— Council of Vienne ♰♰♰

Saturday, April 29, 2017

St. Pius V condemned the vice of homosexuality

In  the Constitution Cum primum of April 1, 1566, St. Pius V calls the vice against nature one of the offenses that are most repugnant to God and raise His wrath. 

“Having determined to do away with everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, we resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are more repugnant to God than any others and raise His wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For such faults peoples and nations are scourged by God Who, according to His just condemnation, sends catastrophes, wars, famine, and pestilence ... and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].” 

Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Saint Pius V pray for us. 

Past popes combated the errors of Muhammad. Francis praises them.

As the prototypical progressive Jesuit, Pope Francis prides himself on his “ecumenism.” He oozes enthusiasm for every religion except his own. At the top of his list of favorite religions is the Church’s fiercest adversary — Islam.

He often sounds more like a spokesman for CAIR than a Catholic pope. After jihadists cut off the head of a French priest in July 2016 — yelling “Allahu Akbar” over the priest’s slit throat — Pope Francis rushed to the defense of Islam. “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence,” he said, before ludicrously blaming the rise of terrorism on the “idolatry” of free-market economics: “As long as the god of money is at the center of the global economy and not the human person, man and woman, this is the first terrorism.”

As Europe turns into Eurabia, Pope Francis is picking up honors and awards from progressives, including, hilariously, the 2016 “Charlemagne Prize” for his Islamic apologetics. It is hard to imagine a Christian leader less like Charlemagne. Pope Francis is energized not depressed by the disappearance of Christian Europe. “States must be secular,” he told La Croix. Christian states, he said, “end badly” and go “against the grain of history.” He added that “when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful.” It also takes on “colonialist overtones,” he complained.

The most liberal pope ever, of course, sees no irony in shilling for the most illiberal religion on Earth. On his anti-colonialist scorecard, Islam wears the white hats and Christian Europe, the black ones. After jihadists gunned down ten journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Pope Francis rushed to Islam’s defense again, in effect rebuking the dead journalists for incitement: “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” Those who do, he continued, should “expect a punch.” 

This week Pope Francis takes his pro-Islamic apology tour to Egypt. Previewing the trip, which starts on Friday, he said he seeks to “offer a valid contribution to inter-religious dialogue with the Islamic world.” Francis’s fawning media courtiers are already rolling out the propaganda for it, predicting that it will “build bridges to moderate Islam.”

“A main reason for the trip is to try to strengthen relations with the 1,000-year-old Azhar center that were cut by the Muslim side in 2011 over what it said were repeated insults of Islam by Francis’s predecessor, Pope Benedict,” according to Reuters. “Ties with the center were restored last year after [Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb] visited the Vatican. Tayeb, widely seen as one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt, has repeatedly condemned Islamic State and its practice of declaring others as apostates and infidels as a pretext for waging violent jihad.”

Being “one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt” is about as meaningful a distinction as being one of the most chaste Kardashian sisters. Useful idiots in the West call Tayeb moderate, but anyone paying attention knows that he is not, unless calling for the killing of apostates now counts as “moderate.”
As Raymond Ibrahim has written, “There’s nothing like knowing Arabic — that is, being privy to the Muslim world’s internal conversations on a daily basis — to disabuse oneself of the supposed differences between so-called ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ Muslims.”
Ibrahim has listened to Tayeb’s speeches and comes away from them with the conclusion that Tayeb is a double-dealing phony. He trots off to the West to tell the gullible what “they want to hear” then returns to his mosque and Egyptian television studios to reaffirm traditional jihadist theology, writes Ibrahim:
[A]ll throughout the month of Ramadan last June, Tayeb appeared on Egyptian TV explaining all things Islamic — often in ways that do not suggest that Islam seeks “peace, encounter.”
… That this is the case was made clear during another of Tayeb’s recent episodes. On the question of apostasy in Islam — whether a Muslim has the right to abandon Islam for another or no religion — the “radical” position is well known: unrepentant apostates are to be punished with death.
Yet Tayeb made the same pronouncement. During another Ramadan episode he said that “Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished.”
It has never been easier for orthodox Islamic clerics to take liberals for a ride. Salman Rushdie once bitterly remarked that the “face of moderate Islam” in Great Britain had called for his death.
Past popes regarded Islam as a font of poisonous heresies. Dante placed Muhammad in hell. St. Thomas Aquinas said Muhammad peddled “fables and doctrines of the greatest falsity” and sardonically remarked upon the perverse basis for his claim of divine favor: “Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

What has changed? Nothing. Islam remains as violent as it started. But one thing is new: The Catholic Church, under the death-wish progressivism of Francis, has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters.

Selling Out: Dr Ashraf Ramelah is the president of Voice of the Copts, a human rights organization with offices in Italy and the U.S.. Ramelah criticizes Pope Francis for – quote – “selling out Egyptian Christians to buy good relations with Islam.” Referring to Francis’ meeting with the grand imam Ahmed El-Tayeb of Cairo’s Al-Ahzar Mosque Institute, Ramelah writes: “The Catholic pope gives the “sign of peace” to the grand imam who has yet been unwilling to denounce ISIS.”

Thursday, April 27, 2017

"Bergoglio's Pawns"

Photo- Public profile of Pedacchio on Badoo
De la Cigoña published an article back in Dec 26, 2011 -"Bergoglio's Pawns"

Pedacchio was Cardinal Bergoglio's spy. «What comes from Rome goes to Rome». Romes decision depend upon the information they receive and that impacts the dissemination and processing of how such information is prioritized. The Cardinal, Archbishop of Buenos Aires knows the ambitions of power very well. Cardinal Bergoglio known how to tell lies with half-truths -or inflated, or disguised as appropriate in each case. But he does not hesitate, when necessary to lies plain and simple. The truth is that to weave his web of power and influence over the bishops and their appointments; as well as priests and seminarians can shoot slurs or libel and, above all, know how to artfully direct them. It does from trained informants who, violating the confidentiality to which obliges the pontifical secret, tells you about everything that comes to Rome on topics or people you care about. Later, these same informants are responsible for «reporting» or «hide information» to the Roman authorities, manipulating agendas by the Cardinal - «The Jesuit», as it is called by the title of a work commissioned to exalt him. One of the most important pivots in this manipulation of information is an Argentine priest , "planted" by the Cardinal in the service of the Congregation for Bishops where all information related to the bishops of the whole world is run. -But what was particularly interesting to the Cardinal was Latinamerica, above all, with regard to the Argentine bishops. The disloyalty of this priest of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires is known by many, but apparently nothing is done about it. (Pedacchio) is not the only informant of the Cardinal but it is perhaps the most notorious. And given his job, one of the most dangerous.

Reign of the Bergoglian Sophists

By Christopher A. Ferrara
April 22, 2017
Fatima Perspectives
Meet Father James F. Keenan, SJ, another of the Modernist Jesuit sophists that Pope Bergoglio, the first and only Jesuit Pope, has unleashed upon the Church to declare the supposed New Age of Mercy that began with Bergoglio’s arrival from Argentina.
In 2003, Keenan, who teaches what passes for theology at Boston College, infamously testified against the adoption of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would have defined marriage as a “stable union between a man and a woman.” His testimony before the State Legislature was a tissue of deception. As George Weigel summarizes:
“Fr. Keenan argued that a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman offended Catholic social justice principles and ought to be rejected. In the course of his testimony, Fr. Keenan also misrepresented the teaching of the American bishops, appealed to a theologically dubious magisterium of theologians, failed to tell the legislators the Massachusetts bishops’ position [in favor] on H.3190, and neglected to inform the legislators of recent, authoritative Vatican statements on the subject — all of which created the impression among legislators that justice required the rejection of any legal definition of ‘marriage’ as the stable union of a man and a woman.”
Today, Keenan, ever the cunning sophist, is pleased to announce that on account of “Easter dynamism, that call to see things new” we can rejoice that Amoris Laetitia (AL) “brilliantly brings the tradition into the present, for the sake of the future. Our tradition must always develop, as the great theologian Marie Dominique Chenu taught; otherwise we cannot bear it into the future.”  
Chenu, like Keenan today, was a leading Modernist subversive condemned by Rome and removed from his theological teaching post in the 1940s under Pope Pius XII. Like Keenan, he promoted the Modernist arch-heresy of the “evolution of dogma” according to which dogma does not change, but over time the Church’s understanding of it does. Which is just the sophist’s way of saying that dogma changes.
AL, Keenan exults, is “a turning point… born out of the work of two synods where Church leaders similarly wrestled, argued, bickered, and fought about the current state of Catholic marriage and the need for a pastoral response to the lives of those who are married.”
That’s a laugh. As anyone who followed the rigged Synod proceedings would know, AL had nothing to do with the Synod except to the extent that the Synod provided cover for the issuance of AL. Francis was going to publish AL no matter what the Synod “decided,” and indeed despite the Synod majority’s clear opposition to his master plan to admit public adulterers — or more precisely bigamists — in “second marriages” to Holy Communion.
Keenan, quoting Cardinal Kasper, one of the leading Modernist sophists of the Bergoglian epoch, exults that AL “doesn’t change anything of church doctrine or of canon law – but it changes everything.” Nothing is changed, but everything is changed. Which is just the sophist’s way of saying that everything is changed — as if that were possible when it comes to the Church’s infallible teaching on the moral law and her intrinsically related discipline, which not even a Pope can alter.
Naturally, Keenan trumpets the latest sophistical buzz-word in the post-Vatican II lexicon: “discernment,” which originates precisely in AL. Here Keenan cites AL, ¶ 303 for the proposition that would mean the end of the moral law in practice:
“[C]onscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”
In other words, each Catholic can decide whether God wishes him to obey the negative precept of the natural law that “thou shalt not commit adultery” and can even decide that God is pleased with his or her decision to avoid obedience “for now.”
Father Keenan poses the obvious question in light of ¶ 303: “Does this mean that the Catholic conscience is now [!] free to ignore church teaching?” Here is his purely sophistical, which is to say deceptive, answer about “now” — i.e., under Pope Bergoglio — versus “then” — i.e., under every Pope before him:
“No. But one has to ask how much of church teaching directly dictates the regular decisions of the Catholic conscience. The church guides us on some issues of parenting and married life, but the day to day living out of that vocation depends on the active conscientious discernment of what is best for one’s child, marriage or family.
In other words, Keenan’s ‘No’ actually means ‘Yes’. According to him, thanks solely to AL it is now up to each Catholic to decide how much of Church teaching actually governs his “day to day living” and whether “what is best for one’s child, marriage and family” is not to follow the moral law in given circumstances. As if the mere invocation of the phrase “day to day living” somehow changes the application of exceptionless moral norms that apply every day and in every life situation.
The Church is now suffering under the reign of sophists who are laboring to demolish the moral edifice of the Church on the authority of a document which — one must say it in candor — is itself a monument to sophistry, written precisely to say ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ at the same time so as to allow its author and his circle of collaborators to affirm what they are really denying, while denying what they are really affirming.
It seems that now only God can deliver the Church from their clutches by a most dramatic intervention from on high. That intervention will undoubtedly involve the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Cardinal Bergolio permitted a homosexual ceremony in a Basilica of Buenos Aires

Leonardo Boff:  “Francis is More Liberal than what is Supposed”, He “Permitted a Homosexual Couple to Adopt a Child

"Pope Francisco when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires he had already baptized children of gay couples"  Sor Lucía Caram

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Müller is covering up Bergoglio's heresies.

Christopher A. Ferrara
April 25, 2017 

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller is charged with the duty to “spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines.” When confronted with the “new and unacceptable doctrines” enunciated in the disastrous Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, however, Müller engages in a shameless cover-up, leaving it to concerned members of the laity to defend the Church’s infallible moral teaching from AL’s blatant attack upon it.
In an interview published by Aleteia on April 21, Müller declares that “The pope has not, will not, and cannot change Revelation. Some claim that the pope has changed the foundations of Church morality and has relativized the sacrament of holy matrimony. This he would not and cannot do.”

