Explosive transcript released…

Bombshells and Drivel galore:
In Q&A with Slovak Jesuits, Francis hits back at Critics

During his recent trip to Slovakia, the Argentinian aposte Jorge Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) once again took time to meet with his fellow Jesuits, which usually means they get to ask him questions and he then responds with his incredibly profound wisdom.

This is something he’s been doing on pretty much all his trips outside of Italy, so it was expected. A full transcript of the question-and-answer session is always released a few weeks later by “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro, S.J., editor-in-chief of the Jesuit review La Civiltà Cattolica, which under Pope Pius IX started out as an eminently orthodox publication but has long since degenerated into an utter Modernist rag.

The encounter with Slovak Jesuits — as many as 53 of them — took place the evening of Sunday, Sep. 12, 2021. The English transcript was published today and can be accessed in full here:

The text contains quite a few explosive statements, so we will now go ahead and look at those and provide some critical commentary.

Asked how he is doing, Francis replies: “Still alive, even though some people wanted me to die. I know there were even meetings between prelates who thought the pope’s condition was more serious than the official version. They were preparing for the conclave. Patience!”

Indeed, there has been chatter about the next “papal” election, which is not unusual considering Francis’ age. Nevertheless, those he believes want him to die (was that an attempt at gaining sympathy?), must know that what the next conclave is likely to produce, is probably not going to bring any improvement.

One of his interlocutors asks Francis “what Jesuits should hold to heart in their pastoral work in Slovakia”, and the fake pope replies that it is “closeness” — the ultimate Bergoglian panacea that has the potential to mean so much… or so little. Francis underscores that they are to be “close to God, close among yourselves, close to the bishops and the pope, and close to the people of God, which is the most important.” He also makes clear: “If a Jesuit thinks differently from the bishop and has courage, then let him go to the bishop and tell him what he is thinking. And when I say bishop, I also mean the pope.” That is amusing, considering that Bergoglio absolutely refuses to grant an audience to those who have a real beef with him, above all the two remaining “dubia cardinals” regarding Amoris Laetitia. But then they’re not Jesuits, so perhaps that is what makes the difference for the Frankster.

Naturally, Bergoglio also advises his confrères that “what will save us from falling into stupid ideologies is closeness to the people of God. This allows us to go forward with an open heart.” In these two brief sentences we have as many as four typical Bergoglian catchphrases that are as clearly defined as an amoeba: “ideologies”, “closeness”, “going forward”, and “open heart.”

The problem is that one man’s doctrine is another man’s ideology, and vice versa. Even “closeness” could be an ideology, if we so choose to define it. It is anyone’s guess as to what an “open heart” is, but it lends itself quite well to undermining truth under the guise of compassion. “Going forward” can mean anything from “putting the Gospel into action” to “abandoning the Gospel” — and such ambiguity is probably why Francis loves the phrase so much. Yet from prior experience we know that when he speaks about “moving forward”, it usually means departing from sound doctrine, morality, or a previously accepted course of action. Let us look at just two concrete examples from the past.

In 2013, Francis told the leftist Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women (CLAR) not to worry too much about doctrinal orthodoxy: “Perhaps even a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine [of the Faith] will arrive for you, telling you that you said such or such [a] thing … But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward … Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it.” There’s just nothing like moving forward!

In 2015, Francis told a Lutheran woman who had inquired about receiving “Communion” at a “Catholic Mass” (Novus Ordo Eucharistic celebration): “I would never dare to give permission to do this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and go forward. [Pauses] And I wouldn’t dare – I don’t dare say anything more.” Oh, he said enough! His answer was sufficient to mean yes, no, maybe, figure it out yourself, and don’t ask me. That’s because Francis likes to speak in such a way that although what he says may not strictly be heretical, nevertheless people are likely to understand heresy from his words. That is the intent. Since the woman asked rather directly, he was put on the spot and began fumbling. It’s clear he wanted to give her the green light, but without doing so directly and candidly, knowing the public controversy that would otherwise ensue. And so he said everything and its opposite, all wrapped into that mysterious phrase of “moving forward.”

At one point, one may wonder just what happens to people who do not go forward? Clearly, they are either standing still or, horror of horrors, going backward! Interestingly enough, that is the very next “temptation” Francis addresses.

One of the Slovak Jesuits expresses concern that “many people want to go back or seek certainties in the past.” Now it was clear that with that “concern”, he would be hitting a home run with Bergoglio, who responded:

You said something very important, which identifies the suffering of the Church at this moment: the temptation to go backward. We are suffering this today in the Church: the ideology of going backward. It is an ideology that colonizes minds. It is a form of ideological colonization. It is not really a universal problem, but rather specific to the churches of certain countries.

No doubt, the Novus Ordo Sect is sufferingly greatly under the plague of hordes of people trying to go backward — towards Catholicism perhaps? — and dragging other souls down with them. But fear not! The Frankster is there to step in and keep the infernal powers at bay!

Alas, the false pope isn’t done yet with his answer. He packs a few goodies into the next paragraph:

That is why today we look back to the past: to seek security. It frightens us to celebrate before the people of God who look us in the face and tell us the truth. It frightens us to go forward in pastoral experiences. I think of the work that was done – Father Spadaro was present – at the Synod on the Family to make it understood that couples in second unions are not already condemned to hell. It frightens us to accompany people with sexual diversity. We are afraid of the crossroads and paths that Paul VI spoke of. This is the evil of this moment, namely, to seek the path in rigidity and clericalism, which are two perversions.

(underlining added)

There is a lot to unpack here.

Notice how leftists like Francis always like to poison the discussion from the outset by casting all opposition to their ideas as a matter of fear and, by implication, a lack of virtue (lack of courage, fortitude, confidence, trust in God). Furthermore, Francis likes to unduly “psychologize” such a debate, which means that instead of interacting with his opponents’ arguments, he pretends to give a psychological diagnosis of their alleged mental state. That’s why he introduces as his fundamental premise, however tacitly, the idea that going backward is a sign of psychological weakness (these people are insecure!) and lack of virtue (they are afraid!).

What this leaves out of account, for one thing, is that fear is not necessarily a bad thing (fear is an entirely appropriate, sometimes life-saving, human response to genuine danger) and that doctrinal and moral security are an anchor for the soul that ought not to be uprooted. In fact, God Himself has given us the Church to be that place of security for our souls, that “church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Sounds rather secure, doesn’t it?

Bergoglio’s tactic is also meant to elicit capitulation from the opponent. After all, no one likes to be accused of cowardice, so if he can persuade his opponent that the contrary position he takes is that of a coward, he is all the more likely to abandon it.

Having thus manipulated the intellectual playing field, Francis proceeds to inform his Jesuit interlocutors that they are to boldly “go forward in pastoral experiences” — another elastic catchphrase that can be exploited at any point! And indeed he wastes no time doing so, noting that the Synods on the Family (2014/15) that led to Amoris Laetitia wanted to “make it understood that couples in second unions are not already condemned to hell”. That is a perfectly ambiguous statement that, taken by itself, is not necessarily false, for it depends on how one understands it. A “second union” can be perfectly legitimate (for example, if one marries again after being widowed), and of course no one who ends up in hell is condemned until his particular judgment. That, of course, is not what Francis means, and neither is it how he is understood.

Next, Francis’ choice of words speaks volumes. He decries as “perversions” his pet peeves of “rigidity” and “clericalism”, yet uses the smooth-sounding “sexual diversity” to describe mortal sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, especially those contrary to nature. He denounces the former, not the latter, as “the evil of this moment.” This alone shows what spirit is animating this man, and it’s not the Holy Ghost.

The task of the pastor, by the way, is not to accompany the sinner but to exhort him to conversion. It is not without reason that one of the spiritual works of mercy is admonishing the sinner, not accompanying him. One man who did that exceptionally well is St. John the Baptist, who very rigidly told King Herod: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk 6:18). (Translated into Francis Speak, that would be: “It is not ideal for thee to be in an irregular situation, but regardless of how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity. So when can we talk about sustainable agriculture?”)

Clearly, the Baptist was no Bergoglian. It was about this Baptist that Our Blessed Lord said: “What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind?” (Mt 11:7). This is what we may call a preferential option for the rigid.

Anyway, Francis continues:

Today I believe that the Lord is asking the Society to be free in the areas of prayer and discernment. It is a fascinating time, a beautiful moment, even if it is that of the cross: it is beautiful to bring forward the freedom of the Gospel. Freedom! You can experience this turning back to the past in your community, in your province, in the Society. It is necessary to be attentive and vigilant. My intention is not to praise imprudence, but I want to point out to you that turning back is not the right way. Instead, we should go forward in discernment and obedience.

(underlining added)

This is just more manipulation. What he enthusiastically advertises as “the freedom of the Gospel” is certainly not the amoral drivel he’s been proposing to his Jesuit colleagues. He ends this particular response by throwing in the word “obedience” for good measure — this way Tim Staples and the other clowns as Catholic Answers will have something conservative to point to when the first caller objects to this latest Bergoglian Q&A.

As far as turning back goes, the prophet Jeremias proclaimed something long time ago that is very apropos to our own times: “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: we will not walk” (Jer 6:16).

Next comes another explosive topic: gender ideology. The pseudo-pope responds:

Ideology always has a diabolical appeal, as you say, because it is not embodied. Right now we live in a civilization of ideologies, that’s true. We need to expose them at their roots. The “gender” ideology of which you speak is dangerous, yes. As I understand it, it is so because it is abstract with respect to the concrete life of a person, as if a person could decide abstractly at will if and when to be a man or a woman. Abstraction is always a problem for me. This has nothing to do with the homosexual issue, though. If there is a homosexual couple, we can do pastoral work with them, move forward in our encounter with Christ. When I talk about ideology, I’m talking about the idea, the abstraction in which everything is possible, not about the concrete life of people and their real situation.

In other words, the root problem of the gender ideology is that it abstracts from concrete life. This is Bergoglian drivel at its finest. When it comes to sodomites, the false pope has no problem granting concreteness to their “sexual orientation”:

With regard to so-called transgender people, Francis may dislike their ideology in theory, but you wouldn’t know it from how he acts:

Next, Francis is asked about how he deals with people who are critical of him, who view him with suspicion. He answers:

There is, for example, a large Catholic television channel that has no hesitation in continually speaking ill of the pope. I personally deserve attacks and insults because I am a sinner, but the Church does not deserve them. They are the work of the devil. I have also said this to some of them.

Yes, there are also clerics who make nasty comments about me. I sometimes lose patience, especially when they make judgments without entering into a real dialogue. I can’t do anything there. However, I go on without entering their world of ideas and fantasies. I don’t want to enter it and that’s why I prefer to preach, preach… Some people accuse me of not talking about holiness. They say I always talk about social issues and that I’m a communist. Yet I wrote an entire apostolic exhortation on holiness, Gaudete et Exsultate.

We can all guess as to what TV channel he is talking about: Without a doubt, it is EWTN and especially Raymond Arroyo’s program The World Over. However, the station’s criticism is quite subdued, considering all they could (and should) be taking issue with. That Francis would consider their criticism “the work of the devil”, while he participates in Pachamama worship in St. Peter’s Basilia and happily hosts an Italian abortionist at the Vatican, says all you need to know about the man.

Wow, so Francis wrote an entire “apostolic exhortation” on holiness, eh? We took that thing apart here:

Francis does indeed talk about holiness from time to time, but he is never actually concerned about the salvation of souls, especially not the souls of non-Catholics. The matter is so obvious that even an atheist philosopher, Marcello Pera, has called Francis out on it! Although the false pope goes so far as to claim that “good atheists” make it to Heaven, we suspect he might make an exception for Dr. Pera — he is, after all, Francis is convinced, doing “the work of the devil.”

The “Pope” then addresses the controversy over the Traditional Latin Mass and reveals he is (or pretends to be) utterly clueless about the nature and purpose of the Holy Mass and the importance of offering it in a sacred language:

A cardinal told me that two newly ordained priests came to him asking him for permission to study Latin so as to celebrate well. With a sense of humor he replied: “But there are many Hispanics in the diocese! Study Spanish to be able to preach. Then, when you have studied Spanish, come back to me and I’ll tell you how many Vietnamese there are in the diocese, and I’ll ask you to study Vietnamese. Then, when you have learned Vietnamese, I will give you permission to study Latin.” So he made them “land,” he made them return to earth. I go ahead, not because I want to start a revolution. I do what I feel I must do. It takes a lot of patience, prayer and a lot of charity.

Boy, Catholic clergy must have been such idiots for all those centuries before Vatican II came along. Can you believe they were all studying Latin in seminary when none of their people even spoke Latin?!

Bergoglio here simply reveals that his first concern is always man, not God. It is the natural, not the supernatural. This is clearly reflected in how he acts liturgically. For him the liturgy is first of all for the people, not for God.

In 1962, the year the Second Vatican Council opened, it was none other than the first pseudo-pope of the Novus Ordo Sect, Angelo Roncalli (“John XXIII”), who dedicated an entire “apostolic constitution” (Veterum Sapientia) to the promotion of the study of Latin. Ironically, it was Francis who declared Roncalli a “saint” back in 2014, yet the promotion of Latin is something he doesn’t seem to be too eager to imitate him on.

Thus far the Bergoglian nuggets contained in the transcript from the Q&A with Slovak Jesuits.

What this conversation shows, once more, is that, unlike what we hear from certain Novus Ordo and semi-trad apologists, Francis is very well informed about what goes on around him, what other people are saying about him, and what their criticisms are. He is, in other words, very much aware of what we often hear he must not be aware of (so as to exonerate him from charges of heresy and other deliberate attempts to destroy Catholicism in souls).

Either way, this Jesuit apostate knows how to live up to the moniker we have given him: Chaos Frank.

Image source: shutterstock.com
License: paid

Share this content now:

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.