Finally, Francis Criticises Himself

Human sacrifice, XXI Century Style

Oh well, perhaps soon-to-be Cardinal Mueller is managing to inject some (as in: some) sound Catholicism in the man's head.

Whilst Francis is still problematic, at least this time we had an improvement.

In today’s world, the Holy Father stated that the thought that all must be the same, that one must be “more normal” is brought forward by this adolescent progressivism. Referring to the readings account that those who did not follow the Law were condemned to death, the Holy Father stated that it is something done even in today’s modern world.“But do you this that today this is not done, human sacrifices?” he asked. “So many are done, so many! And there are laws that protect them.”However, despite the unfaithfulness in the world, Pope Francis said that God continues to be faithful and forgives those who are repentant.

“Adolescent progressivism” is a good description of what Francis has been doing basically without interruption since that disgraceful day in March. I dare to hope – because I am an incurable optimist – that this is Francis' way to say that there will be no more attempts – or at the least none so extreme – to appear “more normal”.

In a possible confirmation of the above, Francis takes out of his sleeve a rather powerful image: human sacrifices. The words themselves and the other reference, that such “human sacrifices” are protected by laws, seems to indicate that he is referring to abortion and euthanasia (remember: euthanasia is protected by law in some countries, like Switzerland and Belgium; whilst other countries like Britain do not show interest in prosecuting the relatives and enablers). The problem with this phrase is that Francis does not say so. Apparently he is fine with “who am I to judge” headlines, but “abortion is a human sacrifice protected by law, says Pope” is a headline he does not want to see. Very judgmental, you see.

Not being a sensation, this speech will not make the world headlines, whilst “abortion is a human sacrifice” would have done it without a doubt. A pity. On the other hand, Francis will remain popular among those who do not read Catholic outlets (basically, the planet).

Still, one notices an improvement. We are near to listening to the Bishop of Rome speaking like… a Pope here. Perhaps he has simply read a speech written by others rather than substituting it with his own … adolescent progressivism. Or perhaps today is “feed the pigeons day”. Perhaps, though, he is making an effort.

A third positive sign comes from the explicit mention of repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness. Again, this is a welcome change from the sub-kindergarten deity up to now smuggled by Francis as the God of the Christians to atheists, infidels and apostates of all shades; and again, this is not enough, because the warning about God's justice is still remarkably absent and remains merely implicit.

Is something happening in Francis' papacy? Has he started to listen to the least bad among the people near him, and has he perhaps realised keeping the course of the first seven months will make of him an object of shame and derision for all centuries to come?

Perhaps. Let us hope so. Let us pray that it is so.

But let us not abandon ourselves to irrational optimism, either. Modernists love to deceive, and to mix the heretical statements with the orthodox ones. We will only be able to say that Francis has changed his tune and the style of his papacy when we see him consistently expressing himself in an orthodox way: renouncing to the adolescent progressivism, the shameless promotion of his own humility, and the clownesque attitude, and accepting to be hated by the world for his defence of Catholicism.

One is happy to register an improvement. But really, one “human sacrifice” statement does not a good Pope make.

Mundabor

 

Posted on November 19, 2013, in Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Oh this is just for the pigeons. As was the whole thing about Medjugorje. I know you don’t agree, but he knows how to seduce. By the way, did you see the PR stunt of the rosaries inside ‘misericordina’ drug boxes? And the one about Francis calling the guy who was fired from radio Maria, saying he needed criticism? And the removal of the republica interview? All of this is to calm the nerves of the trad-cats. He still believes counting rosaries is pelagianism, the guy from radio Maria did not get his job back, Our Lady can appear any way She wants to, and the Republica interview has not been retracted. In order to step forward into the abyss, one has to walk with two legs. He is just moving the ‘right’ leg now.

  2. Mundabor,

    had Pope Francis called abortion “human sacrifice” he would have made headlines throughout the world. Had he said that everyone who takes any part in this kind of “human sacrifice” is condemned to and deserves eternal punishment and torment by the devil in Hell unless he sincerely repents of his murderous deeds and turns back from his life of servitude to Satan, he would have lost the support of almost every “important” person in the West, including the media.
    Had he then proceeded to excommunicate all those slaves of Satan – including not a few Bishops and Cardinals silently (?) supporting abortion, and almost every “catholic” politician in the Western World, we would have known with certainty that he did not just intend to deceive us, as he has done a few times before.
    Had he crowned his accomplishment by proclaiming, clearly and unequivocally, for the first time in fifty years, the Kingship of Christ over all creation, including all human societies and states, he would have died a martyr within less than a year.
    He did none of these things, obviously. It would not surprise me in the least if, for him, “capitalism” was human sacrifice, because it “causes” youth unemployment and “condemns” millions of people to starvation, wealth not being evenly distributed, and all that. There are laws protecting private property; maybe he sees those as protecting human sacrifice?. We do not know what he meant. Let us, therefore, read Francis through Francis. Has he ever before said that, for him, abortion is murder? No, he has not. Why, then, should we assume he meant to talk about abortion, opposition to which, reading Francis through Francis, is obsessive anyway?

    As it stands, I see no rational grounds for optimism, just because there are some signs the intelligent (and therefore more dangerous) part of the neomodernist movement in Rome (for example, Archbishop Müller) seems to have realized they need to rein in the more radical revolutionaries, in order to put up a semblance of Catholicism needed to prevent massive bleeding of “conservative Catholics” to traditionalism (that is Catholicism without liberal, socialist or conservative additions, all of which are just different flavors of modern ideologies).

    • Oh, Capitalism!

      I hadn’t even thought of that eventuality! That would be another golpe in true Maradiaga style!

      I hear what you say, but again, perhaps he has also understood that he has gone wrong once too often.

      If this is merely a modernist ruse, we will soon notice anyway.

      M

  3. whilst other countries like Britain do not show interest in prosecuting the relatives and enablers)

    This is a bit of an understatement. The Liverpool Care Pathway is euthanasia. It is not only government policy, but NHS trusts are provided incentives to use it more. On paper, you can sort of argue that it is not necessarily euthanasia, but in practice it is euthanasia. The US has a broadly similar though perhaps somewhat less awful euthanasia program through the hospice benefit in Medicare.

    Euthanasia today is where abortion was just before the Supreme Court decisions legalizing it in the US. It is somewhat common, becoming more common, and, although de jure illegal, de facto encouraged. Furthermore, a large majority of elite opinion is militantly pro-euthanasia.

    The way euthanasia-in-all-but-name works in the English-speaking world is that patients or their families are convinced to prospectively refuse to have “tubes” put in them. Then, via opioid drugs and sedation, are put, intentionally by medical practitioners, into a state where they cannot eat and drink without “tubes.” Thus, they die. If that proves too grotesque for family, the doses of drugs can be ramped up until the patient has trouble breathing. Since you need “tubes” to help someone breathe . . .

    If anything, pro-lifers are too sanguine about euthanasia and the related phenomenon of physicians killing people for their organs. These practices are routine in some places, spreading, and de facto legal.

  4. I’m skeptical too. I remember the very first homily Francis gave after his election, when he said that “tragically, in every period of history there are ‘Herods’ who plot death, wreak havoc, and mar the countenance of men and women”. Pro-life groups and Francis fans were ecstatic: “See? He said ‘Herod’! That was a reference to abortion, and in his very first homily!” I said then and say now, “Why is he being so coy? If he wants to talk about abortion, why doesn’t he just do it? He doesn’t have to resort to dog-whistles and veiled allusions, as if he were a Resistance fighter in occupied France, sending surreptitious messages in code to the Allies. He’s the Pope! No one would be surprised to hear him say abortion is bad, any more than if he said wife-swapping was bad. So why all the dancing around the point? Who’s he trying to fool?

  5. I work in hospice, much of it Medicaid driven by our company. I am honest when I tell you that I have never experienced someone being drugged to the point of needing a tube to eat, then refusing to put in the tube. Never. We know what active hastening of death looks like and we don’t do it! Whether Obamacare dictates otherwise I cannot predict. We deliver utmost compassionate care and our deeply demented/debilitated patients are fed lovingly via mouth by hand (pureed diet, or dietary supplements) by our ancillary staff. We put a feeding tube in if the family/individual wants one and they often do not. These poor individuals would never have remained alive as long as they do even 25 years ago and are kept alive with comorbidities with bronchodilators, statins, etc. Many of them have silent aspiration, but we continue to feed them by mouth knowing that they will get pneumonia, (and give antibiotics if the family/patients wants them) but it is more humane than not feeding them! As from time immemorial there is a time to die, and more often than not to artificially keep a 90 year old with advanced dementia alive with a feeding tube is just plain nuts. We medicate them to alleviate anxiety, agitation, hallucinations (common symptoms), etc and are always careful that they are not too sedated. It’s a healing art to know how much narcotic or benzo to give any individual. We always back down if a dose is too large and I have never seen anyone die of narcosis.

  6. I truly appreciate your guarded optimism here. Unfortunately for me, I was even more saddened and incensed than before I read that, by his use of the phrase “human sacrifices…..protected by law” and deliberately being vague. I believe he fully and consciously intends to be vague, as often as he can. It’s going to take, like you suggested, some major consistency towards orthodoxy and equally important (to me), clarity, to soften my heart towards this man. Sad, sad, sad.

  1. Pingback: Thou art Peter… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam," etiam sub patrocinio S. Ignatii Loyolae et Francisci Salesii. C.S.S.M.L. + N.D.S.M.D. + V.R.S. N.S.M.V. S.M.Q.L. I.V.B.

%d bloggers like this: