A number of people have sent me some version or another of the story on Pope Francis’ meeting with the Chilean bishops last month and asked me to comment on it. According to the bishops of Chile, Francis told them what appear to be some very self-contradictory things. I didn’t have time to commission a human translation of the Spanish, nor do I particularly want to waste any of our translators’ time on it.
Why? Because it’s essentially meaningless. Like listening to static and hoping to find guidance. One of our readers from Latin America graciously provided us with a translation on condition of anonymity*:
Among the topics discussed between the Pope and the Chilean bishops was the progress of the decriminalization of abortion in the South American country. Mons. Ramos [the Secretary of the Conference of Bishops] explains this in El Mercurio :
” The Pope was very clear: abortion understood as the quest to eliminate a human being is always a murder, and must not be confused with accepted medical practices to save a life ».
And Bishop Silva [the President of the Conference of Bishops] added:
“Abortion is a well-known issue for Francis. Being Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he was very hard on President Mauricio Macri when Macri, as governor of Buenos Aires, regulated ‘non- punishable abortions’. Moreover, he [Francis] stopped a ‘medical guide’ that Cristina Kirchner tried to spread.
Francis spoke in the same way to the Chilean bishops and he made especial mention of Catholic politicians who vote in favor of the legalization of abortion:
“He insisted that they cannot take communion and that they must receive help in order not to continue committing sins. The Pope is much stronger than he looks.”
As for the possibility of ordaining married men as priests, Bishop Ramos explained the position of the Holy Father and of Cardinal Stella. When asked “Is it true that the Pope was thinking about ordering married men?”, raised as a consequence of the interview given by the pontiff to the German newspaper “Die Zeit”, the auxiliary bishop of Santiago answered:
“No, it is not true. And in that very interview the Pope says that voluntary celibacy is not on the agenda.”
And then Ramos explains that the Pope was asked about the possibility that the “viri probati,” married men of proven Christian life, would help in secluded places. The topic was also addressed by the Prefect of the Clergy, Cardinal Stella, and he was categorical: “that is not the way .”
Faced with the question of the communion for “remarried” divorcees, the bishop [Ramos, Secretary of the Conference of Bishops] explains that the Pontiff denied that his goal in calling for the Synod on the Family were to authorize communion for the divorcees. He told the Chilean bishops that there is no “moral situationism,” say other sources [translator’s note: in both El Mercurio and Infocatólica this is a very strange way of writing: it seems that Ramos says that “other sources” state the last sentence. Unintelligible]. “It’s hard for us to see gray tones,” Francis reportedly told the Chilean bishops when he referred to a personal case, a case in his family:
“I have a niece married to a divorcee, a good man, a Catholic, who attends Sunday Mass. When he confesses he tells the priest ‘I know you may not give me the absolution, but, please give me your blessing.’
People are latching on, in particular, to this bit:
Faced with the question of the communion for “remarried” divorcees, the bishop [Ramos, Secretary of the Conference of Bishops] explains that the Pontiff denied that his goal in calling for the Synod on the Family were to authorize communion for the divorcees. He told the Chilean bishops that there is no “moral situationism,” say other sources. “It’s hard for us to see gray tones,” Francis reportedly told the Chilean bishops when he referred to a personal case, a case in his family…
So why do I say it’s meaningless?
First, because — as our papal positivist friends like to say whenever we report a second-hand account of the pope’s words — this is hearsay. Only in this instance, it’s actually out of character for him to say it. It goes against the conduct of the Synods, Amoris Laetitia, the pope’s letter to the Argentinian Bishops, his praise for the German bishops’ guidelines, the policy enforced by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Vatican’s promotion of the Maltese bishops’ guidelines, Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s book (and it’s associated Vatican press conference), and so on. The evidence is piled high and deep that Communion for the divorced and remarried is exactly what he wanted. One little anecdote from a Latin American bishop does not a reversal make.
But the second point — one you probably won’t hear anywhere else — is that self-contradiction is all part of the big, confusing game plan for Francis and company. Hilary White explained this months ago:
What people who have decried these incomprehensible contradictions have failed to understand is that “meaning” is irrelevant. The purpose of these communications has not been to inform the Catholic faithful of the pope’s thought or reflections on Scripture. Content is irrelevant; only submission counts, only power. This means the more ambiguous, the more contradictory, the more vapid, the more illogical, the better.
And this is what people are missing. He has been perfectly consistent in all his responses, since he is always saying the same thing: submit. Indeed, we have had a report recently that he knows full well that his work to change the Church’s ancient teaching must rest exclusively on the pure exercise of raw power. When Cardinal Müller of the former Holy Office asked why Francis had demanded the abrupt dismissal of three of his best priests, the pope is reported to have responded as all tyrants do: “I. AM. THE. POPE. I don’t have to answer to anyone.”
Positivism, the denial of an objective reality, must lead ultimately to authoritarianism. If there is no objective reality, there is no need for any rules that regard it; any notion of a Rule of Law is meaningless. What have we seen happen throughout history when the Rule of Law breaks down? There can only be Rule of the Strongest, Rule of Power. This is why, now that the make-reality-up-as-you-go-along principle is firmly in place in the papal office, the pope must clamp down so furiously on “dissent,” even the softly diplomatic “dissent” of asking politely for a clarification.
What does Amoris Laetitia mean?
“It means what I say it means. It means shut up.”
Whether or not he said what he is reported to have said to the Chilean bishops is irrelevant. The Dictatorship of Mercy continues apace.
NOTE: I’ve published an addendum to this piece with another important point of consideration.
*We originally used the Google translation of this report, but have replaced it with a reader-submitted human translation.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Perfect summary “It means what I say it means. It means shut up.”
I have only one comment: that cartoon made me laugh. But only because I have somewhere in my files a photo I took in Venice of a very beautiful sign, engraved on brass, that said, “Piazza San Marco” underneath which were two arrows pointing in opposite directions. I thought it perfectly summarized everything about Italy.
Now, about Francis and abortion, I think I can say with some confidence that he genuinely doesn’t like it. But note carefully how I phrased that. He doesn’t have strong, principled opposition to it in the sense of the opposition of the Pro-life movement. That is, he finds it regrettable and personally undesireable. Even repugnant. He has never really shown any indication that he would approve abortion personally.
But this of course is nothing like what a Catholic holds about it. His mind is so manifestly confused on such things that it’s dangerous territory to try to predict what he “really thinks” (because as I pointed out above, what goes on in his brain seems to bear little relationship to rational thought), but so far what we’ve seen from him is nothing but subjectivism. He doesn’t like it. Doesn’t approve of it. Which puts him at about the same level of opposition as the 14 year old girls one sees sometimes at the March for Life wearing t-shirts that say, “Abortion is mean.” About the level of the CINO politicians who also genuinely “don’t like” abortion personally, but would never dream of trying to impose their personal beliefs in law.
It is extremely important for Catholics and other pro-life people not to call this a “pro-life” position. It isn’t. A pro-life position is one that is wholly in keeping with objective, external reality. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. It is murder, and the most foul kind in which a helpless and totally innocent victim is cornered and torn to shreds or burned to death. If it was done by Islamic extremists to a born child, the headlines would be screaming. To say of this horrific, inhuman act that it is “undesireable” or “mean” or that you personally wouldn’t “choose an abortion but can’t stand in the way of another person’s choice” is to completely abandon any pretense of moral authority.
And as Mike Matt said on the night of the Conclave four years ago, when certain news services were busy pronouncing the new pope “pro-life” because he once said something mild about how he didn’t like abortion or that it was “regrettable,” … “I need a little more from a pope than that he doesn’t approve of killing babies.”
We have set the bar so low for being pro-life that it has effectively disappeared if we say that Pope Francis’ waffling, weather-vane treatment of the slaughter of 50 million innocent people a year makes him a pro-life paragon.
And if this is where the bar is for holiness in a pope, then I suggest we need to dig a trench.
