Jorge the Motor Mouth Clams Up When It Comes to Abortion

This will be a relatively brief commentary.

It is well-established by now, sixty-two months into the nonstop barrage of heresy, blasphemy and apostasy that flows so easily out of the Casa Santa Marta and other venues on a daily basis, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a textbook Modernist. On second thought, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka the Argentine Apostate, is a grotesque caricature of a textbook Modernist. The insidious, pestilential naturalist from Argentina is a walking and talking personification of every aspect of Modernism condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

When it comes to the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent unborn in their mothers’ wombs, however, “Pope Francis” clams up his motor mouth, which waxes with endless verbiage in defense of the “environment” and against those who deny the globalist and statist anti-life agenda’s draconian schemes to control “man-made global warming.” Jorge the Motor Mouth also streams forth a steady bilge of hatred for those “restorationists” (also referred to as “Pelagians,” “Pharisees,” “rigid dogmatists” and “heartless” souls who want to “cage” or to “tame” the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost) and for those who deny that foreign nations possess an unfettered “human right” to cross national boundaries in direct defiance of just laws regulating immigration to protect national security, public health and the economic welfare of a nation’s citizens.

Bergoglio would prefer not to discuss abortion at all, and he rarely does so. But when he does so, however, he usually seeks to equate willful murder, which is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, with opposition to the death penalty and with the “protection of the planet.” He has more recently sought to equate opposition to abortion with support for the “rights” of foreign nationals to invade other countries at will in order to change a host country’s demographics, make demands of national resources for income, housing and healthcare.

To demonstrate this point, permit me to provide a bit of background, starting wit to three different Bergoglian qualified references to abortion, starting with Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013

38. It is important to draw out the pastoral consequences of the Council’s teaching, which reflects an ancient conviction of the Church. First, it needs to be said that in preaching the Gospel a fitting sense of proportion has to be maintained. This would be seen in the frequency with which certain themes are brought up and in the emphasis given to them in preaching. For example, if in the course of the liturgical year a parish priest speaks about temperance ten times but only mentions charity or justice two or three times, an imbalance results, and precisely those virtues which ought to be most present in preaching and catechesis are overlooked. The same thing happens when we speak more about law than about grace, more about the Church than about Christ, more about the Pope than about God’s word.

39. Just as the organic unity existing among the virtues means that no one of them can be excluded from the Christian ideal, so no truth may be denied. The integrity of the Gospel message must not be deformed. What is more, each truth is better understood when related to the harmonious totality of the Christian message; in this context all of the truths are important and illumine one another. When preaching is faithful to the Gospel, the centrality of certain truths is evident and it becomes clear that Christian morality is not a form of stoicism, or self-denial, or merely a practical philosophy or a catalogue of sins and faults. Before all else, the Gospel invites us to respond to the God of love who saves us, to see God in others and to go forth from ourselves to seek the good of others. Under no circumstance can this invitation be obscured! All of the virtues are at the service of this response of love. If this invitation does not radiate forcefully and attractively, the edifice of the Church’s moral teaching risks becoming a house of cards, and this is our greatest risk. It would mean that it is not the Gospel which is being preached, but certain doctrinal or moral points based on specific ideological options. The message will run the risk of losing its freshness and will cease to have “the fragrance of the Gospel”.

41. At the same time, today’s vast and rapid cultural changes demand that we constantly seek ways of expressing unchanging truths in a language which brings out their abiding newness. “The deposit of the faith is one thing... the way it is expressed is another”.[45] There are times when the faithful, in listening to completely orthodox language, take away something alien to the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, because that language is alien to their own way of speaking to and understanding one another. With the holy intent of communicating the truth about God and humanity, we sometimes give them a false god or a human ideal which is not really Christian. In this way, we hold fast to a formulation while failing to convey its substance. This is the greatest danger. Let us never forget that “the expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning”.[46] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

There are several dimensions to these passages that bear a brief mention or two before turning to the final two sections for today's segment in this series of drudgery and woe.

First, while it is true that preaching must be adapted to the abilities of the hearer to understand, it is not true that certain themes cannot be repeated as, to quote the Angelic Doctor himself, repetition is the mother of learning ("Repeticio est mater studiorum"). When times call for a bishop or priest to preach about a certain error or to condemn sins that are being promoted under cover of the civil law and are so readily found in the midst of the world as to be a source of constant temptation for Catholics, he must preach according to the circumstances. Anyone, such as, oh, say, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who does not believe that such circumstances exist today is delusional.

Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is attempting in these passages to claim that an insistent discussion of certain evils (e.g.,contraception, abortion, "gay marriage") will turn people away from the Faith, a claim that denies the inherent power of truth to attract souls for the love of God. The moral teaching of the Catholic Church never became “a house of cards" prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism as Catholics had eloquent preachers such as Saint John Mary Vianney, the Patron Saint of diocesan priests, who did his fair share of condemning in his priestly life, which is precisely why he spent up to eighteen hours daily in the confession hearing the confessions of souls who were inspired by his preaching to get straight with God before they died, and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, and countless others did the same.

Third, Saint Thomas Aquinas, far from diminishing the truths of the doctrinal or moral order, sought to explain the Faith in his own preaching in terms that his hearers could understand without doing anything at all to make it appear as though eternal, immutable truths had changed or were even capable of change. This is what the Angelic Doctor, the Patron Saint of Theologians, sought to do when he preached in the simple, unlearned ways of the Neapolitans even though his was the most brilliant mind in the history of Holy Mother Church.

Conciliarism and its current exponent, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have communicated that everything about the Catholic Faith is up for grabs.

How can Bergoglio claim that Catholics cannot continue to do "things" in the ways that they have always been done when to do so he must deny the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and thus contradict his contention that no truth of the Holy Faith is be denied by the "new evangelization"?

It was later in Evangelii Gaudium that the Argentine Apostate discussed abortion directly:

213. Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”.[176]

214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations? (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Holy Mother Church has no "position" on abortion.

She is Divine Repository of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. She is the infallible teacher all that is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, whose precepts, though knowable by reason, she teaches authoritatively and in a manner that binds all human consciences at all times and in all places and under all circumstances.

Opposition to the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn is based upon our fidelity to the Fifth Commandment's firm prohibition against the direct, intention taking of any innocent human life.

Bergoglio was clearly laying the groundwork in Evangelii Gaudium for coupling opposition to abortion to opposition to the death penalty and support for Marxist-based programs of income redistribution, alleged environmental protection and the supposed “rights” of migrant to invade countries of their choosing at will.

Moreover, Bergoglio claimed very gratuitously that Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism had not done enough to help unwed mothers even though there are countless numbers of home for unwed mothers run by Catholics in the United States and around the world.

One calls to mind here the work, for example, of Christopher Bell in New Jersey and other parts of the New York City metropolitan area with the Good Counsel homes and the work of the Mother of Life Center in Providence, Rhode Island, that was founded by the wife of a prominent Rhode Island judge in 2003, although her work in this regard dated back to the founding of Catholics for Life in the 1960s. To assert, as Bergoglio did in Evangelii Gaudium, that not enough have been done to help unwed mothers was an effort to claim that “pro-life” Catholics are ideologues who do not have any true compassion for the “difficulties” of unwed mother. (The mention of these homes is not to endorse the advocacy of so-called “natural family planning” that some of their counselors promote, only to note that Bergoglio was using a straw man argument to throw stones at “pro-life” Catholics and what he believes to be the “institutional” Catholic Church in general.)

It is also interesting that Bergoglio chose to use the emotional red-herring of women choosing to kill their preborn baby because of a forcible assault upon their bodily integrity that is used by the anti-life movement to generate support for their killing industry. Bergoglio loves to use the language of the “left” to try to obfuscate the clarity of moral truth, something that is demonstrated very amply by making it appear, albeit subtly, that it might be understandable for a woman to seek to have her child killed in situations of “extreme poverty.”

Bergoglio also mentioned the “sanctity of life” briefly in his address to a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, but then pivoted immediately after those nasty naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” gave him a standing abortion, to emphasize his opposition to the death penalty, not to abortion, thus prompting the “loving” naturalists of the false opposite of the “left” to rise to their feet with their own standing ovation, which is exactly what the Argentine Apostate intended.

Let me reprise material from “Polluting the Atmosphere with the Smoke of Antichrist, part three,” to illustrate this in very concrete terms:

This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Primal Scream Comment:

THE YARDSTICK WE USE FOR OTHES WILL BE THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH TIME WILL USE FOR US?

JORGE, ARE YOU AN ATHEIST?

Christ the King will judge us at the hour of our death, not “time,” and He will judge us by the standard of our being Catholics in a state of Sanctifying Grace who adhere to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

What a naturalist!’

All right, back to his segue to the death penalty:

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Reiterating what has been said before:

To avoid using the word “abortion” was clearly evil.

Why the subtlety when he was so direct on the death penalty, on the “rights” of those who enter nations illegally, on income inequality, on the need for “dialogue” on everything under the sun?

Bergoglio is oblivious to the horrors of the killing of the innocent preborn. His silence before lawmakers yesterday stands in sharp contrast to the following oft-quoted passage found in Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Really, what more can be said? The man has not a Catholic bone in his body. Not one. (For a conservative estimate of the number of preborn babies killed by surgical means each day, please see Number of Abortions Each Day.)

Additionally, as noted in my summary yesterday, the morality of the death penalty, imposed by a duly constituted authority against those convicted of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law, is founded in the Natural Law, something was taught by none other than the Angelic Doctor himself, Saint Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when thewicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with thewicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he isnaturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," andProverbs 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). (Summa Theologica.)

Pope Saint Pius V, a Dominican and hence a student of Saint Thomas Aquinas, also understood that the civil state had the immutable precepts of the Natural Law to impose the death penalty upon malefactors found guilty of heinous crimes after the due process of law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, had been followed and run its course. It is no more possible for any true pope of the Catholic Church to declare the death penalty as "unnecessary" and "in opposition to the Gospel message" as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did in a message on the "World Day of the Sick" in 2003, than it is to deny an article contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:

Through the celebration of this World Day of the Sick, may the Gospel of life and love resound loudly, especially in the Americas, where more than half the world’s Catholics live. On the continents of North and South America, as elsewhere in the world, "a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurable ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty . . . This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message (Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia In America, 63). (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, XI World Day of the Sick, 2003).

It is the conciliar "popes'" and "bishops'" equating the inviolability of the lives of innocent human beings with those of heinous criminals that is "opposed to the Gospel message," not the death penalty, which Pope Saint Pius V believed should be imposed upon clerics who committed perverse sins against nature:

That horrible crime, on account of 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.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). 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.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed 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 benefit, 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. (Pope Saint Pius V,Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that there are circumstances justifying the use of the death penalty, admitting that its application in concrete circumstances is a matter of due discretion for the civil authorities to determine. The Catholic Church can never deny as a matter of principle that the death penalty is any way a violation of the moral law whatsoever. It is not. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Although the imposition of the death penalty upon a person convicted of heinous crime is a matter of prudential judgment in the practical order of things, one can no sooner argue that the death penalty is opposed to the law of God than he can argue that God is an octagon of persons. The precepts of the Natural Law are as immutable as the articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in junk social science just as much as he believes in junk science. For any legitimate program of rehabilitation for an incarcerated person to be effective, you see, it must be based upon the teaching of the Catholic Church as efforts of secular “behavior modifications” are bound to fail and can never point a criminal in the direction of the only reform of his life that matters, that of confessing his sins to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and thereafter living penitentially to make reparation for his sins after he has paid his debt to society while imprisoned.

The imposition of the death penalty, however, is not based on the prospects of rehabilitation. The imposition of the death penalty legitimately is based in the demands of justice itself.

You get the idea, right?

Well, Jorge the Motor Mouth and moral equivocator was back at it again in his latest “apostolic exhortation,” Gaudete et Exsultate:

I suppose that a true "pope" would never equate the deliberate killing of an innocent preborn child with the right of foreign nations to enter another nation illegally while dismissing the worlwide genocide of babies as merely "bioethical issues":

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”, with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Gaudete et Exultate, March 19, 2018.)

Let me translate this from the Bergoglian language of obfuscation: the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, whether by chemical or surgical means, is merely a “bioethical question” that is equal in its gravity to issues of “social justice,” which is why he considers politicians who are opposed to abortion (most such politicians are opposed to some abortions while supporting the slaughter of babies in the so-called “hard cases”) without being supportive of the statist agenda, including open borders, has an un-Christian attitude. Jorge the Motor Mouth never misses a chance to give leftist, pro-abortion and pro-sodomite politicians slaps on the back, kisses on the cheek and words of endless praise and support. He treats public officials who say they are “pro-life” but who are opposed to “leftism” with disdain and contempt.

Thus it is that he will never do or say anything to make it appear that he is in league with politicians who are noted for at least a partial opposition to abortion by urging Catholics to oppose electoral referenda sponsored and financed by powerful international anti-life forces seeking to decriminalize baby-killing. As far Jorge the Motor Mouth is concerned, such matters are ones for the local “bishops” to handle, although it should be pointed out that he has never been bashful about personally intervening when it comes to the “rights” of illegal immigrants or the “importance” of maintaining the Paris Climate Treaty. There are “real” issues, obviously, and then there are the “bioethical issues.”

Bergoglio’s apologists made it eminently clear late last year that he would not, for instance, be referencing the effort to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Republic of Ireland’s Constitution that is coming to a vote on May 25, 2018, Whit Friday. I will interject at various points:

The Pope and the Eighth in 2018

The year that Pope Francis is set to visit, Ireland is likely to hold a referendum on the Eighth Amendment.

Members of the Catholic Church across the world have constantly held a pro-life view on debates about abortion – that stance is no different here, as Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said on RTÉ earlier this month.

But Father Bartlett says that the Pope’s visit is not about the issues in Ireland, it’s about the World Meeting of Families – which won’t be focused on the repeal or retention of the Eighth Amendment.

“That’s a matter that the Irish Bishops will deal with directly as it arises – they will make their voice heard and others will [too]. The call is for a very respectable debate.” (Jorge's Upcoming Journey to Ireland.)

Interjection Number One:

What is there to debate?

The binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment are perfectly clear. No debate is possible, and no vote of the “people” can ever make legitimate something that is illegitimate of its nature, repugnant to God and thus injurious of the eternal good of souls and the temporal good of their nations.

Everything the counterfeit church of conciliarism is subject to “debate” and “reconsideration” as “pastoral need require,” euphemisms that the conciliarists use to mask Modernism’s condemned and philosophically absurd percept of dogmatic relativism.

Back to the 2017 article:

Even still, there’s been a huge shift in what family is in Ireland. Between the last Papal visit to Ireland in October 1979, the legalisation of divorce and the 2015 Yes Equality campaign have completely altered the idea of what a family can be in Ireland.

The Church took a stance against legalising gay marriage, which was passed in 2015 – so will gay couples and their children be allowed to attend the World Meeting of Families events next year?

“Well the event is open to everyone, we will not be asking people what their family circumstances are, should they wish to come.

We hope that everybody who comes acknowledges that this is an event that reflects the Catholic understanding and approach to marriage which includes the call to be inclusive and understanding.”

He says that although the scriptures teach of what the ideal family unit is, Pope Francis has said that “we all fall short of ideals”.

“As Pope Francis reminds us, no family dropped from heaven perfectly formed. There are lots of heroic, incredible families who are struggling against the most incredible odds, and that has to be celebrated and acknowledged, even if they don’t live up to what the Church might suggest is the ultimate ideal.

“Just because we don’t live up to an ideal, doesn’t mean we are excluded,” Bartlett says.

When asked what that ideal is, Bartlett said that the “earthly reality” is that all families face difficulties.

“But no matter what shape those challenges take and how that impacts on the form of the family, the key message of this event is, we should still be able to celebrate the genuine love, care, and solidarity that is at the heart of all those family experiences.” (Jorge's Upcoming Journey to Ireland.)

Interjection Number Two:

Those who are in states of Mortal Sin are excluded from the Kingdom of God.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was very direct about the fact one can be excluded from entering Heaven and thus possessing the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity:

[1] At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? [2] And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [4] Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. [5] And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. [8] And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. [9] And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. [10] See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 1-10.)

[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. [28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. [29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 7: 13-29.)

It is the will of God the Father that we keep His Commandments, something that Saint John the Evangelist tells us very directly is at the very heart of what constitutes true love of God:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. [2] In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. [3] For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (John 5: 1-3.)

The keeping of Ten Commandments and all the precepts of the Natural Law is not an “impossibility” nor some kind of ethereal, if not unreachable, unrealistic “ideal.” Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and conciliar revolutionary wrecking crew of apostates believe that such is the case, making a liar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and consigning the Spiritual Works of Mercy, listed just below, to the dustbin of history, “artifacts” that belong in a “museum” of the past:

To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish sinners.
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

God does not command the impossible. The graces won for us by His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday that are poured out into our souls by the working of God the Holy Ghost as they flow through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to resist temptation and to grow in sanctity. To obey the laws of God is never “impossible,” and to treat such obedience as a burdensome or impossible “ideal” is show oneself possessed of the Modernist spirit of agnosticism that was critiqued and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. There are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective. The first of them starts from agnosticism. It tends to show that religion, and especially the Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality as to compel every psychologist and historian of good faith to recognize that its history hides some element of the unknown. To this end it is necessary to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is nothing else than the progressive development of the germ which He brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of all to establish what this germ was, and this the Modernist claims to he able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given founder and ruler. Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different circumstances through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the doctrinal, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats. Anyone who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history — the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before Us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving that their determination of the primitive germ is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in with their contention.

36. But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to prove and plead for the Catholic religion, these new apologists are more than willing to grant and to recognize that there are in it many things which are repulsive. Nay, they admit openly, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, that they have found that even its dogma is not exempt from errors and contradictions. They add also that this is not only excusable but — curiously enough — that it is even right and proper. In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where, according to them, manifest errors are to he found. But, they say, the subject of these books is not science or history, but only religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped Up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that the expression of science and history in a more perfect form would have proved not so much a help as a hindrance. Moreover, they add, the Sacred Books, being essentially religious, are necessarily quick with life. Now life has its own truths and its own logic — quite different from rational truth aand rational logic, belonging as they do to a different order, viz., truth of adaptation and of proportion both with what they call the medium in which it lives and with the end for which it lives. Finally, the Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

In other words, everything that exists is true and legitimate merely because of its existence, which means in contemporary terms, according to the conciliarists, that “families” come in different shapes and sizes, including those who do not have an “ideal” form according to the “closed-in” view of “black and white morality” that does not take into account how people actually live.

Pope Pius XII warned Bergoglio’s own Society of Jesus in 1957 about their support of such a false belief:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies, which are designed to disrupt man's relationship to God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, the Catholic Church, and thus sow the seeds of the kind of social chaos, anarchy and violence that will lead one day to the broad popular acceptance of the Antichrist when he emerges on the scene as one who will restore "order" and perhaps even make nations "great" again.

We see the fruit of this disruption we great clarity in Ireland and around the world.

Back to the final excerpt from the 2017 article:

Catholic Ireland

The number of Catholics in Ireland has been steadily decreasing over the past few years, according to Census figures. In 2016, there were 3,729,115 Roman Catholics in Ireland, which makes up 78% of the population (down from 84% in the last census in 2011).

Bartlett says that some of the challenges that remain with the Church include that some people view the Church as a “caricature” of how the Church used to operate; another is reaching people in an increasingly active and busy world.

But he says that a large number of people in communities across the country still rely on priests for “help, advice and support”.

I would say that whenever you listen to the radio, to the television, to the news, whenever there’s a tragedy or difficulty, one of the first people that the local community turn to is their priest and that the media even turn to for comment and understanding about what’s happening.

He says that innovations such as the drive-thru Ash Wednesday and confessionals held in shopping centres are ways in which priests are looking to reach out to people in an increasingly busy, modernised Irish society.

An essential part of that, he says, is to bring up to date an organisation that has existed for thousands of years.

“When people talk about the past, there’s a danger that people think that the Church wants to go back to the past. That is not what the Church wants to do, I think we have to respect the past but essentially learn from it and focus on building a better future.” (Jorge's Upcoming Journey to Ireland.)

A better world?

Conciliarism is deadly to souls and thus to the temporal good of nations. The Irish may want vote in favor of repeal the Eighth Amendment of their country’s constitution in nine days precisely because they have been robbed of the sensus Catholicus by revolutionaries who hate true Catholic, Faith, Worship and Morals.

This is one of the reasons that Bergoglio/Francis is as blasé about the execution of innocent human beings by chemical and surgical means as he is about another of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, the sin of Sodom. He explained in a press conference onboard the plane taking in back to Rome from “World Youth Day” in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, on July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha, that there was no “need” to speak about abortion at World Youth Day as the Catholic Church has spoken on this crime, thus vitiating the need for him to say anything further even though Brazil itself is on its way to legalizing the surgical assassination of the innocent preborn:

Patricia Zorzan: Speaking on behalf of Brazilians. The society has changed, young people have changed, and we see many young people in Brazil. You have spoken to us about abortion, matrimony between persons of the same gender. In Brazil a law has been approved which extends the right of abortion and has allowed matrimony between persons of the same gender. Why didn’t you speak about this? [Repeated in Italian]

Francis: The Church has already expressed herself perfectly on this. It wasn’t necessary to go back to this, nor did I speak about fraud or lies or other things, on which the Church has a clear doctrine.[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: But it’s an issue that interests young people…

[Repeated in Italian]

Francis: Yes, but it wasn’t necessary to talk about that, but about positive things that open the way to youngsters, isn’t that so? Moreover, young people know perfectly well what the position of the Church is.

[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: What is the position of Your Holiness, can you tell us?

[Repeated in Italian]

Francis: That of the Church. I’m a child of the Church. (Press Conference in English.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio would speak as follows about abortion if really was a child of the Catholic Church, which he is not as he expelled himself from her maternal bosom by virtue of holding to one revolutionary Modernist proposition after another:

Jorge the Motor Mouth Bergolio is not son of the Catholic Church as he does not believe that this statement, issued by a true pope, is true. He believes, of course, in the false notion of “mercy: as found in the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sister Faustina Kowalska. This obviates him from any responsibility of speaking “harshly” about “difficult” matters, whether to the very civil leaders, whose ear he had and to whom he spoke while in Brazil two weeks ago now, who are promotion moral evils or to the young at "World Youth Day 2013" who are supposed to know that which is not taught to them in their local parishes and that might be considered "negative" rather than "positive."

Young Catholics are also supposed to know that it is opposed to the First Commandment to honor false religions, no less to "pray" with leaders of false religious sects or to call for "respect" to be shown to their symbols or their places of false worship.

Young Catholics are also supposed to know about the Virtue of Modesty and what constitutes the near occasion of sins.

Young Catholics are also supposed know that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of the one Sacrifice that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ made to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins and that they are required to be reverent, devout, recollected and silent during its offering.

Anyone familiar with the spectacle of indecency, irreverence, immodesty, sacrilege, blasphemy and heresy that unfolded in Rio de Janeiro five and one-half years ago knows that the young Catholics who gathered there were as clueless about the Catholic Faith as were “pastors” who sent them there and the “lay pope” who tickled their itching ears with the sweet sounds of “positive” messages.

The truth is, of course, that hundreds upon hundreds of millions of young Catholics have been corrupted by the rot of explicit classroom indoctrination in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments from their tenderest years in full violation of Pope Pius XI's explicit prohibition of such indoctrination as found in Divini Redemptoris, December 31, 1929, thus making them more vulnerable to prey upon each other and to be predisposed to accept as ordinary and natural the indecency, immodesty, vulgarity and obscenity found in the world around them, including in so-called "music" and on television, in motion pictures and in their various means of social media.

Most Catholics in the world today know nothing about authentic Catholic teaching because they have never been exposed to what their “pope” calls the “Pharisaical” "views" of "restorationist, and that's just the way their Petrine Minister wants it.

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio, it is always Social Work First, Social Work Last and Social Work Only. Well, perhaps that can be phrased as Naturalism First, Naturalism Last, Naturalism Only.

Civil leaders who support abortion and special rites for those engaged in unspeakably perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments must be treated with respect, especially if they are said to be working for the “poor” by means of proposing, implementing, maintaining, increasing and expanding government "services" in their behalf. As far as the false “pontiff” is concerned, the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means is something for the national "episcopal" conferences to handle.

As is the case with many of the world's conciliar “bishops” and with ninety percent or so of those who work in the administrative agencies of the counterfeit church of concilairism's "episcopal" conferences, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that it is possible for there to be a more “just” society and “economic fairness” in the name of “human dignity” and “brotherhood.” He believes that the economic conditions in individual countries and around the world can be improved even though the civil laws enshrine and protect grave moral evils that are also promote widely in what passes for “popular culture.”

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in a lie. He may believe in this lie sincerely, and he adheres to this lie even though the pagan authors of antiquity knew that disorder in the soul led to disorder in societies and very the teaching of the Catholic Church about the horror of personal sin in the lives of unrepentant sinners and upon the entirety of nations is yet another indicative that the man simply is not a Catholic.

The great renewal of the Catholic Church will take place following the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our daily praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit will help us to be wounded more perfectly by the ineffable love of Love Incarnate in His Most Sacred Heart. And it is by being wounded by this ineffable love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that we, His totally consecrated slaves through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that we can more perfectly make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including of the conciliarists who have abandoned “that church” for the strange new church that has offended God so greatly and harmed souls so much over the course of nearly six decades now.

Let us suffer well and with gratitude and with joy in this time of apostasy and betrayal as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Heaven awaits us if we walk our own little Via Dolorosa without complaint

Isn't the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven worth bearing with the sufferings of the present time?

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph. May we play some small part in helping to plant a few seeds for this triumph by our own daily fidelity to her Fatima Message, whose fulfillment will bring upon us the dawning of an era of peace wherein all men everywhere will exclaim during the Reign of Mary:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Ubaldus, pray for us,

You are here

Jorge the Motor Mouth Clams Up When It Comes to Abortion

Support Christ or Chaos