Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Answered.
Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Answered.
Bishop Doyle of Northampton was featured with a list of known “gay” activists to speak at a Quest Conference, 10th – 12th August 2018. Click on the image for details.
Don’t be misled by the “Pastoral Support for LGBTI Catholics” baloney. The members of Quest are Catholics who fit the Vatican’s 1986 warning, perfectly. In his Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, the then Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI writes:
14. …this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one’s conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word “Catholic” to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve. Click here to read entire Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Open Letter to Pope Francis…
I am shocked beyond words at your silence during the abortion referendum in Ireland. A small group of us, Scots, went over to Dublin in order to help save the lives of the unborn babies at risk of being killed if a YES vote resulted so we remain in shock that the Pope himself remained silent throughout and yet plans to visit Ireland to attend a meeting ostensibly about “family” despite the fact that a keynote speaker is an LGBT-Z activist priest. We were treated appallingly by the majority of the Irish people whom we encountered on our visit – nasty and completely sold to the values of this world. YOU encouraged that by your silence.
You are easily the worst-ever pope in the history of the Church and a future pope and Council will denounce you as it denounced Honorius I. Think of the book titles, the headlines: From Honorius I to Francis I. Roll on!
Used to be that the jibe “is the Pope Catholic” was a joke. No more. Your alleged Catholicity is now the joke. So, enjoy your visit to Ireland, enjoy the World Meeting of Families – just don’t try to pass the event off as “Catholic”.
With no condemnation (however belatedly) of the shocking pro-abortion vote, and your willingness to share a platform with a priest who will present, as a good, one of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, your presence at this event can only serve to further attack the teaching of Christ’s Church.
You, Papa Francis, are about as Catholic as the nearest Imam.
Signed… Editor, Catholic Truth
Click here to send YOUR open letter, albeit short and to the point, to Pope Francis via the Irish Times, ahead of his visit to Ireland later this month. And then feel free to copy it onto the blog and/or share your thoughts about the forthcoming World Meeting of Families.
The treatment of Tommy Robinson, coupled with the contrived outrage over Boris Johnson’s ‘burka’ remarks this week, do beg the question: is Tucker Carlson right to question whether, in fact, the UK really is a free land? And why are the Catholic bishops not asking the same question?
Former Irish President Mary McAleese has described the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality as “evil”.
But McAleese also said that she was hopeful that the Pope Francis will eventually change the Church’s homophobic attitudes.
She said that Pope Francis “exploded that myth” that the Church can’t be changed and she believed he could now rid the Church of its “homophobic messages”.
The former Irish President also accused the Pope of having “bad manners” and being “disrespectful” for failing to reply to a letter she recently wrote to him. She had penned him a letter after an attempt was made to exclude her from an international women’s conference in Rome.
“I had faith in this pope and it would be wrong to say anything other than I am disappointed,” she said.
McAleese made her comments when receiving the inaugural Vanguard award for her support for the LGBT community.
Speaking at the award ceremony, Sarah Williams, chairperson of the Board of the GAZE LGBT Film Festival said: “Dr McAleese’s unwavering support for the advancement of the LGBT+ community has been widely acknowledged and praised, and we felt very strongly that we wanted to present her with this award this evening to mark her achievements.”
And Filmmaker John Butler said: “It’s an honour to present this award to a life-long hero of mine, what an inspiration and what a contribution to Irish life!” Source
Just imagine for a second if Mary McAleese had described the teaching of Islam on homosexuality as “evil” or the teaching of Judaism on homosexuality as “evil” – can you just imagine the ruckus? But the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality (or anything else) well, that’s fair game. No hate speech here, move along.
