Pope Francis Demonizing Faithful Catholics During His Christmas Address To The Curia

The pope's Christmas Greeting to the Roman Curia this year was singularly lacking of any semblance of Christmas cheer.  National Catholic Register has some commentary on the address, but at the bottom of that article is the full text of the pope's address.  He speaks of the "reform of the curia" and making it "conform to the signs of our time".  Shouldn't it be conforming to God's immutable will?

We then see how he talks of "malicious resistance" to this reform, and how he says this resistance "takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities".  He's taking pot-shots at those faithful Catholics who adhere to God's teachings, particularly on marriage and family, and I believe he's taking deliberate aim at the four cardinals who promulgated the dubia.  Then he calls for "unconditioned obedience" to this "reform".  Where is his call for unconditional obedience to Christ's teachings regarding marriage and worthiness to receive Holy Communion?

Perhaps his ire against the dubia cardinals, particularly Cardinal Burke, may be a motivation behind another recent action of the pope's.  Recall that Pope Francis named Cardinal Burke as patron of the Order of Malta after he ejected Burke from some Vatican posts.  It seems that a senior official of the Knights of Malta was involved in the distribution of condoms.  For that he was ejected from the order.  Lepanto Institute did a very thorough investigation into the matter and found ample evidence that this official was indeed involved in that very anti-life activity.  His ouster was entirely justified.

Now why, oh why, does Pope Francis find it necessary to create an entire commission to investigate the matter?  It seems rather simple to me; an official in a Catholic organization was caught in activities not becoming a Catholic.  He was ejected from his post as a result.  Granted, when other such scandals have been unearthed, it's only when public scrutiny occurs that the offending party is disciplined (and sometimes the offender is retained).  But Cardinal Burke is at the helm of the Order of Malta, and I think it's likely that he took immediate and proper action.  So why does the pope seek to meddle after the fact?  Is he that much of a micro-manager or is this just an excuse to take out some long knives against Cardinal Burke?

In an interview with Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke pointed out that any pope who professes formal heresy would automatically cease to be pope.  In that article, Burke goes into the provisions in canon law for such a scenario.  He also voiced hope that the pope will answer the dubia, to allay possible schism.

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, another of the four dubia cardinals, granted an interview to Der Spiegel.  He too was questioned about the dubia and its implications.  Brandmuller pointed out that "whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”  As we read the article, we are reminded that Pope Francis, in his letter to the Argentinian bishops, did make allowance for unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion; in other words, Pope Francis gave approval for sins of sacrilege to occur.

Now consider both these interviews together.  On the one hand, Cardinal Brandmuller states that someone allowing for Holy Communion to be given to unrepentant adulterers is a heretic and promotes schism.  In that same article, Pope Francis is fulfilling that definition of "heretic" in his letter to the Argentinian bishops.  On the other hand, Cardinal Burke points out that a pope formally professes heresy automatically ceases to be pope.

Faithful Catholics, do we understand the gravity of the situation?  Depending on how Pope Francis treats the dubia, the Catholic Church might well find itself in schism.  If he states formally the heresy that those in public mortal sin can receive Holy Communion, it seems that he will have ejected himself from Peter's chair.  The Church might well find herself in schism.  As hard as it is to admit, schism would be far preferable than the Church being led into error.  As you read further down the LifeSiteNews piece, Pope Francis himself seems to understand that he could well divide the Church.

Deconstruction Of Church Tradition Under Pope Francis

After the grotesque display of satanic idolatry at St Peter's Basilica on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, we continue to see increasingly blatant attempts to deconstruct Church teaching.  Many of these attempts are from high Church officials, including Pope Francis.

Thanks to Toronto Catholic Witness, I was directed to the homily that Pope Francis gave on December 8th to inaugurate the "jubilee of mercy".  This is on the Vatican's website.  Here is the troubling passage: "Before all else, the Council was an encounter. A genuine encounter between the Church and the men and women of our time. An encounter marked by the power of the Spirit, who impelled the Church to emerge from the shoals which for years had kept her self-enclosed so as to set out once again..." (emphasis mine)

I agree with TCW that in that phrase, Pope Francis spit in the eye all his predecessors, some of them saints, blesseds and doctors of the Church, precisely because they acted as shepherds who guarded their flocks.  While this pope might prefer that we take the "smell of the sheep", his predecessors (by and large) sought to preserve the Church in the odor of sanctity.

In a recent interview, Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said that "some form of birth control" might help with "overpopulation" and resultant "food shortage".  He also stated it could help with "climate change".  He then reminded us all of the shameful way in which Pope Francis treated the woman who was expecting her eighth child.  It would be an interesting thing if that eighth child were to confront the pope and tell him a thing or two, but I digress!

He must have realized his Freudian slip for he tried to backpedal, saying only "natural forms of birth control" were acceptable.  I don't buy it; else, why would he have used the general, nebulous "some form" descriptor for birth control?  More importantly, periodic abstinence from marital relations cannot be equated with what is commonly referred to as "birth control".  Voice of the Family is correct in opining that Turkson's remarks do lend credibility to the attempts to divorce marital relations from the procreation of children.  They certainly do make plain the linkage between "climate change" junk science with population control.

According to the Guardian, a Vatican document (name unknown) exhorts Catholics not to attempt to convert Jews to Christianity.  This document is from the Vatican commission for relationships with Jews.  Boys and girls, can you say "ecumenicide"?  You probably noticed during Triduum services that the traditional prayer for Jews to come to Christianity has been scuttled in recent years, so this manifestation of ecumenicide predates the current pontiff.  Now what was that again that we read in the Bible, at the end of several Gospels, where Jesus commands (not "suggest", not "request", but "command") the Apostles to baptize all "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?  Or did the "god of surprises" change his mind?

As I read of this, I think of what St Paul wrote in several of his letters, how he wished that all his brother Jews would be converted.  I also think of St. Vincent Ferrar, who once marched into a synagogue, started preaching and converted thousands of Jews on the spot.  Paul!  Vincent!  Naughty-naughty!  Stop that now!  Leave the Jews (and others) to wallow in darkness!  Don't you know that we must be ecumenical?  Seriously though, how can one talk with a straight face about a "year of mercy" and yet not seek to bring others to the font of mercy, that is, Jesus Christ, who acts through His Church?

My blogging colleague Julie at Connecticut Catholic Corner put up a piece today entitled "The New Age Of Pope Francis' Church".  Read it for I concur with her.  I too pray for a holy pope who will save souls.  At this time, it appears that this pope will not be Pope Francis, but only God knows.  Let us pray.

With The Ouster Of Cdl Burke And Misconduct Of SinNod, The "Lovable" Mask Comes Off Pope Francis

No longer can any thinking, alert Catholic believe that Pope Francis is an affable "good ole boy" who likes to live simply and put clown noses on his face for silly selfies.  It is becoming painfully obvious that he is quite skilled in Machiavellian and Alinskyan tactics for advancing his agenda.  These skills have been displayed all too well at this SinNod.

A few days ago, after the release of the interim relatio, Cardinal Burke publicly urged - challenged - the Pope to defend unambiguously the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.  It should be emphasized that these teachings are those of Jesus Christ Himself.  Yesterday Cardinal Pell echoed that challenge.  However, it does seem that the agenda of the SinNod was planned well in advance - and that the relatio may have been written before the SinNod convened!

California Catholic Daily goes into detail about the planned short-comings of the SinNod:

• The prohibition against the publication of bishops' statements, unheard of in any other such gathering
• No mention of chastity or pursuit of holiness
• Over-emphasis on divorced/remarried issues to the exclusion of others (pornography, polygamy in Africa, etc)
• An obvious deference to the opinions of the secular world as to what constitutes "mercy"

Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany appears to be the "front man" for the Vatican apparatus that is pushing for doctrinal changes in regards to distributing Holy Communion to de facto adulterers.  There is much information about Kasper and his thinking; I won't delve into it here lest I digress from the main points of this post, but I do urge all to read it. 

I will also link to a National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin (the same who caught Kasper in a lie regarding his African quip).  The evidence he cites, plus other points cited by others and me (review my postings from this past week) during the past few days, indicates that this SinNod is not much more than an engineered "dog and pony show" conducted to give cover to the advancement of a diabolical agenda masterminded by a select few.  If true, we can only conclude that Pope Francis is one of those select few.  If this isn't Machiavellian and Alinskyan, I don't know what is.

Pope Francis has yet to answer the challenges of Cardinals Burke and Pell for defense of the Church's teachings on families.  Cardinal Burke had some words to say on this, stating that "the Pope has done a lot of harm by not saying openly what his position is", and that the "synod was designed to change Church teaching".  Both Buzz Feed and Rorate Caeli have accounts of this interview today.  In this same interview, His Eminence confirmed that he has been ousted from the Apostolic Signatura.

Some might think my words regarding Pope Francis to be rather caustic. But look at the events of the past few days and consider that they could not have happened without permission from the Pope.  I regret to say that his refusal to affirm Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarried seems to be a glaring signal of things to come.

I close now with a Vortex that was done just after Voris et al got word of the Cardinal's interview.

From The Flighty Interview Department - Pope Francis Slandered Donald Trump And More

While returning to Rome from Mexico earlier today, the pope gave yet another disgraceful interview.  Rorate Caeli has the full text of the interview.

When asked about Donald Trump's proposals to curb illegal immigration (Note - The word "illegal" was not mentioned in today's conversation.  That omission, both on the part of the reporters and pope, is utterly disingenuous.), the pope remarked that Trump is not Christian because of his policies.  Ladies and gentlemen, his meaning is clear for he was asked about Trump by name.  My!  Whatever happened to "who am I to judge"?  Or is that phrase reserved only for those who engage in mortal sin that is applauded by progressives?

Those questions are not merely rhetorical.  When was the last time Pope Francis denounced any of the Democratic candidates as being "not Christian" owing to their support of baby-murder, gay perversion of marriage, etc?  For that matter, when did he openly upbraid Obama for ensconcing the funding of abortion in his Obamacare hell-care bill?  I didn't think so.  As evidenced by his chiding of those who adhere to Catholic tradition over the years, the pope is merely continuing his trend of rebuking those holding to common sense if not the Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentlemen, every decent Catholic knows that nations have not only the right but the morally-binding duty to control their borders for the sake of their citizens who have first claim on their solicitude.  In an anthology of posts here, I've linked to a number of sites giving authentic Catholic teaching on the matter, including Summa Theologica.  Quite frankly, it is Trump who seems to be of like mind with the Angelic Doctor as opposed to Pope Francis.  By the way - look at Vatican City via Google Earth.  Yes, it is surrounded by (gasp!) a wall!

Moving down a few paragraphs, the pope is asked about "abortion" and "avoiding pregnancy" for those exposed to the zika virus as a means of settling for the "lesser of two evils".  The pope rightly threw out abortion as a "lesser of two evils", calling it a crime.  He then spoke of "avoiding pregnancy", citing Pope Paul VI's permitting of the use of contraceptives to nuns who were raped.

This is the first I heard that any pope condoned the use of contraceptives for any reason.  I frankly find that difficult to believe.  Most, if not all, contraceptives have abortifacient qualities; that is, they cause the death of the newly-conceived child.  That is why the Church specifies that the only means of spacing children is periodic abstinence during a woman's fertile period.  The pope, by introducing contraceptives into that plane conversation, left an erroneous impression that the usage of contraceptives is now morally permissible.  It is not, by any stretch of the imagination.  Now did the pope mean to leave that impression?  If we say "no", then we must conclude that he's a dunderhead who has no idea what he's saying.  However, after three years, there can be no more room for doubt.  He knows what he's doing and saying.  This bodes ill for Holy Mother Church.

By the way - his trip to Mexico raised some eyebrows.  Rather than rehash it here, I'll link to Catholic World Report.  Read the comments.  They give evidence that many people are waking up and realizing that there is a menace in the Vatican.  Pray for our pope and Church.  Keep your eyes open and rose-colored glasses off your faces; and help others remove their blinders.

Shedding The Shackles Of Denial - Faithful Catholics Finding Their Voices

As we all know by now, the pope let loose with a statement regarding contraception that can only be classified as heresy.  This happened on one of his now-infamous plane interviews this past Thursday.  There are still Catholics who insist that the pope caused no harm.  Here are their arguments and my refutations in "bullet form".

• "less than 25% of Catholics really know what the Church teaches or even cares, what the Pope says or doesn’t say isn’t going to matter one bit" This is an actual quote from a recent exchange regarding the contraception heresy matter.  Now is this supposed to be comforting to be told that no one cares what the vicar of Christ says?  What really does that say about the crap coming from the pope's mouth?  And by the way, I hold that the world isn't entirely oblivious to papal sayings when those words tickle their ears with justifications for their mortal sins.  In that case the world is all too quick to glom onto the errors; therein lies the scandal.
• "It's becoming obvious that he doesn't fully grasp his international role, where a casual comment is elevated in importance."  While that would be nice to believe, we must realize that if he doesn't understand the gravity of the papal office then he's an absolute moron.  I might concede that point if we were talking about some 20-year old kid whose Catholic education was thoroughly dumbed down by the "spirit of Vatican II" but NOT in the case of someone who was educated before Vatican II AND who went through seminary and rose to become a cardinal.  No, Pope Francis has been "around the block" a few too many times for us to really believe that he doesn't appreciate the weight of his office.
• Then we have the folks on Facebook who sniff "if you criticize the pope I'm going to unfriend you, so there!"  Well, they can go ahead and do that if they can't handle the facts as they present themselves.

But many are waking up and smelling the coffee - and saying so publicly.  I salute them.  In an article that she wrote a few days ago, Jenn Giroux said that "this week was the straw that broke this faithful Catholic's silence".  World Net Daily's columnist Barbara Simpson weighed in, as did the blogger Non Veni Pacem who writes why he/she will no longer consider his/her anger against the pope's misdeeds as matter for confession.  LifeSiteNews has quotes from other Catholics and pro-life leaders who are rightly appalled at the pope's utterance of heresy.

Now many of you are aware that Michael Voris has, in the past, taken to task some of us who've voiced our criticisms of the pope's bloopers.  I've had to contradict him in response.  However, it seems that the heresy uttered by the pope is so blatant that he cannot ignore it.  In today's Vortex he all but says the pope committed heresy.  By the way - I did download this so it won't disappear as did the video from the synod.  I'm going to expound on the video beforehand, again in bullet format.

• At the 2:24 mark, Voris directly refutes the notion that "the Holy Spirit selects the pope".
• At 3:09, he begins a litany of popes who were true reprobates.  I'm surprised he neglected to mention Alexander VI.
• At 5:20 he states the obvious truth that "men in the office of the pope can be wrong".
• At 5:49 he asks "Why should reporters even be allowed to pop questions at the pope?  Any pope?  Always a bad idea."  The short obvious answer to the first question is because this pope says so - and even invites the questions.  We agree that it's a bad idea.  Most of the previous popes did as well, and that is why they gave few (if any) interviews.  So perhaps that first question should be phrased "Why does this pope invite these interviews on a regular basis?"
• At 6:04 Voris says that what the pope says about climate change, etc has no magisterial weight.  That is something that most educated Catholics understand.  However, progressive clergy, bishops' conferences, etc actively promulgate the hoax that everything coming from the mouth of Pope Francis is of Divine inspiration.  Therein lies the reason why many faithful Catholic bloggers MUST take issue with this pope's ever-increasing errors and now heresies.  Perhaps now Voris can admit that we play a vital role.
• At 6:30 Voris says "Jorge Bergolio can easily misspeak, especially if he's conflating his thoughts with what amounts to a hypothetical theological discussion point about nuns in the congo which no one can find any actual evidence of .."  True enough, but when he speaks while wearing those papal robes, he is not just some ordinary guy on the plane running his mouth.  Were that the case, the reporters wouldn't be one bit interested in what he has to say.
• At 7:16 we hear "we must suffer as He did, even if that suffering comes at the hands of His shepherds."  But we do not suffer in silence, lest others be led astray.
• He continues, "It is absurd to think that the men who are popes are perfect in their understanding, thoughts and so forth."  Most of us aren't asking for perfection from our pontiffs.  But is it too much to expect that our popes not constantly insult the devotions of faithful Catholics, not embrace progressivism and not utter heresies against basic Catholic morality?
• At 7:35 he correctly says that "it has become..a cult of the pope, driven by media, which turns it into a feeding frenzy from every side.."  Every side?  I can see it from the progressive side.  However, many of us must call out the errors for the express purpose of disarming the "cult" aspect of the matter and to keep objective truth in front of the world's eyes.  Those who incessantly try to excuse the pope's errors, minimize them, or stifle our attempts to refute errors are just as responsible for the "cult" problem as are the media.
• The "danger of the media driven papacy" can be controlled and even diffused.  The primary responsibility for that lies with the pope himself, with his Vatican staff.  That brings us back to a question asked here and elsewhere: "Why does the pope see fit to grant these impromptu interviews?"
• At 8:31 he brings up the example of Pope Benedict's interview, when the condom remark was taken out of context.  Yes, Pope Benedict made a mistake when granting that interview.  Now here's the really important point.  Pope Benedict XVI never repeated that "papal interview: error!  "Popes make mistakes!"  Yes, but if they keep making the same mistakes repeatedly, with devastating consequences, it's quite fair for us to ask why.
• "Private thoughts that are wrong.." cease to be private when they are spoken before reporters who will literally broadcast these thoughts to millions.  I do congratulate Voris for acknowledging those remarks of the pope as being "wrong".
• "For the first 1900 years we were spared.  From here on out, we're on notice".  True enough; for the first 1900 years the errors could not be widely promulgated.  Now they can be, and thus faithful Catholics must contradict those errors as they occur.

Kudos to Michael Voris for acknowledging that the pope's remarks on this latest plane interview were decidedly off the mark.  But let us not trivialize the damage potential that they do have.

Denial Runs Strong In Surprising Places

As I mentioned yesterday, too many good Catholics are in denial regarding the reality that we currently have a pope who poses a danger to souls every time he opens his mouth.  Am I saying that the pope intends this damage?  I of course cannot say one way or the other, although common sense indicates the affirmative.  I will say, however, that regardless of his motives, he indeed is causing real damage.

Therefore it troubles me greatly when prominent Catholic pro-life leaders advocate the continuance of denial.  When they do so, they unwittingly act as to dissuade their readers from discerning the input that feeds their souls.  Thus these deniers contribute to the spiritual damage already being wrought by the pope's harmful words.

A sad "case in point" is found in an article by Judie Brown, co-founder and president of American Life League.  ALL has always been in the forefront of the Catholic pro-life movement as they have correctly pointed out the spiritual destruction caused by contraception.  The article is to be found in RenewAmerica entitled "The Pope Francis Effect".  While I respect Mrs. Brown highly, I have no choice but to refute this.

Let's bring in the first two sentences:  "Over the last week, considering all the events that Pope Francis participated in during his six-day visit to Mexico and the many lives he touched with his words, his actions, and his very presence, it seems so sad that only one or two sentences from one interview captured our attention. It is as though nothing else happened that week."  The effects of his trip to Mexico are debatable at best, but I won't broach that for now.  Suffice it to say that any (debatable) benefit from his trip was far outweighed by the heresy against morals in his "one or two sentences".  No amount of benefit will mitigate the immense harm and scandal caused by his stated approval of contraceptives.  For example, consider the morning of April 15, 1865.  Can you just imagine someone asking Mary Todd Lincoln, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"  Well the notion that we should dismiss the outright heresy because of the "lives he touched" is similarly preposterous.  Let us consider that his heresy is "touching lives", too.

Proceeding down, she says "the pope was speaking off the cuff".  So what?  It was still the pope who was speaking.  "What he said or didn't say really isn't the problem."  Yes it is, when Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubi and Evangelium Vitae are undermined in the eyes of the world by the Vicar of Christ, the "problem" cannot be overestimated.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect that if it weren't Pope Francis on that plane and instead we had Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Wuerl or some other progressive shepherd on that plane uttering those exact same words, Mrs. Brown's take on the matter would be decidedly different - and rightly so.

She said that "it is troubling to realize that all the good (?) Pope Francis did during his visit to Mexico was so easily overshadowed by one or two silly comments made to reporters".  I'm glad she acknowledged that, at best, the comments were "silly", but actually they constituted heresy.  Refer to what I wrote of Mrs. Lincoln's experience at Ford Theater.  She might have watched a lovely performance, but when the shots were fired, what constituted the real impact of that evening in her life?

Toward the end she says, "it makes me so sad that we are always so prone to jump on something negative rather than embracing the positive.  No, the positive will never take top billing on the nightly news."  A few things..

• It seems that Mrs. Brown, at least in this case, has fallen for the "positive versus negative" codswallop.  I've said this many times and now will say so again.  The "positive versus negative" paradigm has nothing to do with objective truth or falsehood of a given statement or situation; rather it is a paradigm that focuses on the emotional impact that said statement or situation has on its beholders.  Obviously whether a situation is "positive" or "negative" depends on whom you ask and their particular disposition - not the objective merits of the same.
• As far as "top billing on the nightly news", the problem is that the news is abuzz about the whole mess, and viewing what we would consider a "negative" as a "positive".  To wit:
• ABC News
• Inquisitr
• Los Angeles Times
• Wall Street Journal
• NBC News
• The above news sites are on the first page after I googled "pope Francis contraceptives".  Can we all now see the scandal caused by the pope's utterance of heresy?  Please - let's not blame the media for this.  They didn't "bait" him into a trap.  He's a grown-up who is responsible for what he says, just like the rest of us.

My friend at Tenth Crusade, in writing about these matters, states that "we are going to get louder".  Many of the other writes I cited yesterday said the same thing.  I say "amen".

The Pope's Personnel Appointments Reveal His Hand

"Personnel is policy" as the saying goes.  Again and again, Pope Francis shows us how true that statement is.  See below for three examples.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has been the subject of many of my blog posts (and that of other bloggers).  A heterodox progressive, he chairs the so-called "gang of nine", that inner sanctum of papal advisers.  Since Maradiaga has made no secret of his leftist leanings, we may safely opine that he has the pope's ear precisely because of those leanings.  Today One Peter Five detailed how Maradiaga, in an interview recently given, hurled insults against the four cardinals who issued the dubia in an attempt to mitigate damage being done by Amoralis Lamentia.  I won't rehash 1P5's post here.  Suffice it to say that because Maradiaga is so close to Pope Francis, we might have a decentl inkling of the responses that the pope might make to the dubia.

This past week the Pope appointed heresy-spewing Jesuit Father James Martin to handle the Vatican tweets.  Cardinal Wuerl celebrated the advancement of dissent by inviting Martin to deliver a Good Friday reflection at St. Matthew's Cathedral.  I suspected this reflection might be a spewing forth of pig slop.  True to fashion, Martin did not fail to disappoint us.  I'll highlight one heretical whopper below.

Consider this quote from LifeSiteNews: "Father Martin told those in attendance at the Good Friday liturgy that his favorite theological question to ponder is whether Jesus knew what was going to happen on Easter Sunday before He died."  In other words, Martin completely disregards Jesus' Personhood.  While He has two natures, human and divine, He is a Divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity.  As such, He possesses omniscience.  To insinuate that Jesus didn't know He'd rise on Easter Sunday is to cast doubt on His divinity.

Both Pope Francis and Cardinal Wuerl were fully aware of Martin's embrace of heresy and immorality.  They did not do so in spite of  these serious flaws, but because of them.  He advances their common agenda.

John Zmirak pubished an article yesterday detailing the antics of Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin.  Recall that he was recently given his red hat by Pope Francis.  Tobin is sponsoring, at his cathedral, a debacle called "LGBT Pilgrimage And Mass".  This affair is being conducted by several organizations that shill for perversion.  As Zmirak points out, there is no mention of the need to repent of the mortal sin of sodomy and to embrace chastity.  Long-time readers of this blog will recall that two years ago, while Tobin was still Archbishop of Indianapolis, we petitioned him to put a halt to a local KofC council's intent to allow lesbians to celebrate their debauched #mowwidge in their hall.  Tobin was utter silent.  Of course we lamented that silence.  However, I must now consider the possibility that perhaps Tobin did have his hand in that sordid affair, perhaps directing the council to allow mortal sin to be celebrated on Catholic property free of charge.

Almost concurrently, Tobin has drawn the long knives on Father Peter West, a priest who stands firm for Christ's teachings on life and marriage.  He was formerly associated with both Priests for Life and Human Life International before being called back to Newark.

One might ask, "how could Pope Francis select Tobin to be Cardinal, given his terrible record of fidelity to Christ's teachings?"  Regrettably, I believe Tobin's record is precisely the reason why he was selected.

We'll probably be seeing more and more of these squalid associations being foisted on the Church.

Close Papal Confidante Flaunts His Perversion In His Cathedral - Part Of The Deconstruction Of Tradition

Last August Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Paglia as head of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute On Marriage And Family.  He's also head of the Pontifical Academy For Life (and perhaps its only member).  It was under his direction that a particularly lurid sex education program was foisted on young people attending the World Youth Day this past summer.  At the World Meeting For Families in Philadephia last year, he mandated that practicing gays would have the same status as faithful Catholics in attendance.  I point out that the latter two incidents occurred before Paglia's appointment to the Institute On Marriage And Family.

One other very troubling event occurred before that as well.  News has arisen that in 2007, Paglia commissioned a piece of pornographic art to be painted in his cathedral church.  It is explicitly homoerotic.  It shows Jesus pulling into heaven via fishnets dozens of people.  In the nets, the people are engaged in various erotic acts.  One of those people bears the face of Paglia himself while semi-nude and embracing another scantily-clad man.  This LifeSiteNews report has more details and pictures.  All this was done on instruction from Paglia himself.  The depiction of Paglia in such a pose leads one to deduce that Paglia himself might be a practicing homosexual.  Obviously the painting within a Catholic church is grossly blasphemous.  As it was done in 2007, no one can doubt that the Pope knew of this.  Because the pope appointed Paglia to his high positions, we can only conclude that the appointments were done not so much in spite of Paglia's flagrant perversion but because of it.  There is an attempt afoot in the Vatican - led by the pope, let's admit that - to deconstruct the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church in favor of some "new world order".

This and so much more points to the horrid place to which Pope Francis is steering the Church.  For the benefit of my friends who insist on remaining in denial regarding this harmful papacy, I now link to a piece written by Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture.  He explains well the role that the Holy Spirit assumes in the process of selecting a pope.  He also points out why it is erroneous to presume that the Holy Spirit directly chooses each pontiff.  As you read the list of poor pontiffs of the past, bear in mind that there is no reason to presume that the same couldn't be happening right now.

I post now a video released by Michael Matt of the Remnant.  Listen closely.  He first elaborates on the scandal of Paul Ehrlich being allowed to speak at a Vatican conference.  At the 4:48 mark he says "If you're not seeing what's really going on here, I'm sorry, but it's just a case of you not wanting to see.."  At the 10:00 mark Matt said he and others sent an open letter to President Trump to investigate possible Democrat influence in the ouster of Pope Benedict XVI and election of Pope Francis.  LifeSiteNews today released an interview with Archbishop Luigi Negri who is close with the Pope Emeritus.  He too states that Benedict resigned "under tremendous pressure".  A few weeks ago I hypothesized that Pope Francis is the de facto designated mouthpiece for worldwide progressivism.  Here's the Message from Modesto that Matt mentioned.   All this is part and parcel of the mangling of the Church into some progressive new world order idol.  Did I say "mangling"?  A thousand pardons, please!  I meant to say "maturing" - you know, like the "maturing" we were supposed to do after the Extraordinary Synod!

Now listen at the 21:00 mark when Matt speaks of obedience to the pope and moral limitations on so doing.  He correctly states that "obedience is subordinate to the Faith".  Starting at 21:57, he says, "when a superior, even a pope, commands that we do something wrong including the instruction to believe something false and contrary to our religion and beliefs, what we were taught as Catholics, the Catholic response is to resist him".  Now going back to that Modesto debacle, McElroy and others pledged to "disrupt" Trump's immigration policies.  We now have major disruption in our Church.  It's time we start considering how we faithful Catholics will - as it were - disrupt the disruption.

We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.  She promised the children that "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph".  Of course that is true but that does not excuse us from taking on the task of Church Militant for if we don't, more souls will go to hell.

With All Due Respect, Michael Voris, You Cannot Put Lipstick On A Pig

Well, you can try, but you'll only engage in an exercise in futility.  In today's Vortex, he tries to chide those of us who are rightly concerned about the nonsense spewing forth from the Vatican.  Voris trips all over himself while so doing.  I'll elaborate before I post the video.

• Look at the title: "The Most Misunderstood Pope In History".  Doesn't that make you want to ask why, in all the church's 2000-year history, Pope Francis has earned this title?  Please don't blame it on the internet and blogs, for they were in force during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  These two pontiffs never had too much trouble making themselves understood (efforts of left-wing media notwithstanding).
• From 1:03 on, we hear an apology (?) for the pope's "off-hand way of talking".  "Does he guard his words and consider that he should be much more circumspect in what he says and to whom?  Well, it's just clear that's not his style...That's who he is.  He has become the most ill-quoted and misrepresented pope in the history of the church".  Leaving aside (for the moment) the exaggeration in that last sentence, can we see "cause and effect" being made plain?  If anyone is careless in his speaking and with whom he speaks, he can expect all sorts of misquotes and misinterpretations to ensue.  These misquotes, etc are an expected result of sloppiness in communication.  That's true for anybody, as common sense dictates.  When the speaker holds a position of great responsibility, his/her moral responsibility for misunderstanding increases commensurately for greater is the damage that can be done.
• Let's elaborate on the "that's not his style" quip.  For now I'll consider Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, for they too dealt with hostile newsprint and electronic social media.  I'm quite certain that both men had their own "styles".  However, it seems to me that they never let their "styles" dominate their considerations in how best to communicate their message.  They were willing to lay their "styles" aside so that the truths that they were trying communicate would not be obfuscated by delivery styles.  They no doubt hoped to minimize any media distortion.
• At 1:26, he continues.  "Does he need to stop talking to so many people in such an off-handed fashion?  Well, that argument might be easily made, but face it, he's not gonna do that; that's not who he is."  We'll stop right there.  His "off-handed fashion of talking" is not an indelible feature of "who he is", any more than it would be for any of us.  What is now an indelible feature of "who he is" is that he is the Vicar of Christ.  He holds great responsibility.  Granted, not all - in fact, very few - of his words will bear the weight of Church teaching.  BUT many will place great stock in the most careless quip he utters.  Right or wrong, that's a fact; will His Holiness continue to cause scandal to them? 
• At 2:04 he mentions the interview (second one) with Scalfari and the subsequent "Vatican clarifications".  He opines that the list  of speculations is growing monotonous.  Be that as it may, please review the three previous "bullet points" for the most probable causes behind this malady.
• At 3:21 he states that "even the Vatican itself doesn't know what the Pope said and then has to run around to find out what he said, who he said it to, and put out all kinds of fires whipped up in part by Catholics".  The first part of that sentence may well be correct.  It does seem like internal communications in the Vatican are an abysmal disaster.  Why doesn't the Vatican know what he said?  Without that basic knowledge, how can adequate translations be prepared in any timely fashion?  It is that disheveled state of affairs that is the cause of "all kinds of fires", not the Catholics who dare to notice and state what is all too achingly obvious.
• At 3:40 he mentions the interview regarding "civil unions".  Noting the various definitions that different nations place on given terms, might it not have been prudent of His Holiness to at least alert his communication office so that they could have prepared appropriate and timely translations?  That might have helped prevent some of the hub-bub that Voris decried.

Moral of story?  Pray that the pope learn from these disasters and take responsibility for what issues forth from his mouth.  Real spiritual peril can result.

By the way - recall the first Scalfari interview?  You know, the one that really wasn't an interview for it had not been reviewed by the Vatican but still managed to be posted to the Vatican website?  It was pulled down in short order - but guess what?  After the subsequent interview a week or two ago, the first interview reappeared on the Vatican website.  Father Zuhlsdorf's blog has more detail - and today it came down again!  Is there any kind of coordination in that office?  I wrote a little ditty to (dis)honor this state of affairs; it can be sung to "The Hokey-Pokey".  I'll post it before the Vortex.

They put the interview in.

They pull the interview out.

They put the interview in,

And they spin it all about.

They spew Lombardi's nonsense

And they turn it inside out.

That's what it's all about!

The Sex Scandal And The Papacy

The sex-summit dog-and-pony show in Rome ended a few days ago.  As anticipated by those with two brain cells firing in syncopation, this thing was a farce conducted with the intention to fool people into thinking that the pope and high-ranking prelates are serious about sex abuse by the clergy.  Oh, they're serious, all right!  Serious about protecting it for their own perverted pleasures, it would seem.

Natacha Jaitt, an Argentine media celebrity, accused Gustavo Vera of trafficking children for sexual exploitation.  Vera is a close friend of Pope Francis'.  She was set to testify against Vera in a few weeks - but was found dead this past Saturday.  Her family is calling her death murder.  I post below an interview that she conducted with an Argentine blogger who was doing his own investigation.  He alleges that Vera shipped children to the Vatican "for the Pope and his accomplices".  Let that sink in.  If it's true, the implications are horrendous - but would explain why the pope and his buddies were so quick to poo-poo the idea that homosexuality is a factor in the clerical sex abuse situation.  I will post that interview below, but this post will continue below that.  I understand that the man being interviewed is now missing.



Was this sex-summit a feeble attempt to mollify us, the Great Unwashed, so that we would stop poking into their perversions?   Is this why Vatican personnel are bad-mouthing the two surviving dubia cardinals?  Even Cardinal Marx can't avoid acknowledging the existence of a homosexual cabal in the Vatican; he acknowledges also that evidence has been destroyed.  Was Vera, close friend of Pope Francis, sending young boys to the Vatican to be preyed upon by the wolves in shepherds' clothing?

I now post a video of a discussion between Taylor Marshall, Michael Voris and a third gentleman whose name I didn't catch.  They discuss the question of whether or not Pope Francis should resign.  I am increasingly becoming convinced that Francis could be an anti-pope, with Benedict XVI still the true pope.  There have been indications that Benedict's resignation was, at least in part, coerced, rendering it invalid.  Given the additional information that we now have regarding the St Gallen Mafia, I've no reason to doubt that they would have exerted pressure on Benedict to tender a rather strange resignation.


As the gentlemen said, please keep praying your Rosaries.

Another Papal Interview - A Planned Debacle?

Remember last October when Pope Francis granted that interview with Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica?  That's when he let loose with less-than-papacy-worthy comments such as:

• "Proselytism is solemn nonsense". 
• "Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them."

I need not elaborate (I would hope) on why these statements are problematic if not downright heretical.  I did elaborate on some reactions and "damage-control efforts" here and here.

One might have hoped that the Holy Father would have learned not to give interviews at all, let alone to Eugenio Scalfari.  Alas, such was not to be!  In fact, we may have reason to believe that the resulting chaos was intended.

Last week saw another interview - with more lunatic quotes.  In this conversation (not recorded again, by the way), the Pope allegedly estimated that 2% of priests are pedophiles. That's 1 priest out of every 50 priests; I'd call that a bit of exaggeration to say the least.  He also stated that there was "room for maneuver" when it comes to priestly celibacy, going so far as to use the term "problem of celibacy".

Immediately Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See's Press Office, went into "damage control" mode - much as he did last autumn after the first fiasco interview.  Here's his statement, published in Zenit.  Just as he did last year, Lombardi attributes the indignation about the off-kilter papal remarks to words that "cannot be attributed to the pope".  He ended his statement with this about quotations: "Is this an omission or explicit recognition that this is an attempt to manipulate some naive readers?"

Father Lombardi sounded quite indignant.  I might be inclined to believe him - if this all wasn't a repeat performance of the first interview and its subsequent damage-control.  When this interview with Scalfari happened last week, both the pope and Fr Lombardi knew what to expect.  I'm coming to believe that they wanted this subsequent hub-bub to occur, so that tradition-defying statements could be issued, with responsibility for those statements being attributed to a "straw-man" - in this case, Scalfari.  The only other possibility is that the Holy Father, the Director of the Holy See's Press Office and others are incorrigible dunces who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  That statement is very relevant, in two respects.

1. Either it refers to the Holy Father and his underlings in the Vatican who are (seemingly) falling for the wiles of the Scalfaris of the world.  OR
2. It refers to the Catholic populace at large, who are being asked/cajoled/browbeat into believing that the Vatican is simply an "innocent victim" rather than cunning manipulators of the trust of the Catholic faithful.

Pope Francis is the Holy Father.  We must pray for him.  In order to do so, we must look at situations with rose-colored glasses removed.  We must have no hesitancy in facing what is plain as day.  Of course (I speak particularly to my fellow bloggers), we must not be silent.

The Charge Of The Lighten-Up Brigade

I and some others have noted with dismay a growing tendency of some Catholics (mostly younger) to simper and giggle about trivial doings and sayings of prominent Catholic leaders.  I noticed this first when a blogger (I won't name him) regularly featured Pope Benedict XVI's pictures on his blog and asked readers to supply a caption.  Either the Pope had an unusual expression on his face or was undergoing some harmless mishap.  Because that was really quite harmless I paid no attention to it, not wanting to waste my time.  But recently some not-so-harmless manifestations have blazed their ways through the blogosphere.

Polyannas Are NOT Helping!

There's a fair amount of "damage control" occurring in regards to the La Repubblica interview.  Last week Raymond Arroyo hosted Robert Royal and Father Joseph Fessio; the latter two had different perspectives on the Holy Father's words.  Father Fessio is himself a Jesuit so he brings that perspective to the table.  The discussion revolves around the Pope's previous interview, but I find the comments apropos.

In the video below the relevant section starts at 18:46.  At around the 24:00 mark, Father brings up the example of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and illustrates how Our Lord engaged the woman in conversation.  He seems to imply that is the strategy of Pope Francis with these interviews.  If such is the case, I think that's flawed.  Our Lord was engaged in a one-on-one conversation.  These broadcast interviews, by dint of the intended promulgation of these, cannot be likened to the one-on-one conversation. Rather we're talking of a one-to-millions proclamation, with these "millions" coming from a myriad of cultures, perspectives, etc.  One size does not fit all.  Isn't it rather ironic that in his attempt to address the interviewer "where he's at" that the Holy Father loses sight of all the other millions of people and their situations?   Does the phrase "can't see the forest for the sake of one tree" have relevance here?

Francis Effect And Seattle Metropolitan See - Out With Faithful Catholics, In With Baby Killers

The two incidents on which I'll speak below would seem unrelated to each other on the surface but for two things:

1. They both occurred within the metropolitan see of Seattle (Washington) AND
2. They closely resemble two recent actions by Pope Francis.

Because this is a very long post, I'm placing a jump break here.  So...

Cardinal O'Malley Sympathetic To Dissidence Regarding Women Priests

This stunning admission of dissident proclivities was made during a "60 Minutes" interview with Norah O'Donnell.  What else can we call it when he states, "if I were founding a church, you know, I'd love to have women priests. But Christ founded it and what he he has given us is something different."

Let's unpack this, shall we?  We'll first examine Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, an Apostolic Letter written by Pope Saint John Paul II and promulgated on May 22, 1994 - the Feast of Pentecost that year.  To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time the sainted pontiff spoke ex cathedra.  I'll quote the key paragraph from the bottom of this letter where Pope John Paul II invoked infallibility.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I underlined that last phrase for a reason.  In his interview with 60 Minutes, did Cardinal O'Malley definitively hold that judgment?  He did not!  His acknowledgment of it was grudging at best.  This Prince of the Church, in clear dereliction of his sacerdotal duties, makes plain his personal  ambivalence regarding Pope John Paul's declaration and sympathy to those dissenting on the matter of women-priestess wannabees.

In August 2013, Pope Francis reiterated Pope John Paul II's declaration.  Cardinal O'Malley is the lone American among the group of eight cardinals selected to reform the curia.  What he does and says will not be lost on Pope Francis.  The question now is, what will Pope Francis do about this not-so-sly dissent from the Magisterium by Cardinal O'Malley?

Some Wake Up, Some Shut Their Eyes And Brains

Last year, among other criminal activities uncovered by wikileaks, it was discovered that several progressive leaders sought (and ultimately obtained) the removal of Pope Benedict XVI from the papacy.  Those leaders - actually, perpetrators is the more accurate term - are George Soros, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  A group of Catholic leaders - in an open letter to President Trump - asked him for a formal investigation into the alleged tampering of federal officials in the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is no surprise.  It merely confirms what many faithful Catholics instinctively sensed all along: that Pope Benedict XVI was driven out so that Pope Francis, obviously sympathetic to progressive causes and not so much for Sacred Tradition, could be installed to do the bidding of the Soros cabal.

Some faithful Catholics seemed incapable of conceiving that: 1) the Holy Spirit may not have positively selected Cardinal Bergoglio to assume the papacy and/or 2) his doings are not automatically of divine inspiration.  Over the years, more and more of these folks have acknowledged the evidence that constantly slaps us all in our faces.  One such individual is Father Dwight Longenecker.  In his blog post entitled "Pope Francis Told Me", he indicates how the pope is deliberately insinuating his mischief into the minds of unwary Catholics.  He insinuates a falsehood and never quite denies it.  We saw it in the "sinners don't go to hell" fiasco.  Father points out that Jesuits have been doing that all along - including Father James Martin.  The most spectacular example was the "adulterers can receive Holy Communion" heresy embedded in Amoralis Lamentia.  We can bet our bottom dollars there will be another sly whopper in the encyclical that will be released after this "youth synod".  Notice I said "released" for I strongly suspect it is already largely written; but I digress!

Another way of slyly insinuating heretical poison is to look the other way while key personnel are openly dissenting from Tradition and/or living grossly immoral lives.  Cardinal Schonborn, a close advisor to Pope Francis, said in a recent interview that ordination of women as deacons, priests and bishops can be decided "by a council".   No they can't.  Pope John Paul II definitively stated in Ordinato Sacerdotalis that the question was not up for debate and that it was settled teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can only be conferred on men.  Schonborn stands in direct disobedience to Sacred Tradition.

At about the same time, Archbishop Paglia claimed that it's "dangerous" to speak of the family as a "domestic church" even though that language is found in the Catechism and the Vatican II documents.  He is the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life - or the parody of the former Academy.  Paglia dismissed most of its faithful members and has now rendered it an abysmal joke.  Moreover, he's the one who not only plastered homoerotic pornographic "art" in his cathedral, but had himself painted into the thing as clinging to another scantily clad man.  These last two scandals happened a while ago, and still Paglia retains his influential role in the Vatican.  Personnel is policy.

So yes, these two examples illustrate what Father Longenecker wrote a few days ago.  Sadly, though, others still persist on denying the evidence before their faces, lambasting those of us who acknowledge the truth as "bashing the pope".  I see this most often on facebook and their behavior is downright weird.  When we post news of some latest outrage perpetrated by the Vatican with the pope's permission, they go on a tirade about how "hateful" we are.  Then they post on their own walls, again and again, how they will "follow the pope".  One could ask, "follow him where".  Their very repetition makes me believe that they are simply trying to drown out the truth that they find increasingly difficult to deny.  Let's keep them in prayer.

Pope Francis Adopts Language Of Perversion

The above scandal happened during yet another in-flight interview yesterday.  From LifeSiteNews we read that reminisced about an audience he held with two lesbians.  I reported on that here.  One of the women mutilated herself with both surgery and hormones to give herself a more masculine appearance.  In that blog post I opined that we did not know the Vatican's account of what occurred during that audience.  During that plane ride yesterday, we were apprised of it and sadly it does corroborate what the two lesbians said.

As mentioned, the woman legally changed her name to "Diego".  I will refer to her as that since I don't know what her given name is.  However, I will refer to her as she actually is - female.  Anything else would be completely dishonest and beholden to the demons of political correctness.

The pope, though, insists on condoning and conforming to that demonic linguistic deception.  He refers to Diego as "he".  The pope even said that Diego and her partner in perversion got "married".  Of course they didn't, pretenses notwithstanding.  States Pope Francis regarding Diego: "He wrote me a letter saying that, for him, it would be a consolation to come [see me] with his wife. I received them and they were very happy," Pope Francis added. Clarifying his use of pronouns, the pope said, "He that was her but is he."

I could spend paragraphs unpacking this mess.  We literally have to start with the first word for Diego is not a "he" but a "she".  I think the pope tries to cover over his blunder with the sorry excuse for a pronoun clarification (the underlined quote) but flubs that badly.  "Was her"?  Nope!  She still is a "her" and never, ever will be a man.  That is NOT how God created her and to acquiesce to that demonic language is to stick a finger in the eye of God Himself who created Diego as a woman.  Think of the audacity of contradicting God's will to accommodate perverted caprices; that is what the Pope has done in his selection of language: including that so-called "clarification"!

Let that last part sink in, if you will.  In adopting this very faulty language, the Vicar of Christ is in fact contradicting God Himself who created Diego and positively willed that she be referred to as a woman.  I don't know about this bishop "accompanying" this woman, but it sure seems like this bishop and this pope are accompanying the woman - as they walk far from God, His Church and straight towards hell, barring their conversions to the One True Faith.

An Example Of The Harm Caused By Pope Francis' Off-The-Cuff Remarks

I've blogged before over the questionable doings and sayings of Pope Francis; I link to the anthology here.  A clarification is in order.  In no way do I question any solemn pronouncement of the Holy Father.  When he speaks solemnly he is infallible.  However, the bulk of his statements (same true for most pontiffs) does not rise to the level of infallibility.  When he speaks without that degree of solemnity, good Catholics can examine and disagree, assuming they stand with the tradition of the Church.

A concern of mine, as I have stated in my postings, is that progressives or poorly-catechized Catholics might take imprudent statements and use them to justify their own erroneous beliefs and actions.  Within the past week we have seen quite a "case in point" in the comments section of a post on the Lepanto Institute blog.  In that post, Michael Hichborn gives some clarifications of a previous post in which he exposed the insinuation of a gay activist in the role of reviewing exhibitor applicants for the World Meeting of Families (to occur in September).  As you might have gleaned from previous posts this past week, I congratulate and thank him for his work in exposing this woman; whether or not the Archdiocese of Philadelphia acts on this information is another matter.  At any rate, as you see in the comments section, some take issue with both Mike and myself, going so far as to claim that we "hate homosexuals" and even that we "incite to murder".  Most of these comments come from Matt Dobson, who states that he is a "confirmation director" within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

Notice Dobson's comment that is dated June 7 at 9:51am, particularly the quote from Pope Francis that he seems to think constitutes Church authority for his beliefs that Hichborn and I are "acting contrary to the teachings of the Church".  That quote is NOT a papal pronouncment by any stretch of the imagination.  It's from an interview that he gave to America magazine almost two years ago; here's the link to the full interview.  No one can dare claim that such statements can be binding, for  specific criteria must be met for binding pronouncements (see this, then scroll to "explanation of papal infallibility").

Dobson did cite the Catechism paragraph 2358, that prohibits unjust discrimination against homosexuals - but only that which is unjust.  Is it inherently unjust to prevent those who flaunt their mortal sins to have control over significant areas of Church function?  I believe not.  Would Dobson believe that an avowed racist should be allowed to occupy Matozzo's role?  I suspect not and neither would I.  There are times when discrimination is just and its lack would constitute injustice.

I'm sure this sort of scene is being played out in multiple venues, where those flouting God's commandments are coddled and those doing the coddling cite as justification the pope's personal opinions and statements as though they're infallible doctrine.  I'm sure Mr. Dobson didn't intend this, but with his comments he gave prima facie evidence of the harm done by this pope's many imprudent "off-the-cuff" statements.  He provided invaluable service by demonstrating just why we all need to speak out against error, no matter the level from which it originates.

A Troubling Interview With Pope Francis

Thanks to Rorate Caeli, I was directed to another interview given by Pope Francis.  This is more recent than that other "well-known" interview of his.  His Holiness interviewed with Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica.  The context makes clear that Scalfari is a fallen-away Catholic.  I link now to the interview as it was rendered in English.

While I realize that there might have been some loss of meaning in the translation process, there couldn't have been that much.  That said, the proceeds of this interview are most troubling.  Many of His Holiness' replies seem to fly in the face of Sacred Tradition and Scripture.  Of course Our Lord Himself guarantees that the Pope cannot teach error, presuming that he is speaking solemnly "ex cathedra".  By no stretch of the imagination is this "ex cathedra". But there's no way to put a positive spin, a "happy face" if you will, on this.

Pope Francis Is Keeping The Blasphemous Bauble From Bolivia

As per his usual habit, the pope gave an interview during his plane trip from Bolivia back to the Vatican.

I'll start by providing a treat to my trolls and scolds who wax apoplectic when I point out the errors emanating from Pope Francis on an almost daily basis.  When they're not avoiding me, these "tut-tut-ers" wag their fingers and chide me for being "negative" (note that they don't accuse me of being factually incorrect, just "mean-spirited" and "negative").

Well, guess what?  Thanks to Crud, I can actually agree with the pope on something!  Responding to a question on the Greek economic situation, Crud states and I quote,  "The pontiff began by admitting he’s been “allergic” to economics since he was a boy. He said his father, an accountant, would bring the ledgers of the factory where he worked home with him on weekends, and the future pope found them mysterious.  “I don’t understand it very well,” he said."  AMEN!

We also read, The pontiff acknowledged that his commentary on the economy tends to focus on the poor rather than the middle class, insisting that the poor are at the heart of the Christian Gospel. However, he called the imbalance “an error of mine” and said reconsidering it is “something I need to do.”  DOUBLE-AMEN!

Enough of that.  Let's look at other things. The remarks above had to do (somewhat) with the flawed economic principles underlying the address about which I commented a few days ago.  I had done a little bit of a "word-count" exercise.  Vox Cantoris did more, and nicely pointed out the heresy of liberation theology that ran rampant through the address.

The matter of the blasphemous "crucifix" was clarified during the interview.  I say "clarified" for he made plain (once again) his approval of the piece of trash art, calling it "protest art".  Both One Peter Five and Rorate Caeli delve into the matter; rather than "reinvent the wheel" I link to their excellent pieces.

I will say this, though.  There are some who seem to believe that by laying the monstrosity at the feet of a statue of Mary, that he was "cleverly" entrusting her to deal with the blasphemy.  With all due respect, that theory makes no sense whatsoever.  If that were truly the pope's intention, that would be classified as the quintessential cop-out.  He is the Vicar of Christ.  It would be his solemn duty to point out, in no uncertain terms, why that thing is blasphemy.  He'd have no business trying to punt his responsibility to the Blessed Mother.  "Here, mother!  You take out the trash!"  No, no, no!  That doesn't cut it by any stretch of the imagination!

But we now know that it wasn't the pope's intention at all.  In addition to waxing lyrical about Father Espinal and his embrace of marxism, the pope stated that he was bringing the disgusting bauble with him back to the Vatican.  Will that, like the beach ball, find its way to an altar?