" True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. “ To become the sinner. To. Become. The. Sinner.
I certainly dont see myself as a teacher but I am concerned and I suppose a bit defensive because of the constant pressure now in this country. I have grandchildren who are under the age of 7 coming from school with a song composed by some of the schoolchildren celebrating Ireland's Marriage Equality as being a reflection of the freedom sought in 1916. Catholic ethics in catholic schools are seriously under threat and very few feel up to saying anything about it. We have nuns and priests being interviewed giving support for gay marriage. The Pope I am sure does support catholic teaching but his way of stating things is unclear and certainly the pro gay lobby take more encouragement to knock down barriers to their ideology in catholic schools. From where I am standing I am sorry to say I am not hearing any encouragement to Catholics to defend the truth. Maybe he is leaving the 99 to go after the lost sheep but right now its hard on the 99 and getting harder. That said I pray for Pope Francis and I dont wish in any way to disrespect him.
This has become a classic quote to 'hammer' Pope Francis! Here is an excellent article on the quote: Christ “Became the Sinner”: Pope Francis and Bad Translators January 21, 2015 The process of Pope Francis being misunderstood is so common it could easily keep me busy day and night as an apologist. I wrote a book about it and compiled a large collection of links to articles that debunk numerous false charges. I think he is almost always a victim in these matters, based on a number of factors beyond the purview of this article. I’d like to present one astounding example of the pope being subjected to terrible English translation even from within the Vatican. I don’t know why or how this happens (nor do I care to know), but it clearly did in this case, so that the Holy Father was unjustly blamed and accused in certain cynical Catholic quarters of being a heretic for something he never said. Pope Francis, in a homily on 15 June 2013, made a comment on 2 Corinthians 5:21. Here is that verse (RSV): For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. St. Paul’s statement reflects the biblical language of, particularly, three other passages: Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree”. Isaiah 53:6 the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. As the Lamb of God, in biblical analogical thinking, Jesus was completely innocent (just as a lamb is), but took the punishment on Himself, to die for us and redeem us. The Holy Father’s critics in this instance have pounced upon his phrases (from an article on the News.va/Official Vatican Network website): “He became the sinner for us” and later “become the sinner for us.” This, they claimed, goes beyond the traditional biblical, Catholic terminology (seen above). And they argued that it entailed some heretical elements, whereby Christ actually became a sinner and partook of, or entered into sin. As always, I gave the pope the benefit of the doubt (very unlike his numerous strong critics), and casually assumed that he knows his theology. These critics apparently think that the pope is ignorant of the basic Catholic theology of salvation, whereas I maintain that this is utterly implausible and absurd on its face. In my effort to defend the Holy Father, I had, however, momentarily forgotten that, so often, the translations we get out of the Vatican are (to be kind) less than ideal. I had presupposed for the sake of argument that I was working with an accurate translation, but then started wondering if that was the problem in the first place. Out of curiosity, I took the offending phrases from the Italian version of the “controversial” part of the homily and utilized three online translators. I also consulted with an Italian Facebook friend of mine, Greta Villani (my italics added throughout): La vera riconciliazione è che Dio in Cristo ha preso i nostri peccati e si è fatto peccato per noi. Vatican: “True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us.” Babylon: “. . . took our sins and was made sin for us.” Google: “. . . has taken our sins and was made sin for us.” Bing: “. . . took our sins and became sin for us.” Greta Villani: “The true reconciliation is that God in Christ took our sins and he became sin for us.” E a lui piace, perché è stata la sua missione: farsi peccato per noi, per liberarci . . . Vatican translation: “And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us . . .” Babylon, Google, and Bing alike: “to be sin for us.” Greta Villani: “And he likes it because it was his mission: to become sin for us, to free us . . .” With this bit of information, the alarmist criticism collapsed, and even the person with whom I was primarily disputing, begrudgingly conceded as much. The pope in fact echoed closely – if not identically – the biblical language, and it was yet another tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing; entirely a “false alarm.” The pope wasn’t heterodox, nor was he imprecise in language. The Vatican translator was the one who was (inexplicably) sloppy, leading to needless and scandalous suspicions of heresy. I had to spend an entire day as an apologist dealing with this non-issue. But that’s okay: I’m always happy to defend the Holy Father. http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/christ-became-sinner-pope-francis-bad-translators
Understood, and of course there is no apologizing for the Scriptures (regardless of a fashionable Marcionism which would simply like to ditch the Old Testament). However, IMHO I think we need to contextualize this by saying that, according to Vatican II's definition, all baptized Christians are to some extent in communion with the Catholic Church, meaning that the Pope speaks for the entire Body of Christ - as the Lord's Vicar, not only Catholics. And once you bring US and other fundamentalists into the equation, that .0005 % increases considerably, I'm afraid. Indeed, even if only just one homosexual ever committed suicide because of merciless condemnation from a so-called Christian, the Pope would be justified in apologizing. Just my two pence worth here (which since Brexit is worth even less than it was a week ago)) If folks want to accuse me of erring on the side of charity when it comes to Pope Francis, I plead guilty.
Good gravy. It's Groundhog Day again The usual suspects who knee jerk at these things would be best served to simply not read anything further after you see the words "Pope Francis said in an interview on the plane ride home from his trip . . . " What he said again was true. He did NOT say we have to accept homosexual acts and activity. He was asked a question, and gave the following answer (we ARE in the Year of Mercy, people, do you understand what the Year of Mercy is all about? It's to get as many fallen away people back in the safety of the boat before God drops the hammer on us! This includes the sodomites, murderers, abortionists, ALL). When I was a kid, many of the Catholic kids called gay people all kinds of names, you know, the British name for a cig, some kids even physically assaulted them. We didn't have nice things to say about all kinds of minorities either. Guess what, it's wrong to do that! Yes, I should apologize to any gay person I called a name when I was young and dumb. But no, I suffer under no delusion that Pope Francis is telling me that now I have to accept homosexual acts, that's NOT what he said. He said TRUTH, and that is that we should apologize to those we assaulted. We are called to LOVE ALL. That means everyone, the gays, people in jail who have committed murder, everyone. He is not telling me that I have to accept the homosexual acts and those committing them and those promoting them as "normal". It's not normal. It's abnormal, but it gives NONE of us the right to judge or persecute them. Read what he said in response to the question, he rightly said we should apologize to the gays who have been persecuted AND women who have been exploited, AND children who have been exploited, and for promoting the weapons of war that have proliferated across our world. Do you really think we shouldn't apologize for verbally and physically assaulting gays? In the hour-long freewheeling conversation that has become a trademark of his international travels, Francis was asked if he agreed with recent comments by a German Roman Catholic cardinal that the Church should apologize to gays. Francis looked sad when the reporter asked if an apology was made more urgent by the killing of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Florida this month. He recalled Church teachings that homosexuals "should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally." He added: "I think that the Church not only should apologize ... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologize to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologize for having blessed so many weapons." The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste. Francis repeated a slightly modified version of the now-famous "Who am I to judge?" comment he made about gays on the first foreign trip after his election in 2013. "The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?"
Homosexual acts are wrong. There seems to be an erroneous tendency here to assume that if one professes the Truth that they must be unloving or lacking in compassion. I'm sure it is safe to say that all of us have homosexual family, friends, neighbors, or acquaintances. They deserve the same respect and dignity that any human life deserves. They also deserve the truth. The problem that many of us are trying to address is the tendency of some to believe that "love" means downplaying the "truth". Truth and love go hand in hand. If one is omitted, then it leads to an imbalance that allows for more confusion and sin.
I think Peter here I would go back to the foundation of charity itself. I think charity builds itself on the truth . If, for instance, I were to give a positive affirmation to something I believed to be wrong , that would not be erring on the side of charity, that would , in fact be uncharitable. If on the other hand I disagreed with something someone said which was wrong and said so that is the greatest charity I could do. It seems to me that charity and truth walk hand in hand, that charity is not a moveable feast, so to speak, but, rather, founds itself in truth. I don't think any of us are in a charity contest. I am afraid there seems ot be an underlying narrative here which implies which appears to imply in however subtle a fashion that those of us who question some of the Holy Father's extraordinary statements are opposed to the Holy Father and lacking in 'Charity'. I am not opposed to the Holy Father, he is Pope; I am however opposed to what he said. I, on the other hand, would see myself as very much lacking in charity if I did not defend the truth. Defending the truth, rather than, being uncharitable to the Holy Father. I would also assume that those who have no problem with what the Holy Father said are equally convinced they are on the side of truth. That they too speak in Charity. As I mentioned I do not see this as a charity contest. '1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).' http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html
This is homosexual abuse. It might have occurred in a Hollywood version of "Christendom" centuries ago. Might. But it's not occurring now, except in the false narrative surrounding the Matthew Shepherd case. If it still happens, it should be repented and forgiveness begged. On second thought, it is occurring now. In Muslim countries where gays are thrown from rooftops. Or in nightclubs in Orlando. But the powers that be aren't calling Islam to repentance. They reserve their judgment for Christianity.
That IS what he is doing. What the rest of us need to do is stay calm, Trust in His promise, and persevere. It is no coincidence that the Fruit of the most powerful mystery of the Rosary, the Crucifixion, is perseverance. Please prayerfully consider it this way, would he attract any more fallen away people to God's Love and into the safety of our Church if he had answered it this way? "Pope Francis, do you agree with recent comments by a German Roman Catholic cardinal that the Church should apologize to gays?" "Absolutely not. What they are doing in these homosexual acts is an abomination and abhorrent to any good practicing Catholic. I will pray for these sodomites that they repent before they die or they will spend eternity in hell."
Folks here need to be reminded of reality, not this false sense of shame at sharing the Gospel (which is Marx's agenda): View attachment 5072
5. The Finding of Jesus in the Temple (Joy) Our Celestial Mother: “…After three days of most bitter sighs, tears, anxieties and fears, we entered the temple. I was all eyes and looked everywhere, when, finally, overcome with jubilation, I saw my Son in the midst of the doctors of the law! He was speaking with such wisdom and majesty as to make those who were listening remain enraptured and amazed. Only in seeing Him, I felt life come back to me, and soon I understood the secret reason of His being lost. And now, a little word to you, dearest child. In this mystery, my Son wanted to give to me and to you, a sublime teaching. Could you perhaps assume that He was ignoring what I was suffering? On the contrary, my tears, my searching, and my cruel and intense sorrow, resounded in His heart. Yet, during those hours, so painful, He sacrificed to the Divine Will, His own Mama, the one whom He loves so much, in order to show me how I too, one day, was to sacrifice His own Life to the Divine Will. In this unspeakable pain, I did not forget you, my beloved one. Thinking that it would serve as an example for you, I kept it at your disposal, so that you too, at the appropriate time, might have the strength to sacrifice everything to the Divine Will. As Jesus finished speaking, we approached Him reverently, and addressed Him with a sweet reproach: “Son, why have you done this to us?” And He, with divine dignity, answered us: “Why did you look for me? Did you not know that I came to the world to glorify my Father?” Having comprehended the high meaning of His answer, and adored in it the Divine Will, we returned to Nazareth. Child of my maternal heart, listen. When I lost my Jesus, the pain I felt was so very intense; yet, a second one added to this – that of losing you. In fact, in foreseeing that you would have gone far from the Divine Will, I felt at one time deprived of the Son and of the daughter, and so my maternity suffered a double blow. My child, when you are in the act of doing your own will rather than that of God, think that by abandoning the Divine Fiat, you are about to lose Jesus and me, and fall into the kingdom of miseries and vices. Keep then, the promise you made me – to remain indissolubly united to me – and I will grant you the grace of never again letting you be dominated by your will, but only by the Divine.” (From “The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will”; Meditation 5, Appendix)
I do recognize that Christ took on our sins and died for our sins but I was always taught that a good confession requires a firm purpose of amendment.
Hi Padraig I am a huge fan of Pius XII and admire his courage and his wisdom. There was nothing cowardly about this pope. He is a saint in my book and never shirked his duty. As has been pointed out by another member he did not write the piece you attribute to him but what he did and said clearly indicated his position without throwing too much unnecessary petrol on the fire. I agree he spoke up and spoke sufficiently but he spoke advisedly. I do not have my research papers on this great pope on me but will try to dig them out. Again I cannot fault this pope but he was for his time as was his predecessor.
What a great declaration of faith from Pius XI who like Pius XII opposed the Nazi regime albeit in a different way. They each opposed the brown shirts in their own way according to the needs and caution of their times. Today, hopefully, these popes will be praying rather thsn twirling for us.
The prime duty of one who communicates, Peter, who uses language, is that they firstly carry across their message simply and clearly to their audience . Int his case the Holy Father has singularly failed to do so. He has once again caused huge confusion and pain by issuing a statement through an off the cuff press briefing in a plane up in the sky. You Peter do not know what the Pope actually meant; I do not know what the Pope actually meant. No one does. It's meaning as in so many of these cases is utterly opaque. Oh yes we can all suppose what he might have meant, make guesses. But the truth of the matter is that the only ones who really know what the Holy Father meant is the Holy Father, perhaps a few of his friends in the Vatican and the Lord God Almighty (and I am not entirely sure that the Holy Father and his friends know either, come to think of it the Good God may well be scratching His old head as well). But never mind perhaps the Vatican Press Office will fill us in in a few hours, as they usually do. Though how they claim understand these statements is a mystery to me, for no one else can. If what the Holy Father said was clear we would all be having be having a very, very different conversation than that we are haivng now. We just don't know what he meant, it is like reading tea leaves. But what I think we can do is put his comments in the context of what is happening in wider Western Societies. When I was a teenager in my home city there were no homosexual bars, hotels , saunas, newspapers and so. Now they have an entire area of the city as their very own. They have their own media, they are lionised and portrayed as victims. In other words the Pink Lobby is by no means a persecuted minority, far from being on the back foot they are very much to the forefront. Legislation has meant that Christians are beginning to be criminalised for deep religious convictions and actions that are percieved by the Pink Lobby and Western Societies as a whole as being criminal. I would liken this persecution which is falling upon us to the situation of the Catholic Church at the start of the Nazi regime in Germany. At that time people who spoke up against Facism were beginning also to be criminalised. Now suppose at that time Pope Pius xi had spoken out and apologised for the' 'wrongs ,' the Catholic Church had indlicted on the Nazis Party and the German people. Naturally German Catholics would be horrified. So it is a matter of context. Say a patient goes to a Doctor and asks for medicine and the Doctor hands her a bottle of vinegar. Clearly this would make the woman worse. What the Doctor should actually have handed the patient was a bottle of milk. So with the Holy Father. At a time when the Church faces impending and actually perecution from an everywhere triumphant Pink Lobby and at a time when Christians everywhere are confused as to how to approach the issue of triuphant sexual perversion, the Holy Father hands the Church a Bottle of Vinegar for our indigestion. It's all a matter of context and clarity. The Holy Father is not helping the Christian communities who are besieged, utterly confused and under pressure in these matters. He is making things much , much, much worse. What the Holy Father said would be fine for an Editorial in the, 'New York Times,'I am sorry, it is not fine for the Church as a whole.
I would love to sing the constant praises of this holy father. No one is better at social justice than him. Here is yet another publicly wriiten article by a prominent catholic priest here in the US. Houston, there is a problem no matter how you want to spin it. I guess I will continue to pray and try to trust: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/one-priests-concern-about-recent-remarks-by-the-pope
