You are totally misrepresenting the Fernandez book. It is much worse than you describe. Read the articles describing chapters 9-12. It is very sacrilegious and blasphemous. It can in no way be compared to JPII book. It is despicable that Fernandez wrote it. He should be removed.
I cannot duplicate the descriptions and various combinations that the fictional sexual fantasy authored by Cardinal Fernandez, including a section of sexual union with Jesus. I think the CZcams algorithm would pick up on it and I have no interest in describing the under age s*x described in the book. But hey, it’s just a book…
Cardinal Fernandez did not authorize the reproduction of his book, which he stopped the publishing of it 25 years ago. Nor has anyone checked the translation. Still, it is a theological exploration of traditional Catholic mysticism, which Cardinal Fernandez did a much better job, I imagine, in the next books he wrote. And all of this has nothing to say about what he is accomplishing now -- which traditional Catholics should rejoice in! Because he put his finger on the key to stopping the liberal bishops in German, Belgium, and the Netherlands AND liberal priests in the US like Fr. Martin, all of whom are only pretending that they are happy with "Fiducia Supplicans".
It's clear that Cardinal Fernández wrote a very different book to JPII's Love and Responsibility. Positing a parallel between them is pretty disingenuous.
Absolutely correct. What the Cardinal wrote is disgusting and there is a reason he no longer wants it reprinted and this is also why it was not listed on the list of books he wrote. He said the pope knew about the book and knew it was not on the list. Hence, it is possible there is more crap he wrote that has not been disclosed.
Same sex couples, goes against God's plan for us, to get married and have children of our own. God's children need to be born to receive bodies for resurrection.
Dear@@stardustgirl2904, yes, and the simple blessings in the Magisterial Declaration "Fiducia Supplicans" is to give permission to the Holy Spirit to enter the lives of those suffering from SSA and give them the graces and the strength to leave their sin and find themselves in the Church, the Bride of Christ.
There really is a major question that has not been asked and certainly has not been given any answers. Why did the Argentine pope choose the argentine archbishop to head the Dicastery for the Faith? Why did he pick this realtively unknown colleague from his native state? No answers. What great theological background does Fernandez have that qualifies him for this most senior Curia role? He has never been a prominent participant, never a csrdinal till 100 days ago, yet brough to Rome and now causing massive firestorm over his Declaration and more so on the horrificly detailed book which is mindbogglingly horrendous. Just who is +Fernandez? Well we know he has caused damage and all the current voting cardinals will be noting, keeping memory of what has happened in the leadup to the next conclave.
I am a Catholic for generations! I have 4 sisters and 4 bothers and thank God we are all Catholic! Jehova Witness cult has tried to convert a couple of my siblings but my Heavenly Father has me very spoiled.😇He has, on multiple occasions, proved to me that if I pray wholeheartedly he hears my prayers! My husband is a perfect example! Though a Catholic his believe was that of an atheist. Now we are both serving our Lord and pray the rosary together (have been for 6 years). Anyway, this is a perfect time to be Catholic! Jesus is being persecuted more than ever! I am definitely in the right church! I cannot see myself anywhere else, I love Jesus and his family so much I wouldn’t dare turn my back on them; especially when he’s being betrayed and crucified all over again! God bless you all. Thanks for all you do in the name of Jesus.
According to your analysis there was no logical or theological reason for this document to have been promulgated. If that is true, what is the purpose of having published it?
This episode is a terrific case in point for why, contrary to what the host asserts, ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is certainly more steak than sizzle. For Two reasons : 1 - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is easily and was immediately abused with no repercussions and 2 - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ creates and propagates confusion. Point 1 : Clear abuse without repercussions ‘Fiducia supplicans’ clearly indicates (no less than eight (8) times) that the blessing that it allows for to be "spontaneous". Spontaneous clearly means that it was unplanned and did not have the time or opportunity to exert any kind of moral analysis. This was stated clearly in the document. And Yet - Fr. J. Martin and others used the release of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as a opportunity arrange for these blessings. Immediately upon ‘Fiducia supplicans’ release Fr. Martin was meeting a couple at a prearranged place and time for a blessing. There were photographers and news people there. This is obviously exactly against ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as there is no way this could be considered to be spontaneous and without the opportunity for moral analysis. There has been, to my knowledge, no correction from Fr. Martin's bishop about this abuse. Point 2 : Creates and propagates confusion - The document said "couple" not "unions" A - This very video / podcast uses the word and terms blessing of "unions" several times. Which is a clear misreading of the document. ‘Fiducia supplicans’ clearly indicates that it does _not_ allow for the blessing of the unions. It makes this very clear and reasserts the earlier pronouncement that the Church cannot bless sin. The the union itself is not to be blessed. The very fact that ‘Fiducia supplicans’ tries to make a distinction between blessing the unions and blessing the couple and this video / podcast got this detail wrong shows that even this podcast host was confused and got it wrong. B - There is a confusion between blessing a "couple" and blessing their "union". This is a complete confusion, for a couple cannot be considered as such unless they have a uniting principle. Two men who are starting a business together as partners and ask for a priest's blessing - are a couple. If they were not partners in a business they would not rightly be considered a couple. The business is the principle that joins them as a couple. In the idea of a same-sex union, if it were not for the union, there would be no couple to consider. There would be merely two individuals asking for a blessing. And here is the confusion. The Document allows for the blessing of a couple, not only individuals. It uses the term couple and yet ignores the principle factor of their coupling. Question: Can a priest bless business partners as a couple ? What if their business was hard core S&M pornography? A pimp and his lady worker are "a couple" can a priest bless them as a couple ? The main idea here is that the purpose and principle factor of the couple's relationship cannot be extricated from the couple. The Church has always allows the blessing of individuals. The confusion here is how can it allow for the blessing of couples if the status of their coupling is objectively sinful ? C - Insidious and insulting confusion for the requestors. The Blessing over a couple and is actually for the future break-up for the couple. The document states, in general, that the blessing would be for the spiritual growth and strength to be better Christians. Which would mean, in fact, it is a prayer and a blessing that this couple, who are in a sinful union, would break-up and live chaste lives. This is a logical conclusion. If a same-sex union is not allowed and considered sinful by the church, and a priest blesses a couple in a same-sex union so that they would be better Christians and avoid sin --- How is this not a prayer and a blessing with the intention that they would break-up as a couple ? This is confusing for a couple who is seeking the blessing, and is in fact an insidious and deceptive thing to do. The Priest is blessing them in hope that they break up. Do they know and understand this ?
@@user-hf5wf7lc6x Agreed,. the document’s assumption that there may not be time for a full moral analysis falls flat. A simple question of why the blessing is being requested would illuminate the intent without a full moral analysis. A priest can bless a man who approaches for a blessing, wearing camouflage and a holding a gun. A simple question “ Why are you requesting a blessing , my son?” Would illuminate the difference between: “I am going on a hunting trip” - and - “I am going to commit a murder.” If a gay couple comes, with one of them pregnant, and they are asking for a blessing about the pregnancy, then the pregnant one can be blessed. The baby can be blessed. The partner can be blessed. In relation to the pregnancy. All of them as 3 separate individuals. This is already allowed .
How many children has John Allen and Elise had? Considering he doesn’t find this disgusting declaration an earthquakes that it is, I can only think his easy going attitude comes from his easy going life.
Moscow and Athens aren't worth it; I speak as an Ukrainian Catholic who had Ukrainian Orthodox family members. JP2 was interested in Moscow but Francis is more interested in Beijing.
While I agree that a gay marriage as defined presently by the Catholic Church is not possible, there remains a growing effort for the Church to recognize the love monogamous gay couples have. While this type of marriage is not possible, allow me to explain what might be. There is a social/sexual revolution coming in the Church. In one aspect of this coming revolution, the Church wants to expound on Pope John Paul’s central idea in “Theology of the Body” and how it centers on the fact that God wants a deep intimate relationship with each of us in the same way a committed monogamous heterosexual couple enjoys. It is not meant to reflect this in the physical sense but is mirrored in that way, to reflect the deep love God has for each of us, and the Church will attempt to bring to light, to celebrate the joy and exultation that can come from it. The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has long been that it is not inherently sinful, as a person does not choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. However, the Church has always taught that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law”. According to the Catholic theology on sexuality, all sexual acts must be open to procreation by nature and express the symbolism of male-female complementarity. The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has been founded on the belief in a natural order created by God, as it has been based on the idea that sexual acts should be by the natural law of procreation and male-female complementarity. This theology has been used to form the Church’s view on the sacrament of Marriage and the notion that marriage is only permitted for the purpose of a union between a man and a woman. “Male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) Recent scientific developments, however, may influence how the Church addresses this issue in the future. Some feel God may be working in His Church to rectify a wrong that has survived for years. Could the coming changes in the Church and yes, changes are coming, possibly be the work of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised? Could Pope Francis be his messenger in all of this? The principle of doctrinal development in Catholicism allows for the Church's understanding of its teachings to evolve and develop over time while still preserving the core truths of the faith. Some examples of this are Original Sin, the Trinity and the doctrine of Purgatory, the Eucharist, Canon of Scripture, religious liberty, social justice, and the role of women in the Church and society, but to name a few. Should the beliefs of the Church in the area of homosexuality and same-sex unions not evolve when presented with modern scientific evidence that proves otherwise or, should She remain with Her head in the sand in the interest of maintaining the status quo? Medical experts have stated they can find no studies to show that homosexuality is an abnormality in the human person. Experts now widely agree (American Psychological Association (APA), World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association (AMA), World Medical Association (WMA), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Library of Medicine, and many other numerous research studies) that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality rather than a conscious choice made by individuals or an unnatural disorder the homosexual was born with. Scientific studies NOW conclude that homosexuality will make up 3% of the population, no matter what, and that homosexuality IS part of the natural order. So, it seems our knowledge of this matter has changed. Should not our theology develop and evolve in light of these new findings? After all, aren’t homosexuals made in the image and likeness of God, as we all are? If we are not to dispute the scientific and medical consensus, the question then becomes, are homosexuals not allowed to carry out God’s plan of love and commitment in the best way possible, in loving monogamous same-sex unions? Are they not allowed to participate in true love and commitment that mirrors Christ’s love for us on the cross in the same way infertile heterosexual couples are, who are given dispensations by the Church to marry, even though they cannot fulfil the marriage requirement of procreation? It is through no fault of their own, that gays are who they are. God made them as surely as he made you and me, and we all know, God doesn’t make junk.
Maybe...just maybe the "Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has been founded on" Scripture. "Recent scientific developments" mean we're all gonna die with da global boilening whilst scientific delopments said we'd all die if we ate too many whole eggs and butter not so long ago. No Pope or Dicastery can negate what's written in Scripture.
Two initial points. First a question, is homosexuality the result of nature or nurture? Second, if 3% of the population wants to have sex with animals, is that part of the natural order?
@@chucklumb3500 You asked, “Is homosexuality the result of nature or nurture?” As I said in my comment, “Homosexuality is part of the natural order”. Based on your second question, I suspect you might be confusing the word “nature” with the term “natural order”. From a Catholic perspective, the "natural order" refers to the inherent design and purpose that God has established for the created world, including human beings. According to Catholic teaching, God created the universe with a particular order and structure, and this order reflects His divine wisdom and intention. In the context of human beings, the Catholic Church teaches that God created us with a specific nature and purpose. This nature includes both our physical and spiritual dimensions, and it is believed to be in accordance with God's plan for humanity. The natural order encompasses various aspects of human life, including sexuality, relationships, family, and society. Regarding human sexuality, the Catholic Church teaches that sexual activity is intended to be expressed within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This understanding is based on the belief that the natural order of human sexuality is oriented towards the unitive and procreative aspects of marital love. Sexual acts outside of this context, such as premarital sex, adultery, pornography, and homosexual acts, are considered to be contrary to the natural order as understood by the Church. However, as I said in my original comment, science and medicine have made new discoveries that show homosexuality is part of the natural order and should no longer be considered “abnormal” due to other psychological, environmental and social, cultural and societal factors. This shows it should not be considered a sexual deviancy. “Nature” refers to the physical world and the phenomena that exist within it, including all living and non-living things. It encompasses the entire universe, including the Earth, its ecosystems, plants, animals, and humans, as well as the laws and processes that govern them. You also asked, “If 3% of the population wants to have sex with animals, is that part of the natural order?” You might be surprised to learn that, yes indeed, 2% to 3% of humans do have sexual attraction to animals. But the answer to your question is NO. Bestiality, also known as zoophilia, refers to sexual attraction, arousal, or activity involving animals. It is considered a paraphilic disorder, which means it is classified as a sexual deviation or abnormal sexual interest. The exact causes of bestiality are not fully understood, and it likely involves a combination of psychological, social, and cultural factors. So then, the question becomes, “Is homosexuality considered a paraphilic disorder?” And the answer to this question is NO, homosexuality is not considered a paraphilic disorder. Paraphilic disorders refer to intense and persistent sexual interests or behaviours involving atypical or non-consenting targets, which may cause distress or impairment to the individual or others. Homosexuality, on the other hand, refers to sexual and romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex. So that brings to mind a fourth question, which is, “Is Pedophilia a paraphilic disorder?” And the answer to this question is, yes, pedophilia is classified as a paraphilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children, typically 13 years of age or younger. I hope this answers your questions.
@@susand3668 We can't know if you're a useful idiot or an evil propagandist. I suppose it really doesn't make a difference other than between straight to Hell and a prolonged Purgatory,..... maybe... if ur lucky.
Dear@@MzladyGrinn, who is sanctioning homosexuality? Fiducia Supplicans specifically says 'no' to any and all sexual activities out side marriage (which it defines at least twice, in case any one here doesn't know what marriage IS -- the stable, indissoluble, exclusive union of one man and one woman that is open to the natural generation of children. (Please, just read the beginning of the document, if you don't have the time to read it all! That's the foundation. From that foundation, all the rest of the document flows.) When blessing same-sex couples, it is for the purpose of asking the Holy Spirit to move in the lives of the couple. How can that mean anything but an end to sin and the birth and strengthening of virtue?
@@Anon.5216 No doubt you’d praise John XII and Alexander VI as well. Francis and his minions want to legitimise homosexuality. Wake up and smell the lavender.
But Mr. Allen, how can you say that Fiducia Supplicans is not a "big deal" when most of the Catholic world - on one side or the other - thinks that it is a big deal - a very big deal? Your analysis makes no sense here. Analyze the facts, not what you prefer to see. Also, to compare Fernandez's blasphemous erotic book with John Paul II's Theology of the Body is beyond absurd. It's unjust. You have really lost all rational perspective.
Would you at least agree that this declaration was culturally insensitive and not responsive to the understands of the Eastern Catholic Church. Shouldn’t this have been brought through the synod? If not, what is the synod for?
Stop watering down FS. It will change many things in the Church. Small of big group of people will loose their faith and others will be blessed in their sin. STOP
Remember that cadet guy at the end of Animal House who was shouting "All is well! All is well!" as all Hell is breaking loose around him? That's John every time. Points for consistency, I guess.
It is good to have faith in God, don't you think? And God has guaranteed that the papacy cannot teach heresy and that the Church, in union with her visible head, the pope, cannot go wrong.
It’s amazing that most people don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between a union and a couple. One may bless a couple, which is just two people. Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and thus may be blessed. One may not bless a union unless it is something good, at least putatively so.
How is it possible to Bless the "couple" without blessing the principle purpose and circumstance of their coupling ? Sure - It is possible to bless two individuals who are standing next to each other. AND to call them a "couple" one must acknowledge what makes them be considered as a couple.
Even the host of this podcast got the concept of union and couple confused. The document says "couples" - The host of this podcast kept saying "unions". And he is very smart guy. If he can't keep the concepts from blurring together that is very telling.
You're being disingenuous and engaging in pure sophistry. There's a reason why Cdl Fernandez tried to "unpublish" the ISBN number of the book when he was made a cardinal. Deleting an ISBN number is _VERY_ difficult, unless you're well-connected.
John, maybe the younger man can be forgiven for his unworthy book, but it is hardly a career credential for the top flight position he now holds in the church. He shouldn’t be held aloft as a well-formed moral, doctrinal or spiritual authority now just because he is not young anymore.
I’ve read it and “Love and Responsibility.” They’re both written by a genius academic and theologian, incomparable to the ilk of Fernnadez/Francis fluffy meaningless rhetoric and now homo-erotic porn being uncovered.
We are *absolutely right* to condemn the pope for what an agent of his has done, that is right and just to impose upon the vicar of Christ and by upon Christ Himself as the pope's boss the fallout of everything that His agents have done wrong- all throughout existence! It is the establishment that's to be deprived of any claims of protection from persecution for the misconduct of their agents, as the misdeeds of any agent of any monarch are *by definition* the misdeeds, nay *crimes* of the monarch himself- due to him giving blessing to do those things!
John the debate on what is being done today is EXACTLY why people are pissed at Cardinal Fernandez. You cannot bless same-sex unions because you cannot bless sin.
And that is exactly what Fiducia Supplicans states. The document goes into great detail about the different types of blessings and Pope Francis specifically states that the unions of irregular couples, e.g. either heterosexual or homosexual in civil unions, cannot be blessed as if it were akin to the sacrament of marriage within the Catholic Church between one man and one woman. Read the document more carefully and I suggest seeking out the analysis by Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology to better understand the pastoral teaching and applications of different forms of blessings that that Pope Francis has given to the clergy.
@@virginiacharlotte7007 'Fiducia Supplicans' also states the the "couple" can be blessed. Note it does not say individuals, it says couples. Question: How can you bless a couple without considering the nature and principle factor of their coupling? There is no problem blessing each individual. The trouble comes with the admission of a "couple". How can a blessing recognize and bless them as a couple without blessing the purpose of their being a couple. Can priest bless : a Bigamist and his 3rd concurrent wife if they present themselves as such a couple ? An adult and their pederast partner ? Business partners of a S&M Porn Video production. Additionally, if it is admitted that the union is sinful --- and blessing are always given so that the blessed are afforded graces to pursue greater virtue --- isn't the blessing actually one that has hope and intention that they would break-up as a couple ? How confusing is that ?--- Bless a couple with the intention that the couple break-up. ?
@@virginiacharlotte7007Not really. The document does indeed allow the blessing of same sex couples. Yes, marriage is off the table, but it is the former that people are protesting.
@@2Uahoj read it more carefully. It says that spontaneous blessings are available to anyone as individuals, including those who may currently be in a same sex couple, but the blessing confers NOT to the Union but to them as individuals who happen to be in that irregular situation. By way of example, consider that a priest may give a spontaneous blessing to a youth group . The blessing confers down onto the individuals that make up that group, but it does not confer legitimacy upon the sins that any of those individuals in that group may be living with. While the use of the word ‘couple’ is unfortunately used in this document, it really is clear that the sins of same sex unions cannot be blessed. I cannot stress enough how Michael Lofton helps break down, step by step, how each part of the document, when read in its correct context, at the sentence, paragraph, preceding paragraphs and the document as a whole, is still in tune with Church orthodoxy. Beyond that recommendation, I really cannot help you with your reading comprehension skills. Have a good day.
Normally, I get John Allen, but he’s way, way off base on the comparison between the blasphemous filth that Fernandez is pedaling and Pope St. John Paul the Great’s incredibly insightful work on the Theology of the Body is like the difference between a porn star and Audrey Hepburn.
The TOB is akin to a person describing seeing from afar a married couple talking, laughing, etc, whereas Tucho is like a mad scientist with a magnifying glass in a room with two people.
I am so confused by all of this!! I'm Catholic and I stand by its teachings! So is Pope Francis supporting gay unions? Does unions mean marriage? What is happening!!!!
It’s heresy. And there’s many folks saying that very thing! Trying to force a schism? Listen to Archbishop Viganó, Father Altman. And Father Frank Pavone!
You should read pope pius x’s “pascendi gregis”. Contemporary events are recapitulating the modernist crisis of the early 20th century, except now they are running the Vatican.
Dear @franclark9256, NO. There are NO BLESSINGS FOR SAME-SEX UNIONS. "Fiducia Supplicans", the Magisterial document people are all up in arms over, describes 2 kinds of blessings -- 1) liturgical blessings (marriage blessings, limited to the unions of one man and one woman, stable, exclusive, indissoluble, open to natural generation of children), and 2) simple, "pastoral" blessings, asking for God's graces to help people, including those who are in irregular "unions". Please remember that the pope is unable to teach heresy -- that's the promise Jesus gave us, giving His authority to the visible head of the Church until He comes again.
Dear, @MzladyGrinn. "Bishop" Vigano (he went through a "re-consecration" so he is not longer "archbishop") has left the Church to become a sede vacantist. "Father" Altman called for merder of the pope. And "Father" Frank Pavone was serially disobedient to his bishop. Not very good role models. These are the people who are spreading confusion. They don"t like the pope.
Fr Gerald Murray on EWTN explains that Francis then Bishop in Buenos Aires made cardinal Dean of a catholic u in Argentina and the cardinal was removed within one year. The two go way back, and yes the pope knows he’s a pervert!
Wow. That was quite the apologia! Perhaps you might have included the charming little fantasy of a 16 year old girl and Jesus in a flight of erotic embellishment. “Toucho” Fernandez certainly found it important in his much neglected classic! You really have become a publicist for the Francis Papacy. I would advise that you should be working on your file folder under the topic of “schism”. That’s up next on the calendar!