A deliberate misstatement of the issue designed to conceal the real issue. The real issue is not whether the Pope seeks to “change Revelation,” as if that were possible, but rather whether AL Chapter 8 undermines the revealed truth concerning the indissolubility of marriage and the universally binding, exceptionless character of the negative precepts of the natural law, including the Sixth Commandment.

A day after the Müller interview appeared, Sandro Magister published on his indispensable blog a link to the Italian text (translation mine) of an extraordinary address by Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile, one of six delivered in Rome at a conference of lay academics on April 22, convened to confront the menace that is AL.

After discussing the cases of Pope Honorius and Pope Liberius, Pierantoni says of the “case of Francis” that it represents, with the promulgation of AL, a crisis that is “now to be considered the most serious of those ever faced by the Church.”  Pope Bergoglio’s opening to Holy Communion for public adulterers in “certain cases,” he writes, is “a deadly Trojan Horse capable of triggering, from within the edifice of the Church itself, a strategic dynamiting of all her defenses and her very foundations.”

The principal evil of AL Ch. 8, as any perceptive reader can see, is its reduction of the negative precept of the natural law forbidding adultery to a mere “rule” on the order of a human positive law that admits of exceptions, when in truth, as Pierantoni notes, the natural law is inscribed in human nature and can never be violated without doing violence to the human person. By analogy, he argues, the automobile manufacturer’s directive that one must not put diesel fuel into a gasoline engine is not a “rule” but a requirement for the proper functioning of the engine to which there can be no exceptions, according to the very nature of the thing.

Pope Bergoglio’s crudely demagogic conflation of the natural law with human “rules” is confirmed, says Pierantoni, by his “repeated attack, present in AL 8, against the legalists, the presumed hard-hearted and hypocritical ‘Pharisees.’ This attack, in fact, betrays a complete misunderstanding of the position of Jesus toward the Law, since His criticism of Pharisaical behavior is founded precisely on the distinction between positive law (‘the precepts of men’)… and the fundamental Commandments, which are instead the prime requisite, irrenunciable, which He himself requires of aspiring disciples.”

Even more devastating is the intervention at the same April 22 conference by Dr. Anna M. Silvas, a renowned researcher and historian of late Christian antiquity, who discovered the location of Saint Basil the Great’s retreat on an expedition to Turkey. She makes short work of the claim by “intentionally orthodox… higher prelates and theologians [Müller obviously among them] who treat the turmoil arising from ‘Amoris Laetitia’ as a matter of ‘misinterpretations’.”

On the contrary, she writes, Pope Francis’ ‘intent’ in this text is perfectly recoverable from the text itself, reading normally and naturally and without filters.” There is no need to repeat here the detailed analyses which place that conclusion beyond dispute, as we see here, for example.

Then too, Silvas notes, there is the overwhelming contextual evidence of Bergoglio’s seditious intent. Her summary (which I have reformatted for readability) is most useful: 

… Archbishop Bergoglio’s known practice in his archdiocese of tacitly admitting to Holy Communion all comers, the cohabiting, as well as the divorced and civilly remarried;
…his personal choice of Cardinal Kasper to deliver the opening address of the 2014 Synod, as if we are to politely turn a blind eye to the entire back-history of Kasper’s activities on these issues;

...the various ways in which these two synods were massaged, such as the papal order that a proposition on communion for the divorced and remarried, voted down by the bishops in the 2014 synod, be included in the final relatio;
…his scathing condemnations of the Pharisees and other rigid persons in his concluding address at the conclusion of the 2015 Synod;

...more recently, his warm praise of Bernard Häring, the doyen of dissenting moral theologians throughout the 1970s and 80s, whose 1989 book on admitting the divorced and civilly remarried to the Eucharist in imitation of the Eastern Orthodox oikonomia, was ammunition in Kasper’s saddle bag;
…[his] endorsement of the Argentinian bishops “interpretation” of AL, precisely in the way that he intended: “No hay otras interpretaciones” ;

Silva then unleashes a series of admirably frank comments on the cunning Bergoglian method for changing the teaching of the Church by promoting a change in her practice, allowing apologists like Müller to claim nothing has really changed:

- Pope Francis, I am sure, is very well aware of the doctrine of papal infallibility, knows how high are its provisos—and is astute enough never to trigger its mechanism…
- For to Francis, and we have to grasp this: infallibility doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter at all, if he can continue to be the sort of change-agent in the Church he wants to be….

- But I think ‘the spirit’ to which Francis so soothingly alludes, has more to do with Hegel’s Geist, than with the Holy Spirit of whom our blessed Lord speaks, the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him (Jn14:17

- The Hegelian Geist on the other hand, manifests itself in the midst of contradictions and oppositions, surmounting them in a new synthesis, without eliminating the polarities or reducing one to the other. This is the gnostic spirit of the cult of modernity

- So Francis will pursue his agenda without papal infallibility, and without fussing about magisterial pronouncements….

- We are in a world of dynamic fluidity here, of starting open-ended processes, of sowing seeds of desired change that will triumph over time….

- Such underhand tactics are clearly playing to the tune of Hegelian dialectic. That this is Pope Francis’s modus operandi, consider a certain ‘behind the scenes incident’ in the 2015 Synod, ‘“If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, (but) do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked.

- In this game of subterfuge and incremental intent, the elaborate talk of painstaking “discernment” and “accompaniment” of difficult moral situations has a definite function—as a temporary blind for the ultimate goal.

- Have we not seen how the dark arts of the “hard case” work in secular politicking, used to pivot the next tranche of social reengineering? So now in the politics of the Church

- The final result will be precisely in accord with Archbishop Bergoglio’s tacit practice for years in Buenos Aires. Make no mistake, the end game is a more or less indifferent permission for any who present for Holy Communion. 

And what does Cardinal Müller have to say in the face of the undeniable reality that the man from Argentina has spent the past four years engaging in ecclesial subversion, culminating with the publication of AL? He declares:

The true intention of the apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, was to place at the center the full, complete biblical message concerning marriage as a sacrament and a way of life. In addition, it aimed to take into consideration those who, on account of various circumstances, have failed or have run into trouble, so that we would not say: “Here are those who do everything right, whereas the others do not belong to us.”

That is simply calculated dissembling. Worse, by aping the Bergoglian caricature of defenders of orthodoxy as hard-hearted Pharisees who say “Here are those who do everything right, whereas the others do not belong to us,” he moves beyond a simple cover-up to outright aiding and abetting of the Bergoglian conspiracy—there is no other word for it—to undermine the Church’s entire moral edifice by institutionalizing ecclesial accommodation of public adultery.

At least the four cardinals have had the courage publicly to question Bergoglio’s intent in the form of their five dubia which reduce to one question: Whether Bergoglio intends to undermine the very concept of the moral law—and with this, the very credibility of the Church’s teaching office.

As things now stand, Cardinal Müller is no defender of orthodoxy. He has decided, rather, to be a defender of Pope Bergoglio. That is, he is a defender of the most wayward Pope in Church history—a Pope who, to quote Pierantoni, is “the victim of a generalized and epochal alienation from Tradition in broad strata of theological teaching.”

Under its current leadership, what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offers the Church is vastly worse than nothing.

In Argentina Bergoglio was already a public and contumacious heretic that had already been formally denounced  in 2010 by the famous Argentine professor Antonio Caponnetto for heresy.

Gloria TV News Anathema: On Friday Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said to the Passauer Neue Presse that there are cases when Catholics can decide on their own with a confessor that their marriage is null. This opinion has been condemned by the Council of Trent as a heresy. Quote: “If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.” 

Bergoglio's apostate Cardinal promotes homosexuality at Newark cathedral.

The Rite of Sodom

Gloria tv News: Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin is blessing a so called pilgrimage of homosexualists at his cathedral on May 21. During the event, a homosex Mass will be presided by the Redemptorist Francis Gargani. Cardinal Tobin was among a handful of prelates who have publicly lauded the soon-to-be-released pro-homosex book by the Jesuit James Martin. Tobin is also among the few prelates to publicly criticize the dubia cardinals, calling the critics of Amoris Laetitia "naive at best." Both, Tobin and Gargani are Redemptorists whose founder, Alphonsus of Liguori, a famous moral theologian, said, "Sodomy involves a special deformity."

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Blasphemy: Bergoglio questioned the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and complained against God, on Easter Sunday.

April 16, 2017 Crux: «Francis once again broke with tradition on Easter Sunday, delivering a largely improvised homily centered on a phone call from the day before with a young engineer suffering from a serious illness 

Archbishop Fulton Sheen: 
Our Lord ... was, in effect, saying to Satan, "You tempt Me to a religion which would relieve want; you want Me to be a baker, instead of a Savior; to be a social reformer, instead of a Redeemer. You are tempting Me away from My Cross, suggesting that I be a cheap leader of people, filling their bellies instead of their souls. You would have Me begin with security instead of ending with it; you would have Me bring outer abundance instead of inner holiness. You and your materialist followers say, 'Man lives by bread alone,' but I say to you, 'Not by bread alone'. Bread there must be, but remember even bread gets all its power to nourish mankind from Me. Bread without Me can harm man; and there is no real security apart from the Word of God. If I give bread alone, then man is no more than an animal, and dogs might as well come first to My banquet. Those who believe in Me must hold to that faith, even when they are starved and weak; even when they are imprisoned and scourged. "I know about human hunger! I have gone without food Myself for forty days. But I refuse to become a mere social reformer who caters only to the belly. You cannot say that I am unconcerned with social justice, for I am feeling at this moment the hunger of the world. I am One with every poor, starving member of the race. That is why I have fasted: so that they can never say that God does not know what hunger is. Begone, Satan! I am not just a social worker who has never been hungry Himself, but One who says, 'I reject any plan which promises to make men richer without making them holier.' Remember! I Who say, 'Not by bread alone', have not tasted bread for forty days!" Life of Christ, pg. 71

Related news:

Blasphemy from Bergoglio: Jesus Christ “made himself the devil”
Blasphemy from Bergoglio: “is God unjust? He was unjust with his son, he sent him to the cross”

Bergoglio changes the transcendental meaning of the Resurrection of Christ by using a Marxist approach. 

Blasphemy from Bergoglio: “Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors but on the outside they give the picture of unity”

Blasphemy from Bergoglio: Christ “played the fool” 

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Bergoglio taught his Godson how to swear!

Bergoglio failed to fulfill his role as godfather

María  Elena Bergoglio: "He loved teaching him bad words" 

In an interview back in 2013 María Elena Bergoglio , the only surviving sister of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, told ABC.es the following story: 

Elena Bergoglio told, "when he was already wearing a cassock", Bergoglio taught his nephew, who is also called Jorge and is his godson, to say swear words, with much displeasure of his mother.  This led to an embarrassing situation when his brother began to preach "in an important Mass" with many priests;  His son, watching with surprise at his uncle in the pulpit, astonished shouted a "very bad word" that everyone could hear.  "After the Mass, Jorge approached us and could not stop laughing."  Maria Elena also remembers that her brother dipped the baby's pacifier in whiskey. 

"Kindheitserinnerungen von Papst Franziskus" ["Childhood Memories of  Pope   Francis " Mar. 19, 2013] 

 The  newspaper El Mundo 03/03/2013 reported that María Elena Bergoglio also revealed in an interview granted to the Italian magazine 'Chi' since he was a little he enjoyed swearing. 

 "I remember there was a parrot in the seminary, and I do not exclude that he (Jorge Bergoglio) taught it some profanity, instead of teaching it to pray."

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Bergoglio was unfaithful in the fulfillment of his obligations as godfather to his own nephew. That is why he does not care whether a homosexual or an adulterer is a "godfather" in the profanations of the sacrament of Baptism.

The Catechism of Saint Pius X judges Francis’ idea on divorcees as Godparents

  • Catholics of good life, and obedient to the laws of the Church should be chosen as godfathers and godmothers

Who are the godfathers and godmothers in Baptism?

The godfathers and godmothers in Baptism are those persons who, in accordance with the decree of the Church, hold the infants at the font, answer for them, and become guarantees in the sight of God for their Christian education, especially in the absence of the parents.
What sort of persons should be chosen as godfathers and godmothers?
There should be chosen as godfathers and godmothers Catholics of good life, and obedient to the laws of the Church.

What are the obligations of godfathers and godmothers?

Godfathers and godmothers are bound to see that their spiritual children are instructed in the truths of faith, and live as good Christians and they should edify them by their good example. (Catechism of Saint Pius X, Baptism, nos. 22.24-25)

Amongst laymen frivolous language is only frivolity: but it is blasphemy when it comes from the mouth of a priest. […] Thy lips have been consecrated to the Gospel of Christ. Therefore it is unlawful for thee now to use them for jesting, and a sacrilege to have them thus habitually employed. ‘The lips of the priest,’ says the Prophet, ‘shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth’ (Mal 2:7). Observe that it is not jests or fables but the law of God that is to be sought from the mouth of a priest. With regard to scurrility, it is not enough to banish that from thy mouth: it must also be banished from thine ear. To allow thyself to laugh at such jokes would be a scandal; but it would be a greater scandal to repeat them for the amusement of others. (Saint Bernard. Treatise on Consideration to Pope Eugene III, Ch. XIII, 68-69)

John Vennari: “Though this might shock some readers, I must say that I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children”.

Related news:

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Socci: Not one more penny for the Bergoglian church

Fatima Perspectives 
by Christopher A. Ferrara
April 17, 2017
In Italy there is a compulsory tax called the "eight per thousand," meaning 8/10 of one percent, that taxpayers can earmark for the state support of either a state-run social assistance program or one of twelve approved religions on a government list, including the Catholic Church. Absent an earmark, the Italian government will distribute the "eight per thousand" based on the proportions established by taxpayers who have designated a choice.
Antonio Socci has just announced in his regular column that he will no longer be designating the Catholic Church as the recipient of his "eight per thousand." The reason is obvious to those who have followed his commentary over the past several years: the rise of what he has aptly termed "Bergoglianism," meaning Pope Bergoglio's idiosyncratic version of liberal Jesuit theology with its disdain for the orthodoxy of Tradition and the Church's related traditional disciplines, above all her perennial ban on the reception of Holy Communion by people living in a state of public adultery they call a "second marriage."

The triggering event for Socci's declaration of non-payment appears to have been yet another of Pope Bergoglio's rambling improvisations on what he views as the meaning of Scripture: i.e., his astonishing, indeed blasphemous assertion during a sermon at Casa Santa Marta that Christ on the Cross "made himself the devil, the serpent, for us…"
A detailed discussion of this latest Bergoglianism is found here. There is no doubt that Pope Bergoglio asserted that Christ "made himself the devil, the serpent…" This is a twisted Bergoglian rendition of the traditional analogy between the brazen serpent raised up on a staff by Moses, who commanded the Israelites to look upon the image in order to be healed of literal serpent bites that had resulted from their sins, and Christ Crucified, raised up on the Cross of the Redemption, to atone for our sins that they might be remitted. Under no traditional interpretation of the analogy can it be said that Christ became the serpent, much less — such blasphemy from a Pope! — that He became the devil.
Socci also responds to the accusation in L'Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference, that he had attacked Pope Bergoglio for his remark "without any valid argument." He demonstrates that the thesis that Christ "made himself the devil" is precisely the "gnostic exegesis" of Massimo Borghesi, enunciated in his article "The Pact with the Serpent" in 30 Days magazine, and is clearly "a precise conviction of Bergoglio."
Socci takes the occasion to enumerate "other enormities of Bergoglio in the same direction," including his declaration that "there is no Catholic God," that Christ "played the fool," that He "failed respecting morality," and that He "was not one of the clean ones." Then, as incredible as it may seem, there is Bergoglio's claim (this past March 17) that "in the Holy Trinity the Persons argue behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the appearance of unity."
There is no need to rehearse the other examples Socci provides, all of which have been addressed here and elsewhere. Suffice to say that his conclusion, with which I must agree, is that "one fears that the summit of the Church is occupied today by a 'party' determined to demolish Catholicism itself as we have known it for 2,000 years."
In short: the apostasy that "begins at the top," of which Our Lady warned a century ago in that part of the Third Secret we have not been allowed to see. But as I have said before on these pages, in this terrifying development there is hope: it cannot be long before the madness that has gripped the human element of the Church is brought to an end, and that will mean the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Monday, April 17, 2017

Bergoglio changes the transcendental meaning of the Resurrection of Christ by using a Marxist approach.

Louie Verrecchio  April 17, 2017

As his sermon for the Easter Vigil makes plain, not even the Resurrection of Our Lord from the dead is capable of unmooring Francis’ thoughts from the temporal concerns of almighty mankind.
Commenting upon “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” who went to Jesus’ tomb only to discover that He is risen, Francis saw fit to rattle off an all-too-familiar laundry list of social injustices:
“In their faces we can see reflected all those who, walking the streets of our cities, feel the pain of dire poverty, the sorrow born of exploitation and human trafficking.  We can also see the faces of those who are greeted with contempt because they are immigrants, deprived of country, house and family.  We see faces whose eyes bespeak loneliness and abandonment, because their hands are creased with wrinkles.  Their faces mirror the faces of women, mothers, who weep as they see the lives of their children crushed by massive corruption that strips them of their rights and shatters their dreams.”

Poverty, exploitation, human trafficking, immigration, loneliness, abandonment, corruption… 
Nowhere reflected in his sermon was even a modicum of concern for the supernatural ends for which man was created; much less any sense of the true significance of the Lord’s resurrection.

Francis went on to say:
“By daily acts of selfishness that crucify and then bury people’s hopes.  By paralyzing and barren bureaucracies that stand in the way of change.  In their grief, those two women reflect the faces of all those who, walking the streets of our cities, behold human dignity crucified.” 

How very clever; stealing words from the language of our Lord’s Passion for use as metaphorical expressions that seek to recast the meaning of Easter into the planks of a political platform; as if the Sacrifice of Christ is ordered toward nothing more than the elimination of social inequality.
I, for one, find this repulsive.
It sickens me in a way similar to those occasions when Barack Obama would cite Sacred Scripture; striking the image of a man treading on foreign soil, pretending to be a citizen, but only as a means to an end.
That is not to say that Francis is altogether unconcerned with Church related matters.
On the contrary, he is deeply concerned about such things; albeit in the manner of a politician.
And so he took the occasion of the Easter vigil to campaign against the opposition party:
“When the High Priest and the religious leaders, in collusion with the Romans, believed that they could calculate everything, that the final word had been spoken and that it was up to them to apply it, God suddenly breaks in, upsets all the rules and offers new possibilities.”
Can there be any doubt that Francis was speaking not of the Pharisees of old, but rather of those in our day who take the Divine Law, the immutable doctrines of the Faith and the bi-millennial practice of the Church seriously; i.e., rigid Catholics like us who believe that “the final word” has indeed been spoken in precisely those matters that the false “god of surprises” (aka Jorge Bergoglio) seeks to upset in Amoris Laetitia?
Truly, with every passing day it seems that the mountain of evidence attesting to the utter lack of Catholic faith in this man somehow manages to grow larger.

As the title to this post suggests, Francis is nothing if not clear and consistent.

AKA Catholic

Heretic Liberation Theologian Boff: “Francis is One of Us”

Marxist Liberation Theology:  The emphasis on earthly things is more explicit in early liberation theology than in recent works. Still, as late as 1991, (the heretic Jesuit) Jon Sobrino  defined sin as unjust social structure, or "that which deals death."
Examples of sinners for him were oligarchies, multi-national corporations, various armed forces and "virtually every government."...
Liberationists believe that unliberated societies are so severely divided that revolutionary upheaval, and a purge of the ruling class, is absolutely necessary.  Reconciliation theology, however, insists that Christianity requires openness, and even love, for people of all social classes, and all classes of sinfulness.