SF bishop bans Pelosi from communion

tIUguy2

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2016
3,596
3,698
1
Jer: Pandazapper may be unable to walk the walk of a Catholic (among other things), but he's never reluctant to run his mouth about what he regards as the ethical, moral or legal lapses of others. The latter is particularly comical, given his lack of any formal legal training. #GOLASERBOY
You made perfect use of a comma splice in the next-to-last sentence of your post. As you are one who is wont to correct grammatical errors by others I would think that you would find it imperative to post grammatically correct responses/comments to others. English 101 was hard on you...obviously.
 

Vic Vaselino

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2009
2,319
1,741
1
Time to go to confession Nancy.
“I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publicly repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of penance,” Cordileone stated in a May 19 letter addressed to Pelosi.
[URL
unfurl="true"]https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/sf-archbishop-bans-pelosi-from-holy-communion/amp/[/URL]
Anyone belonging to that pedophile church will burn in hell.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
Jer: Pandazapper may be unable to walk the walk of a Catholic (among other things), but he's never reluctant to run his mouth about what he regards as the ethical, moral or legal lapses of others. The latter is particularly comical, given his lack of any formal legal training. #GOLASERBOY
I usually don't like to do double responses to a post, but in this case, I have to make an exception.

Here's a newsflash, "genius", this is a political talk board. But somehow you are outraged that someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum would "run his mouth about what he regards as the ethical, moral or legal lapses of others." (the "others" here being Left-turds). You can't be serious. That is Jeff Clear level stupid.

I have to laugh (yes, AT you). Like the cop in Casa Blanca, you're SHOCKED that such behavior happens on the test board.....too funny. You are the board's biggest clown.

On top of that, after reading your whinny post, it seems like you are about to cry at the injustice of it all. I could just picture you sniffing and tears welling up in your eyes as you bitterly complained about such "unfair" treatment.....HA HA HA That's a hoot.

Did the big bad conservative man say mean stuff to you, Bunky? Do you need a timeout to get yourself together? I know you Leftie snowflakes are overly sensitive about mean stuff being said that is "hurtful" (see all of Trump's tweets). So maybe you ought to pack up your Tinkerbell overnight bag and leave the board if you don't have the stomach for it.

I know that I and other board conservatives have been regularly besting you in our exchanges over an extended period now. But that no reason for you to come out with this kind of crybaby complaining, This isn't like living in the Woke bubble you are used to. So, come on , man.....grow a pair and stop your whingeing and whining. It makes you look like a little pussy. That or leave.....good riddance....
 
Last edited:

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
It seems to me that communion is being withheld from Nancy because of her conduct falls perfectly into the scenario I laid out below, not because the Bishop of SF has decided to use withholding communion as a "political weapon". What makes that statement even more bizarre is that no one could ever accuse the Bishop of SF of being a "political" enemy of the Soc/Dems. That's just ludicrous. . No, this is the Pope just making it all right for his political soul mates to get away with murder (so to speak).....rank has its privileges, I guess.

I'm no theologian but the simple logic of your statements just escapes me. The following makes a lot more sense (and is a much more honest analysis) to me:

1. Under Catholic doctrine, abortion is a sin.
2. Those who support, promote or enable someone to sin are sinning themselves
3. To receive communion one has to be in a state of grace....attained by purging their sins through confession.
4. Absolution can't be granted in confession by a priest if the person seeking absolution either doesn't admit what he/she is doing is a sin, or recognizes it is a sin and fully intends to keep committing that sin.
5. To seek and take communion while having a mortal sin on your soul is committing a sacrilege.
6. If one repeatedly commits a sacrilegious act, they can/should be excommunicated from the church

is that about right?

Now if you accept that Joe and Nancy are receiving communion as a fact, I think you have to admit that Nancy and Joe should be in line for #6 above. Unless, of course, the Pope can unilaterally change church doctrine and declare it all nonsense and let the abortionist enablers go scot free. I suppose that's possible, but doesn't he have to make it generally known he's done that? Just telling your political fellow travelers doesn't seem like it could be enough to me. If he doesn't have that authority/power, then he fits into the above analysis as well. Who do I write to in the Curia to start the excommunication proceedings against the Pope?
I really don’t care about your theology.
But I will leave you all with this: thank God for the Jesuits, Cardinal Gregory, and Pope Francis: I stand with the Vicar Of Christ.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
I really don’t care about your theology.
But I will leave you all with this: thank God for the Jesuits, Cardinal Gregory, and Pope Francis:
I stand with the Vicar Of Christ.

Pelosi receiving Communion in a diocese run by Gregory is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east.

Personally, I stand with Christ rather than with the guy who currently occupies the sacred office of Vicar of Christ and has made a mockery of it while serving the World rather than God.

Moreover, the Vicars of Christ, to include even Francis, have for 2000 years upheld the moral teaching of the Church on life, sexuality, and gender -- core doctrines which are under direct attack by powerful forces whose secular political arm is the Dem-Media Party.

Therefore, it is a mystery to me how one can remain a member of that Party while professing faith as a Catholic. I mean, I get how such a person could reject both parties...but to actively support the one whose platform is relentlessly hostile to Catholic teaching...that I don't get.

I say all this as a person who was raised Catholic, remains Catholic, and will die Catholic. I also raised a large family of Catholics, one of whom is now a cloistered religious sister while all the rest are fully practicing...as are their own large families. So you might say I have a certain amount of street cred on the topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richie83

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Pelosi receiving Communion in a diocese run by Gregory is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east.

Personally, I stand with Christ rather than with the guy who currently occupies the sacred office of Vicar of Christ and has made a mockery of it while serving the World rather than God.

Moreover, the Vicars of Christ, to include even Francis, have for 2000 years upheld the moral teaching of the Church on life, sexuality, and gender -- core doctrines which are under direct attack by powerful forces whose secular political arm is the Dem-Media Party.

Therefore, it is a mystery to me how one can remain a member of that Party while professing faith as a Catholic. I mean, I get how such a person could reject both parties...but to actively support the one whose platform is relentlessly hostile to Catholic teaching...that I don't get.

I say all this as a person who was raised Catholic, remains Catholic, and will die Catholic. I also raised a large family of Catholics, one of whom is now a cloistered religious sister while all the rest are fully practicing...as are their own large families. So you might say I have a certain amount of street cred on the topic.
I was born and raised Catholic. Family of Italian Catholics. CCD by the Baltimore Catechism. Lectored for 35 years. Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. I run our Church’s food pantry now. Sit on our Church’s Parish Council. I stand with Christ too, especially His final judgment, Matthew 25:31-46; be a sheep, not a goat. Not everything in the Dem party is hostile to the Catholic faith.
I got some street cred too, Jerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
I was born and raised Catholic. Family of Italian Catholics. CCD by the Baltimore Catechism. Lectored for 35 years. Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. I run our Church’s food pantry now. Sit on our Church’s Parish Council. I stand with Christ too, especially His final judgment, Matthew 25:31-46; be a sheep, not a goat. Not everything in the Dem party is hostile to the Catholic faith.
I got some street cred too, Jerry.

Uh-oh...a battle of whose Catholic cred is streetier. ;)

But seriously, Pioneer, I've never doubted the sincerity of your faith. I just think you're kidding yourself or preferring to remain blind about the essential contradiction between allegiance to that faith and membership in or support for what the Democratic Party has become.

OK, "not everything" in the Democratic Party is hostile to the Catholic faith. Not exactly a ringing recommendation. I mean, "not everything" in the Nazi or Communist parties was hostile to the Catholic faith either. Hell, they ran food pantries too. Killed a lot of people...but nobody's perfect.

The point is that the platform of the Democratic Party in the Year of Our Lord 2022 is unrelentingly hostile to age-old Catholic teaching on fundamental issues of life, sexuality, and gender that are central to both the Catholic faith and the traditional Christian understanding of the universe and our place in it. Full stop. The rest is window dressing.

Furthermore, the media propaganda line that people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, who actively promote this platform, are "devout Catholics" is, frankly, an insult to our intelligence. It's like saying that a Nazi leader in Hitler's government could claim to be a "devout Catholic" and present himself at the Communion rail.

Also, the spectacle of people who once openly dissented from statements of previous Popes -- Humanae Vitae ring a bell? -- now fashioning themselves as ultra-Montanist champions of the guy currently holding the Office is a little on the gag-worthy side.

The Pope's sacred commission is to preserve, defend and transmit the timeless teaching of the Church. He has no authority or power to change it or otherwise make stuff up as he goes along. To suggest otherwise or insinuate that our loyalty is to him rather than to the Magisterium of the ages is to turn the Church into a cult...or theater of the absurd.

I say none of this in a spirit of ill will toward you personally. But the hour is late, and the time has come to speak plainly.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
I really don’t care about your theology.
But I will leave you all with this: thank God for the Jesuits, Cardinal Gregory, and Pope Francis:
I stand with the Vicar Of Christ.
Ah, did I ask you to agree with or care about my theology? No, you are among the last of people I'd ask for approval of anything I do or think.

But, that said, just for shits and giggles, which part of my step by step analysis do you find incorrect?

Oh, BTW, I stand by Christ over and above :the "Vicar of Christ". You ought to consider that O Holy One. There have been evil, corrupt and sinful Popes throughout the history of the church and this guy may be listed among them when history is written.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
I was born and raised Catholic. Family of Italian Catholics. CCD by the Baltimore Catechism. Lectored for 35 years. Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. I run our Church’s food pantry now. Sit on our Church’s Parish Council. I stand with Christ too, especially His final judgment, Matthew 25:31-46; be a sheep, not a goat. Not everything in the Dem party is hostile to the Catholic faith.
I got some street cred too, Jerry.
I should have read this before my last post to you. It appears you're from the "Pharisees" wing of the Catholic church. I'm looking for the lightening bolts to come down on me even as I type this! You appear to be totally on board with the "new" Church. because that's what you were indoctrinated to do..Don't question what comes down from on high (particularly "the Vicar of Christ"). It's a updated version of "go along with our nonsense or burn in hell FOREVER" teaching tool of the "old Church" . Well,, at least some things haven't changed under the Jesuit Judas.....

Whatever traditional, long standing church doctrine Francis decides can be set aside just goes out the window, no problem, huh? Well, look around at all the empty pews in your church next Sunday.......there are apparently a lot of people who disagree with the situational ethics approach the Catholic church has taken since Vatican II...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
Uh-oh...a battle of whose Catholic cred is streetier. ;)

But seriously, Pioneer, I've never doubted the sincerity of your faith. I just think you're kidding yourself or preferring to remain blind about the essential contradiction between allegiance to that faith and membership in or support for what the Democratic Party has become.

OK, "not everything" in the Democratic Party is hostile to the Catholic faith. Not exactly a ringing recommendation. I mean, "not everything" in the Nazi or Communist parties was hostile to the Catholic faith either. Hell, they ran food pantries too. Killed a lot of people...but nobody's perfect.

The point is that the platform of the Democratic Party in the Year of Our Lord 2022 is unrelentingly hostile to age-old Catholic teaching on fundamental issues of life, sexuality, and gender that are central to both the Catholic faith and the traditional Christian understanding of the universe and our place in it. Full stop. The rest is window dressing.

Furthermore, the media propaganda line that people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, who actively promote this platform, are "devout Catholics" is, frankly, an insult to our intelligence. It's like saying that a Nazi leader in Hitler's government could claim to be a "devout Catholic" and present himself at the Communion rail.

Also, the spectacle of people who once openly dissented from statements of previous Popes -- Humanae Vitae ring a bell? -- now fashioning themselves as ultra-Montanist champions of the guy currently holding the Office is a little on the gag-worthy side.

The Pope's sacred commission is to preserve, defend and transmit the timeless teaching of the Church. He has no authority or power to change it or otherwise make stuff up as he goes along. To suggest otherwise or insinuate that our loyalty is to him rather than to the Magisterium of the ages is to turn the Church into a cult...or theater of the absurd.

I say none of this in a spirit of ill will toward you personally. But the hour is late, and the time has come to speak plainly.
I should have read this post before I responded again to Pioneer. You set it out so much better than I could.

I suppose that if Pioneer was Russian Orthodox church member, he'd be all for mowing down innocent Ukrainian women and children because the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (Putin's butt boy) blessed the Russian "police action" in the Ukraine. "I vas just following Orders!" If he could see that for what it is (a perversion of the Faith) then why can't he see it in his own church leader (Francis) does basically the same thing for our Leftist leaders? Unborn babies don't count, I guess.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,604
20,649
1
Personally, I stand with Christ rather than with the guy who currently occupies the sacred office of Vicar of Christ and has made a mockery of it while serving the World rather than God.
Jesus: "Do this as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of me."

Jerry: "Phuck you, demon! No communion for YOU! And phuck you, too, fake pope!"
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
I should have read this post before I responded again to Pioneer. You set it out so much better than I could.

I suppose that if Pioneer was Russian Orthodox church member, he'd be all for mowing down innocent Ukrainian women and children because the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (Putin's butt boy) blessed the Russian "police action" in the Ukraine. "I vas just following Orders!" If he could see that for what it is (a perversion of the Faith) then why can't he see it in his own church leader (Francis) does basically the same thing for our Leftist leaders? Unborn babies don't count, I guess.

I used the Nazi example advisedly.

In the 1930's, the Church watched while an anti-human and profoundly anti-Christian ideology came to power and took over the nation as the population itself was swept up in a tide of propaganda and false patriotism.

The response from Catholic and Protestant leaders was muted to say the least, though Catholic authorities made a few halting attempts to register dissent. By 1938 it was too late. After that Christian leaders feared for their lives and those of their flocks.

We are watching today as a very different but no less pernicious anti-Christian evil is rising in power. It is an ideology that rests squarely on the overthrow of traditional Christian moral norms, that seeks to overturn the very concept of what it means to be human and to enshrine the false worship of Self.

And what is the response of Francis and his friends in high places in Rome to this historic threat? They blather about immigration and climate change, two pet causes of their secular overlords which are properly the province not of religion but of politics, while remaining silent as the likes of "catholic" Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi make a public mockery of the fundamental teaching of the Church.

Meanwhile, their witness against the real enemy is even weaker and more timid than that of the institutional Church against the Nazis almost a century ago. And unlike in those days, the Church now does not have the excuse of fearing for the lives of its leaders and members. Not yet at least. Rather, the fear is appearing unfashionable in the eyes of the World.

I believe we're approaching (or have already passed) a 1938-type moment, and I'm in no mood to mouth pious platitudes about the Bishop of Rome. I revere his sacred office and always have. But when he shows himself by cowardice or faithlessness to be unworthy of that offices, I'm going to call him out. God will be the judge of whether this makes me one of Pioneer's "goats."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,216
21,835
1
I used the Nazi example advisedly.

In the 1930's, the Church watched while an anti-human and profoundly anti-Christian ideology came to power and took over the nation as the population itself was swept up in a tide of propaganda and false patriotism.

The response from Catholic and Protestant leaders was muted to say the least, though Catholic authorities made a few halting attempts to register dissent. By 1938 it was too late. After that Christian leaders feared for their lives and those of their flocks.

We are watching today as a very different but no less pernicious anti-Christian evil is rising in power. It is an ideology that rests squarely on the overthrow of traditional Christian moral norms, that seeks to overturn the very concept of what it means to be human and to enshrine the false worship of Self.

And what is the response of Francis and his friends in high places in Rome to this historic threat? They blather about immigration and climate change, two pet causes of their secular overlords which are properly the province not of religion but of politics, while remaining silent as the likes of "catholic" Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi make a public mockery of the fundamental teaching of the Church.

Meanwhile, their witness against the real enemy is even weaker and more timid than that of the institutional Church against the Nazis almost a century ago. And unlike in those days, the Church now does not have the excuse of fearing for the lives of its leaders and members. Not yet at least. Rather, the fear is appearing unfashionable in the eyes of the World.

I believe we're approaching (or have already passed) a 1938-type moment, and I'm in no mood to mouth pious platitudes about the Bishop of Rome. I revere his sacred office and always have. But when he shows himself by cowardice or faithlessness to be unworthy of that offices, I'm going to call him out. God will be the judge of whether this makes me one of Pioneer's "goats."
We are all human and flawed.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
7,445
7,265
1
Jesus: "Do this as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of me."

Jerry: "Phuck you, demon! No communion for YOU! And phuck you, too, fake pope!"
Really not that big a fan of wading into pissing matches like these, but the very fact that one makes theological arguments based on isolated snippets of scripture pretty much is a good starting point for knowing that one isn't a particularly serious theological thinker.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
Jesus: "Do this as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of me."

Jerry: "Phuck you, demon! No communion for YOU! And phuck you, too, fake pope!"

LOL! Chill, Laf. It's a little early in the day for such fits of rage.

Here's another little Bible quote for you:

>>Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.<<

And by the way, yeah, being cool with the killing of babies does tend to make one "unworthy." Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
We are all human and flawed.

Very true.

The dividing line in our time is not between sinners and non-sinners...since there are none of the latter and never have been -- with the exception of two individuals.

Rather, the dividing line is between those who recognize their sinfulness and those who deny their sinfulness. Naturally, it's the second group that hurls thunderbolts of judgment at others.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,216
21,835
1
Really not that big a fan of wading into pissing matches like these, but the very fact that one makes theological arguments based on isolated snippets of scripture pretty much is a good starting point for knowing that one isn't a particularly serious theological thinker.
It comes done to faith imo. All the arguing about scripture is the writing of men trying to explain the mystery of our faith as Christians. I won't get into it much. I have issues with big organizations doing big organization things and forgetting the message.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
7,445
7,265
1
It comes done to faith imo. All the arguing about scripture is the writing of men trying to explain the mystery of our faith as Christians. I won't get into it much. I have issues with big organizations doing big organization things and forgetting the message.
There are many sources of doctrine ("that which the church believes, teaches and confesses, based on the word of God," per Pelikan). Scripture is certainly relevant, and indeed the starting point, as are the arguments you mention, but as the definition itself suggests, how it is and has been practiced in and of itself reflects insight into what is believed.

I always think of faith as that quantum of "something" that bridges the gap between data and belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,216
21,835
1
There are many sources of doctrine ("that which the church believes, teaches and confesses, based on the word of God," per Pelikan). Scripture is certainly relevant, and indeed the starting point, as are the arguments you mention, but as the definition itself suggests, how it is and has been practiced in and of itself reflects insight into what is believed.

I always think of faith as that quantum of "something" that bridges the gap between data and belief.
I agree, I'd rather not argue much about dogma unless it's really contradictory. Most Christian religions seem to be pretty close in how they interpret things. I'll look at meals, they're protein, fats, and carbs, and micronutrients and fiber. We can argue about the particulars but we need certain things to be taken care of so we meet our nutritional needs.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,604
20,649
1
Really not that big a fan of wading into pissing matches like these, but the very fact that one makes theological arguments based on isolated snippets of scripture pretty much is a good starting point for knowing that one isn't a particularly serious theological thinker.
Point taken, but the dichotomy between Jesus' teachings and the message of exclusion that Jerry is pushing could not be much larger. Jesus dined with tax collectors and at least one prostitute, and his message was one of inclusion. Jerry's message is just the opposite. Moreover, he would like to exclude the pope if he could.

I wanna be clear. I have no problem with Jerry's religious views. He is entitled to them, just as I am entitled to mine. The problem occurs when he wants laws concerning abortion, civil rights of homosexuals, flying banners on public buildings, nativity scenes, and the other subjects that concern both civil rights and religious or moral issues to follow his conservative brand of Catholicism. That's an establishment of religion in my view. Jerry does not, as far as I can discern from his many posts here, place any value on attempting to maintain some separation between church and state.

I also suspect that Jerry, and others like him, are just getting warmed up. I suspect that if they had their way, the morning after pill would be banned outright. And then it's on to contraception. Think I'm kidding? Did you read one of his recent posts extolling the merits of the rhythm method?
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,604
20,649
1
I should have read this before my last post to you. It appears you're from the "Pharisees" wing of the Catholic church. I'm looking for the lightening bolts to come down on me even as I type this! You appear to be totally on board with the "new" Church. because that's what you were indoctrinated to do..Don't question what comes down from on high (particularly "the Vicar of Christ"). It's a updated version of "go along with our nonsense or burn in hell FOREVER" teaching tool of the "old Church" . Well,, at least some things haven't changed under the Jesuit Judas.....

Whatever traditional, long standing church doctrine Francis decides can be set aside just goes out the window, no problem, huh? Well, look around at all the empty pews in your church next Sunday.......there are apparently a lot of people who disagree with the situational ethics approach the Catholic church has taken since Vatican II...
Translation: The Catholic Church is unworthy of Pandazapper's support because it has strayed from its ultraconservative moorings. Never mind that Pandazapper is no longer a Catholic. HE, in all his wisdom, will tell you what is ethical and moral. He knows better than that "Jesuit Judas" (aka, the Pope).

Pandazapper: "I stand with Jesus. Now go screw yourselves, everybody!") What a dipshit ...
 

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Uh-oh...a battle of whose Catholic cred is streetier. ;)

But seriously, Pioneer, I've never doubted the sincerity of your faith. I just think you're kidding yourself or preferring to remain blind about the essential contradiction between allegiance to that faith and membership in or support for what the Democratic Party has become.

OK, "not everything" in the Democratic Party is hostile to the Catholic faith. Not exactly a ringing recommendation. I mean, "not everything" in the Nazi or Communist parties was hostile to the Catholic faith either. Hell, they ran food pantries too. Killed a lot of people...but nobody's perfect.

The point is that the platform of the Democratic Party in the Year of Our Lord 2022 is unrelentingly hostile to age-old Catholic teaching on fundamental issues of life, sexuality, and gender that are central to both the Catholic faith and the traditional Christian understanding of the universe and our place in it. Full stop. The rest is window dressing.

