When asked about condom use to stop the spread of AIDS and the Church changing its teaching, Pope Bergoglio said:
The question seems biased to me. Yes, it is one of the methods, the morality of the Church faces a bit of a predicament here. The fifth or the sixth commandment: defend life or a sexual relationship that is pen to life. But this is not the problem. There is a greater problem than this: this question makes me think of the question they once asked Jesus: tell me Master, is it acceptable to heal on a Saturday? Healing is obligatory! Malnutrition, exploitation, slave labour, the lack of drinking water, these are the problems. We’re not talking about which plaster we should use for which wound. The great injustice is social injustice, the great injustice is malnutrition. I don’t like making such casuistic reflections when there are people dying because of a lack of water and hunger. Think about arms trafficking. When these problems cease to exist, then I think we can ask ourselves the question: is it acceptable to heal on a Saturday? Why are arms still being manufactured? Wars are the leading cause of death. Forget about whether it is acceptable or not to heal on the Sabbath. Make justice and when everyone is healed, when there is no injustice in this world, then we can talk about Sabbath.
Did Pope Bergoglio just approve the use of condoms?
Someone hide the Grappa.
17 comments:
The pope has momentarily forgotten the One Great Truth: everything bad is caused by global warming! After all, you can't fool mother nature. What happens when the planet exceeds its "carrying capacity"? Nature kicks in to solve the problem in typical Darwinian fashion:
Overpopulation leads to an androgynization of the human race, with increasing homosexuality. The decrease in the female population in China and India by massive infanticade of girls also leads to homosexualization of the male of the species, for example.
Epidemics like AIDS, (and hunger!), spread almost solely by sexual contact, ravage mankind. Condoms, which encourage sexual activity by an illusion of safety, also help spread many diseases causing death, disability, and sterility, helping resolve the population burden.
Draughts as in California dry up produce to feed millions. Water supplies infested with excess estrogens from the pill sterilize males in 1st world nations. They also lower testosterone levels making self-defense, defense of family, or of country, less and less effective.
Man, being just one animal struggling desperately for survival, peace, and sexual gratification on earth, unwittingly is the product, not the originator, of all these forces of nature and instinct.
I agree with the Pope, amid this crises of growing natural disaster which spawns human depravity, why waste time wondering about contraception?
Live and let live, let nature take its course, let freedom ring, land...labour...lawlessness - the 3 L's, yea! Who am I to judge?!?
Jesuitical, in the worst sense of the word.
"Did Pope Bergoglio just approve the use of condoms?"
Not even close.
1. His Holiness Pope Francis likened the question to Scribes and Pharisees attempting to trap him.
2. Pope Francis denounced the premise of the reporter's question/statement. The "question", as the Pope noted, was partisan against Holy Mother Church.
3. Pope Francis rejected the reporter's premise as akin to attempting to use a Band-aid to treat a serious wound.
Pope Francis did not come close to offering approval to the use of condoms. The opposite is true. Pope Francis destroyed the reporter's premise.
Pope Francis exposed the foolishness associated with the notion that Holy Mother Church should authorize the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV (AIDS).
Pope Francis, despite his fatigue, was at the top of his game in his handling of the reporter and the reporter's question/attempt to trap the Church and the Holy Father.
Well done, Holy Father.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The question seems biased to me. Yes, it is one of the methods, the morality of the Church faces a bit of a predicament here. The fifth or the sixth commandment: defend life or a sexual relationship that is pen to life. But this is not the problem. There is a greater problem than this: For once i agree.
The greater problem is that Cardinal George Bergoglio is a nut and does not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I think that Mark's is the most charitable reading, and that's the one we should go with. Pope Francis says a lot of confusing things; the best way to cope is to find the most charitable reading that is not a sin against reason and then continue contentedly working out one's salvation.
He strikes terror in my heart. He doesn't proclaim the shining truth of the gospel. It's all smoke and mirrors. It is appalling. It is tragic. It is evil on many levels.
"There is a greater problem than this:...when there is no injustice in this world, then we can talk about (condoms)." In other words, "Don't ask and I won't teach. Let the secular world dictate the argument." As with the martyrs of Uganda, "Don't ask why they were martyred and I won't mention it."
But, of course, we know that Francis does ‘teach’ incessantly on subjects he feels are important, i.e., global warming. And ‘Vatican spokesman says Pope’s words about inclusion at today’s Mass refer also to homosexuals in Uganda.’ No “Scribes and Pharisees” when it comes to homosexuals or global warming.
Pax
Maudie N Mandeville
Rorate Caeli sums it up nicely:
Roman Judea, circa A.D. 29:
"Master, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?"
Our Lord Jesus Christ: "There's hunger in Judea, so I won't answer that."
In regard to Pope Francis' "inclusion" of homosexuals during a Mass that His Holiness offered in Uganda...
As Catholics, we are commanded to be truthful. Therefore, let's get it right about Pope Francis and the Mass in question.
1. Reverend Federico Lombardi stated during a press conference that Pope Francis' homily did not offer a direct reference to homosexuals.
2. His Holiness Pope Francis declared that we are called to "to build a more just society which promotes human dignity, without excluding anyone, defends God’s gift of life, and protects the wonders of nature, his creation, and our common home."
3. That is the 2,000 year old teaching of the Catholic Church.
4. When questioned about the Pope's exhortation, Father Lombardi said the phrase "without excluding anyone" would naturally refer to all God's children, which would include "people with homosexual tendencies, and it’s in line with the Church’s teaching on this issue."
5. That also is the Church's 2,000 year old teaching.
Holy Mother Church upholds the dignity of all humans. That is precisely the meaning of the Pope's words. He upheld the Church's teachings in regard to himan dignity.
6. Like it or not, homosexuals are to be treated with love and respect. That, of course, includes preaching against the sin of Sodomy, which Pope Francis has done numerous times.
7. His Holiness Pope Francis upheld simply the Church's teachings in regard to the dignity of mankind. Pope Francis did no more or no less than simply offer the Church's teachings as evidenced by the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The very fact Mark that Lombardi finds it necessary to explain and that Rocca and Martin and others "tweet" it shows the depth of the problem.
Why is there always an explanation to the "gay lobby?" Why are these questions even tolerated?
There is a sodomite agenda and a homosexualist infiltration in the Church that is at its nadir now under this papacy. It must be exposed and outed and it must be protested and challenged at every turn.
I read and re-read the sermon. Obviously Lombardi thought it important enough to bring up the homosexual question. One wonders why these men do not bring up far, far, far more pressing issues. One could begin with the global holocaust against the unborn.
The energy spent at the Synod on the issue of the sin of Sodom was obscene. Rarely did a bishop speak up on the horror of abortion. From my following of the twitterati, they too, were silent on abortion. But the homosexualist clamour was palpable.
Agreed Vox: the homosexualists and homosexual agenda must be exposed and denounced.
I don't recall the angels at Lot's house treating the sodomites with love and respect.
I recall that #2358 from the Catechism of the True Church teaches that while "homosexual tendencies" are "objectively disordered", homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
That is what I recall.
Is it difficult for us to condemn without hesitation the sin of the sodomites while treating the sinner with basic Catholic compassion?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you are playing a mind game no different than my Basilian friend or numerous Jesuitcal homosexualists written about prior.
Of course the CCC calls to respect people suffering from same-sex attraction. You are confusing the individual with the movement. The individual sinner, as all of us are, deserves respect. The political movement of sodomitical fascism deserves no respect. It deserves condemnation. It is a curse upon mankind.
They seek, as to Islamists, the destruction of the Catholic Church. There can be no giving in to this evil. Our nations have legalised an act that is deadly physically and spiritually. They have sanctioned marriage contracts when it is not marriage, but an affront to it. Our medical professionals have refused to consider, as they once did, homosexuality as a mental illness. It is now those of us who state that it is evil or a mental illness who are now considered "evil" and "mentally ill."
Do not play their game and if you do, do not do it here.
Vox
There are Catholics who wish to smash and mash homosexuals. In regard to the old carrot vs. stick approach, the Catholics in question prefer the stick.
Conversely, there are Catholics, such as His Holiness Pope Francis, who prefer the carrot approach...at least in regard to people who are open to legitimate discussion.
Whenever I reflect upon smash, mash, and stick Catholics, I think of the SSPX. I reflect upon the two very different approaches over the decades that Catholics have taken in regard to the SSPX.
Liberals and conservatives (neo-cons) have, for decades, smashed and mashed the SSPX. They wished to humiliate the SSPX. They demanded that the SSPX crawl and grovel to obtain regularization from Rome.
