Editor’s note: originally published in February, 2017, we are re-posting this today in light of dismissals by some media outlets that the Vatican would ever consider a new, contraception-friendly pastoral “re-interpretation” of Humanae Vitae. The nature of the statements and gestures below — and the sheer number of them — should put any confidence that Humanae Vitae could never get the Amoris Laetitia treatment to rest. The list below is, of course, not comprehensive. One could add to it the Vatican’s collaboration with global population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs, and the choice to invite pro-abortion advocate Paul Ehrlich, “father” of the modern population control movement and author of the 1968 best-seller “The Population Bomb,” to speak at the Vatican. Ehrlich’s talk took place after this article was written.
by Matthew McCusker
Voice of the Family
The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the appointment of a “papal delegate” to assist in the “renewal” of the order, raises further questions about the extent to which Pope Francis assents to the teaching of the Catholic Church on questions of sexual ethics. In this article we will revisit previous concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on contraception, in the light of recent events.
At the heart of the crisis in the Order of Malta is the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, over a number of years, by Malteser International (MI), the humanitarian arm of the order. Edward Pentin has provided details of MI’s programmes in his comprehensive article on the subject. An investigation by the Lepanto Institute provides further information about MI’s work promoting condoms and abortifacient drugs worldwide. Amongst their findings the following facts stand out:
- MI distributed 52, 190 condoms in Burma (Myanmar) in 2005 and 59,675 in 2006.
- A World Health Organisation report from 2006, entitled Reproductive Health Stakeholder Analysis in Myanmar 2006 includes “family planning” among MI’s “areas of expertise”, “contraception” amongst its “activities” and “birth spacing” amongst its “future plans”. The report also reveals that MI provided oral contraceptives to 2,500 women in one Burmese township.
- In 2007 MI received a four year grant of $1.7 million from the Three Disease Fund, for whom they distributed over 300,000 condoms in Burma.
- In 2012 MI entered a partnership with Save the Children to carry out a joint project, for which they received $2.1 million from the Global Fund, to distribute yet more condoms in Burma during the period from 2013-2016.
Malteser International was headed throughout this period by Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager. An internal investigation by the Order of Malta found that von Boeselager was ultimately responsible for the programmes that involved the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs. His role at MI was one of the major factors that resulted in his dismissal from the role of Grand Chancellor by the Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing, on 6 December 2016, after he twice refused to resign. Von Boeselager appealed to the Vatican. A commission was appointed to investigate his dismissal. Edward Pentin has provided extensive, and disturbing information, about the make-up of this commission, which seems to have consisted largely of von Boeselager’s friends and associates. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a sovereign entity, refused to accept the legitimacy of this interference into their internal affairs.
On 24 January 2017 Fra Matthew Festing was asked to resign by Pope Francis and acceded to this request. The following day Pietro Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, stated that Pope Francis was declaring null and void all Fra Festing’s acts since 6 December, thus nullifying the dismissal of von Boeselager. Fra Festing’s resignation was accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order of Malta on 28 January and it was announced that von Boeselager was restored to his position as Grand Chancellor of the order.
In short, Pope Francis has restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from the office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching.
In the light of this, and of his decision not to confirm that he accepts Catholic teaching on the existence of intrinsically evil acts, it is reasonable to review other concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on the morality of using contraceptive methods. The list below draws readers’ attention to important incidents of which we are aware; it is not intended to be exhaustive.
5 March 2014 – Pope Francis is interviewed by Corriere della Sera. He is asked “At half a century from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, can the Church take up again the theme of birth control? Cardinal Martini, your confrere, thought that the moment had come.” In his reply Pope Francis stresses that “Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations”. The pope also stated that “the question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.” The full implications of these words will become clearer during the two year synodal process.
13 October 2014 – The heterodox relatio post disceptationem of the Extraordinary Synod is published, after having received the personal approval of Pope Francis. This document adopts an ambiguous approach towards contraception, and an approach to conscience and the natural law of a kind that will inevitably undermine the Church’s moral teachings. The alternation between orthodox restatements of Catholic doctrine and ambiguous and erroneous statements will be followed in all succeeding synodal documents.
19 October 2014 – The final report of the Extraordinary Synod makes the approach of the above relatio its own. The treatment of contraception and the natural law are examined in more detail in Voice of the Family’s analysis of the document.
16 January 2015 – Pope Francis makes reference to Humanae Vitae in an address to families in the Phillipines, once more laying emphasis not on the central doctrine of the encyclical but on his contention that Paul VI “was very merciful towards particular cases, and he asked confessors to be very merciful and understanding in dealing with particular cases. But he also had a broader vision: he looked at the peoples of the earth and he saw this threat of families being destroyed for lack of children.” The implication of this passage, especially in light of the comments of 19 January below, is that contraception might be tolerated in particular cases, and that the Church’s teaching is a “broader vision” or ideal. This would reflect the “gradualism” adopted in the synod documents and in Amoris Laetitia.
