Different strokes for different folks is what he is advocating. This is not Catholic. It is heretical. He has also adopted Canada's "Winnipeg Statement" on conscience and elevated to papal teaching. Another heresy. The reference to homosexual "orientation" is a heretical phrase adopted from the secular world. There is no "orientation" there is sin! While on one hand he condemns "gender ideology" on the other he adopts their mantra. The "internal forum" is now the arbiter. This Pope, and yes, for better or worse, he is the Pope; this Pope assumes that mercy has never been a part of parish life. I know priests who are deeply hurt by his condemnation of them for an apparent "lack of mercy." The German menace in this document and papacy is profound. There is a schism but it is not those of us faithful to the Church who are in schism.
Complete heresy by the Bishop or Rome himself! Sin is no longer, sin.
301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.
"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."
Let's look at some of what I've read so far; right away in paragraph 3:
3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.Paragraph 79, as an example, is a deception. On one hand, it gives the reader assurance that what is being said is in the great Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. Yet, while it refers to what it wants to state from 84 in FC, it does not add the rest of it:
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.In paragraph 186, we are told:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of 142 the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ” (v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.Quoting Pope Benedict XVI, one again there is an attempt to show continuity, but while Pope Benedict writes of the Eucharist as "the reality both of being loved and loving others" and that if not, it is "intrinsically fragmented" Benedict does not use secular and worldly terms which take on Marxist rhetoric and equate them with mortal sin! Christ did not come to bring unity, though He certainly prayed for it in the Garden, he came to "bring a sword." He came to bring "division." We must have "contempt" for radical ideologies and the people that advocate them and seek to destroy our culture. "Inequality?" While people may be equal before the law, or should be, cultures are not. The behaviour of certain ethnic groups is not acceptable. This is sheer Marxist rhetoric and to equate it with being improperly disposed for Holy Communion is abominable. Nowhere in this document is this stated over sodomy but tell the kid to stop washing your window as you stop at a red light and you'll go to Hell.
Paragraph 297 is a complete contradiction and confusing jumble of platitudes. Are we or are we not to permit open adulterers, abortionist, sodomites to read at Mass or not? Now, if we all went to the traditional Mass, this would not be an issue!
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”,328 something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.What a bunch of jesuitical bile speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. So, there is no Hell? The Gospels are wrong? Jesus lied?
As for 299, they are not "excommunicated" and get off this sentimentalist claptrap of "feelings."
What a bunch of 1970's bile. Will the felt banners be at the next Papal Mass?
Paragraph 301-306 are pure an unadulterated, if you'll pardon the pun, heresy! The door is open for Kasper and the rest of these heretics to drive a locomotive through. This is a schismatic document issued from the Bishop or Rome himself!
The Pope backs sex-education in schools. This is not Catholic, it belongs in the home, period!
Pure idiocy from which, I dissent!
Abortion bears hardly a mention. Where is the call to arms to families? Where is the demand that Catholic parents rid themselves of pornography and ensure that this pernicious evil never enters the family domain? Where is the call to be more like "rabbits" and rebuild the culture? Where is the demographic crisis discussed and the effect this will have on Catholic families? Mercy, mercy, mercy me? I've heard about enough of this mercy crapola.
On a positive note, the scripture reflections are quite nice.
I'm sick of them, I'm sick and tired of these rotten liberals as Mother Angelica, may she even now see Him face to face, opined. I've had enough of what they did to my childhood faith. What they did to our heritage, our Catholic culture and our lives. They have done this. These bishops and cardinals, these theologians and twitterist clerics - they are responsible for what has happened to the family. They have done this.
You, Catholic out there. You have been misled. You have been lied to. Get up and educate yourself. You have no excuse anymore. These are evil men destined for eternal damnation, do not be amongst these goats.
May the Bishop of Rome enjoy his time at Lesbos. If he likes it enough there, maybe they can make room for him. He'll wash their feet and worship their same god as he bows to the vagina asteroid!
A future Pope will fix this. May it be the next one and sooner rather than later.
Pat Archbold "shameful and a grave evil"
Francis advances "situational ethics"
One Peter Five's - intial view
One Peter Five - home page for additional
Father Alan Macdonald
Dr. Edward Peters
How CNN spins the Pope's ambiguity!
Voice of the Family