Sigh. He's at it again: https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/03/08/pope-francis-signals-openness-ordaining-married-men/ Pope Francis signals openness to ordaining married men Crux Staff March 8, 2017 AUTHOR Pope Francis delivers a blessing during the Angelus prayer in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, Sunday, March 5, 2017. (Credit: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia.) In a new interview with a German newspaper, Pope Francis addresses the issue of married priests, saying simply making celibacy optional is 'not a solution' but signaling openness to the idea of ordaining the 'viri probati,' or tested married men. Pope Francis has expressed openness to a renewed consideration of married priests in the Catholic Church, especially the possibility of ordaining the so-called viri probati, meaning tested married men, who could be called into clerical service. “Then we have to consider what tasks they could perform, for instance in isolated communities,” the pontiff said. While the question put to Francis specifically referred to ordaining viri probati as deacons, many theologians and some bishops have also suggested they could be considered for priestly service. The pope’s comments came in a new interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, excerpts from which were published on Wednesday, with the full version set to appear on Thursday. At the same time, Francis appeared to rule out simply making priestly celibacy optional, saying that approach “is not a solution.” Calling diminishing vocations to the priesthood an “enormous problem,” Francis said the first response must be prayer, coupled with a more intense focus on “working with young people who are seeking orientation.” A lack of priests, Francis said, weakens the Church “because a Church without the Eucharist doesn’t have strength - the Church makes the Eucharist, but the Eucharist also makes the Church.” Francis called for the question to be faced in the Church “fearlessly.” “Fears close doors, freedom opens them, and even when [the space for] liberty is small, it opens a window,” he said. At present, most Catholic priests are expected to remain celibate, although Catholicism does include 23 Eastern churches in full communion with Rome whose clergy are allowed to marry. In the United States, there are also a few hundred former Protestant ministers who’ve entered the Catholic Church as married men and permitted to remain married after being ordained as Catholic priests. In April 2014, a Brazilian bishop said he and Pope Francis had discussed the idea of ordaining the viri probati in a private conversation and the pontiff appeared open to the idea, suggesting it’s up to bishops’ conferences to make proposals along those lines. Last November, Francis crossed Rome to meet with a community of seven families, all led by men who had left the priesthood to become married. There had been speculation that Francis might choose to devote the next Synod of Bishops in 2018 to the topic of married priests, but instead the focus of that gathering will be on youth, faith and vocational discernment. In another portion of the interview, Francis, as he has on other occasions, sounded an alarm about the rise of political populism in the West today. “Populism is evil and ends badly, as the past century has shown,” he said, arguing that it means “using the people” by offering them a messiah. Francis also rejected the suggestion that he’s something special, saying, “I am a sinner and I am fallible.” As he has many times in the past, he suggested that exaggerated celebration of a pope is actually dangerous. “We must not forget that the idealization of a person is always a subliminal kind of aggression,” he said. “When I am idealized, I feel attacked.” In the same interview, released on Thursday, Pope Francis also spoke about American Cardinal Raymond Burke, “fundamentalist Catholics,” and his travel schedule.
This of course was revealed quite a long time ago and was said to be ridiculous, slanderous, nonsense. Do people still think it is ridiculous nonsense in the light of all that has occurred and is occurring? By Marissa Lay (NEWS CONSORTIUM) Catholic Online (www.catholic.org) 3/12/2015 (1 year ago) http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=59123 'LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - As it stands now, Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy and cannot be married. The Catholic church simply does not accept divorce, and anyone divorced, who then remarries or starts a sexual relationship with a new person, is committing adultery under Catholic law. "He said, these were his priorities as Pope. The first of all is to change the rules for divorced couples," claims Crespo on his conversation with Francis. "The second was to eliminate the law of celibacy. He said it was not part of the doctrine of the church. It was started more than 1,000 years ago by a pope, and he considers it archaic, an antiquity which needs to be reconsidered." "He thinks God made everyone to live in family, including priests."' Crespo claims Pope Francis told him six years ago (pictured meeting here), when the Pope, real name Jorge Bergoglio, was archbishop of Buenos Aires, that the ban on priests getting married was not "doctrine." In Session 24, Canon 10 the Council of Trent declared: "CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."
But of course I should not be commenting on this. Its not nice. Who an I to judge..????blah, blah, blah.... One quick comment though. What is the difference between Martin Luther doing away with married clergy a few centuries ago and being thunderously denounced for it and Pope Francis doing the exact same thing now? Pope Blessed Paul VI said that, ' Celibacy is the jewel on the Crown of the Church'. Whats changed? But who am I to judge? Apparently it's not my place. My place, apparently, as a good Catholic, is to put up and shut up.
On Priestly Celibacy. Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden (Appointed Patron of Europe by Pope John Paul II) as recounted in ‘The Prophecies and Revelations of St. Bridget’ – BOOK 7 CHAPTER 10 (The authorship of this work is not disputed) Very strong words! “But now I shall tell you God's will in this matter…… Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned pre-ordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage. For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.” She says a great deal more about the Church and Churchmen that could have been written yesterday! If the Cardinals recognised priest shortage as a major problem, which it is in many parts of the world, why elect a man whose own archdiocese had pitifully few men in training? Which is generally the case in the dioceses where a 'progressive' is in charge.
While I in no way support the idea of clergy to marry, for many reasons, it is however a church discipline that can change and not a church doctrine that cannot change.
A strange coincidence Maybe our Holy Father is reading the MoG posts? In a post to Dolours back on the 20th Feburary in the thread "Full blown civil war", where we pondered Judas's betrayal and it was suggested that St Peter's denial of Jesus could also be pondered! and We now see Our Holy Father use that same analogy in reference to fundermental Catholics on the 8th March! https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/03/08/pope-francis-not-see-cardinal-burke-enemy/ Pope Francis did, however, issue a gentle critique of what he described as “fundamentalist Catholics,” a group with which Burke is sometimes associated. Asked about how the faithful can help each other through “crises of faith,” the pontiff said that crises are essential for growth, both in life and in faith. He referred to a passage from the Gospels in which Peter denied Christ three times, after asserting he would never do so. “When Jesus feels that certainty of Peter, it makes me think of so many fundamentalist Catholics,” Francis said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The post from the thread "Full blown civil war" Hi Dolours, Maybe there is another way of looking at this, I watched and pondered a video put up by member JAK, it is very interesting and in essence it says....... The Lord has given us in Scripture a great prophesy regrading Pope Francis and his role as Peter! Jesus knew the power of the crowd, of secular pressure and Jesus knew that it would even conquer Peter! which is pretty disturbing if we regard it as a prophesy of what will happen in the last times. Because right now this is what we are seeing! The prophesy comes from all four Gospels which each contain accounts of the prediction of Jesus that before the rooster crows that next morning Peter would deny Him three times. Peter’s denial is a very serious sin! The Gospels accounts of Peter’s denial are extremely powerful because they all tell us about the power and pressure of secular society, of popular thought and belief and the subtle ways that the spirit of the times seduces and invades! Also the account defines the way in which humankind can be possessed by the spirit of the crowd, which influences conformity. The mob mentality causes not only fear but also plays on the fundamental human desire to not be different. On the night of Our Lords passion and Peter’s denial we first see Peter confidently declaring his fidelity to Jesus and also his impulsive attempt to defend Jesus by the sword. We read that the servant girl was young (the use of the word ‘young’ indicates the secular appeal) and the servant girl rebukes Peter and says........ I recognise you, are a Galilean, you have a Galileans accent; in other words you are not one of us, you are a foreigner! a stranger! Peter than adamantly denies Jesus for the third time The most beautiful moment in the gospel accounts is the ending.....the cock crew and this jolts Peter out of his haze and reminds him of what he has conveniently forgotten and then Peter weeps. Jesus knew that Peter was going to find himself in a situation of collective pressure! Jesus understands human communities infinitely better than any person that has ever lived and Peter’s three denials were done in the spirit of the crowd. Today the secular society is more pagan than it has ever been and its incentives and advertisments pervade. We need the cock to crow. I now believe the Warning is not so much for mankind but it is especially needed for Our Church. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So we the ordinary Catholics may have more of an ear to Our Holy Father than we think Let us keep up our prayers for Our Holy Father and one day soon we will see good results! Jesus I trust in Thee.
One thing I notice about the Holy Father is his tendency to use attack as the best form of defence and getting his defence in first. For example, he condemned as Pharisees anyone who would defend Christ's teaching on lifelong marriage when it was the Pharisees who believed in divorce. And it didn't take long to find out what the Pope really believes about lifelong marriage or Church teaching on sexual morality as the various guidelines on Amoris Laetitia are issued. He declared that the Church is not just another NGO and then set about making it into just another NGO. He points the finger at faithful Catholics insinuating that they are or are about to deny Christ when he is the one who would dish out Christ's body and blood to everyone and anyone. They are just three examples that spring to mind. I don't doubt that I could find more if I bothered to look for them. Best to not even touch on what the Pope says as opposed to what he does when it comes to contraception and abortion. Anyway, this being Lent and mindful of the warning from the Sensus Fidelium priest, I'll refrain from saying anything about hypocrisy.
So that's alright then. Thousands of years of Church Tradition , the teaching of all previous Popes, the Teachings of the Church Fathers changed at a stroke, but that's alright then? I mean really , is that as deep as it gets? Lets follow through with this and see where it takes us. Celibacy is useless and people are better getting married what do we as a Church loose by this? Well in the first place no more nuns. No more Religious Orders. No more, for instance Carmelites, monks, Jesuits, Franciscans and so on. But that's alright right then , 'It is not Church Doctrine.' In Session 24, Canon 10 the Council of Trent declared: "CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema." You; '...don't support it but its not Church Doctrine'. Deep, really, really deep Spiritual thinking there. If the Pope had suggested painting his front door pink I could have come off with a similiar remark. 'It's not Church Doctrine' But this is a tiny bit more serious than what colour he is going to paint his front door. http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-celebacy.html Clement of Rome Epistles on Virginity ch 10 (27-97 ad) But we speak thus in consequence of the evil rumours and reports concerning shameless men, who, under pretext of the fear of God, have their dwelling with maidens, and so expose themselves to danger, and walk with them along the road and in solitary places alone -- a course which is full of dangers, and full of stumbling-blocks and snares and pitfalls; nor is it in any respect right for Christians and those who fear God so to conduct themselves. Others, too, eat and drink with them at entertainments allowing themselves in loose behaviour and much uncleanness--such as ought not to be among believers, and especially among those who have chosen for themselves a life of holiness. Others, again, meet together for vain and trifling conversation and merriment, and that they may speak evil of one another; and they hunt up tales against one another, and are idle: persons with whom we do not allow you even to eat bread. Then, others gad about among the houses of virgin brethren or sisters, on pretence of visiting them, or reading the Scriptures to them, or exorcising them. Forasmuch as they are idle and do no work, they pry into those things which ought not to be inquired into, and by means of plausible words make merchandise of the name of Christ. Clement of Rome Epistles on Virginity ch 3 (27-97 ad) And if again we chance to come into a place where there is no consecrated brother, but all are married, all those who are there will receive the brother who comes to them Clement of Rome Epistles on Virginity ch 2 (27-97 ad) All these things will that consecrated brother, who is in the place in which we tarry, do in his own person. Justin Martyr Fragments on the resurrection ch 3 (100-165 ad) And we see men also keeping themselves virgins, some from the first, and some from a certain time; so that by their means, marriage, made lawless through lust, is destroyed. Cyprian of Carthage epistle 51 par 20 (200-270 ad) The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Cyprian of Carthage Treatise 2 par 4 (200-270 ad) For that is not an empty carefulness nor a vain fear, which takes counsel for the way of salvation, which guards the commandments of the Lord and of life; so that they who have dedicated themselves to Christ, and who depart from carnal concupiscence, and have vowed