Vatican City, May 22, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- When Pope Francis was asked last week about his upcoming meeting with U.S. president Donald Trump, he made headlines for answering that he always tries to look for common ground.
Given that they have vocally disagreed on prominent issues in the past, what will the areas of shared agreement be?
The two are set to meet at the Vatican Wednesday, May 24, at 8:30 a.m., before Pope Francis’ weekly general audience.
President Trump arrives to Italy May 23 after stopping in both Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of his first international trip, which lasts nine days. He will also attend a NATO meeting in Brussels on May 25 and a G7 summit in Sicily on May 26.
Perhaps the most prominent area of disagreement between Trump and Francis is immigration.
During a Feb. 18, 2016, in-flight press conference, the Pope was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s immigration stand, particularly his threat to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pope Francis responded saying “a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” However, he also said that he would “give the benefit of the doubt” to the political candidate.
One week prior, Trump had bashed Pope Francis as a “pawn” for the Mexican government and “a very political person” who does not understand the problems of the United States.
After the fact, then-Holy See spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that the Pope’s comment “was never intended to be, in any way, a personal attack or an indication of how to vote” and had repeated a longstanding theme of his papacy: bridge-building.
During Trump’s time in office so far, U.S. bishops – who have Francis’ full backing on the issue – have been critical of Trump’s moves on immigration, criticizing the “ban” he implemented in his first week in office halting refugee admissions for 120 days – indefinitely for Syrian refugees – and temporarily banning visa permissions for people seeking entry to the United States from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump and Francis also have very divergent opinions on climate change. Francis insisted on the need to protect creation in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si, saying problems such as global warming are caused by human activity.
The Pope gave his full support of the Paris Climate deal in 2015, sending Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, to the Nov. 30-Dec. 11 summit as his personal delegate to the gathering.
Trump later threatened to back out of the deal, but delayed the process until after the G7 summit he’ll be participating in this week.
While there will certainly be these and other points the two disagree on, there are several issues – other than their shared disregard for formal protocol – that could actually bring the two together.
These, to name a few, could be: pro-life issues, above all defense of the unborn; religious freedom, particularly for Christians in the Middle East; and the push for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Since his campaign days, Trump has identified himself as pro-life, and even gave a shout-out to the Jan. 27 March for Life in Washington D.C. in a clip of an interview with David Muir of ABC.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence became the first vice president to participate in the event, giving a keynote speech that stressed the “sanctity of life.”
Pro-life issues are likely to be at least one strong point of union for Trump and Francis, who has often spoken out against abortion and other concerns such as euthanasia, calling them in one audience in 2014 “sins against God.”
He has also encouraged the use of conscientious objection based on religious convictions, at one point describing it as “a basic human right.”
When it comes to the Trump administration, the pro-life issue remains a big issue for many U.S. Catholics, who praised the president’s reinstatement of the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibits U.S. funding of non-government organizations that either promote or perform abortions through family-planning funds.
Trump was also lauded for his appointment of Niel Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last year. Gorsuch has been praised not only for his pro-life stance, but also for his commitment to religious freedom.
Pope Francis and Trump are also likely to share concern for persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Both Trump and Francis have called for greater solidarity and protection of persecuted Christians.
Francis has repeatedly spoken out on modern persecution, saying there are more martyrs today than in the early Church, with the “ecumenism of blood” having become a watermark phrase of his pontificate.
Trump himself said during his campaign that protecting persecuted Christians would be a priority. As evidence of this intent, at a May 11 summit on persecuted Christians U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re with you, we stand with you,” and assured of both his and Trump’s prayers.
As with any political figure, questions still loom as to how much Trump will actually do, especially if differing political opinions get in the way. But overall, the topic will likely be a point of agreement and collaboration with the Vatican.
And while Trump’s previous rhetoric on Islam is something Francis would likely hastily disagree with, a recent shift in the president’s tone is something the Pope would certainly welcome.
During his election campaign, Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and voicing his opinion that “Islam hates us.”
However, so far Trump’s rhetoric on Muslims has cooled during his first international trip abroad.
In his May 21 speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Ridyadh, Saudi Arabia, Trump avoided the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” referring instead to “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”
“The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their country and, frankly, for their families and for their children,” Trump said, speaking to leaders from more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries.
The choice is “between two futures,” and “it is a choice America cannot make for you,” he said, adding that “a better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.”
He said he didn’t come to “lecture,” but to seek an end to terrorism and the beginning of peace in the Middle East region, noting that roughly 95 percent of terrorist victims are themselves Muslim.
The president said he wants a partnership with people who share the same “interests and values” as the U.S., calling Islam one of the “great faiths” with an “ancient heritage” that has served as the “cradle of civilization.”
In addition, Trump said the problem of terrorism is not “a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it…This is a battle between good and evil.”
The U.S. president’s more moderate tone on Islam, and indeed his unprecedented praise of some aspects of Muslim culture, is something Pope Francis would likely appreciate. The Pope has on multiple occasions warned against “Islamophobia,” insisting that not all Muslims are terrorist.
However, while the two might have new-found common ground in terms of how they refer to the Muslim community, at least in the public sphere, Francis will likely take issue with the weapons deal signed by Trump and Saudi King Salman.
The deal guarantees the Middle Eastern powerhouse some $350 billion in weapons over the next 10 years, with $110 billion going into effect immediately.
Francis has consistently called for an end to the arms trade, criticizing nations that sell weapons to warring countries in order to keep the conflicts going that line their own pockets. The Pope has used almost countless occasions to insist for an end to this “scourge.”
Saudi Arabia has also been criticized by many other Middle Eastern nations for funding ISIS, most directly through weapons sales.
But regardless of the deal, terrorism is sure to be one of the key topics discussed, and if Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia is an indication of how he intends to address the issue from here on out, the two just might be able agree on this point.
After leaving Saudi Arabia, Trump flew to Israel for an official visit in a bid to cement Israeli ties and help move forward on a peace deal with Palestine. After arriving this morning, he voiced hopes to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin of a broader peace deal in the region.
“You have a great opportunity right now. Great feeling for peace throughout the Middle East. People have had enough of the bloodshed and the killing. I think we’re going to start see things starting to happen,” he told Rivlin.
In a speech to Israeli Prime Minister on the tarmac, Trump said: “We have before us a rare opportunity to bring security and stability and peace to this region and its people, defeating terrorism and creating a future of harmony, prosperity and peace, but we can only get there working together. There is no other way.”
In a previous encounter, Trump had asked Netenyahu to “hold off” on building more settlements in order help give space to further peace discussions in the region.
Earlier this month Trump met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, telling him that when it comes to a deal that pleases both parties, “we will get it done.”
The commitment to a two-state solution has been a longstanding priority for the Vatican, which was reinforced during a recent 2015 agreement between Palestine and the Holy See to promote religious freedom in the area.
Trump himself, however, has said his administration is not married to the idea of a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict, deviating from previous administrations on the issue.
While the Vatican and Trump might not agree on what exactly a peace deal looks like, it’s likely to be a shared concern.
Another topic that could be a point of union between the Pope and the president is human trafficking; not necessarily because Trump himself has been a hardliner on the issue, but more likely because the president’s daughter and high-profile adviser Ivanka Trump has made a commitment to it.
It is in this capacity that she is participating in each of the nine days of Trump’s first trip abroad as president, including the public portion of his meeting with Francis.
While in Italy, Ivanka is also set to meet with the Community of Sant’Egidio, a group often praised by Pope Francis for their work with the poor and refugees, to discuss putting an end to human trafficking.
During the meeting, the Ivanka is expected to meet with several women who are victims of trafficking, and discuss various ways in which the Church and the U.S. government can collaborate on the issue.
So while there are clearly many areas in which Pope Francis and Trump diverge, the meeting will likely find both men seeking to find common ground.
Francis himself during his May 13 press conference refrained from making a premature evaluation of Trump, saying “I never make a judgment of a person without listening to them. I believe that I should not do this.”
When the two finally meet, “things will come out, I will say what I think, he will say what he thinks, but I never, ever, wanted to make a judgment without hearing the person.”
Peace and friendship are things that can’t be forced, he said, explaining that they take daily effort and are “handcrafted.”
“Respect the other, say that which one thinks, but with respect, but walk together,” he said. Even if someone thinks differently, “be very sincere,” and respectful.
[…]
%20and%20Father%20Joseph%20Cao%20bless%20the%20parts%20of%20the%20church%20affected%20by%20an%20Aug.%2030%20break-in,%20during%20a%20Mass%20of%20reparation%20at%20Cure%20d'Ars%20Catholic%20Church%20in%20Denver%20on%20Sept.%201,%202021.jpg?w=800)
Cardinal Hollerich asks why the “conspicuous growth” of homosexuals in society. A good question for any who actually think, since homosexuals are not likely to reproduce…
The bisexual and famous writer, Andre Gide, offers a clue. Harold March examines his life (“Gide and the Hound of Heaven,” 1952): Gide was opposed to sexual license, and favored self-control and “sublimating sexual energy into desirable moral and artistic qualities.” Nevertheless, Gide,
“…emphatically protests that he has not a word to say against marriage and reproduction (but then) suggests that it would be of benefit to an adolescent, before his desires are fixed, to have a love affair with an older man, instead of with a woman. . . the general principle admitted by Gide, elsewhere in his treatise, that sexual practice tends to stabilize in the direction where it has first found satisfaction; to inoculate a youth with homosexual tastes seems an odd way to prepare him for matrimony.”
“Stabilize,” as in locked-in. As in the grooming thing; the culture of sexual experimentation thing; the sexual abuse thing; the absent father thing. Butt, rather than telling the truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) and working toward healing, better, now, for eroding society to simply redefine “marriage”! And, of course, for the feckless Hollerich & Co. to groom the Church to bless such a parody (not parity)—thereby ensuring that the affliction spreads ever more widely from one generation to the next. The midgets are in charge.
And, about the science of the genome versus the slippery path of choice, this: https://news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html And, also, about other science, a modernday and tragic interference in fetal development: endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs). The new scientific question (still a question) is whether fetal absorption of EDCs (endocrine disruptive chemicals) can block normal hormonal development toward physically/emotionally integrated male and female children at birth? (Chemicals associated with endocrine-disrupting ability in humans include organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, bisphenol A, phthalates, dioxins, and furans.)
In any event, true compassion, and sound “moral theology” (what’s that?) prohibiting sexual activity outside of real marriage still applies equally to all—for the multiply victimized no less than for binary/complementary males and females.
Excellent observations, Peter. And non-polemical, to boot!
Thank you.
I find homosexuality repulsive. I believe it is demonic. Perhaps the Cardinal is unfamiliar with Romans when he wonders why the sin of perversion is increasing. And by what logic does an increase in sin require the Church to justify it?
in Rome.m
II. Humanity Lost without the Gospel
God’s Power for Salvation.*
16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.n
17
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith;* as it is written, “The one who is righteous by faith will live.”o
Punishment of Idolaters.
18
* The wrath* of God* is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickednessp of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
19
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.q
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.r As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.s
22
While claiming to be wise,t they became fools
23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.u
24
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies.v
25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.w
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.x
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
y They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.z
I don’t think he’s unfamiliar; I think he’s indifferent.
And why am I not surprised to find “S.J” after his name?
Brilliantly said.
It’s much worse. Every event that tells the world that the Church is just arbitrarily making up moral precepts as it goes along, it tells the world that the unborn are expendable because nothing is really absolute in Catholicism.
“Everyone is called. No one is excluded: even the divorced and remarried, even homosexuals, everyone.”
— Hollerich
Um, right. If nondiscrimination is the supreme value of young people today, as Hollerich stated it is, then doesn’t that mean that people who discriminate against others are being discriminated against?
And what about those who reverence the Latin Mass?
Or those who believe that Jesus’ words ought to actually be heeded?
It makes no sense. Cartoon thinking.
Jesus deserves so much better than this Church, who is hiding His Light under the bushel that is leftism.
“If we stay with the etymology of ‘bene-dire,’ [‘say good’] do you think God could ever ‘dire-male’ [say bad] about two people who love each other?” (Card Hollerich SJ).
It’s a common argument. That if a relationship is benign, no one harmed, and they’re happy, it’s a good. I was posed that question, “If they’re very happy with each other, don’t injure anyone then what is the issue?”. Happiness doesn’t determine good or evil. God does.
‘Conspicuous’ spread of homosexuality certainly is not a logical affirmative response. Hannah Brockhaus CNA notes Hollerich doesn’t take up the issue why there allegedly are more homosexuals in Church institutions than in civil society [she said he didn’t cite sources]. Although, whether or not it’s proved true, we know bishops with empathy for homosexuals have allowed access. The priesthood is [as are most all male institutions] a favorable setting.
Blessing of such unions by the Church simply is an endorsement of a disorder that has been traditionally condemned by the Church as well as in Jewish Biblical tradition, the latter harshly penalizing the practice. Christ and the Apostles confirm the ancient Jewish condemnation.
It’s the Roman pontiff’s responsibility to reaffirm traditional doctrine. If he doesn’t then bishops must. Moral evil is contagious as are all moral disorders. Christ instituted his Mystical Body in the World, the Church, to order human behavior as ordained by God, never for any reason to bless a grievous disorder, and thereby approve it.
Many, perhaps most know the reasons for rejecting same sex unions as well as not blessing them. Although not all. And many are in doubt now that Cardinals even a Roman pontiff raises the issue as questionable.
Perennial Magisterial doctrine that condemn adultery, same sex relations, false witness et al cannot change because such doctrine identify grievous sin, and affirm God’s order of nature and moral [natural] law.
“If we stay with the etymology of ‘bene-dire,’ [‘say good’] do you think God could ever ‘dire-male’ [say bad] about two people who love each other?” (Card Hollerich SJ). Word games are also an Islamic device of rationalization…
As when Muslim scholars report that the Greek Bible erred in recording Christ’s reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit, the “Paraclete” and the Comforter (Jn 14:15-17, 14:26, and 16:12, 13, 17)–a term which Muslim scholars hold is a substitute for the original “Periclyte,” the Greek form of Ahmad or Muhammad.
Presto, the incarnate Jesus Christ is only a prophet foretelling the final prophet. Likewise, Holler-ick and his own fondling of etymology.
Happiness as a moral argument is a clearly a consequentialist argument, self-evident to anyone not a Jesuit. What sin is not committed with happiness in mind? What sin is not committed with the self-worshiping notion that we know better than God what the effects of our actions will cause? What theological sin of pride is not committed without ignoring the previous two questions?
Pope Francis makes claims of disdain for abortion. But there is reason to doubt a man who praises fanatical abortionists and characterizes urgent concern as obsessive. He has never demonstrated any rational ability to draw a connection between illicit sex and inconvenient pregnancies and the dehumanization of all life when he blames the latter on free economies. The non-child bearing activities of gays originate or lead to distortions of thought and corruptions of values to where 98 percent support abortion. When has any prelate mentioned this? How do we account for exponential decreases in common sense in the episcopate?
Edward. It’s long held that reason has suffered due to the fall and original sin. Our reason, its consistency of direction apparently blurred and diverted due to interfering, adverse predilections. That may account for the episcopate, which certainly is not disaffected by the general spiritual malaise.
My comments are not in the slightest critical of yours Father, which I always hold in high regard. My lament is just an elaborating reflection.
My response Edward wasn’t due to any sense of my being criticized. To the contrary, I agree with your remarks on happiness. My intent was an affirmation.
Jesus commands us that the 2 “eminence’s” in the photo, Cardinals Hollerich and Grech, are to be confronted about their moral apostasy and corrected, and if they do not submit to the Law of Christ, they are to be shunned.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17&version=NIV
Likewise St. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 5.
We should not permit these men to speak to the Church, and especially forbid them to speak to our children and young adults, because these men are living in darkness, and do not serve The Lord, they serve the poisonous spirit of “The Tide Ghost.” (Hat-Tip to a commenter at Fr. Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment” for that ominous translation of The Zeitgeist).
Flemish Belgium or northern Belgium, please. I don’t know anyone who calls it Flanders.
Flanders, nevertheless, is the correct name for the region.
Tagle flocking for the China sellout, Hollerich trying to normalize homo “marriage”, Francis busy naming pro-abortion ideologues to the PLA – my, our Jesuit overlords are quite active these days! A dying order that should have been suppressed forty years ago has attained more power than anyone could have imagined in 2012. And they (and their many allies) are determined not to waste the opportunity. Again, where is everyone else?
The above is not intended to be a condemnation all Jesuits past and present, of course. Even today, there are some who are a credit to the Church, not the least of whom is the founder of Ignatius Press and this very excellent publication.
S.J…. It says it all!
Ignatius of Loyola is ashamed of these lmnopqrst-e-p cheerleaders.. (sans pompoms)
‘“If we stay with the etymology of ‘bene-dire,’ [‘say good’] do you think God could ever ‘dire-male’ [say bad] about two people who love each other?” Hollerich said.’
I wonder: since when does the fact that I do not bless someone automatically mean that I curse this person? Or when I don’t say something good (about someone), it automatically means I am saying something bad?
To love means to will the good of the other, which means that we do not bless sin, nor curse the sinner, but love the sinner and call him to repentance. There are more possibilities than only blessing or cursing in this world!
Yes. The possibility of plenty is as Jesus said it at Matthew 12:30.
I’m running out of patience with the “thinking” coming from Cdl. Hollerich and co.
There are 7 places in the Bible (Old and New Testament) where it specifically states that God detests and deplores two men who join together How then could the church sanctify same sex marriage? Love the sinner but hate the sin.
Duco above – Flanders may be the correct (historic) name of northern Belgium but I don’t know anyone who calls it that today. Granted, there are two provinces called Flanders (East and West). When my mother said, “They came from the Vlaanderen”, that area is what she was referring to.
Are these not the days of Noah and Lot?
Well, the days of John the Baptist at least. He lost his head defending the truth about marriage. We can lose our jobs for doing the same. I guess we should be grateful it’s only our livelihoods & not our lives.
Flanders (= Vlaanderen) is the historic name of the county of Flanders, making up the contemporary provinces of East and West Flanders, with as respective capitals Ghent and Bruges (and actually some parts of what is now France and the Netherlands as well). Nowadays (not historically though) it is also the official name of the Northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (making up [parts of] the historic regions of Flanders, Brabant and some parts of the old prince-bishopric of Liège I think [the modern province of Limburg]). It literally has its own government (within the federal state of Belgium)! I lived for ten years in Flanders (I myself am from the Netherlands) and literally everyone there (and in the Netherlands as well) refers to the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium as Flanders (Vlaanderen), as is the official name of the state within the Belgian federation (here the official website of the Flemish government: https://www.vlaanderen.be/). True, they could also refer to East- and West-Flanders as Vlaanderen (which historically makes indeed more sense) but they definitely do refer to the entire Dutch-speaking region as Flanders as well. Maybe English-speakers do not often refer to it like that (I don’t know, I am not a native English-speaker), but contemporary Dutch-speakers definitely do (though there might be a difference with those whose experience is primarily of Belgium before the state reforms beginning in 1970, though there definitely was a Flemish movement before that time). I can indeed agree though that historically it might make more sense to refer to it as Northern or Dutch-speaking Belgium (as it would make a distinction with the actual historical county and region of Flanders – Flemish Belgium as you suggest, however, would – through the adjective Flemish – still refer to Flanders), but according to the contemporary political geography and cultural identity of the people living there Flanders is definitely correct.
As the great Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (aka Edith Stein) made very clear with indeed the insight of saint:
“Do not accept anything as love which lacks truth.”
Any man who TRULY loves another man never even considers engaging in sexual intimacy of any kind with another man as that activity is reserved solely and exclusively for a husband (male only) and his wife (female only) in the matrimonial bond with no exceptions. In like manner, any woman who TRULY loves another woman never even considers engaging in sexual intimacy of any kind with another woman as that activity is reserved solely and exclusively for a husband (male only) and his wife (female only) in the matrimonial bond with no exceptions.
Moreover, in the Church it is also recognized that the marital bond represents in a unique way the union of Christ with his bride (Not “his husband”) the Church. As such, no same sex union of any kind can properly represent Christ’s union with the Church.
Accordingly, any cardinal, bishop, or priest who in any way blesses or approves sexual intimacy between men and men or between women and women sins egregiously against these people by leading them further astray. He also sins directly against Christ by even suggesting that Christ approves the immoral behavior wrongly declared to be just another form of sexual love when all it really is is a form of mutual masturbation sinfully engaged in by two selfish people.
Jean-Claude says the question (blessing those who wish blessing because they love sodomy) is not decisive for him. The question may not be decided as the man would wish, but the answer is clear to those with the Holy Spirit’s bestowed gifts of foundational faith, knowledge, prudence, understanding and piety.
IOW, the disciple of Christ, through the Spirit’s gifts, is provided with basic common sense, and an understanding and desire to live and see others live lives of sound and blessed morality.
Scripture warns against God’s vengeance for the sins of sodomy. Yet some hard-headed clowns refuse to love the Church, refuse to honor Christ, and continue interminably to espouse wrong-headed and immoral thinking. May God deal with these as they deserve, particularly since the pope will not.
Duco again – I’ll try to remember all that.
However, I speak as a Canadian English speaker (Belgian-born). In my experience, most people are surprised to learn that Belgium has two main language groups. I don’t see the point of confusing them further by throwing in the name, Flanders, that they won’t even find on the map.
Fair enough, though I notice that in this article the name Flanders is accompanied by the clarification “the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium,” which seems to me to be a clear explanation to those not familiar with the term. I indeed do not have this problem, as Flanders is on maps in Belgium and the Netherlands;-)
He does not belong in the Church. Men of his ilk try to destroy the church and remake it into their own depraved mindset. The church loses creditability because Papa fails to uphold the dignity of what is commanded.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Jesus said that He came to do the will of His father in heaven. There are those who despise this fact. They have no business in the church. Depraved behaviour and condoning such shows one has no communion with the Lord Jesus.
The time for talk is long past, one may ask where is Papa’s heart on the matter!
Well said Brian.
A future Pope should purge the Jesuit Order of all Sodomites and Eco-Marxists. It will solve a significant portion of the Catholic Church’s problems in respect of doctrinal heterodoxy.
Duco (last comment) – Next time I go to Belgium (or Holland, oops, the Netherlands), I’ll see if I can find a map.
very well witnessed, Duco.
One of the basic tenets and commandments of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is that sex is allowed only between a married couple, man and woman.
What is hard to understand about that?
Duco again – Sorry. I think I got a little snarky in my last comment. I already have a map of Belgium but it’s not the kind that would show the name Flanders. I’m sure I have a map of Holland too but I’d have to go hunting for it. I’m not sure I’ll make it back to Belgium. My parents’ generation is gone and ties are getting thinner. On the other hand, I’d like to see the da Vinci Last Supper near Lier and Rubens’ Crucifiction in Antwerp, which Brad Miner had an amazing description of in The Catholic Thing. And you are quite right. The article did explain it was the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. (Make that the Flemish-speaking part!) Cheeers!
The dilemma of the woman who told the Cdnl that she did not want to attend church since it might make her friend feel discriminated – similar excuses such as how such and such a family attend church, stll having problems etc : are not uncommon .
The need to work through issues with trusting patience as the challenge faced by most- heard encouraged in the sessions by Rev.Msgr Rossetti – including the prayers to heal Father wounds in this session –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXrjr9iwFQ&feature=youtu.be
and the related blog article –
https://www.catholicexorcism.org/post/exorcist-diary-212-cursed-by-one-s-parents
‘ Blessing ‘ a situation that calls forth healing and deliverance – would it not be worse than the occasion when the boy with the epilepsy is brought to The Lord, his frustrated father telling on the disciples who could not cast out the demon which in turn brought indignation in our Lord -‘how long should I put up with you ‘ – would similar indignation be what is invited , in heeding to the words of those who value relationship with a friend more than to The Lord and His Church !
https://scripture.catholic.edu.au/index.php/home/commentaries/the-healing-of-a-boy-with-a-spirit-mark-914-29/
Hope the gratitude to make use of the weapons for wafare to deal with all situations of idolatry and generational spirits would bring speedy fidelity to make use of same to heal the culture as a whole .
St.John Paul 11 said to have mentioned how one look from a person possessed of evil can cast its spell , how such was the reason for the wild fire spread of Nazi evil in Germany – true , there could have been long simmering fires of deep hatreds underneath same ..
And we have a powerful antidote – describing how one look from The Lord can bring the Divine into the depths ( when one is in a state of calm and grace )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9fPY3cSy8o
The blessings promised through the Divine Mercy image may be in the above realm –
https://divinemercygiftshop.org/VILNIUS-GALLERY-WRAP-CANVAS-6845-6845/
May Germany and all similar lands and persons afflicted in various manner be also places that return to The Lord through His Mother , bringing the joy of repentance to all of heaven !
FIAT !
https://scripture.catholic.edu.au/index.php/home/commentaries/the-healing-of-a-boy-with-a-spirit-mark-914-29/
Message regarding same-sex attraction
Confusion reigns regarding the definition of the word homosexuality. The specific definition reads: “Homosexuality (a 19th century term) is a sexual orientation characterized by sexual ATTRACTION to or romantic FEELINGS toward a person of the same sex or gender. » We can see that the definition speaks of the STATE (attraction, feelings) of the person without referring to ACTS (Relationships) that may arise from the STATE.
People define homosexuality in a unitary way comprising both ATTRACTION and ACTS (Relationships). Homosexuality is an ATTRACTION which could be replaced by either A TEMPTATION OR A STATE. People can be in a STATE of attraction or in a STATE of temptation without engaging in compensatory SEXUAL ACTS with other people of the same sex.
WE MUST DISTINGUISH TWO KINDS OF ATTRACTION TOWARDS PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX.
There are people who only have ATTRACTION towards people of the same sex and those who have attractions and share compensatory sexual PRACTICES (Relationships). We should not imagine that a person with same-sex attraction is necessarily in a relationship through sexual activities.
To understand the difference I made up two words to define homosexuality.
1-The person only having attraction (temptation) towards people of the same sex.
A Homo-attracted person (Have temptation).
2-The person having same-sex attraction and having compensatory sex.
A Homo-attracted-acted person (Have a temptation and take acts).
Regarding sexual orientation, the error is that it is too often defined as obligatory and normal to perform sexual acts if you are attracted to a person of the same sex.
For the Christian, is attraction or temptation a perversion? NO
For the Christian, is attraction or temptation with sexual relationships (acts) a perversion? YES
Confusing the two aspects STATE/ACTS brings confusion as if there was no difference between state and acti. It is in acts that evil occurs. To understand, let us refer to the Bible, to Lk 4 1-13 or Mt 4 1-11. Jesus gives us the model to follow in the story of temptations (tendency, attraction). Temptation is a reality in our lives and we cannot ask God not to let us fall into temptation. Jesus gave us an example by not refusing to go into temptation. He did not ask not to be tempted. Temptation (tendency, attraction) is not an evil but it is succumbing to it (going for it) which becomes an evil. Not succumbing to temptation becomes a virtue. As Jesus gave us the example He did not refuse to be tempted but He refused to succumb (act) to temptation. Temptation is part of the human experience. We can have temptations (tendency, attraction) towards people or things but it is a virtue not to take act.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^………………^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONTINENCE ≠ INCOMPATIBLE WITH LGBT+
Remember that the LGBT+ group does not include everyone experiencing same-sex attraction. There is a difference between people from the LGBT+ group who do not recognize the value of continence or chastity.
I knew Lorraine who lived in a STATE (Homo-attracted) and here is the reason.
1-Miss Lorraine felt bad experiencing this attraction towards other women. The primary pain is the tendency of unwanted attraction. Judgment will simply add to the distress the attraction causes.
2-I met her mother and asked her to tell her daughter that she loved her. The mother replied: “It won’t be easy! » I conclude that the girl’s STATE was the unsuspected search to find a mother who would show her love.
This is the wound that led Lorraine to compensate for her need for maternal love by being in an unconscious STATE of same-sex attraction. Lorraine lived in her Homo-attracted STATE in continence. Lorraine lived in continence, having attractions throughout her life. A month before her death from breast cancer, Lorraine told me that she had lived a happy life for a part of her life thanks to the Good Lord who had chosen me to show her love.
November 16, 2022, at Honoré-Mercier Hospital, Quebec, Canada.
At 4:50 PM, Lorraine said, “You have all your heart for me.”
At 6:15 p.m., Lorraine told me, “Yes, I believe.” I asked her, “What do you believe in?” She replied, “God put you in my path.”
On November 20, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., at Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Lorraine told me, “I still believe in God.”
She passed away peacefully with faith in God on December 16, 2022, at 12:30 AM.