Francis:
the Great Divider
in the
“Post-Catholic-Conciliar-church”
The
Two Faces of Jorge Bergoglio
Will the Pride and Arrogance of “Francis” dare even
defy God Himself?
Much depends upon
which side of a Radically Liberal Agenda you stand.
Francis is a man
of inversions.
If you stand on
the right side of him, you are well-treated and heard; if you stand
on the wrong side of him (as, say, Cardinal Burke) you are dispatched
to obscurity. But the “right” side of Francis is on the
Left, and the wrong side of Francis is on the Right. For
all his putative benignity, Francis can be ruthless. It is a side
of Francis that receives little attention from the media. He autocratically
tolerates no disagreement and is quick to punish or exile. He is
not “the man-made-by-the-media.” In an irreconcilable juxtaposition,
he is ostentatiously humble, trumpeting the humility he tries to
equate with himself while failing to exercise that “humility and
gentleness” among his own courtiers. That “an atmosphere of fear”
pervades the halls of the Vatican is no surprise. His disdain for,
and antagonism toward, traditional Catholics and the those who adhere
to the Tridentine Mass is well known. But there is no such disdain
for openly dissident Catholics such as Kasper and Danneels, both
cardinals, who enjoy his favor and to whom he is keen to listen.
Indeed, they are part of the inner circle of his closest advisors.
Unlike his immediate predecessor, Francis is openly antagonistic
and condescending toward those who do not align themselves with
his unquestionably revolutionary — many would say destructive
— liberal agenda that would “decentralize” the 2000-year-old teaching
authority of Rome, leaving all matters ecclesiological in the hands
of broadly dispersed local “Synods” (a 1965 creation of Vatican
II that has gained enormous traction under the pontificate of Francis).
“Episcopal Conferences” (another creation of Vatican II in 1966),
local Ordinaries (bishops), and even in parishes themselves, are
free to articulate the Faith as a “praxis” unique to each local
parish’s “creative” expression” — which may differ entirely
from a neighboring parish’s creative impulse and expression of the
Faith. The two needn’t be uniform in either teaching or “praxis”.
If there is contradiction in the teaching of each — and, eo ipso
no unity among them — then that is the most genuine
expression of the Church for those particular parishioners, priests,
and “parish councils” (yet another 1965 creation emerging from Vatican
II that deprived the pastor of his authority in the parish in an
effort to invest authority in lay parish council. While ostensibly
an “advisory” group — often comprised of disaffected Catholics —
it often works to undermine the pastoral authority of the
priest. Here you find the feminists, the liberal Catholics, the
“progressives;” the people who really run the Church). That contradiction
exists and flies in the face of reason and logic (specifically the
Principle of Non-Contradiction) is beside the point. After all,
according to Francis, we must be open to “God surprising us.”
Let us put it bluntly: Francis is not a particularly bright man.
This
is not to say that being intelligent, coherent, and articulate is
indispensable to being holy — but it certainly helps in every other
aspect, especially as it pertains to the Vicar of Jesus Christ on
Earth.
Understanding what Francis is saying concerning extremely important
issues should not be an exercise in verbal Sudoku, an effort to
make sense of what he is attempting to say — presuming that
he himself “knows” rather than solipsistically intuits what he is
saying, leaving the rest of us to guess.
He is a man of tremendous ambiguity despite his vaunted simplicity.
There is a distinct lack of clarity often couched in awkward phrases
— often neologisms — doubtlessly written for him by others,
and the tone, the phraseology, is one often encountered in the lexicon
of distinctly liberal circles and among “New Age” thinkers.
What are we to make of such statements?
“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if
we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little
by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need
that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But
I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: We will
meet one another there.”
Question:
Where is “there” for the atheist?
It is a fair, indeed, a necessary question for atheist and believer
alike. And how is it different for the atheist from a presumable
“here?” Will the atheist no longer be an atheist in that nebulous
“there”? Will the Pope no longer be a Catholic when he reaches “there”?
If “there” is “in the doing of good”, what is the outcome that he
suggests will result — that we will find that “we are both doing
good and that is good — and it really does not matter if we believe
in Christ or not … as long as we are doing good? As long as we are
being nice to each other we both will find that Christ is really
beside the point and quite unnecessary. We can trade places and
our ultimate destiny will be unaffected … as long as we “meet each
other there”. In Whom we believe or do not believe is really unimportant
(despite what that Person in Whom we believe or do not believe has
said concerning belief in Him in very clear and unequivocal terms.)
On the other hand, however insipid and incoherent the statement,
it is the logical and inevitable result of an emerging policy in
Francis’s papacy that discourages, even forbids, any attempt by
a Catholic to convert another to Christ (and through Christ to come
to salvation, and ultimately to Heaven (the best possible will we
can have toward another: their ultimate, ontological, and eternal
good — for which we were created in the first place — at least according
to authentic Catholic doctrine).
Ostentatious Humility?
Francis is an accomplished showman. His repudiation of the emblems
of his office, his refusal to live where his predecessors lived,
to deliberately be chauffeured in sub-compacts, to make his own
meals — ostensibly to reveal his simplicity — appears not so much
an example to the faithful for their own edification — as
it does a reproach to his predecessors who chose to accept
the historical tradition accorded their ecclesiastical office. Every
pontiff, after all, surely understands that the office of
the papacy is not about “them.” They occupy an exalted “office”
— but they themselves are not “exalted” simply because they occupy
it — as many did before them and as many will do to come. Yes?
The cynic, then, may say that it is a carefully and publicly orchestrated
slap in the face to his predecessors — which hardly accords with
humility. In fact, the press, and the media, are invited to
witness and broadly publicize this exaggerated “humility.” There
is something troubling in this ostentation of “humility”
which immediately invokes Jesus’ parable in Matthew 6.5:
“Do not be like the hypocrites, for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners
to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their
reward in full.”
If that is not confusing enough, let us look at another bewildering
statement by Francis, invoking one of his “blessed” predecessors:
“Blessed Paul VI expressed this eloquently: “We can imagine, then,
that each of our sins, our attempts to turn our back on God,
kindles in him a more intense flame of love, a desire
to bring us back to himself and to his saving plan …”
In light of what precisely that “plan” is, and “Who” is putatively
involved as quite necessary to it, Francis is not clear, given his
rapprochement with the straw atheist. This is a decidedly queer
notion with no clear Scriptural or theological credentials, for
we had been taught (note the past tense) that sin is an offense
to God, an evil so great that it required the very Son of God to
die in expiation for it. Following this logic, then, if I wish to
be more loved by God then I should sin more often
… and the graver the sin, the more intense God’s love, yes?
But that ability to confuse, to render indistinct, is precisely
the sine qua non of the agenda of those who boasted of
putting Francis in office (Cardinal Danneels of the infamous
“Vatican Mafia” who openly declared that Francis was “their man”,
that is to say, the candidate favored by the notorious “Sankt Gallen
Mafia” who regularly met for years to undermine Pope Benedict’s
election, and ultimately his papacy, in order to replace him with
“their man”. And who was “their man”? Bergoglio!
Surprise! And now, as Francis,
the devolution of the Church has been inaugurated. He is merely
“the Bishop of Rome” as he fondly refers to himself, and concomitantly
diminishes and undermines the universal authority of the
papacy itself). This is to say nothing of:
·
Danneels cover-up of the pedophile
Bishop
of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, despite the insistence of the bishop’s
own nephew who was sexually victimized by him for 14 years and demanded
that Danneels bring it to the attention of the pope — which he refused
to do.
·
This same Cardinal Danneels
also vigorously attempted to convince King Baudouin of Belgium
to legislate an abortion bill despite the king’s moral reluctance
as a matter of conscience (The king stepped down for 36 hours rather
than associate his name with the bill that was subsequently passed)
·
His approval of and his lobbying for same-sex “unions” which he considered,
in his own words, and as a Catholic Cardinal, “a positive development”.
·
This same Cardinal Danneels
was
the
number two appointee to the Synod on the Family!
(of all things) — despite being disgraced … and did we mention that
he is retired? Why was he given this position of such prominence?
It is simple: Quid pro quo: something for something. In other
words, Francis’s personal invitation and appointment
of Danneels was a blatant “thank you!” for Danneels’ part
in having engineered his ascent to the Throne of Peter (the Holy
Ghost, of course, is parenthetical to all this). Did we mention
that the extremely liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany —
also a member of the same “St. Gallen Club” — was number
one on the list? Quid pro quo x 2.
Let us put this into a clearer perspective that,
unfortunately, requires less imagination. Let us assume that a presidential
nominee is elected to office. It is later found that a powerful
coterie of conspirators had done everything legal and illegal to
place him in office to further their own interests (which may in
fact coincide with the president’s). One of the conspirators is
found to be deeply involved in criminal activity of the most loathsome
sort and the media, seizing upon it, expose him to public outrage.
However, the statute of limitations required by law expires before
he can be convicted. He then goes on to publicly boast of how instrumental
he was in getting the current president elected, and had, in fact,
engineered it. Soon after the president assumes office, he assembles
a group of advisors. The number one appointee is someone openly
disaffected with the Constitution of the United States and makes
every effort to undermine it. We are astounded. But that was just
the jab. The real blow comes when the number two appointee is the
very man who had engaged in unscrupulous and criminal activity —
and who had publicly boasted to the news outlets that he was the
kingpin in getting the president elected. He is not simply a personal,
but a public disgrace!
Would a politician really make so blatant, so egregious, so open
a payback as to place this man in his inner circle of advisors —
and as the second in the position of influencing the president?
Would not the president, rather, distance himself from that figure
at all costs as a liability to his own credibility? Of course, he
would! Obama even distanced himself from his “friend” and “pastor”
the “reverend” Jeremiah Wright after preaching “God damn America”
… three times in one homily … among many other incendiary remarks?
It was political poison to the president.
But it is not a theological and moral outrage that Francis appoints
Danneels and Kasper to his own inner circle? It is not just theology
and morality — it is stupidity … or worse yet, utter arrogance:
“If I can get away with this, I can get away with anything.” And
he has. And, to the detriment of the Church, likely will continue
to.
Very Proud
of His
Humility ... an Oxymoron
Of course, this assessment goes against
the prevailing narrative of a man “renowned for his humility” in
the secular press. Indeed, he completely agrees with and personally
endorses this narrative. In discussing the dismal results of Vatican
II, we find the following:
“He said the Second Vatican Council,
the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world,
had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers,
but that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
[But, he continued,] “I have the humility and
ambition to do so,”
he said.” 1
What does this say of his predecessors?
What does this say of Francis? That all of them lacked the requisite
personal attributes (humility and ambition) to fulfill the
revolutionary vision of Vatican II — while Francis unflinchingly
asserts that he possesses what they lacked
— and flatly tells us so. Because he possesses the … unique
… combination of (self-acclaimed) humility and ambition lacking
in his predecessors, he can achieve what they had failed
to. Even the most casual Catholic recognizes an inherent conflict
in this perplexing and troubling statement. Self-ascribed
humility strikes us the wrong way — think of Christ’s parable
of the Pharisee and the Publican praying before God), especially
when it is coupled with ambition. Are self-acclaimed humility
and ambition really exemplary or even complementary virtues
in any remotely Catholic discourse? The hubris that is more than
implicit in this remarkable statement is given clearer, bolder relief
in the following story we find quite revealing and not a little
unsettling:
Bankrupt Benevolence: “I am the pope! I do not need to give reasons!”
This is what Pope Francis unceremoniously told Cardinal Müller
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — who
dared to disagree with Francis on issues within
Amoris Laetitia — when Francis effectively fired him. Technically
what he stated is true. It is true of any corporation or business:
one can be called in at the end of the day of twenty years of faithful
service and be summarily dismissed “for
no reason” — but is rarely exercised because of the odor of autocracy
that surrounds it together with the blatant exercise of pitiless
power uncommon even in business and industry. Certainly, we found
no such crude exercise of power within other pontificates of recent
memory. Human dignity demands reasons for such curt dismissals
— and so do human beings. It is callous and stinks of supercilious
authority, prepotency, and crude superiority. In other words, earmarks
that have characterized the authoritarian papacy of Francis. It
is no more than a slap-down: “I am the Pope ... dammit! ... just
do as your told, man!”
So much for the much-vaunted mercy, tolerance, gentility, and goodwill
of this deeply confused and even more confusing pope.
According to
Lifesite News, “In an interview with the German newspaper
Passauer Neue Presse, Cardinal Müller revealed details of
the meeting in which he learned of the Pope’s refusal to renew his
5-year mandate as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith (CDF):
“Pope Francis,” Cardinal Müller said, “communicated his
decision” not to renew his term — “within one minute”
on the last workday of his five-year term... and did
not give any reasons for it.
The same Cardinal Müller found his
own peremptory dismissal reminiscent of Pope Francis’s summary and
inexplicable dismissal of three extremely worthy priests from his
office at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith; priests
that Cardinal Müller found indispensable
just before Christmas last year.
On that occasion, Cardinal Müller
politely inquired about their abrupt dismissal as follows:
“Your Holiness, I have received these letters (demanding their
dismissal), but I did not do anything because
these persons are among the best of my dicastery… what did they
do?”
Hyper-Hypocrisy
This is the
same author of Laudato Si who literally pontificated about
“the immense dignity of each person, who is not just something,
but someone.”
(65) and
that “In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures
... have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The
German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned,
“we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful”
(69)Why do we even bring this up? Is it character assassination?
Malice? No. It is simply relevant. Let us be clear. We wish
Pope Francis every good and no evil. This is the correct understanding
of loving anyone. We love Pope Francis as Christ commands us to
love everyone ... even our enemies.
Is this assessment lacking in charity? I think not. Saint Paul
rebuked Saint Peter himself “when [he] saw that they walked not
uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel” but that Peter, “fearing
them who were of the circumcision” had acquiesced to what may be
considered the first attempt at “ecumenism” (Gal 2.11-14). Did Saint
Paul not love Saint Peter? And because he loved him —
and because he loved Christ more — he reproached him.
Rarely, in the history of the Church, has a Catholic had to choose
with whom to side: Christ or the pope? To side with the pope
was to side with Christ! This is no longer so clear, and it
is puzzling to many faithful Catholics when Francis advocates that
which Christ opposes, or opposes that which Christ mandates. How
is a Catholic to accept two contrary counsels ... even commands?
·
Christ:
“Going
therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (St. Matthew
28.19)
·
Francis:
“Proselytism is solemn nonsense.”
How do we reconcile such completely contradictory exhortations?
Have we come to such a state of affairs that Catholics are confronted
with choosing between what our Blessed Lord commanded and what
Pope Francis disdains as nonsense? This is not simply scandalous
... it verges on — and is a broad and deep current toward — nothing
less than heresy: the rejection of what Christ Himself unquestionably
taught. There is no other plausible explanation for this contradiction.
Such contrariety cannot co-exist in the Church. It is a violent
breach of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and doctrine. The heresy
of Indifferentism 2 was not repealed by
the Second Vatican Council, nor can it ever be, for Christ simply
and forcefully stated:
“I
am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father,
but by me.” (St. John 14.6)
“Who are we to Judge?”
Is Francis dismantling the Barque
of Peter — plank by plank
— or simply following the prevailing winds and steering it into
the rocks? Cardinal Burke aptly used the analogy of a ship without
a rudder in reference to Pope Francis’s apparent lack of reference.
Look at the confusion about you and tell us. If the ship is heading
toward Lesbos driven by a furious and feckless wind, what are we
to do? Reproach the pilot to avert disaster? But to reproach
— however pressing — is to judge, and in in Francis's own words,
who are we to do so...?
Amoris Laetitia
— the First Apostolic Exhortation to Sin!
And this ... this is to utter nothing of the horrific scandal
and heresy inherent in Francis’s troubled Amoris Laetitia,
an Apostolic Exhortation — to sin! Perhaps the first ever:
against Christ's own teaching on the indissolubility of marriage,
the sin of adultery, His unequivocal injunction against divorce,
and Saint Paul’s stern admonition against receiving Holy Communion
unworthily (1 Corinthians 11.27) — the very Body and Blood
of Christ — while in a state of mortal sin (adultery)!
And Francis presumes to abrogate what Christ Himself
established?
Two days ago (August 2, 2018) Francis had the audacity to change
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, abolishing the more than
2000 year old Church Teaching that the State has the right to impose
the death penalty on individuals for certain heinous crimes
(even Luther and Calvin agreed with this as do Muslims and many
Atheists). The point to consider, however, is the precedent
Francis is establishing in no longer preserving and protecting
2000 years of Church teaching — which is his primary duty as the
Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth — but in fact abolishing it!
This is to say nothing of the egregious implication that
what the Church has taught from the beginning has been corrupt,
and up until now (that is to say, up until Francis) immoral!
He is the first to have done so.
Does Francis’s defection from Church teaching constitute
formal heresy? We cannot answer that, although the odor is distinct.
That is the competency of the College of Cardinals which, up until
now, has been habitually and remarkably silent and
— dare we say — pusillanimous. Courage and careerism seldom coincide
— as we have repeatedly witnessed in today’s ... “delicate”
... Episcopacy. As G.K. Chesterton appositely noted, “Only live
fish swim against the current.”
An Extremely Important Question
This much is at stake: we must ask,
perforce, how many more “corrections, “deletions”, and “amendments”
to Catholic Teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
and in violation of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith ... are now
open — by Francis’s precedent?
Did not someone speak of the reek of sulfur in the Vatican? How
prescient!
Archbishop Tomash Peta who sat on the Synod that produced this
document observed that: “Blessed Paul VI in 1972: [stated that]
‘From some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of
God.’ I am convinced that these were prophetical words...”(https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bishop-vatican-synod-one-can-still-perceive-smell-smoke-satan-synod-document)
So are we.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
_______________________________________
1
https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/10/pope_francis_urges_reform_want.html
2
“Indifferentism” is the belief that
it does not matter what religion a man professes; he can attain
to salvation by any religion. The Church has roundly condemned this
notion as a heresy in very strong language, holding it to be a denial
of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no
salvation). Here, we feature a brief passage from Mirari
Vos, by the last great monk-pope, Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832).
All emphasis (bold and italics), are ours; paragraph numbers, and
reference numbers appear as in the original:
“13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils
with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This
perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked
who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of
the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as
morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive
this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With
the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith,
one baptism” [16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the
safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.
They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those
who are not with Christ are against Him,” [17] and that they
disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without
a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic
faith whole and inviolate.” [18] Let them hear Jerome who, while
the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever
someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed:
“He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters
himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the
waters of regeneration. Indeed, Augustine would reply to such a
man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from
the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not
live from the root?” [20]
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd
and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience
must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and
civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest
impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But
the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine
was wont to say. [21] When all restraints are removed by which men
are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already
inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless
pit” [22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured
the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth.
Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt
of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more
deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from
earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory
perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom
of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.”
— Pope Gregory XVI,
Mirari Vos
https://catholicism.org/indifferentism-is-a-condemned-heresy-gregory-xvis-mirari-vos.html
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
