And it came to pass Bishop Gaenswein allowed the world to know the Pontiff Emeritus had written a sort of commentary of the draft of the Papal interview with Civilta’ Cattolica, the 12,000 word exercise due to the fact that Bishop Francis does not like giving interviews.
This interview was scandalous enough. But it could be that without Benedict’s notes (which might have led to adjustments in the end) it could have been even worse.
Soon thereafter, Francis writes a long letter to Scalfari, even more scandalous than the interview to Civilta’ Cattolica, and inter alia lets the first bomb about “conscience” and “salvation for atheists” explode. Shortly after the letter, he doubles with the notorious interview, which was more a carpet bombing in Dresden style.
Knowing what we know now, we can safely conclude as follows:
1) Benedict must have received a draft of the interview already checked by Francis, then elementary courtesy demands no other behaviour. You don’t ask a Pontiff Emeritus to OK a draft you have not checked for accuracy first. He is not your under-under assistant just come out of the Seminary. Francis, then, does receive drafts, and he does read them.
2) Benedict does not receive, as far as we know – but it would be strange if Gaenswein would just keep this covered – neither the draft of the original letter to Scalfari, nor the draft of the Scalfari interview. Am I bad in thinking Francis feared he would receive not four, but fourteen pages of comment? Why, otherwise, would one avail oneself of the services of a fine theologian in the first occasion, but not in the second and the third?
3) How can even the blindest Pollyannas now declare that the Pope does not receive and reads drafts of interviews? Or that he is so reckless that he gives them green light for publication without even reading them? After we know he asked the draft of the Civilta’ Cattolica interview to be read by the Pontiff Emeritus? Really?
Just three thoughts, really. But I wanted to share them. We should not forget old scandals just because we are confronted with ever new ones.
And it came to pass Francis stopped shouting heresies to all corners of the planet, and we are now supposed to believe he is trying to steer his papacy into the path of righteousness. Pat Archbold already breathes a little easier. Other will breath much easier. Other still will say they have never breathed so well.
Personally, I don’t share the enthusiasm.
Let us see the arguments adduced, and the reasons why they do not persuade me.
1. The notorious interview has been removed. Fine. But this was only because ++Müller was informed, to his dismay, that the thing was still around in the Vatican cyberspace, and as a result stated in public he would take care of it, and delivered. This is not Francis’ initiative, though if he is half smart he must be relieved the interview is not there anymore without he being the one who took the initiative to have it removed. Slick Willie wouldn’t have his photos with Monica on his Internet site, either.
Besides, Francis has not recanted one word. Not one. Vatican officials may think the interview was bad, but he has not said it was wrong. Not one word has been corrected. The draft was approved by him. Enough of excuses.
2. Francis wrote to Agostino Marchetto, saying that the hermeneutic of continuity is the right way of interpreting the Council.
Every Modernist would say the same every morning, noon and evening without batting an eyelid. Francis always cared to “save appearances”. He visited the tomb of Pius X just days into his pontificate. Modernists aren’t as stupid as juvenile revolutionaries. They will always insist they are being harmoniously following 2,000 years of Christianity, they will only point out that some things just belong to the past. Look, Francis does exactly the same, criticising the rosary-counting “Pelagians”! The letter to Marchetto means exactly nothing, unless it be that Francis isn’t as stupid as to openly support the School of Bologna.
3. He called Mario Palmaro, the man who with Alessandro Gnocchi expressed himself – as every good Catholic should – critically about Francis on the Italian newspaper Il Foglio and was fired from the V II Catholic Radio Maria as a result. Fine, but Palmaro is, I am afraid, dying – so much can sadly be inferred by his words as reported – so that there is a merciful aspect here that is nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Besides, I am sure one phone call of Francis would have had both Gnocchi and Palmaro – leaving aside health considerations – immediately reintegrated at Radio Maria. Funnily enough, this phone call does not seem to have taken place.
4. The Pope said it is “important” for him to receive criticism, using one of those typically fluffy politician’s statements that mean perfectly nothing and perfectly avoid the issue at hand. I personally think it is infinitely more important that a Pope does not put himself in the position where he must be criticised by faithful Catholics, something no good Catholic would want to do, rather than spreading heretical statements all over the planet and then saying to his critics “yeah, I’m not angry at you. I totally get what you are trying to say. Totally!”. Alas, I must say it once again, because repetita iuvant: not one word has been recanted. Not one from the first letter to Scalfari, not one from the interview with him, not one from the 12,000 words interview with “Civilta’ Cattolica”.
Facta, non verba. If Francis really want to be orthodox, he must openly and explicitly recant all his questionable or openly heretical statements. Nothing else will spare his papacy from ignominy and condemnation for all centuries to come.
Pope Honorius has been declared a heretic because of the content of one letter he wrote. You can imagine in what pit of heresy a Pope has fallen, who allows his statement to be published worldwide without a word, – without a word! – of public correction.
And please let us not hide behind the finger of the interview having been removed from the Vatican site. When the interview appeared no one expected it to land on the Vatican site; nor did anyone wait for this to happen before considering the interview authentic, historical, or trustworthy. Everyone knew then the interview was authentic, and everyone knows it now. Again: not one word has Francis recanted. Not one. Not one. Not one.
“Oh – says the Pollyanna choir – but he has let it know, from what it appears to have transpired, that he has “regretted” the publication!”.
Regret is a feeling, not a rational position, much less a theological one. The drunken driver regrets his misfortune when the police stop him, but this does not mean he condemns his drinking. The Modernist regrets his interview had unintended consequences, but this does not mean he has changed his mind. On the contrary, this is nothing more than emotional bird food for the pigeons.
This Pope has made irruption into the china bull and has made a lot of damage, and then has started sending out rumours he regrets so much china was in his way, and phones one of the owners of the shop to say that to him (Francis) criticism is important. The china is in tatters, and there is no sign he offers to make restitution for the smallest broken piece.
Ah, but the article about the devastation has been removed from the Vatican site. All is fine now. Not a bull, then.
It must have been all a misunderstanding.
I cannot say it often enough: the SSPX is a beacon of sound Catholic thinking in the darkness of the “new humbleness”. Clearly, if you want to know what proper Catholicism is you must stay away from Francis' ramblings, as they will inoculate you with the virus of Modernism and shift you from the solid ground of Catholic reasoning to the deadly quicksands of fluffy, emotional, senseless, and in the end heretical thinking.
I suggest that you take the time – not so much of it after all – to read and interiorise this beautiful reflection on Francis' forma mentis – make no mistake: an heretical one – on the basis of his exploits with “Civilta' Cattolica” and “Repubblica”.
Once again, we see the steamroller of sound Catholic thinking rolling over Francis' marshmallow-tasting, popularity-seeking emotionalism, and flattening it altogether. Francis, a man of embarrassing ignorance and even more embarrassing arrogance, will not understand the objection; but rationally thinking Catholics with a grounded knowledge of Truth will immediately grasp that the problem with Francis is not in, say, the way he expresses himself but, far more gravely, in the way he thinks.
The simile with the blind man and the forest is delicious, and will remain with you for a long time.
Enjoy this example of Catholic sanity, and please remember to say one or three Hail Marys for Francis, who is so much in need of our prayers.
It seems fashionable nowadays to show so much understanding for those who have willingly decided to put themselves outside of the Church, and in opposition to Our Lord and Saviour. If one is an atheist, it seems he is considered the spearhead of modern thinking, and even Popes – though not those who call themselves such – will make extraordinary (and actually heretical) contortions to show them how very cool they are in their atheism, because hey, they follow their conscience. Oh, how much better the world would be if there were more cool atheists following their own conscience…
In all this official and unofficial pandering to the ideology of our time, there are some situations that, I think, are never called to our attention. Therefore, I will do it myself.
Here, a good mother lovingly raises her children and tolerates a husband gone bad, because of love for the family and fidelity to Our Lord and to the sacrament of matrimony. There, another mother is tested with a sodomite as a son, but she has the guts to not capitulate to the “acceptance” mantra, and prays every day that her son may find the strenght to get rid of his satanic perversion and avoid hell. Follow me a few houses down the road. Do you see that man? He is a husband left by a sluttish wife, and who resists the temptation to think he can – nay, he has the right to – throw his sacrament from the window and pursue his own “happiness”, as some of his friends and all colleagues around him do, and as everyone in his family suggests he should be doing. Walk with me for a while, if you will. Do you see that window? You cannot hear it, but behind that window pane a young woman is crying; she must see a man for whom she deeply cares go away, because she does not want to acquiesce to his demand that she becomes his public concubine, or his bed companion. Walk with me to the school, and observe that young boy in the schoolyard; yes, the one isolated and silently mocked, and considered stupid or ridiculous for insisting to defend his Catholic values in front of the general opposition of his peer. It is even rumoured he counts his rosaries. To count… rosaries?! Can you believe this guy??!! And what’s a… rosary anyway?
All these people pay a price – at times temporary, at times very heavy – for their belief in Christ and His Commandments; they are those who think that their conscience is only then worthy of being followed, when it tells them what Christ would; they are those who – sinners as we all are – would not even contemplate giving scandal in front of their entire community and in the face of God just for the short-term reward of an illusive “happiness” that is, in reality, extreme rebellion; all those people are never the object of much attention from their shepherds. When they get it, it is generally the wrong one. “Obsessive” they are called, or “narrow-minded”. Next thing you know, they’ll be called “Pelagians”.
Nowadays, when the clergy tends to praise the Catholics, it is never for their obedience to God’s laws. It is, in case, because they are so social, so inclusive, so full of this flippin’ “joy” allegedly so well spread, but such that no one would be able to say, walking along a busy sidewalks, “that, that and that must be Catholics, because they have such joy written on their face”.
The Fear of the Lord most have heard mentioned last time, very probably, in the Bible. Christ’s yoke is now rather an amusement park, so when one can’t remarry there must be some serious issue with the machinery.
“bbbbzzzzz…… Service announcement: we are so sorry you are not getting the fun we promised you. Bishop Zollitsch is looking at the wheels as we speak, and Cardinal Woelki has some ideas about how the machine can be unstuck. We hope to be able to re-start the merry-go-round very soon. Please don’t go away. We value your custom”
Still, there are a lot of people out there who fight the good fight in silence, and pay the price without any
Pope Bishop of Rome praising them. People enduring privations, solitude, mockery, or financial insecurity. People who have lost their job because they did not want to be the nurse of an abortion, or the doctor who goes to sleep knowing today he has killed a baby; people spat on the face, or provoked in the street, for not wanting babies to be murdered in the womb. Strangely enough, they are called “obsessed”. They aren’t helping at all, you see. This is soooo the wrong message.
There are still a lot of these people around. They just aren’t cool. They are no examples. The atheist who has his conscience – and therefore himself – as his god, not the believer who has his faith in God, is, nowadays, the cool kid.
How can a God-fearing man be cool? He is so narrow-minded! His “excessive doctrinal security” certainly does not make him worthy of being made an example. He is so stuffy. Unfashionable. Pre-Council. Ugh!…
Doctrinal security is, we are told in so many words, a bit like chocolate. Not bad in moderate doses. Even good, actually. But too much of it? Heavens, it upsets those who have been appointed as the cool kids! It can’t be allowed, can it now. One wants to be liked by the cool kids. One wants their approval. One will do everything one can to show them whilst one must – alas – keep some divergence of opinion, one will do as much as one can to minimise it, make it almost disappear if he can, and make it appear just another version of their same coolness if he cannot. One will, therefore, become very popular. A just reward, because one is so very humble.
Thus, the unsung heroes will remain unsung, whilst those who should praise them most try to be popular with those they have appointed as the “cool kids”.
If those who should praise them were smart, they would recognise those whom they think cool are the real morons, and those whom they think “narrow-minded”, “obsessed” and plagued with “excessive doctrinal security” are the real cool kids. But they aren’t, so they don’t.
The unsung heroes continue their battle every day, belittled by those who should encourage them most. But they aren’t discouraged.
The Blessed Virgin sees them all; the smarts and the idiots, the brave and the cowards, the faithful and the rebels.
She sees the wife with the bad husband, the mother with the perverted son, the husband with the sluttish wife, the young woman crying in her bedroom; she sees the young boy walking alone in the schoolyard, the pro-life activist provoked in the street, and the nurse or the doctor who have chosen to endure the loss of their job.
She knows who the cool kids are.
I know I am not the only one who thinks this, but I thought I would say two words about it anyway.
The Bishop of Rome said on the aeroplane bringing him home from Brazil that he really didn't like giving interviews. Many, like me, thought: “of course he doesn't: his theological approximation is such that he would be exposed as a dangerous amateur in no time, and the comparison with Benedict would be painfully cruel”.
Strangely enough, since then our man has abandoned himself to extemporaneous public messages with a passion that I can only call voluptuous. What has happened to persuade Francis to change his mind?
What might have happened is that more and more voices within the Vatican have started to warn Francis of the dangers of his reckless behaviour. The man might therefore – in this scenario – have realised he would never get his revolutionary (read: heretical) message out there within the frame of the normal Vatican communication channels.
Imagine such an amateur as he trying to write an encyclical letter: it would be so full of bovine excrements that even the Neo-Modernist Vatican nomenklatura would be up in arms in no time, explaining to him in countless rigorously written notes why what he wants to write is utter and complete nonsense. At this point he might choose to just ignore them, but this would be theological suicide as the documents would be certainly leaked, procuring him a reputation for incompetence, officially sculpted in marble, that would defy the millennia.
He chooses, then, to do exactly the contrary of what he had planned: spread the bovine excrements through the mainstream media, as informal and spontaneous expressions of his humble heart; without anyone of the Vatican allowed to know beforehand what he is going to say; without, in fact, not even anyone present during his interview with Scalfari. Free as a bird, and alone with a buddy atheist. The revolutionary possibilities are limitless.
This way he goes around the Vatican apparatus, avoids being ridiculed in Vatican papers, becomes the idol of the X-factor catholics (small c), but avoids the direct ground of serious theological confrontation. He was merely talking off-the-cuff, you see. He is a merry guy, not so interested in theological precision. Exactness is overrated, and common sense vaguely Pelagian. The entire planet is taking him very seriously; but you, you should not give too much importance to the interviews.
Whilst, therefore, the entire planet will rejoice in Francis' heresy, the desperate defenders of neocon rose water Catholicism will say that he has “not changed Church teaching” (which in essentials he can't anyway and therefore isn't of any use, or any news), blessedly glossing over the fact that whilst officially not changing the teaching, Francis unofficially completely changes its perception all over the planet. But you, you wait patiently for the next encyclical; you will see there is nothing to fear, really…
If this is true, we will see this Papacy choose a rather cautious (when needs must) approach in official documents, giving Francis the bird food he needs for his Catholic pigeons; at the same time, he will continue his work of demolition through the mass media. The Clericalist Troops will be satisfied: hey, the encyclical on the wetness of water was so good, so where's your beef?
I might be wrong of course, and I have already clearly underestimated the immense potential of confusion and destruction of this man. But it is a fact that he did not want to give interviews and now he seems unable to live without – or without the letter-writing in answer to newspaper articles, which amounts to the same -, so one wonders what might have happened that made him change his mind.
We are being punished.
This intervention appeared on Chiesa, and is from Pietro De Marco, a professor of Theology in Florence.
It is noted the intervention appears in toto as appendix to A Magister article on L’Espresso’s “Chiesa”. It is also noted “L’Espresso” and “Repubblica” belong to the same editorial group.
Emphases mine, in bold. Comments in red and square brackets.
A “liquid” message
by Pietro De Marco
In conscience I must break with the courtly choir, composed of all-too-familiar secular and ecclesiastical names, which for months has accompanied the public statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio. It is the choir of those who celebrate the “new” of the pope knowing that it is not such, and are silent about the true “innovations,” when they are embarrassing. For this reason, I am constrained to point out some of the reiterated approximations into which the spontaneous and captivating eloquence of Francis has fallen.
No one is exempt, in daily and private conversation among a few, from approximations and distortions, But there is no person [unless he be very arrogant, and appallingly superficial] who has responsibility in regard to many – who teaches, for example – who will not adopt another register in public and seek to avoid improvisation.
Now, instead, we have a pope who exclaims: “Who am I to judge?” as one can emphatically say at the table or even in preaching spiritual exercises. But before the press and the world a “who am I to judge?” spoken by a pope objectively jars with the entire history and profound nature of the Petrine function, moreover giving the distasteful sensation of an uncontrolled outburst. Because of his function as a vicar with respect to Christ, not as an individual, the pope judges. Since Pope Francis demonstrates, when he wishes, the awareness of his powers as pope, this is a matter – whatever he might want to say – of a true error of communication.
We then read in the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica” the phrase: “Spiritual interference in personal life is not possible,” which seems to group together under the liberal-libertarian figure of “interference” both theological-moral judgment, and the public evaluation of the Church, when necessary, and even the care of a confessor or spiritual director in indicating, preventing, sanctioning intrinsically evil conduct. Pope Bergoglio Involuntarily [ very charitable…] adopts here a commonplace typical of postmodernity, according to which the individual decision is, as such, always good or at least always endowed with value, in being personal and free as one naïvely thinks it may be, and therefore incontestable.
This relativistic slippage, no longer rare in general pastoral practice [a common heretical slippage in V II times] , is covered up, not only in Bergoglio, by references to sincerity and to the repentance of the individual, almost as if sincerity and repentance canceled the nature of sin and prohibited the Church from calling it by its name. Moreover, it is doubtful that it is merciful to be silent about and respect that which each one does because he is free and sincere in doing it: we have always known that clarifying, not hiding, the nature of sinful conduct is an eminently merciful act, because it permits the sinner to discern about himself and his state, according to the law and the love of God. That even a pope [picture a facepalm here…] should seem to confuse the primacy of conscience with a sort of unjudgeability, or even as immunity from the judgment of the Church, is a risk for the authoritativeness of the pope and for the ordinary magisterium that cannot be underestimated.
In the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica” the pope returns to the “who am I to judge?” and confirms: “If a homosexual person is of good will and is seeking God, I am no one to judge him. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has made us free.”