19 January 2015 – Pope Francis, during a press conference on his return flight from Manila, tells journalists that the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, was not about “personal problems, for which he then told confessors to be merciful and understand the situation and forgive, to be understanding and merciful” but rather about “the universal Neo-Malthusianism that was in progress”. Thus he frames Humanae Vitae not as being principally about a universally binding norm but rather as a political response to an ideological movement. During the same press conference he criticises a mother who had eight children by Caeserean section and accuses her of being guilty of tempting God. He goes on to say that Catholics should practice “responsible parenthood” and shouldn’t “breed like rabbits”.
17 June 2015 – Pope Francis appoints climate scientist Hans Schellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Science. Schellnhuber believes that there is a “population problem” and has previously stated that the “carrying capacity of the planet” is “below 1 billion people”. Schellhuber’s positions have been analysed in more detail by Voice of the Family in this article.
18 June 2015 – Pope Francis promulgates the encyclical letter Laudato Si endorsing the theory of climate change and the environmentalist agenda. The encyclical makes no direct reference to contraception despite the close interrelationship between the environmental and population control movements. This connection is exemplified by the Vatican’s selection of Hans Schellnhuber and Carolyn Woo, then President and CEO of Catholic Relief Services, an American organisation that has funded groups that promote abortion and contraception, to present the document at its launch.
23 June 2015 – The Instrumentum Laboris of the Ordinary Synod is published. This document, which was approved by Pope Francis prior to its release, gravely undermines the Church’s teaching on contraception, and her moral teachings in general. This is explained in detail in Voice of the Family’s analysis of the document.
10 September 2015 – 65 academics appeal to the fathers of the upcoming Ordinary Synod to reject “the distortion of Catholic teaching implicit in paragraph 137” of the Instrumentum Laboris. They write: “Paragraph 137 addresses a key document of the modern Magisterium, Humanae Vitae, in a way that both calls the force of that teaching into question and proposes a method of moral discernment that is decidedly not Catholic. This approach to discernment contradicts what has hitherto been taught by the Magisterium of the Church about moral norms, conscience, and moral judgment, by suggesting that a well-formed conscience may be in conflict with objective moral norms.”
24 October 2015 – The final report of the Ordinary Synod continues to adopt a gravely problematic approach to the moral law, and to the issue of contraception in particular.
30 November 2015 – Pope Francis asserts, in the context of a question regarding the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, that there could be a conflict between the fifth and sixth commandments. A German journalist asked:
“Is it not time for the Church to change it’s position on the matter? To allow the use of condoms to prevent more infections?”
In his response Pope Francis stated:
“Yes, it’s one of the methods. The moral of the Church on this point is found here faced with a perplexity: the fifth or sixth commandment? Defend life, or that sexual relations are open to life?”
In fact there can never be any conflict between the commandments of the decalogue. Pope Francis further implies that the Church’s teaching on this matter is not a priority:
“this question makes me think of one they once asked Jesus: ‘Tell me, teacher, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Is it obligatory to heal?’ This question, ‘is doing this lawful,’ … but malnutrition, the development of the person, slave labor, the lack of drinking water, these are the problems. Let’s not talk about if one can use this type of patch or that for a small wound, the serious wound is social injustice, environmental injustice, injustice that…I don’t like to go down to reflections on such case studies when people die due to a lack of water, hunger, environment…when all are cured, when there aren’t these illnesses, tragedies, that man makes, whether for social injustice or to earn more money, I think of the trafficking of arms, when these problems are no longer there, I think we can ask the question ‘is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’”
10 December 2015 – Cardinal Turkson suggests that the world might be overpopulated and states that “this has been talked about, and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that.” He later stated that he should have used the term “responsible parenthood” rather than “birth control.”
18 February 2016 – Pope Francis seems to suggest that condoms are a “lesser of two evils” that can be used to prevent the transmission of the Zika virus and again makes the erroneous assertion that there can be “conflict between the fifth and sixth commandments” of the decalogue. He also seems to suggest the question of contraception is a “religious problem” rather than a “human problem”. This incoherent approach to the moral law was already predicted by Voice of the Family, in our analyses of the synodal documents.
19 February 2016 – The Vatican press office confirms that Pope Francis intended to approve the use of condoms in certain cases in his remarks of the previous day.
8 April 2016 – The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is promulgated. This document builds on the erroneous approach adopted in the synodal documents towards conscience and the natural law and pursues false approaches to moral theology, including gradualism, situation ethics and fundamental option.
1 September 2016 – Pope Francis states that he is “gratified” by the adoption of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include “universal access to sexual and reproductive health”. These terms are understood to include contraception and abortion by UN agencies, national governments and international agencies. Archbishop Mupendwatu, of the Pontifical Council for Healthcare Workers, had earlier told the World Health Assembly in Geneva that the Holy See welcomed the SDGs unreservedly and that Goal 3, on the two goals that calls for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health” was the key to achieving all the other goals. The pope’s assertion that he is “gratified” by goals that will lead to further killing of unborn children threatens to destroy the credibility of the strong statements that he has made in opposition to abortion during his pontificate.
19 September 2016 – Four cardinals write to Pope Francis asking him to resolve five dubia they have about the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia. These dubia, which raise questions regarding the nature of conscience and the existence of intrinsic moral evils, are of great relevance to the Church’s teaching on contraception.
24 October 2016 – Pope Francis praises Bernard Häring, a moral theologian and influential dissenter from Humanae Vitae. He told the 36th general Congregation that Häring was the “first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again” and that “in our day moral theology has made much progress in its reflections and in its maturity”.
14 November 2016 – The four cardinals make the text of the dubia public after Pope Francis informs them that he does not intend to give an answer. The pope’s decision not to explain clearly the meaning of his own text strengthens the common perception that his teaching is deliberately ambiguous and intended to undermine the Catholic faith.
The examples listed above demonstrate the extent to which the pontificate of Pope Francis has caused widespread doubt and confusion concerning the teaching of the Church on questions, such as contraception, relating to moral law. In this hour of great crisis for the Church we must turn to God, with ever greater confidence, offering prayer and penance that he will soon manifest His almighty power and bring deliverance to His Church.
Originally published at Voice of the Family. Reprinted with permission.
OnePeterFive offers Catholic news, commentary, and information. We are dedicated to rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic tradition.
THIS is the issue to be truly focused on regarding the KoM fiasco in my opinion.
The trickery involved by Francis and his allies in seizing control of KoM is also very troubling.
But that will die down soon…..and what will linger is the fact that the man responsible for providing birth control through the KoM remains in position of authority/leadership. Fortunately, not many at all, are familiar with KoM, regarding the laity. But the ” children”( bishops) are watching their ” father”..( francis).
Keep watching bishops. So we can all see.
Many applaud and dream of their red hat.
If this is true then it is time to Declare a schism in the faith. Otherwise we should formally abolish calling this Apostasy the Roman or Catholic Church. Under Bergolio it is Neither Roman or Catholic and little more than a Lutheran or Anglican Wana be church.
Recognizing that it’s hard to predict Pope Francis, this article is still one sided, failing to mention that he doubles down repeatedly and unequivocally on Humanae Vitae in Chapter 3 of Amoris Laetitia. Some might (questionably) view this as a conservative position, hardly schismatic, and be confused how it fits with the notorious Chapter 8 and the document’s failure to reinforce New Testament roles and responsibilities for husbands and wives.
One possible explanation comes by viewing this from the perspective of the homosexual mafia. Amoris Laetitia weakens marriage in several ways, and Humanae Vitae devalues marriages by maintaining that every sexual act between spouses must be potentially procreative. Both are good ways of “sticking it to the straights”.
I was leery of the accuracy of this article.. However we must look at His Francis undermining of CDF faithful priests, Paraguay Bishop, , AB Burke and the Knights of Malta along with his inaction on Homosexual priests and Abuse cover ups at Arg. School for Deaf Children etc.. Then there is Francis dubious promotion of wayward Chilean Bishops , Bishop in Honduras, Italian Priest Invlo and Belgium Trio ,De Kessel, , Daneels and Bonney AFTER they were exposed for cover ups of homosexual abusive priests. This all makes wonder is he Francis , the most unaware, do Nothing or smoke of Satan Pope in recent memory.
Another explanation is that Pope Francis cares little for logical consistency. He is perfectly capable of contradicting himself, sometimes in the same speech. The classic example is the day when he was lecturing an assembly of jurists and declared that the death penalty was impermissible. He then went on to declare that life imprisonment was a kind of death sentence. As one commentator noted, if you deny the possibility of life imprisonment, the case against the death penalty collapses. On another occasion, he commented that it was not fitting for a Christian to work in the arms industry. But he has also asked why the Allies failed to bomb the railway line to Auschwitz in WW2. How was the railway line to be bombed except with bombs and warplanes made by American and British workers, overwhelmingly Christian at the time?
Good point, Pope Francis seems to struggle with this more than most, but even in recent memory John Paul II was similarly afflicted, even if more verbally cautious. It is not a new problem – whether the topic is capital punishment or sex there is danger in complicating and innovating from the simple Biblical truth.
The situation recalls Sir Walter Scott’s line “what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”. While these modern and ancient inventions aren’t deliberate attempts to deceive (some like St. Jerome’s possibly excepted), they do have the effect of corroding the Church’s moral authority as it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the story straight.
At least they admit who they are. He is a fraud, a faker, and a destroyer. With the backing of most Bishops, he destroys the Church. George Soros and his evil supporters love and support him and he them.
When a father fails to teach and lead his children in the truth, the children look to others. PERIOD. Shame shame shame.
In our case we look to each other, not outside the Church.
The turncoat Cardinal Schonborn has publicly ridiculed the concept of “intrinsically evil acts”, and he is unlikely to have done that unless he knew that Francis also rejected this doctrine of Catholic moral theology. The fact that Sconborn was given the job of presenting AL rather than Muller would indicate that he has been on the same “wavelength” as the Pope throughout all of this.
He/they may think he can avoid responding to the dubia and by doing so revealing his heresy to the world. But his non-response, and his failure to teach the orthodox Catholic faith when clarity is asked of him, is a response in itself. It is the same response his predecessor Honorius I gave to the Monothelite heresy i.e. he failed to teach the orthodox Catholic faith when clarity was sought from him. It was for this that Honorius was anathematized as an heretic. As the subject matter in this case is far more serious for the salvation of souls, then Francis is at least deserving of the same censure.
It is time for the likes of Muller to stop protecting the Pope from himself and face the fact that he has made his own bed and now he must lie in it. Truth is more important than unity and it is time for all the Cardinals to defend the Truth as they have been commissioned so to do.
How can there be intrinsically evil acts, if each man decides for himself whether an act is evil or a “most generous response to God” at any given time? It looks like the capricious and irrational god of Francischurch first makes some random and oppressive rules, and then hopes and prays that man shows him some generosity.
My Mother said to me, when talking about my former sister-in-law, who left my brother after many years of abusing his trust to live with a man who showed her fifth shades of grey – with this pope, she will soon be considered a saint. She is right on target, as she is boldly not following all commandments, in obedience to pope’s teaching, who instructs us that following all commandments obstructs progress.
This is what I think:
We must look at Jorge Bergoglio holistically, not in a disjointed way. We must remember all of his agendas, as he himself certainly does. It was not by accident that he ordered a light show to be projected on Saint Peter’s Basislica by a known Luciferian. In order to achieve progress of the green and the satanic one-world agendas, Bergoglio knows he must convince us that following all commandments is intrinsically evil. He does it gradually, his usual way of smuggling heresy in. Too much at one time would alarm the sheeple. This is why every day brings a new surprise. Bergoglio’s god is… a god of surprises.
He is really less clever than we are patient, gullible and… —pid.
I suggest we regain some dignity and a healthy dose of fear of our Creator, whose patience may be running out. Let us stand up for Jesus Christ – boldly, as though we believed that He is real, and that He sees our ingratitude, cowardice and betrayal.
” if each man decides for himself whether an act is evil”. This statement is patently false.If it were true, then why would God have revealed his moral law, both in the natural law and in revelation, such as the decalogue. As you are aware, if such an idea were accepted, the whole of Catholic moral teaching would be negated and considered superfluous. It is totally absurd and therfore flies in the face of all logic and rationality itself. It is the essence of sin, as can be found in Genesis ch 3, which is man setting himself up as a false god (idolatry, which is the what sin ultimately is in the Bible), attempting to take the place of God and deciding what is good and what is evil).
Of course you are right.
Three things Plush:
1. Thank you for yet another clear, concise and informative post.
2. A saint whose name escapes me but who stated categorically that anyone – regardless of who they are – who changes one word, jot or tittle of ANY part of Scripture “Let him be Anathema!” So Francis’ altering the Ten Commandments to mere personal choices is a massive change and should be resisted to the nth degree.
3. The worst thing for me about that dreadful light show was that the celebration of the day was actually the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Unbelievable, that that man could hijack Our Lady’s beautiful feast for a political statement! But then he also hijacked the public Stations of the Cross on Good Friday and replace the stages of Christ’s dreadful journey to Calvary with his socialist agenda!
Speaking the truth that some acts are intrinsically evil and protecting the idea from ridicule are both critically important moral imperatives. Opposition to contraception is a poor place to take a stand though, and risks trivializing the nature of evil.
One flawed approach is through natural law, as these arguments reduce humans to their baser animal natures as breeders. People are unique, or close to it, in their lack of heat periods and ability to have sex while pregnant. This is a strong indication that we were deliberately created with sexual purpose relatively less focused on procreation. The ability to intelligently procreate by conscious intention instead of instinct, and also to separate sex from procreation is a gift. It can easily be said that by not separating the two when prudent we reject our unique nature and God’s gifts, and that forbidding the separation when appropriate dehumanizes us.
Appeals to constant authority on this also fail, as the Christian view of contraception and sex has changed numerous times. Tellingly though there is no Biblical objection to contraception, and St. Paul in particular was not shy about giving specific moral guidance in this area, so to call categorical condemnation of it anything other than an innovation is not realistic. Then St. Jerome / St. Augustine / Pope Pius XI / Pope Paul VI are all materially different. Now recently the Church’s promotion of NFP definitely puts the lie to claims of constant teaching.
Interestingly the conservative Protestants in the 20th century saw the mess, realized the danger of the encroaching sexual revolution, and went back to the solid defensible basics, dropping opposition to contraception in principle. Better not to fight from a poorly fortified position or everything could be lost.
By claiming that contraception is intrinsically evil and not being able to back it up with Biblical or well-reasoned support the Church loses credibility. The immediate practical impact is small as almost everybody can sense the fallacy and ignore it. The true tragedy is that the Church’s moral authority is impaired, making it harder to be effective fighting abortion, divorce, etc.
Contraception is really nothing more than “mutual masturbation”.
The claim that our ability to have sex with a woman who is pregnant puts less emphasis on procreation is in line with modernist theology and is patently erroneous. The ONLY purpose for sex is the production of offspring, which almighty God made quite clear with the command to be fruitful and multiply. He never added something like, “but only when you want to”.
When are people going stop pretending they do not know where this Pope stands. He follows the classic example of throwing in a few orthodox statements with his heresy. He is a heretic and modernist and has the support of most of the heirachy. The church of Bergolio is no longer the Church of Jesus Christ. If there are any Catholics left in positions of authority, they need to act. He endangers the souls of our children and families. He crushes all in his path as they flee.
One thing I notice as I speak out more against the man who’s hijacked the Chair of Peter is that they either ignore me or are shocked at my comments. I also sense that many Catholic’s are perhaps afraid to speak out because he’s the Pope or because they think I am wrong or, that perhaps I’m being judgemental. I will continue to warn them….
We are all called to be judgemental on the acts of people. Not on the interior state of their immortal soul. Not to judge evil acts for what they are is an abdication of responsibility.
And Paul Ehrlich is invited to speak at the Vatican.
At the back of Ehrlich’s ludicrous book “The Population Bomb”, there is a draft letter for Catholics to copy and send to the Pope, urging him to change Church teaching on contraception.
Pompous scoundrel, to think that some letters written could alter truth no matter how many Catholics were beguiled by him..
When will these Cardinals get their act together and declare him a heretic and therefore not the Pope? It’s been months since it should’ve been over and done with. Or are they waiting until he can name more cardinals and stack the deck? Because that’s where this is going. I am losing faith even in the “good Cardinals”. He would’ve been deposed long ago if all this had happened in, say, 1700s or 1800s.
They are all cowards!
it is not our job as lay people to judge whether a Pope is a heretic or not
It’s not our job to judge whether he is a formal heretic or not. But every single day it is our job to distinguish between materially heretical teachings. Amoris Laetitia has materially heretical teaching.
I believe that our Catholic church is already in schism
It has been for many decades.
Agree. It’s a strange kind of virus/schism, terribly attacking the Body of Christ from the inside, silent and deadly.
“Contraception-Fatal to the Faith.” http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_004.htm
In one of my least charitable moments recently, and in outright frustration, I proposed to myself that the best, the kindest thing Bergoglio can do for the Church is to cease breathing. But of course, we do not help ourselves or the Church by entertaining such sentiments. Rather, we are called to prayer, penance and acts of reparation. Harboring sentiments such as I just described is, apart from anything else, a gross dereliction of duty. It is not pleasing to God.
In any case, Bergoglio’s demise would not solve a problem that has been fomenting for at least two centuries. We have reached the point of the complete establishment of the “false church” envisioned by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Many popes, including Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII saw it coming, and sought to fend off the inevitable by openly denouncing the subversive masonic, and diabolic ideologies whose purpose is to fatally poison the Body of Christ.
Vatican II was the turning point, since it allowed those who sought to remake the Church in their own image to emerge from the shadows into the clear light of day. These elements are by now the most dominant force in the Church; they have the Body of Christ in a stranglehold. Bergoglio’s appointed role is to preside over the climax of the greatest of all crises in the history of the Church. His removal would resolve nothing.
We have now reached the terrible conclusion of what is, according to Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser, the fifth of seven ages in the history of the Church. Ven. Holzhauser designated this particular period, which began with the Protestant Revolution, “purgativus” or “purification”. This vitally necessary purification is dependent upon the total eradication of the unprecedented level of corruption, vice and filth that has brought the Church to a point of collapse. The New Springtime must, of necessity, follow the severest of winters.
Do you think it is remotely possible PF could be this bishop in white?
i believe he is going to Fatima this May. Conversion?
I know it seems very far stretched to even ponder this. A pity, for he possessed a sense of compassion and strength, wonderful virtues…….which have been turned upside down and used to go against the Church.
Regardless, he is derelict of duty in defending the faith, promoting the justification for sin, leading souls to hell. Lately, all i can do is pity this man, and pray for his soul, for it is danger.
CS, Pope Francis does indeed demonstrate a real compassion for the poor and the marginalised. What disturbs many, however, is the particular lens through which he views these issues. He is a South American, liberation theology-enthused Jesuit. It’s not the fact that he is a Jesuit per se, but possibly the Jesuits collectively are particularly susceptible to an embrace of this essentially counterfeit humanitarianism. ‘Liberation theology’ is ‘lite’ on theology and top-heavy with leftist politics, Many adherents of liberation theology have always been, and remain, unabashed marxists. The ‘gospel’ preached by liberation theology is a corrupted and heavily politicised version of the Gospels which the Apostles and their Successors in perpetuity were commanded to preach “to all nations”.
Liberation theology is the theoretical and practical application of situation ethics wherein absolute, immutable truth is not defined, and it is therefore, of necessity, ambiguous. This ambiguity, wherein truth is ‘fluid’ and therefore adaptable, has been subtly incorporated into Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia. Neither is this the first instance in the recent history of the Church. After Benedict XVI’s abdication, Cardinal Walter Kasper freely admitted that some of the documents of Vatican II also contained deliberately ambiguous elements that would permit a subsequent liberal interpretation. Considering the dubious credentials of many of those who are invited to address Vatican-sponsored conferences, this process has now shifted into top gear.
As for “the bishop dressed in white …..” that is another matter. When Bergoglio was elected, (and at that time, I knew absolutely nothing about him), but looking at it against a “Fatima back-drop” I got a very strong impulse that his would be a relatively short pontificate, and it could, realistically, end with his martyrdom. (Such a martyrdom is envisioned in St. John Bosco’s “Vision of the Two Pillars”). I stress, this was only a hunch, and nothing more. The reference to the “bishop dressed in white..” is itself perplexing. Traditionally, only one bishop dresses in white, and that is the Bishop of Rome. The Fatima visionaries formed the impression that this bishop was “the Holy Father”, but currently we have two bishops who dress in white. Therefore some have speculated that the bishop of the Third Secret could be Benedict. At this point, God alone knows.
One of the questions raised by Francis’ highly individual way of doing thins is his refusal to wear the red shoes traditionally worn by the Pope. This is far more than a “fashion” statement. The red shoes symbolise the pope’s willingness to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and to ascend Calvary. And the Church is certainly almost at the very summit of her own Calvary at this time. As the “bishop dressed in white” ascends this symbolic Calvary, he “passes through a city half in ruins”. Which city is that? It could be Rome, where the last pope of this era in the history of the Church imitates St. Peter in being put to death as the city of Rome is extensively destroyed as per St. Malachy’s prophecy of the popes. This city could be Jerusalem, which now, thanks to Obama, John Kerry and the U.N Security Council, is under greater threat from the muslim world than it has ever been. In which case, the mountain ascended by the bishop in white is literally Calvary. Or, the city half in ruins could be a symbol of the Church. Or, it could refer simultaneously both to a real city, such as Rome, and the Church. It most probably does.
But, most encouragingly, Pope Francis does have a life-long devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and he will, as you rightly say, be present in Fatima on May 13th. this year On May 13th. 2013, he requested the Bishops of Portugal to consecrate his pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima, and this they duly did, at the Fatima Shrine. This gives us all a marvelous opportunity to re-double, or triple, or even quadruple our own efforts in the prayer of the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration and penance for the sake of the whole Church; the Holy Father, all the bishops and the clergy, and of course, for our own sakes. If such an initiative could be organised and properly co-ordinated, it would be of inestimable value.
We know for certain that the glorious renewal of the Church is now suspended in time, awaiting the, (hopefully imminent), fulfilment of her painful purification We also know that, following almost immediately upon the martyrdom of the pope as foreseen by St. John Bosco, when the enemies of Christ and the Church are celebrating their imagined total victory, the promised Great Pontiff, who will restore all things in Christ, will be elected. And the enemies of Christ and His Church will be erased from the pages of history.
Thank you for your post. I have been thinking this way as well regarding a truly organized initiative to pray, pray, pray for PF, the Church and EVERYBODY, from the bishops, to the clergy….I know it is our duty to pray for PF, but I seem to truly WANT to pray for him…..I am very worried about him. ( ????) Goodness, I feel a bit like a double personality, as I do believe a public correction will need to take place and I am clearly on record with being very disturbed with this pontificate. Oh boy, am I on record.
Lastly, I do appreciate the”lens” with which PF views the world, the Church, but he must put on Christ for his lens. I do feel very sad for him,( which I admittedly state is rather surprising for for me).
Your thoughts are of great value to me. Bless you.
“Put on Christ is”, of course, the ONLY true means by which any of us can address all the difficulties we encounter in our personal lives, in our family relationships, and our relationships with the broader community. Sadly, due to the aggressive secularisation of Western society, there is a tendency in all of us to adopt a more worldly, pragmatic approach in dealing with the issues that confront us. Just as it is true for us, so it is true for many in the Church, and it is a tendency which seems to permeate right to the very top. I greatly applaud your heartfelt desire to pray, pray, PRAY for Pope Francis. Unless we are prepared to invest much time, effort and spiritual energy in that, then we really have no right to stand on the sidelines and find fault.
Best Regards, and may God bless and preserve you, CS.
DOES HE REALLY show a true compassion for the poor? What I see is a rabid leftie urging leftie, even crazy solutions: the enemy of the poor is not the conservative but the socialist. So said Pope St. Pius X.
And what concern does he show, pray, for the eternal Salvation of anyone, rich or poor?
He is a puppet of those who wish to cut off energy and food to the poor, and reduce global population to 500 million. Perhaps a billion. E.g., Schellnhuber.
“Do you think it is remotely possible PF could be this bishop in white?”
Do you think Benedict could be the bishop in white?
I honestly haven’t got a clue. None of us have.
“Harboring sentiments such as I just described is, apart from anything else, a gross dereliction of duty. It is not pleasing to God.”
I believe it is St. Thomas who teaches that it is entirely licit to pray for the death of an enemy of the Church as long as one is not motivated by a hatred of the individual human being but by love of the Church and the Faith and the good that will come from the demise of him who is harming or would harm both.
It is looking more and more that divine intervention–directed at the management of the Catholic Church–will be necessary to bring the Church to orthodoxy.
Time to Make the Roman Catholic Church Great Again. Step One – Removal of all financial support for programs which do not reflect and support the Unchanging Teachings of the Catholic Church, which undermine the Sacraments or contradict the Words Of Jesus Christ. Step Two – Drain the swamp of those who defend intrinsically evil acts, beginning with Francis. Step Three – Get ready for the persecution by the world which is sure to follow(or continue, as the case may be). Step Four – Embrace the terms Remnant and Martyr..
“Widespread doubt and confusion…”
There is NO DOUBT in my mind as a faithful, properly catechized Catholic, with a well formed conscience according to constant Church Teaching that Francis is a manifest, material, heretical, Modernist. To many like me, he lost the papacy months ago- IF he was ever really VALIDLY elected by the St. Gallen Mafia inside the College of Cardinals in the first place.
If Francis will not resign immediately, the Four Cardinals and their cardinal supporters MUST immediately make the necessary public declarations warning Francis that he must either fully recant all his oral and written heresies, or face the consequences of having deposed himself from the papacy.
Enough of this charlatan.
Hi Al – Amen to that.
This is my question: HOW……..HOW on God’s earth, can these ‘Cardinals’ go along to get along with this charlatan? He teaches blatant HERESY! He’s stacking the deck in the meantime with all of his heretic buddies that are no more ‘Catholic’ or even ‘Christian’ than he is! It is no wonder that the faithful feel BETRAYED not only by our supposed ‘Pope’ but by our Bishops as well!!!!! It is a BETRAYAL of MEGA PROPORTIONS, not to be equaled.
HI st909 – How on God’s green earth could the Sanhedrin crucify Jesus? Same reason.
The UN population control Elites are a powerful group of people and Jorge is their puppet. Since the UN’s sponsor organizations can give out abortifacient (murdering the unborn) to the 3rd world countries, I wouldn’t be surprised that Orthodox Cardinals are fearful for their very own livelihood and assassinations. That’s right ASSASSINATION! If you can murder a baby behind closed doors (at an abortion clinic), why can’t you murder an adult behind closed doors? Folks, this is scary stuff!
You mean orthodox Cardinals. There are no Orthodox Cardinals.
All thw Cardinals are signed up to Vatican II. Is there a single orthodox Cardinal in the Catholic Church? (exam question, discuss)..
I think that Bergoglio doesn’t have any problems with contraception. I mean, if you are on the verge of admitting open adulterers and homosexuals to communion, then what are we talking about? Opposition to contraception in the Novus Ordo Church doesn’t exist anymore. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Humane Vitae to Bergoglio, must seem to be that “dam encyclical”. He doesn’t recognize widespread contraception as the cause of abortion, selfishness of widespread fornication/adultry/divorce and the acceptance of homosexual acts, otherwise these thoughts would have made it in and out of the Synod. No, he almost surely see’s Humanae Vitae as harsh and as the problem, rather than the solution. Imagine thinking that married lay men and women could possible practice periodic abstinence… : how absurd ; -)
But as priest once told me: “What is it that makes you think that HE is not in charge!”.
We’re just going to have to let this sin run it’s course, God Will Answer Just in Time. (More impressive that way. 😉
A Good report.
This all so deja vu….attacks on Humanae Vitae, demonstrations at Berkley, Bernard
Haring praised, C. Daneels back again, wide spread questioning of settled Chuch
teaching, and on and on.
PF has established a commission to study the new changes to the NO……he is about
to fiddle with the Mass ….I’m afraid Benedict’s Sumorum Pontificam is about to be
challenged as well…..I pray not.
One does not have to possess the eyesight of an eagle to see liturgists around the feet of the dead body of S.P. affixing a toe tag to it.
I no longer particularly care what PF thinks on this or that.
I stopped caring when, for the SECOND time, in a pubic media interview the Bishop of Rome used the words “coprophagia” and “coprophilia”. Yes, this is what meanders through the mind of the Vicar of Christ.
“but the things which go forth out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those defile man.”
You are better off ignoring him and his wicked thoughts Sean. Just stick with your Rosary for the salvation of your soul and the souls of your loved ones.
It used to be the case, long ago it seems now, that we learned such words, if at all, in the playground, from the naughtier boys, and often didn’t believe what we heard.
Now we learn them from the Vicar of Christ.
Please everyone, have a look at the Video on The 3rd Secret.
The holy priest who gives this talk makes the point that when Francis came out onto the loggia when he was elected, he refused the red cape which is the symbol of his temporal authority, and this temporal authority is the one thing left (now that confessional Catholic states are no more) which is restraining the advent of the antichrist.
And as if to force home the point, a short time later +Bergoglio had his Argentinian passport renewed, effectively making him a subject of another state.
Consider now his annexation of the SMOM. That he has comtempt for temproal authority of another sovereingn state correlates with the fact that he has already twice shown contempt for the temporal authority he himself has been invested with.
As poster Gerry has explained on another thread, it is highly unlikely that any secular power is the “Restrainer”. The Book of Daniel tells us that the sacrifice will be taken away.
The “restrainer”, that which withholds, is the Mass. It will remain only for a tiny remnant (SSPX and a few other scattered priests).
Who is the priest giving this talk?
Where does Pope Francis really stand on contraception? This is a no brainer. Where does Pope Francis stand on anything which is authentically Catholic? On traditional liturgy, on traditional devotions, on priestly formation, on the relationship with Islam, on homosexuals in the priesthood, on catechesis, on proselytizing, on sexual morality, on sacrilegious Communion……?? He hates the whole Catholic edifice, in toto!! All of it. The big picture should be obvious to us by now.
We’re talking about the man who chided the lady with eight children and said “we don’t have to breed like rabbits”. We’re talking about the man who lauds Italian abortionist Emma Bonino as a pillar of European culture. Google “Francis, Emma Bonino” and check it out for yourselves.
Francis = enemy of the faith.
He is the False Prophet.
I agree that that is highly possible
The Knights of Malta! I’d already forgotten about them, so much has happened since. These gentle Ratzingerian types (Festing et al) are meat and drink to a backstreet thug like Bergoglio.
The AL treatment is the template for everything to come. For Bergoglio, already 80, getting his foot in the door (and keeping it there) witj AL is the bog achievement: he’ll leave it to his successor to follow through with an AL for the sodomites. But if he can use the template for contraception during what remains of his miserable lifetime, he will.
All this was very evidently well-planned in advance. Plain as the giant wart that Bergoglio will wear on his horrible face for eternity.
“These gentle Ratzingerian types (Festing et al) are meat and drink to a backstreet thug like Bergoglio.”
You have a writer inside you, Joseph Vissarionovich!
Bergoglio hates the West, Catholics, Christians, God, Mary, Jesus Christ, the Mass, and the Blessed Sacrament.
He loves sodomy, abortion, and tyrannical Muslim and leftist distators who persecute Christians. He loves the Muslim invasion of Europe and North America.
Where do you THINK he stands on contraception?
Yeah, it’s quite obvious to anyone with eyes to see. “Bergoglio hates the West, Catholics, Christians………………..” In other words Bergoglio is not really a Catholic at all. In hopes that the next Pontiff will be an actual Catholic, but with the roster of Cardinals we now have in the voting ranks, and even among those eligible for the Papacy, I’m not holding my breath. As we’ve been witnessing, this guy is furiously ‘stacking the deck’ in raising to the status of Cardinal those who ‘think like Jorge’. The next one doesn’t look so pretty good either, sad to say.
At this point in time I can’t believe we are still debating whether Pope Francis is a Catholic. Wow! What more evidence do you need. The only debate should be what do we do about the Pope? Questions like, can he be deposed? How can we get the cowardly bishops to issue a public correction? Can he be declared a heretic? Can the laity be organized independent of the craven Bishops and do something? This is what we should be debating. This is like someone shooting at you and instead of firing back your debating whether they are shooting at you. Pope Francis’ objective is the destruction of the Church. That is not debatable. 2 + 2 = 4. The sky is blue. Water is wet. Francis wants to destroy the Church. All undeniable facts.
He is not a young man. Pray for his conversion and that of his followers, and that if he is not soon converted, soon replaced.
Hold tight to what you know to be Truth and disregard the rest.
Glad this article was republished here. It sums up so well Bergoglio’s intentions which when summarized like this become perfectly clear.
It may be very beneficial if some of these heretics were to have a ‘near death’ experience and were shown what HELL is like. Hmm…..yep, that just may do it.
I am so surprised it has taken this long for someone to figure out that God was confused when he wrote the 5th and 6th commandments! Amazing!
Help us Oh Lord! Free us, we beg you, from Pope Francis the Terrible!
We shouldnt make rash jusgements about the Pope. I doubt the Pope knew all the details about the SDG’s or everything Barnard Harring teaches.
If the pope, with all his influence and moral authority, is going to publicly praise something, he’d better damn well know all the details. That’s a solemn duty, not something he can just blow off.
well maybe he just didnt hear about all of the SDG’s
On this issue the pope stands with his secular masters.