Why are you fixated on apologising for saying the word "orgasm" as if it is a dirty word? I know Americans tend to be exceptionally squeamish about language, far more than people anywhere else. Language Americans seem to have issues with are entirely normal and not seen as offensive of even controversial elsewhere. But orgasms? Really? It is something people elsewhere have no problems talking about, and is something understood by teenagers and many younger. They often hear of them. They know about them from sex education classes. Children on farms see animals have them, I really don't get why you need to pussyfoot around the world, or act like you are embarrassed, and apologise for using it. .
Because it's a word associated with sexual intimacy and Christian modisty argues for certain terms to be used with great caution. Kind of a no- brainer.
Dear@@christinascerpella6211, no, it comes from people not trusting Jesus to keep His representative on earth from heresy, and instead trusting people who want to smear the pope and cause scandal and fear.
Dear@@stephenlight647, no, it comes from people who think they are more Catholic than the pope. It comes from being suspicious of everything the pope does, and never caring that it is the devil that wants us to distrust the visible head of the Church on earth.
LOL! The pope described himself at the beginning of his reign, and he has stayed true to these 2 facts about himself: First, he is a loyal son of the Church. And second, he is a sinner. Please pray for him. He needs our prayers.
The Document does not purport to bless any same-sex union, but speaks of persons who who ask for a blessing who also happen to be in such a relationship. The document provides for the blessing of persons, not of their living arrangements.
Tell Fr Martin that. Check the New York Times the day after the Vatican publication of this travesty with nice pictures. Read the couple's article in Fr Martin's Outreach publication a few days later. Fr Martin and Pope Francis exchange private letters and Fr Martin has enjoyed many private audiences with Pope Francis. Fr Martin was hand-picked by Pope Francis as a voting member of the Synod on synodality.. Read the headlines in all the major newspapers in all the capital cities of the western world and write to the editors and have their articles corrected. Finally correct the 50% of the bishops of the world who have come out against it strongly. Because we all know your a genius and 100% correct.
True. The amount of people in this comments stream that have either not read the full document or who have very poor reading comprehension skills is staggering.
@@virginiacharlotte7007 Yes not to mention the half of the bishops and priests of the world who have rejected it. Maybe we could send them to you for comprehension training?
@@virginiacharlotte7007 They won't be the straw men targets that locutorest claims sadly. Maybe Cardinal Sarah would have you for breakfast so to speak. The brand new category of blessing by a Holy orders scaramentalised priest as oposed to you or me for instance or the individuals as couple rather than unions. And what does spontaneous mean at breakfast? Don't ask don't tell. Of course it all depends on what 'is' is, isn't it? You'll get serious at some point.
The blessing of same-sex couples will in itself not chance a whole lot, but some. The point you left out is does it change the reception of Church doctrin in society. I don't doubt the media will say it is a shift towards a final sacramental approuval. So the document is a kind of lutherian hammering on the door of the Church. What Will happen next?
I would suggest that most of the clergy in the Vatican should sometimes pick up and read Bible 101,they must have forgotten some pages in the Bible and what the Word of God says.Also May be go back to daily prayer,some fasting and repentance of sinful ways.We all can use that in today s world
Please remove this video as it is gravely sinful to compare the Cardinal's writings about a sexual union a 16 year old girl claimed to have with Jesus and the writings of JPII. And the Cardinal is not entitled to a pass on this because he holds the second highest position in the Church and the book was hidden and just now discovered. The Cardinal says the pope knew about it so if the pope does not make the Cardinal resign, the pope himself needs to step down. To my other brothers and sisters in Christ, don't leave the Church. Stay and insist they are the ones to leave!
Well, this kind of embrace of mortal sin as a positive good is proof that the petrine office is not capable of being in the Church, nor can the upper hierarchy, and this's also proof of God's evil nature by His vicar, with His blessing, endorsing immorality; this also includes His actions in the old testament, so we're required to remove Him from having any possible authority and/or power over us for this embrace of Hell's lifestyle, regardless of ability *We the People WILL* do that.
Thank you for your balanced and sane assessment of the actual effect and general intent of this communication Rome. I know that many self-indulgent people will want to make more of this in order to fracture the church but I hope they will not succeed.
Where do I begin?🤣🤣 An absolute corker by JA again - I've said it before but today's output demonstrates the benefits of repetition - this show really SHOULD be a popular staple - like Play Your Cards Right or Countdown or Mr&Mrs (well, actually given the lead item, perhaps nowadays that would invite too much controversy😂😂😂) I thought the jacket was a marvellously arch John Candy-ish burlesque on middle American golfers - but I don't think John has an unkind bone in his body and anyway, we'd have seen evidence of such tendencies before and I watch every week for at least the last 2 years and never have yet. In the light of hearing of its provenance, I can wholeheartedly commend it and would urge our esteemed host to wear it unironically for any and all occasions requiring smart apparel (albeit reserving the option, in humble spirit, to bring it out for any 70s fancy dress "do") Years ago - and almost certainly somewhere on the planet even today - the exhortation that Catholicism is less Universal and more a local thing (kind of based on regional language, culture and mores) - would get you burned at the stake for heresy😏 Yet it is so manifestly true - look, for example, at the ghastly homophobic Africans - steeped as they are, in their toxic mix of "traditional" (aka tribal) beliefs - and hideously repressed, buttoned tight Victorian missionary, hellfire Christianity. In the same way, I am sure there are a few enlightened pastors on that continent who try to be a little more welcoming and inclusive, I suspect they number about the same as those starting to peek above the parapets to name and shame themselves for the atrocious conditions pretty much everywhere in Africa - rather than blaming colonialism. One memorable speaker during King Charles' recent visit to Kenya, clearly asked his (overwhelmingly Kenyan) audience, whether 60 years after independence, Kenyans ought to stop demanding apologies from the British - and looking to themselves as masters of their own destinies. He specifically cited that if billions of dollars flood into the country from the international community - but most of it gets siphoned off through corruption - how much of that is "the white man's" fault. Well quite. I'm going to finish rather ruefully by saying that this principle only serves to reinforce my astonishment that there are still ANY believers in any religion (not just Catholics or Christians, period). Of course everyone does their own thing - there is no god(s) and religion is all made up😂 It's just politics by another name🎉 So when these ludicrous furores spring up - gaaaahhhhh and it's always over ABSOLUTELY nothing - all these noisy - and noisesome - people, not just in uproar, not just fanning the flames - but RELISHING doing so while maintaining their stony, pokerface and odour, FAR from sanctity, but of hubris which, is always exacerbated by their inevitable hypocrisy as it's all done under this (self) righteous banner of religion yet has nothing whatever to do with their god: they are merely expressing their personal opinion while using religion as a combined cloak of invisibility - and battering ram. You just know Strickland isn't "a holy man" - he's a deeply unpleasant, cantankerous old bugger - the very archetype of a traditional, conservative (formerly plantation owning) Republican - in a purple frock. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of guitars and tambourines in a church service either - if I was ever forced to tolerate one. But that's the point - I may well use these comments to air my opinions - but I'm certainly not foisting them on anyone like so many clanging, clucking, crowing, hysterical martinets - uuggh, I feel physically nauseous if ever Taylor Marshall is thrust in front of me thanks to a glitch in CZcams's algorithm - it's probably the platform's revenge on me for being so rude about CZcams and always skipping the ads but refusing to pay for ad free content - Crux happily opts for the setting where the entire half hour is uninterrupted by that pestilence! My God, he truly is appalling - diabolical even - and to think, he used to be a priest!!! No wonder he gave it up after a year - all his parishioners deserted his church!!😂😂😂😂 And what about Raymond Arroyo? So awful, he should be a crime - and SURELY a latent homosexual???🤨😯🤭 People can poke who they like, it's not that I take issue with - it's the hypocrisy. Marcel Maciel, Ted McCarrick and almost worst of all amongst the very top echelons, our own Keith O'Brien - what a vile, screeching old pofaced HYPOCRITE - decrying the EVILS of being gay - while all the time ... if anyone doesn't know, just look him up - at least Ted MacCarrick was just a bit of a good time girl - I m not aware of his crusading against gaydom. And look at that old crook Becciu - jees, the SECOND he could control the cash, he's acting like some Mafia don - too, too ironic he's Sicilian. Moreover, next time I want to refer to someone's girlfriend/mistress/paramour - I too, shall use the nomenclature "Security Consultant". I mean, what we didn't hear on Crux - but I sure as hell looked it up - is about Cecilia Morogna posting stuff on Facebook from INSIDE the cardinal's apartment referring to it as "my little heaven". I mean, the hubris is positively Renaissance!!! Cardinal Becciu has about as much interest in god and the scriptures, as a native Amazonian - or Laotian rice farmer. He has made it perfectly obvious, that he'd rather roll in cash, funnelling a load of it to his family and bit of fluff and act like a character out of a Verdi opera. It's just so dastardly and debauched, it's hilarious! Frankly, I like Pope Francis and I think good for him for retaining the privileges of an absolute monarch - so what if that trial wasn't transparently fair - it is perfectly obvious what game Becciu was playing. I hope he gets defrocked and goes to prison. I hope Francis follows through on it - and delays exercising any mercy whatsoever for at least the next couple of years. Maybe these buggers'll take it a bit more seriously themselves while trying to preach to us...... Yes yes yes everyone will be throwing their hands up in horror - and I know JA thinks the church is mostly full of ordinary good men doing their best to minister to their flocks (which I would have to admit is probably true) - but the Catholic Church is just so broken - along with the Anglicans and the Muslims - all the dogmatic ones. They're all the rotting corpses of anything they once were, although I maintain that Catholicism is the worst of the worst for it's love of power, status and money. I still think John could have made a superb priest - and bishop - a relatable, twinkly, delight.... Happy New Year all🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂
I’ve said it😊 before and I’ll say it again: we progressive Catholics😅 heart. 😊h38 ut up with the last two radical conservative popes and you conservatives are bad mouthing our Pope Francis!!!!??? Remember Francis is the POPE so as radical conservatives😅 you must by canon law respect and obey him. I’m praying for your hard hats.Mr. Allen, I’ll see you at the Religious Education Congress.
No, as a priest, you do not have to obey him in theological matters such as this. I would not consider myself a conservative either but we do not have an understanding of the papacy that we have to obey him in such matters. Respect, I agree, there is no reason for the lack of charity. We were spoiled in the last century to have good popes, and no matter the agenda or corruption in the Holy See, we have seen much worse. I think if all of us were concerned about loving the Lord and loving neighbor, there could be civil and charitable disagreement.
