I use to despise the blog "Praytell" for the axe they wield against Pope Benedict and his liturgical renewal especially as it regards the new and glorious English translation of the Roman Missal and His Holiness gracious permission to allow the liberal celebration of the older liturgical books of the Church, not to mention His Holiness' recovery of many aspects of the pre-Vatican II papacy and liturgical ethos. Not only the posts but the comments by these so-called progressives were down right nasty, immature and unbecoming of Catholics in good standing with the Church. Give me a divorced and remarried outside of the Church Catholic any day over these types! Give me drunkards, adulterers, sodomites, fornicators and apostates over these kinds of Catholics! At least these mortal sinners are nice to be around.
But then, I read comments on my blog and other blogs by so-called "orthodox" Catholics who love tradition and Tradition and the way things were in the Church before the big, bad Second Vatican Council and they are every much as shrill, ugly and nasty as their ideological counterparts at Praytell and the more liberal wing of the Church, like those who comment at the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) or who belong to WomynChurch or the such!
To illustrate the kindred spirit, albeit ideologically miles apart between the ugly left and the ugly right, one of my famous commenters wrote this yesterday on a post about Pope Francis and his off-the-cuff remarks concerning deaconesses (never mind that His Holiness said in the strongest terms that women could not preach at Mass because that is the function of the priest who acts in persona Christi, Head of the Church. His Holiness also said he would ask Cardinal Mueller to clarify why women can't preach at Mass. This by the way implies they can't be admitted to Holy Orders which is ordination.
But this is his nasty comment that would make those at Praytell blush:
Pope Francis's ideas and ideology, insofar as they conflict with Christ's teaching and the Church, need to be viciously attacked. The same is true for the bishops and priests who prop up and defend his errors. To defend the teachings of Christ, even against clerics, is not un-Catholic. In fact, it is our Catholic duty to do so.
When the pope stops erring, well stop criticizing. The same goes for Fr. McDonald on this blog -- when he's in error, it's going to be pointed out so long as these comments are open. If he doesn't want people to point out those errors, he can (1) stop blogging, or (2) stop erring. Or, at the very least, he could stop calling everyone who disagrees with him a far right hysterical Protestant.
So, let's talk about Protestantism in its classical form at the time of the Reformation and those who went that route, verses the Catholics who remained faithful and respectfully challenged the corrupt popes, bishops and priests of that era.
Martin Luther and John Calvin in their ugliness, unleashed exactly what the commenter above describes on the Church, papacy and magisterium of their day. They wrecked havoc on the Church and allowed the political enemies of the Church, those in civil or secular government, to free themselves from papal rule, a remnant of Christendom and to become nationalistic. One needs to know that in Europe after the Reformation, citizens of nations took on the denomination of the monarchy of their country. If the king was Lutheran, everyone was. If he was Calvinist, everyone was. The secular political powers of that day could only accomplish this by demonizing the true Church and her pope and Magisterium and of course there was some fodder to do so and whip the populace into rejecting the true Church and without a whimper or hint of willingness to embrace white or red martyrdom from that ignorant class.
In the same era of corruption of Church leaders and practices in the Catholic Church, the time leading up to the Reformation and beyond, there was a wholly different kind of reformer who went about reforming but out of love not ungodly rage. These became saints of the Church. Let me name just a few:
1. St. Teresa of Avila
2. St. John of the Cross
3. St. Francis of Assisi
4. (and my favorite) Saint Catherine of Siena (who challenged the pope living at Avignon but who would be embarrassed at the rhetoric of the commenter above). She is a saint of course, the commenter is a mortal sinner in his rage and anger!
And then there is the chancellor of England under King Henry VIII who remained a faithful papist despite the corruption of the papacy of this period, Saint Thomas Moore. He was actually martyred for his pope and the papacy and accepted his fate in a glorious and loving way. He's one of my favorites too and I am sure that he would castigate as anti-Catholic and thus anti-Christ the comment I quote above.
Why, you ask?
Because as heterodox as some say Pope Francis is in terms of what they as an alternative magisterium (and this is what is so Protestant and alien to true Catholicism, those who have no authority to act as a Magisterium doing so and in the ugliest sort of way) declare about Pope Francis, any true Catholic that is worth his baptismal holiness would not sin mortally against the evangelical counsel of love/charity toward anyone let alone the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Church.
On this point, I will refer you to Saint Paul's famous words from I Corinthians, Chapter 13:
If I speak in human and angelic tongues* but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.a 2And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.b 3If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.c
4* Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,d 5it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,e 6it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.f
8* Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. 9For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.g 13* So faith, hope, love remain, these three;h but the greatest of these is love.
67 comments:
The pope vague and purposefully confusing language is giving the impression that he is rationalizing adultery and sacraligeous communions and sacraligeous confessions. He is fully aware that AL is being used to condone sacraligeous behaviour. He has not cared enough to clarify the situation and silence gives consent, so therefore we can rationally conclude that the pope agrees with these opinions. And you don't care enough about it either. Forget about what Christ said, the pope said it's ok.
If an adulter is permitted to remain, excuse me "find themselves" in a state of adultery and still receive sanctifying grace, and doesn't need to change, and can go to confession an never mention the adultery, why can't I be angry? Why do I have to change but an adulter doesn't. Why can they keep fornicating and living a filthy life but I can't be angry that the pope says this is ok?
Father you are judging again. That's a big Francis NO NO.
As Pope Francis teaches........even though someone might be in an objective immoral state they can still receive sanctifying grace. So those people who "find themselves" in a state of anger about Francis aren't sinning? Right. That's what Francis teaches in AL? You need to find ways to integrate them. You certainly wouldn't deny them Holy Communion would you? So you need to shut up and stop condemning people. Sin is apparently IN with this pope. So shut up and stop judging.
Who wrote this article? Grammar errors make it extremely difficult to read, viz, "Most Catholics COULDN'T care less", "I USED to despise ...". The past tense of "grind" is "ground", not "grinded", as in "ground coffee". I admire the content and the sentiments expressed therein, but getting past even the first paragraph was hard work.
4 AM in the morning, was posting and I don't have a dang editor and I cannot find my own mistakes when proof reading. I am looking to hire an editor but he'll have to donate all of his salary back to me. :)
It all seems the fault of bloggers. We're such terrible people. Such bad Catholics we are. Why we're just a bunch of fomenters of coprophagia and self-absorbed promethean neo-Pelagians.
Yes, it is all our fault.
We are the "the big battlefield before humanity." Why, we "only need a keyboard, a screen or a hand-held device" and we can be as bad as any "bishop or liturgist," I know, I've been told by an eminent Vatican communications expert. We are "international weapons of mass destruction, crossing time zones, borders and space" and we leave in our path, "character assassination, destruction of reputation, calumny, libel, slander and defamation." We blogging Catholics who defend the faith against those who would tear It down, something our parents and grandparents could not do are trapped in a "cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol" leaving a "graveyard of corpses strewn all around." We are "obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners!" That is not all, "In reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people" and have become a "enclosed within a safe harbor or ghetto network of communications for the elite, the clean, the perfect and the saved."
More has been written trying to explain, justify, or rationalize this Pope than Luther wrote attacking the Church. Which was/is the bigger threat to the Church...open, honest theological criticism of abuses or denial, rationalization, and "spinning" of a disastrous and destructive Pope?
I am afraid I agree with Anonymous at 5.52 am - I cannot see how ungodly rage can be any worse than ungodly fornication or any of the other ungodly sins that are mortal and venial. If there is no leadership coming from the top, as one poster aptly put it, "If the trumpet doesn't sound a clear call who will get ready for battle". It seems to be a free for all and nothing will change until the bugle sounds again loud and clear.
Well said. In the past few weeks I have tried to moderate my comments and avoid news sites and blogs that revel in bashing the Pope. I knew that a segment of the Church had gone off the rails when it started bashing Cardinal Burke and was afraid I'd follow them if I didn't stop.
God Bless you in your ministry and your new parish.
Jan, that's my point, ungodly rage and ungodly fornication or adultery are all mortal sins and promoting these are too. Is is more of a mortal sin for a pope or a lay person? And just who decides when a pope is heretical? THe laity, out of the sensuum fideli, like the progressives wanted to do, their mirror image, except for their own ideologies?
Since when has any teaching of the Church taught anyone to match mortal sin with mortal sin???????? That I believe could be classified as a heterodox moral teaching if not out right heresy!
Something I've noticed when it comes to interactions within Catholicism. You call Traditionalists protestant because they are worried about the direction the Church is going and say so. Yet the general direction from the hierarchy is that we are to be ecumenical to real protestants. So much so that it seems ecumenism has supplanted evangelization in importance. It is amazing to me the number of Catholics that seem to have no problem going to a protestant worship service. I cringe at the thought of how these people will be falling all over themselves celebrating the Reformation in 2017. Yet those same liberals or people who consider Traditionalists protestant have nothing but condemnation for Traditionalists. No ecumenism for them lol.
Here you go - someone who is a great friend of and very supportive of Pope Francis and that the overwhelming majority of the people (this must include Mark Thomas and those who have roundly voiced support for the Pope). The Traditionalists are obviously the Pope's adversaries:
"Archbishop Fernández puts it bluntly in the 10 May interview he gave about the papal concept of reform: “The pope first filled St. Peter’s square with crowds and then began changing the Church.” When asked whether the Pope is isolated in the Vatican, he responds: “By no means. The people are with him [Pope Francis], and not with his adversaries.”
The 53-year-old archbishop then added: “The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back.” The interviewer then proceeded to ask him whether it does not help his adversaries when they know that Pope Francis says that his papacy might be short. Fernández answered: “The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he’s running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”
These words could be read in the context of the ongoing, two-year-long procedure and discussion on the question of marriage and the family that has caused much confusion among the faithful. And we see now how the pope can also very suddenly make a big step ahead. Archbishop Fernández is convinced that Pope Francis’ changes within the Church will remain even after his own papacy:
"No, there’s no turning back. If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong. For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned. And then the majority of the People of God with their special sense will not easily accept turning back on certain things."
When asked whether the Pope is causing a schism within the Church, the Argentinian responded:
"No. There’s a schism when a group of important people share the same sensibilities that reflect those of a vast section of society. Luther and Protestantism came about this way. But now the overwhelming majority of the people are with Francis and they love him. His opponents are weaker than what you think. Not pleasing everyone does not mean provoking a schism.
In spite of his denial of a larger opposition against some of Pope Francis’ attempts to change the Church, Archbishop Fernández admits that, today, probably a Conclave would not re-elect Pope Francis. He said, when asked about a possible re-election: “I don’t know, possibly not. But it happened.”
PART 2 follows
Part 2:
Here we have it. The majority – and the majority of the public media! – are behind the pope. “His opponents are weaker than what you think.” This is exactly what we are witnessing right now. Almost nobody reports on Cardinal Müller’s resistance.
Elsewhere, Fernández revealed a similar strategy of how to deal with the topic of the “remarried” divorcees, just as Archbishop Bruno Forte, the pope’s hand-selected Special Secretary to the synods, also revealed it a few days ago. It was earlier disclosed in Fernández’ 21 October 2014 interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nación — just after the October 2014 Synod on the Family concluded — where he said:
Really I thought that this topic [of the “remarried” divorcees] was not going to be treated, or that it was going to be mentioned in a passing way, because there were many other matters that concerned us more. What raises our attention is the possibility raised by many bishops that persons that are divorced and remarried could be allowed to receive communion. I would not talk about divisions, because those who brought the matter forward did it with much prudence, safeguarding the indissolubility of marriage and the ones that opposed it were thinking in the good of the families and of the children. There was only a group of six or seven very fanatical and somewhat aggressive persons that did not represent even 5% of the total persons that were attending the Synod. […] Perhaps we missed saying, at the very least, with Pope Francis: “Who are we to judge gays?”
PART 3 continues
PART 3
"As Fernández has said elsewhere about the pope’s program: “The Pope says we must ‘transform all things’ to evangelize the world today” and to enter into a “permanent state of mission.” The Archbishop also says that the Pope “destabilizes everyone.” Finally, Archbishop Fernández rebukes “conservatives” once more, saying that “some people listen to a pope only if what he says coincides with their own ideas.” And he concludes: “While these people seem to appear conservative as regards doctrine, fundamentally they seem not to have faith in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised the pope.”
People like Mark Thomas and those who refuse to raise their voice against this slow demolition of the Church are aiding and abetting the likes of Fernandez and others of his ilk. This is the company they keep and there is no denying it ...
The problem is, Father, we are constantly being told by Francis not to judge people, so who is going to judge whether people are exhibiting ungodly rage or not? That is my point. Perhaps the Pope will send out a legion of priests to forgive the sins of those exhibiting ungodly rage? Francis is more likely to castigate you for lack of charity than he is to uphold you for upholding him if you get my drift - priests simply cannot win under this pontificate ...
Vox - you left out wing nuts! That is a favorite on this blog by those who point out the faults of others but miss the massive plank in their own eye. But Our Lord said, "Blessed are you ..."
Fr. MacDonald, may I suggest that you discuss and highlight in some way (as I think it merits) the comment made by "Alter Anonymous" on May 14, 2016 at 7:58 PM in the thread from which you selected a more hard-hitting as an illustration for this post?
It seems to me that Alter Anonymous expressed in a calm and respectful manner--indeed, in an exemplary fashion--that which deeply concerns many Catholics today who are sincere and faithful (to the Church and to the Papacy) rather than extreme in their beliefs, but in their frustration fall into language that is not so carefully modulated.
Remember folks we never changed we are what they were prior to Vatican II, stand TALL AND BRAVE and remember we are the TRUE ROMAN CATHOLICS we uphold Tradition and the Magisterium.
I can assure you my anger is Godly. The Pope isn't offending me: I didn't create there world and die for its salvation.
Thanks for giving my comment a spotlight.
Father, please stop saying that the pope is the head of the Church. He isn't. He is more like God's first minister.
I realise that you are just being a bit casual with your language, but in these days of confusion,you must do better.
The pope is Christ 's vicar. Jesus is the head of the Church. It's not a trifling point. It's essential.
Also the magesterium of the Church doesn't lie in the person of bishop of Rome. It lies in the body of the Church and is made manifest in the body of the bishops when together they speak,united on an issue over the centuries
And when the pope then speaks ex cathedra on said issue.
Ie on the Immaculate Conception. Since the beginning that belief lay amongst most of the people and many bishops and lasted almost 2000 years before the pope spoke excathedra and declared it to be docere. ..doctrine. .a sound teaching and part of the declared statements of
belief. So in such a case the pope has the authority , as Jesus furst minister to express officially what has been held as truth . He cannot for example make up noveltiesand declare them to be truth.
Which is why, for all the very odd statements that this pope has made and even odder documents thst he has penned, such as his letter on the Jews, he has never declared it to be the official teaching of the Church. In fact as in the case of the letter on the Jews, the pope made certain to point out, sadly at the back where no one wld notice it, that it
did NOT have the authority of the magesterium. Given that it in effect contradicts Our Lord, I should hope not.That documents was purely a political document. And this pope is a politician. Even Amoris Latitiae doesn't have the force "officially" of magesterium, which is why it teaches error, albeit in the foot notes.
All of this then must beg the question of "why publish such documents in the first place."
Unlike pope Benedict's motu proprio on the Tridentine Mass, which was in line with the magesterium, pope Francis' motu proprio which "simplified " so many of protocols on annulment without the necessary study , may in years to come be undone/ modified/ when the bishops find the courage to act upon it's very serious defficiencies.
Now I know that you also know what the magesterium actually means, so please father, be more conscientious in your expression. You know, but not everyone knows, so please think of them .Our own
carelessness in writing leads to confusion and error in thought and belief for others.
I know you are anxious and concerned about what you see amongst Trad Cathedral, but please remember that for most, it comes from horror, shock, dismay and a profound sense of betrayal. For many the "father " of the family has been found to be the "ravenous wolf" .
It's the anger of the betrayed that you feel and that anger is powerful and can be terrifying I pray that our real father in heaven hears and understands and is merciful But then He is trust worthy. However I think he knows the source of this anger is love, betrayed.
I know thst i am often in confession precisely on this issue.
God bless and thank you with all my heart for loving us and caring so much for us , your virtual flock , that u would lose sleep over us.
BVS
As per usual, I agree with Henry 100%
Questions:
1. In the end, what will get us into Heaven?
2. What is the Church's mandate/mission toward that end?
3. Who gets to decide the Church's path in that mandate/mission?
4. And finally, who/Who is in charge of all this?
Part 2:
Know your canon law before calling someone a heretic or apostate:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/05/06/before-calling-someone-a-heretic-you-might-want-to-check-canon-law/
Sarto 2012:
Thank you. It drives me crazy to hear adults say or write "could care less" when it's "couldn't care less". It's bad enough to hear teenagers saying it. Think about "I could care less". It means that you care and could, therefore, care less. Then again, what do we expect when we live in a culture of telegenic everything and smartphone hypnosis?
Bernard Fischer said..."I knew that a segment of the Church had gone off the rails when it started bashing Cardinal Burke and was afraid I'd follow them if I didn't stop."
The vicious attacks against Cardinal Burke also signaled to me that a segment of Traditionalists had snapped finally in regard to their deep hatred of His Holiness Pope Francis. The segment in question had convinced themselves that Cardinal Burke was on their side in that he hated Pope Francis and would label the Pope and Exhortation "heretical". When Cardinal Burke failed to do so, the segment turned viciously upon him.
Certain Traditionalists reacted spitefully when they didn't get their in regard to Cardinal Burke's analysis of Amoris Laetitia. They claimed..."we knew all along that Cardinal Burke was just a Novus Ordo sect 'yes' man...we knew he was a fraud...you know, he's a homosexual". The folks in question revealed their true colors, their hearts and minds, when they claimed that Cardinal Burke belonged to the "Homosexual Network".
Nobody has said that Catholics may not express certain reservations that they may have with Pope Francis. He has acknowledged that he's made mistakes as Pope. He also has made it clear that he's open to (respectful) criticism aimed his way. Pope Francis has made contact with people who have criticized him.
We know that the Church is in a crisis situation. We know that during the past 50...60 years, our Popes offered many prudential decisions that failed to benefit the Church. But let's discuss the state of the Church in rational, respectful fashion. Unfortunately, a segment of Catholics have refused to do so.
The mind-boggling attack Cardinal Burke signaled the deep and irrational rage that has surfaced beyond a doubt within the "resistance" movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It is not a bad thing to have "zeal for the Fathers's house", but one can easily veer into uncharitableness or sinfulness. One should be careful not to make any
comments that, even if not intended, could be construed as attacks on the Church itself or as ad hominem attacks on a priest, bishop or the Pope himself.
I do sense frustration on the part of those who are characterized as Traditionalists and conservatives over the reality of progressivism becoming ascendant both in the secular world and within parts of the Church. It could be that we are experiencing a chastisement and test of faith. More than ever this is a time when the faithful need to engage in frequent prayer, self-mortification such as fasting, and almgiving.
The saints, the Holy ones of God, did not let the state of the world or the Church get them down, but within themselves developed and actualized the Church and its teachings to become exemplars of the faith and transformative examples to all.
"Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew
the face of the earth."
Mark, I agree with you that the people who are attaching Cardinal Burke are wrong to do so. I find their justifications for doing so to be quite insufficient. Cardinal Burke surely deserves our respect.
Mark Thomas, You seem to be the only one who has read this "mind boggling" "vicious" attack on Cardinal Burke by the Remnant. I mean if one paper writes that why do you lay it at the door of all traditionalists?
In fact, to be honest I wouldn't exactly call you a supporter of Cardinal Burke. I haven't seen you comment at all when Cardinal Burke has said that the Pope has no authority to change church teaching and that AL is not part of the magisterial teaching. Instead you have waxed lyrical about AL. How about you start trying to shore up the teachings of the Church and the good things that Cardinal Burke has said?
Mark Thomas, I haven't heard you comment on Bishop Schneider except when he referred to the SSPX. I haven't heard you comment on Bishop Schneider urging the lay faithful to fight for the Church which is exactly what Vox and others are doing. You instead seem to be aiding and abetting the slow demolition of the Church set out by Archbishop Fernández in your complete denial that something isn't happening in the Church when everyone knows that it is. The whole aim of your posts seem to viciously attack traditionalists.
Just to remind you, Mark, here is what Bishop Schneider has to say about AL:
"[Bishop Schneider] says unclear statements in Chapter 8 of the document have given “a new dynamism” to those supportive of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion, and abuse is already “beginning to spread even more in practice, since those in favor of it are now feeling justified to some extent.”
He then draws an analogy between the situation today and the Arian crisis of the 4th century when great confusion reigned because of similar ambiguities and omissions in Arian formulas. Perhaps hinting towards action he and others might take, Bishop Schneider recalls how St. Hilary of Poitiers was the only bishop who dared rebuke Pope Liberius when he excommunicated St. Athanasius for defending the Church against the Arian heresy — a heresy, in fact, which some see as resurgent in today’s Church.
Also in his reflection, Bishop Schneider makes a specific call on the laity to fight to protect the Church and her teaching. And quoting Dominican Bishop Melchior Cano from the Council of Trent, he also chastises those who flatter the Pope, “close their eyes to the facts” and indiscriminately defend every papal decision. Such people, Bishop Schneider quotes Cano as saying, “contribute most to undermining the authority of the Holy See. They destroy its foundations instead of strengthening them.”
He calls for a “Veritatis Laetitia” (Joy of Truth) and ends by appealing to the Pope to issue “an authentic interpretation” of the exhortation. Such clarity, he said, will ensure the document would be not attune to the minds of men, “but to the mind of God”.
“When it is a question of the life or death of the body, no physician would express his opinions in an ambiguous manner,” Bishops Schneider writes. “Such behavior on the part of a doctor would very likely be considered irresponsible. And yet, the life of our immortal soul is more important, since it is on the health of the soul that its fate for eternity depends.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/bishop-schneider-amoris-laetitia-demands-clarification/#ixzz48lnnF6IY
People took the religion of their rulers before the Reformation, too. Otherwise, heresy laws wouldn't have existed prior to the Reformation.
Indeed, one of the greatest tragedies of my people--the Jews--happened in 1492, when Isabella and Ferdinand expelled the Jews from Spain because they wouldn't convert to Catholicism.
What does that have to do with Protestantism? Oh yeah, nothing.
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, You seem to be the only one who has read this "mind boggling" "vicious" attack on Cardinal Burke by the Remnant."
Okay. I guess that it's not vicious to label, as did The Remnant, Cardinals Burke and DiNardo, as well as Bishop Schneider, and all bishops who have refused to condemn Pope Francis as bishops who "play us for fools".
That is not vicious? Then I guess that I'm wrong. The Remnant was just being friendly. Right? To accuse bishops of "playing us for fools" is just The Remnant's way of praising bishops. Okay. I understand.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anger clouds your mind. The cleanest knockout i ever had was when i was trying NOT to hurt a guy but only "whiff" him to get him to calm down( he was attacking me). I was completely relaxed and able avoid his blows while almost calmly tapping his face. He went out like a light. A few years later a mouthy woman was causing trouble in a public gathering and I was asked to calm her down. She advised me that her boyfriend would beat me up. When it turned out to be the same fellow from years before the conversation went smoothly, we laughed a bit and agreed that the lady was a bit high strung, no harm done. In both instances my lack of anger helped me resolve the situation. The second was the best because we both had a meaningful exchange.
Flavius
'Indeed, one of the greatest tragedies of my people - the Jews - happened in 1492 when Isabella and Ferdinand expelled the Jews from Spain because they wouldn't convert to Catholicism.'
In fact, even before the Alhambra decree most of Spain's Jews had converted and only about 100,000 practising Jews were left; the number of those exiled has been estimated by modern scholars at between 40,000 and 60,000. The 300,000 or so 'conversos' who remained were sometimes suspected of adhering to Jewish practice and this was the primary focus of the Inquisition in the first fifty years of its existence.
Eventually, however, they lost any separate distinction and merged into the majority Catholic population. Thus the ultimate fate of the great majority of Spain's Jews was assimilation rather than expulsion. Whether or not this was a tragedy depends on one's point of view.
As I said, Mark Thomas, a hard-hitting commentary from the Remnant but hardly vicious as what you "posted earlier. Also you have put a spin on what was said. The article is headed: Amoris Laetitia: Foolish Bishops and Bishops Playing Us For Fools" and deals with an article in the National Catholic Register, the contested parts of AL and the comments of many bishops which the Remnant says flies in the face of what is said in AL, to which I have to agree when you read this:
"I have included an excerpt below that clearly demonstrates Francis has allowed Holy Communion to those living in a state of adultery:
Referring to the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried, Francis states:
What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. (300)
Then, in a footnote, yes a footnote, the Vicar of Christ on Earth states that those who are living in a state of adultery may receive Holy Communion:
This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists. In such cases, what is found in another document applies: cf. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 44 and 47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040. (Footnote 336)
What is worse, it turns out that Francis had already decided this issue back in 2013 in Evangelii Gaudium which this footnote cites to. The citation from Evangelii Gaudium (pargraphs 44 and 47) state:
44. …the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches quite clearly: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.[49] Consequently, without detracting from the evangelical ideal, they need to accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressively occur…[50] 47. …The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.
Paragraph 47 of Evangelii Gaudium cites to yet another footnote 51 which reads:
Cf. Saint Ambrose, De Sacramentis, IV, 6, 28: PL 16, 464: “I must receive it always, so that it may always forgive my sins. If I sin continually, I must always have a remedy”; ID., op. cit., IV, 5, 24: PL 16, 463: “Those who ate manna died; those who eat this body will obtain the forgiveness of their sins”; Saint Cyril of Alexandria, In Joh. Evang., IV, 2: PG 73, 584-585: “I examined myself and I found myself unworthy. To those who speak thus I say: when will you be worthy? When at last you present yourself before Christ? And if your sins prevent you from drawing nigh, and you never cease to fall – for, as the Psalm says, ‘what man knows his faults?’ – will you remain without partaking of the sanctification that gives life for eternity?”
This clear quote by quote exposition above is necessary to ground oneself before reading the following reactions of various bishops. For, as you read these bishops’ reactions you may have to convince yourself that you are sane and that it is the sanity of the bishops that is in question."
The Remnant is quite right to highlight what is a change in Catholic teaching.
Jan said..."As I said, Mark Thomas, a hard-hitting commentary from the Remnant but hardly vicious as what you "posted earlier."
Okay. We differ on that issue.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan said..."The Remnant is quite right to highlight what is a change in Catholic teaching."
The Remnant is not the Magisterium and lacks authority to interpret Amoris Laetitia.
The Remnant is not authorized by Jesus Christ to determine for Holy Mother Church as to what Church teaching Amoris Laetitia has changed supposedly.
Jan, your comments and The Remnant article in question are flawed deeply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan,
'Only' 100,000. That would be 1/3 of British Jews. That's a huge number, especially when the population of 15th century Spain is estimated to have been between 4 and 6 million. The population of modern Cádiz is only slightly higher at ~120,000.
More to the point, Fr. McDondald seems to claim the principle (I assume) of 'cuius regio, eius religio' only existed after 'the Reformation' (his vague terminology, not mine). Although it certainly was defined by the 1555 Peace of Augsburg (and limited to the HRE), it existed prior to the Reformation in all but name only, across all Europe. It wasn't some Protestant invention designed to stamp out Catholicism in Protestant lands (an absurd insinuation, given Catholics did the exact same thing to Lutherans in their lands), which is exactly what his blog post intimates.
I wonder, though, why Savonarola was not included in the list Fr. McDonald provides.
Flavius, that doesn't detract from my argument that only a rump of practising Jews was expelled, the overwhelming majority having converted. So to state, as you do, that 'the Jews' were expelled in 1492 is highly misleading. Spain had always had a large Jewish community; England's Jews were expelled by Edward I in 1290.
Your substantive comment makes no sense at all. The principle 'cujus regio, ejus religio' would have made no sense before the Protesant Reformation, since all Western Christendom was Catholic. It was a compromise resulting from the fact that many German Princes had adopted the new religion and Charles V, with a lot on his plate, lacked the power to reimpose orthodoxy.
So Fr MacDonald is right and you are wrong.
Mark Thomas, all the Remnant has done is to quote from Francis's exhortation and the the change in teaching is quite clear from the passages quoted. Therefore, the document judges itself and, as has been pointed out, if he doesn't intend such an interpretation then it is easily fixed by Francis removing those passages.
