Connect with us

Latest

News

Christianity

Pope Francis SHOCKS Catholics: OK to be gay

Liberal media attempts to capitalize on out of context statement on a far more serious issue addressed within the Roman Catholic Church

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,085 Views

Pope Francis reportedly told a gay man that “God made you that way…” according to a report from the Spanish newspaper El Pais. This article, released on 21 May, 2018, covers the account of a man named Juan Carlos Cruz, who was victimized sexually by a Chilean Roman Catholic priest. Mr. Cruz got to not only speak with the Pope, but actually spent a week at the Pope’s residence in Santa Marta.

During that stay, the Pope showed amazingly kind pastoral care, but the ending statement, quoted in the article, has sent shockwaves across the Christian world, most notably that of the Roman Catholic faithful. The comment was shown as an answer to an interview, given here in question-and-answer format:

Q. Did you discuss your homosexuality and how you had to endure further suffering because of it?

A. Yes, we did. He had pretty much been told that I was a perverse being. I explained that I was not a saint, but that I am not a bad person, either. I try not to hurt anybody. He told me: “Juan Carlos, it doesn’t matter that you’re gay. God made you that way and that is the way He wants you to be, and I don’t mind. The Pope wants you this way too, and you have to be happy with who you are.

This statement was picked up by the Los Angeles Times under the headline “Pope’s reported comment to a gay man may indicate a new level of acceptance of homosexuality.”

Similarly, the pope’s comments were picked up and reported by other media outlets, including the Independent, the British tabloid the Sun, and Time Magazine as well, which cut to the heart of liberal hopes with its headline “Pope Francis Reportedly Told a Gay Man ‘God Made You Like This'”

Indeed over the time of the pontiff’s post as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, he has ruffled conservative feathers many a time with comments like this, as shown here in WorldNet Daily, (WND). One may remember the reported comment to an atheist friend, who then reported in a very subjective manner that the Pope claimed that there is no Hell, and that the souls of the unrighteous simply disappear into nothingness.

However, a further search of Pope Francis’ statements reveals something a little bit inconvenient to liberal activists whose prize achievement would be to have the Roman Catholic Church publicly normalize same-sex relationships.

This piece shows that such hopes may well be highly misplaced. This article was run by the Human Rights Campaign, which is actually the largest of George Soros’ associated groups that express this as their purpose:

Founded in 1980, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) “strives to end discrimination against LGBTQ people and realize a world … where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people are ensured equality and embraced as full members of society.” With more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide, it is the largest and most influential LGBTQ lobbying group in the United States, supporting political candidates and legislation that will advance the LGBTQ agenda. Historically, HRC has most vigorously championed the legalization of gay marriage, the expansion of “hate crime” laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories; the abrogation of the U.S. Military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and the passage of HIV/AIDS-related legislation.

However, their own piece reveals that Pope Francis is not really creating a sea change in the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality.

He does appear to be attempting to make an honest pastoral approach to people who are involved in this lifestyle. Additionally, he seems to be quite contrite about the matter of priestly sexual abuse such as exists in many places within the Roman Catholic Church.  This, in fact was the actual topic of the original El Pais news article, and the main focus had very little to do with the Pope’s attitude toward homosexuality.

That article concerned in depth the matter of a man who reported being sexually victimized by a priest named Fernando Kardima in Chile. Fr Kardima’s actions were allegedly known about by his bishop, Juan Barros, but Cruz’ complaints were never investigated, and the bishop allegedly blocked attempts to conduct an investigation into this charge. Initially, Pope Francis himself accused Mr. Cruz of slandering Bishop Barros without any proof.

This was a public accusation, too, so Mr. Cruz found himself having to stand up to the leader of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, a position that for him as a devout believer, was undoubtedly most distressing.

Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of priestly sexual abuse, speaking at the headquarters of the Foundation of Trust in Chile, January 2018. (c) Sebastian Utreras

However, the story does not end there. The Pope reconsidered the story and investigated it, and found that Juan Carlos Cruz was in fact telling the truth about the abuse he withstood. The Pope’s subsequent action was to invite Cruz to spend a week at the Pope’s own residence in Santa Marta, and while Cruz was there, the Pope apologized to him for not believing his story. From Cruz’ own account:

Cruz: The first thing [the Pope] told me was ‘I want to apologize to you, in the name of the Pope and the Church, for everything that you have been through. I apologize personally, because I caused this situation that has given you so much pain in the last few months.’ And I replied that it is not good for him to be surrounded by pernicious influences like the Nuncio, or Cardinal Errazuriz, who feeds him disinformation. And then he’s got bishops who work like a real mafia, concealing and minimizing everything. The Pope was shocked. I told him that these men had sunk his own image in Chile, and that is why there are so few people going to Mass. He said that he enjoyed going to Chile but that he had seen strange things there. He seemed hurt for having been to Chile with such poor information, and that’s why I believe him.

El Pais: Did you talk about the abuse?

Cruz: Yes, in great detail. I cried, and he looked very pained. He put his hand on my shoulder and said ‘Go ahead and cry, child.’

El Pais: Did you tell him that you are still a believer?

Cruz: Yes, of course. He had been told that I did not have the faith, that I was an enemy of the Church. I told him that this made me very angry, because I still believe and I still love the Church, and I believe that this can change. ‘My faith is tremendously important to me, Your Holiness,’ I said. I think it is horrible that they’re trying to destroy even that. ‘That is tremendously evil,’ he replied. I explained that I want to be a good person, and I cannot stand to think that what was done to me is being done to thousands of people by other bishops elsewhere in the world, and this has got to end. I told him that he already has a good reputation for being an approachable man. ‘You could have a spectacular papacy if you grab the bull by the horns and get tough on the issue of abuse, and send out the message that the Pope is no longer going to tolerate this,’ I said. And he replied: ‘Help me ensure that the Holy Spirit will guide me so I know what to do.’

This is a MUCH different story than the point about the homosexuality comment. And while the article ends with the exchange quoted at the beginning, one may begin to understand that what happened here is probably less an issue of squishy theology and more of an issue of pastoral care to someone who really needed it.

The mainstream liberal press ignored all of this and tried to use the situation to capitalize on their own agenda, and in this they attempted to use a pastoral statement and make something more out of it than it perhaps was intended to be.

To be sure, Pope Francis has been quite solid on the matter of what constitutes a real family. A mother and father are required, not a same sex couple. While the Pope has been far more inclusive in his discussion of the matter of homosexual people being in the Roman Church, his pastoral care does not go to the place where he negates or changes the Church’s position on “gender theory” – for the Church, this idea is nonsense, and Francis has said as much.

If there is anything to be perhaps criticized, it might simply be the notion that was quoted that “God made you that way”, which is theologically untrue. However, the ancient Church understood and grappled with the issue of homosexuality even more than the modern day Christian Church does.

For Juan Carlos Cruz, at that moment the point in life was probably not to address his homosexuality – it was to make right the wrong that had been done him by those with authority in the Roman Catholic Church. However, Pope Francis’ own words also say that the lifestyle is indeed sinful, though the inclination to that lifestyle is not, which is something the Church has always taught. For example, Pope Francis has publicly made these statements: 

Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings. Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

“The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

“[…] I wish to express my appreciation to the entire Slovak church, encouraging everyone to continue their efforts in defense of the family, the vital cell of society.”

The Pope has not changed the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church here. He may have been very soft about the matter in this particular case because in this moment, the pastoral thing to do was not to go after homosexuality. But the efforts of the liberal media to reshape society and destroy Christian values certainly appears to have gotten a kick forward by a statement that was easily taken out of context.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

The End Of The US Unipolar Moment Is Irreversible

The United States is in the terminal phase of its unipolar moment.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The past weeks have shown how part of the American establishment is weighing the pros and cons of the Trump administration’s strategies around the world. I have a strong feeling that in the coming weeks we will see the destabilizing effects of American politics, especially towards its closest allies.

A disastrous flip of events appears to be on its way, in case Trump were to lose the November midterm elections (the House and Senate elections). If this were to happen, the Trump administration would probably exploit the Russia gate conspiracy claiming that Moscow had now acted in favour of Democrats. Trump could argue that Moscow was disappointed by the lack of progress in softening US sanctions against Russia; indeed, by Trump’s measures against Russia (expulsions, sanctions, property seizures) and its allies (China, Iran and Syria).

Trump would not hesitate to claim Russian interference in the midterms to aid the Democrats, citing intelligence reports. He would say that Russia aims to create chaos in the US by placing roadblocks in the way of attempts to “Make America Great Again” and handing the House and Senate to the Democrats. He would use the electoral defeat to blame his accusers of getting aid from Russia. In doing so, he would be accelerating the implosion of his administration in an all-out war with the establishment. The mainstream media would dismiss Trump’s accusations against the Democrats of collusion with Russia as a conspiracy theory of an unravelling presidency. All this, summed up, would lead to the Democrats having majority in both houses, easily proceeding to the impeachment of Trump.

Italy is piggybacking on the US, operating side by side with Washington to expand its role in North Africa, especially in Libya. However, Rome will have to offer something in return to please Trump. Evidence points to the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as the quid pro quo, the US encouraging Italy to complete it in order to put pressure on Germany’s North Stream II project and undermine Russian gas deliveries to the EU. I have the impression that the only card available for Italy to play (and which interests Trump) is an endorsement of Washington’s positions on Iran, given that Italy already shares in common with Washington differences with Paris and Berlin on many issues. In this sense, Conte’s words about US intelligence info on the JCPOA paves the way for further decisions:

“”I didn’t take a specific stand. I said we are willing to evaluate the necessity to take more rigorous stances if the (nuclear) accord is shown to be ineffective. We are waiting to have elements of intelligence, Italy would like to evaluate it with its EU partners”

As evidence of Washington’s failed strategy towards Iran, India continues to buy crude oil from Iran, increasing the amount in the last month by 52%. China is also increasing its importation from Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is working with other countries to circumvent the US dollar in order to sustain their mutual trade within a new framework of agreements. Washington is especially disappointment with New Delhi, with American officials continuing to reiterate that India’s intentions align with Washington’s. Since November, with the imposition of counter-sanctions on countries that continue to work with Iran, Washington’s bluff will become evident to everybody, much to the disappointment of the Trump administration.

In the meantime, relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia have almost completely broken down on account of human rights. Ambassadors have been expelled and there is a continuing war of words, with trade between the two countries being brought to a stop. This is the latest example of the divisions manifesting themselves within the Western elites, with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration being in opposition to the likes of France, Germany and Canada.

What is also clear is that the issue of energy is central to Washington’s strategy. Between criticism of the German Nord Stream II and invitations to Italy to finish the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, it is clear that both the Trump administration and the policy makers of the deep state are strongly concerned about what actions allies and enemies could take to overcome the pressure brought to bear by Washington on the issues of energy, Iran, and sanctions. This shows that the US is very fearful of de-dollarization, especially coming from its allies.

Bypassing sanctions with currencies other than US dollar, or creating creative finance structures that bypass the SWIFT payment system, are the only means of maintaining relations between countries in spite of Washington’s sanctions. The US strategy is limited in the short term and certainly harmful in the long term for US Dollar financial hegemony.

That Washington’s allies are even entertaining such possibilities places US financial hegemony at great risk in the long run. This worries the American deep state a great deal, even without Trump, who in any case will not be in charge past 2024 (should he be re-elected in 2020).

One of the points of greatest tension is precisely this strategic difference between the Trump administration and the policy makers in the deep state (AKA Langley and Foggy Bottom). While the former can increase the pressure on allies (through NATO, the JCPOA, TTIP and TPP) to obtain immediate solutions and benefits, the latter must above all consider the effects in the medium and long term, which are often harmful for US interests. The imposition of sanctions on Iran, and the obligation of European allies to comply with this directive, is a prime example.

Another of Washington’s strategies revolves around the price of oil. The United States would have no problem seeing the price of crude oil skyrocket. Secretly, many in the administration hope that Iran will take the first false step by closing the Strait of Hormuz (Teheran will not make this move as things stand now); some even hope that the crisis between Canada and Saudi Arabia will have some impact on the cost of crude oil.

Even trade war and tariffs should be seen as part of Trump’s short-term strategy to demonstrate to his base that something is being done against countries that he thinks are taking advantage of the United States. In reality, Trump knows, or should know, that there is no way of stopping China’s growth, a result of globalization that has been the engine of free-market capitalism, making the western elite richer than ever before. Trump deceives his base with trade wars and tariffs, but in the long run the costs will be borne by American consumers, many of whom are Trump’s voters.

Trump thinks in the very short term, constantly aiming to present himself before his electors with a list of ticked boxes ( Peter Lavelle of Crosstalk gets trademark of this definition), confirming that he is fulfilling his electoral promises. In this way he hopes to win the midterms in November. To succeed in this endeavor, the economy must pick up to a gallop (for now this is happening thanks to a series of tax cuts and the continuous pumping of easy money from the Fed) and he must put pressure on his allies as well as aggressively confront Iran, Russia and China through sanctions, cutting energy supplies and forcing Tehran to negotiate once again the nuclear agreement.

What many analysts struggle with when trying to analyse Donald Trump is that there is no overarching strategy uniting his actions into a coherent policy. Trump acts extemporaneously, often with a very short strategic outlook and for internal political motivations.

Nevertheless, if there is something that worries the deep state, it is the long-term impact of tariffs, trade war, sanctions and impositions on allies; or, to put it most simply, de-dollarization. If there is anything that scares the Trump administration, it is remaining entangled in a destabilizing war with Iran that would lead to the early end of the Trump presidency and destroying its legacy, as Bush’s legacy was destroyed by Iraq.

In all this uncoordinated and inconsistent behaviour, there is the hope of a major rise in the price of oil that would help slow down China’s growth and transform the US shale-gas industry into an ultra-profitable business, further boosting the US economy and allowing Trump to present further evidence to his base of his ability to improve their lives.

The United States is in the terminal phase of its unipolar moment and is struggling to come to terms with the downsizing of its role in the world. Its ruling elite cannot accept the prospect of sharing power, preferring to oppose by all means possible the transition to a world order involving more powers. If this situation is already complex for any superpower enough to manage, a president has been elected who has little regard for compromise and mediation.

Ultimately, in addition to an obvious problem in defining Washington’s role in the world over the next few years, the United States finds itself with a president who is in almost open warfare with an important part of the US establishment. The deep state is still living on the hope of impeaching Trump to halt the loss of US influence, deluding themselves that things can return to how they were at the height of the unipolar moment in the 1990s.

Continue Reading

Latest

America’s Lengthening Enemies List

17th years in Afghanistan and America’s list of enemies continues to grow.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick J. Buchanan


Friday, deep into the 17th year of America’s longest war, Taliban forces overran Ghazni, a provincial capital that sits on the highway from Kabul to Kandahar.

The ferocity of the Taliban offensive brought U.S. advisers along with U.S. air power, including a B-1 bomber, into the battle.

“As the casualty toll in Ghazni appeared to soar on Sunday,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “hospitals were spilling over with dead bodies, corpses lay in Ghazni’s streets, and gunfire and shelling were preventing relatives from reaching cemeteries to bury their dead.”

In Yemen Monday, a funeral was held in the town square of Saada for 40 children massacred in an air strike on a school bus by Saudis or the UAE, using U.S.-provided planes and bombs.

“A crime by America and its allies against the children of Yemen,” said a Houthi rebel leader.

Yemen is among the worst humanitarian situations in the world, and in creating that human-rights tragedy, America has played an indispensable role.

The U.S. also has 2,000 troops in Syria. Our control, with our Kurd allies, of that quadrant of Syria east of the Euphrates is almost certain to bring us into eventual conflict with a regime and army insisting that we get out of their country.

As for our relations with Turkey, they have never been worse.

President Erdogan regards our Kurd allies in Syria as collaborators of his own Kurdish-terrorist PKK. He sees us as providing sanctuary for exile cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom Erdogan says was behind the attempted coup in 2016 in which he and his family were targeted for assassination.

Last week, when the Turkish currency, the lira, went into a tailspin, President Trump piled on, ratcheting up U.S. tariffs on Turkish aluminum and steel. If the lira collapses and Turkey cannot meet its debt obligations, Erdogan will lay the blame at the feet of the Americans and Trump.