The reiterated use of that “who am I?” confirms on the one hand, in Francis, a popular acceptation of “to judge” as a synonym of “to condemn” – which produces confusion, because judgment is not necessarily condemnation, and often it is not – and on the other accentuates the idea that none of us and not even the pope is legitimated to express judgment [ ahem.. do I hear an “amen”?] . But this is false: each of us can be judge in every organization and even in the Church, if he acquires competence, and the pope is judge because of the mandate that is proper to him. [ Amen!]. Moreover, either no one is legitimated, ever, in judgment, because only God is, or it is not clear why only in the case of homosexuality the capacity for judgment should not be found [ true: the man “judges” all the time].
If moreover, as the pope says, “religion” – a cursory way of designating the history and institutions and treasures of grace founded in Christ of which the pope is the guarantor – “has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people,” but must not interfere in freedom, there is no longer room either for the law of God or for charity. Freedom as such becomes, truly, the absolute. And certainly if “religion” is reduced to an opinion group it cannot take on the stature of judge. Who has, moreover, need of charity if his freedom absolves him prior to any judgment?
The formula of the Church “in the service of the people” returns in the words of the pope even with regard to liturgical reform, which is taken to be “a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel on the basis of the concrete historical situation.” A staggering definition that reduces the sacred signs even below the little they had fallen to in the Protestant churches. What has been the use of a century and a half of liturgical “ressourcement?” [ another facepalm]:
It will be said that one must not overanalyze words that are spoken in a conversation between Jesuit confrères. But if this is the case, it would have been well that the conversation should have remained in the private memoirs of pope Bergoglio and Fr. Antonio Spadaro. To endure the fate of reading in “La Civiltà Cattolica” – a magnificent combatant at least since the 1950’s for the Catholic truth and for Rome [the entire contrary now] – that for the current successor of Peter doctrine, traditions, and liturgy have become the faculty and eventuality of giving an opinion and “offering a service,” is a humiliation that could have been spared the Church.
In “la Repubblica” of October 1 we read other debatable statements of pope Bergoglio. We learn that “proselytism is solemn foolishness, it makes no sense,” as a response to the theme of conversion proposed ironically by Eugenio Scalfari (“Do you want to convert me?”). [here Prof. De Marco is obviously wrong. has he not read all the contortionist blogs? tsk, tsk…] But seeking the conversion of the other is not “foolishness”; it can be done in a manner that is foolish, or sublime, as in many saints. I recall that the spouses Jacques and Raïssa Maritain, converts themselves, ardently desired and worked for the return to the faith of their great friends. Why avoid the theme of conversion by comparing it with “proselytism,” a word loaded with a negative connotation? [because he does not want to convert in the first place. That’s why].
We then read that, to the relativistic objection of Scalfari: “Is there a single vision of the good? And who establishes it?” the pope concedes that “each of us has his vision of the good” and “we must incite him to proceed toward what he thinks to be the good.”
But if everyone has “his vision of the good” that he must be able to realize, these visions cannot help but turn out to be the most diverse, in contrast and often in mortal conflict, as proven by current affairs and by history. Inciting one to proceed according to his personal vision of the good is in reality inciting the struggle of all against all, a strenuous battle, because it is waged for the good and not for the useful or something else contingent. [ do I hear an “how can Francis be such a child?”] This is why particular visions – including those guided by the most upright intentions – must be regulated by a sovereign, or in modern terms by the law, and ultimately by the law of Christ, which has no nuances of concession in individualistic terms. [ this man does have too much “doctrinal certainty”. Tsk, tsk again…]
Perhaps Pope Francis meant [ extreme effort at explaining heresy; we all went through that…] that man, according to the Catholic doctrine of the natural law, has the original capacity, a primary and fundamental impulse, given to all by God, of distinguishing that which is good in itself from that which is evil in itself. But here is inserted the mystery of sin and grace. Can one extol Agustine, as the pope does, and omit that in that which man “thinks to be the good” sin is always at work also? What has become of the dialectic between the city of God and the city of man and of the devil, “civitas” of love and of self? If the good were that which the individual “thinks to be the good,” and the convergence of these thoughts could save man, what need would there be for positive law in general, for the law of God in particular, and for the incarnation of the Son? [I rephrase for the benefit of the readers: “Is this rubbish Christianity at all? No, it isn’t!”]
The pope also maintains: “Vatican II, inspired by Pope John and by Paul VI, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to open to modern culture. The council fathers knew that opening to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with nonbelievers. After then very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and the ambition of wanting to do it.”
All of this sounds like an “a priori” that is hardly critical. How much destructive “ecumenism” and how much “dialogue” subservient to the ideologies of the Modern have we seen at work in past decades, to which only Rome, from Paul VI to Benedict XVI, have presented a barrier! [ note: Francis does not see anything negative in all that! and by the way: who is he to judge?] The Bergoglio who criticized the theologies of liberation and revolution cannot fail to know that dialogue with modern culture carried out after the Council was quite another thing than a courteous “ecumenism.”
Pope Francis shows himself to be the typical religious of the Society of Jesus in its recent phase, converted by the Council in the years of formation, especially by what I call the “external Council,” the Vatican II of militant expectations and interpretations, created by some episcopates, by their theologians, and by the most influential Catholic media outlets. One of those churchmen who, in their conciliatory and pliable tone, in their undisputed values, are also the most rigid “conciliars,” convinced after half a century that the Council is yet to be realized and that things should be done as if we were still in the 1970’s, in a hand-to-hand with the “pacellian” church, neoscholastic theology, under the influence of the secular or Marxist paradigm of modernity.
On the contrary: that which the “conciliar spirit” wanted and was able to activate has been said or tried over the decades and today it is a question in the first place of making a critical assessment of the results, sometimes disastrous. Even the tenacious proclamation in Pope Francis of the divine mercy corresponds to a pastoral attitude now widespread among the clergy, to the point of that laxity which the pope moreover censures. Not only that. The theme of sin has almost disappeared from catechesis, thereby liquidating the very need of mercy [ exceptions: gossipers and pelagian rosary-counters. Rather than promoting generally merciful behaviors, this is a matter today of reconstructing a moral theology less made up of words and again capable of guiding clergy and faithful in concrete cases. Also in moral theology the road to the true implementation of the Council has been reopened by the magisterial work of Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger.
Some maintain that Francis could be, as a postmodern pope, the man of the future of the Church, beyond traditionalism and modernism. But the postmodern that most thrives in him [this man is rotten to the core] – as liquidation of forms [he doesn’t know or care about what he says..], spontaneity of public appearance [… provided he is popular and in the headlines] , attention to the global village [because he wants to be a global phenomenon] – is superficial. With its pliability and aestheticism, the postmodern is hardly plausible in a bishop of Latin America, where until recently the intelligentsia was dominated by the Marxist Modern. Bergoglio’s solid core is and remains “conciliar.” On the road undertaken by this pope, if confirmed, I see first of all the crystallization of the dominant pastoral conciliarism in the clergy and in the active laity.
Of course, if Bergoglio is not postmodern, his worldwide reception is. The pope pleases right and left, practicing and nonbelievers, without discernment. His prevalent message is “liquid.” On this success, however, nothing can be built, there can only be remixed something already existing, and that not of the best.
There are worrying signals of this “liquid” appearance for anyone who may not be prone to the relativistic chatter of this late modernity:
a) the concession to set popular phrases like “everyone is free to do…” “who says that things must be this way…” “who am I to…” allowed to slip out in the conviction that they are dialogical and up-to-date. Presenting himself as a simple bishop to justify hardly formal behaviors, do not cover up and cannot cover up the different weight and different responsibility that instead belong to his words, any word, since the bishop of Rome and the pope are one and the same;
b) the lack of scrutiny on the part of persons of trust, but wise and cultured, and Italian, of the texts destined to be circulated, perhaps in the papal conviction that there is no need for this;
c) a certain authoritarian inclination (“I will do everything to…”) in singular contrast with the frequent pluralistic propositions, but typical of the democratic “revolutionaries,” with the risk of imprudent collisions with tradition and the “sensus fidelium”;
d) moreover, there remains incongruous in Pope Francis this constant taking of individual public communication initiatives and this wanting to be without filters (the symptomatic image of the papal apartment as a bottleneck), which reveal the unwillingness to feel himself a man of governance (something more difficult than being a reformer) in an eminent and “sui generis” institution like the Catholic Church.
His is, at times, the conduct of a modern and informal manager, one of those who concede a great deal to the press. But this clinging to persons and things on the outside – collaborators, friends, press, public opinion, even the apartment in Santa Marta is “outside” – as if the man Bergoglio were afraid he would not know what to do once he were left alone, as pope, in the apartment of the popes, is not positive. And the thing could not last. Even the media will get tired of supporting a pope who needs them too much.
Two last observations.
1. To those who invoke the Ignatian style of accompanying the sinner, or the far away, I reply that this concerns the relationship of the internal forum or the direction of conscience or private conversation. But if the pope expresses himself this way in public, his words enter the flow of the ordinary magisterium, they become catechesis. We all know that the conciliarist motto “from the cudgel to mercy” was aimed not so much at softening confessors as at weakening the authority of Rome.
