The Crux of Vigano

****See update at the end.****

So, when I wrote my last post, I already knew about the attacks on Archbishop Vigano.  I didn’t address them at that time, though, because I get really annoyed when I draw attention to National catholic Reporter and their ridiculous propagandizing under the guise of “reporting.”  Now, however, it’s crossed over to Crux, although it’s wrapped in John Allen’s usual school of nice.  He just tries too hard to see both sides as if there’s no agenda there, either.  He can’t call a spade a spade when this Pope has fulfilled all his hopes and dreams on the economy, war, poverty, and the death penalty.

Here’s the part where I’m going to launch into my Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano apologist persona and point out how weird it is that the Pope who touts honesty and transparency in giving interviews on planes told the reporters to basically go suck lemons.

Making sense of McCarrick cover-up charges against Pope Francis

John L. Allen Jr.Aug 27, 2018 EDITOR

Yes, let’s use a little common sense, not hopes and dreams.  Let’s just look at the reality of the situation.

DUBLIN – As Pope Francis wrapped up a 32-hour visit to Ireland on Sunday, the cold, windy and rainy weather undoubtedly put a damper on turnout. Officials had expected around a half-million people to flock to Dublin’s Phoenix Park for the concluding Mass, for instance, but in the end the Vatican said 300,000 people turned out.

Ireland has been hit hard by clergy abuse, but yeah, it’s the weather. Do I know why people didn’t show?  Of course not, but neither does John Allen, and that’s pretty much how this whole article goes.  Let’s show an event and provide some correlation and causation that may or may not exist. The problem here is that it becomes a character assassination piece on Archbishop Vigano – but done in a nice way.  Sigh.

Let me state this at the outset, and I just ran across a piece from Rod Dreher that pretty much says the same thing – Archbishop Vigano’s motives for doing what he did DON’T MATTER ONE BIT.  He made claims that the Pope can either confirm or deny, so how about we see that happen???  Honestly, I like Vigano and I always have.  He was crucial in some amazing episcopal appointments and did his best to try to save this nation. He’s a staunch supporter of traditional marriage and he’s against admitting homosexuals into seminary.  Is he bitter about being appointed to this miserable country (Catholic wise, that is)? Does he have an axe to grind or is he thinking of the countless victims of McCarrick and club? Don’t know, don’t care.  I only care about the facts laid out while using a little common sense on the allegations against him.

Yet as it turns out, the meteorological storms Francis faced paled in comparison to the metaphorical ones breaking on Sunday, in part related to his overall handling of the clerical sexual abuse crisis, but more specifically to an astonishing claim by a former papal ambassador in the U.S. that Francis had lifted restrictions imposed on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick under Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, despite being informed of misconduct concerns against McCarrick in June 2013.

Yes, the bad does pale in comparison to thousands of lives altered by this abuse scandal.  The claim by Vigano wasn’t astonishing.  That’s what’s so terribly sad about it.  The only thing that was astonishing is that someone broke through the cone of silence.

Aboard the papal plane on Sunday, Francis basically challenged reporters to judge those accusations for themselves – the clear suggestion being that if they did so, the charges would crumble under their own weight.

Oh, yeah, he sure challenged them.  He didn’t take the 5th at all.  Sigh.  What happened to his reasoning for never formulating answers ahead of time?  What happened to the transparency and authenticity which supposedly come from his interviews on a plane?

Assuming journalists take the pontiff up on his offer, so far we have only the word of that former ambassador, Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, that he personally informed Francis on June 23, 2013, of the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Benedict.

Over and over again on Sunday, I was pressed by colleagues and ordinary folk alike for an answer to one burning question: “How seriously should we take this?”

Here’s my bottom line response: Take it seriously, but with a large grain of salt.

But, pray-tell, why, John?  This was a very public accusation with dates and names included, and the only response has been “No comment.”  Who is more suspect at this point?  Sure, Archbishop Vigano could be flipping insane, but he’d have to be to put out something like this simply because of sour grapes.  This isn’t a simple “The Pope knew” statement.  This one puts it all on the line.  Also, who has a lengthier track record of abuses being brought to light and ignored.  ***cough***Honduras***cough***

One certainly can’t dismiss the charge out of hand, if for no other reason than never before has a former papal ambassador accused a sitting pope of complicity in what would amount, if true, to a criminal cover-up.

