Usque Quo, Domine?

If we are honest, when compared with Francis Martin Luther would make for an orthodox Pope.

I am, I must admit, a rather short-tempered chap; particularly, as it is natural, when the provocation concerns something I deeply love. You can, therefore, imagine how I feel as I write this, on the day the interview between Dr Scalfari and our Subversive-In-Chief is published.

I have read the Italian version this morning, and (even by the standards to which Francis has by now accustomed us) it took my breath away. “No two weeks without unspeakable scandal” seems to be the real motto of this – we can safely say it – historically appalling pontificate; a pontificate that will go down in history as one of the most infamous low points in the entire existence of the Church.

The translation of Rorate Caeli of the most important parts is here, where you will also find the link to the original Italian. Note: same left-wing newspaper, and same atheist, anti-clerical interlocutor already seen in the notorious 12,000 words interview.

They are becoming real buddies. What a fool Francis is.

What happened here is, I think, one of three:

1. Francis was rather peeved at all the attempts of sanitising him after every interview. You know, the “what he really, really wanted to say is…” semantic and theological acrobatics from every corner. Therefore, he thought he would, this time, shout his perverted heresy (“Bergoglism”, I think history will call it) really, really loud, and make the neutralisation of his heresy as difficult as he can. Or you can put it this way: Francis already told us when one speaks much one runs the risk of being misunderstood. Now he repeats his heresies in much shorter form, so that there is no risk of misunderstanding.

2. Francis has, after the experience of now very many episodes, understood that there is no limit to the blindness of his army of Pollyannas. He now considers them his best allies in his heretic campaign. Thank to them, he is now free to shout his heresies as loud as he wishes, safe in the confidence his useful idiots will keep honest Catholics at bay whilst he spreads them.

3. The man is not compos mentis; he is just not there with the head anymore; he is losing control of his own thoughts, and is now unable to remember even the basics of the religion of which he is at the head. This is the most charitable hypothesis, that I do not want to leave unmentioned.

Now, if the last hypothesis does not apply, what on earth moves a Pope, of all men, to this? Again, I see only two realistic scenarios:

A) The man is a deeply, deeply deluded, pathetic old man who in his misguided desire to “feel good” and, at least as importantly, “feel popular” forgets the very basics of Christianity, trampling with his feet on its most sacred principles. I do not think he has any excuses for this – at least if 3. above does not apply – and cannot avoid thinking this man is marching toward hell like a high speed train. He might repent, of course, and we must pray he does. But look, this is an old Jesuit of 77 very ill-spent springs, with decades of devastation of Catholicism behind him. He shows such brutal signs of reprobation it’s truly scary. He does not even stink of favela anymore. He stinks of brimstone.

B) The man has lost his faith a long time ago, and every fear of the Lord with that. Like many who do not believe in God, he seeks solace in an alternative religion. For him, this is clearly social work and extreme “inclusiveness”. He clearly think he is better than the God in which the Christians have believed these two thousand years. This makes logical sense only if you believe this God is a tale, and you can improve on it.

I wonder, at this point, if Hans Küng would have been so much worse than him. I do not doubt Martin Luther would have been much better. At least Luther required faith in Christ to be saved. It was wrong Christianity, but it was Christianity. The heresy of Bergoglism is a fluffy, effeminate, emotional relativism without any need for faith in Christ and, consequently, without any need for proselytism; the latter is, therefore, a “solemn nonsense”, something that “makes no sense”. You read Francis talking of atheism, salvation and the rest, you understand Francis’ heresy is way past Luther’s, and is rather akin to Kueng’s Weltanschauung: a sort of all-inclusive, everything-goes world religion where everyone feels welcomed as he/she/it feels or defines him/her/itself; without the uncomfortable, unsaleable, and utter uncharitable encumbrance of having to convert people. 

We have a Pope for whom Christian faith, adherence to Truth and even a generic faith in God are optional. A Pope not interested in converting people, or even atheists. One who considers such an effort “solemn nonsense”. I can’t imagine any Christian age of the past in which one like him would not have been considered an extremely dangerous heretic for preaching just a small fraction of what he goes around saying every day. 

I will leave to another post (or to other posts) some more detailed analysis, according to what my simple, but authentic faith in Christ allows, of some of the things this man has said. We have come to the point where every time the man speaks, the rubbish is such that it can be only tackled in installments. I am also hoping – against hope, it must be said – that the Vatican will accuse Repubblica of having not given a fair account of the interview, perhaps due to translation (?) or other problems. Frankly, though, it’s improbable.

I am extremely curious now to know how the spin artists will spin this. Popcorn is, notwithstanding the intrinsic tragedy of the situation, in order.

Let me close – for now – with a small observation: not for the first time, by reading this man I have the impression he slaps Jesus in the face, and boasts of it with the atheists and the world.

How long Jesus will allow this little deluded heretic full of himself to slap him, is the question.

Usque quo, Domine?

Mundabor