News

Pope’s canonization of Paul VI, Romero personal, political

Tapestries of Roman Catholic Archbishop Óscar Romero, left, and Pope Paul VI hang from a balcony of the facade of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican on Oct. 13, 2018. The next day, Pope Francis canonized the two of them as models of saintliness for the faithful today. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis will canonize two of the most important and contested figures of the 20th-century Catholic Church, declaring Pope Paul VI and the martyred Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero as models of saintliness for the faithful today.

Sunday’s ceremony is likely to be emotional for Francis, since he was greatly influenced by both men and privately told confidants he wanted them made saints during his papacy. The two represent the epitome of the outward-looking church that Francis has championed, one that is close to the poor and fights injustice.

Paul VI and Romero also endured strong opposition from within the church in life and after death — a fate Francis is experiencing now amid the church’s burgeoning sex abuse and cover-up scandal.

These two towering figures will be canonized along with five others in a ceremony designed to show that holiness can be attained in all walks of life.

Paul VI

When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio delivered the 2013 stump speech to cardinals that got him elected Pope Francis, he made only one citation in the text: Pope Paul VI.

When later that year Francis issued the mission statement of his papacy, he based it largely on a 1975 text by Paul on evangelization, which Francis once called “the greatest pastoral document” of the modern church.

“One of the first things he told me when he was elected was that he hoped, he prayed to be able to canonize Paul VI,” said Francis’ former chief of staff, Cardinal Angelo Becciu.

Giovanni Maria Vian, editor of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, said Bergoglio matured as a priest, a Jesuit and a Christian while Paul VI was pope from 1963-1978.

“It’s understood that Paul VI is his pope,” Vian said.

Paul is perhaps best known for having presided over the final sessions of Vatican II, the tumultuous 1962-65 church meetings that modernized the Catholic Church and opened it up to the world, allowing liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than in Latin and calling for greater roles for the laity and improved relations with people of other faiths.

During his 15-year papacy, Paul VI ushered in other reforms as well, including that of the traveling papacy.

Paul stepped foot on each of the five continents, but two of his trips stand out most: In 1964, he traveled to the Holy Land and met with the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, a first since the schism that divided Christianity 1,000 years earlier.

A year later, Paul traveled to the United Nations, where he delivered the now-famous plea for peace as the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam escalated: “Never again war! Never again war!”

But it was Paul’s 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” that marked his papacy, reaffirming the church’s opposition to artificial contraception.

Issued in an era of the contraceptive pill, the 1960s’ sexual revolution and alarm about overpopulation, the stark prohibition empowered conservatives but drove progressives away.

Even today, the document remains one of the most contested and ignored of papal encyclicals, with studies showing that most Catholics disregard it and use artificial contraception.

“It’s a text that isn’t rooted in reality, where life is absent and above all women are absent,” Monique Baujard, former head of family services at the French bishops conference, wrote last month in a Vatican’s women’s magazine.

Archbishop Oscar Romero

Francis also longed to declare Archbishop Oscar Romero a saint, convinced that he was a true martyr who willingly gave up his life to stand with El Salvador’s poor and denounce the violence of the military dictatorship.

Romero, archbishop of San Salvador, was gunned down by right-wing death squads as he celebrated Mass on March 24, 1980, in a hospital chapel. The military had vehemently opposed his preaching against the army’s repression at the start of the country’s 1980-1992 civil war.

Almost immediately after his death, Romero became an icon of the South American left, with his image frequently appearing alongside the likes of Che Guevara and Salvadore Allende.

But that politicized fame cost Romero dearly as his saint-making cause wound its way through the Vatican. Conservative Latin American prelates, led by the late Colombian Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, feared Romero’s perceived association with liberation theology would embolden the movement, which holds that Jesus’ teachings require followers to fight for social and economic justice.

“Romero found himself caught in a substantively political conflict between those who saw him as a revolutionary — which he absolutely wasn’t, since he was very gentle — and those who saw him equally as a revolutionary but in a negative sense,” said Romero biographer Roberto Morozzo della Rocca.

After the cause was held up for three decades, Pope Benedict XVI finally unblocked it in 2012 and Francis, history’s first Latin American pope, pushed it through to its final phases.

A few months after Romero was beatified in 2015, Francis denounced how Romero had suffered as a martyr twice — once when he was gunned down, and again when his own brother bishops “defamed, slandered and had dirt thrown on his name.”

Even earlier, though, Francis made clear he wanted to see Romero honored.

Romero’s former secretary, the Rev. Jesus Delgado Acevedo, revealed a private conversation he had with Francis — then Cardinal Bergoglio — in 2007 on the sidelines of a Latin American bishops conference in Brazil.

He recalled asking Bergoglio, then the archbishop of Buenos Aires, “Eminence, one day will Oscar Romero be canonized? Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo told me it will never happen.”

Delgado quoted Bergoglio as saying “Listen, if I become pope, the first thing I’ll do is send Lopez Trujillo to San Salvador” to make Romero a saint.

The remark was a clear dig at Lopez Trujillo, an archconservative affiliated with Latin American right-wingers, who has been publicly identified as the man who used his considerable power at the Vatican to scuttle Romero’s saint-making cause for years.

About the author

Nicole Winfield

97 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • I guess if you’ve made it to popehood, there really isn’t any further up the human scale you can go in the Church. Sainthood seems to be the next logical step for an a,bitious man,

  • “Paul VI and Romero also endured strong opposition from within the church in life and after death – a fate Francis is experiencing now amid the church’s burgeoning sex abuse and cover-up scandal.”

    Typical Nicole Winfield – just had to slip Francis in there and hint at his sainthood while waving the sex abuse scandal over her head.

    “Even today, the document remains one of the most contested and ignored of papal encyclicals, with studies showing that most Catholics disregard it and use artificial contraception.”

    And check another item in the Progressive trope.

    “The remark was a clear dig at Lopez Trujillo, an arch-conservative affiliated with Latin American right-wingers, who has been publicly identified as the man who used his considerable power at the Vatican to scuttle Romero’s saint-making cause for years.”

    So, nothing about why these individuals will be canonized in terms of their own church’s views on holiness, their personal lives, how they personify what they preached, insights of any kind on who they were as men.

    It’s all progressives v. conservatives, intrigues, politics, blah, blah, blah.

    Tripe.

  • I think Pope Paul should have made allowances for the responsible practice of contraception by couples, but was prescient in his assessment of a world with easy access to both contraception and abortion:
    “Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

  • No more political than Saint Pope John Paul II the Great, the Patron Saint of Pedophile Priests.

  • “I think Pope Paul should have made allowances for the responsible practice of contraception …”.

    I think Pope Paul VI should have made allowances for the responsible practice of homicide and theft.

    “Marital infidelity. Lowering of moral standards. Abuse of women.”

    Women as machines for sex.

  • This isn’t a disagreement with you, Monica, but with PP. To me, that whole paragraph of PP is a bunch of assertions of authority, but precious little prescience, and made without evidence. This is very much the same track as the current desire of hyper conservatives to blame everything on The Sixties, as if that decade just popped into being without historical context..

    Marital infidelity existed long before contraception.

    Lowering of moral standards? Look at the history of the Catholic Church. The abuse scandal, the wars, and everything else.

    Abuse of women? “The woman gave me of the fruit of the tree, and I did eat.” “”I will allow no woman to speak in church.” A good deal of the history of the Western World concerns the abuse of women, and I have been reliably informed by hyper Christians that the church is responsible for the western world. Of course, they insist it is only the good parts, and not the bad parts.

  • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm

    Calumny:

    “In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.”

    There is not a scintilla of evidence that Saint Pope John Paul II ever knowingly promoted, facilitated, or failed to deal with a pedophile.

  • To you every religious belief is a mass of indigestible undecipherable gobbledygook.

    This is no different.

    Look at the history of the world since the arrival of the Church, the adoption of rules of war, the creation of hospitals and schools, the vast charities, the raising over centuries of moral standards.

    It’s one of the reasons you’re here posting rather than being stoned.

    You should thank it.

  • Awwwwwww, bob! Bobobobobobob, an I call ya bob, bob?

