8 thoughts on “Giving A Whole New Meaning to Celebrity Pastor”

1. Darryl,

   Im sure it wont hold a candle to Fireproof, Left Behind, Gods Not Dead, and Saving Christmas.

   “The Holy Father wanted to create a movie which would be able to reach out to children in order to spread the Catholic faith. His idea was to effectively portray Gospel passages and fables to youngsters.”

   Quelle horreur

   LikeLike

2. Luckily, Kirk Cameron has no authority over other believers. The closest he got to Popery was an interview he did with Doug Wilson about Saving Christmas.

   Gospel passages and fables? I’m sure they’ll be perfectly clear about the distinctions between the two.

   LikeLike

3. Walton,

   I dont remember Aesop being read at any masses. Natural virtues are fine to learn and teach kids; grace builds on nature.

   LikeLike

4. James Young, see? In a post-Vatican II world no one has a sense of the dignity of office. You’re the frog in the kettle. Priests and kids? It happens everywhere.

   Shrug shrug shrug.

   LikeLike

5. ‘Beyond the Sun,’ … His idea was to effectively portray Gospel passages and fables to youngsters.

   ‘beyond the sun’… hope not TOO far beyond the Son…. but DG’s pope quote from “Where’s Jesus’ today makes it seem doubtful it won’t be…

   “Many think differently, feel differently, they seek God or meet God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty we have for all: We are all children of God,” the Pope says in the video.The Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Catholic religious leaders first declare their personal beliefs before each one declares, “I believe in love.”“I hope you will spread my prayer request this month that sincere dialogue among men and women of different faiths may produce the fruits of peace and justice. I trust in your prayers,” the Pontiff states.

   Jesus: Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 1: 8 -9…

   from today’s reading:
   1) give to His people the knowledge of salvation
   2) by the forgiveness of their sins,
   3) because of the tender mercy of our God,
   4) with which the Sunrise from on high will visit us
   5) to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death
   6) To guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1:77-79

   LikeLike

6. And here it is:

   grace builds on nature

   Things aren’t fallen, just a little askew,
   Your heart isn’t dead in sin, follow it, its true.
   Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, all fine,
   They’re all valid ways to God, just toe the line..
   Jesus needs your help to save you, you’re under the test.
   He’ll help you though you reject him if you just do your best
   To cut your carbon footprint and try to be nice,
   And stay away from the really bad vice.
   But venial sin, that’s a whole other story
   God’ll beat it out of you after million years of purgatory.
   And Jesus will pray to save you but hey,
   His prayers they won’t work at the end of the day
   If your free will says no, He’ll never go against it
   You’re not dead so hey, it’s on you to be fit.
   And that’s not so hard, God wants not perfection,
   Just show up at mass and sit in your section.
   Believe what you want, outside of mass you can go with culture’s flow,
   Grace builds on nature, who cares where your non-dead heart goes?

   LikeLike

7. This papa is a rock star. He belongs in movies like Hillary belongs in politics. (She’ll win by the way, unfortunately. And I’ll bet anyone $100 she does)

   LikeLike

8. Celebrities don’t have to be coherent, but shouldn’t people who hold the office of infallible interpreter?

   Tomorrow, no doubt, the Vatican press office will go into its now-familiar “clarification” mode. Loyal Catholic defenders of Pope Francis will argue that the Holy Father’s words were taken out of context. But this time, the problem cannot be attributed to sensationalistic reporting; the Pontiff definitely conveyed the impression that he was ready to discuss the morality of contraception in the context of the Zika epidemic. The Pope’s own words are—at best—confusing.

   Questioned as to whether contraception is the “lesser of two evils” when the Zika threatens birth defects, the Pope replied, in part: “On the lesser evil, avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of a conflict between the 5th and 6th Commandments.” What conflict? Does he mean to suggest that in some cases, adhering to one of God’s laws might entail violating another?

   In the next sentence, the Pope refers to the decision by Pope Paul VI, authorizing nuns in (what was then) the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives when they were threatened with rape. But that decision does not apply to the situation created by the Zika epidemic. Contraception is immoral because it violates the integrity of the marital act. In the Congo, the use of contraceptives was justified as a means of thwarting an act of violence. In Latin America today, some officials argue that, because of the Zika problem, contraceptives should be used to thwart an act of marital love.

   No doubt the Pope’s defenders will argue—in fact some already have argued– that the Pope did not actually say that contraception could be justified. True enough. What he said was that “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil.” But in context, what other message were reporters likely to draw from his statement? If you ask me whether it is justifiable to rob a bank, and I reply that bank robbery is not an absolute evil, haven’t I indicated that I am open to a discussion about whether bank robbery is licit in certain circumstances? Certainly I have not given the impression that I think bank robbery is always immoral.

   Yet the Church teaches that artificial contraception, when used to frustrate the purpose of the marital act, is always immoral. UN officials are now suggesting that artificial contraception should be practiced by married couples routinely because of the Zika epidemic. Nothing in the Pope’s statement suggested that there is an inherent moral problem with that approach. I have seen defenders of the Pope remark that secular reporters generally don’t understand the Church’s teaching on contraception. That’s true; and nothing that the Pope said would further their education.

   Moreover, in answering the reporter’s question about Zika, the Pope failed to point out the flaw in the major premise of the argument for routine contraception. That argument is based on the assumption that the Zika virus is responsible for microcephaly. But there is very little scientific evidence to support that assumption: a fact that the Pope’s own representative highlighted in a presentation this week to the UN. Proponents of contraception and abortion have been exploiting the Zika epidemic as a means of advancing their cause. The Pope had an opportunity to remind the world that the effects of Zika are not well understood, and to suggest that research should be concentrated on killing the disease rather than its victims. He missed it.

   And speaking of missed opportunities, if Pope Francis had not made those remarks about contraception (and his provocative remarks about Donald Trump) the headline stories about his airborne press conference might have centered on a few other statements, which would have gladdened the hearts of shock-shelled Catholics. For example:

   -The Pope said that Pope Benedict XVI deserves applause for his handling of the sex-abuse crisis, particularly in the time before his election to the papacy. “He was the brave one who helped so many open this door.”

   -When pressed about his forthcoming post-synodal document on the family, and specifically whether divorced-and-remarried Catholics should be admitted to the Eucharist, the Pope said: “Integrating in the Church doesn’t mean receiving communion.”

   But these statements, and other important comments by the Pope about his visit to Mexico and his meeting with Patriarch Kirill, will be barely noticed—drowned out by the noise about his comments on Trump and Zika.

   The Pope’s frequent public interviews, and his unhappy record of maladroit responses, have become a predictable source of confusion, frustration, and even embarrassment for the faithful. In the distant past, then-Cardinal Bergoglio admitted: “Interviews are not my forte.” Thoughtful Catholic leaders should use their influence to persuade the Holy Father that he was right then, and is wrong now to use interviews as a regular facet of his public ministry.

   LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.