Quick turn-around for fellow-ideologue…
Francis answers the Dubia — from James Martin!
The not-so-Reverend “Fr.” James Martin, S.J., has been stirring the pot again.
The Jesuit we affectionately call “Hellboy” (for good reason) is always on an unholy mission to drive the Vatican II Church further and further into accepting and celebrating the filth of unnatural impurity. In this he is happy to collaborate with Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis), himself an apostate Jesuit with a fondness for perversion.
In 2021, Bergoglio commended Martin for his “pastoral work” in a personal letter to him. Four years prior, he had already appointed him consultor for the Vatican’s department of communications. His admiration of the man is obvious, not only from the look on his face during their 2019 private audience, but also because Bergoglio too likes to affirm the affectionally disturbed in their “identity”, which does not help them in the least.
This past Wednesday, on Jan. 25, when Catholics were celebrating the conversion of St. Paul, the false pope made waves with his umpteenth massive interview, this time given to the Associated Press. “Pope says homosexuality not a crime”, was the predictable AP headline.
We’re not going to dignify the latest Bergoglian trash with an in-depth analysis. We’ve played that game enough times. We know the hermeneutical dances of his apologists, and we know how he operates. Francis is not a man interested in communicating clearly, much less in communicating the Gospel clearly. Rather, he enjoys communicating in such a way that everyone takes scandal, error, or heresy from his words, omissions, and gestures, while at the same time he retains the tiniest modicum of (im)plausible deniability, which his apologists then seize upon to exonerate their man from any and all charges, while making the objector feel guilty in the process.
We’ve seen this gaslighting often enough in the last 10 years. Francis acts this way precisely so that he can do the greatest possible damage in the minds of the public while having just enough to be able to plead “not guilty” before the gullible. This has been his modus operandi from the very beginning. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In order to get clarification on Francis’ latest “confusing” statements about homosexuality, James Martin sent a total of three questions to his master — and, what do you know, the “Pope” responded to them immediately and quite personally with a hand-written (!) letter:
According to Martin’s official LGBTQ “outreach” web site, liked above, these are the questions he posed to Francis:
- Holy Father, thank you for your strong call to decriminalize homosexuality. Why did you decide to say this at this time?
- There seems to have been some confusion about your comment, “Being gay is a sin,” which, of course, is not part of church teaching. My feeling was that you were simply repeating what others might say hypothetically. So, do you think that simply being gay is a sin?
- What would you say to Catholic bishops who still support the criminalization of homosexuality?
Francis’ response was the following, as per the English translation found on Hellboy’s web site:
Thank you for your letter.
It is not the first time that I speak of homosexuality and of homosexual persons.
And I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just.
When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.
And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.
In a televised interview, where we spoke with natural and conversational language, it is understandable that there would not be such precise definitions.
I pray for you and for your work. Please do the same for me.
May Jesus bless you and may the Holy Virgin protect you.
(Source; emphasis Bergoglio’s.)
Who knew Francis was capable of answering doubts — in Latin, dubia — so quickly? Who knew he could show such an interest in not being misunderstood?
In any case, Vatican News wasted no time in informing the world of this latest effusion of Bergoglian moral wisdom:
So, what do we make of the false pope’s response to his false priest?
First, regarding his claim that the criminalization of sodomy would be “unjust”, he couldn’t be more wrong. Even secular societies had laws against sodomy on the books until recent times, understanding what a depraved act it is that ultimately leads to society’s ruin.
Of course the Catholic Church herself supports the criminalization of sodomy. In the New Testament, St. Paul the Apostle minced no words: “…they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them” (Rom 1:32).
In the 16th century, Pope St. Pius V issued a decree regarding “that horrible crime” of sodomy. Here is the full text in English translation:
That horrible crime, for which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
§ 1. Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
§ 2. So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
§ 3. Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefice, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.
(Pope Pius V, Bull Horrendum Illud Scelus, Aug. 30, 1568. English translation taken from The Josias.)
Against such a genuinely papal law, reflecting the divine law, the false pope Bergoglio offers, “Who am I to judge?”. The man has no fear of God.
St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah also makes for pertinent reading here, we might add (full disclosure: Novus Ordo Watch benefits from purchase through this link). But then, Francis is much more concerned about the “perversion” of “clericalism”, of course — after all, in his mind, the “least serious sins are the sins of the flesh”.
Bergoglio is such a foul butcher of souls! What a great hatred he displays for those who have unhappily fallen into shameful vices against nature, vices from which our Blessed and merciful Lord wants to deliver them! But to be forgiven and saved, contrary to Francis’ ideas, it is necessary to repent first! Francis prevents true forgiveness by affirming sodomites in their lifestyles and keeping them from turning away from their “shameful affections” (Rom 1:26)!
Let there be no doubt: Of course even sexual sins contrary to nature can be forgiven! Of course our Lord’s Redemptive Sacrifice on the Cross is greater than any sin, no matter how vile or shameful! May no one despair of his sins! But forgiveness requires genuine repentance, as explained in our podcast program TRADCAST 034.
Returning now to Bergoglio’s letter to Hellboy, let’s have a brief look at a claim the false pope makes that appears, at first sight, to be decent and orthodox. He writes: “When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin.” Sounds orthodox, no? But be careful, Francis is clever! Sodomy is a sin not simply because it is outside of marriage but because it is intrinsically contrary to human nature. The act completely frustrates the primary purpose of man’s generative faculties. This Francis is silent on.
Why is this important? It is important because the way Francis worded his response, he has given the enemies of God’s law an extremely easy opportunity for a comeback. They could simply respond: “Well then, why don’t you finally allow homosexuals to marry?” That is the inevitable counter to be expected from the homo lobby, perhaps to come from James Martin himself. Just the other day Hellboy was already hinting at that when, in imitation of his master, he expressed himself in perfectly Bergoglian fashion:
Pete Buttigieg is married. https://t.co/3eiX0bt3Im— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) January 21, 2023
To say that a man is married is to say that he has a wife. He cannot have a husband — that is intrinsically impossible, no matter what some human court or parliament “decides”. And that has nothing to do with injustice or discrimination. A so-called homosexual, too, can get married — he just has to marry someone of the opposite sex. Anything else may be a lot of things but definitely not a marriage. The reason for that lies is the nature of marriage, which was instituted by God; it is not subject to change by the whims or preferences or majority votes of creatures.
Francis wouldn’t be Francis, of course, if he did not find a way to weaken his already-weak defense of the true doctrine regarding the sinfulness of sodomy even further:
Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.
It’s amazing how the charlatan-in-white suddenly remembers moral principles, principles he somehow never thinks of when denouncing “clericalism”, “proselytism”, etc.
In any case, the idea that one’s guilt for committing unnatural sexual acts could be “eliminated” on account of circumstances — short of having lost one’s reason completely — is preposterous. Even though it is true that certain factors could lessen the guilt somewhat (for example, if one were threatened with torture and death unless one agreed to commit such an act), it would nevertheless still be a mortal sin. Just as one is not permitted to commit an act of idolatry or of denying the Faith even under the most extreme duress, so neither is one permitted to commit an unnatural act in order to escape death or torture. That is because such things are intrinsically evil.
That is a hard truth, no doubt, but it is the truth nonetheless. As our Blessed Lord said, “…the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away” (Mt 11:12). In other words, we must mortify ourselves so that when temptation comes, aided by grace we will not fall away: “Watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mk 14:38); “And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (2 Cor 12:9).
Back in 2019, Dr. Pedro Gabriel of Where Peter Is tried the “extenuating circumstances” defense regarding adultery, in order to bail out Francis for his blasphemous exhortation Amoris Laetitia. We took him to the woodshed for that and explained what the real (i.e. traditional) Catholic moral doctrine regarding extenuating circumstances is:
Ah yes, Amoris Laetitia. No Bergoglian document has created more or longer-lasting chaos than it. Remember the ‘Dubia’ of 2016? They were the precise questions posed to Francis by four of his own ‘cardinals’: Joachim Meisner, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, and Raymond Burke. To this day, “His Holiness” has not answered them, and two of the four have already died.
But as we can see, Francis is quite capable of answering dubia — if only he is willing! — even at lightning speed, so as to clarify lest he be misunderstood.
What does that tell us about all the scandalous things he does not clarify?
Image source: composite with elements from YouTube (screenshot) and Outreach.faith
License: fair use
Be the first to start a conversation