The Liability of Logic

The “Francis ~~Effect~~ Defect”

If I cannot be certain about what my Catholic Faith holds to be indefeasibly true — not by any conflict between internal logic and divine revelation — but because Pope Francis is ambiguous about tenets held for 2000 years and inscribed in Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Deposit of Faith — such as the existence of Hell, the immortality of the soul, the absolute proscription against Adultery in the Ten Commandments, the condemnation of Homosexuality — despite the constant 2000 years old teaching of every pope in the history of the Church, then I do not reject my faith, but I do take issue with — indeed, reject — the disordered thinking of the present pope, and, with cause, likely his sanity or at least his mental stability.

Why will no one state the obvious? Francis is either cognitively impaired, deeply defective in his understanding of Christianity, the Person of Christ, and the nature of His Church — or a buffoon.

A buffoon, however, is rarely dangerous.

Francis is.

He is because he is held to speak the mind of the Church — even when he speaks non ex-Cathedra — what he states has a direct impact upon the faithful to whom he has been faithless. That is why he is dangerous. He is not just in conflict with the Church and the faithful: his conflict with the Church results in not just confusion among the faithful, but the adherence of the faithful who cannot reconcile his novel pseudo-theological episodes with 2000 years of constant Church teaching and Sacred Scripture itself.

The danger is defection. And the danger is real. They will embrace the one or the other, but cannot embrace both — or … they can reject both as irrational nonsense since such a state of affairs conflicts with reason and what was held to be inviolable revelation. God Himself cannot make 2 plus 2 equal 5. This violates reason and consequently our understanding of God. Outside of divine revelation (which, while not conflicting with reason, exceeds it) anything we predicate of God is done so through the vehicle of reason. Any sentence that starts with “God is …” can only conclude in two ways: through an appeal to reason or to revelation. We cannot sustain our association with any organization that demands not just the suspension, but the violation of reason — and if we do we can, eo ipso, provide no reason for it.

Let us simplify the matter: either God and 2000 years of Church teaching — including the authority of Holy Writ are right — or Francis is right. But by the Law of the Excluded Middle (non-contradiction) both cannot be right if there exists a contradiction between them. The assertions that “Hell exists” and “Hell does not exist” cannot be reconciled: the one is the negation of the other.

God asserts the first.
Francis repudiates it. ^*
The Church teaches the immortality of the soul.
Francis denies it. ^*
The Divine proscription against adultery is not capable of attenuation (read “discernment” or “accompaniment”) in Holy Scripture. It is absolute. No Commandment can be negotiated to accommodate man. Commandments are not “Propositions”.
For Francis, it is not an inviolable Commandment — literally set in stone — but a matter of Situational Ethics (a discredited moral concept condemned by the Church).
Homosexuality, toward which he shows remarkable deference, has always been condemned by the Church and Sacred Scripture — but “Who is Francis to judge”?

The Inconvenient Law of the Excluded Middle: to Hell with Reason?

Whenever we are confronted with a contradiction, we must not only decide which is right but adduce reasons for it — or remain in a state of abstention, aloof from the proposition entirely. What we cannot do is affirm both since each negates the other. In other words we cannot be both Catholic and “indifferent”, both Catholic and “undecided”, both Catholic and “permissive’. It is not consistent with logic — which is another of saying that it is illogical! For human beings this is not a desirable attribute. It is, in fact, one of the signatures of madness.

Given the illogical nightmare that Francis has brought to the Church — in what he apparently believes is his fulfilling the mandate of “the Spirit of Vatican II” — he has left a vacuum of reason into which something diabolical, irrational, and recreant has rushed.

Why this has been allowed to come to such a pass in this unfortunate generation, given the responsibility of the episcopate — the cardinals and bishops who should be fraternally correcting him for the sake of Jesus Christ and the souls of the faithful He came to save — rather than pusillanimously colluding with him — is anyone’s guess.

One thing is apparent: there is as deep a defection from the Catholic Faith in the cardinals and bishops as there is in Francis. Perhaps they fear him — and losing the perquisites of their positions of authority-seldom-exercised, or exercised to the detriment of the faithful. Their fear, however, is deeply misplaced: rather than fearing the retaliation of an autocrat arrogating the Seat of Peter, they should fear Him Who can cast both body and soul into Hell. (St. Luke 12.5).

Perhaps that fear is reserved to simple Catholics and it is time that the sheep teach the shepherds.

____________________________________

^{* While the official
Vatican organ delegated with re-constructing Francis’s logical and theological} ^{... paroxysms ... with feeble and ambiguous statements such
as “What is reported by the author in today’s article is the
result of his reconstruction, in which the literal words pronounced
by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned
article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of
the words of the Holy Father” is proffered as assurance that he
said no such thing (which it does not say, for
it speaks only of Scalfari’s assertions
— not Francis’s) it sounds much more like the
non-committal, ambiguous, and litigious language of a solicitor or
attorney who pleads an “objection!” to a potentially
damaging assertion — no? Nor does it help matters when Francis makes
no effort to deny or distance himself from Scalfari’s
“interpretation”.}