2. The expressive model chosen by Bergoglio cannot be pushed to the limit of knocking down the ordinary magisterium and making it hardly or not at all obligatory. The powers of a pope do not extend to the very nature of his own “munus,” which transcends him and imposes limits on him. [ see my “letter to a Proddie friend”]. I do not approve of the traditionalist extremists, but there is no doubt that tradition is the norm and the power of the successor of Peter.
Florence, October 2, 2013
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
Understandably, many good Catholics are now praying every day that the Lord may, in His Mercy, free us from Francis, the Scourge of Catholicism. They rightly reflect that due to the unique position of this man, as I write this on the morning of the 3 October 2013 it is fair to say no one else on the entire planet is making – unwittingly, I hope – the work of the Devil as effectively and as destructively as this man.
Still, it must be very clear to us that what we – as Catholics and Christians – are collectively living is nothing more than what we have collectively deserved, and the Lord's Justice has now descended upon us in a way that is impossible for us to ignore any longer.
It is as if the Lord would – in a way, of course – say to us: “So you love ecumenism, don't you? Care a lot for “religious freedom”, right? Live happily with abortion, am I wrong? Are so full of understanding for sins that call to heaven for vengeance, aren't you? Well, boys 'n girls: let's see how you like this…“.
After which, he allows the Cardinals to commit the Stupid Act Of The Century and appoint an ignorant, hypocritical, morally very questionable, fake humble, unaware of Catholicism, clearly heathenish, popularity-worshipping, camera-loving, logorrhoea-plagued, beauty-hating, provincial Argentine Peronist as Pope.
Punctually, the man begins to give them – and all of us – overdoses of what they – and all of us – have been tolerating for decades. Better still, the man brings the many budding heresies of the V II to ripeness, like a peach in August. With him the Neo-Modernist heresies, up to now mixed with Catholic Truths, become of age, and want if not the sole attention, certainly the main place at the Catholic table.
You loved ecumenism. Enjoy Francis being consequent and saying that, then, there is no need to convert anyone. No! No! No! Hey, God isn't Catholic, says he! (a Sign of the Cross is here certainly in order).
You loved religious freedom. How about a Pope fighting for the right of Muslim to eat halal meat? Or paying attention that his sodomy-loving Jewish buddy eats kosher? Do you really like to be forced to have the couple of faggots “sleep” in your bed and breakfast, in front of your family? Is having to pay for other people's abortion and contraception tolerant enough for you? How do you like the obvious faggot soldier on the shower near you, talking of his impending “marriage” with his “love” whilst he looks at your buttocks?
You were happy to look the other way about abortion, and always said you were “personally opposed”; but you clearly wanted to be nice at all times and not impinge in the “right” of others to kill their baby in the womb. How about a Pope who says a yearly multiple Holocaust on a planetary scare is something we should not obsess about, and the biggest problems in the world are… youth unemployment and old people's loneliness?
You were happy to be so silent about sodomy. How about many countries exposing your children to sodomy as a human right even at school, whilst the Pope does not say one single word against sodomy, doubling it with “who am I to judge” and the invitation not to be “obsessed”? I am sure I have left aside a lot, but you get the drift.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Sow the Novus Ordo mass, reap the Pinocchio Mass.
Sow ecumenism, reap indifferentism or outright New Age rubbish.
Sow religion freedom, reap the persecution of Catholics.
Sow Vatican II, reap Francis.
We are being deservedly punished. We are being shown on our flesh the folly of our ways, because we were so blind and stupid we did not get that, to make one example for all, the Assisi gatherings – particularly the first – are blasphemy and abomination.
We collectively pay the price of our collective folly. We collectively deserve every mouthful of excrement this unspeakably unworthy Pope will thrust down our throats; feeling, no doubt, extremely humble as he does so, and reaping the lavish praise of all the wrong people, from perverted singers to abortionist organisations, and from liberal journalists to the holocaust-promoting President of the United States, who has just joined the long list of his fans.
The only way out now is to denounce the excrements for what they are, and hope the Divine Spoon will be taken away from us soon.
But truly, we have deserved every spoonful. God does not owe us an orthodox Pope. We may hope he takes Francis away from us; but if we are honest with ourselves, why should He?
Sow the error, reap the spoon.
In happier and more hopeful times, when the horror of Bergoglism had not shown itself to the world with all the arrogance of humility, yours truly and many others had a reasonable hope that the new Pontiff would have been reasonably conservative. Yes, it was clear it had a penchant for very public shows of humility, and it was evident the rhetoric of poverty would have been in his menu du jour pretty much every day. But we thought it would have been not much worse in the end than a Ratzinger with the addition of a bus ticket and a wheelchair. The Pinocchio Mass was clearly worrying stuff, but one hoped (for the record: I don’t anymore) that once become Pope the man would understand the implications of his new role.
This short introduction will help you to understand my comments to one of Francis’ off-the-cuff homilies. In it, Francis tell us what kind of Pope he plans to be.
Do not believe me for that. Let Francis himself talk. The emphases are from the original translation.
“How’s our faith? Is it strong? Or is it sometimes a bit superficial? (all’acqua di rose – “like rose water”, meaning banal, an insufficient substitute, shallow, inadequate)” When difficulties come, “are we courageous like Peter or a little lukewarm?” Peter – he pointed out– didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he din’t descend to compromises, because “the Faith isn’t negotiable.” “There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”, he stressed, “we take the path of apostasy, of disloyalty to the Lord.”
If you click the link and go on my comment of that time, you will see a clear description of what Francis’ words meant, and some reflections on the various ways in which it would be possible to him to use the principles he had just enunciated. Faithful, hopeful stuff.
In those early days, there was no need to let the words of the Pontiff go under the microscope to see whether he really meant what he had just said. Particularly on this occasion, I do not remember any uncertainty from anyone anywhere.Strangely enough, when a Pope expresses himself in a clear and orthodox way, no contortionism is necessary.
Again, the points clearly were:
1. The faith isn’t negotiable.
2. This means it must be told whole.
3. There will always be the temptation to accommodate and choose comfort and popularity, but
4. we must choose to be rigid and, consequently, hated,
5. because otherwise apostasy can’t be far away.
Fast forward to pretty much six months later, and I notice Francis has, in all this time, done exactly the contrary of all that he preached.
1. He has clearly indicated the faith is not only negotiable, but optional. Do we have to convert? No! No! No! Proselytism is nonsense, & Co.
2. He always “forgets” to mention anything Catholic when he talks about Catholicism. he states that Jesus “saved us”, but then he forgets to “explain” it isn’t so. Atheist can follow their conscience, he says to them, but then he forgets to tell them this is not the case, & Co.
3. As to the “temptation to accommodate and choose comfort and popularity”, it is fair to say Francis is the walking, talking, child-kissing, wheelchair-embracing, Renault 4-driving incarnation of his own words. He has, in fact, brought the very concept to a new high (or, well, low). The pieces of the faith he has chopped away are, well, pretty much all of them.
4. Rigidity has been explicitly rejected by him. Rigidity is, by default, narrow-minded. We must not “obsess” about abortion and sexual morals, for example. Besides, we must not make ourselves hated, because it alienates people. It would, in fact, be a catastrophe for us if we did.
5.The very concept of “apostasy” has become very blurred in one to whom not even atheism is a problem, and who does not feel any need to actively exert himself to change one’s atheism. I remember him comparing those who count rosaries to heretics, though. Perhaps he meant that.
One wonders: has Pope Francis changed his mind about his reign after this little sermon, or was he a Jesuit from day one and was simply talking like one, saying to the audience of the day what would make him popular with that particular audience? How is it that when he talks with atheists he sounds like one, and when he talks with clergymen he sounds (almost, and in parts) like one?
Francis is always on all sides at the same time, so no one can say he is not “pastoral” to them. This is called “running with the hare and hunting with the hounds”, and Jesuits take it with their mother’s milk. Not quite like Peter, I dare say.
Other bloggers will certainly disagree, but I have seen in him no trace, none whatsoever, of all the beautiful virtues Francis says both we and he must have. On the contrary, I have seen in him an attitude that is not only “all’acqua di rose”, but so publicly and shamelessly yielding to the “temptation to accommodate and choose comfort and popularity” that not even blatant heresy is an obstacle to his boundless desire for approbation, and it becomes more and more difficult to attribute even a modicum of good faith to his actions. His much-vaunted humbleness looks like a monstrous self-centredness to me, one that has put him straight on the way to damnation. As I write, a numerous and ever crescent number of blogs of all types openly cry “heresy”, or at least “shame”.
They know why. They can read. Words have a meaning.
“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good” sounds rather different from “Peter didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he didn’t descend to compromises, because “the Faith isn’t negotiable”, doesn’t it now?
No, no verbal yoga exercises now, please. I prefer the beauty and clarity of the English language.
This is where we are. But hey, this is what happens if you elect a Jesuit as Pope.
With the coming of winter, the Francis Game could be a good pastime for those afternoons with friends when it’s too cold to go for a walk in the park.
The game is so: player A says something utterly offensive, stupid, ridiculous, juvenile, astonishingly arrogant, blasphemous, heretical, or otherwise absurd. The worse the statement is, the better it is for the player. This player is called “The Francis”, hence the game’s name. It applies to ladies too, I am afraid.
At this point, Player B must show player A that said Player A has not said what he has really said, but the total opposite, which could have been inferred if A would have added something – no matter how long – he has not said.
This player is called “Blogger”. Blogger must, to win the game, end his explanation saying to player C (the “Reader”): “You see? What Francis really wanted to say…”
Important: If the Blogger doesn’t say the last words, he has always lost. When Player C has counted to three after Player B has stopped talking, the game is up.
So, let’s see some example.
Francis: “Your father is a murderer”.
Blogger: “We have all crucified Christ. Therefore, we are all murderers. Therefore, in a sense your father is a murderer”.
(To “Reader”): “You see? What Francis really wanted to say…”
(Variations with “your mother is a slut/your sister is a whore” also allowed. To be avoided with temperamental players).
Francis: “Christ has saved you”
Blogger: “By dying for us, Christ has redeemed us with His Blood. The redemption opens for you the possibility of salvation. Hopefully, you are going to choose to follow Christ and, helped by God’s grace, will merit salvation. If and when you are saved, we will be able to say that Christ has saved you”.
(to “Reader”): “You see? What Francis really wanted to say…”
Francis: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”
Blogger: “Christ is pretty good, but I do not have to shove Him down your throat right now, eh? ah? no? Let’s have a cocktail or two first. A bus ride. Perhaps ten or twelve interviews. I like interviews, as you might know. We need to get to know each other. I must improve my knowledge of your atheism, if you are atheist. If you are a Jew, I must take care you only eat kosher food. This is important. Our ways may crisscross and zigzag and go hither and tither, but at some point you will end up converting to Catholicism because I am such a capital chap, and I go out and do things. Proselytism happens, because proselytism is a relationship, like… Truth. So Proselytism purely meant as the Pelagians intend it, as narrow-minded legalism, is nonsense”.
(to “Reader”): “You see? What Francis really wanted to say…”
Well, enough of instruction now.
Enjoy the game!
If one remembers correctly, it was last Thursday that the F-Bomb exploded in the face of orthodox Catholics. Not the usual F-bomb, though, but a particularly insidious, 12,000 words long one.
With his interview, a cunning but not very intelligent Holy Father tried to give a massive push with the shoulder to the way Catholicism is – still – perceived, and to captivate an audience of anti-clerical heathens and enemies of the Church. It was an interview worth of a Quisling, offering the abortionist and perverted Nazis of our time a partial, but very abundant surrender against the background of a worldwide “lio” meant to make of Francis if not Christ's vicar, at least the darling of the planet.
One week later, it is fair to say the big modernist onslaught has very probably failed, and failed parlously.
For the first time, the worry with the antics of “Jorge” has become mainstream. I do not think there is now one Catholic on the planet who does not know this Pope is heavily criticised in his own ranks. How different this is from the modern icon of the “papal JFK”, ushering a new era of dialogue and understanding! How different Francis' press has become compared to March or April! The heavily promoted “JFK” bubble exploded sometime between last weekend and the beginning of this week, when the headlines about the angered or confused Catholics began to attract the attention of the specialised, but also mainstream, media.
Yes, there was the usual reaction of the “business as usual” crowd, but this time it was clear rather early it was truly not business as usual.
A blogging priest writes an extremely blunt – if you can read between the lines; which I know you can – description of the aftermath of the interview in four instalments. An archbishop openly talks about the disorientation of his own parishioners and says how instructive their devastating emails are. A bishop makes clear he really could not notice the obsession his… colleague in Rome is blabbering about. The blogger now worldwide known for being a too staunch defender of Francis signalled the interview was a mistake. Even the video warrior has made two episodes which, though still rather prudent, are in the end clearly critical of the man, and this in just a few days.
It really starts to get noticed: Francis has made his bed.
Yes, no prelate writes a word about this huge mess without stressing how actually – cough – right the Pope is if your magnifying glass is powerful enough; but at some point even my cat got the gist of the good bloggers and orthodox bishops' comments: dear Lord, whatever they are smoking over there, please let them stop.
In the meantime, the sly Francis had scheduled his own insurance policy: on the Thursday he publishes a 12,000 words interview of sabotage against the “obsessions” that prevent his popularity from becoming stellar, and on the Friday he pronounces some twenty words against abortion, so that the simple are appeased and the critics are silenced. The intervention does not get much press. Obviously. If Francis had wanted the press, he would have released the prolife speech not one day after, but instead of the Quisling enchilada.
Please don't insult your intelligence thinking Francis doesn't know what will make world headlines and what will not go past Catholic blogs and magazines, and pro-life sites. It's not difficult to arrange things so that the press will pick only what we want. Ask every politician. Or every bishop.
Alas, this time it did not work as expected; true, the cretins would have been appeased if Francis had said “the sky is blue”; but as of last Friday the critics knew Francis had thrown away the mask, and have reacted accordingly. Go around the comments on all major blogs and magazines and read the rage of true Catholics: people with fear of the Lord and belief in Christ, and who have decided that enough in enough. More in general, just follow the “Catholic Answers” controversy. A lot of people have had enough, and they start saying it. In a way, Francis' antics are having the effect of waking up some people who were either asleep or silent. No bullshit anymore for us, they say, thank you very much.
Slowly, a new narrative is being created to justify the obvious fact the F-bomb has exploded in the middle of Francis' humble Ford Focus: Francis has not considered the cultural environment of the West; he is Argentinian, you see, and they are sooooo different from us: when you translate them into English it always looks like they have smoked a joint, or are flipping heretics, or don't know what they are talking about. You see, the Americans thinks in terms of being allowed to do what their “conscience” say, whilst the rest of the world's atheists and anticlericals don't, so it's clear something got lost in translation…
But Francis is against abortion, he really is! After months and an entire WYD of flipping silence he has finally said twenty words the day after the worst scandal of his already scandal-rich pontificate, so he must have been right all the time! He just forgot to mention! So much to do, you see…
Spoken in blunt Italian terms, Francis' virginity on pro-life issues has gone, and if he wants to remake a virginity for himself he will have to work very hard, or at least follow the job description. On his overall orthodoxy, more people begin to doubt than the usual suspects – yours truly proudly included -. The word “heresy” (material heresy, of course) is pronounced seldom, but implied very often in blog comments, from people who clearly understand what's going on and will not be flattened on the “Francis good, Press bad” mantra. In a word, this disgraceful interview has exposed Francis, and the “Dalai Lama In White” icon is now visibly scratched. Thank God for that.
It was Neo-Modernism overkill, and it has backfired. The scandal has reached the mainstream. If Francis isn't entirely deluded he can now see the cannons being moved, and he must know they will not all be directed at “the ugly press” forever. For a man obsessed (I used this word on purpose) with his own popularity this must be a rather heavy warning.
Francis has abused the patience and charity of faithful Catholics once too much. From now on, by every heretical statement a growing number of faithful will understand it's Francis or Christ, and those who choose Christ will be enough to destroy the icon of the “Dalai Lama In White” for the rest of his pontificate, and bring him shame galore for all centuries to come.
Make no mistake, though: if Francis were to dance the tango in St. Peter's Square dressed in nothing more than rainbow undies and black shoes there would be no scarcity of bloggers explaining to us why this is a good thing (though the undies should possibly have been white, so atheists do not misunderstand the message of purity and dialogue clearly implied in Francis' gesture).
Let the defenders against all reason of Francis say what they like. They are smelling the winds of war as much as you do. They will at some point begin to question not the motives, but the ways of the… bishop. They know if he continue to make an ass of himself (yes: an ass of himself; and shame on him for that) there's no way they can save his face, so they will at least try to save theirs.
The F-bomb has exploded in the Focus' back seat.
Be under no illusion concerning the man's orthodoxy. But now, let us see how smart Francis really is.
It seems the only way left to defend Francis and let him look like a halfway normal Pope instead of a dangerous liberal Neo-modernist, populist, appeasing moderniser is to deny that he is worse than he really is, and to infer from this that he must, then, be good.
At the end of May, Francis excommunicated a mad priest. A pope defrocking and or excommunicating a mad priest is not new or strange, and it is questionable whether it is “news”. For some predictable reason – like the necessity to give Francis a varnish of “tough” orthodoxy for the benefit of the gullible – the news has been echoed, several months after the fact, by the Press after the 12,000 word disaster, prompting desperate cries of “look! He is not the Antichrist!” from the equally desperate defenders of Circus Bergoglio.
The same happens with the nuns, or with the strange idea of Francis “changing the teaching of the Church”.
Well no, Francis is not a mad nun – though Nazi Pelosi seems almost to think he is; but actually not even she does – and it will always be easily possible to find a mad nun telling us that, to her, Francis is not good enough. But this does not prove absolutely anything beside the disquieting fact the mad nun considers the reflection whether the man could be, in fact, good enough a legitimate one, worthy of a statement or a video or an interview or an assertion that he might be “teachable” after all.
Similarly, the assertion that Francis “has not changed Church teaching” means perfectly nothing. The topics about which Francis has caused the biggest stir – abortion and homosexuality – are clearly part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. The bishop of Rome couldn't change them at all, so Francis not saying “as per midnight new rules will apply” doesn't even begin to be an argument to defend his alleged orthodoxy.
A Pope cannot change Church doctrine. What a bad Pope can do, though, is to downplay or sabotage or subvert important parts of it, and put fluffy sentimentalism and populist waffle of all sorts in its place. This has been a popular sport at the Vatican in these last 50+ years; but clearly, Francis wins the contest hands down and puts every one of his predecessors easily in the shade. In the hit parade for the worst pope since V II he has already left even the 15 years of Paul VI's pontificate easily behind himself, and he a … bishop of Rome only six months. Just imagine what he will do in ten or fifteen years.
The devastation caused by this man is now apparent, but there are still those who believe the entire planet is stupid and doesn't understand, for the thirtieth time, what Francis wanted to say. Some of them now begin to say that, perhaps, it might be a mistake to cause an earthquake a week with his oh so orthodox interventions; still, that dozens of interventions show a clear pattern of thinking and behaviour does not enter their elevated and perceptive minds. No. We just don't get the man, that's all.
You see, Francis is a sly, cunning man. A genius he is not, a Jesuit he clearly is. He knows how the church works, and how the V II crowd thinks. Therefore, he goes on with his work of destruction, comfortable in the knowledge that he will never be short of clericalist cheerleaders, whilst looking oh so good in the eyes of the enemies of Christ. The orthodox Catholics, on the other hand, he feels free to offend in that humble, non-judgmental way of his, and calls them various names, among which “obsessed”, “Restorationists”, “Disciplinarians”, and “Pelagians” come to mind, not to mention “hypocrites” and “cowards”.
Yes, Francis is against the ordination of women. Of course he is, this is Catholic dogma. Yes, he will defrock or excommunicate a priest every now and then, when there is really no alternative. But this proves exactly nothing concerning the main problem of Francis, the daily downplaying, sabotaging or subverting Catholic teaching in his quest for popularity and approval.
It's like wanting to defend Che Guevara stating that he wasn't Stalin after all.
It says little, and it proves nothing.
Lifesitenews.com reports about an intervention from Cardinal Burke in an interview released earlier this month. From Life Site News’ article:
Asked about Pelosi, [Cardinal Burke] said,
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
I will be frank with you. I was appalled at the “disciplinarian” attitude of the good Cardinal. It is clear he has a (and I quote) “static and inward-directed view of things”. He is obviously wrong, because “the church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently”. It is clear the good Cardinal has to “find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
On the contrary, as a minister of the Church, he “must be minister of mercy above all”.
Thank God, we have Francis taking care that the liberals do not heed what the Cardinal says. This restorationism will not lead us anywhere.
Good Lord. The man talks as if he had the Truth. And he is so judgmental!
My dear little one,
I write to you in a very difficult moment of your very young life, because even if you cannot read I think there are some things of which you should be informed.
In just a few minutes your young and tender life – a God-given gift, full of bliss and promise – will be abruptly, unnaturally, and cruelly put to an end. I am very sorry to tell you that if you have already developed small legs and arms , and are already almost looking like a little child, you will be torn to pieces whilst still living, and you will be extracted from your mother’s womb one piece at a time.
Your rests will be discarded. You will not be considered a person, so you will not be buried.
Talking of your mother, she has by now persuaded herself – in conscience – that you are a lump of cells, and refuses to see herself as your mother, or you as the baby God gave her. She thinks she has the “right to choose”; which, my dear little one, means she thinks she has the right to kill you, or to dispose of the lump of cell she pretends you are as if you were a huge tumor, or an overgrown cyst.
I will not lie to you. You will have to be strong. It will be very painful. God in His mercy and justice will, no doubt, provide you with ample recompense for the atrocious suffering and injustice of your murder. He will treat you with great love, and show you all His infinite justice and mercy. You will not feel unjustly treated, not by him at least. But yes, it will be very painful. Perhaps, little one, your little soul will feel at some level, in those terrible minutes, the atrocious pain of knowing that your own mother wants you dead, your own dear mother you thought so warm, welcoming, and loving.
Your mother hesitated a long time, you know. All her friends, and some of her relatives, told her to “do what she has to do”, and she was torn. She wasn’t able to see the blessing of your life, you see, nor was she encouraged to see things in that way; so she was undecided, waiting, not knowing what to do.
Last week, though, your mother read an interview about a man you do not know; a very famous one. This man was saying if she does not believe in God she is allowed to decide according to her conscience, and this will decide whether what she does is right or wrong. Your mother never believed in God, you see, and whatever little doubt she might have had that perhaps, perhaps there is this God – and if there is, she is doing something terrible – was instantly silenced when she read the interview; because the man is very important, my dearest little one, and it is very easy to let him say more than he wants to say. Particularly so, because this man is very anxious to please, so eager to say nothing that your mother would dislike; therefore, he never said to your mother in clear and unmistakable words that she has no right to murder you, full stop.
At that point, little one, your permanence on this earth was probably decided. Still, your mother hesitated.
A very few days ago, she read another interview. It was with the same important man. The man said words to the effect that he can’t “obsess” and talk “all the time” about your mother murdering you, because there are so many other important things to care about. He also had said – or your mother thought he said; which she did, like pretty much everyone else – people should not let your mother feel bad if she murders you, because she is following her conscience, you see. In addition, your mother thought, the man is right also in this: she is doing what she thinks right, so who is anyone to judge? The important man told that too, you must know.
No, little one. Your mother did not read the interviews in detail. She did not make any enquiry about the theological implications. She did not read many of the 12,000 words of the latest interview. She did what most people do: she read the titles, perused the articles, read the clear citations from the man, and felt relieved.
Case closed, then. She is not so bad after all. There are so many other things in life than a clump of cell who thinks he has the right to become her baby. She is very environmentally friendly, you know – she drives a Prius; you have been brought to your place of execution in a low-emission vehicle -, she does not eat meat because it’s cruel towards animals, she campaigns against smoke and drink, and she supports the struggle of the polar bear; she is concerned about social justice, is a great friend of hope and change, and sends money to Africa to help those poor children who might, otherwise, die; because the Western capitalistic society is so selfish and self-centred, instead of being as caring, concerned for the planet and socially aware as she is.
And that it was, my dear, that sealed the deal on your death. Even the Pope – this is how the man is called, though he seems not to like it – was not “judging” her, then. Even he “got it” then, at least at some level. There are so many other priorities in life, she thought. She can abort – erm, terminate her pregnancy – and continue her battle in defence of humanity. By that she means of the people who have been born. No, to her you are not part of humanity. To her, you are a punishment. Yes, she remembers these words clearly, “punished with a baby”. They are from another important man who doesn’t like you at all, because you can’t vote.
Your mother “meets the other”; she is caring, generous, concerned and socially aware. To her, Christian “homophobia” goes against elementary “human rights”, like slavery once. No, to her you are not human, so you have no human rights. But look: she never ever gossips, because it’s so “judgemental”. She follows her conscience, which says to her it’s not good for you to be born. Not at all. Nope.
So she took the decision, and made the call. When she had put down the phone, she recalled those words of the man again: “who am I to judge?”. Yes, who is anyone to judge? She is following her conscience, and her conscience tells her you have the duty to die, because no one asked you to be there in the first place; besides, even that man said there are other priorities in the end, you can’t reduce bad and good to one single issue and obsess over it. The times have changed. Abortion is here to stay, you see. Sad, he knows; but not worth obsessing about.
And so there you are, my little one, and you will die today. No, it was not the important man who killed you. Your mother will kill you. She will kill her own son, and give to a trained executioner the task of executing her death sentence. Make no mistake, her conscience will make no objection. Not today, not in ten years’ time; but in twenty or thirty, more probably; and then it will be hell on earth: a mother knowing that she has killed her own baby, and does not even believe in God, in Whose merciful arms she could take refuge.
No, it was not the important man who killed you. But what he could have done to try to help you he decided not to. You are too controversial, little one. Your existence goes too much against the grain of modern society. The important man just does not want to be “obsessed” with you, you see. He has other priorities. Poverty, or gossip.
You know, the day after that long interview your mother did not read he did speak in your defence, the important man. Yes, for the first time he clearly did. But he has done the damage already, and today no one believes this is really what he thinks, or rather really an important part of how he acts. He was told to say so, says everyone; he was told to say so because he has to, because he needs to save face, because all those around him implored him to say something, because damage control had become necessary. So, it was too little, and too late. Your mother has made her decision, and she is now sure that even the Pope thinks that your life isn’t the only issue, or whatever…
Therefore, little one, today is the day you die. You will never know the embrace of your earthly mother, never will you learn to smile at her, recognise her voice, feel her tender love. You are a punishment and a clump of cells; you are a “product of conception”, and you must be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
When you look at it with your little eyes open, you realise that it must be so.
Even the important man thinks you are, when all is said and done, just not that much of a priority.
For the next April Fool, I am thinking of writing a blog post with one of the following topics.
1) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. We shouldn’t feel too safe in our certainties.
2) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. It reminds us that we need to pray for an orthodox Pope.
3) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. Jesus did that with the Jews, too.
4) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. He must be saying something we need to hear.
5) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. Without growing pains, there would be no growth.
6) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. It means the Holy Ghost has decided to make some “holy mess”.
7) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. We must open new areas to God.
I must still decide which issue to tackle.
It will be, as you can imagine, a very charitable blog post.
No judgment at all.
I feel all warm and fuzzy already.
This is just stellar.
The “Eye of the Tiber” has the following post:
Minneapolis, MN––Dr. Simon Townsend, in an interview with United States Magazine, sent a clear message to his patient, Mr. Christopher Watts, who is suffering from stage-four terminal cancer. “Mr. Watts needs to stop letting himself get locked up in small things like the ever-growing tumors in his lungs that daily threaten his life.” Citing a need for his patient to widen his scope and not look myopically at one particular issue, the doctor warned Watts to “see the big picture” lest his overall health “fall like a house of cards.” Dr. Townsend continued, remarking that, “[Mr. Watts] is constantly harping about his cancer, his treatment, his chemotherapy, how long he has to live, blah blah blah. He doesn’t even seem to realize that he’s gotten really skinny and lost practically all his hair. I think he’s stressing himself out too much and needs to relax.” At press time, Mr. Watts was weakly leaning forward in his hospital bed to see if he could take a sip of water out of a straw and keep it down.
We should keep an … eye on this site. Humourvoll, always to the point, and very blunt.
I wish I had their sense of humour.
Kudos from here.
EDIT: Lifesitenews.com asked me to clarify their legal status and independence from the Catholic hierarchy.
They wrote to me with the following words: “We are not a Catholic news service, but cover topics related to “life, family and culture,” meaning abortion, artificial contraception, population control, the various attacks on the natural family, feminism, globalism and the growth of the homosexualist movement. Since we cover issues that are closely related to Catholic moral doctrine, and which are extremely contentious in the secular world, we very frequently cover Catholic news as well, but LifeSite itself is a secular organisation, meaning we are not directly beholden to nor answerable to any member of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and we are not funded by the Catholic Church or any diocese.”
They close with : “We would appreciate a clarification on this in your blog post. Thanks”
I publish the clarification with pleasure. The complete message is published in the comment section below.
I also profit of the occasion to congratulate Lifesitenews.com for their work.
No one, truly no one could accuse “Gloria TV” of being one of those liberal and secular media outlets spinning Francis.
Well, even they could not avoid giving witness of what is happening, pointing out in a very respectful but very clear way that there is no way to avoid the fact that Francis’ entire attitude is at variance with proper Catholic behaviour on the issues of our times.
Instead of analysing the 12,000 words, they have picked a “life site news” comments:
“In comments rocking the Catholic world today, Pope Francis’ has recommended that the Church pull back from her perceived emphasis on “abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.”
Note here the words used by Lifesitenews: “rocking the Catholic world”, “pull back from a perceived emphasis” (this is apparently contradictory, but still clear: if you pull back from something merely “perceived”, you still pull back; and you pull back because of the perception).
Gloria TV answers with two quotations one from JP II and one from Benedict XVI.
“To be truly a people at the service of life we must propose these truths constantly and courageously from the very first proclamation of the Gospel, and thereafter in catechesis, in the various forms of preaching, in personal dialogue and in all educational activity,”
The emphasis is theirs, and it speaks volumes.
“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable,”
This is a less strong counterpoint to Francis’ mentality, but it’s still useful. It is, though, mostly useful because it opposes Benedict’s entire papacy – always attacked by the liberal press, and they did know why – with Francis’ untiring desire to please the wrong crowd.
There is no denying whilst some Catholic outlets are still either silent or outright in denial, more and more (EDIT: Here “Gloria TV” is meant) start to point out to what sound Catholicism is supposed to be.
Enough with the marketing. Enough with the personality cult. It’s time to go back to the Papacy.
And so we are, the day after, reflecting on the latest antics of a man who is frankly surpassing every limit of Catholic decency.
Before we examine in detail some of what has emerged, I would like to make some preliminary consideration.
1) Do yourself a favour, and read (or re-read) first what Pius VI had to say about heretics – and those who would like to become such – in Auctorem Fidei. Know how heretics – both formal and material – think, and learn to detect the heresy even when sprinkled with affirmations of orthodoxy. This is vital, because no heretic or “revolutionary” Catholic – much less a Pope – would ever dare to be unceasingly intent on his work of demolition, without feeding his unknowing pigeons with some convenient orthodox bird food whenever necessary to keep them well-fed and reasonably happy. True, Francis up to now has been very stingy even with the orthodox bird food, but I attribute this to his excess of demolishing zeal. This might well change in the future, if and when the flak grows stronger or the criticism threatens to seriously damage Francis’ media icon. Then you will see the bird food being distributed more abundantly. The pigeons will eat it enthusiastically, whilst swallowing all of the heretical one with it, without a second thought.
2) Read what Francis says not in isolation, but within the greater frame of what he has kept saying in these last six months. One misunderstanding is one misunderstanding, and two misunderstandings can be a painful coincidence; but thirty misunderstandings are not even carelessness; they are not of this world.
3) Bear in mind that I have not – nor do I intend to – read all the 12,000 words. If you think this does not qualify me for a credible exam of the papal enchilada, I ask you not to say a word of criticism of Marxism before reading Das Kapital, of Nazism before reading Mein Kampf, and of the mad nuns before reading their books. Realise that Francis does not give a 12,000 words interview in order for 1,1 billion Catholics to read all of them. He gives a 12,000 words interview in order for 1,1 billion Catholics and countless non-Catholics to read the headlines and the quotes. In case you still don’t get it (but I am sure you do) the 12,000 words are there merely to muddy the waters, so that the orthodox parts – that obviously do not make any headlines, as desired – can be used against those who dare to criticise Francis for the scandalous bits. Again, the text mentioned on 1) is your friend.
Let us, therefore, examine some of his words. Not the comments, not the attempts of the press to spin him and make him even worse than he is – and they do it, incredibly; they do it big time. Liberals are always so hard to please… – but what he has himself said. Again, let us keep in mind that what is expected or old does not make it in a newspaper article, what is unexpected or new does.Yes, there will be many expressions of orthodox faith. Of course there will be many of them. In 12,000 words there’s plenty of space, eh, ah, no?
“Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks.”
He refers here, I think, to the sensus fidelium. He uses an extremely dangerous phrase, “infallible in matters of belief”, without the proper context within the phrase; making of them, so to speak, a new infallible Magisterium for those who read – as desired – the snippet. Of the sensus fidelium Ratzinger already said: “It is certainly not a kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium would be unthinkable, since the sensus fidei cannot be authentically developed in believers, except to the extent in which they fully participate in the life of the Church, and this demands responsible adherence to the Magisterium, to the deposit of faith.” Of course, theologians and priest bloggers will run to tell us that Francis did not say that the majority of poorly instructed Catholics decides about “changes” in the deposit of the faith. But the use of such charged words without the necessary explanation (that is: without the explanation of what this infallibilitas in credendo most certainly is not), it’s either not there or it did not make the newspapers. I can’t be bothered to look if it’s there, so sure I am the part already mentioned is the one meant for picking up by the press. Why am I so sure? Because I have been reading all the nonsense of this man for six months now.
We must all train ourselves to read Francis through Francis. When we do, we discover that what he wants to say is clear enough.
“Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible.
I see two and a half huge problems here. The first is the concept of “actualising” (forgive the English spelling) the Gospel. If it sounds stupid, it’s because it is. If it sounds Presbyterian, it’s because it’s stupid. Christ did not die on the Cross so that Francis may “actualise” His Truth. And please make no mistake here: it is clear enough from the entire Francis-planet that by “actualising” he does not mean “tweeting Bible verses” or “having a Vatican Youtube channel”. He means changing attitude, which can only cause a shifting in values. You can judge (yes, judge!) for yourself how Catholic such “dynamic” is; that is, you can do it if you have paid attention to what has happened in the last 50 years. The other problem is the attempt to remain blind in front of the catastrophe, a “Francis moment” already examined here. The third, but lesser problem, is the attempt to depict V II as someway infallible and certainly irreversible. Bollocks, of course, but the leitmotiv of the last decades and therefore, in itself, not new.
A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’
Here, my dear readers, we need to be strong, and stay calm.
In all centuries past, the answer of the Pope (of every Pope. No exception. No, I really mean no one) would have been:
No, of course I don’t!
Fairly easy, right? Doesn’t challenge anyone. Of course, the fact itself that the question could be posed without everyone exploding in a roar of laughter is highly disturbing. Still, it would have been so easy.
But you see, then the image of the “who am I to judge”-Pope as the Dalai Lama In White would have been compromised. Therefore, Bergoglio does not even muster the courage to give such an easy answer as that, but he boasts of his reaction instead. I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all.
“When I went through my lung disease at the hospital, the doctor gave me penicillin and streptomycin in certain doses. The sister who was on duty tripled my doses because she was daringly astute; she knew what to do because she was with ill people all day. The doctor, who really was a good one, lived in his laboratory; the sister lived on the frontier and was in dialogue with it every day. Domesticating the frontier means just talking from a remote location, locking yourself up in a laboratory. Laboratories are useful, but reflection for us must always start from experience.”
Another very dangerous comparison, potentially explosive and actually, already exploded. I can’t avoid reading in this a very simple message: theory (doctrine, orthodoxy) is fine and good, but when you dig deep in the belly of the favela (put here your favourite social cause) other rules apply. The “dialogue” with the “frontier” makes you intrinsically better at understanding reality, whilst the theoretical clergyman or layman (that is: the orthodox people who don’t know the reality of the favela) are talking from a “remote location”. Again, this links to what he said about the shepherd that must smell like his sheep. I smell filth here, and cannot see how one with this thinking can have any real determination in stopping it. The corrupted priests are like the “sister on the frontier”, you see, and all that jazz…
““The young Catholic churches, as they grow, develop a synthesis of faith, culture and life, and so it is a synthesis different from the one developed by the ancient churches.”
What is this? Seriously, is this a Pope? Or the Circus Bergoglio? Do I have to pay a ticket for this?
Please, please, do not say “taken out of context”, “in reality he wanted to say the contrary”, and the like. Can’t you see all the elements of, ahem, Bergoglism? The “young” churches “grow”, and they grow in a different way than the ancient churches.
You are the past, Baby Jesus. Say hello to a new “synthesis of faith culture and life”; a “synthesis” that cannot but be, if you are honest with yourself, a new religion.
Then from here:
The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently,” Francis said. “We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
“Church” is not capitalised. Very bad, and hopefully a typo. It is not clear why there should be a “multitude of doctrines”. On the contrary, Catholicism is so beautiful because so divinely logical, coherent and wonderfully held together by a superior, unifying wisdom. If the young Jorge Bergoglio had been paying attention at school, or in seminary, he wouldn’t talk such rubbish now. The “new balance” smells of Neo-Modernism like an Argentinian favela smells of canalisation, or lack thereof. The idea that it be bad to “impose doctrine insistently” is worse than stupid. For many centuries, doctrine has been hammered into the head of people since they were little children. It did them a lot of good. It would have done Bergoglio a lot of good, too. I seriously doubt he knows the Ten Commandments, or the works of mercy, by heart. If he does, it’s even worse, because then it’s clear he doesn’t care for them.
“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” he lamented. “The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.”
The Jesuit alarm went on big time here. Seriously, how can he say to an undetermined, planetary mass of readers “Jesus has saved you?”. Who is he, God? Or could you say, who is he to judge? I thought I will only know when I die whether I am saved or not. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross only makes this salvation possible, but in no way achieved. If this were the case, the Pope would be the first who has made himself redundant. As to the “ministers of mercy”, again, if he knew that to admonish the sinner is a work of mercy he would not talk this rubbish.
I must be wrong, though. We are saved. My bad. I just didn’t know we are Protestant now. Actually even more “saving” than Protestant, because this is addressed to everyone, not just Christians.
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” he said. “The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”
Insist only? Insist ONLY? When has Francis ever mentioned abortion, condemned so-called “gay marriage” (no “so-called” for him: marriage it is, clearly) or contraception? Isn’t he not the chap who said there’s no real need, people know already? His first half-courageous words I have read from his concerning abortion are of today: no doubt, the result of the brutal flak against the new icon of the humble quasi-non-Pope.
And what is that is not possible? Did the Church not expand the most when it seemed impossible? I write about these issues incessantly and my readership expands faster than the Church does in every country you could care to mention. I am not even a priest, just an angry amateur blogger layman writing in a foreign language! Can you imagine what would happen if the Pope were to start doing the same and “insist” on the core issues? People have a desperate need for sound words! Desperate! What is this man’s priority: gossip?
Dulcis in fundo, let us repeat the last part of this astonishing statement.
“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
This is 100% Grima Wormtongue when Gandalf meets Theoden, and is utterly, utterly disturbing. Surrender to the new times, is what he is clearly and simply saying. Yes, you don’t have to formally approve of them; just shut up – most of the times, at least – and live with all the abominations of the day. Adapt, because if you don’t do it your moral edifice will collapse like a house of cards.
How can the moral edifice of the Church, of obviously divine origin and scope, collapse unless it get “adapted”? Is this some kind of sick joke? Is it the First of April and I haven’t noticed it?
Here, it can only be that the link between the “balance” and the “collapse” was taken completely out of context. I have no other explanation. Otherwise, it would be unprecedented even for Francis. A Presbyterian on steroids. Disturbing. Still, one must realise with some alarm that the phrase has “Bergoglio” written all over it. Again, I do not want to believe it. I merely point out to how easy he made for the press to make the utterly stupid and utterly brutal link: adapt or collapse. Certainly, this happened because of his unguarded expressions.
The sum total of all these assertions – all of them, word for word quotations – and of all that Francis has said, and omitted to say, since the beginning of the pontificate – is clear: don’t fight it. Francis espouses a defeatist line somewhere between Chamberlain and Quisling, with some very worrying streaks of Grima Wormtongue.
I do not think Jesus on the cross – or any time before, or after – was very worried about adapting his message to the times, or having the moral edifice of His church fall like a house of cards (that Francis would use such an image of speech referred to the Church, which is indefectible, is in itself a scandal as it suggest an organisation that could be wiped out, though this is not explicitly said). Actually, if one does not believe that Christ’s message is, in its entirety, valid independently of the times and the concrete situation, I question his right to call himself a Catholic rather than, say, a Presbyterian. The same I allow myself to think if, in a similar way, one should think the way the Church has dealt with the message of Christ – with such abstruse initiatives like evangelisation, and staunch defence of orthodoxy – were now past “sell before” date. We see here, again, Neo-modernism at work. Neo-modernism, I add, of a particularly brutal kind.
Or perhaps does Francis think that these are bad times for a staunch defence of orthodoxy, but there have been much better times in the past? Was it easy to defend Catholicism when the French Revolution ravaged Europe? Was it easy to defend Catholicism when Hitler sent thousands of priests in concentration, or even extermination camps? Was it easy to defend Catholic orthodoxy when the Communist siren lured the poor all over Southern Europe? Was “liberation theology” of any kind whatsoever an option then? And if not, why? What about the Cathars? What about the Saxons? What about the Hussites, the Lutherans, the Calvinists?
No. Defending Catholicism has never been easy, though at times this has been done better, at times less well, and at times very badly. Catholicism is, be it sodomy today or communism yesterday, uncomfortable, countercultural, never looking for the easy answers. Again, Popes have varied greatly. But what we have now on the sea of Peter is no Gregory the Great; rather a cowardly Liberius, suggesting that we do not insist on such stupid things as putting orthodoxy before all else, or being so “uncharitable” as to say to a sodomite that – bar an always welcome repentance – he is surely on his way to hell.
This man doesn’t even have the guts to say that God is against homosexuality. He suggests we focus on gossip instead. Because you see, other than the battle against institutionalised sodomy, the battle against gossip can certainly be won, right?
Francis must wake up, and I mean he must really wake up. He has been playing the populist provincial Peronist Archbishop for too long; he must see, surely, that this attitude will cause immense damage to the Church and the Papacy, at least as Church and Papacy have been understood for 2000 years, before the populism of the favela prophets entered the corridors of the Vatican.
Time to wake up for us, too, and stop pretending nothing is happening here.
The man is bombarding us with his revolutionary nuCatholicism like it’s Dresden in February 1945. We can’t pretend it’s carnival.
On the usual Rorate Caeli, read the words of the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, about some current issues.
Let us be judgemental, and let us quote it in its entirety.
“Harmonizing Ukrainian legislation with the European one, we quickly adopt the diseases of the Western society. In European legislation I see no mention of the Christian roots of the culture. We are mistaken if we think that in order to have European prosperity we need to come down with these illnesses,”
He said that in today’s society, which does not live according to God’s commandments, there are different ideas of morality and values. Often in the name of so-called tolerance, says the head of the church, life is destroyed, which, conversely, must be protected.
“Among the requirements of the European community are pseudo-values. The EU looks like a teenager who is testing the limits of morality and needs a Christian education. Europe was built not on same-sex marriages, but on the respect for human dignity, the protection of human rights and freedoms, on honesty in politics and business. On these foundations Europe arose, but it has forgotten about it. These are the values which today the church defends in our society. When it comes to the protection of life from its natural beginning to natural end, then it is the basis for the opposition to euthanasia, abortion, and other acts that violate the dignity of life”…He refutes the assertion that if Ukraine adopts the law on gay marriage, then it will join the European community. “I can affirm that it is not so. Sometimes our legislators, so as to not implement other bills, implement ones like this. It is much easier for them in Europe and in Ukraine to vote against the traditional family than against corruption, the unfair judicial system that tolerates selective justice. They focus on minor issues so as to not solve the main ones.”
Why can’t Francis talk that way, you will ask?
Well, because he does not believe that way, of course.
More on this to come soon. It might take some time; please cut me some slack, I also have to fight with the usual duties and chores of daily life.