Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Bergoglio the lethal pacifist.

Maureen Mullarkey May 29, 2017
In Jorge Bergoglio’s lexicon, the words love and peace are vacant of meaning. Love dwindles down to nice feelings; peace shrinks to an ostrich-like refusal to acknowledge encroaching peril. On the flight back to Rome from Fatima, our shepherd delivered this reversal of reality to the court press:

 An atheist said to me: “I am an atheist”; he didn’t say what nationality he was or where he came from.  He spoke in English, so I couldn’t tell and I didn’t ask him.  “I ask you a favour: tell Christians that they must love Muslims more”.  That is a message of peace. 

When he speaks of peace, the pope is directing himself to the West. He is pacifying any lingering impulse—among Europeans especially—to defend themselves, their children, and their civilization against an enemy rising. The enemy is ancient; the papal memory, short. His invocations of peace are little more than the mewlings of an unsuspecting sacrificial goat.




Pope Francis is keen to exhibit solicitude for Muslims en bloc. Does that unhealthy habit qualify him for comparison to women who make marriage proposals to serial killers in prison?


What better way to describe Bergoglio’s dogged refusal to grapple with the Islamic worldview and Islam’s theological imperative to violence? Elimination of the hated kafir is a binding requisite of the faith; terror is its sacrament. The Bergoglian mind, a cocoon of self-congratulation, claims for itself the gnosis required to tame Islam and achieve universal brotherhood.



Bergoglio’s pontificate has taught us that he sees farther and deeper than you and I. And how greatly he feels! For his trip to Egypt, our Pope of Hearts adopted the moniker “Pope of Peace.” By addressing Laudato Sí to every person on earth, Francis insinuated himself as Pope of the Entire Planet. He is the agent of Mercy, an open spigot of empathy with the enemies of his own faith and the civilization that houses it.
Francis has a taste for lethal leftists and a lunatic faith in his personal capacity to piece a fractured world back together again. By his accounting, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men should take lessons from him. His pontificate is a gateway to Eden.


•     •     •     •

But Eden is only for some. Outside the gate are Catholics with faces like “pickled peppers,” and ones who not share his politics or preen in front of the same mirror. These are the small-hearted “museum mummies,” “slaves of superficiality,” “self-absorbed neo-Pelagians,” “Creed-reciting parrot Christians,” or, most recently, “ideologues of doctrine.”
Yet while he derides traditional—i.e. doctrinally and liturgically conservative—Catholics on one hand, he throws them a bone with the other. It is primarily these traditionalists (“Christians with all the paperwork, all the certificates in order”) who maintain devotion to Fatima. For all his dislike of them, Papa Francis has just pitched some heavy paperwork at these “rosary counters.”

He certified the two Fatima tykes, Jacinta and Francisco Marto, as saints. And he did so on the high ground of heroic virtue, a quality these children never lived long enough to exhibit.
Slaughter of St. Margaret (Spain, 12th C.).



The youngest non-martyrs ever to be canonized in all of Church history, they died quietly in their beds of Spanish flu. Francisco, just short of his eleventh birthday, and Jacinta, ten, were simply two among tens of millions killed by the 1918 pandemic. (Better the Lady in white had sung these little ones a lullaby instead of showing ghastly images of hell.)


Who Loves Christians?
Within a week of Francis’ visit to Fatima, Our Lady of Fatima Church in the archdiocese of Hyderabad, consecrated on May 13, was vandalized by a mob of one hundred. Its crucifix was destroyed and statues smashed. Sajan Geery, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians stated:
The growing hostility to the Christian faith and the intolerance towards the Christian faithful is an alarm signal.


It is a signal that Jorge Bergoglio gives little evidence of heeding. Were the destroyers Muslim or Hindu? [The majority of Hydrabadis are Hindu; Muslims comprise the largest minority.] AsiaNews does not say. But what the desecration does tell us is that a pope would serve his office more credibly by enjoining adherents of non-biblical religions to love Christians more.

The roots of Bergoglio's neo-Pantheism Marxism in Argentina.

Bergoglio while in Argentina promoted the religious syncretism of Catholicism with paganism as we can see in the example of the ❛cura villero❜ (‘shanty priests’, ‘misery villages’, the ‘poor church’) who currently promote the pagan cult of ❛Gauchito Gil❜  which mixes paganism with Catholicism. Fr. Jose ‘Pepe’ di Paola one of his ❛cura villero❜, who is a disciple of Bergoglio and he promotes the Pagan cult to ❛Gauchito Gil❜ supported by Bergoglio. This is Bergoglio example of ‘shepherds living with the smell of sheep.’



