| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.068
Post: 13.158 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
It is surely not an overstatement to say that Jorge Bergoglio appears incorrigible by now – forget those ‘fraternal corrections’
spoken of by Cardinal Burke! He and his fellow cardinals can certainly go on the record with it, but they will be just as flagrantly
ignored as their DUBIA, to begin with. Bergoglio said it himself at the start of his pontificate - "I am too old to change my ways!" Which
we did not think then referred as well to his idiosyncratic idea of the faith - a set of bred-in-the-bone beliefs that constitute
Bergoglianism, not Catholicism, and sometimes not even Christianity.
Bergoglio is not to be deflected in any way from his chosen mission to obliterate the one true Church of Christ, to replace
it with his very own church of Bergoglio (though of course His Humbleness would never call it that), which is his idea
of what ‘the Church’ ought to be if only Jesus had been as all-seeing and merciful as this Argentine worse-than-Luther.
In the following, Father Scalese sounds off on two Bergoglian soundbites from the recent trip to Egypt, and a soundbite from January 15
that is among the most outrageous this pope has ever said.
Better to be atheist than Catholic?
[And, Bergoglio dixit, better to betray the Lord than to gossip!]
Translated from
May 2, 2017
I confess that I have never given excessive attention to the apostolic trips abroad by the popes. I have always thought that when a pope visits any country, it is only right that the faithful and the inhabitants of that country should enjoy all his attention. The addresses that a pope gives to each country are generally addressed specifically to them, not to all Christendom. [I disagree – the specifics may apply to each country, but the general message announcing Christ and his Gospel is always and necessarily addressed to the world.]
That is why I usually limit myself to reading the titles of the news reports even knowing that most of the time, the news reports only touch on certain aspects – often the marginal ones – of what the pope actually says.
I followed the same rule about Pope Francis’s recent visit to Egypt. But I must admit that some headlines did provoke my curiosity so that I had to look up the full texts of two discourses he addressed to Egyptian Catholics: that to the clergy, religious and seminarians at the Patriarchal Seminary in Maadi, and his homily at the Mass celebrated in the Air Defense Stadium.
The visit lasted two days (April 28-29) – the first day dedicated to the Muslims and the Copts; the second, to Catholics. I shall not dwell on Day 1, which was rather ecumenical, inter-religious and universal, but on his two interventions on April 29. Of which I shall consider only those points highlighted by the media. It is not to ignore the entirety of the visit, but this blog is not an instrument for Church information, but merely an account of my free reflections that focus on selected details.
What is most striking about Pope Francis, not just on this occasion, but in general, is the different treatment he gives to those within the Catholic Church versus those outside the Catholic Church: The more he shows himself cordial and warm to those who are outside the Church, the more he is rough, at times downright scorching, when he addresses Catholics [at least those who are not ‘Bergoglian’ in their beliefs and practices].
For heaven’s sake!, a father should know when to be one or the other: Bringing up a child does not mean covering him with caresses; a true parent and educator usually takes a rather austere attitude because he demands the best of his children or students. Above all, a father knows his children’s defects and weaknesses and must therefore intervene to correct them. “Whoever spares the rod hates the child,
but whoever loves will apply discipline.” (Proverbs 16,24) And of course, it is right to behave in a civilized way towards strangers (in this case, towards non-Catholics and non-Christians).
Someone has observed that, at least in Egypt, given the particular situation in which Christians live there, it would have been more proper to offer consolation instead of correction. And it must be said that the pope did not fail to encourage our Christian brothers in Egypt (even if the media chose not to underscore this). He said:
I wish above all to thank you for your witnesss and for all the good that you do every day, while living amid so many challenges and very little comfort. I also wish to encourage you! Do not fear the weight of everyday experience, the weight of the difficult circumstances that some of you must undergo. We venerate the Holy Cross, instrument and sign of our salvation. Whoever wishes to flee the Cross also flees the Resurrection. “Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.” (Lk 12, 32)
[Of course, the Gospel lines before this citation were lines one has not heard JMB cite, nor do we expect him to ever cite them because they directly contradict his insistence on secular priorities: “As for you, do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not worry anymore. All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. (Lk 12, 29-31)
Nonetheless, he also warned them against the ‘temptations’ that consecrated persons encounter every day along the way (he makes an ineresting reference to the teachings of the Fathers of the Desert): the temptation to be dragged along rather than lead; the temptation of continually whining; the temptation to gossip and envy; the temptation of constantly comparing oneself to others; the temptation of ‘pharaonism’; the temptation of individualism; the temptation of traveling a path without a compass nor a goal.
But it is not the first time that this pope exhorts his clerical listeners to make a close examination of conscience (one recalls his infamous Christmas address to the Roman Curia in 2014 when he listed fifteen ‘Curial diseases’ afflicting them.
Some of the themes in his April 29 texts are recurrent in Bergoglio’s discourses, not just in those addressed tp the clergy or his direct collaborators, but also to the faithful at large. For example, the topic of gossip. How many times has this pope brought this up in his addresses and homilies? Eveidently, he considers it an important point. [I have remarked before that this near-obsession with gossip must mean gossip played a major role in his life experience before he became pope – perhaps because it was a pervading trait among his students, peers and parishioners, and/or he himself was the object of much damaging gossip.]
There was quite an uproar over the homily he gave at the Roman parish of Santa Maria in Setteville on January 15 [when, among other things, he said, not just once but three times, that "A parish without gossip is the perfect parish".[The English text of this homily can be found here: http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/01/15/170115d.html
Until Fr. Scalese called attention to this homily, I had not read it, nor even about it - which is most strange and disturbing, because it means that vigilance over Bergoglianism is far from comprehensive - and yet, Bergoglio makes these most astonishing statements:
But, reading the Gospel, I do not find a certain type of sin among the Apostles. Some were violent, who wanted to set fire to a village that had not welcomed them. … They had many sins: they were traitors, cowards. … But there is one I do not find. They were not gossips. They did not speak ill of others, and they did not speak ill of each other. In this they were good. ... I think of our communities: how many times, this sin, of ‘skinning’ each other, of gossiping, and believing oneself superior to others and speaking ill of them behind their backs. This, in the Gospel, they did not do. They did bad things, they betrayed the Lord, but this, no.
[In which a pope is saying that gossip is the worst possible sin, far greater even than 'betraying the Lord'. Yet this was no lapsus linguae, because the entire text is virtually all about the evil of gossip!]
Personally, I do not think slander is a priority in the Church today [or at any time for that matter, even if, as Bergoglio has underscored, slander can kill (metaphorically) just as, in his view, the capitalist economy 'kills', literally. I am convinced it is one of the many human miseries that have accompanied and will always accompany Christians on their earthly journey. But it is not for me to decide which would be most useful to the Catholic faithful at this particular time. '
At most, I dissent from the pope’s statement [in Setteville] about what the Apostles were not guilty of - because these were precisely among their many human failings (see Mk 10,35-45).
The shepherd would know what it is that his flock is most in need of. And we, as obedient sheep, would humbly accept the corrections that our father would deem right to impose of us, and try to make of these corrections a treasure for life. [As long as they are corrections, not misdirections and downright wrong teaching, as much of AL Chapter 8 is.]
Among the temptations and maladies that can strike Christians, hypocrisy is doubtless one of them. And so the pope is right to warn us against it. Jesus said to his disciples: “Beware of the leaven —that is, the hypocrisy — of the Pharisees” (Lk 12,1). In his homily in Cairo, the pope referred to the passage immediately preceding this in the Gospel of Luke (11,37-54) and to the episode of Ananias and Saffira (Acts 5,3-4), while a footnote to the homily, he cites St. Ephrem and a passage from Siracide (2:14).
But what leaves me perplexed is that the pope then adds: B]“For God, it is better not to believe than to be a false believer, a hypocrite!” Naturally, in the face of such a statement, the media went wild and reformulated it in various ways when they reported it, e.g., “Better to be a non-believer than to be a hypocrite!”, or “Better to be an atheist than to be a hypocritical Catholic!”
My question is: Where in Scripture does God say that it is better not to believe [there is a God] than to be a hypocrite? Of course, it is obvious that one should not be a hypocrite, and there are are numerous citations we can make. But I sincerely cannot find a single line in Scripture to suggest that rather than be hypocritical, it is better not to believe! It seems like one of those hasty conclusions many people often make based on deficient knowledge of Scriptures.
A statement like this reminds me of the slogans that were widespread in the 1970s and were said over and over to the point that by sheer repetition, they became a kind of indisputable dogma. Sometimes they are based on apodictic expressions that everyone takes for granted to the point that no one bothers to check out exactly what they mean. [This is, of course, a propaganda tactic that has been tried and tested fro, Goebbels down to Bergoglio!]
That it would be better to be an atheist than to be a hypocritical Christian may appear to be ‘obvious’ but it is not. To take it seriously means that one does not realize that in affirming this, one is applying a double standard: While among believers, one makes a correct distinction between those who act (or at least try to act) consistent with their faith and those who don’t (and are therefore hypocrites), no such distinction is made among non-believers – since no one, at least not this pope, says that among atheists, there can be good atheists and less-good atheists, and that, therefore, all atheists are good, by definition. [The same illogic whereby this pope believes that ‘the poor’ are the repository of all Christian virtues and could not possibly be sinful and evil as the ‘not poor’]. It would seem that human failings only afflict believers, and that the only sinners are Christians.]
It is not necessary to demonstrate that Christians, despite all the assistance they can avail of from grace, continue to be sinners. But why should non-believers be any less sinners than Christians? I have the impression that the self-injurious tendency that has become widespread in the Church over the past few decades has reached the point of overturning reality: Whereas in previous times, Christians considered themselves to be ‘holy’ in a way that was inseparable from their faith – while all non-Christians were simply a massa damnata - now it is the opposite: everyone else is holy, while only we Christians are the monsters who continue to infest the earth.
But most of all, I get the impression that in affirmations such as the pope made in Cairo, the very foundations of Christianity are placed on question. Faith, which is indispensable to salvation (“Without faith it is impossible to please God, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11,6), appears to have become an option: one can, in all tranquility, believe or not believe – it changes nothing, because what matters is not to believe but to live virtuously (in the case under discussion, not to be a hypocrite). Such an attitude reeks of Pelagianism.
In the same homily, another statement by the pope caught the attention of the media: “The only extremism allowed to believers is that of charity”. Clearly, this was a statement intended for rhetorical effect and must be taken as such. But in a specific context where the plague of religious fanaticism exists, it would not be out of place for me to point out that the only extremism allowed in Christianity is that of love. But it is also never more opportune to recall that the true measure of love is to love without measure, as God loves, who has loved us ‘excessively’ [”But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), Eph 2:4,5)] and who has given us his Spirit without measure («non ad mensuram dat Spiritum» - “He does not ration his gift of the Spirit (Jn 3:34).
But I have the impression that at this time, we can only learn from the Egyptian Christians, not only because they risk their lives everyday, but because many of them are ready to forgive their executioners.
That said, I believe that it is also timely to warn against the misunderstanding of a statement such as that “The only extremism allowed to believers is that of charity”. Sure, it is a rhetorical statement meant for effect, but it must not be taken literally because it will be bound to me misinterpreted.
For example, it might be thought that as long as there is love (what kind of love?), then everything is allowed and may be exempt from all the parameters of moral life (law, virtue, order, reason, etc). That love is above the law is true – but this does not mean that it can therefore act against the law.
Love does not lead to anomie (a-nomia=without law). Jesus said clearly: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15). But sometimes one has the impression that some Christians confuse love with the ‘dionysiac spirit’ evoked by Nietszche, a kind of mystical delirium or vital instinct that escapes all control, rules, limits or reason. St. Paul, faced with the charismatic excesses of the Christians of Corinth, advised that “everything must be done properly and in order” (1Cor 14:40).
Even love must respect order. Caritas, to be authentic, must be enlightened, that is, practised according to reason (Pope Benedict in the Regensburg lecture cited Michael II Paleologue who said “God acts with logos”).
Caritas does not extinguish other Christian and human virtues. On the contrary, it potentiates them and acts with them as a vinculum perfectionis (the bond of perfection) (Col 3:14). He who loves is not authorized to act without prudence, justice, fortitude or temperance, but rather, would practice those virtues more than others do.
In love, there is no room for fanaticism. In love, ‘extremism’ is resolved in the triumph of measure, of equilibrium, of moderation, of discretion. For Christians, to be ‘extremist’ does not mean to be fundamentalist, but to be radical in following Christ and in adhering to the Gospel.
And that is exactly what the Egyptian Christians have been demonstrating.
Here is a more recent reaction to yet another Bergoglian outrage. I rarely post commentary from Louie Verrecchio, who is one of those ultra-trads who believe that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are traitors to the faith because they have upheld the teachings of Vatican II, never mind that they have always insisted on interpreting these in the hermeneutic of continuity and certainly not of rupture with the entire Church history since Jesus established it. As far as the ultra-trads are concerned, everything about Vatican II and after Pius XII is poison that must not be recognized by any ‘genuine’ Catholic. I suppose, for them, canonized saints like John XXIII and John Paul II (both inextricably associated with Vatican II), not to mention Venerable Paul VI and Benedict XVI, likely future Doctor of the Church – are not to be considered genuine Catholics at all.
However, even allowing for Verrecchio’s usually intemperate language, I do agree with this commentary on Jorge Bergoglio’s latest fusillade against ‘rigid’ Catholics and whatever it is he means by that! Verrecchio is only one of many who immediately reacted to yet another screamingly outrageous and relentlessly repetitive haranguee from the current Successor of Peter…
Francis the Falsifier strikes again
by Louie Verrecchio
AKA CATHOLIC
May 5, 2017
During his Casa Santa Marta sermon earlier this morning,
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/05/05/pope_denounces_rigid_christians,_calls_for_meekness_in_the_c/1310198
the perfidious bishop-in-white set his sights once again on the so-called “rigid” - a Jesuitical slur reserved for those who actually believe what Holy Mother Church teaches in the name of Christ for our salvation.
Of such persons, His Humbleness declared: “They are rigid people living a double life: They make themselves look good, sincere, but when no one sees them, they do ugly things.”
“They make themselves look good…” This is rich coming from a man who never met a photographer before whom he was unwilling to strike a pious pose; including going down on the same knees that will not bend before Christ.
Looking sincere, but when no one sees them, they do ugly things… Ah, yes… This calls to mind the behavior of a certain Argentinian who said to the bishops present in Rome for the start of the Extraordinary Synod in 2014:
“It is necessary to say with parrhesia [candor, freedom, openness, etc.] all that one feels. After the last Consistory (February 2014), in which the family was discussed, a Cardinal wrote to me, saying: What a shame that several Cardinals did not have the courage to say certain things out of respect for the Pope, perhaps believing that the Pope might think something else. This is not good, this is not synodality, because it is necessary to say all that, in the Lord, one feels the need to say: without polite deference, without hesitation.” [Yeah, right! Can you spell HYPOCRITE?]
This coming from the “Pope” who removed priests from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith simply because they were rumored to hold, in the Lord, an opinion at odds with his own; i.e., they were obviously “rigid.”
The address to the Extraordinary Synod ended with this gem: “And do so with great tranquility and peace, so that the Synod may always unfold cum Petro et sub Petro, and the presence of the Pope is a guarantee for all and a safeguard of the faith.” I’d say that “safeguard of the faith” thing didn’t work out so well.
Be that as it may, present he was, indeed, - striking a sincere papal pose for all to see while doing some very ugly things behind the scenes, like instructing Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Special Secretary of the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So, we don’t speak of it plainly; do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” [A Bergoglian definition of HYPOCRISY, i.e., BLATANT DISHONESTY!]
