You are entitled to your view to see conspiracy in my three posts. it would be good if you discuss DETAILS within my three posts instead, and give
your interpretation that may be no worse than my own.
I feel obliged to make it public something that not so many people outside of closed Catholic circles will notice. While the cardinal along with
number of traditionalists defends unquestionable family values, that I myself support wholeheartedly, he is doing that rather conservative. As I
understand it was done on hi level gathering in USA. What better platform for someone who wants to inherit the progressive liberal Francis.
I will put one more quote.
"Do we not see signs of this insidious war in this great nation of the United States?” Sarah asked. “In the name of ‘tolerance,’ the
Church’s teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the human person are dismantled. The legalization of same-sex marriage, the obligation to accept
contraception within healthcare programs, and even ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use the women’s restroom and locker rooms. Should not a
biological man use the men’s restroom? How simpler can that concept be?”
Here, I agree at least of half of his sayings. But...let ask frankly, were there female restrooms at Jesus' time? Were there teachings of Jesus or of
the Apostles, or of the Church fathers, that separate restrooms must be used as precondition of some kind not to fall into sin? There weren't
restrooms at that time at all! Even today in poorer countries you may see ONE restroom cabin made of wood and without running water, and the people
both male and female would wait for their turn to use it...Don't we use ONE cabin in the airplanes not labelled with genders? What so problematic in
the restroom case in USA today? Did USA forget 200 year old history seen from perfect quality films that show how the forefathers of today's proud
Americans have lived their simple lives? The Western standard, along with material progress that cannot be denied, made quite much effort to dogmatize
what is not a dogma, in this case, separate sets of restroom cells. In other cases it goes to clothing etc. At the same time, real sexual intercourse
means almost nothing for adults who would give consent.
That is what I criticize in cardinal Sarah's approach, and not the mere defense of family values. He puts it in terms of "war" for God or against God,
to promote his own understanding of it.
Having the background I already spoke of, that is NOT a conspiracy neither a secret for those who follow the struggle in hi levels of Catholic
hierarchy, it is easy to make the conclusion: Sarah is making his election platform for a year or 3 years from now when inevitably successor of
Francis should be elected.
Everyone who watched Francis' US visit, would have noticed the great esteem of the public for cardinal Dolan's words, that eclipsed the cheers given
to pope's own words. Everyone who watched Francis in the Philippines would notice the powerful presence of cardinal Tagle, who talked longer than the
pope himself. There is nothing bad in all that. And they didn't talk of toilets as being part of war against God... We have to understand, As we speak
we witness a campaign of who the next Petrus will be, campaign that is not officially announced and does not take the TV screens as the US
presidential campaign. Unlike the US presidential 4 year term, the papal unrestricted term in office could change rules for millenia far outrunning
one's own lifespan. The struggle is for principles and agendas.
So I make it available to the unbiased internet user reader of this forum, to know what it happens inside the enclosed circles of the Catholic Church
and not to be surprised on the next White smoke on ST Peter's with the words "Habemus papam" followed by name that will shock many. As many were
shocked in the last two elections.
I doubt cardinals like Sarah have any chance in 21st century to be elected popes. But that trend should be noticed and labelled correctly. The
billion wide Church half of all Christians, must set aside fanatic positions as those of Sarah that endanger to go back to Galileo time in the name of
holy wars, in the name of God, as happened many times in history.
Because, in the time of discovery of Galileo's satellites, perhaps also no one expected in the "modern age" for that time of Renaissance, to have the
burning at stake of Giordano Bruno and even the holy monk promoting chastity Fr Savonarola. But it happened. At the same time, when appeared the new
image of Jesus' painting after cardinal Cesare Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. Rome has proven it could play double standards.
What we saw during most of pontificate of Francis, were exactly struggles of people like Sarah with the rest of bishops who wanted changes. Instead of
getting a better church in those 3.5 years, we reached a dead end pouring all energy in those 2 absurd Synods that didn't decide anything. People like
Sarah cheer the succeeded while being minority. But you see, they don't stop there. They continue their attack on the rest of the Church, proposing
that their own fundamental interpretation is the real one. If they are left unchallenged, they will make their way further, up to the papal throne.
Think of what a doctrine might do, that sees a sin in using common toilets at different time, seeing the devil in the fact homosexuals existed always
in history and mostly within the ranks of the Catholic Church itself. I will ask again without expecting any answer here: let reread John's Gospel and
label more appropriately the apparently intimate relation between John and Jesus. (although it might have been without any actual sex). Let label
better Mary Magdalene's role, before those fanatics try to judge today's behavior or men and women who want to follow God in the way their fate or
their inherited genes put them in. It is easy for someone dressed in purple and red to say "I am for the fundamental family values and everything else
is from the demon, is a war against God". It is terrible to imagine what such fundamental position would bring to the 1/5 of humanity if allowed to be
promoted to the highest levels of Catholic hierarchy. Sarah, together with other conservatives, already take positions hi enough. They were not
changed quickly after the election of Francis. Instead, they seem to be setting a new conservative tone that goes much far back in time than Vatican
II. The least what one sane reasoning catholic or non-catholic could do about that, is to say publicly they are WRONG in a time when we enjoy free
edit on 1-6-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason