________________________
After a 38-year-wait, it’s now official. Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered in 1980 for speaking out against military oppression, will become a saint of the Roman Catholic Church at a Vatican ceremony on 14 October. On 19 May, Pope Francisco, the first pontiff from the Americas, announced the decision during a meeting with cardinals based in Rome. Romero, long considered a saint by Catholics across the Americas, will be elevated to universal veneration at the Vatican ceremony alongside Pope Paul VI, the pontiff who first appointed him a bishop and made the fateful decision in 1977 to make him archbishop of San Salvador. Four others… two Italian priests and German and Spanish founders of separate women’s religious orders… will also become saints at the ceremony.
The Salvadoran’s canonisation, while expected in recent months, nonetheless represents the culmination of one of the clearest turnabouts of Francisco’s nearly five-year papacy. The cause for Romero languished for decades under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who expressed unease with his connection to liberation theology and his vocal denunciations of government killings and kidnappings. Less than two years after his election as pontiff, Francisco placed Romero firmly on the sainthood track, formally decreeing in February 2015 that the archbishop was assassinated as a martyr for the Catholic faith. He then authorised his beatification, the last step before sainthood, in May of that year. El Salvador’s ambassador to the UK, Elisabeth Hayek-Weinmann, told us:
Romero’s coming sainthood represents a unique opportunity for us to heal our historical wounds, restore our social fabric, and build a new sense of national identity based on common values, with social justice and respect for human dignity at its core. His teachings and legacy provide us, as a nation, a strong moral compass.
During the 19 May meeting with cardinals, known as a consistory, Francisco formally received the request to authorise the canonization of the six persons by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Saints’ Causes. Amato gave Francisco a brief biographical sketch of each of the sainthood candidates. He said:
Romero was archbishop during a time of great political crisis in El Salvador and was outraged at seeing the violence against the weak and the killing of priests and catechists, he felt the need to assume an attitude of fortitude. On 24 March 1980, he was killed while celebrating Mass.
After hearing each candidate’s history, Francisco announced their canonisations as a group and set the date and place of the ceremony. As it became clear in recent weeks that Francis would announce Romero’s canonisation, discussions in Rome focused on whether the pontiff would decide to hold the ceremony at the Vatican or in El Salvador. Considerations included trying to make the event accessible to Salvadorans wishing to attend but wanting also to emphasise that, as a saint, Romero will be an example of Christian witness not just for El Salvador but the entire world. Carlos Colorado, a Salvadoran who runs the popular Super Martyrio blog that closely followed the process of Romero’s canonisation, said in an interview:
A ceremony in San Salvador would’ve been a blowout with people attending numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
In a recent blog, Colorado hypothesised that Francisco may still go to El Salvador soon in order to venerate the new saint’s tomb and bring a sense of celebration to the country. One opportunity would be for the pontiff to make a stopover there during his expected January 2019 visit to Panama for World Youth Day. Paulita Pike, an American who lived in El Salvador off-and-on since the early 1970s, knew Romero and now helps coordinate the popular Amigos de Romero/Cultura Romeriana Facebook page, said:
By canonising Romero in Rome, Francisco is holding him up as the model pastor, the model bishop, for the bishops gathered there. Wherever he’s canonised, he’s going to be our saint.
Pike kept vigil at Romero’s tomb in San Salvador’s cathedral overnight on 18 May with members of her group, awaiting news of the canonisation. She said:
He isn’t ours but he’s St Romero of the Americas. Now, he’s going to be St Romero of the world.
19 May 2018
Joshua McElwee
National Catholic Reporter
Voices from Russia 
8 December 2016. Pravoslavie FUCKS UP ROYALLY… AGAIN! Bad Translation from the Platina Nutters, Yet Again
Tags: Catholic, catholic bishops, Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christian, Christian ethics, Christian views on marriage, Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Church, ethic, ethical orientation, ethics, France, homosexual marriage, homosexuality, Kirill Gundyaev, Kirill I of Moscow, marriage, moral, moral stance, moral theology, morality, morals, Moscow Patriarchate, Orthodox, Orthodox hierarchs, Orthodoxy, Paris, Patriarch Kirill, Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev, Patriarch Kirill I, political commentary, politics, Religion, Religion and Spirituality, Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic Church, Russia, Russian, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church, same sex marriage, spiritual culture
____________________________________
Shevkunov strikes again! That is, he hands over translation of material to dumbass rightwing Amerikantsy converts, with predictable results (he likes sending stuff to the Platina nutters… the Rose crowd or to rightwing bozos like Jesse Dominick). His handling of HH’s comments on same-sex marriage and homosexual orientation were interesting… in the sense that Chinese people mean when they wish you, “May you live in interesting times”. First, we have the Russian original posted on patriarchia.ru. Next, is my translation… the Pravoslavie abortion is last. Note the howler in the name of the Parisian archbishop. That’s a proof of ignorance and laziness… two things seen in abundance amongst konvertsy… read on, kids…
BMD
******
Russian original
Ваше Святейшество, мы видели, насколько болезненна для многих французов тема легализации однополых браков. Были массовые протесты. Касались ли Вы этой темы в ходе своего визита?
Да, мы коснулись этой темы во время беседы с архиепископом Парижским кардиналом Андре Вен-Труа. Всем хорошо известна роль Католической Церкви, которая категорически выступала против легализации однополых браков. И миллионная демонстрация французов, в основном, католиков, была ясным свидетельством несогласия значительной части населения с тем, что произошло.
Нужно сказать, что ничего не меняется в позиции Церкви, и измениться не может, потому что это против христианской морали. Еще раз хочу сказать, что мы никого не осуждаем – ни католики, ни православные. Мы не требуем некоего ужесточения в отношении людей, у которых есть какая-то особенность в сексуальной ориентации. Но мы категорически против уравнивания этих взаимоотношений с браком, который определен Богом и в результате которого рождаются дети, продолжается жизнь человеческого рода. То, что входит в Божий замысел, не может корректироваться никакими политическими доктринами и никакой политической практикой. На этом основывается позиция Церкви.
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4706946.html
******
My translation
Your Holiness, we’ve seen how gay marriage is a painful topic for many French people. There were mass protests. Did you touch upon this subject during your visit?
Yes, we touched on the topic during a conversation with André Cardinal Vingt-Trois, the Archbishop of Paris. The role of the Catholic Church is well-known in this; it strongly opposes legalising same-sex marriage. The demonstrations involving millions of French people, mostly Catholic believers, were a clear sign of that; they showed that [Catholics] disagreed with the majority opinion [in France]. I must say that nothing has changed in the Church’s position; it can’t change, as [any change would be] against Christian morality. Once again, I want to say that we never condemn anyone… [“we” meaning] both Catholics and Orthodox. We don’t ask that there be restrictions against people of a different sexual orientation. However, we categorically oppose any changes equating such relationships with marriage, which is Divinely Ordained, within which children are born, so that the life of the human race continues. That is part of God’s plan. We can’t modify that with political measures or political ideologies. That’s the basis of the Church’s position.
******
6 December 2016 Pravoslavie.ru article
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all the Russias has noted that while the Orthodox Church has strict traditional stances on marriage and family matters, it doesn’t condemn people, who are always called in love to repentance. In Paris to consecrate the new Trinity Cathedral and spiritual centre, His Holiness also met with the Catholic archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Andrew-Ben-Tura in which the theme of sexual orientation was raised. Summarising the Church’s stance, at a press conference the Patriarch stated:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/99221.htm
******
The rubber hits the road with какая-то особенность в сексуальной ориентации. Literally, it’d be some feature of sexual orientation. That jangles in English, doesn’t it? OK, how do we “English” this in a way both correct and pleasing (not so easy, as my experience tells me)? What’s the primary word here? I’d say that it’s особенность. It depends on the context, but it mostly gets “Englished” as feature or particularity. Other possible choices are quality, factor, or trait. It’s clear to me that some konvertsy brat chose peculiar as it fit their ignorant Yahoo rightwing opinions. HH was being very careful not to be judgemental, so it’s clear that’s not what he meant. Indeed, the choice of such an unusual idiom (usually, Russian uses non-traditional sexual orientation to indicate homosexuality) proves that he bent over backwards in his effort not to offend anyone. To carry over this into English, I chose people of a different sexual orientation. It has the same flavour of vagueness and nonspecificity found in the original. The “translation” on Pravoslavie destroyed that… peculiar turned HH’s carefulness and wish not to offend anyone into a mindless Yahoo rant. That’s unforgivable. I believe that we’ve ordained far too many ex-Evangelicals… things such as this prove that they’re not “of us”. I’d say that the bishops would do well to defrock most former-Evangelicals. They’re not of us, never can be, and they distort what the Church truly says. Shall we have the courage to do it, though?
BMD