Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Father Spadaro on Dubia: “The Pope Doesn’t Give Binary Answers to Abstract Questions”

Last week, we reprinted a report of some very odd online behavior on the part of Fr. Spadaro, SJ, close friend and spokesman of Pope Francis. Among his various activities on Twitter, it was discovered that he was retweeting an account in the name of “Habla Francisco” (which can be translated as “The Pope Says”) which was, in fact, linked to his email account. As the writer of our piece, Oakes Spalding, said at the time:

That’s right, Antonio Spadaro, the editor of La Civiltà Catholica and one of the Pope’s main point men in promoting Amoris Laetitia had been “retweeting” his own tweets from a sock-puppet Twitter account. These fake retweets were used to defend an Apostolic Letter and attack four cardinals of the Catholic Church.

Now, in an exclusive interview with Crux, Fr. Spadaro has confirmed our report, attempting to pass it off as something totally harmless:

There’s also the issue of a Twitter account which some of your critics claim you are ‘hiding’ behind. 

What do they mean, “hide”?! The account was simply an under-used one of three or four I operate, including that of the journal. I often re-tweet from one to the other.

If I had really wanted to throw stones from an anonymous account I would never, obviously, have re-tweeted it. And why should I feel any need to hide? I was merely quoting the view of an American friend who was commenting not on the behavior of the cardinals but the way the expression “the four cardinals” was being used on so many blogs in ways that reminded her of 196os rock bands.

I find this admission absolutely bizarre. There is nothing normal about a priest who is both the editor of a major Catholic publication and a close advisor and spokesman to the pope using phony Twitter accounts under pseudonyms to bolster the credibility of his social media scoffing — least of all over serious questions about dangers to the faith posed by four distinguished members of the curia and echoed by Catholics around the world.

He goes on to say:

The funny thing was that when I sent that tweet, Raymond Arroyo of EWTN tweeted the photo of a cardinal [Timothy Dolan of New York] dancing the can-can with his legs in the air along with the Rockettes. His tweet was cheered by my detractors, from which I deduce that this attack on me is organized and deliberate.

I’ve seen that Tweet. In fact, I shared it. It’s here:

And in my opinion, this was Arroyo having some fun at the Cardinal’s expense, since this inappropriate appearance of the highest prelate in the second largest diocese in America has become something of a tradition. That Spadaro’s “detractors” would “cheer” such a Tweet is entirely in keeping with the spirit of why they would question Spadaro’s own tweets: because both involve a certain violation of priestly decorum that is offensive to an authentic Catholic sensibility.

But while his confirmation of the fake Twitter account was strange, the hubris with which he dealt with critics of Amoris Laetitia was unsurprising:

What’s behind it, do you think?

I think that some people are exploiting the cardinals’ letter in order to ramp up the tension and create division within the Church. These groups feel sidelined, so they’re yelling, and attacking anyone perceived as being close to the pope. I’m not here referring to the case of the tweet, but more generally.

It’s painful that this is taking place within the Church, among Catholics. In some cases it’s enough to be positive about the Petrine magisterium to be attacked. It’s a deeply unpleasant opposition, incapable of articulating a thought without at the same time turning it into an attack.

Did you hear that? We are the ones acting in an exploitative fashion, “in order to ramp up the tension and create division within the Church.”

We apparently also feel “sidelined.” Interesting. I hadn’t been made aware of that. Here’s more:

But why are the attacks so unpleasant – what’s going on?

I think there are three things happening here. The first is that Francis’s actions have been highly effective; they’ve hit the nail on the head.

And that means, secondly, that, “the spirits are expressing themselves,” as Bergoglio would say. The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.

That’s easy to discern. And by the way, that disturbance of spirits is a reaction to the good spirit: if there were no reaction, it would be worse.

The third point is that those who are hostile to Francis are in the main self-enclosed groups who cannot handle an open, serene debate, and who simply repeat each other, like in an echo chamber. Some of those sites, and Twitter accounts, are simply copies of others.

So, what we see here is that — in Spadaro’s eyes — any criticism of what Francis is doing is just a confirmation that he’s been effective, successful, and on the right path. Also, the critics are bad guys full of hatred, viciousness, and bad spirit. Aaaand they’re part of a self-enclosed echo chamber.

Did I miss anything?

What is the proper response?

Patience. We need patiently to bear the insults and attacks, and just trust in the process that’s underway. The attacks are an inescapable part of the process.

That must be why he blocks anyone who challenges him on Twitter at the slightest provocation. That’s the very definition of “bearing wrongs patiently,” amirite?

Moving on a bit, he is asked if the criticisms make the pope angry. Remember, Edward Pentin reported (and confirmed again, off-air) that he had sources inside Casa Santa Marta telling him that the pope was “boiling with rage.” (Incidentally, he said this to none other than Raymond Arroyo, who was asking his own probing questions about the dubia. But I’m sure the dig at Arroyo by Fr. Spadaro was just a coincidence…)

Not so, says Spadaro, with a skip in his step and a laugh in his voice:

How does the pope himself react to the attacks? There have been reports that he’s enraged by the letter.

Oh please! Such comments make me laugh. To get Bergoglio angry it has to be something very different. His real concerns are pastoral. What disturbs him is poverty, injustice, the martyrdom of Christians, violence, and so on, not these kinds of criticisms.

I can assure you, because I have direct knowledge of this, that Francis simply doesn’t get annoyed about this kind of thing. I think he sees the anger in some quarters as evidence that some people feel challenged by the hermeneutic of mercy, by the Gospel sine glossa [‘unglossed’ – i.e. presented directly].

Consider me assured, Father. Francis is never angry with anyone for anything less than “poverty, injustice, the martyrdom of Christians, violence, and so on”. Except…adoring fans pulling his arm a little too hard and “being selfish“.

But let’s return to the interview, shall we?

Why hasn’t the pope responded to the cardinals?

The pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions. But that does’t mean he hasn’t responded. His response is to approve and to encourage positive pastoral practices. A clear and obvious example was his response to the Buenos Aires area bishops, when he encouraged them and confirmed that their reading of Amoris Laetitia was correct.

In other words, the pope responds by encouraging, and indeed loves to respond to the sincere questions put to him by pastors. The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.

Did you catch that? Yes, that was

a) an admission that the pope won’t offer yes or no answers (Sorry, Mt. 5:33!) on the dubia and

b) That the Buenos Aires letter — famous for its tacit endorsement of Communion for the divorced and remarried — is the new law of the land in the Church… and

c) Since he “loves to respond to sincere questions put to him by pastors” and he won’t respond to the four cardinals, ergo, their questions are either not sincere or they are not pastors, or both.

And here’s Spadaro, doubling down on b):

The cardinals want to know whether Amoris Laetitia ever makes possible absolution and Holy Communion for people who are still validly married but having sexual relations with another. They claim that hasn’t been made clear. 

I think that the answer to that has been given, and clearly. When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.

In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.

In such cases Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to Reconciliation and to the Eucharist, which in turn dispose a person to continuing to mature and grow, fortified by grace.

“I think the answer to that has been given, and clearly,” he says. Followed by three paragraphs of incomprehensibly vague word salad that sounds mostly like, “Reconciliation and the Eucharist for people who don’t feel guilty of adultery even if they’re violating the 6th Commandment is totes okay.”

I can’t take anymore. It’s an unserious interview from an unserious man. But his proximity to the pope — despite his protestation that this interview is reflective only of his own thinking, and not that of Francis — makes it noteworthy. If you want to read more, pay particular attention to how he tries to justify the compatibility of AL with Veritatis Splendor. (I recommend at least two stiff drinks before beginning that section.)

Of course, at the end of the interview, he unconvincingly attempts to twist the knife, saying, “My sense is that the vast majority of the cardinals and bishops are with him [the pope], and very few are resisting Amoris Laetitia.”

Because Divine Truth is a popularity contest, Father? I think not.

The bottom line is this: a man in Fr. Spadaro’s position wouldn’t solicit an interview like this (with a sympathetic publication, no less) if the Vatican felt like they had this situation under control. He’s trying to mitigate damage here, and he’s principally doing so by going after the credibility of the pope’s critics and by dismissing their concerns.

It’s a little too late for that, Father. We’re onto you.

This is all the more reason why now is the time to apply more pressure. When you’re living in a house of cards, the last thing you want is for the wind to blow.

113 thoughts on “Father Spadaro on Dubia: “The Pope Doesn’t Give Binary Answers to Abstract Questions””

  1. “Bad spirit”- Spadaro and those of his ilk have long been happy to live in a world of total inversion of meaning, i.e., confusion, so much so that those who seek to uphold divine teaching are not only to be vilified, but also demonised. Prevaricators, on the other hand, are to be deemed true apostles who expound the Gospel sine glossa…

    Didn’t we hear a few Sundays ago “Surgent enim pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae”? What more do we need?

