Did the catholic Left and homosexualists ignore Pope Francis’ words about seminarians?

The other day Pope Francis told the Italian bishops not to admit homosexual men as seminarians.    I wrote a post about it HERECNA also reported it.   Reuters had it.

“If there’s a doubt about homosexuality, it’s better not to have them enter the seminary.”

Can you readers help me out?

I am looking for reportage on the Holy Father’s admonition on the part of the liberal catholic outlets, such as Fishwrap, Commonwelt, Amerika, The Bitter Pill and so forth, and the usual homosexual and homosexualist suspects.  You know who they are.

For example, at Jesuit-run Amerika, which harbors Jesuits homosexualist activist James Martin, SJ, I found an article about Italian archbishop’s slobbering preface to the Italian edition of Martin’s ambiguous book.  HERE  But, I did not find an article about the Pope’s remarks to all the Italian bishops.

I admit that I may have missed it.

I may have missed the report and supportive commentary by Massimo Faggioli, Robert Mickens, Michael Sean Winters, etc.

Aren’t we supposed to hang on every single thing this Holy Father says?

The Tablet (aka The Bitter Pill aka RU-486) seems not to have covered it. Again, I may have missed it.  However, there is a story about a dog being a saint.

Fishwrap (aka National Sodomitical Reporter) posted something from Catholic News Service about the audience of the Italian bishops with the Pope, but it omitted the comment about homosexuals.  HERE  However, I wonder if it was included in the original CNS story HERE.  I don’t know because the CNS story is behind a paywall.

CRUX had something about it the Pope meeting with the bishops and about his concerns.  HERE  However, their piece didn’t cite the Pope speaking about the doubt about a prospective seminarian’s orientation and exclusion from the seminary and it spun ti to stress homosexual acts.

I found a single tweet from homosexualist activist James Martin SJ:

First, he turns that on heterosexual men who present “problems”.  That is to admit that homosexual orientation is a “problem”.  And then he changes the topic.  The Pope was talking about seminarians.  Martin shifts it to men already ordained and then quotes the Pope’s often misused words, “Who am I to judge?”  The Pope was talking about admission of men to seminary, to about men already ordained.  The Pope was saying that these men should not be ordained.

Italian born Massimo “Beans” Faggioli was certainly able to read the Italian language account of the Italian Bishops plenary, just the sort of thing to which he would pay massimo attention.  But there’s nothing in his tweets on that day or after.  He does slobber a bit over Martin’s book, now in Italian.

Look.  I’m not saying that the usual suspects have purposely avoided this interesting and newsworthy story.  I’m saying that I may have missed what they said.

Hence, I am asking for some of you readers to dig around and help us learn what they thought.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, Pope Francis, Seminarians and Seminaries, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Did the catholic Left and homosexualists ignore Pope Francis’ words about seminarians?

  1. tamranthor says:

    That right there is some Class A Number One snark, Father. Well done. :)

  2. Mike says:

    Rigorous honesty and candor no more distinguish the sycophants of the throne of Peter than they do its current occupant. In a few days they and he will be back to bashing the traditional and rigid; in the meantime no seminary rector need fear for his job for having failed to heed this random utterance.

  3. Snark? Not at all! I’m truly interested in what they have to say!

  4. Malta says:

    This is a Pope of contradictions. If he was really concerned about the sin that “Cries out to Heaven for Justice” he wouldn’t make a few of the other statements he’s made about it.

  5. Malta says:

    I swear I think we are in for a terrible pounding from heaven. My name on here is “Malta” because I plan on moving there. I’m a Navy Vet. and former FBI Agent, but I have found a gorgeous 29 y/o who would like to add to my retinue of five kids and one grandchild. I’m 45, so it’s not pervy. I’m going to give this world more Catholics dedicated to preserving it. But I really think we are going to get pounded: I wrote of Akita and Fatima: https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Mystical-Tradition-Chris-Conlee/dp/1579216854/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527410976&sr=1-6

    God is about to inflict a terrible Judgement; He is mostly love, but the stuff going on in the world can only be remedied by His strong hand.

  6. Ivan says:

    Something else. A little bit different, but in essence, with the exact and the same purpose:
    There was not even a single peep to Irish CATHOLIC voters before 25 May 2018!?!
    But now, there is (of course) a LOT of propaganda peeps! – on May 28, 2018!
    http://www.catholicnewsworld.com/2018/05/pope-francis-mission-of-church-in.html
    !!!???!!!

  7. Imrahil says:

    Dear Ivan,

    that makes sense actually. The Church knew that those who’d listen to the Church would vote ‘no’ anyway, while the others might be, just might be, able to look at the real issue if the Church was silent, while with some certainty they would be pushed to vote against life if the Church made a visible campaign.

    Even as things are now, the Irish majority, as far as its majority’s probable intention goes, gave a chiefly anti-Church vote with only the acquiescence to vote anti-life, rather than the other way round.

    The stand of the Church was not in doubt. A very visible campaign could only (or maybe not only, but almost with certainty) have made things worse. The Church here decided as Pius XII decided in his day.

  8. Imrahil says:

    As to the general topic,

    it was probably a wise move of Pope Benedict to ban homosexuals from seminaries.

    I’m rather unsure, though, if in a better world where homosexuality is not a thing acted upon, or only a thing acted upon in secrecy and in the knowledge of doing something abominable, if in such a world it was really such a wrong thing that those who have to be chaste anyway because they found themselves feeling homosexual (for whatever reason), that those made their way to the Seminary. After all, they have to fit somewhere, if we are not to lock them away for something that is only a objectively disordered challenge and not a sin.

    I’m even less sure – to be honest, I don’t think – that “even the smallest doubt” should disqualify an not-entirely-surely-heterosexual. Scrutinizing somebody down to the bones is almost never a good choice, except as to the present state of grace, and there it can’t be done. It is absolutely to be avoided that “passing the test” means “having had the luck of negligence of the tester”.

    As for Fr Martin, obviously he knows that “no sexual problems” (with great readiness to add a lot of “at all”s and “ever in their life”s) very largely means “no priests”; he means that as an ad absurdum. If we are honest, it would also mean “no priests even if married men were admitted” (I’m not so sure if Fr Martin agrees). In any case, he fails to grasp the difference between heterosexual problems and the really greater problem of homosexuality, because it is not the same thing.

  9. Fr. Reader says:

    Strange tweet. Why so defensive?

  10. Ivan says:

    Good grief!

    Dear imrahil,
    you’ve said: “that makes sense actually. The Church knew that those who’d listen to the Church…”
    No it makes no sense at all. That Friday’s vote was not about killing the most innocent only; it was about killing Ireland’s soul! Which once was Catholic.
    And you are talking about this, in the terminology of this fallen world, using the words: ‘the Church’s campagne’ !?
    You should know that the Church of Christ our God the Lord is NOT just one or another political party, but that the Church represents the true Kingdom of the one and only true King, Jesus Christ our God and Lord. The part of the visible Church on this earth, to which we Catholics all belongs, or at least suppose to belong, so-called militant Church, suppose to represents leastwise, the vestibule of the Heavenly Kingdom.
    And as such, the Church Militant and all its members, with the first and hierarchically the most important ones, are called, prepared, equipped, provided and OBLIGATED to fight against all kind the enemies of the Life. The enemies of the procreation with is one of the greatest gift to us from our Heavenly God the Father.
    Our God is God of the Life not of the Death.
    Which means that all those who fight at the side of Death and for the Death, are the worse enemies of our God, and all His children!
    Then, how so ‘ Church visible campaign’?! Or whatever campaign?! We are at WAR!

    “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” (Eph 6,12)

    And who else is supposed to be leading in this fight, for us and with us, partly faithful and strong, partly simple and naive the flock,- than the shepherds? The officials, to begin, those from Rome.
    Which has, for this battle, have done NOTHING. Nothing useful, nothing good.
    And that what was needed to be done by them, was not a lot, or to difficult.

    It sufficed to say that every Catholic should and must vote against the (validation/legitimization of the) murder of the innocent children in their mother’s wombs! Because the murder (of innocent) is a MORTAL SIN! Whoever among Catholics, would not listen and obey, and in spite of that (missed) official instruct and order given by the Church, will do the opposite, let be him Anathema!

    And yes, I know, the Anathema is not much loved word, isn’t it?
    But what they have created with their silence, is much worse, and in fact, it is fully unsustainable.
    Because, there cannot be such thing, a human being who is using his faith and his reason willingly and consciously to be some kind of weird Catholic-and-murderer in the same time, and in the same person.

  11. Imrahil says:

    Dear Ivan,

    a little less exclamation-marks would be nice, if you please.

    And yes, when I talk about campaigns I call them campaigns. I take it as a matter of course that it is not a bad thing to make campaigns. Coming to think of it, you are quite free to replace “campaign” by “crusades” if you like the word more (which in my native tongue refers strictly to the military campaigns, pun not int., of Christendom during the Middle Ages).

    The Anathema, whether it is liked or not, is not a magic word and does not turn a public vote into its contrary. And while I quite agree, and said first, that in the intention of the voters it was the Catholic soul of Ireland that stood to debate and the innocent children merely the victims of the rebellious spirit – still we had to, and have to, defend the lives of these children. And because one never knows before the count of a vote, there might have been a chance to win. (Even as it is, there have been 32% no voices, the most of which probably stick to the Catholic soul of Ireland.)

    After all, the stand of the Church, of the local bishops, of the Pope, of the faithful populace and so forth (whatever to be said in other fields) was never in doubt in this specific case. Thundering anathemas would not have resolved the issue “what does the Church say” – that was clear from the outset. Also, it would not in all probability have resulted in a net loss of pro-life votes and a net gain of the anti-life side. Why, in these circumstances, should the Church then do it?

  12. hwriggles4 says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Yesterday, Catholic News Service carried an article about “What the Media is Not Reporting about Pope Francis. ” I was glad my Yahoo News feed picked up this article. Otherwise, I would have not seen it.