Discussion in 'Christian Fellowship' started by Galadriel, Mar 11, 2012.
An uncorroborated source reported that Pope Francis said he had lost all faith in American Christians after the election of Donald Trump.
Nov 14, 2016
Claim: After Donald Trump was elected president, Pope Francis said he had lost all faith in American Christians.
Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2016]
Just saw this quote and it just doesn't seem right. Can you please check it out? Thanks!
"True Christians do not treat anyone differently, talk bad about them or look down on them. God help poor Mexicans, Africans and Cubans who wanted to realize American dream" he said. "I am not sure whether we still can vouch for the faith of American Christians, as they need more wisdom looking at the leader they finally elected," said Pope Francis."
Origin:On 9 November 2016, a small Sri Lankan blog published an article reporting that Pope Francis stated he had lost all faith in American Christians due to the election of Donald Trump as President on 8 November 2016:
However, during a mass [on 9 November 2016], Pope Francis said that, he is simply shocked to see how Americans elected their president despite the significant differences of Christian values both candidates possess. Jesus never looked at race, religion, creed or cast when healing people, reached out to everyone with the same love and care. Anyone could reach out to Jesus or the god for forgiveness and guidance.
"True Christians do not treat anyone differently, talk bad about them or look down on them. God help poor Mexicans, Africans and Cubans who wanted to realize American dream" he said.
"I am not sure whether we still can vouch for the faith of American Christians, as they need more wisdom looking at the leader they finally elected", said Pope Francis.
Last time when pope made the controversial statement Trump responded promptly saying that its ""disgraceful" for a religious leader to question anyone's faith.
He added, "If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been the president,". Ironically he is now the president and he has another statement by Pope Francis to deal forthwith.
The article appeared to be the sort that would attract attention in the tense aftermath of the 2016 election, but no other sources we could find reported any similar about the Pontiff and his take on the election. Early on in the 2016 election cycle, Pope Francis asserted he would make no effort to influence the Catholic vote, although His Holiness was inaccurately claimed to have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, by fake news purveyors.
Although the web site on which the article was hosted did not feature a disclaimer marking it as fake news, it did assert:
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information provided by "Religious Mind" are news content which we try to keep up to date and correct, yet we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own consent and accord.
Pope Francis made several appearances and statements in the days following the 8 November 2016 U.S. election, but none appeared to pertain to the outcome of that event. No credible sources reported anything resembling the claim which circulated, much less any commentary the Pope had lost "all faith" in American Christians (and neither did he make such remarks on Twitter).
Originally published: 14 November 2016
Sorry, Donald, he won't wish for anything related to you. His faith is in the Risen Christ, not YOU.
Question: Are they referring to those remarried after an annulment has been issued by the Tribunal??
Cardinal Burke: we will make ‘formal act of correction’ if Pope doesn’t issue Amoris clarification
by Dan Hitchens
posted Wednesday, 16 Nov 2016
Cardinal Raymond Burke, left, stands by Pope Francis saluting bishops, at the end of a general audience in St. Peter's Square (AP)
The cardinal said there was a tradition of issuing a formal correction if a Pope is in error
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said it may be necessary to make a “formal act of correction” if Pope Francis doesn’t answer a letter from four cardinals asking him to clarify aspects of Amoris Laetitia.
In an interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope were to teach error or heresy, “It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.”
Cardinal Burke is one of four cardinals who have written to the Pope asking for a clarification of Amoris Laetitia. They say that the document could be read as contradicting Church teaching on the moral law and on the question of Communion for the remarried. The Pope has declined to reply to the letter.
Asked what would happen if the Pope remained silent, Cardinal Burke replied: “Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”
Such an act of formal correction would be extremely unusual. One example is the challenge to Pope John XXII in the 1330s. He had publicly taught – though only as his personal opinion – that souls in heaven would not actually see God until the Final Judgment, a teaching contrary to Church doctrine.
In response, several theologians challenged Pope John. A few were punished, but the Pope backed down after a joint letter by theologians from the University of Paris, under the leadership of Paludanus, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. The letter professed total obedience to John, but affirmed that the teachings being attributed to him were contrary to the Catholic faith. Before his death John withdrew his heretical opinion.
Cardinal Burke’s suggestion of a “formal correction” comes after a debate over whether the remarried can receive Communion while in a sexually active relationship outside marriage. The Church has taught that this is contrary to the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage.
In his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the Pope made no direct reference to the question, but some bishops have interpreted his words as meaning that some remarried people can receive Communion, even if they are still in a sexual relationship. This is the interpretation of the Buenos Aires bishops, which the Pope has appeared to privately favour.
In a probable allusion to the Buenos Aires bishops, Cardinal Burke said: “Even diocesan directives are confused and in error.” He added that there was ”tremendous division” in the Church over Communion and other related points, concerning the moral law and marriage.
He said the four cardinals had intervened “because so many people are saying: ‘We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.’”
On Netflix: "Mary's Land" The role of Our Lady in salvation. Excellent film.