  2. The pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions.

    What sheer, unadulterated arrogance. Perhaps Spadaro has never actually read a copy of Denzinger (it wouldn’t surprise me if he hadn’t), because the current pontiff’s predecessors most certainly had no problem with providing “binary answers” to so-called “abstract questions” (e.g., St. Pius X’s responses to queries addressed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission). Of course, we all know the real reason Francis will not respond to the dubia—he can’t without acknowledging that his position is objectively heretical. But for his cronies to act as if the dubia are some sort of insult to Francis, or that they are in some way beneath the status of his office, is ludicrous on its face.

  3. This idiot priest won’t even wear his Roman collar for goodness sakes. Folks, the schism is coming. It is only a matter of time. The Four Cardinals will move ahead very soon, I suspect, on the public, formal correction of the pope.
    Did anyone also notice that Spadaro did not call the pope “Francis”, but “Bergoglio?” I find that interesting.

  4. “We find ourselves here at the very opposite pole from a situational morality in which the norm is perceived as somehow extrinsic to the act that is carried out.

    In situational morality the subject is freed from the objective norm, which is conceived in an abstract fashion, in favor of a pragmatism linked to circumstances. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is right to say that “the truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience” (#1780).

    The moral justice of a particular concrete act includes, inseparably, the search for the objective norm which I must apply to the complexity of my case, as well as the virtue of prudence, which disposes us to discern in every circumstance our true good.”

    This is the word salad he uses to claim that the situational ethics of AL is not situational ethics. Contrast this with the Word of God:

    1 John 2:3 “And in this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.
    4 He that saith he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
    5 But he that keepeth his word, in him the charity of God is truly perfect: and by this we know that we are in him.
    6 He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk even as he walked.
    7 Dearly beloved, I write not a new commandment to you, but an old commandment, which you had from the beginning: The old commandment is the word which you have heard.
    8 Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true both in him, and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
    9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
    10 He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and there is no scandal in him.
    11 But he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth: because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.
    12 I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
    13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.
    14 I write to you, infants, because you have known the Father. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.
    15 Love not the world, nor those things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him:
    16 For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: which is not of the Father, but is of the world.
    17 And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof. But he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever.”

  5. Please help me with this if I am misunderstanding. I thought the Pope convened 2 synods in order to discuss and debate freely, when most of us knew there was no need for those synods and instead were seeing that discuss and debate wasn’t truly occurring but rather a hijacking of doctrine via pastoral egg slicing: lllllll. Yet, this man states, “The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.”

  6. It’s interesting that Father Spadaro uses the word “binary” as he does. That is a favorite term of the gender revolutionists- i.e., sex is not one or the other of a binary fundamental to being either male or female.

  7. Jesus knew that there would be many of the Pharisees that would not agree with him and he spoke the truth. Did it matter that their were many, verses the one man that had the word of God and was God and the truth? If it is a lie, just because many go along with it doesn’t make the lie become the truth. Pray for these Cardinals. What was it that was said?, if God is with us,then who can be against us? God help us!

  8. Keep shoveling the coal to make the fire hot to get the truth out and the pressure on, it is growing greatly, got to get this thing to burst to clean house and get these heretics like Spadaro out into the open and so much pressure they have to resign and leave the Church fully, they already left spiritually and no longer believes the Authentic Faith, time for the final push. As I may remind everyone what Benedict XVI said as Josef Cardinal RATZINGER “The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.”

  9. Patience. Let’s tone down the accusations. We know that in real life few are openly confrontational in any situation. Most will go along to get along. Few people will back you up if they fear they will pay a price for publicly doing so. This fact of human behavior explains how sociopaths capture control of institutions and do damage.

    The 4 cardinals have placed Pope Francis in a tight spot,and he is responding like any person caught in such a situation would do. The 4 cardinals, in my opinion, have done a good job by following procedural norms in expressing their dissatisfaction. Other cardinals do not have to speak up at the moment and won’t. They can wait.

    For Pope Francis and the Catholic Left the consequences of bypassing procedural norms are usually destructive in the long run. Pope Francis does not want to destroy the Church or its institutions. He needs these to push his agenda. He plays on the loyalty of Catholics to press his plan. The Left loves authority and institutions when they are running the show. This means that they have to respect the
    rules at least some times or they reveal that the whole institution is a farce. If they discredit the institution, they face institutional collapse and their own personal irrelevance. Do you think anyone would listen to Bergoglio’s incoherent ramblings if he were not pope? The Left needs the institutions too, which is its weakness. They cannot simply overturn everything or show their hand clearly. To do so would ruin their ability to command obedience (and, very importantly, money) from the truly faithful.

    As lay people we have no power to make decisions in the Church. All we can do is pray, learn the Faith better, assist at an authentic liturgy, and seek holiness. We can use the freedoms that exist within the Church to build an alternative culture – an alternative Catholic life – to the normative one promoted in the Novus parishes. When we can, we must recapture our Catholic institutions. But, remember, we have no power. Few will support our vision. Few will have our backs. Let’s not spend our time denouncing others, but praying for them and learning to see reality clearly.

    • …and take advantage, whenever it’s there, to use our spheres of influence to help others see and understand more clearly.

    • I would argue that we do indeed actually have power. We don’t have institutional power, we don’t have decision making power, but we have the authentic faith, and there’s great power in that. It’s to deceive ourselves to say we have no power, and to disparage our place as Catholics. We have great power. Our prayers are efficacious. Our voices, when we make them heard, can have great power. It’s not power in the sense of institutional control, it’s a much greater power than that.

  10. Followed by three paragraphs of incomprehensibly vague word salad that sounds mostly like, “Reconciliation and the Eucharist for people who don’t feel guilty of adultery even if they’re violating the 6th Commandment is totes okay.”

    That is what it boils down to.

    The modern theologian will never use one word where ten will do. Perhaps because, had he simply said “in some cases, yes,”* the frogs in the warming water would more readily appreciate that this stance is a clear repudiation of that given publicly and formally, repeatedly, by Popes Johna Paul II and Benedict – who in turn were merely affirming the ancient discipline on communion.

    * In reality, of course, I think we all know that any couple personally “advised” by a priest like Bishop McElroy or Fr Spadaro would somehow never manage to extract a “no” from them.

    • Many of the divorced and remarried are already illicitly receiving communion or there are those who have left the Church because of their adultery. Making it okay for those in adulterous second relationships is not going to mean that the doors of the parishes are going to be stampeded by couples returning to Communion and even if some did, the pope cannot excuse the sin and so the communions are sacrilegious.

      • As a practical matter: Certainly there are a number of Catholics in such situations who have been (sacrilegiously) receiving communion with the encouragement of their pastors – and not just in Germany. For decades.

        And yet, this new development is going to have some adverse consequences on the ground. It is not just that some liberal-minded pastors will now be emboldened to encourage more such Catholics to receive, it’s also that some faithful pastors could face serious consequences for upholding the ancient discipline and doctrine. Imagine you are such a pastor in a diocese like Chicago or San Diego. You do your best to counsel such a couple, but make it clear that in their circumstances, they cannot receive communion without a change of life. They complain to your bishop, who hauls you into the chancery. He might not *order* you to tell them it’s permissible to receive, but makes it clear that your continued employment as a pastor will depend on “adjusting your praxis.” You refuse to bend, and before long, you are in a hospital chaplaincy,or even without any assignment at all.

        That’s a price you ought to be willing to pay. But the end result is that a parish is deprived of the leadership of a sound pastor, replaced with one who is….not.

  11. Get this….five tersely and succinctly phrased questions are classified by Spadaro as “yelling”.

    On the other hand, the FrancisPropagandaFan, continually turned on “hi” to generate insults such as “rigid”, “doctors of the law!” and “witless worms!” is what is known as “serene debate”, in Spadaro’s world.

    You may not be able to say this Steve, but I’ll say it; this sort of hysterical, shrill, overwrought, girly, insult-laden, hissy fit is entirely typical of homosexuals. Spadaro and yes, maybe Bergoglio too, are card-carrying members of the lavender mafia. I’d bet my house on it.

    • Maybe they should re-read the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The last time I looked, there’s the meditations on the Two Kingdoms and the Two Standards. Sounds binary to me.

  12. Catholics for 55 yrs you have no Shepherd’s recognizable voice..You must Search the Catholic Saints,  Doctors, Catholic writings prior to Vatican II along with the Holy Bible…Since Vatican II hijacking brought mass Exodus and Deception.
    Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). Also: “If he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17).
    Invincibly Ignorant
    The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. (Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:
    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
    Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
    But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” .
    See below these Whistle blowers:
    PUBLICALLY- eg. -FRENCH REVOLUTION. ETC..under Globalist Freemasons…they decided to INFILTRATE THE CHURCH IN THE 1ST HALF OF THE 20th Century!

    Bella Dodd was a ingrown Communist Operative that helped infiltrate the Govt and Catholic Church from 1920’s-1940’s for a Hidden Communist One World Govt/religion takeover for the Future..the ILLUSION is Over.
    Must Watch “Communist Leader, Dr Bella Dodd, Confesses to Infiltrating the Church & USA” on YouTube

    Watch “Priest John O’Conner (1987)” on YouTube

  13. Looks like I’m gonna be writing my letters to some Cardinals today and sending them out tomorrow. Encourage the good, condemn the bad. This is ridiculous.

  14. This is merely a foretaste of how ugly it is going to get. Ugly, messy, and with personal consequences that I fear most of us are probably not ready for, because we haven’t even begun to think about it, let alone pray about it. Friends, this is going to be a war, and you’re not ready. Every diocese and every parish is going to be torn apart by this, and it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. It had to eventually come to this, and Francis just accelerated the timeline.

    • Not every parish will be torn apart by this.

      The Traditionalist parishes will not be torn apart, and neither will the whacked-out parishes. Most people who go to such places are in agreement, either one way or the other.

      Parishes like Holy Redeemer in San Francisco and St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis left the Faith eons ago. They won’t be torn apart, as the people that attend such venues all think alike.

      Some of the in-between parishes will be affected, with the majority of clueless Catholics siding with the defenders of Amoris Laetitia. They will look at others as nut jobs.

      • If this continues along the line that it is taking it will affect every single Catholic and Parish for it will become a full blown schism and entire dioceses will enter into schism which will mean that once traditional parishes will no longer even be a parish and their priests will be excommunicated and forced out along with the faithful…etc…etc…

        • I hope everyone is LISTENING here to what you wrote Father RP!

          I see a time when a good priest will give a ” goodbye” homily or speech from his parish, with humility and a spine of a steel. And there will be some who follow him.
          How blessed those ” some” will be.

        • I have been wondering for a while, what do you do then?

          The best I could come up with is that a faithful priest so excommunicated could turn to some bishop to get permission to say mass. The bishop, the priest and the faithful could rely on faith that excommunication by a junior pope (while there is a senior one) is not valid, and that the investment of apostolic authority endures.

    • I believe you are correct. It saddens me, but it appears there is no other way.

      I suppose now that tossing ad hominems, ad populums, non sequiters and strawmen fallacies the plan now is to turn the tables by inferring that to question an ambiguous document is tantamount to malicious intent. Good grief! Did not a single defender of AL ever take a basic philosophy course?

      I guess when you have no argument this is what you must resort yourself to. Hopefully, more people than not will see the wolf behind the sheep’s clothing. (For this I pray!)

  15. What sort of pseudo-intellectual sophistry is this charlatan of the Holy Father peddling to try and befuddle the masses? What sort of accusations is he leveling against sincere men and women of faith all over the world?

    “…Francis’s actions have been highly effective; they’ve hit the nail on the head.

    And that means, secondly, that, “the spirits are expressing themselves,” as Bergoglio would say. The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.

    That’s easy to discern. And by the way, that disturbance of spirits is a reaction to the good spirit: if there were no reaction, it would be worse.

    Just incase you are not aware that is language referring to demonic activity expressing itself against the Holy Father because the Holy Father’s work is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. This man is insulting the Holy Spirit of God by calling all those who oppose the errors of AL as people either influenced by a bad spirit or possessed of one who are reacting negatively (manifesting) due to the good spirit.

    For him the Four Cardinals and all who share their concerns are hateful and vicious and are possessed of a bad spirit: to say that is incredibly reckless and malicious and indeed even damnable.

    It’s one thing to believe that they are in error and that the Holy Father is acting in a way compatible with Catholic Doctrine, it’s a whole other thing to accuse those who think that the Holy Father may be promoting error of being influenced by a demon. If you’re not absolutely and morally certain of such a thing you just don’t go there for you may find yourself accusing the Holy Spirit of God of being a ‘bad spirit’ and that is never good for one’s eternal life.

