Pope: From Lourdes to Seoul, I entrust the world’s sick and suffering to Mary [Catholic Caucus]

Asia News ^ | 02.11.07

[Coleus]

Recalling the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes and the World Day of the Sick, which this year is being celebrated in Seoul, Benedict XVI exhorted health workers and relatives of sick people to offer “human support” and “spiritual accompaniment”, especially those who are terminally ill.  Vatican City (AsiaNews) – On the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, now also the World Day of the Sick, the pope did not stop at talking about miracles and healing. Thanking health workers and relatives of sick people, he called for the “development of palliative care that offers holistic support”, giving “terminally ill people the human support and spiritual accompaniment that they badly need.”

Benedict XVI recalled the “prodigious event” of “the first apparition of the Virgin Mary to St Bernadette, which took place on 11 February 1858 in the grotto of Massabielle in Lourdes”. This event, continued the pope, made “the location, situated in the French slopes of the Pyrenees, a global center for pilgrimages and intense Marian spirituality. In this place, for nearly 150 years now, the call of Our Lady to prayer and repentance still reverberates powerfully, a quasi permanent echo of the invitation with which Jesus inaugurated his preaching in Galilee: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’ (Mk 1:15).”

Although miracles and healings confirmed by a team of doctors often take place at Lourdes, the pope saw fit to draw attention to a more profound miracle: “Moreover, the shrine has become a destination of many sick pilgrims who, putting themselves in a position to listen to the Most Holy Mary, are encouraged to accept their sufferings and to offer them for the salvation of the world, uniting them with those of the crucified Christ.”   Bnedict XVI explained the connection between the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes and the World Day of the Sick: “It was precisely because of this link between Lourdes and human suffering that, 15 years ago, the beloved John Paul II wanted the World Day of the Sick to be celebrated on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. This year, the focus of this feast is in the city of Seoul, capital of South Korea, where I sent Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health Care to represent me. I send an affectionate greeting to him and to all those gathered there.”

The pope continued: “I would like to extend my thoughts to health workers across the world, well aware of the importance of their service to sick people in our society. In particular, I want to express my spiritual closeness and my affection for our sick brothers and sisters, especially those who are afflicted by more serious and painful illnesses. On this Day, our attention is turned towards them in a special way. It is necessary to support the development of palliative care that offers holistic support and gives terminally ill people the human support and spiritual accompaniment that they badly need.”   Before the Angelus prayer, the pope reminded his audience about a Eucharistic Celebration that will be held this afternoon in St Peter’s Basilica, with many sick people and pilgrims. Mass will be presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, Vicar of the diocese of Rome.  Benedict XVI said: “At the end of Holy Mass, I will have the joy, like last year, of spending some time with them, reliving the spiritual climate experienced at the grotto of Massabielle. With this Angelus prayer, I would like to entrust to the maternal protection of the Immaculate Virgin all those in the world who are sick and suffering in body and spirit.”

[Running On Empty]

Then I would like to ask that this thread be "closed".

[murphE]

An atheist can post on an Open thread claiming that Jesus was just a man or that God doesn't exist.

Are you sure about that? Can he disparage Jesus? Call Him names? I know insulting His Mother like this is "fair game" apparently, but according to the

Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

"...Free Republic is pro-God...We aggressively defend our God-given...rights...Our God-given liberty and freedoms..."

That seems fairly incompatible with blasphemy.

[murphE]

IMHO, Anti-[whatever], regardless of to whom it is directed, should be treated equally.

To paraphrase Animal Farm, some [whatevers] are more equal than other [whatevers].

[Religion Moderator]

The thread is now a Closed, Catholic Caucus.

[Religion Moderator]

Not everyone here is Christian.

Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus (etc.) and even some Muslims post on Free Republic.

[Suzy Quzy]

Funny but you never answered my question.....It is not okay to say that someone is IGNORANT of facts?

[Religion Moderator]

On the Religion Forum, many arrive with chips on their shoulders or are themselves irritable or intolerant and therefore are easily offended. It is to be expected when the subject matter deals with eternal life and death.

Therefore, whereas it is usually tolerable to say another poster is ignorant on the news, blog, chat or backroom forums – it is never tolerable to say such a thing on the Religion Forum.

It is “reading the mind” of another poster to say he is ignorant. It is “making it personal” which often results in ill will or a return insult leading to flame wars and resentments which follow the combatants from thread to thread.

Likewise it is never tolerable on the Religion Forum to say another poster is a liar or otherwise attribute motives to him.

It is tolerable on an Open thread to say a particular doctrine, tradition or concept is false, ignorant, incomplete, a strawman argument or whatever. Such statements are not personally directed to another Freeper.

Many who have had difficulty with this guideline have found a review of their use of pronouns before pressing the “post” key has been effective.

[Suzy Quzy]

YIKES!! Just curious...are you a male or female?

[Suzy Quzy]

HELLO???? Are you a male or female or are we not allowed to ask or know?

[AlaninSA]

Would the calvinist cult members like some damnation with their heresy?

[P-Marlowe]

Would the calvinist cult members like some damnation with their heresy?

This thead has been officially designated as a "catholic caucus." Please refrain from pinging non-catholics here and calling them cult members or heretics.

Thank you.

BTW I am not a Calvinist so your invective was clearly misplaced. But that being said, Calvinism is neither a cult nor a heresy.

Carry on.

[Religion Moderator]

I choose not to answer your question.

[Suzy Quzy]

Ahhhh, chick.

[AlaninSA]

I ping you not.

Calvinism is a cult.

Any "version" of Christianity that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox is Protestant.

Protestant thought grew from the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

Spurgeon is dead now...his ideas were dead on arrival.

[neocon]

It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!

No, it is disingenuous to establish standards of moderation which are inherently inequitable, and irrational. I've explained why they are inequitable: Jews come in for special protection, but Catholics are to be subjected to special opprobrium. I shouldn't have to explain why that is unjust to any person of good will. I'm sorry that we don't seem to have suffered enough throughout history to suit you, but I refuse to accept a standard which does not grant me or my co-religionists the same degree of human dignity which is due to everyone. To suggest otherwise is bigotry, pure and simple. But bigotry against Catholics is tolerated here as it would not be tolerated against any other group. See, for example, Philip Jenkins' The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. For the record, Jenkins is an Episcopalian.

The poster of an article is quite literally "asking for it" when he omits the caucus label.

Rubbish. No one ever "asks for it", but we Catholics seem to get it anyway. The standard of common civility always applies. Those who do not wish to abide by it make take their food fight to the Smoky Backroom, if it still exists. It will certainly contribute nothing to a civilized discussion.

... labeling another Freeper ignorant ...

I've explained to you that "ignorant" simply means "uninformed" or "misinformed". It is a statement of objective fact, not a personal slur. I will ask you once again to stop calling people out for this.

... but do not make it personal.

But as a matter of logic, these things are personal. To claim otherwise to abandon rationality.

You can repeat this nonsense as often as you like, but repetition will not make it any less nonsensical. I simply don't know how to explain it more clearly than I already have. But it is a principle of Thomistic philosophy that an unjust law is no law at all, and it is legitimate to ignore it. Indeed, under certain conditions, there is a moral obligation to disobey it. Unless and until you are willing to establish standards of moderation that are rational and equitable, you should expect to continue to receive complaints on these matters.

I'm sorry to put things this bluntly, but we Catholics have had a target painted on our backs for many years here, and it is profoundly tiresome to be constantly put on the defensive. I can't imagine why JimRob is willing to have FR be a haven for anti-Catholic bigotry, but that is what it has been for quite some time. Nor do I see how allowing it to become this serves the stated purposes of FR as a whole.

Once again, no member of this forum should be the subject of bigotry; and every member of this forum is entitled to civility. Anything less, and the whole religion forum is an exercise in futilty.

[murphE]

[Religion Moderator]

But it is a principle of Thomistic philosophy that an unjust law is no law at all, and it is legitimate to ignore it. Indeed, under certain conditions, there is a moral obligation to disobey it.

My job is to keep the peace on the Religion Forum. And I will do what I must to see it done.

Therefore if you ignore the guidelines - or if others do at your urging - there will be consequences.

[neocon]

there will be consequences.

I have spoken to you respectfully, calmly citing objective facts, and principles of logic and philosophy. Instead of addressing the points I have raised, your response to my last post was to log me out. Not what I would call a mature, reasoned action.

The standards of moderation which you have established are, objectively, inequitable and irrational. Apparently, you consider that my appeal for civility and a renunciation of bigotry is too much to ask. That speaks volumes, and it is not necessary for me to enumerate further exactly what it speaks.

I simply will not acquiesce to such eccentricities; no one in their right mind would. If you will not reconsider your approach to moderation, and it appears you won't, I would invite you to delete my account forthwith. What others choose to do is, of course, entirely their own affair.

[Religion Moderator]

If you don’t want to post here, then don’t. I will not ban someone for getting mouthy with me unless it becomes a pattern.

I am not a shepherd on the forum, I do not settle religious disputes, I do not pick sides.

In a town square, the poster has as much leeway to be anti-[pick a confession] as he does to be pro-[pick a confession] - as long as he abides by the guidelines, he can make his case. If the only acceptable post is pro-[pick a confession] then there is no debate, no town square at all and every thread is a caucus.

There are numerous excellent champions for the Catholic confession on this forum. If you don’t believe me, just follow annalex and jo kus and Mad Dawg around for awhile.

They do not have a problem with the Religion Forum guidelines. They do not call their opponents in the debate “ignorant.” They do not use pejoratives, they persuade with facts, reason and rhetoric.

Please understand that my job is to keep the peace – so I intervene like a sheepdog and bark at any poster whose choice of words might cause a fight to break out. It doesn't go on a "permanent record" that they were barked at, nor do I suspend or ban posters for having a bad day now and again.

Of course, no one likes to be barked at so I understand and appreciate the righteous indignation that usually follows. Nevertheless, I impose those guidelines to avoid fights altogether and to balance it out, I also provide methods for “safe harbor” for those whose thin skin make them easy prey.