Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation.
By the comments of the afflicted we shall know them...
This piece comes from some reflections I had on the comments from an article written by Carl Olson on Catholic World Report. Carl Olson is notable in that he was a big defender of Bergoglio, to the point of seemingly denying reality in order to do so.
That is no longer the case, as I had written previously. I expect any Catholic of any integrity to be joining him in condemning Bergoglio's shenanigans.
There are many informative comments regarding the interveiw wherein Bergoglio tries to create an equivalence in perception between the Great Commission to evangelise the whole world, and the actions of ISIS and Islamists to conquer the whole world by blood. The man has touched off many nerves, and people are fed up.
The Catholic World Report is far from a traditionalist website, and if I am not mistaken, many of the commenters have at least in the past been very vocal against the SSPX in particular. It is evident that Bergoglio's scandals have pushed even Novus Ordo Catholics against the wall and being there, more and more are realising they have to push back against what is a pirate of a pope. Carl Olson had 2 very good pieces within the space of a week - the other being the one about deaconesses, an idea Bergoglio typically suggested needs revision - and I have seen that with a lot of the other non-traditionalist Catholics who still respect the integrity of the faith.
I expect that trend to continue as Bergoglio's assaults against Holy Mother Church and the Holy Trinity become all the clearer.
Of all the comments to the piece, these two seemed to capture the essence of the situation:
I think after three years, I have no doubts in my mind that Francis lacks the academic stamina to lead Catholicism. This was first observed to me by a guy from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Every time Francis gives an interview, he reveals a shocking shallowness in his responses. He does not spend time to think through these issues. ...He makes ridiculous statements that betray a shocking superficiality in his thinking. The Great Commission has nothing, not even a remote analogy to Islamic Jihad...The question is: must Francis give these interviews? They help no one. Can't he maintain some silence and reflect? A Pope who is always talking has nothing to say.
Then we have this one, reflecting on the state of those who elected this very queer man:
At this point, one must conclude that trying to parse the statements of the Holy Father is like trying to pick up blobs of mercury with a pitchfork. Even more difficult is to try to relate them to authentic Christianity, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the history of Christian civilization, and the role of the papacy. He appears to be one of the most uninformed people in Europe when it comes to any discussion of things Christian. The real concern is not what it says about Francis – who, after all, is just one confused individual – but what it says about the college of Cardinals who elected him.
As to those who twist Bergoglio's around trying to make them sound Catholic or rational, Carl Olson had this pointed response to one of the commenters:
Glad to know what you think the Pope said in general. However, I was commenting on what he actually said.
So there we have it. From these comments, taken in order, we can see that some have concluded that Bergoglio is simply a "malignant buffoon". Others have realised that Bergoglio cannot be taken in isolation, and one must wonder whatever possessed the cardinal electors to vote for such an un-Catholic man. Then we have those who attempt to twist Bergoglio's words and Christian teaching with them, so as either to aid him in his assault on the faith, or hide from the brutal reality that they would otherwise have to confront.