Yes. But because of what is happening right now, the Destroyer may be next - I choose to not be part of it.
Interesting discussion in the comments too. When the Vatican says adultery may be necessary "for the children" all talk of the pope's orthodoxy is moot. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/06/the-insidious-footnote-saga-continues-fn-329/#comments The Insidious Footnote Saga continues: Fn. 329 I’ve been traveling and – frankly – backing off from the blog in order to have an actual vacation (NB: vacation, not rest). However, one of my Roman correspondents has again done yeoman’s work on a SUPER IMPORTANT point about Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis’ Post-Synodal Exhortation which continues to produce theological and disciplinary hairballs. I have written before about a deeply disturbing misuse of Gaudium et spes in a footnote, 329. BUT … ad perpetuam rei memoriam…. Remember everyone: I suggest that the Powers That Be correct AL in the version to appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Unless, of course, they intend these problems because they wanted them in the first place. So here is some analysis: Michael Pakaluk of Ave Maria University has published a piece at First Things, attacking another footnote in the infamous Chapter 8. You’ll remember the ink that has been spilt, notably by Cardinal Mueller, rolling back the erroneous interpretation of Footnote 351 offered by, among others Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, and Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, both of whom maintain that the footnote opens a path toward admission of CDR’s [civilly divorced and remarries] to Holy Communion without their living “as brother and sister”. Pakaluk finds another serious error in Footnote 329, which I copy for you below in the translation that Pakaluk employs: “In [second marriages], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy [i.e. sexual intercourse] are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).” The argument implied in this footnote, is that for the good of their “marriage”, the partners in a civil marriage following a civil divorce ought to be permitted to enjoy sexual intercourse despite the fact that is is prohibited by current Church teaching as expressed in Familiaris Consortio, 84, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, among other Magisterial documents. In support of this view, the footnote references a Vatican II document (cue celestial music!). For the sake of comparison, I copy below the pertinent section of the Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes, 51, (= GS 51) that is referenced in the footnote: “51. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.” Pakaluk shows that AL intentionally twists the meaning of GS 51, out of context. AL footnote 329 is talking about sexual intimacy in second “marriages” — i.e., civil marriages follwing civil divorce which are invalid; GS 51 is talking about sexual intimacy in valid, sacramental marriages. Hence, GS 51 cannot be used as an authority in order to trump the prohibition of sexual intercourse between CDR’s mandated by St. John Paul II at Familiaris Consortio, 84. What is most insidious about Footnote 329 is the callous way it tries to use the “good of the children” and “faithfulness between partners” in order to cover up the adultery (there, I said it!) that the footnote seeks to justify. Anyone can understand exactly what GS 51 is talking about, and what it is not talking about. Anyone, that is, who tries to read the document with rhe Church. The peoblem is that it seems to contradict the Church’s teaching in some serious matters. No one is serves by silence about this. The only way to work through it is to work through it. If you choose to try to commnent, think before posting. Think and weigh before posting.
As someone who is traditionally oriented, I admit it, I can't stand Pope Francis. Vagueness, bullying, hints about things changing, leaving things up in the air for others "to spin", either Charlie Johnston is correct , or because of his age, things will revert back. Maybe someone can point out the "fruits" that his papacy has produced. An encyclical taking the side of the globalists on global warming; how does he spin this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ummer-u-k-natural-gas-trades-like-it-s-winter
Their worry is the faithfulness of the unfaithful. The liberal Catholic view now is that in a proper marriage the wife must not feel pressured to attend to her husband's rightful needs but in an adulterous irregularity she must be compelled to do so, 'for the children's sake'. The marriage debt has been superseded by the adultery debt. This is not simply wrong-headed; it is a mocking, inversive insanity that can only have one source.
The pope can take whatever view he likes on such prudential matters. We must remember that, as a pope, his remit is very narrow and specialised. We need to pray hard that he doesn't banjax Faith and Morals-he is already tacking too close to the wind. His views on global warming carry no more weight than his prediction for the 2.30 race at Kempton.
I would love to see Joe Crozier , Charlie Johnston, or Mark Mallett spin this one: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...il&utm_term=0_c5c75ce940-b3777db3fd-397786285
No "spin" necessary. But I will take it as a complement to those three men that you perceive them willing to defend their Holy Father. As usual, Pope Francis' most forceful opponents simply fall prey to an elementary theological error: that of ascribing an intrinsically evil nature to an action because it risks causing scandal, and speaking bold words of condemnation that proceed from this fallacy. Do I necessarily agree with the Pope's antics? Often I do not. But I am not about to go on a public crusade against the Vicar of the Second Person of the Eternal Trinity over it. This is the same thing that Francis has already done countless times during his Pontificate. I don't know what the point is supposed to be of continuing to fret about it. If you think a "safer" approach is better, then by all means, follow it yourself. But you're not going to change Pope Francis, and all of this discord that Pope Francis' detractors within the Church insist upon fomenting is only damaging the Body of Christ.
Here's a little prophecy for you. Just the bullet points rather than stretch it out over three or four posts: Jesus ate with sinners. The woman at the well. The parable of the shepherd who left the 99 sheep to go find the one lost sheep (three for the price of one in this case). Reaching out to the (far from) poor and marginalised. You comment indicates that you are not open to the Holy Spirit.
Did Jesus give the impression that he endorsed the activity of the various sinners and lost sheep he encountered? When one presents awards to people it is seen universally as a sign of approval of their actions. Is everyone who sees these events sufficiently knowledgeable of the various nuances involved in order to receive the intended (?) message? I would fear that the next time the likes of Clooney defends abortion, some will understand him to have papal support. Had the Pope condemned the relevant liberal agendas of these people in an unambiguous manner in the course of the presentation, this could, at least, have helped to clarify things. Taking the risk of causing scandal may not be intrinsically wrong, indeed is a graceful thing in the safe hands of Our Lord. Nevertheless, when it is repeatedly done clumsily, confusingly and ambiguously this does not imply that it is necessarily intrinsically right.
I was thinking that was probably so due to that little cartoonie face thing you had included-those in the know call these ridiculous things 'imojies', I believe. I suspected there might have been more than a little tongue in your cheek, but I am not clever enough to be sure, so I let fly!
Yes, except that my tongue is clamped between my teeth. Better that than give my thoughts surrounding what is likely a more accurate prophecy that the contraception, abortion and lavendar agendas will have yet another stick to beat the faithful Catholics in Africa. As to the honoured trio, when I see George Clooney living in the middle of a terrace or in a matchbox sized apartment in some European city watching as his job prospects are lessened, his wages reduced, his taxes raised and everything he worked for and his parents fought for is dismantled to accommodate immigrants from all over the world, I'll start paying attention to whatever message he's peddling with the Vatican's imprimatur.
I certainly won't begrudge your pointing out George Clooney's hypocrisy, but have you looked at the actual breakdown of the expenditures, as percent of GDP, of the U.S. and European countries? It is not "accommodating immigrants" that is causing the ills you here mention. Let's not look for scapegoats here.
Perhaps you are right Dolours. Believe me, I struggle with that. However (you knew that was coming), the parable of the good shepherd is interesting, what if the good sheperd went after the one sheep and came back to a flock that had been ravaged by wolves? Is that good? What were Cardinal Bergoglio's fruits as sheperd in Buenos Aires? More vocations? Conversions? Thriving diocese? What are they now? I wholeheartedly agree with reaching out to the poor and marginalized, who doesn't? I seriously doubt I would put George Clooney in that category. Or for that matter Emma Bonino or Elton John. I am a sinner and catholic, I hope Jesus forgives me. Woman at the well, whatever happened to the part where Jesus says, "go and sin no more." I believe Charlie Johnston is right, that the pope would make a big mistake when he came to the USA. That mistake, in my humble opinion, was to embrace the globalist (money-changers at the temple) agenda. Push for social justice and downplay abortion and the homosexual agenda. Therefore, I believe the church has lost its salt. I also believe there will come a time when Pope Francis "throws the money-changers out of the temple". That will be the real beginning of the church's persecution. In the meantime, we are on the globalist side, or the masonic side sorry to say. For me, I am going to stick to adoration and personal prayer and try to get holy.
And then we mustn't forget those who will have even more to answer for like C. Bertone, sitting high and above the riff raff (even above the Pope's own humble little quarters) with well attired digs for his "retirement"....and, due to his desire to simply relegate Fatima (Russia et al) to the past....so as not to hint at any NWO in which some well placed prelates are eager to enable as well as the Satanic infiltration within the Church's hierarchy....and who was in charge of gagging poor Sr. Lucia to her own obedience to Church authority (him)! No wonder Bishops and Priests are so on our Lady's mind and heart these days as she gives that intention great emphasis for the faithful's prayers.
Statistics can mean anything you want them to mean. Who do you think will pay for the subsidised housing, the "free" education and subsidised or "free" healthcare for the migrants? And who do you think will see their neighbourhoods changed beyond all recognition? Europe's working class will shoulder most of the burden for generations to come. Unlike George Clooney, they can't escape to a mansion in Berkshire where the neighbour is the Home Secretary or a luxury apartment in Manhattan to be wined and dined by a Supreme Court justice. I don't know what you mean by looking for scapegoats. The politicians and other power brokers that George Clooney rubs shoulders with and makes financial contributions to are the culprits.
I know how you feel. It has gone beyond mild eccentricities and is bordering on farcical. I don't believe that this Pope will throw out the money-changers. That task will fall to his successor and I expect that the persecutors will pick and choose statements and actions from this pontificate to justify the persecution. In fairness to Pope Francis, I get the impression that he is trying to change a widely held perception that the Church has been too closely aligned with rich and powerful fiscal conservatives to the detriment of the poor. Unfortunately, there appears to be no fiscally moderate/social conservative alternative, and Pope Francis has well and truly nailed his colours to the mast as to where his priorities lie. For the rest of this Pontificate we can expect to see Papal gushing over the Obamas, Bidens, Clooneys and Boninos of this world unless he cops himself on and realises that he is of far more use to them than they are to him.
Mere accommodation costs are the least of the problems that unlimited immigration will cause, in Europe at least. The outcome will be the eventual collapse of European civilisation, perpetual civil war a la (is this a pun?) the present state of the Middle East and the possible eventual Islamisation of the continent. Americans will get off comparatively lightly. They will be overwhelmed by an ethnic group who are predominantly Catholic and possess a culture derived from European civilisation. How we in Europe would be delighted to be invaded by Mexicans!
Wants the Spirit to catch fire in his priests.....really good....esp. in his "extraordinary" Jubilee Year of Mercy. It's late and "things" are hitting the fan so the shepherds must now be in a frenzy to draw as many as possible from the wolves everywhere. Definitely not a time to be locked in. You can't say that he himself hasn't practiced what he's preached in his own life: http://www.lastampa.it/2016/06/03/v...eir-flocks-v2oo0MeQWWkM9V0CGLIDKJ/pagina.html
http://www.hprweb.com/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-a-deceptive-joy/ Thought this was an interesting critique of AL from Father Regis