You must not say a word out of place about Islam or Judaism, on pain of being labelled Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic, and finding yourself the subject of a police complaint. But anti-Catholic? Bring it on…
Is there any point in lodging an official complaint about Mary McAleese’s bigotry, her attack on the Church which, if applied to any other religion would fall foul of ‘hate crime’ laws – or will Catholics simply do what we’ve always done, turn the other cheek, make every attempt to “love our enemy” – and, believe me, McAleese is an enemy of the Catholic Faith. Mind you, so is Pope Francis, whom she applauds for his attempts to change Catholic teaching. Now that he’s undermined traditional teaching on capital punishment, is the ultra-feminist/pro-“gay” former Irish President likely to see a similar change to the Catechism paragraphs on homosexuality? Don’t get me wrong; no pope has the authority to change the moral law, and when good order is restored to the Church, the damage done by this disgraceful pontiff will be put right. No question about it. Still, given that he has form on “revising” the Catechism, might he re-write the prohibition of homosexual activity, just for the hell of it (so to speak…)
Share your thoughts – which is worse: the bigoted, hate-filled Mary McAleese, or her sometime idol, Papa Francis? Or, is it a case of “you pays your money and you takes your pick…”?
Extracts below From the Athanasius of Mostar to Henryk of Medjugorje
A news item was published recently in several media reports that the retired bishop of Warsawa-Praga and archbishop ad personam Henryk Hoser, embarked upon his assignment as the Apostolic Visitor for Medjugorje. The very information itself has caused a lot of reactions in the virtual world. Once again, the battlefield has been opened between those who hold the Medjugorje apparitions as absolute and those who consider them unbelievable. When along with this news, another item was published that the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, Ratko Perić, [pictured left] as the bishop on whose territory the parish of Medjugorje is located, received archbishop Hoser and Luigi Pezzuto, the Apostolic Nuncio to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that on this occasion he expressed his respect for the Holy See’s decision, he offered archbishop Hoser his cooperation and wished him God’s abundant assistance in fulfilling his mission, he then reiterated clearly and unequivocally what has been the constant position of the Diocesan Chancery of Mostar – that he does not consider any “apparition”, any “message”, any “secret” and any “parchment” as authentic, including the first seven or ten days of the so-called apparitions, the reactions turned into open insults and hostility.
The Queen of Peace or the Queen of Unrest
Even just a quick look at the comments made on a few of the most popular portals, both secular and religious, leads one to conclude that there is very little decentness and objectivity in them, and instead a lot of sarcasm, bitterness and gross insults. On the secularist side, the tones generally range from ridicule to the denigration of all sides, which can be understood regarding the approach and credentials of those commenting. Yet it is very sad to observe how on the so-called religious portals, as well as on official and personal profiles on the social networks, the largest number of commentators-believers present scandalously rude insults. In this regard, what is particularly sad is the way the advocates of the Medjugorje apparitions, those who readily refer to the Medjugorje Gospa (ie. Our Lady) as Mother and Queen of Peace, are so full of unrest and such intolerance, that one’s blood freezes in one’s veins due to their attacks against bishop Perić, in wishing that he would croak, to accusations that he is a KGB agent, a hardened materialist and nonbeliever, even going as far to claim that he is Satan incarnate…
We ask ourselves the question: how can one properly understand the decision of the Holy See to appoint an apostolic visitor and thereby, probably, completely relieve bishop Perić of his jurisdiction over the parish of Medjugorje? Even though the mandate of archbishop Hoser has been provided by the Holy See, and although it is exclusively of a pastoral character, we do not believe that with this appointment, bishop Perić is left with any authority for administering that parish but that it has, de facto, become a parish under the jurisdiction of the Holy See. This might itself seem unfair to bishop Perić, even as a sign of his downgrading and a reflection of incompetence, but it really does not have to be so.
Before we discuss what we mean by this, we would like to say a few words about Bishop Ratko Perić himself, and how we see his role in the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon.
