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

1,145 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.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Macron pisses off Merkel as he tries to sabotage Nord Stream 2 pipeline (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 177.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss an EU compromise for Nord Stream 2 where EU member states, the EU Parliament, and its Commission will give the bloc more oversight on gas pipelines, with one caveat…the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia will not be threatened by the new regulations in the agreement.

Macron pushed hard to have the new regulations include (and derail) Nord Stream 2, an action which annoyed Angela Merkel, who eventually got her way and delivered another blow to Macron’s failing French presidency.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Express UK

Angela Merkel hit back at Emmanuel Macron over Russia and Germany’s pipeline project, declaring it would “not be a one-sided dependency”. The German Chancellor explained that Germany will expand its gas terminals with “liquified gas”. Speaking at a press conference, Ms Merkel declared: “Do we become dependent on Russia because of this second gas pipeline? I say no, if we diversify. Germany will expand its gas terminals with liquefied gas.

“This means that we do not want to depend only on Russia, but Russia was a source of gas in the Cold War and will remain one.

“But it would not be one-sided dependency.”

Via DW

The EU parliament and its Council are set to adopt new regulations on gas pipelines connecting the bloc members with non-EU countries, the EU Commission announced early on Wednesday.

The upcoming directive is based on a compromise between EU member states and EU officials in Brussels. The bloc leaders agreed to tighten Brussels’ oversight of gas delivery and expand its rules to all pipelines plugging into the EU’s gas distribution network.

“The new rules ensure that… everyone interested in selling gas to Europe must respect European energy law,” EU Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said in a statement.

For example, owners of pipelines linking EU and non-EU countries would also be required to allow access for their competitors. Brussels would also have more power regarding transparency and tariff regulations.

Russian ambassador slams US

Brussels has repeatedly expressed concern over the controversial Nord Stream 2 project which would deliver Russian gas directly to Germany through a pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Many EU states oppose the mammoth project, and the US claims it would allow Moscow to tighten its grip on the EU’s energy policy.

Berlin has insisted that the pipeline is a “purely economic” issue.

Speaking to Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, Russian ambassador to Berlin, Sergey Nechayev, slammed the US’ opposition as an attempt to “push its competition aside” and clear the way for American suppliers of liquefied gas.

“It’s hard to believe that a country that is destroying the rules of free and fair trade, that is imposing import tariffs on its competition, that is flying slogans like ‘America First’ on its flags and often threatens biggest European concerns with illegal sanctions, is now really concerned about European interests,” the Russian envoy said in remarks published in German on Wednesday.

Last week, France unexpectedly rebelled against the project, but Berlin and Paris soon reached a compromise. Thanks to their agreement, the latest deal is not expected to impede the ongoing construction of Nord Stream 2.

Citing sources from negotiators’ circles, German public broadcaster ARD reported that the deal left room for Germany to approve exceptions from the EU-wide rules.

According to the EU Commission, however, exceptions are “only possible under strict procedures in which the Commission plays a decisive role.”

The Gazprom-backed pipeline is set to be completed by the end of the year.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

UK Defence Secretary looking for a fight with both China and Russia (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 87.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s idea to deploy hard power against China and Russia, starting with plans to send Britain’s new aircraft carrier to the tense sea routes in the South China Sea.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Britain’s Gavin Williamson places Russia & China on notice, I’m not joking,” authored by John Wight, via RT

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is itching for conflict with Russia and China. He’s not mad. Not even slightly. But he is stupid. Very.

Unlike former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson, I am no military expert. But then you do not need to be one to understand that while Britain going to war with Russia and China might work as a video game, the real thing would be an exceedingly bad idea.

So why then in a speech delivered to the Royal United Services Institute in London, did Mr Williamson’s argument on the feasibility of the real thing elicit applause rather than the shrieks of horror and demands he be sacked forthwith it should have? This is a serious question, by the way. It is one that cuts through British establishment verbiage to reveal a country ruled not by the sober and doughty political heavyweights of years gone by, but by foaming fanatics in expensive suits

Placing to one side for a moment the insanity of the very concept of Britain deploying hard power against Russia and/or China, the prospect of fighting a war against two designated enemies at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Not satisfied with that, though, Mr Williamson is actually contemplating a conflict with three different enemies at the same time – i.e. against Russia, China, and the millions of people in Britain his government is currently waging war against under the rubric of austerity.

“Today, Russia is resurgent,” Mr Williamson said, “rebuilding its military arsenal and seeking to bring the independent countries of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia and Ukraine, back into its orbit.”

For Mr Williamson and his ilk a resurgent Russia is a bad thing. Much better in their eyes if Russia, after the Soviet era in the 1990s, had remained on its knees as a free market desert; its state institutions in a state of near collapse and tens of millions of its citizens in the grip of immiseration. Yes, because in that scenario Western ideologues like him would have had free rein to rampage around the world as they saw fit, setting fire to country after country on the perverse grounds of ‘saving them’ for democracy.

As it is, he and his still managed to squeeze in a considerable amount of carnage and chaos in the years it did take Russia to recover. The indictment reads as follows: Yugoslavia destroyed; Afghanistan turned upside down; Iraq pushed into the abyss; Libya sent to hell.

By the time they turned their attention to Syria, intent on exploiting an Arab Spring that NATO in Libya transformed into an Arab Winter, Russia had recovered and was able to intervene. It did so in concert with the Syrian Arab Army, Iran and Hezbollah to save the day – much to the evident chagrin of those who, like Gavin Williamson, prefer to see countries in ashes rather than independent of Western hegemony.

As to the facile nonsense about Russia trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine back into its orbit, both countries happen to share a border with Russia and both countries, in recent years, have been used by the UK and its allies as cat’s paws with the eastward expansion of NATO in mind.

It gets worse though: “The Alliance must develop its ability to handle the kind of provocations that Russia is throwing at us. Such action from Russia must come at a cost.”

“Provocations,” the man said. Since British troops have been taking part in exercises on Russia’s doorstep, not the other way round, one wonders if Gavin Williamson wrote this speech while inebriated.

It is Russia that has been on the receiving end of repeated provocations from NATO member states such as the UK in recent times, and it is Russia that has been forced to respond to protect its own security and that of its people where necessary. Furthermore, not only in Russia but everywhere, including the UK, people understand that when you have political leaders intoxicated by their own national myths and propaganda to such an extent as Britain’s Defence Secretary, danger ensues.

The most enduring of those national myths where London is concerned is that the British Empire was a force for good rather than a vast criminal enterprise, that Britain and America won the Second World War together alone, that Iraq had WMDs, and that international law and international brigandage really are one and the same thing.

Perhaps the most preposterous section of the speech came when Mr Williamson tried to fashion a connection between Brexit and Britain’s military strength: “Brexit has brought us to a moment. A great moment in our history. A moment when we must strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality, and increase our mass.”

Reading this, you can almost hear Churchill turning in his grave. Britain’s wartime prime minister had such as Gavin Williamson in mind when he famously said, “He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire.”

Mr Williamson obviously misread the memo talking up not the opportunity for increased conflict with China after Brexit but trade.

This was not a speech it was a linguistic car crash, one that will forever command an honoured place in compendiums of the worst political speeches ever made. As for Gavin Williamson, just as no responsible parent would ever dream of putting an 10-year old behind the wheel of car to drive unsupervised, no responsible British government would ever appoint a man like him as its Defence Secretary.

In years past, he would have struggled to find employment polishing the brass plate outside the building.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Birth Of A Monster

The banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by David Howden via The Mises Institute:


The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years. In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended – the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending