James_B retweeted
St. Paul warns in I Corinthians to not consume the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. St. Paul taught that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol that represented Jesus but that to receive the Eucharist was to receive Jesus himself. In the previous chapter he said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Likewise, the transgression involved in receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy state led to many of the Corinthians becoming sick or dying (1 Cor. 11:30).
No one would make that claim about eating symbolic crackers and grape juice.
You said it's your opinion that Jesus meant the Eucharist as a symbol. Why is YOUR opinion greater than St. Paul's opinion? Were YOU there? What about the Apostles, the early Church Fathers through St. Augustine? Or, what of St. Thomas Acquinas? Is your opinion superior to his?
My friend, it is a great hubris to believe you can twist Jesus's words into what you want it to mean despite 2000 years of people who have taken Jesus at His word since Jesus can't lie. Research the Eucharistic miracles. Science slowly catches up to the Bible.
Research the Church Fathers and measure the value of your opinion against theirs. I am praying for you.
James_B retweeted
A Reform Member of the Senedd, Joe Martin, has been banned from speaking in the Welsh Parliament until he apologises for claiming white people are being replaced in the UK.
He is absolutely right to highlight the scale of change forced on the British people through mass immigration, and I respect him for having the balls to say it.
Others in Reform want nothing to do with the crisis facing us all - Farage has explicitly said he is not bothered about the scale of demographic change.
Tice famously said he would be 'long gone', so it's not his problem.
Joe Martin is right. They are wrong.
There is nothing racist about discussing these concerns, which are shared by many millions of people.
To those who question the scale of change?
Go to Birmingham. Luton. East London. Bradford.
It is undeniable, and it is out of control.
Joe must not apologise, and he has my full backing.
James_B retweeted
Not new. There’s a longer history here. The Hawaii confirmations by Bishop Williamson which produced the “Hawaii Six” case—excommunications in May 1991 later ruled invalid by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1993 as not formal schismatic acts. The creation in July 1988 of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), peopled with priests who had been suspended since 1976. The explicit supplying of faculties by Pope Francis to SSPX priests (still suspended!): confession faculties in September 2015 for the Year of Mercy, extended indefinitely in November 2016 (Misericordia et Misera), and authorization for local ordinaries to grant marriage faculties in April 2017. Clerical cases and appeals to Rome in which the Society or its priests have been granted standing to be heard (still suspended with canonical right?!)
Rome has repeatedly operated as though the SSPX is part of the Church. It seems to treat the schism as existing more in theory than a reality. This is unjust, defamatory and betrays an awareness on Rome’s part that the Society might be right after all!
James_B retweeted
Yes, Mark, very interesting indeed. Here is my own submittal. Long, I know, but I hope you find it of interest.
Nothing has really changed. Furthermore, it's possible these apparent "mistakes" are not mistakes at all. Maybe the Vatican authorities know they have no moral, doctrinal or canonical case against SSPX. And thus, nothing has changed except that the ranks of revolutionaries in the prelature have steadily increased in the years 1970-2013 and thus they find it somewhat easy to encourage negative feelings against SSPX.
Possibly a reflection on past will help flesh this out. In 1988, Pope John Paul II actually stated in the clear that "new points of doctrine" were introduced at Vatican 2. This is a material fact of demonstrable causation in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's "grave fear" as expressed publicly, in detail and repeatedly for 2 decades, a fear that after the scandalous '86 Assisi debacle resulted in his and Bishop de Castro-Mayer's consecration of the 4 Bishops in 1988. (See 1983 Code of Canon Law 1323/4 & /7 for more.)
Subsequently:
1) Excommunications of 6 attending Catholics by a Hawaiian Bishop for "schism" were NULLIFIED just 5 years after the consecrations by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger. Remember him?
2) Multiple dubia sent to the CDF/PCED asking if Mass obligation by Catholics may be met with SSPX were responded in the Affirmative.
3) SSPX priests were granted a global, worldwide faculty to absolve by Pope Francis, a faculty no other Catholic priests possess which the Dicastery of Texts indicates still applies.
4) Pope Francis directed diocesan ordinaries to work with SSPX to provide witnessing of SSPX marriages, not because they were invalid, but rather, simply to "alleviate" any "uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament".
5) Pope Francis passed on praise by Bishops of SSPX "good faith and sacramental practice", 1 September 2015
6) Cardinal Castrillon (PCED) in being questioned on the status of SSPX viz schism responded in the negative.
7) Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who was an official Papal Visitator to SSPX, has repeatedly and publicly promoted SSPX and has even recommended their seminaries. He has also very publicly affirmed the right of Catholics to attend Mass after receiving absolution from SSPX priests.
8) Bishop Vitus Huonder who was a diocesan Ordinary was granted permission by the Pope to retire with SSPX which he did.
9) Excommunications of the SSPX Bishops were rescinded by Pope Benedict without SSPX altering closely held positions which, importantly, have never been condemned at all, an historical fact which in the face of decades of recognitions indicates will be likely be repeated in the future with the current Bishops.
10) Papal agents acting on behalf of the Popes have also affirmed permissions to provide financial support to SSPX chapels.
As for "obedience", in the face of the extreme disobedience on issues of traditional and papally-affirmed doctrines and practices in the dioceses, the obedience of SSPX to the faith and the Popes stands in the clear in affirming:
1) Traditional, orthodox doctrine and Catholic morality.
2) Papally-approved rubrics and liturgy of the '62 missal.
3) The 1983 Code of Canon law.
4) The approved TLM calendar and the current calendar for Holy Days, etc.
5) Recognition of the Pope and local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass.
Thus we find ourselves amidst many who, reading manifestly historically, canonically and morally incoherent Vatican documents, assert that "SSPX is disobedient", while at the same time accepting (overtly or tacitly) as "obedient" the rampant, pervasive, apparently "acceptable" and even normative dissident "full communion" culture and liturgical chaos of the dioceses.
Based on history and manifest reality, such a mindset can form no legitimate argument against SSPX at all.
James_B retweeted
Esta mañana fui a tramitar la renovación de mi pasaporte en la oficina de Coyoacán.
A la hora de la fotografía y los datos biométricos el joven que me atendió me dijo que no me podía tomar la fotografía con el traje eclesiástico, que debía quitármelo. Le dije que no lo iba a hacer y, siempre con respeto, me dijo que lo notificaría a una supervisora. Llegó la citada supervisora, igualmente con deferencia, diciendo que no podían hacerme la fotografía con traje eclesiástico. Igualmente le dije que era mi derecho venir de la forma de acuerdo a mi estado de vida mientras mi rostro fuera perfectamente visible, incluso le dije que recientemente se había promovido una ley para que las mujeres islámicas pudieras salir en sus identificaciones oficiales con el hijab. Me dijo que consultaría con su siguiente autoridad. Luego de un rato dijo que no había problema. Me tomaron la foto y los datos biométricos y me invitaron a pasar al lugar donde se espera para que entreguen el documento. Luego me llamaron a una oficina. Una señora que no se presentó ni por nombre ni por cargo y con una actitud hostil desde el principio, me dijo tajantemente que no me iban a tramitar el pasaporte con la fotografía con traje eclesiástico, que debía quitármelo. Yo le pedí por escrito la ley que lo mandaba y me enseñó una hoja de un reglamento interno de la secretaría donde dice que no se pueden tomar fotografías con símbolos religiosos. Yo sé que la Suprema Corte ha fallado en favor del derecho que tenemos las personas religiosas a vestir, y por lo tanto, a ser identificados con nuestro atuendo religioso amparados en el derecho fundamental a la libertad religiosa. (Constitución arts. 1 y 24) y que se puede armonizar con las medidas de seguridad e identificación, permitiendo el atuendo religioso siempre que el rostro sea visible con claridad.
Los sacerdotes católicos somos ciudadanos de segunda que, a causa de nuestra opción de fe, tenemos libertades y derechos restringidos. Esto es una expresión más de que no somos iguales ante la ley.
La mujer que, de forma autoritaria y apoyada por un policía que estaba atrás de ella, en clara actitud de intimidación, me obligó a despojarme de mi ropa eclesiástica, naturalmente no me dijo que no me darían el pasaporte, pero era claro, o eso o nada, incluso me “regañó” porque era “el primero” de los sacerdotes que se negaba a tal medida.
El reglamento interno de ninguna secretaría puede estar por encima ni de la Constitución ni de los derechos que tenemos y que se llaman humanos.
Hoy fui objeto de #discriminación se vulneraron mis #DerechosHumanos y fui humillado por claras expresiones #anticlericales y de #cristianofobia
Con muy pocas esperanzas de ser atendido, como una expresión más de la indefensión de los ciudadanos comunes, y más los de segunda clase, quedo atento a su respuesta.
-Padre Alberto Medel.
James_B retweeted
𝗟𝗨𝗞𝗘 𝟳:𝟰𝟳–𝟱𝟬: 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗙𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗦 𝗔 𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗗𝗢𝗖𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧
The meme concludes:
“She loved because she was forgiven. She was saved because she believed.”
𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀.
And that is precisely why the meme fails as a refutation of Catholic teaching.
𝗜. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗝𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦
In Luke 7:41–43, Jesus tells the parable of two debtors. One owes five hundred denarii, the other fifty.
Neither can repay his debt.
The creditor freely forgives both.
Jesus asks Simon which debtor will love the creditor more. Simon correctly answers that it is the one forgiven more.
The sequence is unmistakable:
𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗚𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 → 𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘.
Forgiveness is freely given. Love follows as the grateful response.
Catholics do not dispute this.
𝗜𝗜. 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗕𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗔𝗬
The RSV Catholic Edition's explanatory note on Luke 7:47 identifies the woman's love as a sign rather than a cause of forgiveness.
That follows naturally from Jesus' parable.
Her extraordinary love demonstrates the mercy she has received.
The Church does not teach that she purchased forgiveness through her actions.
𝗜𝗜𝗜. “𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗦𝗔𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗬𝗢𝗨” (𝗟𝘂𝗸𝗲 𝟳:𝟱𝟬)
Absolutely.
Jesus identifies faith as the means through which the woman receives salvation.
Catholics affirm that salvation is God's gift, received through faith, and that initial justification cannot be earned by human works.
The Catechism explicitly teaches that no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification (CCC 2010).
𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱?
Nothing Catholics actually believe.
𝗜𝗩. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗦𝗔𝗬
Notice that Jesus does not say:
“Your faith alone has saved you, and charity is unnecessary.”
Nor does He teach that saving faith can remain devoid of love.
Those conclusions must be imported into the passage.
To understand the relationship between faith and charity, we must examine the rest of Scripture.
Paul writes:
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).
James declares:
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). The Word of the Lord.
And Paul warns that even extraordinary faith, without love, gains him nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2–3). The Word of the Lord.
These passages cannot simply be dismissed because Luke 7:50 says that faith saved the woman.
𝗙𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆.
𝗩. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗘𝗥𝗥𝗢𝗥
The meme commits two errors.
𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧: It falsely attributes to Catholics the belief that the woman earned forgiveness through her love.
Catholics reject that proposition.
𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗: It treats Jesus' declaration that faith saved her as though this establishes justification by faith alone and excludes the necessity of charity.
But Luke 7:47–50 does not resolve that broader theological dispute.
The passage teaches what Catholics already affirm: forgiveness is freely given by God, faith receives salvation, and love manifests the transforming effects of divine mercy.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
You cannot refute Catholic teaching by attributing to Catholics a doctrine they explicitly reject.
And you cannot establish justification by faith alone merely by quoting a verse that says faith saves.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺, 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗟𝘂𝗸𝗲 𝟳:𝟱𝟬 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺.
𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱.
James_B retweeted
They killed her, desecrated her body, and scattered her remains because she refused to give up Christ!
Her name was Bosiljka Rajcic. She was only seventeen years old.
They kidnapped her and took her to another family's house, intending to force her to convert to Islam and marry her kidnapper. But Bosiljka refused. Because she would not renounce her Orthodox faith, her terrible torture began.
They tortured her with thirst and sleep deprivation. They plucked out her hair, burned the soles of her feet, beat her face, exposed her to insects, trampled on her, and constantly tried to break her will. They even brought in an older Serbian woman who had converted to Islam, hoping to convince Bosiljka to do the same.
But Bosiljka answered: "I have my faith. I don’t need a better one, because none exists. And as for marriage, I am already engaged. I have my fiancé. Christ is my chosen one. I belong only to Him, and to no one else."
When these attempts failed, she steadfastly maintained her resolve, refusing to renounce her faith or her identity.
Ultimately, her life was taken due to her refusal to capitulate. Despite the severe trials she faced, she remained dedicated to her beliefs until the very end.
Her remains were later collected and buried by relatives and locals next to the old church in Pasjane. During a later reconstruction of the temple, her relics were built into the walls of the church.
Today, she is commemorated as the Holy New Martyr Bosiljka Pasjanska, remembered for her loyalty to her faith under extreme adversity.
James_B retweeted
Hi everyone.
This is hard for me, but I’ve been weighing this a lot… I have grown weary of the negativity, conflict and arguments.
So, that being said, I’ll be posting less for awhile, and may disappear completely after January 1.
Please pray that I may find peace in whatever decision I make.🙏🏻
Thank you and God bless you all!
James_B retweeted
"In the multitude of words there shall not want sin: but he that refraineth his lips is most wise." Pr 10:19
In reading Denzinger-Hünermann through wordiness and ambiguity struck me when I reached JXXIII.
And ever since.
James_B retweeted
Woman of the Day Anne Vaux (1562-1637) of Leicester, cousin of Robert Catesby and the only woman arrested in connection with the Gunpowder Plot foiled OTD in 1605. She played no direct part but she provided safehouses for priests, saving five of them on one occasion, and was arrested on the basis of her barely legible handwriting.
Here comes the history bit. On this day in 1605, Guy Fawkes of York was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder, camouflaged with coal, in the cellar under Parliament. They would have reduced the House of Lords to rubble and signalled the start of a revolt in the Midlands.
English Catholics had hoped for greater religious tolerance under the reign of James I. Memories of the beheadings and burnings at the stake of Catholics during Elizabeth’s reign, following Mary’s persecution of Protestants during her monarchy, had split the nation. They were doomed to disappointment. James I was relentless in his persecution of Catholics, equating them with witches.
Authorities learned of the plot through an anonymous letter sent to the Catholic Lord Monteagle warning him to avoid Parliament on 5 November 1605. Monteagle handed it to Robert Cecil, Lord Privy Seal and Elizabeth’s spymaster.
Two searches were carried out of the vaults below the Parliament chamber. The first one noted large piles of wood and coal belonging to Thomas Percy and the second revealed Guy Fawkes with matches and fuses. He was arrested.
His co-conspirators including Robert Catesby fled from London on hearing of his arrest but he was put on the rack and tortured until he gave them up. Catesby was shot dead. Eight others, including Guy Fawkes, were hung, drawn and quartered. The principal Jesuit of England, Father Garnet, was convicted of treason and sentenced to death although it was doubtful how much he knew, if anything. In any case, he was bound by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. These days, a priest may speak indirectly when it is vital to warn someone - for example, "I've heard the confession of a murderer” - but that is all.
Anne was suspected of writing that anonymous letter but in fact, she tried to stop the Plot. After a visit to a holy well in North Wales where she had an uneasy conversation with the wife of one of the conspirators, she told Father Garnet she feared that, “Wild heads have something in hand”and “For God’s sake, talk to Robin Catesby and to hinder anything that possibly he might.” However, she told him in the confessional box.
Father Garnet was hanged, drawn and quartered (a particularly brutal and long-drawn-out death) in January 1607 solely for having advanced knowledge of the Plot but refusing to to violate the Seal of the Confessional. First, though, he was held in the Tower of London from 27 January 1606 until he was executed in May 1606 and that’s how the connection to Anne Vaux became apparent. His letters were being monitored.
Anne had written hidden messages in orange juice to him. They were difficult to read — Father Garnet found them illegible — but there were "perceived similarities" between her handwriting and that anonymous letter and it was enough to alert the authorities. She’d already come to their attention for other reasons.
Anne was unmarried by choice — an outrage to social convention — and a wealthy Catholic recusant to boot. She and her sister provided safe houses for Catholic priests by renting properties elsewhere. She also gave sanctuary to Father Garnet in her own home.
She was arrested at home in March 1606. Feigning the indignation of an affronted lady — how dare you be so rude as to raid my home before any of my household are out of bed! — she made such a scene that it gave the five Catholic priests already hiding in the house time to hide.
Taken to the Tower of London, Anne laughed out loud at an accusation of impropriety with Father Garnet and retorted, “You come to me with this child's play and impertinence, a sign that you have nothing of importance with which to charge me."
She languished in the Tower until August 1606 and maintained that she was innocent of treason but admitted to receiving the conspirators at her home. Well, she was related to some of them. What else might a hospitable lady have done?
Anne died in or after 1637, aged 75. Oh, and she carried on aiding Catholic priests until her death. Well, she was a recusant after all, someone who refuses to submit to an authority or to comply with an oppressive and disproportionate regime on grounds of belief. That’d be a few of us these days.
To this day the Yeoman of the Guard, dressed in their Elizabethan uniforms, still carry out a ceremonial search under the Houses of Parliament before the State Opening.
James_B retweeted
Despite everything, we are blessed to live in our special country - there is simply nowhere else like it.
James_B retweeted
This is Fadi al-Halsa, a young Orthodox Christian (Rum Orthodox) dentist from Karak, Jordan who only just graduated from Alexandria University's dental school this year.
Instead of celebrating his bright future, Fadi's parents and two sisters are now laying him to rest. Fadi was martyred in the Karak Saint George Church terrorist attack in Jordan.
James_B retweeted
You should first learn that the term Roman Catholic is slur used 1st by Anglicans & adopted by WASP bigots like the KKK. You should also learn that the Catholic Church does not identify as the “Roman Catholic Church”…it’s the Catholic Church
Catholics who go to a Byzantine Catholic Church are just as Catholic as those who go to a Latin or Roman Rite Catholic Church.
I guess as a low church Judaizer that distinctions aren’t your strong suit
James_B retweeted
As a practicing Catholic, let me just say, We love Jesus Christ, our Lord and God. And from that love comes obedience.
I believe we serve a God of order and that Christ left provisions, not just yellow highlighters and Bibles.
I also believe in truth, logic, common sense and reason… And this is why I have rejected Protestantism, and all its contradictory sects, many years ago.
James_B retweeted
Vila i frid 💔 Idag begravdes de kristna offren som brutalt mördades i terrorattacken mot den grekisk-ortodoxa kyrkan i #Karak i Jordanien. Tusentals människor samlades i sorg för att ta ett sista farväl av sina nära och kära.
De oskyldiga offren hade samlats i fredags för att delta i en annan begravning när maskerade terrorister öppnade eld mot kyrkobesökarna. Nio människor miste livet och över 30 personer skadades. Kungen och regeringen har visat stort stöd för offrens familjer och lovat att alla de ansvariga ska ställas till svars.
Det är en fruktansvärd tragedi att människor inte ens ska kunna samlas i en kyrka för att ta farväl av sina anhöriga utan att riskera sina egna liv. Våldet mot kristna i Afrika och Mellanöstern fortsätter att skapa sorg och oro för våra kristna bröder och systrar.
Mina djupaste kondoleanser går till offrens familjer och hela den kristna gemenskapen i Jordanien.