Yep - read it... The document seems to allow blessing of any couple, in any irregular situation. This is very problematic. A married man and his extra marital mistress are a "couple", No ? A married man and his 2nd in wife in Bigamy - are a "couple", No? A pimp and his prostitute are a "couple", No ? Two businessmen who are partners in a Porn Movie production studio are a "couple", No ? It is impossible to name a couple as a "couple" without acknowledging that situation which makes them "a couple". And it asks that the blessing be for greater Christian strength --- Which basically means that the irregular union should come to an end. === ---- "those who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to “strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible” and to trust in “the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.” " -- Fiducia Supplicans - Section 10 === It is perverse and insidious to tell a couple in a irregular union to say it is OK to be blessed as a couple, with the purpose that the blessing would lead them to break up as a couple. It is best to Bless each of them as Individuals (not as a couple).
What do you deem to be the difference between couples and unions? Isn't it clear that couples is referring to same-sex couples? Are they not in some kind of union also? Please describe well so that I can appreciate your comment, thanks.
Sorta did. As the New Times and Fr Martin displayed the very next day, despite the perverted legalese on a par with: "depends on what 'is' is" Popesplainers look even more ridiculous than heretofore.
You think you can judge the wisest man living on those days. Do you actually know who he was? I mean not his name, but the immensity of the persons spirituality and intellect.
@@ryanscottlogan8459 Well if you think you are the right person to judge, maybe you should live Christianity because is not Christian behavior. So don't bother to be upset.
One point that affects Europe, Asia and Africa. Christmas, New Year is NOT holiday season. It is normal life with a short break of one or two days at most at Christmas. Holiday season is very much an American idea etc. Obama used refer to the holidays and wish people Happy Holidays. IN EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, ETC it is HAPPY CHRISTMAS. That is what it is, not holidays. Holidays are in the Summer or other times when families go away, eg Easter and most of the year. Please know that Catholics around the world are not Americans. We are not. The imposition of American ‘holiday seasons’ on the world is plainly wrong.
The most destructive papacy in the history of the Church. And yet the indefensible is defended by popesplainers with emotional froth but without facts or a rational argument. To be fair, there aren't any.
I think you mischaracterize the document. It does not say you can bless same sex unions. It said you can bless persons in irregular situations. Are you misconstruing it purposely?
@@stardustgirl2904 Its infiltration into the Catholic Church. To do as the Episcopal church has done. They have married gay priests, leading services. They dont want to be Catholic. They want to destroy the Catholic Church. I put my faith in God, He has a plan, I'm sure of that much. But im not taking communion from a gay priest, And im certainly not recieving from the Chalice after a gay person, either. They do not worship God, They worship themselves, and their sin. And Satan. So again, I say, No thank you, I'll pass.
Manuals and journals of moral theology were once filled with essays on these specific sexual matters. Many dissertations at Pontifical universities were as well. Many were in Latin and accessible to only a small group of clergy, who were in any case being trained to deal with these issues as they showed up in the confessional. Even when translated into English, these sections stayed in Latin. Too prurient for innocent eyes. So . . . to affirm JA: nothing to see here folks, move on.
Dis 'n' dat 1) Mr. Allen, I love the outfit. You look GREAT in it. 2) I suspect that Pope Francis would like to move the Catholic Church towards the center. However, he must deal with the bureaucrats and bishops who were appointed by his two predecessors. Any move to the center must be done with caution or he will have to deal with the various factions in the church that oppose him. 3) I am thrilled to see the pope moving towards recognizing LGBT Catholics; I hope to live long enough to see my LGBT friends receive the sacrament of matrimony. I told my LGBT friends who are/were/grew up Catholic to be patient, very patient. In the USA, the progress for marriage equality had to go through domestic partnership registries and civil unions before the states gave full marriage rights to LGBT couples leading to the Obergefell decision in the Supreme Court. The same will happen in the Catholic Church. Please note Catholics in the USA, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic, approved of gay marriage more than white evangelicals and African American Christians. Only Jewish and non-religious Americans supported gay marriage at a higher rate than that of American Catholics
It’s going to be a very grand Church. Much more super inclusive. And the LGBTQ folks will flock to Mass. Of course, that’s going to be a much smaller Church. But, hey, very noble. (It turns out the classical pagans were right all along! Gay sex = great! 👍
On some of the topics of your today's episode, allow me two observations 1.Objecting to a "non-liturgical blessing" of a gay couple who asks for it or, for that matter, of anyone, even if non Catholic, asking for it, is a departure from the what is the very essence of Christ's teachings; Christ did not not come to judge but to save. I suspect that many of those who have been opposed to it did not pay sufficient attention to what the Pope has approved, either because they picked up the "news" in passing from the social media or pre-judged the approval as one of those "modernisms" expected from Pope Francis. Please, folks, It is a an Invocation that God be with those who are asking for the Blessing. 2. Book on sexuality by the now Cardinal Fernandez - my only reservation to it is - he couldn't have had the know how of the subject, so how should anyone even bother with what he said 25 years ago? Sexuality does not follow theology, it is the other way round, my friend. Thank you John/a
Pretty much half the bishops of the world should go get educated by you because they reject FS for some irrational reaason according to you. The difference between a lay catholic blessing and a priestly blessing, is that only one has the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I wonder what that means? And meh..... who cares if the Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church writes vile pornography?
Let’s be specific. The Cardinal promulgating this ‘blessing’, included a torrid write up of Jesus erotica with a 16 year old girl. A not inconsequential secondary endorsement of underage sex… Second, the Eastern churches in Union (for now) have a very different understanding of the priestly blessing. Now, they are tiny, so you can ignore them, but they will ignore this revision or leave. The Africans, are not in line with this. Funny how the Holy Father is all anti-colonial until it comes time for him to speak from Europe as an Emperor without consultation.
I wonder what was d motive of Fernandez writting this book. Rubbish. Do we need clear explaination. Who inspired him to write- satan! Must be. Simple couples know wht to do once their married. I think he shld bring out d spirituality of marriage. Whts happenning to our clergy. Do we need ppl like them🫢🫢
You are totally misrepresenting the Fernandez book. It is much worse than you describe. Read the articles describing chapters 9-12. It is very sacrilegious and blasphemous. It can in no way be compared to JPII book. It is despicable that Fernandez wrote it. He should be removed.
I just read them. Frankly, there is nothing new and absolutely nothing sacrilegious nor blasphemous. It is the full acceptance of sexuality as God's gift, as the natural law. This scandalised reaction is, once again, an ideological problem, specifically the one about human sexuality. One can read the fear.
Thank you, @@sebastianfernandez3974! That's how I read the 3 chapters that were publicized as the "worst" of the book. I have read a little of traditional Catholic mysticism, and what Cardinal Fernandez wrote was in line with centuries of Catholic writings.
@@sebastianfernandez3974 Ur a bot representing evil forces to a just a nutter or you read some fake version of his book. This is from Il Giornale: "The Argentine cardinal maintains that a woman "needs appropriate conditions to feel aroused". For this reason, according to Fernández, "violent sex and images of orgies" are more attractive to men than to women. But, according to him, "this does not mean that (the woman) feels less aroused by hardcore pornography." Speaking like an expert, the then-young theologian describes the differences between male and female orgasm: the man “usually makes aggressive grunts; she, on the other hand, makes childish babbles or sighs." A description that he would not expect to find in a theology essay. The cardinal goes into red-flag details when he writes that «women have a rich venous plexus around the vagina, which maintains good blood flow after orgasm. That's why she's usually insatiable." Moving on to the male orgasm, the theologian reports that the man "releases himself well in ejaculation and remains satisfied and exhausted". This difference generates in women "a dark respect for male power" and makes her "disturbed by violent pornography". The details help Fernández to reach a conclusion: «These peculiarities in orgasm also occur in some way in the mystical relationship with God»." I've read some of Ch 6 online (couldn't finish even that 1 chapter) and it was nausea inducing and much worse than the quotes above.... and I'm a medico.
You are totally misrepresenting the Fernandez book. It is much worse than you describe. Read the articles describing chapters 9-12. It is very sacrilegious and blasphemous. It can in no way be compared to JPII book. It is despicable that Fernandez wrote it. He should be removed.
Did you see, Archbishop Viganò called for the Swedish authorities to arrest both Bergoglio and his cohort fernandez?
It’s on other social media.
I cannot duplicate the descriptions and various combinations that the fictional sexual fantasy authored by Cardinal Fernandez, including a section of sexual union with Jesus. I think the CZcams algorithm would pick up on it and I have no interest in describing the under age s*x described in the book. But hey, it’s just a book…
So John, Jesus making love to a 16 year old girl with Mary looking on approvingly is ok with Mr. Allen!
Cardinal Fernandez did not authorize the reproduction of his book, which he stopped the publishing of it 25 years ago. Nor has anyone checked the translation.
Still, it is a theological exploration of traditional Catholic mysticism, which Cardinal Fernandez did a much better job, I imagine, in the next books he wrote.
And all of this has nothing to say about what he is accomplishing now -- which traditional Catholics should rejoice in! Because he put his finger on the key to stopping the liberal bishops in German, Belgium, and the Netherlands AND liberal priests in the US like Fr. Martin, all of whom are only pretending that they are happy with "Fiducia Supplicans".
Chapter 6 is the worst.
It's clear that Cardinal Fernández wrote a very different book to JPII's Love and Responsibility. Positing a parallel between them is pretty disingenuous.
Absolutely correct. What the Cardinal wrote is disgusting and there is a reason he no longer wants it reprinted and this is also why it was not listed on the list of books he wrote. He said the pope knew about the book and knew it was not on the list. Hence, it is possible there is more crap he wrote that has not been disclosed.
Either John’s terribly jet-lagged from Mongolia or he’s suffering a very bad case of Stockholm syndrome.
An attempt to head off the Germans. What BS! I am done with you.
Everybody skips over that annoying ad at the beginning. Just get rid of it!!!
There is no comparison between SJPII and Tucho Fernandez, the first is Theology of the body and the second is kamasutra with some drops of holy water
John glossed over the substance here. Disappointing.
Does anyone remember Sodom and Gomorrah?
And God's wrath falls upon them?
Same sex couples, goes against God's plan for us, to get married and have children of our own. God's children need to be born to receive bodies for resurrection.
Dear@@stardustgirl2904, yes, and the simple blessings in the Magisterial Declaration "Fiducia Supplicans" is to give permission to the Holy Spirit to enter the lives of those suffering from SSA and give them the graces and the strength to leave their sin and find themselves in the Church, the Bride of Christ.
Thanks and wishing you every blessing in 2024
God bless you, brother Allen.
Not wearing that jacket and talking that trash, He won't.
There really is a major question that has not been asked and certainly has not been given any answers. Why did the Argentine pope choose the argentine archbishop to head the Dicastery for the Faith? Why did he pick this realtively unknown colleague from his native state? No answers. What great theological background does Fernandez have that qualifies him for this most senior Curia role? He has never been a prominent participant, never a csrdinal till 100 days ago, yet brough to Rome and now causing massive firestorm over his Declaration and more so on the horrificly detailed book which is mindbogglingly horrendous. Just who is +Fernandez? Well we know he has caused damage and all the current voting cardinals will be noting, keeping memory of what has happened in the leadup to the next conclave.
I am a Catholic for generations! I have 4 sisters and 4 bothers and thank God we are all Catholic! Jehova Witness cult has tried to convert a couple of my siblings but my Heavenly Father has me very spoiled.😇He has, on multiple occasions, proved to me that if I pray wholeheartedly he hears my prayers! My husband is a perfect example! Though a Catholic his believe was that of an atheist. Now we are both serving our Lord and pray the rosary together (have been for 6 years). Anyway, this is a perfect time to be Catholic! Jesus is being persecuted more than ever! I am definitely in the right church! I cannot see myself anywhere else, I love Jesus and his family so much I wouldn’t dare turn my back on them; especially when he’s being betrayed and crucified all over again! God bless you all. Thanks for all you do in the name of Jesus.
According to your analysis there was no logical or theological reason for this document to have been promulgated. If that is true, what is the purpose of having published it?
This episode is a terrific case in point for why, contrary to what the host asserts, ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is certainly more steak than sizzle.
For Two reasons :
1 - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is easily and was immediately abused with no repercussions
and
2 - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ creates and propagates confusion.
Point 1 : Clear abuse without repercussions
‘Fiducia supplicans’ clearly indicates (no less than eight (8) times) that the blessing that it allows for to be "spontaneous".
Spontaneous clearly means that it was unplanned and did not have the time or opportunity to exert any kind of moral analysis. This was stated clearly in the document.
And Yet - Fr. J. Martin and others used the release of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as a opportunity arrange for these blessings. Immediately upon ‘Fiducia supplicans’ release Fr. Martin was meeting a couple at a prearranged place and time for a blessing. There were photographers and news people there. This is obviously exactly against ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as there is no way this could be considered to be spontaneous and without the opportunity for moral analysis.
There has been, to my knowledge, no correction from Fr. Martin's bishop about this abuse.
Point 2 : Creates and propagates confusion - The document said "couple" not "unions"
A - This very video / podcast uses the word and terms blessing of "unions" several times. Which is a clear misreading of the document. ‘Fiducia supplicans’ clearly indicates that it does _not_ allow for the blessing of the unions. It makes this very clear and reasserts the earlier pronouncement that the Church cannot bless sin. The the union itself is not to be blessed.
The very fact that ‘Fiducia supplicans’ tries to make a distinction between blessing the unions and blessing the couple and this video / podcast got this detail wrong shows that
even this podcast host was confused and got it wrong.
B - There is a confusion between blessing a "couple" and blessing their "union". This is a complete confusion, for a couple cannot be considered as such unless they have a uniting principle.
Two men who are starting a business together as partners and ask for a priest's blessing - are a couple. If they were not partners in a business they would not rightly be considered a couple. The business is the principle that joins them as a couple.
In the idea of a same-sex union, if it were not for the union, there would be no couple to consider. There would be merely two individuals asking for a blessing.
And here is the confusion.
The Document allows for the blessing of a couple, not only individuals. It uses the term couple and yet ignores the principle factor of their coupling.
Question: Can a priest bless business partners as a couple ? What if their business was hard core S&M pornography?
A pimp and his lady worker are "a couple" can a priest bless them as a couple ?
The main idea here is that the purpose and principle factor of the couple's relationship cannot be extricated from the couple.
The Church has always allows the blessing of individuals. The confusion here is how can it allow for the blessing of couples if the status of their coupling is objectively sinful ?
C - Insidious and insulting confusion for the requestors.
The Blessing over a couple and is actually for the future break-up for the couple.
The document states, in general, that the blessing would be for the spiritual growth and strength to be better Christians.
Which would mean, in fact, it is a prayer and a blessing that this couple, who are in a sinful union, would break-up and live chaste lives.
This is a logical conclusion. If a same-sex union is not allowed and considered sinful by the church, and a priest blesses a couple in a same-sex union so that they would be better Christians and avoid sin --- How is this not a prayer and a blessing with the intention that they would break-up as a couple ?
This is confusing for a couple who is seeking the blessing, and is in fact an insidious and deceptive thing to do.
The Priest is blessing them in hope that they break up.
Do they know and understand this ?
@@user-hf5wf7lc6x Agreed,. the document’s assumption that there may not be time for a full moral analysis falls flat. A simple question of why the blessing is being requested would illuminate the intent without a full moral analysis.
A priest can bless a man who approaches for a blessing, wearing camouflage and a holding a gun. A simple question “ Why are you requesting a blessing , my son?” Would illuminate the difference between: “I am going on a hunting trip” - and - “I am going to commit a murder.”
If a gay couple comes, with one of them pregnant, and they are asking for a blessing about the pregnancy, then the pregnant one can be blessed. The baby can be blessed. The partner can be blessed. In relation to the pregnancy. All of them as 3 separate individuals.
This is already allowed .
To save this irrevocably monstrous papacy, John pedals furiously to assure us that Larry Flynt and Sandro Botticelli are very very similar
Trying to equate Fernandez' "Mystical Passion" with Wojtyla's "Love and Responsibility" is specious at best.
@@edg4119Specious? It's absurd and unjust.
How many children has John Allen and Elise had? Considering he doesn’t find this disgusting declaration an earthquakes that it is, I can only think his easy going attitude comes from his easy going life.
None that he knows about…
Utterly killed ecumenical talks with the Orthodox
Moscow and Athens aren't worth it; I speak as an Ukrainian Catholic who had Ukrainian Orthodox family members. JP2 was interested in Moscow but Francis is more interested in Beijing.
@@ConanTheLibrarian-n5q it is Constantinople, Antioch, and Ethiopia that disagreed.
While I agree that a gay marriage as defined presently by the Catholic Church is not possible, there remains a growing effort for the Church to recognize the love monogamous gay couples have. While this type of marriage is not possible, allow me to explain what might be.
There is a social/sexual revolution coming in the Church. In one aspect of this coming revolution, the Church wants to expound on Pope John Paul’s central idea in “Theology of the Body” and how it centers on the fact that God wants a deep intimate relationship with each of us in the same way a committed monogamous heterosexual couple enjoys. It is not meant to reflect this in the physical sense but is mirrored in that way, to reflect the deep love God has for each of us, and the Church will attempt to bring to light, to celebrate the joy and exultation that can come from it.
The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has long been that it is not inherently sinful, as a person does not choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. However, the Church has always taught that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law”. According to the Catholic theology on sexuality, all sexual acts must be open to procreation by nature and express the symbolism of male-female complementarity.
The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has been founded on the belief in a natural order created by God, as it has been based on the idea that sexual acts should be by the natural law of procreation and male-female complementarity. This theology has been used to form the Church’s view on the sacrament of Marriage and the notion that marriage is only permitted for the purpose of a union between a man and a woman. “Male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)
Recent scientific developments, however, may influence how the Church addresses this issue in the future. Some feel God may be working in His Church to rectify a wrong that has survived for years. Could the coming changes in the Church and yes, changes are coming, possibly be the work of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised? Could Pope Francis be his messenger in all of this?
The principle of doctrinal development in Catholicism allows for the Church's understanding of its teachings to evolve and develop over time while still preserving the core truths of the faith. Some examples of this are Original Sin, the Trinity and the doctrine of Purgatory, the Eucharist, Canon of Scripture, religious liberty, social justice, and the role of women in the Church and society, but to name a few. Should the beliefs of the Church in the area of homosexuality and same-sex unions not evolve when presented with modern scientific evidence that proves otherwise or, should She remain with Her head in the sand in the interest of maintaining the status quo?
Medical experts have stated they can find no studies to show that homosexuality is an abnormality in the human person. Experts now widely agree (American Psychological Association (APA), World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association (AMA), World Medical Association (WMA), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Library of Medicine, and many other numerous research studies) that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality rather than a conscious choice made by individuals or an unnatural disorder the homosexual was born with.
Scientific studies NOW conclude that homosexuality will make up 3% of the population, no matter what, and that homosexuality IS part of the natural order. So, it seems our knowledge of this matter has changed. Should not our theology develop and evolve in light of these new findings? After all, aren’t homosexuals made in the image and likeness of God, as we all are? If we are not to dispute the scientific and medical consensus, the question then becomes, are homosexuals not allowed to carry out God’s plan of love and commitment in the best way possible, in loving monogamous same-sex unions? Are they not allowed to participate in true love and commitment that mirrors Christ’s love for us on the cross in the same way infertile heterosexual couples are, who are given dispensations by the Church to marry, even though they cannot fulfil the marriage requirement of procreation? It is through no fault of their own, that gays are who they are. God made them as surely as he made you and me, and we all know, God doesn’t make junk.
Maybe...just maybe the "Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has been founded on" Scripture.
"Recent scientific developments" mean we're all gonna die with da global boilening whilst scientific delopments said we'd all die if we ate too many whole eggs and butter not so long ago.
No Pope or Dicastery can negate what's written in Scripture.
Two initial points. First a question, is homosexuality the result of nature or nurture? Second, if 3% of the population wants to have sex with animals, is that part of the natural order?
@@chucklumb3500 You asked, “Is homosexuality the result of nature or nurture?”
As I said in my comment, “Homosexuality is part of the natural order”. Based on your second question, I suspect you might be confusing the word “nature” with the term “natural order”. From a Catholic perspective, the "natural order" refers to the inherent design and purpose that God has established for the created world, including human beings. According to Catholic teaching, God created the universe with a particular order and structure, and this order reflects His divine wisdom and intention.
In the context of human beings, the Catholic Church teaches that God created us with a specific nature and purpose. This nature includes both our physical and spiritual dimensions, and it is believed to be in accordance with God's plan for humanity. The natural order encompasses various aspects of human life, including sexuality, relationships, family, and society.
Regarding human sexuality, the Catholic Church teaches that sexual activity is intended to be expressed within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This understanding is based on the belief that the natural order of human sexuality is oriented towards the unitive and procreative aspects of marital love. Sexual acts outside of this context, such as premarital sex, adultery, pornography, and homosexual acts, are considered to be contrary to the natural order as understood by the Church. However, as I said in my original comment, science and medicine have made new discoveries that show homosexuality is part of the natural order and should no longer be considered “abnormal” due to other psychological, environmental and social, cultural and societal factors. This shows it should not be considered a sexual deviancy.
“Nature” refers to the physical world and the phenomena that exist within it, including all living and non-living things. It encompasses the entire universe, including the Earth, its ecosystems, plants, animals, and humans, as well as the laws and processes that govern them.
You also asked, “If 3% of the population wants to have sex with animals, is that part of the natural order?”
You might be surprised to learn that, yes indeed, 2% to 3% of humans do have sexual attraction to animals. But the answer to your question is NO. Bestiality, also known as zoophilia, refers to sexual attraction, arousal, or activity involving animals. It is considered a paraphilic disorder, which means it is classified as a sexual deviation or abnormal sexual interest. The exact causes of bestiality are not fully understood, and it likely involves a combination of psychological, social, and cultural factors.
So then, the question becomes, “Is homosexuality considered a paraphilic disorder?” And the answer to this question is NO, homosexuality is not considered a paraphilic disorder. Paraphilic disorders refer to intense and persistent sexual interests or behaviours involving atypical or non-consenting targets, which may cause distress or impairment to the individual or others. Homosexuality, on the other hand, refers to sexual and romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex.
So that brings to mind a fourth question, which is, “Is Pedophilia a paraphilic disorder?”
And the answer to this question is, yes, pedophilia is classified as a paraphilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children, typically 13 years of age or younger.
I hope this answers your questions.
You say Yes. I say No. Jesus also says No. Paul also says No. Church also says No.
Is homosexuality biological or cultural? Is killing part of the natural order? Is abortion part of the natural order?
27:07 "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." - George Orwell
A Pope Francis "splainer" to the core.
Even if he is wrong,
I agree!
A badge of honor! Only Modernists do not want the pope to be what he is -- a loyal son of the Church!
@@susand3668
Sanctioning homosexuality?
You need toread The Bible again.
@@susand3668 We can't know if you're a useful idiot or an evil propagandist. I suppose it really doesn't make a difference other than between straight to Hell and a prolonged Purgatory,..... maybe... if ur lucky.
Dear@@MzladyGrinn, who is sanctioning homosexuality? Fiducia Supplicans specifically says 'no' to any and all sexual activities out side marriage (which it defines at least twice, in case any one here doesn't know what marriage IS -- the stable, indissoluble, exclusive union of one man and one woman that is open to the natural generation of children. (Please, just read the beginning of the document, if you don't have the time to read it all! That's the foundation. From that foundation, all the rest of the document flows.)
When blessing same-sex couples, it is for the purpose of asking the Holy Spirit to move in the lives of the couple.
How can that mean anything but an end to sin and the birth and strengthening of virtue?
This Papacy has been a disaster, Francis has done enormous harm to the Catholic Church.
Taylor Marshall, Vigano, Strickland and Lie Site News, etc, have done tremendous harm to the Church.
Popes have been deposed before.
Sometimes there are bad popes
Pope Francis is a brilliant Pope. You should be careful to who u listen to and not allow the Devil to turn u against the Church.
@@Anon.5216 No doubt you’d praise John XII and Alexander VI as well.
Francis and his minions want to legitimise homosexuality. Wake up and smell the lavender.
But Mr. Allen, how can you say that Fiducia Supplicans is not a "big deal" when most of the Catholic world - on one side or the other - thinks that it is a big deal - a very big deal? Your analysis makes no sense here. Analyze the facts, not what you prefer to see. Also, to compare Fernandez's blasphemous erotic book with John Paul II's Theology of the Body is beyond absurd. It's unjust. You have really lost all rational perspective.
Would you at least agree that this declaration was culturally insensitive and not responsive to the understands of the Eastern Catholic Church. Shouldn’t this have been brought through the synod? If not, what is the synod for?
Stop watering down FS. It will change many things in the Church. Small of big group of people will loose their faith and others will be blessed in their sin. STOP
Has something happened to John’s wife? Surely she wouldn’t let him dress like that.
Very funny
He is taking a trip back to the 60's.
😂😂😂
John, review the comments. Nobody is buying your B.S.
Remember that cadet guy at the end of Animal House who was shouting "All is well! All is well!" as all Hell is breaking loose around him? That's John every time. Points for consistency, I guess.
It is good to have faith in God, don't you think? And God has guaranteed that the papacy cannot teach heresy and that the Church, in union with her visible head, the pope, cannot go wrong.
Read is the Pope infallible.
John , that brown plaid Jacket has got to go!
It’s amazing that most people don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between a union and a couple. One may bless a couple, which is just two people. Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and thus may be blessed. One may not bless a union unless it is something good, at least putatively so.
How is it possible to Bless the "couple" without blessing the principle purpose and circumstance of their coupling ?
Sure - It is possible to bless two individuals who are standing next to each other.
AND to call them a "couple" one must acknowledge what makes them be considered as a couple.
Even the host of this podcast got the concept of union and couple confused.
The document says "couples" - The host of this podcast kept saying "unions". And he is very smart guy. If he can't keep the concepts from blurring together that is very telling.
You're being disingenuous and engaging in pure sophistry. There's a reason why Cdl Fernandez tried to "unpublish" the ISBN number of the book when he was made a cardinal. Deleting an ISBN number is _VERY_ difficult, unless you're well-connected.
John, maybe the younger man can be forgiven for his unworthy book, but it is hardly a career credential for the top flight position he now holds in the church. He shouldn’t be held aloft as a well-formed moral, doctrinal or spiritual authority now just because he is not young anymore.
Well he actually was not that young when he apparently wrote it. 36 is hardly an irresponsible kid.
John Allen popesplaining comparing Fernández to JP2! Shameful!
It's not, please.
Have you actually *read* what JP2 had to say about sex in theology of the body?
I’ve read it and “Love and Responsibility.” They’re both written by a genius academic and theologian, incomparable to the ilk of Fernnadez/Francis fluffy meaningless rhetoric and now homo-erotic porn being uncovered.
We are *absolutely right* to condemn the pope for what an agent of his has done, that is right and just to impose upon the vicar of Christ and by upon Christ Himself as the pope's boss the fallout of everything that His agents have done wrong- all throughout existence! It is the establishment that's to be deprived of any claims of protection from persecution for the misconduct of their agents, as the misdeeds of any agent of any monarch are *by definition* the misdeeds, nay *crimes* of the monarch himself- due to him giving blessing to do those things!
John the debate on what is being done today is EXACTLY why people are pissed at Cardinal Fernandez. You cannot bless same-sex unions because you cannot bless sin.
lol
And that is exactly what Fiducia Supplicans states. The document goes into great detail about the different types of blessings and Pope Francis specifically states that the unions of irregular couples, e.g. either heterosexual or homosexual in civil unions, cannot be blessed as if it were akin to the sacrament of marriage within the Catholic Church between one man and one woman. Read the document more carefully and I suggest seeking out the analysis by Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology to better understand the pastoral teaching and applications of different forms of blessings that that Pope Francis has given to the clergy.
@@virginiacharlotte7007 'Fiducia Supplicans' also states the the "couple" can be blessed. Note it does not say individuals, it says couples. Question: How can you bless a couple without considering the nature and principle factor of their coupling?
There is no problem blessing each individual. The trouble comes with the admission of a "couple".
How can a blessing recognize and bless them as a couple without blessing the purpose of their being a couple.
Can priest bless :
a Bigamist and his 3rd concurrent wife if they present themselves as such a couple ?
An adult and their pederast partner ?
Business partners of a S&M Porn Video production.
Additionally, if it is admitted that the union is sinful --- and blessing are always given so that the blessed are afforded graces to pursue greater virtue --- isn't the blessing actually one that has hope and intention that they would break-up as a couple ?
How confusing is that ?--- Bless a couple with the intention that the couple break-up. ?
@@virginiacharlotte7007Not really. The document does indeed allow the blessing of same sex couples. Yes, marriage is off the table, but it is the former that people are protesting.
@@2Uahoj read it more carefully. It says that spontaneous blessings are available to anyone as individuals, including those who may currently be in a same sex couple, but the blessing confers NOT to the Union but to them as individuals who happen to be in that irregular situation. By way of example, consider that a priest may give a spontaneous blessing to a youth group . The blessing confers down onto the individuals that make up that group, but it does not confer legitimacy upon the sins that any of those individuals in that group may be living with. While the use of the word ‘couple’ is unfortunately used in this document, it really is clear that the sins of same sex unions cannot be blessed. I cannot stress enough how Michael Lofton helps break down, step by step, how each part of the document, when read in its correct context, at the sentence, paragraph, preceding paragraphs and the document as a whole, is still in tune with Church orthodoxy. Beyond that recommendation, I really cannot help you with your reading comprehension skills. Have a good day.
Love your new look, John. Happy New Year.
who was the tailor for heavens sake? need to change
Normally, I get John Allen, but he’s way, way off base on the comparison between the blasphemous filth that Fernandez is pedaling and Pope St. John Paul the Great’s incredibly insightful work on the Theology of the Body is like the difference between a porn star and Audrey Hepburn.
The TOB is akin to a person describing seeing from afar a married couple talking, laughing, etc, whereas Tucho is like a mad scientist with a magnifying glass in a room with two people.
Well, I never got the Allen guy. Only tune in to see what absurdities he's espousing this week.
I am so confused by all of this!! I'm Catholic and I stand by its teachings! So is Pope Francis supporting gay unions? Does unions mean marriage? What is happening!!!!
It’s heresy.
And there’s many folks saying that very thing!
Trying to force a schism?
Listen to Archbishop Viganó, Father Altman.
And Father Frank Pavone!
You should read pope pius x’s “pascendi gregis”.
Contemporary events are recapitulating the modernist crisis of the early 20th century, except now they are running the Vatican.
Francis is a Jesuit Sophist. He will cause a schism with this nonsense.
Dear @franclark9256, NO. There are NO BLESSINGS FOR SAME-SEX UNIONS. "Fiducia Supplicans", the Magisterial document people are all up in arms over, describes 2 kinds of blessings -- 1) liturgical blessings (marriage blessings, limited to the unions of one man and one woman, stable, exclusive, indissoluble, open to natural generation of children), and 2) simple, "pastoral" blessings, asking for God's graces to help people, including those who are in irregular "unions".
Please remember that the pope is unable to teach heresy -- that's the promise Jesus gave us, giving His authority to the visible head of the Church until He comes again.
Dear, @MzladyGrinn. "Bishop" Vigano (he went through a "re-consecration" so he is not longer "archbishop") has left the Church to become a sede vacantist. "Father" Altman called for merder of the pope. And "Father" Frank Pavone was serially disobedient to his bishop. Not very good role models.
These are the people who are spreading confusion. They don"t like the pope.
That cardinal is a sick and evil presence in the church!
Fr Gerald Murray on EWTN explains that Francis then Bishop in Buenos Aires made cardinal Dean of a catholic u in Argentina and the cardinal was removed within one year. The two go way back, and yes the pope knows he’s a pervert!
I believe this is only the tip of the iceberg ! Let us see what else happens in 2024 synod !
Like your jacket.
Orgasm is a proper term.
Mr Allen, you really should get a better tailor. That jacket! Only kidding.
Wow. That was quite the apologia! Perhaps you might have included the charming little fantasy of a 16 year old girl and Jesus in a flight of erotic embellishment. “Toucho” Fernandez certainly found it important in his much neglected classic!
You really have become a publicist for the Francis Papacy. I would advise that you should be working on your file folder under the topic of “schism”. That’s up next on the calendar!
Forget the file folder, he needs to be concerned for his own soul.
Are you surprised?😂😂😂😂
Does Crux ever produce news or just reflect on news from other sources?
Why use the word “Unions” in this show title? We all know FS uses the word “couples”…
Why are you fixated on apologising for saying the word "orgasm" as if it is a dirty word? I know Americans tend to be exceptionally squeamish about language, far more than people anywhere else. Language Americans seem to have issues with are entirely normal and not seen as offensive of even controversial elsewhere. But orgasms? Really? It is something people elsewhere have no problems talking about, and is something understood by teenagers and many younger. They often hear of them. They know about them from sex education classes. Children on farms see animals have them, I really don't get why you need to pussyfoot around the world, or act like you are embarrassed, and apologise for using it. .
Because it's a word associated with sexual intimacy and Christian modisty argues for certain terms to be used with great caution. Kind of a no- brainer.
Utter silliness. Normal people all over the world use the word all the time without the freakish American ridiculousness over the world. @@2Uahoj
More confusion and chaos. Where does confusion come from?
The devil is working through Francis and Fernandez.
It comes from Jesuit sophistry.
Dear@@christinascerpella6211, no, it comes from people not trusting Jesus to keep His representative on earth from heresy, and instead trusting people who want to smear the pope and cause scandal and fear.
Dear@@stephenlight647, no, it comes from people who think they are more Catholic than the pope. It comes from being suspicious of everything the pope does, and never caring that it is the devil that wants us to distrust the visible head of the Church on earth.
I want that jacket!!!!
I do too
He doesn't try to be pidgeon-holed? No, he is a Peronista! John, you are such a splainner.
LOL!
The pope described himself at the beginning of his reign, and he has stayed true to these 2 facts about himself: First, he is a loyal son of the Church. And second, he is a sinner.
Please pray for him. He needs our prayers.
The Document does not purport to bless any same-sex union, but speaks of persons who who ask for a blessing who also happen to be in such a relationship. The document provides for the blessing of persons, not of their living arrangements.
Tell Fr Martin that. Check the New York Times the day after the Vatican publication of this travesty with nice pictures. Read the couple's article in Fr Martin's Outreach publication a few days later.
Fr Martin and Pope Francis exchange private letters and Fr Martin has enjoyed many private audiences with Pope Francis. Fr Martin was hand-picked by Pope Francis as a voting member of the Synod on synodality..
Read the headlines in all the major newspapers in all the capital cities of the western world and write to the editors and have their articles corrected.
Finally correct the 50% of the bishops of the world who have come out against it strongly.
Because we all know your a genius and 100% correct.
True. The amount of people in this comments stream that have either not read the full document or who have very poor reading comprehension skills is staggering.
@@virginiacharlotte7007 Yes not to mention the half of the bishops and priests of the world who have rejected it. Maybe we could send them to you for comprehension training?
@@Jimboken1 bring it on ! I would happily take up the work:)
@@virginiacharlotte7007 They won't be the straw men targets that locutorest claims sadly.
Maybe Cardinal Sarah would have you for breakfast so to speak.
The brand new category of blessing by a Holy orders scaramentalised priest as oposed to you or me for instance or the individuals as couple rather than unions.
And what does spontaneous mean at breakfast?
Don't ask don't tell.
Of course it all depends on what 'is' is, isn't it?
You'll get serious at some point.
The blessing of same-sex couples will in itself not chance a whole lot, but some. The point you left out is does it change the reception of Church doctrin in society. I don't doubt the media will say it is a shift towards a final sacramental approuval. So the document is a kind of lutherian hammering on the door of the Church. What Will happen next?
Re blessings….YAWN
I would suggest that most of the clergy in the Vatican should sometimes pick up and read Bible 101,they must have forgotten some pages in the Bible and what the Word of God says.Also May be go back to daily prayer,some fasting and repentance of sinful ways.We all can use that in today s world
Absurd rubbish. ANYONE with a scintilla of Common Sense/Conscience KNOWS what’s going on with Bergoglio & his apparatchiks. #SSPX
Please remove this video as it is gravely sinful to compare the Cardinal's writings about a sexual union a 16 year old girl claimed to have with Jesus and the writings of JPII. And the Cardinal is not entitled to a pass on this because he holds the second highest position in the Church and the book was hidden and just now discovered. The Cardinal says the pope knew about it so if the pope does not make the Cardinal resign, the pope himself needs to step down. To my other brothers and sisters in Christ, don't leave the Church. Stay and insist they are the ones to leave!
Well, this kind of embrace of mortal sin as a positive good is proof that the petrine office is not capable of being in the Church, nor can the upper hierarchy, and this's also proof of God's evil nature by His vicar, with His blessing, endorsing immorality; this also includes His actions in the old testament, so we're required to remove Him from having any possible authority and/or power over us for this embrace of Hell's lifestyle, regardless of ability *We the People WILL* do that.
Thank you for your balanced and sane assessment of the actual effect and general intent of this communication Rome. I know that many self-indulgent people will want to make more of this in order to fracture the church but I hope they will not succeed.
Yes and the indulgent English anti-Hitler propaganda 1939-45 was truly unnecessarily divisive and confrontational.
No one red the document
How would you know?
very nice
I would suggest your readers listen to Godsplainings episode on this as it is much more accurate and less sensational then your speech.
Probably is an on the fence word!
Where do I begin?🤣🤣 An absolute corker by JA again - I've said it before but today's output demonstrates the benefits of repetition - this show really SHOULD be a popular staple - like Play Your Cards Right or Countdown or Mr&Mrs (well, actually given the lead item, perhaps nowadays that would invite too much controversy😂😂😂)
I thought the jacket was a marvellously arch John Candy-ish burlesque on middle American golfers - but I don't think John has an unkind bone in his body and anyway, we'd have seen evidence of such tendencies before and I watch every week for at least the last 2 years and never have yet. In the light of hearing of its provenance, I can wholeheartedly commend it and would urge our esteemed host to wear it unironically for any and all occasions requiring smart apparel (albeit reserving the option, in humble spirit, to bring it out for any 70s fancy dress "do")
Years ago - and almost certainly somewhere on the planet even today - the exhortation that Catholicism is less Universal and more a local thing (kind of based on regional language, culture and mores) - would get you burned at the stake for heresy😏 Yet it is so manifestly true - look, for example, at the ghastly homophobic Africans - steeped as they are, in their toxic mix of "traditional" (aka tribal) beliefs - and hideously repressed, buttoned tight Victorian missionary, hellfire Christianity. In the same way, I am sure there are a few enlightened pastors on that continent who try to be a little more welcoming and inclusive, I suspect they number about the same as those starting to peek above the parapets to name and shame themselves for the atrocious conditions pretty much everywhere in Africa - rather than blaming colonialism. One memorable speaker during King Charles' recent visit to Kenya, clearly asked his (overwhelmingly Kenyan) audience, whether 60 years after independence, Kenyans ought to stop demanding apologies from the British - and looking to themselves as masters of their own destinies. He specifically cited that if billions of dollars flood into the country from the international community - but most of it gets siphoned off through corruption - how much of that is "the white man's" fault. Well quite.
I'm going to finish rather ruefully by saying that this principle only serves to reinforce my astonishment that there are still ANY believers in any religion (not just Catholics or Christians, period). Of course everyone does their own thing - there is no god(s) and religion is all made up😂 It's just politics by another name🎉 So when these ludicrous furores spring up - gaaaahhhhh and it's always over ABSOLUTELY nothing - all these noisy - and noisesome - people, not just in uproar, not just fanning the flames - but RELISHING doing so while maintaining their stony, pokerface and odour, FAR from sanctity, but of hubris which, is always exacerbated by their inevitable hypocrisy as it's all done under this (self) righteous banner of religion yet has nothing whatever to do with their god: they are merely expressing their personal opinion while using religion as a combined cloak of invisibility - and battering ram. You just know Strickland isn't "a holy man" - he's a deeply unpleasant, cantankerous old bugger - the very archetype of a traditional, conservative (formerly plantation owning) Republican - in a purple frock.
Mind you, I'm not a big fan of guitars and tambourines in a church service either - if I was ever forced to tolerate one. But that's the point - I may well use these comments to air my opinions - but I'm certainly not foisting them on anyone like so many clanging, clucking, crowing, hysterical martinets - uuggh, I feel physically nauseous if ever Taylor Marshall is thrust in front of me thanks to a glitch in CZcams's algorithm - it's probably the platform's revenge on me for being so rude about CZcams and always skipping the ads but refusing to pay for ad free content - Crux happily opts for the setting where the entire half hour is uninterrupted by that pestilence! My God, he truly is appalling - diabolical even - and to think, he used to be a priest!!! No wonder he gave it up after a year - all his parishioners deserted his church!!😂😂😂😂 And what about Raymond Arroyo? So awful, he should be a crime - and SURELY a latent homosexual???🤨😯🤭 People can poke who they like, it's not that I take issue with - it's the hypocrisy. Marcel Maciel, Ted McCarrick and almost worst of all amongst the very top echelons, our own Keith O'Brien - what a vile, screeching old pofaced HYPOCRITE - decrying the EVILS of being gay - while all the time ... if anyone doesn't know, just look him up - at least Ted MacCarrick was just a bit of a good time girl - I m not aware of his crusading against gaydom. And look at that old crook Becciu - jees, the SECOND he could control the cash, he's acting like some Mafia don - too, too ironic he's Sicilian. Moreover, next time I want to refer to someone's girlfriend/mistress/paramour - I too, shall use the nomenclature "Security Consultant". I mean, what we didn't hear on Crux - but I sure as hell looked it up - is about Cecilia Morogna posting stuff on Facebook from INSIDE the cardinal's apartment referring to it as "my little heaven". I mean, the hubris is positively Renaissance!!! Cardinal Becciu has about as much interest in god and the scriptures, as a native Amazonian - or Laotian rice farmer. He has made it perfectly obvious, that he'd rather roll in cash, funnelling a load of it to his family and bit of fluff and act like a character out of a Verdi opera. It's just so dastardly and debauched, it's hilarious! Frankly, I like Pope Francis and I think good for him for retaining the privileges of an absolute monarch - so what if that trial wasn't transparently fair - it is perfectly obvious what game Becciu was playing. I hope he gets defrocked and goes to prison. I hope Francis follows through on it - and delays exercising any mercy whatsoever for at least the next couple of years. Maybe these buggers'll take it a bit more seriously themselves while trying to preach to us......
Yes yes yes everyone will be throwing their hands up in horror - and I know JA thinks the church is mostly full of ordinary good men doing their best to minister to their flocks (which I would have to admit is probably true) - but the Catholic Church is just so broken - along with the Anglicans and the Muslims - all the dogmatic ones. They're all the rotting corpses of anything they once were, although I maintain that Catholicism is the worst of the worst for it's love of power, status and money.
I still think John could have made a superb priest - and bishop - a relatable, twinkly, delight....
Happy New Year all🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂
I’ve said it😊 before and I’ll say it again: we progressive Catholics😅 heart. 😊h38 ut up with the last two radical conservative popes and you conservatives are bad mouthing our Pope Francis!!!!??? Remember Francis is the POPE so as radical conservatives😅 you must by canon law respect and obey him. I’m praying for your hard hats.Mr. Allen, I’ll see you at the Religious Education Congress.
No, as a priest, you do not have to obey him in theological matters such as this. I would not consider myself a conservative either but we do not have an understanding of the papacy that we have to obey him in such matters. Respect, I agree, there is no reason for the lack of charity. We were spoiled in the last century to have good popes, and no matter the agenda or corruption in the Holy See, we have seen much worse. I think if all of us were concerned about loving the Lord and loving neighbor, there could be civil and charitable disagreement.
Same sex couples, not same sex unions. Did you read the document?
You don't realise that you sound ridiculous?
Yep - read it...
The document seems to allow blessing of any couple, in any irregular situation. This is very problematic.
A married man and his extra marital mistress are a "couple", No ? A married man and his 2nd in wife in Bigamy - are a "couple", No? A pimp and his prostitute are a "couple", No ? Two businessmen who are partners in a Porn Movie production studio are a "couple", No ?
It is impossible to name a couple as a "couple" without acknowledging that situation which makes them "a couple".
And it asks that the blessing be for greater Christian strength --- Which basically means that the irregular union should come to an end.
===
---- "those who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to “strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible” and to trust in “the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.” " -- Fiducia Supplicans - Section 10
===
It is perverse and insidious to tell a couple in a irregular union to say it is OK to be blessed as a couple, with the purpose that the blessing would lead them to break up as a couple.
It is best to Bless each of them as Individuals (not as a couple).
What do you deem to be the difference between couples and unions? Isn't it clear that couples is referring to same-sex couples? Are they not in some kind of union also? Please describe well so that I can appreciate your comment, thanks.
👎🏻 John.
Mongolian cashmere for the win! 😂
No it didn't
Sorta did. As the New Times and Fr Martin displayed the very next day, despite the perverted legalese on a par with: "depends on what 'is' is"
Popesplainers look even more ridiculous than heretofore.
The blame for this catastrophe falls on Pope Benedict XVI.I would not have wanted to be him on judgement day for abandoning his Throne.
His cardinals and those of JohnPaul ll voted this travesty to the Throne.
Maybe some blame to go around and not the least the catastrophe himself?
You think you can judge the wisest man living on those days. Do you actually know who he was? I mean not his name, but the immensity of the persons spirituality and intellect.
@@mois5570 Yes I am judging him.His actions brought about this nightmare.
@@ryanscottlogan8459 Well if you think you are the right person to judge, maybe you should live Christianity because is not Christian behavior. So don't bother to be upset.
John's pulling down heated discussions down to earth is exactly right, or using a German proverb "Nothing is eaten as hot as it was cooked".
Not really. He's just whistling past the graveyard that is this pontificate and this Prefect.
One point that affects Europe, Asia and Africa. Christmas, New Year is NOT holiday season. It is normal life with a short break of one or two days at most at Christmas. Holiday season is very much an American idea etc. Obama used refer to the holidays and wish people Happy Holidays. IN EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, ETC it is HAPPY CHRISTMAS. That is what it is, not holidays. Holidays are in the Summer or other times when families go away, eg Easter and most of the year. Please know that Catholics around the world are not Americans. We are not. The imposition of American ‘holiday seasons’ on the world is plainly wrong.
Has everyone forgotten the erotic novels of Fr. Andrew Greeley?
You had to remind us? Thanks for that.
Yeah, but he was not the head of the Vatican doctrinal office on morals!
Yes! Bravo Pope Francis.
Please keep up the good work. ❤
The most destructive papacy in the history of the Church.
And yet the indefensible is defended by popesplainers with emotional froth but without facts or a rational argument.
To be fair, there aren't any.
I think you mischaracterize the document. It does not say you can bless same sex unions. It said you can bless persons in irregular situations. Are you misconstruing it purposely?
Re blessings: Very good. On the button. / Re Mystical Passion: Ok. On the nose(ish). / Re clothing choice: 🤦🏼
Wow you can not see the forest for the trees. Maybe you drank the kool aid? I think so. 😕
This guy is very weak
What a talking head ! 😮
Everyone needs to unsubscribe after this episode. Crux is a loser!
Why?
I just saw this channel today, what is going on?
@@stardustgirl2904
People trying to lead Faithful Catholics into Hell.
I’ll pass on that offer.
No Thank you!
@@MzladyGrinn Right! I don't understand why they're doing all of this!
@@stardustgirl2904
Its infiltration into the Catholic Church.
To do as the Episcopal church has done.
They have married gay priests, leading services.
They dont want to be Catholic.
They want to destroy the Catholic Church.
I put my faith in God,
He has a plan, I'm sure of that much.
But im not taking communion from a gay priest,
And im certainly not recieving from the Chalice after a gay person, either.
They do not worship God,
They worship themselves, and their sin.
And Satan.
So again, I say, No thank you,
I'll pass.
Dear Allen, what in Gods name is that which you are wearing? halloween costume? haha....
Manuals and journals of moral theology were once filled with essays on these specific sexual matters. Many dissertations at Pontifical universities were as well. Many were in Latin and accessible to only a small group of clergy, who were in any case being trained to deal with these issues as they showed up in the confessional. Even when translated into English, these sections stayed in Latin. Too prurient for innocent eyes. So . . . to affirm JA: nothing to see here folks, move on.
🤣
Dis 'n' dat
1) Mr. Allen, I love the outfit. You look GREAT in it.
2) I suspect that Pope Francis would like to move the Catholic Church towards the center. However, he must deal with the bureaucrats and bishops who were appointed by his two predecessors. Any move to the center must be done with caution or he will have to deal with the various factions in the church that oppose him.
3) I am thrilled to see the pope moving towards recognizing LGBT Catholics; I hope to live long enough to see my LGBT friends receive the sacrament of matrimony. I told my LGBT friends who are/were/grew up Catholic to be patient, very patient. In the USA, the progress for marriage equality had to go through domestic partnership registries and civil unions before the states gave full marriage rights to LGBT couples leading to the Obergefell decision in the Supreme Court. The same will happen in the Catholic Church. Please note Catholics in the USA, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic, approved of gay marriage more than white evangelicals and African American Christians. Only Jewish and non-religious Americans supported gay marriage at a higher rate than that of American Catholics
It’s going to be a very grand Church. Much more super inclusive. And the LGBTQ folks will flock to Mass. Of course, that’s going to be a much smaller Church. But, hey, very noble. (It turns out the classical pagans were right all along! Gay sex = great! 👍
'Course you do. Ur a space cadet.
I cant wait to see which pope will throw bergoflio's papacy into the toilet, where it belongs.
On some of the topics of your today's episode, allow me two observations 1.Objecting to a "non-liturgical blessing" of a gay couple who asks for it or, for that matter, of anyone, even if non Catholic, asking for it, is a departure from the what is the very essence of Christ's teachings; Christ did not not come to judge but to save. I suspect that many of those who have been opposed to it did not pay sufficient attention to what the Pope has approved, either because they picked up the "news" in passing from the social media or pre-judged the approval as one of those "modernisms" expected from Pope Francis. Please, folks, It is a an Invocation that God be with those who are asking for the Blessing. 2. Book on sexuality by the now Cardinal Fernandez - my only reservation to it is - he couldn't have had the know how of the subject, so how should anyone even bother with what he said 25 years ago? Sexuality does not follow theology, it is the other way round, my friend.
Thank you John/a
Pretty much half the bishops of the world should go get educated by you because they reject FS for some irrational reaason according to you.
The difference between a lay catholic blessing and a priestly blessing, is that only one has the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I wonder what that means?
And meh..... who cares if the Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church writes vile pornography?
Let’s be specific. The Cardinal promulgating this ‘blessing’, included a torrid write up of Jesus erotica with a 16 year old girl. A not inconsequential secondary endorsement of underage sex…
Second, the Eastern churches in Union (for now) have a very different understanding of the priestly blessing. Now, they are tiny, so you can ignore them, but they will ignore this revision or leave. The Africans, are not in line with this. Funny how the Holy Father is all anti-colonial until it comes time for him to speak from Europe as an Emperor without consultation.
I wonder what was d motive of Fernandez writting this book. Rubbish. Do we need clear explaination. Who inspired him to write- satan! Must be. Simple couples know wht to do once their married. I think he shld bring out d spirituality of marriage. Whts happenning to our clergy. Do we need ppl like them🫢🫢
You are totally misrepresenting the Fernandez book. It is much worse than you describe. Read the articles describing chapters 9-12. It is very sacrilegious and blasphemous. It can in no way be compared to JPII book. It is despicable that Fernandez wrote it. He should be removed.
Apparently Crux has an agenda.
It’s not difficult to see what it is!
I just read them. Frankly, there is nothing new and absolutely nothing sacrilegious nor blasphemous. It is the full acceptance of sexuality as God's gift, as the natural law. This scandalised reaction is, once again, an ideological problem, specifically the one about human sexuality. One can read the fear.
Thank you, @@sebastianfernandez3974! That's how I read the 3 chapters that were publicized as the "worst" of the book.
I have read a little of traditional Catholic mysticism, and what Cardinal Fernandez wrote was in line with centuries of Catholic writings.
@@sebastianfernandez3974 Ur a bot representing evil forces to a just a nutter or you read some fake version of his book.
This is from Il Giornale:
"The Argentine cardinal maintains that a woman "needs appropriate conditions to feel aroused". For this reason, according to Fernández, "violent sex and images of orgies" are more attractive to men than to women. But, according to him, "this does not mean that (the woman) feels less aroused by hardcore pornography." Speaking like an expert, the then-young theologian describes the differences between male and female orgasm: the man “usually makes aggressive grunts; she, on the other hand, makes childish babbles or sighs." A description that he would not expect to find in a theology essay. The cardinal goes into red-flag details when he writes that «women have a rich venous plexus around the vagina, which maintains good blood flow after orgasm. That's why she's usually insatiable." Moving on to the male orgasm, the theologian reports that the man "releases himself well in ejaculation and remains satisfied and exhausted". This difference generates in women "a dark respect for male power" and makes her "disturbed by violent pornography". The details help Fernández to reach a conclusion: «These peculiarities in orgasm also occur in some way in the mystical relationship with God»."
I've read some of Ch 6 online (couldn't finish even that 1 chapter) and it was nausea inducing and much worse than the quotes above.... and I'm a medico.