Bishop Barron: I am in frank disagreement with Synod’s Final Document

Editor’s Note: You cannot suggest transgressing the natural law on human sexuality without riling the consciences of even liberal bishops. — A round of applause for Bishop Barron standing up for the Laws of God.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

6 thoughts on “Bishop Barron: I am in frank disagreement with Synod’s Final Document”

  1. Guess Bishop Barron is an actual Catholic…Adherence to The Bible and the Tradition of the Catholic faith. Good to know even some of the more liberal one’s cling to the Word. What I would like to know is where and when did we get all this ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO VERIFY OR JUSTIFY…OR, RATIONALIZE PAGON DEMONIC BEHAVIOR AS APPROPRIATE AND ADVANCED when it’s merely regression into the brutal cruelty of the world before our Savior Lord Jesus Christ?

    1. Pope Francis’ game is to claim that there is some situation, occasion, or special circumstance or progress which enables the non observance of the Gospel. That is a false notion pushed by Jesuits for nearly 500 years. For example, they claim there can be situations where all possible choices are evil, and then it is licit to chose the lesser evil. But they never talk about simply not chosing anything, and thus chosing the only real good, in such a case. Nor do they speak of the duty to examine the situation and find a good choice. Jesuits thus are habitually advocating moral laxity and situationalism, which JP 2 condemned in Veritatis Splendor.

      1. Is the false notion you refer to some aberration of the so-called “Principle of Double Effect”?

        Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [clearly not a Catholic authority] summarises this as follows:

        “According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.”,about%20the%20same%20good%20end.

        The article credits St Thomas Aquinas with this principle / doctrine.

        What, specifically, is the 500 year old Jesuit false notion that you refer to, please?

      2. I just mentioned it, in the first sentence of my previous comment: situationalism. And no I am not talking about double effect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.