|
Francis:
the Great Divider
in
the “Post-Modern”
Catholic Church
The Two Faces of Pope Francis
Will the Pride and Arrogance of Francis dare even
defy God Himself?
Much depends
upon which side of a Radically Liberal Agenda you Stand
Francis is a man of inversions.
If
you stand on the right side of him, you are well-treated and
heard; if you stand on the wrong side of him (as, say, Cardinal
Burke) you are dispatched to obscurity. But the “right”
side of Francis is on the Left; and the wrong side of Francis is
on the Right. For all his putative benignity, Francis
can be ruthless. It is a side of Francis that receives little attention
from the media. He autocratically tolerates no disagreement and
is quick to punish or exile. He is not “the man-made-by-the-media”.
In an irreconcilable juxtaposition he is ostentatiously humble,
trumpeting the humility he tries to equate with himself while failing
to exercise that “humility and gentleness” among his own courtiers.
That “an atmosphere of fear” pervades the halls of the Vatican is
no surprise.
His disdain for, and antagonism toward,
traditional Catholics and the those who adhere to the Tridentine
Mass is well known. But there is no such disdain for openly dissident
Catholics such as Kasper and Danneels, both cardinals, who enjoy
his favor and to whom he is keen to listen. Indeed, they are part
of the inner circle of his closest advisors.
Unlike his immediate predecessor,
Francis is openly antagonistic and condescending toward those who
do not align themselves with his unquestionably revolutionary
— many would say destructive — liberal agenda that would “decentralize”
the 2000 year old teaching authority of Rome, leaving all matters
ecclesiological in the hands of broadly dispersed local “Synods”
(a 1965 creation of Vatican II that has gained enormous traction
under the pontificate of Francis).
“Episcopal Conferences” (another creation of Vatican II in 1966),
local Ordinaries (bishops), and even in parishes themselves, are
free to articulate the Faith as a “praxis” unique to each local
parish’s “creative” expression” — which may differ entirely
from a neighboring parish’s creative impulse and expression of the
Faith. The two needn’t be uniform in either teaching or “praxis”.
If there is contradiction in the teaching of each — and, eo ipso
no unity among them — then that is the most genuine
expression of the Church for those particular parishioners, priests,
and “parish councils” (yet another 1965 creation emerging from Vatican
II that deprived the pastor of his authority in the parish in an
effort to invest authority in lay parish council. While ostensibly
an “advisory” group — often comprised of disaffected Catholics —
it often works to undermine the pastoral authority of the
priest. Here you find the feminists, the liberal Catholics, the
“progressives”; the people who really run the Church). That
contradiction exists and flies in the face of reason and logic (specifically
the Principle of Non-Contradiction) is beside the point. After all,
according to Francis, we must be open to “God surprising us”.
Let
us put it bluntly: Francis is not a particularly bright man.
This is not to say that being intelligent, coherent, and articulate
is indispensable to being holy — but it certainly helps in every
other aspect, especially as it pertains to the Vicar of Jesus Christ
on Earth.
Understanding what Francis is saying
concerning extremely important issues should not be an exercise
in verbal Sudoku, an effort to make sense of what he is
attempting to say — presuming that he himself “knows” rather
than solipsistically intuits what he is saying, leaving the rest
of us to guess.
He is a man of tremendous ambiguity
despite his vaunted simplicity. There is a distinct lack of clarity
often couched in awkward phrases — often neologisms — doubtlessly
written for him by others, and the tone, the phraseology,
is one often encountered in the lexicon of distinctly liberal circles
and among “New Age” thinkers. What are we to make of such
statements?
“If we, each doing our own part,
if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good,
and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that
culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet
one another doing good.
‘But
I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: We will
meet one another there.”
Question:
Where is “there”? And
how is it different from “here” if one is talking with an atheist?
Will the atheist no longer be an atheist in that nebulous “there”?
Will the Pope no longer be a Catholic when he reaches “there”?
If “there” is “in the doing of good”, what is the outcome he suggests
will result — that we will find that “we are both doing good and
that is good — and it really does not matter if we believe in Christ
or not … as long as we are doing good? As long as we are being nice
to each other we both will find that Christ is really
beside the point and quite unnecessary. We can trade places and
our ultimate destiny will be unaffected … as long as we “meet each
other there”. In Whom we believe or do not believe is really unimportant
(despite what that Person in Whom we believe or do not believe
has said concerning belief in Him in very clear
and unequivocal terms.)
On the other hand, however insipid
and incoherent the statement, it is the logical and inevitable result
of an emerging policy in Francis’s papacy that discourages,
even forbids, any attempt by a Catholic to convert
another to Christ (and through Christ to come to salvation,
and ultimately to Heaven (the best possible will we can have
toward another: their ultimate, ontological and eternal good — for
which we were created in the first place — at least according to
authentic Catholic doctrine).
Ostentatious Humility?
Francis is
an accomplished showman. His repudiation of the emblems of his office,
his refusal to live where his predecessors lived, to deliberately
be chauffeured in sub-compacts, to make his own meals — ostensibly
to reveal his simplicity — appears not so much an example
to the faithful for their own edification — as it does a
reproach to his predecessors who chose to accept the
historical tradition accorded their ecclesiastical office. Every
pontiff, after all, surely understands that the office of
the papacy is not about “them”. They occupy an exalted “office”
— but they themselves are not “exalted” simply because they occupy
it — as many did before them and as many will do to come.
Yes? The A cynic, then, may say that it is a carefully
and publicly orchestrated slap in the face to his predecessors —
which hardly accords with humility. In fact, the press, the
media, are invited to witness and to broadly publicize this exaggerated
“humility”. There is something troubling in this ostentation
of “humility” which immediately invokes Jesus’ parable in Matthew
6.5: “Do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.
Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”
I f
that is not confusing enough, let us look at another bewildering
statement by Francis, invoking one of his “blessed” predecessors:
“Blessed Paul VI expressed this
eloquently: “We can imagine, then, that each of our sins,
our attempts to turn our back on God, kindles in him
a more intense flame of love, a desire to bring us back
to himself and to his saving plan …”
In light of what precisely that “plan”
is, and “Who” is putatively involved as quite necessary to it, Francis
is not clear, given his rapprochement with the straw atheist. This
is a decidedly queer notion with no clear Scriptural or theological
credentials, for we had been taught (note the past tense) that sin
is an offense to God, an evil so great that it required the
very Son of God to die in expiation for it. Following this logic,
then, if I wish to be more loved by God then I should
sin more often … and the graver the sin, the more intense God’s
love, yes?
But that ability to confuse, to render
indistinct, is precisely the sine qua non of the agenda of
those who boasted of putting Francis in office (Cardinal
Danneels of the infamous “Vatican Mafia” who openly declared that
Francis was “their man”, that is to say, the candidate favored by
the notorious “St. Gallen Club” who regularly met for years to undermine
Pope Benedict’s election, and ultimately his papacy, in order to
replace him with “their man”. And who was “their man”?
Bergoglio! Surprise! And now,
as Francis, the devolution of the Church has been inaugurated.
He is merely “the Bishop of Rome” as he fondly refers to himself,
and concomitantly diminishes and undermines the universal
authority of the papacy itself). This is to say nothing of:
Danneels
cover up of the pedophile Bishop
of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, despite the insistence of the bishop’s
own nephew who was sexually victimized by him for 14 years and
demanded that Danneels bring it to the attention of the pope
— which he refused to do.
This same Cardinal Danneels
also vigorously attempted to convince King Baudouin of Belgium
to legislate an abortion bill despite the king’s
moral reluctance as a matter of conscience (The king stepped
down for 36 hours rather than associate his name with the bill
that was subsequently passed)
His approval of and his lobbying
for same-sex “unions” which he considered, in his own words,
and as a Catholic Cardinal, “a positive development”.
This same Cardinal Danneels
was the number two appointee to the Synod
on the Family! (of all things) — despite being disgraced
… and did we mention that he is retired? Why was
he given this position of such prominence? It is simple:
Quid pro quo: something for something. In other words, Francis’s
personal invitation and appointment of Danneels
was a blatant “thank you!” for Danneels’ part in having
engineered his ascent to the Throne of Peter (the Holy Ghost,
of course, is parenthetical to all this). Did we mention that
the extremely liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany —
also a member of the same “St. Gallen Club” — was number
one on the list? Quid pro quo x 2.
Let us put this into clearer perspective
that, unfortunately, requires less imagination. Let us assume that
a presidential nominee is elected to office. It is later found that
a powerful coterie of conspirators had done everything legal and
illegal to place him in office to further their own interests (which
may in fact coincide with the president’s). One of the conspirators
is found to be deeply involved in criminal activity of the most
loathsome sort and the media, seizing upon it, expose him to public
outrage. However, the statute of limitations required by law expires
before he can be convicted. He then goes on to publicly boast of
how instrumental he was in getting the current president elected,
and had, in fact, engineered it. Soon after the president assumes
office, he assembles a group of advisors. The number one appointee
is someone openly disaffected with the Constitution of the United
States and makes every effort to undermine it. We are astounded.
But that was just the jab. The real blow comes when the number two
appointee is the very man who had engaged in unscrupulous and criminal
activity — and who had publicly boasted to the news outlets that
he was the kingpin in getting the president elected. He is not simply
a personal, but a public disgrace!
Would a politician really make so blatant, so egregious, so open
a payback as to place this man in his inner circle of advisors —
and as the second in the position of influencing the president?
Would not the president, rather, distance himself from that figure
at all costs as a liability to his own credibility? Of course he
would! Obama even distanced himself from his “friend” and “pastor”
the “reverend” Jeremiah Wright after preaching “God damn America”
… three times in one homily … among many other incendiary remarks?
It was political poison to the president.
But it is not a theological and moral outrage that Francis appoints
Danneels and Kasper to his own inner circle? It is not just theology
and morality — it is stupidity … or worse yet, utter arrogance:
“If I can get away with this, I can get away with anything.” And
he has. And, to the detriment of the Church, likely will continue
to.
Very Proud of His
Humility ... an Oxymoron
Of course this assessment goes against
the prevailing narrative of a man “renowned for his humility” in
the secular press. Indeed, he completely agrees with and personally
endorses this narrative. In discussing the dismal results of Vatican
II we find the following:
“He said the Second Vatican Council,
the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world,
had promised
such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers, but
that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
[But, he continued,]
“I have the humility and
ambition to do so,” he said.”
1
What does this say of his predecessors?
What does this say of Francis? That all of them lacked the requisite
personal attributes (humility and ambition) to fulfill the
revolutionary vision of Vatican II — while Francis unflinchingly
asserts that he possesses what they lacked
— and flatly tells us so. Because he possesses the … unique
… combination of (self-acclaimed) humility and ambition lacking
in his predecessors, he can achieve what they had failed
to. Even the most casual Catholic recognizes an inherent conflict
in this perplexing and troubling statement. Self-ascribed
humility strikes us the wrong way — think of Christ’s parable
of the Pharisee and the Publican praying before God), especially
when it is coupled with ambition. Are self-acclaimed humility
and ambition really exemplary or even complementary virtues
in any remotely Catholic discourse? The hubris that is more-than-implicit
in this remarkable statement is given clearer, bolder relief in
the following story we find quite revealing and not a little unsettling:
Bankrupt
Benevolence: “And
I am the pope! I do not need to give reasons!”
This is what Pope Francis unceremoniously
told Cardinal Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith — who dared to disagree with Francis
on issues within Amoris Laetitia — when Francis effectively
fired him. Technically what he stated is true. It is true of any
corporation or business: one can be called in at the end of the
day of twenty years of faithful service and be summarily dismissed
“ for
no reason”
— but is rarely exercised because of the odor of autocracy that
surrounds it together with the blatant exercise of pitiless power
uncommon even in business and industry. Certainly we found no such
crude exercise of power within other pontificates of recent memory.
Human dignity demands reasons for such curt dismissals — and so
do human beings. It is callous and stinks of supercilious authority,
prepotency and crude superiority. In other words, earmarks that
have characterized the authoritarian papacy of Francis. It is no
more than a slap-down: “I am the Pope ... dammit! ... just do
as your told, man!”
So much for the much-vaunted mercy, tolerance, gentility, and good-will
of this deeply confused and even more confusing pope.
According to
Lifesite News,
“In
an interview with the German newspaper Passauer Neue Presse,
Cardinal Müller revealed details of the meeting in which he learned
of the Pope’s refusal to renew his 5-year mandate as prefect of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).”
“Pope Francis”,
Cardinal Müller said, “communicated his decision” not to renew his
term —
“within
one minute”
on
the last work day of his five-year-term ... and did not give any
reasons for it.
The same
Cardinal Müller found his own peremptory dismissal reminiscent of
Pope Francis’s summary and inexplicable dismissal of three extremely
worthy priests from his office at the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith; priests that Cardinal Müller found indispensable just
before Christmas last year. On that occasion Cardinal Müller politely
inquired about their abrupt dismissal as follows:
“Your Holiness, I have received
these letters (demanding their dismissal), but I did not
do anything because these persons are among the best of
my dicastery… what did they do?”
The answer was, as follows:
“And I am the pope,
I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I
have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.”
“He got up and stretched out his hand in order to indicate
that the audience was at an end.” (if you wish to read more
of this dramatic episode, see:
“Before
Dismissal of Cardinal Müller, Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions”.
Note particularly the following:
“The pope wants
to speak to you ... “Did you tell him I am celebrating Mass?”
asked Müller. “Yes,” said the secretary, “but he
says he does not mind — he wants to talk to you all
the same.”
The cardinal went to the
sacristy. The pope, in a very bad mood, gave him some orders
and a dossier concerning one of his friends, a cardinal.”).
HYPER-HYPOCRISY
This
is the same author of Laudato Si who literally pontificated
about “the immense dignity of each person, who is not just something,
but someone.”
(65) and that “In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures
... have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The
German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned,
“we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful”
(69)
Why do we even bring this up? Is it character-assassination?
Malice? No. It is simply relevant. Let us be clear. We wish
Pope Francis every good and no evil. This is the correct understanding
of loving anyone. We love Pope Francis as Christ commands us to
love everyone ... even our enemies.
Is this assessment lacking in charity?
I think not. Saint Paul rebuked Saint Peter himself
“when [he]
saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel”
but that Peter, “fearing them who were of the circumcision”
had acquiesced to what may be considered the first attempt at “ecumenism”
(Gal 2.11-14). Did Saint Paul not love Saint Peter? And because
he loved him — and because he loved Christ more — he reproached
him.
Rarely, in the history of the Church,
has a Catholic had to choose with whom to side: Christ or the pope?
To side with the pope was to side with Christ! This is no
longer so clear, and it is puzzling to many faithful Catholics when
Francis advocates that which Christ opposes, or opposes that which
Christ mandates. How is a Catholic to accept two contrary counsels
... even commands?
Christ:
“Going
therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching
them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
(St. Matthew
28.19)
Francis:
“Proselytism is solemn nonsense.”
How do we reconcile such completely
contradictory exhortations? Have we come to such a state
of affairs that Catholics are confronted with choosing between
what our Blessed Lord commanded and what Pope Francis disdains
as nonsense? This is not simply scandalous ... it verges
on — and is a broad and deep current toward — nothing less than
heresy: the rejection of what Christ Himself unquestionably
taught. There is no other plausible explanation for this contradiction.
Such contrariety cannot co-exist in the Church. It is
a violent breach of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and doctrine.
The heresy of Indifferentism 2 was not
repealed by the Second Vatican Council, nor can it ever be,
for Christ simply and forcefully stated:
“I
am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the
Father, but by me.”
(St. John 14.6)
“Who
are we to Judge?”
Is Francis dismantling the
Barque of Peter — plank by plank — or simply following the
prevailing winds and steering it into the rocks? Cardinal Burke
aptly used the analogy of a ship without a rudder in reference
to Pope Francis’s apparent lack of reference. Look at the confusion
about you and tell us. If the ship is heading toward Lesbos
driven by a furious and feckless wind, what are we to do?
Reproach the pilot to avert disaster? But to reproach — however
pressing — is to judge, and in in Francis's own words, who
are we to do so... ?
Amoris Laetitia — the First
Apostolic Exhortation to Sin!
And this ... this is to
utter nothing of the horrific scandal and heresy inherent in
Francis’s troubled Amoris Laetitia, an Apostolic Exhortation
— to sin! Perhaps the first ever: against Christ's own teaching
on the indissolubility of marriage, the sin of adultery, His
unequivocal injunction against divorce, and Saint Paul’s stern
admonition against receiving Holy Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians
11.27) — the very Body and Blood of Christ — while
in a state of mortal sin (adultery)!
And Francis presumes to abrogate
what Christ Himself established?
Two days ago (August 2, 2018)
Francis had the audacity to change the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, abolishing the more than 2000 year old Church
Teaching that the State has the right to impose the death penalty
on individuals for certain heinous crimes (even Luther and
Calvin agreed with this as do Muslims and many Atheists). The
point to consider, however, is the precedent Francis
is establishing in no longer preserving and protecting
2000 years of Church teaching — which is his primary duty as
the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth — but in fact abolishing
it! This is to say nothing of the egregious implication
that what the Church has taught from the beginning has been
corrupt, and up until now (that is to say, up until Francis)
immoral!
He is the first to have done so.
Does Francis’s defection
from Church teaching constitute formal heresy? We cannot answer
that, although the odor is distinct. That is the competency
of the College of Cardinals which, up until now, has been
habitually and remarkably silent and — dare we say
— pusillanimous. Courage and careerism seldom coincide
— as we have repeatedly witnessed in today’s ... “delicate”
... Episcopacy. As G.K. Chesterton appositely noted, “only
live fish swim against the current.”
An Extremely Important
Question
This much is at stake: we must
ask, perforce, how many more “corrections, “deletions”, and
“amendments” to Catholic Teaching found in the Catechism of
the Catholic Church and in violation of the Sacred Deposit of
the Faith ... are now open — by Francis’s precedent?
Did not someone speak of the reek
of sulfur in the Vatican? How prescient!
Archbishop
Tomash Peta who sat on the Synod that produced this document
observed that: “Blessed Paul VI in 1972: [stated that] ‘From
some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.’
I am convinced that these were prophetical words...”
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bishop-vatican-synod-one-can-still-perceive-smell-smoke-satan-synod-document
So are we.
_______________________________________
1
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/10/pope_francis_urges_reform_want.html
2 “Indifferentism”
is the belief that it does not matter what religion a man professes;
he can attain to salvation by any religion. The Church has roundly
condemned this notion as a heresy in very strong language, holding
it to be a denial of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside
the Church there is no salvation). Here, we feature a brief
passage from Mirari Vos, by the last great monk-pope,
Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832). All emphasis (bold and italics),
are ours; paragraph numbers, and reference numbers appear as
in the original:
“13. Now We consider another abundant source of the
evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism.
This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud
of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the
eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind
of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely,
in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far
from the people committed to your care. With the admonition
of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16]
may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor
of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.
They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself
that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17]
and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with
Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever,
unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18]
Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into
three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried
to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He
who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic
flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has
been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine
would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form
when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit
for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to
that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that
liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.
It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some
repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that
some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death
of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine
was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by
which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature,
which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.
Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John
saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which
locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes
transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt
of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence
more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows,
even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth,
dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single
evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free
speech, and desire for novelty.”
—
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
http://catholicism.org/indifferentism-is-a-condemned-heresy-gregory-xvis-mirari-vos.html
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Further
Reading on the Papacy of Francis:
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
(Apocalypse
3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2023 Boston Catholic
Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission
is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying
and distribution of the articles and audio files under the
following conditions: No additions, deletions, or
changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any
way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the
reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text,
or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic
Journal.
|
|