Memorial Day: Honoring the Fallen, Reflecting on Sacrifice, and Seeking Peace

Memorial Day: Honoring the Fallen, Reflecting on Sacrifice, and Seeking Peace

Memorial Day, observed on the last Monday in May, is a solemn federal holiday dedicated to honoring the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who died while serving their country. Originally known as Decoration Day, it emerged in the aftermath of the Civil War, which claimed approximately 620,000 lives. Communities across the nation began decorating the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers, wreaths, and flags to remember their sacrifices.

On May 5, 1868, General John A. Logan, commander-in-chief of the Grand Army of the Republic (an organization of Union veterans), issued General Order No. 11, formally establishing Decoration Day on May 30. The first major observance took place at Arlington National Cemetery, where thousands gathered to honor both Union and Confederate dead. Over time, the holiday expanded beyond the Civil War to commemorate those who died in all American conflicts—from World War I and II to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. In 1971, Congress made it a federal holiday on its current date to create a three-day weekend.

On this day, we memorialize not abstract ideas of war, but real people—sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers—who laid down their lives. We remember their courage, their willingness to face danger for the sake of others, and the profound cost of freedom and security. Flags fly at half-staff, taps is played, and moments of silence remind us that freedom is never free.

 The Veterans We Must Not Forget

While Memorial Day specifically honors the deceased, it inevitably draws our thoughts to all veterans—those who returned home bearing physical and invisible wounds. Society often forgets them after the parades end. Many veterans struggle with PTSD, homelessness, inadequate healthcare, and a sense of isolation in a fast-paced, consumer-driven culture. We wave flags on holidays but sometimes fail to support the policies, funding, and community care that honor their ongoing service. True remembrance demands more than ceremonies; it calls for gratitude, advocacy, and active support for those who protected us.

 A Personal Journey: From Opposition to Appreciation

In my early college days, I was firmly against soldiers, the Army, the Marines, and the military in general. I viewed them as instruments that caused violence and encouraged war. Influenced by idealistic pacifism and campus activism, I saw military force as inherently aggressive rather than defensive. It took years of maturity, study, and reflection for wisdom to temper that view. I came to understand that, in a fallen world, a strong defense is often necessary to preserve life, liberty, and justice.

The Bible itself acknowledges this reality. God commands angelic armies and has used military force for self-preservation. In Joshua 5:13-15, Joshua encounters the "commander of the army of the Lord" with a drawn sword—evidence of divine military order. Elisha's servant sees "horses and chariots of fire" surrounding them (2 Kings 6:17), protecting God's people. The Israelites repeatedly battled in self-defense under God's allowance, as in the conquest narratives or against oppressors like the Philistines and Assyrians. David declares in 1 Samuel 17:45 that he comes "in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel."

Catholic Church teaching aligns with this nuanced view through the Just War tradition, developed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 2307-2317). War is never ideal, but legitimate defense can be a grave duty when grave harm is certain, all peaceful means fail, there is reasonable hope of success, and the response is proportionate. The Church obliges citizens and governments to work for the avoidance of war but affirms the right to self-defense.

Early Church Fathers wrestled with these tensions. While many, like Tertullian and Origen, expressed strong reservations about Christians in military service (emphasizing love of enemies and the Kingdom of God), the tradition evolved to recognize the legitimacy of defending the innocent. St. Augustine argued that peace is the goal, but force may sometimes be required to restrain evil. The Church has consistently taught a presumption for peace while allowing for just defense.

Personally, I would not choose to serve in any war unless there were no other way to protect my family and nation. I still long for a world without troops, weapons, or armies or need for them—a world of perfect harmony. Yet that remains wishful thinking. Humans are still primitive in many ways: tribal, fearful, and combative. Sin fractures our relationships, and evil forces exploit that brokenness. Until Christ returns to make all things new, prudent defense remains a sad necessity.

I now support our troops wholeheartedly. They stand in the gap so that civilians like me can debate, worship, and live in relative security. Their sacrifices remind us of the ultimate sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who laid down His life for all.

 A Prayer for Veterans and Peace

Lord God of Hosts,  

We thank You for the men and women who have defended justice, protected the innocent, and sacrificed everything for our nation. Comfort the families of those who gave their lives. Heal the wounds—visible and invisible—of those who returned. Grant eternal rest to the fallen and strength to the living.  

Convert the hearts of the violent and the war-makers. Inspire leaders to pursue peace with justice. Help us build a world where swords are beaten into plowshares, as the prophets foretold (Isaiah 2:4).  

Through the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel and all warrior saints, grant us wisdom, courage, and true peace—the peace that surpasses all understanding. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.  

May we live each day worthy of their sacrifice, working tirelessly for a more just and peaceful world. God bless our veterans, living and deceased.

Gio Benítez's Confirmation: A Joyous Milestone or a Catholic Scandal in the Making?

Gio Benítez's Confirmation: A Joyous Milestone or a Catholic Scandal in the Making?

In a world where personal faith journeys often intersect with public personas, ABC News anchor Gio Benítez's recent confirmation into the Catholic Church has sparked both celebration and controversy. On November 10, 2025, the 40-year-old journalist—best known for co-anchoring Good Morning America and his role as a transportation correspondent—took a significant step in his spiritual life. Joined by his husband of nine years, Tommy DiDario, Benítez was confirmed at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in Manhattan, marking the culmination of a decades-long path back to the faith he first encountered as a teenager.

Benítez, who came out as gay in 2013 and married DiDario in a vibrant ceremony in Miami, shared the intimate moment on Instagram with poetic reflection: “I found the Ark of the Covenant in my heart, stored there by the one who created me… exactly as I am.” His post detailed a journey of doubt, self-discovery, and eventual embrace of what he calls “God’s loving mercy is unconditional.” Inspired by the late Pope Francis's outreach to LGBTQ+ individuals—famously encapsulated in his 2013 remark, “Who am I to judge?”—Benítez credited the pontiff's legacy of inclusivity for drawing him back. DiDario, serving as his official sponsor, stood by his side, a visible symbol of their partnership in this sacred rite. Prominent Jesuit priest Father James Martin, a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ Catholics, welcomed Benítez with a simple yet affirming “Welcome!” on social media.

For Benítez, raised in a Catholic family in Florida, this wasn't a blind leap but a return. Baptized at 15 alongside his mother, he drifted during college years spent studying religion and grappling with his identity. A recent GMA segment featuring Martin discussing Francis's impact reignited his pursuit, leading to months of preparation under supportive church leaders. Attended by a close circle of family and friends, the Mass evoked ghosts of loved ones past—grandparents who taught him to pray, aunts and uncles who modeled grace. “Loving freely fulfills the Kingdom of God,” Benítez wrote, quoting a mentor's invocation of Christ's command to “Love. One. Another.”

On the surface, it's an inspiring story of reconciliation: a high-profile gay man finding home in a Church often accused of alienation. Benítez's narrative aligns with a growing chorus of progressive voices within Catholicism, emphasizing pastoral mercy over doctrinal rigidity. Father Martin's endorsement underscores this shift, positioning Benítez's confirmation as a testament to Francis's reforms—from using the word “gay” in official documents to decriminalizing homosexuality globally and hosting transgender pilgrims at the Vatican.

Yet, beneath the warm glow of affirmation lies a tangle of tensions that raise serious questions about optics, fidelity to Church teaching, and the specter of scandal. While Benítez's personal joy is undeniable, the public framing of his entry—complete with spousal sponsorship and social media fanfare—exposes fault lines in the Catholic approach to sexual ethics that could undermine the very institution it seeks to reform.

 Optics: A PR Win for Progressives, a Stumble for the Church?

In the age of viral faith stories, Benítez's confirmation is tailor-made for feel-good headlines. As an openly gay celebrity, his embrace of Catholicism sends a powerful message: the Church is evolving, welcoming the marginalized without demanding conformity. DiDario's role as sponsor—traditionally a guide in faith formation—amplifies this, portraying same-sex marriage not as a barrier but a bridge to sacraments. It's a optics coup for advocates like Martin, who argue that Francis's papacy did more for LGBTQ+ inclusion than all predecessors combined. Benítez himself ties his story to the Pope's “progressive views,” leveraging Francis's soundbites to rebrand Catholicism as a haven for the “exactly as I am” crowd.

But flip the lens, and the picture sours. To traditionalists, this isn't evolution—it's erosion. Publicly celebrating a same-sex union in the heart of a confirmation rite risks signaling that the Church endorses what it officially deems disordered. Benítez's Instagram post, with its emphasis on unconditional love sans repentance, reads less like humble submission and more like triumphant self-validation. In a media-saturated era, where Benítez's 100,000+ followers amplify every update, the Church of St. Paul the Apostle now stands as a backdrop for what critics call “designer Catholicism”—pick-and-choose piety that prioritizes personal branding over communal doctrine. The optics? A progressive PR blitz that leaves conservatives feeling gaslit, wondering if mercy has morphed into license.

 Church Teaching: Mercy Without the Call to Conversion?

At its core, Benítez's story clashes with longstanding Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2357-2359). The Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and gravely sinful, calling those with same-sex attractions to chastity and self-mastery as paths to holiness. While it affirms the dignity of every person—gay or straight—intimate same-sex relations fall outside this framework, much like adultery or fornication. Pope Francis echoed this in Amoris Laetitia (2016), upholding the indissolubility of marriage while urging pastoral accompaniment for the irregular.

Benítez's journey, however, seems to sidestep this tension. His reflections center on divine acceptance of his created self, including his marriage, without mention of celibacy or amendment. DiDario's sponsorship implies ecclesial blessing of their union, yet Catholic canon law (Canon 893) requires sponsors to exemplify the faith they impart—a role hard to square with a relationship the Church views as non-sacramental. Francis's “Who am I to judge?” was never a green light for active homosexuality; it was a plea for non-judgmental dialogue, paired with his later insistence that “sexual relations are only between a man and a woman.” By framing confirmation as validation of his “loving freely,” Benítez risks presenting a truncated Gospel—one of affirmation minus the cross of renunciation.

This isn't to dismiss Benítez's sincerity; his six-month catechumenate suggests genuine wrestling. But public narratives like his can mislead, implying the Church has quietly rewritten its anthropology. For LGBTQ+ Catholics already navigating isolation, it offers false hope; for the faithful majority, it sows confusion about where doctrine ends and personal exception begins.

 Scandal: When Welcome Becomes a Stumbling Block

The gravest issue here is scandal—not in the tabloid sense, but the theological one: leading others into sin through example or ambiguity (CCC 2284-2287). Benítez's high visibility as an ABC anchor, coupled with Martin's endorsement, casts this as normative Catholicism. Young gay viewers might see confirmation as permission to pursue same-sex intimacy without qualms, eroding the Church's witness to chastity as universal. Traditional families, already wary of “woke” dilutions, could view it as capitulation, accelerating schisms in an era of Synod on Synodality debates.

History echoes this caution: Think of the Fiducia Supplicans (2023) backlash, where blessings for same-sex couples ignited global fury for blurring lines between approval and pastoral care. Benítez's event feels like Fiducia on steroids— a sacramental milestone, not mere blessing, with a spouse in the sponsor's seat. If the Church aims for unity, such spectacles risk the opposite: alienating the orthodox while patronizing the progressive. True scandal arises not from Benítez's orientation, but from the unchecked optics that normalize what doctrine deems incompatible, potentially driving souls from the full truth.

 A Path Forward: Dialogue Over Division?

Gio Benítez's confirmation is a human story of longing fulfilled, a reminder that faith defies neat boxes. His vulnerability—questioning God's love amid identity struggles—resonates universally, echoing the prodigal's return. Yet, in celebrating it uncritically, we must confront the costs: fractured optics that polarize, teachings bent to fit narratives, and scandals that wound the Body of Christ.

Perhaps the real “legacy of inclusivity” lies in honest dialogue—welcoming Benítez as a brother while gently recalling the Church's full vision of love: chaste, faithful, and ordered toward eternity. Until then, stories like his will inspire some, incense others, and leave the flock wondering: Is this homecoming, or just another headline? In a Church of sinners and saints, the answer matters more than ever.

Source:

Gio Benitez, Openly Gay ABC News Weekend Anchor, Joins Catholic Church

The Catholic Church's Teachings on Immigration and Illegal Immigration

The Catholic Church's Teachings on Immigration and Illegal Immigration

The Catholic Church has long been a vocal advocate for the rights and dignity of immigrants. Rooted in its social teachings, the Church emphasizes the importance of welcoming the stranger and providing support to those in need, regardless of their legal status. Here, we explore the key principles and teachings of the Catholic Church on immigration and illegal immigration.

Biblical Foundations

The Church's stance on immigration is deeply rooted in biblical teachings. Both the Old and New Testaments contain numerous references to the treatment of foreigners and the importance of hospitality. For instance, Leviticus 19:33-34 states, "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt." Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus emphasizes the importance of welcoming strangers in Matthew 25:35, "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me."

Catholic Social Teaching

Catholic social teaching provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the Church's position on immigration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) outlines three basic principles of Catholic social teaching on immigration:

1. People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.** This principle recognizes that individuals have the right to seek better living conditions and opportunities when they are unable to find them in their home countries.

2. A country has the right to regulate its borders and control immigration.** While the Church acknowledges the right of nations to manage their borders, it emphasizes that this must be done in a manner that respects human dignity and the rights of individuals.

3. A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.** The Church calls for immigration policies that are humane and just, prioritizing the protection of human rights and the dignity of all individuals.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further elaborates on the Church's teachings on immigration. It states, "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin". This teaching underscores the moral responsibility of wealthier nations to provide refuge and support to those fleeing difficult circumstances.

Papal Encyclicals and Statements

Over the years, various popes have reinforced the Church's teachings on immigration. Pope Francis, in particular, has been a strong advocate for the rights of migrants and refugees. He has called for a compassionate and humane approach to immigration, emphasizing the need to protect the dignity and rights of all individuals. Pope Benedict XVI also articulated the Church's position, stating that while nations have the right to regulate migration, they must do so in a way that respects human dignity and human rights.

The Catholic Church’s teachings on illegal immigration are rooted in its broader social doctrine, which emphasizes the dignity of every human person, the common good, and a balance between compassion and justice. These teachings do not provide a simple endorsement or condemnation of illegal immigration but instead offer a nuanced framework that considers the rights and responsibilities of individuals, nations, and the global community. As of March 10, 2025, this perspective remains shaped by Scripture, papal writings, and statements from bodies like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), reflecting both timeless principles and responses to contemporary challenges.

At the heart of the Church’s stance is the belief that all people, regardless of legal status, possess inherent dignity as creations of God. This stems from biblical calls to welcome the stranger, such as Leviticus 19:34—“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt”—and Matthew 25:35, where Jesus identifies with the marginalized: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” The Church sees the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt as an archetype of refugees, reinforcing a moral imperative to care for those displaced or in need. Pope Pius XII, in his 1952 apostolic constitution Exsul Familia, underscored this by placing the Church “squarely on the side of those seeking a better life by fleeing their homes,” a position echoed by subsequent popes.

The first key principle is the right to migrate. Catholic teaching holds that individuals have a natural right to move to sustain their lives and those of their families when conditions in their homeland—poverty, violence, or persecution—make a dignified life impossible. Pope John XXIII, in his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, affirmed this, stating that people may emigrate “when there are just reasons in favor of it.” This right is not absolute, however; it’s framed as a response to necessity, not a blanket entitlement to cross borders at will. Pope Francis has often highlighted this, as in his 2024 Angelus address, where he decried “systematic” efforts to repel migrants as a “grave sin,” urging nations to prioritize human life over rigid exclusion.

Yet, this right is balanced by a second principle: a nation’s right to regulate its borders. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2241) states, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.” This acknowledges that countries can set immigration policies to protect their social, economic, and cultural stability. The Church does not advocate for “open borders” in the political sense; rather, it recognizes sovereignty as legitimate when exercised justly. The USCCB has noted that enforcing immigration laws isn’t inherently contrary to Catholic teaching, provided it aligns with the common good and doesn’t dehumanize individuals.

A third principle ties these together: regulation must be tempered with mercy and justice. While nations can control borders, the Church insists this be done humanely. It condemns policies that criminalize mere survival-driven migration or exploit undocumented individuals’ vulnerability. The 2003 joint pastoral letter by U.S. and Mexican bishops, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, calls for reforms to address root causes like poverty and war, arguing that punitive measures alone—like mass deportations without due process—violate human dignity. The Church also opposes separating families or deporting people to dangerous conditions unless they pose a clear threat (e.g., violent criminals).

Regarding illegal immigration specifically, the Church avoids blanket approval or rejection. It distinguishes between persons and their actions: while entering a country without authorization may break civil law, the person retains God-given rights to basic needs—food, shelter, healthcare. Pope John Paul II, in his 1996 World Day of Migrants and Refugees message, wrote, “In the Church no one is a stranger… illegal immigrants are also recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters.” This drives Catholic ministries, like Catholic Charities, to serve undocumented migrants with aid, legal help, and advocacy, viewing such work as a Gospel mandate (Matthew 25) rather than a political stance. Critics, like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2024 lawsuits against groups like Annunciation House, have accused such efforts of facilitating illegal activity, but the Church frames them as acts of mercy within legal bounds, protected by religious freedom.

The Church also emphasizes the right not to migrate, urging wealthier nations to address migration’s causes—war, economic disparity, climate crises—through global cooperation. Fratelli Tutti (2020) by Pope Francis argues, “Ideally, unnecessary migration ought to be avoided” by fostering conditions for a dignified life in home countries. This long-term vision contrasts with short-term debates over border security, pushing for a holistic approach over unilateral crackdowns.

In practice, this teaching creates tension. The USCCB has long called for U.S. immigration reform, criticizing a “broken” system that keeps families apart or punishes “Dreamers” brought as children. They advocate legal pathways for undocumented residents who’ve integrated—some 80% of whom have lived in the U.S. for over a decade, per estimates—contributing economically (e.g., $100 billion in taxes yearly). Yet, they don’t deny a nation’s prerogative to deport in specific cases, like security risks, provided it’s not “indiscriminate” or “massive,” as Cardinal McElroy warned in 2025 against Trump-era proposals.

Critics from various sides misread this balance. Some conservatives claim the Church supports unchecked illegal entry, pointing to Francis’s rhetoric; posts on X in early 2025 accused him of contradicting the Catechism by opposing deportations outright. Progressives, meanwhile, argue the Church doesn’t go far enough, expecting full amnesty advocacy. Both miss the nuance: the Church seeks a middle path—compassion without chaos, order without cruelty. It’s less about dictating policy than challenging all sides to prioritize human dignity over political expediency, a stance that, as of March 10, 2025, remains both timeless and tested by today’s polarized debates.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church's teachings on immigration and illegal immigration are grounded in biblical principles, social teaching, and the moral imperative to uphold human dignity. The Church calls for a balanced approach that respects the rights of individuals to seek better opportunities while recognizing the right of nations to manage their borders. Ultimately, the Church advocates for policies that are just, humane, and reflective of the inherent dignity of every person.

Cardinal Fernandez to Liberals in Press Release: Sorry No Changes, You Jumped to Conclusions

After the release of the Declaration called Fiducia supplicans by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith the media went into a frenzy. They issued headliners claiming the Church changed its position, is blessing gay couples, blessing gay unions, blessing same-sex couples, etc, etc.

 The liners made it seem like the Catholic Church bent to the world's will and changed unchangeable teachings on sexual morality and marriage. Even some Catholics on social media who conflate liberalism and progressivism with Catholic teaching were elated. 

They attacked other Catholics, including Sacerdotus accusing us of being heretics or grouping all of us as "radical traditionalists" or "right-wing."  Despite the existence of Church documents, the Bible and Catechism, they honestly believed that Church teaching could change. Some even said the teachings were wrong and not fallible.  Others even claimed that sodomy is not a mortal sin. The list goes on and on.  Needless to say, they felt a sense of victory. They felt Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez were the liberal leaders that they were looking for to bring about change in the Catholic Church.  Boy were they wrong.  Today, Cardinal Fernandez and the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith issued a press release addressing the concerns of Catholics, including bishops.  

In the press release, Cardinal Fernandez made it clear that these blessings cannot take place in sacred building, or in the sanctuary or in front of the altar. They are not liturgical, ritual blessings, just pastoral ones. The press release states:

"It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion."

As stated before, the frenzy and misinterpretation of Fiducia Supplicans spread rapidly. Father James Martin, SJ, and other priests immediately began blessing same-sex couples. One priest in the Diocese of Lexington did so in front of the altar on the sanctuary despite Fiducia Supplicans prohibiting this.  Here are some articles showing the blessings: 

This press release aids those who apparently lack reading comprehension skills and did not understand Fiduccia Supplicans, particularly those who call themselves liberal Catholics.  

The cardinal clarified that this is not liturgical, only a pastoral thing, and that it is not an endorsement of same-sex unions or a change in doctrine.  

Facts matter. The Catholic Church CANNOT change teaching. We can only meet people where they are at in life but if they do not want to move from there into Christ, then we cannot do anything more.

The idea of the development of doctrine or teaching is thrown around as an attempt to claim that the Catholic Church's teachings can change. This is a poor understanding of the term. Development of doctrine or teaching means that the teachings that are already there are explained to newer generations in a way that they can understand. It does not mean that it changes.  The teachings grow out, branch out, if you will to each time period. This is what it means when we say the development of teaching or doctrine.  We explain what is already there in a better manner as times change.  

Here is the complete text of the press release:

 

Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith 

Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans

4 January 2024

We are writing this Press Release to help clarify the reception of Fiducia supplicans, while recommending at the same time a full and calm reading of the Declaration so as to better understand its meaning and purpose.

1. Doctrine

The understandable statements of some Episcopal Conferences regarding the document Fiducia supplicans have the value of highlighting the need for a more extended period of pastoral reflection. What is expressed by these Episcopal Conferences cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition, because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality. There are several indisputable phrases in the Declaration that leave this in no doubt:

«This Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion». One acts in these situations of couples in irregular situations «without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage» (Presentation).

«Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage – which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” – and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm» (4).

«Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex» (5).

«For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice» (11).

Evidently, there is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this Declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church or blasphemous.

2. Practical reception

Some Bishops, however, express themselves in particular regarding a practical aspect: the possible blessings of couples in irregular situations. The Declaration contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions), underlining that these are blessings without a liturgical format which neither approve nor justify the situation in which these people find themselves.

Documents of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith such as Fiducia supplicans, in their practical aspects, may require more or less time for their application depending on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan Bishop with his Diocese. In some places no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation.

Some Bishops, for example, have established that each priest must carry out the work of discernment and that he may, however, perform these blessings only in private. None of this is problematic if it is expressed with due respect for a text signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself, while attempting in some way to accommodate the reflection contained in it.

Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests.

3. The delicate situation of some countries

The cases of some Episcopal Conferences must be understood in their contexts. In several countries there are strong cultural and even legal issues that require time and pastoral strategies that go beyond the short term.

If there are laws that condemn the mere act of declaring oneself as a homosexual with prison and in some cases with torture and even death, it goes without saying that a blessing would be imprudent.  It is clear that the Bishops do not wish to expose homosexual persons to violence.  It remains vital that these Episcopal Conferences do not support a doctrine different from that of the Declaration signed by the Pope, given that it is perennial doctrine, but rather that they recommend the need for study and discernment so as to act with pastoral prudence in such a context.

In truth, there are not a few countries that, to varying degrees, condemn, prohibit and criminalize homosexuality.  In these cases, apart from the question of blessings, there exists a great and wide-ranging pastoral responsibility that includes training, the defense of human dignity, the teaching of the Social Doctrine of the Church and various strategies that do not admit of a rushed response.

 

4. The real novelty of the document

The real novelty of this Declaration, the one that requires a generous effort of reception and from which no one should declare themselves excluded, is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: “liturgical or ritualized” and “spontaneous or pastoral”. The Presentation clearly explains that «the value of this document […] is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective».  This «theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church».

In the background is found the positive evaluation of “popular pastoral care” which appears in many of the Holy Father’s texts. In this context, the Holy Father invites us to value the simple faith of the People of God who, even in the midst of their sins, emerge from their everyday lives and open their hearts to ask for God’s help.

For this reason, rather than the blessing of couples in irregular unions, the text of the Dicastery has adopted the other profile of a “Declaration”, which is much more than a responsum or a letter. The central theme, which invites us especially to a deeper pastoral practice which enriches our pastoral praxis, is to have a broader understanding of blessings and of the proposal that these pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context, flourish.  Consequently, leaving polemics aside, the text requires an effort to reflect serenely, with the heart of shepherds, free from all ideology.

Although some Bishops consider it prudent not to impart these blessings for the moment, we all need to grow equally in the conviction that: non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead. When the Pope asked us to grow in a broader understanding of pastoral blessings, he proposed that we think of a way of blessing that does not require the placing of so many conditions to carry out this simple gesture of pastoral closeness, which is a means of promoting openness to God in the midst of the most diverse circumstances.

5. How do these “pastoral blessings” present themselves in concrete terms?

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, “pastoral blessings” must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable.  Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an “approval” or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help. Therefore, in this case, the pastor does not impose conditions and does not enquire about the intimate lives of these people.

Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: “Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: may God help us!”.

In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help.  Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen”. Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons.

We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny these kinds of blessings to these two people who ask for them? Is it not more appropriate to support their faith, whether it be small or great, to assist them in their weaknesses with a divine blessing, and to channel that openness to transcendence which could lead them to be more faithful to the Gospel?

In order to avoid any doubt, the Declaration adds that, when the blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, «even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple» (n. 39). It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion.

For this reason, every Bishop in his Diocese is authorized by the Declaration Fiducia supplicans to make this type of simple blessing available, bearing in mind the need for prudence and care, but in no way is he authorized to propose or make blessings available that may resemble a liturgical rite.

6. Catechesis

In some places, perhaps, some catechesis will be necessary that can help everyone to understand that these types of blessings are not an endorsement of the life led by those who request them. Even less are they an absolution, as these gestures are far from being a sacrament or a rite. They are simple expressions of pastoral closeness that do not impose the same requirements as a sacrament or a formal rite. We will all have to become accustomed to accepting the fact that, if a priest gives this type of simple blessings, he is not a heretic, he is not ratifying anything nor is he denying Catholic doctrine.

We can help God’s People to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union.  In reality the same happens when individuals are blessed, as the individual who asks for a blessing – not absolution – could be a great sinner, but this does not mean we deny him this paternal gesture in the midst of his struggle to survive.

If this is clarified as a result of good catechesis, we can free ourselves from the fear that these blessings of ours may express something inadequate. We can be freer and perhaps closer and more fruitful ministers, with a ministry that is full of gestures of fatherhood and hospitality, without fear of being misunderstood.

We ask the newly-born Lord to shower a generous and gracious blessing upon everyone so that we can live a holy and happy 2024.

Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández

Prefect

Mons. Armando Matteo

Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

Source: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2024-01/dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-on-fiducia-supplicans.html 

Hopefully, the media, the LGBTQIA community and those who call themselves liberal Catholics will not understand the facts.  The Church cannot bless sin. Marriage is between one man and one woman and Church teaching can never change.

What do you think? Post your thoughts below on Disqus. Remember to follow the rules so your comment and pass through.  

Pope Amends Catechism on Death Penalty

The Vatican has announced the Pope Francis amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty.  The paragraph that will be amended will be paragraph 2267 which reads:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

- www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

The new paragraph will read:

The death penalty
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
__________________________
[1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

- http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html

A letter was sent to all bishops regarding this amendment. It reads:

Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.08.2018
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Letter to the Bishops
regarding the new revision of number 2267
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
on the death penalty
1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.[1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.
3. In this development, the teaching of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitæ of John Paul II is of great importance. The Holy Father enumerated among the signs of hope for a new culture of life “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defense’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”[3] The teaching of Evangelium vitæ was then included in the editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In it, the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” even if in reality “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (n. 2267).
4. John Paul II also intervened on other occasions against the death penalty, appealing both to respect for the dignity of the person as well as to the means that today’s society possesses to defend itself from criminals. Thus, in the Christmas Message of 1998, he wished “the world the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures … to end the death penalty.”[4] The following month in the United States, he repeated, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[5]
5. The motivation to be committed to the abolition of the death penalty was continued with the subsequent Pontiffs. Benedict XVI recalled “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”[6] He later wished a group of the faithful that “your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”[7]
6. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.”[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.”[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”[11]
7. The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.[12] The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ, affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people. Certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens, as has always been taught by the Magisterium and is confirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in numbers 2265 and 2266.
8. All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.
9. The new revision affirms that the understanding of the inadmissibility of the death penalty grew “in the light of the Gospel.”[13] The Gospel, in fact, helps to understand better the order of creation that the Son of God assumed, purified, and brought to fulfillment. It also invites us to the mercy and patience of the Lord that gives to each person the time to convert oneself.
10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 13 June 2018, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 August 2018, Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.
Prefect
X Giacomo Morandi
Titular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary
_________________________
[1] Cf. Francis, Address to participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization (11 October 2017): L’Osservatore Romano (13 October 2017), 4.
[2] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitæ (25 March 1995), n. 9: AAS 87 (1995), 411.
[3] Ibid., n. 27: AAS 87 (1995), 432.
[4] John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II: Christmas 1998 (25 December 1998), n. 5: Insegnamenti XXI,2 (1998), 1348.
[5] Id., Homily in the Trans World Dome of St. Louis (27 January 1999): Insegnamenti XXII,1 (1999), 269; cf. Homily for Mass in the Basilica of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe in Mexico City (23 January 1999): “There must be an end to the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty”: Insegnamenti XXII,1 (1999), 123.
[6] Benedict XVI, Postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation Africæ munus (19 November 2011), n. 83: AAS 104 (2012), 276.
[7] Id., General Audience (30 November 2011): Insegnamenti VII,2 (2011), 813.
[8] Francis, Letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty (20 March 2015): L’Osservatore Romano (20-21 March 2015), 7.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Francis, Address to participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization (11 October 2017): L’Osservatore Romano (13 October 2017), 5.
[12] Cf. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, cap. 23: PL 50, 667-669. In reference to the death penalty, treating the stipulations of the precepts of the Decalogue, the Pontifical Biblical Commission spoke of the “refinement” of the moral positions of the Church: “In the course of history and of the development of civilization, the Church too, meditating on the Scriptures, has refined her moral stance on the death penalty and on war, which is now becoming more and more absolute. Underlying this stance, which may seem radical, is the same anthropological basis, the fundamental dignity of the human person, created in the image of God.” (The Bible and Morality: Biblical Roots of Christian Conduct, 2008, n. 98).
[13] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 4.

-http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

The amendment quotes Pope Francis' words from a speech on October 11, 2017. Pope Francis claims that the effectiveness of detention systems and the unchanging dignity of the person is enough for all to disregard the use of capital punishment.

Many in "conservative" Catholic circles have voiced their disappointment at the amendment and are using this to further their case that Pope Francis is a heretic. Other Catholics praise the changes and say they were needed.

It is important to note that the new text does not completely do away with the death penalty. It just says that it is "inadmissible" or not tolerated. The new text does not say it is an intrinsic evil. In fact, the wording reflects the teachings of Saint Pope John Paul II who stated that the death penalty should not be used. The Catholic Church has always been against the death penalty but acknowledged that legitimate authorities had a right to protect the common good from aggressive persons.




Source:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=17938

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/pope-shifts-church-death-penalty-now-inadmissible-56983512

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-shifts-church-death-penalty-103647335.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45042130

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/08/02/live-sister-helen-prejean-pope-francis-revision-death-penalty-teaching

Students Protest Nun

A Dominican sister based in Nashville, Tennessee is under attack from students and parents at Charlotte Catholic high school. A petition with over 4,000 signatures was made on change.org by student Emma Winters calling attention to remarks made by the religious sister.

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, a professor at Aquinas College was invited to give a talk on Blessed John Paul II's "Theology of the Body." During it, she apparently made some comments regarding homosexuality that angered the students. There is no recording of the event, but supposedly she said masturbation, single parent homes with no father, as well as sexual abuse and pornography can cause same-sex attraction.

The petition by the students states:

“We reject the suggestion that homosexuality occurs mainly as a result of a parent’s shortcomings, masturbation or pornography. We recognize the difference between correlation and causation. As a result we realize that men don’t become gay by masturbating in the presence of one another but rather may engage in these activities because they are gay.” 

“We resent the fact that a school wide assembly became a stage to blast the issue of homosexuality after Pope Francis said in an interview this past fall that “we can not insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptives methods.” We are angry that someone decided they knew better than our Holy Father and invited a speaker who addressed the issue of homosexuality to our school to speak twice in the course of one school year. We the students of Charlotte Catholic High School are confused why time was spent condemning the practice of homosexuality when we could have been spent condemning: world hunger, gun violence, the death penalty, unjust care of the elderly, human trafficking, genocide, discrimination etc.; OR been promoting: love, prayer, the Beatitudes, practical ways to serve Christ, patience, just war theory etc.”  -http://www.change.org/petitions/those-who-arranged-allowed-the-talk-at-cchs-on-03-21-14-thank-you?share_id=PGGARYZAMF&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Apparently, Sister Laurel used sources from the Linacre Quarterly, which is a reputable journal publication of the Catholic Medical Association. Some claim the ideas presented in the talk to be antiquated and unfounded. This is a big problem for speakers such as Sister Laurel who rely on sources that will be attacked as researcher biased. Many academic journals on the issue conclude that there is no real link to homosexuality and other external factors.  They are labeled "inconclusive."  Naturally, Sister Laurel used sources that agrees with Catholicism's view of homosexuality so of course she will get hated for that.

Nevertheless, she had a right to speak her mind under the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The students at this Catholic high school should not be surprised to hear Catholic teaching in a Catholic school. The petition is totally silly and reflects the brainwashing these young people have undergone via the media. With MTV and music artists such as "Lady Gaga," and "Mackelmore" promoting homosexuality as a norm while attacking religion as a disease of hate, then no one should be surprised to see the youth defend the rhetoric proposed by these popular singers. They are the ones raising them.

Emma Winters wrote on her change.org profile:

"Thank you to everyone in the CCHS community who supported my petition. I have now removed it from change.org because I feel that its goal has been accomplished. I wanted to call attention to something I felt was wrong so that something similar would not happen in the future. Certainly enough attention has been brought to the issue, and I believe that our school system is working towards a meaningful change. The petition has served its purpose and can now be put to rest. It's time to look forward and not backward. Not forget but move on. The Charlotte Catholic community is one I have grown up with and love. I have faith that our community can weather this storm."

I for one will not defend nor condemn what was said by Sister Laurel because I do not know what was exactly said. However, if she was in fact defending the teaching of the Church as is without external sources, then she should not be put on trial for this especially in a Catholic school.  She has every right to teach correct Catholic teaching on sexuality.  It is unfortunate that this student wishes to promote homosexuality at the expense of silencing Sister Laurel and the Catholic Church.  A letter was sent to parents of students which can be found here: http://www.edline.net/files/_zBJtC_/457dcab8c1080dc03745a49013852ec4/Parent_Letter_-_April_1_2014.pdf  .

More needs to be done to educate our youth about Church teaching regarding homosexuality and sexuality.  I myself had an interesting discussion with a student who denied receiving Confirmation due to his views on homosexuality which are at odds with the Church.  See: http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/11/rainbow-blindness.html .

Here is a video of Sister Laurel speaking:










  

Source:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/16935/

http://wilmingtonfavs.com/2014/04/02/charlotte-catholic-high-school-students-protest-nuns-comments-homosexuality-masturbation/

http://www.change.org/petitions/those-who-arranged-allowed-the-talk-at-cchs-on-03-21-14-thank-you?share_id=PGGARYZAMF&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

http://www.change.org/users/87223768

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/01/4810338/controversial-nun-cancels-may.html#.Uz7mMKgVrBo

http://www.newmanconnection.com/institute/courses/rich-gift-of-love

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/03/catholic-nun-homosexuality-speech/7250825/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/nun-masturbation-gay_n_5070010.html

Pope Francis Interview

Pope Francis is changing the direction of the Church!  He wants Catholics to stop teaching on gays, contraception and homosexuality!  The Catholic Church is catching up to the times!

These are some of the things I've read in papers and heard some people on the news being interview claiming.  Is this so?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Once again, Pope Francis' words are being twisted around to infer what he did not intend to say.  In an interview that he granted to the Jesuit magazine, "La Civiltà Cattolica."  He says many things that the media interpreted as him being a liberal who is now steering the bark of Peter to the left.

The media claims that Pope Francis said that the Church is obsessed with abortion, contraception and gay people and that she shouldn't interfere with gay people.

Is this so?  Let's see:

This is what he really said:

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

"Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."

Pope Francis is making it clear that the Catholic Church cannot become Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow or Bill O' Reilly sitting back making commentary on social issues, if you will.  Rather, we must talk about the teachings of the Church in context.  Gay behavior, contraception, abortion and the Church's condemnation of them is presented more clearly if we live our entire faith by witnessing to Christ in the world.

Notice that Pope Francis says, "the teaching of the church.. is clear;" he never mentioned anything about changing them.  Moreover, he says that we cannot talk about these issues all the time.  He never says that we have to stop talking about them.  The Catholic Church cannot be known solely for being a thorn in the world's side.  We must be known as the Bride of Christ, the Church that has the fullness of truth which we present in love.  Like Cupid, the Church must get the world to fall in love with Jesus Christ.

In this interview, Pope Francis is speaking pastorally.  Being pastoral does not mean compromising Church teachings.  It means doing and saying the right things at the right time.  The Pope wants the church to focus on the people and not put their sins or problems before them.  The Church must heal wounds, not throw salt in them, so to speak.

What Pope Francis is saying throughout this interview is that we must be like Christ who was not concerned with the letter of the law because the law was made for man, not vice versa. (Mark 2:27)  Some claim Jesus was a liberal of sorts, but He was not.  Similarly, some today are calling Pope Francis a progressive, again this is wrong.

Jesus and Pope Francis who is a follower of Him are sowing the seeds of love.  Like in Jesus' times, the Pharisees held fast to rigid laws completely disregarding the human person. Unfortunately, the Church has been tempted to do the same by putting rules over the people.  This does not mean that rule are bad, it means that they must be flexible enough to help people spiritually and not push them away from the Church.

Recently, while flipping the channels on a Sunday night I saw "Breaking Amish."  This is supposedly a show about Amish folks who leave their community to live the "English" life or, "worldly life." Because of this, they are 'shunned' or lightly excommunicated from the Amish community.  While shunned, other Amish cannot associate with them nor even acknowledge their existence.  This is what the Pope wants out of the Church.  We cannot "shun" people. That is not Christian.  The Amish of course stem from Calvinism which is known to be rigid and fundamentalist.  Catholicism was founded by Christ Himself.

Moreover, some in the media are claiming that Pope Francis' words are a jab to Benedict XVI and John Paul II, but this is not so. As a matter of fact, this is what Pope Benedict XVI said:

"We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity.
I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and '90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.
If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith - a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us."

--Benedict XVI, Address to Swiss Bishops 2006
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html 

Sound familiar?  This is EXACTLY what Pope Francis said in the interview!

The world is full of wounded people who are wounded by sin and other issues.  The Church must tend to them and not add to their wounds.


For the full text of the interview, go here:

http://www.laciviltacattolica.it/it/quaderni/articolo/3216/scarica-gratuitamente-il-quaderno-n-3918-che-contiene-lintervista--a-papa-francesco/

http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview




Source:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-focuses-on-the-bigger-picture-with-new-interview/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/pope_francis_interview_forget_homosexuality_and_birth_control_he_s_a_flaming.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/thank-god-pope-francis-says-catholics-need-attitude-adjustment/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/pope-francis-church-cant-interfere-with-gays/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?_r=0