THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

In the following article, I think Phil Lawler is somehow shooting himself in the foot by underscoring that Jorge Bergoglio is a Catholic. His own book, THE LOST SHEPHERD, is subtitled 'How Pope Francis is misleading
his flock', a formulation that bothered me because a shepherd misleading his flock is not a lost shepherd but a bad shepherd, an unworthy one, who ought not to be trusted with any flock at all.
One might even say in this case that the shepherd has turned out to be the wolf himself in shepherd's garb.

And because in this case the shepherd is supposed to be the pope who is Christ's vicar on earth, any pope who misleads his flock - deliberately and knowingly as this one does - is certainly derelict in his
duty. Would you still call him Catholic, when he chooses to set the wrong example for all Catholics? In the face of his deliberate and determined divisiveness within the Church herself when he,
as pope, is supposed to be the visible symbol of the Church's unity?

And what would you call his relentlessly contemptuous rhetoric for all those Catholics who do not think and do as he does because they uphold and abide by the deposit of faith handed down to our time by the apostles
and their worthy successors, a deposit of faith some part of which Bergoglio seems to delight in flouting every day? I call all of these objectionable Bergoglian manifestations being anti-Catholic. It may be
generic but it is the least controversial and most appropriate description of Bergoglio because the term is a commonsense term that is readily understood and does not involve any technicalities
that encumber words like heretic or apostate.

Yes, the Pope is a Catholic.
But he’s confusing other Catholics.
[But he is not just another Catholic - he was elected to be the leader of all Catholics,
and it is evil of him to delight in sowing confusion and error in his flock]
By Phil Lawler

April 26, 2018

Blogger Mark Mallett has done a real service — and I mean this sincerely — by a long list of links to statements by Pope Francis voicing clearly orthodox Catholic beliefs on topics important to conservative Catholics, including abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, population control, ideology, and the existence of hell. [And how can that be a service? Because, of course, anyone should be able to find numerous examples of 'Catholic' statements made by him - he is, after all the pope - but 1) we must be able to 'discern' what is pro forma - what he says because it is what a pope is expected to say even if he may not mean it or believe it - and what is genuine; and 2) one could conceivably draw up a parallel list of statements he has made that contradict what he says pro forma about a given topic (what Mallett lists) - and thereby prove the point of his insincerity/dishonesty/inconsistency/younameit about specific topics including those critical 'non-negotiable values'whose existence he denies.]

Sure enough, the Pope is a Catholic. [Nominally, at least. Like Hans Kueng is.] But why is that noteworthy?

It’s difficult to imagine that anyone would have compiled a similar set of links to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II held conventionally Catholic beliefs. Why is it necessary in the case of Pope Francis?

The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Pope Francis himself has raised the questions about his own orthodoxy, with a long series of provocative public statements. The world expects consistency [AND ORTHODOXY!] from the successors of St. Peter; the duty of the Pontiff (and of every bishop) is to preserve intact the faith that has been handed down from the Apostles.

When any Pope makes a statement that seems at odds with previous expressions of the faith, it is disquieting. When he makes such statements frequently — and, to compound the problem, declines to clarify them — the result is widespread disorientation. This is the phenomenon that I sought to explain in Lost Shepherd: not that Pope Francis is preaching heresy, but that he has spread confusion about the content of orthodox Catholic belief. [And is that not plainly and simply being anti-Catholic? In many ways, is that not much worse than professing a specific heresy? Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and his successor pope not because he professed a heresy but that he did nothing to oppose a specific heresy that was widespread in his time. Bergoglio's transgression is worse, IMHO - he has been initiating, disseminating and encouraging one heterodoxy after another, often bordering on outright heresy. Which is obviously no way to 'confirm his brethren in the faith' as his primary task ought to be. When a pope fails in this, as well as failing to be the visible symbol of unity for the Church, then what good is he?]

Take for instance the report circulated recently — during Holy Week, of all times — that the Holy Father had denied the existence of Hell. We still don’t know what the Pope actually said in his conversation with Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari. We don’t even know whether the Pope knew that Scalfari planned to publish the interview (or his memories thereof). What we do know is that, thanks to the Pope’s penchant for offhand remarks, hundreds of thousands of people were told that the Pope does not believe in Hell.

Once that damage had been done — by Scalfari, I don’t doubt, more than by the Pope — how could it have been repaired? A prompt statement from the Pope, indicating that he certainly does believe in Hell and that Scalfari had misquoted him, might have helped. But such a statement (which was not forthcoming) would not have commanded the same degree of public attention. Of course the Pope believes in Hell. One expects him to believe in Hell. [But does he, in fact? Considering he has made the same statement to Scalfari at least three times and has never once bothered to refute Scalfari's claim categorically.]

And after all what does Pope Francis believe about Hell? He has alluded to its existence on many occasions. Still it is possible that he might proclaim belief in Hell without accepting anything like the ordinary Catholic understanding of what Hell is. It would be theoretically consistent to say (as the Pope has said) that unrepentant Mafiosi go to Hell, and that (as he allegedly said to Scalfari) Hell is the annihilation of souls. So the potential for confusion would remain.

Alternatively, the Vatican might have remarked that Scalfari is an unscrupulous journalist, who was exploiting his personal friendship with the Pontiff to promote his own anti-religious agenda. There would have been a good deal of truth, I believe, in such a statement (which, again, was not made). But that truth would have prompted more pointed questions, about why the Holy Father had agreed to multiple interviews with such an agent provocateur.

One of the Pope’s most enthusiastic supporters, Austen Ivereigh, tackled the latter question on his Twitter feed, portraying the Pope’s interview as a template for the New Evangelization: “This superbly captures the Francis-Scalfari relationship. There’s a Christ-like vulnerability in a pope giving a geriatric atheist the freedom to twist his words. Some Catholics may hate it, but Francis is evangelizing (not proselytising).” [One will never cease to be amazed at the absurdities expressed by Bergoglio's most avid apostles to justify anything he says!]

Maybe Pope Francis was engaged in evangelization when he sat down to talk with Scalfari. [Evangelization, my foot! Bergoglio's conversations with Scalfari serve, I think, to reassure himself from time to time that he is capable of conversing with an 'acknowledged intellectual' at the level he attributes to Scalfari, which is obviously considerable. It's like indulging in mental masturbation, if you will pardon the term - a sheer exercise in self-indulgence.]

But Christians are not the only believers who see in social media an opportunity for promoting their beliefs — or, in this case, their case for unbelief. When he published the claim that Pope Francis had denied the existence of Hell, Scalfari was engaged in his own evangelization, spreading his anti-Gospel. And he did this with finesse, trapping his subject in a box with no exit.

Yes, the Pope is a Catholic. But he sometimes sounds like a confused Catholic, and therefore a confusing Catholic leader. To recognize that problem does not require accusing the Pope of heresy; the confusion among the faithful is trouble enough. [Among the very ones he is supposed to confirm in their faith, not confuse in their faith!]

And the confusion among the faithful — the sense of disorientation —is real. Regrettably, Pope Francis has compounded the problem with his acerbic criticism of the “rigid” Catholics, the “doctors of the law,” the daily Mass-goers, reverent altar-boys, rabbit-like breeders, pro-lifers, and defenders of marriage. These comments — and the nastier remarks by the Pope’s energetic champions on the social media — may bring a sympathetic smirk to the faces of liberal Catholics with master’s degrees from summer theology workshops. But they rattle the simple believers. [And are simply unconscionable in someone who is pope and clearly does not deserve to be, as he proves to us day after day.]


And Fr. H weighs in on the two recent tell-it-as-it-is books on Pope Bergoglio... as well as Fr Rutler's take on Fr H's beloved Benedict XIV...

Could there be an armistice with
the 'Lost Shepherd' or the 'Dictator Pope'?

April 27, 2018

I am a lucky chap; Leila and Philip Lawler have very kindly sent me a copy of Philip's fine book Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is misleading his flock. You may be thinking that this is rather like London buses; you wait for half an hour and then a couple come along together ... because last Monday was the publication day of Henry Sire's magnificent The Dictator Pope (about which I have just written a rave review for a monthly periodical). I hope you have already procured and devoured your copies of that volume! Later today, I will reprint my earlier comments on this book.

Although, of course, there are some overlaps between these two books, it is remarkable how comfortably they sit together on the bookshelf. Obviously, there is such a glut of material, that two authors can write books which are complementary rather than identical! Philip's book is, I think, perhaps a tadge gentler than Henry's in as far as it is clear that Philip hoped against hope that things would come right with this pontificate ... that, as we say, it wouldn't come to this ....

I think it "came to this" the very moment PF trudged out to greet the People of God (and the tourists) with an unhappy face, refusing to share the simple joy of the Lord's Flock committed to his charge; when he indicated his determination to mark out the discontinuities of his pontificate by not dressing like a pope and by taking a strange name.

Philip begins his book by observing that every day the pope issues another reminder that he does not approve of Catholics like us ..."day after weary day ... the pope upbraids me..." That's exactly how I feel.

So many of us started by doing our best to put the best possible gloss on this pontificate, and have been mercilessly driven to the realisation that this is not possible. As I wrote recently, every day there seems to be a new provocation, either from PF or from one of his sycophantic cronies.

In self-examination, I have asked myself again and again whether I have fallen into self-absorbed obsession in so often defending Truth against what flows from the man who, after all, does sit on the cathedra Petri.

But, when I was priested on June 9 1968, Bishop Harry Carpenter asked me "Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word...?" and I replied "I will, the Lord being my helper." If I had instead had the joy of being ordained according to the old Tridentine Pontificale, the Pontiff would have said to us, rather mixing his metaphors, "Sit doctrina vestra spiritualis medicina populo Dei ... ut praedicatione ... aedificetis domum, id est, familiam Dei ..." (May your teaching be a spiritual remedy to the people of God and your preaching build the house, that is, the famiy of God). So what choice do I have?

- Is there an alternative to all this open warfare?
- Could there be an armistice?
- Could PF stop stinging us into continuous reaction?
- Is he a big enough man to do that?
- Could we stop this endless series of criticisms of the pope?

I, for one, would be overjoyed to be able to do so.

I think the first essential proviso would have to be the appointment of someone to the Congregation for Bishops who would be given the power to ensure that the episcopate were re-balanced, and who would confer with PF about redressing the balance in the Sacred College.

For orthodox Catholics, perhaps the biggest worry of all concerns a future which PF is clearly trying to fashion the Church in his own likeness by the unfortunate appointments he makes. Cupich a Cardinal, indeed!!

Additionally, it would be necessary for PF to refrain from uttering into a public forum or a Scalfari anything to which the CDF had not given its previous OK. PF has so grossly enlarged the amount of material which comes to us with Papa dicit attached, that the the entire genre needs to be radically pruned and carefully controlled.

Meanwhile, get The Lost Shepherd to sit beside The Dictator Pope!


Fr George Rutler ...
... gives in Crisis Magazine a very jolly account of Pope Benedict XIV. (Thank-you to friends who drew this to my attention, and to Father for writing it.) [See Fr Rutler's essay two posts above this one.]

The only blemish in the Pope's character appears to have been that he disliked Jesuits and would never deign to admit that type of person into the Sacred College.

Father wittily includes a Latin epigram about Lambertini, including a couple of Teacher's Intentional Errors just to give his readers a bit of intelligent fun in the art of textual emendation.

And, happily, Father does not mention my own favourite Benedict XIV story ... his reaction to the Marchesa who wore, on her imperfectly veiled chest, a very large emerald cross. Given Internet resources, there must be ways that prurient readers can research such things...

He (B14) is upstairs in the Ashmolean, as you know, and along at the end. [He apparently refers to a sculpture bust of B14 in Oxford's famous Ashmolean Museum.] I haven't narrated any of my recent visits to see him because publicising the violence of his judgement on his current successor would simply have got me into trouble. There are sceptical people out there, y'know, who think that when I report our conversations, I am really just giving my own views.

And anyway, I wouldn't want to risk stirring up a gang of inflamed Bergoglianistae, led by the Master of Benets, to take their enraged pickaxes to his patient bust.

"The Dictator Pope"
To refresh your memories, I reprint a piece I wrote when an earlier electronic edition of the Dictator Pope was published under a pseudonym: Marcantonio Colonna.

I do think that this is a very important book. At the present moment, the papacy is more dominant that it ever has been before, its iron grip on the Church strengthened by the mechanisms of the instant world-wide Media. Inevitably and properly, the person and personality of the pontiff himself are subjected to detailed scrutiny, especially when it appears that we are going to have yet more 'surprises of the Spirit' sprung upon us.

This book brings together pretty well everything which can currently be known about PF. I suspect that Marcantonio Colonna is a trained historian, so you will find in his book not only a wealth of information about the rise of PF, but a subtle analysis of the cultural background which has formed him.

Have you ever wondered what people have in mind when they say "PF's Peronism accounts for it all"? Dr Colonna will explain to you what that means.

Would you like a careful explanation of PF's skills in playing people off against each other, in making use of a person and then discarding him, in ruthlessly humiliating or disposing of people whose aptitude for sycophancy he finds insufficiently crafted? It's all here.

Every book has its particular take on things, and Colonna's take on PF will not in itself surprise anyone. It has, I think, become so clear as now to be uncontroversial that what you get in PF is not what it says on the tin.

He is not a kindly humble avuncular figure with a winning smile and a passion for cripples and babies, who spends his days and nights thinking about the poor. He is a hard and determined politician with a vindictive temper and an appetite for power and a disinclination to let anybody or anything stand in his way.

Colonna shows how this was already apparent to PF's own fellow-countrymen well before he burst on to the international scene with his 'Buona sera'. Under Colonna's tutelage, you will not only understand PF's past, but you will be able to hazard an informed guess about what he might do in his future!

The unscrupulous manipulation of the 'Synods'; the dismembering of the Franciscans of the Immaculate; the 'Reform' of the Vatican finances; the assault upon the Knights of Malta; the 'Reform' of the Roman Curia; PF's poor record in dealing with the scandal of paedophile or ephebophile priests; the St Gallen Group and the parts played by Martini and Daneels and Murphy-O'Connor and the rest of them in plotting for the last two Conclaves; the antics of the Vatican's Gay Mafia - Marcantonio's historian's scalpel will expose to your view all the subcutaneous realities of this pontificate.

The whole game is not yet played out; but we already have a lot of data. Let Dr Colonna offer you a guided tour through them!