Author Topic: Francis on cover of The Advocate (Read 1854 times)

Frances · « **on:** December 17, 2013, 06:04:31 PM »

The latest horror! Pope Francis is on the cover page of The Advocate, a "gαy" magazine. Yuk!!
So much for two Protestant friends who WERE thinking of becoming Catholic. This is a deal breaker for them both.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2013, 06:34:38 PM »

So, Holy Father, I'm sure your very pleased when the world and sodomites praise you?

Can it really get anymore obvious that the man isn't Catholic?

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2013, 06:37:47 PM »

I am convinced that for some folks he could say "I am not Catholic" and they would somehow explain it away.

And some of those folks reside right here on CathInfo.

poche · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:31:27 AM »

What did Pope Francis do that was scandalous? The same week that he made that "Who am I to judge" comment, the Vatican announced the excommunication of a gαy advocating priest.

shin · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:15:50 AM »

Poche, when only one is excommunicated out of thousands, and it is publicized, that's called propaganda not discipline. It would be a matter of intellectual vice for most, to believe that is an actual sign of overall efficacious enforcement of moral and divine law when vast numbers go untouched.

People who believe something because of a single incident are not discerning properly. Such appeals to sentimentalism rather than reality are a sign of an effeminate approach to discernment rather than appropriate use of the intellectual virtues.

If thousands are murdered every day, and then one murder is caught and imprisoned -- but the police ignore the rest, are the police performing their function properly?

No. Perhaps in North Korea that would pass as efficacious enforcement, but not in a just society.

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:43:33 AM »

What is the scandal on the part of Pope Francis? He hasn't changed any church teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or marriage. When he was in Argentina he was athorn in Kirchner's side as she passed the immoral legislation. Do you seriously think that he sent in an application asking to be elected their person of the year?

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:07:41 AM »

Quote from: shin

Poche, when only one is excommunicated out of thousands, and it is publicized, that's called propaganda not discipline. It would be a matter of intellectual vice for most, to believe that is an actual sign of overall efficacious enforcement of moral and divine law when vast numbers go untouched.

People who believe something because of a single incident are not discerning properly. Such appeals to sentimentalism rather than reality are a sign of an effeminate approach to discernment rather than appropriate use of the intellectual virtues.

If thousands are murdered every day, and then one murder is caught and imprisoned -- but the police ignore the rest, are the police performing their function properly?

No. Perhaps in North Korea that would pass as efficacious enforcement, but not in a just society.

IIRC, he wasn't excommunicated for the reason Poche says. There was more to that story.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:35:27 AM »

Quote from: poche

What is the scandal on the part of Pope Francis? He hasn't changed any church teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or marriage. When he was in Argentina he was athorn in Kirchner's side as she passed the immoral legislation. Do you seriously think that he sent in an application asking to be elected their person of the year?

From the New Catechism:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

I bolded just one part that seems to fit.

Where has Francis made it clear what the Church teaches regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity AND ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts? Why do you think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs consider him person of the year? How does "Who am I to judge?" teach Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Comments against gαy marriage isn't enough.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:46:57 AM »

Quote from: poche

What is the scandal on the part of Pope Francis? He hasn't changed any church teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or marriage. When he was in Argentina he was athorn in Kirchner's side as she passed the immoral legislation. Do you seriously think that he sent in an application asking to be elected their person of the year?

To start with, the pope should condemn the magazine and it's staff, it's readers, printers, ink suppliers, stores that sell the evil thing etc. in the strongest possible language that a pope can use to remove any possible shred of doubt about where the Church stands on the whole homo issue - this is his golden opportunity to condemn them for the whole world to see.

Remember the axiom "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) - if, as expected, he does nothing, the presumption is that he has no problem with it - this is a (nother) grave scandal on the part of the pope.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:48:51 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: poche
What is the scandal on the part of Pope Francis? He hasn't changed any church teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or marriage. When he was in Argentina he was athorn in Kirchner's side as she passed the immoral legislation. Do you seriously think that he sent in an application asking to be elected their person of the year?

To start with, the pope should condemn the magazine and it's staff, it's readers, printers, ink suppliers, stores that sell the evil thing etc. in the strongest possible language that a pope can use to remove any possible shred of doubt about where the Church stands on the whole homo issue - this is his golden opportunity to condemn them for the whole world to see.

