“Abp.” Victor Manuel Fernandez
“Heal Me with your Mouth”: Amoris Laetitia Ghostwriter’s Book on the “Art of Kissing” now in English
You may recall that approximately two years ago we reported on a curiosity about “Abp.” Victor Manuel “Tucho” Fernandez of Argentina. In 1995, while a “priest” for the diocese of Villa de la Concepción del Río Cuarto, he wrote and published a book entitled Sáname con tu Boca: El Arte de Besar (“Heal Me with your Mouth: The Art of Kissing”).
No, this isn’t satire. You couldn’t make this up if you tried!
“Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) is very familiar with his compatriot Fernandez, who has been one of his closest advisers since his time in Buenos Aires. In fact, when Francis was elected head of the Novus Ordo Sect on March 13, 2013, he wasted no time raising his buddy Fernandez to the rank of “Archbishop”. Fernandez has been serving as the rector of the “Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina” in Buenos Aires since 2009. Bergoglio, who was “archbishop” there from 1998-2013, was instrumental in getting Fernandez appointed to that position against conservative resistance.
Sáname con tu Boca was published by the Lumen publishing group. In the book description provided by the publisher, Fernandez assures his readers that — of course! — he is not writing about kissing from his own personal experience but from that of others whom he has interviewed:
I want to clarify that this book was not written based on my personal experience but based on the lives of those who kiss. In these pages I want to synthesize the popular feeling, what people feel when they think of a kiss, what they experience when they kiss. For that I chatted at length with many people who have abundant experience in this area, and also with many young people learning in what manner to kiss. I also consulted many books, and I wanted to show how the poets talk about kissing. So, trying to synthesize the immense richness of life, these pages emerged in favor of kissing. I hope that they help you kiss better, that they motivate you to release the best of yourself in a kiss
(Source: Description provided by Publisher)
The big news today is that this book has now been translated into English and the text made available online for free. The translation of the entire book was posted on the social media platform Medium by a user account that claims to be that of Victor Manuel Fernandez. The online version includes pictures that appear in the book. We caution our readers regarding both the content and the images:
- Heal Me with your Mouth: The Art of Kissing (English)
by Victor Manuel Fernandez
The book’s table of contents lists the following chapters:
- What is a kiss for?
- Paths that lead to a kiss
- What the poets say
- The anti-kiss
- What is said on the street
- An infinite kiss
- The supermystic kiss
We’ll leave it at that and not delve into or comment on the contents further.
Perhaps it will be useful to recall to the authentic Catholic teaching on the morality of kissing. Aside from platonic kissing between relatives and a kiss used as an innocent greeting, kissing is generally reserved for the married life for obvious reasons that need not be elaborated on here. Outside of wedlock, romantic kissing is obviously an occasion of sin. A brief but good summary of the Catholic teaching on this is provided by Fr. Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I (5th & rev. ed., p. 220), and will generally be found in any pre-Vatican II Catholic moral theology manual. For those looking for an in-depth treatment of the morality of kissing will find this in Fr. Winfrid Herbst’s book Kissing, available online.
We call him “Smoochie”: Mr. Victor Manuel Fernandez
Of course, the question that arises inevitably at this point is, just what earned this Victor Manual Fernandez the rank of “Archbishop” in Francis’ eyes? Why did Bergoglio make him his personal “theologian”? Remember that not only did Francis raise this man to being a bishop (thank goodness episcopal ordination is not valid in the Novus Ordo), he also chose him to be his own ghostwriter, both for the environmental encyclical Laudato Si’ as well as, reportedly, for the “Apostolic Exhortations” Evangelii Gaudium and — everyone’s favorite — Amoris Laetitia. (For this reason, we have called him “The Jorge Whisperer”.)
In fact, in May of last year the Italian Vaticanist Sandro Magister uncovered that key passages in Amoris Laetitia bear a striking resemblance to what Fernandez had written in a theological journal ten years prior. This would also explain why Fernandez has now published a lengthy article attempting to defend Amoris Laetitia (refuted by a Novus Ordo deacon here) — he’s basically defending his own text. But no matter how many “theologians” attempt to justify adultery in “concrete cases”, it will never work, because adultery is an intrinsic evil, meaning no circumstance can ever make it morally permissible.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have been witnessing since March 13, 2013 is a gigantic theological freakshow. We have long moved past simple error and heresy. We are now in absurdity, absurdity so bizarre that it makes the Twilight Zone look like reality TV by comparison.
It is not known whether Francis has read Fernandez’ book on the “Art of Kissing”. What is known, however, is that the Jesuit Antipope places a lot of emphasis on tenderness, caressing, and kissing and indeed seems obsessed with bestowing tender kisses — no, not just on babies and little children, but on confirmands, altar boys, heads of state, the feet of infidels, and so forth.
Fernandez and Francis are two peas in a pod. Fernandez is Francis, and Francis is Fernandez. Back in 2015, the semi-traditionalist GloriaTV published the following interesting video on the two Argentinian pseudo-Catholics:
Ah yes, kissing.
Judas liked it too.
Image sources: medium.com (@artofkissing) / Wikimedia Commons
Licenses: Fair use / CC BY 3.0
Sadly the R & R folks like the art of kissing to. I mean they like to kiss Bergoglio’s butt for his approval so that way they can at least sound like they’re Catholic. Also is it me or does Fernandez look like Bergoglio?
I guess the SSPooX says—oh, let’s face it–who knows what they’ll say about this new translation of their papa’s buddy’s filth; since we never know how they even rationalize so very much on their papa himself.
How many of the SSPX ever have access to the truth about the heresiarchs, I wonder? Off and on they have internet black outs for clergy, religious and lay folks; how many lay people would follow this, who can say? They might recognise the authority of their priesthood in telling them not to find out about things going on in the Novus Ordo, but then again they might just resist, in which case their pastors have to respond with recognise but resist since otherwise they would be pharisaical hypocrites.
Steve Speray wrote a rebuttal to the Rejection of the 1955 missal. Can Novus Ordo watch write a response to it in the future?
This is not an answer to your question. These are points to think about:
If the pre-1955 Liturgy was also perfect, then why work for changes? All change implies imperfection. Only God is changeless, because He is perfect, he is the source and standard for Being, Unity, Truth, and Goodness. Therefore, since there have always been changes in the Missal, Breviary etc., they were not perfect. Mr. Speray is misapplying the words of the popes.
The architects of the New Mass had to start somewhere. The liturgy of Montini did not just happen. The machinations of Modernists started with changes that were in and of themselves (per se) not evil, but were done in view of introducing things to come later. It is no wonder the Holy Week ceremonies of the Novus Ordo are essentially vernacular translations of the new holy week of Pope Pius XII.
The architects introduced “We believe” instead of “I believe,” facing the people for an oration, a sort of membership renewal ceremony on Holy Saturday, and other strange things. They have admitted that they started their changes with the 1955 Holy week.
We all have come to the realization that a terrible coup happened in October of 1958, with the suspicious death of Pius XII, the even more suspicious deaths and incapacitation of some cardinals, and the suspicious “election” of an enemy of Catholicsm as “pope.” Since 1958 we have not been able to ask Rome for clarification on anything, because Rome is in the hands of the Church’s enemies.
Without recourse to an authority, and in light of what we have seen as the fruits of the reforms, as well as the candid admissions of Annibale Bugnini, it is very reasonable to go back to the pre-reformed Liturgy which was used for centuries.
Folks, I have no idea how it is we are talking about the Sacred Liturgy in a combox thread that is attached to a post on Mr. Fernandez’ book on kissing.
Having said that, I want to interject here and hopefully clarify something: The Roman Catholic Church is infallible in her universal liturgical rites. In that sense, her liturgy is perfect. She cannot have in her universal liturgy anything that is per se a danger to faith or morals, i.e. be heretical, impious, etc. However, as times and circumstances change, rites that are perfect in themselves (in the sense just mentioned) can become imperfect, harmful, etc. by accident. In other words, there can never be a doctrinal error in a liturgical rite, but it could be imprudent to institute a particular rite or introduce a particular change.
For example, consider the practice of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds. That used to be done in the Roman rite, and there is nothing wrong with it at all. However, when people started to believe that it was necessary to receive Holy Communion under both kinds in order to receive the whole Christ, that is when the practice, perfect in itself, became accidentally harmful. For this reason, the Church discontinued it in the Roman rite. It was more prudent to discontinue it.
This must be what St. Pius X had in mind when he said: “For this reason, many years will have to pass before this type of liturgical edifice, composed with intelligent care for the Spouse of Christ to express her piety and faith, can appear purified of the imperfections brought by time, newly resplendent with dignity and fitting order” (Apostolic Letter “Abhinc Duos Annos”).
It is certainly a historical fact that Fr. Annibale Bugnini had his hands in the changes instituted by Pope Pius XII in the 1950s. However, the fact that they were promulgated by a legitimate Pope guarantees that they are perfect in the sense explained above. That is the beauty of the Papacy. We have a divine guarantee. One may perhaps be able to argue that because of all that has happened since then, it is not prudent to continue using these Pian liturgical changes. But that is controverted and by no means certain. What *is* certain is that when the changes were instituted in 1955, they were not optional but obligatory.
Pope Gregory XVI taught, “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. ” Yet, you just argued that disciplines are imperfect which is why they change. Can you explain yourself?
I responded philosophically.
If something is absolutely perfect, then it admits of no change. Imperfection is the “sine qua non” of change. There were changes to the missal after St. Pius V (like those of Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Benedict XV). There were also changes in the Breviary (like the changes made by St. Pius X.) By your logic, and your understanding of “perfect,” you get caught in a conundrum. If the liturgical disciplines were (are) perfect, in the way you understand the word, then no changes could be ever have been made. No pope could have changed the Missal after St. Pius V. Even St. Pius V could not have made the changes of codifying and purifying the Roman Rite of the Mass from the ordo missae of Alexander VI. And no pope could have changed the Breviary, etc., since the Liturgy was “perfect,” in your understanding of the word.
I do not have the text of pope Gregory XVI in the original language (presumably Latin). But, if he used the adjective “perfecta,” that word is understood as complete, finished, perfect, excellent. It is the antonym of incomplete or imperfect.
Nobody is implying the New Holy week of Pius XII, or his New Psalter, is crippled, incomplete, or subject to civil authority (God forbid!), or contrary to principles of the natural law. And Indeed, all Catholics were bound to embrace those changes with filial piety during Pius XII’s reign. They are, per se, Catholic. They do not, per se, lead to error, heresy, or any other evil. At the time, they could not be referenced to the unheard of abominations which were to come in the future.
However, now, in retrospect, we know why those changes were made, and we can see their connection to what has come about. And that connection is not mere conjecture, but based on the testimony of the authors, and the blatantly obvious continued use of those changes in the Novus Ordo by her enemies, who have taken the initiative to distort or replace nearly every other aspect of the Liturgy other than the New Holy Week.
Therefore, per accidens, the New Holy week is something many sedevacantists reject. The same argument can be made for the abolishment of the March 19th feast of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, for the new feast of St. Joseph the worker on “May Day” by Pius XII.
I agree with N.O.W. that this is not the venue for such arguments. Therefore this will be my last response to this topic.
It is quite reasonable to go back to the (“perfect”) liturgical practices which were despised by the so called “liturgical movement” in the 1950’s and 1960’s. That “movement” was bursting at the seams with Modernists, antiquarianists, or archaeologists, and other subversives. Sedevacantists who devote their energies to attacking those who use the pre-1955 liturgy are directing their energies in the wrong direction.
On a side note, the S.R.C. 4398 (December 9, 1925), referencing a letter of the same from August 21,1863, declared the use of the so-called Gothic vestments not lawful. For individual priests, or parishes, their use was occasionally permitted (or tolerated) UNTIL THEY WERE WORN OUT. One can reference Rev. J. O’Connell, the Celebration of Mass, from 1940. It is interesting to note that O”Connell was in favor of the Gothic vestments, but also understood that their use was unlawful; and therefore, he hoped for the day when Rome would either permit, or at least tolerate, their general use. To my knowledge, that permission was never given by the S.R.C. under any pope. Yet, we see certain clerics making use of them, as if they are normal and lawful. New Gothic vestments are being made at the request of “traditional” priests! I am scandalized when I see a “traditional” Catholic priest use them. I wish sedevacantists would unite in their adherence to the use of the Roman chasuble and vestments, and reject the unlawful Gothic vestments. It would be edifying.
No, we typically do not get involved in disputes among sedevacantists. The main purpose of NOW is to refute the Vatican II Sect and show how it contradicts the Catholic Church, not to involve ourselves in intra-sedevacantist disputes. If you want to know my personal position, then it’s that the 1955 changes mandated by Pope Pius XII are binding.
Solomon’s canticles of canticles Chapter 1 was put in the canon to show all aspects of life with an added meaning that represents Christ and his spouse. Its all that is really needed.