Thursday, June 9, 2016

ITALIAN EDITORIALIST, HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD AND ALSO SHOWS THAT EVEN THE VATICAN KNOWS WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN

ANDREA TORNIELLI’S VIDEO EDITORIAL IS SPOT-ON!

Andrea Tornielli writes for the "Vatican Insider" and he is known to be close to Pope Francis. He hits the nail on the head in acknowledging what even Pope Francis must know about his critics, that both sides of the extremes in the Church, "watchdog orthodox and lax heterodox" are displeased with the Holy Father. So His Holiness must be doing something right and Tornielli points it out. It is His Holiness' pastoral agenda and outreach to the yet still imperfect, to those searching and to those reconsidering the Catholic Faith.

Watch the video by pressing this sentence.

29 comments:

Jan said...

The outreach "to those reconsidering the Catholic Faith", the problem is that it is the very manner of that outreach, with its ambiguity and clouding of Catholic teaching, that is causing some people to be reconsider their Catholic Faith and I don't mean that in a good way ... many are actually losing the Faith.

Anonymous said...

The pope actually has mocked those Catholics who actually believe in the Faith as it has always been taught. He publicly demeaned those who offered him a Spiritual Bouquet. He has publicly told religious who are questioned by the CDF on their public teaching and practices to ignore what the CDF says and keep doing what they are doing. He famously humiliated Cardinal Burke on a worldwide stage all because Cardinal Burke demanded the Catholic Faith be taught and upheld clearly and without compromise by the successor of St. Peter. He removes with the stroke of a pen any conservative bishop just because he can, yet he calls out of retirement one of the most scandalous bishops in the history of the Church, Cardinal Daneels, to be a synod father on the family! Yes, the family!

Francis could care less that he is scandalizing the few remaining Catholics who actually believe in the Cathoic Faith. In fact it is perfectly clear that he is trying to drive us away. And please stop with the SSPX stuff. He will regularize them and immediatley proceed to crush them like he is doing with the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

Anyone with a clear rational mind can see that Francis has a problem with teachings of the Catholic Faith. And he will have no opposition. And Catholics need to stop rationalizing all the nonsense and error coming from this man.

Dialogue said...

I'm afraid I was unable to get this video to play. If Pope Francis is bringing people into the Church, then what sort of people are they? If they're following him because he downplays the importance of doctrine and virtue, then won't these new disciples be angry when they learn that faith and morals are essential to Catholic life? He certainly makes many bold statements and gestures, but these seem more for the benefit of various worldly concerns than for the salvation of souls. Are there growth statistics measuring conversions under his leadership? Is Mass attendance in Argentina rising? We all know of his popularity, but what are his fruits? Anyway, I'll try the video again later.

Victor said...

The Holy Father's popularity as world leader has been dropping a lot and fast, falling now to below that of the Dalai Lama, if one is to believe YouGov. His method of evangelisation is not working anymore.

TJM said...

It is a false moral equivalence. Right is on the side of the traditionalists, not on the side of the heterodox. FAIL

Marc said...

How can it possibly be right for the pope to be on the side of anyone other than orthodox Catholics since orthodox Catholics are on the side of Christ? It is not the pope's job to stir up debate and encourage dissension. His job is to confirm the brethren in the faith and to feed the sheep the truth of Christ.

Reaching out to those outside the Church is laudable, but presenting to them a false idea of the Church accomplishes nothing. Convincing people that the Church is essentially doctrine-less does nothing to bring people to Christ. In this instance, it is important to remember that Christ's first public statement was an admonishment to repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. The mission of the Church is to baptize all nations, not to confirm them in their errors.

Jan said...

Rorate Caeli has a good comparison between St John Paul II The Great and the June 9 homily of Francis - I can only think that Francis has been misquoted once again or at least taken out of context ... I am sure someone will tell me that!

" (1) Either John Paul II and all the Popes who came before him are right, by emphasizing the "absoluteness" of the Church's moral law and by classifying as a "very serious error" that the doctrine of the Church is only an "ideal"...

It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the Church's teaching is essentially only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a "balancing of the goods in question".

But what are the "concrete possibilities of man"? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.
...

In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God's mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.

John Paul II
Veritatis Splendor
August 6, 1993

***

...or (2) Francis is right, by qualifying as "heretical" a rejection of the "Doctrine of the Ideal" as well as any affirmation of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions ('or this or nothing').

“This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that.’ ‘Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother. Do not insult him. Love him. And if there is a problem, at the very least settle your differences so that war doesn’t break out.’ This (is) the healthy realism of Catholicism. It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical. Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws' rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.”

Francis
Homily at Santa Marta
June 9, 2016"

Cletus Ordo said...

If Tornielli is known to be close to Pope Francis, then one has to, at very least, question his objectivity. As far as reaching out to the imperfect--which is really ALL of us--and those searching and this reconsidering the Catholic faith, it would be nice to see some statistics to see how successful this outreach is.

Julian Barkin said...

Not sorry to say I disagree with many of you and agree with Fr AJM's sentiments. Jesus showed us that TRULY following his example will get you hated by both the liberal left (government and the regular people of the word,) the regular faithful (most of his disciples fled save John at the Crucifixion,) and also the religious authorities of the time including right-wing literalists and extremist of religion (eg Pharisees, High priests of Israel.)

All many of you are doing is validating that our sentiments are correct, and Jesus' last beatitude about being hated because of HIM and HIS example. If the Pope is clearly not pleasing the whims of everyone and emulating Christ in that Manner, then he's doing what is necessary, despite his lack of communication abilities in English, leading to ambiguity (new translators of English please)

Marc said...

Julian, people on the left dislike President Obama because he isn't leftist enough, and people on the right dislike President Obama because he is enacting policy that hurt our country.

Is this evidence that President Obama is emulating our Blessed Lord?

Crystal Vision said...

The evidence is there - for those who see clearly. Our Blessed Lord would be pleased with:

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.

Obama provided funding to families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB.

Obama launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses.

Obama issued an Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.

Obama signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.

Obama signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which gives the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud, from lending to the financial system, and creates a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial practices that brought us to this point.

Shall I continue...?




johnnyc said...

Sure you can go on.....so can I.....

“Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. ... But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life.”

“Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (“Living the Gospel of Life,” 22).

Marc said...

Crystal, I hope that the point didn't mess up your hair when it flew by you.

John Nolan said...

The idea that if someone is disliked by both extremes he must ipso facto be right is one of the sillier notions peddled in our anti-intellectual, ignorant and superficial age. And I am sadly coming to the conclusion that Pope Francis merits the last three adjectives.

I believe he is a shallow and rather silly man. That he was promoted beyond his competence is not unique; it happens all the time in the business and political worlds, and has happened not a few times with regard to the Petrine office.

A comparison with Leo XIII is apposite. Leo was not just an intellectual and a classicist who wrote exquisite Latin verse and wrote his own encyclicals in flawless and unambiguous Latin; he was a consummate politician and diplomatist who even managed to win over Bismarck; and he was a pastoral pope whose framed portrait adorned the walls of humble Catholic cottages. (He was the first Pontiff whose face was universally recognized.)

The fact that the leadership of the free world devolves on a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is enough to make one tear one's hair out, and European politicians are no better.

For all his flaws, John Paul II was a great man, arguably the greatest of the last quarter of the 20th century. Benedict XVI was a good pope, but the manner of his going will overshadow the achievements of his all-too-short papacy.

Dialogue said...

I was finally able to get the video to play. It is crap. If we are not to follow the words of the pope, then why does he speak and write? It takes a very particular level of condescension to blame the faithful for listening to the pope. As far as Modernists are concerned, their frustration is also understandable (although I am not sympathetic). If the pope does not wish to be understood as a revolutionary, then why does he consistently present himself as such? I am prepared to bend over backwards to see the good in him, but he just seems more interested in building up himself than the Church, even at the expense of souls.

BTW, Adolf Hitler was disliked by both the traditional aristocracy and the revolutionary Communists, but his was no "middle way".

William A. said...

Quite frankly, why don't Catholics of the West follow the example of the Africans? And please, let's not get distracted by cultural and sociological pseudo-arguments. The Church in Africa is faithful because the bishops and people are theologically orthodox. Catholics there, on the whole, expect people to live by the teaching of the Church. There is a joyful love of orthodoxy. Perhaps the cardinals, in the next conclave, will keep in mind that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life, and take into consideration what someone like Cardinal Sarah has to offer the Church in terms of an unfailing witness to the Holy Eucharist and vibrant orthodox teaching.

Anonymous said...

@William A.

Ouch. I was only going to make the comparison to Juan or Evita Peron.

Crystal Vision said...

Marc - You assume I was speaking to some "point" you thought you were making. Wrong.

Anonymous said...

A more pastoral approach to the papacy is not a bad thing, in fact it is an essential thing, unless, in the process of saying and doing things pastoral, that pastoral approach undermines the Church's teachings. There is a difference between a pastoral approach which builds upon the Church's teachings and a pastoral approach that undermines or circumvents the Church's teachings. The Pope must do the former, but not the later. And clarity is absolutely necessary. Where there is ambiguity, and it is sometimes inevitable, that ambiguity must not undermine the Church's teachings.

Marc said...

Oh, Crystal? Were you responding to the other person who mentioned Obama in this thread?

Anonymous said...

Julian Barkin said... Jesus showed us that TRULY following his example will get you hated by both the liberal left (government and the regular people of the word,)...

D'accord. A person TRULY following Our Lord's example will be hated by "the liberal left."

Headlines, Daily Mail, September 23, 2015: "Obama lavishes praise on the Pope (for the policies they share) as he thanks Catholic leader for support on Cuba, climate change and immigration."

Headlines, Daily News, October 29, 2014" "Elton John calls Pope Francis ‘my hero’ for acceptance of gays."

Headlines, Washington Post, September 19, 2015: "Raúl Castro praised the pope once more Saturday for his calls to safeguard the planet from climate change and address global inequality."

Headlines, The Guardian, September 23, 2015: "Take what you need and leave the rest. Why atheists love Pope Francis."

DJR

George said...

Crystal

To me, Marc was alluding to the quote from JohnnyC which came from Pope Saint John Paul's encyclical "The Gospel of Life". It is true that Mr Obama has done some good things, as did his predecessors before him, but unfortunately, on major issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and now transgenderism, he has taken positions and actions which are in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Pornography is a serious problem today but the Justice Department under Mr.Obama has not enforced federal obscenity laws. The Obama administration shuttered the only Justice Department unit that exclusively fought adult obscenity (defined as criminally offensive material that has no “serious literary, political, artistic, or medical value”).
Let our faith be in God and our allegiance directed toward Him. Human beings cannot always be depended on. God is ever dependable. Human beings disappoint. God never disappoints.

Crystal Vision said...

Marc - I wasn't "responding." Just because you see yourself as the center of discussion on this thread doesn't mean that you are.

Let's continue, shall we?

Our Blessed Lord would be pleased with:

Obama appointed the first ever Federal Chief Information Officer to provide management and oversight over federal IT spending.

Obama signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured.

Obama committed to phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Obama empowered states to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards.

Obama increased, for the first time in more than a decade, the fuel economy standards for Model Year 2011 for cars and trucks so they will get better mileage.

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.

Shall we continue?





Catholic Mission said...

Does he know this? Torneilli at least does not!

Here are the controversial passages again
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/here-are-controversial-passages-again.html

johnnyc said...

Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away. - Pope Francis

George said...


From the perspective of a general principle, Our Blessed Lord would be pleased initiatives and programs to provide affordable health care. He is not be pleased however, with something like the Affordable Care Act, where groups with a religious objection, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, are forced either directly or indirectly to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage to their employees.

He is not pleased when the current administration threatens to withhold federal funding on healthcare institutions that refuse to perform "gender transition" services and abortions.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last month published the final rule for Obamacare's Section 1557 , requiring healthcare providers receiving federal funds to do as told or face termination of government aid, along with possible referral to the Department of Justice for legal action.

Flavius Hesychius said...

I seriously doubt God cares about the actions of Obama, or any government for that matter. Especially in regards to matters like 'IT spending'.

Crystal Vision said...

"The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ." (Gaudium et Spes, 1)

I don't agree that God does not care about 1) what each individual or each government does or does not do, and 2) those things that a) make our lives better or b) make our lives worse.

If God cares about the sparrows - and He does (Matthew 10:29), then one ought not be so quick, and possibly cynical, to claim otherwise .

johnnyc said...

But most of all c) prevents lives from being lived.....