Vatican City, Mar 8, 2017 / 03:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A new advisory group for the Pontifical Council for Culture is being hailed as the beginning of a greater representation of women in leadership at the Vatican.
On March 7 the Council presented their 37-member “Women’s Consultation Group,” which they established in 2015 as a way to give women a voice in places where it can frequently be lacking in the Vatican.
Member Donna Orsuto, director of the Rome-based Lay Center, called the the group “a good start.”
“I think there are many other ways, or in the future there will be many other ways in which women can be more present, more involved in the Church, especially in the Roman Curia,” she told CNA, “but I think this is a very good start.”
Orsuto voiced her hope that as they carry out their work, the group would be able to “work together…as women, but also with the council.”
“This idea of men and women working together for the good of the Church and society” is key, she said, adding that she’s “very pleased that the focus isn’t just on women and women’s issues.”
Council president Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi said that like many other Vatican departments, “inside of my dicastery, I didn’t have any women at the management level. They were only there in an administrative sense as secretaries.”
And while the women who are part of the consultative group aren’t necessarily department managers, the presence of the group serves as a response to “this lack of the presence of women in the Roman Curia.”
Ravasi said he didn’t form the group to recriminate those who were angry about the lack of women, and nor did he want the women to be “a ‘cosmetic’ element in the sense that they were (only) a symbolic presence” or a mere viewpoint on “an only male horizon.”
Instead, the cardinal said he simply wanted “a feminine perspective” over every activity the dicastery does, including official documents.
A woman’s viewpoint, he said, “can see beyond our gaze” and offers a perspective that’s different and at times unexpected.
“It’s a question about interpretation, of prospective, of analysis, of judgment, above all, and also of proposal,” he said, explaining that the group will participate actively in both the preparation and duration of the council’s next plenary meeting.
Cardinal Ravasi stood beside some 20 of the 37 women who are currently part of the group at its official March 7 presentation. Coming from different cultures and professional backgrounds, the women serve a three-year term and meet three times annually to discuss ideas and possible projects.
Initially started in June 2015, the group was born from the Pontifical Council for Culture’s Feb. 5-7 plenary assembly that year, which was dedicated to the theme “La Cultura Femminile,” or, “The Feminine Culture.”
Several women were asked to help prepare for the plenary, and worked in two separate groups with members of the council to organize the event and define specific topics of conversation.
After the plenary, Ravasi decided to establish the group as a permanent entity. He invited the women who prepared the plenary to stay, and reached out to several others from various professions, including ambassadors, journalists, doctors, professors, actresses and teachers, among others.
In their annual meetings, the group focuses their discussion on proposals surrounding the dicastery’s work in the fields of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, sport and human anthropology.
Consuelo Corradi, coordinator of the Women’s Consultation Group and vice rector for research and international relations at the LUMSA University of Rome, told journalists that they waited to present the group because they wanted to be able to show something that was already well established and running.
The theme that links all of the members together, she said, is “the female difference,” because “there’s a perspective from women (and) there’s a way of living human life that’s specific to women.”
“It’s not a theological discourse, what we do inside the group. One can have an ideological discourse on feminine and masculine, but we try to avoid it,” she said. Instead, the women seek to bring their concrete experience as wives, mothers, friends and professionals in order to discuss “universal themes from a feminine perspective.”
Released during the official presentation of the group was their first project – a magazine titled “Cultures and Faith” including contributions from various members of the group in different languages that reflect on a variety of different topics.
Group members from various fields and cultures who attended the presentation – including Irish ambassador to the Holy See Emma Madigan – voiced their hope that the group would provide a platform to generate creative ideas given their professional backgrounds, and to foster greater collaboration with men on important issues.
In her comments to CNA, Orsuto said the variety of backgrounds and expertise of the members is “an enrichment for the Council,” especially given the fact that there were no women in senior positions in the dicastery beforehand.
Since last year’s plenary, the women have had a chance to evaluate various projects of the council and “and give some insight into doing things with a ‘feminine touch,’” she said, explaining that for her, the group is a concrete example of Pope Francis’ call for a more “incisive” feminine presence in the Church.
Italian psychologist and psychotherapist Dr. Laura Bastianelli touched on the necessity of collaboration between men and women as “a creative process.”
“We want to set up a process that is really cooperating” with one another, she said. “This is a way to build together, not trying to compete.”
“Competition is not the key to the resolution of solving problems between women and men. It’s a cooperation, so we want to co-create starting from the group in the dicastery and then to print a model that can be replicated.”
Bastianelli said she also sees the establishment of the group as a direct response to Pope Francis’ call for a greater inclusion of women in the life of the Church, and is hoping to use her background in psychology to help shape the council’s projects.
Currently a professor at Salesian university, Bastianelli trains psychotherapists and specializes in youth psychology. She is the founder of an association dedicated to working with youth and preventing diseases in children and young people.
“It’s a big work, it’s very demanding, because there’s a lot to do,” she said, explaining that the consultation group’s magazine includes an article from her on youth culture in which she reflects on difficulties today’s youth face.
Specifically, she delved into the topic of neuroscience and what it says about “the use and abuse of the internet (and) what the impact of these technologies on our youth is.”
“This is a big problem,” she said, explaining that the result of the current expansion of technologies among youth will start to be visible in the coming years.
But in addition to speaking just about the challenges, Bastianelli said she also explored the “richness” of today’s youth, “because we have young people very rich and full of competencies, but they can’t find space and they can’t develop because of many bad influences.”
She also spoke during the 2015 plenary for the Council for Culture, focusing on the topic of “generativity (procreativity) as a symbolic code,” meaning how we generate life without necessarily giving birth.
Bastianelli said her greatest hope for the consultation group is that it would spread to other realities even outside of the Church so the “richness of this experience can be replicated. It’s like leaven.”
Emma Madigan, Irish Ambassador to the Holy See, told CNA that she also hopes to use her diplomatic experience to help foster dialogue and open channels within the Vatican.
As an ambassador, “you want to understand better your interlocutors,” she said, explaining that for a diplomat, “dialogue is a core value and activity.”
“You’re basically furthering the bonds between the two countries, or in this case with a global religion, and seeing what you can bring to the table from your experience,” she said, noting that she has worked in a number of different fields where she’s had to encounter the problems people face on a daily basis.
When it comes to the Vatican, “you’re interacting with priests, dealing pretty much with the pastoral issue. You can understand some of what they’re going through,” she said, explaining that she also tries to present and discuss issues important to Ireland and to share information in order to foster greater mutual understanding.
Madigan said she was invited to join the group by Cardinal Ravasi around the same time as the 2015 plenary when he was thinking of establishing it, and initially had reservations about joining for fear of appearing to advise the Church on what they were doing.
However, since it was specifically working with one dicastery in particular, she said yes, since it speaks to people from all walks of life, including Catholics, non-Catholics and even non-believers.
“That’s something I’m really interested in,” she said, noting that she’s been invited to join “because of my position, but I’ll be representing my own perspective.”
“I do feel it was courageous in bringing this up,” she said, explaining that to have 37 women gather around the same table can get “a bit chaotic,” as each one brings their own experience and contribution.
Madigan said that when she initially came to Rome, she thought she would be the only woman ambassador, but quickly found out that wasn’t the case, and “already it means you’re not the only woman in the room.”
For the Vatican, “it is a leadership that is male, but it is changing,” she said, noting that especially when working with the Vatican, women “naturally gravitate towards other women to be interlocutors, share experiences.”
There is “still plenty of room for growth in this area,” she said, but recognized the group as “a practical example of saying ‘we want a woman’s perspective.’”
While many say that “we value women and want to bring them into the fold,” the group “is actually a practical sign that that’s happening. It’s a beginning. You have to start somewhere.”
[…]
Finally.
This will make plain what everyone knew but, except for a few brave souls, were afraid to say.
It has been a case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” with Francis and his minions. Now the small voice of Truth has spoken.
Here’s how it will work out:
1) The document will initially be ignored, as were the Dubia. But because it is the Truth, it won’t go away.
2) Next meliorist scribblers of all sorts will try to stonewall and blunt the Truth. Expect all the BIG NAMES in the Catholic Center Right commentariat to start telling us that the document isn’t correct because of this jot or that tittle. They will try to discredit the Truth by a thousand small stabs at the document.
3) When ignoring and stonewalling doesn’t make the Truth disappear, it will be assailed by all the powers of the clerical caste, both in an out of the Vatican. Signers will be excommunicated, laicized, fired from employment, perhaps even physically assaulted in some parts of the world. Intimidation will be the name of the unjust game these goons will play against the Truth.
4) They will defeat the Truth in one arena, only have it arise even stronger in many others.It will come to be widely recognized as the Truth.
5) The Truth will win.
“Utinam disrumperes caelos et descenderes a facie tua montes defluerent sicut exustio ignis tabescerent aquae arderent igni ut notum fieret nomen tuum inimicis tuis a facie tua gentes turbarentur” (Isaias 64:1-2)
Thanks be to God!
The civil war waged by the Jez and their marketeers against the truth.
PDamian, if you’ve not already got your own blog, you should start one! I’d read it every day. I’d only disagree that “everyone” already knew. Everyone who knows their faith and loves Truth knew, but I’m amazed at the zombies who are still clueless.
The first shot.
It had to be said and is now on record. It will be ignored.
Sixty two cardinals could have signed this document and it would still be ignored.
Loyalty to Magisterium of two thousand years means nothing in this Vatican. Locality to Francis is everything.
“The people are with him” is the mantra of the pope’s Marxist lieutenants. Hmmmmm.
Should read “Loyalty to Francis is everything.”
It’s not just loyalty to Francis… It’s loyalty to the council, to the new religion. Francis is the natural result of Vatican II. If he’s wrong, the world of the new church comes crashing down.
I don’t think it will be ignored. I think it will be used to punish those who signed it, and perhaps to clamp down on EF etc.
It’s a bit hard to know what to think of this document. In the end, it is merely an expression of discontent that most people feel towards this papacy. “We don’t like the way you are operating” is all it seems to say. While using the word heresy a lot, it does not really accuse the Pope of heresy. If I read it correctly, it merely accuses the Pope of indirectly leaning towards heresy, or for allowing bad things to happen that they want to label heresy.
It is strongest in that they clearly state that the Popes actions are not helpful, not in accord with the magisterium, and they imply that his attempt at trickiness is beneath the office of the Papacy. Their warning is simply that he cannot get away with this Jesuitical baloney for long. In the end, he cannot fool all the people all the time.
But no cardinals, no real bishops signed it. Most of the people who did sign it are not theologians, but historians, philosophers, regular priests, and an SSPX guy. ONe guy is a Marian conspiracy theorist. So that certainly minimizes its impact and in the end it is oo real correction of the Pope at all. It is merely a protest statement. The only real correction can come from bishops and cardinals.
At the time Humanae Vitae was released 87 theologians released a letter stating that the Pope was wrong. Of course, their outburst was just the pampered outrage of academics. The Pope was right.
It is helpful in that it does express disagreement with the Pope and in the end will add to the weight of evidence against him
Samton:
Don’t hold your breath for any more Cardinals and Bishops. 4 of the Cardinals already took a stands.
Hundreds of priests from England and the US took a stand in the Synod crisis.
Only 1 bishop in England answered the call 500 years ago.
Other people in the Church – including these theologians and professors – count a lot.
Step 2: meliorism
“it merely accuses the Pope of indirectly leaning towards heresy, or for allowing bad things to happen that they want to label heresy.”
You don’t have to be a heretic—formally promulgating false beliefs—to be a heresy-spreader. I think that that is what the “correction” is attempting to address. The muddlement of “Amoris Laetitia” aside, the incessant off-the-cuff observations—on everything that pops into his head—of this world-class Commenter are causing widespread confusion and dismay.
We may have our private suspicions as to whether he says what he says with calculation or inadvertently; but, yes, only the bishops can decide, formally.
Yet, to the average Catholic sitting in the pew—too preoccupied with making a living and/or raising a family to follow the niceties of theological debate—it won’t matter to him if he finds out that he’s been misled through the promulgation of a false Church document, or through the careless false ideas quoted to him, scattershot, through the media.
While the authors don’t directly accuse Francis of heresy but rather with fostering conditions where heresy thrives, I believe this is the first time a major document prints the pope’s name and the word “heresy” together. Of course, it has been the stuff of many private conversations for months or years now.
There is only one correction that will make a difference. It must come from Pope Emeritus Benedict. He must make it clear that he writes not as Peter but as a humble bishop, imploring Francis. He must state unequivocally that what Pope Francis is trying to do is impossible, and that both St. John Paul II and he intended their prohibition on reception of communion by “remarried” Catholics who refuse to live as “brother and sister” (see, Familiaris Consortio 84, Sacramentum Caritatis 29) to be definitive and irreversible.
