Christopher A. Ferrara -The Remmant
In a 450-page book-interview,
PopeBergoglio reduces adultery and fornication to “minor sins,” announces a “battle” against sexual morality via Amoris Laetitia, condones “civil unions” for homosexuals, pronounces all wars unjust, and says the secular state is a healthy thing.
If there was any doubt that
Pope Bergoglio’s tumultuous reign is an unparalleled, indeed apocalyptic, threat to the integrity of the Faith, that doubt cannot possibly survive the publication of “ Pope Francis: Meetings with Dominique Wolton: Politics and Society,” a 450-page compendium of rambling private conversations between Bergoglio and Wolton, a French sociologist, during an extraordinary series of private audiences at the Vatican.
As he has done habitually over the past four-and-a-half years, in this mega-collection of Bergoglian musings the man from Argentina tells us what he thinks as opposed to what the Church has constantly taught based on what God has revealed, Bergoglio having already declared in another of his infamous interviews that whatever he thinks is the Magisterium: “I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out; it’s very clear.” In Politics and Society we encounter these gems of Bergoglian thought, according to the excerpts published thus far:
- Morality does not involve precepts of right and wrong:
“How do we Catholics, teach morality? You cannot teach it with precepts such as: ‘You can’t do that, you have to do that, have to, can’t, have to, can’t.’ “Morality is a consequence of the encounter with Jesus Christ. It’s a consequence of faith, for us Catholics. And for others, morality is the consequence of an encounter with an ideal, or with God, or with oneself, but with the better part of oneself. Morality is always a consequence…”
So much for the Ten Commandments, the Gospel warnings concerning the eternal consequences of the failure to obey moral precepts, including those concerning adultery, fornication and sodomy, as well as every catechism of the Church on moral questions. Bergoglio thinks otherwise, and the Magisterium is what he thinks! The claim that “morality is a consequence” rather than a precept is classic Modernist obscurantism. God Himself has expressly enunciated specific moral precepts that bind all men to do good and refrain from evil: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me (Jn. 14:21).”
- The sins of the flesh are “minor”:
“The most minor sins are the sins of the flesh… The most dangerous sins are those of the mind…” “But the other sins that are the most serious: hatred, envy, pride, vanity, killing another, taking away a life ... these are really not talked about that much.”
So, according to
Pope Bergoglio, envying a neighbor’s wealth is worse than committing adultery with a neighbor’s wife. And so much for Our Lord’s warning, and the Church’s constant teaching, that sins of the flesh can be committed precisely as “sins of the mind” by way of impure thoughts.
- Condemning sexual immorality is “mediocrity”:
“there is a great danger for preachers, that of falling into mediocrity. Condemning only morality—forgive the expression— ‘under the belt.’ But no one talks of the other sins like hate, envy, pride, vanity, killing another, taking a life. Entering the mafia, making illegal agreements… ‘Are you a good Catholic? Then give me the check’.”
A typically Bergoglian strawman argument. No confessor condemns “only” sexual sins while ignoring murder and other grave sins. If anything, today very nearly the opposite is true: sexual sins are widely minimized and excused in the confessional—just as Bergoglio minimizes and excuses them—while inchoate offenses against “social justice” are endlessly and ostentatiously condemned by trendy priests and prelates who have surrendered to the sexual revolution. As Our Lady of Fatima warned the Fatima seers, more souls are damned on account of sins of the flesh than any others. But according to Bergoglio, “making illegal agreements” is worse than adultery and fornication.
- Moral rules are not uniform prohibitions like those Pharisees thought:
“The temptation is always the uniformity of the rules… take for example the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. When I speak of families in difficulty, I say: ‘We must welcome, accompany, discern, integrate…’ and then everyone will see open doors. What is actually happening is that people hear others say: ‘They can’t receive communion,’ ‘They can’t do it:’There lies the temptation of the Church. But ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no!’ This type of prohibition is the same we find with Jesus and the Pharisees….”
The language is both puerile and demagogic: that mean old Church is always tempted to say no, no, no! Boo! Hiss! Just like those Pharisees, who Bergoglio never seems to notice tolerated divorce while our Lord condemned them for their institutionalization of adultery. But Bergoglio knows the meaning of mercy, which includes Holy Communion for public adulterers. He will overcome the Church’s “temptation” to say no, no, no to immoral behavior. Hooray for Bergoglio! What an affront this grandstanding, vulgar, insult-hurling Pope is to the memory of the great Roman Pontiffs who defended the truths of the Faith before a hostile world at the risk of their very lives. That he maintains a reputation for humility represents one of the must successful public relations fantasies in modern history, made possible only with the cooperation of the globe-spanning Fake News Industrial Complex.
Priests and young people who insist on uniform, exceptionless moral precepts are sick:
“rigid priests, who are afraid to communicate. It’s a form of fundamentalism. Whenever I run into a rigid person, especially if young, I tell myself that he’s sick.”
What does Bergoglio mean by a “rigid person”? Of course, he has made that quite clear with his endless stream of petty insults: an observant Catholic who thinks that the negative precepts of the natural law admit of no exceptions.
Notice the loathing of the “rigid” young in particular, who threaten the megalomaniacal Bergoglian vision of a “transformed” Church. These uppity young people—no “listening to the young” here! —dare to intimate a restoration of orthodoxy and orthopraxis after Bergoglio has gone to his grave. They must be marginalized now by being declared insane in the mode of Soviet propaganda.
- With Amoris Laetitia, Francis is leading a battle against the moral rigidity of “no, no, no”:
“This closed, fundamentalist mindset like Jesus faced is ‘the battle I lead today with the exhortation.’”
There we have it, as if we didn’t already know: Francis is waging war on the Church’s constant teaching respecting adultery and other violations of the Sixth Commandment, which he deems mere peccadillos compared to such sins as “making illegal agreements.”
“‘Marriage’ is a historical word. Always in humanity, and not only within the Church, it’s between a man and a woman… we cannot change that. This is the nature of things. This is how they are. Let’s call them ‘civil unions.’”
Anyone who thinks Bergoglio has here defended traditional marriage will believe anything. This comment delighted the pro-homosexual, pseudo-Catholic propaganda mill, New Ways Ministry, condemned by the CDF in 1999. As its website exulted:
What’s new here, however, is his endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples….
PopeFrancis has never, as pontiff, stated his endorsement of civil unions so flatly. (He did civil unions as a compromise to his opposition towards marriage equality when he was an archbishop in Argentina. As pontiff, he did make an about civil unions, which inspired more questions than certainty about his position.) This new statement of support from him is a giant step forward.”
There is no denying the reality: Bergoglio has opened the floodgates to “gay marriage,” labelled “civil union,” which the Church, following his example, will cease to oppose as long as he is
Pope. So much for the contrary teaching of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the duty of every Catholic to oppose and refuse to implement any form of legal recognition of “homosexual unions” because “the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.”
- No war is just:
“I don’t like to use the term ‘just war.’ We hear people say: ‘I make war because I have no other means to defend myself.’ But no war is just. The only just thing is peace.”
As is clear by now, whatever Church teaching Francis doesn’t like he simply heaves overboard. For after all, as he has assured us, the Magisterium is what he thinks. So much for the contrary teaching of Saint Augustine, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Magisterium for 2,000 years and even the Catechism of John Paul II (§§ 2307-2317), which affirms the Church’s bimillenial Just War doctrine.
Recall that Bergoglio, contrary to the bimillenial teaching of the Church in keeping with the revealed truth of Scripture, has declared that the imposition of capital punishment is a “mortal sin” that should be universally abolished and has even called for the abolition of life sentences because they are a “hidden death penalty.” He has never, however, demanded the abolition of abortion, even though, in this very interview, he admits it is the murder of innocents as opposed to convicted criminals.
- The secular state is a good thing:
“The lay state is a healthy thing. There is a healthy laicism. Jesus said: We must render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.”
That Caesar too must render unto God the things that are God’s seems not to have occurred to Bergoglio. Given that the traditional teaching of the Church on the Social Kingship of Christ is decidedly not what Bergoglio thinks, he has excised it from his faux “magisterium” of interviews and airborne press conferences. He does allow, however, that:
in certain countries like France, this laicism carries the legacy of enlightenment too much, which creates the common belief where religions are considered a subculture. I believe that France—this is my personal opinion, not the official Church one—should ‘elevate’ a little bit the level of laicism, in the sense that it must say that religions are also part of the culture. How to express this in lay terms? Through an openness to transcendence. Everyone can find his form of openness.”
Notice that only when he expresses a mild criticism of the secular state is Bergoglio at pains to note that this is only his opinion, not Church teaching—evidently under the assumption that official Church teaching accepts the secular state without the least reservation! As for “openness to transcendence,” he means merely that the secular state should concede that any and all religions, no matter what they teach, are “part of the culture.”
As readers are no doubt wondering: What is a Catholic to do in the face of the endless raving of this man, who admits in the same interview that in his forties he underwent psychoanalysis “with a Jewish psychoanalyst. For months I went to her house once a week to clear up some things”?
First of all, obviously, we must keep the Faith in spite of Bergoglio’s relentless attacks upon it.
Secondly, we must never for a moment acquiesce by our silence in the man’s false teaching, but rather, according to our station, expose it and condemn it at every turn as soldiers of Christ and members of the Church militant, lest anyone—especially among our family and friends—be lulled into accepting Bergoglio’s errors. He must be confronted, day in and day out, by the orthodox Catholics he so clearly despises and seeks to ostracize with his cheap demagoguery, even to the point of effectively assisting the secular state he absurdly deems “healthy” in its ever-widening witch hunt for “hate speech” and “hate groups.”
Thirdly, we ought to consider the real possibility that with this
Pope we have entered into uncharted territory in the history of the papacy: The Chair of Peter is occupied by a man who appears to have been validly elected to the papacy, is universally recognized as a successor of Peter, and yet, de facto, is a kind of antipope in terms of his words and deeds. Worse, not even the literal antipopes of the past have uttered the falsehoods and inanities that flow from Bergoglio like a river from its source.
This astounding spectacle should fill us with dread over the threat it poses to the Church, to our children, to countless other souls, and to the world at large. It should impel us to pray for the Church’s deliverance from this pontificate, but also to pray for Francis himself, despite the legitimate outrage he provokes and the emotional response to his antics that rises in the flesh. It should not, however, be an occasion for gleeful gloating in the manner of the sedevacantist commentators, who delight in what they view as the ultimate confirmation of their thesis that we have had no legitimate Pope since Pius XII.
What we are now witnessing is something other than mere sedevacantism. What exactly it is, only history will tell. But it is certainly something the Church has never seen before. Knowing this, we should be appropriately forewarned of what would appear, at this point, to be a dramatic heavenly resolution of the absolutely unprecedented Bergoglian Debacle.