Gerard Nadal Ph D nails it …

Gerard Nadal Ph D nails it … May 27, 2014

…concerning the Greatest Catholics of All Time once again bashing our good and holy pope:

“Some other award winning and sensational headlines from years gone by:

Jesus Dines with Prostitutes

Galilean Rabbi Allows Woman with 12-year Hemorrhage to Touch Him.

Jesus at it Again, This Time Dines with Tax Collector.

Nazorean has Feet Washed by Whore’s Tears, Dried by Her Hair

Whore-Loving Rabbi Demands Jews Eat His Flesh, Drink His Blood as Admission Price for Heaven.

Dregs of Society will Inherit Heaven, When Will He End the Madness?

Rabbi Claims to be Doctor for the Sick, Ends Stoning of Adulteress. Is He Encouraging Sin?

Rabbi has it Backward. Conversion FIRST, Then Acceptance.

Sorry, but I’m beginning to see a heartlessness and self-righteousness in conservative and orthodox circles that is unnerving. As Father Groeschel once told me, ‘The sins against sex are the most humiliating, but the sins against charity are the most damning.'”

I’m so sick of these people. The author of the piece hates Francis with a white hot passion, a fact that must be as surely known to her editors as to anyone else with a pulse capable of reading her many literary acts of voiding her rheum in the Holy Father’s face.  Likewise, her main source, the deranged Eponymous Flower,  hates him even more. The piece makes so many logical leaps and ill willed assumptions, it’s hard to keep count. It’s all calculated to gin up hatred for the Holy Father. God forgive them.

"Bullshit. Try growing up gay. This is the single most ignorant thing I've read this ..."

On gays in the Church
"He's treating them worse than sinners, because all Christian denominations I've ever encouraged hold that ..."

On gays in the Church
"You can't just treat them like sinners. And if two men are smooching, you shouldn't ..."

On gays in the Church
"Glad to see someone learning from their mistakes."

On gays in the Church

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jack Quirk

    I’m starting to think that LifeSiteNews is pulling our leg.

    • HornOrSilk

      LifeSiteNews has always been an untrustworthy site. They have no interest in the truth.

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        Yup. They are Right Wing, through and through. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t make it reliable.

        • HornOrSilk

          Agreed. There are occasional things they get right, and sometimes no one else reports it. But as I tell others, check for sources beyond them, to confirm they are not making some spin. And they have a fundamentalistic overtone with their material, not just right-wing, which explains their Harry Potter commentary.

        • Mariana Baca

          I don’t think they are untrustworthy because they are right wing. They are untrustworthy because they are a tabloid and have the journalistic integrity of a tabloid.

          • Mark S. (not for Shea)

            Sure. Their rightwingnuttiness isn’t what makes them unreliable. But they are still right wingnutty.

        • Marthe Lépine

          I had not realized that they were Right Wing through and through, but learning this clarifies a lot for me. A Right Wing through and through organization would certainly object to a foreign aid group interfering with the activities of large mining companies in developing countries, therefore it explains how they seemed to have an axe to grind with Canada’s Catholic Bishops’ Development and Peace organization…

    • Dave G.

      Right now I’m not seeing the story anywhere but some Catholic news sites, and blogs that seem heavily biased (either for/against gay marriage). It’s tough to say at this point. I’ve not found any media outlet covering this, which might speak volumes right there. What I have heard is that Pope Francis said that the door is always open to change regarding priestly celibacy since it isn’t a Dogma. Out of everything on his visit, that’s the story I’ve been hearing.

  • Francisco J Castellanos

    I apologize for the long quote, but this response from someone named “Brother JR” at a Catholic com-box is worthwhile re-posting:

    You people need to chill out or you’re going to get anxiety over things that are not important or are being misunderstood.
    First: every Catholic priest who is not suspended has the RIGHT TO CONCELEBRATE at any public mass, even if it’s the pope celebrating it. This priest is not suspended. Therefore, he has a canonical right to concelebrate.
    Second: the fact that someone espouses a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Church does not take away his rights. The person may be in error, but his rights remain in place. This is true even in the civil sphere. You folks seem to want to strip this man of his right to concelebrate, because of his position on homosexuality. Canon law does not allow that. Priests have duties, but they also have rights. Violating their rights is not the way to bring them around to fidelity to duty.
    Third: He gave the pope a gift of his book. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s a gift. For all we know, the pope may have never read the man’s work and he may find it interesting to read. Popes read many books and other works, be they orthodox Catholic or at the other end of the spectrum. It’s call academic scholarship. A pope would be a very poor academician if he only read the Fathers of the Church and never read the opposing arguments. This does not change anything. It just means that he’s well informed.
    Fourth: the priest gave him a wooden chalice. Big deal. It does not mean that the pope is going to use it. Why is there a presumption that the pope is going to use it? Why can’t it be seen for what it is, a gift of a piece of craftsmanship. The gift of a wooden chalice is not a sin. Stop making it what it’s not. It does not help you or others. For what it’s worth, the pope can change that rule or dispense himself from the rule, if he so wishes to do. We need to stop imposing laws on the pope when such laws are not applicable and we need not to assume, just because he accepted a gift. It would have been a violation of charity to turn the gift away.
    Fifth: the pope kissed the man’s hand. The man is 93 years old. Whatever his position is on homosexuality, he is a senior citizen compared to the pope and a priest in good standing with the Church unless he is suspended. Do we assume that the man has never done any good for the Church during his 93-years on this earth, because of his position on homosexuality? That’s a very narrow way of seeing another human being, certainly not the way that Christ views us. Maybe we should be thankful that Christ does not judge us by our standards or we’d all be in hell.

    Brother JR, FFV

    • Athelstane

      “Second: the fact that someone espouses a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Church does not take away his rights. ”

      In the first place, there are canonical penalties in place for priests who openly denounce Church teaching. Fr de Paolis is not disagreeing about whether Ascension should be transferred to Sunday or what mode of chant is best. But that leaves the real question for his ordinary, and why he has not been disciplined.

      In the second place, no one has a “right” to meet the Pope, or concelebrate Mass with him.

      But I think the Holy Father was simply badly served by those under him.

      • Marthe Lépine

        However, it seems to me that if the Pope chooses to meet someone, it is nobody’s business, and if he wishes to invite someone to concelebrate with him, it is also his choice. As well, I don’t think that the Pope needs “those under him” to tell him what choices to make. I would also think that no one actually has a “right” to second-guess the Pope’s decisions… It is allowable to do it, of course, but certainly not a right.

        • Athelstane

          No, it’s not my business who the Pope meets with, but it can become our business if the meeting is done in public. He is the shepherd of the Church, and there is such a thing as scandal.

          If the Pope had chosen to do these things with, say, Bishop Richard Williamson, a prelate who has engaged in Holocaust denial and has been so extreme in his positions and behavior that even the SSPX booted him, don’t you think there would be some outcry raised? Some risk of scandal?

          Of course, in our age in the West there Is not exactly a great temptation toward rank anti-semitism (the Middle East is another story). The same is not true, however, of the push to normativize homosexual acts and sexual relations outside marriage in general. In short, it also depends on whose ox is being gored. Some of those offended that some other people are offended by this episode are simply reacting to what they perceive as traddy phariseeism. The rest are people who really have no problem with Fr de Paolis’s radical positions on sexual morality, but are sometimes cagey about saying so.

          • If the Pope had chosen to do these things with, say, Bishop Richard Williamson […] don’t you think there would be some outcry raised? Some risk of scandal?

            I think the point is that those of us who claim to be in the heart of the church should not be scandalized. We’re not the ones whose faith is weak (so we claim), and we weren’t scandalized by Benedict’s overtures towards the SSPX. People with strong faith don’t worry that Jesus’ eating with sinners is going to lead to more homos and teens havin’ sex. We already know what he’s doing and what he’s not doing.

            Given Pope Francis’s past behavior, teachings, etc, we have reasonable cause to believe that what he’s doing is demonstrating Christ’s love to sinners, and so we don’t need to be scandalized.

            As for people outside of the church being scandalized, that ship has sailed. What Francis has argued – and made a pretty good case for – is that they need first to know that the heart of the church is love for the sinner. They haven’t been able to hear that message over the din of the culture war.

            As for people in the church who would like to believe that they don’t have to condemn sin in their brother (or son), they first need to know that the church loves their kid. Only when you have convinced people that you really do have their good at heart can you correct them. Otherwise, all they see is your will to power.

  • Thank you. Just thank you. I’m so glad there are people like you who understand how wrong this is, and don’t mind writing about it- it’s such a relief.

  • AverageCatholic

    Is the story correct? If not, then there should be a retraction and correction of calumny from the author. If the story is correct, then it would appear to be a tacit acceptance of Fr. De Paolis’ views – at least to someone like me, who may not understand exactly what is going on. The sensational headlines listed above all involve repentance, fraternal correction, and charity. This may be the case with Fr. De Paolis, however, this is not apparent from the article. At the very least, it would seem the Pope struggles with his public “message”. If this is calumny, public apologies and correction are in order.

    • Andy

      i am not sure how the pope greeting a 93 year old priest with respect and yes perhaps affection, means acceptance? Do you agree with everything that your family members say and then greet them with respect and affection or do you walk away after delivering a “fraternal correction”. For most of us we meet with respect and affection and then we talk.

      • Marthe Lépine

        Would that be similar to a case of “hate the sin but love the sinner”? Showing respect and even affection to somebody certainly does not need to mean acceptance of all of that person’s opinions, but acceptance of the person as a brother in Christ?

    • Cypressclimber

      I make nothing of the pope kissing his hand. Not my thing. Puzzled in this particular case (i.e., it was clearer why when it was Holocaust survivors). But moving on…

      No, what caught my eye was the claim that the pope concelebrated Mass with the priest. If the priest does challenge Church teaching, that raises questions.

      Not kissing hands.

      • Andy

        I would guess that since his priestly faculties have not be removed, nor has he been suspended that his “challenge” is more of a puzzlement or question and not a challenge.

        • sez

          I agree. Who is this priest’s bishop? That is the person who has the right(duty) to remove his faculties. Then this situation would not have occurred in the first place.

          • Andy

            perhaps what he wrote did not rise to the level where his faculties should be removed – the church allows for questions

  • Rosemarie


    Reminds me of an event in the life of St. Francis of Assisi:

    ‘During the time of St Francis, living close to Assisi, there was a Priest who was living an immoral life. The Priest had a mistress, and everyone in the village knew of his sin.

    ‘One day the people informed St Francis of the facts and told him where to find the Priest. St Francis went immediately to see the Priest; the people followed to see what would happen. St Francis was considered to be a Saint even in his own lifetime, so the villagers expected St Frances to explode upon this priest – maybe even sending a fireball from Heaven to consume him. St Francis went to the home of the Priest and as he was greeted at the door by the Priest, St Francis fell upon his knees and began to kiss the hands of the Priest.

    ‘“What are you doing?” questioned the Priest. With tears in his eyes, St Francis replied, “I am kissing the hands that bring Jesus to me”.

    The Priest was mortified by St Francis’ act of compassion, for he knew that the villagers had told St Francis of his sin. The Priest later confessed his sin, changed his life and led a good and holy life until his death. Sometimes compassion can have a greater effect than punishment.’


    I think that the Holy Father was imitating the saint whose name he took.

  • antigon

    I’m so sick of these people.

    Dear Mr. Shea: You should kiss their hands then, no?

    • chezami

      I’m not the pope and they aren’t ordained.

      • antigon

        Dear Mr. Shea: The current Pontiff also kissed the hands of people who survived the Nazi atrocities, which would indicate he does not intend the gesture, ala St. Francois d’Asis, as reverence only for the hands of the ordained who bring us Christ.

        As to your other point, unless you’re arguing His Holiness makes these gestures not as an example to the Faithful, but solely as a prerogative of the Papacy, which surely you are not, then arguably the Pope is encouraging you at least spiritually to kiss the hands of these folk with whom you disagree, & physically should the opportunity present itself.

        No? And of course as you know, our Lord did not arguably make a comparable point, but was specific about it.

  • Matt Talbot

    Looks like Nadal’s comment has since been deleted from the comments at LSN

    • Andy

      And this is shocking – it seems as if LSN has its agenda and anything not in line with the agenda must go.

      • Matt Talbot

        LSN’s mission seems to be Republican outreach to Catholics.

        • Andy

          I would agree most assuredly.

  • Athelstane

    This appears disturbing, but the charitable assumption is that the Holy Father did not really know who Fr de Paolis was, or what he advocates. It is hard to believe that he would have acted as he did if he had.

  • Rhoda Zwick

    Hilary ROCKS!

  • Peter Williams

    Other than the insults directed toward the report’s author and the website on which it appeared, there doesn’t seem to be much clarification in the way of which of the author’s claims are false or misleading.

    What are the “logical leaps” and “ill-willed assumptions” in the report that are being disputed and have caused such a reaction? Or is it the fact that this incident is being reported as news at all, and casting the Holy Father in an unfavorable light?

  • Colin Kerr

    If you hate people who hate you, you are not like the pope. If Pope Francis got all sick of people who disagreed with him then what?

    Also, Mark, you didn’t address the mass part, only the kiss part. How would you feel if a prominent dissenter like Pelosi received communion from your pastor?

  • James Toups

    Mark, In all charity, you should delete this blog post. I am very disappointed in the tone of your comments. A statement like: “The author of the piece hates Francis with a white hot passion” Can you judge the heart of the author? No, you cannot. This post alone and it’s tone destroys your credibility. Where is your charity? I read this article. I saw no hate in it. Only facts. Very very disappointing from a Catholic blogger that is supposed to have credibility.

    • chezami

      Don’t need to judge heart, just need to judge words and deeds. The contempt Hilary White has for Francis is palpable.

      • James Toups

        You dismiss the fact that you claimed she “hates” Pope Francis. You do not know her heart. You are welcome to disagree with her words. Your approach lacks charity and is unbecoming of a Catholic blog.

        Also, it is beneath the dignity of the Papacy to refer to our dear pope as “francis”