Is there a contradiction in the article that appears to state that Bshp. Fellay wasn’t aware of the letter until it was delivered, yet, simultaneously claims that he was a signatory to that letter (cant be both)?
There should have been far more signatories to this letter, that thee were so few is troubling.
It is far more important now to act rather than protest. The letter is fine though very likely to be ignored. Sunday I implored Laity be aware of the current dangerous dilemma within the Catholic Church stemming from take away of Amoris Laetitia by many including National Bishops Conferences that lead to distancing practice from doctrine. Everything in the Pontiff’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia is splendid. Except for Ch 8 which contains hypothetical premises, biased suppositions, suggestions that are not official magisterial pronouncements, binding propositions and nevertheless invite change in practice. Permitting those living in adultery, cohabitation, practicing homosexuality to receive communion without the sacrament of reconciliation and requirement to relinquish those practices. I urged all remain steadfast in following Apostolic Tradition and the authentic Magisterium of Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Paul VI on now widely questioned, oft repudiated traditional moral doctrines affirmed and reaffirmed by these Pontiffs. The good beleaguered Cardinal Burke is impugned and increasingly isolated. We priests, diocesan ordinaries must for sake of our own salvation and that of those we care for, Christ’s sheep speak out convincingly. We ask how can this be? That a Roman Pontiff is permitting error to spread by suggestion, maneuvering, silence. What I will say that whatever the Pontiff’s motives may be, God is his and our judge that on the grand scale of things we know God is permitting this. Rationale seems retribution for widespread disobedience and laxity in practice by Catholics. That we are all being offered a Choice. A fateful one. Either to follow non binding suggestion and premises of what Pope Francis offers Church and world, or remain faithful adhering to practice of the Apostolic Tradition and the Gospel of Christ.
Yes,
Soon we learn which Bishops will gather with St. John Fisher and which will gather with the nameless of history!
Yup. The list will be a short one.
And where are all the great lights of the American hierarchy? Too busy trying railing against borders to care about the Faith I suppose.
Methinks the ranks of those who those who find that one can be excommunicated for defending the faith is about to grow…
Despite fifty-five years of no catechesis, inadequate catechesis, inaccurate catechesis and an evisceration of the theological academy, there are survivors who know Roman Catholicism from faux Catholicism. They have raised their voice, accompanied by 8,265 petition signers [after 72 hours] at “Support by the Catholic Laity for the Filial Correction of Pope Francis.”
There is no need to beat a dead horse by rehashing the list of grievances against the current state of affairs. “Correctio Filialis” and the “Dubia” presented by four conscientious and brave Cardinals have telescoped the major issues flawlessly, despite the usual six gun response of deceive, distract, dismiss, disparage, discourage and disarm in order to defeat the orthodox faithful.
Unimportant!
Insufficient numbers!
Schismatic! [Sufficiently so as to merit a dialogue going on for some years – but now? – not so much.]
One sole miserable soul alone would have been sufficient to see the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, adopt our humanity and endure a sadistic death at the hands of the self-important who knew best.
How exactly is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ determined to be worthy of notice in the Bergoglian epoch?
Does your sin, your moral crisis have to rank high on the zeitgeist list of heroics – adulterer, LGBTQ, S&M, or just for fun a simple SJ?
The ever so fraudulent “egalitarian” posers inhabiting the ecclesiastical class have inadvertently dropped their masque and revealed themselves for who they are.
Those who believe, those who care, those who can stomach it, have noticed.
Those devoted to infantilism substituting for devotion remain blindfolded. As long as they don’t see the cattle cars going off to the East they are not responsible.
“Leave it to the priests. They know better.”
God reward Cardinal Muller for a simple and brilliant solution to a host of problems that have been festering since before “the” Council.
Let the disputation begin.
Let it begin in public.
But it is highly doubtful to merit a “thumbs up.”
To do so would rob the St. Gallen entourage of its last refuge – papal authority. That can only be tanked when they are done with it.
I’m afraid this Pope is leading many to hell fire. May God help us to glue our faith to Christ teaching.I miss Pope John Paul II.(sob)
The “mob” mentality is alive and well, even among Catholics. Jesus was crucified for being a criminal and a heretic, but the resurrection and history has proven him innocent and justified. He was considered a heretic by the keepers of the law because he did not follow the “letter of the law,” and instead followed the Spirit of the Law. He broke the law because he refused to stone adulterers, and instead forgave them; as well as tax collectors, thieves, lepers, and murderers. He broke the Sabbath Law by healing on the Sabbath. He infuriated the leaders of the law by pointing out that King David broke into the Holy of Holies and took the holy bread to feed his soldiers, because it was necessary. He pointed out that Moses did not change the law regarding divorce, but only made a concession because it was necessary; because of the hard-heartedness of the people.
St. Paul endured the same kind of treatment as Jesus, from the “super apostles” (who were not apostles at all), who accused him of heresy in every letter he wrote, because he did not follow the “letter of the law,” and instead followed the Spirit of the Law. He accepted Gentiles and did not force them to become Jews before becoming Christians.
Pope Francis has stated the Marriage and Family Life is the heart and soul of civilization. If it dies, civilization will die. He pointed out the present broken state of Marriage and Family Life, and that “mortal sin” is not the only reason for the breakdown. There are many reasons – physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, cultural, etc. But another reason is because the Church leaders have abandoned their role as shepherd and pastor of the people. They stopped feeding and tending the sheep, leaving them vulnerable to wolves, and stopped searching for the lost sheep. Basically, Francis suggested that the Bishops and Pastors use the “internal forum” (pastoral guidance) in some cases, to discern whether a marriage is valid or not. He suggested the Sacrament of Confession for everyone.
If our present Annulment Process, using a Tribunal to judge whether marriages are Sacramental or null, is justified and acceptable, then, why would the judgment of holy pastors, filled with the Holy Spirit, not be acceptable? If it comes to light that Pope Francis has been living a secret life of corruption, debauchery, and immorality, then we are justified in accusing him. If not, we are merely instruments of Satan, crucifying Jesus all over again. “You can’t pick good fruit from a bad tree.”
I suggest that you read Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-32. If those who actively live the lifestyle of fornicators, adulterers, same sex partners are not able to enter into heaven and condemned to death. What then is the alternative? Certainly, not Heaven and the only other place for eternity is hell. Giving Communion therefore to someone who refuses to repent with a contrite heart and change their ways and who are then destined for hell is compounding the judgement by receiving Communion in an improper, unworthy disposition…Mortal Sin and Jesus do not mix.
How does priestly pastoring the lost sheep, who refuse to repent change the Word of God enabling them to receive Communion? Now, if Jesus were to come a second time and change His Word, that would be different. But, a Pope or a clergyman to change the Word of God? Oh no! Those who believe this heresy are not Catholic. This point makes me wonder about Francis. (I find it difficult to call him pope.)
Jacqueleen, you need to read the whole of Amoris Laetitia. You do not seem to know what pastoral counseling is. Francis was very strong in saying that we cannot change the teaching of Jesus or doctrines of the Church. He condemned divorce, homosexual behavior, and same sex marriage as illicit and evil. But, he does not condemn those who do such things. Jesus said: I have come for the sick, not the healthy; those who need saving and healing (paraphrased). The Church teaches that “mortal sin” includes more than just commiting a grave sin; it includes free will, intention, knowledge and a formed conscience, and forethought. Divorce does not happen in the courtroom with a piece of paper. It happens long before. A marriage that is not healthy and strong; having integrity, faith, hope, love, joy, peace, and unity is either broken or never was whole – one flesh. You are taking scriptures out of context. Pastoral counseling is intended to bring people to conversion; to recognize their sin and repent, as well as to determine if their former marriage was truly a Sacramental marriage. The Church is universal, not just in America. The laws in some countries are actually obstacles to Sacramental Marriages.
Obviously, the moderator did not like my reply….so keep your site….I’ll unsubscribe.
‘Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.’ (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 695).
I have to imagine that if Pope Pius x ever imagined that there would be a pope as bad as this, he would have tempered his words somewhat.
Do you speak about the Popes? Or do you speak of a Pope who contradicts all of them? The truth is one, the Popes are many in union with the one truth—except for one.
How many times have we heard that people felt excluded from the Church because they are divorced and remarried or because they are practising homosexuals.?Wasn’t Amoris Laetitia supposed to reach out to those who felt excluded and bring back those people even without a change to their lifestyles.?If so,where are all these people.?I have certainly not seen an avalanche of people returning to the Church in their droves.
The only thing Amoris Laetitia has succeeded in doing is to let us see with our
own eyes how deep the rot in the Church is and how weak and cowardly the clergy has become when it comes to preaching the Gospels to the faithful and the not so faithful.
This letter is welcome and hopefully the beginning of something more substantial.
Confusion is evil. To ignore confusion about what is of ultimate importance is evil. Who will take responsibility for causing this confusion about what is true? Who is the one who is responsible to proclaim the truth with authority of office?
Who speaks for Jesus Christ? Who does not speak for Jesus Christ?
The Holy Father invites people of goodwill to follow the meek and humble Jesus of Nazareth.
I am thankful for these brave men who are requesting clarification about one chapter and two footnotes in a papal exhortation that has created confusion for the body of Christ. Sins can be committed by omission as well as commission, and it would be completely un-Christian to let people know about how the love of God through Christ and change in behavior leads to eternal beatitude. If Christianity is just one religion among many or just another philosophy then it is just an empty symbol. It has lost its saltiness and is only good to be stepped on. Christ is the truth and the way and the light. It is true that we must not cause scandal by destroying someone in public to make a point about sin. These “irregular” situations can be handled by a priest or deacon privately to assist to directing them to Christ. Where AL loses its way is the idea that sanctifying grace works in these irregular relationships when they refuse to correct the behavior. This contradicts Christ. One may argue that God is calling someone out of this relationship which is initial grace, but God does not will people to sin (that is to be at enmity in relationship to Him). That is completely terrible to be expressed in any document in this faith. The Church also has many other Encyclicals (which bear more weight than an exhortation) that deny consequentalism with the idea that all that matters is if an action leads to a good or bad ending. The Church teaches and will continue to teach after Francis that doing an evil that good may occur is not correct morally.
Sorry, a bit of a rambling but my heart breaks for many that could be lead astray by confusion. It is not the call of Christ to hope people are ignorant so that their actions, just might, be mortal sins. The vocation of us all is to love people to a greater calling of holiness. One cannot live in that sanctifying grace (assuming they have been baptized) until they have perfectly or imperfectly confessed their sin and repented (reconciled) back to the Lord. You cannot live in sin and be sanctifying grace. That literally is impossible as sin by its nature is to be not in relationship with God. To lack His likeness. To lack His divine nature perfecting your nature. *sigh* I guess this is just the theology of this pope and his sycophants. 2+2=5 in their world.
It saddens me, greatly, that the “Curial Establishment” has such a hold over so many who believe that the Church has been the genuine Church of Christ since it was usurped by Constantine.
The Canon of Scripture is nothing other than a Roman postulation of eastern religions, as written by Saul of Tarsus and his fellow Romans and followers. Almost nothing, in the writings of Saul, conforms with the teachings of Christ as can be read in the Gospels. Indeed, Saul was the first heretic and secessionist in the Church.
Saul’s “theology” is a mixture of, mainly, Mithraism and Pharaohism, and others. His social “philosophy/theology” was that of submission, not to God, but to Man (in the gender sense).
All of Saul’s “teachings” were in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ, as we know them. Women were not subservient. The faithful were equal participants in the “Church”, not subservient to the priests – The only authority given by Christ was to Peter, and that was to “forgive sin”. No other authority, period!
Christ commanded us to: “Love God and love your neighbour”, “Love your neighbour as yourself”, “Love one and other as I have loved you”, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, “Turn the other cheek”, “Those without sin, cast the first stone”. He, also, taught us to care for the poor, the sick, the outcast. He further appealed to us to “turn our swords into ploughshares”, “to forgive as your heavenly Father forgives”, to pay workers a fair wage, not to make the House of God, a House of Mammon and many other things which are, quite clearly, the Word that our Holy Father proclaims.
The Holy Father, however, has, in my honest opinion, failed in proclaiming Pauline “Christianity” as heretical. Saul of Tarsus was not an Apostle – he was a “self-proclaimed “Apostle”. His theology is that of eastern mysticism, not of the teaching of Jesus Christ. His philosophy is that of subjugation and deference, rather than freedom and empowerment.
Those who would see Pope Francis as a heretic are, not only, ignorant of the teachings of Christ, but blind to its faithful teacher, Papa Francisco.
Finally, those who live by the principles of Saul of Tarsus, rather than those of Jesus Christ, are those in most need of the grace of salvation.
CORRECTION:
Para 5, line 1, “not” should be inserted between “in” and “Pauline”.
Should read – The Holy Father, however, has, in my honest opinion, failed in NOT proclaiming Pauline “Christianity” as heretical.