I have always been surprised little commentary was made on paragraphs 213 and 214 of Pope Francis’s first document Evangelii Gaudium, the program for his papacy, in which he makes the pro forma statements against abortion, but then says on the other hand who can be unmoved when a woman aborts due to rape or poverty. Since when does a Pope or any Pro-lifer speak about “on the other hand” about abortion, and seems to apply compassionate acceptance that abortion was understandable in the circumstances? Yet little notice was taken of this betrayal by a Pope in an official Apostolic Exhortation concerning abortion, two little paragraphs tucked towards the end of the lengthy document, and still written in such a way as to undermine even what little was said on the most important moral and social justice issue of our time. If you want an example of Bergoglio ambiguity and doublespeak even on abortion, paragraphs 213 and 214 of Evangelii Gaudium are worth revisiting review and analysis
Actually, no other (deep) analysis is needed, after those “on the other hand” . That’s exactly what every false prophet do, ‘yes but no’,… or ‘no but yes’ statements are from the devil. For certain things, for the truth or lies, for good or evil, there can be always, only and just: ‘YES.’ or ‘NO.’.
Demagoguery is not allowed for true Christians. To emphasize this, I noted both words, YES with the period, and NO with the period after.
Reminds me of the “fake news’ L’Osservatore Romano where they said he answered the dubia with a ‘yes and no’ to each one.
Precisely! In fact, that’s not even so fake, because his silence on the dubia, have actually the same meaning as: – “yes AND no”
“Let your yes mean no and your no mean yes. Or both. Or neither. Just listen to the Holy Spirit!” #ThingsJesusNeverSaid
Evangelii Gaudium is riddled with nonsensical and anti-Catholic statements. My favourites are:
Para 32 where he floats the idea of devolving doctrinal authority to Bishops’ Conferences (i.e. instant disintegration of Church, as we are seeing with different approaches to Amoris Laetitia)
Para 253, where he describes Islam as a religion of peace, thus contradicting basic sanity, the Koran, 1400 years of history and any number of current news stories.
I’m with you on Paragraph 253 (though Pope Francis is not the first pope to make such statements). How can a Pope write something like this — “for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”? Authentic to what exactly? To the false prophet Muhammed? And how could any reading of the koran be “proper.”? Francis must just as well pontificate on the best translation of the “Book of Mormon” or publish a list his top ten favorite Hindu deities.
There is no “proper” reading of the Koran but only in the original Arab text.
Once the original text is translated in other languages, this leads to endless contestations about the true meaning of problematic surates, since there is no such high authority like in the Catholicism, a magisterium, to state definitively and clearly which translation is right.
Islam is ‘not’ even a religion but, its a “Political Ideology..!” I also do agree that no pope has the authority nor the legitimacy to make statements about another religion especially a so called religion that espouses killing another human being because of their beliefs. When the pope elevates another religion or a political ideology, that means that the Catholic faith is no better then Paganism, Atheism, or Protestantism. When Bergoglio knelt down and washed the feet of some Muslims, Transvestites and others, in reality he was telling the World, ‘see, Catholicism is just the same like another other religion or Ideology!!
Sure. He, but also any other pope has no authority nor the legitimacy to make statements about another religion. Especially positive remarks about Islam! A pope is vicar of Christ, the first bishop of Catholic Church. Those who equates the only true Christian religion with anti-religions, can only be a kind of spokesman for some united religions, which is highest betrayal.
About devil spoken, let’s see it here… about that kind of “teaching of morality”… and religion of ‘peace’!
We are really not stupid. The “book-of-peace” is written in many languages. And if we able to read it cost a little effort to see it and understand it fully, so that we know what we are (he is) talking about.
Take a look here:… http://www.clearquran.com/002.html
Read mentioned quotes below. But there are many more which are everything except peaceful…
sura 2. 191, sura 2. 216, sura 2. 217
sura 3. 10, sura 3. 131, sura 3. 195
sura 4. 66, sura 4. 74, sura 4. 76, sura 4. 89, sura 4. 91
sura 8. 12, sura 8. 17, sura 8. 50, sura 8. 59, sura 8. 60, sura 8. 67
sura 9. 5, sura 9. 29, sura 9. 30, sura 9. 41, sura 9. 73
I’m no fan of Pope Francis. (Chapter 8 of Amoris Latitia is riddled with heresy). But I don’t see any real problem with paragraphs 213 and 214 of Evangelii Gaudium. Paragraph 14 is not the most precisely written paragraph one could imagine, but I don’t think it could fairly be read as undermining the church’s teaching on abortion. The “on the other hand” language in paragraph 14 doesn’t mean “abortion is sometimes okay.” In my reading, what paragraph 14 is saying is that: (1) the Church will never change its message that abortion is always wrong, but (2) “on the other hand,” the Church should do more to accompany women who find themselves pregnant due to rape or while in extreme poverty. Those are entirely orthodox sentiments.
Admittedly, there is some ambiguity as to which previous statement in the paragraph the “on the other hand” language is contrasting. But I think the fairest reading is this:
“214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question …. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations ….”
And Francis does not say “who can be unmoved when a woman aborts due to rape or poverty.” What he writes is “who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” And the “painful situations” are not abortions but situations where women find themselves pregnant due to rape or while in extreme poverty. He is saying that the Church needs to do more to accompany these woman because to them “abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish.” There is no implication that it would be okay for these women to kill “the life developing within them.” He’s not endorsing the “quick solution.” And he says nothing at all in this paragraph about women who actually have an abortion.
In Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul 11 also addressed the issue of women in painful situations, but added NEVERTHELESS abortion is never justiified. That resounding NEVERTHELESS is missing from 214 of Evangelii Gaudium and should have been there to affirm Catholic teaching with no possibility of ambiguity. If it could be read the way I suggested that is a fault in Francis on this very important topic.
The very fact that we are discussing what these sentences mean is the problem.
Head over to any Papal document meant for public consumption prior to Pope Pius XII and you’ll see the difference: clear, plain (even tho old-fashioned to our eyes) language which says what needs to be said – let the reader take the consequences. All that is gone now that Holy Church is run by Marxist barbarians.
you forgot ‘Masons.’
It is also a good idea to remember that this pope is a proven liar.
Being a liar is an inevitable consequence of his advice: “Don’t worry too much about following the commandments.” It is reasonable to assume that he follows his own advice.
…or not – he could have been lying about the commandments…
Problem is that for anybody who places no importance on truth and brands it as mere ideology, nothing that they say is worthy of belief even when it does accord with the truth.
Exactly!
To illustrate, let’s recap:
Now:
***
Whilst before:
And what started it all:
And what does cardinal Kasper have to say about all this?
If the Pope is now denying – what is he taking us to be? – that communion for the divorced and civilly remarried was not a (if not the) goal of the Synods on the Family, then he hasn’t even embarked on the path to orthodoxy if that’s the impression he now wants to portray.
Of course he denied. He is just pushing his own agenda, but always denying his real goals.
But, we really must know this, he is not alone!
FM,
Now: Pontiff denied that the synod he called was to authorize the Communion of the divorced.
Whilst before: The one that I cannot get out of my brain is his conversation with Forte which I am paraphrasing and embellishing…”Shhhhh! don’t say a word, or we will make a terrible mess! Just set it up and I will draw the conclusions myself.’ Is THIS collegial? Is THIS transparent? Is THIS holy? Does this not sound more like Judas’ conversation with the high priest Caiphas? Duplicity, deception, dishonesty, fakery, not worthy of the Chair of Peter. The arrogance and vanity of Forte, Spadaro and Daneels forces them to sing like canaries.
On one hand talks of collegiality and that ‘he wanted to get there with all the bishops of the world’ (cf. Archbishop Forte, Professor Melloni and the Undigested “Four Cherries” – http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/03/20/archbishop-forte-professor-melloni-and-the-undigested-four-cherries/ ), yet in Synod 2014, when the paragraphs [divorced + civilly remarried and homosexuality] were rejected by the Synod Fathers [failed to get two-thirds majority], he ram shod them through.
Cf. Synod’s Final Report Lacks Bishops’ Consensus on Controversial Topics – http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/synods-final-document-lacks-bishops-consensus-on-controversial-topics and Synod on Family Closes No Doors; Absolute Majority Is With Pope Francis – http://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/synod-family-closes-no-doors-absolute-majority-pope-francis.
It’s getting harder and harder for Pope Francis to maintain his plausible deniability. He is becoming a joke but few are laughing.
Of doublespeak Frankie’s the master
Which is why his reign’s a disaster
His logic is zero
Power’s his hero
The mark of a man who’s no pastor
What I find surprising is that people have actually latched onto this story as a oh-look-francis-is-orthodox-like-we-always-said moment. Sure, he may have said something that actually is orthodox here… doesn’t mean everything else he’s done is undone. Around in circles we go… at least there haven’t been any huge bombs recently, unlike the last few months. It’s almost like we’re getting a reprieve during Lent… maybe he’s given up press conferences and plane interviews for Lent?
Until he answers the dubia, what he says in private conversations or even from the pulpit is…..well, gab. He’s spoken so often off the cuff that he’s cheapened the notion that every papal word is loaded with significance. He seemed from the beginning to want to lessen our attention to a pope’s every word by deep-sixing all the traditional pontifical trappings. It’s perhaps the only aspect of his papacy where he has scored a stunning success.
Think positive Comrade dude! This stunning success of his might at last puncture the false demigod view of the Papacy formed in the aftermath of Vatican I which is now being used by the neo-Modernists to posit a Faith that is dependent on the whims of whoever is the Pope at the moment.
Hi Stalin – You are a heretic, dude!
I leave it to Steve Skojec and the site’s Moderators as to whether your comment, making such a grave accusation, should stand; and separately, whether such an obvious troublemaker should be allowed to continue commenting here.
Duke it out. Queensbury rules.
FWIW, I tend to agree with Komrade Joseph in this instance. What followed Vatican I as regards the papacy was essentially a form of idolatry. You can see this playing out across the spectrum from the cult of papal personality contemporary Catholics to the sedes at Novus Ordo Watch. They all seem to think the papacy is magical and that the man in the office can never be wrong.
It really grinds my gears.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e401c0ffd0da5535c161aad57fad0e65210fa9f014126c0f45665f790f9cdee.png
You’re welcome.
The man in the office is very wrong on an entire array of matters. Yes, the extremes of papal worship at one end and an empty chair at the other end are to be avoided. I truly believe the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ himself established. Unfortunately, the ecclesiastical hierarchy seems to have abandoned Church teachings and the Deposit of Faith. And few of the faithful clergy are speaking out against what is happening.
Hi Stalin – Can you give me your definition of a heretic? This might help – 1John2:19
“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
Maybe this will help you:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Hi Stalin – Are you saying two out of three ain’t bad?
I await, but do not expect, your apology for calumny.
Hi Stalin – Calumny of someone who prefers to be referred to as The Great Stalin? Make the case.
Ok, it’s clear that you will not apologise. Consider yourself blocked.
Hi Stalin – Ok, it’s clear you can’t make the case. It is not surprising you choose the equivalent of sticking your fingers in you ears.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and distressing prophecies about the Church
…
“She said to see, in the future, a Church with two popes, protestantized and unfaithful: “And I saw the relationship between the two popes … I saw what would have been disastrous consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of all kinds were in the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness “(13 May 1820); “I see the Holy Father in great distress. He lives in a different building from the one before and admits there only a limited number of friends close to him … I see that the false church of darkness is making progress, and I see the tremendous influence it has on people “(10 August 1820) ; “Then I saw that everything about Protestantism was gradually taking the upper hand and the Catholic religion was falling into a complete decline. Most of the priests were attracted by alluring doctrines, but false, young teachers, and all of them contributed to the work of destruction. In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved only in a few places, a few houses and a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars “(1820). And again: “I saw that many pastors were generally get involved in ideas that were dangerous for the church. They were building a big church, strange, and extravagant … Everyone had to be admitted in it to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics and seven of every denomination. So it had to be the new church … But God had other plans “(22 April 1823).”
God had other plans, indeed!
Let me play the theme once again that I’ve mentioned frequently here: This pope’s strategy mirrors almost perfectly that of the Democrats in the United States. Objective reality plays little or no role in their thinking. What is important is that THEY and not some other party be in power. The chaos all about them, the Mohammedan terror attacks everywhere for instance, is not part of their narrative; the phony Russian nonsense, though, most certainly is. Fantasy, not reality, is the theme of the day both at the DNC and the Vatican. Depressing.
Progressivism within and without the Church: seeking power, gaining power, wielding power, eternally warring to maintain power.
Who coined the phrase ‘word salad’? That’s all we ever get. Now this bit of Google-translated hearsay is momentarily orthodox, but not for long. There is an immediate contradiction in the hearsay itself. You can’t put lipstick on the pig, because it’s not even as formed as a pig.
Our help is in the name of the Lord Who made heaven and earth.
Our Lady of Quito, pray for us.
Our response to Francis should be the response we give to all tyrannical Popes: YOU. ARE. NO LONGER. THE POPE. You must answer for your heretical teachings which disqualify you as the Successor of Peter. Let’s give that a try. After all, at this point it is merely a formality.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Hi Thomas – The path Francis treads always ends at the same final destination.
That should not be our response, as he is still the pope. We should be calling on the competent authorities (bishops and cardinals) to continue the course begun by the dubia. If we as Catholics refuse him as our pope now, then we are little better than the Protestants and cannot hope to be saved.
For your own good, please remain steadfast in acknowledging Francis as our pope for as long as he remains so. Don’t let him push you into schism and damnation. It’s not worth the price of your soul.
Hi Matt – Jesus warned us of being hypocritical.
He did, yes. Perhaps you could expand on your reply. Are you warning me away from some particular hypocrisy which you would care to name?
Hi Matt – No, it is the hypocrisy I would be exhibiting to conform to your appeal concerning Francis. I just can’t make myself not see what I see. But, that in no way means I don’t respect your way of dealing with Francis.
Gotcha. I see the same reality as you, believe me. I am, of course, not your pastor and neither am I your conscience, but if I may offer something for you to chew on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDMXLcn5zcg&t=2s
Hi Matt – I enjoyed this presentation, but I must point out that it did not lessen my conviction that Francis is a Formal Heretic. It is his unshakeable will to introduce these heretical understandings, the past 50 years can not be discounted when considering the mission that Francis pointedly brings to fruition. Francis knows what he is doing and is well aware that he is leading souls away from the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. We must not presume to waltz to an ancient tune, while the ballroom burns to the ground. Jesus said it best when dealing with another who failed to trust Him – “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Matthew16:23
I’m glad that you enjoyed the presentation. Within my own realm of authority (my family and my classroom, for instance), I too regard some of Pope Francis’s teachings to be a stumbling block to the people to whom I am responsible for teaching the Faith. I do not read these teachings myself, nor do I recommend or teach them to others. Catholics would do well to contest and avoid his problematic teachings and work to mitigate their damage, in the same manner that a son may have to work against his father while at the same time acknowledging his authority. It strikes me that while Our Lord had the authority to speak to our first pope in that way, I wouldn’t presume that I do.
I admit, though, the extreme gravity of these circumstances. Lay people should not be left to our own resources in trying to determine how we are to deal with a pope who teaches error. We are ill-equipped and require strong leadership that we are not being given. In a better world, you and I would not even be having this conversation, obviously. It may provide little consolation, but I believe such an extraordinary and unprecedented state of affairs will probably not last long. Christ will shorten these days for the sake of the little ones, lest we go astray.
Hi Matt – I hope you are right. Yet some day this will come to pass – “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” Best to prepare for that day as well. Let’s hope the Vultures of today aren’t the ones circling the Bride of Christ on that fearsome day
May you and all you love be found righteous in God’s sight on that great and terrible day, brother. God bless.
Hi Matt – That is my prayer as well, Thank You Matt, we fight the good fight.
It’s tough being Catholic these days
With our doctrine immersed in a haze
Our clergy supine,
So few possess spine,
And a Pope who seeks the world’s praise.
Hi Cornelius –
Jesus promised while here below
One way that we would surely know
That His brothers we would be
By comforting His Bride on Her Calvary
When we thank God that this whole crapstorm is over, you should really publish your poems
It’s the Tango from Argentina – one step forward (orthodoxy today), two step back (heretical the next day). It’s just a game with Jorge.
He said that being a Pope is “entertaining to him.” Yes, it is entertaining for him to see how far he can destroy the Church with his stupid heretical homilies, filthy documents and putting evil men in charge of key positions. IT A GAME OF CHESS. So, ofcourse, it’s “entertaining.”
Conservative Catholics will take any crumbs thrown out about PF and then proclaim him to be solidly in line with all Church teaching. These crumbs aren’t even from PF himself, but second hand. The problem is post VII conciliarism has proven rotten to the core and any attempt at window dressing PF or the modern Church as a whole is like putting lipstick on a pig.
About the 8th paragraph it is ordaining married men, not “ordering married men.”
And about the 11th paragraph I think that you mean “I know that HE cannot absolve me… but gives me HIS blessing,” not, “when she confesses she tells the priest ‘I know she can not absolve me, but give me her blessing.”
This chaotic approach of contradicting earlier statements is fully consistent (or inconsistent!) with the whole history of Francis’ “teaching”, if you can call it that. Logical thought, moral coherence and basic sanity seem to be irrelevant.
There was that interview in 2013 where he seemed to minimise the moral gravity of abortion, saying that we do not need to talking about it all the time. After the worldwide uproar this provoked, he rushed to denounce abortion forcefully.
Then there was the address to a conference in 2014 where he declared that the death penalty was morally impermissible and that a life sentence was a kind of death sentence. If you deny the possibility of life imprisonment, the case against the death penalty collapses.
And the time where he remarked that the arms industry was not a fitting place for a Christian to work. Apart from this fatuous statement implicitly denying the right to self defence, he asked why the WW2 allies had failed to bomb the railway going to Auschwitz. How were they supposed to bomb it without warplanes and weapons made by overwhelmingly Christian American and British workers?
“…basic sanity seem to be irrelevant”… totally agree!
“[T]he Pontiff denied that his goal with the synod he called upon the family was to authorize the communion of the divorced” –> “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for”
“What I said was true…from a certain point of view”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1ef2d3d2ab3c35996eb0b0553c791904ef78b6543075cd8bb31f30d452ebc41.jpg
I am also reminded of the final scene in Empire Strikes Back. Luke tries to play Vader’s game better than Vader. He will never win on those terms. And so he lost his arm. And continued his training.
Vader, and the emperor, was defeated when Luke stopped playing by their rules. He came out of their dark rabbit hole and embraced the winning side. They were powerless against that.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e94aaa0edc3af5d4c60d8aeffc3e6b86300351f42db38c93edf3f353ebbed59b.jpg
Hillary White asserts that our Pope is a “Moral Positivist”.
I don’t think that definition, accurate as it may be, does full justice to the gravity of the charge. “Moral positivist”, on its face, sounds like something a Pope should be; an affirmer of morals.
No.
A “Moral Positivist” is one who believes that sense and “reason” alone, no God, are the exclusive source of authority and reality; thus a Leftist, a Darwinian, an Atheist. In the case of the Pope, that would also make him a heretic.
To make a case, IF that is the case, you need an accurate, relatable label.
A “moral positivist” does not believe in the transcendent or theology to explain the natural world. That would make such a person a Leftist Darwinian Atheist by definition.
If this is Pope Francis’s true position, then it must be taught in a clear and very public way, and erroneous interpretations that have sprung up among a number of the bishops must be corrected in an equally clear and public way. Until such time, reports such as this have no validity. The Holy Father’s magisterial authority over the Universal Church is not exercised by comments made to bishops that are in turn reported second-hand to the media.
The bishops to which he purportedly spoke do not have the authority to clarify doctrine for the whole Church in this matter, and thus even if valid their words do not carry the pope’s authority. Even if authentic, we must disregard these comments until they are confirmed and restated by the pope himself in a way that is in keeping with his teaching authority.
“Even if authentic, we must disregard these comments until they are confirmed and restated by the pope himself in a way that is in keeping with his teaching authority.”
Imagine, if that even happens, than still it will be just a once, for that, we must say, important matter. But! There are much more matters in his orations, deeds, etc… So many important matters which are still suspicious, suspect, questionable, fishy, doubtful, shady,…
As someone below said, even his homilies, if you listen or read them carefully are almost always at least ambiguous.
Without a doubt. And for the good of souls each and every error must be corrected. The greatest and most damaging of errors, that of communion for the divorced and remarried, would be the appropriate place to start. You’re not wrong, though. The Holy Father’s teachings on Our Lord, Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, et. al. that appear in his homilies are in themselves sufficient reason to demand clarification and retraction.
We are a long way from Pope John XXII, whose heretical teaching, while perhaps obscure to many Catholics, was nevertheless very serious and undoubtedly in need of correction. At least several of our Holy Father’s teachings (regarding the erroneous theory of universal salvation, for example) would seem to rise to that level. Understandably, though, the four cardinals are focusing on the teaching with the most obvious and immediately present danger to souls, which is communion for the divorced and remarried. There should be more questions asked later, I agree.
And it all started with the promotion of Card. Kasper and his ‘theology on the knees’.
I figure what the promotion of Cardinal Kasper did was to bring theology to its knees.
Ha! Good one! ?! Brilliant!
And the recipe for the last four years is….
4 tablespoons of Erroneous Teaching
3 cups of Conformity to the World
1 teaspoon of Faux Humility
2 ladles full of Quack Psychology
3 kilos of Confusion
2 jugs of Heresy
4 drops of Insult
…and with just a dash of Orthodoxy added.
Et voilà, we have a Pope-pourri, beautifully presented but thoroughly indigestible to any Catholic with eyes to see and ears to hear.
And it is ALSO very Jesuit.
There is a widespread understanding that Jesuit humility is akin to a soldier just DOING WHAT ONE IS TOLD and even to the point of conceding the superior’s reasoning better than one’s own. So once he became the top “General” of the Church, everybody below him must simply abnegate asserting his own reasoning.
No surprise, really, since St Ignatius was a soldier and purposely established a military chain of command for his Order.
But the ecclesiology of the hierarchy can not be reduced to a military model. We have no image that the 11 Apostles and St Paul saw St. Peter’s place among as superior to their own; rather he more like a team captain, ELECTED BY SQUAD for his leadership qualities, and the rest of the team voluntarily go along with him. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE PYRAMIDAL IMAGE. (that was the error of Malachy Martin’s understanding of Church as a whole in his book on the Jesuits; the synod or collegiality is hardly thinkable in this understanding).. It’s OK for the Jesuits, but for St. Philip Neri the model it the DIRECT OPPOSITE. Both kinds of priestly life are good for the Church. But PRIMACY and SYNODALITY FOR THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE IS DEFINITELY NOT the Jesuit model.
I am deeply confused and demoralize. I was born in 1960, and more I rd about V2, new mass, innovations. More I rd about Assisi, exhortation. See Catholic institutions that are not Catholic. How is in Rosary
I have always understood that there is not much love lost between Argentina and Chile. Could it be that the Chilean Bishops are trying to undermine Pope Francis’s clear teaching that anything goes?
I liked your cartoon at the top – reminded me of the saying that “All roads lead to Rome”
One picture is worth more than a thousand words.
So when your pope is reported to say something heretical, it’s… “oh wow, we better get the translators and comment on this ad nauseum and take this very seriously and be scandalized!” But when the pope is reported to say something opposite (orthodox), it’s… “meh, whatever. He MAY or MAY NOT have said it. It doesn’t matter [insert gratuitous incredulity and a highly suspicious attitude toward second hand reports all of a sudden].”
LOL.
But it does matter. Very much so. This is proof that Pope Francis is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. It is also proof that he wants to promote his agenda not by officially changing Catholicism’s teachings but by causing confusion. And I say let him do it, because it actually works in your favor. Let people be confused as to what the hell he’s talking about. That way, although he creates confusion, by his contradictory remarks he in fact is saying nothing at all — which you guys should consider a blessing with this loud mouth. It will be the perfect set up for a disgruntled curia to push forward a very conservative candidate for the next conclave. It will also be a perfect excuse when a future pope clarifies this matter (“we don’t know what our previous predecessor thought because he said contradictory things, but this is what the Church really teaches…).
So yeah, this is very important. You should emphasize this story. Unfortunately, you trads are still stuck with trying to stick it up to the neo-Catholics and papal positivists, hoping that with every scandalous story you’ll eventually make them see the light. It’s the wrong fight. I say give up on that, and concentrate on pushing the narrative that Pope Francis says contradictory things and so we don’t know what the hell to believe about the crazy guy.
Well I personally do not believe Bergoglio made the above statements. He has never spoken out so forcefully against abortion and everything he’s been doing thus far, is undermining holy mother church. By the way, has anyone read about Bishop Felley with the SSPX and Bergoglio..?? I’ve read that Pope Francis is getting ready to accept the SSPX and it would be under the same umbrella as the FSSP…? I have a funny feeling about this and maybe it isn’t true
This may be de Lubacian principle of paradox/self-contradiction. Everything is always in movement, never stable, and therefore changing. Something can be two contradictory things at the same time.
Read up: http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partii-byartsentirelynew