Thursday, October 1, 2015

DELIA GALAGHER AND FATHER CNN DUKE IT OUT AND DELIA WINS!

UPDATE: HERE'S THE INANE INTERVIEW WITH FATHER CNN (BECK)!


0:00/3:50



The priest pictured above, and I can't find his name, so I'll call him Father CNN because he is more loyal to CNN's ideology  than he is toward the Church and the Holy Father, made some of the most inane comments on CNN this morning that I've heard a priest say in a long time notwithstanding any priests who comment here.

The discussion was on Kim Davis' meeting with the Holy Father. Delia who often is used by CNN as a insider at the Vatican was very clear and direct that Pope Francis in his interview on the plane back from the USA to Rome stated that there is a Catholic "right" to conscientious objection even for governmental officials. He said this prior to the world knowing that he had met with Kim Davis, although the Holy Father is media savvy enough to know the world would soon know. I am sure he asked Kim not to mention the meeting until he returned to Rome. Can you imagine the media coverage of this meeting while it happened and afterwards? It would have eclipsed everything else.

It was an act of genius for the Holy Father to do it the way he did and then let it out after he was gone. And you better believe that Cardinal Wurel was in on it and arranged the meeting or at least approved it with the pope ahead of time as was the papal nuncio.

Delia also mentioned that the pope is opposed to same sex marriage and abortion and that it made symbolic sense for him to meet with Kim who opposes same sex marriage and has raised the conscientious objection issue in a brilliant way nationally.

I have to say each time I heard Delia on CNN she was excellent at combating the spin that CNN was putting on Pope Francis (and which many who comment here accept as Gospel). It makes me wonder if she will be used any more by CNN since she doesn't fit their gender ideologies. Chris Cuomo was visibly and verbally impatient with Delia's astute comments this morning about Pope Francis' orthodoxy in the matters of marriage and abortion. But he sure liked Father CNN's take which I now share with you.

Father CNN took issue with Delia and basically said that poor, naive, stupid Pope Francis didn't know anything about Kim Davis since he is not media savvy and doesn't know about her case from the news. I was exercising at the gym at the time and almost fell off my elliptical trainer when I heard this ridiculous priest say this!

Father CNN went on to say that it was Pope Francis' handlers that set the Holy Father up. How could the pope give an evangelical Christian whose denomination is anti-pope rosary beads as well as to her husband. If he knew that they were not Catholic, he wouldn't have given rosaries to them. So Fr. CNN presumed bungling Pope Francis simply and aimlessly met with this couple and no one apprised His Holiness of their situation that has made INTERNATIONAL NEWS!

What! How stupid is Father CNN and what an embarrassment he is to the priesthood!

Kim stated just yesterday that her mother is Catholic and she would give the Rosary to her and her husband's father is Catholic and he will give his to his father! I am sure that Kim and her husband told Pope Francis about their parent's Catholicism! Wouldn't you if you as a Protestant was meeting a pope? You'd point out what you have in common!

Father CNN we need priests loyal to Holy Mother Church and her teachings on natural marriage not a pundit for CNN's ideologies that oppose Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father on marriage, abortion and ecology which is connected to these two issues!

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Father. Good for you to speak the truth. Good for you.

John Drake said...

Fr. Edward Beck. Blecchhh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_L._Beck

John Drake said...

Fr. Beck somehow got his hair color and teeth color to match!

Vox Cantoris said...

https://www.facebook.com/FatherEdwardBeck?fref=ts

Father Edward Beck, a Passionist.

Anonymous said...

Actually, those neo-cons who criticise those Catholics who are disappointed that the Pope wasn't forthright enough on moral teachings in his recent trip to the States, may be surprised to learn that they don't even fit into the category of conservative Catholics - according to the Guardian. The Guardian writes:

"Sure, conservative Catholics will be disappointed that Pope Francis did not give them a more direct condemnation of abortion and same-sex marriage. But this papacy is reorienting the tone of the church. And in a time of hyperbolic language, striking fear into the hearts of conservative is as welcome a message as a big oliver branch of hope to the disaffected."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/27/pope-francis-abortion-conservative-catholics

So, I guess that firmly puts some of the former neo-cons who snipe at traditionalists for standing up for truth firmly into the camp of the liberals.

Jan

Jusadbellum said...

No, anonymous. As usual it's vitally important to make distinctions.

Liberal Catholics ARE liberal not for pastoral reasons but fundamental disagreements over faith and morals. As in, not believing in the Real Presence, not believing that abortion is immoral (and hence neither is contraception, masturbation, fornication, adultery and sodomy).

Conservative Catholics ARE conservative precisely in the areas of faith and morals. They may differ with "traditionalists" but usually it's in the preference for the rite and rubric of the liturgy, and not on the contents of the Catechism.



Anonymous said...

Yes, Jusadbellum, I am making that very distinction. Those who criticise Traditional Catholics for being disappointed that the Pope did not use his trip to the US and exposure to Congress and the UN to clearly spell out Catholic moral teaching ARE NO BETTER than the liberals who are happy that he didn't. I am heartily sick and tired of so-called conservatives who don't have the courage of their convictions to speak the truth at all times, in season and out of season. And I expect from a Pope clear guidance and the upholding of Catholic teaching at all times CLEARLY and not in a perfuctory manner. Almost 800,000 Catholics have signed a petition delivered to Pope Francis calling on him to speak out clearly on the Church's moral teachings. Since when in recent history has that happened or been deemed necessary to ask a Pope to uphold Catholic teaching?

"A petition of nearly 800,000 signatures from individuals and associations around the world including 202 prelates was presented to Pope Francis today, calling on the Holy Father to issue words of clarity on the Church's teaching on marriage and family.

The “filial petition”, which has received 790,150 signatures since the appeal was launched in March, reflects concerns emanating from last year’s Extraordinary Synod.

The appeal expresses concern about “widespread confusion” arising from the possibility that “a breach” had been opened within the Church at last year's meeting, one “that would accept adultery—by permitting divorced and then civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion—and would virtually accept even homosexual unions when such practices are categorically condemned as being contrary to Divine and natural law.”

The signatories, who come from 178 countries on every continent, have appealed to the Holy Father to intervene with “a word” of clarification which, they argue, “is the only way" to prevent the "growing confusion among the faithful.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/nearly-800000-sign-appeal-calling-on-pope-francis-to-clarify-church-doctrin/#ixzz3nLZ97L00


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/nearly-800000-sign-appeal-calling-on-pope-francis-to-clarify-church-doctrin/#ixzz3nLYsURAp

Jusadbellum said...

Anonymous, disagreeing about the prudential acts of government of a Pope or priest (you should have said X, you should not have said Y) is not at all the same as dissenting from the faith or moral doctrine of the Church.

It can be hard to classify people but by and large the difference between "traditionalists" and conservatives is about application - pastoral application (how to proceed...) and not on what the deposit of faith says per se.

But the difference between a liberal and conservative is precisely over what is and is not the faith and morals that a Catholic must hold.

So liberals think sodomy is OK and the Pope should bless gay marriages. Conservatives rightly regard this as heresy. Traditionalists will insist that not only does the Pope not commit heresy, but he must pick a fight at all times. Now, maybe he should. Maybe that would be the best course of action. But it's still a prudential decision.

Does the Pope have the right to change canon law? Yes. Is it prudent to do so as he has most recently? I don't know. But that's a prudential decision. Did the Pope have the authority to surrender the Papal States in 1870? Yes. Was it wise, smart, the best thing he could have done? I don't know.

Did Pope John 23rd have the right to call for a Council? Yes. Was it the best thing to do in 1962? I don't know. I assume so even if post hoc ergo propter hoc makes us think it was a disaster.

Traditionalists - if I may pick a bone - seem to confuse prudential decisions with doctrine just as liberals seem to confuse pastoral discretion with doctrinal change.

In any event, we're all going to face the same wall or scaffold eventually. I suspect a lot of "liberals" will be martyred next to "conservatives" and "traditionalists" before this is all over.

Anonymous said...

Jusadbellum, Our Lord certainly didn't make "prudential decisisons". That to me sounds like the PC problem that we are facing in the Church todsay. To speak up clearly and unequivocally for Catholic moral teaching is not "picking a fight" either. When he spoke to the UN on abortion Pope St John Paul II did not pick a fight. He just did what Catholics normally expect a Pope to do. He said:

"In defense of the human person, the Church stands opposed to the
imposition of limits on family size, and to the promotion of methods of limiting births which separate the unitive and procreative dimensions of marital intercourse, which are contrary to the moral law inscribed in the human heart, or which constitute an assault on the sacredness of life. Thus, sterilization, which is more and more promoted as a method of family planning, because of its finality and its potential for the violation of human rights, especially of women, is clearly unacceptable; it poses a most grave threat to human dignity and liberty when promoted as part of a population policy. Abortion, which destroys existing human life, is a heinous evil, and it is never an acceptable method of family planning, as was recognized by onsensus at the Mexico City United Nations International Conference on Population (1984)."

"http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/prepcomm/govern/940423171030.html

Compare that to what Pope Francis said at the UN and you will see what Traditionalists and some conservatives are complaining about. Those conservatives who criticise other Catholics for complaining that an important opportunity was missed are sitting in the same camp as the liberals, as far as I am concerned. They are doing nothing to uphold Catholic moral teaching and are just sitting on their hands and, by this, contributing to the malaise that is affecting the Church and leading souls to hell. Therefore, they are no better than the liberals.

Jan

Jusadbellum said...

Jan, we're going to have to disagree. I don't see omission, as in "not saying something" to be equivalent to the liberals open repudiation of Church doctrine and morals.

It's like the posters here who accuse Fr. K of being a heretic. I have disagreed with him on any number of topics - altar boys, civilian ownership of firearms etc. but those are prudential decisions. Sure, there are theological premises etc. but neither argument hinged on heresy. Good men can accept altar girls and 'gun free zones' as misguided as either are, without crossing the line into heresy.

Fr. K also argued that it's OK to vote Democrat - as his calculus is that only democrats can limit the number of abortions etc.. Again, I disagree, I don't see how he can justify it, but he's not alone. Half the Church in the US are registered Democrats. That alone doesn't make him a heretic.

So we must be careful with our language and that means distinctions. Being wrong on facts or wrong on what's the best course of action is not the same thing as being wrong about Catholic faith and morals. For example, Pope Francis seems to accept the "consensus" on man-made global warming. But his argument also works for strictly humanist reasons. Neither accepting the scientists nor the humanists ipso facto makes his arguments heresy. Misguided perhaps, but heresy no.

Ditto with the new Mass. It's not heresy but it probably is misguided and was created on a faulty premise.

If we give the benefit of the doubt to others we provide both sides with the leeway to move. If you go to hurling the "H-bomb" (heretic) at people from the start then there really is no chance of them ever considering your point of view or the evidence unless they are saints of humility.

This is why the gay movement's use of "hater" is doomed... if your go-to argument is "anyone who disagrees is an irrational hater" you will only make enemies. If your go-to argument is "anyone who disagrees is a heretic"....likewise.

Anonymous said...

Jusadbellum, yes, we will have to disagree on this one because the situation as I see it is akin to the case where a man is walking dangerously close to a cliff edge and someone comes along and pushes him off - murder. Then another situation where someone happens upon a man walking dangerously close to a cliff edge, sees the danger but ignores it and does nothing to stop the man falling off. What is the difference? Both are guilty of the man's death, one deliberately and the other one through omission.

This will probably upset Mark Thomas and other Neo Cons on this blog but Voice for the Family has spoken about the 45 Papal delegates named by Pope Francis to attend the Synod - at least 16 of whom are liberals - named on the blog site - compared to 3 who are strong upholders of Church teaching. They say:

“The time has come for all Catholics, at every level of the Church, to recognize the full gravity of the crisis that now engulfs us,” the group said. “Each and every one of us, clergy or lay, has the right and the duty to defend Catholic doctrine and practice from attacks by members of the hierarchy.”

These are Pope Francis appointees - there can be no ambiguity about this and yet who among the conservatives raises their voices? Although I must say that of late - thanks to Pentin - the National Catholic Register has started to wake up and have actually reported that they have insider knowledge the outcome of the synod has already been decided.


Jan

George said...

Jan:

It's not that the conservatives are not concerned. They are, believe me.
Some of them though, are more inclined not to rant, but rather to pray that the African Cardinals and bishops and those of similar views form other parts of the world will prevail. It is they after all who have the opportunity to stop anything bad from coming out of the Synod.

Anonymous said...

My point is, George, that it is the Conservatives who try to shut down any criticism made of the ambiguity of papal statements and claim anyone saying anything against the Pope is not Catholic. What they are doing is not helping the situation - they are as bad as the liberals and as bad as the ultra-traditionalists. If things are wrong they are wrong and every Catholic has a duty to speak out and say so.

For instance on the Pope's encyclical on global warming many who don't accept global warming as it is not a settled science were told that this encyclical was more or less infallible. The conservatives put a whole new concept on Papal infallibility.

Cardinal Sarah has qualified:

"In a recent interview with Aleteia, when asked about Pope Francis' tendency to speak out on economic, environmental and political subjects, Cdl. Sarah stated, "If the Pope speaks about the economy or politics, it is not his field of expertise. He can offer his vision or opinion, but it's not dogma." "He can err," Cdl. Sarah declared.

On the other hand, "[W]hat he says about Christ, about the sacraments, about the Faith," the cardinal noted, "must be considered as sure."
Why?

"If he speaks about the environment, the climate, the economy, immigrants, etc., he is working from information that may be correct, or mistaken, but [in these cases] he is speaking as Obama speaks, or another president," Cdl. Sarah explained. "It doesn't mean that what he says on the economy is dogma, something we need to follow. It's an opinion."

"But, if what he [the Pope] says is illustrated and illumined by the Gospel, then we ought to regard it seriously," he added. "'God wills this; this is what the Bible says.' Or 'God wills that; this is what the Gospel says.' Thus politics is illumined, the economy is illumined by the Gospel."

Cardinal Sarah is merely stating what the Church has always taught on Papal infallibility. Yes, we have a duty to be respectful to the Pope but if he says things that are ambiguous or obscure then we also have a duty to say so but some Conservatives seem to be missing the boat on that. Thankfully others are beginning to wake up but there should have been a voice long ago from Conservatives - from the Opus Dei - upholding marriage. Not remaining silent in the face of this onslaught as they have done and leaving it to the very few to take on the battle - Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Sarah being the main ones aided by some few of the laity - but the majority of Conservatives have remained silent ...

Jan




George said...

I agree with what Cardinal Sarah has said. I'm also not disagreeing with you as such,
only saying that not all Conservatives are taking the same approach, even though their concerns are the same. The ones who have greater prominence and any possible influence on the Synod should be out front on this. There are those rank and file Catholics who are ranting who would be better off, and have more effect, if they devoted more time to prayer, fasting and almsgiving.