Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium Featured

Written by  

 a pope

In a 450-page book-interview, Pope Bergoglio 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 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 marginalizednow by being declared insane in the mode of Soviet propaganda.

“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…. Pope Francis has never, as pontiff, stated his endorsement of civil unions so flatly.   (He did supportcivil unions as a compromise to his opposition towards marriage equality when he was an archbishop in Argentina.  As pontiff, he did make an ambiguous statementabout 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.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/09/07/francis-expands-the-fake-magisterium/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

2 comments on “Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium

  1. [A neo-Catholic’s review of the new book of interviews with the pope]

    Previewing confusion? The Pope’s new book-length interview

    By Dr. Jeff Mirus | Sep 08, 2017

    On Thursday, the French edition of a new book-length interview with Pope Francis was published and available for sale on Amazon, if you have $49.95 to spend on a paperback. Catholic News Service (the news agency of the American bishops) announced and previewed the book on September 1st, highlighting some of the hot-button issues. Our own Catholic World News service picked up the story on the same day, emphasizing the Pope’s disclosure that he had received psychoanalytic counseling for anxiety nearly forty years ago. London’s Catholic Herald republished the CNS story two days later, making it more widely known worldwide.

    To his credit, Pope Francis was fairly strong on sex-and-gender issues in the interviews. Referring to marriage, he stated “We cannot change it. This is the nature of things.” He emphasized that on the matter of marriage and gender, there is “critical confusion at the moment”. And he refused to accept the term “gay marriage”: “Let’s call this ‘civil unions’. We do not joke around with truth.” But when it came to clearly expressing certain other moral principles, the Pope’s remarks tended to ratify his tendency to obfuscate—to cloud rather than to clarify.
    [“Civil unions”: An idea whose time goes quickly after it arrives: Wherever it is legalized, “gay marriage” soon follows, because “they” went the “real thing” – not a second-rate imitation. – AQ moderator Tom]

    One of the most darkly humorous comments in the interview came when Francis noted that he still gets nervous, particularly when speaking to journalists on papal trips. To counter this nervousness, he said: “I begin with prayer, and then I try to be very precise.” But as everyone knows by now, precision is one thing this particular Pope rarely achieves. Moreover, it is certainly fair to say that it is precisely his unwillingness to be precise that constitutes the greatest weakness of his pontificate.

    I use the word “unwillingness” because Pope Francis has been asked to clarify a number key remarks over the past few years but has steadfastly refused to do so, even to the point of applying the derogatory term “fundamentalist” to those who seek such clarity. In this latest interview, he states once again that the same fundamentalist mindset abhorred by Jesus is at the heart of “the battle I lead today with the exhortation” Amoris Laetitia.

    Key examples

    Unfortunately, the greatest confusion continues to swirl around Francis’ handling of divorce in the context of the Church’s sacramental discipline. In the interview, he repeatedly condemns a Pharisaical attitude of saying “no, no and no”, asserting that Our Lord followed “another logic” that went beyond prohibitions. But this emphasis proves, once again, to be extraordinarily misleading.

    The first problem is that the Pope erects a straw man—namely, the consistently negative Churchman who never goes beyond prohibitions relating to forms of immorality that fall “below the belt”. It is all too easy to knock the straw man down, for the simple reason that he is a caricature which almost nobody recognizes in real life. Indeed, at least since 1960, whatever things might have been like in some other periods, the case has been quite the opposite. Yet Francis blames the straw man for clerical mediocrity, lazy adherence to “frozen norms”, and a failure to communicate the love of Christ.

    The second problem is that the Pope persistently refuses to clarify his intentions, even to the point of condemning those with clearly legitimate questions. For example:

    When I talk about families in difficulty, I say, “Welcome, accompany, discern, integrate…” and then everyone will see the doors open. In reality, what happens is you hear people say, “They cannot receive Communion. They cannot do this and that.”
    Now of course everyone agrees that pastors and people alike must love those in unfortunate family situations and do their best to assist them in clarifying their situation, growing in grace and understanding, and moving at least by degrees toward living their baptismal promises in the fullness intended by Christ and His Church. I doubt that this point, in the whole history of the Church, has ever been at issue.

    But the Church has consistently taught that those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment cannot receive Communion, for objectively they are living in a state of adultery, making a mockery of the Church’s sacramental life, and refusing to submit to the Church’s God-given jurisdiction over matrimony. This prohibition, moreover, is still part of Canon Law. Therefore, it is perfectly natural to ask whether the admission of such couples to Communion has suddenly ceased to be the scandal which the Church has heretofore consistently held it to be. Yet Pope Francis refuses to answer that question. Instead, he consistently condemns those who raise it as being precisely the kind of people whom Our Lord made it His Divine mission to oppose.

    In addition, we continue to see confusion concerning at least two more key moral questions. Thus Pope Francis said that the Church needs to look into her theory of just war because “no war is just. The only just thing is peace.” But this entirely begs the question. The whole reason just war theory was developed, from the Patristic era on, was because war is so horrible and damaging that it was necessary for the Church to clarify for civil authorities the moral principles which must determine whether, as a practical matter, they are justified in engaging in warfare to put a stop to the enormous suffering and injustice perpetrated by an aggressor. On this the Pope is very far from even attempting to speak clearly. It is more charitable to accuse him of confusion rather than word games.

    Selfishness

    I will close with a consideration of Pope Francis’ statement that the biggest threat in the world is “money”. It is true that Our Lord said that we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon (which is the improper desire for worldly wealth, or covetousness) (Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13). When the interviewer asks why people do not listen to this message, which has been clearly condemned by the Church since the time of Christ, the Pope answers by saying that too many preachers do not want to preach about anything but sexual immorality.

    Here the question is very pointedly ignored, for the interviewer stipulated that in fact the Church’s message has been clear and consistent on this matter down through history. But Pope Francis’ great insight assumes the exact opposite. It is all the fault of a constant (yet to the interviewer non-existent) preoccupation of bishops, priests and teachers with sex. Show of hands: Which has been more common in your Catholic experience of the past few generations, the denunciation from the pulpit of sexual sin or of institutionalized selfishness? Raise your fist if you have ever heard a sermon on the sin of contraception, which more than anything else underlies the destruction of the family in our time.

    It is at least possible that what we encounter here is the unfortunate result of an ideological mindset, a mindset I discussed earlier this year (see In a nutshell: Liberalism and Modernism). I pointed out that those who tend toward modernism or liberalism, in the precise Catholic senses of those terms, have a very bad intellectual habit of relativizing what we rightly call intrinsic evils while absolutizing what we rightly call prudential judgments.

    Nobody would deny how much harm material selfishness does in this world, nor the great suffering experienced by large numbers of people when they are deprived of an adequate living standard at least partially by their more powerful neighbors, nor how much spiritual damage we inflict on ourselves through material or monetary selfishness. But most of this (excepting the spiritual part) has become a self-serving modern mantra. It goes without saying that the Church must continue to condemn personal selfishness and insist upon constant growth in charity. The Catholic laity, through their expertise in various fields, ought also to transform endemic ways of doing things that are unfair or even punitive to others.

    But the difficulty comes when we get down to cases. Each case of the use of wealth is in large part a prudential decision. It is easy to condemn selfishness but very hard, without resorting to ideology, to blame all problems on particular, selected manifestations of certain kinds of selfishness. Here the Church’s mission is to foster spiritual growth and commitment to the good, without ever slipping into the fashionable ideologies of the day, which almost by definition cleverly mask their own selfishness. They are, after all, embraced by many on the basis of whether they do or do not cast the blame upon some class of persons to which they themselves do not belong.

    I do not accuse the Pope of being under an ideological spell. He breaks the mold often enough to escape so simple a diagnosis. He may well be right to emphasize, as he does later, that “the most minor sins are the sins of the flesh” whereas “the most dangerous sins are those of the mind [such as] hatred, envy, pride, vanity”. He is certainly right to insist that confessors should spend more time asking if a person prays, reads the Gospel, and seeks the Lord. Moreover, his constant emphasis on the use of the Sacrament of Confession is not only directly on target but profoundly inspiring. This alone is a great gift to the Church.

    I must further stipulate that, strictly speaking, it is not theological evidence against the Pope’s position that Our Lady is reported to have said in her apparitions at Fatima that “more souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” But it is well worth considering the degree to which pride and vanity and rebellion against God are the reasons we refuse to accept the moral guidance of His Church, even on such apparently paltry matters as human sexuality.

    We need to recognize how misleading it is to see the problems of our world purely in what we might call “macro socio-economic terms”—the kinds of things which governments in the modern world are so fond of taking into account, such as unemployment figures; and the kinds of things so many fundamentally irreligious people are constantly insisting that government should create “rules” or “programs” to correct. The weight of government on a fundamentally disordered culture will nearly always do more harm than good.

    In our own case, it is precisely the destruction of the family, including all the infidelities which contribute to that destruction, that marks the great crisis of our time. It is at the micro level first and foremost that our culture is being torn apart, and this in turn impoverishes huge numbers of people from generation to generation, producing those macro statistics we are so fond of citing. Not only is sexual morality by its very nature very conveniently absolute (rather than relative or prudential) but it is also one of the great keys to strengthening the family—the care of which is not only the most fertile natural ground of both virtue and happiness but also, even in our time, the very best socio-economic safety net.

    For this reason, and without accusing the Pope of any particular formal error, I will close on the plea that he might reassess his pastoral priorities, and make a point of bringing clarity and discipline to the most important things in life. It is easy to say that money is not the most important thing, and that the desire for money is a morally destructive form of motivation. This is easy to say because, in theory, we will be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees. But it is another thing altogether to identify with passionate precision the particular sins and moral misconceptions our culture must abandon, if it is ever to foster human happiness again.

  2. re: “extraordinarily misleading”

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a title for a book on the Bergoglian pontificate. Thank you, Dr. Mirus.

    The Pope’s Straw Man Fallacy of the “rigid” orthodox Catholic is deserving of further study and analysis. He returns to this fantasy in his progressive modernist narrative over and over again. Was this primarily a problem in Argentina or does Bergoglio really believe that this is a universal problem in the Church?

    This narrative was circulated in modernist Jesuit circles in the 1960s and 1970s. Hence, this is really a throwback pontificate. Bergoglio would have been on Laugh-In chanting “Sock it to me! Sock it to me!” and flashing a peace sign. Can we get him a Time Machine to arrange that?

Leave a Reply