I’m not sure it could actually be considered criminal since it was the over-18 crowd and no charges have been brought yet.  If it was true, it really would be far more than a cover-up.  It would be allowing a dirty old man to wander free in the Church after sanctions had been placed on him by prior Pope.

To be clear, this isn’t some anonymous figure claiming to have sent the pope a letter. Viganò was the pope’s man in America for five years, and over that time he certainly had the means and opportunity to inform the pope of things if he wanted to.

Right.

Further, there’s a symbolic dimension to the situation. Francis has been charged with mishandling an abuse allegation, and if there isn’t a credible and transparent effort to get to the bottom of things, then the pontiff’s rhetoric in Ireland about being “firm and decisive in the pursuit of truth and justice” might ring hollow.

Right, again, especially after his fumbling of other large-scale abuse issues.

On the other hand, there are at least four reasons why a large grain of salt is warranted.

And here comes all of the stuff that doesn’t change the fact a list of charges have been laid out to confirm or deny.

To begin with, the 11-page statement Viganò released to reporters probably undercut his own credibility in key respects. The letter contains charges of some form of wrongdoing or questionable behavior against no fewer than 32 senior churchmen, and in most cases Viagnò himself acknowledges that his comments are based on no more than supposition and/or connecting the dots.

Uh, OK.  That’s a sweeping generalization.  If you had gone for “some of his comments”, you might have been close, John. Let’s go down the list, shall we?

Bertone is known for putting homosexuals in positions of authority.  Not supposition.

McCarrick admitted he had shared his bed with seminarians.  Not supposition.

Sodano was given all the McCarrick info.  Not supposition.

Sodano tried to cover up the Maciel case.  Not supposition.

Sodano responsible for putting McCarrick into power. Finally, a supposition and a good one at that.  Makes total sense, though.

Cardinal Re wanted nothing to do with McCarrick.  Not supposition.

Sambi gave Bertone the file.  Not supposition.

Montalvo sent a report to Bertone.  Not supposition.

Sodano sent out a press release saying Maciel case was closed.  Pope Benedict smacked that idea down.  Not supposition.

Bertone didn’t quibble over Vincenzo de Mauro (another one everyone knew was an active homosexual).  I guess you could say supposition, but do we hear any quibbling?

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia subvert Catholic teaching on homosexuality.  I guess you’d throw that under supposition.  But, really?!

Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino?  Don’t know them, so I’ll give John one point for supposition.

Cardinal Wuerl?  Not sure how anyone could think John is this ignorant at this point.  Supposition based on a mound of evidence that he knew a whole lot more than he’s saying.

When anyone hurls around accusations quite so lightly, it’s difficult to know how seriously any one ought to be taken.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski and Archbishop John Myers?  They made payouts, for heaven’s sake.

Farrell?  Supposition, but a very logical supposition.  That said, he’s kind of one of the lackeys, so who knows.

Cardinal O’Malley?  Dude!  This was his job.  He either was completely incompetent or he knew big time.

Second, Viganò has a history.

Now onto John’s suppositions.

He was a key player in the “Vatileaks” scandal under Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, which pivoted on confidential documents being stolen and leaked to the press by a papal butler. Among them were two letters by Viganò to Benedict and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s then-Secretary of State, protesting his impending appointment as ambassador in the U.S. on the grounds that he wanted to remain in the Government of the Vatican City State and continue battling financial corruption.

I love how you’re a key player in “Vatileaks” when your stuff was found and leaked.

Then as now, the letters contained a mix of factual detail with innuendo and conspiracy theories, and it proved arduous – in some cases, basically impossible – to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As conspiratorial as the current testimony, John?  Says you.

Third, Viganò arguably undercut his credibility by not dealing with his own record on the abuse issue.

And here’s the only place they might have game, although I think witch hunt.

According to a 2014 memo, first made public in 2016, Viganò as nuncio quashed an investigation – going as far as demanding that evidence be destroyed – into then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis, who was being investigated for misconduct with seminarians as well as cover-up of sexual abuse. In 2015, Nienstedt stepped down as head of the archdiocese.

By not at least trying to explain his actions in the Nienstedt case, Viganò left open some serious question marks

So if you’ve got some serious question marks for him, what punctuation are you tallying for the Holy Father at this point?

Let’s go over a bit of a timeline here.  Nienstedt was accused of inappropriately touching a teen during a post-confirmation photo shoot in December of 2014.  It was investigated by police, and in March of 2014 they said, after an intensive investigation, that no charges were warranted. Archbishop Vigano then met with Nienstedt in April. All other allegations against Nienstedt were decades earlier and seemingly he said/he said statements.  Oddly enough, they all magically appeared after the battle over “gay referendums” started in Minnesota.  So, in quite good conscience, Vigano likely concluded that the police found nothing in the case of the confirmand and that this was likely an attack launched by proponents of “gay marriage.”  Right or wrong, Vigano looking the other way was hardly as habitual as, say, the Holy Father.

As far as Nienstedt goes, I think he did indeed blow it not removing some priests and he resigned.

Fourth, it may be difficult for many observers to escape the impression that all this was orchestrated with a political agenda in mind.

In the statement on McCarrick, Viganò clearly betrays a generally conservative political bias, among other things in his frequently derisive commentary on prelates and clerics he finds to be excessively “pro-gay” – such as an offhand claim that Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (both former or current Vatican officials) “belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.”

Wait, John!  I thought suppositions were verboten?!  And really, fighting for traditional marriage and following the rule of keeping homosexuals out of seminary are political things?  You can keep your head in the sand about Coccopalmerio and Paglia, but that’s really how we got into this mess, isn’t it, John?  Sorry, but when you’ve already spoken highly of homosexual relationships AND your buddy you’re recommending for bishop gets arrested for hosting a homosexual orgy…

There’s also the question of why Viganò’s statement appeared today, on the very day Francis was struggling to address the abuse scandals in Ireland.  Adding all that up, the release of the statement can’t help but strike some as an orchestrated maneuver.

Oh, what mystifying conspiracy does that allude to?  And really, why suggest it when you’re just going to turn around and say:

(As a footnote, if this was indeed orchestrated, it had to be a pretty off-key orchestra. Had Viganò restricted himself to releasing a crisp, one-page statement focusing solely on the charge against Francis, a former nuncio’s standing would have guaranteed a wide echo. As things stand, it’s understandably difficult for many people to know quite what to make of it.)

Is it some grand design or isn’t it?  Could Archbishop Vigano simply given up hope that anything was ever going to be done after the decade or so of reports?

“I believe the statement speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to reach the conclusions,” Pope Francis told reporters on Sunday.

Time will tell what conclusions are indeed reached, but a sober point of departure right now probably would blend genuine curiosity with healthy skepticism.

My skepticism lies with the hierarchy of the Church. The Pope’s lack of a response is troubling, particularly when, as you, John, so eloquently put it, he is fond of “taking questions on every topic under the sun with no filters and no limits, speaking without notes and delivering straight answers.”. Where are those straight answers? Why don’t you spend a little less time trying to downplay Archbishop Vigano and more time trying to get those answers for all of the victims? Writing things off as “political” doesn’t do a darn thing for them.

While Allen wants to suggest the whole testimony of Archbishop Vigano is supposition, again, please read the whole sad thing for yourself.  https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4784141/TESTIMONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Not five seconds after publication this came in:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4788059-Nienstedt-English-Final.html

LifeSite also has an article with the supporting documents. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges

Whatcha think John Allen?

This firm belongs to the group “Lawyers for All Families,” who fought against Archbishop Nienstedt over the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Minnesota.

Who was the braniac who chose the law firm that wants to take down the Church in the “gay marriage” issue to investigate and how did anyone in authority agree to that?  Where should the skepticism lie again?  Can’t imagine why anyone would think that Archbishop Nienstedt wasn’t going to get a fair shake there.

 

 

Make it so!

I was right in the middle of a rather long piece delineating the back and forth between Austen Ivereigh and Matthew Schmitz (I probably gave it more attention than I should have) when I ran across an interesting development.  I really came late to the family dinner due to “mom stuff,” so it was pretty much a “What just happened?” moment and it took me a wee bit of time to look up the voluminous back and forth and Al Jazeera TV.  My disappointment in Crux was rivaling Patheos.  Sigh. 

I’d just like to say kudos to John Allen for this.  I must say I did find him to blame for allowing another hit piece by Ivereigh (previous ones dealt with here and here). While we probably don’t agree on everything (I’m positive we don’t), I’ve always found him to come from a charitable, even-tempered position with the best of intentions.  I’m sure he prayed long and hard on this one and I totally respect him for trying to keep to quell the circular firing squad.

I do think Allen comes from a “I’m a uniter, not a divider” kind of slant.  While I’m sure that he has much more patience than I, sometimes I think it’s misplaced and I have to ask what he’s uniting with sometimes.  How’s the saying go? “Unity for the sake of unity…”

I would like to say, while I was happy with a critique of Fr. James Martin’s latest book in Crux (https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/06/17/father-james-martin-lgbt-community-bridge-far/), I would love it if Crux would never, ever post a thought from Fr. Martin again as they did last here  and that John Allen would not do a forward in his books or let him write for Crux as show here until Fr. Martin ditches the moral ambiguity and “The Church is mean!” stance.  I don’t care if the blind squirrel does find a nut on occasion, it lends credence to his, more often than not, “strange notions.”  That little “blind squirrel” has led many others into darkness.

So for now, let’s just give a thumbs up to Crux’s new editorial policy.  Here’s hoping it gets even better!  Make it so, John Allen!  Make it so! (Yes, you could say I’m in the “Next Generation”…)

Let’s Just Set Reality Aside, Shall We?

I’m glad to see John Allen weighing in on this one, but I’m not exactly sure what he’s saying.  Maybe you all can help?  It seems as confused as the reactions to Amoris Laetitia itself. https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/17/thoughts-turning-heat-amoris-debate/

Thoughts on turning down the heat in the ‘Amoris’ debate

John L. Allen Jr.December 17, 2016

EDITOR

Someone trying to remain objective about today’s debates over ‘Amoris Laetitia’ would probably have a hard time concluding that either side has a strong claim to the moral high ground, since both are charging the other with virtually the vilest crime in their respective vocabularies.

First of all, is the debate really about Amoris Laetitia or is it about how it’s being interpreted (one could say muddled) by Cardinal Kasper and club?  I mean, I’ve seen many good bishops around the world give pastoral directives on Amoris Laetitia. Not one has said to ignore it.  They have said, “This is how is should be implemented!”, but it’s not in the way Bishop McElroy, Cardinal (that still hurts to say) Cupich, and Cardinal Kasper seem to want.

As most everyone knows, Pope Francis has both fans and critics within the Catholic fold. For those with long memories, that insight rates up there with “water is wet” and “the sun came up this morning” in terms of news value, since every pontiff in the long history of the Church has faced much the same situation.

On this we can concur.  However, that hardly leads to the “dissent” label being thrown around as of late.

Fans of Francis, however, often insist that the dynamic under this pope is different than the previous two, St. Pope John Paul II and emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, because today papal critics generally are not being accused of dissent, and thus are not being threatened with possible ecclesiastical sanctions.

Well, that may or may not be the reality.  I mean, a whole lot of the liberal members of the clergy have said that Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Pell, etc., have all been “demoted” or fired from their spots.  So, which is it?

For now, let’s set aside the fact that this assertion isn’t even true anymore, since here at Crux our own Austen Ivereigh recently leveled precisely the charge of dissent against at least some critics of Francis’s document on the family, Amoris Laetitia, though certainly without any call for sanctions.

RIGHT!  He just heaped on where the liberal clergy left off.  His condescension was really on display.  Why are we setting this aside, though?  It happened, yet it would seem you don’t want to deal with it.

Let’s also set aside the truth that the number of people subject to formal censures, gag orders, publishing bans and the like during the John Paul and Benedict years was remarkably low – zero, in fact, under Pope Benedict – and the idea of papal “thought control” was mostly a fiction.

There were occasional hints of tighter discipline, such as the requirement for a mandate for Catholic theologians in John Paul’s 1990 document Ex Corde Ecclesiae, but for the most part those decrees, in time-honored Catholic fashion, were implemented with great latitude and patience, and very few heads actually rolled.”

Again, why are we setting aside what you acknowledge as reality? Or what is reality?

So, onto your point …

The main point is this: It’s true, so far as it goes, that at this point most defenders of Pope Francis haven’t accused critics of being dissenters, nor have they suggested that people who uphold contrary positions on the substantive positions associated with the pontiff, such as opening Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, are thereby committing heresy.

Yeah, hardly anyone has done that. Just the guy at your publication, the dean of the Roman Rota, the head of the Greek bishops, Cardinal JOSEPH Tobin, etc.  I think you need to narrow it down just a bit.  People in high places are scourging them, or at least hoping it’ll happen and doing their best to make it so.  The average person in the pew, probably not so much.  The average person in the pew doesn’t know who these people even are, but we are told some very public people are making very public statements and it should be glossed over.

The implication seems to be that fans of the pope are more generous, less vicious, and less inclined to question people’s bona fides as Catholics. There is, in other words, often a presumption of moral superiority in the observation that “we don’t talk that way.”

Reality, John, it’s a beautiful thing.  Embrace it.  The truth will set you free.  And, more importantly, calling a spade a spade might actually keep people from doing it again.

Simply as a descriptive matter, that proposition seems a bit disingenuous. Many in the pro-Francis camp don’t invoke concepts such as “heresy” and “dissent,” because frankly, it’s not the worst insult they can think of with which to slur an opponent.”  Instead, they use terms that Francis himself also regards as abhorrent, such as “rigid,” “inflexible,” “legalistic,” “clerical,” and, of course, worst of all, “anti-Vatican II.”

Seriously?  You’re simply fanning the flames here, John.  In the Catholic world, what would be a stronger “slur?”  You can keep stating the “no big deal” fantasy or you can accept that it actually is a big deal.  How is it that you can say out of one side of your mouth that Francis supporters are much kinder, and then turn around and list the slurs they use?  It seems disingenuous because it is!  It’s a typical liberal tactic.  “Let’s throw every horrible label possible at the likes of the four Cardinals and maybe the laity will believe it!”

In effect, what’s on display here is one of the defining differences between the Catholic left and the Catholic right over the last fifty years.

On this sentence, I can agree.  The left will twist reality and try to get everyone on board, while the right will call a spade a spade and put it in writing to boot so there’s no possible wiggle room.

For the right, “heresy” and “dissent” are about the worst things imaginable, so when they want to say “x is terrible,” that’s the language that comes naturally.

Uh, who’s been using these terms???  It ain’t the right who’s been attacking the four cardinals.  That would be the left.  You seem quite confused.

For the left, the equivalent horror is “rolling back the clock” on the Second Vatican Council, so when they want to call something or someone awful, that tends to be the verbal packaging in which the complaint comes wrapped.

So you’re saying the guy who writes for you is “left” and that he’s using that to win an argument because he’s paranoid about the people who actually wanted Vatican II implemented properly?  I missed where these four cardinals said they wanted anything other than that.

Someone trying to remain objective about today’s debates would probably have a hard time concluding that either side has a claim on the moral high ground, since both are charging the other with virtually the vilest crime in their respective vocabularies.

Who are the objective ones in this little play you’ve got running in your head?  You? Objectivity is based in facts, John.  Not seeing a whole lot of correct ones listed thus far.

To be clear, this tit-for-tat isn’t especially widespread among the Catholic rank and file. Walk into most ordinary parishes and ask what people make of the debate over Amoris Laetitia, and probably, people would stare back with uncomprehending expressions.

I agree with you on this statement.  We can only address those participating in the debate.  That’s why have trouble with your use of “many”, “most”, etc.  They are inaccurate if you are simply looking at those involved in the debate.

That said, there is nevertheless an increasingly nasty cycle of finger-pointing in print, online, in social media, and sometimes even face-to-face, and if there’s to be an end to it, perhaps what we need is the equivalent of a verbal truce.

Great.  Call off Ivereigh.  Probably not going to happen, though, so then it’s a very one-sided truce, right?  John, you’re trying to play middle ground here.  You can’t be the “Can’t we all just get along?” guy and decide who is for or against Pope Francis, who is the left or the right, and who has been nice and who has been naughty.  That makes you a commentator, not objective.  Cardinal Burke, time and again, has said that those who label him as anti-Francis are incorrect.  That would be the same for those who support their quest to have the dubia answered.

If conservatives troubled by some aspects of Amoris Laetitia and other aspects of the present papacy could at least concede that, in the main, those on the other side are not enemies of the faith, and that their positions are not a blatant rupture with Catholic tradition, that might be a powerful confidence-building measure.

Likewise, if supporters of Amoris Laetitia could stop insisting that everyone who raises legitimate questions, either about its content or its binding force, are therefore obstructionists suffering from assorted forms of psychological dysfunction, that would help too – as would acknowledging that there are various readings of Vatican II, and that not everyone who doesn’t quite share theirs is necessarily “rejecting the council.”

Read what you wrote here, John.  Where have the “conservatives” said that those “in the main” are enemies of the Faith?  It seems like you understand that there is a small group doing this, and since the four cardinals have never opposed supporting Amoris Laetitia, you are arguing against the reality of the situation. They simply want clarity.

Now, as for the other side, it would seem that you think that only bizarre accusations are being made (and by your publication to boot).

It would also likely be a balm if both sides could abandon their pretense of not only being right on the issues, but having the more virtuous motives.

Wow!  So glad you are omniscient to know their motives!  We’re talking about two diametrically opposed versions of Truth.  Only one of them can be right, but you seem to want everyone just to give in a little.  You don’t give in on Truth.  You grab onto it as hard as you can.  So, when you have one group saying that the misinterpretations are a jeopardy to the faithful and another group saying “They’re just crazy!”, it should give you pause.

Granted, this cycle of charge and counter-charge has become so habitual over the last five decades that abandoning it now may be little more than a pipe dream. Granted, too, the fact that these terms are wildly over-used doesn’t mean there no longer really is such a thing as dissent, or openly rejecting the teaching of a council.

Really?  This is your take away?  Again, you have people who are totally and utterly willing to back up every charge they make with Church teaching and tradition, and another group that says “They’re just stuck in the past!  The Church is living and breathing and you just don’t like this Pope!”

To reverse Thomas Aquinas’s famous dictum, however, the fact that a thing may be legitimately used does not negate the very real possibility of abuse.

In the end, there are serious questions raised by Amoris Laetitia regarding the Church’s pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried persons, and just in terms of betting odds, it’s a long-shot that one camp possesses all the right answers and the other absolutely none.

I’ll take that bet!  That said, you’re acting as if people are saying the whole document should be ditched.  Is this the case with Archibishop Chaput, who has expressed support for the dubia?  https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/11/18/chaput-says-issued-amoris-rules-pope-asked/  It’s all about the interpretation!

For the pro-Amoris Laetitia side, there are important values at stake, including the authority of the synodal process that led to the document as well as that of the pope who issued it. For the camp with doubts, it’s the broader tradition of the Church with regard to marriage and divorce.

I don’t know what common ground between the two might look like, but I suspect it begins by accepting all of the above as valid, as well as a “cease and desist” order on impugning people’s integrity.

Who’s questioning the authority of the pope????

Over time, the Church will almost certainly evolve towards one of its classic “both/and” solutions to what were initially seen as “either/or” problems. How long it takes to get there, however, may in part be determined by whether in the here-and-now, the rhetorical heat can at least be turned down.

Yes, the slowly boiled frog does die much easier.  Sigh.  What can a guy say who’s just published a scathing review of the four cardinals say?  “Let’s all turn it down while my publication just turned it up!”  Come on, John.  It would have been better just to say “Whoa!  I didn’t read before I published!”  Trying to play the middleman now is rather hypocritical.

I think what you might have meant to say, John, was “Mea culpa.”

 

 

Sorry to Break it to You: Wishes Aren’t Ponies

Try not to cry on the keyboard when  you read this.  Some seemed very determined to inflict their sins on children.  It’s just really, really sad that the liberal agenda, all the way around and more often than not, directly targets children.  It really shouldn’t be surprising, though.  There is much historical basis for targeting children in the destruction of a country.  Why would anyone think this would change?  We haven’t learned from history but are repeating it.  When will we learn?

Emphasis from here on is mine.

http://www.parentherald.com/articles/37665/20160418/same-sex-parenting-pope-francis-rejects-gay-marriage.htm

Terry Weldon, who runs the blog Queering The Church, believes that Pope Francis’ “Amoris Laetitia” did not denounce gay parents in the 256-page document. While Weldon recognizes that the pope did reiterate his stand on gay marriage, it could be wrong to assume that this same stand also extends to same-sex parenting.

Amoris Laetitia, Gay Marriage and ‘Certain Stability’

Weldon boosted his argument by citing another passage from the pope’s message. “We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability,” wrote Pope Francis in the document. Weldon told Gay Star News that “certain stability” could also pertain to same-sex parenting and even gay adoption.

Hopes and wishes aren’t reality, Terry.  You might live in a world… Scrap that! You definitely live in a world where science and reality have been suspended.  The sad thing is that you can’t escape reality without injury.

I’m going to have to assume that Terry Weldon is hoping that people cannot Google.  Either that or he can’t handle such an easy task himself.  Regardless, he’s urging people to believe fantasy not backed by facts.

Let me help you, Terry.  (Google, Terry, it’s a beautiful thing.) http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/pope-francis-against-gay-adoption-every-person-needs-male-father-and

…the Pope has rejected the idea of same-sex marriage as an “anthropological regression” and stressed that when it comes to adoption, “every person needs a male father and a female mother.”

…and:

“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected,” he writes. “Now, if the union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected.”

Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity,” says Pope Francis.

Explaining further, he says, “It is often argued that a child would be better cared for by a same-sex couple rather than in an orphanage or an institution. Those two situations are not optimal. The problem is that the State does not do what it has to do.”

 “They should streamline the procedure of adoption, which are never-ending, so that these children can have a home,” says the pontiff. “One failure of the State does not justify another failure of the State. The underlying issue must be addressed. More than a marriage law so that people of the same sex can adopt, we have to improve the adoption laws, which are excessively bureaucratic and, in their current implementation, encourage corruption.”

In short, the Holy Father says not to add insult to the injury which is the adoption bureaucracy.  Let’s not fail the children again by allowing same-sex couples to adopt.  Let’s fix the system so that children can get what they need: a male father and a female mother who can properly help them to shape their identity.

And, Terry, here’s more from Google to disprove your silly pondering:

Pope not happy about the same-sex adoption proposal in Malta: http://world.time.com/2013/12/30/report-pope-francis-shocked-by-same-sex-adoption-proposal/

Pope Francis gave his blessing to a referendum that would ban marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples in Slovakia: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pope-Francis-blesses-ban-same-sex-couples/2015/02/04/id/622803/#ixzz46DcEw2fc

Pope’s comments (as Cardinal Bergoglio) on same-sex adoption: http://www.businessinsider.com/pope-francis-comments-on-gay-marriage-and-gay-adoption-2013-3

And then there’s this from the then-cardinal: http://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf

I write these lines to each of you who are in the four monasteries of Buenos Aires.  The Argentine people will face, in the coming weeks, a situation whose outcome may gravely injure the family.  This refers to the project of the law regarding marriage of persons of the same sex.  What is at stake here is the identity and survival of the family:  father, mother and children.  At stake are the lives of so many children who will be discriminated against in advance, depriving them of the human maturation that God wanted to be given with a father and a mother.  At stake is the outright rejection of the law of God, engraved also in our hearts. 

I remember a quote from St. Therese when talking about her childhood illness.  She says that the envy of the Devil wanted deprive her family of the entrance to the Carmel of her older sister.  Here also is the envy of the Devil, by which sin entered into the world, which cunningly seeks to destroy the image of God: man and woman receive the mandate to grow, multiply and subdue the earth.  Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan.  It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ”movement” of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.  Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth.

So, Terry, no, it would not be wrong to assume that the Church’s “gay marriage” ban also extends to “gay adoption.”  It would be wrong of you to assume that “certain stability” would ever include same-sex couples.  As the Holy Father stated, that is “a ‘movement’ of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”