Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Vic Biorseth, Thursday, July 16, 2015
In a long, three-part interview
in August 2013, Pope Francis was given opportunity to expansively
describe himself, his past, his formation, his view of the Church and
Catholic Faith, and his hopes for his Pontificate. I don't want to misrepresent his words quoting anything out of the original context, and therefore I urge you, most
strongly, to go to the link, read the whole thing, taking notes. Many
of the media quotes charged with being "out of context" highlighting the
Pope's extreme Liberal interpretation of doctrine came from here. If
you are Catholic, this is important to you; I urge you again to read the
whole thing, slowly and carefully. You could print it and use a highlighter, if that is your way. But you really need to read it. You could keep it handy as your read the rest of this.
Two "contemporary thinkers" held dear by Pope Francis were, first, Henri De Lubac, S.J., and Michel De Certeau, S.J.
Three of Fr. Lubac's books were suppressed under pressure from the Roman Curria because of pernicious errors on essential points of dogma. Humani Generis, by Pope Pius XII, was believed to be directed at Fr. Lubac and other theologians associated with the New Theology. Lubac's view of "Patristic" sources of Catholic thought and authoritarianism opposed his more Pastoral view of the competence of the laity, ever changing history and the need for the Church to be changed by history.
Fr. Certeau was greatly influenced by Freudianism, and delved deeply into mysticism, phenomenology and psychoanalysis. He earned his doctorate at the Sorbonne, a fiercely secular institution in which theology may not be taught.
In his early formation into the man he is today, Pope Francis was made aware of his own "Authoritarianism", and worked to oppose it, and to emerge from it a better man. Now, there is some room to argue against a pure authoritarianism as expressed in the Scriptures by the examples of the Scribes and the Pharisees. But that is certainly not to the exclusion or elimination of authority altogether. One can easily go too far in the other direction, and that proclivity is one that has long been capitalized on by teachers who were taught by teachers who were taught by teachers who were ever increasingly infected with Frankfurt-School educational Marxist indoctrination.
The original Frankfurt-School "educational" Marxists set about the task of demonizing all social institutions, including Churches, by way of demonizing authority itself. "Authoritarian Man" was the straw-dog villain indoctrination target, represented by the patriarchal authority of the father in the family, the authority of the Priest in the Church, the authority of the policeman on the street, the authority of the Ruler in the government, the authority even of the teacher in the classroom. The Marxist goal was, of course, the destruction of the authority of all social institutions, for the purposes of fomenting eventual popular global Revolution, against all social institutions.
To that end, they set about, educationally, not only demonizing authority, but the building-up, in the minds of students (future teachers included), the image of the hero opposed to authority, The Revolutionary Man, in the hope that some students would become future anti-authority Good Revolutionaries, in the educational image they had conjured up.
A pretty good description of a dangerous self-centered sociopath.
To destroy an institution, first, destroy the authority of the institution. Do not lose track of the original educational idea, which was the elimination of all social institutions, including religions, governments and nations. That original idea came straight out of Marx's great masterpiece; his great social Manifesto:
This Marxist infiltration-become-commandeering of all formal education was not a small local thing, and not merely metastasizing in America. It was a global thing; it spread all over the world. It became an important part of the education of future educators everywhere.
In Pope Francis' case, however he may have arrived at his opposition to "authoritarianism", the result is his conscious effort toward a Democratization of his own authority - a conscious seeking and encouraging of the advice and consultations of others, and listening carefully. This seeking of advice or opinion expands out from the circle of Bishops, to the larger circle of Priests, to the larger circle of the laity. In the image of Christ washing the feet of His disciples, he seeks, perhaps mostly, to serve rather than direct.
The Pope struggles with proper discernment, as most of us do. Experience has made him wary of the "first decision" because it is usually wrong; the right decision requires the expenditure of prayer, thought and time. Change should come slowly, never suddenly. In his own words,
I'm not sure what to make of that. What can the result be of "turn a blind eye to much", other than allowing error to grow and metastasize?
Asked what needs to happen in the Church in this historic moment, does it need reforms, the Pope sees the Church as a field hospital after a major battle. First, heal the wounds, then, talk about the cause of the wounds. In his view, the Church has locked itself up in small things and small minded rules. In Pastoral Ministry, we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds.
Asked about divorced and remarried couples, homosexual couples, other examples of Catholics with open wounds, Pope Francis emphasizes the need to see the person first. "We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of
the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany
them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them
with mercy." He elaborated on that:
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that. Things have gone too far.
Sodomy has gone public, all over the world. Openly homosexual people, who loudly and proudly proclaim their homosexual activity to the whole world, are now among the world's celebrities, stars of screen and stage, ranking politicians and even clerics. Homosexual "Normalcy" and "Naturalness" are now taught even to little children in formal education. Homosexuality is now protected by civil law, via "Hate" laws, regulations and speech codes. To Discriminate in any way against any form of sodomite today may be the one and only cultural mortal sin universally recognized. Human culture itself has become and continues to become ever increasingly morally depraved due to the absolute lack of any serious opposition to the advance of moral depravity in culture. Especially from the Church.
Dropping the subject of the mortal sin itself and merely proposing a more simple, profound and radiant Gospel is not going to turn these people away from their mortal sinfulness. If it brings them back into Church - and many of them never even left the Church - it will only bring massive cultural acceptance of mortal sin into the Church with them.
In a Thursday morning Mass at the Domus Sanctae Marthae in October 2013, Pope Francis spoke of closed Churches, people outside not able to get in, and the key to the Church in the pocket of a theoretical "Catholic Ideologue" who was overly rigid in his belief in doctrine.
Ideology is an illness? What Pope Francis was talking about here (I think) is Catholic Doctrine. Doctrine that does not allow non-Catholics and/or out-of-grace Catholics access to Catholic Sacrament. If I'm wrong about that, then, what else could he be talking about? Someone please enlighten me.
To me, an ideology cannot be condemned merely for existing. An ideology must be judged by the idea(s) it proclaims, whether they be good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. Marxism, as an ideology, is evil. Catholicism, expressed as an ideology, would be sublime. While it is a religion, its basis is Truth, and Truth may be arrived at, by seekers, through natural logic and reason, meaning through the development, if you will, of an ideological approach. The ideas Catholicism expresses are, after all, quite true.
Our Holy Father was referring above to Luke 11:52, emphasized below:
I'm just a nobody layman, but to me, this Scripture is talking about Pharisaic rigidity on ritual washings, not on absolute moral depravity and sexual licentiousness. I see a difference. Is that wrong?
The moral degradation of civilization is ramping up and going into hyper-drive, with the American Supreme Court temporarily leading the way, in league with the American President, the American Marxocrat Party, and with weak resistance and bipartisan cooperation of the American Republicrat Party. And the Church in America, for the most part, is standing around almost as a disinterested non-participant, tut-tuting now and then, and making vague, inclusive, non-judgmental, tolerant and non-discriminatory little homilies.
Once upon a time, repentance, confession, penance and absolution were parts of a very public process. Civilized culture encouraged the virtues and opposed the vices. In the early Church, a mortally sinful person would do penance first, before receiving absolution for his sins. Publicly. He would remain outside the Church, but near the door, while others went in, asking them to pray for him. Exclusion from the body of the Church was part of the penance. Once absolution was granted, the former sinner would enter the Church again with a great celebration. It was nearly the opposite of Scandal. No one felt particularly scandalized because the virtuous were inside, and the vicious were outside, where they belonged.
That was then, this is now. Today, confession is an intensely private thing, and absolution is given on the promise of penance, before acts of penance are performed. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; it just needs to be pointed out that, along with the closed confessional, there began to grow a lessened sense of anathematizing, separating from and shunning the mortal sinner. It may be a good thing that confession is now private. But it is, in my opinion, not a good thing that open, publicly admitted, unrepentant sinners are allowed to be among us, as a normal part of us. Even with the best of intentions. It is a scandalous thing. It adds the sin of scandal to whatever the original sin was.
In the name of tolerance; not to be judgmental; to encourage diversity; in the blessing of social justice; in avoiding class war by encouraging egalitarianism; in just being super-ecumenical, and "loving people into the Church". Right. Why, you should be able to love Satan himself into total conversion. That seems to be the theory of the new Church of Nice, where everybody is happy and nobody goes to hell.
Today, my guess would be that public scandal is the most prevalent sin in the Catholic Church, at least in America. It began with clerical open resistance to the continuous unchanged doctrine on the sinfulness of Contraception, and it spread out from there to cover every sexual perversion of nature that flowed from that single major cultural acceptance.
Unrepentant mortal sinners of many varieties come forward and receive Holy Communion in Catholic Churches every Sunday, and everybody knows it. The laity know it, the clerics know it and the Bishops know it. People pronounce it, openly discuss it, even broadcast it. It's a normal part of everyday conversation; what's wrong with that? They're "good Catholics", understand; they just don't accept the Church's teaching on contraception, or divorce and remarriage, or cohabitation, or homosexual lifestyles, or masturbation, or abortion, or eugenics, or euthanasia, or whatever.
Catholic celebrities among all these habitual unrepentant sinners actually broadcast their personal "choices" of sinfulness over the airwaves; politicians even include mortal sin in political agendas, speeches and campaign material. And they still come forward and receive Holy Communion, seeing nothing wrong in it, let alone adding the sin of sacrilege. And all the clerics know it, full well.
Mustn't be judgmental; the new rule is to abandon all moral judgments and even simple adult judgment, deny objective Truth and adopt universal moral relativism, like the rest of this rapidly declining culture. Get with the times. Most Bishops appear to already be on board; perhaps some of them were the first ones on board. And if most of them are not in agreement with, if not complicit in all this mortal sinfulness, they've got a funny way of showing it.
To them, apparently, there is no such thing as scandal.
Only the now demonized judgmentalism, which must be avoided.
It's not enough that majority populations in places such as San Francisco and Orlando fly the rainbow-flag to celebrate sodomy; political activists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the whole Marxocrat Party fly that flag too. But that ain't all. A whole lot of Catholic Parishes proudly display the rainbow flag and most of the congregation, and the Pastor, celebrate sodomy every Sunday.
It's no big deal any more, and that's the problem.
Well, look what all this has brought us to, as a once distinct Christian People. Clerics resist refusing Communion to any well known scandalous public sinner, using the excuse that the public refusal might itself cause another scandal, if someone somewhere among the lay witnesses to the event still didn't know about the publicly outed sinner.
Gimme shelter. This is scandal growing itself with the aid of clerics.
The problem Bishops face now is that this clerically-induced gigantic public scandal situation may have grown so big that it cannot be reversed simply, or easily, or quietly, or without itself being blown into a gigantic, loud, highly scandalous fight within the Church, to the delight of all who oppose the Church. And that just may include some Bishops.
The Church will survive all of this, but it is unpredictable what she will look like when this passes. Some courageous, self-sacrificial Bishops are going to have to take the reigns out of the hands of the Bishops leading their flocks into sin. I predict a split; perhaps more than one; perhaps a splintering. But emerging from this self-destructive battle will be a stronger Church, if smaller, but perhaps more committed to the original unchanged Gospel and unchanged Creed than ever.
Now, public scandal is so broad, deep, widespread and not even recognized as scandal that it will take something near the old public absolution of known sinners to eliminate it. If a publicly "outed" mortal sinner repents, confesses and returns to faith, how does the public know he did that, unless and until he just as publicly "outs" himself as a repentant returned-to-the-faith practitioner of the faith? If no one in the congregation knows he converted, and he still comes to Communion, they will still be scandalized. Scandal still persists. People will still be scandalized.
And millions of Catholics, including big-shot public figures, are not going to publicly out themselves as having repented and returned to the faith. That just ain't gonna happen.
What started all this was direct opposition to Church doctrine by some clerics, including Bishops, aided by others who did not oppose it, or who opposed it weakly. Allowing it to grow. You can probably count, among our Bishops, the strong, authoritarian leaders with a crystal clear message of objective Truth on your fingers. The rest use vague generalities, inclusive language, politically correct doctrine and non-authoritarianism.
That's the problem.
I really hate to say this, but we do not have a strong, clear minded, clear speaking, decisive leader sitting on the chair of Peter at this moment in time. He resists assuming or using his own authority. If anyone knows where he stands on various important moral issues, I wish you would enlighten me, because everything he says is either so vague or so questionable in some way as to require expert interpretation of his words. And the expert interpretations are multiple and widely varied, still requiring further clarification.
He's not supposed to be a Marxist; that's what all the experts say, and he has not publicly pronounced himself to be a Marxist. But the one and only thing he has repeatedly condemned, and with great clarity, is Open Commerce in the Natural Free Market, i.e., Capitalism. In favor of some Unnatural form of Forced Egalitarianism, through a Forced Redistribution of purely material private property, i.e., Wealth. You may call that whatever you want to call it, but I call it Marxism. That's closer to the truth than any other description I can come up with.
As far as his reading of the Moral Law ...
It's hard to read between the lines and decipher vague and unclear statements of anyone, but in my estimation Pope Francis, at the very least, leans toward allowing mortal sinners access to the sacraments. I just don't know how else to interpret what he says about himself and about the Church and about contemporary contentious moral issues.
He cannot abrogate Revealed Doctrine, but he can come close. And he can look the other way while others do it. The public figures he seems most attracted to are all Marxists, including Comrade Obama, peace be upon him. Clear opponents of the faith, and opponents of all that the Church teaches.
I cannot tell you why, or what his motivations are, but that's where I see him going.
If I am wrong, please show me. I really, really need to know.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Language and Tone Statement
Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our
standards of logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, back it up, keep it clean and keep it civil. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is.
If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elite Culturally Marxist Authoritarians will never tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their own pro-Marxist/anti-Christian/anti-American/Globalist/anti-Nation/immoral/anti-white/racist and bigoted point of view.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
Your email is perfectly secure here. We use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
The Purpose of this grouping of links is to organize all site Papal Imperfection webpages in one place for easier reference.
Papal Imperfection Pages.
While Popes enjoy the charism of Infallibility when teaching on faith and morals, as established in the unchanging Deposit of Faith, they remain human, and imperfect, as was Peter and the original Apostles. Popes can err when not teaching on faith and morals, and whenever speaking on matters outside the Deposit of Faith. Two of these areas, particularly troubling in these days, involve Papal favor shown to areas of Godless Marxist ideology, and to the belligerent, invasive, domineering and menacing false religion of Islam.
Will Pope Francis become a Self Deposing Pope? "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."--Catholic Encyclopedia
Red Pope Francis and the KGB's Liberation Theology. The Russian KGB developed "Liberation Theology" as another path to Global Revolution. Pope Francis may be a victim of it, or, he may be a perpetrator of it.
Vatican War: Are we witnessing a Papal Melt Down? Pope Francis and the "Spirit Of Vatican II" Cardinals now openly attacking Orthodox Cardinals in the now open-to-public-view Vatican War.
On the Question of Papal Deposability. Asking whether Bishops may actually Depose a Pope for Heresy. Is there even such a thing as Papal Deposability?
Dubiosity (my word) in Francis' Papacy: The Five Dubia. Pope Francis feeds Papal Dubiosity through indecisiveness, vague language and official pronouncements left open to wildly varying interpretation.
Pope Francis and the deepening and worsening Catholic Civil War. Letter asking Pope Francis to step down: Can we really do that? Has it been done before? And is Pope Francis even Catholic?
