment as Catholics get, because that would be associated in the English mind with "racialism". And there's the fear of a violent reaction on the part of Muslims which would not be a threat from Catholics, IRA terrorism having different motivations and being unlikely to recur. Islam seems "exotic", "foreign" and counter-cultural, and therefore attractive to the trendy crowd, while Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past and very much associated with traditional Western culture.
Oddly, though, Muslims and Catholics share many of the same ideas on traditional marriage, opposition to abortion, etc., so it would be possible to make common cause with them under certain restrictions - no violence being one of them. But that would only be possible with non-fundamentalist Muslims, as the others would regard Catholics as infidels and "Crusaders", whom they were duty-bound to convert, kill, or impose the jizya on.
Ultimately, the joke's on the secularists. The Muslims will win the culture war in England (and throughout Europe) because they know what they stand for and will not tolerate dissent. They're also not stupid enough to abort and contracept themselves out of existence. The result will be a quiet, gradual, cultural revolution in which Europe's Christian past, and the political, economic, and intellectual institutions which arose from it, are obliterated. The only hope for preserving the freedom and progress the secularists prize is to re-embrace Christianity, and the only institution still strong enough to guide that turn-around is the Catholic Church.
I was always surprised at how quickly he was accepted into the neo-conservative ranks. He was given a position of prominence and hailed as an intellectual. He was an open Marxist and a closeted queer. I knew it, how could those at National Review not?
These sorts of attacks on the Catholic church by leftists are becoming more and more hysterical. Hopefully it is the last gasp of a dying man.
Well, al-Jazeera is essentially the BBC Arabic Service, spun off and re-constituted as independent. So make of that what you will.
Interesting post, thanks.
“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Pope Benedict XVI will not resign — this is leftist liberal thinking.
I’ve begun to wonder if a lot of the Protestants that publish things about the Pope are really dimocorats. LOL!
“If the Church is going to err, let her err on the side of forgiveness. These are God’s rules, not man’s, as you equivocate”
Hmmm...isn’t it more complicated than that?
You can forgive - and yet, still now allow a molester to die with the dignity of retaining his title of “priest”? yes?
Isn’t this the real question in this particular case?
The defense here is saying they granted a dying man his wish.
But didn’t this err in his favor and against his victims?
Couldn’t sacramental forgiveness have been granted while still stripping him of his priestly robes?
One thing I know about this pope - he is a very intelligent man.
If this calls from him to step down - he will do so.
That's the kind of foolish statement that I've come to expect from you.
Individuals within the Church, aka the enemy within, who have been disobedient and unfaithful, have and are attempting to destroy the Bride of Christ. Indeed, they will not succeed, just as Christ assured Peter.
How would his victims have been helped by his being laicized on his deathbed? Would it have un-done anything bad that happened to them? If, after so many years, they are so filled with hate that this would have been important to them, then ... what can be done? They've consented to their own living hell.
A number of situations recently have brought to mind something Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson often says: "If you hate someone, he controls you." Nothing can be done for a person who can't say, "I refuse to surrender my life to this person who hurt me."
It matters to me.
My abuser is lying in his coffin with his priestly robes on.
He died a priest.
He was a monster and an imposter.
It matters.
Ask anyone who has been molested.
I’m sorry.
No need to be.
It’s a good question, and that’s the best I can answer it.
Everyone is different. I’m of the “How would that help?” school - and I’ve helped myself past abuse.
Well, Benedict seems to be a more conservative Pope than the liberal media and global communists were hoping for.
That must be why they are orchestrating a political campaign against him.
Well I have as well, but when I look back and ask - what if there had been an opportunity for the Church to deny my abuser that honor before he died?
Would that have helped me at that point?
And the answer I come up with is - yes.
As it is - in his country - there is still a scholarship named after him. There is a hospital wing named after him.
Does that bother me? Yes.
Am I constantly consumed with anger and hatred? No.
There’s alot to be said for making a concerted effort for not dwelling on some things.
Interesting that you should say that. It calls to my mind this post made back in 2007 by Albion Girl (she doesn’t post anymore):
“I always thought it was a mistake for those molested to seek their justice with money. It takes what should be a precious wound, ....and turns it into something for sale. It is much better to rely on God to sustain you in each and every way.”
This does mitigate nor deny the pain. It transforms it.
BTW, in quoting this post, I’m not inferring that any particular victim of molestation has sought monetary damages. The quote is showing a “more excellent way”, whether there was a lawsuit or not.
I’m very sorry this happened to you.
I am including you in my prayers.
I’m very sorry. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Thank you for your kindness.
I actually didn’t have it as bad as some.
I had a brief struggle where I was able to fight free.
It gave a glimpse into how these guys operate, and how manipulative they are.
This imposter was a rare breed. A true pedophile by definition - pre-pubescent boys and girls.
And as I’ve been thinking about this situation with the pope, and trying to pinpoint what is bothering me - I think it comes down to this.....the second that man laid hands on me I knew he wasn’t a priest.
I’m reminded of how catholic doctrine considers people to be automatically excommunicated if they commit certain acts - abortion and such....
And so - it would be nice if the Church had a similar attitude towards priests who would lay their hands on children.
The second they commit that act - they are no longer a priest.
They can repent. They can be forgiven.
But they are no longer priests.
So - when I see this attitude - oh well let’s not aggravate this man before he dies.
I think that misses the point. The man is not a priest - he hasn’t been for years.
Whether or not it is a severe enough matter for him to step down? - I don’t know.
That should read ...”this does NOT mitigate...”
Sorry
OH Pleaseeee this Pope is not Thomas Beckett we not Henry 2 of England
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.