“When I told Bergoglio about the devotion to Gauchito Gil, he told me: go ahead,” confesses father di Paola , who assures that “the one who prays in front of the Gaucho's image is a Catholic”.




Sandro Magister: (Bergoglio) as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. 









‘Pepe’ di Paola: I said (to Bergoglio): “Boss - because I always call him like that - you can see that the Holy Spirit is assisting you in a special way because you managed to communicate with the whole world through gestures”.

That is why we see Bergoglio giving the blessing’ to the coca leaves of the pagan Indians of the Tupac Amaru which is then used for pagan ceremonies to the pachamama. This is why he  supports homosexualist / Abortionist / subversive Marxist Milagro Sala, who practices the pagan cult of shamanism and indigenous paganism. 

Francis un-authorizes the Virgin Mary in Fatima. ~ A Coffee With Galat




The Church always considered Christ’s sacrifice united to that of His Mother; but for Francis, She said interiorly: ‘I was deceived’!!!

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Pope Innocent X specifically condemned the “Error of the Dual Head of the Church.”


Pope Innocent XThe most holy … has decreed and declared heretical this proposition … “there are two Catholic heads and supreme leaders of the Catholic Church, joined in highest unity between themselves”; or, “the head of the Catholic Church consists of two who are most divinely united into one”; or, “there are two supreme pastors and guardians of the Church, who form one head only.” (cf Denzinger 1091)




“The ‘always’ is also a for ever – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”


-Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger 27 February, 2013






Benedict XVI: “declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae ... commisso renuntiare” 

Vittorio Messori: “That is to say, we discover, that Benedict XVI did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, nor the office, or the duties, i.e. which Christ Himself attributed to the Head of the Apostles and which has been passed on to his successors. The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office.





Socci: Benedict XVI “did not intend to renounce the pontifical munus” which “is irrevocable”


Archbishop Gänswein, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.” 
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.” 

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is ‘Your Holiness’.

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” 

Father Paul Kramer:
As the eminent canonist Stefano Violi says, Benedict XVI did not resign the papal office, but only its administration. Since the Petrine office is indivisible (as Domenico Gravina OP explained ca. 1610), a partial act of renunciation is null and void due to defect of intention, and therefore does not suffice to vacate the Chair of Peter. 

Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea :
Gloss., ap. Anselm: This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them. But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken.








2015-03-13 You also told us that will follow the example of Pope Benedict ... This changes a bit 'the idea of the papacy, because we used that the pope was an institution created by the Holy Spirit and to the death.
Bergoglio:- “There were some cardinals who prior to the conclave, in the general congregations, probed the very interesting, very rich theological problem. I think that what Pope Benedict did has been to open a door. 60 years ago there were no emeritus bishops. And now we have 1400. They came to the idea that a man after 75, or close to that age, cannot carry the weight of a particular church. In general I think what Benedict so courageously did was to open the door to the Popes emeritus. Benedict should not be considered an exception, but an institution. Maybe he will be the only one for a long time, maybe he will not be the only one. But an institutional door has been opened. Today the Pope Emeritus is no longer a rarity since a door for him to exist as a figure has been opened”. 
Can you imagine a situation where a Pope retires at 80 as is the case with bishops?
Bergoglio- “I can. However, I do not really like the idea of an age limit. Because I believe that the Papacy is a kind of last instance. It is a special grace. For some theologians the Papacy is a sacrament. The Germans are very creative in all these things. I do not think so, but I want to say that it is something special. To say that one is in charge up to 80 years, creates a sensation that the pontificate is at it’s end and that would not be a good thing. Predictability. I would not support the idea of putting an age limit on it, but I share the idea of what Benedict did. 


Bergoglio:  “Benedict resigned with courage and prayer, and with Science and Theology. He opened this door. But there is only one Pope, the other one is a Pope Emeritus. Perhaps in the future there will be two or three, but they are Emeritus.” 2016-06-27



Bergoglio: “A shepherd must be ready to step down completely from his church, rather than leave in a partial manner” May 30,2017











Monday, May 29, 2017

Communist and Modernist Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, is carrying out Francis’s agenda

De George Neumayr | The American Spectator




Understanding the adage that personnel is policy, Pope Francis has been planting Marxists throughout the Church, including at the top of the troubled religious order to which he belongs. In 2016, the Jesuits, with the blessing of Pope Francis, installed as its general superior a Venezuelan, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, whose communist convictions have long been known.




Sosa has written about the “Marxist mediation of the Christian Faith,” arguing that the Church should “understand the existence of Christians who simultaneously call themselves Marxists and commit themselves to the transformation of the capitalist society into a socialist society.” In 1989, he signed a letter praising Fidel Castro.

Turn down any corridor in Francis’s Vatican, and you are likely to run into a de facto communist: Francis has a communist running his order, a communist running his Council of Cardinals (the Honduran cardinal, Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga), a communist running the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (Margaret Archer, a British sociologist who has said that she represents the “Marxian left”), and communists such as the renegade Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff and the Canadian socialist Naomi Klein drafting his encyclicals.

It is no coincidence that the only U.S. presidential candidate who made a visit to the Vatican during the campaign was a socialist who had honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Bernie Sanders turned up at the Vatican in April 2016, having received an invitation from Pope Francis’s close Argentine friend, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.




“We invited the candidate who cites the pope most in the campaign, and that is Senator Bernie Sanders,” explained Sorondo, who added that Sanders’s agenda is “very analogous to that of the pope.”

In this smug leftist atmosphere in Rome, Sosa’s elevation to the head of the Jesuits was inevitable. In the past, the Jesuits had been called the pope’s marines. Under Sosa, they are more like the pope’s Marxists, peddling his climate-change propaganda as a pretext for global socialism.




But Sosa’s ambitions, like Pope Francis’s, go well beyond meddling in economies. He is also pushing a moral revolution in the Church, evident in his astonishing claim that, since none of the Apostles tape-recorded Jesus Christ, his words on adultery can be elastically re-interpreted.

“You need to start by reflecting on what exactly Jesus said,” Sosa told an Italian interviewer in February. “At that time, no one had a tape recorder to capture the words. What we know is that the words of Jesus have to be contextualized, they’re expressed in a certain language, in a precise environment, and they’re addressed to someone specific.”

In other words, Sosa is confident that he understands Jesus’s meaning better than the Gospel writers. Like Francis, Sosa can’t resist the mumbo-jumbo of Modernist biblical scholarship, which always manages to dovetail conveniently with liberal views.

The Council of Trent explicitly condemned the claim that the Gospel writers were just making stuff up when recounting the words of Jesus Christ. But Sosa has no problem trafficking in that heresy.




“Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say,” he said.

The presumption here is extraordinary but typical of a Francis acolyte. The new orthodoxy is heterodoxy, and Sosa is wallowing in it. He is given to little sermonettes on relativism, such as this whopper:


The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Were St. Ignatius of Loyola alive today, the order he founded wouldn’t ordain him, and he would have wondered how a de facto Protestant ended up on the chair of St. Peter. Nor would St. Ignatius have believed the sheer sophistry that now passes for theological “sophistication” in his order.

Fr. Antonio Spadaro, another Jesuit close to Pope Francis, tweeted out earlier this year this profundity: “Theology is not #Mathematics. 2 + 2 in #Theology can make 5. Because it has to do with #God and real #life of #people.”

Gobsmacked by the relentless leftism of Francis and his aides, Al Gore asked in 2015, “Is the pope Catholic?” The question is no longer a joke.

George Neumayr is the author of The Political Pope

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Bergoglio supports homosexualist / Abortionist / subversive Marxist Milagro Sala.



On Wednesday, Francis sent a handwritten letter of support to the Argentinean left-wing activist Milagro Sala, the imprisoned leader of the association Tupac Amaru which receives monthly 1,9 Million Dollars from the Argentinean government for different social projects. Among others, Tupac Amaru provides for contraception and free abortions and promotes homosexualism and gender ideology.







In January 2016 Sala was arrested on charges of fraud and criminal conspiracy. She allegedly embezzlement over 1,8 Million U.S. Dollar intended to help the poor. Shortly after her arrest Francis sent her a rosary. Sala considers the Communist Che Guevara or Socialist Bolivian President Evo Morales as her political models. She is criticised for her lust of power, autocratic behaviour, and violent temper. 



Sala calls herself a "Catholic in my way" and believes in indigenous paganism and shamans.







In June 2014 she met Francis in the Vatican and presented him with coca leaves, which are internationally prohibited.








Thursday, May 25, 2017

Pope Pius XII condemned the “moral situation” of Amoris Laetitia.



“Taking, therefore, the words of Christ and of the Apostle [Paul] as the strict rule, should not one say that the Church of today is rather inclined more to coddling than to severity? It so happens that the accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church by the ‘new morality,’ in reality, attacks, in the first place, the adorable Person of Christ Himself.”



RORATE CÆLI: Despite Pius XII being the reigning pope when the young Jorge Mario Bergoglio entered the Jesuit seminary as a novice, Pius' condemnations of this "new morality" seem to have had little effect on him. Besides his daily homilies that frequently criticize "rigid" faithful Catholics, Francis even told his fellow Jesuits he thought charges of "situation morality" are "boogey man" accusations, while endorsing Bernard Häring, a pro-contraception dissenting theologian 


Situation ethics can be defined as an individualistic and subjective appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in opposition to the natural law or God's revealed will. The magisterial interventions of Pius XII on situation ethics are remarkable, precisely for their prescience in anticipating and directly refuting Francis' key arguments for his own "new morality" in Amoris Laetitia and elsewhere. 

Below you may find excerpts followed by the full text of five Magisterial documents from the papacy of Pope Ven. Pius XII which strongly, clearly, and solemnly condemn the heresy of situation ethics.
Bergoglio's heresy of situation ethics. Argentina.

Contra doctrinam



Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
Instruction on ‘Situation Ethics’
To All Ordinaries and to Teachers in Seminaries, in Athenaeums, or those Teaching in Universities of Studies, and to Lecturers in Houses of Religious Studies
February 2, 1956


Contrary to the moral doctrine and its application that is traditional in the Catholic Church, there has begun to be spread abroad in many regions, even among Catholics, an ethical system that generally goes by the name of a certain "Situation Ethics," and which, they claim, does not rest upon the principles of objective ethics (which ultimately is rooted in “Being” itself), rather, it is not merely subject to the same limit as objective ethics, but transcends it.
The authors who follow this system hold that the decisive and ultimate norm of conduct is not the objective right order, determined by the law of nature and known with certainty from that law, but a certain intimate judgment and light of the mind of each individual, by means of which, in the concrete situation in which he is placed, he learns what he ought to do.
And so, according to them, this ultimate decision a man makes is not, as the objective ethics handed down by authors of great weight teaches, the application of the objective law to a particular case, which at the same time takes into account and weighs according to the rules of prudence the particular circumstances of the "situation", but that immediate, internal light and judgment. Ultimately, at least in many matters, this judgment is not measured, must not and cannot be measured, as regards its objective rectitude and truth, by any objective norm situated outside man and independent of his subjective persuasion but is entirely self-sufficient.
According to these authors, the traditional concept of "human nature" does not suffice; but recourse must be had to the concept of "existent" human nature, which in many respects does not have absolute objective value, but only a relative and, therefore, changeable value, except, perhaps, for those few factors and principles that pertain to metaphysical (absolute and unchangeable) human nature.
Of the same merely relative value is the traditional concept of the "law of nature". Thus, many things that are commonly considered today as absolute postulates of the natural law, according to their opinion and doctrine, rest upon the aforesaid concept of existent nature and are, therefore, but relative and changeable; they can always be adapted to every situation.
Having accepted these principles and put them into practice, they assert and teach that men are preserved or easily liberated from many otherwise insoluble ethical conflicts when each one judges in his own conscience, not primarily according to objective laws, but by means of that internal, individual light based on personal intuition, what he must do in a concrete situation.
Many of the things set forth in this system of "situation ethics" contradict the truth of the matter and the dictates of sound reason, betray traces of relativism and modernism, and wander far from the Catholic doctrine handed down through the centuries. In many of their assertions they are akin to several non-Catholic ethical systems.

Having considered these things, in order to avert the danger of the “New Morality,” of which the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XII spoke in the Allocutions held on the days of March 23 and April 18, 1952, and in order to safeguard the purity and intactness of Catholic doctrine, this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office interdicts and prohibits this doctrine of "Situation Ethics” from being taught or approved, under any name whatsoever it may be designated, whether in Universities, Athenaeums, Seminaries or houses of religious formation, or in books, dissertations, lectures, whether, as they say, at conferences, or by any other means of being propagated or defended.

Given at Rome, from the Palace of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, on the day of February 2, of the year 1956.


Giuseppe Cardinal PIZZARDO, Bishop of Albano, Secretary



- Read more at: Rorate Caeli  ‎

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Abortion, homosexuality show ‘final battle’ between God and Satan has come: Cardinal







ROME, May 19, 2017, (LifeSiteNews) -- The prophecy of the Fatima visionary Sister Lucia that the final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family is being fulfilled today, said a cardinal speaking at a Catholic conference in Rome. 

"What Sister Lucia said in those days is being fulfilled in these days of ours," said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, one of the dubia signers who is the archbishop emeritus of Bologna and a former member of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in a Q&A after his presentation. 

Caffarra made his comments at the fourth annual Rome Life Forum. After his presentation, Cardinal Raymond Burke, another dubia signer, called for the Catholic faithful to “work for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

Cardinal Caffarra, who is the founding president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, made his comments on the “final battle” in reference to a letter he wrote to Sister Lucia back in the early 1980s to ask for her prayers as he began his new undertaking of founding the institute. He never expected a reply. 
But, to his surprise, Caffarra received a lengthy letter signed by Sister Lucia in which she spoke of the “final battle” that would come at the end of time. 
The Fatima visionary wrote that the “final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Do not be afraid, (she added), because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue.” She then concluded: “However, Our Lady has already crushed his head.”
The letter is now in the archives of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family.

The battle

Caffarra said in his presentation that there are two forces opposing one another in the battle. One is the “wounded Heart of the Crucified-Risen One” who calls all men to himself. The other is the “power of Satan, who does not want to be ousted from his kingdom.”

The Cardinal said that the area in which this battle takes place is the human heart.
“Jesus, the Revelation of the Father, exerts a strong attraction to Himself. Satan works against this, to neutralise the attractive force of the Crucified-Risen One. The force of truth which makes us free acts on the heart of man. It is the Satanic force of the lie which makes slaves of us,” he said. 
The two forces of attraction give rise to two cultures, he said, a “culture of the truth and the culture of the lie.”
“There is a book in Holy Scripture, the last, the Apocalypse, which describes the final confrontation between the two kingdoms. In this book, the attraction of Christ takes the form of triumph over enemy powers commanded by Satan. It is a triumph which comes after lengthy combat. The first fruits of the victory are the martyrs,” he said. 
Caffarra said that legalized abortion comes from the “culture of the lie” where the “crime” of murdering a human being is seen as a “good.”
Abortion is a “sacrilegious act,” he said, adding that it is the “profoundest negation of the truth of man.”. 
“The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an ‘anti-creation.’ By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his ‘creation’: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein,” he said. 


The Cardinal said Homosexual “marriage” also comes from the “culture of the lie” since it “denies entirely the truth of marriage” as it comes from the “mind of God the Creator.”
“The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other,” he said. 
“The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God,” he added. 


Satan, in pushing the lies of abortion and homosexuality, is attempting to destroy the two most important pillars of creation, the “human person” created in the image of God and the “conjugal union” between a man and woman.
“The axiological elevation of abortion to a subjective right is the demolition of the first pillar. The ennoblement of a homosexual relationship, when equated to marriage, is the destruction of the second pillar,” Caffarra said. 




Satan’s ultimate goal is to “build an actual anti-creation,” an “alternative creation,” where God and every sign of his beauty and goodness have been erased. 
“This is the ultimate and terrible challenge which Satan is hurling at God,” the Cardinal said.  




To be a faithful follower of Christ in these times means to “testify...openly and publicly” to the truth of God’s creation with regard to the dignity of the human person and marriage.
“Someone who does not testify in this way is like a soldier who flees at the decisive moment in a battle. We are no longer witnesses, but deserters, if we do not speak openly and publicly,” he said. 
Caffarra praised the pro-life March for Life events that happen around the world a “great testimony” to the truth of the worth of every person. 
He likened Christians confronting sin to doctors combatting disease, telling his audience that just as with disease there can be no peace terms, the same follows for sin. 
“It would be a terrible doctor who adopted an irenical (aimed at peace) attitude towards the disease,” he said. The meaning of Augustine’s dictum ‘Love the sinner, persecute the sin,’ he added, means to “hunt down the sin. Track it down in the hidden places of its lies, and condemn it, bringing to light its insubstantiality.”


Read Cardinal Caffarra's full talk here