Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of Interest

February 19, 2015

(ChurchMilitant.TV) Hello, everyone, and welcome to The Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I’m Michael Voris.

What appears to be a conflict of interest at the Vatican is raising eyebrows across the Catholic world.

Papal spokesman and English translator Fr. Thomas Rosica, who in his public position with the Holy See should always be striving to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality, has been taking to social media and expressing his personal opinions. For example, a short while ago a key African Archbishop, Charles Palmer-Buckle of Ghana, came out publicly saying he’s open to allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

His comments caused quite the stir, largely because they exploded the impression that all the African hierarchy are against the idea. Here was an African bishop publicly stating his support, or at least his openness.

When the article came out on a twitter feed, papal spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica re-tweeted it, suggesting of course that he supports the idea.

Representatives of the Pope, whose duties are to express the Pope’s wishes, should not be using their offices to express their own opinion, appearing to gin up support for a case that is the very issue at hand for those above him to debate at October’s Synod. But this is not the first occasion that Fr. Rosica has gone to social media to express personal “out there” thoughts and opinions.

Father Rosica has publicly stated, for example, that this question of giving Holy Communion to those living in adultery is a “continuing journey.”

He said in a public interview, “I feel that deep down something has to change here.” And this is precisely the point: what Fr. Rosica thinks or feels makes no difference.

This priest represents the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ. Frankly, he doesn’t get to have a public opinion. He knew that when he took the job.

There is a list a mile long of very questionable and very public comments by Fr. Rosica that are not only questionable because of their theological import, but exactly because when he speaks, he speaks with the authority of a close aide to the Pope himself.

It gives the impression that Pope Francis is either ignorant of his minions and their doings, or he is supportive of their mouthings.

Imagine White House spokesman Josh Earnest standing in front of reporters and saying or tweeting out that the US needs to attack the Middle East. An announcement would be made the next day by the NEW white house spokesman that Mr. Earnest had resigned for personal reasons.

In an absolute shocking announcement at last October’s Synod on the Family, Fr. Thomas Rosica publicly stated that the Holy Family—Our Blessed Lord, Our Blessed Mother, and St. Joseph—constituted an “irregular” family in an attempt to justify the rationalizations in the infamous Midterm Relatio calling for near-normalization and acceptance of sodomy and adultery.

The term “irregular” was in the Relatio and was referring to sinful relationships, such as same-sex couples and those living in adulterous situations.

That a priest of God would even dare to think such a thought, and then utter such a comment—much less announce it in front of the entire world press corps—shows a grave lack of prudence and suggests something much deeper is at play.

Divine Justice must surely visit one who impurely suggests that the Holy Family was “irregular”, as in they lived the carnal complications of fallen twisted human nature. And this man is a spokesman for the Vicar of Christ?

What’s going on here? Why does his boss Fr. Frederico Lombardi not silence him, or reduce him to position of file boy?

We ourselves had a personal encounter with Fr. Rosica in the Holy See Press briefing room at the Synod. He approached us and said, “Do you really think that these irregular situations don’t have any good in them, nothing, not one thing?”

I answered him immediately, “Not if they go to Hell, Father.” He immediately drew back in dramatic flare and said, “The Church doesn’t teach that.”

To be certain, the Church does absolutely teach that dying in a state of mortal sin warrants a soul eternal damnation and the Church teaches that adultery and sodomy are mortal sins.

Is Fr. Rosica laboring under the mistaken belief that the Church no longer teaches that these actions are sinful? Is he suggesting that the Church no longer teaches these sins are mortal? Is papal spokesman Fr. Rosica suggesting—in total defiance of Church teaching—that dying in a state of mortal sin no longer merits a soul hell?

Is it a conflict of interest for a papal spokesman to keep expressing his personal opinion and either asserting that the Pope holds the same opinion or creating that impression? How is this situation being allowed to continue? A lot of people are beginning to wonder.

GOD love you.

I’m Michael Voris

Link:

• Conflicts of Interest

Related:

• Pope Francis Spokesperson Fr. Rosica threatens to sue Catholic blogger for expressing opinions on synod

A Strange Thing Jesus Said to a Paralyzed Man – Another Insight from Pope Benedict’s New Book

By Msgr. Charles Pope

The Gospel from Monday the second week of Advent is the gospel of the paralyzed man who is lowered through the roof. It is presented to us in Advent because, among the many prophecies about the Messiah, would be that the lame would walk. But the Gospel also helps us to focus on Jesus’ central mission for us, and it is very provocatively expressed in this Gospel.

The Gospel passage contains a rather peculiar and somewhat awkward moment. Jesus looks at a paralyzed man and says to him,  As for you, your sins are forgiven (Lk 5:20). What a strange thing to say to a paralyzed man.

The Pharisees and scribes of course are all worked up for other reasons, but their reason is not ours, we know that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Let us stay focused on the strange thing to say to a paralyzed man, your sins are forgiven you.

One of us modern folk might be tempted to tap Jesus on the shoulder and say, “Ah excuse me, Lord, this man is paralyzed, his problem is paralysis, that’s what he needs healing for.”

Of course Jesus is not blind or unintelligent, knows this. But looking at a paralyzed man he does not see the paralysis as his most serious problem. The man has a far more serious problem, his sin.

Now most of us, who live in the world, have the world’s priorities, and we do not think like this. The Lord sees something more serious than paralysis, and we think, “What can be more serious than paralysis?!”But not as man sees, does God see. For God, the most serious problem we have is our sin. But again, we don’t think like this, and even being told we should think like this, we still don’t think like this.

For most of us, influenced by the flesh, are far more devastated by the loss of our physical health, or the loss of money, or the loss of a job, or some large worldly asset, than we are by the fact that we have sin. Threaten our physical health and well-being, or one of our larger physical assets, and we’re on our knees begging God for help. Yet most human beings have far less concern for their spiritual well-being. More often than not we are not nearly so devastated by sin that can deprive us of eternal life, as we are devastated by the loss of our health or some worldly thing.

Even many of us who have some sense of the spiritual life struggle with this obtuseness, and misplaced sense of priorities. Even in our so-called spiritual life, our prayers are often dominated by concerns that God will fix our health, improve or finances, get us a job, etc. It is not wrong to pray for these things, and we should. But honestly how often do we pray to be freed of our sins, do we really and earnestly pray to grow in holiness and to be prepared to see God face-to-face? Sometimes it almost sounds as if we are asking God to make this world more comfortable and we’ll just stay here forever. This attitude is an affront to the truer Gifts God is offering.

And so it is that Jesus, looking at a paralyzed man, says to him, your sins are forgiven. In so doing he addresses the man’s most serious problem first. Only secondarily does he speak to the man’s paralysis, which he almost seems to have overlooked in comparison to the issue of sin.

We have much to learn hear about how God sees, and what really are the most crucial issues in our life.

Joseph and Mary were told to call the child “Jesus,” for he would save his people from their sins. Of this fact Pope Benedict speaks in his latest book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives:

…Joseph is entrusted with a further task: “Mary will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).… On the one hand, a lofty theological task is assigned to the child, for only God can forgive sins. So this child is immediately associated with God, directly linked with God’s holy and saving power. On the other hand, though, this definition of the Messiah’s mission could appear disappointing. The prevailing expectations of salvation were primarily focused upon Israel’s concrete sufferings–on the reestablishment of the kingdom of David, on Israel’s freedom and independence, and naturally that included material prosperity for this largely impoverished people. The promise of forgiveness of sins seems both too little and too much: too much, because it trespasses upon God’s exclusive sphere; too little, because there seems to be no thought of Israel’s concrete suffering or its true need for salvation.

Pope Benedict then cites this same story of the paralytic and says,

 

Jesus responded [to the presence of the paralyzed man] in a way that was quite contrary to the expectation of the bearers and the sick man himself, saying: “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). This was the last thing anyone was expecting this was the last thing they were concerned about.…

The Pope concludes:

 

Man is a relational being. And if his first, fundamental relationship is disturbed–his relationship with God–then nothing else can be truly in order. This is where the priority lies in Jesus’ message and ministry: before all else he wants to point man toward the essence of his malady.

Yes, God sees things rather differently than we do. There is much to consider the fact that Jesus says paralyzed man your sins are forgiven you.

Link:

• A Strange Thing Jesus Said to a Paralyzed Man – Another Insight from Pope Benedict’s New Book

Scholar Says Mormon Scripture Not an Egyptian Translation

(Signature Books) Chicago—In 1835 a traveling curiosity peddler of Egyptian mummies arrived in the small town of Kirtland, Ohio. He caught the attention of Joseph Smith (1805-44), the controversial founder of the Mormon religion.

Smith secured a large sum of money from his followers ($2,400, or $60,000 in today’s dollars) to purchase four Egyptian mummies with scrolls of papyri. Smith announced that he could do what no one else could do: translate the ancient hieroglyphics. Smith asserted that the papyri contained the writings of the biblical prophets Abraham and Joseph. He titled his translation of the papyri the “Book of Abraham.” Smith’s translation contained several images from the papyri and in 1851 was published as part of the Mormon scripture called “The Pearl of Great Price.”

Now, for the first time, the surviving papyri have been translated into English in their entirety. In analyzing and translating the ancient texts, Robert K. Ritner, foremost American scholar of Egyptology, has determined that they were prepared for deceased men and women in Thebes during the Greco-Roman period. They have nothing to do with Abraham, Joseph, or a planet called Kolob, as Smith had claimed.

“Except for those willfully blind,” writes Professor Ritner of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, “the case is closed.” In his new book, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, he also accuses two scholars of Egyptology at Mormon-owned Brigham Young University of borrowing and distorting his own writings in trying to defend Smith’s interpretations as authentically translated Egyptian. Smith’s translation narrative tells of a young Abraham who is about to become a human sacrifice at the request of his father. It also tells of a human pre-mortal existence and teaches that the Egyptian pharaohs were cursed by God (leading to the Mormon priesthood restrictions on African Americans). It also established the Mormon theology for multiple gods.

The Mormon Church restricts access to the original papyri, which it owns. Ritner gained access to high resolution scans through a third party. He concluded that the papyri are ordinary Egyptian funeral texts, with possibly a few interesting side notes. For example, one of the Smith papyri is the “Document of Breathing Made by Isis” and is the oldest known datable copy (pre-150 BCE). Otherwise, Ritner states, anyone investigating claims of ancient evidence for Smith’s translation should not “waste his time,” although he does admit “that the study of the Mormon period of Egyptomania is interesting by itself...”

Read More