Monday, November 14, 2016

IF THE TRUTH BE TOLD, THERE IS 1970'S TYPE OF CONFUSION, DISUNITY AND POLARIZATION IN THE CHURCH CAUSED BY THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE CHURCH, NOT UNLIKE THE POLARIZATION OF THE USA BY ITS HIGHEST LEADER!

I offer no commentary on this for it speaks for itself. All I will say is that we are in the throws of an epoch battle in the Church that may well lead to a return to anathemas in the near future and in a new papal Magisterium.

Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in "Amoris Laetitia"


1. A Necessary Foreword

The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals derives from a deep pastoral concern.


We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting interpretations of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to resolve those doubts which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.

Ours is therefore an act of justice and charity.

Of justice: with our initiative we profess that the Petrine ministry is the ministry of unity, and that to Peter, to the Pope, belongs the service of confirming in the faith.

Of charity: we want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.

We have also carried out a specific duty. According to the Code of Canon Law (cc. 349) the cardinals, even taken individually, are entrusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

We hope that no one will judge us, unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing derives from the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.



Card. Walter Brandmüller

Card. Raymond L. Burke

Card. Carlo Caffarra

Card. Joachim Meisner

2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope



To His Holiness Pope Francis

and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller



Most Holy Father,

Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.

Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.

Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, with profound respect, we permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as supreme Teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the Dubia that we attach the present letter.

May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.



Card. Walter Brandmüller

Card. Raymond L. Burke

Card. Carlo Caffarra

Card. Joachim Meisner



Rome, September 19, 2016



3. The "dubia"

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?


4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals



CONTEXT



Dubia (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.

Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.

Upon the publication of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around its eighth chapter. Here specifically paragraphs 300-305 have been the object of divergent interpretations.

For many - bishops, priests, faithful - these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of dubia, hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.

The fact that interpreters come to different conclusions is also due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life. In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can - under certain circumstances - be readmitted to the sacraments.

Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.

Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.



4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals



CONTEXT



Dubia (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.

Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.

Upon the publication of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around its eighth chapter. Here specifically paragraphs 300-305 have been the object of divergent interpretations.

For many - bishops, priests, faithful - these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of dubia, hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.

The fact that interpreters come to different conclusions is also due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life. In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can - under certain circumstances - be readmitted to the sacraments.

Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.

Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.




THE QUESTIONS

Doubt number 1:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia(nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
Question 1 makes particular reference to Amoris Laetitia n. 305 and to footnote 351. While note 351 specifically speaks of the sacraments of penance and communion, it does not mention the divorced and civilly remarried in this context, nor does the main text.
Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 84 already contemplated the possibility of admitting the divorced and civilly remarried to the sacraments. It mentions three conditions:

  • The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of their children);
  • They take upon themselves the commitment to live according to the truth of their situation, that is, to cease living together as if they were husband and wife (more uxorio), abstaining from those acts that are proper to spouses;
  • They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the appearance of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).

The conditions mentioned by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and by the subsequent documents recalled will immediately appear reasonable once we remember that the marital union is not just based on mutual affection and that sexual acts are not just one activity among others that couples engage in.
Sexual relations are for marital love. They are something so important, so good and so precious, that they require a particular context, the context of marital love. Hence, not only the divorced living in a new union need to abstain, but also everyone who is not married. For the Church, the sixth commandment “Do not commit adultery” has always covered any exercise of human sexuality that is not marital, i.e., any kind of sexual relations other than those engaged in with one’s rightful spouse.
It would seem that admitting to communion those of the faithful who are separated or divorced from their rightful spouse and who have entered a new union in which they live with someone else as if they were husband and wife would mean for the Church to teach by her practice one of the following affirmations about marriage, human sexuality, and the nature of the sacraments:

  • A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. However, people who are not married can under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.
  •  A divorce dissolves the marriage bond. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts. The divorced and remarried are legitimate spouses and their sexual acts are lawful marital acts.
  • A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts, so that the divorced and civilly remarried live in a situation of habitual, public, objective and grave sin. However, admitting persons to the Eucharist does not mean for the Church to approve their public state of life; the faithful can approach the Eucharistic table even with consciousness of grave sin, and receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance does not always require the purpose of amending one’s life. The sacraments, therefore, are detached from life: Christian rites and worship are on a completely different sphere than the Christian moral life.  

Doubt number 2:
After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
The second question regards the existence of so-called intrinsically evil acts. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor 79 claims that one can “qualify as morally evil according to its species … the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”
Thus, the encyclical teaches that there are acts that are always evil, which are forbidden by moral norms that bind without exception (“moral absolutes”). These moral absolutes are always negative, that is, they tell us what we should not do. “Do not kill.” “Do not commit adultery.” Only negative norms can bind without exception.
According to Veritatis Splendor, with intrinsically evil acts no discernment of circumstances or intentions is necessary. Uniting oneself to a woman who is married to another is and remains an act of adultery that as such is never to be done, even if by doing so an agent could possibly extract precious secrets from a villain’s wife so as to save the kingdom (what sounds like an example from a James Bond movie has already been contemplated by St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo, q. 15, a. 1). John Paul II argues that the intention (say, “saving the kingdom”) does not change the species of the act (here: “committing adultery”), and that it is enough to know the species of the act (“adultery”) to know that one must not do it.

Doubt number 3:
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
In paragraph 301 Amoris Laetitia recalls that: “The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” And it concludes that “hence it 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.”
In its Declaration of June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts seeks to clarify Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” The Pontifical Council’s Declaration argues that this canon is applicable also to faithful who are divorced and civilly remarried. It spells out that “grave sin” has to be understood objectively, given that the minister of the Eucharist has no means of judging another person’s subjective imputability.
Thus, for the Declaration, the question of the admission to the sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at all.
Along the same lines, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 37, Saint John Paul II recalls that “the judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience.” Hence, the distinction referred to by Amoris Laetitia between the subjective situation of mortal sin and the objective situation of grave sin is indeed well established in the Church’s teaching.
John Paul II however continues by insisting that “in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved.” He then reiterates the teaching of Canon 915 mentioned above.
Question 3 of the Dubia hence would like to clarify whether, even after Amoris Laetitia, it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder, or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.

Doubt number 4:
After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendorn. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
In paragraph 302, Amoris Laetitia stresses that on account of mitigating circumstances “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.” The Dubia point to the Church’s teaching as expressed in John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor according to which circumstances or good intentions can never turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.
The question arises whether Amoris Laetitia, too, is agreed that any act that transgresses against God’s commandments, such as adultery, murder, theft, or perjury, can never, on account of circumstances that mitigate personal responsibility, become excusable or even good.
Do these acts, which the Church’s Tradition has called bad in themselves and grave sins, continue to be destructive and harmful for anyone committing them in whatever subjective state of moral responsibility he may be?
Or could these acts, depending on a person’s subjective state and depending on the circumstances and intentions, cease to be injurious and become commendable or at least excusable?

