Today is the fifth anniversary of that fateful day, in which Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate at the end of the month and make way for a more vigorous Pope.
Benedict's Pontificate had been, Summa Summarum, more Catholic than JP II's, particularly because of the historic Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, I then believed in the honest, straight narrative of a Pope who feels that his strength is leaving him and, remembering the last sad tears of JP's Pontificate, decided to make way for a more energetic man, confident that the Conclave he was about to leave would lead to the election of a man continuing on his path, a Benedict XVII so to speak.
This reading still makes, if you ask me, the most sense. However, the past five years have not helped the man to rise in my, or many others', estimation. Actually, if I were the man I would now be rather scared for my salvation.
Benedict The Emeritus has disappointed in many ways. One can mention here:
1. The at least two interviews – two were really brutal and I have written about them; there were other minor occasions – in which Benedict approved of Francis' work and expressed himself in glowing terms concerning his Pontificate.
2. The failure to do what he said he would do: retire to a life of prayer and contemplation. It seems nowadays not even nonagenarian Popes can resist the temptation of frequent interviews and photo-ops, with or without Bierkrug.
3. The failure to condemn Pope Francis when it became clear that the pontificate was steering towards aggressive heresy. In particular, his silence concerning Amoris Laetitia and the many heresies and blasphemies therein contained – something a theologian like him must see with extreme clarity – is most shocking from one who claims to still keep the title of former Pope, and therefore maintains that he is still way more than just another bishop.
4. The strange neo-Catholic thinking and reference to his, apparently, imminent salvation (about which doubts are more than justified). That a Pope who decided to abdicate does not approach his impending death, at least publicly, with fear and trembling tells you all you need to know about V II and the massacre of sound Catholic thinking.
I certainly forget a lot.
In general, the man gives the impression of being not a leader, but a follower. In true German fashion, he has marched to the drum of V II without much regard for the ruins he saw around him. When it became clear to him that Francis' course was a much more brutal incarnation of V II that he could ever imagine, he decided to toe the party line and promote this new, inspired version of V II, instead of using his unique position to try to give witness for proper Catholicism.
Granted: countless bishops and Cardinals have done the same. But much fewer have given glowing interviews about Francis, and no one of them has insisted on being called Pontiff Emeritus.
Benedict is, I think, about to get into history as a tragic, pathetic figure. Too weak to be an effective Pope, too naive to see Francis coming as a result of his many disgraceful episcopal and cardinalatian appointments, too cowardly and gregarious to denounce the disaster unfolding under his eyes, and even praising Nero whilst Rome burns.
Now, in his last legs, the recent, disquieting public announcement of his own impending salvation; which is what V II does to you if you allow it to work on you for 60 years.
Some of the events I had forgotten, some others I did not know.
Boy, this is impressive, and not in a good way.
Kudos to Fr Ray Blake for the guts.
I would like to tell you that the way Francis is, with his own hands, destroying his pontificate fills me with sadness. Alas, I never was the one for the soppy phrases.
I have been saying for years now that, once clear that this Pontificate is of the devil, it is good for the papacy and for the Church that this pontificate implodes. What I was not expecting is that this Pope – whom I have never considered a genius anyway; rather the contrary – would be so unbelievably dumb to shoot himself in the gonads with the energy he is showing, for all the world to see.
Francis is, basically, attacking his own pontificate on several fronts. His Chinese wholesale of the entire Church in China to his favourite people – the Communists – comes at the exact same time that he is exposed as a gross liar – raise his hand who believes that Cardinal O'Malley, not Francis, is lying…. – and a shameless protector of his friends, just as the number of powerful homos within the hierarchy becomes larger and more embarrassing.
I dare here to formulate three hypotheses, and I would be very surprised if no one would apply:
1. The man is stupid, childish and arrogant; to the point that he does not even understand that his homo antics and his erotic attraction for socialism, environmentalism and income redistribution will end up destroying his papacy.
2. He is a homo, blackmailed by other homos into espousing the perverts' agenda, and possibly also encouraged – provided he needs any encouragement – to further an anti-Catholic agenda in other matters to make the homo plan more easily digestible.
3. He has other secrets, not of perverted nature, and he is blackmailed by the homo lobby into number 2 through them.
Be it as it may, this papacy is now rapidly becoming Francisgeddon, as I do not remember a single name of a world personality who, once targeted by the entire planet for being an a better of pedophilia, managed to get out of trouble by crying “Environment!” Or “Inequality!”
Paedophilia is the last taboo of the taboo less society.
Francis has doomed his Pontificate with his very own hands.
The latest production of the Evil Clown's Catholicphobic mind is a new document giving instructions on how to better ruin Catholic faculties and other institutes of higher education, and make sure that Catholicism is substituted, for as far as practical, with the new mantras of the secular world: social justice, environmentalism, redistributionist rubbish.
The rhetoric is deafening, with a repeated call to baldness in… not being Catholic. It is, in fact, as if Francis were saying to his main audience (those who hate Catholicism) : “see? I am still your darling! I might protect a bishop enabler of child abuse whenever I like the man, or the man is loyal to me; but please look at the big picture: I am as environ-mentalist as Al Gore, as Socialist as Bernie Sanders, and every bit a bitch as Angela Merkel! You gotta love me!”
Thankfully for us, the propaganda is so open, so shameless that it does not need an intelligent reader to understand what is going on. Basically, Francis is doing the work for us and exposing himself as a faithless subversive without any need for long explanations.
This man cannot die one day too soon. Let us hope that the Lord, who is punishing us in the most fearful way for enabling 50+ years of V II-ism, will soon put an end to this utterly obscene Papacy and give us a successor that is, at least, recognisably Catholic.
As we are living in unspeakably evil times, let us imagine that the unspeakably evil happens:
Saturday, 13 January 2017, Pope Francis solemnly proclaims ex cathedra the truth of the Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide Protestants tenets. He orders all Catholics to adhere to the new proclamation, which he very formally declares infallible in exercise of the Pope's Extraordinary Magisterium.
Can you say, then, that the Church is a fraud? Certainly not. The Church cannot be a fraud, because it is de fide that the Church is the Bride of Christ and if we declare that false we must declare the whole of Christianity false, which is an absurdity considering that the Church, sound theology and sound reasoning tell us the contrary.
Are works, in this case, not necessary anymore for salvation? Certainly not, as what was true yesterday must be true today and if I do not believe today what I believed yesterday it means that I have lost the faith, and that's that.
If, therefore, the Unspeakably Evil happens, what conclusion shall we draw?
That the Church still exists. With all her rules, traditions and institution.
And that the Sea is vacant.
This is the correct understanding of the situation. Any other interpretation leads ad absurdum, because it contradicts Catholic teaching either in one way (the Pope has the authority to change doctrine) or in the other (a pope who officially, solemnly proclaim heresy has not, ipso facto, made the sea vacant).
Obviously, such a Pope would still be, factually, sitting on the throne of Peter. But it would be only this: a de facto situation which is the fruit of abuse and usurpation, as if Napoleon had proclaimed himself Pope. We would have the duty to refuse obedience to both the usurper and everyone asking us to help him in any way, shape or form.
If the worst happens, there is still a simple, logical, coherent explanation fully in line with Catholic doctrine.
Do not lose your sleep, therefore, thinking what would happen if the Unspeakably Evil came to pass. The Church that has protected sixty generations before you will protect you, too. But she will demand that you believe in Her and in Her Truth, and in Her Bridegroom and His Promise, too. To abandon the Church when you have most need of Her (and She has most need, in a sense, to be defended by you) would be the height of pride and arrogance. But you will stand on the side of Christ and His Bridegroom, no matter what.
I have read somewhere today that the Evil Clown has invited the faithful to silence during Mass, because when one is silent one can “listen to his heart” and, more importantly, “to the Holy Spirit”.
I will gloss over the inanity and banality of the words, probably inedible by a smart child of five. What I would like to point out is the subversive message hidden behind the stupid platitudes.
If I can claim to have the ability to oh so emotionally connect to the Holy Spirit, it might not be long before I claim to “recognise” a message that goes against Doctrine. Being thus persuaded of the goodness of my heart and my Direct Line to the Holy Ghost, I can easily persuade myself of the legitimacy of pretty much everything, like living in adultery and even daring to sacrilegiously present myself at the Communion Line.
What Francis does – in that stupid, sugary, childish way of his – is to encourage his (un)faithful to the very epitome of the sin of Pride: thinking that, in the end, I know better than God.
As you laugh about the arrogance of this man and the travesty of Catholicism he peddles to the Reprobates, please reflect on the many similar ways in which your local priests might try to smuggle the same impious message.
Reality check: I cannot listen to the Holy Ghost like I listen to music, nor can you. The Trinity speaks to me through the Church given to me for my salvation. The Bride talks to me every day through her beautiful, bimillenarian message.
Do not listen to Francis. Francis is an ass, the only thing you can learn from him is how to become unbearably stupid, supremely boring and diabolically subversive. Listen to the Depositum Fidei instead, and learn to know and love Church teaching. Therein, not in your own delusions, lies the Holy Ghost.
Alas, Francis is Pope. Has he, therefore, magisterial authority in whatever he pleases? Let us see.
Your Mathematics teachers at school was in possession of all the qualifications and requisites to teach math. He was, to all intents and purposes, a math teacher, the one with the task to teach you how mathematics works. The teacher had the authority to teach you. You listened to what he said and learned the wisdom he imparted because he was the one tasked with the duty of doing so.
The teacher has, in his own sphere of competence, a magisterial authority, an authority to teach, which is why you attend his lesson.
If your teacher had said to you that 2+2=5, would you have said that this is what the teacher says and therefore it must be true, and that you are bound to believe it, or even that everyone in your class must submit and give assent to what the teacher says?
Why not? Because the teaching authority of the teacher can never contradict the truths of the subject matter he is supposed to teach. His teaching authority only applies within the confines of the truths he exposes. The mathematics teacher cannot make a new mathematics, much less demand that you accept it as in any way binding. A math teacher who teaches falseness about mathematics does not change the rules of mathematics, he merely shows that he is a very bad, incompetent, ignorant teacher and should lose his job (also note here: he will still be a mathematics teacher, no matter how incompetent, until he gets fired).
The same basic logic applies to the wrong teaching of a Pope. Yes, the Pope has a magisterial authority. He has the right and duty, like the teacher, to teach the truths of the faith to all Catholics. But exactly as in the case above, the truths he teaches also mark the boundaries of his magisterial authority. A Pope trying to teach you that “in certain cases” adulterers can receive Holy Communion is even more absurd than a teacher trying to persuade you that “in certain cases” two and two can be five. He has no authority to teach falseness. There is no magisterial authority once a pope has put himself outside of the truths which this magisterial authority serve.
This is basic logic (and Christianity) and there is no need of any encyclical letter or solemn pronouncements stating this. The principle of non contradiction demands that it be so, and even before that Christian obedience does. To think that truth can be changed (by anyone, even by Saint Padre Pio; much less by an Argentinian boor) is nothing short of blasphemous even before being absurd.
No, Francis has no magisterial authority to teach anything that is wrong. This is absolutely obvious and as clear as the sun.
The huge scandal here is not that Francis has “changed” anything. Two and two will never be five. The huge scandal is that we have a Pope trying to persuade us that this is the case.
It is, perhaps, fitting to add my two cents to what has already been written about Pope “Evil Clown” Francis approving a modified version of the Our Father for the poor French.
As pretty much always, the problem with Francis is that he does not believe in God. Not believing in God, he thinks that the church is a purely human construct. He also clearly believes that this human construct has done pretty much everything wrong before electing him Pope. Therefore, he proceeds to “improve” on her by proposing alternative teachings, and trying to shape her in the image and likeness of the only god he recognises: comrade Jorge Bergoglio. He did so already concerning communion, marriage, homosexuality, war, poverty, climate change, death penalty, illegal immigration, and countless other matters. Again: it is clear that this man thinks that the Church did everything wrong, from her very beginnings, until he appeared on the scene. This is the clear mark of the atheist.
It is, therefore, no surprise that not even the Our Lord should be spared by this unspeakable scoundrel.
Other have entered into more or less erudite conversations about the exegesis of the word “temptation” and the ways in which ne nos inducas in tentationem can be understood. I frankly don’t care.
What was good for my grandma, and for her grandma before her, is good enough for me. What the Church and the centuries have hallowed, no dirty Argentinian scoundrel is allowed to manipulate. The very idea that the Church may have got the very words of our Lord wrong for centuries is the most obvious evidence of unbelief that can be given.
Like every unbeliever, Francis hides behind various very small and very crooked fingers: historical “research”, literal meaning which “might be misunderstood” (heavens, what a cretin…), a feigned desire to do good, and such like rubbish. This is what every fake believer does as he discusses with you about what “research” tell them about, say, deaconesses, or the role of the priest, or the church’s attitude towards adulterers or homos. Fake research and fake science are always the refuge of true unbelievers.
A Pope tampering with the English translation of dogmatic statements accepted for many generations is a Pope showing that he simply does not believe that the Church has any function at all, and that God would allow the entire Western Christianity to be misled concerning his words; he shows, therefore, that he does not believe in God, as it is absurd to believe in such a mickey mouse god: clearly plagued with communication problems, not even able to make himself understood when he talks to his creatures, and obviously unable to enforce the most elementary standards concerning himself.
Pope Francis is clearly a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, and an extremely arrogant man. But he is also extremely stupid, as he is clearly unable to understand how his vanity and arrogance expose him as a boor, and a miserable ass dressed in white, for everyone who has any trace of sensus catholicus left in him.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
please free us from this scourge.
Please follow this link first and read the news about the (of course) anonymous Argentine theologian saying that what is wrong is wrong even if the Evil Clown says it’s right.
After that, let us reflect on the sorry state of the Church after 60 years of V II.
- The need to even state that a Catholic is not allowed to follow a teaching that does not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church is depressing. I do not blame the theologian. I blame the Argentinian (and all other V II) priests who have practiced Papolatry all these years.
- Just as depressing is the fact that the theologian feels the need to clarify that it is absolutely false to think that “they must now endorse the Buenos Aires approach under pain of heresy”. Apparently, some people think that being a heretic, nowadays, is not endorsing heresy.
- Francis’ Amoris Laetitia statements are called “novel teaching”. Would you call 2+2=5 a “novel teaching?” I would call it rubbish, not novel teaching. Francis spreads and defends heresy and it is time that theologians, anonymous or otherwise, start calling an evil clown an evil clown
Lack of clarity leads to confusion. To say to a confused (and very ignorant, and sorely in need of instruction) Catholic that Francis is proposing a “novel teaching” is very dangerous, because it gives to heresy the dignity of teaching.
Let our yea be yea. let us heresy by its proper name. Enough with walking on eggshells.
The Age of Confusion will only end when clarity of speaking take its place.
I am now imagining what would happen if the Evil Clown were to, say, officially declare Consubstantiation the official truth of the church, with “no other interpretation”. Say, with a letter to a Protestant leader published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Some would say that this is a publicly stated private opinion, and therefore does not really matter.
Others would state that Francis must be somewhat right, because there must be something that has been divinely revealed to Francis alone.
Some more still would say that Francis does not want to undermine the doctrine about Transubstatiation, but merely offer a pastoral interpretation of it.
Some others would say that the Sweet Peter on Earth is being badly advised by “the wolves”, profiting from his kindness of heart. He, himself, must be free of blame.
More still would say that the Pope was, really, talking off the cuff, though due to his advanced age he forgot to let us know.
We would be treated to “ten things to know and share”, at the end of which we would discover that everything is fine but the Pope should work on his syntaxis.
All the above would, obviously, call themselves “Conservatives”.
Cardinal Burke would give interview #327, stating that the end must be very, very near now; and doing, as always, nothing.
In these difficult days, I see around me two ways in which some bloggers and commenters try to escape reality.
1) They say that Francis is not the Pope. Wrong. Francis is the Pope because the entire Church, the entire Church hierarchy and the entire planet see him as the Pope. He is not even challenged. Not even by the one (Benedict) who according to some is the real and only Pope. The surreal consequence of this is the decision that the one the entire world sees as Pope should not be it, whilst the one some of them say is the only Pope says that he is merely a retired emeritus, and Francis is in charge. A challenge to a throne without even a challenger simply does not exist; it is fantasy, not fact.
Reality matters. However sad and unprecedented this situation is, we face it without thinking that we can decide who is, or isn't, Pope.
2) They downplay Francis' heretical acts and statement, because they are ready to bend over backwards and produce themselves in the most bizarre contortions in order to avoid stating another facts staring at us in the face: that we have a heretical Pope.
Reality, again, matters. The discussion whether Francis is in formal or material heresy is, if you ask me, less important than the agreement on the fact that should be universally acknowledged: that this Pope fosters error and must now – by the bishops and cardinals – be forced to recant it or deposed.
If Francis' heresy is formal, then he has factually made himself unworthy of and factually resigned his office together with his membership of the Church; but this renounciation would still have to be declared in order to depose him, and until that moment he would still be the holder of the office. In the same way, if a POTUS is found in the act of committing a multiple murder he certainly deserves impeachment, but he is still in office until the impeachment is voted, declared and made operative.
If, on the contrary, Francis' heresy is material, then the preliminary stage would be a last offer to recant his error, albeit such a possibility could be offered, in theory, also to a formal heretic.
The situation is, if you ask me, as clear as the sun, because it appears in front of our eyes with all the evidence of hard facts: a heretic seats on the throne of Peter. Still a heretic, and still sitting, with no challenger in sight. This has happened in the past, will happen in the future, is very sad, and has probably never happened with such virulence (even Honorius could have been weakly defended; Francis is indefensible) in the entire history of the Church. Still, here we are, confronted with facts, not our fanciful and very Protestant interpretation of them.
A heretic seats on the throne of Peter, and we were never given assurance that this would not be the case. His heretical energy and hate for the Church is unprecedented, but do is the rebellion of Vatican II. The most astonishing betrayal of proper theology and abandonment of proper governance must perforce lead to the most astonishing explosion of heresy from the top and abuse from the bottom. This is what V II looked like from the very start; it merely needed sixty years for the ugly face of heterodoxy to completely emerge.
I am merely a layman. No Pope has ever depended on my opinion to decide whether he is really Pope, and it is perfectly right this way. Do not escape from reality. Use it as you would for everything else. Apply common sense and Church Teaching. The Church will get out of this as she has from all the rest.
After the official proclamation of heresy beyond any reasonable doubt some of the understandably shocked Catholics will now experience, methinks, a certain sense of disorientation. Therefore, it seems to me that it is now necessary to go back in time and search whether something like that has ever happened in the history of the Church, and what happened next.
It seems to me that we are now in a phase of obvious Honorius 2.0 : the Pope was officially a heretic and the Bishops (there were no Cardinals then) simply did nothing for as long as the Pope was in charge, and for some time afterwards.
Did the See become vacant? No.
Did the Church die? No.
Did the world end? No.
The Church, which is Indefectible, survived Honorius, and she will survive Francis, irrespective of how many bishops and cardinals will be sent to hell for the offences done to her.
What happened next? At some point after the death of Honorius, it was decided to right the heresy with the extremely strong move of an Ecumenical Council. Mind, though: as long as he lived, Honorius did not have to retract and I have no knowledge of official resistance of the bishops, or threat to declare Honorius self-deposed (as it was done, though the details are unclear, with Pope Marcellinus) in virtue of the offence committed (“Judge thyself!”, the bishops famously said to Marcellinus).
Yes, we are tested. We are tested by the cowardice and idiocy of the Burkes of the world almost as much as we are tested by the obvious faithlessness and heresy of Francis. But let us put things in the proper context here: just as the faithful in the time of Honorius were not so important that Honorius’ heresy had to mean the end of the church, or of the world, or of whatever is good and holy, we are not so important that this officially heretical pontificate has to mean that the end times are now near.
Instead of waiting for Armageddon (which will come, have no doubt about this, at the appointed time anyway), you had better pray more and reflect that you, and everyone else, is expected to know and follow the manual irrespective of what Francis says.
If the world ends, be prepared. But hey, be prepared anyway, and consider that the world did not end in the time of Honorius.
As I have developed an allergic reaction to meaningless whining and “the end is near” doom saying, I will not publish any comment that does now incite the readers to do (to pray more, to do more penance, to become more active in our sphere of influence) rather than to whinge.
Man up, grab your shield, and go to war.
Yours is not the first generation to experience the seemingly unthinkable.
Gotta admire a Mr Ed Conlon, writing for the EWTN owned CNA.
Mr Conlon has some kind of superpowers. He sees something no one else seem to notice. besides the rubbish about how bad the opponent of TheFrancis are, what is most amusing is Mr Conlon’s assured assertion that the Pope is clearly against communion for divorced and remarried. The entire planet – and four Cardinals – are moaning the state of utter confusion in which this man has – make no mistake: willfully, and only because he is too cowardly to go beyond confusing – plunged the Church, but this does not seem to faze the author in the least. No, what he thinks is happening is that we have an orthodox pope, but the entire planet is mad because the wrong people (people whom, in part, he keeps employing and keeping in position of great responsibility) distort his message.
This must be the greatest Pollyanna effort I have read this year. It is, actually, between tragic and amusing that as we are about to approach the second Christmas of utter chaos there should still be around people who keep flogging this not only dead, but by now abundantly decomposed horse of the “misunderstood Pope”. Not only the letter to the Argentinian bishops is enough to expose the utter rubbish propagated by this article: far more to the point, the refusal of the pope to answer the Dubia (something an orthodox, if not good at words, Pope could and would have done in less time than Usain Bolt needs to run 100 meters) and the disheartening evidence of conflicting practices now spreading all over the Catholic world are more than enough to show what the intentions of this evil Pope are: sabotage Catholicism as much as he can whilst avoiding a frontal, all-out assault to the Church he so evidently hates; something for which he clearly – and by God’s grace – has no spine.
As the hired pens of this disgraceful Pontiff keep embarrassing themselves, thus utterly destroying the reputation of so-called moderate Catholic outlets (I wouldn’t call today’s ETWN conservative by any standard of conservatism), those who have a brain to think and a soul to save keep realising that this Pope is a menace to the faith, and a very personal threat to their own salvation.
Beware of the Pollyannas. At this point, theirs is way more than naivete.
It is disingenuousness in the most serious of matters like the defense of Catholic truth.
The strange story of Father Weinandy could be material for another post. However, what counts here is the letter he wrote to Pope Francis.
This is, very obviously, a through-and-through Vatican II guy, then otherwise he would not work in any capacity for the US Bishops’ Conference. However, this guy is also a Catholic.
His letter (reported entirely in the link, together with the strange story) does nothing else than state the obvious. However, in this disgraceful start of the XXI century a priest who states the obvious is a menace to his own bishops and Pope.
Father Weinandy does not mince words. I will make just a couple of examples with my explanation of what they mean in plain English and below the diplomatic varnish:
To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it.
Tranlsation: you are being not only heretical, but blasphemous. You spit Christ in the face like the Roma soldiers did, and offend the Holy Trinity.
Yet you seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry. Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by ad hominem arguments.
Translation: You are exactly the same Christ-hating Pharisee you accuse others to be. You send out your hounds to intimidate those who criticise you. You have no standing, this emperor has no clothes; th eonly strategy that remains open to you is open intimidation and swift reprisal.
Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth. What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death.
Translation: You are the enemy of truth, the enemy of the Church, and the enemy of Jesus.
Father Weinandy was made to resign from his position at the USCCB in record time after the letter (sent on 31 July) was made public, thus making the case for much of what he writes in the letter himself. No doubt, other sanctions will follow.
Little by little; one V II theologian at a time; slowly, timidly, something is happening. The constant opposition of real Catholics – whom father Weinandy also mentions – to the present state of things forces the least corrupt of this corrupt system of power to slowly grow a pair and take a stand. We must “keep up the good pressuring” and keep demanding that our supposed shepherd start doing their job already, beginning with cardinal Burke and the other kitten of the litter.
Little by little; one V II theologian at a time, slowly and timidly, something big could, one day and with God’s grace, be in the making.
This long article from the UK-based, proto-communist Guardian is extremely instructive (inasmuch as people who don’t understand anything of Catholicism can be instructive) for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
The author obviously does not understand anything of Catholicism: the insisted accent on the difference between how the world is and how the world should be according to the Church, as if this were a problem for the Church, is obvious demonstration; the one about it being necessary that Catholics give communion to adulterers to avoid the risk of extinction is so stupid that it must be a bad pun) and has no theological depth at all (it is not true that divorced and “remarried” people already receive communion all over the world; but this is utterly irrelevant: the question is whether anyone who does so, which is very easy to do, commits a very grave sacrilege.
However, even people who have done nothing more than a shallow research of the facts, and can’t write an article without giving us countless examples of ignorance and incompetence understand this: Francis is a heretic by every Catholic standard of the last two thousand years.
In his confused way (fake news abound all over the article, see the already mentioned example) the author sees it as evident that what Francis does is the contrary of what Popes for two thousand years before him have done. That this is supposed to be good does insult the intelligence of the writer (even an atheist should be able to understand that this is not acceptable for Catholicism, and therefore Francis is is simply an unacceptable Pope), but it does not change the facts.
This article, like many other secular interventions in favour of the Evil Clown, indicts Pope Francis even as it supports him. If a magazine called Satanism Today praised Francis in high tones, what would that demonstrate about him?
Look and stun, Catholic world.
A Pope is praised by the Guardian for his battle against Catholicism.