“The Communists are the Christians”, Refusing Communion to Adulterers is “Pharisaical”, “No War is Just”, and more!
SOURCE
When it rains, it pours.
Ladies and gentlemen, “Pope” Francis has struck again, and when he makes a mess, it’s a big one: As we reported in a separate post already, a whopping interview book of 423 pages is about to hit the shelves in France, entitled Pape François: Politique et Société (“Pope Francis: Politics and Society”). The work is an “unedited dialogue” between the French agnostic Dominique Wolton and the most talkative Jesuit on the planet, Jorge Bergoglio.
Today the French Le Figaro Magazine published a number of exclusive excerpts from the book, some of which have been translated into English and published by Crux. Aside from Francis’ bombshell revelation that he spent six months in therapy with a Jewish psychoanalyst in 1979 (see our coverage of that here), Pope Francis: Politics and Society also includes other remarks that are worth examining.
Among them, the following:
The pope admitted to having been greatly influenced by a communist female [activist], Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, who founded a movement of mothers who denounced the killing of their children by the regime in Argentina.This speaks for itself and echoes Francis’ previously expressed sentiment that “many Marxists are good people”. Jimmy Akin might already be working on a new “Did Pope Francis really…?” blog post, but at this point it’s probably safe to say that no one will listen anymore.
“She taught me to think about political reality, […] I owe so much to this woman,” Pope Francis said. “I was told once: ‘But you are a Communist!’ No, the Communists are the Christians. It’s the others who stole our banner!”
(Claire Giangrave, “‘I consulted a Psychoanalyst,’ Pope Francis reveals in new Book”, Crux, Sep. 1, 2017)
Francis also speaks about the topic of war in this new interview book. He appears to endorse the gravely immoral error of Pacifism when he says:
Today we have to rethink the concept of “just war.” We have learned in political philosophy that in order to protect yourself you may wage war and consider it just. But can it be defined a ‘just war’? The only just thing is peace… 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.”No doubt this sounds good and will get him the applause of the world, but what Bergoglio is doing here is gravely wrong and also not very bright.
(Source)
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel; we can simply look it up, because the Catholic teaching on this is fairly clear and thoroughly established. We find it explained, for example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 (s.v. “War”) and, of course, in any comprehensive Catholic morality handbook. Fathers John McHugh and Charles Callan’s two-volume Moral Theology, for example, gives an in-depth treatment of war in nn. 1376-1427 (found in Volume 1).
Francis’ contention that no war is ever just because “the only just thing is peace” is simply idiotic; the man doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His thought seems to have its origin in the sappy slogans of the hippie era rather than in sound philosophy and Catholic theology. Since he claims to be the head of the Catholic Church, that’s a bit of a problem.
Next, Mr. Bergoglio pushes more of his 1960’s pseudo-theology:
There are the sins of the Church leaders, who lack in intelligence or allow themselves to be manipulated. But the Church is not bishops, popes, and priests. The Church is the people. And Vatican II said: “The people of God, as a whole, do not err.”This is basically a denial of the Church’s hierarchical nature. But the Catholic teaching is unmistakable:
(Source)
If anyone says that in the Catholic Church a hierarchy has not been instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of the bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema.Thus it is clear that Francis’ denial that the Catholic Church is essentially hierarchical, constitutes heresy; but what’s one more heresy for him at this point? No one will care, anyway, because this heresy does not involve a sexual matter, which is the only thing that gets the “conservative” Novus Ordo masses upset.
(Council of Trent, Canon 6 on Holy Orders; Denz. 966.)
The proposition which states “that power has been given by God to the Church, that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls”; if thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the COMMUNITY of the faithful to the pastors,–heretical.
(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 2; Denz. 1502)
Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1827)
…[T]he Church, guardian and mistress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time.
(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Sacrorum Antistitum; Denz. 2145)
But then, Francis also has something to say on that, of course:
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… there is a great danger for preachers, that of falling into mediocrity. Condemning only morality – forgive the expression – “[below] the belt.”Oh, the blather of this fool is unbearable! You cannot teach morality with precepts? Really? What did Our Lord say about this again?
(Source)
And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.St. John the Evangelist, also known as the Beloved Disciple, also knew a thing or two about Catholic morality and taught: “In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy” (1 Jn 5:2-3). Not to mention the fact that every Catholic catechism teaches morality by teaching and explaining the Ten Commandments (pesky precepts and prohibitions!). But of course, for Jorge Bergoglio that’s just the awfully rigid past, from which he has come to deliver us.
(Mark 10:17-19)
No, morality is not the consequence of an encounter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as “human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting” (s.v. “Morality”). That is not to say, of course, that it ought not to follow from our Faith (although Faith isn’t an encounter either, incidentally); it is simply to say that the “consequence of an encounter” is not what it essentially is.
In the interview, Francis also speaks about his infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia and the never-ending drama about whether or not he now permits unrepentant public adulterers to receive “Holy Communion”:
On the subject of wounded families, I say in the eighth chapter that there are four criteria: welcoming, accompanying, discerning the situations, and integrating. And that, that is not a rigid norm. That opens a way, a path of communication. I was asked right away: “But can we give communion to the divorced?” I answer: “Speak then with the divorced man, speak with the divorced woman, welcome, accompany, integrate, discern!” Alas, we the priests, we are used to rigid norms. To fixed norms. And it’s difficult for us, this “accompanying on the path, integrating, discerning, speaking of the good.” But my proposition, it’s exactly that…. What is happening, in reality, is that we are hearing people say: “They cannot receive communion,” “They cannot do this or that” — the temptation of the Church, it is that. But no, no, and no! These types of prohibitions, these are what we find in Jesus’s drama with the Pharisees. The same thing! The great ones of the Church are those who have a vision that goes beyond, those who understand — the missionaries.Here it seems pretty clear that Francis has just answered the dubia, once more. Are adulterers prohibited from receiving the sacraments? “No, no, and no!” is his answer.
(Source; our translation.)
As the issue turns to “gay marriage”, the Pseudo-Pope says:
Marriage between people of the same sex? “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.” Lets not play with the truth. It’s true that behind it there is a gender ideology. In books also, children are learning that they can choose their own sex. Why is sex, being a woman or a man, a choice and not a fact of nature? This favors this mistake. But let’s say things as they are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Lets call unions between the same sex “civil unions”.No doubt “conservatives” in the Novus Ordo will be delighted to hear that their “Pope” does not want to call sodomitical perversions “marriage” — although the other side to that is that he certainly endorses the concept, at least tacitly. Besides, we know that as “Cardinal” Bergoglio in Argentina, he fought for the introduction of “civil unions” as a compromise solution, and as “Pope” he stated in an interview in 2014 that when it comes to the state recognizing civil unions between sodomites, “Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity”. The man is a monstrous scandal.
(Source)
The last item we will look at is Francis’ suggestion that “it would be good for [Muslims] to have a critical study of the Koran, as we did with our Scriptures. The historical and critical method of interpretation will help them evolve” (source). Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, Francis just condemned himself here, because the Catholic Church has long rejected the so-called “historical-critical method” of biblical interpretation, also known as “higher criticism”, as Modernist.
The historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture was developed by liberal Protestants in the 19th century. Historical criticism inevitably leads to a loss of faith as it tries to historicize the meaning of the sacred text (making it relative to when it was written), thus distorting its genuine sense; and it seeks to reduce all supernatural occurrences and phenomena to the natural order. Pope Leo XIII condemned it as far back as 1893:
It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.Pope St. Pius X included higher criticism in his condemnation of the Modernists (see Encyclical Pascendi, n. 9), and in 1950, Pius XII lambasted historical-critical “Scripture scholars” for deconstructing the biblical text:
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, n. 17)
To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.Higher criticism, then, is not Catholic, and this explains why Francis is all for it. The man detests the true religion, and he is doing everything in his power to destroy it. He will ultimately not succeed, of course, but he will lead countless souls to hell in the meantime.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 22)
Other
- Francis on secularism: “The secular state is a healthy thing.”
- Francis on the Church’s missionaries: “They are making true revolutions. Not for converting — speaking about conversion belongs to another era — but for serving.”
- Francis on “rigidity”: “It’s a form of fundamentalism. When I come across a rigid person, especially a young one, I say to myself right away that he is ill…. One senses that these men unconsciously sense that they are ‘psychologically ill.’ They don’t know it, but they feel it. And they go in search of powerful structures that protect them in life. They become police, they enlist in the military or the Church. Powerful institutions in order to protect themselves. They do their work well, but once they feel they are safe, unconsciously, the illness manifests itself. And that is where the problems arise…. Me, I fear rigidity. I prefer a young person who is disorderly, with normal problems, who gets worked up … because all of these contradictions are going to help him grow.”
