FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: “Who am I to judge?” It appears to Depend on Who ...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
CaptCrunch73 Wrote:I really have been trying to quite about Pope Francis but cannot anymore. There is no microphone and press opportunity this man will let slip and 9 times out of 10 the pope is wreacking havoc on Christians. Is the Papacy about preserving what has been handed down through the centuries or is the papacy about Pope Francis?

Here's a new article by BCJ that seems particularly relevant.

“Who am I to judge?” It appears to Depend on Who ...

It is, we think, noteworthy that Pope Francis who famously replied to a question about the morality of a homosexual person by answering “Who am I to judge?” — does not hesitate to judge not just the morality of a presidential candidate, but to go so far as to pronounce him “not a Christian” despite his professing to be so. This was a clear reference, of course, to Donald Trump — but could equally be applied to Marco Rubio Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie, all of whom are unabashedly Catholic. If  they, too, in light of their common concern for securing the porous borders of America, are, for that reason, "not Christians”, then, eo ipso, they are excommunicates — outside of Christ and therefore outside the Church — to say nothing of the other Christian candidates as well (Cruz, Carson, Kasich) who support the same issue of securing America’s border with Mexico — which is the point of influx of virtually all the drugs that poison the youth across the country and are indisputably the cause of so much crime — and murder — in America. Who will contest that?

What is more, will Catholics who support securing our borders no longer be “Catholics”?  To be unable or unwilling to make a judgment on matters moral despite clear Catholic teaching on homosexuality, how can Pope Francis make so audacious a “judgment” on the faith in God Himself in others? It is a very troubling and deeply divisive precedent. Despite the pope's claim, we can think of no reference in any Gospel that teaches us to “build bridges instead of walls” — yes, we must love our enemies — but not enable them nor encourage them in wrong-doing  — even if it is rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But in rendering to God what is God’s, can anyone make that damning claim of even the least of His brothers?

You may argue that the pope gave these candidates — and those who support them — “the benefit of the doubt” but the condemnation stands, does it not, if they do not share his own views on matters over which he has no legitimate authority and no ecclesiastical mandate? How do we reconcile Pope Francis's readiness to make such unsparing judgments — to declare a defined body of people in matters political as being separated from God — with the unfathomable perplexity he demurs from making on a defined body of people in matters moral —  which Scripture itself and Church teaching condemns? We are confused. We are dismayed. But now, and much more to the point, in light of your pronouncement, we are divided. Or more frightening still, separated in our common faith by uncommon politics.

In a word, is Pope Francis prepared to anathematize the faithful, not through any odor of heresy ... but through the banality of politics? How did it come to this?

Quo vadae, Francis? Quo vade? Et quare ...?
Pope Francis is a bit of a joke. At this point I'm not sure who is taking him seriously.

For instance, recently he said the commandment not to kill is absolute and forbids execution of criminals. Yes, that's why the Bible a few pages on the book explains how executions should happen.

I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, none of the candidates are completely Catholic. All of them support Contraception and many others support other evils.
(02-22-2016, 11:35 AM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, none of the candidates are completely Catholic. All of them support Contraception and many others support other evils.

In that case they should win the pope's sympathy  :grin:


That article nails, it Captain. Nails it down.

For folks reading over our shoulders: As to the post that says that Pope Francis said that there is a commandment against "killing" (rather than murder), and that that commandment is absolute: the Church has always taught that self-defense and even some wars can be justified. Francis should consult the Catechism.

(02-22-2016, 10:53 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.

"Unabashed" just means that they're unashamed about stating they're Catholic, not that they're necessarily good Catholics.
(02-22-2016, 12:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2016, 10:53 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.

"Unabashed" just means that they're unashamed about stating they're Catholic, not that they're necessarily good Catholics.

I supposed in this day and age, that at least means something?

(02-22-2016, 12:03 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2016, 12:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2016, 10:53 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.

"Unabashed" just means that they're unashamed about stating they're Catholic, not that they're necessarily good Catholics.

I supposed in this day and age, that at least means something?

I guess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(02-22-2016, 10:53 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.
Santorum is about as Catholic as it gets.
(02-22-2016, 01:27 PM)knish Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2016, 10:53 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with much of this and Pope Francis does bother me. However to call Rubio, Bush and Christi "unabashedly Catholic" is just a plain, straight out lie. I have yet to honestly see a truly orthodox Catholic politician.
Santorum is about as Catholic as it gets.

And look what happened to his campaigns...