Pope Francis' tweet that 'migrants are first of all human persons' drew fire online
‘Take the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to the Vatican and you keep them,' tweeted one
'Say a few words about Jesus, Mary, the Holy Ghost, the resurrection and Hell'
[Daily Mail] Pope Francis has been bombarded with abuse from Italian Twitter users after urging Catholics to pray for migrants.
'Migrants are first of all human persons, and that they are the symbol of all those rejected by today's globalised society,' the pontiff tweeted on Monday.
But his charitable sentiments garnered him abuse from social media users in Italy
.
Ht: Damian M.
AMDG
47 comments:
Good for the Twitterers. We need more holy rampages like this that cast "Pope" Francis in his true devilish light.
So you keep moaning about on Mundabor's deviant blog. Put your own life in order first then try to reform the rest of the Galaxy, twit.
Thanks for referencing me!
I found it by accident, and was stunned. But also very happy. Francis' days as Pope are numbered.
As an aside, check out on YouTube the Papal "Mass for Migrants" he celebrated on Monday. Mostly all Africans, and I'll bet 50% at least were Muslims. Barely 100 people showed up to attend the Mass with Pope Bergoglio. Mostly older people, some old nuns in their standard short grey "habits".
The disrespect on Twitter to Francis' Tweet was a real shocker. But well deserved.
Keep at it, good traditional Italian people.
Damian Malliapalli
(the usuall guy, PW, posted his usuall insult) :)
@PW: Why "bite the hand that feeds you"? You call the venue for your trolling a "deviant blog".
Mundabor is deviant because he uses salty language and dislikes poofs.
Italian elderly are afraid to go to the Hospitals because when they return home they
find that there are homes are occupied by Migrants and Gypsies.
That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
@ Damian-
There are many good Africans that I would love to welcome to Europe or US. There are Eritreans and Ethiopians, and even others of Orthodox or Catholic background. They will blend and fit into many of our population-dying cultures and strength Christianity. So I have no problem with that. I see a Christianity of the future like the Byzantine Empire, multi-cultured, yet united in the same Mystical Body of Christ.
To see Muslims come to a Church [50%] is also impressive. In Muslim countries just for listening to or entering a Christian Church is a huge problem.
The True problem for the world, is that the Church refuses to teach the immigrants when they first come to shore, and many join gangs or find other faiths, or fall away into sinful and illegal activities.
The cause of the whole Crisis is the Church Hierarchy since Vatican II.
The Twitter rampage isn’t surprising. Most of the immigrants land in southern Italy, which already has a history of economic disadvantage. If they complain about the scarcity of resources, they get labeled as bullies. If they don’t complain they get pushed further into poverty. Oddly most of the Catholic charities and relief organizations get the majority of their funding from governments. They become more an extension of a government, not a religious one. That is why everyone is clamoring that Church is becoming NGO,even more so under Francis. Benedict tried to bring emphasis on theology and liturgy, and have charity as the natural extension of those: that was the better approach.
@Anonymous- you wrote: If they complain about the scarcity of resources, they get labeled as bullies."
Here we usually find that the bullies are Muslim or pagans, because our Faith teaches to accept the suffering God sends us. Islam rejects the Crucifixion, because Allah does not accept suffering to his people, and revenges such suffering.
But Francis has made the Catholic Church into an NGO, because he sees no difference in God's Plan of Salvation among the various religions. The other Vatican II Popes thougt that the Catholic Ideas win on logic alone, without fighting or offending error.
How multi-ethnic was Constaniople, really?
I don’t mind the Church lobbying for the poor, but destroying Catholic European communities by swamping them with immigrants from Africa under the guise of charity and brotherly love is nothing short of diabolical.
Europeans should retake Constantinople and Northern Europe, not be conquered by Muslims and pagans from the jungle.
How multi-ethnic was Constaniople, really?
Constantinople was a very multi-cultural city with regards to ethnicity (but not religion). Mostly all were Greek Orthodox Christians, and Greek was the main language of 95% of the citizens. But there were also people from the Balkan areas who did not speak Greek as a first language, but did of necessity in daily life/business. There was also a sizable Jewish community, and also some Western Europeans (mostly Italians from Genoa or Venice who were merchants and traders by sea). There was a small representation of Africans, but unfortunately they were slaves (in the early years of Byzantium....4th thru 9th centuries). They(the males) also served as bodyguards. There was a tiny Chinese and Indian community (also merchants and traders). If they practiced their religion, they did it in private in that Orthodox Christianity was the only approved religion, and Judaism (reluctant approval). Catholic were tolerated, but were 2nd class citizens due to their adherence to the Pope. There weren't many.
Not sure if there were any Muslims in Constantinople. They were very much hated and feared in general.
Times have not changed to much.....they're still hated in feared in much of Eastern and Western Europe.....except by losers like Pope Francis and his crowd of scum. They would gladly open their arms to a swarm of Muslims, and proclaim thru their tears how much they are persecuted and deserve our prayers and support. B.S. regarding the Muslims...but I support the Orthodox Ethiopians and Eretrians as well. Their culture and religion is ancient and worthy of respect. For all his faults and so-called corruption, that country did far better under the late , last emperor Haile Selassie that in has in the over forty years since his overthrow and murder. May he rest in peace.
Damian Malliapalli
Thank you Damian. Yes, Constantinople and the Byzantine empire was very multicultural. There was " Emperor Phillip the Arab", many Asians, including Armenian emperors. Many emperors were slavs. As far as not having enough to feed the poor and the "European communities" let us keep in mind, dear Tancred, that we should also dustinguish between poor who strive to work and achieve, on the one hand, and the other "poor" involved with laziness, sloth, and fraud manipulation and abuse of welfare systems. The Eritreans and Ethiopians in general, are very interested in making something out of their lives, and they still find time to care about others. Finally, about "European communities" it must be conceeded that the slavic and germanic peoples come as barbarian invaders from Asia, and as much as the Romans, and Byzantines tried to push them out, they stay to this very day. So who are the "real" Europeans? What should we do with the Germans? One could argue that only Celts, Etruscans, Latins, and Greeks truly belong in Europe. How far back shall we go?
There are so many different groups as to make the designation “European” or “Caucasian” basically meaningless, said the Soros-paid instigator.
The "Gypsies", a now seen as derogatory term, are in most of Europe in small communities. Guess where they originally came from (and even I didn't know that).....India.
There's a lot of them in Romania, and smaller populations thru all Europe. Italy has a fairly large community, and they were, at least in the past, been outcasts in Italian society.
Religiously speaking, many are Orthodox of some type or another, some are Catholic. Some (believe it or not), are still Hindus, or other kinds of "pagans" with their own spirituality.
I always thought their roots were in whatever country they lived in, and were outcasts because they were poor. Only recently did I read that their roots are in India, and that they were considered outcasts because they looked so much different from the European (and even Nordic/Slavic) peoples in the rest of Europe. And seeing photos of many of them, I would guess them to be Arabic/Middle Eastern. Not really Indian looking after so many generations.
I was in Iran 1x on a photo shoot for my job as a model. This was two years ago. The paperwork just to enter the country and get permits to shoot at historic sites almost made the venture not worth the trouble, but in the two weeks I was there, I saw quite a few people with distinctly Asian features. Some even looked full blood Chinese.
I was told there's a small remnant in Iran from the days when it (and other parts of the Middle East, all the way to China) was part of the Mongol Empire (12th thru 14th centuries).
So Europe is really a mix of people, and perhaps except in Scandinavia and the British Isles the term pure "Caucasian" no longer applies. The Nazis' of course would not have liked that reasoning, but it's true.
Damian Malliapalli
George Soros, the EU, et al, wants an uncontrolled immigration and unity on the basis of leftist and secularist globalist ideology. They want unity by putting aside the Christ that divides and create a unity without a Catholic sense of personal guilt and responsibility. This global order encourages satisfying our material goals and physical passions without Christian moral constraints. Soros and the EU want people to become slaves to sin and error to control people; Replacing the "Truth that will set you free" with tyranny deriving from, and feeding into, our dependancies.
"Soros and the EU want people to become slaves to sin and error to control people;"
Soros and the EU Business World including the USA business world want customers who spend nearly all their money on goods and services because this is "good for business" which maximizes profits and keeps wages low. Christianity is basically at odds with this kind of capitalism which focuses on gratification of the flesh and ego.
It’s another invasion of Europe on the basis of real and imagined injustices of the past. If they succeed, Europe will be like the Hell on Earth large parts of the rest of the world is. I don’t want to live as a veritable slave in my own country under cruel PC masters.
Europeans have a right to borders religion language and culture.
-Andrew
soros (*spit out of the side of my mouth*) hates God and wants to occupy His seat, and everything he does...EVERYTHING...flows forth from that as puss from a fetid, rancid, stinking sore. Period.
no psychobabble construct needed; no economic explanation necessary. it's as simple and easy to see as it was in the garden. soros (*spit*) is the vile son of his vile father, and bergoglio is his handmaid.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Europeans have a right to borders religion language and culture.
-Andrew"
Tell that to loser man Pope Francis, who doesn't believe or buy that argument for a second. He wants swarms of Muslims to invade Europe....and migrants. All the better to him if the migrants are Muslims.
Not to be defamatory about them, but I never knew there were so many ways to spell what they are.....Muslims, Moslems, Mooslems(yes, I actually saw that spelling in an article), Islamisti, and Musselmani. Take your pick :)
Damian Malliapalli
Vatican II declared in Dignitatis Humanae that error has a public right to not only free conscience, but public respect; that no government or group has a right to put pressure even on people with erroneous consciences publically expressed.. This is where the evil all started--Dignitatis Humanae. Once an erroneous conscience is recognized as publically respectable, then you cannot criticize abortionists, feminists, homosexualist activists, altar girls, women deacons, women priests, Amazonian Tarzan priests etc.
Everything is not only merely tolerated, but even required to be respected publically.
@"Peter Watson". You quote St.Thomas out of context from the whole body of Teaching of the Church. One does not have a Right to Conscience for things intrinsically evil. One can have a differing opinion about the "right to bear arms" or on prudential judgements on immigration. One does not have a right to embrace intrincally evil thoughts words or deeds. The "Law which is written in the hearts of all men" as St Paul says. One cannot make judgement calls in matters one would be expected to know better. One cannot say, for example, a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, or a dolphin has the same human dignity as a human being, or that a man can be rational and still claim suicide is his right. As St.Thomas Aquinas also said that the Truth is objective, not subjective. Only a well-informed conscience has a right to certain expression. And if it were a well-informed conscience we believe that God grants every person sufficient Grace to find the Truth..
absolute Truth in the Catholic Church.
Constantine, this is objectivity right from the Church's Tradition:
The Church's standard theology of the primacy and freedom of conscience is as old as the writings of St Paul and later confirmed by St Thomas Aquinas and in turn validated by Joseph Ratzinger.
What Paul says to Philemon: ‘act feely out of your goodness and not by compulsion” (Philemon 14) and earlier on to the Corinthians provided Thomas Aquinas with the biblical foundations for his teaching on conscience. In his commentary on 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Aquinas wrote:
"Whoever acts of his own accord acts freely, but one who is impelled by another is not free. He who avoids evil, not because it is evil, but because a precept of the Lord forbids it, is not free. On the other hand, he who avoids evil because it is evil is free."
Aquinas elaborated: "Every judgment of conscience is obligatory, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always does moral evil." [III Quodlibet, 27]. His discussion on whether one is bound to do what an erring conscience calls for in the Summa Theologica I-II, q 19, art 5 is rather involved, but, finally, the answer is in the affirmative: every conscience binds, even one which is objectively erring.
Fr Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was a theological expert or peritus in 1967 during the Second Vatican Council. In his Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (his Council Diaries) Ratzinger wrote a section on Conscience following the debate on Religious Freedom. It reflects the moral position of Thomas Aquinas and the standard doctrine of the Catholic Church:
"Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirements of ecclesiastic authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is the last resort, is beyond the claims of external social groups, even the official church, and also establishes a principle in opposition to totalitarianism."
Paul's attitude towards compliance with law and blind obedience to it is important to understand as it provided an important theological foundation for Aquinas' teaching on the development of virtue. A habit is transformed into a virtue only when there is a free acceptance of the intrinsic value of that which is commanded.
Truth can be a great disappointment, can't it Constantine? And your censor can’t handle anything countering his ideology.
Restricting someone from expressing a falsity or error damaging to others has always been practiced and taught by the Church. What one does believe in their conscience, can never be proven to be genuine expression of conscience or evil. Moreoverwhile someone subjectively acts on what they think is their conscience it does not bar others from acting on suppressing evil. Again, you take everything out of context, not just within St. Thomas Aquinas' reasoning, but with the whole body of history of the Church. If actions (not conscience or a person's sick perception of what he thinks his conscience is telling him) are not suppressable, then we could not even try to pressure someone from following a cult like Jim Jones, or prevent "Son of Sam" from acting on his perceptions. Just as a father has a paternal obligation to prevent madness and mad actions to be done by a son, out of love for what is objectively true and good for the son and the entire family, restriction or suppression of actions and expressions that are spiritually, emotionally, psychologically and physically damaging, in spite of someone's madness or hallucinations, a spiritual father who us leader of a country, or state, or province or parish that spiritual father has also that much of a duty ( of conscience) to prevent evil in his family.
I agree with Constantine. Conscience is problematic. It should be rare to make a decision opposed to the law. For example, Catholics practicing contraception cannot use conscience as an excuse as it is clearly prohibited. But that is what they do and are no doubt supported by many in the clergy.
Michael Dowd,
St Thomas Aquinas is unambiguous about the binding force of conscience:
"Every judgment of conscience is obligatory, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always does moral evil." [III Quodlibet, 27]. His discussion on whether one is bound to do what an erring conscience calls for in the Summa Theologica I-II, q 19, art 5 is rather involved, but, finally, the answer is in the affirmative: every conscience binds, even one which is objectively erring.
As for contraception, 98% of Catholic couples have rejected the teachings of Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae as authentic Catholic doctrine on the grounds that the reasoning supporting it is fundamentally flawed in its claims to be intrinsic to natural law and sound moral principles. The Magisterium found itself caught in a hypocritic bind when it failed to condemn the so called rhythm method as it involves the intention to avoid conception. I am happy to continue discussing this matter if you wish.
Thanks Peter Watson. Are you a Catholic theologian? What you are saying is new to me.
Contraception is a mortal sin according to Church teaching. What you are saying is if we do not believe contraception to be a mortal sin it isn't for us. If an individual conscience trumps the Church's moral teaching how does the Church have any authority over our moral decisions? It seems to me you are saying the Church does not have authority of our individual moral decisions. I thought we have an obligation to know Church law and follow regardless of what our conscience says. Another point is how can we make objective decisions about our conscience?
My wife and I had 11 kids and were under the impression that no form of contraception could be used including the rhythm method. If extreme hardship could be proved then the rhythm could be used which didn't apply in our case. We were never informed that conscience could abrogate these moral laws of the Church. Personally, I thought the Church's teaching on contraception was overly severe and contradictory given that the rhythm was allowed. We were told Church law trumps conscience. Wonder why we were told this?
Constantine, the authors of Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae claimed that the moral prohibition on articifical contraception is based not only what they argued was divine law and Natural Law, written into the human heart and accessible to human reason. On both counts, the counter arguments were/are that there is no demonstrable and credible evidence that contraception is grounded in either law. In fact, when it became clear that the overwhelming number of Catholic couples throughout the world emphatically rejected any divine or natural binding claim on their consciences in this matter, the Magisterium back tracked on its teaching about Natural Law. It clearly retreated from its former teaching that it could be accessed by reason alone and insisted that the ultimate interpreter of the Natural Law is the Pope. So now the Natural Law and its applications are come under the papal magisterium.
As for ‘Natural Family Planning’ sometimes called the Rhythm Method, also the “Billings” method, the Magisterium has not maintained moral consistency. These ‘natural’ methods are just as much contraceptive as the Pill/condoms etc because the moral intention is not to conceive. Ironically, the more shrill supporters of the “natural’ methods of contraception accuse their opponents of having a ‘contraceptive mentality’ while that is precisely the mentality of those who employ the so-call non artificial means.
Furthermore, if you look at the history of the Church’s teaching on the Natural Law, you will find that it has been used as a pragmatic ideological tool of the ruling powers to justify the slavery (as recently as Pius IX), preemptive war, torture, the suppression of the human rights of millions of people etc, etc.
Constantine, I am willing to continue the conversation if you wish.
Michael Dowd, one of the most effective methods of controlling the thinking, instincts/Baptised intuitions and behaviour of the Catholic laity was the use of guilt. The Irish hierarch became adept at this especially by targeting married women. The insisted that they and their husband have as many children 'as God gave them' without regard to other factors like health, finances, social means to support large families etc.
The Church authorities have in modern times been guilty of moral relativism by banning artificial means of contraception but, by and large, not the Rhythm method that you Michael and your wife were warned off.
There is no divine or natural law for limiting the size of families either by 'natural' (no figures mentioned for failures!) or artificial.
Cardinal Ottaviani, the promotor of the minority report written by two ethics professors, counselled Pope Paul VI that if he endorsed the majority report that argued against the ban on contraception, the credibility of the Papacy would be destroyed. Ironically, it was almost terminally damaged by Paul VI's acceptance of Ottaviani's advice. No wonder Paul never wrote another Encyclical. He knew he had made one of the biggest mistakes in Church history.
"Peter Watson" I see that you like revisionist history of your own brand. Vatican II does not represent the Church, including "Humanae Vitae". You are correct in saying that the "rhythm method" is contraception and a contraceptive mentality. However, Humanae Vitae distorts this, as did the traitorous Popes and clergy under Paul 6, Jp2 , Frankie 1, and Benedict 16. They, as most post V2 laiety, believe in rights--"human rights" which I condemn, as I know God does not grant people any "rights" including a "right to life". Because human rights are negotiated legal and social compromises legislated to determine which aspects of God's given HUMAN DIGNITY will be honored as practical. Human Dignity is not a compromise which people in any kind of decision making can discuss. Why? Because we don't have a right to freedom of expression of opinion in public (in private too, but we can't know what one thinks in private, unless he tells us). No one has a right to offend God. We can only defend God's honor and name but God will punish the rest in His own time. Man has a "right" to act on what is good, not to act toward evil. And every Human being as this one sole right: to know, love and seek God in truth, so he can fulfill his destiny to be with God forever in eternity.But this "Right" is ultimately not a human right, but God's Right to save every human soul for Himself. In discussing St. Thomas Aquinas, it does not impress me. He does not stand out as
one who represents the whole Magisterium. He is but one voice among many. So quoting a comment made by St Thomas Aquinas does not settle an argument. We see the actions, and words of the Church and Christ in scripture whipping the money changers, and scolding the Pharises, telling us that "one who does not eat my body and drink my blood has no life in him. We. See that Christ gave authority to political leaders to be obeyed, as stated by Christ to Pilate. And it was clear to Pilate as well as to us that the correct moral choice for Pilate and the Israelite would have been to release Christ.No hiding behind "free conscience" clauses.
Constantine,
The teaching of St Thomas Aquinas has been adopted by the Church as its own standard doctrine on the primacy and freedom of conscience and Aquinas directly follows what St Paul wrote about conscience in 1 Corinthians and Philemon (that's divine revelation). Joseph Ratzinger summed it all up in the passage I cite above.
And who is arguing about 'rights?' The issue being discussed here is freedom of conscience which is integral to what it means to be an adult human being.
Peter Watson.
IMO any form of artificial birth control is wrong simply because there is a natural form of family planning available to all married folks, i.e., abstinence. In other words, being a Christian demands self denial. Controlling our sexual desire is one of the first places abstinence should be used. We do not get to heaven by having our cake and eating it too. We must control our eating, drinking, smoking, sex, etc. If we can not control our appetites we must practice total abstinence in matters such drinking, smoking and sex for unmarried people. I do not think there should be any question about this. It would have been simpler for everyone if Pope Paul VI had simply said the above words instead of Humane Vitae.
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of many voices in the Magisterium. You are using some if his arguements to justify any opinion as a free choice. Opinions are manipulated. Any peson who seeks Gos will find Him. The Church has taught that God grants every one the Graces to find Him if he sincerely seeks Him out. There is no excuse . A free conscience is free only if the options are properly presented the person, and that person finds the Truth. Otherwise, he never had a free conscience to begin with.
"A free conscience is free only if the options are properly presented the person, and that person finds the Truth. Otherwise, he never had a free conscience to begin with."
Agree. As a practical matter I think we should obey Church law on all occasions and make it a matter of confession when we don't. Let God decide our real culpability. We are too subjective to decide this ourselves.
The Church taught before 1960 that a conscience must be well formed before it is a valid moral compass. That formation comes from learning the teachings of the magisterium which were immutably codified by the Council of Trent. Vatican II was a pastoral council and by its own pronouncements added nothing to the faith. Let those who disagree be anathema.
I’ve pointed that out to him before. Doesn’t care.
The founder of breakaway SSPX, Archbishop Lefebrve explicitly appealed to freedom of conscience when he refused to assent to the authority of the Holy See in regard to the ordination of bishops and to the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Now there's a classic case of a cafeteria, cherry picking Catholic if ever there was one. But Lefebvre was in the right while the rest of the Church was in error wasn't he? That's how the SSPX narrative rolls out.
I've told you that before, but clearly you don't care.
Peter Watson. Freedom of conscience does have its place especially when the issue is challenging perceived heresy. We should all be grateful for what he did. Surely it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Imagine what things would be like if he hadn't done what he did.
Does Gaybreielle think he’s a legitimate Christian? His witness here doesn’t strike me as such.
And Tancred, what I have set out clearly, in their own words, is the teaching on the freedom of conscience articulated by St Paul, Thomas Aquinas, the solemn Magisterium of the Catholic Church to say nothing of the clear teaching of the darling of the conservatives, Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI.
If you have anything more persuasive to offer, then please spell it out so all may be edified and enriched.
Your MO isn’t Christian. It might be an attempt at worldweary, supercilious sodomite from
Late Antiquity, a bad imitation of Constantine Cavafy.
You might impress the reader if you attempted to respond to what I have been saying. Instead, you trot out the same old lazy Mundabor one line tinny throw aways that do nothing more than to keep you boxed into a reputation for slutty insults and an unfortunate mono-dimensional brand of Catholicism.
You need to do better.
The imaginary Christian setting a high bar for the people who believe what he stopped believing in long ago.
Post a Comment