Doubt number 5:
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Amoris Laetitia n. 303 states that “conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God.” The Dubia ask for a clarification of these affirmations, given that they are susceptible to divergent interpretations.
For those proposing the creative idea of conscience, the precepts of God’s law and the norm of the individual conscience can be in tension or even in opposition, while the final word should always go to conscience that ultimately decides about good and evil. According to Veritatis Splendor n. 56, “on this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.”
In this perspective, it will never be enough for moral conscience to know “this is adultery,” or “this is murder,” in order to know that this is something one cannot and must not do.
Rather, one would also need to look at the circumstances or the intentions to know if this act could not, after all be excusable or even obligatory (cf. question 4 of the Dubia). For these theories, conscience could indeed rightfully decide that in a given case, God’s will for me consists in an act by which I transgress one of his commandments. “Do not commit adultery” is seen as just a general norm. In the here and now, and given my good intentions, committing adultery is what God really requires of me.  Under these terms, cases of virtuous adultery, lawful murder and obligatory perjury are at least conceivable.
This would mean to conceive of conscience as a faculty for autonomously deciding about good and evil and of God’s law as a burden that is arbitrarily imposed and that could at times be opposed to our true happiness.
However, conscience does not decide about good and evil. The whole idea of a “decision of conscience” is misleading. The proper act of conscience is to judge and not to decide. It says, “This is good,” “This is bad.” This goodness or badness does not depend on it. It acknowledges and recognizes the goodness or badness of an action, and for doing so, that is, for judging, conscience needs criteria; it is inherently dependent on truth.
God’s commandments are a most welcome help for conscience to get to know the truth and hence to judge verily. God’s commandments are the expression of the truth about our good, about our very being, disclosing something crucial about how to live life well. Pope Francis, too, expresses himself in these terms when in Amoris Laetitia 295: “The law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.”

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

My crystal ball tells me that Cardinal Burke will be removed from the college of cardinals by the present pope. Let's speak reality. Cardinal Burke actually believes in the Catholic Faith as it has been taught for 2000 years, a pope Francis does not. Cardinal Burke realizes that no pope has the authority to add remove or change defined Church dogma. Pope Francis has a screwed view of the papacy. He believes he can say or do whatever he wants because he is pope. He can't. He can literally stand on the balcony of St. Peter's wearing the tiara, I know I know, just trying to make a point......and say that adultery isn't a mortal sin and that people committing fornication can receive communion without amendment of life. He can say that, but that doesn't make it true because the Church has already, irrevocably said these position are false. No Catholic has any obligation to follow false teaching, even if it comes from the mouth of Bergoglio. He can and is undermining the Faith, but to his own damnation. One day he will drop dead and be immediatley judged and condemed if he intentionally undermined the Faith/Christ. The situation is unpresidented. We have had pope's that had private sins like every human being but we have never had a pope who has worked so hard to undermine the Truths of the Catholic Faith like Francis has done. But Christ is in charge and Our Lady will intervene at the darkest moment. I no longer have any fear. The ones who should be terrified are Francis and those cardinals and bishops who are helping him promote chaos and confusion. A millstone is waiting for all of them. And Cardinal Burke will one day be raised to the altar as a glorious defender of th Faith just like Cardinal John Fisher was.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:23 AM, you are correct in all points, and yes His Grace Cardinal Burke will no doubt become a martyr of The Holy Roman Catholic Church, my friends enough is enough just like we elected Trump as our new President now we must insist on an Orthodox Pope. The games are over the 60's 70's 80's 90's are over no more clowns, altar girls, dancing vestal virgins with incense bowls, guitars, drums, pianos, folk, rock, mariachi, jazz, felt banners, kiss of peace, hand holding, women in the sanctuary pretending to be priests, communion in the hand while standing, drinking from the chalice "priest" only, lesbian nuns, protestant hymns, the list can go on and on folks that's the problem. Only the complete and utter return of the Traditional Latin Mass and nothing else will save Holy Church from complete and utter destruction. This weekend in regards to Trumps victory Pope Francis says he is worried about "migrants" and Muslims! Not at all worried about the Christians in the Middle East being decapitated, burned alive, forced from their homes no not one worry about the Christians from this Pope folks, he is worried about migrants and Muslims. Truly amazing yet not in the least surprised, I wish these four Cardinals the best however I think Francis will come down hard on them especially Burke, Francis has a special dislike for Burke and rightfully so Burke acts and says what he is A ROMAN CATHOLIC CARDINAL, and Francis for his part cannot stand that!!!

TJM said...

The cardinals with the brains and courage finally weighed in. Francis may have the power, but he lacks the intellectual heft to handle this.

Anonymous said...

Well His Grace Cardinal Burke will most likely be punished again in some way or another, but hey that's what a martyr of the Holy Roman Catholic Church has to expect, keep up the good fight your Grace we stand with you, silent just like Trump had his silent majority.

Anonymous said...

Like I said before I took refuge in a Anglican-Catholic parish in my city for there is no F.S.S.P. S.S.P.X. or Institute of Christ the King for me to attend even though there are three Catholic Churches within 3 miles of my home, I simply cannot stand to even sit in the pews for it is simply so juvenile in all sense of the imagination. A priest who walks around with a mike and talks like a game show host, girls in albs giggling at the altar, music so completely embarrassing and with no substance, people in short, tank tops, flip flops, clapping hands, I mean really, I sat there and said just what happened in less than 40 years? We came from Mozart, Palestrina, Gregorian chant, stunning Roman and Gothic chasubles, organ music, suites, ties and dresses, a dinner table in place of an altar of sacrifice, girls running around the altar, lay women and men giving the homily. I spoke to the Anglican-Catholic parish priest and told him of my dilemma and said he would love to have me attend his Mass however not to take holy communion which of course I too agreed made sense. How ironic that this Anglo-Catholic parish has a priest, deacon, sub-deacon, altar boys only, Latin, Gregorian chant, organ, high altar, marble communion rail, statues, confessionals FOUR mind you, Latin vespers, the Rosary hour, Marian devotions, stunning gold and silver vestments, Anglican Nuns in full habits, folks these Anglo-Catholics are more ROMAN AND CATHOLIC than the Church is, how ironic is that. Just thought you all would enjoy this odd but in the end lovely story, thank you to these wonderful Anglican-Catholics and priest who took in a Roman Catholic without a home.

Mark Thomas said...

<<<"We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark.">>>

Forget that. "Traditional" Catholic bloggers have seized upon the Cardinals' letter to turn the situation into a progressive/conservative paradigm.

"Traditional" Catholics today have also employed the letter in question to spew venom at His Holiness Pope Francis..."he's a heretic...his silence is proof of his arrogance...the Cardinals must denounce his Pontificate...they must depose him...he's not the real Pope..."

Ahh...another day of charity toward the Vicar of Christ, or as certain wonderful folks refer to Pope Francis, "The Evil Clown," throughout the "traditional" Catholic blogosphere.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

"Not at all worried about the Christians in the Middle East being decapitated, burned alive, forced from their homes no not one worry about the Christians..."

False.

His Holiness Pope Francis has time and again called attention to the plight of Middle East Christians. He has condemned repeated the genocide (Pope Francis' description) of the atrocities that have been inflicted upon Middle Eastern Christians.

Pope Francis has written to the United Nations to request that the world come to the aid of Middle Eastern Christians.

Pope Francis convened a Consistory of Cardinals to call attention to the persecutions that have been inflicted upon Middle Eastern Christians.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/20/pope_francis_middle_east_without_christians_unthinkable/1108997

"Traditional" Catholic bloggers have been all but silent in reporting on the many, many times that Pope Francis has called attention to the genocide that has been inflicted upon Middle Eastern Christians (and Christians throughout the world).

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Not at all worried about the Christians in the Middle East being decapitated, burned alive, forced from their homes no not one worry about the Christians from this Pope folks, he is worried about migrants and Muslims.

POPE FRANCIS

LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION CONCERNING THE SITUATION IN NORTHERN IRAQ

His Excellency Mr Ban Ki-moon Secretary General United Nations Organization

It is with a heavy and anguished heart that I have been following the dramatic events of these past few days in Northern Iraq where Christians and other religious minorities have been forced to flee from their homes and witness the destruction of their places of worship and religious patrimony.

Moved by their plight, I have asked His Eminence Cardinal Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, who served as the Representative of my predecessors, Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, to the people in Iraq, to manifest my spiritual closeness and to express my concern, and that of the entire Catholic Church, for the intolerable suffering of those who only wish to live in peace, harmony and freedom in the land of their forefathers.

In the same spirit, I write to you, Mr Secretary-General, and place before you the tears, the suffering and the heartfelt cries of despair of Christians and other religious minorities of the beloved land of Iraq.

In renewing my urgent appeal to the international community to take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway, I encourage all the competent organs of the United Nations, in particular those responsible for security, peace, humanitarian law and assistance to refugees, to continue their efforts in accordance with the Preamble and relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter.

The violent attacks that are sweeping across Northern Iraq cannot but awaken the consciences of all men and women of goodwill to concrete acts of solidarity by protecting those affected or threatened by violence and assuring the necessary and urgent assistance for the many displaced people as well as their safe return to their cities and their homes.

The tragic experiences of the Twentieth Century, and the most basic understanding of human dignity, compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms of international law, to do all that it can to stop and to prevent further systematic violence against ethnic and religious minorities.

Confident that my appeal, which I unite with those of the Oriental Patriarchs and other religious leaders, will meet with a positive reply, I take this opportunity to renew to your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

From the Vatican, 9 August 2014

FRANCIS
=====================================

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

1. Breitbart News, July 11, 2015 A.D. — Pope: 'A Genocide Is Taking Place' Against Christians In The Middle East

2. Daily Mail, July 10, 2015 A.D. — Pope Francis decries 'genocide' of Christians in Middle East

3. www.middleeasteye.net — Pope Francis: End 'genocide' of Christians in the Middle East

4. www.ibtimes.com — Pope Francis Condemns 'Genocide' Of Christians In Middle East

5. Jerusalem Post — Pope Francis demands end to 'genocide' of Middle East Christians

That is just the tip of the iceberg in regard to news stories that pertain to Pope Francis having referred to "genocide" inflicted upon Christians in the Middle East.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

-- Pope Francis Addresses Christian Persecution in Middle East

Pope Francis has turned his attention, and the world’s, to the horrific persecution of Christians which has been steadily increasing in recent years.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/articles/pope-francis-and-mid-east-persecution.aspx

===========================================

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/11/04/pope_francis_help_persecuted_christians_in_the_middle_east/1184250

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Wednesday gave his support to the work of Aid to the Church in Need, which offers help to persecuted Christians around the world.

The Church in Poland is marking on Sunday a “Day of Solidarity with the Persecuted Church”, which is promoted by Aid to the Church in Need in collaboration with the Polish Bishops’ Conference. This year, the Day for Solidarity will be used to offer spiritual and material assistance in particular to Christians in Syria.

“Your work of prayer and solidarity brings relief and support to our brothers and sisters who suffer for Christ in the Middle East and around the world,” Pope Francis said while greeting Polish pilgrims at his weekly general audience.

“I support you with my blessing,” he continued.

When greeting Arabic-speaking pilgrims, Pope Francis also made a special appeal for “the Lord to protect [their families] from evil.”
================================================================

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/09/01/pope-francis-begs-international-community-to-act-to-stop-anti-christian-persecution/

Pope Francis: ‘International community must act to stop anti-Christian persecution’

“Do something to put a stop to the violence and oppression,” Pope Francis asked the international community after calling attention once again to the fate of persecuted Christians, especially in the Middle East.
===================================================================

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/25/pope-francis-at-easter-do-not-forget-persecution-of-iraqi-christians/

Pope Francis: At Easter, Do Not Forget Persecution of Iraqi Christians

In a Holy Week letter sent to Iraqi Christians in Erbil, Pope Francis has called on people of the world to “not forget the tragedy of persecution” suffered by Christians in the Middle East.
======================================================

Anonymous, your claim about Pope Francis' supposed indifference toward persecuted Middle Eastern Christians is 100 percent false. In the spirit of peace, I offer correction to you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark, for those who, by dint of heaven knows what, have a direct connection to God and can ignore anyone any everything that does not fit their imaginary narratives, your factually correct correction will have no effect.

You did everything that could be done, I commend you.

Dialogue said...

How dare they ask him questions about doctrine! Isn't the Chair of Peter meant to cause confusion among the faithful, rather than fidelity?

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Thanks for confirming how ineffective Pope Francis has been vis-a-vis the "world." The way the lefties swooned when he was elected, you would have thought that President Obama and the UN would have immediately taken up the cause of saving the Christians being slaughtered in the Mideast (compliments of Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy "expertise.)" Instead, Obama and the UN have ignored the plight of mideast Christians and continue to pursue with full vigor the holocaust against the unborn.I remember Pope Francis and his photo ops with Obama,yucking it up while saying very unkind things about Donald Trump. There is a saying where I come from, "lie with dogs, wake up with fleas."

John Nolan said...

Joachim, Cardinal Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne, is a close friend of Benedict XVI and last year, on the 40th anniversary of his episcopal consecration, the sermon was preached by another friend and admirer, Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

Attempting to impose some clarity on AL (large parts of which it appears were written by a dodgy Argentine prelate other than Francis) is surely the responsibility of the CDF, and the letter was copied to the Prefect. Müller's silence is also ominous - perhaps he feels his mozzetta is hanging on the proverbial shaky nail?

Michael A said...

Mark Thomas,

Why do you use five sources for the same story? Do you believe that the visual effect of seeing quotes from five sources somehow turns one comment from Francis into five separate statements? You don't seem at all concerned about the contradictions and misinformation spread by Francis possibly because you believe he has committed none? All the blame should be place on those who have legitimate questions and Francis is free to teach heresy? Since you like to search for quotes you should look up Saint Gregory the Great who said; "It's better that scandals arise than that truth be silenced". Maybe you should spend some time on the topic being addressed by the Cardinals and explain why their concerns are wrong and Francis is correct?

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, why would you thank me for having demonstrated Pope Francis' supposed ineffectiveness in his attempt to secure peace for Christians in the Middle East?

Pope Francis followed in the footsteps of his predecessors...Saint Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Venerable Pius XII, etc. Pope Francis called upon nations/international organizations to secure peace for people (in this case, Christians and religious minorities in the Middle East) who were trampled and murdered by the Culture of Death.

Pope Francis wasn't ineffective. He raised his voice and expressed great concern for victims when one world leader after another refused to do so. How many world leaders followed Pope Francis' lead in regard to the following: Pope Francis declared that "genocide" had been inflicted upon Christians.

The fact that the world has remained indifferent to the genocide inflicted upon Christians in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is Pope Francis' fault.

Blessed are the peacemakers. The fact that the world ignores the pleas of peacemakers doesn't mean that the peacemakers are ineffective. Peacemakers perform God's work. That is what Pope Francis has done in regard to Christians in the Middle East.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Michael A, I referenced various times during which His Holiness Pope Francis called attention to the persecutions that have been inflicted upon Christians in the Middle East.

Pope Francis has time and again focused public attention upon the persecutions directed at Christians in the Middle East.

The commenter who claimed that Pope Francis has not expressed "one worry" about said persecutions is wrong.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

To: Anonymous at November 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM:

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I said..."The fact that the world has remained indifferent to the genocide inflicted upon Christians in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is Pope Francis' fault"

Correction: That is not Pope Francis' fault.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Pope Francis was ineffective. When St. John Paul II wanted something, he went out and did it. He told the Soviets in no uncertain terms, if they invaded his beloved Poland, he would take off the Papal Tiara and go there and die with his people. Words without action are meaningless. Moreoever, Pope Francis is supposedly so "loved" by the "world" why didn't Obama immediately offer safe refuge for Syrian Christians. Last time I checked Obama allowed in tens of thousands of Muslims, and a paltry few Christians. This is from CNS:

"With ten weeks to go until the end of the fiscal year, the Obama administration continues to admit Syrian refugees at an accelerated pace, and has now exceeded two-thirds of President Obama’s target of 10,000 by September 30.

The proportion of Christians among those resettled continues to languish below half of one percent, while other non-Sunnis account for just over one percent."

Yes, Pope Francis is very effective.