The contraception controversy ignited by Pope Francis during his most recent in-flight press conference is sending shock waves throughout the entire world.
For the papal defenders, it’s a no win situation and the reason is simple; what the pope said is indefensible.
Now, any number of well-meaning individuals who want nothing more than to make sense of the entire affair are embracing illogical claims and abandoning reason; all in a sincere attempt to extricate themselves from the web of deceit spun by dishonest brokers in Rome who have abandoned the truth.
Let’s see if we can untangle this mess, beginning with Francis’ claim that Paul VI approved of contraception use for African nuns who felt threatened with violence:
The first attempt at damage control, as in the case of Catholic News Agency (which has a reputation for going the extra mile in doing whatever it takes to disguise Francis’ improprieties) included unquestioned acceptance that the old rumor about Paul VI is true, saying:
The case in question took place in the early 1960s, when the Vatican granted a dispensation to religious sisters living in the Belgian Congo who were in grave danger of rape due to civil unrest to use oral contraceptives.
No matter, according to CNA and their “expert” witness, Dr. Melissa Moschella, a professor at Catholic University, contraception used in self-defense has always been considered morally licit:
Moschella also explained that in the Africa case referenced by Pope Francis, the dispensation for the nuns was ‘not really an exception if you understand the rule.’
Other well-respected persons, like Dr. Janet Smith and Dr. Edward Peters, for example, agreed.
Peters wrote on his blog:
…such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all.
We’ll return to this argument later.
As I write, the latest wave of denial to crash on the shores of common sense was provided by Fr. Z who published a post under the title, It’s not an urban legend, it’s a LIE: Paul VI did NOT give permission to nuns to use contraceptives.
That’s a strong word, indeed, but he went on to soften the claim by saying that “high ranking churchmen” (and that includes the pope, of course) are simply “passing on something that isn’t true but that they think is true.”
Almost immediately, this has become the in-vogue way to move forward, with similar claims now being made by numerous others, oftentimes while citing the contents of Fr. Z’s post.
For example, Ed Peters, who initially said, “Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives” [emphasis his] retracted his statement, saying (whilst linking to Fr. Z’s post):
It now seems all but certain that the ‘permission’ or ‘approval’ which Francis has claimed his predecessor Pope Paul VI gave for Congo nuns facing rape to use contraception simply does not exist. [emphasis his]
So, what has led to this newfound rock solid assurance that the Paul VI story cannot possibly be true?
Fr. Z quoted the research of a person identified only as “the Great Roman” indicating that the earliest reference to contraception for nuns in the Congo that he can find is an article that dates back to 1961, wherein three priest / moralists examined the possibility of such an allowance.
Notice, the more you go back in time, the more “Paul VI” becomes, more vaguely, “Rome”. Dig deep enough and you will find that “Rome” turns out to be just an article [just mentioned] published, you guessed it, in Rome…
So, the theory is that this article, which predates the Montini pontificate by some two years, is the source of the rumor, with the progression being “three priests in Rome said / Rome said / Paul VI said.”
According to Fr. Z’s researcher, “You can search any archive, google any keyword, ask any historian or moralist,” and you will discover “no supporting references” that would implicate Paul VI.
That’s it. These are the solitary reasons otherwise intelligent people are utterly convinced that the Paul VI story is a complete and total fabrication.
Now, I don’t know for certain whether or not the story is true, but what I do know is that the theory floated on Fr. Z’s blog defies common sense.
Think about it:
How does the fact that three priests wrote an article debating so-called “self-defense contraception” for nuns in 1961 in any way shape or form suggest that Paul VI didn’t approve of the idea two years later?
The existence of the article proves no such thing. All it proves is that this was a matter of controversy even before Montini became pope; it says exactly nothing about how he may have ruled, or not, in the matter in 1963.
More importantly, since this clearly was already understood to be a controversial subject as far back as 1961, why would anyone in their right mind expect a google keyword search to yield “supporting references”?
“The Great Roman” writes as if the Vatican is an open book that operates under some sort of freedom of information mandate.
What on earth did he expect his google search to yield – a 1963 L’Osservatore Romano article with direct quotes from the pope’s closest advisors? A facsimile of internal handwritten notes? A formal memo on papal letterhead?
Of course there’s no supporting evidence to be found!
If, in fact, Paul VI did in some way or another approve of contraception for these nuns in 1963 – the same year he expanded the mandate of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control to answer the so-called “contraception question” – it most certainly would have been held as a closely guarded secret.
It is not at all unlikely that this secret, in time, may have been leaked by unnamed persons close to the situation.
More noteworthy still, in order to believe that the Paul VI story is a wholesale lie, one must also believe that Pope Francis just doesn’t know any better.
The very suggestion is patently ridiculous.
Francis is the pope who beatified Paul VI. He has complete access to every shred of evidence contained in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints’ dossier on Montini.
Does anyone believe for even a moment that the long running “rumor” of his involvement in the Congo nuns situation isn’t addressed therein?
The bottom line is this: When it comes to the relative accuracy of the “rumor,” Francis is among the most well-informed persons on the face of the earth; certainly he knows more about this than the rest of us.
So, when he plainly speaks as if it actually happened, it makes a whole lot more sense to believe him than to believe that he’s mistaken; in fact, the latter proposition is just unreasonable.
That leaves us to debate the idea of contraception as self-defense, which if plausible, would render the Paul VI story irrelevant, at least insofar as his reputation is concerned (setting aside all of the other blemishes on his record.)
To me, and thankfully many others, the very notion of contraception being used in self-defense is laughable.
“Self-defense” is a reaction that presupposes a preceding offense. It is ludicrous to imagine that contraception is reasonably considered self-defense with respect to an offense that hasn’t yet, and indeed may never, occur.
Oh, but the likelihood was great, and the fear was rather well justified!
By this reasoning, a man walking through a high crime neighborhood late at night would have a moral right to blast with pepper spray every shady looking character that comes within 10 feet.
All of this having been said, none of these things have any bearing on what Francis said with respect to the Zika virus and the use of contraception.
That does not mean, however, that it isn’t a gravely important matter just the same.
As I wrote in the previous post, more is at stake in this conversation than simply the legacy of Paul VI and the reliability of Pope Francis; these matters are no longer in question for those who enjoy even a modicum of Catholic sense.
In truth, it is the reputation of post-conciliar Rome itself that is on the line in this situation.
Be that as it may, in time, concern over the Paul VI controversy will eventually fade and attention will come to rest more squarely on Francis and his stunningly dangerous comments concerning “contraception and condom” use as a means of avoiding the birth of undesirable children – God help us!
It’s going to be very interesting to see how today’s crop of supposed pro-life heroes, in particular those in the episcopate, choose to respond going forward.
Louie, I mean no disrespect to all of your wonderful investigative reporting. However, I think I am just battle weary when it comes to Francis. I don’t care if he is truthful or a liar. I don’t care if he is a true pope or a false pope. I don’t care if he is humble or humiliating. I just want him to GO AWAY!!!!
That doesn’t mean I’m giving up the battle. However, I think we all need a little R & R from this guy. Does he ever shut up? Now he wants to have a moratorium on the death penalty during the year of mercy. I haven’t heard about any moratorium on abortion. Have you? Oh, I forgot (silly me), he would have to be Catholic to do that!
I agree with my2cents in that I’m heartily sick of this Pope. The things he says get worse and worse, and these horrors come faster and faster.
I don’t think he knows what he is saying. What I see is a man so convinced what he’s doing is right that he sees absolutely no problem with teaching whatever comes into his head. When he was first elected he’s quoted as telling himself he would not change – he’d be just the same Jorge he was back in Argentina. Well that’s what we’ve got. He has a vision of a poor Church, for the poor, with big wide arms to welcome everyone in the whole world to walk with him towards the great white light….that must be his vision – he tells us about it daily and he has not deviated. Those around him, including those who twist themselves into knots to defend him, have their own agendas which they are working out on his crazy coat-tails.
The fact is that he’s being used as a boobish fool by Satan. Satan has a vision too and he is using Francis to achieve it. Francis sees himself as a kind, sweet, old granddad, loving everyone and wanting everyone to love GentleJesus…I don’t think he is very bright at all and I can’t agree that he has this great evil agenda. Of course I do believe he’s doing untold damage that will take generations to un-do, but clever? No.
I hope I’m wrong in my estimation of Francis. To believe he’s some Machiavellian tyrant hell bent on destroying the Church and bringing souls to perdition is just too much for me.
“More noteworthy still, in order to believe that the Paul VI story is a wholesale lie, one must also believe that Pope Francis just doesn’t know any better.”
Yes. The current Pope has to be thrown under the bus this time to protect the former Pope. But who should I believe, Pope Francis or Father Z ? I believe the Pope. I believe Pope Francis when he plainly makes a statement. And I believe he knows what he is saying and why he is saying it. He rehearses his lines. Believe it and deal with it according to what is best for your soul. As far as Father Z is concerned all I can say is nice try.
Never stop defending the truth, Louie!!
UPON THIS ROCK
On this earth
Beyond their worth.
Few are grateful
They won’t confess
When the waves
Break on the shore
What is before.
You stand on this rock
‘Gainst the gales
Fore those who mock
They cannot see
But all behold
Your bended knee.
Few will follow
They won’t comply.
Then a blue moon
With Holy Oil
You lift the Light…
Sun moon recoil.
But on this rock
You stand your ground
Between the storms
And sheep you block
The tempest winds
That hurt the flock.
With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux
Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
I dont think for a second that Bergoglio is unwitting in what he says. I think he knows full well that his words are in no way Catholic. I think he is a very evil man and is knowingly and purposely leading souls to hell. I dont buy the idea that a simple goof-ball (as some would make him out to be) could ever rise to where he has risen. He may not be as intelligent as many legitimate popes of the past, but as compares to the average person I am quite sure that he is extremely intelligent. I say dont be fooled by his (well acted) bumbling way of speaking….he knows what he is doing and Im sure he’s getting a huge kick out of the confusion he’s causing a lot of people; its all part of his plan.
rich, I tend to agree with you. The next question is why was he elected to the papacy? Were the Cardinals who cast their vote for him totally ignorant of the danger this man posed for the Catholic Church? Or was it all a part of the Masonic agenda to continue the legacy of Vatican II? Bergoglio didn’t fall from the sky. He was ELECTED by fellow Cardinals. All the postconciliar popes were ELECTED. Bergoglio is merely “the cherry on the cake”. It’s the PITS!!
I would say all the gaffs of Heresy-A-Day Jorge were just the fruits off too many turn-ups of Fernet, but my sensus tells me it’s much more nefarious than that…downright diabolical.
I wouldnt think for a second that the cardinals who voted for him are ignorant at all….they’ve all been groomed for years. Do I think that the people in this world who are intent on destroying the Catholic Church (the Zionist elite….who basically are the Masons) were totally behind elevating this guy and making sure it happened? Of course I do. As Bella Dodd told the US senate well before vatican 2 even happened, the evil powers that be were planning to destroy the Church from the inside out a long time ago. Nothing that takes place within the vatican 2 machine is just happenstance.
But I thought we were never to do that: judge someone else’s motives or intent. How do we know what this man is thinking? How do we know he is evil and “knowingly and purposely leading souls to hell?” That’s quite a statement to make.
We can talk all we want about facts and what’s said and done, but how can we presume to say what’s in the mind/soul/heart of another?
You are right, Barbara, but sometimes we get a glimpse into a person’s heart:
There is absolutely NOTHING Pope Francis can say that would be surprising…up to and including that Jesus was just a figment of our collective imagination….Oh wait a minute..the Modernist already believe that.
He uses Our Lord, or his false notion of Him, for his political purposes.
Of course, he knows what he’s saying, he says it to further his open agenda of worldliness and materialist socialism. He is of at least average intelligence, and even that is not necessary to intend the natural meaning of what he says over and over, just as he did in the decades of public life prior to the papal election.
And, dear Long-skirts, you too! – never stop defending the truth! Thank you for your service to God and His Holy Church.
Francis will never say that the intentional killing of a human being from conception to birth is a mortal sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance and if one does not repent of any cooperation with or facilitation of, such evil, on one or more occasions, one will be damned eternally. Ditto for the intentional avoidance of conception in marital relations, fornication, etc.
You don’t need to be a genius to know the Catholic Faith.
If a person runs at you with a knife and tries to plunge it into you I think its safe to assume that this person’s intent is to do you bodily harm. Most things are not rocket science. What I say about Bergoglio is what I firmly believe as that is what he presents to me when he speaks.
Objectively Bergoglio is an open antichrist, and therefore ‘a very evil man’. Objectively he teaches against the voice of the Apostles whilst having learnt exactly what they taught. ‘This might sound like heresy…’ – Bergoglio quote. Manifestly he, like Ratzinger, like Wojtyla, worships with ‘heathens’. Manifestly he said that Christ pretended, and the Blessed Virgin doubted. The list of manifest wolvery is long. The man is a wolf. And no shepherd and no Catholic, and no pope. But he is perfectly Novus Ordo.
PS. From today’s Gospel, Matthew 23. It is a sin to call a man who does not follow Christ ‘father/papa/pope’, let alone ‘holy father’. Haydock presents the truth of tradition on this.
“…whilst having learnt exactly what they taught.” Precisely. How can a man “ordained” in 1969 not at least know what the Catholic Church teaches….and then rise to level of “pope”? The simple thought is preposterous.
Let us suppose for a moment that Fr. Z is correct and that the story is “not an urban legend, it’s a LIE”.
President of the Pontifical Council of New Evangelization, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, while commenting on the the sins that the Mercy Priests may absolve with special faculties normally reserved to the Holy See said of the sin of “physical violence on the Roman Pontiff”:
“I would say we need to understand ‘physical violence’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones. And, therefore I believe some of these sins are far more widespread than we think.”
Now if Pope Francis’ recent accusation against Pope Paul VI on the matter of instructing Belgian nuns in the Congo to disregard Church teaching in the area of contraception and use illicit means to “protect” themselves against impregnation by rape is nothing more than the blatant and knowing repetition of a lie; is it wrong for one to consider such calumnious words to be “rocks and stones” used to inflict “physical violence” against a Pontiff? Ought not Francis seek out a Missionary of Mercy to beg absolution of for having made the sacrilegious charge? Further, is there anything unseemly about a Pope being absolved by a priest by way of faculties that are normally reserved to himself, but that he chose to confer upon that priest?
Pope Francis knows full well what he is doing, he achieves his result every time he opens his mouth. His speech, double minded at times is furthering the goal ie the destruction of the Holy Catholic Church. He is vicious towards any true Catholic order ie Franciscans or people just “Counting Rosaries” to name just a few examples.
I am not judging him, only God can do that, I am judging his actions.
Keep up the good fight.
Yours in Christ,
I wonder if anyone can help me out on a subject that is not related to what Francis said on the plane back from Mexico. Does anyone know if Muslims and Catholics worship the same God (Lumen Gentium 16)? did Louie write anything on this subject before? In a video I saw John Salza denounced this position but one his Q&A he defended the New Catechism based on LG 16. I thought this is very simple, truth is objective no matter what subjectively Muslims believe they worship but objectively they do not worship the God the Trinity therefore it is a blasphemy to say what LG 16 said. Fr. Hesse hold this position. Tim Stiple of Catholic Answers wrote a long essay to support Vatican II position on Muslims worshiping the same God. Anyone knows any resource on this issue? How about Jews(modern day) do they worship the same God with the Catholics?
Cardinal Burke…..Bishop Schnieder…where for art thou ????…..the Trads must be over reacting on this one because it seems to be slipping off the radar with the hierarchy at least with the ones that we thought had some sensus catholicus. Just wondering …how bad does this have to get before we write our congressman?
Muslims do not worship the Triune God–Father, Son and Holy Ghost!! They worship a god (a false god)—not Almighty GOD–The Holy Trinity, which One and Indivisible!
of course, this applies to Jews also!
Let’s dispel this notion that Pope Francis doesn’t know what he is doing. He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing…. to paraphrase Marco Rubio.
Could be the nuns were ordered to use birth control to avoid scandal (in that no-one would believe pregnancy was due to rape if any nuns were raped and any pregnancies did occur). To me shows a lack of trust in God and Divine Providence but not saying it couldn’t happen.
Why you think that if P6 approved contraception it would prevent him being declared a saint (or the neo- caths from going along w/it) I don’t know. As you say, all the major outlets and moralists like Dr. Peters (& Mirius) were set to defend it either way. It is true neo-caths use HD to defend the orthodoxy of P6 (so he couldn’t have had bad intentions), but how clever of Bergoglio to use P6 to defend “the teaching!” but also “the warranted exception!” — that is real mercy & doing theology on your knees! [and why 90% of Catholics are “warranted” users].
Think Fr. Z, saying the pope “didn’t know it wasn’t true” is the same lie/excuse “recognize & resisters” (like you) use to keep from stating pope is a formal vs material heretic [apostate now].
Thanks but Tim Staple of Catholic Answers said a Pope, forgot his name, wrote an letter to a Muslim leader claiming we worship the same God.
Actually I would even go beyond Burke and Schnieder, even Bishop Fellay failed to “resisted to his face” when Francis overruled the Bishops and put communion for adulterers and homosexual on the agenda of his Synod on Family. You can read his open letter on the Remnant. St. Paul called out St. Peter even St. Peter did not teach anything heretical. One bishop stood up in Pope Honorius’ time but not even one today(not counting the Sedevacantist)
Cardinal Danneels admits being part of clerical ‘Mafia’ that plotted Francis’ election…..https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-danneels-admits-being-part-of-clerical-mafia-that-plotted-francis…. We will never know the real reason Benedict stepped down.
How can any true Catholic support the intrinsic evil of contraception? Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that contraception is one level below homicide? In that instead of taking life, it prevents it?
How is bringing an innocent child into this world an act of violence? It wasn’t the rapist who endowed a human soul into the womb of a woman, it was God Himself. God allows children to be born of rape to bring good from a grave evil. Why should the child pay the death penalty for the sins of it’s father who wouldn’t get the death penalty for the crime of rape?
And yes, it comes down to rejecting children when they aren’t perfect and what we want. So kill your child so you won’t have to deal with a disabled baby? Contraception means “against life” i.e. death. How is that not abortion? Isn’t contraception an offense against the fifth commandment?
It wouldn’t surprise me if Paul VI said it was ok for the nuns to contracept. Ann Barnhardt put it out there that there was a possibility that Paul VI wanted to “ok” contraception and that it was his CDF at the time who edited the HV encyclical to reflect Church teaching. Contraception is an intrinsic evil that can never be justifiable. No “moral” theologian can ever change that pig into a princess no matter how many layers of modernist, Jesuitical lipstick they apply.
I think that this Zika virus just hit the headlines about 3weeks ago. At least that was when I first heard of it. Someone mentioned it to me and said that it hurt babies in the womb. I immediately stopped that person from talking and since then I have intentionally learned nothing about what it could do to people or babies in the womb of their mothers. I immediately figured upon hearing of it that it was intentionally introduced into the public for some greater cause of abortion and population control and its evil agenda. What ? ? Three weeks later and Pope Francis of all people is recommending contraception!! Surprise! Surprise! I heard things would be turning up the speed in our Church regarding its detstructiin – but wow! That happened fast. COINCIDENCE? ?? isn’t Pope Francis hanging out with all those population control people who want to destroy the world???
If we imagine him as an ignorant and innocent grandpa type who is being used by the Evil leaders of the world than we must be blind in that area. Hello MCFLY! !! He’s obviously one of them. What’s coming next?? Does anyone know? This is absolutely crazy-these times into which we were born.
I feel kind of bad after adding all that up and coming to that deduction, but if times are really as bad as they seem, than doesn’t that make sense? Is it bad to see things as I think I’m seeing them. Perhaps i’ll humble down.
Here’s a good analysis of your question – which had always bothered me too…from the guys at the Remnant
Hope this helps.
“You can’t understand Pope Francis without Juan Perón — and Evita By Nick Miroff
August 1, 2015 Washington Post
BUENOS AIRES — A few years ago, when he was not yet Pope Francis, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the convent where he attended kindergarten in the city’s Flores neighborhood. The nuns gathered around. “Sister Rosa,” he asked one of his first teachers, “what was I like?”
“A little demon,” she bellowed. The nuns burst out laughing.
“Jorge was a restless boy, always running around,” said Sister Martha Rabino, 74, the mother superior, who was present that day. “The sisters say he wouldn’t sit still.”
At the lab where he worked, Francis met one of the other women he mentions as a major influence in his life: his supervisor Ester Ballestrino. She was a Paraguayan feminist and communist militant, in her 30s, and she became a mentor to Francis. The two maintained a friendship for many years to follow. “
Added to his manifest antichristness, Bergoglio is ‘just a layman.’
As “Seinfeld” was a “show about nothing,” this is a “Pontificate about nothing.”
Agreed–However, with Seinfeld, you could turn off the TV or change the channel. This guy is everywhere and he can’t SHUT UP! He is either a heretic, a catechism flunkie, or a simpleton with a secular humanistic agenda. Or worse, he is actually brilliant and hates the Catholic Church. No matter what his intent and motives are–he has got to GO!! As stupid as Seinfeld was, at least you could get an occasional chuckle out of it (if you could stand the sick humor), this guy is no laughing matter!
Wish I understood how to link to blog comments …..From Denzinger/Bergoglio….For Francis an abortionist with more than 10,000 victims is “one of the greatest names of Italy today” What would St Pio say of this? How do we reconcile this insanity of Bergoglio ….how do we go there?…..I’m at a complete loss to comprehend this man……Cortez you see with clarity.
ctrl-c to copy then ctrl-v to post the link (either the text in the post or the link in www field at the top).
I wish people believed in what Christ and His Bride teaches. If folks did, hell would have fewer citizens.
Not to mention Walmart & Krogers having fewer employees that had to work to support themselves.
You are so kind to help Theresa, salvemur. You helped me learn how to navigate on this blog when I first got here.
Theresa, if salvemur’s method does not work for you let us know.
I link a different way.
Salvemur taught me (about a year ago) how to link UNDER the person you want to comment to. Log in FIRST, then go directly under the person’s name who you want to respond to and click “reply.”
Wow. How wretched!
From that link, Bishop Sanborn sounds like another wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I have heard also that in one or more of his sermons he condemned the excellent and holy book, “The Mystical City of God” by Mary of Agreda.
Have you heard of this?
What a mess God has allowed ——– for our salvation.
Im not quite sure how you get that Bp Sanborn seems like a wolf in sheeps clothing from that link.
Did you read the link and the parishioner’s response, rich?
Thank you kind Servant Of Our Lady
Thank You to you as well Salvemur
“…In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.
We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they are at the service of the Faith. But on what basis can they be judged? Tradition, the Faith taught for 2,000 years. Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the eternal Church, relying on his childhood catechism.
Defending his Faith is the prime duty of every Christian, all the more of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it a danger of corrupting Faith and morals, it becomes a grave duty not to obey it.
It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter’s successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say “No” to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable.”
You did it!
You are so welcome, dear Theresa.
I did. Im still not understanding it. The parishoner had a problem with something going on at SGG in 2009, but what exactly it was is not clear.
Thanks Mike. I am surprised by the article. I guess this is the first article from The Remnant I disagree with 100%. The author did not stick with the basic logic of objective vs. subjective and conclude Vatican II was right because its subjective intention to please the Muslims.
You are right there is nothing to prevent Paul VI becoming a “Saint” the process has long been destroyed by JP II. Once a cause is opened heretics and Apostates have no problem reaching “sainthood”
S.O.L. Be very careful before you presume to disparage a true shepherd. Bishop Sanborn’s biography and solid Catholic faith is open to anyone to see and here. What a time we live in. If folks aren’t this willing or able to accept true shepherds no wonder they belong to a false institution run by wolves.
What do you make of this parishioner’s letter then, salvemur? It is very clear to me. The bishop does not sound convincing in his ridiculous request to keep quiet about some monstrous abuse of CHILDREN.
I know of a woman who followed this bishop until she heard him speak against “They Mystical City of God.”
I just think that there is NOWHERE that has not been infiltrated and that we must BE CAREFUL EVERYWHERE.
I was not judging his soul, only his own words from this letter and his own words reported to me by a friend.
Do you know the bishop personally?
Do you think he is trustworthy?
I read a comment from a priest saying that contraception is more evil than abortion because it frustrate God’s authority in creating life while abortion is allowing God to create life and destroy it after. Is this inline with the Church teaching. It sounds reasonable to me.
I actually cannot believe someone called this a ‘scandal’. One parishioner makes an accusation – who is this ‘parishoner’. The ‘parishoner’s’ letter sounds like he just wants to have a rant. I heard about this on Restoration Radio – can’t remember the piece but it was discussed and sounded like a storm in a teacup. Read this for the actual facts and make up your own mind – http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/11/23/school-dazed/
It is malicious to call the events a ‘scandal’.
Meanwhile the legacy of Wojtyla’s countless abused children of the Novus Ordo was no hunderance to them putting him in the Novus Ordo version of ‘heaven’.
I don’t know Bishop Sanborn personally but I know ‘de Maria’ who, in kinder days used to post comments here. She knows him and he is a humble, straight-talking compassionate Catholic Bishop who has seen it all in terms of the slander against the Bride of Christ by her enemies.
These priests and Bishops are attacked left and right, (most recently by Salza and Siscoe).
PS. Visit http://www.sgg.org/ or http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/
Onus of proof would be on proving that Paul VI or any authority with competence made such an allowance.