Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Speaking of blasphemy…

Francis: “Every Form of Violence inflicted upon a Woman is a Blasphemy against God”

In the past we have seen many examples of where Jorge Bergoglio — “Pope” Francis — speaks of man as if he were God, and sometimes he treats him that way too. As of Jan. 1, 2020, however, we know that he not only believes that man is God but that woman is, too.

In his New Year’s Day sermon for the Novus Ordo Feast of Mary the Mother of God — in the traditional Roman calendar, it is the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ — the Argentinian squatter occupying the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta declared:

The rebirth of humanity began from a woman. Women are sources of life. Yet they are continually insulted, beaten, raped, forced to prostitute themselves and to suppress the life they bear in the womb. Every form of violence inflicted upon a woman is a blasphemy against God, who was born of a woman. Humanity’s salvation came forth from the body of a woman: we can understand our degree of humanity by how we treat a woman’s body.

(Antipope Francis, in “Pope on New Year’s Day: ‘Let’s Stand & Acclaim the Lady, the Holy Mother of God’ … ‘All Together Now, Three Times’”, Zenit, Jan. 1, 2020; underlining added.)

Ignoring for a moment the absurd claim that women in general “are continually insulted, beaten, raped”, etc., Francis here asserts that inflicting violence upon women is blasphemy.

Now, let’s be very clear: Of course it is morally wrong, in most cases, to inflict violence upon another human being — male or female, we might add. (We say “in most cases” since it is certainly permissible to do so in some cases; for example, when necessary for self-defense or in capital punishment inflicted by the lawful authority for a heinous crime.) But however sinful inflicting violence on another is in most cases, it is definitely not a sin of blasphemy.

A quick look at a pre-Vatican II moral theology manual reveals what the sin of blasphemy actually is: “Blasphemy is any speech or gesture that contains contempt for or insult to God. … Blasphemy may tend directly against God, or only indirectly, i.e., when the Saints or sacred things are reviled” (Rev. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1959], n. 190 I., p. 119).

Notice that indirect blasphemy concerns either sacred things, such as a Crucifix, or saints — not simply any “woman.” Besides, when it concerns a saint, in order for a thought, word, or action to be truly blasphemous, the following conditions must be met, as explained by Fathers John McHugh and Charles Callan:

If sacred persons or things are spoken ill of precisely on account of their relation to God, or in such a way that the evil said of them reverts on God Himself, blasphemy is committed. Example: It is blasphemous to say that the Mother of God was not a Virgin, that St. Peter was a reprobate, that St. Anthony and St. Simeon Stylites were snobbish or eccentric, that the Sacraments are nonsense, that relics are an imposture, etc.

(Rev. John A. McHugh & Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 892a; underlining added. Available electronically here.)

If someone speaks ill of the saints but not “on account of their relation to God” or so that “the evil said of them reverts on God Himself”, then it is a sin of irreverence or disrespect but not of blasphemy, as the same authors go on to make clear (see n. 892b).

Francis, of course, attempts to relate “woman” to God when he says that God “was born of a woman”. But Jesus Christ was born not simply of “woman” in general but of a very specific one, the Blessed Virgin Mary. And to insult her is indeed a blasphemy. But this is not what Francis is talking about. He tries to make every woman into a saint simply because she is of the same sex as the Blessed Mother. This is Naturalism, a major and fundamental aspect of Modernism. Supernatural grace conferring holiness does not enter into the picture at all.

By claiming that violent crime against women is blasphemy, Bergoglio is simply revealing once more that he considers man to be divine or at least sacred by nature. This idea is ultimately rooted in the man-centered (“anthropocentric”) theology of Vatican II. For example, recall that in the council’s insufferable “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” we are told that “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 12; cf. Jn 2:24-25). When Antipope “Saint” Paul VI gave his closing address of the fourth session of the council on Dec. 7, 1965, he uttered these stunning words: “The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none.” Indeed, there was none; and the rest is history.

Of course it is quite amusing that Francis’ statement that “we can understand our degree of humanity by how we treat a woman’s body” came less than 24 hours after he angrily slapped a woman on the hand in St. Peter’s Square, but that’s not our concern now. We will merely point out that, rhetoric and metaphors aside, humanity does not and cannot exist in degrees. There is, therefore, no “degree of humanity” to understand.

Additionally, for Francis to claim that those who mistreat women have a lower degree of humanity than others is simply stunning, not only because it is clearly erroneous philosophically inasmuch it denies the philosophical principle that essence does not admit of degrees (see Bernard J. Wuellner, Summary of Scholastic Principles [Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1956], n. 513), but also because it smacks of the dangerous Nazi and eugenic ideologies of the 20th century, which considered some people to be “subhuman”, that is, inferior humans, and therefore worthy of mistreatment, enslavement, and even extermination.

Of course we are not saying, by any stretch, that it is somehow morally licit to mistreat women. Not at all. We’re simply saying that although it is sinful, it is not the sin of blasphemy; and that, however we may deplore it, very wicked criminals are still human beings. To deny that is in itself a great (intellectual) crime; one that, if followed through to its logical conclusion, will create untold suffering and oppression for humanity.

Interestingly enough, Francis is not even consistent with his own false doctrine here, for when in 2019 an atheist sodomite complained to him that he didn’t feel accepted in the Catholic Church, the Jesuit pretend-pope told him: “It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity.” Yet now in 2020 we hear him say that those who commit violent acts against women are less human than those who don’t. What about their “dignity”? Just asking.

It is ironic, but not really surprising, that the Vatican’s blasphemer-in-chief should see blasphemy where there is none, all the while having no problem with real blasphemy, as shown in the following examples:

Francis’ sermon of Jan. 1 was an utter disaster. It was disjointed, erroneous, blasphemous — and at times quite bizarre, as when he said that women’s “is the most noble flesh in the world, for it conceived and brought to light the love that has saved us!”

Perhaps the pseudo-pontiff is not aware, but women’s flesh is no different from men’s — both men and women are of the same human race, after all, and all flesh was ultimately drawn from Adam, from whose rib Eve was created:

Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

(Genesis 2:21-23)

Whether Francis actually believes that, is another matter, of course.

Aside from that, we must point out one other minor detail: The “love that has saved us” was “conceived and brought to light” not simply by the flesh of “women”, as Francis would have it, but by one very specific woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Francis’ claim that it is a blasphemy against God to act violently against women, is simply another instance of him deifying humanity. This is not new for him; indeed the Argentinian apostate has a veritable history of putting man in the place of God, as can be gleaned from the following posts:

In his inaugural encyclical over 115 years ago, Pope St. Pius X warned that

this according to the same apostle [St. Paul] is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, [that] man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5)

Although we don’t know when the Antichrist will arrive, it seems everything is ready for him.

Bergoglio certainly is.

Image source: shutterstock.com
License: paid

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.