Monday, 15 July 2019

Brain damage and dementia perhaps not glamorous enough to allow patients to live

In reply to Vincent Lambert died on Thursday at 8.24am

Are brain damage and dementia not glamorous enough to allow patients to live, because the intellectual impairment really does make all of us uneasy about our own stupidity?

In a collective opinion page on April 18, 70
 “doctors and professionals specialized in the care of persons with cerebral palsy in a vegetative or pauci-relational state”
said about Vincent Lambert that
 “it is obvious that he is not at the end of life”.
Auestion might be:
When is a person at the end of his life?
And how far can or may we go when we see an animal or human being in a certain state which does not seem a "good living" state?

When we see an animal suffering a lot we do not let it continue to suffer, but in the case of a human being what are we willing to do? And can one say the brain-damaged French man who was in a state of impaired consciousness for 11 years, Vincent Lambert,  was suffering? When we saw life pictures of him we could not have that impression, even saw moments him laughing.

The doctors decided to stop hydration and nutrition, while keeping him as comfortable as possible while he could die of thirst and starvation. Would we let an animal starve to death?
How does it come we as human beings do not find it horrible to have an other human being die of thirst and hunger? Was it than not better to have the man sedated out of his mind?

We don't starve animals to death because it's inhumane.
How on earth can this be allowed to be done to a human being?

In such instances is it than not better to bring a person in a deep sleep and have him to die in that sleep?

Vincent Lambert died on Thursday at 8.24am

Michel Houellebecq and Pope Francis are two names seldom found in the same sentence. Yet they are united in decrying the death of Vincent Lambert, the disabled French nurse who died this week after having his food and water removed.

Vincent Lambert, the brain-damaged French man who was in a state of impaired consciousness for 11 years while his family fought over his medical care, died on Thursday at 8.24am. After getting approval from a court, doctors stopped giving him food and water. It took him nine days to die.

Although his wife claimed that Lambert had said that he would not wish to live in such an impaired state, there were no written instructions with his end-of-life wishes.
French media have reported that his parents plan to sue his medical team. While euthanasia is illegal in France, doctors are allowed to put terminally ill patients into deep sedation until death. Lambert’s parents have argued that, while severely handicapped, their son was not “terminally ill”.


Being the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis’s views are, and are supposed to be, predictable, this can not be said about France’s most acclaimed and controversial novelist, Michel Houellebecq. He wrote

"Vincent Lambert was in no way prey to unbearable suffering, he was not suffering any pain at all (...) He was not even at the end of life. He lived in a particular mental state, the most honest of which would be to say that we know almost nothing …

It was strange when we saw pictures of that man laying in his be, seeing him react on words, we can wonder in what way he would be conscious or to be considered alive?

In how far can we go into a human's mind and go to decide for him or her? In a certain way the doctors and his wife decided to allow nature to take its course. But should they have kept feeding him?


Like America’s Terri Schiavo case, this has provoked controversy around the world. Thousands upon thousands of people in “vegetative states” in nursing homes could be at risk of having their hydration and nutrition withdrawn if doctors and courts accept the reasoning behind the decision to allow Lambert to die.

Reactions to his death show that France is as divided as ever.
 “It is a real relief for us,” 
said François Lambert, Lambert’s nephew.
 “Vincent had been the victim of irrational medicine for years. It had to stop.”
Unsurprisingly, Pope Francis tweeted:
 “May God the Father welcome Vincent Lambert in His arms. Let us not build a civilization that discards persons those whose lives we no longer consider to be worthy of living: every life is valuable, always.”

Surprisingly, Michel Houellebecq, the controversial and internationally acclaimed nihilist novelist, agreed with the Pope. He was scathing in his criticism of how Lambert’s death had come about. In an op-ed in Le Monde, he attacked the French Minister for Health, Dr Agnès Buzyn, for using Lambert as a symbolic battering ram to open a breach in attitudes towards the severely disabled.
“I admit that when the Minister of ‘Solidarity and health’ had appealed in to the high court, I was stunned. I was sure that the government in this case would remain neutral. After all, [President] Emmanuel Macron had declared, not long before, that he did not wish to interfere; I thought, stupidly, that his ministers would be on the same line.
"Vincent Lambert was in no way prey to unbearable suffering, he was not suffering any pain at all (...) He was not even at the end of life. He lived in a particular mental state, the most honest of which would be to say that we know almost nothing …
"Dignity cannot be (altered) by a deterioration, as catastrophic as it may be, in one’s state of health. Or is it that there has been, indeed, a 'change in attitude'. I do not think there is any reason to rejoice, "

Van stukken van mensen naar stuk voor mensen

Patrick van der Vorst, één van de kunstspecialisten uit het VIER-programma 'Stukken Van Mensen' stopt ermee. Van der Vorst heeft namelijk besloten om zijn zaak stop te zetten en de opleiding tot priester te volgen. Van een carrièrewending gesproken.
Dia 1 van 9: Patrick van der Vorst, één van de kunstspecialisten uit het VIER-programma 'Stukken Van Mensen' stopt ermee. Van der Vorst heeft namelijk besloten om zijn zaak stop te zetten en de opleiding tot pirester te volgen. Van een carrièrewending gesproken.

Monday, 17 June 2019

Continuïteit van eeuwenoude kerkelijke teksten

 Vervolg van Wanneer een Kerk gelooft dat de hele Schrift van God komt
 
Hier in België heb ik ook vele jaren moeilijkheden gehad om mijn mede broeders in Nederland er van te overtuigen een hedendaagse versie van de Bijbel te gebruiken.

Zij gebruikten op het einde van de vorige eeuw nog steeds de Oude Nederlandse Statenvertaling met haar oubollig woordgebruik. Dit deed mijn inziens veel meer mensen afstappen om niet met onze gemeenschap vertrouwd te geraken dan mensen te lokken.

Ik had zelf enkele jaren mee gewerkt aan een hedendaagse vertaling en promote deze dan ook om te gebruiken. Vele jaren later hebben zij dan eindelijk die stap gemaakt. (Maar het heeft wel zeer lang geduurd) Nochtans vind ik het spijtig dat zij niet meerdere Bijbelvertalingen durven te gebruiken, zodat er geen misverstand kan ontstaan dat de Broeders in Christus of Christadelphians een "eigen Bijbelvertaling" zouden gebruiken om hun eigen leerstellingen te staven.

Het gebeurd namelijk zeer dikwijls dat mensen beweren dat een Bijbelvertaling door een bepaalde gemeenschap zodanig zou herschreven zijn dat zij in de kraam van die geloofsgroep zouden passen. Zo beweren heel veel mensen dat de Getuigen van Jehovah hun eigen Bijbel hebben geschreven zodat deze hun leer zou bevestigen.
De Nieuwe Wereld Vertaling die de Getuigen van Jehovah uitgeven, mag dan al door een niet geliefde geloofsgroep uitgegeven zijn, het is één van de nauwkeurigste Nederlandstalige Bijbelvertalingen in een goede hedendaagse schrijftrant.


Speciaal voor Nederlandse lezers heeft Prof. dr. Benno A. Zuiddam een samenvatting gemaakt van de onderzoeksresultaten van zijn artikel in Neotestamentica (Neotestamentica, Volume 52 Number 2, Dec 2018, p. 433 -470), dat ook een lijst bevat van de betrokken verzen zodat die na te slaan zijn in de godsdienstklas of catechisatie. Daarbij heeft hij gebruik gemaakt van Google translate, zodat vooral in de voetnoten het Nederlands niet altijd vlekkeloos is. 

Voor hem valt het op dat er drie verschillende categorieën van weglatingen zijn: speciale statusverzen, 'ontbrekende' verzen en belangrijke weglatingen uit de huidige verzen. Dit zijn allemaal bijbelgedeelten die door latere tekstreconstructies niet authentiek zijn bevonden. 
Men mag niet vergeten dat in vele Bijbelvertalingne ook wordt aangegeven wanneer er twijfel is over een bepaalde tekst of ontbrekende tekst.  Hoewel ze niet echt 'ontbreken', worden ze gemarkeerd als dubieus of niet authentiek.  Het feit dat de meeste Bijbels deze verzen toch afdrukken, moet ons niet doen denken dat bijbels die deze verzen niet vermelden dan tekort zouden schieten. (Lees hier over: De verdwenen verzen in moderne Bijbels)
In dat artikel staan meer dan twintig verzen die uit moderne Bijbels verdwenen zijn, maar wel in de Statenvertaling staan. Dit controleren is een leuk project voor de godsdienstles of de catechisatie.
Benno Zuiddam merkt op
De overlevering zit vol fouten, zegt men, en wij moeten de oorspronkelijke tekst van de Schrift proberen te reconstrueren. Pas sinds een kleine honderd jaar denken we dat dit wenselijk en mogelijk is. Of benaderd kan worden.

Heel wat Nederlandse kerkgemeenschappen gaan voort met hun eeuwenoude traditie van een bepaald woordgebruik.  Bepaalde protestantse groepen gaan daarin zo ver dat zelfs hun zogenaamde nieuwe Bijbelvertalingen nog vol ouderwetse woorden een zinsvormen staan. De Herziene Statenvertaling blinkt niet echt uit van een hedendaags taalgebruik.

Omtrent vertalingen merkt Zuidma nog op
Door zinsdeel voor zinsdeel uit duizenden handschriften te kiezen, werd een reconstructie van de oorspronkelijke tekst beoogd. Technisch werd het echter een nieuwe tekst, waarvoor als zodanig echter primaire bronnen ontbreken. Het is dus een zaak van geloof in de afwegingen van het comité en in de religieuze wenselijkheid van zo’n reconstructie.

Lees verder meer in: Maakt het uit welke Bijbel je gebruikt?

Wanneer een Kerk gelooft dat de hele Schrift van God komt

Aan de hand van welke vaste Bijbel mensen lezen kan men dikwijls hun geloofsgroep herkennen.

De keuze van de Bijbelvertalings toont volgens Prof. dr. Benno Zuiddam wat we geloven over Gods spreken in ons leven. Hij beseft ook dat de keuze van een bijbelvertaling ook bepalend is voor onze
beleving van de gemeenschap der heiligen, de kerk van alle tijden en plaatsen.
Veel te veel mensen die zich aan bepaalde geloofsgroepen en hun Bijbel ergeren, beseffenniet dat de almachtige God sterk genoeg is om over Zijn eigen Woord te waken. Veel trinitariërs schimpen op de Nieuwe Wereldvertaling, ook al is dat één van de beste nauwkeurige vertalingen van de Bijbel. Dikwijls is de tegenstand tegen een bepaalde Bijbel bepaald door de geloofsgemeenschap waartoe men behoort. Zo wordt bijvoorbeeld een andere zeer goede vertaling, de Willebrord vertaling van 1978, door vele protestanten afgedaan als een niet te kopen of te lezen Bijbel.

Toen wij enkele jaren geleden nog enkele cpopiën van meerdere Bijbels wensten te kopen voor Bijbelstudiedagen die wij gaven, konden wij in de Leuvense boekhandel "Het Goede Boek" weerstand vinden voor het leveren van Katholieke Bijbels. Slechts enkele (veel gevraagde) waren verstopt achter protestantse Bijbels te verkrijgen.

Blijkbaar werd de keuze van aanbod bepaalt door hun eigen gebruikte bijbelvertalingen en geloofde men er niet in dat God over de vertalingen van Zijn Woord wel zou waken.

Het afschrijven van bepaalde Bijbelvertalingen heeft meestal meer met het niet vertrouwen van God te maken. Die werken die als Gods Woord verkocht worden zouden namelijk effectief Gods Woord moeten zijn. Zij die aan de vertalingen werken van dat zeer bijzonder speciale Boek, weten maar al te goed welk de consequenties zijn om mee te werken aan zulk een vertaling. Want God wikkelt er geen doekjes om hoe veel belang Hij er aan hecht dat Zijn Woord onveranderd bij de mensen zou komen.

Hij Zelf beweert dat Hij er op toe zal zien dat er geen jota van Zijn Woord zal veranderd worden. Aldus zullen de mensen moeten weten dat de Allerhoogste God Die Spreekt via die Bestseller aller tijden, onfeilbaar is en waakt over Zijn Woord.

De Vroege Kerk antwoordde hierop ook al bevestigend als men haar bevroeg over de correctheid van Gods Boek: de Bijbel.
Toen een Latijnse vertaling in de vierde eeuw één woordje uit het boek Jona veranderde, brak er een rel uit in de kerk van Afrika. Augustinus verbood die Bijbel in zijn gemeente. Moderne Bijbels veranderen heel veel meer. Maakt het uit welke Bijbel je kiest?
vraagt de professor zich af.
Op het eerste gezicht lijkt het weinig verschil te maken. Het Evangelie lezen we in alle Bijbels, van (Herziene) Statenvertaling tot Groot Nieuws/NBV.
Velen doen alsof er zo een groot verschil tussen die vele Bijbelvertalingen zou zijn, maar men zou verrast zijn als men dit eens in grafieken zou omzetten.
Omgerekend gaat het om één verschillend woord per honderd woorden in het Nieuwe Testament; 99 procent is gewoon in alle vertalingen hetzelfde.
Als men die kleine verschillen bekijkt vanuit het tijdsgebeuren en het dan aangehangen taalgebruik ziet men hoe de vertalers de bijbel gewoon in een zo 'dagelijkse' taal vorm wensten  te gieten. Op enkele jaren tijd kunnen woorden zelfs een heel andere betekenis hebben of een heel ander beeld vormen bij de lezers. Hiertoe tracht men dan ook een nieuwe Bijbelvertaling aan te passen aan de gewone gebruiken en verstandhoudingen.

waar het op aan komt is dat mensen dat Woord van God moeten kunnen begrijpen en dat het hen moet vormen in hun geloof.
De hoofdzaken van het christelijk geloof zijn in bijna alle vertalingen terug te vinden. Als je dus praktisch verder wilt komen als christen lijkt het voor de hand te liggen om voor een goed leesbare, moderne Bijbel te kiezen. Ook als kerkverband. We willen immers kerk van deze tijd zijn?
geeft de professor toe.
De kerk heeft altijd geloofd dat de hele Schrift van God komt. Volgens de gereformeerd-katholieke leer bevat de Bijbel geen inspirerende verhaaltjes van religieuze mensen, maar spreekt God door mensenmonden. De Vroege Kerk sprak van ”heilige letters en lettergrepen”.

Lees hier meer over:

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

Vorming voor zorgprofessionals: 'Omgaan met het levenseinde'

Begin van dit jaar heeft Biofides een vervolg kunnen geven aan een vormingstraject 'Omgaan met het levenseinde' bij de Petites Soeurs des Pauvres of 'Zusterkens der Armen', in België. Na Brussel en Namen (in het Frans) was nu Antwerpen aan de beurt, in het Nederlands.

Opnieuw bleek het goed mogelijk om - ongeacht de persoonlijke overtuiging van de individuele zorgprofessionals (artsen, verpleegkundigen, verzorgenden, maar ook ondersteunend personeel in de zorginstelling) begrip te wekken voor het standpunt: dat wij nooit intentioneel en daadwerkelijk een einde zouden mogen maken aan het leven van een 'terminale' of 'ondragelijk lijdende' mens, noch 'actief' noch door omissie (of 'passief').
Tegelijk mogen wij het leven niet oneindig 'rekken' door in feite zinloze medische handelingen. Op een zeker moment moeten wij de dood aanvaarden. De dood hoort blijkbaar bij het aardse leven. Palliatieve zorg die zich niet beperkt tot het lichamelijke, maar ook rekening houdt met het spirituele: de overgang naar het 'andere' leven; gepaard gaand met de best denkbare ondersteuning (menselijke nabijheid, sociaal-psychologische en vanzelfsprekend medische zorg), vormen de meest menswaardige begeleiding op weg naar het levenseinde hier op aarde. Actieve levensbeëindiging is - uitgaande van het bestaan van eeuwig leven en de onsterfelijke ziel (en er zijn veel redenen om dat te veronderstellen, ook indien men niet gelovig is) ons inziens ook niet in het belang van de patiënt. Want wat zijn er de gevolgen van 'aan gene zijde' van de (geprovoceerde) dood? 

Bij de Biofides vorming is er veel ruimte voor het delen van de eigen ervaringen, het verhelderen van de gehanteerde begrippen rond het levenseinde, de wetgeving en de religieuze overtuiging van de directies van christelijke zorginstellingen. Zij beweren niemand te
komen 'bekeren' en respecteren ieders persoonlijke opvatting.

Tijdens een éénmalige vormingsbijeenkomst in het Vormingscentrum Guislain, in Gent, van de Broeders van Liefde, bleek hetzelfde mogelijk: zonder taboes eerlijk en open spreken over dit delicate onderwerp, zonder zo maar mee te gaan in de redeneertrant van de hedendaagse cultuur, en er een redelijk aternatief voor aanbieden. Zoals bij de 'Zusterkens' waren de reacties uitermate positief zodat men verwacht dat dit nog wel een vervolg zal kennen.


 Bent u geïnteresseerd, laat Biofides het weten: info@biofides.eu (ook voor Nederland).

Monday, 20 May 2019

Pastoral discipline and dissent from papal teaching


Controversial Pope + Catholics attacking their own so called infallible pope continued

Normally the Roman Catholic Church requires assent to all her teaching, whether that teaching comes from the universal episcopate of all the bishops or from the head of the bishops, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
With regard to papal teaching, the Catholics must adhere to all of it according to the Pope’s intention in giving it to the people, his “manifest mind and will.”

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
 Throughout history, there have always been Catholics who have wanted to dissent from the teaching of the popes. Anytime a cleric was accused and proved of heresy, it necessarily resulted in the break of communion, excommunication, deposition, or at least the removal of one’s name from the sacred diptychs. In the past new denominations came to life because of those not agreeing with the pope of Rome, getting followers behind them and as such creating a new 'church'.

Today, we can find theological “liberals” who do not like some of the “old fashioned” teaching of the Church, particular with regard to sexual matters, but at the same time we can find very conservatives who find there is too much liberty now and do not agree with a lots of sayings of this present pope, Francis I.
Some people find that the pope said wrong or even distasteful things with regard to pastoral discipline for those in irregular “marriage” unions as well as his recent teaching on the death penalty.  Some theologians have argued that dissent from papal teaching in certain circumstances is allowed by the Church. One of the main magisterial documents they have appealed to is a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called Donum Veritatis (“On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”)

Throughout history the Roman pontiff has passed more than ones judgement on scientists, bishops and on people who had other ideas than him. Several popes went so far to call others to kill those who did not agree with the Roman Catholic church or did not want to accept the Roman popes power.

Those who were accused of heresy could fear the 'army' of the Catholic Church.

It is impossible to think popes are infallible when they agreed to have crusades and inquisitions as tools to gather power  and material treasures. 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is saying that the Pope of Rome is untouchable, however much we can disagree with him, and that formal judgments and anathemas on a heretical Pope would have to be left to successors of future Ecumenical Councils (themselves ratified by the Pope).

The Roman Catholic teaching is said to rest on theological conclusion that Christ founded his church, not on himself, but on Peter; that Peter was the first pope of the Catholic Church. Though nowhere can they proof that Peter would have been infallible and that his (so called ) authority and infallibility would be passed from Peter to successors. That early tradition and Church history support the claim in principle; that these conclusions are confirmed by this terrible sanction imposed by the Church:
“All who refuse to assent to her teaching are threatened with eternal damnation.”
This way the Roman catholic church could have power and control over a lot of people.

The dogma of infallibility was proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870 over violent opposition from within the ranks of the Hierarchy itself. Prior to the assembly no less than 162 bishops signified they were opposed to the proclaiming of such a dogma, and after the assembly was called more than two months were consumed with heated debates over the issue.
 “Scarcely in any parliament have important matters ever been subjected to as much discussion as was the question of papal infallibility in the Vatican Council.”
Today, more than half a century after the second Vatican council, announced by Pope John XXIII on Jan. 25, 1959, as a means of spiritual renewal for the church and as an occasion for Christians separated from Rome to join in search for reunion, the world saw first the newer popes breaking away what Pope John XXIII had established as a progressive pope. After Pope Benedict XVI wanted to step down the conservative bishops had hope the South American bishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio would continue the conservative direction.

The year 2013 was annus mirabilis (a “wonderful year”) for the Roman Catholic Church. On February 28, 85-year-old Pope Benedict XVI, in a decision that stunned the world, resigned from the papacy. On March 13, following the conclave of 115 cardinals who gathered in the Sistine Chapel and elected Benedict XVI’s successor, a bespectacled and smiling Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, appeared before the cheering crowd in the square outside St. Peter’s Basilica to be presented to the world by his new name: Pope Francis. The moment marked four historic firsts: the first papal resignation in modern history, the first non-European pope in 1,272 years and the first ever from the Americas, the first of the 266 popes in history to take the name Francis (after St. Francis of Assisi), and the first pope from the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). {Encyc. Britannica}
Francis first maintained the traditional views of the Church regarding abortion, marriage, ordination of women, and clerical celibacy, but left some opening for Anglican ministers who where married to come into the Catholic church to work there as a priest too.

Opposing consumerism and overdevelopment, he wanted to show he too was willing to live abstemious, having St. Francis as his example.

Since 2016, Francis has faced increasingly open criticism, particularly from theological conservatives, on the question of admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion with the publication of Amoris laetitia and on the question of the alleged cover-up of clergy sexual abuse

Voices are growing wanting others to believe the world would have a heretical pope during the term of his office.

to be continued

Indulgence still offered by roman Catholic Church

Centuries ago Luther opposed the rulings about indulgences, but today they are still going strong by the Roman Catholics.

Pope Francis 02
No, Pope Francis won’t get you out of Hell for following him on Twitter.

The Vatican “jumped” on the heretical bandwagon in 2013 by offering “indulgences” to reduce time in “purgatory”, to those who follow Pope Francis on “Twitter” during World Youth Day.

Also in 2019 Pope Francis has granted a "plenary indulgence" for those taking partat the World Meeting of Families in August. Even those following events on TV and radio could achieve a partial indulgence as long as they recited the Our Father, the Creed and other devout prayers. 
The Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body dealing with forgiveness of sins, said pilgrims would have to attend confession and Mass, pray for the Pope's intentions and participate in some function during the five-day event.

As foolish as this sounds to “intelligent” people, we must wonder if Catholics will ever “wake up” and realize their religion teaches a “false and fatal” gospel that leads them on the broad “road to destruction?”
is said by many protestants.
 
How many more “blatantly” false teachings must come out of the Vatican before Catholics realize they have been “deceived” about life’s most critical issue, the “salvation of their soul?”

Catholics, who believe a “purifying” fire will purge away their sins, are “deluded” victims of a “fatal” fabrication.
Pope Francis 04

The “diabolical” invention of a place for the purification of sins called “Purgatory” is not only a flagrant “denial” of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ, but also a “blasphemous” rejection of his precious blood as the only “purification” for sin. furthermore it continues thinking in the line that God would be a horrible tirrant wishing or loving to have His children tortured in hellfire or purgatory fire.

Pope Francis 03The “concept” of Purgatory became a Catholic “doctrine” around 600 C.E. due to the “fanaticism” of Pope Gregory the Great.
He “developed” the doctrine through “visions” of a purifying fire.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Gregory said Catholics
 “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,”
and
“the pain is more intolerable than anyone can suffer in this life.”
Centuries later, at the Council of Florence in 1431, Purgatory was pronounced an “infallible dogma.”

Over the centuries, “billions” of dollars have been paid to Roman Catholic priests to obtain “relief” from sufferings in Purgatory’s fire.
The Catholic clergy has taught that purchasing “indulgences, novenas and Mass cards” can shorten the period of “suffering” in Purgatory.

There have been Catholics who have “willed” their entire “estates” to their religion so that “perpetual masses” could be offered for them “after” they die.
It is no “wonder” that the Catholic religion has become the “richest” institution in the world.
The “buying and selling” of God’s forgiveness has been a very “lucrative” business for the Vatican.

In 2014, the pope mentioned hell when calling the Mafia to conversion. In 2016, he said that people who do not open their hearts to Christ will end up condemning themselves to hell. The same year, he referred to hell as "the truth" and described it as being
 "far away from the Lord for eternity."
 In 2018 social media went crazy with reports that Pope Francis had denied the existence of hell.

The most extensive papal explanation of hell came in response to a 2015 question from a female scout who asked,
"If God forgives everyone, why does hell exist?"
 Francis acknowledged that this was a "good and difficult question."
The pope spoke of a very proud angel who was envious of God, reports Catholic News Service.

"He wanted God's place,"
 said Francis.
"And God wanted to forgive him, but he said, 'I don't need your forgiveness. I am good enough!'"
"This is hell,"
 explained the pope.
"It is telling God, 'You take care of yourself because I'll take care of myself.' They don't send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there. Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God's love. This is hell."
Most contemporary theologians would agree with the pope. Hell is not about fire and brimstone; it is about our freedom to say no to God, our freedom to reject love and choose loneliness. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe in hell.

When we close our hearts and tell the world to go to hell, we are in fact choosing hell for ourselves. Hell is the absence of love, companionship, communion. We are not sent there; we choose it.
God did not create hell; we did.

++

Find also to read
  1. Pope Francis grants indulgences for Dublin participants
  2. Pope to grant indulgences at Dublin World Meeting of Families
  3. Pope Francis Grants Indulgence to the Faithful during the 50th Anniversary of the Diocese of St. Petersburg



Controversial Pope



Lots of bishops having to chose the new pope thought to be on the save side by going for a simple humble South American Bishop.


It turned completely against their expectations, now having a pope who dares to say other things than lots of conservative bishops want to have the people hear.

Pope Francis is “turning” out to be one of the most “controversial” popes in modern history since his “election” to the papacy on March 13, 2013.

Some of his saying are called contradictory to Catholic teachings and even to his own sayings. 
For example:
  • The day he was elected pope he said he would “pray to Mary” for the protection of Rome.
  • Later he appeared to “contradict” himself by saying, “He who doesn’t pray to the Lord, prays to the devil.”
Concerning the salvation there seems a battle of thought by Catholics and Protestants, people saying by the death of Christ salvation is given to all. Though when the pope said everyone, “even atheists,” are redeemed with the “Blood of Christ” this was considered by many Catholic priests a heresy.
To enhance his “progressive” reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Worse was the pope his questioning who he was to judge for example gay people.
  “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Pope Francis “faulted” again the Roman Catholic church, according many Catholic clergy for focusing too much on “gays, abortion and contraception”, saying the church has become “obsessed” with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be “home for all”.

**

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, Cardinal Blase Cupich, former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta, Bishop Juan Barros, and Father James Martin, SJ., find lots of harm is caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years, which have given rise to one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church.

They wrote a letter following the 2017 “Filial Correction of Pope Francis,” which claimed that the pope Francis had
 “effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”
Four cardinals subsequently issued public demands for clarification to Francis. Francis did not “reply” to either request, prompting a group of  62 Catholic priests, theologians, and academics to issue a “filial correction” formally accusing him of “propagating” seven heretical positions and urging him to “correct” those positions.

Catholics attacking their own so called infallible pope

The Roman Catholics always say the Bishop of Rome is the true leader of the Roman Catholic Church who as Peter's heir to the throne is the infallible pope.

After Easter several letters found the light wherein Catholic clergy and scholars, have accused Pope Francis of “heresy”.


The pope’s “theological orthodoxy”, particularly after the publication of his 2016 post-synodal apostolic exhortation on “marriage, divorce and Holy Communion” in the Latin title “Amoris Laetitia” (The Joy of Love) and what they see as his inappropriate handling of the “sex abuse” crisis is considered according them constituting heresy.

A letter, dated “Easter Week", exhorts bishops to “investigate” the claims of heresy against Francis and, if they find them “valid”, to admonish him to “renounce” those heresies or “remove” him from the papacy.
“Taken together, the words and actions of Pope Francis amount to a comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins,” the open letter states.

The letter’s authors “clarified” that there is a demonstrable link between Francis’ “rejection of Catholic teaching” and what they see as his preferential “treatment” of clergy friendly to his views who have been accused of “sexual” misconduct.

The 20-page letter lays out its intentions in the very first line:
“first, to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy, and second, to request that the bishops take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope.”

The letter writers base their “accusation” on the pope’s alleged embrace of positions “contrary” to the Catholic faith as well as his overt “support” for prelates who have shown “disrespect” for the Church’s “faith and morals.”

Much of the material offered as evidence of heresy comes from “Amoris Laetitia”, and deals with “sexual ethics and sacramental theology”, while a large section of the letter is devoted to showing the pope’s misconduct by
 “praising clerics and laity who advance these heresies, or by naming them to influential posts, or by protecting clerics of this kind from punishment or demotion when they have committed gravely immoral and criminal acts.”