Bergoglio causes confusion and bewilderment…

Francis calls Gospel Passage “demonic”
— What did he mean?

His Unholiness on Dec. 1, 2021, at the Paul VI Audience Hall

At his weekly general audiences, the Argentinian pseudo-pope Jorge Bergoglio (“Francis”) currently preaches a catechetical series on St. Joseph, the Foster Father of Christ. Yesterday, Dec. 1, he presented his third installment, under the title “Saint Joseph: Just Man and Husband of Mary”.

The Vatican has made available the full text of the catechesis, both in the original Italian and in various translations, of which we’ll only link the English version here:

Most of what Francis says is just an explanation of, and commentary on, Matthew 1:18-25, especially the crucial revelation that the Conception of our Blessed Lord in the womb of the holy Virgin Mary was miraculously accomplished by the Holy Ghost. Francis then begins to talk about the importance of mature love and contrasts it with mere infatuation. This he then ties to St. Joseph as an example of mature love.

It is against this background that he suddenly makes a mystifying remark about a particular Gospel passage. Here is what he says, in full context:

Dear brothers and dear sisters, our lives are very often not what we imagine them to be. Especially in loving and affectionate relationships, it is difficult to move from the logic of falling in love to the logic of a mature love. We need to move from infatuation to mature love. You newlyweds, think about this. The first phase is always marked by a certain enchantment that makes us live immersed in the imaginary that is often not based on reality and facts – the falling in love phase. But precisely when falling in love with its expectations seems to come to an end, that is where true love begins or true love enters in there. In fact, to love is not the pretension that the other person, or life, should correspond to our imagination. Rather, it means to choose in full freedom to take responsibility for one’s life as it comes. This is why Joseph gives us an important lesson. He chooses Mary with “his eyes open”. We can say “with all the risks”. Think about this: in the Gospel of John, a reproof the doctors of the law make to Jesus is: “we are not children from that”, referring to prostitution. They knew how Mary had remained [become] pregnant and they wanted to throw dirt on Jesus’ mamma. For me, this is the worst, the most demonic passage, in the Gospel. And Joseph’s risk gives us this lesson: to take life as it comes. Has God intervened there? I accept it. And Joseph does what the angel of the Lord had ordered: “He took his wife, but knew her not” – without living together she is expecting a son – “until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus” (Mt 1:24-25). Christian engaged couples are called to witness to a love like this that has the courage to move from the logic of falling in love to that of mature love. This is a demanding choice that instead of imprisoning life, can fortify love so that it endures when faced with the trials of time. A couple’s love progresses in life and matures each day. The love during engagement is a bit – allow me to use the word – a bit romantic. You have all experienced this, but then mature love begins, love lived every day, from work, from the children that come… And sometimes that romanticism disappears a bit, right? But is that not love? Yes, but mature love. “But you know, Father, sometimes we fight…” This has been happening since the time of Adam and Eve until today, eh! That spouses fight is our daily bread, eh! “But we shouldn’t fight?” Yes, yes, you must. It happens. I am not saying you should, but it happens. “And, Father, sometimes we raise our voices…” It happens. “And there are even times when plates fly”. It happens. But what can be done so that this does not damage the life of the marriage? Listen to me well: never finish the day end without making peace. “We fought. My God, I said bad words. I said awful things. But now, to finish the day, I must make peace”. You know why? Because the cold war the next day is very dangerous. Don’t let war begin the next day. For this reason, make peace before going to bed. “But, Father, you know, I don’t know how to express myself to make peace after such an awful situation that we experienced”. It’s very easy. Do this (the Pope caresses his cheek) and peace is already made. Remember this always. Remember always: never finish the day without making peace. And this will help you in your married life. To them and to all the married couples who are here. This movement from falling in love to mature love is a demanding choice, but we must choose that path.

(Vatican translation; underlining added.)

The underlined words are the following in the original Italian:

Pensate, nel Vangelo di Giovanni, un rimprovero che fanno i dottori della legge a Gesù è questo: “Noi non siamo figli che provengono di là”, in riferimento alla prostituzione. Ma perché questi sapevano come Maria è rimasta incinta e volevano sporcare la mamma di Gesù. Per me è il passaggio più sporco, più demoniaco del Vangelo.

The phrase “rimasta incinta” has to be rendered “had become pregnant” and not, as the Vatican translation would have it, “remained pregnant.”

