If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. This is clear and that is why in the Church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can search; and I know so many ways that are licit and that have helped this.
Pope Francis went on to praise Bl. Pope Paul VI and called him a prophet warning of the coming Neo-Malthusianism.
Aboard the papal plane, Jan 19, 2015 / 12:15 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis backed Blessed Paul VI's teaching against birth control and urged openness to life, but reminded couples that “responsible parenthood” does not require them “to be like rabbits” in order to be good Catholics.
"I believe that openness to life conditions the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman, and the woman give it to him, if they are not in agreement on this point to be open to life," Pope Francis said.
During a Jan. 19 press conference aboard Philippine Airlines flight PR 8010, two of 10 questions posed to Pope Francis referred to population growth and birth control.
“Well, I mean, it’s sometimes very difficult to listen to the Pope and some of the things he says off the cuff, and this is one of them,” Santorum told Hugh Hewitt. “And I just, I keep coming back to the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, and when he speaks as the leader of the Catholic Church, I’ll certainly pay attention. But when he speaks in interviews, he’s giving his own opinions, which I certainly will listen to, but from my perspective, that doesn’t reflect the idea that people shouldn’t be fruitful and multiply, and that people should be open to life as something that is a core value of the faith and of the Catholic Church. And I don’t know what the Pope was referring to there. Maybe he’s speaking to people in the third world, but the problem certainly in most of the Catholic world is not procreation. I mean, in Europe in particular, you have birth rates that are only over, just a little over one for every two people. So this isn’t a global problem, and I don’t know what the Pope was referring to.”
Vatican City, Jan 24, 2015 / 04:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis was surprised that his words on responsible parenthood were not widely taken in the sense that he intended them, a Vatican official related in an interview on Thursday.
Archbishop Giovanni Becciu, Substitute at the Secretariat of State, also told Avvenire, the Italian bishops' publication, on Jan. 22 that the Pope was saddened at the misunderstanding.
“The Pope is truly sorry that it created such disorientation. He absolutely did not want to disregard the beauty and the value of large families,” Archbishop Becciu stated.
“Seeing the headlines, the Holy Father, with whom I spoke yesterday, smiled and was a bit surprised that his words were not fully contextualized with regards to a very clear passage of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood,” Archbishop Becciu stated.
Bl. Paul VI's 1968 encyclical on the regulation of birth said that “responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”
In the in-flight press conference back from Manila Jan. 19, Pope Francis said, “some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits,” an stressed that it was instead important to exercise “responsible parenthood.”
Archbishop Becciu said the Pope's statement “must be interpreted in the sense that the procreative act of humans cannot follow the logic of the animal instict, but it is instead the fruit of a responsible act that is rooted in love and in the mutual gift of the self.”
He then lamented that “unfortunately, very often the contemporary culture tends to diminish the authentic beauty and high value of conjugal love, with all the negative consequences that follow.”
During the press conference, Pope Francis had also said he is saddened when people say three children per family is too much, citing that three children per couple “is the number experts say is important to keep the population going.”
Many interpreted this as a proclamation as a normative number of children for each Christian couple, but Archbishop Becciu dismissed this interpretation.
“The number three only refers to the minimum number that would assure the stability of population, as indicated by sociologists and demographers. In no way did the Pope want to say that it represented the 'just’'number of children for each married couple,” Archbishop Becciu said.
He then explained that “every Christian couple, in light of grace, is called to discern according to a variety of divine and human parameters the number of children they should have.”
The archbishop said the correct interpretation of Pope Francis' words comes from the teaching of Bl. Paul VI and from the ancient tradition of the Church, which Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti connubii reiterated: that “even if the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act must never be separated,” the act “must always be included in the logic of love” with regard to the “capacity of each person to open to the mystery of the gift of self in the bonds of marriage.”
He specifies it's not in the face, and there's nothing wrong with controlled, judicious spanking. I've not spanked my child, she's not even 3 and a stern look and raised voice are enough to correct bad behavior, but I reserve the right to do so when she gets older and a look doesn't have as much influence.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He specifies it's not in the face, and there's nothing wrong with controlled, judicious spanking. I've not spanked my child, she's not even 3 and a stern look and raised voice are enough to correct bad behavior, but I reserve the right to do so when she gets older and a look doesn't have as much influence.
I know there will be some idealogical divide on the issue, but its an unpopular subject to bring up to begin with.
I was strapped, as in beaten with a horse strap, when I was a kid (say between 8-15), and nowadays it would certainly be considered abuse, because it was abuse. I had scars on my back that took years to fade. But it wasn't because my father wanted to hurt me, it was just the way he was raised and that's all he knew, and that ignorance carried on to how he disciplined me (and my sister, to an extent). However, it taught me that you never discipline a child when you're angry.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
At best it trains them...trains them into mindless obedience based on fear. You know, just like we used to do to animals. I say used to because somehow we've gotten enlightened enough to realize that hurting or terrorizing animals is not only mean and wrong, it really doesn't work as well as other methods.
Children however? Bah, hit them little effers.
Edit: since others gave some testimonials regarding their personal experience being spanked, I'll give mine. Yes, I was. I had a couple of step dads that used to hold me up by one arm and take a belt to the area from my mid-thighs to my lower back. Wherever it landed was good enough. My mother would also spank us occasionally but she wasn't as good at it.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
the irony of a poster named smacintush being against smacking a kid's tush...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
At best it trains them...trains them into mindless obedience based on fear.
Exactly! That's the entire point. It encourages obedience based upon fear of "consequences and repercussions" until such time as they have developed the maturity to realize WHY they should regulate their behavior on their own.
I'm a firm believer that children should have a healthy fear of the parents. I don't mean the kind of fear where they are cowering away in a corner when their parents walk in the room. No I'm talking about the kind of fear that informs my children that their compliance with my directives is not optional. The kind of fear that reminds them that I am not their "friend" or their "buddy" … I am their father. So what I say goes. There is no discussion. There is no debate. And there damned sure is no "Jeez Dad you're so f*cking stupid!!" and slamming the bedroom door in my face. You know ... the type of behavior that some folks deal with because they are too busy trying to be their kids' psychotherapist instead of their parent. I'm talking about the kind of fear that would have my teenage son staying away from drugs and crime. The kind of fear that would be a stronger influence on him than any peer pressure to get him caught up in any of that nonsense. The kind of fear that would make him worry more about having to deal with his father at home than any cop on the street if he ever got out of line. And therefore ... it's better for him to just stay on the straight and narrow. Because all too often the same people that are so opposed to corporal punishment of a young child are the same ones who would have no objection to a cop shooting that same kid in the back as a teenager if he was trying to escape after burglarizing their house. Just saying ...
Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change.
Santorum, a devout Catholic, told Philadelphia radio host Dom Giordano on Monday that the pope should "leave science to the scientists."
Say legislator likely not to leave science to scientists.
His comments come as the pope, who earned a master's degree in chemistry before turning to the priesthood, becomes increasingly vocal about climate change. Pope Francis is preparing a groundbreaking encyclical to be released in the coming weeks that's expected to make the case that taking action to fight climate change is a moral and religious imperative.
Santorum described himself as a "huge fan" of the pope and said he appreciates the pontiff's commitment to family issues, but he wants the church to stay out of science.
“The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality,” Santorum said. "When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible."
Santorum has also rejected evolution and instead believes in "intelligent design,” according to Discover magazine.
Pope Francis says evolution does not contradict church doctrine.
Pope Francis says evolution does not contradict church doctrine.
I don't like the RCC, as most here know, but it doesn't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Pope Francis urges the richer world to make changes in lifestyle and energy consumption to avert the unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.
The 192-page letter, which is the highest level teaching document a pope can issue, lays much of the blame for global warming on human activities.
Pope Francis writes that: "We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.
That's certainly mainstream American Christianity's view.
Sounds great to me. The faster the general public moves from liquid and solid fossil fuels, the better. The problem is, even if we pushed it, really hard, the USA is at least 20 years from being able to make that a reality.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's certainly mainstream American Christianity's view.
Have you read Laudato Si? I have started to read it and in the openning paragraphs, Pope Francis cites: Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. The summaries I have read state he also cites Rerum Novarum and Humanae Vitae. In the end, your praise for Laudato Si may be a bit premature.
Have you read Laudato Si? I have started to read it and in the openning paragraphs, Pope Francis cites: Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. The summaries I have read state he also cites Rerum Novarum and Humanae Vitae. In the end, your praise for Laudato Si may be a bit premature.
I'm confused by this statement.
How would a relevant citation of John Paul II invalidate it?
I said any praise is premature. I haven't finished reading it yet, but here are some relevant sections mentioned on Immaculate Heart Radio. BTW this encyclical is not a "global warming encyclical" Pope Francis call it "integral ecology". Pope Francis quotes JP II several times. #5 is reminiscent of this from the Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
(1) Creation has a Creator, and is more than just “nature-plus-evolution”:
(75) A spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot. The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.
(77) “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Ps 33:6). This tells us that the world came about as the result of a decision, not from chaos or chance, and this exalts it all the more. The creating word expresses a free choice. The universe did not emerge as the result of arbitrary omnipotence, a show of force or a desire for self-assertion. Creation is of the order of love. God’s love is the fundamental moving force in all created things: “For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it” (Wis 11:24). Every creature is thus the object of the Father’s tenderness, who gives it its place in the world. Even the fleeting life of the least of beings is the object of his love, and in its few seconds of existence, God enfolds it with his affection. Saint Basil the Great described the Creator as “goodness without measure,” while Dante Alighieri spoke of “the love which moves the sun and the stars”. Consequently, we can ascend from created things “to the greatness of God and to his loving mercy.”
(2) Human ecology means recognizing and valuing the difference between masculinity and femininity:
(155) Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man,” based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will.” It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it.”
(3) Jesus sanctifies human work:
(98) Jesus worked with his hands, in daily contact with the matter created by God, to which he gave form by his craftsmanship. It is striking that most of his life was dedicated to this task in a simple life which awakened no admiration at all: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” (Mk 6:3). In this way he sanctified human labour and endowed it with a special significance for our development. As Saint John Paul II taught, “by enduring the toil of work in union with Christ crucified for us, man in a way collaborates with the Son of God for the redemption of humanity”.
(4) Look up from your phones and encounter each other:
(47) When media and the digital world become omnipresent, their influence can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously. In this context, the great sages of the past run the risk of going unheard amid the noise and distractions of an information overload. Efforts need to be made to help these media become sources of new cultural progress for humanity and not a threat to our deepest riches. True wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons, is not acquired by a mere accumulation of data which eventually leads to overload and confusion, a sort of mental pollution. Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature.
(5) Save the baby humans:
(120) Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”
(136) [I]t is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit.
(91) A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted.
(6) Helping the poor requires more than just handouts:
(128) We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work.
(7) Overpopulation is not the problem:
(50) Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health.” Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.” To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.
(8) True ecology requires true anthropology and respect for human dignity:
(118) There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall sense of responsibility wanes.” A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to “biocentrism”, for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
(65) The Bible teaches that every man and woman is created out of love and made in God’s image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). This shows us the immense dignity of each person, “who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons.” Saint John Paul II stated that the special love of the Creator for each human being “confers upon him or her an infinite dignity.” Those who are committed to defending human dignity can find in the Christian faith the deepest reasons for this commitment. How wonderful is the certainty that each human life is not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos, in a world ruled by pure chance or endlessly recurring cycles! The Creator can say to each one of us: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer 1:5). We were conceived in the heart of God, and for this reason “each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
(9) Real change requires a change in culture, not just politics:
(123) We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.
(211) The existence of laws and regulations is insufficient in the long run to curb bad conduct, even when effective means of enforcement are present. If the laws are to bring about significant, long-lasting effects, the majority of the members of society must be adequately motivated to accept them, and personally transformed to respond. Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment.
(10) The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions, and we need an honest and open debate:
(60) Finally, we need to acknowledge that different approaches and lines of thought have emerged regarding this situation and its possible solutions. At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions
(188) There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.
(11) Stop with the cynicism, secularism and immorality:
(229) We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it. We have had enough of immorality and the mockery of ethics, goodness, faith and honesty. It is time to acknowledge that lighthearted superficiality has done us no good. When the foundations of social life are corroded, what ensues are battles over conflicting interests, new forms of violence and brutality, and obstacles to the growth of a genuine culture of care for the environment.
What's being praised here is a message we like, "be stewards over creation", is getting the kind of play usually reserved for "abortion is wrong".
We're used to the "abortion is wrong" part, are not surprised by its inclusion, and in fact, one could argue don't need to hear about it because it's assumed.
What isn't assumed is the "stewards of the earth" part, because even though that's supposed to be there, front and center (right in the first few of Genesis), other recent Popes have put that well below the abortion part.