The role of Bishop Perić within the Medjugorje phenomenon
Bishop Perić and his closest associates, as well as his predecessor, bishop Žanić and his associates, have done a great deal to reveal the lies of Medjugorje, though very slowly. While there are still a far greater number of those who unquestionably accept the Medjugorje apparitions as credible, one should not ignore the fact that many are asking more and more questions and coming to one of two conclusions: that they are a simple manipulation or that it is not a question of the apparition of Our Lady, but of an apparition of the Devil, as “Fra” Bože would say. However, this time not in the person of bishop Perić, but of “the One who divides” from head to toe.
In this light, the role of bishop Perić, and his closest associates are praiseworthy, because they have shown incredible strength and faithfulness in the defense of orthodoxy, while the sacrifices and insults they have had to bear and keep on bearing, confirm their level of concern in defending the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church from the Queen of Peace of Medjugorje, who is spreading unrest all around her. For us then, as we have already mentioned in a previous text, bishop Perić, due to his clarity and strength, is similar to St. Athanasius, who in defense of true faith, had to flee into exile five times due to the attacks of the Arian heretics of his time. Or even more beautifully, the title of “Athanasius of Mostar” belongs to him, as was attributed to him for the same reasons by the President of the Croatian Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Želimir Puljić.
Read the entire article here…
There is no shortage of evidence to prove that Medjugorje is a non-apparition, whether a deliberate hoax or a diabolical phenomenon, who knows, but the worry is that it is taking people away from Fatima. It’s been argued that the Fatima Message – and pilgrimages/events at that shrine – is being diminished and even ignored, due to the drive to promote Medjugorje. What do you think? And how did you vote in the poll?
What was black is now white: Pope “changes Catechism” to declare death penalty “inadmissible in all cases”.
The Church was wrong in a major issue literally of life and death.
Is the Pope a kind of “Prophet”, as the “First President” of the Mormons, receiving new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times?
That is what seems to come from the “alteration” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992 promoted by the current Pope and published today:
The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in an audience granted on May 11, 2018, to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordering its translation in the various languages and inserted in all editions of the mentioned Catechism:
The death penalty
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
 Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.
The anachronistic boldness in this decision is astounding: what is merely a modern view of a secularized Europe becomes a completely new teaching, without even the consideration that the current situation of the world will remain the same for all time — as if the secular European present of stable peace would remain forever the same, as if what was common in the past and since the dawn of time would never be possible anymore. The boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented “teaching” of the Church.
If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself in Scripture — when, confronted by Pilate who affirmed his right to inflict capital punishment, told him, “You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above”, affirming that it is a power granted to the State in its authority, even if, as all governmental powers, it can be exercised illegitimately and unjustly — can be changed, then anything can be changed. A “development” of doctrine may bring about anything: from the end of the “intrinsic disordered” nature of homosexuality to the priestly ordination of women, from the possibility of contraception in “some” cases to the acceptance of the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a possible interpretation of what the Church has always believed — and so on.
The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views. [Ed: emphasis added]
We are reaping the rewards of an unchecked hyper-clericalism: the same hyper-clericalism that allowed for abuses of people like Theodore McCarrick to go ignored and unpunished and now allows for the recklessness of the alteration of established doctrine received from Christ and the Apostles. Ends.
Update: If it were possible to have an even more ridiculous excuse for this change, it comes from the “Letter to Bishops” by Cardinal Ladaria, the CDF prefect:
10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.
That is absolutely ridiculous, and a shameful and pathetic excuse: the Catechism is not a lobbying tool to modify laws: it is supposed to be a collection of the everlasting teachings of the Church. Source – Rorate Caeli
What should happen now? Is there anything that the rest of the upper hierarchy can do? What about Catholics in the USA and other countries where the death penalty is permitted – are they now duty bound to work for its elimination? Do they commit a sin if they refuse to do so and, instead, adhere to the traditional belief that the State is permitted to use the death penalty in certain cases? If it’s a sin, at what level? Venial? Mortal? What then? And what about other teachings in the Catechism? Do we watch, even more closely, for this Pope’s personal opinion on this or that issue, in order to prepare ourselves for the next new teaching?