As wrong as it is to mistreat others, it’s not sacrilege…
Francis claims mistreating Human Beings is “Sacrilege”:
A Reality Check on the Sacred and the Profane
When it concerns man rather than God, he gets serious: The apostate pseudo-pope Jorge Bergoglio
You know something is off when Francis complains about sacrilege. He’s just not into religion enough to be concerned about the profanation of the sacred. In fact, if there is one thing he is really good at, besides uttering heresy and blasphemy, it’s committing sacrilege.
His placing of an offering to the “Mother Earth” goddess Pachamama on the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica for the closing liturgy of the Amazon Synod in 2019 is clearly among the most egregious examples of sacrilege in his nine years of playing Pope. Other lowlights of his include his giving away of some relics of St. Peter to an Eastern Orthodox patriarch, his permission for Anglican worship to be conducted in St. Peter’s Basilica, his renting out of the Sistine Chapel to Porsche for a corporate event, and his allowing of the Coptic Orthodox to offer Mass at St. Paul’s-outside-the-Walls in Rome.
Of course his permanent contribution to sacrilege is that of Amoris Laetitia, which grants permission to unrepentant adulterers to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments; but even before he moved into the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta, the reverent treatment of sacred things is not something Jorge Bergoglio was particularly known for in his home town of Buenos Aires. And just the other day he decided to “concelebrate Mass” without wearing any sacred vestments.
When, therefore, La Croix International published a story on Mar. 21 with the headline, “Pope describes war against Ukraine as ‘inhuman and sacrilegious'”, it seemed unusual. Was Francis decrying the destruction of churches perhaps, or the violation of consecrated virgins by soldiers?
As it turns out, no — that is not what he meant by “sacrilege”. A look at his actual words, in context, reveals what he meant. He made his comments after the Angelus on Mar. 20, as follows:
This week again missiles and bombs have fallen on civilians, the elderly, children, and pregnant mothers. I went to see the wounded children who are here in Rome. One was missing an arm; one had a head injury…innocent children. I think of the millions of Ukrainian refugees who must flee leaving everything behind, and I feel a great pain for those who do not even have the possibility to escape. So many grandparents, sick and poor people separated from their own families, so many children and fragile people are left to die under the bombs without being able to receive help and find safety even in the air raid shelters. All this is inhuman! Indeed, it is also sacrilegious because it goes against the sacredness of human life, especially against defenseless human life, which must be respected and protected, not eliminated, and this comes before any strategy! Let us not forget it is inhuman and sacrilegious cruelty! Let us pray in silence for those who are suffering.
(Antipope Francis, Angelus, Vatican.va, Mar. 20, 2022; underlining added.)
Lest there be any misunderstanding: Yes, it is absolutely horrific what happens to innocent civilians in any war, especially when it concerns women and children and other members of society that are among the weakest. Traditional Catholic moral doctrine on war and warfare is clear:
It is not true that all is fair in war, for even a just cause cannot sanction unjust means. The commandments of God and the laws of nations retain their force even amid the clash of arms. Examples of acts of war that are unlawful, as being opposed to the natural law are the following: (a) acts of irreligion, such as wanton destruction of churches or monasteries; (b) attempts to seduce enemy soldiers from the obedience or loyalty owed their commanders; (c) murder, that is, the direct killing of innocent and unarmed persons, as when one refuses quarter to soldiers who wish to surrender, fires on an officer bearing a flag of truce, sinks passenger ships not engaged on errands of war, massacres the civil population by raids from the air, places a defenceless population at the mercy of savages or criminals employed as soldiers; (d) the dishonoring of women, the establishment of brothels for soldiers; (e) stealing, such as the unauthorized pillage of a town or countryside; (f) lying, such as breaking treaties, not keeping faith with the foe, entering into perjured agreements, circulating false stories of atrocities, forging of documents, etc.
(Rev. John A. McHugh and Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1958], n. 1402. The entire content of this book is available for free online at this link.)
It is only right and just, therefore, for Francis to lament and denounce the horrific sufferings of civilians in the latest war. However, as terrible and deplorable as these afflictions are, none of what he describes qualifies as “sacrilege”. That’s simply not what sacrilege is.
Any traditional Catholic moral theology manual can help us understand what really constitutes the sin of sacrilege. Here is an example — note in particular the underlined portions:
2308. Sacrilege.—Sacrilege in the wide sense is any sin against the virtue of religion. But in the strict sense, in which it is now taken, it is defined as “the violation of a sacred thing.”
(a) Sacrilege is against a thing, that is, against some person, place or object dedicated to divine worship as a possession of God. Sacrilege differs from the two previous sins of irreligiosity (namely, temptation of God and perjury); for they are against the reverence due to God Himself, while sacrilege is against the reverence due to things on account of their use in the worship of God.
(b) It is against a sacred thing, that is, against the sanctity which a thing acquires from its dedication to God (e.g., when a church or a chalice is consecrated to divine worship, when a virgin is dedicated to God by vow), or from the immunity or privilege conferred on it by the Church on account of its dedication to God (e.g., the clerical privileges of forum and of canon in Church Law). But sacrilege is present only when a sacred thing is attacked in that special quality or relation in which it is sacred. Hence, he who violates the chastity of a virgin consecrated to God is guilty of sacrilege, since it is her chastity that was vowed to God; he who strikes her is also guilty of sacrilege, since he attacks the sacred immunity which the law confers on her; he who calumniates her or steals from her is not guilty of sacrilege, since her name and goods are not consecrated to divine worship nor protected by its special sacredness in law.
(c) Sacrilege is a violation, that is, an action or omission physically or morally injurious to the sacred character of a person, place or thing. The difference between the injury done in sacrilege and that done in simony is that the former injustice belongs to the class of wrongs inflicted in involuntary commutations, such as theft or robbery (see 1748, 1815), whereas the latter injustice pertains to the category of wrongs perpetrated in voluntary commutations, such as buying, selling, or lending. In both cases there is an injury to the property or possession of God, but the difference is that in sacrilege the parties involved are the sacrilegious person acting as aggressor against God, in simony the parties are two men bargaining together to buy and sell the sacred things of God.
2310. Is Sacrilege a Special Sin?—(a) As regards its matter or subject sacrilege may be called, though improperly, a general sin, in the sense that many different classes of sins may be sacrilegious (e.g., murder is sacrilegious when a sacred person is killed, lust is sacrilegious when a person vowed to God is violated; theft is sacrilegious when objects consecrated to divine worship are stolen, etc.).
(b) As regards its form or essence, and hence properly speaking, sacrilege is a special sin, because there is a peculiar deformity contained in the very nature of sacrilege that is not in other sins, namely, the disrespect shown to God through contempt for things that are sacred to Him. Moreover, there may be a sin of sacrilege that is separate from other sins, such as murder, lust, and theft, for example, when the right of asylum is violated.
2311. The Species of Sacrilege.—(a) Personal sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of a person is violated. This happens in the first place when bodily or real harm (e.g., gravely sinful striking, citing before a secular tribunal, subjecting to civil duties or burdens, such as military service) is done to a cleric; and in the second place when a grave sin of unchastity is committed by or with a person dedicated to God by a vow (at least by a public vow) of chastity. Sacrilege committed through bodily or real harm is treated by canonists under the questions of the privileges of canon (Canon 119), forum (Canon 120), immunity (Canon 121). Sacrilegious impurity committed with a person vowed to chastity and sacrilegious impurity committed by a person vowed to chastity are grave sins of lust, even though they be only of thought or desire.
(c) Real sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of an object is violated. An object is sacred when it contains the Author of holiness or confers holiness (viz., the Eucharist and the other Sacraments), when it is naturally related to the Sacraments or sacred persons (e.g., the sacred vessels, images and relics of the Saints), when it is set aside for the uses of worship (e.g., holy water and other sacramentals, candles for the altar) or the maintenance of the Church or its ministers (viz., movables and immovables of a parish, money left for the support of the clergy, seminarians, etc.). Injury is done to the holiness of an object by unworthy treatment or by unjust damage or conversion. Examples of unworthy treatment are the following: the invalid or sinful administration or reception of a Sacrament, parodies of Sacred Scripture, scandalous manner of enacting sacred rites or saying prayers, use of sacred chalices or other sacred vessels or of blessed articles for profane purposes, use of unblessed holy articles for sordid or ignoble purposes, handling of chalices, etc., by those who have no right to touch sacred vessels (Canon 1306). Examples of unjust damage or conversion are: contemptuous breaking or burning of relics, oils, pictures used for worship; theft of moneys or goods belonging to the Church.
(McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 2, nn. 2308, 2310-2311; pp. 388-392; italics given; underlining added.)
As is quite evident here, the murder, maiming, and other mistreatment of civilians in war, although obviously gravely sinful, does not constitute the sin of sacrilege. Francis’ idea is theological hogwash.
Why, then, does the false pope “upgrade” the horrific evils he describes to the status of “sacrilege”? As he himself tells us, “it is also sacrilegious because it goes against the sacredness of human life, especially against defenseless human life.” In other words, human life itself is sacred already, apart from any special consecration to God or reference to sanctifying grace — or so he says.
Although it is common in our day for those who seek to uphold the Fifth Commandment against various murderous ideologies to speak of the inherent “sacredness” or “sanctity” of human life, this terminology can easily be misunderstood and was not common parlance before Vatican II.
In fact, we could only find a single instance of it in the pre-conciliar magisterium: In his landmark encyclical on Christian marriage, Pope Pius XI noted that when it comes to the life of the mother and her unborn child, “[t]he life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it” (Casti Connubii, n. 64).
Likewise, a search for this terminology in the extensive Dominican moral theology manual we have been quoting from results in only one single hit. An example given to illustrate a certain moral point includes this sentence: “Being a soldier and living in a rude age, he perhaps did not appreciate the sacredness of human life” (n. 323a).
The more common and more theologically precise terminology for what people in our day casually refer to as “sanctity of life” and similar expressions, is more properly called the inviolability of human life, although it does not apply to all human life per se, it applies only to that which is innocent.
In a discourse given to the Medical-Biological Union of Saint Luke in late 1944, Pope Pius XII explained this as follows:
There is no doubt that man by his own nature is destined to live in society; but even as reason alone teaches us, in principle society is made for man and not man for society. Not from society but from the Creator Himself has he the right to his body and his life, and to the Creator he is responsible for the use he makes of them. From this it follows that society cannot directly deprive him of that right, until he has rendered himself punishable with such a privation by a grave and proportionate crime.
As long as man is not guilty, his life is intangible [untouchable, inviolable], and, therefore, any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether it be in embryonic form or in its full development, or even at its conclusion. Only God is the lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by death! The physician does not have the right to dispose of the life of either a child or its mother; and no one in the world, no private person, no human authority, may authorize him to proceed to its direct destruction. His office is not to destroy lives but to save them. These are fundamental and immutable principles….
(Pope Pius XII, Address La Vostra Presenza, Nov. 12, 1944; English found in Michael Chinigo, ed., The Pope Speaks: The Teachings of Pope Pius XII [New York, NY: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1957], pp. 111, 114.)
Eight years later, the same Pope gave an address to the National Congress of the “Family Front” and the Association of Large Famlies regarding morality in marriage. His speech includes more information relevant to the topic at hand, namely, the inviolability of innocent human life:
At the center of that teaching, marriage appears as an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, We have illustrated, in accordance with the constant teaching of the Church, a thesis which is one of the essential foundations not only of conjugal morality but of social morality in general: namely, that any direct attempt on an innocent human life as a means to an end—in this case to the end of saving another life—is unlawful.
Innocent human life, in whatsoever condition it is found, is withdrawn, from the very first moment of its existence, from any direct deliberate attack. This is a fundamental right of the human person, which is of universal value in the Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden within the womb of the mother, as for the life already born and developing outside of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during or after its birth. Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of the development of life—born or still unborn—in profane and ecclesiastical law, and as regards certain civil and penal consequences, all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life.
This principle holds good both for the life of the child as well as for that of the mother. Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child (cfr. Pius XI, “Casti Connubi,” Dec. 31, 1930 —Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, pp. 562-563).
It is one of the finest and most noble aspirations of the medical profession to search for ever new ways of ensuring the life of both. But if, notwithstanding all the progress of science, there still remain, and will remain in the future, cases in which one must reckon with the death of the mother, when it is the mother’s wish to bring to birth the life that is within her, and not to destroy it in violation of the command of God: Thou shalt not kill!—nothing else remains for the man—who will make every effort right up to the last moment to help and save—but to bow respectfully before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.
But—it is objected—the life of the mother, especially the mother of a large family, is of incomparably greater value than that of a child not yet born. The application of the theory of equality of values to the case which occupies Us has already been accepted in juridical discussions.
The reply to this harrowing objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent human being does not depend on its greater or lesser value. It is already more than ten years since the Church formally condemned the killing of life considered to be “without value”; and whosoever knows the sad events that preceded and provoked that condemnation, whosoever is able to weigh the direful consequences that would result if one were to try to measure the inviolability of innocent life according to its value, knows well how to appreciate the motives that determined that disposition.
(Pope Pius XII, Address Nell’Ordine Della Natura, Nov. 27, 1952; English in The Catholic Mind, vol. 50, n. 1073 [May 1952], pp. 308-309; italics given; underlining added.)
Reading Pope Pius XII is always a joy. It is so refreshing to hear genuine Catholic teaching expressed so competently and authoritatively by a real Vicar of Christ, and it sounds so different from the Masonic-Naturalist drivel that continually emanates from the “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13) of the Vatican II religion.
Given the traditional Catholic teaching, then, not only do we see that Francis’ idea that attacks on human life constitute “sacrilege” is false, we also find refuted his error on the “inadmissibility” of capital punishment, for it is only innocent human life that is inviolable, not that which has become guilty of a capital crime. A person who has been found guilty, in a legitimate court of law, of a crime that merits execution and has in fact been given a death sentence, may lawfully be executed by the proper state authority. Such direct killing by the state in an execution is not an attack on the inviolability of life, as Pope Pius XII explained, much less on its “sacredness”. For it is God, the Lord of life, who has decreed the lawfulness of capital punishment (see Gen 9:6) and granted the necessary authority to the state to carry it out (see Jn 19:11; Rom 13:4).
The Novus Ordo “sanctity of life” doctrine — which always emphasizes that it extends “from conception to natural death” (Letter of Francis to Federico Mayor; italics added), thereby meaning to exclude the death penalty — does not originate with Francis, however. The one who kicked off the now-frequent use of the “sacredness of life” terminology was Angelo Roncalli, Antipope John XXIII (1958-63), who wrote in his 1961 social encyclical Mater et Magistra: “Human life is sacred — all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God” (n. 194).
It is no doubt true that human life in all its stages “reveals the creating hand of God”, but then so does everything else that has been created: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands” (Ps 18:2; cf. Rom 1:20). True, man was specifically created in the image and likeness of God, but John XXIII doesn’t mention that as the reason why life is sacred.
That reasoning, in fact, was not provided until later. It is certainly found in “Pope” John Paul II‘s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (nn. 39ff.) and is already anticipated in the Vatican’s 1987 instruction Donum Vitae, which was issued by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, and approved by John Paul:
From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has “wished for himself” and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God” and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Vitae, introduction, n. 5)
This is the teaching that found its way into the 1992 Novus Ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church (see par. 2258).
Notice that the terminology used here is sufficiently vague or ambiguous to allow for more than one interpretation. Depending on how one chooses to understand it, it manifests a contradiction: At first it is asserted that the life of every human being must be “respected in an absolute way”. What, however, does “respected” mean? Does it, for example, rule out the death penalty or not? Does it permit self-defense? The term “respect” is not clear enough; but that is problematic since we are told at the same time that this respect must be shown in an absolute way, and so it would be rather important to know exactly what it is that must be upheld so absolutely.
Either way, this rather strong moral statement is weakened a little later, when “every human being” suddenly becomes only every “innocent human being”. So does the “respect” to be shown in an “absolute way” apply only to the lives of the innocent? Very well, then, that is possible. However, then the text is not coherent, since the reasons given for why “the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way” apply as much to the guilty as to the innocent. Therefore, either the reasons given are wrong or the conclusion that suddenly restricts this absolute respect only to the innocent doesn’t follow.
There could very well be method to this madness, however. It seems that the modus operandi here is to gradually and subtly change Catholic teaching by means of introducing new and flawed premises, while retaining, however, the traditional conclusion for the time being.
This is a devious trick because it allows for the introduction of novel ideas in a way that goes largely unnoticed. Because the traditional conclusion is kept intact for a while longer, it appears that the teaching has not changed; but that is an illusion. The new premises require that a different conclusion be drawn, but this is not done until the “time is right”. Eventually, once the masses have been sufficiently inundated in the false new premises for a while, the false pope will draw the conclusion that follows from them with logical necessity, thereby overturning the traditional teaching. This is then solemnly hailed as a doctrinal “development”, even though it is in reality a doctrinal corruption.
We see a good example of this in Bergoglio’s comments of Mar. 20. The idea that attacking human life is “sacrilege” is simply the logical conclusion to the premise that all human life as such is sacred. But look at how long it took to draw that conclusion: It’s been over 60 years since John XXIII first introduced the “sanctity of life” principle. At the time, people probably still understood it largely as the traditional inviolability of innocent life teaching, but the way was opened to the new understanding from which Bergoglio, decades later, now infers that to attack human life is “sacrilege”.
Notice the essential difference between Pius XI’s and Roncalli’s use of the term “sacred” with regard to human life. A look at the context shows that Pius XI was speaking of two innocent lives, both of which are equally “sacred” (sacra), that is, inviolable:
As to the “medical and therapeutic indication” to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill” [Ex 20:13]: The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 64; underlining added.)
Roncalli, on the other hand, writes:
Human life is sacred — all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.
(Antipope John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, n. 194; underlining added.)
Here the “sacredness” of life is no longer tied to personal innocence, and hence it no longer simply means “inviolability”, as it did for Pope Pius XI; it means something more than that. It must mean something more for John XXIII because he gives as the reason for its “sacredness” not its innocence but the fact that from its beginning, “it reveals the creating hand of God”. But this applies to the innocent as much as it does to the guilty. Therefore, Roncalli does not, as Pius XI does, restrict the term “sacred” to mean “inviolable” — now the floodgates have been opened for a new, exaggerated, and flawed understanding of life’s “sacredness”, even to the point that offending against it constitutes “sacrilege.”
This is how the Novus Ordo Sect cleverly changes Catholic doctrine: by introducing novel premises but retaining, at least verbally, the traditional conclusion until a later time when what truly follows from the new premises is made explicit. In fact, this is exactly what Francis told “Abp.” Bruno Forte he intended to do at the 2015 Synod on the Family to allow unrepentant adulterers access to the Novus Ordo sacraments.
What happens when conclusions are drawn from flawed premises can be seen, for example, in Francis’ 2020 post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia, in which the notion that God is present in creation has been so exaggerated and distorted that people are now invited to “enter into communion with the forest” so that “our prayer for light joins in the song of the eternal foliage” (n. 56) — an idea that hardly needs comment. In the same document, Francis claims that the Holy Eucharist “embraces and penetrates all creation” (n. 82) — another concept that, depending on how one understands it, can lead to all kinds of unorthodox, even pantheistic, conclusions. This notion Francis had already introduced in his environmentalist encyclical Laudato Si’ (n. 236), which an Indian eco-feminist has said reads like a sacred text of Hinduism. Enough said.
Francis has a habit of misappropriating and misapplying theological terminology. We have just seen that he calls “sacrilege” what is not sacrilege, while at the same time he shows no concern for what actually does constitute sacrilege. Interestingly enough, he does the same with the notions of blasphemy, idolatry, and perversion.
He warns that violence against women is blasphemy, while at the same time he has no qualms about cracking blasphemous jokes and signing and promulgating blasphemous official documents. Likewise, he is quick to denounce all kinds of supposed “idolatry” (of ideas! of immanence! of space being greater than time! of oneself! etc.), but when actual, literal idolatry is committed, he promotes, excuses, and defends it. Lastly, the only time he shows himself concerned about “perversion” is when he applies the term to things like “rigidity”, “clericalism”, and other such real or imagined vices. On the other hand, the most obvious perversions, especially those prevalent in his Modernist church, he never denounces but even excuses because… who is he to judge?!
The picture that emerges about Jorge Bergoglio is as consistent as it is ugly, and only one simple observation can explain it: The man just isn’t a Catholic.
To speak of human life the way Bergoglio does, as being sacred per se, such that to commit a grave offense against any human being would constitute a sacrilege, is an inadmissible distortion of the truth about human life that smacks of Naturalism because it implies, or at least insinuates, a denial of original sin and its consequences. Human beings are not born holy — they are born deprived of sanctifying grace on account of original sin (see Ps 50:7):
If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12; see n. 175].
(Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 2; Denz. 789)
“Original sin” is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, n. 25)
Therefore, the soul of each and every mere human being who is a descendant of Adam — with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was preserved from contracting original sin on account of a singular privilege of Almighty God; see Denz. 1641 — is supernaturally dead until it is raised to supernatural life by the salutary waters of baptism:
Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and transmitted to all is in each one as his own by propagation, not by imitation, is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, “made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption” [1 Cor. 1:30]; or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism, rightly administered in the form of the Church: let him be anathema. “For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved…” [Acts 4:12]. Whence that word: “Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world” [John 1:29]. And that other: “As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ” [Gal. 3:27].
“If anyone denies that infants newly born from their mothers’ wombs are to be baptized,” even though they be born of baptized parents, “or says they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration” for the attainment of life everlasting, whence it follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is understood to be not true, but false: let him be anathema. For what the Apostle has said: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12], is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For by reason of this rule of faith from a tradition of the apostles even infants, who could not as yet commit any sins of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation. “For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].
(Council of Trent, Session 5, Canons 3-4; Denz. 790-791)
Even though man was created in the image and likeness of God, through original sin that image of God (our being created with intellect and free will) was obscured and weakened, and the likeness to God (through sanctifying grace) was lost, to be regained only through baptism (in fact or efficacious desire).
Thus it is clear that innocent human life is indeed inviolable, but it is not sacred in the sense promoted by Bergoglio, such that to offend against one’s fellow man would constitute a sacrilege.
Once again, we see “Pope” Francis is misleading souls with false teaching, presented under a veneer of piety and respect for life.
Image source: Shutterstock (praszkiewicz)
Be the first to start a conversation