Small Differences

Enemy of Anti-Semites

Pius XII Pave 2009 sm



Friend of Sodomites



Posted on August 10, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Mundabor,
    yes, the difference is very clear.
    Pius XII. really loved the Jews, which is why he tried to help them in worldly matters, but more importantly, to convert them.
    Francis does not really love the Sodomites. If he did, he would not basically protect, enable and even implicitly encourage them to remain in their sin.

    Pius XII. would never have said: “But if a Jew really believes in his heart that he is justified in rejecting Christ, who am I to judge?” He was not indifferent but loving. Which is why the modernists call him (and every traditional Catholic who echoes him) anti-semitic. Francis, on the other hand, is not loving, just indifferent.

  2. Did Pope Francis really say what Catocon quoted him as saying, or is that the logical conclusion to be drawn from other things he’s said? I wonder if someone who “really believed in his heart that he is justified” in murdering someone, would Pope Francis tell him he was wrong?
    Unity, to this pope, seems far more important than divine truth. Thank you for recommending (in an earlier post), Dietrich von Hildebrand’s _The Charitable Anathema_. I wish the “bishop of Rome” would read it.

    • I remember Francis’ word exactly as Catocon mentioned them, but did not go back to check the source.

      The biggest problem with Francis is that, being a Jesuit, he will always pay attention that a certain “message” filters through the press, though it will more difficult to pin it down to actual words.

      As a results, the neocon will make triple salto mortale trying to explain Frncis hasn’t really, really said that, whilst the liberal and secular press will go on forever praising exactly what he clearly meant.

      The worst example of the kind is the one of the atheists for whom salvation through work is clearly implied, and the bishop expresses himself in a way that must lead them to certain conclusions.

      Which, by the bye, is Pelagian no end.


%d bloggers like this: