Wednesday, February 17, 2016
YIKES! BUT THE HOLY FATHER HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HIMSELF; BUT THIS IS A SIDE OF HIS HOLINESS NEVER SEEN BUT WE ALL HAVE IT!
When Pope Francis traveled to Brazil shortly after his election, I watched live as His Holiness' motorcade was inundated with enthusiastic fans his driver, in the most humble and flimsy of automobiles, took a wrong turn. As I watched the chaos, I thought for sure someone would be trampled or security guards would be injured or someone would get run over or killed. Yet the Holy Father seem to be oblivious to the danger in which His Holiness was placing others into especially those charged with his protection. His Holiness kept egging them on, rolled down the window, etc. It was a miracle and I mean that, that no one was injured or killed.
The video above is an example where His Holiness himself could have been seriously injured; but worse yet, there was child in a wheel chair that he fell onto and this could have injured the child. The Holy Father should not place himself in these kinds of situations with crowds who see him as a celebrity.
From the Catholic Herald:
Pope Francis lost his temper yesterday in Mexico after a person pulled him so hard he fell onto a child in a wheelchair.
At this point, two arms reached out to grab him, not letting go even as he lost his balance and was pushed onto the child.
Aides and security men stopped the Pope from falling to the ground, and he appeared angry, raising his voice and telling the unseen person, twice in Spanish, “Don’t be selfish!”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Yikes indeed! I think he stayed pretty calm given what happened, as many men would have lashed out instinctively under this kind of duress.
It reminds me of when the former UK deputy prime minister punched a man who threw an egg at him: it's hard to make rational decisions when someone is pulling you off balance or something hits your head at point blank range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqfuUiBpXs
There were rumors (gossip) that the Holy Father lost his temper public in the cafeteria of his place of residence at the Vatican Motel Six concerning the cardinals that had written to His Holiness about standing up for the Church's teaching on divorced and remarried Catholics not allowed to receive Holy Communion. Perhaps it was true?
I am half Italian and when pushed to my limit, I have been known to act very Italian in an emotional angry way. Pope Francis is completely Italian on both parent's side and to add to the toxic Italian stew is the South American component. Oh my!
What kind of security does this pope or previous pope's have! Poor Pope Benedict was thrown to the floor of St. Peter's, fully vested, going to offer Christmas Eve Mass and security was right there. And now we see the pope pulled down again and security is right there. They should all be fired. On another note people need to get a grip and stop treating the pope as if he were a celebrity. He is the Vicar of Chriat. I understand they are excited but they need to act like grown up people and show restraint and have some dignity. It's not 1964 and it's not the Beatles landing in NYC.
I think he probably did lose his temper in the Vatican motel, but the words attributed to him by the anonymous source (something like "don't you know who I am: I could fire the lot of you!") don't ring true. Yesterday's incident confirms that, as he just reprimanded the person in the crowd rather than acting haughtily.
I wasn't impressed with the security either, as they should have been between the pope and the crowd rather than behind him (I'm sure they get distracted with having to hold gifts presented to the pope and spot babies in the crowd for him to kiss).
Everywhere he goes, everything he says...more confusion, chaos, and anxiety.
I fault Pope Francis on the security. He doesn't want them to interfere with him as the Holy Father doesn't seem to care what happens. The only problem is that he isn't the only one to be killed, injured or harmed in these situations of lax security. Children, elderly, handicapped are all at risk as this pope comes close and could care less about security and has told security to be lax.
Papolatry. Enough of this charade from all of them. Stay in Rome, teach the faith!
Pope Francis, typical lib. It's "all about me, me, me, me!" The next conclave can't happen fast enough (I'm not praying for his death, just early retirement)
In his defense, he was pulled off balance and landed on a handicapped child's head.
As one with an explosive temper (thankfully held in check by the grace of God), I saw myself in his spontaneous red-in-the-face reaction. And his word choice was notable too in that he wasn't cursing the person but pointing out that the tug was 'selfish' - not thinking of others (himself included).
I have friends that are hyper critical of everything he says, does, or fails to do and it's getting absolutely ridiculous. My polar star is justice and fairness.... if you are using a criteria of judgment on an opponent that you'd never use on an ally then you are probably unjust or off your meds.
So would we be critical of our best friend in this situation? I don't think so.
I prefer the way we handle things on the South: minor offense--punch in the nose, major offense--Smith and Wesson. None of this "scolding" nonsense.
Jusadbellum, Pope Francis seems to have an innate ability to bring out the worst in faithful Catholics (the ones who go to Church and pay the bills). He shows mercy and kindness to fake catholics and the Church's enemies. Not a good strategy.
TJM, I don't disagree. But it doesn't follow that EVERYTHING the man does (or fails to do) is ipso facto the WORSE THING EVAH...
It's getting ridiculous - to the point of crying wolf - to glom onto every scrap of Media fed news item and harrumph about how awful the man is. (blazing saddles voice) can I have a harrumph?....that man won't harrumph! (blazing saddles voice)
If your presupposition is that the man is the precursor to the anti-Christ then you will treat him with a level of scrutiny never, ever, tolerated for people you do like.
Like I say, for good or ill, my 'thing' is justice. If you apply the same standard to yourself and all your friends, then fine. I'm good. But what frosts me more than anything, what constitutes an enduring 'beef' with liberal progressives is precisely the double standard.
Only if we play fair can our judgment be taken seriously.
I had ignored that hearsay/gossip about the angry episode at DSM until I saw that video-- but now, after all, what I really know is that his Holiness isn't super- or preternaturally exempt from the general human propensity to anger. Shrug. (But I don't disagree with the let-the-security-people-do-their-jobs take, either.)
A child in a wheelchair was put in a potentially dangerous situation and the Holy Father, rightly, scolded those who, by their childish behavior, caused the incident.
Any complaints about his words and actions are ridiculous. To suggest that his defense of this child (and himself) is a cause of "confusion" is simply bizarre.
The Pope spent yesterday slamming the US and supporting illegal immigration and socialist agenda. This Pope is a small-minded ideologue...something of which he is quick to accuse others.
Gene you mortal sin of calumny against our Holy Father and politicizing his legitimate responsibility to challenge governments with the teachings of the Church are simply breath taking and not fitting a Catholic. It is a mortal sin and demands repentance and confession on you part.
He is asking governments to include the USA to be welcoming. Laws need to be changed and in our country it is possible to do so since do law in our country is unchangeable.
Did you the feel the same way when His Holiness and on numerous occasions as challenged government about the throw away culture we live in and how the innocent unborn are victimized by this.
Fr. McDonald, I think what angers most Faithful Catholics (the ones who go to Church and pay the bills) is that His Holiness ignores the Catholic Catechism when it comes to immigration and national borders. He should open the Vatican up and get to experience first hand the joys of illegal immigrants: have some nuns raped by his Muslim buddies and get some heads cut off. He ALWAYS takes the political left's side on social issues and we're tired of it. I cannot imagine Pius XII, John XXIII, Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI acting in such a puerile fashion.
There is a difference between rightly condemning a "throw away culture" and supporting an invasion by Third World illegals who will destroy the very culture that gives law abiding citizens and legal immigrants the freedoms we so value. This Pope is an enemy of that culture and I do not feel particularly in danger of Hell fire for saying so.
The thing is conservatives look at the effects while liberals tend to only look at their own side's intentions.
So opening up the southern border FEELS like the kind, nice, "love the poor" thing to do. But will the effects of an open border be good for the people of Mexico and Latin America (to say nothing of the USA?). The liberal doesn't show any sign of even being aware of the effects of their proposed course of action and they show impatience with "dialoguing" to find out. It's all wish-casting that "something must be done" without taking the care to determine what's the best course of action to take.
So they'll never, EVER, ask why, despite all their natural resources and the high percent of the population being Catholic (at least nominally or culturally) are these countries such basket cases that people must flee to the USA to feed their families?
It's just taken for granted like the weather that no one is at fault and they're just an undifferentiated mass of "poor people" who have no hope but to immigrate and we're evil to control our borders like every OTHER country on earth controls their border. No other country on earth accepts "anchor babies" except the USA BUT we're evil (while they're not) for wishing to change this?
We hyperventilate over a single Muslim getting killed in the West Bank but turn a complete cultural blind eye to the atrocities going on south of the border and then assume that open borders is the optimal way to "help the poor"?
The problem is manifold.... by importing millions of illegals you are in favor of depressing the price per hour of manual or low skilled labor for US citizens or legal immigrants... thus guaranteeing with minimum wage laws that the US poor cannot legally compete with illegals. This also guarantees a lawlessness among companies large and small who can hire such illegals at below legal cost per man hour thus priming the pump for more abuse of the poor.
With 18 trillion in debt and a $1 trillion budget deficit, the US is importing largely low skilled, low education foreign serfs - and encouraging them to sign up for the whole panoply of welfare offerings from school to housing to food stamps... at the time just before we hit the fiscal event horizon....and amid a general democratic/left wing race-war hustling cultural mood that pits the races against each other in the most crude and offensive manner that almost guarantees chips on shoulder and feelings of mutual dislike and distrust (all of which they lay at the feet of conservatives of course).
So we note all this and conclude that an impermeable wall from sea to sea would simultaneously help our poor AND force their poor to solve their own national problems...as well as punish OUR ruthless robber barons who have reaped ill-gotten gain for decades off the back of illegal workers.
It'll also slow the influx of undocumented democrats (future socialists) so that's a win too.
With fewer illegals coming in to compete, the average wage for unskilled workers will rise (supply and demand) which will help our domestic poor... and all those former illegal immigrants pushed back into Mexico and points south will have a vested interest in overthrowing the corrupt regimes that keep them poor so that's a win.
Thus we actually seek a solution to a problem rather than FEEL our way to some good intention that only feeds the dynamics of institutionalizing the problem.
"This Pope is an enemy of that culture and I do not feel particularly in danger of Hell fire for saying so."
Most people who sin so blatantly, due to the hardness of their hearts, don't feel the danger . . . until it is, of course, too late.
It is not a sin to criticize the Pope. I have great respect for the Papacy, even when occupied by an irresponsible Pope.
Here we ago...another Papal press conference. Time for controversy. Get read for the "clarifications".
-- Pope Francis Suggests Donald Trump Is 'Not Christian'
New York Times - 37 minutes ago
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRLINER - Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and ...
-- Pope Francis Says Contraception Justified in Regions Hit by Zika Virus
Wall Street Journal - 20 minutes ago
ROME — Pope Francis said the use of contraception could be justified in regions hit by the Zika virus, a stance that could reignite a debate over the church's prohibition of the use of condoms to stop the spread of the AIDS virus.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
From The Washington Post:
"During his Mexico trip, the pope emphasized issues ranging from poverty, violence, economic justice and migration, but some were waiting to see if he would address Zika, said Charles Camosy, a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University.
“It’s clear that even though he has views that are more traditional when it comes to contraception and abortion, he just shies away from talking about those things,” Camosy said. “He’s very clear he thinks the church talks about those things too much. Maybe he just thinks this is one of those things he doesn’t want to emphasize.”
If he has shied away supposedly from "those things", then why has His Holiness Pope Francis issued numerous condemnations of abortion? Why has he praised Humanae Vitae to the hilt?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment