Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pope Francis on Communist Crucifix: “It Wasn’t An Offense”

commufix1

Last week, I wrote about the dangerous symbolism of the hammer-and-sickle crucifix (and matching medallion) presented to Pope Francis by Bolivian President Evo Morales.

Though many — very many — in the Catholic media jumped quickly to the conclusion that Pope Francis was “not amused” by the gesture and in fact said as much to Morales during the presentation, later translations of the video (which had poor audio quality, making initial assessments difficult) showed this not to be the case. Fr. Lombardi later confirmed that the pope was not troubled by the gift, but didn’t at first realize its significance. We later found out that on Friday, Pope Francis presented these images to Our Lady:

Before leaving Bolivia, Francis placed two gifts he received on Wednesday from President Evo Morales at the foot of a statue of Mary. One of these, a chain with a chunky medallion, had the figure of the crucified Christ carved into a wooden hammer and anvil. This image had been drawn by Fr. Luis Espinal, the Jesuit priest who was assassinated in Bolivia in March 1980.

“This morning,” reads a statement issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, “Pope Francis celebrated Holy Mass in the chapel of the private residence of the Archbishop Emeritus of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. At the end of the Eucharistic celebration, the Holy Father presented two decorative honours that were conferred onto him by Bolivian president Evo Morales during his courtesy visit to the Presidential palace in La Paz , to a statue of the Our Lady of Copacabana, patron saint of Bolivia.”

Francis accompanied this gesture with the following words: “The President of the nation was kind enough to offer me two decorative honours on behalf of the Bolivian people. I thank the Bolivian people for their affection and the President for this courteous gesture. I would like to dedicate these two decorations to the patron saint of Bolivia, the Mother of this noble nation, so that she may always remember her people and from Bolivia, from the shrine where I would like them to be, that she may remember the Successor of Peter and the whole Church and look after them from Bolivia.”

This morning, we have the first reports from the Holy Father’s plane trip back to Rome. While we await the longer transcript of his remarks, The Associated Press has issued a report:

Pope Francis says he wasn’t offended by the “Communist crucifix” given to him by Bolivian President Evo Morales during his South American pilgrimage.

[…]

Francis, an Argentine Jesuit, said Espinal was well-known among his fellow Jesuits as a proponent of the Marxist strain of liberation theology. The Vatican opposed it, fearing that Marxists were using liberation theology’s “preferential option for the poor” as a call for armed revolution against oppressive right-wing regimes that were in power in much of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s.

During a news conference en route home to Rome on Sunday, Francis said he interpreted Morales’ gift through the prism of Espinal’s Marxist bent and viewed it as protest art.

After taking into consideration the time in which he lived, Francis said: “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”

Francis added that he brought the crucifix home with him.

As I argued in last week’s article:

This is, of course, a profound opportunity. Since the early days of his pontificate, Pope Francis has dodgedaccusations of Marxism. He speaks in Evangelii Gaudium, for example, of the need for “programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income”; in his February, 2014 address to the UN he called for “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”; in Laudato Si, he admonishes those who show “no interest” in “a better distribution of wealth”. Peppered in his statements and speeches and homilies are not-so-subtle barbs at the free market economy and the injustices inherent in an inequitable share of resources.

But he also insists that his thinking is of a piece with Catholic Social Teaching. He has said, in response to suspicions about his allegiance to socialist concepts, “Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have known many Marxists who are good people…”

This, now, is a moment, an opportunity for clarity. This at last is a chance that has been literally handed to him to settle the question, as any good shepherd would do. Now is the moment for him to speak out about the impropriety, the blasphemy of associating the Crucified Christ with Soviet semiotics; now is the time condemn Communism in no uncertain terms, like his predecessor Pope Pius XI (and others) before him; this is the opening for him to make clear, once and for all, that his concern for the poor and for the sharing of resources not be construed as an attempt to “save Christian civilization” through a collaboration with something so “intrinsically wrong.”

Many believe that Pope Francis has opened a door to the synthesis of Christianity and Marxism. Those who know better understand that the two can never be reconciled. Let us hope that the pope does, in fact, exercise great moral fortitude, and definitively teaches those who have been misled by the promises of this evil ideology the grave danger of their error.

It now appears that Pope Francis has chosen not to take this opportunity. The conclusions we should draw from this — and the consequences that will stem from it — are deeply troubling.

At the very least, all the Catholic media outlets that still have headlines about the pope “rebuking” or rejecting this gift should be issuing corrections or retractions. This is uncomfortable for all of us, but obfuscating what happened won’t make it any less so.

If you’re not already doing it, pray for Pope Francis. Every day. My family prays for him in our daily rosary. Please be sure to add him to your intentions as well.

UPDATEVatican Insider has published a transcript of the papal commentary on the plane. This is the section that concerns Fr. Espinal:

What did you feel when President Morales gave you the crucifix with the hammer and anvil? And where did it end up?

“I was curious, I didn’t know Fr. Espinal was a sculptor and also a poet. I learned about it in these past few days, I saw it and for me it was a surprise. It can be categorised as a form protest art. In Buenos Aires, some years ago, there was an exhibition displaying the works of a good sculptor, a creative Argentine who is now dead. It was protest art, and I remember one piece was a crucified Christ on a falling bomber: a criticism against Christianity but because of its alliance with imperialism. I would qualify it as protest art, that in some cases can be offensive. In this particular case, Fr. Espinal was killed in 1980. This was a time when Liberation Theology had many different branches. One of these branches used the Marxist analysis of reality and Fr. Espinal shared these ideas. I knew this because that year I was rector of the theology faculty and we talked a lot about it.” In the same year, the Society’s general, Fr. Arrupe, sent a letter to the Jesuits asking them to stop the Marxist analysis of reality and four years later, in 1984, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the first document, which is critical, and the second, which opens up to more Christian viewpoints. Espinal was an enthusiast of this Marxist analysis and he produced this work. His poetry also belongs to that genre. It was his life, his way of thinking. He was a special man abounding in human genius, a man of good faith. Let us interpret it this way: I understand this piece and I did not find it offensive. I carry it with me. I left the decorative honours which President Morales gave me behind… I have never accepted such decorations but Morales acted in good faith, to please me, so I thought of it as coming from the people. I prayed it over and I thought I would leave them with Our Lady of Copacabana, so they go to the shrine.  The wooden Christ I took with me.”

212 thoughts on “Pope Francis on Communist Crucifix: “It Wasn’t An Offense””

  1. I believe in the validity of the Holy Father — that he properly occupies the chair of Peter. But with all this recent activity from him, how do I continue to defend his validity and the Church’s traditional teachings? There is too much confusion and it seems to only be getting worse and worse. Faithful Catholics are becoming distraught and

    Reply
    • Your logic is flawed. He occupies the Chair of St. Peter because God the Father wills it to be so. It is part of the plan for Salvation that the False Prophet ascends to the Papacy. For from there he will introduce the Antichrist to the world, and hand the Keys over to the Satanic One World Religion. Please refer to Our Lady of Lasalette.

      Reply
      • Logic? Sounds like the only thing that could be “flawed” would be the original poster’s knowledge of Our Lady of Lasalette. And belief in apparitions, unless I’m mistaken, is not obligatory.

        Reply
        • What is obligatory is defending the Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith – Divinity of Jesus Christ, True Presence in the Eucharist, Triune God, Sacraments, Blessed Mother’s role as Coredemptrix and the Communion of Saints. Moreover, rejecting the heretical and apostate Papacy of Francis/Jorge. You know, the Papacy that has systematically undermined settled Doctrine and Teachings. As far as Our Lady of Lasalette is concerned, it was clear she was extremely distressed by the direction of the clergy, even then. So you can imagine how She feels with this reprobate in the Chair of St. Peter.

          Reply
          • Well, I can think of no good response to this that will be worth the time spent typing it. I’ll just state that I believe you’re way off.

          • Of course you believe I am way off. Because you haven’t a clue what is happening around you. Let’s reconnect after the Synod on the Family this Fall…

      • Just want to point out here. You are creating a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between just two choices of Pope Francis is a false prophet vs. <Pope Francis is a great Pope. There are many options in between that leave the authority of the Papacy intact while also acknowledging that there is a problem with the current Pope.

        The part of the prophecy you use to arrive at the conclusions (in regards to Our Lady of Lasalette) is actually under doubt since those sections were written much later in life by just ONE of the seers who witnessed the apparition. She wasn’t exactly living an exemplary Catholic life at the moment of her writing down the new prophecies, at least according to what I have heard.

        The approved prophecy and apparition of Our Lady of Lasalette do not contain such details like the ones you mentioned.

        Reply
        • Really, now? You are an expert of the messages from Our Lady of Lasalette? Cut it out. Our Lady’s intent was quite clear despite the efforts by the Ecclesiastical Masons to bury it. There is no dichotomy, just fact. Francis/Jorge is the False Prophet, and he is about the business of handing the institutional Roman Catholic Church over to the Antichrist. Just watch what happens at the next Synod on the Family. Oh, wait. Perhaps you are in favor of undermining the Church’s Teaching on human sexuality, marriage and the requirements for the Reception of the Eucharist.

          Reply
          • Um, so you deny that the prophecies you allude to were not present in the original document that the Church approved? That the prophecies you allude to were in-fact written down by one of the seers later in life after having some issues with the Church?

          • The Clergy squashed the portions of the messages that pointed the finger at them. No surprise, really. They were incapable of seeing the blasphemous way they were conducting themselves.

          • Then why didn’t the seer complain at the time the apparition was approved? Why did she write a book about it a long time after (which you have to admit casts doubt since she is now writing from memory of an event that happened much earlier)?

          • Try focusing on the issue of Clerical corruption. That is the point, not nuances of legitimacy. Don’t you see what Francis is doing?

          • Well sure. I am all for focusing on clerical corruption and Papal blunders of the highest order. However, it is another thing to conclude from it that the Pope is a false prophet that will hand the Catholic Church to the Anti-Christ.

            So I always thing that we should keep ourselves grounded in what we see or when it comes to prophecy, what has been approved by the Church. I have no issue if you want to speak about this in terms of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Laselette (original prophecy) or Our Lady of Akita (locally approved) etc. But I think we go off the deep end if we are not careful about accepting additional materials that others would like to associate to the approved prophecies (even when it is the seer).

          • First and only warning: you want to speculate, I’ll give you some latitude if you want to try to make your case, but start declaring things like “Francis is the False Prophet” and you’re way out of your depth.

            Only a pope has the right to judge a prior pope, and a council to decide that a sitting pope has committed manifest heresy.

            I want to offer freedom for discussion, but we don’t play this game here.

          • The concern with these outright heretical speeches and acceptance of Marxism does start to raise questions about the validity of Francis as Pope.

          • And questions may be entertained, since I believe that to have faith, one need not give up his reason.

            The difference is between asking “what if” and declaring “what is.”

          • Who are you to tell me I am out of my depth? Who are you to give me latitude? What game are you referring to? I wasn’t aware that Our Faith was a game. Why don’t you get off your high horse Steve Skojec, and take a look around. Before it is too late…

          • Who am I? I AM THE ONE WHO KNOCKS.

            OK, not really, but I am the one with the “delete” button. You’re in my house, so you play by my rules. If you want something more official, go read Bellarmine and Suarez.

          • Listen. All of you. Francis is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is at the beck and call of the Antichrist. First he will attack God’s plan for human sexuality and marriage. Then he will attack the Church’s doctrine on eligibility for the reception of the Eucharist. Then he will attack the Blessed Mother. Then he will attack the Divinity of Jesus. Then he will hand over the Keys to the Antichrist who will establish a One World Religion with Satan at its head. We who remain faithful to the True Teachings of the Faith will be hounded, persecuted, imprisoned and martyred. Some will survive to move the True Roman Catholic Church underground. From there they will endure the Great Tribulation, and await the return of Jesus Christ. Deleting me won’t change anything…

          • So what if he is? What are you going to do about it? Tell everyone, “I told you so?” As if the Bible doesn’t have you beat to the punch by two thousand years? The Church is going to get small, and it’s going to be persecuted. Like Our Lord told the women on the way of the Cross: Pray for yourselves. If this pontificate isn’t a wakeup call to every single individual to get their own life in order and repent from their sins, your doom saying will be of no help to you at the judgment.

            Have some faith, man. WE WIN.

          • “Have some faith man”? Please. “WE WIN We don’t “win” anything. We are the recipients of unfathomable mercy. The point is that we will be in a battle of epic proportions very soon. “What are we going to do about it” Get off your butt and sound the alarm, NOW. Speak out about that demon in a meat suit, Francis, NOW. My “doom saying”? Rather my “salvation saying”. Because that is why we need to be very clear about who the enemy is, it is a fight for salvation of souls. Stop with the mealy-mouthed, “look how bad Francis is” and just call a spade a spade. He is the False Prophet.

          • Steve’s the boss, that’s who he is. Say your piece, but these are the house rules, and since it’s his house, he sets them.

          • Teacher’s pet. I spend a lot of time on these Catholic blogs/sites/room’s. A lot of very smart people who know a lot about the Faith, theology and epistemology. However, as scripture says, even those who have great understanding of the Law and the Faith will be fooled by the deceptions of the Antichrist. Francis is one of the Antichrist’s greatest deceptions, and he has seduced the world. Francis the False Prophet, and now is the time to call him out. The longer people wait for ”proof” the greater the chance that they will see too late. Steve is not the boss of me. If he wants to delete me, let him. It changes nothing.

          • I’m not sure you are correct Mr. Skojec, regarding ‘only a pope has the right to judge a prior pope, and a council to decide that a sitting pope has committed manifest heresy’. I think there are Biblical passages which are in opposition to that conclusion and there are saints (Bellarmine for one) who’ve written in opposition as well. (See “De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff” St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. Translated from the Latin by Ryan Grant, pages 304-310.)
            Nevertheless, none of this precludes a lay person from her/her PRIVATE opinion as to the orthodoxy of a current claimant to the throne of Peter.
            And regarding the throne, if I recall correcctly, Francis and at least 3 of his predecessors were never enthroned, they were ‘installed’, similar to how priest/presbyters have been ‘installed as presiding over the assembly of the people” since A.D. 1968 – not as receiving Holy Orders to offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
            For that reason alone, I think, we may question the validity of the sacraments offered by any man, priest, bishop or pope, who took vows after 1968 in the institutional Latin church. To my mind, Francis is the first layman to occupy the office.
            Leaving that aside, I think anyone who knows the basics of the Catholic Faith is capable of understanding when an action and/or statement is heretical. I also think anyone who knows the basics of the Catholic Faith is protected by the truth and shouldn’t have to wait (for decades or centuries) for a proclamation from a council to discern heresy from orthodoxy AND to be able to state that in no uncertain terms.
            It is a fine (and intentional) mess–as Francis has so often asked the youth to ‘make a mess’. In this, he leads by example.

          • Let us not forget the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” which very plainly states how a Pope loses office and the circumstances in which someone who is not eligible to be elected cannot be validly elected. There is no mistaking the fact that this Papal Bull is written to be valid until the end of time. Its language is unswerving and its intent is abundantly clear; no vague language therein. All Catholics need to read and to own a copy of this document. On Feb. 20th of this year, From Rome (wordpress) dot com discussed this document.

          • Actually, if you read Bellarmine in Councils, he makes this very same conclusion in Chapter 9, as well as Chapter 21 of Book 1, namely that a Council is necessary to depose a heretical Pope (ch. 9) and that a Pope is still to be treated as Pope until a Council does this (ch. 21). This is follows what he says when he refuted the 2nd Opinion, that just as the Pope was made so by human hands, he also must be unmade by human hands (bk 2 ch. 30).

  2. IANS was born into a Perfect Society in 1948 but the revolution within the form of Catholicism has reduced that Perfect Society invisibilium and so now IANS ives in a Purloined Society for modernism/new theology/ecumenism has stolen Tradition and left the faithful flummoxed by an ever-accumulating amount of novelty and chaos an indifferentism.

    From Perfect Society to Purloined Society all with the generation of one man.

    Thanks for nothing ya bastids…

    Reply
  3. The Communist Marxist Hammer and Sickle Cross is abhorrent and very similar to a Nazi Cross. Truly, Christ, Our Lord, was crucified on both. “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ? “

    Reply
  4. Read these prophetic words of Venerebale Fulton J Sheen and pray:

    “The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers.
    He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor
    wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has
    helped the Devil convince
    men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he
    exercises. God has defined Himsel as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I
    am who am not.”

    Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth
    of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is
    he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this
    world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world.
    His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is
    no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no
    judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil.
    But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so
    much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no
    devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will
    he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

    ***The
    pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the
    Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as
    means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. . . .***

    *** . . . The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him
    and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the
    temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a
    world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a
    religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are
    God’s.***

    ***
    In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of
    freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell
    to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be
    brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the
    elect. He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the
    Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the
    notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of
    its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that
    will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .***

    . . . But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because
    it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from
    Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd
    of world communism.” ~

    (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West [Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948], pp. 24-25)

    Reply
  5. Unbelievable. Let’s compare and contrast shall we?

    Gift 1: Soviet blasphemy.

    Papal response: An honor to lay before Our Lady.

    Gift 2: Rosary bouquet

    Papal response: This concerns me. What’s with all this retrograde counting, you promethean neo-pelagian trads?

    Reply
  6. Let’s watch all the Mottramists turn on a dime now, shall we?

    Last week, almost everyone agreed it would have been outrageous if the pope had accepted the crucifickle with no qualms. That’s why Mottramists expended so much energy claiming that he’d expressed disapproval, or handed it back to Morales’s aide as a rejection, or left it at the feet of Our Lady of Bolivia as a coded admonition.

    This week, … ? Your guess is as good as mine. Whatever they come up with, though, we can be certain it will redound to the Holy Father’s credit.

    Reply
    • Pppfff * spits coffee out *

      “…left it at the feet of Our Lady of Bolivia as a coded admonition”.

      Lol, I have to know…who is trying to float that???

      My guess is that they’ll try to memory-hole the whole debacle. Too much egg on too many faces as this point.

      Reply
      • Uhm… I’ve read that on several sites. Like F Z’s. That seems to be the latest spin on this heretical blasphemy..

        Reply
      • Pope Francis leaves weird Bolivian Jesuit Communist “crucifix” in Bolivia… with a twist

        One of Fr. Z’s commenters expresses a sentiment I’ve seen elsewhere around over the past couple of days:

        I think most commentators are missing the point…Mary’s Honor is that she crushes the head of the serpent. She has overcome, through her merit as the Immaculata, the Mother of Grace, the Mediatrix of All Grace, and the Co-Redemptorix, all ideologies, all “isms”, all propaganda art and all bad art.

        I think Francis was being particularly clever here. “Here, Mary, Perfect One, take care of this evil for me.” And, she will.

        Reply
        • Why didn’t he take care of it himself right then and there? Are we really going to keep pretending Jorge Bergoglio is any kind of good Catholic? Compare this to his reaction when he got a Rosary Bouquet. He also degraded the Catholicization of South America – Something every South American owes their entire present civilization to at this point.

          This man if not a heretic in the least is a malcontent.

          Reply
      • I haven’t been on the Voris site in days now, but I KNOW he’s the king of the memory-hole. His site moderator banned me and TOLD me no ‘bad’ things about Bergoglio are permitted at Church Militant.

        Reply
  7. Division in the Church is going to do nothing for it. For our parts, all we can do is pray, fast, and work in our own lives to do as we know to be right, while continuing to educate our consciences. Extensive quoting of what Fulton Sheen said about the antichrist and speaking in the third person about how the world is crumbling around us, to me, seems to encourage others, especially those who seem to think that Pope Francis may be misguided, to conclude that his teaching/authority is invalid, if even simply via personal rejection. Even the statement in the article, “the conclusions we should draw from this are deeply troubling” is itself troubling. What conclusions should we draw? Why are they troubling?

    As far as the symbolism goes, could we not try and find the most charitable reaction? The only one I personally can think of is that the Pope, as he said, didn’t know what to do with this gift, and so let Mary handle it. Is that wrong? It seems quite a sound decision. The object itself, considering the hammer and sickle indeed represent what they do, could/should just be viewed as Christ taking on all the forms of sin and redeeming us from them. Why is this bad?

    Maria

    Reply
      • Pope Francis? Haha, maybe so. I, of course, would never be in a position like he is, but if I was, I’d probably do that a lot ;]

        In all seriousness, and even if it’s only my own personal spin (that is, let’s say he didn’t really mean to pass it off to Mary), there’s a lot to be learned from it. I know I constantly try and do things solo that I should instead entrust to God. Kids, mostly. Like forcing them into a mold I’ve dreamed up.. Of course there is a good amount of that that should be done, but forcing it isn’t the solution, doing your best and giving a good example and entrusting the rest to God is. I dunno why I’ve gotten all preachy, I’ll stop now ;], but I’ll leave it now that it’s written. Point is simply that passing the buck can be a good thing, sometimes. Not in excess of course. But sometimes.

        Reply
    • As I’ve said elsewhere, the reason that’s not okay Maria, is because we’re Catholics, not relativists. Symbols have objective meanings, and we don’t get to make them say whatever suits our agenda.

      As such, when an avowed Marxist gives this gift he’s not saying: “Look here, Holiness, see how the political ideology that I love and support is clearly antithetical to the Catholic faith, and is responsible for the destruction of your Savior’s Body throughout the world. That’s right, we’re a bunch of murderous thugs who hate you.”

      Instead, he’s saying just the opposite; namely, “Look here, Holiness, the salvation that you’re seeking in your Messiah is not found in His Holy Cross, but rather the hammer and sickle. Join us comrade, and be liberated. Through Soviet Communism we will show you the true meaning of Christianity.”

      If a pious Catholic were to place a real crucifix over an image of the hammer and sickle, in the same manner that an exorcist places the crucifix upon the head of the demon possessed, that would be a positive sign of Christ’s victory over Satan. But when a Marxist replaces the Holy Cross with the hammer and sickle, the only thing being said is the disgusting blasphemy that Soviet Communism is man’s true path to salvation.

      As for handing the thing over to Mary, if he had said “I handed this vile thing over to the Exterminatrix of All Heresies to cast back into the pit of Hell” that would be wonderful. But instead he called it an honor, explaining that the gifts – which he acknowledges were of the genre condemned by the CDF for their Marxism – were nevertheless well intended and well received.

      Just bizarre.

      Reply
      • I suppose I don’t see the relativism connection in searching for the most charitable response. I am not suggesting that the way in which we interpret a symbol makes it so, I am saying that the cross is a symbol of the sin and problems and death of humankind and the crucifix is Christ redeeming all of that. The cross wasn’t a celebration of all that is good in the world, joined in victory with Jesus over everything.. Likewise, could not Jesus crucified on a symbol of Communism not also symbolize his victory of that particular set of problems? Perhaps not what the author of the piece intended, but the meaning of the crucifix also was not what those that “made” it intended. In any case, it should not be seen, in my opinion, as justification for discrediting the head of the Church.

        Reply
        • Does it make sense to you that Jesus crucified on the cross already includes overcoming “that particular set of problems” called Communism?

          Reply
          • Yes.

            It also makes sense that various people have varied things/expressions/symbolism, etc. that particularly resonates with them. Hence art. Anyway, if you read the rest of what’s been said, you’ll see what my purpose in commenting was. Whereas I got distracted with the discussion about whether the intent or expression of the author was valid and legitimate, that wasn’t the point. I’ve also realized that distinctions I previously thought existed were in fact incorrect and, so the discussion now is somewhat useless.

      • Also, from the article, Pope Francis:

        “Let us interpret it this way: I understand this piece and I did not find it offensive. I carry it with me. I left the decorative honours which President Morales gave me behind… I have never accepted such decorations but Morales acted in good faith, to please me, so I thought of it as coming from the people. I prayed it over and I thought I would leave them with Our Lady of Copacabana, so they go to the shrine.”

        Call it what you want, but it seems quite clear this was not perceived by Pope Francis as a huge honor being bestowed upon Mary by him. It was the way he found of compromising, not offending the people on whose behalf he was given this item, and yet not encouraging what many would deem the philosophy implicit in said item. If you insist on looking for the worst possible interpretations, I’m sure you’ll continue to find them, and I can’t really argue them, but in my initial comment, I was simply suggesting that we look for the best. After all, he IS the head of the Church here on earth.

        Maria

        Reply
        • The problem is, when his reaction was first analyzed, his defenders claimed that he was clearly repulsed by it, and rightly so, they said, because it’s a hideous mockery of the Passion of Our Lord, foisted upon the Holy Father by a cunning politician.

          Then a day or two passed, and it was treated as an awkward but well meant object that Francis “diplomatically” or “humbly” accepted, because “dialogue.” So in a couple days it went from being a hideous affront to Our Lord, which was shown by Francis’s apparent knee-jerk unease, to being a thoughtful, artful expression of local flavor, which we should embrace along with him in the spirit of “dialogue”.

          Now, however, we have zero doubt that Francis was NOT repulsed by it, and willingly makes it his own.

          The question, therefore, is: How do we even decide WHICH is the “best” interpretation/reaction? The reason they all make sense, is because the entire episode is nonsensical. Why is it so scandalous to admit that Francis, as a fellow human being, made a very bad judgment call? How does that undermine the papacy or the Faith?

          Reply
          • Well, if that’s all, I have no problem admitting it, perhaps his reaction should have been clearer. I don’t know. I hadn’t followed the rest of the story, I had just noticed this post because I recently followed this blog on facebook and it showed up in my feed. I’m certainly not attempting to defend other publications’ actions or claims or interpretations, as I’m totally unfamiliar with them.

            But I wasn’t responding to that, I was responding to the “the conclusions we should draw from this are deeply troubling” and other harmful insinuations and criticism of a broader nature.

          • Well, if it were a one-off, it’d be less alarming, but the overriding concern is that this is perhaps the most flagrant case of his disregard for how his interactions with and endorsements of persons and causes impact the Church’s witness and the faith of the flock. The fact that he’s not even apologetic about the whole thing tells us a lot. What is tells is where the rubs lies.

        • Also, just to be clear, he left the political medallions with Mary–even though he himself finds them normally inappropriate!–but said twice that he carries the wooden communistifix with him.

          Reply
          • This sounds like the medallion and the crucified Jesus on the hammer and sickle were one in the same:

            “One of these, a chain with a chunky medallion, had the figure of the crucified Christ carved into a wooden hammer and anvil.”

        • 1. The relativism at work care is much like a Protestant who says that St. Peter’s cross is a sign of the devil; fortunately, that’s not for them to decide because that symbol does not belong to them. To
          this point, the offending symbol in question was created by a Marxist and given by a Marxist, and in the mind of every Marxist it is communism, not the cross that leads to man’s salvation. As such, when a Marxist replaces the cross with the sickle and crescent his message is clear and unequivocal. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

          2. The real crucifix was made by Almighty God, and it means was exactly what He intended it to mean. That evil men knew not what they were doing is beside the point.

          3. After a closer reading, what Pope Francis left at the shrine was the decorative/ornate medallions or necklaces, which are obviously the kind of thing he never accepts because of his distaste for finery. However, what he did personally accept was the blasphemous “crucifix” saying “I did not find it offensive… The wooden Christ I took with me.” What makes this even more problematic is that when he said this, he had just finished acknowledging that the symbol was of a Marxist genre that had been condemned by both the superior general of the Jesuits and
          the CDF.

          4. I have no problem giving a charitable construction on things, but I’m not going to pretend that symbols mean something utterly foreign to what their creators intend them to have.

          Reply
          • I suppose I can do nothing else but disagree. I don’t think that God was the creator of the cross and more than the creator of this crucifix. He of course participated in it, and made it possible. But men created the cross, men nailed Jesus to it, men implemented their plan to use it to discredit Jesus and his followers. It didn’t work, which is the point. Men created this hammer and sickle symbol, men dreamed up the Marxist philosophy, and possibly men put the crucified Jesus on this symbol in an effort to discredit and protest certain teachings and/or actions. It only will work if people take it at face value and it’s successful at causing divisiveness. If we become aware that this was given as an effort to bring discredit upon the papacy or the Church, of course condemning the action is appropriate, but have we become aware of such an intent?

          • No. I see a clear distinction between the two, however. One was made by an “artist” seeking to disrespect and desecrate a holy image/symbol. One was made by a priest who was misguided, but sincere, and given by someone equally sincere in his desire to honor the Pope. If my child, for example, gave me a picture of Jesus driving a cement mixer, would I be offended because of the lack of reverence? Haha, no. The cement mixer is one of his favorite things. If my child drew a picture of Jesus and then scribbled black over it and tore it up with scissors or whatever, I would be quite upset and the kid would be dealing with unpleasant consequences or talking to a priest. See the difference?

          • First of all, you’re wrong about Piss Christ:

            “Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture.”

            It is quintessential protest art, and anti-capitalist, to boot–surely Francis would approve!

            Second, the communistifix is arguably even more hideous than Piss Christ, because it uses an image of Our Lord to valorize an intentionally anti-Christian image qua expression of an ideology which has been repeatedly and uncategorically denounced by the Church.

            It’s evident that you will resort to any level of argumentation to spin this appalling “gaffe”–to use a neutral term–so I’ll leave you to it.

          • No, actually I was just incorrect about this Serrano..

            “any level” of argumentation is pretty excessive. I haven’t offended or lied or twisted words.. I’m just explaining to you how I see what’s happening. Quite obviously you see it differently, so it seems bizarre to both of us that the other would think the way they do.

            If you’d rather not discuss it further, that’s fine by me. This is becoming sort of pointless anyway, as we’re probably both not open to changing our interpretations.

          • Paraphrasing etomaria, with apologies:

            Likewise, could not Jesus crucified in a vial of urine not evoke the very physicality of his Incarnation and willing self-abasement for our sake? Perhaps not what the creator of the piece intended, but the meaning of the crucifix also was not what those that “made” it intended.

          • This?

            I see a clear distinction between the two, however. One was made by an “artist” seeking to disrespect and desecrate a holy image/symbol. One was made by a priest who was misguided, but sincere, and given by someone equally sincere in his desire to honor the Pope.

            This is just wishcasting. One might equally say that Serrano was misguided but sincere in the way he chose to call attention to the vulgarization of Christianity. Espinal, by contrast, could be said to be a manifest heretic intent on subjugating the Catholic Church to an evil ideology. I have exactly as much foundation for my supposition as you have for yours, which is to say none.

            You’re just playing one “let’s suppose” game after another. Let’s suppose the artist was sincere. Let’s suppose we can divorce the work from the artist’s intent. Let’s suppose we know the subjective intentions of Pope Francis and Evo Morales at the presentation. Let’s suppose the crucifickle is just like a child’s innocent drawing. And so on.

          • No, the fact that the crucifix itself takes a symbol of death and sin and makes it a symbol if glory and victory.

          • Sure it is, but then you contradict yourself. If the true symbolic nature of the Cross were your sole guiding principle, that would mean you could make up one of your just-so stories about any crucifix, including Piss Christ, that renders it theologically acceptable. But you just got finished telling us why Piss Christ is unacceptable. You’re tying yourself in knots.

          • Well, I guess I will point you back to my post admitting I was mistaken about the intent of the creator of “piss Christ”. I thought there was a distinction, because I thought thar the artist was attempting to desecrate the crucifix. I was not correct.

          • Anyway, my purpose in posting at all was to encourage a charitable reception of the words and actions of the pope. Not to prove I knew the reason the crucifix was made, gifted, accepted, or left. I found it upsetting that faithful Catholics would band together to condemn actions of the pope, thereby creating unnecessary divisiveness. In the end, we cannot change Pope Francis and his suspected leanings and weaknesses by complaining and ranting in commboxes. We can only pray for him and the Church, fast for them, and educate our consciences while attempting to live the way we understand is right. That’s what I’m getting at, and this back-and-forth is not helpful or effective in that goal.

          • Dear lady, you will search my comments in vain for any condemnation of the Holy Father. I limit myself strictly to commenting on concrete matters; to wit, his public actions and public statements, and the amazing contortions people will go through to deny the clear evidence in front of them. I have neither the authority nor the insight to divine his subjective intentions.

          • I do not necessarily mean you. I was originally posting in wide response to very enthusiastic criticism and inappropriate insinuations. If you did no such thing, than I wasn’t speaking of your part, no worries.

          • John Paul II took a bullet to eradicate that symbol in Eastern Europe. Now it’s in the affectionate personal possession of one of his successors?

          • Men did not create the Cross, it was prefigured as the lintels over the doors on which was sprinkled the blood of the Passover lambs. That lintel became the horizontal beam of the Holy Cross. Furthermore, men did not simply nail Jesus to it, He allowed Himself to be nailed to it.

        • True Popes aren’t supposed to compromise one iota of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. It mocks our Lord, Jesus Christ and mocks all of the martyrs. (True) Catholicism and relativism are incompatible.

          Reply
    • etomaria,

      I think the matter is rather simple. What Pope Francis has done is scandalizing. It is confusing. Is there a possible interpretation that leaves his Catholic fidelity intact? Sure. I do not think we need to even question his Catholic fidelity. But the only problem is that it does not change the fact that his actions are generally speaking confusing and can lead many astray.

      In regards to your interpretation of the communist “crucifix”, what you must keep in mind is that pieces of art lend itself to one interpretation rather than another. We cannot just project our own interpretations onto them. The only objective interpretation of a piece of art is the intention of the author. In this case, the author’s intentions are clear as Pope Francis himself has described the driving force behind the works of the Jesuit priest who was the author.

      So it is pointless for you and me to try and give it a nice little spin.

      More importantly, you have to understand what we are conceding here by acknowledging the above problems. We are not conceding that Pope Francis is a heretic. We are only conceding that he isn’t the greatest Pope in the history of the Catholic Church and his actions and words tend to lead people astray toward the bad stuff. Such a fact is not inconceivable, though it is certainly unfortunate. So I think we are not under pain of sin to give a positive spin to what is happening in the Church today. Giving that positive spin can hide the problem and lead innocent souls astray.

      Reply
      • Agreed. Wholeheartedly. If what you say is entirely true, I entirely agree. It seemed to me, however, that things like insinuating this could be the pope-antichrist or that we must draw troubling conclusions or whatever else, was harmful as opposed to helpful or even neutral. That’s all I was getting at, but then we got hung up on interpretation and such. But anyway, yes, agree with your points.

        Reply
        • I definitely agree with you as well in regards to this tendency to demonize the Pope to unacceptable levels (call him the anti-Christ, false prophet etc). That is worrying and perhaps a temptation that many Catholic will have to face in the coming months.

          Still, I think there is a need for disclosure and discourse on these Papal acts (like the one made in this article). It helps preserve the Catholic sensibilities. When one is shocked at seeing what they see today, it can help to know that they are not alone among faithful Catholics. Because being alone can give them the impression that they have some unhealthy expectation or that they must conform. But seeing that other faithful Catholic are concerned encourages one to persevere in the sensibilities that were shaped by our faith through the centuries, and have our guard up even regards to what comes from high ranking persons in the Church.

          Overall as you put it in your original post, much prayer is needed as well.

          Reply
    • I think you are on to something. The cross was the symbol of the brutal and unjust Roman rule in Christ’s day. He willingly was nailed to it to atone for the sins of the world. The symbol of communism is not more offensive than the symbol of the pagan empire of Rome.

      Reply
    • He has the “crucifix” with him. Only the honors were left at Our Lady’s shrine. [To me, he did the opposite of what he should have done i.e. take the honors but leave the blasphemous symbol behind].

      Reply
  8. Recently, I had a disheartening nightmare about Pope Francis that he was kidnapped by Islamist extremists who murdered his entire retinue mercilessly and he apostatized before they even got him to the waiting car with the words “I always liked Muhammad and believed him to be correct about Jesus”..
    The problem wasn’t that is was a disappointment or a shock but that it was believable and expected.

    Reply
  9. It is when the revolution seems strongest that it is at its weakest. The CIA never predicted the fall of the Soviet Union – that was left to investment experts to make that call, and they did.

    Franciscus may think this is his church but it ain’t. The Only Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has Jesus Christ as its Head.

    Franciscus vs Jesus.

    Gee, who will win?

    Reply
    • but Francis represents Jesus…LOL…gee did your god make a mistake about who should be pope. Is you god not perfect? Gee perhaps it is all make believe and you are bitter and angry that your ignorant brood of vipers are LOSING!!!!

      Reply
  10. Just the latest in a series of actions that cast doubt, not upon the pope’s orthodoxy, but on his judgment. Since good judgment is a prime requirement for any governor of any body, this is very bad news for the Catholic Church. (I see this misjudgment as especially embarrassing, one that will demand in the future a papal “apology” to the hundred million or so murdered victims of Communism around the globe.) We all know actions frequently speak louder than words, and Pope Francis’ actions will say to a lot of people that violence is legitimate if one feels economically oppressed, even if that’s not at all what he meant.

    But the lack of judgment during this visit was compounded by what his comments implied on the plane flying him back to Rome. After a week of fiery proto-revolutionary rhetoric, the pontiff admitted he doesn’t know a lot about economics and that he would have to study up on the topic before visiting the US! Wouldn’t it have made more sense to study up on the matter BEFORE denouncing capitalism all week long? To be clear, I think Francis is right in attacking unbridled capitalism, and right to say people not profits should be at the center of economic thinking. But it’s incumbent on someone who launches such attacks publicly to provide at least a hint of what indeed would be correct policy. That demands some expertise that he admits he doesn’t have because he hasn’t done his (economic) homework. Depressing.

    Reply
    • I find the proto-revolutionary rhetoric to be a somewhat perverse twist on St. John Paul II’s rallying cry to Eastern Europe to throw off the yoke of communism. The whole “communitarian” third way strikes me as a Trojan horse — it’s not even a well-made Trojan horse. It looks like communism because it leads there by the inevitable corruptibility of human political systems.

      Reply
  11. “Many believe that Pope Francis has opened a door to the synthesis of Christianity and Marxism. Those who know better understand that the two can never be reconciled.”

    “Inconthievable!” “I do not think he knows the meaning of that word.”

    Look on the bright side. At least this way we can make ourselves ‘useful’.

    Reply
  12. Let’s not forget that the cross was a symbol of Rome that was just as offensive to first century Jews as any symbol of oppresion that we have today.

    Reply
    • Here’s the problem: On Good Friday, the cross stopped becoming a symbol of oppression and became a symbol of Eternal Life — the Tree of Life restored — and the throne of Christ the King. So … There isn’t a sequel to the Cross. It’s a mockery of the Cross. Just like the rainbow flag is a mockery of God’s covenant after the deluge, which was sent upon the earth in part because of the very things the LGBTQ movement represents.

      So far as first century Jews’ reactions to the Cross, St. Paul set the straight:

      “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” — 1 Corinthians 1:18

      Reply
      • The power of God is found in His ability to overcome whatever ‘power’ the hammer and sickle (or the swastika, or the rainbow flag, etc) represents. All symbols of temporal power will yield to the power of Christ. Just as the Roman cross did. Even the power of death will yield.

        Pope Francis (who has freaked me out as much as anyone) seems to be saying, “Christ and his Church cannot be poisoned by the symbols, politics, and ideas of the world. We will appropriate them, and he will poison them.”

        Marxism will not be the death of the Church. The Church will be the death of Marxism.

        Reply
  13. Nobody will like this but I’ll say it, anyway. Francis not only is the logical extension of the Catholic Church’s centuries-old infatuation with political power but also reflects the fundamental apostasy of the clergy and hierarchy, particularly of the Jesuit order. How many members of the College of Cardinals would react much differently if one of them were elected, especially European members? Think Daneels from Belgium or anybody from Germany, for example.

    I’m not saying that Francis is the False Prophet. However, that doesn’t matter much. What does matter is that the Catholic Church long ago sacrificed its first love on the altar of power, wealth, political influence, secular prestige, monarchistic trappings and institutional arrogance. As a result, it has a fundamentally materialist world view that permeates Francis’ papacy. But Francis isn’t alone in this; just read “Caritas in Veritae” by Benedict XVI.

    Catholicism is in serious trouble. It has been in such trouble for centuries. The problem is that too many Catholics can’t see that because they’ve been blinded by group loyalty and their own arrogance.

    Reply
      • Actually, popeless!, that’s a very good point. Besides, the False Prophet would be universally popular and respected to a degree that would make Francis’ current popularity microscopic, by comparison.

        Reply
  14. BTW, for those of you concerned about Mottramists or neo-Ultramontanists (like Mark Shea and the rest of the Catholic Apologetics-Industrial Complex), realize that they’re nothing but mindless fanatics. They make Catholicism look like Scientology. Frankly, they’d be better off in Scientology; it caters to their mindless fanaticism.

    Reply
  15. We need to pray for Pope Francis, that he has a conversion to the Catholic faith. Those prelates who have read the third secret of Fatima, warned that the apostasy would begin on the top.

    Reply
  16. The Irony

    “The media is always distorting the Pope’s words.”

    In this case, the media first reported the Pope saying “That’s not right.” on being presented with the “crucifix” à la Fr. Espinal, only for the Pope himself to now say that not only did he not find it offensive, he understands it. The media then reported Pope leaves decorative honours with the hammer and sickle in Bolivia giving the cursory impression that the Pope had left the troublesome gifits behind, only for the Pope to reveal that “it [the “crucifix”] is traveling with me/Christ is coming with me.” I am very much troubled:
    1) Because as Mr. Skojec writes [paraphrasing] “Pope Francis has been dogged by accusations of Marxism/Communism, and,
    2) Taking the earthly honors with him and leaving behind quite frankly the blasphemous symbol I would have been much less troubled.

    Reply
  17. I can not even begin to imagine what would have happened, had I
    presented such a thing to my pastor back when I was growing up. Back then there were novenas being prayed for the end of communism. My how times have changed.

    I called him a Marxist within 30 days of his elevation to the papacy from just the little bit reported on what he had said by then. He has done nothing to remove that opinion from me. This is just one more reason to know “it’s not what they say, watch what they do”.

    Reply
  18. Thanks Steve for pursuing the truth. Lots of great commentary here. Looks like more folks are “getting Pope Francis” thanks to your help and others.

    Reply
  19. This is how I see it; my 2 cents: one thing I’m sure of, Jesus Christ loves Pres. Evo Morales, & He wants to convert him and save his soul. Those of you, with all due respect, who disapprove this action of Pope Francis, if you were in the shoes of the Pope it might be impossible for you to convert Pres. Morales. On the other hand, Pope Francis has a good chance of converting or at least help saving the soul of Pres. Morales. So in this sense, Pope Francis is doing more the will of God than we do.

    Reply
    • Uhm…. if anything Morales is already converted to Marxism and he’s simply blowing socialist kisses to his pal Bergoglio in the Communist Choir.

      We need to seriously stop this ridiculous nonsensical open-mined “merciful” tolerance of atrocious ideologies.

      “Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” ~ Ephesians 4:25

      “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. ~ Matthew 10:14-15

      “An open mind like an open mouth is meant to be closed on something solid, otherwise it is akin to an open sewer; taking in all things equally” ~ G.K.Chesterton

      Reply
      • It’s ironic that you quote Matthew 10:14-15. Christ’s words are directed at the apostles, todays magisterium, not the masses. Evo Morales did in fact receive the Vicar of Christ, and Pope Francis did not ‘shake the dust from his feet.’ Perhaps he should have. Regardless, the quote seems to make ariel3’s point.

        “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward.” Mat 10:40-41

        Reply
        • Was Morales welcoming Christ? Was he welcoming Francis as a prophet of Christ, in other words? Or was he welcoming someone in whom he could find a sympathetic ear for his attempt to bend Christ into his own image?

          Reply
          • I have no idea. You’d assume that an evil dictator would just be looking for ways to get more power. Maybe he thinks that Francis will make a ‘useful idiot’. It’s a scandal. But then you start looking at all the times Jesus scandalized people you start to wonder.

            “When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is–that she is a sinner.” Luke 7:39

            The problem is we get so sure of our own rightousness that we think that we cannot be shocked by the way the Lord works anymore. If we feel shocked, it must be the work of an imposter.

          • You just can’t quit with this nonsense of ironically twisted and conflated false premises can you.

            Luke 7:39 is based on the context of *A CONTRITE WOMAN WHO WAS OPENLY WEEPING ON CHRISTS FEET AND DRYING THEM WITH HER HAIR, ANNOITING THEM WITH OIL, AND KISSING THEM WITH REGRET AND GRATITUDE!*

            Now where is the friggin analogy of THAT to the proud arrogant unrepentant murderous Marxist despot Morales – and the humble contrite woman in the Gospels? Where?

            And where in the h#ll does Pope Fallacious fit into that twisted example? Because he sure as the h#ll isn’t Jesus.

            Do you think for one blessed moment Our Lord would have just stood there and accepted a symbol of murderous oppression of His innocent men women and children and overt atheistic hatred of His Church from an unrepentant murderous despot?

            If you do then you’re either a useful idiot – or a deceptive clown…..

          • Saul rounded up Christians for persecution and murder.

            I attempted to slap the stupid out of you… and apparently failed.

            The fact that you see an analogy in those two vastly separated degrees of intensity and seriousness tells me that your panties are as twisted as your reasoning.

            Seriously – less is more. Just stop already.

          • “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” – Matthew 10:14-15

            Now don’t you think it would be polite to at least attempt to slap the stupid out of them before you shake their dust from your sandals and surrender their fate to eternal damnation?

            See how horrible I am?

          • “Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I
            looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of
            lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with
            the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of
            dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god — and
            always like a god.” ~ G.K.Chesterton

          • Craig, in Scripture, there are two types of scandal: there is the scandal that Christ condemns, such as the leading of His little ones astray and there is the scandal that Christ Himself brings, the scandal of the Cross. The two cannot be equated, yet you seem to do so here by assuming that the scandal of Francis, which you implicitly admit to be of the bad variety by virtue of its link to this “evil dictator”, is that of Christ. But that would be a contradiction.
            The problem, Craig, is that we are trying so hard to “humble” that we’re making fools of ourselves, truly. Your brand of “humility” amounts to a practical agnosticism that is both nonsensical and unconvincing. That the Lord works in mysterious ways, that He can use evil to bring about a greater good is never an excuse to do evil or cooperate with it. What you are espousing is essentially presumption, which is a sin. Repent, Craig.

          • Thanks for the lesson and the call to repent. If you’re so sure that what the pope is doing is evil, how can you pledge fidelity to him?

          • Craig, in your own comments, you concede there is a scandal (of the bad variety), then you try to absolve the Pope of participation in said scandal because, well, Jesus scandalized people too. But the Pope has stated that he sees no scandal. So which is it? If there is a scandal, are you saying the Pope is wrong for not seeing one? Or if there is no scandal, then have you changed your mind? It seems you think there is a scandal and that the Pope is an innocent victim of it even as he affirms he understands what was presented to him and has no problem with it.
            The thing you don’t seem to understand is that I don’t pledge fidelity to him, to his person and all he says and does. I am faithful to his office and all that entails. The very fact that this IS a scandal is evidence of the fact that people are faithful to the office: they know that this should not be and their indignation is evidence of the fact that they care. But you seem to think that fidelity means approval of anything and everything, even those things that go well beyond the bounds of the office, and even those things that lead one into absurdity and self-contradiction. So you actually end up distorting the very thing you’re trying to be faithful to.

        • Actually no – Christ’s words are not limited to the magisterium. We are all called to evangelize the Truth.

          And no, Mat 10:40-41 does NOT make ariel’s point. quite the contrary. How do we know this?

          Take a look at the footnotes of Matt 10:41 (found in the USCCB)

          “Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a
          prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is
          righteous will receive a righteous man’s reward.” ~ Matthew 10:41

          *[10:41] A prophet: one who speaks in the name of God; here, the Christian prophets who proclaim the gospel. Righteous man: since righteousness is demanded of all the disciples, it is difficult to take the righteous man of this verse and one of these little ones (Mt 10:42)
          as indicating different groups within the followers of Jesus. Probably
          all three designations are used here of Christian missionaries as such.

          Now cite for me any evidence that Francis was proclaiming the Gospel to Morales and that Morales was receiving “the Gospel” from this pope.

          Now can we please stop with this too-clever-by-half up is down and down is up ironic-contradiction nonsense? We’ve got enough of this bilge from this confused Jesuit on the Throne of Peter.

          This is where Paul’s wisdom comes in:

          “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ
          Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and
          his kingly power: proclaim the word; be
          persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince,
          reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.” ~ 2 Timothy 4:1-5

          Oh wait – let me guess! Paul was actually saying the exact opposite! Right?

          Reply
          • So you’re saying that the pope is a false prophet…and you are a real one?

            Presume much?

          • Not quite – I’m saying this pope is a false teacher (prophet) and the Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) are the immutable Truth of our faith. We are Catholics not protestants. There are no new Truths. Only old sins of human nature. And the Pope’s ONLY job is to preserve and openly proclaim these immutable Truths. He’s NOT an oracle who divines new enlightenment as he sees fit.

            You mistakenly think mortal men are their own “truth”.

          • All I’m saying is that the Lord works in mysterious ways. It’s ironic that you point to Paul to make your point. Everybody knows that Paul was persecuting the Church with more hatred and blood lust than Evo Morales could probably ever muster. And yet Jesus converted him. Early Christians were rightly skeptical about him.

            “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” Acts 9:13-14

            I’ve got no love for Latin American dictators and I am extremely skeptical about the wisdom and intentions of Pope Francis. But Paul puts it best: “But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.” Rom 5:8

          • Yeah – you keep finding “irony” in my scriptural examples because you keep misconstruing ridiculous false premises from them.

            What does Paul have to do with a Pope who openly accommodated a Marxist despot like Morales? Jesus converted Paul – and if Jesus wants He can convert Morales – but not against Morales will. But how does any of that relieve this pope of his moral and spiritual failure to LEAD Morales to Christ? After all, that is a central function of the papacy.

            So again – just stop with the – “oh isn’t it ironic…crap crap crap crap convoluted crap crap …. and failed premise based upon a conflated context and crap crap crap crap crap!”

            No. It’s not ironic – it’s idiotic – on your part.

          • Nice to know that some people are all set for the great tribulation. I wish I knew Jesus better than the pope. Than the only thing I would have to worry about is putting idiots in their place.

          • Oh I see – the “pope” knows Jesus better than anyone else. Really? You’ve apparently you’re not familiar with the dozens of horrendous popes throughout history. Some of them murderers, pederasts, psychopaths, and all around heretics. And you’ve never read Dante, or Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman.

            See, it’s stooges like you who are so enamored in the papal cult of personality that you actually think the man is deified. You actually think that he is infallible most of the time.

            Read this from Chesterton, Behold the Weakest Link:

            “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing
            His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant
            Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a
            man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell
            have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have
            failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were
            founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the
            historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that
            reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest
            link.”~ G.K.Chesterton

          • So Francis is the weakest link? Just like Peter? And we should trust him?
            Either I don’t understand you or you don’t understand Cheserton.

          • Paul had to publicly and firmly “correct” Peter (the very first pope) at Antioch – because Peter was being a jackass.

            What does that tell you?

            Now in the 2000 years of the Church’s existence – there have been some truly horrid “popes”.

            Are you aware of that?

            And there have been saints and ordinary laity calling these horrid popes out in those times. Like Dante.

            Are you aware of that?

            The popes are NOT Jesus Christ.

            Are you aware of that?

            Very very little of what they say is actually fits the very limited definition of “infallible”.

            Are you aware of that?

            Now add all these points up – and what do you get?

          • This pope is bad? I had a sneaking suspicion. Is there something we can do about it? Besides venting our spleens on the internet, of course.

          • You act like there’s something wrong with “venting our spleens” – is there?

            No. Maybe it will get more people to actually *think* and discern the Truths of the Faith by educating themselves – as opposed to letting themselves get swept away with all of this hyped up pop-culture left-wing political worship for an obvious barely educated anti-Catholic Marxist Liberation Theology politician infecting the Throne of Peter.

            And then maybe -just maybe – more people will start to pray and offer up penance for the Bride of Christ.

            Because personal prayer to God Almighty (not worshiping the poor like Bergoglio would have you believe) IS the most valuable thing you can do in this life – with the exception of the Liturgy of The Mass.

          • Dante is not canonized. And I hope none of us wold think that he is as humble and as holy as St. Paul as to be worthy to correct St. Peter, who is now the present Pope.

          • Truth can only come from canonized saints? Really? Dante’s Divine Comedy is one of the finest literary masterpieces of the Western world – and it’s held in high regard by the Roman Catholic Church as well – in fact it is still a cited source of theological discussion. And no one batted an eye in his criticisms of heretical pontiffs. And there is no doctrinal restriction that limits criticisms of popes to bishops and cardinals. This is just more of the typical urban legends and myths that festered out of the disastrous Doctrine of Infallibility from the First Vatican Council – just as Blessed Cardinal Newman feared it would. *sigh*….

          • No matter how great Divine Comedy is, it’s still just a piece of literature and not a reference for Catholic doctrine. I still give more weight to official documents of the Church like encyclicals, those of Vatican 2, of Vatican 1, of Council of Trent, etc.

            So you don’t believe in the doctrine of infallibility; that’s dangerous. But infallibility is clear to me: it does not mean the Pope will not commit a mistake, he is still human, he will make mistakes. But when it comes to formal declaration of doctrine, he is infallible.

            Could you please tell me where I can find a quote from Blessed Cardinal Newman that he disapproved of the infallibility of the Pope. Thanks.

          • The Divine Comedy is more than “just a piece of literature” – if it weren’t, then it wouldn’t be used so extensively as an instructional tool for catechesis – which it most certainly is and has been for centuries.

            And you don’t comprehend: I never said I didn’t believe in the Doctrine of papal infallibility. I believe in it ACCURATELY (like Blessed Cardinal Newman did) which is to say – understand that it is extremely limited in subject matter and scope. And that, within those accurate parameters it is very rarely utilized. For instance – nothing this current Marxist Liberation Theologian on the Throne of Peter has stated or has had ghost-written for him is infallible. The subject matter and the Deposit of Faith itself (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) does not allow his nonsensical ramblings to meet those stringent requirements. And what you desperately need to understand is that prior to the actual doctrine of infallibility, open and valid criticisms of popes were allowed and required. Are you even aware of some of the horrendous characters who have infested the Throne of Peter?

            Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048) sold
            the papacy in 1044 to the highest bidder. After returning to office for
            a month, he sold it again in 1045 to marry his cousin. [Benedict IX]
            was accused of rape, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Pope
            Victor III claimed of Benedict IX, “His life as a pope was so vile, so
            foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

            Here’s some more:

            Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]

            Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

            Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy

            Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy

            Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]

            Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]

            Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony[4]

            Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

            However, just as Newman feared, the laity have allowed the narrowly defined doctrine of papal infallibility to be misconstrued for over a century because they have allowed the arrogant clerics in the Church to think FOR THEM. And now, the actual doctrine has been bastardized into an “authoritative” vehicle for nutty secularized overtly political agendas that are thoroughly Marxist.

            Newman: Before the First Vatican Council, John Henry Newman,
            while personally convinced, as a matter of theological opinion, of
            papal infallibility, opposed its definition as dogma, fearing that the
            definition might be expressed in over-broad terms open to
            misunderstanding. He was pleased with the moderate tone of the actual
            definition, which “affirmed the pope’s infallibility only within a
            strictly limited province: the doctrine of faith and morals initially
            given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and
            tradition.” Source: Avery Dulles, “Newman on Infallibility” in Theological Studies 51 (1990), p. 444

            Here’s more: Cardinal Newman on Papal Infallibility

            http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/

          • Thanks for the link on Card. Newman.

            I’ve heard of bad deeds of popes. And you seem to keep a list of them. I’m not surprised, we’re all sinners anyway. But “why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” That’s why I try to avoid criticizing, Our Lord could tell me I am worse than them. There are many other ways to correct, if I really love my brothers.

          • Oh please. Are you seriously using that incredibly MISINTERPRETED passage to advance moral relativism? That passage does NOT prohibit judgement on sinful actions and heresies. It simply prohibits judgement on someones motives (even though they may be unintentionally twisted) and ultimate against their final eternal fate. Those two things are only discerned by God Himself. And of course we are not to pass judgement from a heart of hypocrisy – which leads to the next point:

            What “log” is in my eye here compared to the tremendous division and destruction this “pope” is creating?

            And you’re just following the lead of the herd of Neo-Catholics – which is – “hey, just don’t worry about it! Ignore it! It’s all okay!”

            Well no. It’s not okay and we DO HAVE a duty to call out evil destructive activity. Especially INSIDE the Bride of Christ.

            THAT was Newman’s ultimate point. Did you SERIOUSLY NOT get that?

            Would you also like to see the prophetic words of Venerable Fulton Sheen?

            He specifically states that the days were rapidly approaching when THE LAITY would have to correct and rebuild the unprecedented destructing that the clerics would cause.

            Are you seriously THIS obtuse about the Catholic Faith? Especially with what I’ve shown you?

      • Pope Francis already said, “Marxism is wrong.” And that is enough for me, I will never think that Marxism (or socialism) might be alright because of his action. He may have a different purpose, and I think he wants to win over Morales.

        You think that it’s already useless to try to convert Morales, as in hopeless. That’s equivalent to condemning him as unsavable. That’s not what we see in the life Jesus Christ, He tried to save souls even to the last minute, like Judas. He did not condemn anyone, even the very people who were crucifying Him, He did not condemn them but wanted to forgive them. As long as a person is still alive, Jesus Christ greatly desires to save him.

        Your quotes of Scripture are okay. However, the whole Gospel (or even Sacred Scripture) is a great unity. You cannot emphasize one passage then forget about the others. There is also the parable of the prodigal son. And the greatest of sinners is also represented by the prodigal son. Jesus Christ is just waiting for any of us to make him realize his sin, and He is is waiting with open arms. The will of God is to save all souls and not condemn them. And from my point of view this is what Pope Francis is trying to do. Pope Francis said that the Church should be like a battlefield hospital. Because all of these, marxists, atheists, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, etc., are wounded that’s why they behave that way (take for example Miley Cyrus, she is against catholic teachings in many things. It’s because she is broken-hearted. She is wounded. There are many kinds of Miley Cyruses in the world.) Now we cannot be “obsessed with moral doctrine.” Thrust them with moral doctrine now and they will just fight back and continue to be hostile. No. Heal their wounds first. And when they are finally healed then that’s when you can tell them about the truth about moral doctrine, because they will listen now, gently but strongly, as you quoted the Scriptures.

        For you and I, God wants us to strive for perfection. “Be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect,” in St. Matthew. Then St. Luke qualifies what kind of perfection that is, “Be merciful as my heavenly Father is merciful.”

        Why? Because “the measure you give is the measure you get back,” (St. Luke) as Our Lord said. Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” On the last day, you and I will stand before the Judgment Seat. What judgment will the Judge give to you and to me? Did you judge Morales as hopeless and cannot be saved anymore? Did you call Pope Francis as heretic? According to the words of Our Lord you will get the same judgment.

        “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but those who does the will of my Father” (and the will of God is to save all souls, including Morales; are you trying to save him or condemning him?). And you might complain, “But Lord I fought for pro-life, I rejected the heretic popes…” Our Lord might say to you, “Did I declare them heretics (Steve Skojec mentioned above how a pope can be declared heretic)? Away from me you workers of iniquity!”

        You and I and all of us are sinners. When we stand before the Judgment Seat, we should ask for mercy. And we will only get mercy if we give mercy to our neighbor. Let this be my brotherly warning to you. There is still time, and I’m praying for you.

        Reply
        • Newsflash: Pope Bergoglio has a habit of stating contradictory statements. But tell me,what exactly did he say about Marxism? I want to see the details – because unlike ANY OTHER IDEOLOGY in the history of all humanity – Marxism has been responsible for more death and human misery than any others – combined. So for him to just say it’s “it’s wrong” isn’t good enough. Especially when we has just traveled all around Latin America (which is the home of Liberation Theology) repeatedly making increasingly harsh statements against all forms of capitalism – even referring to it as the devil’s dung. And THEN meeting with confirmed Marxists like Morales (and Castro’s Brother) and warmly accepting them without any criticisms whatsoever, and accepting their gifts and echoing their goals. So yeah – he has some very thorough explaining to do.

          And where did I say it was useless to convert Morales? The problem is – Pope Bergoglio NEVER EVEN TRIED. In fact, everything Pope Fallacious did ACTUALLY CONFIRMED MORALES IN HIS MARXIST AGENDA. So just stop with the ridiculous comparisons to Christ. All you’re doing is extrapolating ridiculous conclusions out of a false premise. So you can save the rest of your scriptural references as well. You can’t even comprehend my points – much less derive any coherent and tangible analogies from scripture…..

          Reply
          • Dante is judgmental. And it seems you like it. But Out Lord has forbidden us to be judgmental; so many passages in the Gospel. Because only God can read hearts. Is this ridiculous again? Or is it because you may have to change your behavior? I have forewarned you, and have entrusted you to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Think about it.

          • “Our Lord has forbidden us to be judgmental;”

            That is an outright falsity. We must judge things large and small every day of our lives. This false meme that is touted by weak Christians is very damaging. I would suggest that you list all the Scriptures that tell us we cannot judge, and then let’s go at it. Let’s pick apart the idea that we cannot judge the words and actions of ourselves and others.

          • Oh you replied to me. Very sorry, I did not see it until now. Sorry also to exasperate you, but my position has nothing to do with moral relativism.

            I would like to give you a piece of advice, my brother in Christ: do not be too quick in judging that someone has sinned. I re-write what I wrote about St. Bernard. He illustrated the command of Jesus Christ on love and charity and about not judging: “If you see someone doing something bad, excuse the action. If you cannot excuse the action, excuse at least the intention. Like, the temptation must have been too strong.” And I add, “if I were in his situation, I could have done something worse.” Let me give an exaggerated example. If this can be applied to this exaggerated example then it’s easier to apply to our case now. I saw man1 stabbing to death man2. I could think, man1 killed man2, man1 is a murderer. But if I want to practice the teaching of Christ on charity & illustrated to us by St. Bernard: I only saw the stabbing, I did not see what happened before, I don’t know the whole story. Perhaps man2 is the aggressor and man1 fought self-defense. I do not know, I’m only guessing. Anyway, the police will come & investigate, then we will know the truth. And if we still fail to know the truth, we will know in the last judgment.

            Another saint illustrated Christ’s teaching on charity. St. Josemaria Escriva said, “If you cannot praise, keep silent.” This is so compatible with correcting. Correcting has to be done with a lot of charity, otherwise, it would be a sin against charity (I elaborated on correction in my reply to Mr. Johnny Curedents; you may read it if you wish). St. Josemaria is a saint; he did not mean tolerating the wrong or evil. Do something else, pray for him, and find a way to correct him. He is, in fact, very strong about correction; he called it “fraternal correction.”

            There is more. I explained above the commandment of Jesus Christ on love and charity, and He expects us to obey this ALWAYS in our dealings with everyone, including the most evil person in the world (if you consider this evil person your enemy, then “love your enemies”).

            But with priests, even more.

            St. Josemaria said, “the priest is another Christ. And that the Holy Spirit has said, Nolite tangere Christos meos – do not touch my Christs.” No matter how bad a priest is, if you cannot praise keep silent, pray, do something to correct him. He also said, “I don’t know of any bad priests. But yes, sick priests who need our help and prayers.” He practiced what he preached. “Like the good sons of Noah, throw the mantle of charity over the defects you see in your father, the priest.” Again this is not tolerating evil, do something else to correct him. Pope Francis and the bishops are more than priests.

            This is so clear. Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” The judgment we give to our neighbor is the same judgment we will receive when we stand before the Judgment Seat. If you are not convinced of this, consider the parable of the master who forgave and cancelled the debt of 10,000 talents of servant1. But this servant1 did not forgive servant2 of his debt of 200 denarii, and sent him to jail. In the master’s anger, he did to servant1 exactly what servant1 did to servant2. Did I judge my neighbor a great sinner? Then I know what the Judge will give me on Judgment Day: He will tell me that I also am a great sinner.

            Everything we do must be done out of charity. Our Lord was strong in this, echoed by St. Paul, St. John, and all the saints. If we act not out of charity, it may be a sin against charity. St. Catherine of Sienna called the Pope “the sweet Christ on earth.” And she corrected the Pope of her time with great charity. She loved him even while correcting him, because even an erring pope is still the sweet Christ on earth.

            On scandal: if I’m scandalized, how do I know if I’m not scandalized in the manner of the Pharisees? By the test of charity. Do I love him who seems to be causing this scandal? With the charity as taught to us by Christ, illustrated to us by the saints? If yes, then I must correct with great charity. If not, then I’m a hypocrite.

            I think that Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, St. Bernard, St. Catherine, and St. Josemaria would agree with each other. I don’t think that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen would agree with you. Could you cite me a quote from F.J. Sheen where he describes the pope (or any person) in the same manner that you described Pope Francis? I think you won’t find any (correct me if I’m wrong). I believe that the Venerable F.J. Sheen knew how to obey Christ’s command “Judge not…”

          • Oh my dear dear brother in Christ Jesus’ love – you seemed to have passed judgement on my post and thus – on me. Ergo – you have contradicted your own false premise:

            Your cited quote from St Bernard – “If you see someone doing something bad, excuse the action. If you cannot excuse the action, excuse at least the intention. Like, the temptation must have been too strong.”

            Please do note (my obviously misguided brother in Christ) that Bernard clearly implies that some actions cannot be excused – and thus they MUST be addressed. Regardless of the intentions. And why? Because actions (especially those that misconstrue and assault Truth itself) have consequences whose rippling effects touch countless souls. And these offenses must always be addressed just as openly as they were committed. Justices demands as much.”

            Of course, your faulty premise assumes that we are all guilty of the same quality and depth of sins and that we are all in the exact same state of grace. This of course is spiritually and theologically ridiculous.

            BTW – have I mentioned that YOU are actually passing judgement on me in this very conversation? And that YOU are contradicting your own false premise?

            Have I pointed out that logical fallacy of yours?

            And your example of a stabbing….? What?

            How in the world does that ill-fitting example apply to the open abuse of doctrinal Truth? There is nothing hidden in the theology of Doctrinal Truth? And yes – what you are advancing here is indeed Moral Relativism.In essence your false premise is

            “Hey we don’t know the whole story! therefore the Truth is relative!”

            St Augustine said : “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

            Do note – that there is nothing hidden or left unanswered in that premise. It is not relative to anything but Truth itself.

            And your St. Josemaria Escriva quote: “If you cannot praise, keep silent.”

            Obviously that does not prohibit justified judgement and criticism. But you want praise? Okay. Here it is. At least Bergoglio has occasionally contradicted himself with statements of Doctrinal Truth. And I am thankful to the Holy Spirit for that dim shred of light. Thank You Lord.

            Can I have an “Amen!” my dear dear dear brother in Christ’s divisive Truth?

            Would you give the Good Lord that “Amen!” in non-judgmental Charity, my dear dear dear dear brother in Christ’s merciful love?

            And as for your reference to Matthew 7:12 – again context context CONTEXT is imperative here as in ALL scripture.

            Here’s the contextual footnotes on that entire passage from the USCCB online Bible:

            * [7:1] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mt 7:5, 6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.

            * [7:5] Hypocrite: the designation previously given to the scribes and Pharisees is here given to the Christian disciple who is concerned with the faults of another and ignores his own more serious offenses.

            * [7:6] Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles. This saying may originally have derived from a Jewish Christian community opposed to preaching the gospel (what is holy, pearls) to Gentiles. In the light of Mt 28:19 that can hardly be Matthew’s meaning. He may have taken the saying as applying to a Christian dealing with an obstinately impenitent fellow Christian (Mt 18:17).

            Now then – the REAL motive of your selective non-judgementalism clearly seems to be the avoidance of proper judgement against your OWN sins.

            But here’s the problem – you’re confusing sins against you personally – with sins against Truth itself. It is your prerogative to forgive and not even address sins against you personally. HOWEVER – all faithful Catholics have an obligation to address heresies and falsehoods against the doctrinal Truths of the faith. Again – we must release the lion of truth as Augustine directed us.

            So you see, my dear dear dear dear misguided brother in Christ – your citation of the parable of the master and slave addresses personal sins against one another and NOT sins against doctrinal Truth that effects ALL Catholics and the world itself.

            All you’re really doing here is bargaining down to a self-serving lower level of tolerance that allows you to escape your moral obligations to divide the world and unite the Church with Christ’s TRUTH.

            Also – you seem to be unaware that strict judgement born out of righteous anger from adherence to the Truth’s of the Deposit of Faith IS in and of itself an act of charity.

            I will now cite the ULTIMATE AUTHORITATIVE WORD ON THIS CONTEXT: Our Dear Lord’s OWN WORDS:

            “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.* I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
            ~ Matthew 5:17-20

            Now – are you going to attempt to misconstrue Our Dear Lord’s Word’s with a contradictory interpretation? If so – then obviously you must consider your OWN motives. Are they actually born out of pride? Anger? Self-serving needs? Also – if you disagree with my presentation of this passage – then you ARE passing judgement on me by your very contradictory position of my statements.

            Now, remind me again:

            Have I pointed out that logical fallacy of yours? Are you still unaware of that logical contradiction and spiritual hypocrisy on your part?

            Well – you’re obviously NOT unaware of it now – because I have pointed it out to you repeated. Because I love your my dear dear dear dear DEAR Brother in Christ. And you are quite welcome. Praise God!

            Can I get an AMEN!…..?

            Now tell me – didn’t Christ’s CHARITY force Him to fashion a whip and use it to drive live stalk and men from the temple? And fling down tables? And also refer to the Pharisees as “white-washed tombs filled with dead men’s bones?” And didn’t His Charity FORCE Him to call the sinners of this age a “wicked generation”?

            And didn’t Our Lord’s charity force Him to declare:

            “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” ~ Mathew 10:14-15

            Well….YES! Obviously Our Lord said these harsh thing is CHARITY? No?

            And tell me – WHERE IN ANY OF THOSE PASSAGES DID OUR LORD EVER MENTION ANY PRAISE ON THOSE TARGETS OF HIS CHARITABLE DISDAIN?

            Cite that for me, my dear dear dear dear DEAR loving Brother in Christ’s Charitable judgementalism.

            And here’s a Sheen quote for you to chew on my dear dear DEAR Brother in Christ’s righteousness. And do take note of the actual subject matter. Because it presumes corruption in the highest levels of the magisterium:

            “The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himsel as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”

            Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

            The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. .

            . . . The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.

            In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .

            . . . But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.”

            – (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West [Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948], pp. 24-25)

          • I sometimes mention my constant disposition in all these discussions: I sometimes say, “I know I can be wrong.” So I consider carefully every contrary opinion to see where I am wrong. So I thank you, Mr. Strife, for your concern, I honestly think it’s sincere.

            I think in the last judgment each one of us will be surprised. Many things (not all) in our earthly life that we thought we were right, then find out in the last judgment that we were wrong. No wonder St. Josemaria said, we have to be “men of contrition.” It makes a lot of sense. This will help us make frequent examination of conscience, see and correct where we are wrong, so that we will be less surprised on Judgment Day. Unfortunately, I don’t see this attitude in you, sir; you seem to be so sure of everything you say. That’s dangerous… Did I judge you again? Sorry about that. But I have something to say about this.

            You have judged me about my hypocrisy and avoiding judgment of my own sins; while I judged you (as you say) and that’s it. I wonder if you see the difference. My point is this, one thing is to mention what you did (man1 stabbed man2; you called Pope Francis false teacher jackass) and another thing is to judge that you committed a sin (man1 is murderer; you committed a sin against charity by doing that to Pope Francis) which I never did. You have called Pope Francis a jackass, etc., I am not judging you, I am just saying what you have done, it’s there, you have written it. Have you committed a sin? I don’t know, because only God can read hearts. I am saying maybe; that’s why you have to be careful. This is how St. Bernard interpreted the “Judge not…” commandment of Jesus Christ, which makes a lot sense, because in this way we can obey Our Lord’s command all the time. This is so because “Judge not..” is a commandment of charity, and charity has to be lived always. I hope what is judging and not judging is clear already, because I want to go to the next point.

            If it’s a sin against the Truth, then we ignore what St. Bernard said? “We don’t know the whole story therefore Truth is relative.” I don’t know where you got this; if you are saying this then you are also saying that St. Bernard is moral relativist. No, St. Bernard is not wrong. If it’s really a sin against the Truth, we can still address it by praying, by correcting Pope Francis privately (better this way to be prudent). But my question is, are you sure that it’s a sin against the Truth? I’m slicing your reasoning: you say it is so because the gift is blasphemous, and it is so because the hammer and sickle sign is evil. But wait, not all people think it’s evil. The makers of the movie Pan’s Labyrinth don’t think it’s evil; and they are not evil people. And there are many people like them. Thus, that sign is evil only from our point of view (big difference from the piss Christ, which is evil whatever your ideology is). Other people don’t think it’s evil (I have elaborated this in another comment; I will again if needed). Therefore, it’s subjective. And the Truth is not subjective.

            You have disagreed with St. Bernard (you refuse to excuse the intention because you say whatever the intention it’s a sin against the Truth; but if the intention is not bad it may not be a sin; I don’t know, only God can read hearts) and with St. Josemaria. You forgot to disagree with St. Catherine, because she said “the Pope is the sweet Christ on earth”, yes, even an erring Pope. Have I judged you again? Well, at least I’m not judging that you have committed a sin. And according to St. Bernard, I’m still obeying the “judge not” commandment. I think you are doing this in good faith.

            And you have disagreed with them because you have interpreted the Scriptures on your own. “Since Our Lord declared charitable disdain to sinners, therefore I also declare charitable disdain left and right.” I will also get a whip and start whipping Bergoglio for this “blasphemy” and I am imitating Our Lord. Well the saints did not interpret the Scriptures this way; they knew better how to imitate Our Lord. They should be our guide. You know well that the devil also interprets the bible. (I’m not saying you’re the devil; I’m sure you also use this against anti-catholics who quote the bible, and I’m sure you have a lot of charity for them.)

            And I disagree that I’m misguided, because I let myself be guided by the saints; including the Venerable F.J. Sheen. You have not convinced me that F.J. Sheen would approve of your behavior through that quote. F.J. Sheen was not directing it to any concrete person. I am sure that he had great charity to everyone, including great sinners.

          • Yes, you are indeed judging me. And what’s even more hypocritical on your part: you actually start off your overly long-winded diatribe with a bit of moral relativism as if none of us can really know for sure any objective Truth. That of course is lunacy and completely antithetical to the Catholic faith.

            It’s clear that you do not understand the complete and proper context of moral discernment and judgement. Faith in Christ actually requires us to pass judgement on sinful words and actions. However we are to guard against hypocrisy and against judgement of ones ultimate motives of the heart and ones ultimate eternal fate. That’s it. That’s the context. Nothing more and nothing less. That is the objective Truth that has long been settled since the Church was established 2000 years ago.

            Now your other fallacy: your interpretation of “love” and “charity” in the context of fraternal correction is nothing other than tolerance and acceptance. And that is completely wrong. Our Lord Himself used harsh language against unrepentant sinners. Especially false teachers. And Paul followed Christ’s example in this accurate form of fraternal correction. Paul even called out Peter (the first pope) in a very public way at Antioch and sternly reprimanded him. And all faithful members of the Church are required to reject ALL forms of false teaching. Especially when it’s spewing from the Chair of Peter.

            So again – at this point – I really don’t care what you are or are not convinced of. And frankly your increasingly long responses are becoming increasingly tedious. All you’re doing at this point is engaging in a passive aggressive form of harassment by throwing massive amounts of words against the wall in the hopes that some of your rationalizations will stick.

            And therein lies your biggest hypocrisy of all: In your obsessive drive to destroy any moral absolutes of discernment – you have actually become MORE zealous than me in your absolute discernment that nothing moral is capable of absolute discernment. In short, your “tolerance” will not tolerate any intolerance. And that self-contradiction is completely insane.

            “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” ~ G.K.Chesterton

            “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Otherwise it is akin to an open sewer; taking in all things equally.” ~ G.K.Chesterton

          • Your previous comment is more than twice longer than my previous 2 comments…. But sorry, I tried not to irritate you.

            My introduction which you called moral relativism and lunacy is actually deference to you: that I could be wrong and you could be right. It is not lunacy because I was talking about original sin and concupiscence that each of us has; it’s a Theological Truth that each one of us is prone to error. So I considered carefully your arguments; unfortunately I find they don’t show I’m wrong. In some talks I give to groups of people I sometimes say “it’s better to be wrong and change our position because it’s good for humility.” But in this case now, my pride is happy and my humility is crying.

            God is Love. “Love and it will suffice,” Scripture says. It does not say, “defend the Truth, and it will suffice.” Love has also been established in the Church since 2000 years ago. In the last day, our judgment will be summed up into this: how much have we loved. Because all the commandments can be summed up into these: Love God and love your neighbor. Even if the Judge on the last day were to ask us about the Truth, he would ask it this way, “Did you defend the Truth out of love of God and love of neighbor (including Jorge Bergoglio)?” And it’s because “even if I offer my body to be burned [for defending the Truth] if I don’t have love, it is useless.” That’s St. Paul for you.

            G.K Chesterton meant non-tolerance for sin and error, while great charity for the sinner and the one who errs. G.K. Chesterton will agree with the saints.

            I prayed for you in the Mass that I attended this morning.

          • If you don’t mind, could you reference the Scripture for the quote: Love and it will suffice. You are using that quote to justify your viewpoint, correct?

          • Yes, I think all of us use quotes in order to justify our viewpoints. I think that love includes correcting the person loved, even if he/she is in grave error or sin…. I looked it up in the epistles of St. John, I did not find it. I’m sorry, it’s my mistake (I will also apologize to Mr. Strife). I remember now that I heard the story that when St. John was already very old in the late 1st century, when he was being carried from place to place for he could not walk anymore. The younger Christians asked him, “Why do you always talk about love?” And he replied, “Because it will suffice.” To me it sounded like the summary of his epistles.

          • “But in this case now, my pride is happy and my humility is crying.”

            Yes of course – you checked with yourself and you found yourself to be correct. And no, you never really considered any alternate position. You’re only stating that lie to make your stubborn pride appear reasonable. Oh, and then you cite your own little slogan to confirm how open-minded your consideration was. Geez Louise, you’re quite a piece of work. But then – I knew you were full of it.

            Here’s Paul “Your boasting is not appropriate. Do you not know that a little yeast* leavens all the dough?” – 1 Corinthians 5:6

            Oh and, since you brought Paul up, here’s his method for dealing with morally corrupt members of the Church. Now do take special note of his method of *love* as it is properly applied with fraternal correction:

            “in the name of [our] Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.”

            Oh and, you’re an amateur at Chesterton – so don’t even try.

            What Chesterton actually meant was that our intolerance for sin and error IS in fact the ultimate form of charity for the sinner. That was Christ’s example BTW. You mistakenly apply a false dichotomy to the two – where Chesterton correctly recognized the continuity that completed the two.

            Here’s an example of this – and it applies to the false teacher Bergoglio specifically. Do note Our Lord’s burning and harsh fraternal correction which IS in fact His love:

            He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” – Luke 17:1-3

            Do note, my precious, that the Lord said “if he repents, forgive him”

            He didn’t say – “just go ahead and forgive him even if he doesn’t repent…. because blah blah blah hugs and kisses and complete tolerance and blah blah blah love and acceptance and blah blah blah”.

            Now then, can you feel the Lord’s stinging Love in that passage? It burns like purgatory. His love burns our conscience and throws us into the heavenly graces of guilt and shame in order to save us.

            Do you get that? If not – you’re doing it wrong.

            So again, your understanding of scripture and theology are …. shall we say…. sophomoric, to put it kindly.

            Now I thank you for your prayers. They sustain me. Now go – and pray for the gift of discernment to be given to you so that you can be healed of your contra-education and enlightened with the Truth of the Faith.

          • I may sound stubborn and lacking discernment to you, I’m sorry about that. You quoted St. Paul “to deliver this man to Satan” as if to put against my quote of the same Apostle. I wonder, do you see any contradiction there? I find perfect harmony. Your quote ends “so that his spirit may be saved…” St. Paul loved that person whoever he is; the punishment may be harsh (that’s why he mentioned satan), but it’s for his own good, he wants the person to go to heaven. And if we defend the Truth without love then it’s useless. A perfect harmony, because the whole Scripture is a great unity, we cannot emphasize one passage and ignore another. So your arguments are like this, they don’t prove that I’m wrong. Thus I may not tackle each of your arguments so as not to prolong.

            Though I’m sorry about my quote that “love and it will suffice.” It is actually a story that I heard when St. John was already very old in the late 1st century, when he was being carried from place to place for he could not walk anymore. The younger Christians asked him, “Why do you always talk about love?” And he replied, “Because it will suffice.” To me it sounded like the summary of his epistles.

            So don’t worry about what I spread, because I’m spreading love, and God is Love. Even if I talk about you to the people I influence, I would just say, “Pray for Mr. Strife.” And if ever I would add anything, I would say, “He is a good man.” I will not say anything less. What harm can I do? I have advised some people to condemn contraception as evil and then promote chastity (divorce and same sex marriage are still a brewing battle here), but to the proponents of these evil things, treat them with charity. So I’m spreading no harm. I am more worried about you, because the way you behave can be construed as lack of charity (or even hatred) to particular persons.

            Our Lord said, “if he repents, forgive him.” Forgiveness does not mean tolerating evil: I can condemn the evil he’s doing and at the same time forgiving the person. Again, perfect unity of Scriptures: in your quote Our Lord did not say “do not forgive”, so it is compatible with Mt 18:21 when St. Peter was asking if the limit to forgive is seven times, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” No limit in forgiving. And again, your quote is perfectly compatible with the behavior of Our Lord in the crucifixion. Were those who crucified Him repentant? They don’t seem so. And yet Our Lord wanted to forgive them, “Forgive them for they know not…” Even though all our sins contributed to His Crucifixion, can you think of a worse sin than crucifying Our Lord physically? Is the sin of Pope Francis (as you think so) worse than those who spat and slapped His face?

            On scandal and the millstone. Should they be scandalized by Pope Francis? If I’m scandalized, how do I know that I am not scandalized in the manner of the Pharisees? Through the test of charity. Do i love him who seems to be causing the scandal? If yes, then I need to find ways to correct him with prudence and charity because I love him. If the answer is no, then I’m a hypocrite like the Pharisees. I cannot read hearts that’s why I obey the “Judge not” commandment. But God and you can read your own heart.

            I might be an amateur on G.K. Chesterton. But I can predict (correct me if I’m wrong since I’m an amateur) that you cannot cite a quote from Chesterton where he describes a concrete person with lack of charity or hatred (just like F.J. Sheen where you still have not proven me wrong). I’m sure that he. like FJ Sheen, has treated everyone with charity including grave sinners, like those who crucified Our Lord.

          • First of all: Paul’s fraternal “love” for the man was effectively harsh, rude, mean, exclusionary, alienating, intolerant, and thoroughly unsupportive and completely dismissive of the man’s personal feelings. Paul offended every facet of worldly sentimentalism in his treatment of the man. Now, you never acknowledge that. You simply ignore it.

            Second: You apply the world’s sentimental standards to Christ’s version of True Love. It forms and follows His path to Peace:

            “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” ~ John 14:27

            Third: You confuse the forgiveness of offenses committed against us personally (which we should ALWAYS forgive: “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times”) with the offenses against Truth itself which we should ONLY forgive IF the sinner is contrite and humble:

            “If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” ~ Matthew 10:13-15

            And the rebellious heretical termites in the Church?

            “For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers, especially the Jewish Christians. It is imperative to silence them, as they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what they should not. One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith, instead of paying attention to Jewish myths and regulations of people who have repudiated the truth. To the clean all things are clean, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean; in fact, both their minds and their consciences are tainted. They claim to know God, but by their deeds they deny him. They are vile and disobedient and unqualified for any good deed.” ~ Titus 1:10-16

            Fourth: This pope is a clearly a false teacher who is obsessed with the worldliness of man and the worldly solutions of manna:

            “I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. For even if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. So, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him, rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.” ~ Colossians 2:4-8

            “For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,* will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.” ~ 2 Timothy 4:3-5

            “There were also false prophets among the people, just
            as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.” ~ 2 Peter 2:1-3

            “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. For while your obedience
            is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.” ~ Romans 16:17-20

            Fifth: Again you do not understand Chesterton. You are applying the world’s sentimental feel-good definitions of “love and charity” to Christ. Chesterton understood the PARADOXICAL nature of God’s Love. It must offend in order to condemn. It must humble in order to redeem. It must shame in order to inflame. It must kill us from ourselves in order to save us from ourselves. And yes – Chesterton cites the most concrete Person of all for this example – Our Lord Jesus Christ:

            “Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god — and always like a god.” ~ G.K.Chesterton

            “We have all heard people say that the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed a most merciful and humane lover of humanity, but that the Church has hidden this human character in repellent dogmas till it has taken on an inhuman character. The truth is that it is the image of Christ in the churches that is almost entirely mild and merciful. It is the image of Christ in the Gospels that is a good many other things as well. […] There are a great many things about the Gospels which nobody would have invented, things which have remained rather as puzzles. It is anything but what these people talk of as a simple Gospel. Relatively speaking, it is the Gospel that has the mysticism and the Church that has the rationalism. It is the Gospel that is the riddle and the Church that is the answer.” ~ G.K.Chesterton

            Sixth: Here’s Sheen’s prophecy of the Counter-Church. And do take note that by the very definition of a counter-church it must be born out of deceit by the magisterium itself. And do note that he clearly says it will be motivated by the politics of communism – not Catholicism. Of manna and man – not Christ and The Bread From Heaven. It will disregard the Sacred Traditions of Timeless Truth and replace them with political solutions of the modern world:

            “The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.” Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there
            is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no
            sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no
            judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

            The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. . . .

            The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.

            In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse
            and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the
            Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of
            Christ. . . .

            But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.”

            ~ (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West [Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948], pp. 24-25)

            And lastly: Take note of yourself. Look over your comments. Look at the number of times you reference yourself. Your entire spiritual motivation cites your own self-centered goodness. YOU need to cite the good things that YOU believe and that YOU do and that YOU feel and that YOU will not turn away from. And YOU will not be convinced of anything that challenges YOUR feelings. Because YOU and YOUR FEELINGS are what YOU are really serving here.

            Here edeth a multitude of Lessons for YOU and me.

          • You may be right… This is the strangest reply you have given me so far. But you want to end this, then as you wish. Pleased to have discussed with you. Thanks for everything. May God bless you.

          • Let us pray for both of us, and the Church, and…… for this pope and our wayward magisterium. These are dark days.

    • So, if I get this right, you would have cheered Pius XII had he approached Adolf and other Catholics in the Berlin government in, say, 1942, posing for photo-ops and smiling while the Fuehrer presented him with,say, a signed copy of sheet music for the Horst Wessel Song and the first swastika flag to fly over Communist Russia? You don’t suspect, even a little, that this attempt to convert the Nazi monster and to save his soul might have sent a wrong signal? That it might have caused millions to be scandalized around the globe? Tell me, just what makes the symbol Francis accepted, a symbol in the shadow of which over 100 million innocent victims have been murdered, more respectable than the symbol of a regime that killed between 11 and 17 million victims?

      Reply
      • I’m not sure if I would, I did not applaud this one (there’s a great difference between Morales and Hitler. Why do you exaggerate things to make Pope Francis look bad? I’m not sure if this is a good way of acting. It might not be good to do this to a person in the street. Then much worse to the Holy Father, who is elected in a valid and licit way. Since this is so, I believe the hand of God is behind his election). I’d rather be in the real situation, then pray to the Holy Spirit what I would do next.

        I’m sure of one thing: in the last judgment we wil have to give an account to God how have we been faithful to Jesus Christ, which means fidelity to His Church, fidelity to His chosen vicar, the Holy Father. If things happen that are against my way of thinking, I know that there is no doctrine on my own infallibility, but for the Pope yes. There are so many things alleged against Pope Francis, even as Fr. Bergoglio, as archbishop, as cardinal. Until now I have not found any proof of those allegation that is beyond reasonable doubt. Thus with this new event I suspend my judgment and wait.

        Many will be scandalized? I’m not sure of that, maybe you’re right. Though I remember that many were scandalized also when Jesus Christ mingled with public sinners.

        Pope Francis already said that “Marxism is wrong”. That is enough for me. I will never think that Marxism (or Socialism) may be alright by his actions now. Never.

        Reply
        • You managed to miss entirely the point of the analogy between Hitler and Morales. It’s not that one is “better” or “worse” than the other, but rather that both are evidently exponents of a profoundly evil ideology, each that has killed millions of innocent victims and terrorized people in various lands. The pope knows this and, since he isn’t at all stupid, he knows full well what photo-ops mean of the kind he gave Communism with Morales and that blasphemous piece of “art.” Perhaps simply saying something as appallingly evil as Communism or Marxism (not exactly the same thing; Karl Marx never knew the symbol in question here, an invention of the 1917 Communist revolution in Russia) “is wrong” passes muster in your book, but not in mine.

          Mixing into the the argument the questionable validity of some vague allegations about the pope’s behavior as bishop in Argentina is merely a red herring, a wan attempt to distract from the point at hand, viz. José Bergoglio’s behavior and repeated verbal gaffes as pope. Ditto for your comments about Christ mingling with sinners. Jesus is never reported to have traveled to Tyre to honor an ancient altar of Baal or to have tolerated blasphemy of the kind he discovered once in the Temple.

          Reply
          • On infallibility: no, I don’t have it wrong, I know exactly what you mean. I elaborated my knowledge of it earlier in another comment even before you posted this reply. I did not elaborate it here; I was just comparing myself with the Pope in general. I wrote in that other comment that the Pope is still human and of course he can commit mistakes. I know that receiving this gift is not covered by infallibility; it might be a mistake and that’s what we are debating about. I hope this is clear already & I don’t need to explain more. Thanks for your concern.

            On the analogy with Hitler: I just think that Pope Francis will treat Hitler differently. Because that’s what your analogy implied: the Pope did this with Morales, he would do the same with Hitler. I just didn’t agree. Do you think I still miss the point?

            Is that piece of art blasphemous? I’m not sure. You could be right. But let’s see, what if I have a little son who is very mischievous and idolizes the Nazis. I’ve been trying to make him a good boy. Somehow, in spite of his naughtiness he felt I love him. & out of gratitude he gives me a small gift: a swastica sign with my face on it. The swastica represents something evil, but it’s something dear to him. If that small boy did it in good faith, I’m not sure if I am offended. Is the Lord offended for having his image on the hammer and sickle? End of the analogy. I see that I’m not the only one doubting if that piece of art is blasphemous. So, it’s debatable. Then here comes the Pope saying it’s not offensive. Sigh! I want to be faithful to the Holy Father. I know I can be wrong. If one day Pope Francis says, “Oh I made a mistake. I realize now that this gift is offensive to Our Lord. I will return this to Morales.” Then I’m wrong all along for doubting.

            I did not intend it to be a red herring. People like you, whom I respect and pray for, usually say “this another one of those many wrong things that he has done or said in the past.” I included all, meaning even those as pope. And this is one of all those without undeniable proof.

          • ” Do you think I still miss the point?” Yes, I do. Let me cut through the verbal thicket here, though, with one question: Just what WOULD be blasphemous in your mind? Does Serrano’s The Piss Christ make the cut? Personally, I don’t care what is in another’s mind concerning the swastika or the hammer-and-sickle; this kind of foolish subjectivity has gotten us to where we are today. Objectively both are symbols of hateful doctrines that have resulted in the deaths of well over 100 million innocent victims. No pope has any business even intimating that either of them is respectable enough to be associated with Christ’s name in any way. At the very least we should expect the Vicar of Christ to clearly call an obscenity by its proper name.

          • One final thing, I do not see that receiving this gift is comparable to Jesus honoring an altar of Baal. But receiving a gift from those working for the Roman Empire could be better. The Roman Empire had its own evils, I don’t know how many innocent people they have killed, their scandalous practices, corruption, moral decadence, promiscuity, etc. that led eventually to its fall. He received the gifts of banquets from Zaccheus and Levi. What if they gave him other gifts which scandalized the Jews?

          • Don’t be obtuse. You deliberately choose to ignore the quality of this gift, its ineluctable symbolism, so that you can introduce inanities like ”the gifts of banquets” into the argument. Honoring an altar of Baal and honoring the symbol of a doctrine that fueled the sacrifice of over 100 million innocent victims most certainly are comparable. And let me assure you that the Roman Empire never established extermination camps, nor did it ever institute a massive gulag of slave labor camps. Beyond that, its slaughter of victims cannot be numbered in the hundreds of thousands, let alone millions.

            While you may think you are defending the actions of Pope Francis, in fact you only diminish further the credibility of his defenders à outrance. Seemingly there is nothing he could do or say that would make them finally cry ”foul.”

          • Have you seen the movie Pan’s Labyrinth? I thought it was good movie, well done, nice ending. There was just one thing wrong: the powerful, violent oppressors were the rightists, and the clean cut good guys were the leftists. After having read some history of Spain and South America, I realize there was truth to the movie, atrocities were also done by the right, innocent leftists were also killed violently. I don’t know if the deaths reached by the millions, but there were many. This does not mean I was converted to the left; I am still in the right. But I realized our point of view is not the only valid point of view. There are good people in the left, many of these good ones perhaps are unaware of the killings (I did not know of the atrocities of the right until I read those histories). And for those who are aware of it, there is such a thing as invincible erroneous conscience. Thus, we cannot judge those people on the left, only God can read hearts. Those who made that movie are not bad people, the leftist ideology is not even the main argument of the movie; one can even invert the leftist people and the rightist people and the movie would be the same.

            What’s my point? The hammer and sickle symbol is so evil to us; but not to some good people. To them, the rightists (I don’t know what symbol they can think of) are the ones who committed countless number of atrocities. What’s blasphemous for them is to put the image of Christ in a rightist symbol.

            Jesus Christ is not right nor left, nor center. He is way above these things.

          • I see what you are trying to say, but you are simply wrong. I don’t want to dispute you point by point — I know a lot about the history of the Spanish Civil War, its antecedents and subsequent related events, and the matter is very complicated — so let me ask some simple questions instead. If there is balance of the kind you describe between Right and Left, and if there is here simply uninformed conscience on the part of the Left instead of the deliberate bad faith since the times of the so-called Enlightenment, why then does the Left even insist that the swastika is a rightist symbol? It is, in fact, the symbol of the most revolutionary left-wing movement of the 20th century, something noted by historian John Lucaks and many others. (Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain indeed led right-wing movements despite the lies spread by the Left alleging that they were fascists.) And why is only that faux-rightists symbol outlawed in many places today (v.g. Germany), while the hammer-and-sickle, symbol of a far more lethal and persistent force in human history is flaunted worldwide in front of cameras while the pope receives it as a purported piece of art?

            I will say once again that this pope is not stupid nor is he ill-educated; he knows perfectly well what he is about. I am sure he is far more aware of the history behind the hammer-and-sickle than you make out — who but the deliberately ignorant could NOT be aware of its meaning after the publication of Solzhenitsyn’s masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago? — yet he chose to allow this obscenity to hang about his neck while he took in his hands an even bigger example of its likeness. Francis could and would have done no such thing with, say, a sheet worn by the Gran Kleagle of the KKK or the cross-like symbol of Aryan Nation. Why then did he do it with this most hateful of all symbols? And why do his apologists like you continue to make yourselves look foolish by defending the indefensible?

            Christ is above these things, as you say, but Pope Francis lives here among us right now and he is most certainly not. When he unwisely promotes one or the other faction of two that are both evil, viz. right-wing dictatorships or left-wing Communists like Evo Morales, he deserves fair but sharp criticism, not embarrassing obsequiousness of the kind you display here.

          • Okay. How about your loyalty to the Pope? You seem to know much about St. Catherine of Sienna. She said that the Pope is “the sweet Christ on earth”. It means our fidelity to the Pope shows our fidelity to Jesus Christ. Even if he is a glaringly heretic pope (which I think is not the case now), there are many other ways to correct rather than publicizing our criticisms against him; we are not anyway in the level of St. Paul (we are way, way lower).

          • According to your logic, it would be correct to say that Christians everywhere should be loyal to Judas Iscariot because he was one of the original Twelve. Right? Didn’t matter that he betrayed Christ, right? I mean, Peter denied Christ and he was made the first pope.

          • Thank you for your reply… “To say that one must remain loyal to a mere mortal because of the office he holds is to ultimately excuse anything he may or may not do.” You say that this statement is wrong. I agree completely. Our difference is, where is it wrong in this statement. You say this is wrong because once a person who holds office is doing a serious error, then it justifies that we don’t need to be loyal to him anymore (is this correct?). Mine is different: this statement is wrong because it has a wrong idea of loyalty. Loyalty does not mean excusing or tolerating the error, especially a serious error. For example, a friend of mine has the habit of talking with his mouth full. I can think, “I want to be loyal to my friend, so I excuse his bad habit, that’s okay.” This is wrong, not loyalty at all. Real loyalty is this: “I should correct my friend, because if not, people will get turned off by him, he might not be promoted because of his bad manners” (this is just a hypothetical example, I can’t think of a better example at the moment). Now, how do I correct him? One way is to correct him in front of many people; but if I do this, I could embarrass him and other sort of negative things could happen. I think, it’s more loyal if I take him aside and talk to him privately. Not correcting my friend would be lack of loyalty, close to betrayal, because I didn’t help him improve personally and professionally when I had the chance. Apply this to our case now.

            We have to be loyal to Jesus Christ alone. No argument about that. But Jesus Christ wants us to be loyal to Him through His chosen vicar.

            Another point is the question whether Pope Francis did something wrong (and needs to be corrected) or not. You did not touch this point. I might discuss this point in my reply to Mr. JohnnyCuredents.

          • Scripture is quite clear on sins between brethren. That is the oft-used Matthew 18:15-17, in which a private sin can “go public” if the brother does not repent. You assume that Pope Francis has not been confronted. Earlier in Matthew 18 Jesus says this about one who causes His “little ones” to sin: “…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” He even goes on to talk about mutilating oneself if a “member” is sinning. It is maddening that people feel so free to lift bits and pieces of Scripture in order to justify their opinions.

          • Don’t get mad (I suppose it’s just your expression), because people with opinion contrary to yours can say exactly the same thing. One good trait of someone who discusses is ability to respect contrary opinions. Otherwise, it’s being square or bigot. Prove that you are not so.

            I do not assume that Pope Francis has not been confronted. Rather, I have put into question the position “100% sure it’s blasphemy.” And neither am I in the other extreme, that the whole thing is 100% good. My point is this: we are not 100% sure. Therefore, we cannot judge; and Our Lord has forbidden us to judge (Matthew 7; Luke 6:37ff). And correcting is a different thing; and correcting has to be done out of charity, otherwise, it may be a sin against charity.

            I’m very sorry, I don’t have enough time to re-write what I wrote already. I’d like to tell you more about correcting and charity in more detail. Please read my latest reply to Mr. JohnnyCuredents. Thanks.

          • Naturally you were unable or unwilling to address the issue of context, and resorted to accusing me of being “square” (whatever that means) or a bigot. Friend, please prove that I am “square” or a bigot. What I have written, I stand by, and by any measure or standard could not be construed as bigoted. I did not know that I was obliged to respect an opinion with which I disagree. Rather, it is the person who should be respected, even if they hold an opinion that can’t be supported in practice. Tell me where I have disrespected you. Aren’t you just advocating tolerance of sin? In the Scriptures you cite, Jesus had been discussing the behavior and judgments of the Pharisees. He was critiquing their hypocritical stance, which was reflected in their attitude that they were above judgment. They lacked humility and their judgments were more of the dead letter rather than the spirit. If Jesus truly meant that we are NEVER to judge in ANY instance, then why did God provide us with the authority to forgive sins? If we are not to judge (discern) what is right or wrong then why have we been given free will? If we don’t have the power/intellect to exercise judgment then why did God provide the Law? Why did He provide the Magisterium if we are not to have a standard with which to judge our behavior and others? Do we not have judges and juries? Are these unlawful, according to you? The Church herself has tribunals with which to judge the actions of others. Are you saying that is incorrect and wrong? What about the Ten Commandments? You can see how insupportable the blanket statement is that we are commanded to never judge.

          • No, sir, I did not accuse you of being square, bigot. or disrespectful. Careful reading of my 1st paragraph shows that I am assuming that you are not any of these. You said you are “maddened” and I said “I suppose it’s just your expression”, and my statement was 3rd person and impersonal, “otherwise, it’s being square…” Don’t worry, I’ll try not to get lost in semantics.

            Most of the things you have written, I already answered in my other comment. And I would like to give you a piece of advice, my brother in Christ: do not be too quick in judging that someone has sinned. I re-write what I wrote about St. Bernard. He is a saint who knows very well, more than we do, about what you wrote about the 10 commandments, the Law, the Magisterium which help us to judge. He illustrated the command of Jesus Christ on love and charity: “If you see someone doing something bad, excuse the action. If you cannot excuse the action, excuse at least the intention. Like, the temptation must have been too strong.” And I add, “if I were in his situation, I could have done something worse.” Let me give an exaggerated example. If this can be applied to this exaggerated example then it’s easier to apply to our case now. I saw man1 stabbing to death man2. I could think, man1 killed man2, man1 is a murderer. But if I want to practice the teaching of Christ on charity & illustrated to us by St. Bernard: I only saw the stabbing, I did not see what happened before, I don’t know the whole story. Perhaps man2 is the aggressor and man1 fought self-defense. I do not know, I’m only guessing. Anyway, the police will come & investigate, then we will know the truth. And if we still fail to know the truth, we will know in the last judgment.

            Another saint illustrated the Christ’s teaching on charity. St. Josemaria Escriva said, “If you cannot praise, keep silent.” This is so compatible with correcting. Correcting has to be done with a lot of charity, otherwise, it would be a sin against charity (I elaborated on correction in my reply to Mr. Johnny Curedents; you may read it if you wish). St. Josemaria is a saint; he did not mean tolerating the wrong or evil. Do something else, pray for him, and find a way to correct him. He is, in fact, very strong about correction; he called it “fraternal correction.”

            I hope you are beginning to see the perfect compatibility between the command of Our Lord “Judge not…” (which we have to obey always) and what you posed about the 10 commandments, the Law and Magisterium. Because there is more.

            I explained above the commandment of Jesus Christ on love and charity, and He expects us to obey this ALWAYS in our dealings with everyone, including the most evil person in the world (if you consider this evil person your enemy, then “love your enemies”).

            But with priests, even more.

            St. Josemaria said, “the priest is another Christ. And that the Holy Spirit has said, Nolite tangere Christos meos – do not touch my Christs.” No matter how bad a priest is, if you cannot praise keep silent, pray, do something to correct him. He also said, “I don’t know of any bad priests. But yes, sick priests who need our help and prayers.” He practiced what he preached. “Like the good sons of Noah, throw the mantle of charity over the defects you see in your father, the priest.” Again this is not tolerating evil, do something else to correct him. Pope Francis and the bishops are more than priests.

            This is so clear. Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” The judgment we give to our neighbor is the same judgment we will receive when we stand before the Judgment Seat. If you are not convinced of this, consider the parable of the master who forgave and cancelled the debt of 10,000 talents of servant1. But this servant1 did not forgive servant2 of his debt of 200 denarii, and sent him to jail. In the master’s anger, he did to servant1 exactly what servant1 did to servant2. Did I judge my neighbor a great sinner? Then I know what the Judge will give me on Judgment Day: He will tell me that I also am a great sinner.

          • May I suggest that when you do not mean “you” as in, “Prove that you are not so,” you use different wording. Clarity is imperative in online discussions, wouldn’t you agree? Using second person pronouns when you apparently mean to use third person pronouns can cause the kinds of misunderstandings that have happened to you on more than one occasion here. It is almost Jesuitical, if I may make a small joke. As to my points, you did not address them, unless it is to infer that indeed we are never to judge anyone, ever. I asked the following: 1) Aren’t you just advocating tolerance of sin? 2) Why did God provide us with the authority to forgive sins? 3) Do we not have judges and juries? Are these unlawful, according to you? 4) The Church herself has tribunals with which to judge the actions of others. Are you saying that is incorrect and wrong?

            In your little story you seem to suggest that one never has enough information to make a judgment about the behavior of another. Isn’t that making a judgment, though? The person who never judges anyone for anything is ultimately passing judgment upon themselves, as having the inability to reason the truth about any given situation.

            Jesus says in John 7:24 says, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge righteous judgment.” Perhaps that squares with the idea in your story. It does not, however, say one cannot judge, but urges righteous judgment, correct? Here, Jesus was again talking to those in the temple, learned or at least devout individuals. So, tell me, was Jesus contradicting His own words elsewhere that we are not to judge?

          • I’m sorry for not being clear with my pronouns. Let me rephrase what I wrote but with the same meaning: You have cast doubt that you can respect contrary opinions (I mean the people with their opinions, if you want to be exact) by saying that it’s maddening that some people lift freely Scripture passages to support their opinions. Someone who cannot respect the contrary opinion is a bigot, isn’t it? But I assume that you are not disrespectful, nor a bigot, nor square. Prove that my assumption is correct.

            On your 4 questions. I have quoted and am following the teachings of St. Bernard and St. Josemaria. Both are priests who have sat in confessionals. St. Bernard is a doctor of the Church, and St. Josemaria had doctorates in Canon Law and Theology (if I’m not mistaken). Whatever answers they would give to your questions, that’s also my answer. I thought this is understood when I wrote my long reply. I guess I was wrong. So I will answer your questions, guessing as best as I can what the 2 saints would answer. (1) No, I think I’m not advocating tolerance of sin, because I have put into question that the acceptance by Pope of the gift is a sin/blasphemy (I elaborated this in more detail in another comment). (2) If I were a priest and hearing confession, of course I will judge and it’s not a violation of Matthew 7. But I’m still bound by it that I cannot judge without charity, for I will get back the same measure. (3) St. Bernard and St. Josemaria would say it’s not unlawful, then same comment as in number 2. (4) It is not incorrect nor wrong, then same comment as in number 2.

            These 4 questions does not change my position: we are always bound by the “Judge not” commandment of Our Lord because what He means here is to practice charity always with everyone. Thus, we should not judge Pope Francis because we are not 100% sure that his action was sinful/blasphemy, among other reasons, like Our Lord did not give us any authority to judge the “sweet Christ on earth”. To correct him with great charity if he is erring, yes we have this as duty as good children of the Holy Father. And from my point of view we are not sure if he is erring.

            No I do not see any contradiction between John 7:24 and Matthew 7. I find it even compatible with the words of St. Josemaria, “if you cannot praise, keep silent.” If you are going to praise, go publicize it; it is righteous judgment. But if one is going to say “that is a sin/blasphemy”, that he keep silent because it can be a sin against charity. We don’t know everything, only God can read hearts. He must go and find out more, and sometimes finding out more means waiting like the man1 stabbing man2 illustration. And if one has found out completely (he has to be sure and honest), then still, keep silent. Then he should try to correct the Pope in private like St. Catherine. We are not anyway as holy and as humble as St. Paul as to correct in public.

          • Thank you, Ariel3. I see by your statement, ” But I’m still bound by it that I cannot judge without charity, for I will get back the same measure,” that you have modified your assertion a bit to say that we are able to judge, but that it must be with charity. In other words, are you saying that we should judge by the spirit and not the dead letter of the Law? I can certainly agree with that, always remembering too that Jesus told us He came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17).
            You then suggest that unless one is as holy and humble as St. Paul we should not correct in public. This goes against Scripture, as well as practice within the Church. However, I understand the desire to keep quiet a public scandal such as has occurred with the Pope’s happy acceptance of the body of Christ nailed to a Hammer/Sickle. Christian duty and charity demands a public response to a public scandal, not only as a form of correction, but also as a way to preserve souls. We will certainly be judged by our uncharitable sins of commission, but also of omission. To be silent when one should be vocal can be as dangerous as speaking when one should be silent.

          • “…there are many other ways to correct rather than publicizing our criticisms against him.” Such as? Remember, you said “many”, so I await a list indicating several proper ways to go about this correction. I’m glad you concede, at least by implication, that one may correct the pope; that is more than some ill-informed Catholics seem to understand these days. You do seem to have a strange notion of fidelity, though, confounding it I believe with servility. After all, what kind of loyalty does silence in the face of destructive behavior connote?

            I notice you quote Catherine rather selectively. Let’s look at something more telling than what you cited. In a letter to Pope Gregory XI she says: ” I Catherine … write to you …with desire to see you a good shepherd. For I reflect… that the wolf is carrying away your sheep, and there is no one found to succor them. So I hasten to you… begging you on behalf of Christ crucified to learn from Him.” Allowing for the flowery language of yore, most of which I removed here, this certainly sounds to me like criticism of the pope’s previous behavior. Why else would Catherine beg Gregory to learn from Christ? And at the end of this same missive, she uses the term “bad shepherds”, thus indicating Catherine wasn’t reluctant to unload on bishops other than the pope when necessary. As I pointed out in another post recently, the Internet and television did not exist, nor were there journals or newspapers in Catherine’s day; letters were the public means of communication then. But knowing what I do about the lady, I have no doubt that, were she alive today, she would be a Catholic Internet blogger in the style of Elizabeth Scalia. And she just might be using that medium to tell Pope Francis what she thought of his governance.

          • I’m also glad, you seem to be beginning to see my point. And I’m not sure if I have conceded anything, since I have not changed my stand from the beginning. But you see now that my idea of fidelity includes correction. And not correcting is lack of fidelity, close to betrayal, as I answered St. Benedict’s Thistle. So I hope that you also see now that my idea of fidelity has nothing to do with servility or obsequiousness.

            “Many”; perhaps I used exaggeration to drive home the point not to publicize our criticisms (I even think it’s a bad way for there is a danger of sinning against charity, with very rare exceptions). One is prayer; prayer in itself can be many: the Mass, Rosaries, pilgrimages, prayer cards to saints, etc. Another is writing him a private letter (which I think is the case for your quote from St. Catherine). Another is seeking the help of a person close to Pope Francis. Another is soliciting an audience with him. If I had enough money, and I need to correct Pope Francis on a serious matter, I would go to Rome, I know some people there (though not very high up), then take on the adventure of reaching Pope Francis. I know most of this list are hard to do for ordinary people like us; so prayer is the best we can do; it’s the most powerful, as what all the saints did, like St. Therese of Lisiieux.

            On St. Catherine, I wonder if you see some contradiction between the 2 statements, “sweet Christ on earth” and “learn from Christ (your whole quote)”. I don’t. If you understood me already that fidelity includes correction, perhaps you’ll understand a bit why I don’t see any contradiction. Besides, Catherine is a saint, she lived a unity of life. I can easily imagine her loving Pope Gregory XI as the sweet Christ on earth while saying, “I desire to see you a good shepherd… your flock is being carried away by wolves…. learn from Christ…” She is one of my models in loving and being loyal to the Pope.

            I have been seeing your point; but I wonder if you see mine (you’re only beginning to see my point on fidelity). You say the gift is blasphemy (don’t I see your point?). Do you still think I applaud the acceptance of the gift? Then you still don’t see my point. I am not saying the whole thing is 100% good. My point is this: WE ARE NOT SURE. All i have been writing is to say that there is possibility of justifying what Pope Francis did, in order to undermine the statement, “100% sure it’s blasphemy”, and not that it’s 100% good (I hope I don’t need to repeat myself). If I had the chance to have an audience with Pope Francis, I will not correct him, but ask him a question or two about this matter. If he answers me, I think I will learn a ton. His mind is greater than any of us here. And I think he’s holy: I have desires to serve God and souls and have done some things; but compared to his life, I am nothing.

            The piss Christ as you mentioned, yes it’s blasphemous. Here in Manila someone made an art exhibit attaching condoms in image of Our Lord, no argument about it, it’s blasphemy. But this one, we are not sure. The makers of Pan’s Labyrinth do not think that the hammer and sickle sign is evil. And there are many people like them.

            I have not elaborated on charity. When people make judgments and publicize them, there is danger of sinning against charity. And charity/love is the most important thing, there is nothing more important than this, because God is Love. But I will not elaborate now.

          • Well, you are right that there are not “many” examples, and that the “list” I requested is all but non-existent. And I was long ago aware that true fidelity at times requires correction and sometimes even public rebuke; this is what we see very clearly in 1 Tim 5, 17-21: ” The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’ Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.” Please note just who is in question here, Church “elders”, among whom we can safely imagine Pope Francis finds himself. Also note that there is no question but that the reproval under discussion is very public (“…reprove before everyone….”)

            But there is more, much more. We find Pope Pius VI, the year of the American Revolution, saying: “Beseech, accuse, correct, rebuke and fear not: for ill-judged silence leaves in their error those who could be taught, and this is most harmful both to them and to you who should have dispelled the error.” St. Thomas Aquinas advises that “the benefit of correction must not be refused to any man so long as he lives here below.” And this from Pope St. Pius X in the early years of the 20th century: “Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be; nor in theoretical or practical indifference toward the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and the goal of the human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.”

            When I look at what you say about the citation from St Catherine, I see that you do not contradict my thought, viz. it is criticism, in fact stinging criticism of a pope’s actions; the terms by which she chooses to address the pope are irrelevant here. And it is precisely over the decision to criticize, my friend, where you and I part ways. Many of us in the U.S. publicly criticized the complicity with criminal actions on the part of our bishops during the recent homosexual scandals. Personally, I went to talk to my bishop privately and urged him to resign for the good of the Church. But I also used newspapers, television, and radio to criticize his actions because they were public, egregiously wrong, and he persistently excused (publicly) his own destructive behavior. Catholics had a duty to speak out then; not to do so was equivalent to condoning bad policy and the consequent dismemberment of the Church. (Non-Catholics were watching to see if, as their prejudices informed them, we were mere zombies willing to meekly tolerate any and all actions of the episcopacy.) Need I remind you that it was foolish silence on the part of many Catholics over many decades that allowed the homosexual scandal to prosper and then overwhelm the Church in America and elsewhere?

            I am sure you know all about the homosexual scandals, the devastation they have visited on the Church worldwide, and I wager you see what I am saying about denouncing the wayward bishops. But you seem to make an exception for the pope, himself a bishop after all. You want to pretend that his very public acceptance without the least criticism of a hate-filled symbol in whose name millions have been slaughtered, did not give scandal around the world. (And you say you “are not sure” about the blasphemy of this symbol ?!? Over a hundred million murders don’t suffice to inform you ?!?!? Then, what pray would make you “sure”?) You don’t acknowledge the point made by many that he would hardly have publicly accepted with no comment something like a hood and sheet “uniform” of a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, or Christ affixed to a swastika long ago by some devout German Catholic priest unfortunately sympathetic to the Hitlerites. You know in your heart — just as I believe you know in your heart concerning the event in question — that such actions would ineluctably cause grave scandal among the faithful, and great confusion among non-Catholics.

            Such a distinction on your part and that of others reluctant to criticize the pope’s action is, I repeat, amigo mío, nothing less than a shining example of papolatry. While it’s perfectly legitimate to demand that criticism of what the pope does be respectful of his position and dignity, that it be reasoned and reasonable, it is completely illegitimate to imply as you do that all such public statements are somehow out of order. There is a huge difference between decorum and charity on the one hand, and subservience and credulity on the other.

          • I’m glad again, my friend and brother in Christ, that we coincide in more things and part ways in fewer things. I know I might be wrong, but sorry, I don’t see that yet. And it’s not because I’m blind.

            “Millions of murders.” I hear you. And I’m not saying it’s not evil. But there is something, difficult for me to explain. But I’ll try. My effort would have been simpler if there was a rightist sign (you tried above to nullify the perceived balance between Right and Left. But you see, it needed great effort. Thus, not all people see it that way. You cannot just say, “that’s the truth regardless of what people think.” It’s not dogmatic truth, therefore it can be debated.). For the absence of rightist sign, I’ll make a hypothetical situation that there is a rightist sign. let’s say an “eagle sign”. We are included in this sign. Then some other people start saying, “that is an evil sign, responsible for the killings and kidnappings of millions of innocent people.” As far as I know, some rightist dictators were pious Catholics. Then we reply, “Hey wait, that’s not fair. We do not know those dictators or extreme rightists. We do not approve of their doings. We also condemn those killings. Those extreme rightists do not deserve to be included in this eagle sign.” At least this is what I would think. Doesn’t this make sense?

            Supporting point: Fr. Espinal. I admit I don’t know him much. But this means all the more I have to obey Our Lord’s command on charity: I cannot say or condemn him that he is in hell. That could even be a grave sin against charity. Actually, I even think he is a good man, not evil at all. He cared for the poor. And he was killed while doing what he believed was good. But neither will I canonize him as saint because he embraced an erroneous ideology mixing it with Christianity. It was an error on his part, and an error is not always a sin. And he did not design that piece of art out of malice; he did it in good faith. Can be an example for invincible erroneous conscience; and God will not condemn someone for this. Did I convince that he is not evil?

            There are also Fr. Yorio and Fr. Jalics, Jesuit contemporaries of Fr. Bergoglio who were marxist liberation theologians. For many years they accused Fr. Bergoglio of betraying them to the rightists (as I understand, they retracted in the end). They were tortured ruthlessly. Are they evil people? I don’t think so. Mistaken? Yes, like Fr. Espinal. Are these three priests evil men? I don’t think so. Would they approve of the killings? I don’t think so either. I think they are good people (though not canonizable saints). There must be millions of people like them, like the makers of Pan’s Labyrinth, who are good people but they don’t share our view about the hammer and sickle sign. If this is so, then “our” view is not the objective view. And I think much less God’s view, which is the only one that matters.. So,is “our” view on this matter the same as God’s view? I don’t think so. We don’t even have the slightest idea of God’s infinite wisdom. From the way I see it, Pope Francis has more idea about God’s wisdom than any of us.

            Do you still get me wrong? Had the gift been the piss Christ or His face with condoms, I might be ahead of you in criticizing the Pope. But this case is entirely different.

            Let me talk about charity/love. As I do this I may reply to your point on correction. I already said that nothing is more important than charity, because God is Love. St. Bernard illustrated to us the doctrine of Jesus Christ on love and charity: “If you see someone doing something bad, excuse the action. If you cannot excuse the action, excuse at least the intention. Like, the temptation must have been too strong.” And I add, “if I were in his situation, I could have done something worse.” Let me give an exaggerated example. If this can be applied to this exaggerated example then it’s easier to apply to our case now. I saw man1 stabbing to death man2. I could think, man1 killed man2, man1 is a murderer. But if I want to practice the teaching of Christ on charity & illustrated to us by St. Bernard: I only saw the stabbing, I did not see what happened before, I don’t know the whole story. Perhaps man2 is the aggressor and man1 fought self-defense. I do not know, I’m only guessing. Anyway, the police will come & investigate, then we will know the truth. And if we still fail to know the truth, we will know in the last judgment.

            Another saint illustrated the Christ’s teaching on charity. St. Josemaria Escriva said, “If you cannot praise, keep silent.” St. Josemaria is a saint; he did not mean tolerating the wrong or evil. Do something else, pray for him, and find a way to correct him. The same saint also said, “the priest is another Christ. And that the Holy Spirit has said, Nolite tangere Christos meos – do not touch my Christs.” No matter how bad a priest is, if you cannot praise keep silent, pray, do something to correct him. He also said, “I don’t know of any bad priests. But yes, sick priests who need our help and prayers.” He practiced what he preached. “Like the good sons of Noah, throw the mantle of charity over the defects you see in your father, the priest.” Again this is not tolerating evil, do something else to correct him.

            Jesus Christ’s command on charity is strong and demanding. Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” This is so clear to me: the judgment we give to our neighbor is the judgment we will get when we stand before the Judgment Seat. No wonder the saints did not judge anyone. I even think that St. Catherine did not criticize Pope Gregory; rather, she corrected him with great charity. And she got the same measure from Jesus Christ. I don’t want to call the Pope blasphemous, because it’s the same as calling man1 murderer. I don’t know everything yet (as I said we are not sure). I’d rather wait for the official declaration from the Church, and then I will obey. I don’t want to call him blasphemous because Jesus Christ will give me the same measure on Judgment Day.

            Do you see what I see? How much I would to like to correct those who call the Pope “false prophet”, “anti-christ”, “ally of satan”, etc., for the sake of their souls. Will they listen to me? They may just call me stupid, servile slave of the pope-antichrist.

            On correction, we agree perfectly. Someone even said that hell is filled with closed mouths. Because not giving correction can be a grave sin against justice. However, I also think that hell may be filled with sinners against charity, because it’s the most important virtue. Correction before being given should pass first the test of charity. Is one correcting because of love of God and love of the person to be corrected (in our case, the Pope or bishop)? Is one correcting the Pope/bishop because he wants him to become a saint (I’m sure this is how St. Catherine thought)? If yes, then go ahead. If there is doubt then it should not be given, because it might be a sin against charity.

            I think your correction of your bishop passes this test, so I commend you for that and I thank you for it will do good even to the whole Church.

            I think though that there are other cases that the correction should not be made public, because everything, including correction, should be done out of charity. In many cases, the advice of St. Josemaria on charity applies, “if you cannot praise, keep silent,” and correct privately. This saint is at the same very strong in his teaching about the duty to correct; and he calls it “fraternal correction”. The “keep silent” advice plus fraternal correction will help us obey Our Lord’s teaching in Matthew chapter 7.

            Your Scripture quote correcting “before everyone” has to be interpreted very prudently; otherwise, it can be a sin against charity. For example, can those three persons, one who called Pope Francis “false prophet”, another who called him “anti-christ”, and the other who called him “Pope Fallacious”, do they fulfill the Scripture quote on “two or three witnesses” and can they now correct publicly? I don’t think so. They may just sin against charity. How can we be truly prudent? One, through test of charity; and another, by consulting an individual who is authoritative and whom we are sure are striving for genuine holiness.

            Would St. Catherine have a blog had she lived today? I agree with you. But I’m sure it will be filled with a lot of exhortations about loving and praying for the Holy Father, no matter who he is. For an erring pope, she would give clear instructions how to correct with great charity.

            If Pope Francis and the blog One Peter Five say two contradicting things, my common sense tells me that I should give more weight to Pope Francis. Because Jesus Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and his successors, meaning, to Pope Francis. Did Jesus Christ give any key to 1P5? Not even a micro key. If Pope Francis says something very strange, then I will use the intelligence (limited as it is) given to me by God to think carefully about it, and will ask God for the faith of the Apostles in John chapter 6 when the people were shocked, and perhaps even scandalized, by what Jesus Christ said, and they all left him. Their possible thoughts: “Who is this newcomer anyway? Moses and the prophets never told us anything like this.” “He actually wants us to violate the 5th commandment.” “Cannibalism! What a scandal!” “Those 12 Apostles are stupid and blind. Can’t they see what’s so obvious?” “This is hard saying. Who can take this?” (aren’t these thoughts similar to our thoughts now?) “That man owes us a lot of explanation.” Jesus Christ (nor the sweet Christ on earth) does not owe us any explanation. In fact, He did not explain Himself. It’s either you have faith in Him or not. So He turned to the Twelve and asked, “Do you want to leave, too?” Peter and the Apostles replied, “Lord, to where do we go? You have words of eternal life.” They meant, “Lord, we don’t understand either. But we believe in you.” So I take those same words, “I don’t understand either.” I am not sure. But I believe in the sweet Christ on earth. I am sure this what the saints would do, and I follow their example. I have not seen any saint criticizing the Pope; correcting with great charity, yes.

            If I’m scandalized, how do I know that I am not scandalized in the manner of the Pharisees? By the test of charity. Do I love him who seems to be causing this scandal? With the charity as taught to us by Christ, illustrated to us by the saints? If yes, then I must correct with great charity. If not, then I’m a hypocrite.

  20. Perhaps off topic but I’m throwing it out there since I’m coming to the conclusion that the bi-weekly escpades of Bergoglio are ultimately a distraction from much more important goings-on.
    The reconstituted Sanhedrin are going to try Francis (even in absentia) on Sept. 20, 2015 because he recognized Palestine as a state. See breakingisraelnews dot com or maurice pinay blog.

    Reply
    • I don’t think a reconstituted Sanhedrin trying Pope Francis, in absentia or otherwise, is all that significant, since the Sanhedrin has no jurisdiction over non-Jews, IIRC. It’s more of a publicity stunt that has no juridical impact.

      Also, consider that domestic Israeli politics probably plays a bigger role in the Sanhedrin’s decision than anything else.

      Reply
      • This is the letter sent to the Vatican by the Sanhedrin. The anti-semitic canard is of course included. I read it as an overt threat.

        “Because the Vatican recognized the organization known as the Palestinian Authority as a nation, and has begun to refer to it as a nation in its documents. His honor has named the head of said authority as an ‘Angel of Peace’, as was explained by a spokesman for the Vatican, that his intention was to encourage Abu Mazen to advance towards peace. These actions, to our great dismay, are consistent with a long series of actions and stances that are as in the days of the Roman Catholic Religion, that swore to persecute Israel because we refused to accept their Messiah as the Messiah of Israel, and to renounce our faith. The recent announcements and actions of the Vatican are a rebuke to the Jewish Nation and to the Bible, which you use to interpret the prophecies, as if God has abandoned his original Nation of Israel. Reality has proven the opposite to be true.”

        “We require from you an apology for your recognizing as a nation those who stole the land, those who are known as the Palestinian Authority, and we are informing the Vatican that the sole God given right to the land of Israel is to the Nation of Israel. If His Honor the Pope, and the Vatican, do not apologize within two weeks of receiving this letter, and if he does not change his ways, we shall judge these actions in the Court of Mount Zion, in a court of 71 Jewish elders of Zion, and enact the prophecy of ‘The liberators will rise up upon Mount Zion, to judge the Mountain of Esau and the kingdom shall be God’s’ (Obadiah 1:21). The court shall judge the Vatican in its presence or in absentia, and it is possible that the Vatican will be found guilty of anti-Semitism, as has been known to be done several times throughout history, and to place responsibility upon the Vatican for all of the outcomes of its actions.”

        Reply
        • So what? Unless the Sanhedrin is a formal part of the Israeli government with powers mandated by the Israeli constitution, it is toothless.

          Let’s say that the Sanhedrin goes forward with this trial and pronounces a guilty verdict. What kind of punishment can it execute since neither Pope Francis nor, I assume, any members of the Vatican are Jewish or Israeli citizens? The Sanhedrin could call for breaking diplomatic relations with the Holy See but it has no power to implement such a call. Besides, the Israeli foreign ministry already has that power and doesn’t need a Sanhedrin to implement it.

          Reply
          • This is a slow moving demolition of the Church and the Sanhedrin operate above political parties. If you don’t view it that way, that’s okay with me. I’m just warning others of where I think the real problems are happening and I don’t desire an argument with you.

            A quote from the article from breakingisraelnews:
            “The court’s rulings have the highest spiritual significance. The commandment to appoint judges is learned directly from the Bible (Exodus 18:13) and the present Sanhedrin is an effort to reestablish a tradition dating back to Moses.”

  21. A homeless Jesus on a bench is ok, but some statements goes too far, such as perverting the message of the cross!

    Reply
  22. Comments from non-Catholics

    This man is shameful. I am not a Catholic yet I am a “better Catholic” than this pope. – tyrannyofevilmen
    Me too. I honestly think that, as a Southern Baptist, I could defend the Catholic faith better than him. – kj reply to tyrannyofevilmen
    – Why Pope Francis Is Keeping His Hammer-and-Sickle Crucifix by Dennis Prager | National Review [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421133/pope-francis-crucifix-hammer-sickle-communist]

    Reply
  23. Pray, pray, pray. Repent. Go to Confession. Receive the Eucharist. Perform the corporal and spiritual acts of mercy. Above all, trust in the Triune God. God knows what is happening and if we stay close to Him, we WILL know the Truth.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...