Vatican officials are upset that the White House has invited a number of prominent Catholic dissenters to attend a reception for Pope Francis, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Citing unidentified Vatican officials, Francis Rocca of the Wall Street Journal said that Church leaders were offended by a guest list that includes “transgender activists, the first openly gαy Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.”

The Obama administration, which has a long history of promoting Catholics who reject Church teachings, has made public a list of invited guests that includes representatives of groups such as Dignity USA and Network—groups whose stands on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and abortion have drawn official cautions from the Vatican.

Vatican officials were reportedly concerned that photos taken during the reception on the South Lawn of the White House, showing the Pontiff in company with prominent figures who have attacked Church teachings, might be exploited to imply that the Pope was supporting the dissenters’ views.

The White House downplayed the importance of the Wall Street Journal report. Press secretary Josh Earnest remarked that there would be as many as 15,000 people at the welcoming ceremony.

The Vatican has not issued any official statement on the Journal report. Father Thomas Rosica, who works closely with the Vatican press office, pointed out on his Twitter account: “Vatican never comments on invitations of heads of state.”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26172

Vatican officials are upset that the White House has invited a number of prominent Catholic dissenters to attend a reception for Pope Francis


Sure they are....just like they are upset when Francis meets with same sorts of people on their own turf.

Wasn't there a photo him holding hands with a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist "priest"?

Vatican officials were reportedly concerned that photos taken during the reception on the South Lawn of the White House, showing the Pontiff in company with prominent figures who have attacked Church teachings, might be exploited to imply that the Pope was supporting the dissenters’ views.

The problem is that ALL the pictures thus far published of ALL the conciliar popes over the last 50 years in anti-Catholic situations HAVE NEVER BEEN REFUTED by the Vatican.

Lesson exemplified from A Man For All Seasons

The maxim is "Qui tacet consentit": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent", if therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented.

Quote from: Stubborn

The problem is that ALL the pictures thus far published of ALL the conciliar popes over the last 50 years in anti-Catholic situations HAVE NEVER BEEN REFUTED by the Vatican.

Not just that, but they keep doing it!  A single mistake is one thing, but 50 years of errant behavior, unchanged and unaltered?

Exactly.
We must construe that the pictures reflect the truth of the matter unless or until someone from the Vatican officially, preferably the pope (fat chance), tell us different.

Why would "Vatican officials" be upset over a bunch of sodomite and transgender "dissenters" getting a photo op with Mr. "Who Am I To Judge" Bergoglio?

I bet Bergoglio's not upset. It sounds like it would be right up his ally.

All things are not as it seems.

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: Stubborn

The problem is that ALL the pictures thus far published of ALL the conciliar popes over the last 50 years in anti-Catholic situations HAVE NEVER BEEN REFUTED by the Vatican.

Not just that, but they keep doing it!  A single mistake is one thing, but 50 years of errant behavior, unchanged and unaltered?

Exactly.
We must construe that the pictures reflect the truth of the matter unless or until someone from the Vatican officially, preferably the pope (fat chance), tell us different.

I'm confused about what you're saying here.  We have seen what is going on in the Vatican since the Council (i.e., that's the picture) and that tells us one thing.  Are you saying that if the pope tell us that what we see is not what is and that we're just supposed to believe that what we see isn't really what is happening?

Well, in spite of what we have been seeing since the Council, the Ratzinger has already told us that what we see isn't what is because he insists that we have to pretend that everything we see is really a "hermeneutic of continuity" even though anyone with eyes can plainly see that there is no continuity between the teachings of the Conciliar church since the Council and the Church prior to the Council.

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Mysterium Fidei

Why would "Vatican officials" be upset over a bunch of sodomite and transgender "dissenters" getting a photo op with Mr. "Who Am I To Judge" Bergoglio?

I bet Bergoglio's not upset. It sounds like it would be right up his ally.

All things are not as it seems.

You mean Bergoglio is NOT a heretic?

no

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: Stubborn

The problem is that ALL the pictures thus far published of ALL the conciliar popes over the last 50 years in anti-Catholic situations HAVE NEVER BEEN REFUTED by the Vatican.

Not just that, but they keep doing it!  A single mistake is one thing, but 50 years of errant behavior, unchanged and unaltered?

Exactly.
We must construe that the pictures reflect the truth of the matter unless or until someone from the Vatican officially, preferably the pope (fat chance), tell us different.

I'm confused about what you're saying here.  We have seen what is going on in the Vatican since the Council (i.e., that's the picture) and that tells us one thing.  Are you saying that if the pope tell us that what we see is not what is and that we're just supposed to believe that what we see isn't really what is happening?

Not at all, I am saying that the pictures reflect reality because Rome has never said they do not, according to the maxim, "Silence gives consent", Rome consents that the pictures are authentic and not photoshopped or in some other way fake.

Like these days when the rights of sodomites to marry became law - we must construe that Rome consents because nothing at all has been said - Rome's silence is taken to mean that they agree with sod marriage - according to the maxim.
 

Actually quite a lot has been said but nobody is paying attention.