Breibart News by Ben Shapiro October 1,2015
After the Vatican revealed Friday that Pope Francis’ meeting with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis did not constitute “support,” the Vatican revealed yet another juicy tidbit about the Pope’s trip: he requested a meeting with a homosexual couple.
According to CNN, Pope Francis explicitly requested a meeting with Yayo Grassi and his partner Iwan. Francis hugged Grassi and Iwan for the cameras. According to Grassi, Francis initiated the meeting: “Three weeks before the trip, he called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug.”
Furthermore, the Vatican, in disowning the Davis meeting, explained, “The only real audience by the Pope at the nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.”
Grassi said he was “the former student.” His family, presumably, was his homosexual partner.
That language is quite telling: describing Iwan as Grassi’s “family,” as the statement suggests, acknowledges that homosexual couples are families, a major departure from Catholic teaching.
Is there any doubt that this media-savvy Pontiff felt the need to prevent leftist attacks on him over the Davis meeting by first disassociating from Davis, then by putting out news of the gay meetup? Why else would the media find out about the two stories simultaneously, and just days after news broke of the Davis meeting in the first place?
Clearly, the Pope believes that his need for leftist media approval to push his leftist agenda – radical environmentalism, redistributionism, pacifism – trumps emphasis on key elements of Catholic doctrine. If Francis has to buy off the press with stories ripping Kim Davis and championing papal tolerance for homosexual couples, that’s because he has something bigger at play. Evidence continues to mount that Pope Francis is a devotee of liberation theology, the Marxist theology prominent in Latin America and decried by Pope John Paul II (“does not tally with the church’s catechism”) and Pope Benedict XVI (“singular heresy”).
But at least the Pope can be assured of another cover from The Advocate.
My question is why is everything "secret." Why is everything on the down low. So to speak. Subject to being used by one side or the other, Why can't he just say what he means and mean what he says?
My question is why is everything "secret." Why is everything on the down low. So to speak. Subject to being used by one side or the other, Why can't he just say what he means and mean what he says?
29 comments:
As I say, there's a war inside the Vatican, so who to believe is an issue.
If the Pope didn't want to meet with Kim Davis, no reason for him to do so.
However, he did, and the Lefties went berserk so now we suddenly find out he met with Adam and Steve.
Something doesn't add up here. I know Mrs Davis asked her meeting not be publicized, but the rest I can't say. To have to rely on CNN is not enough.
For now, there's a lot more than meets the eye and I have the feeling it's going to turn out to be one of those "you mean this really happened?" things.
The Unitarians finally have a Pope.
I mean why does it have to be a guessing game.
The Pope is the Father of the Church. He is supposed to give clear and unambiguous messages to his flock. At least I thought that was the case.
Is he supposed to give us a menu of choices and we get to pick.
I think that is only for the Cafeteria Catholics.
Is he the Cafeteria Pope?
Contrary to what some might believe I am not happy to question the actions of the Pope. It is a terrible thing. I never did that before. Not even with Pope Benedict's Prada shoes.
So the continuous mixed signals that Pope Francis is throwing out is a sore trail for many conservative Catholics like me.
I hope he can speak simply and clearly about where he wants to take the church. So he can't be misinterpreted. So the media can't distort his meaning.
That would be a lot easier if he did everything out in the open. Not in secret.
I mean who does he think he is? Hillary Clinton?
The pope was busy.
Gotta wonder if these "Vatican Sources" are the same ones who reported that Francis amended Jesus' words to the prostitute to read: "Neither do I judge thee. Now blow and sin some more."
Trooper York said...
Is he the Cafeteria Pope?
Maybe it's all they can handle.
PS You have the same issues as the rest of us and, no, it's no fun watching the Left turn the One True Church into another Gramscian satrap.
I don't know Ed. I have good Catholics tell me I am crazy and that I am wrong and that I am sacrilegious in questioning this Pope. Some don't want to talk to me anymore. They won't even have a discussion about it. They don't want to hear it. They buy into the Popes hippie income redistribution and climate change rap. They have no problem with him blowing off the sacrament of marriage and the right to life.
I guess we all have our priorities.
Who am I to judge?
Is a blow job a sin? I always felt I was being blessed.
What say you, Titus? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..............
Yanks in. Mets in. Gonna be GREAT!!!
Trooper York said...
I don't know Ed. I have good Catholics tell me I am crazy and that I am wrong and that I am sacrilegious in questioning this Pope. Some don't want to talk to me anymore. They won't even have a discussion about it. They don't want to hear it. They buy into the Popes hippie income redistribution and climate change rap. They have no problem with him blowing off the sacrament of marriage and the right to life.
I submit cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics and those "good" Catholics aren't.
The Church is not a Chinese menu, take what you like and walk away from the rest.
You buy the package - and you are talking about the most important part - or you become a Lutheran or a Unitarian or something else that will let you do your own thing, rather than what's right.
These people are really Kennedy Catholics, they want the social sheen of being in the Church, but their real religion is Leftism.
And disagreeing with a Pope is apparently OK if the Andrew Greeley types do it and the Pope is someone like John Paul, so sacrilege must be in the eye or the beholder.
Or something.
You are probably a better Catholic than I am and you know the Scripture better, but I can't recall anything anywhere in Church doctrine that said all the hippie dippy stuff about the government running roughshod over people's lives was the way to go.
It always seemed to me all that martyrdom was to set an example that everybody makes his own path.
But maybe I missed something.
So far as blow jobs go, Catholic doctrine teaches us that you can put it anywhere you want so long as it finishes up in the vagina or that such a final resting place was part of your plan. Catholic dogma is quite accommodating if you know the rules. I don't think a blow job from Monica prior to relations with your wife can be described as foreplay, however. ......I think the Pope's actions and the various explanations of those actions are ambiguous and confusing. However, nothing that he has done is contrary to the Sermon on the Mount, and it might be argued that his actions are kind of supportive of that Sermon in a limited, modified, tentative kind of way.
I asked, "Am I a doo-doo head for seeing this pope person as nothing more than human intervening between other people and deity, and doing this by a millennia-old structure that presumes so much, presumes they are needed to do so, to intervene, and by doing interfere with real connection with creation rather than facilitate direct contact? Archaic. Anachronistic. Hidebound with ritual and amusing fashion while disturbingly unhelpful as brakes to moral vehicle spinning well out of control. Trying to avoid the guy I still hear by osmosis talk of climate change threat, talk of homosexual marriage issues, pablum, bromides, platitudes, nothing of solid value that would justify such adulation, adoration, protection and expense. Even while Christendom is collapsing at its origin overrun with its spiritual leader unwilling and unable to mount a credible counter crusade."
And Jesus sitting next to me on the sofa goes, "Nah, Brah, go ahead and think that. It pisses me off sometimes too." *high fives*
He's an old man in embroidered slippers. I wonder why he told Kim to pray for him. Shouldn't it be the other way around? "Kim, I shall pray for you. I shall pray the Lord give you strength. Truly, Kim, you are in my heart and my prayers." Said by the pope. That's how it should have been. I think. I can see that being profound to somebody. Focused group energy and all that. There really is power in prayer. Having mostly to do with change in self.
On t.v. I hear people say all the time so glibly about nearly everything, "You're in our thoughts and prayers."
And I'm sitting there hearing this thinking, "ORLY?"
"What would that prayer sound like? Give it to us. Tell us your prayer that you say."
I suspect there is no praying happening there, it's just an empty supportive thing to say publicly misleading the subject and listening public to thinking you're a prayerful, meditative, contemplative, not-needing-intervening-clergy-to-contact-deity type person.
"Our thoughts and prayers are with you."
They are not.
Don't patronize me, Non-Praying Person.
What is "radical environmentalism" and how is it different from just plain old "environmentalism"?
If a practice is destructive to the ecosystem, at what point do we say it's necessary and "radical" to stop it?
I can't recall anything anywhere in Church doctrine that said all the hippie dippy stuff about the government running roughshod over people's lives was the way to go.
ed, enlighten me if you don't mind.
In what ways has the government run roughshod over your life?
If the 90% of American Catholics who are wild about this pope (I assume a number of them must be "liberal Catholics") then it's hard for me to see why conservative Catholics would be so sore.
It's not like the rest of them haven't put up with a lot more conservative popes, is it?
I think if they can live with all the detailed sexual instructions that Francis holds to (everyone seems to say that's all doctrine that needs to remain "unchanged" anyway) then it seems to me that conservatives need not get too up in arms with wanting to protect the posterity of creation and the weak and poor, as well.
But what do I know? I'm not a Catholic. (Although I sympathize with a lot of them). But it's hard for me to pretend that I can't see that their church is an institution as political as any other, and what's going on in those politics.
Rhythm and Balls said...What is "radical environmentalism" and how is it different from just plain old "environmentalism"?
Environmentalism is recycling paper bags at Trader Joe's; radical environmentalism is driving nails into trees to prevent tree's conversion into paper.
Environmentalism is using less carbon-based fuel for driving; radical environmentalism is blocking Keystone to prevent any consumption by anyone.
I'm not a Catholic, nor religious, and probably not wise, but to me the Pope is just a man, so none of this is surprising, nor disappointing. I feel for you who see it differently, but I can't understand it. I wish we invested less in many men who we expect too much from. We have ideas, principles, love and reason. Men will always come up short if we think they represent such things.
@R&B: I used to worry about differences in degree leading to differences in kind. It's fertile ground for discussion.
Environmentalism is recycling paper bags at Trader Joe's; radical environmentalism is driving nails into trees to prevent tree's conversion into paper.
Ok. But how powerful is any political force acting out on the latter? Realize that not every graphic kook has much to back them up.
Environmentalism is using less carbon-based fuel for driving; radical environmentalism is blocking Keystone to prevent any consumption by anyone.
Here is where I see a difference, though. These policies will have to be public and not merely personal and consumer-based. When in the great history of American environmental policy from U.S. Grant to Theodore Roosevelt to Richard Nixon did we say that protecting national parks was voluntary, that discontinuing the emission of poisonous substances should be voluntary... etc.? If anything, the idea that these actions should be only voluntary and personal is the progressive innovation. It was never that way in the past.
In any event though, I appreciate you trying to explain your case to me on this civilly. I realize there were some kerfuffles a few days ago and so I went back to a reply I didn't see that Methadras had posted on the Carly Fiorina thread and tried to explain where I was coming from in a way that hopefully makes more sense.
Thanks.
I'm not a Catholic, nor religious, and probably not wise, but to me the Pope is just a man, so none of this is surprising, nor disappointing. I feel for you who see it differently, but I can't understand it. I wish we invested less in many men who we expect too much from. We have ideas, principles, love and reason. Men will always come up short if we think they represent such things.
Well, that's the thing. I totally agree with you and can't help seeing the pope as just a man, as well. A very human man, at that but nonetheless one whom I respect greatly for what appears to me from my admittedly very limited and preliminary vantage point as an extraordinary amount of humility. However, that doesn't stop me from recognizing the power that he wields over a lot of people. Sometimes it saddens me, leading me to wonder why can't more people feel inspired by humility and kindness like that regardless of who shows it or in a way that's disconnected to the majesty of his position. But I realize that I can't change that. Hundreds of millions of people are heavily, emotionally and socially invested in this man because of his position and what he represents because of that, as they have been in so many of his predecessors - and I have no choice but to respect that if only for the simple fact that it seems to be a persistent reality that none of us can change. There are other reasons to respect the institution of the Catholic church, as well. (And IMO more than a few not to). But the power that it commands is a practical one that we have to recognize just as well as all that he and other popes recognize related to the politics and power of the world in which they operated.
But maybe that's because I'm still (unfortunately) out here in the East coast where the epicenter of all the madness that surrounded his visit took place.
Here's the thing. If the Pope supports the Little Sisters of the Poor and Kim Davis he should say so. If he wants to move the church towards sanctifying same sex marriage then he should say that. Openly. Unambiguously.
Not leave it to the careless whispers of anonymous sources.
This discussion of the Pope is really a Catholic thing. Everyone else doesn't have skin in the game.
But Catholics should speak out. Many liberal kumbaya Catholics love him and want to follow him into turing us into
Episcopalians.
Look how great that is working for them.
If the Anglican/Episcopalian religions of the Founders (those that even had one) were good enough for America then they should be good enough for anyone who wants to follow them.
My question is why is everything "secret." Why is everything on the down low. So to speak. Subject to being used by one side or the other, Why can't he just say what he means and mean what he says?
The Pope is the Pope, but also a leftist. They always lie, distort, con, etc.
Bit of a conflict I'd think, but ...
The Epicopleans are a failing sect. They are losing members and church's at an astonishing rate due to their ultra-liberal politically correct postures. In fact there is an active ongoing schism where entire.congregations are leaving.
I don't want to see that happen to the Catholic Church.
If you want to be an Episcoplean you should be one. Not try to change the Catholics to Episcoleans.
Is that where Pope Francis wants to end up?
I don't know. And I respect your request for "outsiders" not interfering.
But I am curious to know what Catholics think - just because of the size and influence of their church. They're something like a third of the U.S. population. Most of the ones I know I love greatly and respect what seems to be a sense of community among them ("fellowship"?) that other sects might - again, from my admittedly poor perspective - might lack. I also notice what seems to agitate them.
But re: your question, it seems to position your impression of the Church as a way of promoting conservative values that you personally value. Would that be accurate to say? I'm just curious. Does it generally do a good job of that and has it or does it also promote liberal values, as well? Again, I'm just wondering what your take is. It's not my business so you don't have to answer but I just thought I'd see if you had a take on that.
That is a good question. I will respond when I get to my computer as it is a big pain in the neck to write on the IPad.
Plus I want to take a minute to give a thoughtful response.
Post a Comment