Upon the election of Jorge Bergoglio, Rorate Caeli published the opinion of Marcelo Gonzalez, an Argentine Catholic journalist.
The Horror!Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.
I will not beat around the bush here: one year later, every single word of the man has been proved extremely accurate. Let us see in detail. No links, because it would take me occupied for hours. Search this blog.
1. He openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals.
Check. Salvation for atheists. “Who am I to judge”. God slaps you on the wrist at the worst. Hold on to your Koran. Countless others statements of the same tenor.
2. Faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.
Check. A notorious and scandalous homosexual at the head of the Vatican Bank, and left there after a worldwide scandal. The 300-page homo report buried in the sand. Creepy insistence on an imperfect church, that smells like the sheep. If you're orthodox and respect the rules, he doesn't trust you, and holds you for a hypocrite.
3. A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass. Has persecuted those interested in implementing Summorum Pontificum.
Check, and check. The TLM is a “fashion” for “addicted”. The FFI is openly persecuted. There is clearly no interest in fostering Summorum Pontificum. A past of Pinocchio and Tango Masses emerges.
4. Famous for his inconsistency. Unintelligible.
Check, and check. Runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. Gives air to his teeth without the faintest idea of what he is saying. Journalists all over the world wonder what he really wanted to say. Baffled readers decide he must have said something smart, because he is the … Bishop of Rome.
5. Entourage under grave suspicion of moral misbehaviour.
Check. I will say two words: Monsignor Ricca. In addition: mockery of those worried for the homo lobby; hey, they do not go around with the gay mafia ID card.
6. Has not missed an occasion for “dialogue” of the most extreme sort. Blessed by Proddie “ministers”.
Check, and check. With Francis, Christianity is at times a distant echo. Hold on to your Koran. The Jews have their own reserved lane to salvation. Personal message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan: he shares their joy. May their life glorify the Almighty. Observers are not sure whether Francis believes in Allah. Not improbable. A Proddie preacher is called “brother bishop”. Francis washes feet to infidels and women.
7. Coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions.
Check, check, and check. “Casogate”, showing the extreme easiness with which taboo words escape his mouth. An orgy of Peronism for one entire year, showing the most appalling ignorance of basic concepts of economics. Francispeak and Doublespeak like it's going out of fashion.
8. No polyglot. No curial experience. Does not shine for his sanctity. Has not fought against abortion. Very weak against sodomarriage. No manners.
Check. Check. Check. Check. Check, and check. Italian is limping. English basically non existent. He reorganises the Curia by creating more red tape, and spending vast amounts of money for external consultants. He puts an homosexual friend at the head of a bank. He insists on a church that is, in a creepy way, dirty. He speaks against abortion only in private (with Bishop Scicluna, say), but never when he has a worldwide audience. He wants to avoid “obsession” with abortion and homosexuality. He does not show up at a classical music concert, and lets it be known he is not a “Renaissance Prince”. He is, simply, a boor.
9. Conversion cannot be excluded. Still, the future appears terrifying.
Check. And check. Think of the upcoming Synod, and all the archbishops and Cardinals now happily free-wheeling.
The author of the article (and Rorate by association) were, after the publication of this blog post, attacked for weeks in the most slanderous manner. Some of those who had accused them (like the Remnant troops) have made amend. Others have taken refuge in an extreme Pollyannism that refuses to see reality, merely because reality is not a pretty sight. Others still would attack one for saying the “Hail Mary”.
I have suspended judgment after the article, as I did not know the new Pope and, much as I listen with attention to what Rorate writes, I want to make my own opinion first. I think I can say that in the same way as I did not want to join the critics without proof, I have not been slow in looking at reality when it has progressively appeared to us in all its… horror.
One year later, the prophecy of the words reported above is absolutely uncanny. This again shows not only how well Mr Gonzalez had understood Francis, but also that Francis has – with the Uriah Heep ” 'umbleness” that is his own most distinctive mark – made no adaptation whatsoever to his new job, and has given us a Pope that is just as bad as the Cardinal Archbishop.
A vulgar man. Just as well at ease with, well, “casi” and coprophagia as he is with homosexuals in his own closest entourage. Who is he to judge?
A man with no fear of the Lord, who thinks He will slap one on the wrist at most. With no respect of Jesus, Whom he accuses of willing deception of the Apostles. With no respect for the Blessed Virgin, of whom he says she might have felt betrayed and lied to on seeing Christ on the Cross.
A man deeply confused, and who cannot give a justification for his job as Pope – even atheists are saved; Muslims should hold to their Koran; Jews don't need Christ anyway – other than helping people to feel more “joy” and to get more social justice before the inevitable salvation; a salvation from which he excludes, in case, only the “Neopelagians” who still love and follow Catholicism.
Horrible things are very probably about to come, with the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously offered to public adulterers. The Pope applauds the Cardinal who is at the head of the movement.
I am sure I am forgetting various other issues. No, I really am.
One year later, we can say it very loud: Bergoglio is the horror.
Let us pray for the restoration of sound Catholicism. Either with a converted Bergoglio, or with a Church free from Bergoglio.
The video above comes from the excellent blog of Louie Verrecchio. Once again, Mr Verrecchio says it better than I ever could, so I thought I would not deprive my readers of this pearl. If the video does not work on your screen, the link will lead you directly to it.
The video is short, and I really suggest to watch it to the end.
I allow myself to only add a little detail: shortly after the 1:00 mark, Francis addresses a greeting to “the Muslims of the entire world, our brothers”. Then, he stops and openly encourages an applause or cheer, which is denied to him in the most evident manner. If dozen of thousand of Italians had cheered, the noise would have been deafening. As it is, he gets the faintest of courtesy claps, possibly from the clergy present.
It’s good to see not everyone is blind, and willing to follow this obviously blind man.
Enjoy the video.
I report it here in its entirety, as I do not know how to reblog from non-wordpress sites.
The way Francis and other play fast and loose with simple facts is astonishing. It is becoming common in Italy to call obvious illegal immigrants (sinking or burning old boats outside the coast to get access to the Country) “refugees”, or alternatively sans papiers (“undocumented”; but French, and therefore apparently better) as if they had forgotten them at home. Francis happily rides on the same train, as his visit to Lampedusa abundantly showed.
With the same blatant disregard for reality, Muslims and Christians are now put on the same plane: the Bible here, the Koran there, oh how nice that your parents gave you faith. That the Catholic one is the One True Faith and Islam a lie that belies Our Lord and the Holy ghost, and therefore betrays God the Father seems to utterly escape out humble prophet in black shoes. May the Lord have mercy on him. Unless Francis changes, I very much doubt it.
Below is Louie Verrecchio's text. After Francis, enjoy some Catholicism.
1. While visiting with a group of refugees at the Sacred Heart parish in Rome on Sunday, Pope Francis said:
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
2. As Catholics, we understand that the “illness within our hearts” is more than just the anxiety and sadness that accompany all who mourn and weep in this valley of tears; rather, the true source of man’s embitterment is separation from God.
3. Jesus Christ alone is the Divine Physician by whose “stripes we are healed.” (cf Isa 53)
4. The Qur’an maintains that Our Blessed Lord is but a mere man and nothing more. It is, in other words, a book of blasphemous lies, offensive to Almighty God and to those who love Him in truth.
5. One may cling to the Qur’an until their dying breath, but apart from Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church, there is no salvation.
6. Those parents who instilled in their children a “faith” in the false god of the Qur’an have accomplished little more than perpetuating a lie, consigning their offspring to death.
7. Jesus Christ commissioned His Church to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe everything whatsoever that He has commanded.
8. The Vicar of Christ has a duty to carry out this mission.
9. Pope Francis failed both Our Lord and the Muslims to whom he spoke at Sacred Heart parish in Rome.
10. Pope Francis joined those Muslim parents in perpetuating a lie that essentially consigned their offspring to death.
11. We must pray and fast for the pope.
You’d think Mr Trevor Phillips would be happy to enjoy a privileged position as the head of one of the many perfectly useless organisations paid from the taxpayers to persuade themselves that they are doing their part to protect “equality” – or more probably, imposed to them by a Government looking for favours to distribute, and without the nerve to react – and would just shut up. The problem is, the man can’t do it as he must, every now and then, show that his “equality watchdog” has some justification for his sorry existence.
Being Mr Phillips’ unofficial job to “protect” minorities, he must every now and then shoot at the mainstream and cause the one or the other headline. This in turn gives the public the impression that he is not entirely useless after all.
This time, Christians and Muslims are his subject of choice: the first group (being a non-minority, and therefore clearly wrong) is attacked; and the second (being a minority, and therefore clearly right; and this minority always useful to flatter a bit) given as an example to the baddy baddy Christians.
I kid you not. Welcome to the new, “tolerant” and “inclusive” United Kingdom.
So, Mr Phillips has a problem with Christian values. Christian values go against his grain, because they are not “inclusive” enough. In Mr Phillips’ enlightened opinion, Christians should change Christianity in order to make it more acceptable to the likes of himself. Mr Phillips expresses himself in this way (emphasis mine):
I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face – that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old-time religion which, in my view, is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.
It is clear from this masterpiece of intelligence that for Mr Phillips there are two Christianities: a) the new-time religion (pass) and b) the old-time religion (fail). But even he is perceptive enough to realise that the new Christianity is dying, and the old one is resurging. This is, in Mr Phillips world, clearly bad, as this old religion doesn’t comply with the (barking) requirements of the Equality watchdog, its obvious problem being its… Christianity.
It doesn’t end here. As Mr Phillips doesn’t like Christianity, the idea that Christians may fight for Christian rights is, to him, fully incomprehensible. It just can’t be. When Christians fights for Christian rights, then, the reason must be not a religious, but a purely political one. How can it be otherwise, when Christianity doesn’t comply with Mr Phillips requirements? Again, let us see how Mr Phillips expresses himself:
‘I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think the argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics.
So, if a Christian owner of a bed and breakfast is forced to give his house to a bunch of homos making of it a sodomy heaven, this is about politics. Enlarging a bit, if a Christian is not allowed to carry a pendant with a cross, this is about politics too; and coming back to the “sexual so-called orientation” matter, if the Catholic Church must close adoption agencies because the government wants to force them to go against Christian values, this is “about politics”, too. And they “want to have a fight”, these bullies….
Congratulations, Mr Phillips. You have just won the prize for the ass of the year.
The next masterpiece comes with the edifying comparison between Muslims and Christians, made for the benefit and edification of the non-inclusive people of the latter group:
Muslims, he says, are “doing their damnedest” to develop “an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy”
I’d like to know how many devoted Muslims have a different attitude to homosexuality than serious Christians. My best guess is: zero.
I’d also like to know whence Mr Phillips got this strange idea that religions are supposed to be changed and be “developed” according to his “ideas” of society. He can create a new religion if he so wishes (“Equalitism” would be a nice name), but his thinking that Christianity must be “developed” to please him is stupid besides being blasphemous.
The day he wakes up, he’ll discover that among the Muslims there aren’t very many subscribing to his idea of religion, either.
But all this doesn’t matter. Mr Phillips has made some headlines and done his best to try to persuade us that his wage is not entirely wasted. One day, he’ll be a Labour MP in some predominantly Muslim constituency, beautifully playing his double whammy: Black and pro-Muslim*. But I can also see a future for him among the Lords, as soon as the necessity to “kick him upstairs” becomes compelling enough. If you can make happy two minorities for the price of one, it’s an idea that should be …… developed.
* I can’t imagine being Black and with Christian background would be a problem for Muslim voters, as they are clearly doing their damnedest.
I have reported yesterday about the extraordinary opinions of Prince Charles regarding the so-called “religion of peace”.
We now read in the London “Times” of the hanging of a 7-year-old boy for being, it would appear, a collaborator of the US and NATO forces, but the fact that his father – a tribal elder in the village – has spoken out against the Taliban might, well, just have played a role…….
The motives are still unclear and the Taliban deny any responsibility for the fact (they would, wouldn’t they?). Perhaps it was a local feud; perhaps the Taliban wouldn’t dare to go openly against a village elder and have murdered his son; or perhaps it was just a spontaneous outburst of environmental zeal due to the fact that over there there is – as the Prince deigned to inform us – “no separation between man and nature”.
Whoever the responsible of this atrocious murder may be, could someone please tell Prince Charles that in Christian countries – where there is a separation between man and nature – children of seven are not found hanged at nearby trees.