Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Now THAT’S rich!

Francis: The Different Religions are an ‘Enrichment’ for Humanity


This pagan shrine to the Four Seated Buddhas enriches humanity in Bago, Myanmar
(image: Shutterstock/maodoltee)

Ever since Francis’ trip to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in February of 2019, the false pope has left absolutely no doubt that he believes that the existence of many different religions is a positive thing, an asset for humanity, indeed willed by God Himself no less than He wills the existence of various races, languages, and the two sexes.

This issue came up again at the recent Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions held in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, in which His Phoniness took active part. And indeed a most curious thing took place there, for the final joint statement of all the delegates — the so-called “Final Declaration” — that was read out loud at the end of the conference and published on the official web site clearly reaffirmed the Abu Dhabi heresy; however, shortly thereafter, this Declaration was removed from the web site and quietly replaced with a different version of the text that no longer affirmed the Abu Dhabi heresy and also included other changes (see details here). But we’ll get to that later.

First, let’s look one more time at exactly what Francis affirmed together with Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi in 2019:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.

(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together”, Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)

This is heretical blasphemy. In fact, it is apostasy, for if God positively wills a diversity of religions — and that is the only way to understand the text, since all the other items enumerated are clearly actively willed by God — then that means that Catholicism, which claims to be the only true religion, is false.

Indeed, not only would Catholicism be false, but the very idea that God has revealed only one religion, and thus the others are necessarily false, that is, man-made products inspired by the devil, is denied. It would mean that Jesus Christ was a liar and therefore not God!

As Pope Leo XIII declared, “the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate” (Encyclical Immortale Dei, n. 7). From this truth derives the objective obligation every human being has to embrace Roman Catholicism: “The Church is indeed conscious of her divine mission to all mankind, and of the obligation which all men have to practice the one true religion…” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 39).

God obviously cannot be the author of different, mutually exclusive religions. Either Jesus Christ is God and His Gospel is divinely revealed, or that is not the case. It cannot be both. In fact, our Blessed Lord made clear:

He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. (Luke 11:23)

But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Luke 20:17-18)

By means of the Abu Dhabi heresy, the very notion of religion is fundamentally changed into something that is intrinsically divorced from objective truth, especially that of Divine Revelation. Welcome to Relativism and Indifferentism at their worst!

Recall how “Pope” Francis defined religion back in 2016:

There are idolatries connected to religion: the idolatry of money, of enmities, of space greater than time, the greed of the territoriality of space. There is an idolatry of the conquest of space, of dominion, that attacks religions like a malignant virus. And idolatry is a false religion, it is wrong religiosity. I call religion «an immanent transcendence», namely a contradiction. But the true religions are the development of the capacity that humanity has to transcend itself towards the absolute. The religious phenomenon is transcendent and it has to do with truth, beauty, goodness and unity. If there isn’t this openness, there is no transcendence, there is no true religion, there is idolatry.

(Source; underlining added.)

Got that? Didn’t think so. It is Modernist gobbledygook.

Right after the Abu Dhabi heresy was published, Francis’ apologists bent over backwards to find an “orthodox interpretation” at all costs. Yet, not only do the context and the syntax of the sentence rule out the idea that Francis and the Grand Imam were really deploring the diversity of religions and merely pointing out that God tolerates it for the sake of a greater good — something they could easily have stated plainly if that were their position — it is also clear from Francis’ countless other words and gestures that he really endorses the diversity of religions as a positive good for humanity that God not merely tolerates but actually desires.

Here are some examples.

Three months after the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity, on May 4, 2019, Francis gave an address to new Swiss Guards and their families. The speech was presented in Italian and was translated into German and Portuguese but never into English.

The false pope encouraged the Swiss Guards to live in society with the “right attitude”, and for him that means seeing the diversity of people not as a threat but as an “enrichment” — an asset, a wealth of humanity. He specifically notes that he is talking about not merely cultural and social differences but also differences in religion:

This will help you to live in society with the right attitude, that is, when you recognize cultural, religious, and social diversity as a human wealth [enrichment] and not as a threat. This is particularly important in a world that is experiencing vast movements of peoples and individuals like never before, [people] who are looking for safety and a dignified life.

(Antipope Francis, Address to Swiss Guards and their Families, Vatican.va, May 4, 2019; our translation.)

The Italian original reads:

Ciò vi aiuterà a vivere nella società con l’atteggiamento giusto, riconoscendo la diversità culturale, religiosa e sociale come ricchezza umana e non come una minaccia. Questo è particolarmente importante in un mondo che sta vivendo, come mai prima, ingenti movimenti di popoli e di persone alla ricerca di sicurezza e di una vita dignitosa.

Thus, for Francis the existence of many different religions is not an evil or a problem but a human wealth (ricchezza umana). It is something positive, something to be treasured, cherished.

He affirmed the same blasphemous thesis a few days later while visiting Skopje, the capital of North Macedonia:

Your land, a bridge between East and West and a meeting-point for numerous cultural currents, embodies many of the distinctive marks of this region. With the elegant testimonies of its Byzantine and Ottoman past, its lofty mountain fortresses and the splendid iconostases of its ancient churches, which speak of a Christian presence dating back to apostolic times, North Macedonia reflects all the depth and richness of its millennial culture. But allow me to say that these great cultural treasures are themselves only a reflection of your more precious patrimony: the multiethnic and multi-religious countenance of your people, the legacy of a rich and, indeed, complex history of relationships forged over the course of centuries.

Here, in fact, the different religious identities of Orthodox, Catholics, other Christians, Muslims and Jews, and the ethnic differences between Macedonians, Albanians, Serbs, Croats, and persons of other backgrounds, have created a mosaic in which every piece is essential for the uniqueness and beauty of the whole.

(Antipope Francis, Address at Meeting with Authorities, Civil Society, and the Diplomatic Corps, Vatican.va, May 7, 2019; underlining added.)

Clearly, Francis considers the diversity of religions a precious and beautiful gift. He would hate it if all people were Roman Catholics, members of the only true religion established by God. Imagine that terrible lack of diversity, richness, and beauty!

Later that same year, Bergoglio visited Mozambique and unloaded his blather there. Addressing an audience of young people from various religions, especially Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, he actually kicked things up a notch when he said:

I thank the members of different religious confessions who have joined us, and those who do not belong to any particular religious tradition. Thank you for encouraging one another to live and celebrate today the challenge of peace as the family that we are. You are experiencing that all of us are necessary: with our differences, we are all necessary. Our differences are necessary.

(Antipope Francis, Address at Interreligious Meeting with Youth in Maputo, Vatican.va, Sep. 5, 2019; underlining added.)

By stating that “our differences are necessary” in the context of “religious traditions”, Francis leaves no doubt as to the content of his message: Our religious differences are necessary; it is necessary that we have different religions. (More on that here.)

But why should that be necessary? It could only be necessary if God positively willed it to be so and we had no choice in the matter, just as the different races, colors, languages, and sexes are not a matter of choice and are necessary inasmuch as God is their cause.

In this manner, Francis cemented the Abu Dhabi heresy: Religious diversity is actively desired by God and not merely passively tolerated — it is a good thing, a positive “enrichment” for humanity.

And indeed, this is precisely what he affirmed once again on Oct. 5, 2021, at a Vatican conference for an interreligious compact on education:

If in the past, our differences set us at odds, nowadays we see in them the richness of different ways of coming to God and of educating young people for peaceful coexistence in mutual respect. For this reason, education commits us never to use God’s name to justify violence and hatred towards other religious traditions, to condemn all forms of fanaticism and fundamentalism, and to defend the right of each individual to choose and act in accordance with his or her conscience.

(Antipope Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting “Religions and Education: Towards a Global Compact on Education”, Vatican.va, Oct. 5, 2021; underlining added.)

There we go again: False religions are not a stumbling block to God — they are not an evil but an asset, an enrichment to man that shows the manifold “ways of coming to God”!

But if that is so, then it is evil to seek all people to convert to only one religion — the true one –, for that would mean eliminating this “rich diversity” of religions, whose source is really God. And what do you know…

Thus Bergoglio’s position is inherently anti-Gospel, anti-truth, and therefore anti-Christ; for it is Jesus Christ who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); and it is He “who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).

When in 2016 the Vatican’s ecumenical leader “Cardinal” Kurt Koch once did (accidentally?) endorse the conversion of non-Christians, he immediately made an exception for the Jews, as if the Gospel were not for them. But even his statement that, aside from the Jews, Catholics “have a mission to convert all non-Christian religions’ people” was later neutralized by the director of the Vatican press office.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear how diametrically opposed Bergoglio’s glowing endorsement of religious diversity as good and necessary is to the true Gospel, the true Roman Catholic Faith of the ages.

Our Blessed Lord was very clear about what He thought of religious diversity: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:16). Indeed He requires that His doctrine be accepted, under pain of eternal damnation: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16). Hence Our Lord’s beloved disciple, St. John, warned: “The man who goes back, who is not true to Christ’s teaching, loses hold of God…” (2 John 9; Knox translation).

Not just any worship of God suffices; the “true adorers” must adore the Most Holy Trinity “in spirit and in truth”: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23-24).

In Holy Scripture, there are many passages showing how much God “appreciates” that “human enrichment” of a multiplicity of religions. Here are just a few samples:

I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them…. (Ex 20:2-5)

But I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt: and thou shalt know no God but me, and there is no saviour beside me. (Os 13:4)

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Ps 95:5)

I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Is 45:18)

For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. (Ez 36:24-25)

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor 6:14-16)

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1 Jn 5:21)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Apoc 21:8)

We probably don’t need to repeat here what God thought of the Israelites “enriching” themselves in the desert with the Golden Calf. Interested readers can read about the incident in Exodus 32.

Thus it is evident that Francis adheres to and teaches

…that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2)

“Altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion” is the very definition of apostasy. Francis is not merely in error; he is not merely a heretic; he is an apostate, a baptized man who has repudiated the Roman Catholic Faith entirely.

With all of the foregoing, we can see what Francis’ true position is regarding religious diversity. We must, however, address two instances in which Bergoglio explicitly denies what he clearly affirms in the Abu Dhabi declaration and subsequent pronouncements.

The first one is the response he gave to Kazakh auxiliary “bishop” Athanasius Schneider when directly challenged on the matter. After his ad limina meeting with the “Pope” on Mar. 1, 2019, Schneider reported:

On the topic of my concern about the phrase used in the Abu Dhabi document – that God “wills” the diversity of religions – the Pope’s answer was very clear: he said that the diversity of religions is only the permissive will of God. He stressed this and told us: you can say this, too, that the diversity of religions is the permissive will of God.

I tried to go more deeply into the question, at least by quoting the sentence as it reads in the document. The sentence says that as God wills the diversity of sexes, color, race and language, so God wills the diversity of religions. There is an evident comparison between the diversity of religions and the diversity of sexes.

I mentioned this point to the Holy Father, and he acknowledged that, with this direct comparison, the sentence can be understood erroneously. I stressed in my response to him that the diversity of sexes is not the permissive will of God but is positively willed by God. And the Holy Father acknowledged this and agreed with me that the diversity of the sexes is not a matter of God’s permissive will.

But when we mention both of these phrases in the same sentence, then the diversity of religions is interpreted as positively willed by God, like the diversity of sexes. The sentence therefore leads to doubt and erroneous interpretations, and so it was my desire, and my request that the Holy Father rectify this. But he said to us bishops: you can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the permissive will of God.

(Athanasius Schneider in Diane Montagna, “EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider wins clarification on ‘diversity of religions’ from Pope Francis, brands abuse summit a ‘failure’”, Life Site, Mar. 7, 2019; italics given.)

Some people think that this clarifies and resolves the matter, but it does not. In fact, the only possible conclusion to which one can come is that Francis lied to Schneider.

Is this an unfair, rash, or unreasonable accusation? Not at all. First, Bergoglio is known to lie or manipulate as he deems necessary to achieve his desired ends:

Indeed, some have accused Francis of “Peronism”, although José Arturo Quarracino says that such a charge is not fair to Juan Perón.

So, how do we know that Francis was being dishonest in his “clarification” given to Athanasius Schneider? We know this for the following reasons:

  • The statement itself is not unclear. Given the context, only one interpretation is possible, and that is the heretical one, as shown above and as we have proved at length elsewhere.
  • Francis’ reported claim that “with this direct comparison, the sentence can be understood erroneously” is disingenuous. That “direct comparison” with different sexes, colors, races, etc., is part of the very sentence in which “diversity of religions” is enumerated alongside with the other items positively willed by God — and therefore the only way in which to understand what is said and, thus, the correct way. Francis could have said that the statement is false as it reads and does not express what he intended to convey with the imam — but he didn’t say that.
  • In an interreligious document, it makes no sense to point out that God has willed a diverity of religions permissively, unless this diversity is then denounced as an evil that is contrary to God’s positive will. Stating that God wills the existence of many different religions permissively is as much of a banality as saying that God permissively wills blasphemy, Satanic black masses, the eternal damnation of many souls, abortion, sodomy, child rape, mass starvation, and genocide. Yes, obviously God wills these things permissively, else they could not take place.
  • The document in question was not a statement put together off the cuff that Francis didn’t have a chance to review. It had long been in the making and was developed by Novus Ordo Modernists and by Muslims conjointly. During his press conference aboard Airhead One on his return flight from Abu Dhabi, Francis said: “The document was made in the spirit of Vatican II. I wanted, before making the decision, to say it [is] good that way and let’s sign it, at least on my side, I had some theologians read [the document] and even [had it read] officially by the theologian of the Pontifical Household, that is a Dominican, and with the beautiful tradition of the Dominicans not to go on a witch-hunt, but to see where is the right thing… and he approved it.”
  • Had Francis truly meant to say that God wills false religions only permissively (which is true), then he would have had to say: “This statement in the document is heretical; in fact, it is blasphemy and apostasy. It must be corrected.” That would have been the honest and sincere way to deal with the problem.

We might add that Francis has since had the full text of the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity inserted in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Needless to say, no correction was made to the sentence in question — because it accurately conveys what Francis believes about religious diversity. By having this blasphemous document included in the Acta, it is now an official “papal” act and arguably magisterial:

The second instance in which Francis denies what he clearly affirmed in the Abu Dhabi declaration is his general audience of Apr. 3, 2019. There he said:

[W]hy does God permit so many religions? God willed to permit this: the theologians of Scholasticism referred to God’s permissive voluntas [will]. He willed to permit this reality: there are so many religions; some are born of the culture, but always looking to Heaven, looking at God.

(Antipope Francis, General Audience, Zenit, Apr. 3, 2019)

This was probably an effort at damage control, lest the whole Human Fraternity agenda he’s been pushing should be endangered. You just know something is up when Francis suddenly refers to Scholasticism in an approving way.

In any case, notice how Bergoglio nevertheless says that false religions are “always looking to Heaven, looking at God” — a way of speaking that is sufficiently ambiguous to communicate a grave error while retaining just enough plausible deniability for his apologists to be able to defend him.

Our substantial response to Francis’ remarks at the Apr. 3, 2019 audience is available here:

Lastly, we must address the curious case of the “Final Declaration” of the seventh Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, which was held in Nur-Sultan (Astana), Kazakhstan, from Sep. 14-15, 2022. As noted at the beginning of this post, the Final Declaration that was adopted by the Congress was read out loud at the final session, and it was also posted on the official web site. This version was quickly removed, however, and replaced with a different, revised one.

The most substantial revision occurred in Article 10.

The original text, which was proclaimed at the conference, reads thus:

(10) We note that pluralism and differences in religion, skin color, gender, race and language are expressions of the wisdom of God’s will in creation. Thus any incident of coercion to a particular religion and religious doctrine is unacceptable.

(Source; bold print and underlining given)

The first sentence of this article is substantially identical to what is contained in the Abu Dhabi declaration. However, it was replaced by the following amended text:

(10) We note that pluralism in terms of differences in skin color, gender, race, language and culture are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation. Religious diversity is permitted by God and, therefore, any coercion to a particular religion and religious doctrine is unacceptable.

(Source; bold print and underlining given)

The original version contains a clear blasphemy and heresy and is intolerable. The revised version is ambiguous but no longer clearly false or blasphemous, because “permitted” could mean that it is a noble thing God is pleased with, or it could mean it is an evil God merely tolerates.

What is not clear is which of the two versions of this “Final Declaration” is the official one. Naturally one would assume it is the revised version, but the revision was not announced or explained or acknowledged, it was simply published — published by the same official web site that had before posted the original text.

Since the original version is the one that was read out loud to all of the participants at the conference, one would have to assume that that is the text that was actually voted on and approved, not some other text that was released subsequently. This creates a significant problem that needs to be resolved because this Final Declaration is intended to influence the future of humanity, as noted in its concluding paragraphs:

This Declaration was adopted by the majority of delegates of the VII Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions and is being transmitted to the authorities, political leaders and religious figures around the world, relevant regional and international organizations, civil society organizations, religious associations and leading experts. It will also be distributed as an official document of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly.

The principles contained in the current Declaration can be disseminated at all regional and international levels, for consideration in all political decisions, legislative norms, educational programs, and mass media in all interested countries.

So, which of the two contradictory versions is the official and authentic one that will be transmitted and distributed?

If there was some genuine mistake made somewhere along the way, why not simply acknowledge it and explain it so that there is clarity? Why the lack of transparency? It creates needless suspicion.

For more information on the different versions of the Final Declaration of Nur-Sultan, please see the following post:

We will end this post with some photos giving a glimpse of that “enrichment” and “wealth” that Francis has discovered in false religions, a “richness” he says is essential to the beauty of humanity — all necessary and positively willed by God:


Totally rich: Hindus worshipping the idol Ganesh in Mumbai, India
(image: Shutterstock/RAMNIKLAL MODI)


Guanyin – the quicker picker-upper? People allegedly “come to God” through Buddhism too
(image: Shutterstock/A.Khachachart)


These Moslem children are contributing to the beauty of humanity in Istanbul, Turkey
(image: Shutterstock/Filiz Haksal)


The “human wealth” of the Muslim religion is on display in Multan, Pakistan
(image: Shutterstock/thsulemani)


God allegedly wills Jains to worship the Tirthankar Mahvir Swami because diversity is necessary
(image: Shutterstock/Stock By Smart Art)


Where would humanity be without the four-headed Hindu creator god Brahma?
(image: Shutterstock/Christopher PB)


No really, it is a richness – “essential for the uniqueness and beauty of the whole”
(image: Shutterstock/Nick Fox)

Bergoglio can keep his apostate sentiments. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to redeem us from all idols and false worship: “And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols” (Ez 36:25); “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23); “For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17).

Being Roman Catholics, we are the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who gives us all the richness we need: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor, for your sakes; that through his poverty you might be rich” (2 Cor 8:9).

Not to know, adore, and love our Lord Jesus Christ — not to possess Faith, hope, and charity — is the greatest possible poverty.

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.