In all charity did you actually think what you wrote was in any way a defense of the Church or a reprimand of me?
First, I did not muddy any waters. The two are inseparable. The teachings on the family are directly tied to apparent direction this papacy is going with it's views on sexuality and what is considered moral or good. They openly endorse homosexual behavior. Look at the key note speaker at the recent family synod in Ireland. No other than noted homosexual supporter Fr. James Martin. Accepting homosexuality was the underlying theme of the damn thing. They led us into this by endorsing divorce and remarriage under the guise of compassion. By allowing for those in "Irregular situations" to recieve the body and blood of Christ. A direct break with dogma. If you think the plan isn't to take it further you are a fool. Next up, homosexual "irregular unions!"
Yes, I hate his and the past four Pope's position on Eucemenical relations. I didn't state one thing about those, other than that denying dogmatic truths doesn't bring us closer to our separated brothers.
Yes he has handled it worse. Why do away with restrictions and penalties Benedict had in place for accused priests? Why promote bishops known to hide valid accusations. Daneels was even caught on tape. He was disgraced yet brought back into highest echelons of power. How do these actions speak? He is directly linked to the cabal of homsexual predators currently in power.
This is hilarious! The "supposed" homosexual mafia. Do I really need to list all of the disgraced Cardinals, Bishops, and priests. Many of whom worked with and gave cover to each other. Also talk about a horrible case of "whataboutism" I denounce JPII and Benedict for not doing enough too. Yes, John Paul II was cannonized too quickly. Wrong is wrong. By making assumptions that I wouldn't condemn previous Popes outs you. You are obviously operating on a conservative/liberal church dichotomy.
Speaking of the Communion of saints may we call upon all them, including the Holy Mother of God, Mary Queen of Heaven, and St Michael to intercede to the Lord our God that the filth is exposed and rooted out of the Church.
But you don't share the exasperation! You still are blinded by the cult of Francis, and in doing so are unintentionally supporting pederasty. You honestly believe the attacks against him are some conspiracy because of his Eucemenical behavior? Look at the facts I have noted.
If a Pope is guilty of what he has been accused he should resign. Should the faithful not DEMAND that their leader be above these things? This is not merely failing to live a holy life. He demonstrated hostility toward victims of abuse, he's accused of knowing about McCarrick cover up, openly endorsed Cardinal Daneels, tried to protect Chliean Bishop, tried to change dogma by indirect ways. The list goes on and on. I don't think you understand WHO is guilty of causing schism within the church. It's funny even the German magazine Der Spiegal claims Francis made the comment he would be the one to cause schism whithin the church.
The Church needs to reform with vigor. But here's something you shouldn't miss: it always has needed to do so. Francis didn't invent this situation-- or any other situation involving clerical abuse, of which there have been myriad over the years.
And I don't believe the narrative that the abuses were
caused by homosexual orientation in the clergy. I do not deny that there were abuses-- horrible abuses-- and that many were of a homosexual nature. But I think you miss the point that has been made several times in this thread: there is no evidence that priests, overall, committed statistically more abuse than the general population. There is evidence (not even evidence... it is widely known) that a higher percentage of Catholic priests are homosexual in orientation that the general population, but the
vast majority of these priests did not abuse anyone-- and presumably maintained their vows of celibacy just as often as heterosexual priests.
I believe that the abuses that have been recently uncovered, and abuses like it, have been part of church history for centuries. Look at the situation in Ireland where thousands of infants were forcibly removed from unwed mothers by convent schools and their mothers were told it would be a grave mortal sin to try to contact their children. That is a scandal every bit as outrageous to the people of Ireland as an other, and it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
I understand the desire for purification. But
no human organization is ever going to be truly pure-- if such a thing were possible we would have no need for a Savior.
"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." Mt 18:7
There is no excuse for any sort of institutional cover up. None. If it turns out that Francis is unwilling to be open and forthcoming in the wake of scandals, I would support his decision to resign (if it comes to that).
In terms of his ecclesiastical work on "irregular situations," we are not going to see eye to eye. I understand your point. I have also know children driven from the Church and declared bastards because their parents divorced... To take a teenager, Catholic from birth, whose parents have divorced (due to a mother fleeing physical abuse, btw), declare her a bastard, and tell her she is unwelcome to the communion rail until she has retaken all her sacraments
is abuse. This is precisely the type of situation Francis refers to when he says pastors must not be too "pharisaical." And don't tell me it's not a real thing, because I've
seen it, and I've seen vulnerable, wounded people driven from the Church when they needed Her most. That is also abuse.