    And to you, everything anyone with any intelligence and moral standards has to say is a mess of indecipherable gobbledygook, and attack on your holy child molesting and enabling church, about which you have to create a bunch of straw men in order to make yourself look superior— to yourself, of course.

    Pretty sad, bobobobobobob! Bob!

  • I think you’re mixing apples and oranges, Ben. The existence of infidelity and low moral standards prior to HV doesn’t excuse the explosion of infidelity, divorces, single parents, abandoned children, and sexual immorality we’ve seen since. I’m not blaming all that on HV. But I am saying we have to be aware that our society is different in many ways since 1968, and not all of them are good.

  • Thanks, B O, for more of your usual tripe.

    Yes, everyone understands you hate Catholics and their Church.

  • The hemispheric capitalist nation, the US, was busy launching coups against elected governments, arming right-wing death squads, and plundering countries on behalf of private corporations. With that kind of role model, Marx shed a lot of his poor reputation.

    In fact, Marx did a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws of unhindered capitalism, though his remedies were proved awful.

  • Awwwwww, bobobobobobobob! Thanks! I’ll be happy to give you as much tripe as you can stomach, so to speak, Get it?

    Can I call ya bob, once again, before I go back to ignoring you?

  • The world has changed, of course. It does nothing but change. It’s just that now, we’re talking about it.

    I wish I had access to a comment I wrote on the sixties. But I’m travelling, and my files are not all on my iPad.

  • If I’m recalling correctly, naming an individual a “saint” requires proof that the candidate performed a miracle. I believe as well that the church employs a group of skeptics or outright atheists to investigate the claim of “miracle”.

    I wonder how the church defines “miracle”. I wonder as well how many of this panel actually agreed that an event in question was a “miracle”, as opposed to saying “don’t know”, “not certain:”, etc.

  • Did you ever notice how many popes named themselves Paul?

    I read something a few years ago about the church trying to move away from its admiration of Paul. .

    And I wonder about the “miracles” he performed….

  • “…the explosion of infidelity, divorces, single parents, abandoned children, and sexual immorality…”

    I agree with what you are saying – somewhat. Two issues occur to me.

    I think a lot of the explosion is women’s lib and a long process we are going through in redefining social rules and boundaries, rethinking how women can manage to be educated, have a career, have a family, be a voice in society and in politics. Women don’t need men to survive as they used to need them. Neither men nor women have the security of the firm boundaries that used to exist.

    I also think the “explosion” is partly due to better information that reveals the “low moral standards” and, perhaps, so much so that it normalizes it and makes it grow even more. My mother, who would be 103 years old if still alive, used to laugh about how her parents reacted to women wearing dresses showing her ankles, short hair, and dancing the charleston or other exuberant dancing with legs and arms swinging wildly. Of course, she didn’t like the music her children liked in the ’50s and ’60s, either, but she could laugh about it while keeping a pretty sharp eye.

    I think we are in a process of redefining how we create a morality around a different set of values and circumstances. We definitely haven’t figured it out yet. It is now up to Generations Y and Z, with the Silents, Baby Boomers, and Gen X offering sage warnings and advice.

    One more thought. World-wide and instant communication is influencing societies that have different mores, boundaries, social rules. I think that has created a lot of tension in societies far different from our own Western Culture worlds. It isn’t just our “low moral standards” that are a problem as each culture seeks to firm up or protect its own sense of identity, often based on religion. Or maybe it is just those who want power making a play to align themselves with a religion to extend their power. The marriage of “Make America Great Again” and Evangelical Christians makes the point of that danger.

  • Hi, Howard. The practice of “canonizing” saints arose when local bishops ordered them included as remembrances in the Canon of the liturgy, and only later was centralized in Rome, associated with (alleged) miracles, etc. The process of approving miracles is still very strict, although one can never truly conclude that someone’s recovery was not spontaneous. In the end, the panel relies on reports of virtue and holiness, as well as miracles, in making their assessment.
    Which is why there are no Saint Howards. 🙂

  • Marx really wasn’t really all that creative or inventive….he rode the tide of (uppercase) Modernism into a mere political channel.

  • Francis now is the reigning champ….read the new stories about Francis’s new head of the CDF. just now coming out. 25 page dossier on him.

    Almost without exception everyone he promotes, moves closer to him, is now wrapped up in rent boys.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/10/29/case-against-pope-francis-catholic-church/

    JP (sitting behind the Iron Curtain for so long) might have been a bit naive about how much headway the homosexual network gained in the Western Hemisphere, mainly the US but also in South America.

    Francis grew up in it. “Who am I to judge” will have new and incredible meaning soon.

  • Hi, ATF – I think when you bring the analysis down from the macro level to the micro level, the consequences of the 60s-and-beyond sexual revolution become clearer. My mother’s generation waited until marriage; if there were birth control issues, they were typically the male’s responsibility (condoms, etc.) Today the expectation is that birth control is the woman’s responsibility, with consequences for both health and fertility.
    In my mother’s generation, a man who had children with a woman typically stayed to raise them. Today, fifty percent of first marriages end in divorce, with women left alone to raise children or leaving them alone to raise themselves. In either case, female poverty is growing by leaps and bounds.
    My mother’s generation lost about 1,000 women a year to unsafe abortions. Today, a thousand of women a year are lost to domestic violence.

    I think women in general, especially poor women, are worse off today than they were in my mother’s generation. I don’t attribute that to not abiding by HV, but I don’t think we can ignore the suffering of women caused by the so-called sexual revolution, either.

  • The homosexual conspiracy is delusional paranoia. That said, it will be interesting to see what Francis and the Vatican do about Ladaria, whose predicament has been known for some time. So far, it appears that they intend to protect him. Strategically, that would be a big mistake. But of course, it would not be the hierarchy’s first strategic screw-up, and probably not their last.

  • Buon giorno, Monica.

    1. You know, here in the US, in years past, I heard lots of claims of miracles. A very large percentage of them came from the South. (I don’t know if you’re familiar with the culture of the US south, and it’s too complex to go into here, but it’s relevant.)

    I did some checking, and sure enough the south had the lowest ratio of docs per 100,000 population, as well as the lowest ratio of specialists.

    2. I would still love to know the definition of “miracle”. I have found lots of sites that *claim* to offer conventional or “approved” Catholic doctrine, but I’m not sure which ones are trustworthy. Perhaps you can help me find the official definition of “miracle”.

  • Thank you. Interesting.

    I saw a miracle when I was a kid. Some of my friends and I were playing on some ice, and it was not as thick as we thought, and a friend fell through and drowned.

    He was pulled out, and an adult–I think maybe an off-duty fireman or policeman–did M2M resuscitation. I don’t think it was widely known or practiced then. The kid spent a few days in hospital and was then discharged, fully healthy.

    Later, we learned that this was not a miracle at all, but a way of reviving a person who’d been submerged in very cold water.

    I don;’t know the Vatican def’n of miracle, but in practice, it seems to mean “an event I think is unlikely, but very lucky, and of which I approve.”

  • I’ve recently been struck at the intellectual dishonest and hypocricy of liberals.

    Notice how the liberal Catholics and Christians insert the “historical Jesus” into the dialog (and in the process lessening the divinity of Jesus, or lessening the awe of the Incarnation).

    Historical Jesus this.
    Historical Jesus that.

    But they don’t do the same with Saint Francis.

    They’ve hijacked the actual facts we know about St Francis and have built up a fuzzy-wuzzy squirrel loving eco-friendly St Francis.

    The mythical St Francis not the hisotorical St Francis.

    The same thing is being done with Saint Oscar Romero.

    His reality will be hijacked for liberal causes. Bet on it.

  • Way off, Howard. Try not to think of the rest of the world as less sophisticated than you. The people working on these panels are highly qualified, not all believers, but thoroughly convinced of their findings. We can agree or disagree, but to dismiss them is a reflection on our own lack of awareness of their processes.

  • I’m sorry?? What do you mean by “way off”? Are you referring to the “miracle” I saw?

    When I said above “in practice, it seems to mean..” I was NOT thinking at all of anything Catholic; rather, I was thinking of the way the term is used here in the US. Is that what you are referring to?

    I acknowledged, somewhere on this page, that the Vatican does in fact have a group of folks who are atheists or non-believers. (Given what we know about how the Catholic church in the US covered up sex abuse, am I being unreasonable in wondering how much attention is paid to the findings of that group?)

  • All the members of the scientific panel of the Congregation are highly qualified physicians with excellent credentials. If you Google the Congregation, you can find their names and current positions. I think your position would be better supported if you had the facts in hand.

  • I stated what I regard as the most important aspect of that panel, that they are non-believers. This is of course to the credit of the Vatican. It helps enormously, of course, that they are MDs.

    It seems to me that an important question is, how, and to what extent, does the Vatican honor the views of this panel? That is, if the panel says something like “very rare, but we cannot state for sure that it is a miracle”, does the Vatican say “OK, no miracle”, or does it say “OK, miracle”?

    Do you know if the Vatican believes in transparency, that is, does it release all the findings of the panel?

  • Monida, I wonder if you remember a fellow named Bernard Cardinal Law. He was a cardinal in the Boston Archdiocese.

    The law was close on his tail investigating charges that he knew about priestly sexual abuse and covered it up.

    So how did the Vatican respond? It whisked him to Rome, where he could not be extradited, and gave him a prestigious post.

    We later learned tjhat it was true that he knew about those charges, and did everything he could to make sure the church was not tainted.

    This was a CARDINAL.

    Given the way the Vatican protected the church by protecting Law away from the law, and lied so flagrantly about so much….do you really think a reasonable person can have any confidence in the Vatican when it comes to the sainthood process?

  • Howard, it’s difficult to have a conversation on this site. If you’d like to pursue this or any subject you’re welcome to blog on my site (www.aggiornamento.net). There, you won’t be sidetracked by trolls and trads, and I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
    The answer to this particular question is that the Vatican does not release the details of its meetings to the public, but makes them available through a process analogous to the Freedom of Information Act. With a little effort, one can read the reports, see what evidence was presented, and decide for oneself about the process.

  • Gee, what a surprise…

    I checked out your web site; and it looks interesting, and since I’ve found you to be gracious and polite, I will try extra hard to be that way on your site–tho you understand, I retain my right to be skeptical.

    How do I contact you on that web site? Or propose a post?

  • The existence of a homosexual clique in the Catholic Church is a well-evidenced reality and has been for at least three decades with several fully documented books and articles.

  • Apparently, base on his comments, he believes himself to be a stud muffin, although given his age he may tending more heavily to muffin and less heavily towards stud.

  • Probably. But I had more in mind the affected reams he writes to tell you he’s “ignoring” you. Not to mention the reams he writes to others ABOUT ignoring you.

    Clearly “ignoring” is pretty low on the list of things going on here.

  • I have an issue with blaming single parenting more or less on women. If we had raised our sons with any real sense of reproductive responsibility they would have helped raise their children. Instead we had to create a government bureaucracy called Child Support Enforcement to see that parents helped raised the progeny their sexual proclivities created…..and this assumes the grandparents aren’t taking on the major role.

    I think the real truth is that we no longer value children because they are financial liabilities and not remotely necessary for the financial survival of the family unit.

  • I’ll jump in here only to make a point. I wouldn’t be all that hard on the Vatican when the fact is Big Pharma determines the efficacy of it’s drugs against the placebo effect. The definition of the placebo effect is just as nebulous as the Vatican definition of a miracle. No one knows what is really in operation with both spontaneous miracles and the placebo effect. We only they are in operation.

  • “My mother’s generation lost about 1,000 women a year to unsafe abortions.”

    That must have been in Italy.

    In the USA the numbers were in the low to mid 100s, and higher numbers were fabrications.

    Of course all the unborn died.

  • The evidence appears to be that if the Child Support Enforcement were accompanied by Child Visitation Enforcement, the numbers would change.

  • That was not the earliest mode of canonization.

    The earliest mode involved solely martyrs:

    https://www.ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/canonizationhistory.asp

    “Since perfection was conformity to Christ in His death, a process begun at baptism, the martyr (literally, witness) for Christ was seen to have achieved the goal. Thus, during the age of persecution (from Pentecost to 311 AD) esteem for those Christians who had been killed in hatred of the faith (in odium fidei) lead Christians to extol their example of heroic witness to Christ, to guard and preserve their relics (the trophies of victory over death), and to celebrate the anniversary of their birthday into eternal life. The Circular Letter of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (155 AD) illustrates this esteem perfectly.”

    Canonization involves the Church’s infallibility.

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem.html

    “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …” – Cf. DS 3315-3319.

  • The fact that you raise the issue in nearly every context tells us who is “freaked out” about it.

    I removed you from “BLOCKED” status to highly recommend you join the faux Italian at (www.aggiornamento.net).

    You’ll fit right in.

    And you’re back to BLOCKED.

  • I think you misread my comment, which tries to show that women have been victimized by the sexual revolution.

  • Interesting observation, on many levels. For example, one clear parallel, I think, is that both organizations want to seetheir idea (product) succeed.

    Still, clearly Vatican has tried, and come up with some useful, interesting ideas (I think Monica provided a link to some examples), e.g. (1) resurrection, (2) restoration of deteriorated body parts. .

    Resurrection, by itself, seems to me to be no longer tenable, because there have been some clear examples, e.g. CPR. Parts restoration seems to me to be much closer to a good definition. And I think a more general definition could be “something against the laws of physics”.

    All that said…my very strong suspicion is that the medical–atheist body notwithstanding, there is a strong–understandable–bias towards accepting events as miracle. Of course, that bias could be very easily overcome by a radical commitment to transparency. Seems to me the Vatican would draw a tremendous amt of admiration for the church if it were to do that–but of course, centuries of tradition mean it will never happen. And that too says a lot about the church.

  • Howard, as i’m sure you are well aware, but worth noting in support of you anyway, Bob Arnzhole and other evangelical whackos are generally freaked out when the idiocies of their god delusion are exposed to them, and that is particularly so in regard to the topic of sex. Sex is a very uncomfortable territory for them and long has been, partly because it exposes huge holes and self-contradictions in their silly old fables, but that is especially so now that they are losing their control of women’s bodies.

  • Tnx for your comments. I’m well-aware that they’re freaked out about sex, women, etc., so I always like to help them share their views,. so .others can benefit….

    As well, I’ve occasionally asked myself this question: I wonder how good they are at sex. Or maybe they just have low sex drive and don’t understand how others are interested in sex.

  • So, wait a minute, there’s something I don’t get:

    if you have me blocked, how do you know I raise the issue “in nearly every context”? How do you know what I’m posting if you have me blocked?

  • “The same thing is being done with Saint Oscar Romero.”

    “His reality will be hijacked for liberal causes. Bet on it.”

    Wow, that was wildly ignorant.

    Did you realize Romero was by your political standards very much a liberal? He was a social activist who championed the poor, spoke out against human rights abuses and was murdered by a far right wing government.

    Compare that with american conservatives these days who vilify the poor and support/makes excuses for rampant human rights violations.

  • So you blame a fictional cabal of gay priests rather than address the obvious. That covering up scandal has been the Church’s MO for years on a variety of subjects.

    I guess its better to blame an outside group than own up to your own complicity in supporting corruption and atrocious behavior. 🙂

  • Your expertise on wildly ignorant is widely recognized.

    Oscar Romero, despite the spin, was canonized for his spiritual works.

    Championing the poor and opposing human rights abuses are straight Christianity, not politics.

    No, American conservatives do not vilify the poor and support human rights violations.

    Your favorites, on the other hand, work to keep the poor poor and to make political hay by calling enforcing laws “human rights violations”.

  • Nothing fictional about the Pennsylvania report.

    or the USCCB’s own report.

    Or the goings on at gay cocaine parties in the vatican.

  • Actually all of which are.

    Expecting the very people suspected of covering up crimes to even be capable of issuing an objective and factual reports on the matter is absolutely ridiculous.

  • So rather than address the veracity of the report, you just double down on its claims. Using bigoted language to boot. Making it impossible to take you seriously on the subject.

    Obviously such claims are more motivated by prejudice than facts. You have made that clear enough.

  • I don’t think anyone in the Church has tried to touch the veracity of the report and its details.

    but if you go to the bishops accountability web page…grass roots developed, but cross checked with court records, or to the USSCB reports over multiple years…you’ll see the same 80% number again and again and again.

  • OK, so you are a bigot who is willing to lie in order to save the reputation of the Catholic Church. I got that already.

    We can move on from having to take you seriously here.

  • Again, doubling down on clearly canned apologia designed to appeal to bigotry.

    “grass roots developed,”

    Quite untrue.

    ” but cross checked with court records”

    Also untrue.

    You are relying on a source you were too afraid to cite to directly and one which seemingly has no objective credibility.

  • It’s the twink chasing man-girl priests that are sullying the reputation of the Church.

    Wuerl ran an ad in the DC area this morning on CCN to talk up his accomplishments!!

    How many bagged lunches could have been made with that money?

  • Nope. Its bigoted lying apologists like yourself who sully the reputation of the Church. All you do is make things worse with each post. If you love the Catholic Church and its reputation, the best thing for you to do is quit while you are behind. Lest people lose all semblance of plausible deniability for the Church from such nonsense.

    Rather than face up to its poor choices and terrible actions, you spew hateful fiction and look for scapegoats. Way to go in demonstrating religious dogma has nothing to do with the teaching of morals and ethics.

  • I’m happy to face up to these crimes that priests and bishops and cardinals have committed against post pubescent males, including seminarians.

    You want this whole issue to disappear
    You want to suppress the evidence that doesn’t line up with your gay politics.

  • can you give a source for your perception of the u.s.a. numbers on abortion pre 60s ? you seem to have a dogmatic statement when no sure data exists to my knowledge .

  • “Thanks, B O, for more of your usual tripe.”

    it takes two to do the dance that you do with Ben . his pointing out the problems of the church is but the equal but opposite of your the-church-can-do-no-evil generalities . it would do wonders for the level of discussion if you both would step back, take a deep breath, and come back in a generous spirit wanting to share thoughts and experiences and compare and contrast ideas, rather that bash each other to bits by the power of your own wit and understanding . the latter only gives sparks, not light .

  • I would flip it around and say men have been freed to be irresponsible about their sexuality in a way women weren’t.

  • Justice, peace, and nearness to the poor are potent “spiritual wall” busters, as they force the secularized components of the west to see the the fringes of society which are not too nice. And, if looked at closer, see how they are being expatiated to foo the collective consciousness that they are “under-control” and the presence of the church is unnecessary.

    Like a business with an abundant amount of excessive over head cost, the Roman Catholic church is often weak in it’s implementation of the penetration of these Orwellian walls.

  • Well expressed opinion. For the most part I share it; however, while I may present a snobbish and theocratic attitude, I am concerned with your appeasement to allow the youth’s to utilize their sex pistols as soon as nature cocks their gun. In the West, to get money, gotta go this route. Not buying it, too much appeasement of the culture of the day and age.

  • In the big cultural opinion, it’s like sexual humidity. It is very high in the West making the day and age ripe for mass socialist and fascist movements. Orgasmic pleasure trumps the creation of family and fertilization of youth like never before. Popped out of the women’s rights movement, but in the end they get f***ed because they turn into nothing more than slices of meat. maybe..

    Just an opinion to fuel diagnostician, not sure if it aligns in anyway with the Almighty’s eyes. Of course, if there is a God, then there is the old theocratic question, does God know the future as he is an knowing being?

  • It is factor for the rapidity of the development of West that is no longer considered a necessary parameter to consider.

    Debt and dis-attachment of credit to wealth is much higher than it has ever been before in the West. Many theologians, I think, believe this is a sign that its development rapidity is slipping as credit grayness artificially aligns national development.

    It also givers large banking centres, like Zurich, the ability to manipulate foreign economies, like S.America, like never before. Swiss love such a heavy reliance on credit cuz they gots their fingies so deep into Russia. and China.

    Opinion, not fact or truth.

  • WW1 and WW2 are probably the two biggest moments of atrocity in the West and my gut tells me the Swiss are the instigator for both. Got Russia credit after one and China credit after two.

    Again an opinion. Swiss looks nice and sweet so I don’t won’t to throw lies at them to disparage them. However, their neutrality is so weird t o MEE

    Plus KKK have Swiss flags. But, again, maybe it’s just a coincidence.

ADVERTISEMENTs