jump to navigation

Should I Even Bother? A Catalog of Recent Atrocities from the Bishop of Rome July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.

Yes, I said atrocities.  What else can you say when the man given the office of the Chair of Peter, chosen to be Christ’s sweet vicar on earth, accompanied by unimaginable torrents of Grace if he would only avail himself of them, instead of adhering to his own, stupid will, says that priests should butt out of people’s moral lives?

At a general audience after the conference, the Pope was asked about how to balance Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage while welcoming Catholics who are divorced and remarried.

Francis replied that neither “rigorism nor laxity” was the right response. “The Gospel chooses another way: welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning, without putting our noses in the ‘moral life’ of other people,” he said.

Is that not an atrocious statement?  Is it not, at some fundamental level, a profoundly anti-Catholic statement?  No amount of burying our heads in the sand or attempts at explanation can even begin to limit the damage a statement like this causes.

In a sense, however, Francis is forced into such statements by his own ideology.  If the divorced and remarried – living, in many cases, manifestly immoral lives, which much blame for the original divorce, and thoroughly lacking any real repentance in that regard – are to be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, to carry on as if they ARE attempting to lead solid, moral lives, then of course priests would have to totally ignore the myriad moral failings of many of their sheep, and simply pretend that all is just peachy.

This is not Catholicism, however.  It is straight up protestantism, as we saw last week.  In order to continue his great project in remaking the Church in the light of Martin Luther and Immanuel Kant, such statements become inevitable.  Confession goes out the window, unless it is “confession” for fashionable, worldly “corporate sins,” like poverty or supposed environmental degradation.

We also see just how banal and morally corrupt this “accompaniment” proclaimed by Francis really is.  It’s nothing but “I’m OK You’re OK We’re All OK” encounter therapy writ large – a perfect embodiment of the progressive zeitgeist of which Francis is so fervent an acolyte.

But that’s not all!  After all, there are seven days in a week, and Francis can apparently hardly let one go by without some assault on the Faith or another.  To that end, Francis declared how he decapitates opposition from “ultraconservatives” and had some – for a change – interesting things to say about Pope Benedict’s unprecedented abdication:

When asked how he was getting along with the “ultra-Conservatives,” Pope Francis – without challenging this depreciative description of the ostensibly orthodox part of the prelates – claims that “they say ‘no’ to everything” in relation to his own proposed reforms. As reported by La Nacion, he more specifically says:

“They do their work, I do mine. I want an open and understanding Church which accompanies the wounded families. They say ‘no’ to everything. I continue my path without being sidetracked. I do not behead people [sic]. I never have liked it. Let me repeat: I reject conflict.” He [Pope Francis] concluded with a conspicuous smile: “You remove a nail by applying pressure upwards. Or you tranquilize them, put them to the side, when they reach retirement age.” [emphasis added] [Or you force them out, on thoroughly specious, if convenient, grounds, as in the case of Bishop Robert Finn, among others]

At least he had the wherewithal to admit, though not in so many words, that he views the most orthodox, “conservative” prelates as his ideological opponents, to be anesthetized as events permit.

Now, to those comments on Pope Benedict:

He was a revolutionary. In the meeting with cardinals, shortly before the March 2013 Conclave, he told us that one of us was going to be the next pope and that he did not know his name. His generosity was unparalleled. His resignation brought to light all of the Church’s problems. His resignation had nothing to do with personal issues. It was an act of government – his last act of government. [emphasis added]

Here, Francis appears to be slamming the door on the hypothesis of Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict’s long-time aid, who recently posited that maybe there was a sort of duarchy working in the papacy with his boss’s abdication.  That is, Francis was the “active” pope, while Benedict was the contemplative one. This is, of course, nonsense, and would completely obliterate the notion of papacy as it has always been understood by the Church. I was really shocked to read such doctrinal shlock from a guy like Ganswein who is supposed to be very bright and at least fairly orthodox – it only confirmed for me either how desperate the guy is, or how deep the rot has become.

Now, regarding Francis’ claim that Benedict’s abdication had nothing to do with personal issues – that certainly fits in with my surmise from the moment this abdication was announced. I also agree the abdication was a revolutionary act, in at least two senses.  It was unprecedented,  yes (Pope Celestine was a very different case), but it was also revolutionary in what it subsequently unleashed.

One could almost read from the above that Pope Benedict’s abdication was a final, deliberate surrender to the forces he had opposed for 40+ years, ever since the young, radical theologian at Vatican II realized the chaos and destruction he had helped unleash (thus, the “generosity”).  From Francis’ standpoint, Benedict’s relative orthodoxy would have been the source of all the Church’s problems. His abdication, then, revealed the total failure of the restorationist project, in Francis’ mind, perhaps.  Of course, it is very convenient for Francis to imply that Benedict’s last act was, indeed, a surrender to the progressive faction of the Church.

We’ll see if there are subsequent revelations.  One thing progressives love to do is to gloat when victorious.  That’s how we found out about the “St. Gallen group” in the first place.  Is the above a little bit of revelation from Francis, or him just talking nonsense again?  I have my own beliefs, obviously, but ultimately I leave it to you to decide.

I have another question for you readers – do you find the coverage of Francis helpful, maddening, pointless, or?  I’m of two minds – while I feel we now know this man to a T, and further revelations may only serve to aggravate, at the same time, it’s hard to turn away from a car wreck,  you know?  Plus, it is important, at least for the record, for someone, anyone, to say “this is wrong,” or “this is not Catholic.”  But, I don’t want to be boring, beat you down, or, God forbid, cause people to lose faith.

This is an important point, maybe too important to leave appended to the end of a long post. I may repost this as a stand alone tomorrow.  I do appreciate your input.  I can’t guarantee it will result in any change, but I will absolutely consider your comments seriously.


1. Baseballmom - July 6, 2016

“I’m of two minds – while I feel we now know this man to a T, and further revelations may only serve to aggravate, at the same time, it’s hard to turn away from a car wreck, you know?”

Problem is, if one gazes too long at the car wreck they may end up in a wreck themselves. This papacy is absolutely depressing and debilitating for my Faith. But others may feel differently. I don’t have to read the posts on, as my dear priest affectionately refers to him, “George of the Jungle.” I can skip those if that is what the soul needs at the moment 😉.

2. Brian Springer - July 6, 2016

My own thoughts are that while covering Francis’ daily attacks on the faith is a rather pointless exercise, since it’s been long obvious what he’s all about, it’s pretty hard to quit him. I’ve tried several times to ignore him, and yet here I am reading commentary on his latest interview. So, my approach is that it’s probably best to continue covering him. You’ll make an effort to stop following his antics, only to write a blog post on it. Besides, commentary helps. It feels good to know that someone out there is equally as horrified at what is coming out of his mouth, and answering with sound Catholic doctrine/principles.

It may not change the world for the better, but it helps make enduring his pontificate more bearable, since it provides readers with an outlet to voice their frustrations. Though, by the same token, it also doesn’t do much to help one grow in the spiritual life. However, I’m not convinced that it’s hurting it either…at least, for most people.

Keep up the good work. God bless.

Baseballmom - July 6, 2016

Yes indeed Brian, as my dear departed mum would say, “Misery loves company.”

3. Faith of Our Fathers - July 6, 2016

The man is just not a Catholic I think it’s that simple. If he were he wouldn’t come away with such garbage and that’s what it is . As you say he talks us down every other day . This wanting to go into bed with Protestants for Gods sake the mans a disaster. O that he would just shut up for a few days and give us all a rest . It’s holiday time after all .

Camper - July 6, 2016

So if he’s not a Catholic, you shouldn’t be in communion with him.

4. TF - July 6, 2016

Go for it. As Miss Hilary White posted last week, the protestations against this Pope’s errors on blogs are encouraging to the truly orthodox clerics in Rome who are preparing to take action. We are having an effect. Fight the good fight!

5. 542411giseleademers - July 6, 2016

The man is not the Catholic…but I believe that we must continue the good fight… to wake up those, who cannot distinguish their left foot from the right as to why they are Catholic, and make them realize that a true pope is not just a man dressed in a cassock and publically teach error when it comes to faith and moral

6. tg - July 6, 2016

What Brian Springer said. He said it better than I ever could.

7. Lawrence - July 6, 2016

“Here, Francis appears to be slamming the door on the hypothesis of Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict’s long-time aid, who recently posited that maybe there was a sort of duarchy working in the papacy with his boss’s abdication.”


Archbishop Ganswein has said that words were put into mouth. He insisted that he never said that two Popes exist today.

“I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say. Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate and legitimately elected pope,” Archbishop Gänswein said.

“Any talk of two popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is therefore incorrect.”

8. Xopher - July 6, 2016

It might or might not be good to be aware of what he says and what the rest of the world does with these things, including how his very public declarations might affect our freedoms as Catholics in this country. I guess that sounds like a good thing to be aware of.

However, Christ warned us. Popes and saints have warned us that there would be bad times as well as good. There have been multiple periods of trial in the past. But Christ also told the Apostles to Be Not Afraid, to be at peace, and he was sending them to torture and death.

So, I think it’s equally important to remember why we should not let these things destroy our peace–why we should remain unafraid and full of Hope.

Tantumblogo - July 6, 2016

Excellent comment. Thank you.

9. thewarourtime - July 6, 2016

“The [gospel] chooses another way: welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning, without putting our noses in the ‘moral life’ of other people,”

By using the word “Gospel” together with “accompanying, integrating, discerning”, clearly presents a new and novel “gospel” because the LORD begun preaching the true Gospel of God with

repent, and believe in the Gospel. – Cf. Mk 1:14-15 (RSVCE)

“welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning” sinners without calling them to repenatance is a new and novel gospel, and for that Pope Francis stands accursed [cf. Gal 1:7-9 (RSVCE)].

WPH - July 7, 2016

Galatians 1:6-10. I’m just sayin’….

thewarourtime - July 7, 2016

Thank you!

10. Gary - July 7, 2016

Keep up the good reporting for us Tantumblogo; we want the truth so we know how hard to pray😀🙏

11. John Moore - July 8, 2016

I agree with the comments that Bergoglio is not a Catholic. Therefore, as an apostate and heretic, he is an Antipope, or, at best, just a bumbling titular head of the Vatican 2 counterfeit church. I disagree with the apologetic on Ratzinger, also an Antipope. His books reveal that he remains a heretic to this day, well after his coat and tie appearances at that robber council V2. Don’t allow the occasional ventures into conservatism fool you. For example, his “Jesus of Nazareth” contains shocking empathy for the Jews who helped kill Jesus, as well as for heretical Justification Alone doctrine. See pages 186, 45, and more.

Tantumblogo - July 8, 2016

I don’t know how apologetic I was being, I thought I was being descriptive.

Yes it’s all of a piece. Francis did not emerge overnight. There was a very long road paved that led to his election, and Benedict did much to pave it. Probably no one was more influential at VII than Rahner, and no one influenced Rahner more than Ratzinger. And now he touts Francis as his lodestar and paramour as he conducts his “contemplative” existence.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: