hell is permanent because those inside of it sin forever. Sin can only be sin, if it is freely chosen- a person who has no ability to stop sinning, cannot actually sin, because sin implies the person has an ability to reject the temptation. Every person who remains in hell, is there because they voluntarily choose to sin forever- no matter what God offers them, they refuse to repent. In other words, it is human beings, not God, who are the ones that make hell permanent.

I don't think that Francis' statement about hell was heretical, because it is possible to interpret it in relation to this. The logic of the gospel is that God came to save the world, not to condemn it. He desires for all to be saved. How could it be then that there is some point that passes at which God says He does not want a person to be saved any longer, or He does not wish a person to repent any longer? Why did He die on the cross if His love for human beings had limits?

God consigns people to hell, the way that a boy in love with a girl lets the girl go away, when she doesn't want him, even though he would do anything for her. Those in hell are there, because they themselves refuse to repent, not because God refuses to allow them to repent. Hence, it is possible to say that He does not send people away forever, but they are away forever. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I don't believe it has to contradict what Jesus says in the gospel.

it seems to me like there is fundamental contradiction between a homosexual identity and the catholic priesthood.

The priest has to be a man, because he is in the place of the 'bridegroom' to the church as his 'bride'. In the Middle Ages, Popes were sometimes referred to as 'the spouse of the church'; Francis, in the same vein refers to the church as his.

The priest has to be a man because he is serving as a husband to the church as his wife. The entire mystery of the priesthood is wrapped up within the mystery of the marriage in heaven between the Bridegroom and His bride. If the priest is not designed for a woman, then it seems to me like it is a contradiction of the fundamental mystery that the priesthood derives its existence from.

in past times Catholic countries sent missionaries all across the world to preach the gospel in places where they were not allowed to go. They illegally entered countries and illegally staid in their borders, carrying out activities that the states in question did not allow them to do. Some of them suffered and even died while doing this, and among them are many saints.

If now, people from all those nations, leave and come to Catholic nations, should not Catholics be embracing this as a missionary opportunity? Even if the people in question have some among them who cause problems or even commit murder or terrorism, should this not be embraced as a part of the missionary's cross?

If you cannot allow people from non-christian nations to enter Christian countries, then I really see no point in sending missionaries to those non-christian nations anymore. Certainly it is easier to preach the faith to people when they are in your borders, living among you, under your rule, etc. and if you reject this opportunity, then why bother sending missionaries elsewhere? How could you possibly justify missionaries entering and illegally doing mission work in non-christian countries, if you cannot even allow the people in those countries to come to the Christian nations in the first place?

'We are violating your laws and sending these people into your territory because there is such a surpassing need for you peoples to hear this message, but this need is not so great that we think you people should be allowed to enter our nations'

A while back gloria.tv I think published a quote from a bishop or priest in Yemen- I think he said that migration is not the problem, the problem is that the western church is too weak. He is right- they fear muslim migration, because they don't know Christ as they should.

Iran is complaining that there are countries in the world giving help to terrorist groups....

First remove the beam in your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck in your neighbour's eye

In the bible, Abraham had relations with his wife's maid, but he was still counted as righteous. Jacob had two wives and God blessed him. David had many more and he was counted among the prophets. Samuel ordered the killing of infants, and he was a holy prophet. Moses instructed the Israelites to pursue genocide and he was God's friend, who spoke to Him face to face.

All these people were violating God's law when they did these things, because His law is the same for all times in all places. However, they were not counted as wicked for doing these things, because they did not realize that these things were contrary to God's will and they were people who would not have done these things had they realized it was something He did not want. It is therefore possible for a person to commit such a grave violation of His law and not actually be in mortal sin.

For that reason, Amoris Laetitia is correct when it says that not every person who does these things is necessarily in a state of mortal sin. However, if a person does these things because they do not realize it is against God's will, then this person, while perhaps not being in a state of sin, nevertheless is not qualified to take communion, because it means that they either do not know or do not believe in what the church teaches. If David lived today, he would be required to put away all of his extra wives if he wanted to get baptism.

Amoris Laetitia, states that we cannot assume that they are necessarily in mortal sin, and I think the document is right in that, but it also does not state in any part of the document that such people can take communion. Nothing has changed with regard to that.

When John Paul II apologized for the burning of Jan Hus, it wasn't because Jan Hus was doing the right thing by leading people away from the church. I think he offered the apology was because even though Hus was doing the wrong thing, the approach the church took at the time in burning and destroying him was not the right way to handle it.

When John Paul II apologized for Catholic sins against Jews or against members of any other religion, including pagans, it wasn't because it was right for those people to follow those other religions, it was because even though they were following the wrong thing, the ways that Catholics treated them was not always correct.

John Paul II, when he made his sweeping apologies, in many cases he was apologizing for sins committed against idolaters, against people who practiced witchcraft and demonic things, against heretics, etc. And his apologies were right, not because those things were without guilt, but because the approach the church took in treating them was not always the correct one.

This lifestyle is one that can end in destruction, unless the person gets out of it. But that doesn't mean that all the words and actions Catholics have used in combating it were from the Holy Spirit.

As long as people are still clear about the fact that the church teaches that homosexual acts harm the soul, I don't see why such an apology would have anything wrong with it.

危机 -crisis, 危 is danger, 机 can mean many things, but opportunity is an acceptable interpretation.

Chinese baidu dictionary also takes the opportunity interpretation

(baike.baidu.com/link)

危机:'是有危险又有机会的时刻' - crisis: 'a time with both danger and opportunity'

Given Chinese traditional Taoist thinking (within evil there is good, within good there is evil), it also seems logical to me why people would think it means that.

St Paul, 'Where transgression abounds, grace abounds even more'

to say that the pope is not an object open for our public criticism or scorn and to say that we have to believe that everything he does or says is coming from God, are two entirely different questions.

Noah's sons walked in backwards to cover their naked father, and they knew that he was naked.

Paul would not have issued his sharp rebuke after being slapped had he known that it was the high priest, and yet the high priest at the time actually was trying to destroy the church. Even to him, Paul still applied the law 'you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people'.

I think there is nothing wrong with having certainty in God's endless mercy. The more important question, however, is whether you are willing to give mercy to others. His mercy is a certainty, but your reception of it is dependent on how you treat others.

Jesus said in the gospel that if you do not forgive your neighbour his debt, then your master will not forgive you your debt. Your master is always willing to forgive you, but not if you are not willing to forgive your neighbour. As the Lord said, 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy'.

The people who have certainty in mercy and who go to hell, are those who think of mercy as meaning God will always forgive you, but you do not have to forgive others.

This year of mercy instead ought to be an opportunity for people to find ways to suffer for others who do not deserve it. This is how we truly honour mercy: by practicing it ourselves.

Mr. Li is the richest man in Asia; he lived in Hong Kong since he was a child, but he was born in the mainland. He owns a huge empire of different investments around the world, with the largest portion in the real estate market. You could probably find things in your own country that are owned by him, if you check.

Interestingly enough, he is also the owner of Husky energy in Canada, an oil company, which has been criticized for its projects in the Alberta tar sands, because it is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions.

I think the light show at the Vatican was wonderful. The Immaculate Conception is a day when we remember how it was that there was a human being who was completely perfect, without the slightest bit of evil in her from the time she was conceived.

What created was completely perfect in every way. The book of Wisdom says 'God did not make death' and 'there is no destructive poison' in what God made. In just the same way that Mary was created without flaw, so also the original creation was made without flaw. The light show on the environment has this relation to the Immaculate Conception, I think.

I think the verse from Ezekiel makes it clear that the sin of Sodom was not only the sexual sins, but also the greed, the inhospitality, etc. Most importantly, a just person could not continue living in the place without being forced to engage in these sins by his neighbours.
I say 'most importantly', because if you think back at the exchange between God and Abraham what God said to him that if there were just a few just persons, then God would spare the entire place for their sake.
Now, if the place did not allow the just person to exist within it, either by killing them or by forcing them to engage in their sins with them... then that promise from God no longer applies, if you think about it.
So, even if homosexuality or other sexual vices spread through the modern society, that alone is not enough to merit destruction like Sodom, according to Genesis. Because as long as people exist within the society who are following the Truth and the society leaves them be, the whole place is spared for their sake.
It is similar to what Mary said in various apparitions, that you must suffer for sinners and pray for them, so that the world can avoid destruction. Hence, you then understand that because of the prayers of the few who are abiding within the Truth, so the many who have immersed themselves in these sins are all spared for their sake.
I think, and perhaps I am wrong... that the sin of Sodom does not need at all to be homosexuality. It can be idolatry, it can be racial hatred, it can be greed for money, it can be any other kind of sexual vice, etc. and when the society reaches the point where a just person cannot exist within it, because all the people in the society require the just few to be like them or else suffer the consequences... then you have the sin of Sodom, because as God told Abraham the place is spared for the sake of the few.
If the two angels went to modern day Amsterdam, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, etc. and went on loudspeakers calling on people to repent of homosexual behaviour, the police may even come to protect them and as long as they kept within the law, they would be left alone. I don't think these places are Sodom. Because as long as they are still there giving witness and being left in peace, the place is spared for their sake.
Perhaps in the future, if the society really does not allow people to have anything but a positive opinion of homosexual acts or else be killed or jailed, then one can say it was Sodom, but at the moment we are not there, I think. There are various ways that people can be persecuted now, but none of the restrictions employed in any of these countries actually prevents a person from bearing witness to the Truth, it just restricts the places, circumstances and times they can do so... it is not really the same, because a just person can still live and bear witness in the society without being forced to sin. And as long as they are there, the promise of God to Abraham concerning Sodom holds true.
If, however, the two angels came to Nazi Germany and they were told that they must hate Jews and other races, or else suffer the consequence, or they went to the Roman Empire where people were collectively required to worship the Emperor as a god or they lived in a place where the only way to earn your daily bread was by lying, and people who told the Truth could not be allowed to eat... or some other situation like this, then I think that that place is Sodom, because the few who protect the many are no longer allowed to exist in the society, you cannot continue within the society without engaging in the sin with them... this is Sodom.

There is a story that when Pius X was Pope, he once encountered a four year-old child coming up for communion and the Pope, who was supposed to bless the child because the age of first communion had not been reached, held up the Eucharist and said 'who is this?' and after the child responded, 'Jesus', the Pope gave the Eucharist to the child.
Thanks be to God for the gift of the Eucharist, and thank you gloria.tv for presenting this story!

I don't know about Serra, but there were actually saints who approved of torture, especially in relation to the Inquisition. The catechism itself even mentions how in past times the church even condoned torture, although it was wrong to do so. Without checking, I seem to think that maybe Thomas More is on record of having approved of it, and perhaps also Thomas Aquinas argued in favour of it? Robert Bellarmine was a judge for the Roman inquisition when it burned people to death, which is also a kind of torture.

Even in the bible, the manner that Moses orders the death of people by stoning, is certainly a kind of torture. Regardless of what is said about Serra, I don't think anyone would deny that there is guilt in Catholic history on this point.

The gospel is always the same, but people can misunderstand it from time to time, because like idolaters we prefer to follow the ways of the world because it seems easier, and thus we follow the creature, rather than the Creator. It is just as true now, as it was back then.

Statistics can be misleading. The total number of priests and religious in Africa is still lower than it is in Europe. The number is increasing in Africa and decreasing in Europe, but the sum total is still higher in Europe.

The truth is that the western countries are actually among the areas in the world least affected by a priest shortage. Despite what you may think, Africa still has a much bigger priest shortage than the west does.

to give some figures, you may consider this. From www.catholic-hierarchy.org

Archdiocese of Berlin 2012, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 949, in 1950 it was 1375

Archdiocese of Kinshasa (DR Congo) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 5000, in 1950 when it was still a Belgian colony it was 1023

Archdioese of Capua (Italy) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 2345, in 1950 it was 874

Archdiocese of Beira (Mozambique) 2012, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 12641, in 1950 when it was a Portuguese colony it was 636

Archdiocese of Liverpool (UK) 2012, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 1564, in 1950 it was 614

Archdiocese of Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire) 2012, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 7402, in 1950 when it was a French colony it was 1675

Diocese of Gent (Belgium) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 2170, in 1950 it was 673

Archdiocese of Cape town (South Africa) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 1887, in 1950 it was 418 -

Archdiocese of Krakow (Poland) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 729, in 1950 it was 1111

Archdiocese of Nairobi (Kenya) 2013, the number of catholics for each priest (average) is 4959, in 1949 when it was still a British colony it was 657

the reason why many of these african countries had such a low ratio when they were european colonies is partly because there were so many missionary priests (most of them European) at that time and the number of baptized catholics was also lower, so the ratio was significantly less at that time. But today, despite what you may think, they have a bigger vocation shortage than the west does, because so many have been baptized and joined the church in Africa, but the rate of increase in vocations hasn't quite matched it.

By contrast, the west has lost a huge amount of its membership and the number of vocations has decreased as well, but the total ratio is still healthier than what it is in most of Africa.

so you see... you never needed to attack the bishops and pope... catholic doctrine is upheld and God is in control, no need to worry-

Pius X said that lay people have no right to pass judgment on bishops, but that belongs to those who are above them in authority.

"On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals - that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased."-Pius X, Tribus Circiter, 1906