    There was zero intellectual reason for him to make such a claim for the actions of the Four Cardinal’s plus all of the faithful members of the hierarchy and laity who are seriously concerned with the division that is occurring within the Church due to differing interpretations of AL (because of what it says.) They can be so concerned based on purely good intentions, good faith and a profound love for the Church and the Holy Father and indeed they are and have demonstrated that over their long and faithful service to the Church and the Holy Father.

    Yet, Fr. Spadaro chose to make the most brazen accusation of demonic influence and the possessing a genuine ill will of those who are deeply concerned with what is happening: that itself is a demonstrable sign of a great callousness and maliciousness toward all who don’t think in lock step with him. Why is it perfectly fine and good for the whole protestant world to reject almost everything of the Catholic Faith and be just fine right where they are with Jesus, but a faithful Catholic cannot even ask a simple yes or no question for the sake of clarity and to better understand the will of the Holy Father without being influenced or possessed by a demon?

    This is a bad as it gets in terms of labeling others. To be directed or possessed of a bad spirit means that those people actually want the bad not the good: this is far worse than saying they are wrong and doing something that is bad, it is saying their intention itself is evil. This is an absolutely condemnable act on behalf of this man, it cannot be made to be seen in a better light in anyway.

    • What sort of intellectual sophistry is this charlatan of the Holy Father peddling to try and befuddle the masses?


      Not a joking matter, I know, but…well that was funny.

    • “This is a bad as it gets in terms of labeling others. To be directed or possessed of a bad spirit means that those people actually want the bad not the good: this is far worse than saying they are wrong and doing something that is bad, it is saying their intention itself is evil. This is an absolutely condemnable act on behalf of this man, it cannot be made to be seen in a better light in anyway”

      Either they are all deliberate Servants of Satan or they are doing one hell of a great imitation.

  16. Love the way that His Holiness gets away with ‘not giving binary answers to abstract questions’ in a way married persons would never get away with with their spouses.

    ‘Are you having an affair? Yes or no.’
    ‘Sorry, I don’t give binary answers to abstract questions. Anyway, it depends what you mean by ‘affair’ and ‘having’.

    ‘Do you love me?.’
    ‘Sorry, I don’t give binary answers to abstract questions.’

  17. I hate the word and the idea of schism yet it has been within the Church actually for some time. To say C. Burke and others are not ‘pastoral’ is a joke. To say the questions were not pointed, needing a clear yes or no answer is a joke. I don’t like the francisnuchurch. I think God is still offended by sin and condoning it places a prelate in a serious moral responsibility.

  18. Reading Fr Spadaro’a words makes me feel ill. He is certainly dishonest, cunning, and manipulative. Heretical positions will never stand in the end as they are not in accord with Christ and his Holy Church. All the Saints and the Angels, ora pro nobis! as we fight this Spiritual battle! Excellent work from 1Peter5 as usual.

  19. “The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.”

    Thus, if you refer the Pope to Jesus’s clear position on divorce in the Gospel, you are, to the Pope, a “bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.” Moreover, quoting Jesus is “hatred and viciousness.”

    Who would think such things, where good is evil and evil is good?

  20. If a cleric is caught driving erratically the cops can give him a breathalyzer and if a Pope is acting erratically we laymen can give him a Tradalyzer.

    I have determined he is drunk with power and is running over every single Pope who proceeded him in that august and Divinely-Constitued office.

  21. If Antonio Spadaro was accused of being a Priest of the Roman Catholic Church would there be enough evidence to convict?

  22. What has happened to the dignity of the priesthood? Who speaks like this????? Oh yes Spadaro, Forte, Fernandez, Kasper, Marx and Georgio.. Father Spadaro, you are a deceiver. Why would Francis say to Bruno Forte that ‘We must go slow or we will make a real mess.’ In other words, we will deceive the people and go slowly to get them to swallow this bilge a bit at a time until it becomes the norm. Then perhaps, down the road, slowly we will include a blessing for those in sodomite relationships.
    How is it possible that purposely deceiving the faithful in order to promote your modernist agenda is the work of the Holy Spirit? It is not and can never be. This is not the way of Peter. It is the way of Judas. You ramble in order to purposely confuse. How can a person whose marriage went through the Marriage Tribunal and was denied an annulment then go to a priest and be allowed to receive Holy Communion? Your words ” in some cases” will turn into “in many cases”. You attack us in order to deflect from the truth. We see.. You do not speak like a priest or act like a priest. You see Anthony, the sheep know the voice of the shepherd. Popes speak directly to their flock and they speak so that they may be understood and in continuity with the deposit of faith. . The four Cardinals are speaking clearly, humbly and respectfully. Learn from them Anthony.

  23. There is something of the ‘Theater of the Absurd’ about all of this where Catholicism has been rendered meaningless and logical argument gives way to irrational speech. And, of course, as characters in this drama we have the sly but menacing Pope and his cranky and squeaky sidekick Fr. Stiletto (sp) Thanks for the hilarity Steve.

    P.S. It should be noted that the “‘Theater of the Absurd’ does not provoke tears of despair but the laughter of liberation” as it reveals the truth. Wikipedia

  24. The most poisonous statement, by far, is this:

    “The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.”

    Notice the steps here:
    1 “Intellectual discussion” — that is, applying reason to faith, also known as theology — is dismissed casually as mere “debate,” as if the goal of the intellectual discussion of doctrine (again, meaning theology) was to win some kind of a contest, rather than to express as well as possible the truth of reality

    2 If “intellectual discussion” = “debate,” then “Doctrine does not exist for the purpose of [intellectual discussion].” This is not a twisting of his words to fit a preconceived narrative. He very explicitly says that doctrine exists for the purpose of the health of souls, then equates the health of souls with salvation, and contrasts salvation with intellectual discussion.

    In other words, doctrine (literally meaning ‘teaching’) is contrasted with intellectual discussion.

    This is utterly contrary to the Catholic understanding of theology, which is not some kind of contest in which one invents clever arguments to spore points against an opposing position, but rather the application of reason (itself God’s gift) to revelation, yielding not “debate” in the sense of pressing one’s own opinion, but a perception of truth, transcending the shifting sands of human argument.

    Theology exists for the health of souls, not for the ego of the theologian, precisely because souls cannot be healthy if they are cut off from the Truth, who is also the Life and the Way.

    Try telling St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Leo the Great, St. John Damascene, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure that “intellectual discussion” is in conflict with “the health of souls,” that serious discussion of the truth of doctrine is obnoxious and useless “debate.”

    These saints (along with, obviously, numerous others) devoted their entire lives to protecting the health of souls precisely by applying their reason to the articles of faith, so that they could help people to find and to hold onto the true Christ, and not a false idol of ‘Christ’ invented in their own head. Every one of those listed above were pastors, most of them bishops. Spadaro is now going to lecture them about knowing better than they do what the role of a pastor is with regard to the intellectual discussion of the truth of doctrine?

    This comment, echoing almost exactly very similar statements made by Francis, is effectively claiming that one can know very well what is needed for “the health of souls” and for “salvation” while dispensing with the question of whether the things one is promising (e.g., that receiving communion in a state of continuous, ongoing sin is not a problem provided that one feels subjectively non-culpable) are in fact actually true.

    The teachings of the Church are not the teachings of the Church: they are the teaching of Christ, whose words the Church continually contemplates and applies reason to. Theology (at least if it is done for real) is not empty debate, leading to more debate; it is a seeking of the truth, in order to bring that truth to the world.

    EDIT: One final thought: the word ‘pastor’ literally means shepherd. A shepherd must constantly consider the question of truth, because some things are healthy for sheep, and other things are deadly. Sheep need certain food, a certain physical environment, and protection from predators in other to survive and be healthy. So, too, the human being needs certain things to be spiritually healthy, and some things are objective harmful to the human being. To ignore the question of truth is not a certain ‘merciful’ style of being a pastor; it is a failure to be a pastor at all. Leading sheep over a cliff is objectively different than leading them into a grassy field. The question of objective truth is intrinsically a pastoral question.

  25. Notice how modernists will do anything to avoid answering a simple yes/no question since they cannot easily hide approval of sin given such clarity.

  26. Our Lady of Fatima warned us that we may not even have legitimate masses to attend in the future. She said we will need to rely on the rosary. Our parish priests have really exploited the year of mercy, telling us God loves us no matter what….no sin or repentance required. I think we are in end times. How many big earthquakes have there been in the last month?

  27. I think that this odd fellow is among those who don’t actually believe all “that Catholic Stuff” but for whatever reason don’t quit and instead play a wierd cat and mouse game to deny implementing a radical social agenda.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...