Skip to comments.MSM YESTERDAY:Francis said Church obsessed about abortion! TODAY: Pope talks about abortion!
Posted on 09/20/2013 10:48:28 AM PDT by NYer
You saw it all over the MSM yesterday.
FRANCIS CRITICIZES CHURCH FOR ABORTION OBSESSION!
And endless variations on the theme.
The MSM’s message: Pope Francis is saying that abortion really isn’t all that bad.
Today, however, I read in the Bolletino that Pope Francis addressed the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations.
NB in my rapid translation and emphases:
A mentality of the useful, the “throw-away culture”, which today enslaves the hearts and minds of so many, has a very high cost: it requires the elimination of human beings, especially if they are physically or socially weaker. Our response to this mentality is a decisive “Yes” – and without any wavering – for life. “The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental – the condition of all the others.” (1974 CDF, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 11) Things have a price and they are saleable, but persons have a dignity, they are worth more than thanks and they are priceless. So often, we find ourselves in situations wherein we see that which costs the less is life. For this reason, attention to human life in its totality has become in recent times a true and fitting priority for the Magisterium of the Church, especially for the most defenseless, namely, the disabled, the sick, those about to born (al nascituro), the baby, the elderly, which is the most vulnerable life.
In the fragile human being each one of us is invited to recognize the face of the Lord, who in His human flesh experienced indifference, and the solitude to which we often condemn the poorest, both in developing countries and in the countries that are well-off. Every unborn child, but condemned unjustly to be aborted, has the face of Jesus Christ, has the face of the Lord, which even before birth, and then as soon as born, experiences the refusal of the world. And every old person and – I spoke about the child: let us go to the elderly, another point! And every older person, even if infirm or at the end of her days, bears herself the face of Christ. They can’t be thrown away, as the “throw-away culture” proposes to us! They can’t be thrown away!
Will this be reported today by the MSM in the wake of their coverage of the Big Interview?
I’m just asking.
2013-09-20 Vatican Radio (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Friday received members of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations who are in Rome on the occasion of their 10th International Conference on Catholicism and Maternal Healthcare. Lydia OKane reports
Following a greeting to conference participants, Pope Francis went on to address those gathered in three succinct points.
Firstly, he described what he called the paradoxical situation facing the medical profession today. On the one hand, the Pope said we see the progress of medicine, and those dedicated to the search for new cures.
But, on the other hand, he noted, there is the danger that a doctor might lose his identity as a servant of life. Pope Francis explained, that if you lose the personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away. He continued by saying that the acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber, before adding that the final objective of the doctor is always the defense and promotion of life.
In his second point, the Holy Father underlined that "the first right of the human person is his life. He spoke of a culture of waste, which he said, now enslaves the hearts and minds of many. The cost of this, he continued, is the elimination of human beings, especially if they are physically or socially weaker. The Pope stressed that every child that is not born, but unjustly condemned to be aborted and very elderly person who is sick or at the end of his life bears the face of Christ.
The Pope also underlined the important role Gynecologists have which requires study, a conscience and humanity.
In his third and final point the Holy Father said the mandate of Catholic doctors is to be witnesses and promoters of the "culture of life". The Lord, he said is counting on you to spread the "Gospel of life."
Pope Francis concluded his remarks by saying, there is no human life more sacred than another, as there is no human life more significant than another. The credibility of a health care system is measured not only for its efficiency, but also for the attention and love towards people, whose life is always sacred.
Attn Visitors to this thread - Here is a classic example of why you must always ignore what the mainstream media reports on Catholic issues.
Told you guys not to trust the New York Slimes
Depends I suppose, on which version they believe, he believes. When two positions are presented one opposite the other it behooves the presenter to offer proof of which is true.
I have a feeling this will be the new pattern. The Pope will say something silly or blasphemous, and then, to silence the shrieks, will take a step back the next day. But it’ll be two steps forward and one step back for the poor Catholics. This will be interesting times for that religion.
They sure are leaning on this Pope because he speaks in riddles...Socrates would love him.
He’s not saying anything silly or blasphemous, read the interview instead of trusting titles from leftist MSM articles
Gotta hand it to Pope Francis - he’s like the Catholic Church’s Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz: the Church’s enemies are obsessed with him. I believe the phrase is “living in their heads rent-free.”
I might say, “Pass the popcorn,” but that would be flippant, and also, we have caramel pretzel brownies.
“Hes not saying anything silly or blasphemous, read the interview instead of trusting titles from leftist MSM articles”
I read the comments already. It’s pretty clear what he’s saying, and it’s not anything different than what he has been saying. It’s obvious that he is changing the sales pitch of the Roman Catholic church, but is trying to keep the traditionalists from revolting at the same time. It’s a tough job.
HEY NYER look like my former hood Fairbanks AK get new bishop
The fact remains that he gives the Bible-hating left too many free lunch tickets with the off-the-cuff remarks on alternate days. They are still enjoying yesterday’s extended dessert.
And that he sketched out a future of homilies sans fire and brimstone — devoid of “small” moral imperative in favor of Kumbaya big tent “come on in, bros” — will be etched in peoples’ minds for a long time.
Fortunately, my Latin Mass priest is too old to make the change. I’m afraid that other places souls are going to be lost, even if there’s more “diversity” in the pews.
Thanks, I figured there was more to what he said than what was reported. Nevertheless ...
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
The question is, as we know what the NYT will do, is will the anti Catholic Posters on this site recant?
I don’t know about traditionalists, but anyone who knows the Catechism and who reads Church documents dos not get shaken by this discourse.
Statements like “the Pope, in speaking about doing away with old dogma” are obviously pure fabrication by a know-nothing, and discredit the entire article and anyone making reference to it.
Recant what? Will your church recant her anathemas against those who believe the biblical gospel? Just asking. It has been almost 500 years.
I will stop waging war on Rome when she stops waging war on the truth of Christ Jesus and the gospel of free grace.
Nah, Self-Worshipers won't recant, they'll spew another layer of falsehood to soothe their own little Self Alone ego, call for reinforcements, and work even harder to lead others into damnation with them.
There is no Reformation-era anathema applied to anybody today: as the Catechism says:
"Non-Catholic Christian churches still possess the means of salvation"
para 819 "Many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."
Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
"They have a right to be called Christians and brothers in the Lord"
para 818 "One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
"They are honored by the name of Christian, and in a certain communion with us"
para 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."
Without closing our eyes to objective theologial disagreements, I don't think any of us want to continue, or inflame, a 500-year-old spirit of grievance.
If you're interested n fuller context, you can click here to enter the Catechism at paragraph 818.
I think S. Paul's words (tagline) are meant for us.I certainly take them to heart.
Wait, so because he says in one breath we talk too much about abortion and then he speaks about abortion that automatically means that the media was wrong in what they reported?
Just because he spoke out against abortion (FINALLY) doesn’t wash away the comments that the Church shouldn’t speak so much about it or that everybody already KNOWS what the Church teaches about abortion.
Or maybe the Pope thought he better cool some folks off by (FINALLY) talking about abortion.
Or maybe all the confusion he causes is because he’s got a split personality.
C’mon, you know better than to pose that question, much less even ponder it. We catholics are all doomed to burn with the eternal flame ; - )
Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnations) against Bible-believing Christians. These proclamations and anathemas were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon Bible-believing Christians by Rome, and the solemn fact is that the Council of Trent has never been annulled. The Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s referred to Trent dozens of times, quoted Trents proclamations as authority, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent. Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent.
And I see Vatican II as contradicting Trent. most Catholics here think that’s a good thing. I say it’s heresy.
And I believe Rome officially declared herself apostate at Trent.
I’ve heard that before
As a Protestant that makes sense.
First of all, "anathema" does not mean "eternal damnation." It literally means the lifting up (ana) of something separate (thema). In the Old Testament this expression was used both of things alienated (separated) due to sin, and of things separated for dedication to God.
In the acts of Councils, the word "anathema" came to express the realization that individuals have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. Realizing that she is unable to do anything for their salvation, in view of their refusal of penance and the sacraments, the earthly church lifts them up to be dealt with by God.
This does not mean damnation. God's judgment is merciful to repentant sinners, but fearsome for the unrepentant (Heb 10:31 ; 12:29).
I want you to know that "anathema" is not a way to say "God damn you," but "God will deal with you: we can't."
"The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome."
I can see that if you used those links to get to the context of the Catechism, you evidently missed this: 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ."
Obviously, saying that someone is "incorporated into Christ" is the exact, polar opposite of saying that they are separated unto damnation. That's more than a "slightest hint" -- it's a wholesale pledge of reconciliation.
"Affirming Trent" evidently doesn't mean "Anathematizing YOU," especially since neither you, nor anyone of your generation, is personally responsible for the schisms of the 16th century, for which, "often enough," the Council notes, "men of both sides were to blame."
Again, I don't think any of us want to continue, or inflame, a 500-year-old spirit of grievance.
What do you mean by “I don’t know about the traditionalists”?
Anathema is a Scripture term. Are you suggesting Rome has changed the meaning?
You had incorrectly assumed that it means "We damn you to hell." This is not the case. The Church does not have, nor claim, this power.
It's very similar to an excommunication. The fact is, you have not been excommunicated not anathematized. And you are not asking for communion in the Catholic Church as far as I can tell. So how it troubles you, I do not know.
New tagline for you.
As far as I know, the Church has never changed the meaning of anathema. I believe Mrs. Don-o is correct in her explanation.
I responded while sitting at a traffic light and I should not have done that. I misspoke. I responded to something you didn’t say.
I understand what anathema means. But I stand by my post that Trent has not been repealed. All that has really changed is the way these things are discussed. Not only has Rome not changed, she has moved further away from biblical Christianity since Trent.
I think perhaps a better understanding of the Development would help b>me explain how the Church is being led, as Jesus said, led by the Spirit into all truth. (I need to acquire this better understanding.) This is not the fabrication of novelties out of thin air, but the unfolding of the logical corollaries, and reasonable inferences, of Scripture as they are applied in the life of the Church.
This is not something you and I can resolve in one volley of remarks back and forth, nor in a year of volleys; but we can resolve to be at peace with each other, as befits disciples of the Lord Jesus. I pledge you peace in charity: O God, come to my assistance!
Though we disagree on what biblical Christianity is, I wish you nothing but the best. If you and Mr. Don-o are ever near Memphis and have some time, let me know and I will buy you a cup of coffee and we can pour over the Scriptures together. I would love to show you from Scripture why I hold the positions I do. Chopped-up web comments are not the most effective way to communicate. Sometimes I come off as unduly argumentative and strident, but that’s not who I am and that’s not my heart. God bless.
That’s a deal. And if you’re here in Tri-Cities (Upper East Tennessee), we’ll take you to the Ridgeway for the best BBQ in the world!
Thanks! The brownies were delicious.
1. Colt — naughty, naughty for texting while driving.
2. we need to stop refighting the “Protestant Reformation.” A fellow historian pointed out that the Catholic Church ended up adopting all of the changes that Martin Luther put forth in his 95 Theses.
3. We need, as Christians all, focus on the spiritual and physical enemy of this secular society that wants to mold Christianity into its own form. And to be united against the anti-Christian and Western radical Islamists who are out to create a world run by radical Islam, in which there are no more Christians, or any other faith.
If Pope Francis went out to St. Peter’s square on Monday and started sacrificing infants to Bhaal, but on Tuesday he condemned worshiping false gods, the devoted Catholics would just claim the news media was misrepresenting his intentions about Monday.
Boy, the lamestream media ever try to spin this one! You can sure tell they will publish anything (lies included) when it comes to the Catholic Church.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12
The apparent incoherence is principally a matter of media framing, as I think anyone could see if they read the actual 12,000 word Jesuit interview, and not just the headlines, captions and ledes.
Seriously. Did you read the interview?
Interesting comments here:
1. I was stopped at a light
2. I appreciate Luther, but I’m more of a Calvin or Knox kind of guy. Not to mention, the central issue of the Reformation stands. Rome hasn’t budged an inch. The hub of the whole matter is the simple word “alone.” Rome teaches grace, but not grace alone. Rome teaches faith, but not the means of faith alone. Rome teaches Christ, but not Christ alone.
3. I would love to unite, but I’m biblically bound to separate. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
We simply don’t share the same faith because we have different gospels. Rome doesn’t teach the biblical means of salvation. Rome doesn’t teach that Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to the sinner. I must continue ringing this bell. By God’s grace, someone will heed the warning.
“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things...”(Titus 3:4-8)
Read carefully what Paul said of the way of Abraham’s salvation. Rome doesn’t come close to teaching what this passage teaches.
“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”(Ephesians 2:8-9)
**but Im biblically bound to separate. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.**
Exactly where in the Bible is this stated?
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.