Which raises a question: How many quarrels, conflicts and wars, and with how many adversaries, can even the mighty United States sustain?

In November, the most severe of U.S. sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Among the purposes of this policy: Force as many nations as possible to boycott Iranian oil and gas, sink its economy, bring down the regime.

Iran has signaled a possible response to its oil and gas being denied access to world markets. This August, Iranian gunboats exercised in the Strait of Hormuz, backing up a regime warning that if Iranian oil cannot get out of the Gulf, the oil of Arab OPEC nations may be bottled up inside as well. Last week, Iran test-fired an anti-ship ballistic missile.

Iran has rejected Trump’s offer of unconditional face-to-face talks, unless the U.S. first lifts the sanctions imposed after withdrawing from the nuclear deal.

With no talks, a U.S. propaganda offensive underway, the Iranian rial sinking and the economy sputtering, regular demonstrations against the regime, and new sanctions scheduled for November, it is hard to see how a U.S. collision with Tehran can be avoided.

This holds true as well for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Last week, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged role in the nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

Though the U.S. had already expelled 60 Russian diplomats for the poisoning, and Russia vehemently denies responsibility — and conclusive evidence has not been made public and the victims have not been heard from — far more severe sanctions are to be added in November.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is warning that such a U.S. move would cross a red line: “If … a ban on bank operations or currency use follows, it will amount to a declaration of economic war. … And it will warrant a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means.”

That the sanctions are biting is undeniable. Like the Turkish lira and Iranian rial, the Russian ruble has been falling and the Russian people are feeling the pain.

Last week also, a U.S. Poseidon reconnaissance plane, observing China’s construction of militarized islets in the South China Sea, was told to “leave immediately and keep out.”

China claims the sea as its national territory.

And North Korea’s Kim Jong Un apparently intends to hold onto his arsenal of nuclear weapons.

“We’re waiting for the North Koreans to begin the process of denuclearization, which they committed to in Singapore and which they’ve not yet done,” John Bolton told CNN last week.

A list of America’s adversaries here would contain the Taliban, the Houthis of Yemen, Bashar Assad of Syria, Erdogan’s Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China — a pretty full plate.

Are we prepared to see these confrontations through, to assure the capitulation of our adversaries? What do we do if they continue to defy us?

And if it comes to a fight, how many allies will we have in the battles and wars that follow?

Was this the foreign policy America voted for?

Continue Reading

Latest

In Private Meeting, Facebook Exec Warns News Outlets to Cooperate or End Up Dying in ‘Hospice’

“Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat.”

The Duran

Published

on

Via Common Dreams


During a closed-door and off-the-record meeting last week, top Facebook executive Campbell Brown reportedly warned news publishers that refusal to cooperate with the tech behemoth’s efforts to “revitalize journalism” will leave media outlets dying “like in a hospice.”

Reported first by The Australian under a headline which read “Work With Facebook or Die: Zuckerberg,” the social media giant has insisted the comments were taken out of context, even as five individuals who attended the four-hour meeting corroborated what Brown had stated.

“Mark doesn’t care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes,” Brown reportedly said, referring to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “We will help you revitalize journalism… in a few years the reverse looks like I’ll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice.”

As The Guardian reported on Monday, Facebook is “vehemently” denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. However, Facebook is refusing to release its transcript and tape of the gathering.

Brown’s warning about the dire prospects for news outlets that don’t get on board with a future in which corporate giants like Facebook are the arbiters of what is and isn’t trustworthy news comes as progressives are raising alarm that Facebook’s entrance into the world of journalism poses a major threat to non-corporate and left-wing news outlets.

As Common Dreams reported in July, progressives’ fears were partly confirmed after Facebook unveiled its first slate of news “segments” as part of its Facebook Watch initiative.

While Facebook claims its initiative is part of an effort to combat “misinformation,” its first series of segments were dominated by such corporate outlets as Fox News and CNN.

Reacting to Brown’s reported assertion that Zuckerberg “doesn’t care about publishers,” Judd Legum, who writes the Popular Information newsletter,argued, “Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat.”

“In addition to disputed quote, there are also Facebook’s actions, which are fully consistent with the quote,” Legum added. “We desperately need to develop alternative delivery mechanisms to Facebook.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending