KY’s AG cites Francis undying quote as excuse for not upholding the law

It is hard to know which box to check:

? tragically ignorant
? mendaciously obtuse

We have seen antinomianism rear its dangerous head in many scenarios now: those who are bound to uphold and enforce the law simply deciding sua sponte that they won’t uphold law X or Y because the law conflicts with a pet position.

But this is downright disgusting.  From TIME:

Kentucky’s Attorney General Explains Why He Won’t Defend Gay Marriage Ban

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway tells TIME [A willing accomplice in this Act of Dumb.] why he decided not to defend his state’s ban on same-sex marriages, saying he ‘knows where history is going on this’ despite the complications the decision could have for his potential gubernatorial bid  [And you don’t want to be “on the wrong side of history”, do you!  – [POUNDING HEAD ON DESK] – ]

Calling laws against same-sex marriage the last vestige of widespread discrimination in America, [Last vestigate? HA!  It is to laugh.  Will he crusade next against anti-Catholicism?  You would think that a man in this position would be smart enough to distinguish this special interest group’s agitprop from the legitimate claims of black people in the civil rights movement.] Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway told TIME Tuesday he refused to continue defending his state’s ban on gay marriage because he feared he’d regret it for the rest of his life. “I know where history is going on this,” he said. “I know what was in my heart.” [Ahhh! It’s “in his heart“.  Well, then, I guess it’s okay then.]

“Where we are as a country now, this really seems to be the only minority group that a significant portion of our society thinks it’s still okay to discriminate against.”  [So long as you exclude the Little Sisters of the Poor and, I dunno, tens of thousands of others who object to the HHS mandate.]

[…]

A Catholic and a Democrat [What a surprise.] considering running for governor in 2015, Conway said he knew the decision could put him at odds with voters and with church leaders in his hometown. [Get this….] His thinking was shaped partly by statements from Pope Francis that encouraged openness toward gays. “Our new pope recently said on an airplane ‘Who am I to judge.’ The new pope has said a lot of things that Catholics like me really like. I have, as someone who grew up as a Catholic listened to some of the words of the new pope and found them inspirational.”  [This quote again.  Gosh, thanks, Holy Father, for that one.  That said, its use here is a LIE.  HERE]

[…]

We have lurched more deeply into the Age of Stoopid, I”m afraid.

The Left’s education system in these USA, which infected Catholic schools as well, has left at least one whole generation without the tools to think, or the basic catechism points that allow Catholics to figure out nearly instantly that some MSM reportage doesn’t pass the smell test.

How proud Gramsci would be of KY’s AG Conway.

KY’s AG cites Francis undying quote as excuse for not upholding the law
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Blatteroons, One Man & One Woman, Pò sì jiù, Puir Slow-Witted Gowk, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to KY’s AG cites Francis undying quote as excuse for not upholding the law

  1. teomatteo says:

    “he ‘knows where history is going on this’ ”

    I’ve wondered exactly that, where is history going on this bizarre marriage thing? What could ever happen to reverse such a trend? Is it stupid to thing that since it came upon us so quickly that the reverse could happen? or is it like a chemical reaction that goes in one direction easily but takes a lot to reverse, impossible to reverse? what would have to happen?

  2. Legisperitus says:

    More often than not, the “wrong side of history” is the winning side.

  3. cyrillist says:

    Right, absolutely. We all know that the Holy Father’s infamous “Who am I to judge?” has been taken completely out of context by the MSM, and in no way represents a blanket acceptance of homosexual practice. Catholics should know better than to fall for such a blatant misrepresentation. I’m waiting for someone, anyone, to say, “Never mind ‘the right side of history’ – I want to be on the right side of morality!”

    (COUGH-too bad the Pope said what he did, though-COUGH)

  4. Priam1184 says:

    I would say that there are probably two generations now who don’t have the tools to think, and the third that is just now coming along and has never known a world without ‘smart’phones will be the worst yet.

  5. Father P says:

    If Satan misquotes Scripture itself for his own ends should we be surprised that a politician misquotes the Pope for his?

  6. Priam1184 says:

    @teomatto “What could happen to reverse such a trend?”

    The destruction or drastic reduction of the vast and insane amount of material wealth that has made all of this lunacy possible. Would a society that constantly had to fight for its life ever even contemplate the idiocy of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? Or a mass conversion where people realize the tremendous damage all of that wealth has done to our souls and take up the cross of living in a materially poorer world in order to gain immense spiritual riches. Don’t see that (conversion) happening any time soon but I would never entirely discount the possibility since we are talking about the Holy Spirit here.

  7. wolfeken says:

    And we didn’t stretch every word from Benedict XVI to the absolute max to advance restoration and conservatism?

    Please. It is time to come to grips. We have a liberal pope now. How long are we going to keep pretending the words spoken by the current pope (each and every day…) aren’t really the words he meant to say? Again and again.

    It’s one thing to just ignore the words, but it is laughable to try to say he really meant the opposite of what he said, most notably on civil unions this week.

  8. DisturbedMary says:

    In my opinion Jack Conway changed because of a deeply personal (and secret) reason for what he’s doing. Could be he’s gay or has had homosexual experiences, or more likely, has a gay brother, son, uncle, or even father. Who knows. But the devil keeps notes. Watches our every move and knows when he’s got a man without the strength of grace for his temptations. Are not our public officials easy prey for the devil’s snares?

  9. vox borealis says:

    I have to admit, I find it baffling how many government officials now announce publicly they are simply not going to uphold the laws of whatever level of government they have put in office to uphold. Leaving aside the Catholic angle to this, how is such a position even legal? The whole system is collapsing on itself. But at least the (current) winners can make themselves feel better by claiming to be on the “winning side of history” (whatever *that* means).

  10. Desertfalcon says:

    @Priam, while I think you are generally correct in arguing that this phenomenon is more common in wealthier countries, I would point out that there are countries far poorer than the USA or western Europe that nevertheless, have hopped on this bandwagon; Brazil, South Africa, Mexico (SS marriages recognized nation-wide.), Argentina, Uruguay. Both Colombia and Ecuador have, effectively SS marriages without the name and are in the process of dropping that objection. Chile is soon to join those ranks with the landslide victory of Miss. Bachelet and her party. I would also argue that it is less economic and related more to the spread of the ideas of individual “freedom” and democratic governance and institutions. Part of the PR problem with those countries who have taken the opposite view is that they often have absolutely abysmal human rights records. For all of the West’s failures and foolishness, I think most would still rather their child be living in Sweden than Somalia. It is easy to be critical or dismissive of a wealthy democracy….when one lives safely and comfortably in the bosom of one.

  11. vox borealis says:

    @DisturbedMary,
    No, he changed for a very obvious reason mentioned in the article: he’s running for governor.

  12. Robbie says:

    I live in Kentucky and Conway is doing this for one reason and one reason only. He plans on running for governor of Kentucky in 2015 and he wants to make a name for himself with the liberal base that will decide the primary. Like me, he’s from Louisville and the city is a Democrat stronghold that has veered more and more to the left. If he can rack up a big win the primary in the city, it would counteract the problems he would receive from outlying areas of the state that are more conservative in the Democrat primary. There has always been a bias against Louisville in statewide races so he’s trying to juice his totals here. This is all about the 2015 governor’s race.

  13. Kerry says:

    May I commend to readers this April 2013 article by Rod Drehere, Sex after Christianity?
    Here is a quote to muse on, “Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity.” Definitely read it.

    http://www(dot)dtheamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/

  14. Kerry says:

    Nuts! I wanted to avoid a link, and with that extra ‘d’, made a bad one.

  15. incredulous says:

    The democratic party is the party of paganism, its longstanding roots in Irish Catholicism notwithstanding. Pray for them.

  16. The Astronomer says:

    ‘Who am I to judge???’

    I’m afraid that particular winner is going to stay with us for a looooong time, Father. In the era of definition-by-soundbite, this out-of-context quote of the Holy Father is going to be the gift that keeps on giving….headaches that is. You’re very correct…wherever he is, Antonio Gramsci is smiling.

    Our Lady of Fatima….Ora Pro Nobis.

  17. jacobi says:

    On reading a history of the Papacy recently I have been struck by how often what is now known as the “law of unintended consequences”, has applied.

    The latest examples is the “who am I to judge” casual remark, aimed at the press to indicate a less rigid approach to the problem of homosexual inclination than has been often current in the past. In itself, a perfectly proper intention.

    The consequences have been profound. That remark will be quoted back at the Church a century from now!

    Conclusion. Think before you speak!

  18. BLB Oregon says:

    Excuse me for being cynical, but I think the Pope is being used as an excuse for continuing down the same road that had been chosen before he was ever elected. Since we have the means to do it in our times, it is a good rule to learn the words the Popes have actually said and written, and not to trust the words that others put into their mouths. If the “Spirit of Vatican II” taught us nothing, it ought to at least teach us that. “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many.” Mark 13:6

    I hope his bishop is clear in correcting the misinformation this man is spreading, and if the politician’s motives are to get elected first and serve the truth second, may he be granted repentance at the earliest possible date, before he leads anyone more astray with him than he already has. “Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.” Matt. 18:7 We need to pray for our leaders, but particularly for the ones who self-identify as Catholic. The ones who mislead do so much harm, and put their own souls in the greatest peril.

  19. torch621 says:

    Wolfeken,

    Are you accusing the Holy Father of heresy?

  20. Matt R says:

    What is supremely ironic is that Jack Conway graduated from St. Xavier HS, on all accounts a school that gives young men a solid education, but one known for not holding as strong a Catholic identity as it should. On the other hand, one of the men who ran for Congress a few years ago left St. X for Atherton, the public school I graduated from, because St. X was too liberal…Atherton is known for being the most progressive school in the city. We really need to strengthen Catholic education and make it less about beating the public schools as it is to form them with a Catholic worldview and give them the boosts they need to live lives of virtue. Escaping to public school is not an option (I would not do what I did again…trust me, it’s bad), and homeschooling isn’t for everyone.
    This is also the only time in 4 years I’ve been pleased with the governor.

  21. BLB Oregon says:

    Even worse, I do not think it was a manifestation of an unusual understanding of Catholic “conscience” being taught in some Catholic schools when Catholic school students near Seattle protested to reinstate an administrator who had been fired for choosing to have the state give legal recognition to his relationship with another man, as if it were a marriage. Mind you, the fellow had not been fired by the school for living with another man. They were not sending sleuths out to ferret out his private sins. He was only fired when he made it unequivocally public that the man living with him was a sexual partner, and his colleagues informed the school leadership about it.

  22. scarda says:

    Politicians say whatever will advance their careers. Being on the ‘wrong side of history’ seems to be their location at least 50% of the time. Being on the wrong side of eternity does not come into the conversation nearly enough.

  23. OrthodoxChick says:

    We give people the benefit of the doubt by assuming that poor catechesis is to blame, but that isn’t always the case. There are plenty of people, too many in fact, who were catechized on a basic level and simply refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on social issues. And because they have not been held accountable for their dissidence, they feel that Catholics can disagree with Church teaching and still go to Mass, receive Communion, and go on about life as a fully practicing Catholic. I have relatives who are like this and I would assume that most of us could say the same. If you try to offer even gentle correction of any sort to them, they flip out and look at you like you’re from Mars for thinking that you have to accept the Church teaching and actually (gasp!) live it in order to be Catholic.

    This Conway fellow probably doesn’t see a thing in the world wrong with being openly Catholic and a supporter of gay “marriage” and if no one calls him out on it, why should he? “Time” magazine is about as public a venue as one can find. If this man approaches for Communion and is permitted to receive, well, there ya go. He’ll assume he’s not wrong and so will everyone else in his parish, or um “faith community”.

  24. Andrew says:

    It is hard to know which box to check:

    ? ingenita levitas
    ? erudita vanitas

  25. Colette says:

    @DisturbedMary I completely agree with you! Politicians will do and say whatever they need to in order to be elected. (Well, except Rick Santorum, he always stands up for his Catholic beliefs but we all know where that got him in this sick world of ours!) The Devil has such a strong hold now over so many people. All the more reason to pray The Saint Michael prayer! We have asked our priests at our church to start praying this prayer again at the end of Mass. Every day I feel like I have to stand up for my faith, even in my workplace. If I have an excused late absence from work because I attended morning Mass, my coworkers will actually laugh and say “I’m not as holy as you, could you pray for me?” I always respond that I pray for everyone. My openly gay coworker told me once “You’re like Mother Teresa”, to which I responded, “I’m no where close to being a Mother Teresa!” When I arrived at work yesterday with my ashes on my forehead, I lost count of the number of people who snickered and made comments. One of my fallen away catholic coworkers said if she had received ashes it would probably burn a cross in her forehead. I told her if she believed that then she has entirely misunderstood what it means to be a Catholic and that Ash Wednesday was a good day to start to try and remember. Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US!!!

  26. murtheol says:

    Again, there is no cure for stupid. None.

  27. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @ wolfeken

    Please read what the Holy Father actually said, in the legitimate transcript. Not what the media tells you said.

  28. RJHighland says:

    If this is this politicians position on Same Sex Marriage and he is a practicing Catholic his priest and bishop should have a private meeting with him, and correct his thinking and that he would have to publically proclaim his change of heart on the issue, if he doesn’t he needs to be denied communion. If the Bishops and priests do not do this it will cause even greater scandal than already exists in the dioceses and greater Church. This is a great opportunity to teach the Gospel of our Lord and how Catholics need to live their lives according to the Gospel, but what are the odds that the bishop or priest will do this? I pray the Bishop and priests perform their roll as shephard it takes courage to be Catholic, but too many just walk up to the pagan shrines of our culture and with-out hesitation offer their incents at the altars of these false gods and lead their flocks down the road to Perdition. Let us see what they choose are they good shephards or false teachers or simply cowards. Seeing as so many people are falsely interpreting our Holy Fathers words and it is causing many Catholic Politicians to support a grave evil for our society you would think he would clearly clarify this misunderstanding. That will happen probably about the same time that the Pope and Curia address Bishop Schneider’s request for clarification of parts of Vatican II that have caused so much confusion. I am not going to hold my breath. It is not the Holy Father’s fault that people missinterprete what he says right?

  29. LarryW2LJ says:

    Evidence, that once again, the MSM hears what they want to hear, and then report it as “news”and the “gospel truth”. Of course, this then gets disseminated, and everybody uses it as justification.
    That’s the problem with being pastoral in a corporate world.

  30. Sonshine135 says:

    2015: Calling Catholics the last vestige of widespread intolerance in America.
    2020: Calling laws against
    pedophilia the last vestige of widespread discrimination in America.
    2030: Calling laws against
    incest the last vestige of widespread discrimination in America.
    2040: Calling laws against
    bestiality the last vestige of widespread discrimination in America.

    Ole Scratch’s plan seems to be going rather well thanks to people like Jack playing into his hands. Come to think of it, I bet quite a few Germans thought they were on the right side of history as well in the 1930’s and 40’s.

  31. Unwilling says:

    listened to some of the words of the new pope
    …that is, re same-sex whatever and other doctrines/directions.

    But I don’t let the Pope off the hook for “Who am I…?”
    Wishing he had said something else is understandable. Maybe he does too.
    Wishing it meant something else is fine. Word contortionism is not amiss.
    But it meant what it meant. Means what it means.
    Objective meaning belongs to the target community.

  32. McCall1981 says:

    @wolfeken,
    The Pope was not referring to same-sex civil unions:
    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-gives-new-interview-to-secular-newspaper

  33. vox borealis says:

    Journalists have asked if the Pope was referring specifically to gay civil unions in the above response. The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.
    @McCall1981
    The Pope was not referring to same-sex civil unions:…

    That’s not exactly what the linked article says. To quote from it:

    Journalists have asked if the Pope was referring specifically to gay civil unions in the above response. The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.

    By responding in this way, Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union. Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage.

    So, he did not specify same-sex unions, but he also avoided answering directly about such unions, leaving the path clear for journalists to run with it. I suspect that this one, too, will be a gift that keeps on giving.

  34. Johnsum says:

    So, J Conway refuses to enforce the law? By now, we know many such people in and out of government, people who break laws, or promises: adulterers, illegal drug users, even in the Church lay men and clergy break all kinds of laws (liturgical or cannon laws) and the people whose job it is refuse to correct them. In turn they go and break laws too. I do not need to name names we all know them. Is it any wonder that Conway looks after his own before the interests of John Q. Public?

    In Eastern Europe, after the regime changes very few people were brought to justice or punished for misdeeds committed under the communist regimes. This was because everybody was implicated in some manner, to a greater or lesser degree, in the lawless communist systems. You live in it, you end up cooperating with it, before you know it you are part of it.

    We live in a political system dominated by radical liberal elements. Religious belief which used to moderate sinful behavior (and generally justified corrective action by the justice system) no longer commands the allegiance or respect of the general public. (Look at sociological surveys from the recent past.) Our Church over the pat 50-60 years experienced tragic losses in faith and morals. We, in the Church, need to sort out certain issues first before we can ask secular interests to live up to our standards. Otherwise they confront with such questions as Who are you to judge?!

    What is the answer?

    It occurs to me that following his resurrection, Jesus did not immediately reorganize because of the Good Friday incident but proceeded to commission his apostles to be faithful missionaries of his teachings. He did not blame Peter for being weak or for almost all for running away when the going got hectic. Instead, he urged his disciples to Go out teach all Nations! ( He definitely did not say Go out and negotiate with Cesar). On the whole, it turned out to be a relatively successful model. Why not try it again? Say yes when you mean yes, and no when you mean no. Everything else… but you know what I mean.

    Of course, the model had costs too. The famous and the not so famous martyrs’ blood was the price of success. It will work again. I do not think anything else will.

  35. vox borealis says:

    @CrimsonCatholic, @McCall1981

    The article that McCall1981 links to contains—if I read correctly—a clarification by a spokesman, Fr. Rosica. In fact, what I quoted from the article, above, seems to come from that clarification, which (according to the article) Fr. Rosica wrote in consultation with Fr. Lombardi, to respond to various journalists who pressed on what the pope meant by “civil unions.” In other words, they *are* looking at what the pope said, and wondering what precisely he meant.

    Why the clarification if there is no need for it? Again, Fr. Rosica is not clarifying false reports of what the pope said, but rather he is clarifying—after consultation—what the actual answers actually mean.

  36. Genna says:

    What Francis avoids saying is as germane as what he does say.

  37. McCall1981 says:

    @vox borealis,
    Yes, but the article does say that in Italy the phrase “civil unions” refers to “people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.”
    So it’s true that he did not exclude same-sex civil unions from his comment, but it’s also true that he was including a broader range, including heterosexual civil unions, etc. So while he didn’t disapprove of same-sex civil unions, he also did not approve of them (as the media had been portraying it).

  38. AvantiBev says:

    I know where history is going too and that is why I urge my fellow conservative Christians to keep their eyes on the next battles. Leftist ideology does not slack but marches forward while we are still fighting the last battle they have already moved on to the next. I urge you all to keep your eyes on their use of language. The Left has already moved on to the Euro use of “partner” rather than “husband/wife” or “spouse”. They are now using terms such as “intergenerational relationships” rather than pedophilia. Their was actually a report of county officials reluctant to prosecute bestiality against a horse without credible proof that the horse didn’t “enjoy it”!!

    Animals and children are the next targets for the libertines and their insatiable appetite to sexualize all relationships. I am not saying give up the fight to roll back gay marriage and especially DO roll back no-fault divorce for us heteros. But DO keep your eyes on where the Left are next aiming their flaming arrows (pun perhaps intended). ;-)

  39. Legisperitus says:

    Sonshine135: More to the point, Vidkun Quisling thought he was on the right side of history.

  40. vox borealis says:

    @McCall1981,

    Of course he did not *approve* same-sex civil unions. In fact, he did not really seem to approve of non-religious-civil-marriage-opposite-sex civil unions. But by now he *has* to know what any question about civil unions really means. And if he didn’t at first, surely the reporters pressing him explicitly on same sex unions should have given a clue. And even then, according to the article, he avoided—possibly went out of his way to avoid—discussing same sex unions.

    And then we are all supposed to act surprised when the media and broader culture runs with that? Or worse, we are simply supposed to ignore or tsk, tsk that it’s just the media being the media?

    And at the end of the day, why avoid the elephant in the room?

  41. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @vox borealis

    What journalists and when was that? In the transcript, there is no mention of same-sex unions or homosexuality for that matter. So when did they ask? This is a poor response from Fr. Rosica.

    In the interview, one of the previous questions asked was about Cardinal Kasper’s speech and the divide of the Cardinals. So I can infer that the Pope is referring to the divorced and remarried from the previous question.

    Why do so many Catholics read every single word of the MSM reports what the Pope “said”, but can’t even be bothered to read what the Pope actually said in the transcripts?

  42. wolfeken says:

    Torch621 — that is not my job.

    CrimsonCatholic — of course I read the transcripts. In fact, it is best to look at the original language for the latest interview: http://www.corriere.it/cronache/14_marzo_04/vi-racconto-mio-primo-anno-papa-90f8a1c4-a3eb-11e3-b352-9ec6f8a34ecc.shtml There you will see, translated to English by CNA, the pope stating: “Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”

    McCall1981: Pray tell, what was the pope referring to, then, in that final sentence, which became news? Civil unions for puppies?

  43. McCall1981 says:

    @vox borealis,
    Oh don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with your sentiments. He ignored the Elephant in the room and left important things unsaid, as usual, and I’m very frustrated by it too. We are (rightly, I think) upset that he was vague and coy, and didn’t explicitly disapprove of same-sex civil unions. But on the positive side, he could have said “we need to consider same-sex civil unions in all their variety” and he purposely chose not to do that either.

  44. McCall1981 says:

    @wolfeken,
    As Fr. Rosica points out, the phrase “civil unions” refers to people married by the state outside of religious context. So this would include heterosexual civil unions as well.

  45. vox borealis says:

    @CrimsonCatholic
    Why do so many Catholics read every single word of the MSM reports what the Pope “said”, but can’t even be bothered to read what the Pope actually said in the transcripts?

    I read every word of the published interview twice, in Italian. Then reread it a few times in English. So I *did* read what the pope said. As McCall1981 writes above, the pope’s answer to the question of civil unions was coy and evasive. If he does not know my now the weight of that question in an international setting, that is problematic. That Rosica had to consult before coming up with an explanation suggests that he, too, was not sure just what pope Francis meant when he talked about all of the “varieties” of civil unions. Though I see your response to this is to blame the spokesman for doing a poor job clarifying what his boss said.

  46. wolfeken says:

    McCall1981: That is an amazing attempt at spin. Perhaps I can convince the IRS next month that “charitable deductions” include thousands of dollars written off my taxes because I did nice things for friends and family members last year. Don’t I get to define the term, even though the rest of the country already knows what it means?

    I pity the jobs Fathers Lombardi and Rosica have, telling people that the words that were spoken by the pope don’t really mean what everyone hears them to be.

    I also pity the people that believe that spin, as public opinion continues to dramatically shift the wrong way.

  47. Dundonianski says:

    Just how difficult is for the Vicar of Christ to make ABSOLUTELY unequivocal statements of Catholic Orthodoxy? It vexes me greatly but there are innumerable opportunities for Francis to “step up to the plate” This continuing dissection and qualification and frantic searching for implicitly in what Francis actually intended is tedious at best and truly alarming at worst.

  48. Pingback: Fulton Sheen, My Son, Miracle & Exciting News f/Rome - Big Pulpit

  49. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @vox borealis

    My last point wasn’t meant to address you, but a statement in general of the majority of Catholics. I meant no offense. I will concede and agree that Pope Francis should not be as vague or coy when he speaks.

  50. Moro says:

    This pontificate has been a disaster. The pope just keeps dropping the bomb. No none of it is heretic but he should know better, especially after the “Who am I to judge” debacle. This will haunt us for decades, if not longer. Unlike with Benedict, I for one would welcome his resignation.

  51. Moro says:

    Anyone who doubts my prediction, just look to the theological commission set up by John XXIII over birth control. While there is no one line, people dig that up to justify dissent all the time.

  52. excalibur says:

    We know what the next crusade is, it has been written about years ago in the homosexual press. The children and the age of consent. If we do not win this battle against the perverting of marriage, when will we win? I guess we will not win until the Fatima Message’s request is fulfilled, and Russia is finally, publicly, with the Bishops, consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by some future Pope (I have zero expectation Francis will fulfill the request, though I pray daily he will). There is so little time to do such a simple thing as requested by Mary. But always the excuse seems to be, we don’t want to upset the Russian Orthodox. Ha!

  53. wmeyer says:

    Sonshine135, I think your view is rather optimistic. I expect that your predictions will come to fruition a good deal more rapidly than you expect.

  54. wmeyer says:

    Moro said: This pontificate has been a disaster.

    No, that’s simply hyperbole. Yes, he did make it all too easy to take his comments out of context. However, in recent weeks, he seems to have been working harder to correct that. And in any event, the media will forever read what they wish into any papal comments. What Pope Francis has not done is to alter or contradict any doctrine.

  55. Kathleen10 says:

    Sonshine, if it takes that long, as wmeyer observed. I doubt it will, our decline is in free fall and so rapid.
    Avantibev, I agree with you, and what I am watching for are the age of consent battles which ought to be on the scene any day now. “Intergenerational relationships” my Aunt Fran. It needs to be called what it is, “filthy perversion”.
    Calling behavior a “perversion” is very hard to do, and we have been shaped by the culture not to say it. Being “nice” and being “polite” are really strong values in our weirdly contradictory culture, much more important to most people than scriptural truths. This is one reason why being a political conservative is so difficult today. Liberals can call you names and question your parentage but not so for conservatives. The speech of conservatives is constrained by the culture. So buckle up, because when pedophiles come for our young people, we will need to act, if we care about vulnerable teenagers and small children, someday, infants. It will be by inches they will seek to do it, not yards. They will want to reduce the age of consent to say, 14, but we must say no and never give in, not a bit, ever. When that door opens in your area, shut it quick and shut it hard, if you can.
    Self-identified Gay or transgendered youth surely are taken terrible advantage of today. If we knew the stories I’m sure our hearts would break. Do any of us hear professionals or anyone voicing concern about these kids? I don’t. Knowing what we do about predatory behaviors, it is a sure bet that this population of young people are often sexually abused and then cast aside, hurt, confused, and jaded. Who is protecting these young people from predators? They are so vulnerable.

  56. Ben Kenobi says:

    “What could ever happen to reverse such a trend?”

    I like Fr. Z’s analogy of St. Augustine at Hippo. What terrible days were those. The Vandals sacked Hippo, and conquered all of Roman Africa. Even to this day it has not recovered it’s former prosperity.

  57. Bosco says:

    The man is both a coward and a quisling. In reality he is slavishly following the recent advice of US A.G. Eric Holder to State A.G.s, which would be political suicide if publicly admitted in Kentucky, while instead running for acceptable moral cover under the fog blanket tossed-out by Pope Francis’.

  58. Ben Kenobi says:

    “There are plenty of people, too many in fact, who were catechized on a basic level and simply refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on social issues. And because they have not been held accountable for their dissidence, they feel that Catholics can disagree with Church teaching and still go to Mass, receive Communion, and go on about life as a fully practicing Catholic.”

    There are many who desire to change the church and are here to fight for the change from within. They have already drawn up battle lines and want to kick us out. Are we prepared to fight?

  59. benedetta says:

    So it’s OK for this guy to quote the leader of the Catholic Church on this earth in support of the choice he has made in the duties of his civil office, but God help the civil servant who quotes anything religious and styles himself a believer in support of the right to life (liberty and happiness)?

  60. Legisperitus says:

    wmeyer:

    Motus in fine velocior.

  61. Moro says:

    wmeyer – Fair enough. I was going overboard by calling it a disaster. But I do fear he keeps making remarks that he should know will get taken out of context. Just look at the recent civil unions remark. Again nothing heretical, but it’s ammo for dissenters and ultimately the bonds of unity in the Church will be wounded. We all must pray that the Holy Father exercises a better choice of words. “Who am I to judge?” is one of those never ending nightmare quotes.

  62. cl00bie says:

    They always forget the first part of the quote: “If a homosexual is seeking God with a good heart…”

    If two people of the same sex are going to simulate the sacrament of marriage, then by definition they are not “seeking God with a good heart”. I think if they are not seeking God with a good heart, and are taking steps to force me to recognize their fake ceremony…

    “Jesus, make me into your knotted cord…” :)

  63. BLB Oregon says:

    “Just how difficult is for the Vicar of Christ to make ABSOLUTELY unequivocal statements of Catholic Orthodoxy?”

    The problem is that it is impossible for a Pope in our times to be so unequivocal that the Catholic Unorthodoxy will take his statement as a once-and-for-all given. Case in point: the impossibility of the ordination of a female to the ministerial priesthood. Not only has this been declared impossible, those who attempt to pretend it are excommunicated automatically. Does this stop the Unorthodox from insisting that this will ultimately change? You cannot get so loud that someone determined to deafen themselves to your message will hear you, nor so bright that those who cover their eyes and close them will see the light. If they do this and are yet convinced that they see and hear better than you do, you may as well give them up to God and hope they amend in the future.

  64. Gail F says:

    That quote really is unfortunate. A totally unrelated story in our local news today (teacher contracts for Catholic schools) got hundreds of FB comment, more than a dozen of which mentioned how the contracts contradict Pope Francis, the church is goign backward despite Pope Francis, etc. etc. – all using that quote. And it only takes about one minute to read what he really said!

  65. Mr. Green says:

    CrimsonCatholic: Why do so many Catholics read every single word of the MSM reports what the Pope “said”, but can’t even be bothered to read what the Pope actually said in the transcripts?

    I have been wondering that myself lately. Even more, there are some people who will look at what the Holy Father actually said and proceed to interpret it as though it had been written by Obama’s speechwriter instead of by a Catholic Pope. Now that’s confusing!

    Wolfeken: I pity the jobs Fathers Lombardi and Rosica have, telling people that the words that were spoken by the pope don’t really mean what everyone hears them to be.

    Excuse me, you do not speak for “everyone”. I myself do not find it that hard to understand Pope Francis, and I apparently do not hear his words as you seem to do. Certainly, sometimes I actually have to look at what he said, in context, and think carefully about it in light of the Church, not of politics or pop culture or anything else. Spending a bit of effort now and then to think about things carefully is not something that I consider bad.

    Dundonianski: Just how difficult is for the Vicar of Christ to make ABSOLUTELY unequivocal statements of Catholic Orthodoxy?

    Pretty difficult, especially if people keep trying to misinterpret him. (Of course, I think the media, and the public in general, are more incompetent than malicious, but I wouldn’t want to rule out malice altogether.) I have found that when I try to understand the Pope as an orthodox Catholic, I always find a way to do so, and usually it’s quite straightforward. No doubt someone who is determined to come up with a heterodox meaning will always find a way too — that’s just how language works. There is no such thing as “perfect clarity”, except maybe if you stick to mathematical notation. And if you stick to talking about nothing but numbers. Nevertheless, Francis is not a mathematician but the Pope.

    BLB: The problem is that it is impossible for a Pope in our times to be so unequivocal that the Catholic Unorthodoxy will take his statement as a once-and-for-all given.

    Sad, but true.