The Politically Correct Papacy

The Politically Correct Papacy

by Christopher A. Ferrara
December 29, 2015

In his address to the United States Congress, Pope Francis declared: “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.” First of all, it is the Fifth Commandment, not the Golden Rule, which requires the defense of human life. But Francis seemed averse to mentioning anything so controversial as a divine commandment before a body of “elected representatives” which, in keeping with the dictates of the modern state system, is not permitted to recognize any authority higher than itself.

That aside, as Francis spoke these words Catholics held their breath, waiting for the Pope to condemn the horror of abortion at the very center of power in the decadent Western world, just as Mother Teresa did — explicitly, by name, fifteen times — during her address to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

What followed, however, was a statement that landed with a thud heard ‘round the world: “This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.” The death penalty? What does a convicted murderer sitting on Death Row have to do with “human life at every stage of development?” Nothing, of course. The Pope’s conclusion is a rather stupefying non sequitur.

Francis has since upped the ante, however, demanding in mid-December that the death penalty be abolished throughout the world, while also reciting a laundry list of other social justice demands indistinguishable from planks in the platform of the Democratic Party: “conditions for legal residency for migrants, jobs for the unemployed, access to medical care for all, and forgiveness of international debt burdens.”

It is telling indeed that while demanding the abolition of a penal sanction that Catholic teaching has always approved for the gravest offenses, nowhere, at any time, has Francis called for the abolition of abortion, the slaughter of millions of innocent children, which the Church has always condemned as an “abominable crime” in violation of the Fifth Commandment (not the Golden Rule).

Indeed, Francis himself called abortion an “abominable crime” in a little-publicized address to an Italian pro-life organization. Why, then, has he not called upon the leaders of the world to put an end to this abominable crime? Why, instead, does he demand that they abolish a legitimate penal measure, which, as Pius XII insisted, is a just penalty for murder based upon the divinely conferred “coercive power of legitimate human authority” and “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine”?

The answer to these questions is that the papacy, along with most of the rest of the human element of the Church, now allows itself to be governed by political correctness as an element of the spirit of the age, according to which majoritarian politics reigns supreme over the contrary claims of religion and morality. The result is the politically correct papacy, which reduces morality to the Golden Rule and avoids any offense, much less any direct confrontation, with the powers that be. In short: a practical decommissioning of the Church Militant.

This development can hardly be laid entirely at the feet of Francis. Rather, it has been some fifty years in the making following the disastrous “opening to the world” at Vatican II. But Francis has taken the politically correct papacy to a new level, thereby earning the world’s unending praise — something absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church.

To take another example: As the people of Ireland prepared to vote on whether to legalize “gay marriage,” Francis said nothing in opposition. Nor did he have a word to say by way of regret, much less condemnation, after this abomination became Irish law. Likewise, as the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of “gay marriage,” Francis observed a resounding silence before and after the decision that imposed it on all fifty states. On this score, even the ultraliberal Huffington Post, in a commentary written by a “gay” correspondent, was constrained to make this observation:

Considering that Pope Benedict often vocally expressed harsh condemnation of marriage equality — even traveling to Spain to speak out against it when that country was among the first to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians and called it a “threat to the future of humanity” — it’s astonishing how silent Francis is on the issue.I’ve noted in the past how he had no comment as country after country in Europe legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. And then this past June [2015], he had no comment after the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

And yet, as the tiny, predominantly Catholic country of Slovenia prepared to vote on whether to approve “gay marriage,” only days ago, Francis did intervene, albeit in a veiled way, calling upon Slovenians “to support the family, a structural reference point for the life of society…” What was expected to be a very close vote turned out to be a rout for “gay marriage” proponents, with Slovenians voting 63-to-36 against it. One can only imagine how the vote in Ireland might have gone had Francis demanded opposition to “gay marriage” with the same constancy and wide publicity with which he demands the abolition of capital punishment.

Do you see the pattern? No demand for the abolition of abortion by any government, while condemning it before a pro-life group during an obscure speech in Italy. No opposition to the advance of “gay marriage” during its conquering march throughout the once Christian west, and then only muted opposition in tiny Slovenia. The pattern is this: a papacy that shrinks from any confrontation with worldly powers over the worst evils of our age; a papacy — and thus a hierarchy in general — that is even less confrontational toward institutionalized evil, above all abortion, than conservative evangelical Protestants. The result is that today the latter are “far more likely to support the right-to-life than any other religious group in the United States.”

The politically correct papacy has neutralized the Church’s once decisive role in the Christian’s perennial combat against what Saint Paul described as “the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” With the general in retreat, the army has followed suit. And as the entire western world descends into an abyss of depravity, slaughtering millions upon millions of innocent children who are its very future, Francis constantly demands leniency for convicted killers.

This is the astounding state of ecclesial affairs doubtless foretold in the Third Secret of Fatima.

Get AQ Email Updates

3 comments on “The Politically Correct Papacy

  1. One is tempted to say: the Holy Spirit, as a dove has “flown the coop” and left the institutional church in favor of the isolated habitats of traditional Catholics. But, we know that this cannot be true since the Holy Spirit cannot, as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, abandon Holy Mother Church in Her most pressing need. However, it appears that the Holy Spirit can leave certain members of the Church in order to bring Good from Evil. Is this what is happening to the papacy? Could be, I suppose.

    • Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope

      Roberto de Mattei
      Corrispondenza Romana
      December 30, 2015
      Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
      Posted by Adfero. at 12/30/2015

      The case of Pope Honorius is one of the most controversial in the history of the Church. As the Church historian, Emile Amann, rightly notes in the large entry he dedicates to the Question d’Onorius in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (vol. VII, coll. 96-132), the problem needs to be treated in an unbiased manner and with the serene impartiality which history owes to past events (col.96).

      At the center of the pontificate of Pope Honorius who reigned from 625-638, was the question of Monothelitism, the last of the great Christological heresies. In order to please the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, desirous of guaranteeing religious peace inside his kingdom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, sought to find a compromise between Catholic orthodoxy, according to which in Jesus Christ there are two natures in one person, and the Monophysite heresy, which attributed to Christ one person only and one nature only. The result of the compromise was a new heresy, Monothelitism, according to which, the double nature of Christ was moved in His action of one operation only and one will only. This is semi-Monophysitism, but truth is integral or it is not, and a moderate heresy, is always heresy. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, was among those who intervened with the greatest vigor in denouncing the new doctrine which rendered the humanity of Christ futile and led to Monophysitism , condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451).

      Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius to ask “in future that no-one be permitted to affirm the two operations in Christ Our God” and to receive his support against Sophronius. Honorius unfortunately assented to the request. In a letter to Sergius he affirmed that “the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ was one only (unam voluntatem fatemur), for “the fact that our human nature was assumed by the Divinity” and he invited Sophronius to be silent. The correspondence between Sergius and Honorius is conserved in the acts of VI Ecumenical Council (Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, vol. XI, cols. 529-554) and was republished in Latin, Greek and French by Arthur Loth La cause d’Honorius. Documents originaux avec traduction, notes et conclusion, Victor Palmé, Paris 1870 and in Greek and German by Georg Kreuzer, Die Honoriusfrage im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1975).

      Strengthened by the support of the Pope, Heraclius published a doctrinal formulary in 638 called Ecthesis (“Exposition”) wherein he imposed the new theory of the one Divine will as official religion. Monothelitism, prevailed for over forty years in the Byzantine Empire. At that time the most vigorous defender of the faith was the monk, Maximus, known as the Confessor, who took part in a Synod convoked at the Lateran (649) by Pope Martin (649-655), to condemn Monothelitism. Both the Pope and Maximus were forced into exile. Maximus’s tongue and right hand were cut off as he refused to subscribe to the Monothelite doctrines. Sophronius, Maximus and Martin are today venerated by the Church as saints for their indomitable resistance to the Monothelite heresy.

      The Catholic Faith was finally restored by the III Council of Constantinople, VI Ecumenical Council of the Church, which convened on November 7th 680 in the presence of the Emperor, Constantine IV and the representatives of the new Pope, Agatho, (678-681). The Council condemned Monothelitism and launched an anathema against all those who had promoted or favoured this heresy and included Pope Honorius in this condemnation.

      In the XIII session, held on March 28th 681, the Council Fathers after having proclaimed the will to excommunicate Sergius, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, all the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Bishop Theodore of Pharan, affirm: “And in addition to these, we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas” (Mansi, XI, col. 556).

      On August 9th 681, at the end of the XVI session, the anathema against all the heretics and supporters of the heresy, including Honorius were renewed: Sergio haeretico anathema, Cyro haeretico anathema, Honorio haeretico anathema, Pyrro, haeretico anathema» (Mansi, XI, col. 622). In the dogmatic decree of the XVIII session, on September 16th, it is said that: “since he who never rests and who from the very beginning was the inventor of malice, that by making use of the serpent, introduced poisonous death to human nature, as then, even now, has found the instruments suited to his will: we allude to Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were prelates of this imperial city; and also to Honorius, who was Pope of elder Rome; […]; therefore the suited instruments being found, he did not cease, through these, to provoke scandals and errors in the Body of the Church; and with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will and one operation in two natures of a (Person) of the Holy Trinity, of Christ, our true God, in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius” (Mansi, XI, coll. 636-637).

      The authentic copies of the Council Acts, signed by 174 Fathers and the Emperor, were sent to the five Patriarchal Sees, with particular regard to the Roman See. However, since St. Agatho died on January 10th 681, the Council Acts, after more than 19 months of a “sede vacante”, were ratified by his successor Leo II (682 -683). In the letter sent May 7th 683 to the Emperor Constantine IV, the Pope wrote: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted” (Mansi, XI, col. 733).

      The same year Pope Leo ordered the Acts translated in Latin, to be signed by all the Bishops in the West and that the signatures be conserved at the tomb of St. Peter. As the eminent Jesuit historian, Hartmann Grisar highlights: “in this way the universal acceptance of the Sixth Council in the West was desired, and this, as far as is known, took place without any difficulty” (Analecta romana, Desclée, Rome 1899, pp. 406-407).

      The condemnation of Honorius was confirmed by Leo II’s successors, as attests the Liber diurnus romanorum pontificum and from the seventh (789) and eighth (867 -870) Ecumenical Councils of the Church (C. J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Letouzey et Ané, Paris 1909, vol. III, pp. 520-521).

      Abbé Amann judges historically untenable the position of those, like Cardinal Baronius, who retained that the IV Council Acts had been altered. The Roman legates, were present at the Council; it would be difficult to imagine that they could have been tricked or had misreported on such an important and delicate point as the condemnation of heresy of a Roman Pontiff. Referring then to those theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine, who, in order to save the memory of Honorius, denied the presence of explicit errors in his letters, Amann underlines that they raised a greater problem than the one they claimed to resolve, i.e. the infallibility of the Acts of a Council presided over by a Pope. If, in fact, Honorius did not fall into error, the Popes and the Council that condemned him were wrong.

      The VI Ecumenical Council Acts, approved by the Pope and received by the universal Church have a much stronger defining significance than Honorius’ letters to Sergius. In order to save infallibility it is better to admit the historical possibility of a heretic Pope, rather than shatter the dogmatic definitions and the anathemas of a Council ratified by a Roman Pontiff. It is common doctrine that the condemnation of the writings of an author is infallible, when the error is anathematized with the note of heresy, whereas, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is not always necessarily infallible.

      During the First Vatican Council, the Deputation of the Faith confronted the problem by setting out a series of rules of a general character, which are applied not only in the case of Honorius, but in all problems, past or future that may be presented. It is not enough for the Pope to pronounce on a question of faith or customs regarding the universal Church, it is necessary that the decree by the Roman Pontiff is conceived in such a manner as to appear as a solemn and definitive judgment, with the intention of obliging all the faithful to believe (Mansi, LII, coll. 1204-1232). There are, therefore, non-infallible acts of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, since they are devoid of the necessary defining character: quod ad formam seu modum attinet.

      Pope Honorius’ letters are devoid of these characteristics. They are undoubtedly Magisterial acts, but in the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations. The Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot ever pronounce a heresy ex- cathedra. In Honorius’ case, as the Benedictine patrologist, Dom John Chapman OSB, observes, it cannot be affirmed that he intended to formulate a sentence ex cathedra, defining and binding: «Honorius was fallible, was wrong, was a heretic, precisely because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church» (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (1907), Reprint Forgotten Books, London 2013, p. 110). His letters to Sergius, even if they were about the faith, did not promulgate any anathema and do not correspond to the conditions required by the dogma of infallibility. Promulgated by the First Vatican Council, the principle of infallibility is saved, contrary to what the Protestants and the Gallicans thought. Further, if Honorius was anathematized, explained Pope Hadrian II, in the Roman Synod of 869, “the reason is that Honorius was accused of heresy, the only cause for which it is licit to inferiors to resist their superiors and to repel their perverse sentiments” (Mansi, XVI, col. 126).

      Specifically based on these words, after having examined the case of Pope Honorius, the great Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano, sums up the safest doctrine in these terms: “It must not be denied that the Supreme Pontiff can be a heretic, of which one or two examples may be offered. However, that (a Pope) in judgments on the faith has defined something against the faith, not even one can be demonstrated” De Locis Theologicis, l. VI, tr. spagnola, BAC, Madrid 2006, p. 409).

  2. Re: Honorius I and the notion of a heretic pope

    I think we must fight against the notion of a pope being a formal heretic. It’s not in accord with Vatican I’s teaching:

    “And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’”

    In the case of Honorius, it seems quite likely that he didn’t espouse Monothelitism, but failed to extinguish the error. If this is the case, then, shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to the pope?

    The text below is taken from James Larson’s “War Against the Papacy”
    specifically addressing Honorius I. It seems to me to be a solid defense of the pope against the charge of heresy.


    Pope John IV:

    Two years after the death of Pope Honorius (638), Pope John IV ascended the throne of Peter. In 641 he wrote an epistle titled Dominus qui dixit to the Emperor Constantius concerning “The Meaning of the Words of Honorius about the Two Wills” (Denzinger 253). He writes:

    “Thus in the dispensation of His sacred flesh, He (Christ) never had two contrary wills, nor did the will of His flesh resist the will of His mind….Therefore, knowing that there was no sin at all in Him when He was born and lived, we fittingly say and truthfully confess one will in the humanity of His sacred dispensation; and we do not preach two contrary wills, of mind and of flesh, as in a pure man, in the manner certain heretics are known to rave. In accord with this method, then, our predecessor (already mentioned) [Honorius] is known to have written to the (aforementioned) Sergius the Patriarch who was asking questions, that in our Savior two contrary wills did not exist internally, that is, in His members, since He derived no blemish from the transgression of the first man….This usually happens, that, naturally where there is a wound, there medicinal aid offers itself. For the blessed Apostle is known to have done this often, preparing himself according to the custom of his hearers; and sometimes indeed when teaching about the supreme nature, he is completely silent about the human nature, but sometimes when treating of the human dispensation, he does not touch on the mystery of His divinity…So, my aforementioned predecessor said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.”

    Pope John IV, in other words, totally exonerated Pope Honorius of heresy.

    Pope St. Martin:

    In the year 649, Pope St. Martin called together the Lateran Council in order to define the true doctrine and to condemn Monothelitism. All the major figures in this heresy are anathematized by name by the Council. Their writings are examined and thoroughly discussed. Pope Honorius is never mentioned. On the contrary, the Council states that since the rise of this heresy all the Roman Pontiffs had been solicitous in defending the faith against this heresy. Pope St. Martin was martyred by the Monothelites in 653.

    St. Maximus the Confessor:

    Possibly the most powerful and astonishing evidence as to the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius comes to us from the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor. I shall let Bishop Hefele relate it from Volume 5 of his monumental work on The History of the Councils of the Church:

    What is most fascinating about this excerpt from St. Maximus’ debate with Pyrrhus is the revelation that the person (John Symponus, who St. Maximus says “has illuminated the whole West with his learning’) who wrote Pope Honorius’ letter to Sergius is the same person who wrote the Letter of Pope John IV, which later would exonerate Pope Honorius. The Letter of Pope John IV contains the following sentence concerning Pope Honorius:

    “So, my aforementioned predecessor said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth….”

    In other words, the same man who wrote the letter of Pope Honorius specifically declares that it is “altogether contrary to the truth” that this letter, or Pope Honorius (and thus also the Abbot John himself) ever taught “one will of His divinity and humanity.” And further, this same author of the Pope’s letter, says, “Therefore, knowing that there was no sin at all in Him when He was born and lived, we fittingly say and truthfully confess one will in the humanity of His sacred dispensation; and we do not preach two contrary wills, of mind and of flesh….” In other words, he specifically says that the clause in the Honorius letter which proclaims “one will” in Christ refers only to the moral union of will in the untainted and unfallen nature of Christ’s humanity.

    This interpretation of the meaning of the words of Pope Honorius is therefore confirmed by the very person who wrote Honorius’ letter. It is also confirmed, obviously, by Pope Honorius and Pope John IV. It should also be noted that Pope John IV held a synod in which he condemned Monothelitism, and that St. Maximus died as a martyr at the hands of the Monothelites.

    Pope St. Agatho:

    Pope Agatho (678-681) convoked the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council), and reigned during the period that the Council was in session. He did not attend personally, but sent legates. By the time the Acts of the Council reached Rome for the Pope’s confirmation, Pope Agatho was dead. This task therefore fell upon his successor, Pope Leo II. We will, of course, speak of Pope Leo and his actions in regards to the Council further on in our discussion.

    Pope Agatho wrote a letter to Emperor Constantine IV, and this letter was read and embraced at the Council. The Pope condemned all the major promoters of the Monothelite heresy by name. But if one is looking for the name of Honorius, it is conspicuous by its absence. Pope Agatho also wrote the following

    “Let your tranquil Clemency [the Emperor] therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing….”

    Pope Honorius was a predecessor of Pope Agatho. It is obvious, therefore, that Pope Agatho’s statement concerning the never-failing faith of his predecessors refers also to Pope Honorius. This reference becomes even more specific in a subsequent passage:

    “Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord….”

    Anyone with knowledge of these events immediately recognizes that the phrase “at least by silence” refers to only one man: Pope Honorius, who ordered silence upon the contesting parties in Constantinople and elsewhere. Therefore, even though he does not mention him by name, the famous letter of Pope Agatho gives clear testimony of the never-failing faith of all his predecessors, and contains a specific reference to the orthodoxy of Honorius.

    After carefully examining the letter of Pope Agatho, Bishop Hefele, in his History of the Councils of the Church, concludes the following:

    “In this letter there are three points quite specially worthy of consideration: 1) The certainty and clearness with which Agatho sets forth the orthodox Dyothelitic (Two Wills) doctrine; 2) the zeal with which he repeatedly declares the infallibility of the Roman Church; and 3) the strong assurance, many times repeated, that all his predecessors had stood fast in the right doctrine, and had given exhortation to the patriarchs of Constantinople in the correct sense. Agatho was then far removed from accusing his predecessor Honorius of heresy, and the supposition that he had beforehand consented to his condemnation entirely contradicts this letter (Vol. 5, p. 145-46).” – emphasis is again mine

    Pope Leo II:

    Finally, we must consider the actions of Pope Leo II in confirming the actions of the Council of Constantinople. For this purpose I quote the words of historian Warren Carroll:

    Everything we know and can conclude about the thought and actions of Pope St. Leo II regarding the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 680 and 681 must be drawn from his five extant letters, all relating to this subject: one to Emperor Constantine IV and four to Spain – to its King Erwig, to its bishops collectively, to the Spanish bishop Quiricus, and to the Spanish Count Simplicius. The letters to the Emperor, to the king, and to all the Spanish bishops contain clear statements that Pope Leo has confirmed the final decree of the Council, while at the same time redefining its language on Pope Honorius to make it conform to the fact, evident from a careful reading of Honorius’ letter to Sergius, that he had not endorsed Sergius’ Monothelite ideas, but only refrained from condemning them. Writing to the Emperor, almost certainly composing the letter himself in the Emperor’s language, Greek, Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because ‘he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather fanning them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy, and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their cause, thereby allowing the faith to be stained (p. 254).”

    We thus have five letters from Pope Leo II which deal with the subject of the condemnation of Pope Honorius. The words are strong in their criticism in regard to Pope Honorius’ negligence. All five letters, however, studiously avoid designating him as a heretic. These letters therefore constitute an obvious refusal on the part of Pope Leo II to subject Pope Honorius to a condemnation for heresy.

    It is clear, therefore, that in no way can we assume that Pope Leo II confirmed the Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius in the sense that “he followed the view and confirmed the doctrines” of the Monothelite heretics. In other words, the only way that the word “heretic” could be applied to Honorius at all is in a meaning and fashion that is antiquated: namely that through his failure to condemn the heresy outright, and through his use of a term which the heretics could then distort to their own advantage, he unwittingly fostered the spread of this heresy.

Leave a Reply