Remember the axiom "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) - if, as expected, he does nothing, the presumption is that he has no problem with it - this is a (nother) grave scandal on the part of the pope.

Excellent point.

I won't waste my breath waiting for it though.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:55:36 AM »

Where has Francis made it clear what the Church teaches regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity AND ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts? Why do you think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs consider him person of the year? How does "Who am I to judge?" teach Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Comments against gαy marriage isn't enough.

If comments against gαy marriage isn't enough then what is? Maybe the problem is that people are not listening.
The issue of "Who am I to judge" was in the context of the sinner and in the context of some who are in the Church seeking God with good will. If we break the bruised reed it may send a soul that otherwise might be saved to Hell. Then we also will go to Hell for our hardness of heart.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:43:37 AM »

Quote from: poche

Where has Francis made it clear what the Church teaches regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity AND ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts?

He never has. As such, he has failed miserably in his sacred duty to proclaim and defend the faith.

Quote from: poche

Why do you think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs consider him person of the year?

Qui tacet consentit = the sodomites and their supporters have the consent of the Church to remain homo.

Quote from: poche

How does "Who am I to judge?" teach Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity?

It doesn't, however it does teach acceptance and indifference to their filthy sin of sodomy. It shows the homo's and the world that because the pope is indifferent, we all should be indifferent and accepting - and that it is wrong to think otherwise.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:52:21 AM »

Quote from: poche

Where has Francis made it clear what the Church teaches regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity AND ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts? Why do you think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs consider him person of the year? How does "Who am I to judge?" teach Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Comments against gαy marriage isn't enough.

If comments against gαy marriage isn't enough then what is? Maybe the problem is that people are not listening.

The issue of "Who am I to judge" was in the context of the sinner and in the context of some who are in the Church seeking God with good will. If we break the bruised reed it may send a soul that otherwise might be saved to Hell. Then we also will go to Hell for our hardness of heart.

So if we TELL someone that Sodomites are going to Hell, which they surely are, we have a hardness of heart? I'd thought that was our Faith?!

In case you haven't read THE WHOLE verse: "The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory."

Haydock wrote that Sts. Jerome and Hilary (and Haydock) means Our Lord will protect the weak and infirm until the day they are judged. So, Our Lord came, and He was gentle, but didn't lie, or pretend, or other such lies of the devil. Then He told us to go forth and convert, Baptising, so some might avoid an eternity in Hell.

Given that we are all sinners, and that Jesus' response to the adulterous woman was "Go and sin no more" (that last part is getting lost these days, it seems), I think we have to assume the "bruised reeds" in this context are not the proud Sodomites with a loud voice. In fact, in what universe are the infirm and the weak to be understood as the proud, unrepentant Sodomites? Uh, we know the endgame here; the "spoilers", because God has revealed it, and the proud and unrepentant go to HELL. They are THE DAMNED. They KNOW it, and we should know it.

I seriously can't wrap my mind around you, Poche, saying the proud Sodomites are the "bruised reeds" here. We have so many candidates for "the meek", "the weak", and "the infirm", like:

• the homeless
• the mentally ill
• the disabled
• the working poor
• the VICTIMS OF PAEDO RAPE
• those who lost access to Mass
• widows
• the lonely
• those who can't dress themselves in the morning
• those with cancer
• those in war-torn countries

...I can't even begin to enumerate all the legitimately "weak" or "infirm" people without a voice on this planet; those few I dotted above barely scratch the surface of the unfortunates on this planet. But you know who is not weak or infirm? Anyone who picks up a copy of the Advocate, which by definition is a voice (and a particularly loud, obnoxious, and proud voice at that).

I fear your post reads like you're kicking dirt in the face of those who lay on the street most in need of a sip of water, as you run past them with a fire hose to fill the pools of the fat cats with a publication and plenty of voice who are, in fact, The Damned. They could rename the magazine "Sodom Today" and it might just offend Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'm not trying to pick on you; I usually think your posts lend a different point of view to threads here; a calm, modifying voice. Maybe you're having a bad day and lost it for a moment; that happens to me often. But we can't step that far away from Holy Scriptures when we're angry to defend someone we might want to apologize for.

If the Word of God breaks something, as it is prophesied to do (really it is!!), then God is merely preparing that something for the fires of Hell. For destruction. They're not the "bruised reeds", anymore than the rich and proud who claim they don't NEED God. Praying for such might be one thing; representing them as the meek, though? Oh no; the proud Sodomites are NOT the poor in spirit referred to in Scriptures.

poche · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:23:51 AM »

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

Quote from: poche
Where has Francis made it clear what the Church teaches regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity AND ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts? Why do you think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs consider him person of the year? How does "Who am I to judge?" teach Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Comments against gαy marriage isn't enough.

If comments against gαy marriage isn't enough then what is? Maybe the problem is that people are not listening.

The issue of "Who am I to judge" was in the context of the sinner and in the context of some who are in the Church seeking God with good will. If we break the bruised reed it may send a soul that otherwise might be saved to Hell. Then we also will go to Hell for our hardness of heart.

So if we TELL someone that Sodomites are going to Hell, which they surely are, we have a hardness of heart? I'd thought that was our Faith?!

In case you haven't read THE WHOLE verse: "The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory."

Haydock wrote that Sts. Jerome and Hilary (and Haydock) means Our Lord will protect the weak and infirm until the day they are judged. So, Our Lord came, and He was gentle, but didn't lie, or pretend, or other such lies of the devil. Then He told us to go forth and convert, Baptising, so some might avoid an eternity in Hell.

Given that we are all sinners, and that Jesus' response to the adulterous woman was "Go and sin no more" (that last part is getting lost these days, it seems), I think we have to assume the "bruised reeds" in this context are not the proud Sodomites with a loud voice. In fact, in what universe are the infirm and the weak to be understood as the proud, unrepentant Sodomites? Uh, we know the endgame here; the "spoilers", because God has revealed it, and the proud and unrepentant go to HELL. They are THE DAMNED. They KNOW it, and we should know it.

I seriously can't wrap my mind around you, Poche, saying the proud Sodomites are the "bruised reeds" here. We have so many candidates for "the meek", "the weak", and "the infirm", like:

• the homeless
• the mentally ill
• the disabled
• the working poor
• the VICTIMS OF PAEDO RAPE
• those who lost access to Mass
• widows
• the lonely
• those who can't dress themselves in the morning
• those with cancer
• those in war-torn countries

...I can't even begin to enumerate all the legitimately "weak" or "infirm" people without a voice on this planet; those few I dotted above barely scratch the surface of the unfortunates on this planet. But you know who is not weak or infirm? Anyone who picks up a copy of the Advocate, which by definition is a voice (and a particularly loud, obnoxious, and proud voice at that).

I fear your post reads like you're kicking dirt in the face of those who lay on the street most in need of a sip of water, as you run past them with a fire hose to fill the pools of the fat cats with a publication and plenty of voice who are, in fact, The Damned. They could rename the magazine "Sodom Today" and it might just offend Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'm not trying to pick on you; I usually think your posts lend a different point of view to threads here; a calm, modifying voice. Maybe you're having a bad day and lost it for a moment; that happens to me often. But we can't step that far away from Holy Scriptures when we're angry to defend someone we might want to apologize for.

If the Word of God breaks something, as it is prophesied to do (really it is!!), then God is merely preparing that something for the fires of Hell. For destruction. They're not the "bruised reeds", anymore than the rich and proud who claim they don't NEED God. Praying for such might be one thing; representing them as the meek, though? Oh no; the proud Sodomites are NOT the poor in spirit referred to in Scriptures.

I think this depends on context. If all you can say is "You are going to Hell." to some one entering the Church in good will then you might scare them away.

Frances · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2013, 03:23:03 PM »

:really-mad2:
poche, we do not allow those in open, unrepentant sin to "enter the Church" in the hope that they will feel good. Anyone who knowingly extends the grace of the Sacraments to such a person condemns both their souls to Hell. Does a hospital keep a person who prefers to remain sick with a contagious disease to treatment? No, the patient either accepts treatment or must leave. If a man announces he is a pedophile, do I welcome him to live in my home with my children? I hope I DO scare him away! You are in need of a reality check.