themselves to God as well in the flesh as in the spirit, may consummate their work, destined as it is to a great reward, and may not study any longer to be adorned or to please anybody but their Lord, from whom also they expect the reward of virginity; as He Himself says: "All men cannot receive this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there are eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Again, also by this word of the angel the gift of continency is set forth, and virginity is preached: Peter of Alexandria Genuine Acts of Peter (260-311ad) Wonderful was the devotion of the faithful! When it was known that this holy man was shut up in the dungeon of the prison, an incredibly large number ran together, principally a band of monks and of virgins, and with no material arms, but with rivers of tears and the affection of pious minds. surrounded the prison's circuit. Aphrahat Demonstrations 6 Of Monks par 20 (280-367 ad) Therefore read in this whatever I have written unto thee, thou and the brethren, the monks that love virginity. Methodius Banquet of Ten Virgins Discourse 1 ch 4 (300 ad) And first let us inquire for what reason it was that no one of the many patriarchs and prophets and righteous men, who taught and did many noble things, either praised or chose the state of virginity. Because it was reserved for the Lord alone to he the first to teach this doctrine, since He alone, coming down to us, taught man to draw near to God; for it was fitting that He who was first and chief of priests, of prophets, and of angels, should also be saluted as first and chief of virgins. For in old times man was not yet perfect, and for this reason was unable to receive perfection, which is virginity. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 16 par 22 (315-386 ad) Consider, I pray, of each nation, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Solitaries, Virgins, and laity besides; and then behold their great Protector, and the Dispenser of their gifts;--how throughout the world He gives to one chastity, to another perpetual virginity, to another almsgiving, to another voluntary poverty, to another power of repelling hostile spirits. Gregory Nazianzen Oration 40 par 18 (325-389 ad) We do not dishonour marriage because we give a higher honour to virginity. I will imitate Christ, the pure Grooms-man and Bridegroom, as He both wrought a miracle at a wedding, and honours wedlock with His Presence. Basil Letter 199 par 18 (329-379 ad) Since, however, by God's grace the Church grows mightier as she advances, and the order of virgins is becoming more numerous, it is my judgment that careful heed should be given both to the act as it appears upon consideration, and to the mind of Scripture, which may be discovered from the context.
Ambrose On the Duties of the Clergy Book 1 Ch 50 par 258 (340-397 ad) But ye know that the ministerial office must be kept pure and unspotted, and must not be defiled by conjugal intercourse; ye know this, I say, who have received the gifts of the sacred ministry, with pure bodies, and unspoilt modesty, and without ever having enjoyed conjugal intercourse. I am mentioning this, because in some out-of-the-way places, when they enter on the ministry, or even when they become priests, they have begotten children. They defend this on the ground of old custom, when, as it happened, the sacrifice was offered up at long intervals. However, even the people had to be purified two or three days beforehand, so as to come clean to the sacrifice, as we read in the Old Testament. They even used to wash their clothes. If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality ! Learn then, Priest and Levite, what it means to wash thy clothes. Thou must have a pure body wherewith to offer up the sacraments. Council of Ganga epilogue (343 ad) We do, assuredly, admire virginity accompanied by humility; and we have regard for continence, accompanied by godliness and gravity; and we praise the leaving of worldly occupations, [when it is made] with lowliness of mind; [but at the same time] we honour the holy companionship of marriage, Council of Ganga cannon 9-10 (343 ad) Canon 9. If any one shall remain virgin, or observe continence, abstaining from marriage because he abhors it, and not on account of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema. Canon 10. If any one of those who are living a virgin life for the Lord's sake shall treat arrogantly the married, let him be anathema. John Chrysostom Homily 19 on First Corinthians (347-407 