There is No Hell, because Pope Francis said so. Right? "No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!" --Pope Francis
Popephobia: A Catholic Mental Disorder. (I think I have it.) Popephobia is related to American Obamaphobia, and German Merkelphobia. They are all closely related social disorders. (Could they be a Social WMD?)
The Blind Guides leading Western Civilization toward the pit of Human Barbarity. "Establishment" Party Members and "Establishment" USCCB Bishops are not all Evil Traitors; most of them are Deceived Blind Guides.
Unreason in the Church: Who Is Evangelizing Who? On Unreasoned Gathering with Sinners: Who is Converting Who? Is the Church committing "Merciful" Suicide?
Loosey-Goosey Theology, Wishy-Washy Leadership, and Anything Goes Culture. Pope Francis' Exhortation, Obamunist Cultural Diversity, LGBTQP+ "Sophisticated" Social Engineering, and "Whatever" Global Culture.
Why Did Vatican II Ignore Communism? The veil of mystery over the Council’s omitting any reference to Communism has gradually been lifted
I must oppose the pope on globalism, but not on faith and morals. Recent comments of the pope on globalism, calling for a world political authority, is absolutely the last thing the world needs.
The Smoke of Satan is in the Church in America; has it reached the Vatican too? The Smoke of Satan conceals the true object of the Progressive Agenda.
On the "inevitability" of a Perfect Global Government in a "New World Order". Is this "New World Order" idea divinely inspired, or is it the ongoing work of Satan?
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, and Evangelizing for World Communism. Evangelii Gaudium started out on Catholic Evangelism, but ended up Evangelizing World Communism.
The Treacherous Global Delusions of Marxism-Leninism. Is Pope Francis a duped "Useful Idiot" of Marxism, is he Delusional, or is he actually In On It?
Musings on the deep treachery of the most trusted among us. Deep Treachery: Were they all deceiving us from the beginning, or did they somehow "turn" after being raised to positions of trust?
Crony-Catholicism? Really? The USCCB is advancing Obamunism? Say it ain't so, Joe! It's bad enough that we now have so many Marxified Bishops, but now they actually act against the faith?
Cliff Kincaid interviewed Vic on TV about Pope Francis and his Marxism. Addressing Marxist and Islamic ideology creeping into Catholicism.
If Francis is a Communist Pope, how does that affect Catholic Faith and Morals? Exploring the links between Comrade Obama (peace be upon him), Pope Francis and Communist Cuba.
Roman Catholic Marxism? Excuse me? Who is evangelizing whom? Roman Catholic Marxism explores the Politics of Private property v. Collective property (i.e., Marxist Redistributionism.)
On the Vague Anti Authoritarianism of Pope Francis And the Relationship between Vague Anti Authoritarianism in High Places and Moral Depravity in Culture
Do we have an anti-American Pope? A Pro-Obama, Anti-Capitalist, Redistributionist, Utopian, Pro-Illegal Alien, quite consistently Anti-American, Pope Francis?
Delusional Pope Francis, molding world culture into one undefinable hodgepodge. Does the Pope want International Communism, or just a border-less, all inclusive, nonsensical, global non-culture?
The Religion Politics Nexus: If the Religion is not true, Politics become evil. For Martin Luther, Politics drove Religion. For Pope Francis, Religion drives Politics. Or does it?
Pope Francis just said WHAT? Excuse me? Can anyone out there help me reconcile what Pope Francis just said with Catholic Revealed Truth?
Marxists running the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Social Science? Died in the wool Marxists in the Vatican's P.A.S.S. No wonder Pope Francis favors the Socializing Frauds of "Sustainable Development", "Climate Change", etc.
Disorder and Confusion from the White House. And from the Vatican, too? The growing disorder in Obama's America, and in Pope Francis' Catholic Church.
Pope Francis receives an Open Letter calling for his Papal Resignation. "Year of Mercy" begins with an Open Letter: An Urgent Appeal to Pope Francis to Either Change Course or Renounce the Petrine Office.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the