How sincere can one bitter old man be? Apparently, not very…
Make no mistake about it, today’s rant at Casa Santa Marta had nothing to do with the Mass readings; it was all about defending the blasphemous and heretical text of Amoris Laetitia.
Of those who would dare to allow the words of Christ, the immemorial practice of the Church, and the infallible doctrines of the faith to get in the way of his evil designs, Francis blared: “They use rigidity in order to cover over weakness, sin, personality problems; and they use rigidity to build themselves up at the expense of others.”
Paying lip service to today’s reading from Acts 9, Francis pointed out that Saul was once rigid because he was intolerant of what he saw as a heresy, but then he encountered “another Man, who spoke with a language of meekness: ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’”
“This rigid young man, who had become a rigid man – but sincere! – was made a little child, and allowed himself to be led where the Lord called him.” At this, Francis would have us imagine that Saul’s conversion made him tolerant of heresy, or at the very least, totally unconcerned about such things.
Given that he has no qualms about accusing Jesus Christ of being a Pharisee who lays impossible burdens upon men (cf AL 295, 301, 303) [AL does not, of course, directly accuse Jesus Christ of being a Pharisee, but Verrecchio draws the inference from all the slurs against ‘impossible burdens’ and ‘ideals’ in AL], this comes as little surprise, nor is it the least bit out of character for Francis to slander St. Paul by twisting his Epistle to the Romans to suit his nefarious ends: “But he [St. Paul], who had persecuted the Lord with the zeal of the law, said to the Christians, ‘With those same things by which you have drawn away from God, with which you have sinned – with the mind, with the body, with everything – with those same members now you are perfect, you give glory to God.’”
In other words, "Forget about the Law concerning what you can and cannot do with your members; just follow the God of Surprises (me!) like a little child that does not know any better and you will be perfect!"
Francis is here showing his Biblical prowess; going “off-script” by referring to Romans 6, which begins: "What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2)
St. Paul is posing questions to which every authentic Catholic knows the answers. (Sound familiar?) Seriously, if they’ve not chosen one already, the Dubia Cardinals would do well to make St. Paul the Patron Saint of their cause! (By the way, where exactly are they? Are the cardinals perhaps waiting for May 13 to issue their “formal act of correction”?)
In any event, it almost sounds as if St. Paul is responding directly to Amoris Laetitia and the falsehoods that have been put forth with impunity by its rather Protestant author:
– “One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment…” (AL 298)
– “Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation [adultery, fornication] are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (AL 301)
– “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.” (AL 305)
- “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.”
To which St. Paul issues a dubia comprised of Divinely inspired words:
What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2)
Here’s a bit more of what St. Paul had to say in this chapter:
'Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof'.(Romans 6:12)
In other words, let he who tells you that you are “in a concrete situation which does not allow you to act differently than to remain in sin, obeying the lust of your bodies” (AL 301) be anathema; for he is a liar!
'But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered.' (Romans 6:17)
In other words, do not be deceived by those who would suggest that the Church’s moral doctrine is “dry and lifeless,” (cf AL 59) or who would paint the Commandments against adultery and fornication as “rules imposed by sheer authority,” (cf AL 35) for it is in obeying such doctrines that one is delivered from the clutches of evil.
'For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity: so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification … For the wages of sin is death.' (Romans 6:19,23)
In other words, be on the lookout for he who does not hesitate to suggest that “one may, with full knowledge of the Divine Law, remain in adultery yet abide in the life of sanctifying grace” (cf AL 301) and yet refuses to warn against those sins that are mortal, for such a one is speaking not for God but His adversary.
More could be said here, but presumably the point has been made:
St. Paul’s epistles give no quarter to the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and any attempt on his part to suggest otherwise is nothing more than a diabolical act of deception.
Francis ended his intervention on behalf of Amoris Laetitia with a passive-aggressive “prayer” for the “rigid” wherein he subtly congratulated himself for being a model of meekness: “Let us pray for those who are rigid, that they may follow the way of meekness of Jesus.”
In other words: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, rigid, unmerciful, and doctrinaire…
May he that exalteth himself be humbled, and soon.
To round up this installment of WHAT'S WRONG WITH BERGOGLIO, or DESTROYING THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, here's the latest reflection from the Bear, now writing under his true name, Tim Capps, as he has published a novel, whose statement below that Bergoglio uses the truth as his ultimate weapon I frankly find WEIRD, to say the least, and one must question whether it makes any sense at all.
The tragedy of Jorge Bergoglio
Friday, May 5, 2017
The Bear sees Pope Francis as a tragic figure.
Not just in the way of a man given a great opportunity whose personality defects ruin it for him.
Not even in the way of a man who, in ignorance and arrogance, makes an effective start in tearing down a great institution.
The Bear sees Pope Francis as tragic mainly because the Bear believes that, in his heart, Francis is convinced he is doing the right thing. No one sets out to be the bad guy.
[I must admit I do not see any sense in the following statements - WHAT TRUTH IS BERGOGLIO EMPLOYING AND HOW???:]
But, even more than that, his weapon is the truth, not lies. The truth is the ultimate weapon. That is his real danger.
Lies can be attacked, beaten. The truth, on the other hand, cannot. One must make complicated counterattacks doomed in advance by a thousand qualifications. But of course, we must respect the Holy Father. But of course, we give our intellectual assent to his magisterium. But of course, mercy is one of the chief elements of the Catholic Faith.
By the time the orthodox defender of the Faith gets to the first "but," both he and his audience are bored and confused. It is a brilliant strategy.
And, of course, it takes a brave Catholic to challenge the Pope of Rome. Most don't have the guts for it. Loyalty to the Pope, absurdly, is placed at the pinnacle of virtue; it is the mark of a good Catholic, greater than all other virtues, and more important even than adherence to the words of Christ.
Francis came wearing a deceptively slick persona of humility and mercy. It is not easy to fool the more perceptive for long, however. It did not take much time for him to reveal his arrogance and cruelty and disregard for the Catholic Faith.
No sooner had he boasted of his own humility than his actions revealed the Peronist fraud upon the gullible descamisados - "Why, see? I'm just like you!"
No sooner had he spoken of his own mercy than a long, long enemies list slipped from his white garments: 'batty' Christians and capitalists. Jorge Bergoglio was the outsider who finally got to be the ultimate insider.
How did the cardinals elector not see the danger in putting such a man in charge of the Church? The Bear believes that many did, and elected him anyway, because his weaknesses made him a ready tool for their designs. The rest were empty chairs and fools.
The Bear happens to believe that the Church could use a more merciful tone. The Bear thinks churchmen are, for the most part, insufferably arrogant. A genuine Pope Francis, who was really humble, who was really merciful, could have been a wonderful pope. He could have benefited the Church and enriched the lives of Catholics everywhere.
The Bear confesses he is not even much of a traditionalist. Give him morality that is logically in line with what has been believed everywhere at all times, and ritual approaching the competence of a high school chapter of Servants of the Misty Dawn, and the Bear will happy snooze through Father's ridiculous sermons on interfaith every week.
Instead, Pope Francis is just another shabby little South American Marxist, seething with resentment over his failed country that must have somehow been sabotaged by those rotten northerners who have gotten rich at his expense. Steal the Malvinas, will they?
Now, Francis has his big chance to show everyone. The Bear wishes it really were more complicated, more dramatic, more evil, than that. He is a small man who has been given what he sees as unlimited power to solve every problem in the world, from the anguish of divorced and remarried Catholics to the desperation of boat people.
And in his ridiculous, arrogant, tinpot way, that is what he has set out to do. [The Greeks called this HUBRIS, and it is always the mark of small men who think they are really supermen, or in the case of Bergoglio, who thinks he is really better than God (as the self-styled 'god of surprises')!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 07/05/2017 03:21] |