Saturday, December 10, 2016

Dementia Signs: Pope Francis's Comments on Poop Eating and Priests Caressing Children

Pope Francis's comments on poop eating are now infamous. Many are outraged, but I think the proper response is pity.

Most people don't realize that poop fixation and poop eating are signs of dementia as well as mental illness. To read more on these signs of metal unfitness and other signs of the Pope having dementia click below:

Pope Francis like President Reagan needs to say he will resign his office if he is found mentally unfit.

It appears at the very least the Bishops, Cardinals and Catholic media have to ask the Pope to receive a battery of psychological tests. 

At worst they need to ask him to resign for his own good to get the care he needs and for the good of the Church.

Pitifully, Francis's unbalanced comments continued on December 9 when he spoke of "healthy" priests caressing children. He said:

“Once, a person told me what kind of priest a man was by the attitude they had with children: if they knew how to caress a child."[,_worldliness_a_disaster_for_priests/1277926]

Fr. John Hunwicke speaking on this
comment and others said it best:

"Fr Z also provided a link to a sermon preached by Papa Bergoglio in the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Coming as it does so soon after publication of the Sovereign Pontiff's words about shit-eating, this puerile and unbalanced attack upon those the pope appears to enjoy hating seems to me ... I feel compelled by Canon 212 paragraph 3 and the Holy Father's own often expressed desire for Parrhesia to say this ... to raise disturbing questions about Pope Francis' mind." []

Unfortunately, the Pope's unbalanced words have consequences.

It is possible for mentally unfit priests to use Pope Francis's comments on "healthy" priests caressing children to justify sex abuse.

It is possible for these sick clerics to use chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" to justify "irregular relationships" involving children.

Sadly, the logical consequence of the apparent confused teachings of Francis, not just a mentally unfit priest's diseased mind, could lead one to imagine a press conference, using the reductio ad absurdum method of reasoning, where the Pope

"I was wrong to say that priests that have irregular relationships with children are committing sex abuse and committing mortal sin.

That is not merciful.

These priests may be in a state of grace and they might be able to stay in these irregular relationships and receive Holy Communion, but with discernment and in limited situations.

Amoris Laetitia says those who 'hid[e] behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality.' Therefore,  'it is not enough simply to apply moral laws . . . as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.'

The priests 'may know full well the rule, yet . . . be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin' (AL 301).

Remember the difference between objective sin and subjective guilt. Since there are in priests lives 'mitigating factors . . . it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregularsituation' – such as priests that have irregular relationships with children   – 'are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace' (AL 301).

As I said we 'find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful' (AL 37).

The priests 'may know full well the rule, yet . . . be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin' (AL 301).

'Since ‘time is greater than space,’ I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.'(Amoris Laetitia 3).

I understand that the rigorists want black and white rules for priests that have irregular relationships with children and 'I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion' (AL 308)."

"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion."[]

No comments:

Post a Comment