Sunday, July 12, 2015

EDITORIALISTS IN MACON AND ELSEWHERE CAN'T SPIN THIS FOR THEIR ANTI CATHOLIC SECULARIST AGENDA

This is what Pope Francis wrote in 2010. DISCUSS:

In 2010, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio fought against the introduction of same-sex marriage and adoption rights, saying that it would lead to “a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family.”

In a letter to a group of Carmelite nuns that was eventually leaked to the press, Bergoglio said that “at stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.”

“At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God,” he wrote. “At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
He went on to describe gay marriage as a move from “the ‘Father of Lies’ who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God”.

“Father of Lies” is a term used to refer to the Devil in the Gospel of John.

10 comments:

Dialogue said...

Father McDonald,

Those reactionary Catholics who hate the pope do so because he refuses to "preach to the choir". They are more interested in promoting the elect than in saving the lost. Secret letters revealing that the pope is Catholic won't soften their hearts or open their minds.

Anonymous said...

"Those reactionary Catholics who hate the pope do so because he refuses to "preach to the choir". They are more interested in promoting the elect than in saving the lost. Secret letters revealing that the pope is Catholic won't soften their hearts or open their minds."

Not really.

I don't want Francis to preach to the choir.

I would like him to preach to the lost sheep.

I would like him to uphold the Catholic Faith without ambiguity. Is he doing that or is he letting people feel comfortable right where they are. Example: why the silence in the wake of Ireland turning her back on God and embracing sodomy? Why is he not encouraging those brethren in the Faith? That's his duty.

He won't put a mozetta on his shoulders but he has no problem putting a filthy, blasphemous medallion with Christ crucified on a Communist hammer and sickle around his neck.

Francis had no problem publicly ridiculing and deriding faithful Catholics who sent him a spiritual bouquet of prayers, yet he allows with a smile, a Communist dictator to hang a revolting anti Christian symbol around his neck. His actions are scandalous and reprehensible. Would he wear a swastka crucifix to be hung on his neck or a confederate flag crucifix to be used?

Anonymous Enough said...

Oh yeah, we hate the pope! Sure, that's it. If we disagree with affirmative action, we HATE black people. If we disagree with the gay agenda, we HATE homosexuals. If we disagree with high taxes, we HATE the poor. If we disagree with prohibiting Confederate battle flags, we are racists filled with HATE for anyone who is different. And, again, we if disagree with a pope who says something Catholic every three months or so between a litany of imprudent remarks, we MUST HATE him too!

That's it, HATE! Sure, vilify away. If you can't win an argument on principles, then discredit your opponent and call him names.

No, don't. I have a better idea.

GROW UP.

George said...


There have movements that strove for, either in fact or ostensibly, the achievement of just ends, that in the end resulted in terrible injustices being done. Communism being the prime example. These movements sought not just a predominant acceptance of their beliefs and philosophy, but the elimination of all effective opposition and of any and all symbols or vestige of those opposed to their view.

As for the hammer and sickle crucifix:
Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said: "Certainly it will not be put in a church."

Anonymous 2 said...

I think this got lost in cyberspace so I am sending it again:

“[H]e has no problem putting a filthy, blasphemous medallion with Christ crucified on a Communist hammer and sickle around his neck.”

Perhaps Morales intended the hammer and sickle crucifix to be a symbol of some kind of resonance between Communism and Christianity, and perhaps this was even the intent of the Jesuit priest who designed it, but it does not have to be interpreted that way at all. In fact, when I look at it, what it says immediately to me is “Christ crucified by the Cross of Communism” (or perhaps even “Christ victorious over Communism” because the Resurrection follows). There is a wonderful line in “Lord of the Dance” (which I am sure almost everyone who comments here hates): “I danced on a Friday when the world turned black. It's hard to dance with the devil on your back.” So interpreted, the hammer and sickle crucifix is a powerful symbol that I do not find blasphemous at all. Perhaps, then, this is a case of “Honi soit qui mal y pense.”

Anonymous said...

The comments made by the former Cardinal Bergoglio are good ones but I'm afraid of the possibility that the former Cardinal may have grown and become wiser and has developed a deeper appreciation and compassion for sodomites and his apparent transformation has helped him to redefine adultery. He was a questionable choice to be pontiff just as countless supreme court justices have been for their jobs and once in office they've surprised us. Which brings to mind one of Franics' greatest hits - "Sometimes God likes to surprise us'" We can't stop praying that the Holy Spirit will intervene for the Church, because regrettably we know the supreme court has shown little evidence of being guided by His will.

Mike

Lefebvrian said...

Here's where we are:

It is newsworthy when the pope or a cardinal says something in accord with Catholic teaching.

DJR said...

"Lefebvrian said...Here's where we are: It is newsworthy when the pope or a cardinal says something in accord with Catholic teaching."

This remark reminded me of an interview that appeared in the Catholic press quite awhile ago. The interviewee was an English woman. The occasion was the imminent retirement of her modernist bishop after a disastrous reign.

The interviewer asked her, "What would you like to see in a new bishop?"

Her answer: "A Catholic would be nice."

LOL.

Anonymous 2 said...

Lefebvrian:

Is that entirely fair? Or is it more accurate to say that you consider it newsworthy when the pope or a cardinal says something that is in accord with those parts of Catholic teaching you choose to emphasize?

Pope Francis has said a great deal that is in accordance with Catholic teaching. The problem is that some Catholics either refuse to acknowledge that fact or find ways to minimize certain parts of Catholic teaching as somehow of lesser moment than other parts for this, that, or the other reason. Much of Laudato Si, for example, is in accordance with Catholic teaching, as is Pope Francis’s “revolutionary” speech in Bolivia, as a cursory glance at the CCC makes clear. The difference, of course, is that these sorts of pronouncements make “conservatives” uncomfortable and oppositional whereas pronouncements to do with sex make “progressives” uncomfortable and oppositional. But such has been the lot of the Prophetic Voice throughout the history of the Faith.

Lefebvrian said...

Anonymous 2,

Yes, it is entirely fair.