Saturday, April 14, 2018

LET'S FACE IT, POPE FRANCIS' ITALIAN/SOUTH AMERICAN PERSONALITY, WHAT WE ITALIANS CALL THE VULGAR ITALIAN, AND POPE FRANCIS IS BOTH ON STEROIDS, IS WHAT HAS BECOME A DISASTER FOR THE CHURCH

When compared to the refined popes of the recent past, even Pope John XXIII who came from true Italian peasantry, but refined by his humble acceptance of the kingly office of the papacy, we can say Pope Francis has not been humbled or refined by the institution foisted upon him but has brought the institution to his level of vulgarity.

I use the word vulgar as one would speak of the vulgar language. We Italians speak of some Italians who are vulgar but fun, they shoot from the hip, generalize and denigrate and do it all in a humorous way, what we Americans call our crazy uncle.

Thus this segment of The World Over captures why Pope Francis has become such a divisive and polarizing figure of a Pope. His Holiness is his own worst enemy and brings defeat out of the goodness he might have accomplished through his use of imprecise language and invectives towards those who point out his weaknesses and the grotesque anger and division which his words and gestures create almost everywhere in the Catholic world.

Of course the very invectives Pope Francis compulsively uses because he can't help himself are toward the kind of Catholics the three in this video represents who represent a vocal loyal opposition to the direction the Pope is leading the Church:


Here is the latest from  Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Murray and Prof. Royal:




22 comments:

TJM said...

the resident papalator is busy researching scads of non sequiturs to post in defense of his golden calf

John Nolan said...

The longer this pontificate lasts, the less likely it is that the cardinals will elect a Francis clone like Tagle or Turkson. Ad multos annos, Franciscus!

John Nolan said...

Sorry, that should have been 'Francisce' (vocative case).

Mark Thomas said...

From the 19:47 mark to the 23:28 mark, the panel misrepresented Pope Francis' new Exhortation...in particular, that which Pope Francis stated in regard to unborn human life, as well as migrants.

Mr. Arroyo introduced that segment, the said that "in the exhortation, Pope Francis seems to equate the pro-life cause with caring for migrants. He puts them on the same plane. Look at this."

Then, on the screen, EWTN posted the following, but without quotation marks, as read by Mr. Arroyo:

=================================================================
Some Catholics affirm that it is a secondary issue with respect to the 'serious' issues of bioethics...Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.
=================================================================

1. The above "quotes," if you will — again, EWTN did not actually place the above in quotation marks — are out of order.

They also are incomplete, at least in comparison to the Vatican's English-language translation of the new Exhortation.

In regard to the order of his statements in question, Pope Francis referred first in #101 to innocent, unborn human life. Then, in #102, came the reference to bioethics.

In addition, EWTN's "quotes" were incomplete.

EWTN failed to add the following in full:

"Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development.

"Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection."

That is Catholicism 101.
-----------------------------------

In regard to the Pope's comment about migrants and bioethics, EWTN failed to provide the Pope's complete statement in question.

102. "We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions.

"That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children.

"Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)?"

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

At the 19:47 mark, the panel misrepresented Pope Francis in regard to the pro-life cause and immigration.

In fact, Church teaching on immigration was misrepresented.

Example: In regard to the discussion that Mr. Arroyo initiated at the 19:47 mark, Robert Royal said:

"I'm quite willing to admit that migrants, true refugees, you know, not just people who claim to be refugees, do have a moral claim on this. But those things are prudential judgments."

First and foremost, the Church teaches that Her teaching on said persons is rooted in the very teachings of Jesus Christ...as well as the Old Testament.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

As I foretold!!!! LOL

John Nolan said...

Perhaps MT would care to comment on PF's shocking remarks concerning truth (Chrism Mass homily), which were also discussed on the programme. No doubt he will try and argue that PF could not have been preaching heresy since B XVI and JP II said much the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas has convinced me. If you watch the video between the 12:43 and 12:44 mark, Mr. Arroyo arches an eyebrow slyly as if he KNOWS they are PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the pope.

In fact, EVERYONE seems to be misrepresenting the pope. He's even misrepresenting himself most of the time.

Anonymous 2 said...

Et tu Johannes! =)

James J. said...

Mark Thomas:

"Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. "Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection."

My comment: All human life is equally sacred and equally so. Who is there who cannot agree with this? Your life and my life are equally as sacred as every other human life. This is fundamental.

Then we get to the crux of what is said above in the following:

102. "We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions.

Notice the sentence: "Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the 'grave' bioethical questions." and in the previous sentence
the term "lesser issue".

My comment: I have a problem with the terms "lesser" and "secondary" here and it could be in the translation. From what I know and understand of Catholic teaching, abortion is considered a much graver matter than the others Why is that MT? Is it not because as the Church teaches, that not only is abortion the taking of life,but in fact is always the taking of innocent life? The poor, migrants, the destitute and others, no matter their circumstance, possess that great gift given to us by God and that is life itself, by which He himself took possession of and through which he redeemed us. Their plight is a moral one and should be addressed in some way but is not of the same serious nature as abortion.

As far as what Robert Royal said:

"I'm quite willing to admit that migrants, true refugees, you know, not just people who claim to be refugees, do have a moral claim on this. But those things are prudential judgments."

My comment: Well, Mr. Royal knows the difference between a migrant and a refugee,acknowledges that their plight is a moral one, and also knows what prudential judgement is.

Final comment: We should pray for the Pope and any others who are in positions of leadership.



Anonymous 2 said...

Having correctly stated that issues relating to migrants call for difficult and complicated prudential judgments (even after recognizing the moral claims upon us of genuine refugees), Robert Royal, the editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing (which I read every day by the way and highly recommend), goes on to say: “In the case of abortion we just have to stop the murder of children in the womb. You want to help out women who are in difficult circumstances, fine, that’s another question, but we’re talking about the destruction of innocent human life which has always been prohibited by Catholic moral thought” See at 33:10 ff.

I could be misinterpreting the words and accompanying body language (hand gestures) but Mr. Royal comes across as speaking about helping women in difficult circumstances very dismissively. And, if this is a correct read, there you have the problem and one of the main reasons why Pope Francis warns against making an idol of abstract truth and (in this case) eschewing the (in many ways) much more difficult and complicated moral (and political) work of “help[ing] women in difficult circumstances.” In one sense it is so very easy to be opposed to abortion precisely because the moral issue is so clear (at least for Catholics and some others). But if we really want to reduce the number of abortions to zero we need more than clear moral precepts enforced by law; we need to do the other messy, complicated prudential work as well.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Related: We should beware, too, of the danger of smuggling in an insidious relativism under the category “prudential judgment” as if these matters were so disputed that one person’s judgment is as good as another’s. For if that were the case, there would be no reason to identify prudence (aka practical wisdom) as a virtue or excellence, indeed the “master virtue” itself that draws upon and conducts all the others.

Mark Thomas said...

John Nolan said..."Perhaps MT would care to comment on PF's shocking remarks concerning truth (Chrism Mass homily), which were also discussed on the programme. No doubt he will try and argue that PF could not have been preaching heresy since B XVI and JP II said much the same thing."

Perhaps Mister Nolan would care to comment upon the undeniable fact that
from the 19:47 mark to the 23:28 mark, the panel misrepresented Pope Francis' new Exhortation.

Father Murray switched suddenly the focus of that segment to various European countries, where he claimed there is little pro-life fervor...then exhorted Pope Francis to enflame pro-life fervor in said countries.

Pope Francis has promoted the Culture of Life endlessly. He has condemned abortion repeatedly. It is the Pope's fault that certain European countries have not heeded his pro-life message?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

John Nolan said..."Perhaps MT would care to comment on PF's shocking remarks concerning truth (Chrism Mass homily), which were also discussed on the programme."

Perhaps Mister Nolan would care to comment upon the undeniable fact that
Robert Royal misrepresented Church teaching/Pope Francis.

Perhaps Mister Nolan would care to comment upon Robert Royal's false claim that Church teaching on immigration is comprised of prudential judgments.

The fact is that the Church has said that Her stance on immigrants/refugees is rooted beyond question...

1. In the teachings of Jesus Christ.

2. The Old Testament.

Robert Royal espoused utter misleading nonsense when he pretended that where Church teaching on immigrants/refugees is concerned, Catholics are to be aware that said teaching is comprised of mere "prudential judgments."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to the EWTN panel's misrepresentation of Church teaching/Pope Francis on the issue of immigrants/refugees:

Father Murray, who misrepresented Pope Francis, said that he (Father Murray) was proud of bishops in the United States who promote Church teaching on abortion. He then switched the focus of that segment to certain European nations where he said a lack of fervor existed for the pro-life movement...then insisted that Pope Francis must instill into those countries pro-life fervor.

Hmmm...Father Murray failed to express pride in American bishops who defend and promote Church teaching in regard to immigrants/refugees.
=======================================================================

What a terrible EWTN segment.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I don't have confidence in the EWTN's panel analysis of Pope Francis.

The panel has a history of having misrepresented His Holiness Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

MT,

I tell you what, YOU pay the costs of the illegal aliens invading the US and leave the rest of us taxpayers out of it. They have no right to be here unless we say so. How many illegal aliens has Pope Francis admitted to the Vatican State? Is he sending you YOUR pro rata share of the bill?

Anonymous said...


Those Catholics in positions of leadership should be guided by Church teaching in making policy decisions dealing with moral issues but they can use prudential judgement in making their decisions. Depending on the analysis and assessment of certain factors, one Catholic in authority over immigration may want more legal immigration, while another may not want a much. Again, accounting for certain factors, one Catholic may favor deportations of those who have come into the country illegally, while another may favor sweeping amnesty. There of course is all manner of positions in between.

Prudential judgement in matters of moral decisions is part of Church teaching. Of course prudential judgment is not involved when it comes to abortion since there exists no circumstance where abortion is morally permissible.

Mark Thomas, you need to research and come to an understanding of what prudential judgement is.




Dan said...

Sorry Mark Thomas, but it is perfectly valid for Catholics to feel anxiety and concern over any papacy. It just seems to MANY of us, that this particular pope is giving many more reasons for concern than any of his predecessors.

TJM said...

Anonymous,

You assume MT has a functioning cranium

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM and Anonymous at 9:31 p.m.:

On the subject of “illegal immigration”, here are two articles that provide some useful Catholic perspectives:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/09/12/i-am-catholic-and-i-dont-know-what-im-supposed-believe-about

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/09/29/heres-what-we-are-supposed-believe-about-immigration-catholics

I suspect you may disagree with much of the second article but I doubt you could disagree with much, if indeed anything, in the first.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, these are from "America Magazine!" LOL. They are the New York Slimes of "religious" periodicals. No sale.