ad) "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." superior course, it is better not to have any connection whatever with a woman: but if you ask what is safe and helpful to thine own infirmity, be connected by marriage." [R] [+] But since it was likely, as also happens now, that the husband might be willing but the wife not, or perhaps the reverse, mark how he discusses each case. Some indeed say that this discourse was addressed by him to priests. But I, judging from what follows, could not affirm that it was so: since he would not have given his advice in general terms. For if he were writing these things only for the priests, he would have said, "It is good for the teacher not to touch a woman." But now he has made it of universal application, saying, "It is good for a man;" not for priest only. And again, "Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife." He said not, "You who are a priest and teacher," but indefinitely. And the whole of his speech goes on entirely in the same tones And in saying, "Because of fornications, let every man have his own wife" by the very cause alleged for the concession he guides men to continence. Jerome Against Jovinianus book 1 par 26 (347-420 ad) But we might say concerning Peter, that he had a mother-in-law when he believed, and no longer had a wife Jerome Letter 22 par 18 (347-420 ad) For me, virginity is consecrated in the persons of Mary and of Christ." Jerome Letter 130 par 11 (347-420 ad) The same may be said of sanctification and of that chastity without which no man shall see the Lord. Each of these is a step on the upward way, yet none of them by itself will avail to win the virgin's crown. The gospel teaches us this in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins; the former of whom enter into the bridechamber of the bridegroom, while the latter are shut out from it because not having the oil of good works they allow their lamps to fail. John Cassian Institutes Book 2 ch 3 (360-435 ad) For no one is allowed to preside over the assembly of the brethren, or even over himself, before he has not only deprived himself of all his property but has also learnt the fact that he is not his own maker and has no authority over his own actions. For one who renounces the world, whatever property or riches he may possess, must seek the common dwelling of a Coenobium, that he may not flatter himself in any way with what he has forsaken or what he has brought into the monastery. Augustine On Christian Doctrine Book 3 ch 17 par 25 (354-430 ad) Again, it often happens that a man who has attained, or thinks he has attained, to a higher grade of spiritual life, thinks that the commands given to those who are still in the lower grades are figurative; for example, if he has embraced a life of celibacy and made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake, he contends that the commands given in Scripture about loving and ruling a wife are not to be taken literally, but figuratively; and if he has determined to keep his virgin unmarried, he tries to put a figurative interpretation on the passage where it is said, "Marry thy daughter, and so shall thou have performed a weighty matter." Accordingly, another of our rules for understanding the Scriptures will be as follows,--to recognize that some commands are given to all in common, others to particular classes of persons, that the medicine may act not only upon the state of health as a whole, but also upon the special weakness of each member. For that which cannot be raised to a higher state must be cared for in its own state. Gregory the Great Letters Book 4 letter 9 (540-604 ad) But let the nuns themselves, rendering praises to God and confining themselves to their monasteries, no longer suggest any evil suspicion to the minds of the faithful. Gregory the Great Letters Book 13 letter 9 (540-604 ad) Accordingly, in accordance with the letters of our most Excellent royal children, Brunichild and her grandson Theoderic, to the monastery of Saint Mary, where there is constituted a congregation of handmaidens of God, Constantinople/Trullo/Quinisext canon 41 (692 ad) Those who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practise the anchorite's life,(1) should for the space of three years in the fear of God submit to the Superior of the house, and fulfil obedience in all things, as is right, thus shewing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it willingly and with their whole hearts;
In Session 24, Canon 10 the Council of Trent declared: "CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."
'Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Whereupon all the assistants respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat." The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha. At the end of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 22, St. Paul says, "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha," which means, "The Lord is come." But commentators have regarded this expression as a formula of excommunication very severe among the Jews. This opinion, however, is not sustained by Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible" (s.v. Anathème). In the Western Church, Maranatha has become a very solemn formula as anathema, by which the criminal is excommunicated, abandoned to the judgment of God, and rejected from the bosom of the Church until the coming of the Lord. An example of such an anathema is found in these words of Pope Silverius (536-38): "If anyone henceforth deceives a bishop in such a manner, let him be anathema maranatha before God and his holy angels." Benedict XIV (1740-58--De Synodo dioecesana X, i) cites the anathema maranatha formulated by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Toledo against those who were guilty of the crime of high treason: "He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions. Amen." There is frequent mention of this anathema maranatha in the Bulls of erection for abbeys and other establishments. Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.' http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/03/02/this-disastrous-papacy/ This Disastrous Papacy By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Mar 01, 2017 Something snapped last Friday, when Pope Francis used the day’s Gospel reading as one more opportunity to promote his own view on divorce and remarriage. Condemning hypocrisy and the “logic of casuistry,” the Pontiff said that Jesus rejects the approach of legal scholars. True enough. But in his rebuke to the Pharisees, what does Jesus say about marriage? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” …and… Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches. For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist? Pope Francis has sparked controversy from the day he was elected as St. Peter’s successor. But in the past several months the controversy has become so intense, confusion among the faithful so widespread, administration at the Vatican so arbitrary—and the Pope’s diatribes against his (real or imagined) foes so manic—that today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis. In a large family, how should a son behave when he realizes that his father’s pathological behavior threatens the welfare of the whole household? He should certainly continue to show respect for his father, but he cannot indefinitely deny the danger. Eventually, a dysfunctional family needs an intervention. In the worldwide family that is the Catholic Church, the best means of intervention is always prayer. Intense prayer for the Holy Father would be a particularly apt project for the season of Lent. But intervention also requires honesty: a candid recognition that we have a serious problem. Recognizing the problem can also provide a sort of relief, a relaxation of accumulating tensions. When I tell friends that I consider this papacy a disaster, I notice that more often than not, they feel oddly reassured. They can relax a bit, knowing that their own misgivings are not irrational, that others share their fears about the future of the faith, that they need not continue a fruitless search for ways to reconcile the irreconciliable. Moreover, having given the problem a proper name, they can recognize what this crisis of Catholicism is not. Pope Francis is not an antipope, much less the Antichrist. The See of Peter is not vacant, and Benedict is not the “real” Pontiff. Francis is our Pope, for better or worse. And if it is for worse—as I sadly conclude it is—the Church has survived bad Popes in the past. We Catholics have been spoiled for decades, enjoying a succession of outstanding Vatican leaders: Pontiffs who were gifted teachers and saintly men. We have grown accustomed to looking to Rome for guidance. Now we cannot. (I do not mean to imply that Pope Francis has forfeited the charism of infallibility. If he issues an ex cathedra statement, in union with the world’s bishops, we can be sure that he is fulfilling his duty to pass on what the Lord gave to St. Peter: the deposit of faith. But this Pope has chosen not to speak with authority; on the contrary, he has adamantly refused to clarify his most provocative teaching document.) But if we cannot count on clear directions from Rome, where can we turn? First, Catholics can rely on the constant teaching of the Church, the doctrines that are now too often called into question. If the Pope is confusing, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not. Second, we can and should ask our own diocesan bishops to step up and shoulder their own proper responsibilities. Bishops, too, have spent years referring the tough questions to Rome. Now, of necessity, they must provide their own clear, decisive affirmations of Catholic doctrine. Maybe Pope Francis will prove me wrong, and emerge as a great Catholic teacher. I hope and pray he does. Maybe my entire argument is wrongheaded. I have been wrong before, and will no doubt be wrong again; one more mistaken view is of no great consequence. But if I am right, and the current Pope’s leadership has become a danger to the faith, then other Catholics, and especially ordained Church leaders, must decide how to respond. And if I am right—as I surely am—that confusion about fundamental Church teachings has become widespread, then the bishops, as primary teachers of the faith, cannot neglect their duty to intervene. Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-stance-on-procreation-appears-at-odds-with-c Vatican stance on procreation appears at odds with Church teaching george soros , paul ehrlich , peter raven , pope francis , population control , st. john paul ii , vatican March 7, 2017 (Newsmax) – On March 3, many Catholics were shocked to read that Vatican conference speaker, Peter Raven remarked, "Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable." The notion that the Pope would say such a thing strained credulity. However, the clarification published three days later does not put the mind at rest regarding current Vatican thinking on life issues. LifeSiteNews now reports that Peter Raven, the botanist/environmentalist who addressed the Vatican conference, said the following: "We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly." This comment makes two assertions I find very troubling, as do, I am sure, many other Catholics. Just what is meant by "you should not have more children than you can bring up." Am I assuming incorrectly that that this refers to, among other things, an appraisal of financial resources? If so, and I believe I am correct, good Catholics should consult their bank accounts and their earning ability before bringing a new life into the world. I want to ask Pope Francis these questions, "What is the financial formula for making such an appraisal? Just what, in your opinion, does a child cost to 'bring up properly'"? While I am not denying the commonsense of the matter, I am questioning the wisdom of attributing to the Holy Father an assertion containing the words "should not" regarding the conceiving of children, especially when the determinative factor is financial. To say "should" implies those addressed should feel a duty, an obligation, to regard children in this way. Such a duty makes conception first an act of "deciding’ rather than freely given love between a husband and wife. How is this different from the logic of the population-control crowd who are always espousing abortion and contraception in order to "save the earth"? How is this different from the assumptions of the 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," written by Paul Ehrlich who was also recently hosted at the Vatican conference? I began looking randomly at the family backgrounds of famed Catholic prelates and quickly found that "Dagger John Hughes," the Archbishop of New York City, was the third of seven children to an Irish tenant farmer and his wife. The family was so poor that John was taken out of school and put to work, first on the farm then as an apprentice gardener. As Archbishop between 1842 and 1864, "Dagger John" fought off anti-Catholicism, founded the first independent Catholic school system, and laid the cornerstone for St. Patricks Cathedral. Such examples would be easy to multiply by the thousands if one were to trace the lives of children, not only Catholic, from large, impoverished families. And this is not to imply that large families are justified by the accomplishments of their children, but rather to illustrate how the admonition of Genesis 1.28 — "be fruitful and multiply" — contains a superior internal logic to that of considering the cost of raising a child "properly." The second troubling implication of Raven’s comment is his claim that the three previous popes — Benedict XVI, St. John Paul II, and John Paul I — similarly argued that parents should determine the cost of raising a child before "deciding" to bring one into the world. In "Familiaris Consortio," St. John Paul II wrote, husband and wife "…..become cooperators with God for giving life to a new human person. Thus the couple, while giving themselves to one another, give not just themselves but also the reality of children, who are a living reflection of their love, a permanent sign of conjugal unity and a living and inseparable synthesis of their being a father and a mother" (FC 14). Benedict XVI encouraged large families on a trip to Valencia in 2006, eschewing the kind of calculation described by Raven and seconded by Pope Francis. At one parish he was presented with several families — "one family was virtually a 'parish,' it had so many children! The presence and witness of these families really was far stronger than any words. They presented first of all the riches of their family experience: how such a large family truly becomes a cultural treasure, an opportunity for the education of one and all, a possibility for making the various cultural expressions of today coexist, the gift of self, mutual help also in suffering" (August 31, 2006). During his short papacy, John Paul I delivered only one formal address on marriage and the family during an "ad limina" visits of bishops. It contains nary a mention of calculating the cost and deciding on the conceiving of children: "Let us never grow tired of proclaiming the family as a community of love: conjugal love unites the couple and is procreative of new life; it mirrors the divine love, is communicated, and, in the words of Gaudium et Spes, is actually a sharing in the covenant of love of Christ and his Church (par. 48). We were all given the great grace of being born into such a community of love; it will be easy for us to uphold its value" (Emphasis added). Peter Raven, thus, is dead wrong to claim that the three popes before Pope Francis agree with him on the "need at some point to have a limited number of people" so they can be raised "properly." Such thinking coming out of the Vatican presently, from Pope Francis and his closest advisors to those being feted at Vatican conferences, bears an ideological stamp rather than that of Church teaching. It appears to me that the Vatican is channeling the spirit of George Soros rather than any other. Dr. Deal W. Hudson took over Crisis Magazine in 1995, leaving in 2010 to become president of Catholic Advocate. While at Crisis, Hudson led the Catholic voter outreach for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and later advised the campaigns of both John McCain and Donald Trump on Catholic outreach. In 2014, he began his weekly two-hour radio show, “Church and Culture,” on the Ave Maria Radio Network, and launched www.thechristianreview.com in 2015. His books include "Happiness and the Limits of Satisfaction" and "Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States." To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. http://therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl CELIBACY. The state of being unmarried and, in Church usage, of one who has never been married. Catholicism distinguishes between lay and ecclesiastical celibacy, and in both cases a person freely chooses for religious reasons to remain celibate. Lay celibacy was practiced already in the early Church. The men were called "the continent" (continentes) and women "virgins" (virgines). They were also known as ascetics who were encouraged to follow this form of life by St. Paul. According to the Apostle, "An unmarried man can devote himself to the Lord's affairs, all he need worry about is pleasing the Lord . . . In the same way an unmarried woman, like a young girl, can devote herself to the Lord's affairs; all she need worry about is being holy in body and spirit" (I Corinthians 7:32, 34). Throughout history the Church has fostered a celibate life in the lay state. Towering among the means of sanctity available to the laity, declared the Second Vatican Council, "is that precious gift of divine grace given to some by the Father to devote themselves to God alone more easily with an undivided heart in virginity or celibacy. This perfect continence for love of the kingdom of heaven has always been held in high esteem by the Church as a sign and stimulus of love, and as a singular source of spiritual fertility in the world" (Constitution on the Church, 42). Ecclesiastical celibacy was a logical development of Christ's teaching about continence (Matthew 19:10-12). The first beginnings of religious life were seen in the self-imposed practice of celibacy among men and women who wished to devote themselves to a lifetime following Christ in the practice of the evangelical counsels. Celibacy was one of the features of the earliest hermits and a requirement of the first monastic foundations under St. Pachomius (c. 290-346). Over the centuries religious celibacy has been the subject of the Church's frequent legislation. The Second Vatican Council named chastity first among the evangelical counsels to be practiced by religious and said that "it is a special symbol of heavenly benefits, and for religious it is a most effective means of dedicating themselves wholeheartedly to the divine service and the works of the apostolate" (Decree on the Up-to-date Renewal of Religious Life, 12). (Etym. Latin caelibatus, single life, celibacy.) As we see from this, celibacy is part of the Church legislation and not of doctrine, as I made my point earlier. This is an important point, regardless of where a person stands on this issue. I am 100% for priestly celibacy, but I am not confused that in that it is a church discipline (that comes from the human side of the Church) and not a church doctrine (which comes from Divine teachings).
You are so very,very very anxious to make this distinction , Fatima. I wonder why? On the one hand to say you do not support this and on the other curiously to appear in some way to defend it at the same time. It must be unsettling for you to be both defending it and washing your hands of it in the same post. Perhaps , to keep the two balls in the air and so I might see the other side of your coin, you might go on to explain why you , 'Do not support.' the Pope in this.?'
It won't be long for Latin American married priests and their families in to deplete the funds generated by the German church tax. What happens after the funds run out and poverty knocks on the door of those families? Will the priests be faced with a choice between priesthood and a better paying job that supports the family? And if they choose the priesthood, will the Church have to pick up the alimoney and child maintenance tab when the wives decide that they didn't sign on to play second fiddle to a poor parish?