You say, "The Remnant is not the Magisterium and lacks authority to interpret Amoris Laetitia" and that argument can be leveled at anyone - yourself for instance - you are not part of the Magisterium and lack any authority to be commenting on whether AL is orthodox or not and nor has Francis appointed you as an apologist for him - I am sure he is quite capable of explaining himself.
Anyway, so now instead of a cigarette after sex, they have a wafer? Cool. What a hip Pope.
Whatever.
Jan said..."You say, "The Remnant is not the Magisterium and lacks authority to interpret Amoris Laetitia" and that argument can be leveled at anyone - yourself for instance - you are not part of the Magisterium and lack any authority to be commenting on whether AL is orthodox or not and nor has Francis appointed you as an apologist for him - I am sure he is quite capable of explaining himself."
Jan, the flaw in your argument is that I have not interpreted Amoris Laetitia. I simply have adhered to that which the Holy See has said of Amoris Laetitia. The Holy See has presented the Exhortation as orthodox. Conversely, the folks at The Remnant have established themselves as a parallel Magisterium and interpreted Amoris Ametitia as unorthodox.
I have not done any such thing. Therefore, your claim that I have followed The Remnant's lead in offering my interpretation of the Exhortation is false. Again, I have accepted Amoris Laetitia in obedience to the Holy See. The Remnant has not. I have not presented my personal interpretation of the Exhortation. The Remnant has presented their personal interpretation of the Exhortation.
1. In #6 of Amoris Laetitia, His Holiness Pope Francis made it clear that Amoris Laetitia reflects Church teaching. Pope Francis said the following:
"I will begin with an opening chapter inspired by the Scriptures, to set a proper tone. I will then examine the actual situation of families, in order to keep firmly grounded in reality. I will go on to recall some essential aspects of the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family, thus paving the way for two central chapters dedicated to love.
"I will then highlight some pastoral approaches that can guide us in building sound and fruitful homes in accordance with God’s plan..."
Pope Francis made it clear that Amoris Laetitia is based upon the "Scriptures...essential aspects of the Church's teaching on marriage and family...pastoral approaches that can guide us in building sound and fruitful homes in accordance with God's plan..."
Therefore, Pope Francis has made it clear that Amoris Laetitia may only be understood in the light of Church teaching.
2. Pope Francis called upon Cardinal Schönborn to present to the world via a news conference the correct understanding of Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Schönborn declared that Amoris Laetitia is in line with Catholic teaching.
3. Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has declared that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox.
I have simply accepted and repeated that which Pope Francis, Cardinal Schönborn, the main presenter of the Exhortation, and Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have declared in regard to Amoris Laetitia.
Conversely, The Remnant has done the opposite. Therefore, Jan, your argument that I have copied The Remnant is untenable.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, nowhere does Cardinal Muller say that AL is orthodox. He says that AL cannot change Church teaching and that is a completely different thing. "Orthodox" is your choice of word. No one else has used that word. Therefore, you are interpreting the exhortation as orthodox, which according to you, you have no authority to do. As I said, the Remnant merely repeats the contentious passages from AL. If Francis chooses to publish documents with ambiguous paragraphs that he will not correct, then who are we to judge that he means something different from what he states? If Francis writes that something is black then the Remnant is entitled to report what he says as being black. It is not as if they are making something up - they are merely repeating Francis' own words and therefore I repeat the document judges itself.
Mark Thomas, you also need to catch up with Cardinal Burke's latest comments about AL - note he says that AL is not magisterial because it contains some of the Pope's personal views. Cardinal Burke also states that he finds 305 of the exhortation "a confusion with regard to the Church's teaching on factors which can diminish culpability of an individual sinful act". So the good Cardinal is hardly saying AL is orthodox.
"Stark asked Cdl. Burke to explain how "Familiaris Consortio" (FC) can be considered magisterial and AL is not when they are both called apostolic exhortations. His Eminence explained that concerning AL, "The Pope himself makes it clear that the text is his own reflection." He related that AL is written in a completely different way than FC, such as in the type of language it uses and its many first-person references. These indicate that the document contains personal reflections of the Pope, which are not therefore magisterial.
The cardinal was asked to explain the widely reported comment of Vienna’s Cdl. Christoph Schönborn, who claimed AL overcame an "artificial distinction" between "regular" and "irregular" marriages. Cardinal Burke admitted he wasn't able to square Schönborn's statement with Church teaching. He said he knew of people who continued to love their spouse even after they were abandoned by them, and held such people up as an example. "They are faithful to the love which they pledged on the day of their marriage." He added that the grace of marriage always provides the strength needed to live the vows.
Addressing paragraph 305 of the exhortation, Stark asked how one living in objective sin might not be considered subjectively culpable. Cardinal Burke said he "found in that particular section ... a confusion with regard to the Church's teaching on factors which can diminish culpability of an individual sinful act."
The cardinal went on to say that such mitigating circumstances as drug use or external pressure can reduce the culpability of a single act of sin.
But that reasoning doesn't apply to living in public sin, in other words, living in a state of constant sin. One can't say that one can't live chastely. Yes, one can, and that's what we're called to do in such a situation. It's simply a confusion of the moral teaching in that regard."
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-burke-priests-must-refuse-and-face-the-consequences
And here, Anon 2 is why I simply don't believe about there being no papers for the Christians and of course the Vatican declined comment:
"http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/pope-francis-reneges-on-offer-to-take-in-christian-refugees/
Pope Francis reneges on offer to take in Christian refugees
A Christian brother and sister from Syria felt blessed to have been among the dozen refugees selected to start a new life in Italy — but now say their savior, Pope Francis, abandoned them on a Greek island, according to a report.
Roula and Malek Abo, who had been housed in a refugee camp on Lesbos, said they thanked their lucky stars when they found out the Vatican had selected them during the pontiff’s visit to the island last week, the Daily Mail reported.
Their dreams were shattered, though, when they were informed the following day that they would not be traveling to Rome. Instead, three Muslim families were taken.
Asked why they were all Muslim, Francis said there was something wrong with the papers of a Christian family on the list.
The siblings arrived in Greece on April 1 — 10 days after a controversial European Union deal called for asylum-seekers in Greece to be returned to Turkey.
Their hopes to avoid deportation now hinge on their applications for asylum.
“If they can do this for 12 people, they can do it for more,” Roula, 22, told the paper. “If you have promised to take people back to Italy, will something like registration papers stand in your way?”
Community Sant’Egidio, the charity that organized the trip, and the Vatican would not explain the process involved in choosing the migrants.
The Vatican declined comment.
Roula said she, her brother, 28, and their friend Samir, also 28, had been approached by three volunteers believed to be from Sant’Egidio a few days before Francis arrived.
“They said they would take us to Italy, to pack our bags and to meet them the next day,” she told the Daily Mail. “It was so secretive — they didn’t announce it to anybody and we were told to keep it a secret.”
Samir told the paper he was devastated when he found out they would not be going to Rome after all.
“I was so excited to go to Italy — it was such a relief,” he said. “They offered me my future on a plate, and then 24 hours later they took it away."
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, nowhere does Cardinal Muller say that AL is orthodox. He says that AL cannot change Church teaching and that is a completely different thing."
Jan, Cardinal Muller declared that Al is 100 percent in line with Church teaching. The National Catholic Register quotes Cardinal Muller in the following article in which he made clear that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-mueller-pope-offers-families-hope-in-amoris-laetitia-while-upholdi
Cardinal Müller: Pope Offers Hope, Upholds Church Teaching in ‘Amoris Laetitia’
OVIEDO, Spain — Those who think Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation changed the Church’s discipline on holy Communion for the divorced and remarried are reading him wrong, according to the head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller emphasized in a May 4 speech that the Pope wanted to offer “hope for the family” in Amoris Laetitia, through the Church’s promotion of “the culture of the family” and the “culture of the bond” based, “first of all, in the indissoluble love of a man and a woman open to the transmission and upbringing of life.”
Sorry, Jan, but Cardinal Muller has made it AL is 100 percent in support of the Church's teaching on family and marriage. Cardinal Muller praised Amoris Laetitia as a document that has given "hope to the family" to live and thrive through obedience to the "Word of God".
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351294?eng=y
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, have you read Amoris Laetitia?
No, Mark Thomas, Cardinal Muller says nowhere that the document is orthodox. He repeats again the constant teaching of the Church and the way he would like the Church to interpret it. Cardinal Burke, who was the highest canonist in the Church, cannot reconcile 305 with Church teaching and says it is not part of the magisterial teaching because it contains the thoughts of Pope Francis. Therefore, there is no way AL can be declared orthodox.
Magister points out the following:
"It is striking that Cardinal Müller should have given a talk of such significance not in Rome but in Spain, and without getting any publicity in particular. “L'Osservatore Romano” ignored it completely.
Because in practical terms its impact is minimal. Just as the role of prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith has now become marginal and irrelevant.
With Francis, in fact, the form of the papal magisterium has changed.
The perfectly clear “Humanae Vitae” of Paul VI was capsized by the haziness of dissenting bishops and cardinals."
While instead “Amoris Laetitia” is victorious precisely thanks to its calculated vagueness. Because what has gotten through to all levels of the Church as also to public opinion is not what is written there in clear letters, but only what is left for intuition."
Not only that but others have said:
""Addressing the controversial paragraph 301 in AL that seems to imply that those living in an objective state of mortal sin are not necessarily deprived of sanctifying grace, His Eminence clarified, "It is not possible to live in God's grace while living in a sinful situation."
What Francis said [in 301]:
Hence it is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values,” or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision.”
Cardinal Muller is right to uphold Church teaching but even a blind man can see that this paragraph says something different to what Cardinal Muller says.
As someone commented on another blog:
"If they're on the same page, are they reading the same book?"
If there are two contested paragraphs 301 and 305 there is no way that AL can be orthodox but thankfully Cardinal Burke has reiterated it does not form part of magisterial teaching.
Marc said..."Mark, have you read Amoris Laetitia?"
Not from beginning to end.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, I appreciate your honesty.
I think that you should read it and formulate your own thoughts on it before spending more time reading the opinions of others our arguing with people who have read it. Then you might understand more how people who have read it are concluding that it is far fetched for anyone to suggest it is completely orthodox. Or you might conclude on your own that it is completely orthodox, and you'll be able you articulate for yourself an argument against those of us who conclude it is not completely orthodox.
Jan:
You have omitted the following three paragraphs portraying Pope Francis in a more favorable light from your reproduction of the New York Post report:
“The problem here is the three Syrians arrived after the March 20 deadline. They arrived just after the agreement between the European Union and Turkey,” spokesman Massimiliano Signifredi told the Daily Mail.
“Our staff went to Lesbos and spoke with the people who were selected. But everything was decided by the Vatican,” he said.
“The question why the pope took only Muslims is difficult to understand and he was suffering, I think, because he wanted to do something also for Christians as the chief of the Catholic Church. But he couldn’t because there is this international agreement [with the EU],” he said.
These three paragraphs appear between the following two sentences:
Community Sant’Egidio, the charity that organized the trip, and the Vatican would not explain the process involved in choosing the migrants.
The Vatican declined comment.
You reproduce the entire report except for the missing three paragraphs and you do not indicate that there has been an omission between the two sentences above. Why do you omit the three paragraphs and why do you not indicate that you have omitted some text?
Anonymous 2, I don't know why the three paragraphs didn't get through - I copied and pasted the whole article ... nothing sinister there
Jan:
Why didn’t you correct the omission? Don’t you check your posts after they appear?
Anon 2, I normally only check the part of a post that I have written myself for typos - I assumed the whole post was there - anyway, as I included the link to the post people were able to read the whole thing as you did.
There are other reports which don't paint the Pope in a good light over it:
"A Christian brother and sister from Syria say they have been 'let down' by the Pope after he left them behind in a Lesbos refugee camp despite promises they would be given a new life in Italy.
Roula and Malek Abo say they were two of the lucky 'chosen 12' refugees selected by the Vatican to be taken from the desperate camp and housed in Rome.
But what seemed like the chance of a lifetime was cruelly snatched away when they were told the following day they couldn't go. Instead three Muslim families were taken.
Roula, 22, and her brother arrived on Lesbos on April 1 – ten days after the controversial EU deal to return all asylum seekers arriving to Greece from Turkey.
Their application for asylum is being process and they are waiting to learn if they will be sent back to Turkey.
Stuck on Lesbos, Roula told MailOnline: 'If they can do this for 12 people they can do it for more.
'If you have promised to take people back to Italy will something like registration papers stand in your way?'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550138/Betrayed-Pope-Lesbos-Christian-brother-sister-desperately-disappointed-told-rescued-Holy-Father-left-red-tape.html#ixzz49CMn6h13
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I think it was a very short-sighted decision by the Vatican and it would have been better to not take anyone at all. Many Christians have commented that they are shocked and surprised at Francis over this ...
Not very nice reading is it:
"The Pope took several families he promised to give sanctuary to in Rome.
But two people who were promised a place on that plane to freedom were denied the next morning when they arrived with their bags packed.
The Daily Mail reports that a brother and sister were told their promised place on the plane was cancelled. It so happens, that reports indicate the two were the only Christians in the group:
...
As Christianity Today reported, the vast majority of the refugees given entry to European nations have been disproportionately Muslim. The U.S. State Department belatedly declared that in fact it’s been Christians who are victims of genocide by the ISIS terror group.
The move to replace the Christians with Muslims angered activists who have faulted world leaders for the failure to protect Christians in the Middle East. As Truth Revolt put it:
“[W]hen even the world’s most prominent Christian figurehead does nothing to help, but instead worships at the altar of multiculturalism and its “new world order,” what hope is there for Middle East Christians fleeing genocide?”
This blogger angrily spat:
“[W]hen it was discovered that 2 of the 12 Syrian refugees were actually Christians, and not Muslims, they were dropped like a hot potato and told they could not come even though the Vatican had promised to take them. As usual, Middle Eastern Christians get nothing while all the focus remains on the Muslims. That’s the agenda from your New World Order pope.”
Others wondered if the Pope forgot he was Catholic:
This woman reminded the Pope of what he’s previously said:
@Pontifex Like Roula and Malek Abo, the two christians siblings you promised to take with you to Rome and left behind in Lesbos ??? Shameful
...
The sister and brother told reporters they fled Syria when ISIS started murdering Christians, but now it’s certain they will never be able to return home:
“They killed the Christians in Raqqa we heard, so of course we had to leave,’ Roula said.
Malek added: ‘We stayed as long as possible, because it’s not easy to get the money to leave Syria. It takes you 50 years to buy a house so you don’t decide to leave it in a minute.
‘We were clinging to the hope that it will get better. We know that as soon as we leave the house people will come and take our stuff. We know we can’t go back.”
The trio could be sent back to Turkey to another refugee camp under an EU agreement.
It’s the same agreement that kept the Pope from taking the Christians back to the Vatican. The spokesman for the charity group overseeing the refugee transfers says the Pope’s move was a head-shaker:
“The question why the Pope took only Muslims is difficult to understand and he was suffering, I think, because he wanted to do something also for Christians as the chief of the Catholic Church. But he couldn’t because there is this international agreement [with the EU].”
The Vatican has not offered any comment."
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/04/593887-pope-syria-refugees/
Jan:
As a matter of good practice, you might want to check the entire posting in the future to avoid similar unintended distortions. Including a link is good. Unless I am mis-remembering (I haven’t checked my previous postings), I have urged you to do this on earlier threads and am glad to see that you generally do this now. You do still sometimes make assertions without a link, however, and the reader then has to go hunting, as I had to do recently when you made an assertion about “feigned” attacks on Muslims (I couldn’t find anything by the way, although I did find information on real attacks on them), so you might want to make sure that you always include a link or at least a reference. I wish everyone would do this when they make assertions about statements or other events.
I am glad that you include the three paragraphs in the independent journal review excerpt in your second post this morning. To clarify, they also appear of course in the Daily Mail report that you excerpt in your first post this morning.
I don’t think “spitting” (or even “hissing” =)) bloggers add value except as a gauge of the level of anger they feel and/or their lack of conversational virtues. In fact, as a general matter, we should be very wary of characterizations by others of what, for example, the Pope said or did or didn’t say or do and try to get as close to the original source as possible. In this way we minimize distortions due to the clouding of their judgment by emotion and/or any unrevealed agenda they may have.
Jan:
I just want to explain why including a link, although good, is sometimes insufficient. It may be sufficient if you do not include descriptive content of your own. But if you do, many readers will just rely on your description without going to the link. In that case, then, you have to be very careful that your description is not misleading.
Anonymous 2, here is the article I mentioned that you weren't able to find:
"Teenage student, 18, is fined £90 after lying that she was punched in the face because she wore a hijab in the days after the Paris terror attacks
Miss Choudhury said she was attacked in Birmingham city centre
Police launched an investigation into the incident and trawled CCTV
Their inquiry revealed that the student had completely made up the attack
Miss Choudhury was fined £90 for wasting West Midlands Police's time."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390765/Birmingham-teenager-lied-punched-wearing-hijab-Paris-massacre.html#ixzz49I0Np3BN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Anonymous 2, I realize that some Catholics find it difficult when the Vatican gets it wrong to admit it. The comments I posted illustrate what people think of the head of the largest Christian denomination leaving Christians behind in favor of Muslims because of a UN agreement. The two Christians involved and most commentators don't think that there was sufficient reason for the Pope to have left them behind, particularly because of the plight of Christians and the fact that this is the Year of Mercy ... some commentators going so far as to say that the Pope dropped the Christians like hot potatoes and others saying that not taking the Christians proved that the whole thing was a publicity stunt and wasn't for humanitarian reasons at all ...
Jan:
Thank you for providing the link. Here is my reply to your previous post that did not provide any link. See the following earlier Southern Orders thread (I don’t think you saw it because you did not respond then):
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2016/04/full-text-of-yet-again-papal-interview.html
Jan:
On “the woman who made out she was set upon because she was wearing a veil,” you did not provided a link so I googled it. I did not find that story but I did find this one, in the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3225020/Shocking-moment-hijab-wearing-woman-attacked-knocked-floor-unconscious-police-reveal-huge-rise-hate-crimes-against-Muslims.html
Not much “making out” there I think.
Regarding Christian refugees, the very NCR article you cite helps to explain the reasons. It is not because of discrimination against Christians in favor of Muslims. Here is another article along the same lines:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/syrias-christian-refugees-four-wrong-assumptions/?_r=0
But perhaps anti-Christian discrimination isn’t your point. If not, perhaps you can explain just what exactly your point is. Is it that we should not be using the UNHCR system and pipeline for processing refugee applications?
__________________________
As you can see, my reply also addressed the question of the Christian refugees, which I would just repeat for most of my response to your second post today. I would only add that your post on that thread provides yet another illustration of where you leave out important material from an excerpt, in this case material that is needed to have a properly balanced view regarding the reasons why so few Christian refugees have come to the United States. Moreover, people can think and say all kinds of things but we need to evaluate what they say, as I try to do with your own postings. And when they “spit” and/or “hiss” when they speak it does not, in my view, make their opinion carry any more weight.
Anonymous 2, that is indeed a shocking case of a Muslim woman being attacked. Unfortunately there are so many documented cases of Muslims attacking non-Muslims, protesting against soldiers etc, including one Muslim chasing a boy and shooting him, also Muslims rampaging in a Tesco store so unfortunately reprisals will happen.
These are not terrorist events either. These are ordinary Muslims who live in Britain and Europe targeting and attacking others who are non-Muslim. People can see these videos for themselves of what is happening in Britain and other places where large scale immigration has been permitted. This is why Donald Trump will be the next president of the USA because Americans don't want what is happening in England and Europe to happen in the USA. Soldiers returning from Afghanistan etc have been protested against by Muslims and parts of England are no go areas.
There are just too many videos to link to here but I link two showing youths beingn fired at and Catholics being attacked leaving Mass in France. This shows what can happen when you allow vast numbers of people who, quite frankly, are of a different culture and far from civilised.
"Straight outta Edmonton: Chilling video captures moment gunman dressed in Muslim robes opens fire on a teenager in broad daylight in a quiet north London cul-de-sac
Shocking footage of four teenagers trying to flee an attacker was taken outside of a north London shopping centre
Man can be seen pointing weapon directly at one of the young boys, who then appears to 'limp' to a nearby vehicle
Metropolitan Police confirmed it was aware of an incident in Edmonton, which happened in broad daylight at 2pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498580/Shooting-suburbia-Chilling-moment-gunman-dressed-Muslim-robes-opens-fire-teenager-broad-daylight-north-London-cul-sac.html
Savage Muslims have attacked Christians attending a Catholic celebration in southern France. Participants were leaving in their cars when young Arab Muslim immigrants started throwing stones at the vehicles.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498580/Shooting-suburbia-Chilling-moment-gunman-dressed-Muslim-robes-opens-fire-teenager-broad-daylight-north-London-cul-sac.html#ixzz49LXHRJPX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I hope you take a look at those videos and are as horrified about them as I am. As I say, with all this going on Trump is going to romp in. Americans would be patently silly if they elect more of the same ...
Sorry Anonymous 2 I missed the link of Muslims throwing stones at Catholics coming out of Mass in France. As is reported the Muslims have been offered a home in France and this is how the "religion of peace reacts":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jg8EeL7zD8
Jan:
Thank you for these links and for those you posted the other day (which I watched by the way). I hope you will believe me when I say that I am not seeking to minimize anything, just to get at the facts and the whole story surrounding these incidents.
Regarding the attack by the gunman in Edmonton, then, the following two paragraphs in the report seem important in order to put the story in proper perspective:
“'I couldn't believe what I was filming. I've never seen anything like that outside my house, I was just left wondering what the hell is going on out there. It's London, I don't expect to see that sort of stuff.'
Metropolitan Police confirmed it was aware of an incident in Edmonton yesterday and said officers discovered no one injured at the scene. No one has been arrested and evidence of a discharged blank firearm was discovered.”
Also, I do not know what transpired between the assailant and the youths before the apparent assault. For example, the report also contains the following:
“A daylight clip taken from a nearby balcony appears to suggest the terrifying situation followed a disagreement in the shopping centre as a seven-strong group of men can be seen dispersing across a car park as a shot and shouting can be heard at the beginning of the footage.
The gun-toting man then chases the four boys across a nearby busy road, forcing drivers to slow down as they swerve around the group.”
I have checked some other reports on the list in this link:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Muslim+Man+Shoots+at+teenagers+in+Edmonton+UK+shopping+mall
They don’t seem to add much but there does seem to have been some sort of altercation at the shopping mall. One is left to speculate. For example, did the teenagers set upon the Muslim man? Was he carrying a gun with blanks for some protection? We have no idea from these reports.
Regarding the stones thrown at the Catholics leaving Mass in southern France, I have tried to find a decent report giving some context but can find none. I even searched for the referenced report in the French newspaper La Provence but cannot find it. Perhaps you can. It would be interesting to read a more complete report.
The trouble with so many of these reports and videos is that they make no pretense at objectivity and just provide a sensationalist “snapshot” of an incident that feeds the narrative the authors want to promote. Both as an English barrister and as a law professor, I cannot allow myself to rely solely on such sources. Again, I am not seeking to minimize, just to have a more complete understanding of what has occurred and why. Indeed, I think it is incumbent on all of us to seek such an understanding so that we can properly assess the nature and extent of the problem and possible solutions.
As for Donald Trump, I suspect that his supporters are setting themselves up for a huge disappointment.
The Donald Trump comment was a P.S. to the following, which does not seem to have made it through:
Jan:
Thank you for these links and for those you posted the other day (which I watched by the way). I hope you will believe me when I say that I am not seeking to minimize anything, just to get at the facts and the whole story surrounding these incidents.
Regarding the attack by the gunman in Edmonton, then, the following two paragraphs in the report seem important in order to put the story in proper perspective:
“'I couldn't believe what I was filming. I've never seen anything like that outside my house, I was just left wondering what the hell is going on out there. It's London, I don't expect to see that sort of stuff.'
Metropolitan Police confirmed it was aware of an incident in Edmonton yesterday and said officers discovered no one injured at the scene. No one has been arrested and evidence of a discharged blank firearm was discovered.”
Also, I do not know what transpired between the assailant and the youths before the apparent assault. For example, the report also contains the following:
“A daylight clip taken from a nearby balcony appears to suggest the terrifying situation followed a disagreement in the shopping centre as a seven-strong group of men can be seen dispersing across a car park as a shot and shouting can be heard at the beginning of the footage.
The gun-toting man then chases the four boys across a nearby busy road, forcing drivers to slow down as they swerve around the group.”
I have checked some other reports on the list in this link:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Muslim+Man+Shoots+at+teenagers+in+Edmonton+UK+shopping+mall
They don’t seem to add much but there does seem to have been some sort of altercation at the shopping mall. One is left to speculate. For example, did the teenagers set upon the Muslim man? Was he carrying a gun with blanks for some protection? We have no idea from these reports.
Regarding the stones thrown at the Catholics leaving Mass in southern France, I have tried to find a decent report giving some context but can find none. I even searched for the referenced report in the French newspaper La Provence but cannot find it. Perhaps you can. It would be interesting to read a more complete report.
The trouble with so many of these reports and videos is that they make no pretense at objectivity and just provide a sensationalist “snapshot” of an incident that feeds the narrative the authors want to promote. Both as an English barrister and as a law professor, I cannot allow myself to rely solely on such sources. Again, I am not seeking to minimize, just to have a more complete understanding of what has occurred and why. Indeed, I think it is incumbent on all of us to seek such an understanding so that we can properly assess the nature and extent of the problem and possible solutions.
But Anonymous 2 whether he was provoked or not here we have a Muslim man running about with a gun. The report actually says:
"As one of the men, who appears to have been shot in the leg, attempts to desperately limp away from the scene others run ahead in a bid to ready a vehicle.
The attacker, who appeared to be wearing a robe, which is an ankle-length garment, can be seen following with the weapon held out in front before he targets the injured man, who cowers next to a residential house.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498580/Shooting-suburbia-Chilling-moment-gunman-dressed-Muslim-robes-opens-fire-teenager-broad-daylight-north-London-cul-sac.html#ixzz49TTYUMLW
This is not a terror attack. This is an ordinary Muslim toting a gun and chasing youth through the streets of London. We don't know if it was blanks either and other reports say that even blanks can cause injury if fired at close range.
I think people are supporting Trump because of the situation of violence that is occurring in countries where large numbers of Muslims have been allowed in. When that happens the problem is there is no assimilation and the cultures do not mix.
Jan,
Yes, blanks can cause injury, especially if fired at close range. Of course, we still do not know if the youth was limping because he was shot with a blank or whether, for example, he was kicked or tripped. And again, we still do not know the context for the incident. Perhaps the assailant returned home and told his family that he had a luck escape when some local yobbos set upon him in the parking lot. Or perhaps he told them triumphantly that he had really scared some of the infidels. The point is we just don’t know and we cannot know based on just this video. I suspect it is true, however, that he committed a criminal offense just by possessing an offensive weapon, even if it only contained blanks. What additional offenses he may or may not have committed depends on facts not in evidence.
Whether their reasons for voting for Trump, I am still afraid that his supporters will be hugely disappointed if they are expecting him to deliver. But perhaps they aren’t. Perhaps it is all just about venting.
The United States is not Europe. We do not have nearly the same level of social problems arising from Muslim immigration as the Europeans do, largely I suspect because we do a much better job of accepting religion and accommodating religious minorities than, say, the French do with their fanatical separation of church and state. But the French always were too extreme about this sort of thing. Just ask Edmund Burke. =)
Jan:
"Whether their reasons" should of course be "Whatever their reasons."
In the interests of balance, you might also want to check out all the reports of “Islamophobic” attacks on Muslims in Western countries. Videos intended to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment are not exactly calculated to diminish such attacks. Of course, as with any report, we would want to know about the background context leading up to the incident in question. The following link lists these attacks:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=attacke+on+Muslims+in+U.K.&oq=attacke+on+Muslims+in+U.K.&gs_l=news-cc.1.0.43j43i53.194410.209195.0.211546.40.5.7.27.34.0.590.1543.1j1j1j5-2.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.LmpvdHaUYMw#q=Islamophobic+attacks+on+Muslims+in+U.K.&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&start=0
Anonymous 2 there are a number of videos showing Muslims attacking Christians in the US.
You can see for yourself an exchange between David Horowitz and a Muslim student who first refuses to condemn Hamas and then Horowitz says, "The Head of Hezbollah says he hopes [Jews] gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally, for it or against it?"
Muslim student: "For it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ownvVnxRaUY
That was described as chilling but Horowitz says it is all over the US with the Muslim Students Association being affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Post a Comment