Trailer and synopsis:
In this political dark cloud, it's obvious that Mexicans (and all Latinos and minorities period) are under suspicion, even persecuted by fellow minority groups. Nobody thinks a refugee has human rights if they are Mexicans or Central Americans. But you know what? G-d loves Mexico and its people. G-d loves all people. We should follow that and respect everyone's humanity. Here are two proofs of the love G-d has for Mexico and has used her for the blessing of the world through converted hearts:
That time Jesus appeared in the sky of Mexico
A painting of El SeñorDe La Misericordia De Ocotlán from 1912. Credit: Shrine of the Lord of Mercy in Ocotlán, state of Jalisco, Mexico via Facebook.
Lima, Peru, Oct 12, 2016 / 06:15 am (CNA/EWTN News).- It's a major miracle that you've probably never heard of.
On Sunday, Oct. 3, 1847, more than 2,000 people in Ocotlán, Mexico saw a perfect image of Jesus Christ crucified that appeared in the sky for more than 30 minutes.
Approved by the Archdiocese of Guadalajara in 1911, the phenomenon is known as the “Miracle of Ocotlán” and took place one day before an earthquake that killed 40 and left the town in Jalisco State in ruins.
Before the start of Mass at the cemetery of the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception – presided over by the parochial vicar, Father Julián Navarro – two white clouds joined together in the northwest sky, where there appeared the image of Christ.
Those present and in nearby towns were deeply moved, made acts of contrition, and cried out begging, “Lord, have mercy!” This apparition of Christ was called “the Lord of Mercy” and in his honor, in September 1875, a new parish church was blessed, consecrated and dedicated to him.
Also among the faithful who witnessed the miracle were Father Julián Martín del Campo, pastor of the community, and Antonio Jiménez, the town's mayor. Both of them sent letters to their respective superiors telling what had happened.
After the miracle, a record of the event was written down with 30 eye-witnesses attesting. Fifty years later, in 1897, by order of the then-Archbishop of Guadalajara, Pedro Loza y Pardavé, another record of the event was made, with 30 additional persons including five priests.
On Sept. 29, 1911, the Archbishop of Guadalajara at that time, José de Jesús Ortiz y Rodríguez, signed a document validating the apparition of Jesus Christ at Ocotlán, and the devotion and veneration given by the people of that area to the venerated statue of our Lord of Mercy located in the shrine of the same name.
“We must acknowledge as an historical fact, perfectly proven, the apparition of the blessed image of Jesus Christ Crucified…and that it could not have been the work of an hallucination or fraud, since it happened in broad daylight, in the sight of more than 2,000 people,” the cardinal said.
He also stated so that the Lord of Mercy would never be forgotten, the faithful must “gather together in whatever manner possible, after purifying their consciences with the holy sacraments of Penance and
Holy Communion and solemnly swear in the presence of God, for themselves and their descendants, that year after year they will celebrate the October 3 anniversary.”
After its approval and to comply with the provisions of the Archbishop of Guadalajara, in 1912 they began public festivities in honor of the Lord of Mercy, recalling the Miracle of 1847. The celebrations currently last 13 days, from Sept. 20 to Oct. 3.
Later, in 1997, Saint John Paul II sent his Apostolic Blessing to the people of Ocotlán on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the miracle.
(Actual image on the original cloak of Juan Diego in 1531 and displayed in the Basilica de Santa Maria de Guadalupe)
Saint Juan Diego was born in 1474 as Cuauhtlatoatzin, a native to Mexico. He became the first Roman Catholic indigenous saint from the Americas.
Following the early death of his father, Juan Diego was taken to live with his uncle. From the age of three, he was raised in line with the Aztec pagan religion, but always showed signs of having a mystical sense of life.
He was recognized for his religious fervor, his respectful and gracious attitude toward the Virgin Mary and his Bishop Juan de Zumarraga, and his undying love for his ill uncle.
When a group of 12 Franciscan missionaries arrived in Mexico in 1524, he and his wife, Maria Lucia, converted to Catholicism and were among the first to be baptized in the region. Juan Diego was very committed to his new life and would walk long distances to receive religious instruction at the Franciscan mission station at Tlatelolco.
On December 9, 1531, Juan Diego was in a hurry to make it to Mass and celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. However, he was stopped by the beautiful sight of a radiant woman who introduced herself, in his native tongue, as the "ever-perfect holy Mary, who has the honor to be the mother of the true God."
Mary told Juan Diego she was the mother of all those who lived in his land and asked him to make a request to the local bishop. She wanted them to build a chapel in her honor there on Tepeyac Hill, which was the site of a former pagan temple.
When Juan Diego approached Bishop Juan de Zumarraga telling of what happened, he was presented with doubts and was told to give the Bishop time to reflect on the news.
Later, the same day, Juan Diego encountered the Virgin Mary a second time and told her he failed in granting her request. He tried to explain to her he was not an important person, and therefore not the one for the task, but she instead he was the man she wanted.
Juan Diego returned to the Bishop the next day and repeated his request, but now the Bishop asked for proof or a sign the apparition was real and truly of heaven.
Juan Diego went straight to Tepeyac and, once again, encountered the Virgin Mary. After explaining to her what the Bishop asked, she agreed and told him she'd provide him with proof on the next day, December 11.
However, on the next day, Juan Diego's uncle became very sick and he was obligated to stay and care for him. Juan Diego set out the next to find a priest for his uncle. He was determined to get there quickly and didn't want to face the Virgin Mary with shame for missing the previous day's meeting.
But the Virgin Mary intercepted him and asked what was wrong. He explained his situation and promised to return after he found his uncle a priest.
She looked at him and asked "No estoy yo aqui que soy tu madre?" (Am I not here, I who am your mother?) She promised him his uncle would be cured and asked him to climb to the hill and collect the flowers growing there. He obeyed and found many flowers blooming in December on the rocky land. He filled his tilma (cloak) with flowers and returned to Mary.
The Virgin Mary arranged the flowers within his cloak and told him this would be the sign he is to present to the bishop. Once Juan Diego found the bishop, he opened his cloak and the bishop was presented with a miraculous imprinted image of the Virgin Mary on the flower-filled cloak.
The next day, Juan Diego found his uncle fully healed from his illness. His uncle explained he, too, saw the Virgin Mary. She also instructed him on her desires to have a church built on Tepeyac Hill, but she also told him she wanted to be known with the title of Guadalupe.
News of Juan Diego's miracle quickly spread, and he became very well-known. However, Juan Diego always remained a humble man.
The bishop first kept Juan Diego's imprinted cloak in his private chapel, but then placed it on public display in the church built on Tepeyac Hill the next year.
The first miracle surrounding the cloak occurred during the procession to Tepeyac Hill when a participant was shot in the throat by an arrow shot in celebration. After being placed in front of the miraculous image of Mary, the man was healed.
Juan Diego moved into a little hermitage on Tepeyac Hill, and lived a solidarity life of prayer and work. He remained there until his death on December 9, 1548, 17 years after the first apparition.
News of Our Lady's apparitions caused a wave of nearly 3,000 Indians a day to convert to the Christian faith. Details of Juan Diego's experience and Mary's words moved them deeply.
During the revolutions in Mexico, at the beginning of the 20th century, nonbelievers attempted to destroy the Image with an explosion. The altar?s marble steps, the flower-holders, and the basilica windows were all very damaged, but the pane of glass protecting the Image was not even cracked.
Juan Diego's imprinted cloak has remained perfectly preserved from 1531 to present time. The "Basilica of Guadalupe" on Tepeyac Hill has become one of the world's most-visited Catholic shrines.
St. Juan Diego was beatified on May 6, 1990 by Pope John Paul II and canonized on July 31, 2002. His feast day is celebrated on December 9 and he is the patron saint of Indigenous people.
(Disclaimer: I tried to find the least "offensive" retelling of this saint's story but they still refer to the Aztec's as "pagans." No, I don't agree with calling them that, esp. considering how even catholics enslaved and abused people but then called others "ungodly," much like White American history where protestants enslaved and abused people in the U.S. The story itself is important but as humans, it's difficult to remove personal oversights and prejudices. In other words, I know the full story. Christ is true, man is not.)
Funny the Sabbath comes up. We still honor it, on Our L-rd's day..the day he arose from the dead. Several months in the making, I was going to post on this. Guess this is the time. We catholics are also held to the L-rd's day, to rest on it.
Sabbath or Sunday?
Some religious organizations (Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. They claim that, at some unnamed time after the apostolic age, the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
However, passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).
Council of Laodicea
"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).
"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).
"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).
Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
LOVE the Virgin of Guadalupe. It's amazing what they've found when examining the cloak.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
"JESUS CHRIST SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED, AND WAS BURIED"
571 The Paschal mystery of Christ's cross and Resurrection stands at the center of the Good News that the apostles, and the Church following them, are to proclaim to the world. God's saving plan was accomplished "once for all"313 by the redemptive death of his Son Jesus Christ.
572 The Church remains faithful to the interpretation of "all the Scriptures" that Jesus gave both before and after his Passover: "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"314 Jesus' sufferings took their historical, concrete form from the fact that he was "rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes", who handed "him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified".315
573 Faith can therefore try to examine the circumstances of Jesus' death, faithfully handed on by the Gospels316 and illuminated by other historical sources, the better to understand the meaning of the Redemption.
Paragraph 1. Jesus and Israel
574 From the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, certain Pharisees and partisans of Herod together with priests and scribes agreed together to destroy him.317 Because of certain acts of his expelling demons, forgiving sins, healing on the sabbath day, his novel interpretation of the precepts of the Law regarding purity, and his familiarity with tax collectors and public sinners318 -- some ill-intentioned persons suspected Jesus of demonic possession.319 He is accused of blasphemy and false prophecy, religious crimes which the Law punished with death by stoning.320
575 Many of Jesus' deeds and words constituted a "sign of contradiction",321 but more so for the religious authorities in Jerusalem, whom the Gospel according to John often calls simply "the Jews",322 than for the ordinary People of God.323 To be sure, Christ's relations with the Pharisees were not exclusively polemical. Some Pharisees warn him of the danger he was courting;324 Jesus praises some of them, like the scribe of Mark 12:34, and dines several times at their homes.325 Jesus endorses some of the teachings imparted by this religious elite of God's people: the resurrection of the dead,326 certain forms of piety (almsgiving, fasting and prayer),327 the custom of addressing God as Father, and the centrality of the commandment to love God and neighbor.328
576 In the eyes of many in Israel, Jesus seems to be acting against essential institutions of the Chosen People:
- submission to the whole of the Law in its written commandments and, for the Pharisees, in the interpretation of oral tradition;
- the centrality of the Temple at Jerusalem as the holy place where God's presence dwells in a special way;
- faith in the one God whose glory no man can share.
I. JESUS AND THE LAW
577 At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus issued a solemn warning in which he presented God's law, given on Sinai during the first covenant, in light of the grace of the New Covenant:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.329
578 Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments".330 He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.331 On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts.332 This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."333
579 This principle of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many Jews of Jesus' time to an extreme religious zeal.334 This zeal, were it not to lapse into "hypocritical" casuistry,335 could only prepare the People for the unprecedented intervention of God through the perfect fulfillment of the Law by the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.336
580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son.337 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".338 Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant".339
581 The Jewish people and their spiritual leaders viewed Jesus as a rabbi.340 He often argued within the framework of rabbinical interpretation of the Law.341 Yet Jesus could not help but offend the teachers of the Law, for he was not content to propose his interpretation alongside theirs but taught the people "as one who had authority, and not as their scribes".342 In Jesus, the same Word of God that had resounded on Mount Sinai to give the written Law to Moses, made itself heard anew on the Mount of the Beatitudes.343 Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ."344 With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".345
582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ."346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor,348 which his own healings did.
"I promised the world a Messiah. I did all I could to prepare His coming, showing Myself in the figures that represented Him, even thousands of years before His coming! For who is this Messiah? Whence does He come? What will He do on earth? Whom does He represent? The Messiah is God.Who is God? God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Whence does He come? Or rather, who ordered Him tocome among men? It was I, His Father, God. Whom is He to represent on earth? His Father, God. What is He to do on earth? He will make the Father, God, known and loved.Did He not say: “Do you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” (“Nesciebatis quia in his quae Patris mei sunt oportet me esse?” St. Luke, ch. 2, v. 49). “I have come only to do the will of My Father.” “Whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.” “You will pray to Him like this: ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven...’, and elsewehere, since He came to glorify the Father and to make Him known to men, He says: “Whoever sees Me, sees the Father.” “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.” “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (“Nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me” St. John, ch. 14, v. 6) “Whoever is with Me is also with My Father”, etc.?
Realize then, o men, that for all eternity I have had but one desire, to make Myself known to men and be loved by them. I wish to stay for ever with them."
"...Understand well that I loved you, as it were, more than My beloved Son, or rather, more than Myself. What I am telling you is so true that, if one of My creatures had been enough to atone for the sins of other men through a life and death similar to those of My Son, I would have hesitated. Why? Because I would have betrayed My love by making a beloved creature suffer, rather than suffering Myself, in My Son. I would never have wished My children to suffer. "
"I want men to be able to know Me and to feel that I am close to each one of them. Remember, o men, that I wish to be the hope of humanity. Am I not already? Man would be lost if I were not his hope. But it is necessary for Me to be recognized as such, so that peace, confidence and love may enter men’s hearts and put them in contact with their Father in heaven and on earth! Do not think of Me as that frightening old man whom men depict in their pictures and books! No, no, I am neither younger nor older than My Son and My Holy Spirit. Because of this I would like everybody, from the youngest to the oldest, to call Me by the familiar name of Father and Friend. For I am always with you, I am making Myself similar to you so as to make you similar to Me. How great would be My joy to see parents teaching their children to address Me often by the name of Father, as indeed I am! How I would like to see infused into these young souls a trust and a filial love for Me! I have done everything for you; will you not do this for Me? "
TGIF and TGISC (Thank G-d It's Still Christmas!)
ORIGIN OF "THE TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS"
An Underground Catechism
You're all familiar with the Christmas song, "The Twelve Days of
Christmas" I think. To most it's a delightful nonsense rhyme set
to music. But it had a quite serious purpose when it was written.
It is a good deal more than just a repetitious melody with pretty
phrases and a list of strange gifts.
Catholics in England during the period 1558 to 1829, when
Parliament finally emancipated Catholics in England, were
prohibited from ANY practice of their faith by law - private OR
public. It was a crime to BE a Catholic.
"The Twelve Days of Christmas" was written in England as one of
the "catechism songs" to help young Catholics learn the tenets of
their faith - a memory aid, when to be caught with anything in
*writing* indicating adherence to the Catholic faith could not
only get you imprisoned, it could get you hanged, or shortened by
a head - or hanged, drawn and quartered, a rather peculiar and
ghastly punishment I'm not aware was ever practiced anywhere else.
Hanging, drawing and quartering involved hanging a person by the
neck until they had almost, but not quite, suffocated to death;
then the party was taken down from the gallows, and disembowelled
while still alive; and while the entrails were still lying on the
street, where the executioners stomped all over them, the victim
was tied to four large farm horses, and literally torn into five
parts - one to each limb and the remaining torso.
The songs gifts are hidden meanings to the teachings of the faith.
The "true love" mentioned in the song doesn't refer to an earthly
suitor, it refers to God Himself. The "me" who receives the
presents refers to every baptized person. The partridge in a pear
tree is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In the song, Christ is
symbolically presented as a mother partridge which feigns injury
to decoy predators from her helpless nestlings, much in memory of
the expression of Christ's sadness over the fate of Jerusalem:
"Jerusalem! Jerusalem! How often would I have sheltered thee under
my wings, as a hen does her chicks, but thou wouldst not have it
The other symbols mean the following:
2 Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the
"Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying = the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven
sacraments 8 Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping = the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping = the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming = the twelve points of doctrine in the
--Fr. Hal Stockert, Fishnet
Why Jews become Catholics.
The Seven Sorrows of Our Lady
The Blessed Virgin Mary grants seven graces to the souls who honor her daily by
saying seven Hail Mary's and meditating on her tears and dolors (sorrows).
The devotion was passed on by St. Bridget.
The prophecy of Simeon. (St. Luke 2:34, 35)
The flight into Egypt. (St. Matthew 2:13, 14)
The loss of the Child Jesus in the temple. (St. Luke 2: 43-45)
The meeting of Jesus and Mary on the Way of the Cross.
The taking down of the Body of Jesus from the Cross.
The burial of Jesus.
Ladies there a prayer vigil for all the souls lost to abortion and against abortion from 6 eastern time today to 6 pm tomorrow if you are interested and have a little time please say a prayer. Thanks
Published January 25, 2017
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
FILE - In this June 25, 2015 file photo, Pope Francis greets the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta Matthew Festing, right, at the end of a private audience in the Pontiff's private library at the Vatican. (AP)
ROME – The head of the Knights of Malta resigned after entering into a public spat with Pope Francis over the ouster of a top official involved in a condom scandal, a spokeswoman for the ancient lay Catholic order said Wednesday.
Matthew Festing decided to resign after meeting with the pope on Tuesday, Knights of Malta spokeswoman Marianna Balfour told The Associated Press.
"I can confirm this," Balfour said in an email, adding a statement would be forthcoming.
Festing had refused to cooperate with a papal commission investigating his ouster of the order's grand chancellor, Albrecht von Boeselager, over revelations that the order's charity branch had distributed condoms under his watch. Festing had cited the Knights' status as a sovereign entity in refusing to cooperate.
The remarkable showdown was the latest example of Francis clashing with more conservative elements in the Catholic Church, especially those for whom sexual ethics and doctrinal orthodoxy are paramount. The dispute had raised questions about the role played by Cardinal Raymond Burke, a leading conservative and Francis critic who also happens to be the pope's envoy to the order.
Festing's resignation, some nine years into a life term, appears to set the stage for the Knights' to convene an assembly to elect a new leader. Many of the orders members had lamented how the confrontation with the Holy See had drawn unwanted negative attention to the order, which relies on donations to fund its huge charity works around the globe.
Last week, the Holy See said it expected the order to cooperate with its probe, and in a sharply worded statement said it planned to take action to resolve the dispute. Canon lawyers had raised alarm at the investigation, giving it seemed to set the stage for one sovereign entity intervening in the internal affairs of another.
The Order of Malta has many trappings of a sovereign state, issuing its own stamps, passports and license plates and holding diplomatic relations with 106 states, the Holy See included.
Festing suspended Boeselager on Dec. 8 over revelations that the Knights' charity branch Malteser International had distributed thousands of condoms to poor people in Myanmar under his watch.
Church teaching forbids artificial contraception. Boeselager has said he stopped the programs when he learned of them. The order's leadership has said the scandal was grave and called it "disgraceful" that Boeselager refused an order to obey Festing and resign.
Francis appointed a commission to investigate after Boeselager said he had been told by Festing, in Burke's presence, that the Holy See wanted him to resign over the scandal. The Vatican secretary of state has said the pope wanted nothing of the sort and wanted the dispute to be resolved through dialogue.
Boeselager has challenged his ouster with an appeal to the Knights' internal tribunal.
The knights trace their history to the 11th-century Crusades with the establishment of an infirmary in Jerusalem that cared for people of all faiths. It now counts 13,500 members and 100,000 staff and volunteers who provide health care in hospitals and clinics around the world.
Interesting that Pope Francis reinstated Boeselager who promoted the condoms...
Because saving a life is of utmost importance in an AIDS epidemic, according to what was on the news today. I agree with it and believe that Pope Benedict XVI was the first to allow it for another case such as this? It was ages ago. I'll check around to find it.
Completely and totally disagree with this, especially since it is completely against church teaching.
[What is also of interest to consider are all the married women who become infected by their husbands. It's not a cut'n dry issue exactly but is complicated. ]
Vatican Adds Nuance to Pope’s Condom Remarks
By RACHEL DONADIODEC. 21, 2010
ROME — The Vatican on Tuesday issued its most authoritative clarification on Pope Benedict XVI’s recent remarks that condoms could sometimes be used for disease prevention, saying that the pope in no way justified their use to prevent pregnancy.
The statement appeared to be a sign of the lingering confusion — and, perhaps, Vatican infighting — over the remarks. Approved by Benedict himself, it said his words had been “repeatedly manipulated” and did not “signify a change in Catholic moral teaching.”
In a book published last month, Benedict said that although condoms were not “a real or moral solution,” in some cases, they might be used as “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” He cited as an example a male prostitute who might use a condom so as not to spread disease.
AIDS activists, especially in Africa, where H.I.V. is rampant, welcomed the pope’s comments, as did some moral theologians. But some conservative Catholics, especially in the United States, feared that it would be misinterpreted as a move to condone condom use.
Tuesday’s statement did not go beyond or contradict two previous clarifications by the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, on the same issue. But it came directly from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the most powerful Vatican office, in what experts said could be a sign of internal Vatican tensions — or a response to criticism.
“I have never seen a communiqué from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that explains the words of the pope after the fact,” said Paolo Rodari, a Vatican expert at Il Foglio, an Italian daily newspaper. “I think it’s unique. And it demonstrates how many complaints and serious criticism the Vatican has received.”
By publishing “Light of the World,” a book of interviews conducted by a German journalist, Peter Seewald, Benedict effectively did an end run around the Vatican’s communications structures — and also around the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees all doctrine.
The Vatican’s new statement said that Benedict’s comments had been misinterpreted and manipulated by those who effectively saw them as permission for more widespread use of condoms, which like all birth control goes against church teaching.
In the book’s German and English editions, the text cites the example of a male prostitute, implying homosexual sex, in which a condom would not be a form of contraception. But the Italian edition uses the feminine form of prostitute.
Last month, Father Lombardi said that the Italian translation was an error, but added that the pope had specifically told him that the issue was not procreation but rather disease prevention — regardless of gender.
n Tuesday’s statement, the Vatican did not touch the gender question. But it said, “The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.”
Mr. Rodari said the prefect of the congregation, Cardinal William J. Levada, the highest-ranking American at the Vatican, had most likely not been shown the book before it was published since it consisted of interviews, not official church doctrine.
Father Lombardi said that he could not comment on whether Cardinal Levada had seen the book before publication, but that it “went without saying” that Benedict had approved Tuesday’s statement.
Issued in six languages, Tuesday’s statement, “Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Trivialization of Sexuality Regarding Certain Interpretations of ‘Light of the World,’ ” was a masterpiece of Vatican nuance. It used technical theological language, while the pope had used a conversational tone in his book.
It said that condom use by a prostitute for disease prevention could not be considered a “lesser evil” because prostitution is “gravely immoral,” and that “an action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”
Yet it added that “those involved in prostitution who are H.I.V. positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.”
I would not quote to NY times as a valid source since they are liberal and often take words out of context to justify their liberal perspective.
The pope was giving an interview and not speaking ex cathedra.
I see no evidence that he issued a papal letter on the issue.
"Yet it added that “those involved in prostitution who are H.I.V. positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.” Basically this is saying a first step still does not replace the evil and gravity of the situation. It's still a grave evil so none of it can be sanctioned.
Therefore, Boeslager was acting contrary to church teaching and deserved to be sacked. My hope is that the resignation of Festing is not accepted by the council.
@Galadriel or @Lucia would love your thoughts on this.
This is very complicated because they are a sovereign entity, but their "sovereignty" was given to them by a previous Pope. Now they have a sort of a protected status among other countries, but they are allowed to use lands but they do not own those lands or have courts or rule over any peoples so they are not a "nation".
They are a Roman Catholic order and as such fall under the Holy See and the Popes authority ultimately. So even though he may not be doing this to their liking they must defer to the Holy See and the Pope.
If Boeslager handed out condemns in some misguided attempt to help the poor, instead of following church doctrine, he deserved to go.
"Francis appointed a commission to investigate after Boeselager said he had been told by Festing, in Burke's presence, that the Holy See wanted him to resign over the scandal. The Vatican secretary of state has said the pope wanted nothing of the sort and wanted the dispute to be resolved through dialogue."
If the grand master misinterpreted or outright lied about the Holy See regarding Boeselager, then the whole thing needs to be aired out in a council hearing, and yes the Pope should have the order investigated because he can and he should with these goings on. Who knows what else has gone on unchecked.
Festing resigned over the investigation, yes its unorthodox but it makes him appear suspicious. Since they are ultimately a reflection of the Roman Catholic Church they have to live up to higher standards. I don't think Boeselager should have been re-instated so quickly, before any hearing or investigation is completed. If he went against church teachings he should not be back in the fold, just like that even after a "hearing" unless he's repented, confessed, and understands the grave mistake he made and is willing to stay in line with the church. (I don't know what the forgiveness procedure is and how many times they get to do right before they're cut off and kicked out )
I have to say that if Pope Francis is going to really clean house (RCC) he needs to check, and has the authority to check, everybody in the RCC especially bishops, cardinals, the orders (nuns included) and looks like he's going to be straight gangsta about it. It won't always be nice or pretty but it has to be done.
The New York Times is but one VALID news source. Benedict XVI did, in fact, issue such a statement. People are taking it out of context out of a sense of legalism. I'm simply not going to argue what was said nor the meaning behind it neither am I going to question anyone's faith on the matter.
Vatican statement on Benedict XVI and condoms
John L. Allen Jr. | Nov. 21, 2010 NCR Today
Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, issued a statement Nov. 21 in response to wide international coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's comments on condoms in a new book-length interview with the German journalist Peter Seewald.
In essence, Benedict reiterated the church's broad opposition to artificial birth control, but said that in some exceptional cases, where the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, the use of a condom could be a "first step" towards a greater sense of moral responsibility.
In his statement, Lombardi insists that Benedict has not changed church teaching on condoms, but rather given papal expression to a position long held by moral theologians and other "ecclesial personalities," including a number of cardinals.
The full text of Lombardi's statement follows, in an NCR translation from Italian.
* * *
Note of Fr. Lombardi on the words of the pope on the question of condoms
At the end of chapter ten [note: in the English edition, chapter eleven] of the book Light of the World, the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of condoms, questions which refer back to the discussons which followed some words spoken by the pope on the subject in the course of his trip to Africa in 2009.
Explore Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family. Download our FREE study guide.
The pope clearly reaffirms that he had not meant [in 2009] to take a position on the problem of condoms in general, but simply wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more has to be done: prevention, education, help, council, and staying close to the people – both so they don’t become sick, but also when they are sick.
The pope observed that even in non-ecclesial environments, there’s a similar awareness, such as that of the so-called “ABC” approach (abstinence – be faithful – condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are far more determinative and fundamental for the struggle against AIDS. Meanwhile the condom, in the final analysis, seems like a shortcut when the other two elements are missing. It must be clear, therefore, that condoms are not the solution to the problem.
The pope then broadens the focus, insisting that to concentrate solely on condoms is tantamount to making sexuality into something banal, losing its meaning as an expression of love between persons, and turning it into a sort of “drug.” Struggling against the banalization of sexuality is “part of a great effort to see that sexuality is positively understood, and can exercise its positive effect on the human person in his or her totality.”
In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality, and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that “naturally the church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.
Thus the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by placing it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.
At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.
In that sense, the reasoning of the pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift. Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions. Nevertheless, it’s true that until now they have not been heard with such clarity from the mouth of the pope, even if it’s in a colloquial rather than magisterial form.
Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution of clarification and deepening on a question that has long been debated. It’s an original contribution, because on the one hand it remains faithful to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in rejecting “faith in condoms” as an illusory path; on the other hand, it shows a comprehensive and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering the small steps – even if they’re only initial and still confused – of a humanity often spiritually and culturally impoverished, towards a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.
Furthermore, I'm offering this as information that all Catholics should be aware of to know what is going on whether they agree or not. Sometimes, we are so bent on our legalistic views that we overlook the situation at hand in favor of ideologies or that we favor politics over ideologies (Dr. Green).
Vatican affirms Pope was speaking about contraceptives for Zika
February 20, 2016
ROME, February 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has affirmed that the Holy Father was indeed speaking of “condoms and contraceptives” when on the flight back from Mexico, Pope Francis said couples could rightly “avoid pregnancy” in the wake of the Zika virus scare.
Fr. Lombardi told Vatican Radio today, “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
According to Lombardi, the pope spoke of “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations. He is not saying that this possibility is accepted without discernment, indeed, he said clearly that it can be considered in cases of special urgency.”
Lombardi reiterated the example that Pope Francis made of Pope Paul VI’s supposed “authorization of the use of the pill for the religious who were at very serious risk” of rape. This, said Lombardi, “makes us understand that it is not that it was a normal situation in which this was taken into account.”
Vatican spokesman: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
On the plane Thursday, the pope was asked by one reporter whether the Church can “take into consideration the concept of ‘the lesser of two evils?’” when it comes to the question of preventing pregnancy to avoid transmission of the virus.
The pope opened his answer by categorically condemning abortion as a solution to the Zika virus, but on the question of avoiding pregnancy, he added: “We are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment.”
“The great Paul VI in a difficult situation in Africa permitted sisters to use contraception for cases of rape,” he told reporters.
“Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil,” the pope added. “In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
The pope’s answer, in particular the apparent parallel he drew between the case of the nuns’ use of contraception and the case of the Zika virus, has widely led to the interpretation that the pope was approving the use of contraception in some cases.
(Find a full transcript of the pope’s remarks on the plane here.)
In his famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI reiterated the Church’s long-standing and definitive teaching that artificial contraception is “intrinsically wrong,” namely that it is always and in every instance evil, because it contradicts the procreative purpose of sex.
Some moral theologians have said that non-abortifacient contraceptives could be used in cases of rape as a means of self-defense against an aggressor. This distinction would not apply in the case of voluntary intercourse between couples concerned about Zika.
In addition to referencing the Congo nuns, Lombardi pointed today to Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms in his 2010 book-length interview The Light of the World. Therein, Lombardi said, Benedict “spoke about the use of condoms in the case of risk of contagion by AIDS.”
In the book, Pope Benedict told journalist Peter Seewald that in some cases, such as that of a male prostitute, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” Pope Benedict followed the comments by saying that the Church “does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith corrected mainstream media misinterpretations of those statements that falsely presented them as justifying contraception. In its statement, the CDF said, “A number of erroneous interpretations have emerged” that have “caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality.”
“The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought,” the statement added.
The CDF statement also dismissed the suggestion that the use of a condom by HIV-infected prostitutes could constitute a “lesser evil.” This interpretation, it says, is erroneous since, “An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”
The CDF summarized the intention of the pope’s comments: “The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.”
I don't know if it was released WHY he handed out condoms. That's probably the key and if it were to protect people from acquiring HIV/AIDS, Zika, other STI/STD's, it's going to be touchy considering the statements and affirmations of by two separate Popes.
I don't mean to butt in, but what happened to the sisters in Africa?
Who's butting in? Everyone pays for this site and you are free to post wherever you please But I don't know.
OKay...found this and ahem....I wonder why they say that removing the White soldiers made matters worse? Should have said the Belgian officers. It was in 1960 and beyond in the Belgian Congo. Nuns were part of the casualty of war and independence struggles. Oh, and I wish people woul delineate countries in the continent of Africa and not say "Africa" as though it were one city/town/bled. Argh.
Now that I've searched for this, going to post the article and highlight something curious:
Nuns, rape, and the Zika virus
Gleyse Kelly da Silva poses for a photo Jan. 25 with her daughter, Maria Giovanna, who has microcephaly, in Recife, Brazil. (CNS photo/Ueslei Marcelino, Reuters)
Phyllis Zagano | Feb. 24, 2016 Just Catholic
Here are the facts: The Zika virus, named for a tropical African forest, has a 65-year history of human infection. First discovered in Ugandan monkeys, Zika is transmitted both by mosquitos and by sexual contact. It has been linked recently to birth defects in the poorest regions of northern Brazil, where one percent of newborns are microcephalic.
That is why Pope Francis, during his plane ride back from Mexico recently, was talking about raped nuns in Africa and contraception.
The pope's comment about those missionary women religious in the former Belgian Congo was real. Within of week of Congo's June 30, 1960, declaration of independence, the army threatened mutiny. Its officers were white Belgians; its enlisted men were black Congolese. Removing the white officers only made matters worse, and within weeks 25,000 Belgians fled the country.
The missionaries -- men and women -- stayed. They were in grave danger, but they stayed to serve the poor.
Here is what the Belgian Government Information Center wrote about some mid-July 1960 attacks: " ... the nuns ... were put in jail ... Negro soldiers attacked one nun and after a fierce struggle, raped her. Later, they attacked the second nun. Two men trampled her under foot." [Evidentally, this was a 1960's report in White-man 1960's language SMH]
Explore Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family. Download our FREE study guide.
And it continued for years.
The current dust up is over whether some or all of the remaining women religious were appropriately given contraceptives.
No woman can be forced to become pregnant. Any woman can protect herself from rape and its consequences. In his definitive study, Rape Within Marriage: A Moral Analysis Delayed, Edward J. Bayer affirms that physicians in early 1960s Congo gave women religious anovulant drugs and that their actions later found papal approval.
Bayer talks about much more. He states that when a married woman clearly should not bear a child -- whether due to disease or illness or other (presumably temporary) condition -- she may in effect "protect" herself if her husband is unwilling to cooperate.
That is: No woman needs to become pregnant against her will and, especially, women may protect themselves from rape and its possible consequences.
The overall moral analysis is far more refined than cases of raped missionaries or the wives of drunken husbands. The overall moral analysis is one of common sense.
So what about Zika? Governments around the world are urging those infected and those at risk of infection not to begin pregnancies. Pope Francis' spokesman has clarified the papal plane talk, and recalled Pope Benedict XVI's suggestion that AIDS carriers use condoms to prevent disease.
Now, both Francis and the bishops in the affected countries have said abortion is not the answer. But those same bishops in the affected countries have not taught the common sense solution to women whose only means of avoiding pregnancy is contraception.
So, where does all this leave the poor women of Central and South America, now at risk of seriously complicated pregnancies and births? Remember, they are poor. Can missionaries provide these women some protection? Will they? And, what will it be? The so-called "pill" was U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved for contraceptive use in 1960. To this day its side effects -- blood clots, heart attack, stroke, depression, weight gain -- are downplayed by big pharma.
The final answer is an end to Zika. The intermediate steps are fraught with danger. For women.
[Phyllis Zagano is senior research associate-in-residence at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., currently a visiting Fulbright Specialist at the Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland. She will speak May 6, 2016, at the University of St. Michael's College, Toronto and Sept. 24, 2016 at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Her books include Sacred Silence: Daily Meditations for Lent and In the Image of Christ: Essays on Being Catholic and Female.]
Editor's note: We can send you an email alert every time Phyllis Zagano's column, Just Catholic, is posted. Go to this page and follow directions: Email alert sign-up.
Two Popes in...maybe it's time to issue a papal letter on it? Dunno. I'm only the message bearer. I find these issues to be very complicated regarding deadly epidemics. For example,
No woman can be forced to become pregnant. Any woman can protect herself from rape and its consequences. In his definitive study, Rape Within Marriage: A Moral Analysis Delayed, Edward J. Bayer affirms that physicians in early 1960s Congo gave women religious anovulant drugs and that their actions later found papal approval.
I'm assuming there is a typo meaning, "religious women...anovulant drugs." Why would it be okay for the nuns and not women in the general society and not now in the midst of HIV/AIDS for those who are most at risk (straying husband , living in a rape zone or state of war, etc.) that are not of religious orders? Something is fishy. I'm not pushing one side over the other either.