Also note how someone like Rick Santorum, has no problem lining up behind everything else the Pope says, has the temerity to ask him to shut the **** up on this. One could argue maybe the Pope needs to be putting it more front and center than the other issues. They've gotten their play.
What's being praised here is a message we like, "be stewards over creation", is getting the kind of play usually reserved for "abortion is wrong".
We're used to the "abortion is wrong" part, are not surprised by its inclusion, and in fact, one could argue don't need to hear about it because it's assumed.
What isn't assumed is the "stewards of the earth" part, because even though that's supposed to be there, front and center (right in the first few of Genesis), other recent Popes have put that well below the abortion part.
Also note how someone like Rick Santorum, has no problem lining up behind everything else the Pope says, has the temerity to ask him to shut the **** up on this. One could argue maybe the Pope needs to be putting it more front and center than the other issues. They've gotten their play.
There is a difference when the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, and when he speaks on matters of science. Science falls into the prudential judgement area. He says the Church does not presume to settle matters of science.
Dakar is playing up that Pope Francis has decided that climate change is mostly human caused. What Pope Francis does not say that this is a belief to be held by Catholics.
What truly makes Laudto Si different is that instead of being addressed to Catholics, it is addressed to the entire world.
Here are some more quotes Francis uses to lay the ground for his Encyclical.
5. Saint John Paul II became increasingly concerned about this issue. In his first Encyclical he warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption”.4 Subsequently, he would call for a global ecological conversion.5 At the same time, he noted that little effort had been made to “safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology”.6 The destruction of the human environment is extremely serious, not only because God has entrusted the world to us men and women, but because human life is itself a gift which must be defended from various forms of debasement. Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in “lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies”.7 Authentic human development has a moral character. It presumes full respect for the human person, but it must also be concerned for the world around us and “take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connec- tion in an ordered system”.8 Accordingly, our human ability to transform reality must proceed in line with God’s original gift of all that is.9
6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed “eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment”.10 He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since “the book of nature is one and indivisible”, and in- cludes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that “the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence”.11 Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that “man is not only a freedom which he creates for himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature”.12 With paternal concern, Benedict urged us to realize that creation is harmed “where we ourselves have the final word, where everything is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves”.13
So while many have focused on the Pope’s rather grim reading of the present ecological crisis—global climate change, acidification of the oceans, loss of biodiversity, desertification, lack of access to clean water, etc.—as Matthew Schmitz points out in a thoughtful piece for the Washington Post, the encyclical hinges, not on a reading of the science, but on a diagnosis of an underlying spiritual crisis.
As evidence of the coming disaster, Francis adduces environmental calamities—climate change, pollution, deforestation, monoculture, extinction—and yet he leaves no doubt that the crisis is fundamentally a spiritual one. Its source is our desire to master and manipulate nature, which leads us to use technology that ends up mastering us
Pope Francis will allow priests discretion to absolve women who have had abortions if they seek forgiveness during the upcoming Holy Year beginning Dec. 8, the Vatican announced in a statement Tuesday.
"One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life," the pope wrote in the English-language version of his letter, in which he described the "existential and moral ordeal" of women who have chosen to terminate their pregnancies.
Remarking that he has met with many women who have faced this decision, Francis said that women "who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision" deserve the forgiveness of God if they seek it.
The Bishop of a diocese has been allowed to grant this faculty for some time know. This is becuase it also involes lifting the latae sententiae excommunication. Pope Francis is granting this to all priest during the upcoming "Year of Mercy" He is also granting SSPX priests to hear confessions licitly during the same period.
I have to say though, lumping abortion in with heresy and attacking the Pope seems both capricious, and not respecting the notion of the equality of sin.
As does "if you live to year X, you get discount mercy".
News.va English
FALSE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO POPE FRANCIS
Dear friends, we have been notified by many readers that there are stories currently circulating all over the Internet spreading statements by Pope Francis with regard to a number of issues, concerning the Bible's content, the relations between religions, the renewal of the Church's doctrine, and even the calling of an alleged "Third Vatican Council", which are FALSE. These statements were spread by unknown sources. Therefore, we would like to alert all readers to be careful and not to trust too soon news about the Pope that are not from the Vatican.
There are also many unidentified trolls on social networks that try to put false information in circulation, taking advantage of the fact that it is easy to "throw the stone and hide the hand".
Many are also not aware that ALL FACEBOOK PROFILES OF POPE FRANCIS /JORGE MARIA BERGOGLIO ARE NOT OFFICIAL PAGES AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED TO OFFICIALLY REPRESENT THE POPE, THEREFORE THEY SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THEY ARE JUST 'FAN PAGES'.
We encourage all readers to check the official Vatican media sources for further confirmation of Pope Francis' statements, or even to check what exactly he said with reference to specific issues.
IF THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE POPE BY ANY MEDIA AGENCY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL MEDIA SOURCES OF THE VATICAN, IT MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION THEY REPORT IS NOT TRUE.
Below is a list of the official Vatican media which you should use as valid reference to be sure that any reported statement referred to the Pope is true:
- News.va: a news aggregator portal, it reports the news and information from all the Vatican media in one website, available in five languages: NEWS.VA
News.va also has a facebook page: www.facebook.com/news.va
- Vatican.va: the official website of the Holy See, where you can find the full text of all speeches, homilies and Apostolic documents by the Pope: Vatican
- PopeApp: the official app for smartphones dedicated to the Pope (Copyright News.va)
- @Pontifex: the official Twitter profile of the Pope.
The only official facebook profiles representing the Holy Father and the Vatican are those from News.va and the Vatican media (see the above list of Vatican media).
We would like to thank you all for your kind attention as well as for your notifications and suggestions. Please do share this information as much as possible with your contacts! Thank you very much!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
While firmly upholding Church teaching regarding contraception, Pope Francis clarified that good Catholics need not mate “like rabbits, or wasp spiders, with the female devouring the male following the procreative act.”
“Openness to life for the husband,” the pontiff said to reporters on his return flight from the Philippines, “is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony.” Catholic couples should practice mutual love and tenderness, he explained, rather than the female “catching her partner in a web and slowly gnawing on him while he’s still alive, resulting in his slow, agonizing death.”
In response to husbands who argue that they should not try to avoid being eaten alive but should just trust in God, the Holy Father was adamant: “That is an irresponsibility! God gives you methods to be responsible, methods to stay alive.”
“Good Catholics also shouldn’t mate like harp seals,” he added, “which abandon their young after 12 days, or like pandas, which will only care for one child at a time and let any siblings starve to death.”
“Frankly, good Catholics should just mate like responsible humans.”
The Pope’s teaching is in line with the teachings of his predecessors. At the height of concern about overpopulation and women’s rights in the late 1960s, Pope Paul VI’s controversial encyclical Humane Vitae upheld the Church’s longstanding teaching against contraception and cannibalism, even for married couples.
St. John Paul II repeated the teaching in one of his Theology of the Body lectures: “The mutual gift of self of the spouses to one another, while total, is contradicted if it is overlaid with the language of contraception, or if one of the spouses eats the other like a wasp spider.”
Not all Catholics are happy with the Pope’s comments, which are viewed by many as a nod to conservatives.
“I think the Pope needs to stay out of people’s bedrooms,” a representative of Catholics for Choice said in a statement. “And anyway, what happened? I thought this Pope was cool.”
ROME, Italy — Pope Francis has changed the name of St. Peter’s Basilica to “Tiber Creek Community Church,” Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi announced this morning.
“The greatest church of Christendom, built on the holy grave of the martyr-prince of the Apostles, has been known as ‘St. Peter’s Basilica’ for 1700 years,” Fr. Lombardi explained. “It was long overdue for a rebranding.”
He continued that this was just the next step in Pope Francis’ greater program of trying to make the church more relatable to the average person.
“How many Catholics today even know who St. Peter is?” Fr. Lombardi asked reporters, eliciting murmurs of agreement. “And besides, referencing St. Peter is a dead giveaway that we’re Catholic.” Fr. Lombardi said that naming the church after it’s geographic location without any denominational identifiers was more in line with how modern people felt about religion.
Fr. Lombardi also announced that projectors and screens would be installed throughout the basilica in the coming week, that a “totally rocking” worship band was being formed, and that Pope Francis planned on making his sermons “relevant to every day life.”
“The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, these are all interesting — to dead theologians,” Fr. Lombardi said dismissively. “But how does that apply to my everyday life? How will that help me advance in my career? That’s what Pope Francis is going to be focusing on.”
According to an anonymous source within the Vatican, when some of his advisors voiced concerns about the name change, Francis informed them that he had already purchased the new sign.
“He was really proud of the sign,” the anonymous source said. “He told us he already had some great jokes to post up there.”
Top