Furthermore, the media propaganda line that people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, who actively promote this platform, are "devout Catholics" is, frankly, an insult to our intelligence. It's like saying that a Nazi leader in Hitler's government could claim to be a "devout Catholic" and present himself at the Communion rail.

Also, the spectacle of people who once openly dissented from statements of previous Popes -- Humanae Vitae ring a bell? -- now fashioning themselves as ultra-Montanist champions of the guy currently holding the Office is a little on the gag-worthy side.

The Pope's sacred commission is to preserve, defend and transmit the timeless teaching of the Church. He has no authority or power to change it or otherwise make stuff up as he goes along. To suggest otherwise or insinuate that our loyalty is to him rather than to the Magisterium of the ages is to turn the Church into a cult...or theater of the absurd.

I say none of this in a spirit of ill will toward you personally. But the hour is late, and the time has come to speak plainly.
Jerry, I only wish you good will too.
Speaking plainly here too though, there are many things in the Republican party that are openly hostile to the Catholic faith - the overzealousness of "the border" runs smack into Christ's SEVERAL teachings to welcome the stranger. The unbridled capitalism at all costs, trickle down economics, are also not in keeping with Christ's many teachings to help the poor, and be equitable to all. I mean, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Final Judgement are not simply quaint, inconvenient stories that the rich and powerful and selfish can also cavalierly ignore. Jesus's teachings on violence, turning the other cheek, forgiving our enemies. These teachings are all part of the CCC, as you know. Are you upset that Pope Francis has changed the CCC regarding the Death Penalty? I have no problem whatsoever with that magisterium. Certainly Jesus did not promote such punishment. Each Pope has his own divine inspiration, and also their own writings and teachings. Some I like more than others, but I respected and followed each one.
How do you feel about Vatican II? Are you a fan of JohnXXIII and PaulVI? Many so-called "traditionalists" completely disown Vatican II - openly, with scorn, with malice - and curse John and Paul. Yet Vatican II is doctrine. And yet still, SSPX followers disown the Council's documents, and only give lip service to condoning the reforms, and disavow all Popes since PiusX. Their (SSPX, other sedevancanist groups) intransigence, and extremism, troubles and saddens me. Doesn't that extremism trouble you?
Many people have a public perception that the Catholic Church is this big, cold, monolithic institution that says No to everything, when it is not. Catholic Social Teachings and Justice are part of the fiber of our faith, as is the adherence to the Commandments and traditional family values.
Separate from issues of faith, doctrine and dogma, there is the issues of institutional accountability of the clergy, and the many bishops and cardinals that enabled and covered up the many priest sexual abusers, all over the globe. There is no condoning or excusing what they did, criminally or spiritually, yet many Traditionalists seem to want to give the whole thing a pass and turn their head from it. And the abuse and cover-ups continued into the 21st century. Very discouraging.
Well, this is all for now. God Bless and be well.
 

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Ah, did I ask you to agree with or care about my theology? No, you are among the last of people I'd ask for approval of anything I do or think.

But, that said, just for shits and giggles, which part of my step by step analysis do you find incorrect?

Oh, BTW, I stand by Christ over and above :the "Vicar of Christ". You ought to consider that O Holy One. There have been evil, corrupt and sinful Popes throughout the history of the church and this guy may be listed among them when history is written.
You and I simply agree to disagree on matters of faith. And yes, I stand with the Vicar of Christ, as Pope Francis upholds the teachings of Christ far more so than you ever could. You got your religious views, and I have mine; but to be clear, and make no mistake, the Catholic faith is much broader and larger than the tiny, hard-hearted views you have.
 

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
I should have read this before my last post to you. It appears you're from the "Pharisees" wing of the Catholic church. I'm looking for the lightening bolts to come down on me even as I type this! You appear to be totally on board with the "new" Church. because that's what you were indoctrinated to do..Don't question what comes down from on high (particularly "the Vicar of Christ"). It's a updated version of "go along with our nonsense or burn in hell FOREVER" teaching tool of the "old Church" . Well,, at least some things haven't changed under the Jesuit Judas.....

Whatever traditional, long standing church doctrine Francis decides can be set aside just goes out the window, no problem, huh? Well, look around at all the empty pews in your church next Sunday.......there are apparently a lot of people who disagree with the situational ethics approach the Catholic church has taken since Vatican II...
Pharisees defend the old ways. The hard-hearted Old Testament and paternalistic teachings. "Religiosity >>> Jesus Christ", is their theme, as detailed in the Gospels; they persecuted Jesus at every turn of his ministry and Passon. I am not a Pharisee, at all. I embrace of the New Testament in its entirety. The Jesuits and I have a lot in common. A Pharisee, who opposed Christ and his Teachings, I am not.

You however, you sound like a Trad, perhaps even a follower of SSPX? Opus Dei? How "traditional" are you? Should we all go back to Vatican I? Council Of Trent? Council Of Nicaea? Awww heck, lets go back to the Council of Jerusalem!! the Apostolic Generation...nah, that would be actually scary for you, you wouldn't like their views on being open to Gentiles, and a community centered society of one for all, all for one, welcoming strangers, hunkering down against Roman oppressors, etc.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
You and I simply agree to disagree on matters of faith. And yes, I stand with the Vicar of Christ, as Pope Francis upholds the teachings of Christ far more so than you ever could. You got your religious views, and I have mine; but to be clear, and make no mistake, the Catholic faith is much broader and larger than the tiny, hard-hearted views you have.
I agree with the first sentence of your post with all of my tiny, hard heart, so I'm gonna resist calling you a willingly brainwashed person who is refuses to look at and consider honestly any criticism of his Church because he's afraid of what he may find. I will not go that route out of respect for the many generations of my relatives who were exactly like you. It must be an Italian thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
I should have read this post before I responded again to Pioneer. You set it out so much better than I could.

I suppose that if Pioneer was Russian Orthodox church member, he'd be all for mowing down innocent Ukrainian women and children because the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (Putin's butt boy) blessed the Russian "police action" in the Ukraine. "I vas just following Orders!" If he could see that for what it is (a perversion of the Faith) then why can't he see it in his own church leader (Francis) does basically the same thing for our Leftist leaders? Unborn babies don't count, I guess.
But...I am not Russian Orthodoxo_O...and to imply that I support Putin - when I despise the man and all he stands for - is another complete lie. You wrote lies on top of lies.
But, the bigger issue is: why would you propose multiple completely false hypotheticals? Your post is full of mis-truths and lie, and misleading to others who would read what you wrote.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
Pharisees defend the old ways. The hard-hearted Old Testament and paternalistic teachings. "Religiosity >>> Jesus Christ", is their theme, as detailed in the Gospels; they persecuted Jesus at every turn of his ministry and Passon. I am not a Pharisee, at all. I embrace of the New Testament in its entirety. The Jesuits and I have a lot in common. A Pharisee, who opposed Christ and his Teachings, I am not.

You however, you sound like a Trad, perhaps even a follower of SSPX? Opus Dei? How "traditional" are you? Should we all go back to Vatican I? Council Of Trent? Council Of Nicaea? Awww heck, lets go back to the Council of Jerusalem!! the Apostolic Generation...nah, that would be actually scary for you, you wouldn't like their views on being open to Gentiles, and a community centered society of one for all, all for one, welcoming strangers, hunkering down against Roman oppressors, etc.
Christ criticized the Pharisees for being outwardly pious, yet judging of others in the Temple who didn't meet their standards of dress and giving and proper etiquette for prayer or offering sacrifices, etc......you get the point.

The first thing out of your (internet) mouth was a recitation of all the positions and functions you hold within the Church. Why? because THAT was your basis for claiming "cred". Not that you followed the teachings of Christ, not that you lived out (as well as anyone can) his example of treating others as you yourself want to be treated (sound familiar?.....maybe someone at the last Knights of Columbus bingo night mentioned something about it)

The second thing out of your internet mouth was an attack on someone with a different view of what the Church clergy should be doing vis a vis it's laity......geez, where did I just see a reference to another group doing that?

I have seen evidence of the Church promoting and then hiding conduct that earlier you said was exaggerated. So, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen? I would bet you know (and knew) all about it, but were too indoctrinated to deal with it honestly. I can tell you story after story that I learned from family and friends about these abuses. But, you go ahead and deny it and pray to Francis for the strength to continue to avoid admitting it all exists.

One last thought. How dare you insinuate the people abused by the Church over the centuries were all liars and apostates....or witches possessed by demons? Pharisee...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
Point taken, but the dichotomy between Jesus' teachings and the message of exclusion that Jerry is pushing could not be much larger. Jesus dined with tax collectors and at least one prostitute, and his message was one of inclusion. Jerry's message is just the opposite. Moreover, he would like to exclude the pope if he could.

I wanna be clear. I have no problem with Jerry's religious views. He is entitled to them, just as I am entitled to mine. The problem occurs when he wants laws concerning abortion, civil rights of homosexuals, flying banners on public buildings, nativity scenes, and the other subjects that concern both civil rights and religious or moral issues to follow his conservative brand of Catholicism. That's an establishment of religion in my view. Jerry does not, as far as I can discern from his many posts here, place any value on attempting to maintain some separation between church and state.

I also suspect that Jerry, and others like him, are just getting warmed up. I suspect that if they had their way, the morning after pill would be banned outright. And then it's on to contraception. Think I'm kidding? Did you read one of his recent posts extolling the merits of the rhythm method?

<Sigh>. Whenever I think there may be some hope for Laf, he lapses into the confused claptrap typified by his above post.

The only "message of exclusion" you're hearing from me is in your imagination, Laf. How's this for "exclusion":

>>Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few find it.<<

Oh dear, what a meanie. Such a message of exclusion! But hey, the Man didn't really mean any of that stuff, right? Please.

Fortunately, there is hope. The mercy of God is inexhaustible...under just one condition: repentance. By definition this starts with the acknowledgement of sinfulness...as witnessed by the famous scene of the adulterous woman at the well: >>I will not condemn you. Go thy way and sin no more.<< "Sin no more." Is that exclusionary? Serious question.

But seriously, Jesus dispensed no free passes to Heaven, Bub. You want a smiley-face, mealy-mouth Savior consistent with the flabby moral nostrums of our day. He doesn't exist. He never did. Rather, He's been invented out of whole cloth for popular convenience 2000 years later.

Regarding the laws I supposedly want, here's the deal: this is supposed to be a democracy, right? So I'm free to express my views and attempt to convince my fellow citizens, right? I'm at liberty to maintain that the happiest, healthiest society is the one whose civil law does not spit in the face of God, right? Then we vote, right? And maybe my views prevail and maybe they don't.

This is in contrast to what your Party wants, which is to ram its politics and ideology down our throats, elections be damned, while penalizing people like me for having opinions that your Regime deems incorrect. In other words, you accuse me of doing precisely what your own Party is doing. Classic.

Your closing paragraph is the typical hysterical fear-mongering: He wants to ban contraception! He'll make us go to church on Sunday! We'll have to say a rosary every night! Dear God, man. Get a grip.

Finally, your reference to "rhythm" testifies to the rest of the nonsense you posted. I never said anything about rhythm, let alone "extol" it. I did make mention of Natural Family Planning (NFP), which has nothing to do with rhythm nor was "extolled" by me. I simply said it worked but took commitment and sacrifice on the part of both partners.

Commitment??!! Sacrifice??!! Outrageous!! By gum, it sounds suspiciously like a "message of exclusion"!!
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
But...I am not Russian Orthodoxo_O...and to imply that I support Putin - when I despise the man and all he stands for - is another complete lie. You wrote lies on top of lies.
But, the bigger issue is: why would you propose multiple completely false hypotheticals? Your post is full of mis-truths and lie, and misleading to others who would read what you wrote.
I see you are worked up into a frenzy now. Good.

Have you ever heard the word "analogy"? No one accused you of being Russian Orthodox or of supporting Putin.....so who's lying here? Me or you, Pharisee?

"Lies, lies; lies".....are you screaming that and holding your hands over your ears? That's the way it's coming across, Pharisee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
<Sigh>. Whenever I think there may be some hope for Laf, he lapses into the confused claptrap typified by his above post.

The only "message of exclusion" you're hearing from me is in your imagination, Laf. How's this for "exclusion":

>>Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few find it.<<

Oh dear, what a meanie. Such a message of exclusion! But hey, the Man didn't really mean any of that stuff, right? Please.

Fortunately, there is hope. The mercy of God is inexhaustible...under just one condition: repentance. By definition this starts with the acknowledgement of sinfulness...as witnessed by the famous scene of the adulterous woman at the well: >>I will not condemn you. Go thy way and sin no more.<< "Sin no more." Is that exclusionary? Serious question.

But seriously, Jesus dispensed no free passes to Heaven, Bub. You want a smiley-face, mealy-mouth Savior consistent with the flabby moral nostrums of our day. He doesn't exist. He never did. Rather, He's been invented out of whole cloth for popular convenience 2000 years later.

Regarding the laws I supposedly want, here's the deal: this is supposed to be a democracy, right? So I'm free to express my views and attempt to convince my fellow citizens, right? I'm at liberty to maintain that the happiest, healthiest society is the one whose civil law does not spit in the face of God, right? Then we vote, right? And maybe my views prevail and maybe they don't.

This is in contrast to what your Party wants, which is to ram its politics and ideology down our throats, elections be damned, while penalizing people like me for having opinions that your Regime deems incorrect. In other words, you accuse me of doing precisely what your own Party is doing. Classic.

Your closing paragraph is the typical hysterical fear-mongering: He wants to ban contraception! He'll make us go to church on Sunday! We'll have to say a rosary every night! Dear God, man. Get a grip.

Finally, your reference to "rhythm" testifies to the rest of the nonsense you posted. I never said anything about rhythm, let alone "extol" it. I did make mention of Natural Family Planning (NFP), which has nothing to do with rhythm nor was "extolled" by me. I simply said it worked but took commitment and sacrifice on the part of both partners.

Commitment??!! Sacrifice??!! Outrageous!! By gum, it sounds suspiciously like a "message of exclusion"!!
Lefties love to make crap up out of whole cloth and then use these strawmen to beat the hell out of positions they can't otherwise attack. When they are finished, they snugly claim some kind of victory for doing it. I guess it's somewhat understandable, since they don't get to make such claims when they stick to the actual facts . Same old, same old.

I just had to deal with this in my conversation with that Putin lovin', Russian Orthodox Pioneer. If he doesn't straighten up, I'll have to send my sister-in-law's Legion of Mary group over to his Commie church.

Holy Snikey, these Left-tards are amusing....
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
Jerry, I only wish you good will too.
Speaking plainly here too though, there are many things in the Republican party that are openly hostile to the Catholic faith - the overzealousness of "the border" runs smack into Christ's SEVERAL teachings to welcome the stranger. The unbridled capitalism at all costs, trickle down economics, are also not in keeping with Christ's many teachings to help the poor, and be equitable to all. I mean, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Final Judgement are not simply quaint, inconvenient stories that the rich and powerful and selfish can also cavalierly ignore. Jesus's teachings on violence, turning the other cheek, forgiving our enemies. These teachings are all part of the CCC, as you know. Are you upset that Pope Francis has changed the CCC regarding the Death Penalty? I have no problem whatsoever with that magisterium. Certainly Jesus did not promote such punishment. Each Pope has his own divine inspiration, and also their own writings and teachings. Some I like more than others, but I respected and followed each one.
How do you feel about Vatican II? Are you a fan of JohnXXIII and PaulVI? Many so-called "traditionalists" completely disown Vatican II - openly, with scorn, with malice - and curse John and Paul. Yet Vatican II is doctrine. And yet still, SSPX followers disown the Council's documents, and only give lip service to condoning the reforms, and disavow all Popes since PiusX. Their (SSPX, other sedevancanist groups) intransigence, and extremism, troubles and saddens me. Doesn't that extremism trouble you?
Many people have a public perception that the Catholic Church is this big, cold, monolithic institution that says No to everything, when it is not. Catholic Social Teachings and Justice are part of the fiber of our faith, as is the adherence to the Commandments and traditional family values.
Separate from issues of faith, doctrine and dogma, there is the issues of institutional accountability of the clergy, and the many bishops and cardinals that enabled and covered up the many priest sexual abusers, all over the globe. There is no condoning or excusing what they did, criminally or spiritually, yet many Traditionalists seem to want to give the whole thing a pass and turn their head from it. And the abuse and cover-ups continued into the 21st century. Very discouraging.
Well, this is all for now. God Bless and be well.

Pioneer, thanks for a gracious response.

Regarding the Republican Party, I clearly said I understand a faithful Catholic rejecting the GOP but can not understand how he or she could embrace the Democratic Party for the reasons I outlined in the earlier post and will not again state here. However, let's be honest, you have not addressed the argument presented in that post at all.

About the "border," here's the thing: the Vatican has walls. No open borders there. Moreover, our country is not morally obligated to take in every downtrodden person who illegally comes here. No more than you are morally obligated to take in anybody who knocks on your family's door looking for shelter. Think about it.

As for the "rich and powerful," honestly you will find many more of them in the Democratic Party these days. In fact, it's not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party has become the favored political refuge of the rich and powerful. Just look at the demographics, geographics, and statistics.

I have no problem with the change in the Catholic Catechism regarding the death penalty but nor do I believe it to be binding on the consciences of Catholics. I'm against the death penalty personally, but one can't assign the Pope's statements on the subject to settled teaching without overturning Scripture and 2000 years of tradition.

I'm not against Vatican II or the Novus Ordo, but I do believe both have been abused in service to ideologies alien to Catholic teaching. And I tremendously resent the Vatican's recent crackdown on The Latin Mass, even though I'm not a TLM enthusiast myself.

However, two of my children and their families are Latin Mass-goers. Neither family is an opponent of Vatican II, yet both have been slandered by the fantastic lies told by people in Rome who've effectively accused them, with no reason whatsoever, of being bad Catholics.

So people who've lived their lives and raised their families as faithful Catholics in the face of overwhelming cultural opposition have become threats in the twisted imagination of current Vatican leadership while the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are fine? And you wonder where my bitterness comes from?

On the scandals, I've been as hard-line as a person could possibly be on that subject. Check out the letter to Archbishop Lori of Baltimore that my wife and I wrote on the subject. I copied it in response to a post from Kick. From what I can see, Church libs oppose abuse when it's politically convenient and cover it up otherwise. Just saying.

Along those lines, what do you say about Francis's protection of Zanchetti and his promotion of McCarrick? I'm sorry, but one could be forgiven for concluding that our Pope's concerns about abuse only come into play when his interests are threatened.

Also, what do you think about Humanae Vitae? Is is binding on Catholics? Just asking.
 

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Christ criticized the Pharisees for being outwardly pious, yet judging of others in the Temple who didn't meet their standards of dress and giving and proper etiquette for prayer or offering sacrifices, etc......you get the point.

The first thing out of your (internet) mouth was a recitation of all the positions and functions you hold within the Church. Why? because THAT was your basis for claiming "cred". Not that you followed the teachings of Christ, not that you lived out (as well as anyone can) his example of treating others as you yourself want to be treated (sound familiar?.....maybe someone at the last Knights of Columbus bingo night mentioned something about it)

The second thing out of your internet mouth was an attack on someone with a different view of what the Church clergy should be doing vis a vis it's laity......geez, where did I just see a reference to another group doing that?

I have seen evidence of the Church promoting and then hiding conduct that earlier you said was exaggerated. So, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen? I would bet you know (and knew) all about it, but were too indoctrinated to deal with it honestly. I can tell you story after story that I learned from family and friends about these abuses. But, you go ahead and deny it and pray to Francis for the strength to continue to avoid admitting it all exists.

One last thought. How dare you insinuate the people abused by the Church over the centuries were all liars and apostates....or witches possessed by demons? Pharisee...
Christ criticized the Pharisees for many many things. The dress and behavior at the Temple was just one of them.

When I respond to @Jerry , I did that to him in response to his background...nothing more, nothing less.

I did not insinuate people abused by the Church were liars and apostates. I stated that the church has been very corrupt and evil for its actions in denying, excusing, and turning a blind eye to such priest abuse behavior. I said nothing of the sort that accusers were liars or apostates - those are you're lying words. WTF are you talking about? More lies and mis-truths from you, twisted sick SOB. Forget Pharisee, forget any semblance that you really know Christianity or Catholicism. You're just a sick, twisted, angry ****ing liar, accusing me and blatantly lying about what I posted.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
Christ criticized the Pharisees for many many things. The dress and behavior at the Temple was just one of them.

When I respond to @Jerry , I did that to him in response to his background...nothing more, nothing less.

I did not insinuate people abused by the Church were liars and apostates. I stated that the church has been very corrupt and evil for its actions in denying, excusing, and turning a blind eye to such priest abuse behavior. I said nothing of the sort that accusers were liars or apostates - those are you're lying words. WTF are you talking about? More lies and mis-truths from you, twisted sick SOB. Forget Pharisee, forget any semblance that you really know Christianity or Catholicism. You're just a sick, twisted, angry ****ing liar, accusing me and blatantly lying about what I posted.
I just spent more time than I have for such nonsense looking up the statement about the child abuse in the Catholic Church being exaggerated. And, I found the post and SURPRISE, it wasn't you. That comment was made in a different thread by some other delusional " my church and my Pope can do no wrong" wacko.. So, I apologize for that particular set of comments that i made that attributed those remarks to you. It wasn't a lie as much as it was a misattribution. But I should have checked it....

The rest of my criticisms stand.

Now, if you have regained some control of your emotions, please look at the things you said to/about me in this last post, all because we disagreed on the things we discussed. Are you proud of that reaction? Do you think Jesus would want you to react like that? My tiny, hard hearted advice, try to be more Christ-like in the future.
 
Last edited:

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Pioneer, thanks for a gracious response.

Regarding the Republican Party, I clearly said I understand a faithful Catholic rejecting the GOP but can not understand how he or she could embrace the Democratic Party for the reasons I outlined in the earlier post and will not again state here. However, let's be honest, you have not addressed the argument presented in that post at all.

About the "border," here's the thing: the Vatican has walls. No open borders there. Moreover, our country is not morally obligated to take in every downtrodden person who illegally comes here. No more than you are morally obligated to take in anybody who knocks on your family's door looking for shelter. Think about it.

As for the "rich and powerful," honestly you will find many more of them in the Democratic Party these days. In fact, it's not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party has become the favored political refuge of the rich and powerful. Just look at the demographics, geographics, and statistics.

I have no problem with the change in the Catholic Catechism regarding the death penalty but nor do I believe it to be binding on the consciences of Catholics. I'm against the death penalty personally, but one can't assign the Pope's statements on the subject to settled teaching without overturning Scripture and 2000 years of tradition.

I'm not against Vatican II or the Novus Ordo, but I do believe both have been abused in service to ideologies alien to Catholic teaching. And I tremendously resent the Vatican's recent crackdown on The Latin Mass, even though I'm not a TLM enthusiast myself.

However, two of my children and their families are Latin Mass-goers. Neither family is an opponent of Vatican II, yet both have been slandered by the fantastic lies told by people in Rome who've effectively accused them, with no reason whatsoever, of being bad Catholics.

So people who've lived their lives and raised their families as faithful Catholics in the face of overwhelming cultural opposition have become threats in the twisted imagination of current Vatican leadership while the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are fine? And you wonder where my bitterness comes from?

On the scandals, I've been as hard-line as a person could possibly be on that subject. Check out the letter to Archbishop Lori of Baltimore that my wife and I wrote on the subject. I copied it in response to a post from Kick. From what I can see, Church libs oppose abuse when it's politically convenient and cover it up otherwise. Just saying.

Along those lines, what do you say about Francis's protection of Zanchetti and his promotion of McCarrick? I'm sorry, but one could be forgiven for concluding that our Pope's concerns about abuse only come into play when his interests are threatened.

Also, what do you think about Humanae Vitae? Is is binding on Catholics? Just asking.
The priest sexual abuse scandal is an abomination. The bishops and cardinals should be held fully accountable. If settlements and penalties bankrupt diocese, then so be it. I've never said anything other than that. Good on you and your wife for writing to Bishop Lori and holding him to account. I can't readily find the letter you said you posted, must be in another thread, but I admire you for doing so. I was not impressed with Bishop Lori when he was here in the Archdiocese of Washington, and have been even less impressed as he became Bishop of Baltimore. Perhaps, could please re-post it here in response to this post?

I don't know much about Zanchetta and Francis, still reading up on it. Its very clear that McCarrick was a serial predator and there were many red flags raised with no action taken. I find it very troubling that McCarrick and JP2 had an active history. McCarrick's promotion? JP2 promoted him to Cardinal. JP2 sent him everywhere for fundraising and Vatican representation. Spellman and Cooke were his ordainer and consecrator/mentor, respectively. The enabling, and the blind eye toward the actions of McCarrick began and was popular DECADES (and Popes) before Francis was a twinkle in the conclave's collective eye. I do not understand why many want to pin McCarrick on Francis; nothing could be further from how things played out over decades. Plus, Francis was the Pope that finally took full action to laicized McCarrick, strip him of all his authority and priestly abilities, and effectively put him in exile. I have met McCarrick on several occasions. And knowing now his abominable acts, his jovial entreaties to my wife and I about "which of our 3 sons can I have for the priesthood" leave me cold and repulsed. There's many many people in the Church hierarchy and leadership to be held accountable regarding McCarrick.

Humanae Vitae binding on Catholics? Yes. Paul VI's encyclical re-affirms Church teachings on the sanctity of human life, and fertility/infertility.
 
Last edited:

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,123
56,083
1
You and I simply agree to disagree on matters of faith. And yes, I stand with the Vicar of Christ, as Pope Francis upholds the teachings of Christ far more so than you ever could. You got your religious views, and I have mine; but to be clear, and make no mistake, the Catholic faith is much broader and larger than the tiny, hard-hearted views you have.

You stand with the democratic party. The party of abortion. The party that foments hate and division. There is nothing Christian about the democratic party. They are solely interested in creating and preserving power.

You should confess your sin this Sunday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dzapper

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,449
9,368
1
The priest sexual abuse scandal is an abomination. The bishops and cardinals should be held fully accountable. If settlements and penalties bankrupt diocese, then so be it. I've never said anything other than that. Good on you and your wife for writing to Bishop Lori and holding him to account. I can't readily find the letter you said you posted, must be in another thread, but I admire you for doing so. I was not impressed with Bishop Lori when he was here in the Archdiocese of Washington, and have been even less impressed as he became Bishop of Baltimore. Perhaps, could please re-post it here in response to this post?

I don't know much about Zanchetta and Francis, still reading up on it. Its very clear that McCarrick was a serial predator and there were many red flags raised with no action taken. I find it very troubling that McCarrick and JP2 had an active history. McCarrick's promotion? JP2 promoted him to Cardinal. JP2 sent him everywhere for fundraising and Vatican representation. Spellman and Cooke were his ordainer and consecrator/mentor, respectively. The enabling, and the blind eye toward the actions of McCarrick began and was popular DECADES (and Popes) before Francis was a twinkle in the conclave's collective eye. I do not understand why many want to pin McCarrick on Francis; nothing could be further from how things played out over decades. Plus, Francis was the Pope that finally took full action to laicized McCarrick, strip him of all his authority and priestly abilities, and effectively put him in exile. I have met McCarrick on several occasions. And knowing now his abominable acts, his jovial entreaties to my wife and I about "which of our 3 sons can I have for the priesthood" leave me cold and repulsed. There's many many people in the Church hierarchy and leadership to be held accountable regarding McCarrick.

Humanae Vitae binding on Catholics? Yes. Paul VI's encyclical re-affirms Church teachings on the sanctity of human life, and fertility/infertility.

Just google the words Zanchetta and Francis, and you'll find all you need to know.

Unfortunately, Zanchetta is not the only case whose handling by this Pope can be questioned.

As for McCarrick, he was banished by Benedict and then rehabilitated by Francis until it all blew up in the Pope's face after Archbishop Vigano publicly exposed the issue. No question, there's more than enough blame to go around...but that doesn't take Francis off the hook.

I credit your position on Humanae Vitae, but here's the thing: a very large number of people who have suddenly developed great reverence for the office of the papacy have in the past not been shy about publicizing their dissent from papal pronouncements with which they they disagreed.

Therefore, it's hard to take them seriously when they now suggest that people like me are somehow bad Catholics because we question the Pope on matters having far less weight than the 1968 encyclical, not to mention other teaching documents, which they found inconvenient and rejected.

Here's the text of the letter that my wife and I wrote to Lori on the subject of McCarrick a few years ago:

Dear Archbishop Lori,

We write to convey some thoughts on your homily titled "Accountability For All A Must," which was dated July 30 and published on the archdiocesan website.

We are long-time parishioners of Sacred Heart of Glyndon, parents of six (to include a Poor Clare nun), grandparents of 19 (and counting), and people who have tried to build their lives around the Catholic faith and Church teaching.

We appreciate the sentiments expressed in your homily and thank you for sharing them with your flock.

However, with all due respect, Your Excellency, in our humble view: It's not enough.

While your mournful tone is indeed in keeping with the grave nature of the subject matter, there's one emotion conspicuously missing -- and we note that it's been similarly missing from various recent letters to the faithful on the part of bishops addressing the issue of (former) Cardinal McCarrick, the latest face of the scandal that never seems to end.

The emotion we speak of is righteous anger. The kind demonstrated by Jesus when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple 2,000 years ago.

As it is, reading the text of your homily and the letters of the other bishops, one gets the sense that the words are drawn from the same talking points, composed by lawyers and public relations people. That being the case, there is a certain bloodless and unconvincing quality to them.

Personally, Your Excellency, we're pretty angry. We have reason to be. So do you. So does anyone in authority truly wanting to find out who knew what and when with respect to McCarrick. And how many other McCarricks are still out there, in high places or low.

Furthermore, we think the emphasis on pedophilia and crimes against minors, as despicable as those crimes are, is misplaced and perhaps even a device to divert attention from the larger problem, which it seems to us the bishops have no interest in confronting.

The problem we refer to is a widespread environment of homosexuality within the priesthood and, correspondingly, widespread violations of vows of celibacy that are tolerated or approved by those in authority.

Please understand: We're not talking about men who, from human weakness, fail and fall and sincerely repent. God knows, weakness is the human condition, and we are all subject to it. Rather, we're talking about a mindset that holds the Commandments to be somehow optional and the moral law only selectively applicable.

The point is, this pattern of sexual misconduct and the mindset underlying it have created a culture of corruption and lies within the Church, and the abuse of minors, horrific though it be, is but an inevitable outgrowth of that culture. It is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Your Excellency, sexually active priests and those in authority who condone such behavior or themselves engage in it (Exhibit A: McCarrick) are living a grotesque lie. Those lies are devastating the Church. This catastrophic scandal, which is robbing people of their faith and their souls, will not end until the lying ends.

Thank you sincerely for your time and attention,

(Names)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pioneerlion83

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
Just google the words Zanchetta and Francis, and you'll find all you need to know.

Unfortunately, Zanchetta is not the only case whose handling by this Pope can be questioned.

As for McCarrick, he was banished by Benedict and then rehabilitated by Francis until it all blew up in the Pope's face after Archbishop Vigano publicly exposed the issue. No question, there's more than enough blame to go around...but that doesn't take Francis off the hook.

I credit your position on Humanae Vitae, but here's the thing: a very large number of people who have suddenly developed great reverence for the office of the papacy have in the past not been shy about publicizing their dissent from papal pronouncements with which they they disagreed.

Therefore, it's hard to take them seriously when they now suggest that people like me are somehow bad Catholics because we question the Pope on matters having far less weight than the 1968 encyclical, not to mention other teaching documents, which they found inconvenient and rejected.

Here's the text of the letter that my wife and I wrote to Lori on the subject of McCarrick a few years ago:

Dear Archbishop Lori,

We write to convey some thoughts on your homily titled "Accountability For All A Must," which was dated July 30 and published on the archdiocesan website.

We are long-time parishioners of Sacred Heart of Glyndon, parents of six (to include a Poor Clare nun), grandparents of 19 (and counting), and people who have tried to build their lives around the Catholic faith and Church teaching.

We appreciate the sentiments expressed in your homily and thank you for sharing them with your flock.

However, with all due respect, Your Excellency, in our humble view: It's not enough.

While your mournful tone is indeed in keeping with the grave nature of the subject matter, there's one emotion conspicuously missing -- and we note that it's been similarly missing from various recent letters to the faithful on the part of bishops addressing the issue of (former) Cardinal McCarrick, the latest face of the scandal that never seems to end.

The emotion we speak of is righteous anger. The kind demonstrated by Jesus when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple 2,000 years ago.

As it is, reading the text of your homily and the letters of the other bishops, one gets the sense that the words are drawn from the same talking points, composed by lawyers and public relations people. That being the case, there is a certain bloodless and unconvincing quality to them.

Personally, Your Excellency, we're pretty angry. We have reason to be. So do you. So does anyone in authority truly wanting to find out who knew what and when with respect to McCarrick. And how many other McCarricks are still out there, in high places or low.

Furthermore, we think the emphasis on pedophilia and crimes against minors, as despicable as those crimes are, is misplaced and perhaps even a device to divert attention from the larger problem, which it seems to us the bishops have no interest in confronting.

The problem we refer to is a widespread environment of homosexuality within the priesthood and, correspondingly, widespread violations of vows of celibacy that are tolerated or approved by those in authority.

Please understand: We're not talking about men who, from human weakness, fail and fall and sincerely repent. God knows, weakness is the human condition, and we are all subject to it. Rather, we're talking about a mindset that holds the Commandments to be somehow optional and the moral law only selectively applicable.

The point is, this pattern of sexual misconduct and the mindset underlying it have created a culture of corruption and lies within the Church, and the abuse of minors, horrific though it be, is but an inevitable outgrowth of that culture. It is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Your Excellency, sexually active priests and those in authority who condone such behavior or themselves engage in it (Exhibit A: McCarrick) are living a grotesque lie. Those lies are devastating the Church. This catastrophic scandal, which is robbing people of their faith and their souls, will not end until the lying ends.

Thank you sincerely for your time and attention,

(Names)
Very good, blunt letter to Bishop Lori. Much respect to you and your wife.
The bishops are full of legalisms (bad), and very much unwilling to confront the lack of celibacy. I have long felt, as you do, that the sexual promiscuity - heterosexual and homosexual - in the priesthood is a critical problem that the bishops refuse to address, and is a the root of the abuse scandals and the rot within the clergy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

pioneerlion83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
15,203
9,788
1
SouthernMD, by way of NJ and PSU
You stand with the democratic party. The party of abortion. The party that foments hate and division. There is nothing Christian about the democratic party. They are solely interested in creating and preserving power.

You should confess your sin this Sunday.
I NEED A CHART FROM YOU FOR THIS!!!!! 🤣 Where is my chart??? Where is your chart??? I need the usual something from you, that is completely out of context of any thread, for me to move forward!!!!!!

BTW, confessions are held on Saturdays in our parish...but we do acknowledge our sins as part of the Penitential Act of the Mass, so there's that...but then again, what you believe to be a sin...is "meh" to me.
 

Dzapper

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2019
3,129
4,837
1
I NEED A CHART FROM YOU FOR THIS!!!!! 🤣 Where is my chart??? Where is your chart??? I need the usual something from you, that is completely out of context of any thread, for me to move forward!!!!!!

BTW, confessions are held on Saturdays in our parish...but we do acknowledge our sins as part of the Penitential Act of the Mass, so there's that...but then again, what you believe to be a sin...is "meh" to me.
I see you have softened your tone quite a bit since you lost it yesterday. That's good. Jesus would like that, I'm sure. Did you use some kind of deep breathing exercises to come to your senses?

Decent people here don't want to read vicious personal attacks.

Thanks you for honoring my request in this regard.
 
Last edited: