The Liability of Logic
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.
buffoon, however, is rarely dangerous.
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.
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.
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
God asserts the first.
repudiates it. *
Church teaches the immortality of the soul.
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
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?
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
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
Geoffrey K. Mondello
for the Boston Catholic Journal
April 3, 2018
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
Further Reading on the Papacy of