The English translations cranked out by the Vatican have been of mediocre quality lately, and they are often released in untimely fashion. However, this is of no crucial relevance here since we know what Francis said in the original Italian, and we even have it on video (start at the 18:12 mark):

That is the video for the Italian version. Vatican Media has also released a video with a simultaneous English translation audio. Interestingly enough, just before the controversial remarks the translator suddenly stalls — as if unable to continue, perhaps because he is dumbfounded — and he clearly struggles to get back to it:

In any case, Francis’ words are problematic, troubling, and simply strange. Why is Francis suddenly introducing the concept of prostitution and associating it with the scribes and Pharisees in St. John’s Gospel? The passage which he is referencing is John 8:41. Let’s take a look at this important passage in context (verse 41 is underlined):

I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

(John 8:37-44)

It is Francis’ claim that by saying, “We are not born of fornication”, the Jews arguing with Christ were accusing Him of being the child of fornication. Yet, there is nothing in the biblical text of John 8 to suggest this. Why did Francis bring it up?

At this point, one can only speculate. The Great Commentary of Fr. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) notes:

Origen, Cyril, and Leontius think that the Jews, angered that Christ should say that they had some other father than Abraham, namely an adulterer, implicitly and tacitly turned this reproach back on Him. As if to say: “We are not sons of an adulterer, but Thou indeed art such; for Thy father is not Joseph, but some other unknown adulterer.” Hence Origen says, “An atrocious reply, obliquely suggesting that Christ was born of adultery.” Some Pharisees, envying Christ, spread this rumor among the people so as to detract from our Lord’s credit and authority. If this is true, it was an atrocious calumny and blasphemy against Christ and the Blessed Virgin.

(The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide: The Holy Gospel according to Saint John, trans. by Thomas W. Mossman, rev. and compl. by Michael J. Miller [Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2008], pp. 345-346. Alternate edition with different translation available here.)

If we stay strictly with what is disclosed in the text, however, a much more natural interpretation would be that the Jews understood Our Lord to be accusing them of being “born of fornication” when He said: “You do the works of your [true] father”, i.e. not Abraham; and hence they reply by saying that they are “not born of fornication”. Although Our Lord was hinting at it from the beginning, He didn’t make explicit until verse 44 to whom He was referring as their true father: “You are of your father the devil….”

Another way to understand the term “fornication” which the Jews would have picked up on right away is that of idolatry, which in the Old Testament is often termed a spiritual kind of adultery or prostitution, a becoming unfaithful to the true God. Thus the prophet Jeremias laments: “Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve. For on every high hill, and under every green tree thou didst prostitute thyself” (Jer 2:20). And so the Jews might have understood Our Lord to be accusing them of idolatry, to which they replied that they are not, that instead they are the children of Abraham, the father of believers, and that they adore the true God: “…we have one Father, even God.”

The questions that now present themselves are: Why is Bergoglio putting such a very narrow and specific interpretation on John 8:41 (Fr. Lapide calls it “inflammatory”; see p. 346)? And why is he mentioning it in the context of speaking about St. Joseph’s chastity and the Blessed Mother’s virginity? Why does he want the minds of his hearers to even go there, to such an awful blasphemy?

Has Francis perhaps been reading too much of the Jewish Talmud lately? Because it is a fact that today’s apostate Judaism does indeed teach that our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, was conceived in unholy circumstances, to put it mildly. Fr. Justinas Pranaitis (1861-1917) exposes the blasphemous teaching of present-day Judaism in his 1892 book The Talmud Unmasked. We will refrain from quoting this infernal dung here and will simply refer people to pages 30-34 of said work at the above link. Francis is known to be interested in Jewish literature, so the question is by no means illegitimate.

Lastly, the most important aspect of the whole matter must not be neglected: Not only is Francis throwing a peculiar interpretation of John 8:41 at his hearers for no good reason, he is also using the occasion to then call that Gospel passage “demonic.” Such a way of putting it is reckless, to say the least, if for no other reason than that it sounds impious and is bound to be misunderstood. Or perhaps the “misunderstanding” is what’s really intended? One should obviously never speak of a passage in Scripture as being “demonic”. By Bergoglio’s logic, one might as well say that Genesis 3:4 is “demonic” because in it Satan tries to deceive Eve, telling her: “No, you shall not die the death.” But that doesn’t make the Scripture passage itself demonic. Rather, the passage is the inspired and holy Word of God describing or relating a demonic event.

Is Francis simply trying to bewilder and confuse? It obviously wouldn’t be the first time. We have to keep in mind always that this false pope is very capable of expressing himself. If he meant that what’s demonic is the Jews’ (alleged) accusation against Christ as being “born of fornication”, then he could have simply said that. But he didn’t. Instead, he referred to the Gospel passage as being demonic: “For me, this is the worst, the most demonic passage, in the Gospel.” Given Francis’ track record, we have every justification for being suspicious. This man does not so much as blink before insulting Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, or the Mother of God:

Let us never forget Bergoglio’s trashing of the Virgin Mary in his very first year, when he said:

The Church and the Virgin Mary are mothers, both of them; what is said of the Church can be said also of Our Lady and what is said of Our Lady can also be said of the Church! … Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother’s defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord?

(Antipope Francis, General Audience,, Sep. 11, 2013)

Talk about a demonic passage!

Image source: (screenshot)
License: fair use

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.