If you are not commonly found leaning your head on a tabernacle and weeping, or if you are not occasionally tripped over while praying face-down in an unheated church on a winter night, or if you are not found washing dishes when someone attempts to make you a cardinal and has to be contented with leaving your hat on a nearby tree, are you really doing *theology*? Hagiographers 800 years in the future say no.
Pope Francis appointed these people to the Pontifical Academy for Life, removing members who were orthodox and faithful to the teachings of JPII. He encouraged the book that talks about relativizing the Church’s teaching on contraception (thereby rendering entirely impotent, which any five year-old can see).
Ultimately, he may not grant them their desired footnote, but, if he doesn’t plan to do that, he’s nevertheless allowed a whole lot of damage to be done.
Why on earth would you, as Pope, encourage the examination of closed questions? Either you’re a sociopath who enjoys the chaos, or you’re sympathetic to the dissenting position.
If contraception is intrinsically evil (or intrinsically wrong) and contracepting a serious sin, then the confusion that Pope Francis has expressly encouraged is almost certainly leading souls to Hell. (The same could be said about any number of other moral issues.) It just seems like if you believe in Catholicism, as one would expect of the Pope, that you’d be extremely judicious about encouraging debate that signals an acceptance of sin.
Who is a change to the teaching on contraception supposed to benefit? I'm trying to imagine someone who hasn't the fortitude to simply accept that his actions are sinful and either cease them or decide that whatever he hopes to get is worth the sin, but instead desires to be assured that sin is not really sin, and would actually believe the assurance. Who are these people? Because they seem to be the target audience for such a revision: guilty consciences that hope to cleanse their guilt without altering their behavior.
I bet you didn't know this, but there are actually 5 persons in God. This should be discussed in earnest within theological circles. I mean you can't do theology with a no in front of it
The JPII Institute is doing such a good job upholding the legacy of its namesake—perhaps we need a new Paul VI Institute to do more work on this question?
More seriously, if this plan goes forward in the manner this article describes, which strikes me as far from improbable, it's pretty much game over for Humanae Vitae.
Are there any bishops or other authorities publicly objecting to the PAL's recent actions and statements? As this article points out, we're far beyond the point of a gaffe or two at this point.
What the Pontifical Academy for Life is promoting seems like it was lifted straight from the 1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, who recommended in Resolutions 9-20 that a married man and woman could use artificial birth control if they did so free from motives of "selfishness, luxury or mere convenience." This assertion by the Lambeth Conference was condemned by in the same year by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii. Gaudium et spes, Humanae vitae, and Veritatis splendor confirmed Pius XI's teaching. It would be a wild turn of events if Pope Francis were to go against the clear development of this teaching.
If you are not commonly found leaning your head on a tabernacle and weeping, or if you are not occasionally tripped over while praying face-down in an unheated church on a winter night, or if you are not found washing dishes when someone attempts to make you a cardinal and has to be contented with leaving your hat on a nearby tree, are you really doing *theology*? Hagiographers 800 years in the future say no.
Ephesians 6:11
Pope Francis appointed these people to the Pontifical Academy for Life, removing members who were orthodox and faithful to the teachings of JPII. He encouraged the book that talks about relativizing the Church’s teaching on contraception (thereby rendering entirely impotent, which any five year-old can see).
Ultimately, he may not grant them their desired footnote, but, if he doesn’t plan to do that, he’s nevertheless allowed a whole lot of damage to be done.
Why on earth would you, as Pope, encourage the examination of closed questions? Either you’re a sociopath who enjoys the chaos, or you’re sympathetic to the dissenting position.
If contraception is intrinsically evil (or intrinsically wrong) and contracepting a serious sin, then the confusion that Pope Francis has expressly encouraged is almost certainly leading souls to Hell. (The same could be said about any number of other moral issues.) It just seems like if you believe in Catholicism, as one would expect of the Pope, that you’d be extremely judicious about encouraging debate that signals an acceptance of sin.
Who is a change to the teaching on contraception supposed to benefit? I'm trying to imagine someone who hasn't the fortitude to simply accept that his actions are sinful and either cease them or decide that whatever he hopes to get is worth the sin, but instead desires to be assured that sin is not really sin, and would actually believe the assurance. Who are these people? Because they seem to be the target audience for such a revision: guilty consciences that hope to cleanse their guilt without altering their behavior.
I bet you didn't know this, but there are actually 5 persons in God. This should be discussed in earnest within theological circles. I mean you can't do theology with a no in front of it
The JPII Institute is doing such a good job upholding the legacy of its namesake—perhaps we need a new Paul VI Institute to do more work on this question?
More seriously, if this plan goes forward in the manner this article describes, which strikes me as far from improbable, it's pretty much game over for Humanae Vitae.
Are there any bishops or other authorities publicly objecting to the PAL's recent actions and statements? As this article points out, we're far beyond the point of a gaffe or two at this point.
What the Pontifical Academy for Life is promoting seems like it was lifted straight from the 1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, who recommended in Resolutions 9-20 that a married man and woman could use artificial birth control if they did so free from motives of "selfishness, luxury or mere convenience." This assertion by the Lambeth Conference was condemned by in the same year by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii. Gaudium et spes, Humanae vitae, and Veritatis splendor confirmed Pius XI's teaching. It would be a wild turn of events if Pope Francis were to go against the clear development of this teaching.