Posted on 06/15/2015 9:26:59 AM PDT by ebb tide
The problem is you have not proven there was any calumny here. Would it be calumny to accuse others of calumny without proof?
“If this is such a scandal, why is there nothing discussing it on DICI, on the page of SSPV, on True Restoration, on the Remnant, or even on Rorate?”
And as I suspected, the reports are starting to come in (although I admit the eco-encyclical is getting most of the coverage).
And once again, where is the denial by the Vatican about this “meeting” and these so-called calumnious comments?
I’m glad you admit that you’re attacking me for merely posting an article.
Also, you have yet provided any proof of “distortions” in said article. You won’t even list what has “been” distorted.
Instead, we get the involuntary ejaculation of “calumny!”
Finally, I do not need to quote Catholic popes to counter the heresies spewed forth by Francis. They are obvious to every Catholic who knows the Faith. Yet, some posters let them slide by, right?
Read your posts. Seems, you are desperate to be a legalist catholic? Why? What has discouraged your truth finding?
Instead of spending his efforts toward global warming and other such nonsense, he should deal with homosexuality in the priesthood. That’s a far more serious subject. Until then, the rest of us will just have to deal with the immorality raging rampant in the world today.
Try the title, for one:
Pope Francis Will Meet with LGBT Leader During July Visit to Paraguay
He is not "meeting with LGBT Leader"
He is speaking at an arena. An "LGBT Organization" was invited an single person by the organizing committee to be in attendance.
That part right there, in of itself, is a distortion.
Since I used the term "distortions", let me give you one more:
It is the first known public meeting that the pope will have with a gay or lesbian person who is legally married.
Again, he is not having a "meeting". He is certainly not having a "meeting with a gay or lesbian person who is legally married"
Next, the organization was invited to send a single representative. The organization chose to send an individual.
The individual is not "legally married" as there is no recognition of sodomite "marriage" in Paraguay. He and the other sodomite had to travel to Argentina in order to perform the act of being "married."
(And, gee, I haven't even gotten past the first paragraph of the article and there are three major distortions)
Meeting a transgender, engaged to marry a person of her own sex, and wishing her off on her merry way was also not on Francis’ calendar.
Nor, was calling up an adulterous woman in Argentina and telling her to sneak to another church in order to sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion on his calendar
You conveniently failed to mention that same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina.
I think your first “distortion” is somewhat fair. It is a little bit of a distortion, or perhaps an exaggeration, to say the pope is meeting with an LGBT leader. Not much. The fact is, the fellow's organizations was invited, he apparently is the representative of the group, and he will meet the pope. But the implication is a little more than that, suggesting perhaps that the pope would actually know personally that he was going to be meeting with this fellow.
Your second “distortion” is too cute. Is this fellow legally “married”? By operation of law, yes, he is. The fact that Paraguay doesn't recognize that status is irrelevant. If someone traveled to a country where interracial marriage was not recognized, and this person were married to someone of a different race, would the couple not be married while in the country that banned such marriages?
I guess you could argue that the same sex marriage isn't ontologically real, but that's sort of part of the whole debate, and thus seems like begging the question to assert thusly. I think it's fairer to say the guy is legally in a same-sex marriage.
sitetest
Same sex marriage, is okay?
It depends on whom you ask.
If you ask me, I'm in the camp that it isn't real. But I think Bruce is still a dude. You can see how many people agree with me on that one.
sitetest
Alright, sitetest. Thanks.
You know, you’re absolutely right.
Thank you for reading my posts.
Seems, you are desperate to be a legalist catholic? Why?
I usually try to be fair minded. I usually try to not believe evil about a person until I have utterly no choice in doing so.
Even then, I try to criticize somebody for what they have done and what they have said rather than for something that they might do in the future.
What has discouraged your truth finding?
Actually, I try to be diligent in truth finding. I try to go to actual source documents or to multiple sources (if only secondary sources are available).
For example, we have a pope and the US bishops that are claiming that it is Catholic doctrine to allow unrestricted migration into developed countries.
We can wail and gnash our teeth about that and cite how this will destroy the receiving countries unless there are controls. That is not a bad argument.
But it is, in my opinion, far more effective to show how they are totally distorting Catholic doctrine. Unless I can prove (on an Internet forum) that I hold a doctorate in Sacred Theology -- an impossibility, my word on that is insufficient, so I should actually cite Catholic doctrine to prove that they are in grave error.
Does that make me legalistic? Perhaps. Or does that make me diligent?
I look at it this way: if somebody does me the courtesy of reading my posts and then gets in a real-world argument about the same subject (in this case from post #60, religious indifferentism), citing FReeper markomalley won't really do too much good in that argument. Citing Pope Gregory XVI would likely carry a whole lot more weight.
Having said that, I have recanted in any defense of Bergoglio. If a sodomite-friendly blog says that he is going to have a private meeting with a sodomite, he is going to have that meeting. If a abortion-friendly blog says that he endorses the use of surgical, late term abortions for population control, then chances are they are right. If a socialist-friendly news media outlet says that he favors the abolition of private property, then that's the way it is. If an ecoterrorist blog says that he has latae sententiae excommunicated globull warming deniers (reserved to the Holy See), then they know the truth.
There is no possible defense of him.
More sarcasm or are you truly recanting?
Exactly. It would be one thing if Francis had never done any of these other scandalous meetings, etc.
If one is so concerned that this same man may not be causing yet another scandal by meeting with this LGBT leader, one could come up with a more charitable and balanced response to this report rather than charging you with calumny. Something like “Well, given Francis’ previous actions, I wouldn’t be surprised if this did in fact happen. However, I will wait and see what happens in July.”
>>>>>More sarcasm or are you truly recanting?
I always believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. I never trust the media. I try, in charity, to look at words of any bishop in the most positive light possible, in the event that I might be misunderstanding him, that it might be a “translation error” or even that he might be just having a bad day. We all do, you know.
However, when I hear, in his own voice, speaking extemporaneously and very slowly and deliberately, that we should “forgive” those nations that are trying to stem the for of illegal aliens so that their countries are not overrun, in direct violation of the Magisterium as summarized in the catechism, I’ve had enough (reference this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3301537/posts)
It was not a misquote. It was not an accident. It was not something written by the lavender mafia.
Can you clarify this? It looks like some words are missing and I'm not following it.
>>>>>Can you clarify this? It looks like some words are missing and I’m not following it.
First, “for” should have been written “flow” (stupid tablet auto correct)
Second, the exact statement was as follows:
Quote
“I invite you all to ask forgiveness for the persons and the institutions who close the door to these people who are seeking a family, who are seeking to be protected,” he said in unscripted remarks delivered in a somber voice.
End quote
And thus ended my willingness to give him a break.
Ah, thank you. I completely understand.
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.