Vatican Removes Anti-Abortion Activist From the Priesthood

[Estro Felino]

this is essential to understand facts

 

[Estro Felino]

Those "good and decent" voters in Indiana are widely ****ty and terrible people who vote for hateful Christians like Pence to enact discriminatory legislation.

I meant Democrat voters.
I think Father Pavone was referring to the Party exclusively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not true. Emanuela Orlandi was a Vatican citizen. She was not an employee. Neither was her mother who still lives in the Vatican and she has always been a housewife.
Vatican citizens have a Vatican passport.

Her father was an employee of the Vatican, but I'm sure you already knew that.

There is a rule of international law that says pacta sunt servanda.
In 1929 the Holy See and the Italian State signed a concordat which is a treaty. Lateran Pacts.
This treaty recognizes the Vatican State as an autonomous State.
And since Italy recognizes Vatican statehood, so should the other countries of the world.

Nonsense.

And you're grasping at straws if that's the argument you have to resort to for Vatican statehood.

Article 7 Italian Constitution
The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, each within its own sphere. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.

Now you're bringing another entity into the discussion: the Catholic Church. Something different from both the Holy See and Vatican City.

Do you think that every parish church in Italy is the sovereign territory of another country?

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it doesn't. You don't have freedom of speech when you use social media and agree to abide by certain rules and not say certain things.

Father Pavone is an American citizen.
The Vatican State cannot implement its own medieval Canon Law on non-Vatican citizens, but the law of the land prevails.
Unfortunately US labor legislation defends the employer (the Vatican and the diocese)...but juridically, that dismissal is null and void, because it falls under the First Amendment.

 

[Estro Felino]

Now you're bringing another entity into the discussion: the Catholic Church. Something different from both the Holy See and Vatican City.

Do you think that every parish church in Italy is the sovereign territory of another country?

The Lateran Pacts are often presented as three treaties: a 27-article treaty of conciliation, a three-article financial convention, and a 45-article concordat.[4] However, the website of the Holy See presents the financial convention as an annex of the treaty of conciliation, considering the pacts as two documents:[5]

• A political treaty recognising the full sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican City, which was thereby established, accompanied by four annexes:
  • A map of the territory of Vatican City State
  • Maps of buildings with extraterritorial privilege and exemption from expropriation and taxes (owned by the Holy See but located in Italy and not forming part of Vatican City)
  • Maps of buildings with exemption from expropriation and taxes (but without extraterritorial privilege)
  • A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See following the loss in 1870 of its territories and property[a]
• A concordat regulating relations between the Catholic Church and the Italian state

the Law 1984 (this Governo Italiano - Le intese con le confessioni religiose ),

 

[Estro Felino]

Her father was an employee of the Vatican, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Is Mrs Maria Orlandi an employee? No. She is a Vatican citizen. She is not an Italian citizen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Father Pavone is an American citizen.
The Vatican State cannot implement its own medieval and backward Canon Law on non-Vatican citizens, but the law of the land prevails.
Unfortunately US labor legislation defends the employer (the Vatican and the diocese)...but juridically, that dismissal is null and void, because it falls into the First Amendment.

It doesn't fall under the First Amendment. That does not cover disputes with your employer, it does not exist on social media.
First Amendment Rights at Work - Are There Any?

You generally only have First Amendment rights at work if your employer is the government. The First Amendment does not apply to private actors, such as private businesses.

Setting the record straight on “free speech” rights in the workplace | JD Supra

“Free speech” rights largely misunderstood
But the question remains: Do Americans have the right to say whatever they wish, completely free of consequence? The answer is unquestionably, “No.” The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It is important to note those first five words – “Congress shall make no law.” This means that the First Amendment applies to the U.S. government, and no one else. Later, the 14th Amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to all the state and local governments as well. Therefore, as it stands today, the First Amendment protects Americans from the government on the issue of free speech. It does not protect Americans from anyone else. This includes the judgment of fellow Americans, book publishers, and most employers.

A private employer’s right to impose consequences
So can an employer take disciplinary action against an individual employee because of what that person says? For private employers, the answer is most definitely “yes,” as long as the employer remains consistent and non-discriminatory in its decision-making regarding discipline for speech.

Your Free Speech Rights (Mostly) Don't Apply At Work

But you don’t have freedom of speech everywhere. One place that often surprises many people where it doesn’t generally apply: Your workplace. Despite what many employees think, your rights to freedom of speech are fairly limited at work, and it’s often perfectly legal for an employer to take action against a worker for something they said or wrote.

 

[Estro Felino]

It doesn't fall under the First Amendment. That does not cover disputes with your employer, it does not exist on social media.
First Amendment Rights at Work - Are There Any?

Setting the record straight on “free speech” rights in the workplace | JD Supra

Your Free Speech Rights (Mostly) Don't Apply At Work

But the facts are Father Pavone was very active in the pro-life movement and that should be something rewarded by the Vatican which has the Pontifical Pro-Life Academy. It shouldn't be something punished.
So there is something absolutely paradoxical, considering the fact that so many priests who committed the most heinous crimes weren't laicized.

This is the Church of Bergoglio. A Pope who said "it's good I am a political pope....and as whether I am a pawn or not...maybe".

 

[RestlessSoul]

I like this Pope. He appears to care about the people, more than he cares about the Papacy. If he's ruffling a few feathers among the conservative clergy, isn't that what Jesus did?

 

[Estro Felino]

I like this Pope. He appears to care about the people, more than he cares about the Papacy. If he's ruffling a few feathers among the conservative clergy, isn't that what Jesus did?

In my opinion he should be doing that aboveboard.
He should come out as member of the Democratic Party...he should liberate himself...

 

[Father Heathen]

Vatican's statehood exists regardless of what foreigners think.

Nah, just a ****ty theme park.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I like this Pope. He appears to care about the people, more than he cares about the Papacy. If he's ruffling a few feathers among the conservative clergy, isn't that what Jesus did?

Jesus put people before dogma, and yes, conservatives hated him.

 

[Father Heathen]

But the facts are Father Pavone was very active in the pro-life movement and that should be something rewarded by the Vatican which has the Pontifical Pro-Life Academy. It shouldn't be something punished.
So there is something absolutely paradoxical, considering the fact that so many priests who committed the most heinous crimes weren't laicized.

This is the Church of Bergoglio. A Pope who said "it's good I am a political pope....and as whether I am a pawn or not...maybe".

Pavone probably opposed abortion only because that meant less children for him and his fellow priests to prey upon.

 

[pearl]

He seems to more closely follow the example and teachings of Christ, which is why conservatives hate him.

There are conservatives who are no different than fundamentalists when it comes to Catholic tradition. These are those Catholics who disapprove of Vatican II which Francis follows. He applies those teachings to all world problems, the politics of which is unavoidable, such as his stand on climate, war in Ukraine etc. The Church of pre-Vatican II was a Church set apart.

 

[Estro Felino]

There are conservatives who are no different than fundamentalists when it comes to Catholic tradition. These are those Catholics who disapprove of Vatican II which Francis follows. He applies those teachings to all world problems, the politics of which is unavoidable, such as his stand on climate, war in Ukraine etc. The Church of pre-Vatican II was a Church set apart.

I am not opposed to Vatican II. Unless Vatican II necessarily means to spread the gates of the Vatican to Freemasonry. In that case, I am.
What Vatican II brought was nothing but turmoil and assassinations. Pope Luciani assassinated within the Vatican, and Pope Wojtila nearly assassinated as well.
It's normal, I guess that now Popes abide by the Freemasonic agenda...because they don't want to die.

 

[metis]

I am not opposed to Vatican II. Unless Vatican II necessarily means to spread the gates of the Vatican to Freemasonry. In that case, I am.
What Vatican II brought was nothing but turmoil and assassinations. Pope Luciani assassinated within the Vatican, and Pope Wojtila nearly assassinated as well.
It's normal, I guess that now Popes abide by the Freemasonic agenda...because they don't want to die.

Not really:
Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian denominations have had high-profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or discouraging their members from being Freemasons. The denomination with the longest history of objection to Freemasonry is the Catholic Church. The objections raised by the Catholic Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is in conflict with Church doctrine.[131] A number of Papal pronouncements have been issued against Freemasonry. The first was Pope Clement XII's In eminenti apostolatus, 28 April 1738; the most recent was Pope Leo XIII's Ab apostolici, 15 October 1890. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication, and banned books favouring Freemasonry.[132]

In 1983, the Church issued a new code of canon law. Unlike its predecessor, the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. It states: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." This named omission of Masonic orders caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II.[133] However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which states: "... the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."[134] For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining their fraternity. Those Grand Lodges in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England deny the Church's claims, stating that "Freemasonry does not seek to replace a Mason's religion or provide a substitute for it."[6]... -- Freemasonry - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

Is there anything from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah on the matter, please? Right?
What if Mary would have aborted, please? Right?

Does Jesus specifically mention abortion, not that I know of, but that would be making an argument from silence. You seem to get very wrapped up in the 'exact' words of Jesus. This is the food, the nectar of scholars. What you read in the Gospels are from the next generation, the sub-apostolic. With the realization that the promised second coming had not yet happened, the need to write for future generations was their purpose.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not really:
Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian denominations have had high-profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or discouraging their members from being Freemasons. The denomination with the longest history of objection to Freemasonry is the Catholic Church. The objections raised by the Catholic Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is in conflict with Church doctrine.[131] A number of Papal pronouncements have been issued against Freemasonry. The first was Pope Clement XII's In eminenti apostolatus, 28 April 1738; the most recent was Pope Leo XIII's Ab apostolici, 15 October 1890. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication, and banned books favouring Freemasonry.[132]

In 1983, the Church issued a new code of canon law. Unlike its predecessor, the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. It states: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." This named omission of Masonic orders caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II.[133] However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which states: "... the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."[134] For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining their fraternity. Those Grand Lodges in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England deny the Church's claims, stating that "Freemasonry does not seek to replace a Mason's religion or provide a substitute for it."[6]... -- Freemasonry - Wikipedia

I have never heard anyone from the Vatican say "there are zero Freemasons within the Vatican walls".
When they say that, I will be convinced.

 

[Estro Felino]

Does Jesus specifically mention abortion, not that I know of, but that would be making an argument from silence. You seem to get very wrapped up in the 'exact' words of Jesus. This is the food, the nectar of scholars. What you read in the Gospels are from the next generation, the sub-apostolic. With the realization that the promised second coming had not yet happened, the need to write for future generations was their purpose.

If abortion becomes allowed in the eyes of Jesus, sex becomes mere lust and devoid of its spiritual reasons.
Because abortion basically means that for the sake of lust, people are disposed to suppress a life.

 

[pearl]

If abortion becomes allowed in the eyes of Jesus, sex becomes mere lust and devoid of its spiritual reasons.
Because abortion basically means that for the sake of lust, people are disposed to suppress a life.

In other words, pro-creation is not the purpose of sex. But there are other reasons some resort to abortion other than promiscuity. 'Let the little children come to me' does not sound like Jesus would approve of abortion.