Example: On February 21, 2013 A.D., just one week prior to Pope Benedict XVI's pending resignation, Father John Zuhlsdorf promoted the vicious "stick" approach to the SSPX.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/02/papal-spokesman-on-sspx-last-minute-gesture-from-pope-benedict/
Papal spokesman on SSPX, last minute gesture from Pope Benedict
Posted on 21 February 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
"There has been some chatter about the possibility that before 28 February Pope Benedict would do something for the SSPX. An 11th hour sign of benevolence, perhaps.
I doubted that.
"I have written time and again that the SSPX was going to wake up one day and experience the business end of the stick.
"The membership of the SSPX should converge on Rome this week. They should, all together, crawl on hands and knees across St. Peter’s Square and beg the Pope to admit them to his presence. They should implore the Pope to let them kiss his shoe, accept their promises of obedience, and the regularize them before he resigns."
That is the kind of nasty "stick" approach that has failed time and again through history. That is the approach that hardens hearts.
Fortunately, Pope Francis has refused to heed Father Zuhlsdorf's (as well as countless liberals and neo-cons) "business end of the stick" approach. Pope Francis prefers to offer carrots, not punches, to people.
Pope Francis has not hesitated to remind the SSPX of its error...their need to regularize the Society. But he has done so in fatherly fashion. He has worked with the SSPX's men of good will.
The carrot approach vs. Father Zuhlsdorf's vicious "business end of the stick" approach. Which approach in question is more likely to win hearts?
Anyway, in regard to homosexuals (not vicious homosexual lobbies), but the many homosexuals who desire yet struggle desperately to live chaste lives, Pope Francis has reached to them in loving and respectful fashion. Pope Francis has upheld the Church's teachings in regard to sodomy. That is, condemn the sin while treating the sinner with Catholic love and dignity.
Why is that difficult for some Catholics to accept? What good would result should Pope Francis adopt the vicious "business end of the stick" philosophy?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Mark, you are playing a mind game no different than my Basilian friend or numerous Jesuitcal homosexualists written about prior."
No. I am mot playing a mind game.
"Of course the CCC calls to respect people suffering from same-sex attraction. You are confusing the individual with the movement. The individual sinner, as all of us are, deserves respect. The political movement of sodomitical fascism deserves no respect. It deserves condemnation. It is a curse upon mankind."
Exactly. We are in agreement with each other in that regard. That is exactly what I have pointed out that His Holiness Pope Francis has done. That is the only point that I have tried to make.
Pope Francis has condemned the horrific sodomite lobby that is, as you noted, a curse upon mankind. In 2013 A.D., Pope Francis denounced sodomite lobbies.
During his Wednesday General Audience on February 4, 2015 A.D., Pope Francis praised Catholics who worked to pass laws that would prevent sodomite "marriage" and the adoption of children by sodomites.
In January of this year, Pope Francis condemned the world's powerful forces who are determined to impose the sodomite lobby's agenda upon us.
Vox. You and I are in 100 percent agreement in regard to the above. We are in agreement with Pope Francis in regard to the above.
Unfortunately, their are Catholics who have mischaracterized Pope Francis' outreach to the many homosexuals who do not belong to the sodomite lobby. Said homosexuals struggle to live chaste lives. Pope Francis has reached out to those folks with compassion.
By doing so, Pope Francis has not failed to condemn the sodomite lobby. But many Catholics who are opposed to Pope Francis' Pontificate have refused to accept that one may oppose the Culture of Death sodomite lobby while treating goodwill homosexuals with love and compassion.
Again, that is the only point that I have made. That is not a mind game.
Vox, it is a shame that you declared that I am "no different than (your) Basilian friend or numerous Jesuitcal homosexualists written about prior." I am not anywhere in that category. Have you ever read a post of mine to your blog that did not reflect orthodox Catholic teachings?
I could produce posts from at least two blogs where I was attacked for having spoken against the Culture of Death sodomite lobby. The Culture of Death lobby has attacked me. I am well aware that the sodomite lobby is vicious, dangerous, and satanic.
I really don't understand your comment about me. Your remark sadden me. But maybe I am to blame. Maybe I failed to make myself clear. Mea culpa.
I have been kicked off liberal and traditional blogs. I respect the fact that a blogger can tell me to leave his or her blog. Vox, should you not wish me to post to your blog, I will most certainly respect your wish.
Anyway, I wish you and your family peace and good health.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you are always welcome here and I always appreciate your commentary. Yes, we are in agreement, I misunderstood and only meant that I/we know the individual person, I took from your comment otherwise and I am sorry for misunderstanding.
Peace, indeed.
Vox
Post a Comment