Arsonist becomes Fireman…
Vatican Sources: Francis Not Responding to Dubia “to Prevent Greater Evil”!
The new year began the same way the old one ended: with lots of breaking news on Amoris Laetitia, the infamous “Apostolic exhortation” on the family that effectively gives public adulterers the permission to receive the Novus Ordo version of Holy Communion and penance (confession) without having to cease their adulterous activities. The “theological” basis Francis provides for this absurdity is a redefinition of sin from “voluntary transgession of the divine law” into “the best you can do for the moment, although falling short of the ideal”. Amoris Laetitia even includes the blasphemy that God Himself may be “asking” adulterous couples to commit adultery in their particular situation (see n. 303).
In the last few days, one piece of news after another appeared with various updates on the controversy surrounding the dubia (“doubts” — a set of questions asking for clarification) submitted to Francis by “Cardinal” Raymond Burke and three other red hats, which they made public after Francis refused to answer them privately. Among the most recent stories are the following:
- Interview with “Cardinal” Burke (The Remnant / Jan. 9)
- CDF Head “Cardinal” Müller’s Interview on Italian TV (National Catholic Register / Jan. 9)
- “Cardinal” Napier proposes a Sixth Dubium: What about Polygamists? (Marco Tosatti / Jan. 5)
However, the latest development, appearing today, really takes the cake: According to the Spanish portal Religion Confidencial, unnamed sources working inside the Vatican’s Roman Curia claim that the reason why Francis is refusing to respond to the dubia for the time being is that he is prudently trying to avert a greater evil for the church!
Have a look:
[These] sources point out to Confidencial that one of the evils that afflict the Catholic Church is the external pressure of certain sectors opposed to Catholic morals, which are pressuring the Holy Father to modify the Church’s doctrine on marriage.
Responding to the dubia would create a worse atmosphere within the Catholic Church, and the Pope prefers, for the moment, to remain silent about it and to follow the same line that has characterized his pontificate: prudence and discernment of the individual conscience in this matter.
(“El Papa no quiere, de momento, que Doctrina de la Fe responda las dudas de los cuatro cardenales”, Religion Confidencial, Jan. 10, 2017; our translation.)
Yeah, that’s it: Francis is the great defender of faith and morals who is just prudently keeping silent so that those evil bishops who oppose the indissolubility of marriage or are at least trying to suggest that unrepentant adulterers can now receive the Novus Ordo sacraments, won’t cause even more trouble!
This is absurdity on stilts.
We remember that Francis is the one who started the whole mess to begin with: convening the two Synods on the Family, the endorsement of “Cardinal” Walter Kasper’s speech, his behind-the-scenes admission to Bruno Forte that he wanted to provide an opening for unrepentant adulterers to receive the sacraments through the backdoor, his private letter commending the “bishops” of Buenos Aires for their implementation of Amoris Laetitia, the fit of rage he had when he found out the dubia had been made public, his appointing of “bishops” like Robert McElroy and Blase Cupich, his demotion or firing of people not in line with his novelties, his constant denunciations of anyone even remotely resembling a Catholic, and, of course, his issuance of Amoris Laetitia in the first place! Contrary to what some people apparently believe, even an Antipope is quite capable of expressing himself clearly if only he wishes to; and, for those who may have forgotten, Amoris Laetitia was supposed to provide clarification after the two tumultuous Synods in the first place!
All this just goes to show that the old narrative of “the immaculate Pope of pristine orthodoxy is being surrounded by lupine evil bishops and treacherous bad advisers!” apparently will not die, no matter what the evidence. It’s one of the lifelines that has kept the Vatican II Sect alive throughout the last decades.
What to do, then, with this silly claim that Francis is trying to avert a greater evil from his church? Should we assume that the story about the Vatican sources is just made up? Probably not. Rather, we suspect that the sources made up the story, perhaps at Francis’ own behest, in order to inject more disinformation and confusion into the whole mess, so as to cause the greatest chaos possible and prolong it indefinitely. Besides, it will once again give some desperate Francis adherents something to hang their hopes on because it keeps the illusion of the orthodox, pious Francis alive just a tad bit longer.
There is another possible scenario that would explain this obvious disinformation campaign: Francis wants to buy time. This story about Francis not responding to the dubia “for the moment” in order to preserve the church from a greater evil, effectively asserts that Francis wants to and will respond to the dubia — which would prevent or neutralize, at least for a time, any “formal act of correction” as threatened by Mr. Burke or any other type of action that could result in a schism or at least greatly damage Francis’ credibility. The timing of this “revelation” by the anonymous sources is rather impeccable too: Just in December, Burke had announced that a “correction” of Francis “would probably take place sometime after” the Feast of the Epiphany, which was celebrated Jan. 6.
This year promises to be interesting, no doubt.
Meanwhile, Francis clone “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro, SJ, has defended his boss on Twitter by alleging that in Sacred Theology, 2 + 2 can equal 5 because it deals “with God and [the] real life of people” (source). Apparently he is not aware that even in God 2 + 2 can never equal 5, and it hasn’t equaled 5 in people’s “real lives” either as of late. But of course it’s a really attractive way of getting people to think that anything goes in theology, and in Modernist theology, that’s actually true — courtesy of the Bergoglian “god of surprises”.
That this “2+2=5” lunacy is in fact also Francis’ own position is clear from a number of his daily homilies; but he underscored it again just recently in his sermon for the feast of the Epiphany, where he used cheap polemics to denounce Catholics as “King Herods” who only want “the usual fare” because they aren’t enamored with the pandora’s box of endless Bergoglian novelties — novelties which Francis is apparently putting on a par with the introduction of the New Covenant through the Birth of Christ, so much so that one has to wonder if this is a cryptic admission on Francis’ part that he is ushering in a new religion. Although the New & Improved Covenant of the Vatican II religion finds its origin in “Pope” John XXIII and his aggiornamento, Francis is the most open practicioner of this new, pseudo-Catholic religion.
By the way, those who now express surprise at CDF head “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller siding with Francis should remember that in an interview he gave to the German magazine Focus during the 2015 Synod on the Family, Muller already caved, signaling that it was “conceivable” to allow unrepentant public adulterers to receive the sacraments in “exceptional” cases:
This, of course, has also been the position of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, better known by his stage name, “Pope Benedict XVI”. John Paul II, we recall, did much worse: He promulgated a law permitting not adulterers but non-Catholics to receive some of the sacraments, something then-“Cardinal” Ratzinger was only too happy to carry out at John Paul II’s funeral.
Welcome to the Vatican II religion.
So, Francis is now being marketed as the great victim of — and eventual solution to — the very problems he introduced in the first place. Once again the arsonist is being entrusted with the job of fireman.
The theological comedy show that is the Vatican II Sect beats any American sitcom. You just can’t make it up.
Perhaps he thinks an overt schism is more evil (or “sins” against false unity / ecumenism?) is the “greater evil”‽…
He refuses to answer because he has no justifiable reason for defending his dubius doctrine other than liberalism and naturalism…and because he will never admit he is wrong…is “humility “ will not allow him so…How can you defend the possibility of communion to people living in adultery when God condemns this…This is divine and natural law.
Perhaps he is refusing to respond to indicate that he’s not going anywhere? If he responds, he will be found a heretic and promptly lose the Seat. If he simply does not respond, the 4 can call him whatever they want and try to formally correct him, but if he never plays the game he never loses. If he plays the game, and I were a betting man, my money would be on a health related resignation.
He’s figured out how to keep the Seat is where he’s at.
Bergoglio, the Clown Satanic Prince, never possessed the Seat. Ever. A non-Catholic cannot possess the See of Peter. Ever. He is an impostor and a charlatan. Hell awaits him…
Its his Guy Montag impersonation.
Because modernists believe heaven is being created here on earth. That is why they have such concern over some moral issues and not others.
Indeed. Let’s not forget that making heaven on earth is the fundemental impulse of freemasonry.
I think he will never answer anything and the 4 “cardinals” won’t be men enough to carry the “formal correction” on (’cause catholic enough they already are not at all).
Bergoglio is like a ‘win this’ tag on a box of tissues.
PS. Novus Ordo ‘Time’ is sniffing glue.
Catholics who see Bergoglio for what he is, react in different ways. The thing that sends me reeling, is the “doubt” he has regarding church doctrine, and that he is absolutely certain that his heresies and outrages harmonize with God’s will.
There is no Christian humility in his soul. Just demonic pride.
Two years ago I exchanged some civil comments with a woman in the CM combox. This was in regard to the advice he gave the Lutheran woman, if it was ok to receive Holy Communion with her Catholic husband. The lack of clarity in his response really annoyed me. The woman commenter saw nothing wrong. She was convinced Bergoglio was telling the Lutheran she should not receive. I said that the dozens of people there in the church would each hear what they thought he said or what they wanted to hear. I.E., many conflicting answers. I said that Church doctrine should be stated clearly and forthrightly. I still had the thought that Jorge meant that she should not receive. So I made more excuses for him. I was still not ready to make a complete break from this devilish man.
In Bergoglioism, 2 + 2 = 5 because Jorge fancies himself the additional + 1. It’s all about his cult of personality. And it seems he believes he does define reality. It’s clear the 4 cardinals of the dubia hold the moral high ground but it’s not clear to me that “correction” necessarily means Bergoglio is deposed or affirms traditional church teaching. And if schism occurs does Jorge lose his day job or does his freemasonic, pseudo-Catholic tent revival continue?
The sedevacantists and traditionalists who frequent this and other religious websites may know the truth but what about the 1.2 billion Catholics, like my devout 87 year old mother, who obtain their information through the mainstream media? [My mother recently told me that Cupich is conservative. I asked how she knew this to which she replied, “Television.” And she would NEVER dare to question the “pope” because, well, he’s the “pope.”] And there are those who believe that Bergoglio is fulfilling the goals of Vatican II by having the Church “evolve” to more closely mirror the changes in modern society. Because it has become “dusty” and rigid or doctrinaire.
Although Jorge speaks out against proselytism, isn’t it because he alone is handling recruitment to his freemasonic church based on the ‘feel good’ philosophy of ‘Do what thou wilt,’ your sins aren’t sins? A law that is fundamentally immoral and clearly contradictory to Catholic Church teaching? Bergoglio is the greater evil in the Church today, greater than the evil displayed by his many adherents and thugs.
to prevent greater evil . . . greater than sacrilege?