Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Religion is Himself

A very insightful article on Lifesite News discussed assessed the psychological reasons underlying Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to normalize sodomy and its related aberrant vices.

Here is a pertinent excerpt from the article, which was written by a clinical psychologist in The Netherlands who believes that the Argentine Apostate is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

Many well-documented observations of the Pope’s behavior strongly suggest the answer to our question above can be organized into three categories: first of all, those relating to the unabated fervor with which he promotes the recognition of homosexual relationships. He protects sexually criminal homosexuals; he elevates the dubious claims of a small minority of the population[ii] to a – perhaps the – central preoccupation of his pontificate while he grossly neglects and harms the real needs of the threatened family and normal marriage. Secondly, there are the observations about the way he pursues his pro-homosexuality policy; and there are the observations of salient traits of his personality. It is not conceivable that a normally heterosexual man would be able to identify himself in all these aspects so completely with the “gay” cause; even when an opportunistic heterosexual politician promotes it, he does not suppress his common sense and moral sense so radically as those for whom it is a personal need. This article intends to elucidate these points. . . .

The papal methods of imposing homosexuality recognition are akin to those of the homosexual movement in the secular world, including: appointing gay – or at least pro-gay – people in all key positions of the administration of cities, nations, international organizations, political parties, universities, media, etc.; suppressing publicity on unwelcome research facts and avoiding honest public discussions; promulgating misleading and unceasing indoctrination with lies and “education”; intimidation and abuse of power; at last elevating the gay ideology to the level of a secular state religion with punishment for the dissidents.[xix]

The Pope did not organize a thorough study of the subject, no open and honest discussions; he did not honestly announce what he was up to. His documents on the issue of homosexuality are of low intellectual level, his slogans cheap demagogy. He refuses to answer the critical questions of the dubia cardinals, men of erudition and high integrity. The point is, he has no answer. He appoints gay and pro-gay men in key positions, tolerates no critique, and fires dissidents.

The selective compassion he preaches is closely related to the “gay” item of self-victimization, and goes together with indignation and anger with the defenders of true morality. Compassion with the homosexual and a few other underdogs in the Church is on the top of the list of the suffering while the tremendous needs in the field of marriage and the family get little more than an occasional footnote: the emotional and spiritual needs of married people, healthy sexual education, the fallout of still increasing divorce rates, the children of divorce, the heinous modern child abuse of gay parenting and adoption, the needs of the 40-50 percent of children born out of wedlock; the plague of abortion and assisted suicide.

This recalls the fact that for many active homosexuals, there is no subject as interesting and important as “homosexuality.” And the homo-movement is very much anti-marriage, anti-family, and pro-abortion.[xx]

Personality traits

A Pope who advocates acceptance of homo-unions is deceiving people who want to trust him, naïvely or not, if he, in the spirit of McNeill, conceals his personal stake in the matter. His salient personality traits do not help much to dispel that suspicion.

There is consensus on the predominance of his hunger for power and tyrannical habits. This trait signifies self-seeking, that is, inordinate self-love and pride, and the consequential inhibition of the person’s capacity of mature loving and serving (others, including God). Moreover, it implies the self-view of superiority mentioned earlier which makes him rely on his “instinct” and “the Holy Spirit” and dispense with Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium; but which isolates him from others, friends, and peers.

Rooted in adolescence, in reaction to emotional frustration and imbalance,[xxi] nourishing this self-reliance keeps up pubertal self-centeredness and selfishness, and lack of interest in and feeling for others. In front of his equals and the world he shows the peculiar rebellious aloofness of the superior-feeling “teenager-of-the-past.”

A Mexican former director of a Catholic Spanish-language media portal, who worked with the Pope various times during the first decade of the century, illustrated this trait in an Open Letter To The Pope at the beginning of his pontificate:[xxii]

When I met you for the first time, when you still were Cardinal Bergoglio, I was struck and astonished that you never did as the other cardinals and bishops. Some examples:… when all bishops appeared in their cassocks and clerical vestment because the rules of the meeting required it, you yourself appeared in clergymen and priest collar. When everyone of you took a seat on the chairs reserved for the bishops and cardinals, you left the chair of Cardinal Bergoglio empty and took a seat at the back, remarking ‘I am okay here, here I feel more at ease.’ When the others arrived in a car in accordance with their dignity, you came in, later than all the other ones, hurriedly and annoyed, loudly talking about your encounters in the public transport with which you had preferred coming to the meeting. When I saw these things – I am ashamed to tell it – I said to myself: ‘Bah, look how he wants to attract the attention! If you really want to be humble and modest, can’t you rather behave like the other bishops and not arouse the attention to yourself?’[xxiii]

His show of being “different” – ”special” – insults his equals, his “peers,” from whom he provocatively keeps aloof.[xxiv] The same unfeelingness he evinces, for instance, in his hurtful, respectless remarks to good-intentioned visitors, calling unmarried women “old spinsters,” a courageous woman who despite difficult Caesarian sections gave birth to many children “a rabbit,” selfless pro-life activists “fanatic and obsessive,” etc. And no shame and excuses.

By now his second salient trait, unreliability, has become conspicuous. Numerous people have been deceived by his orthodox words and gestures but actual betrayal of faith and morals. Lying and duplicity are chronic with him. It is telling that he was able to betray in Argentina two of his priests to please the military authorities while abandoning a good doctor who saved a mother and her child from abortion; that he protected a pornography-divulging priest and punished the priest who had warned him.[xxv]

In the profile of active and self-normalizing homosexuals, unreliability and lying are common traits. Many lie to themselves and others in words and behavior all the time; gay “love” and the gay world (subculture) are permeated with lying and cheating, for it thrives not on love but on addiction to self-love, and lying is a manifestation thereof.

Here the Pope’s development from orthodox piety to where he stands now is not at issue. Only two notes: his power-hunger suggests that addiction to immature self-seeking was already developed long before he openly began twisting his religion; and his insincerity and lying signal a lack of the manly courage that does not avoid direct confrontation. In all, judging by his reported behavior, the picture of his personality is consistent with that of self-normalizing “gay” political activists, as also with the profile of self-normalizing and self-justifying homosexual priests.[xxvi]

The above explanation of the Pope’s zeal to legalize homosexual partnerships is supported by a series of observations of the category of circumstantial evidence. Taken together they lead to the conclusion that the existence of evidence that is more direct is fairly probable.  (What motivates Pope Francis' attempts to normalize homosexual relationships?.)

Leaving aside the fact that Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg makes constant references to the Argentine Apostate as the “pope” even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio lost the Faith, if he ever really possessed it, in his youth, his description of the aberrant nature of sodomy and his analysis of Bergoglio’s attempts to normalize it as far as it goes.

However, Dr. van den Aardweg misses the root cause of his “pope’s” constant efforts to justify sins of impurity of any kind, natural or unnatural: he does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. His conception of God and the Catholic Faith are projections of the phantasms of his own warped imagination. This is paganism, and it is this paganism that Senor Jorge has sought to impose so mightily upon Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism

To wit, it was in 1940, when little Jorge was four years of age, that he learned religious indifferentism from his grandmother when they encountered a bell ringer for the so-called “Salvation Army”:

The Pope told the delegation about the first lesson he ever received in ecumenism. When he was four years old, he met several members of the Salvation Army while with his grandmother.

“Their example of humble service to the least of our brothers and sisters spoke louder than any words,” he said.

Pope Francis also recalled what the previous director told him when they met in 2014: “Holiness transcends denominational boundaries.”

“The holiness that shows itself in concrete acts of goodness, solidarity, and healing speaks to the heart and testifies to the authenticity of our discipleship.” (Pope to Salvation Army: Humble service speaks louder than words. For a website that keeps track of The Salvation Army's efforts to mask the perquisites of its "officers," see Exposing The $alvation Army.)

Everything is a matter of subjectivity for Modernists, who are, of course, complete subjectivists and relativists.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio bases his “respect” for “The Salvation Army” on an experience with his grandmother in Argentina, something that showed him the path to an “ecumenical qencounter.”

As was the case with each of his predecessors who have served as the head of the false conciliar sect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that those outside of the One Sheepfold of Christ that is the Catholic Church have a “mission” to give a “witness” to the Divine Redeemer in the world. He speaks with the tongue of a devil, who can appear to be a veritable angel of light.

The truth, of course, is otherwise:

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Little Jorge came to believe that the Catholic Church was not the one and only church that enjoys the favor of God, and this corruption of the Faith has twisted his mind ever since. His “faith,” such as it is, is nothing mor than what he wants to believe, and he professes this false “faith” with conviction, zeal, and a burning hatred for those who hold fast to the Faith of our Fathers that he holds in utter contempt as “rigid” and “out of date” for “our times.”

The mercurial Bergoglio cannot accept that God is immutable, that His Divine Revelation has been deposited exclusively in His Holy Catholic Church, and that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has always guarded that Sacred Deposit infallibly as He has guided our true popes and, when the occasion has required, our true bishops with him in a general council, to elucidate those truths clearly and unambiguously.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in a false concept of the “holy spirit,” one that is untethered from His true immutable nature and that, quite conveniently, corresponds to exactly what he thinks:

Never try to tame the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis told new bishops.

Let the Spirit “continually turn your life upside down” and inspire you to challenge faithful Catholics, seek out those who have left the church and boldly meet with non-believers, he said.

The pope made his comments Sept. 10 in a written address to some 130 recently appointed bishops from around the world.

In the lengthy text, Pope Francis said he didn’t want to dwell too long on the “dramatic challenges” the bishops would have to face “because I don’t want to frighten you. You are still on your honeymoon” as newly ordained or newly appointed bishops.

However, the pope did remind the bishops of the fear, confusion and dejection many disciples felt after Christ was crucified.

Yet their shattered lives found meaning again when Christ showed them he had conquered death and was truly risen. He breathed the Holy Spirit on them, giving them their new mission of spreading God’s mercy and forgiveness, the pope said.

Never forgetting Christ is risen is key to remaining strong in the face of so much disarray. “Passing through the walls of your helplessness, he has joined you with his presence,” he said. God is aware of their weaknesses, denials and betrayals, but he has still bestowed his Spirit on them, he said.

Safeguard the Spirit because it is a breath that will “turn your life upside down” and never be like it was ever before, the pope said. “I beg you not to tame such power,” but let it constantly move them. (Pope to bishops: let Holy Spirit constantly move you.)

Again, however, to discover the full meaning of the realities of the Bible, one must not stop at the Old Testament, but come to Jesus. Alongside power, Jesus will highlight another characteristic of the wind: its freedom. To Nicodemus, who visits Him at night, Jesus say solemnly: “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:8).

The wind is the only thing that absolutely cannot be bridled, cannot be “bottled up” or put in a box. We seek to “bottle up” the wind or put it in a box: it’s not possible. It is free. To pretend to enclose the Holy Spirit in concepts, definitions, theses or treatises, as modern rationalism has sometimes attempted to do, is to lose it, nullify it, or reduce it to the purely human spirit, to a simple spirit. There is, however, a similar temptation in the ecclesiastical field, and it is that of wanting to enclose the Holy Spirit in canons, institutions, definitions. The Spirit creates and animates institutions, but He himself cannot be “institutionalized,” “objectified”. The wind blows “where it wills,” so the Spirit distributes its gifts “as it wills” (1 Cor 12:11).

St Paul will make this the fundamental law of Christian action. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor 3:17), he says. A free person, a free Christian, is the one who has the Spirit of the Lord. This is a very special freedom, quite different from what is commonly understood. It is not freedom to do what one wants, but the freedom to freely do what God wants! Not freedom to do good or evil, but freedom to do good and do it freely, that is, by attraction, not compulsion. In other words, the freedom of children, not slaves. (Pope Francis: You can’t put the Holy Spirit in a box.)

To believe that God the Holy Ghost has not directly and infallibly guided all of the definition, canons and anathemas issued by our true popes, whether individually or together with the true bishops in a general council, is both blasphemous and heretical, and it means that the following pronouncement made at the [First] Vatican Council on April 24, 1870, was not of God the Holy Ghost:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

• not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
• but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
• Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

Senor Jorge rejects this, of course, and in so doing condemns himself as one who believes in a “god” of his own Modernist projection according Pope Saint Pius X’s analysis of Modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate. . . .

It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies.

Let us turn for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue to God on the side of the intellect is barred to man, while a better way is supposed to be opened from the side of a certain sense of the soul and action. But who does not see how mistaken is such a contention? For the sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect or the outward senses set before it. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Doubly mistaken, from another point of view, for all these fantasies of the religious sense will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak of truth in itself — for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense and action, if it serves its purpose for the play of words, is of no benefit to the man who wants above all things to know whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to that sense of the soul? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make the sense of the soul into anything but sense, nor will they alter its nature, which is liable to deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and strengthen this nature, for the more intense the sense is the more it is really sense. And as we are here dealing with religious sense and the experience involved in it, it is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how necessary in such a matter is prudence, and the learning by which prudence is guided. You know it from your own dealings with souls, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of works of ascetical theology — works for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity far greater than theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation far beyond any which the Modernists take credit to themselves for possessing. It seems to Us nothing short of madness, or at the least consummate temerity to accept for true, and without investigation, these incomplete experiences which are the vaunt of the Modernist. Let Us for a moment put the question: If experiences have so much force and value in their estimation, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that so many thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong path? Is it that the Catholic experiences are the only ones which are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sense and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, cannot reach to the knowledge of God. What, then, remains but atheism and the absence of all religion? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism that will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are nothing more than mere symbols of God, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted, the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism? And to pantheism pure and simple that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For this is the question which We ask: Does or does not this immanence leave God distinct from man? If it does, in what does it differ from the Catholic doctrine, and why does it reject the doctrine of external revelation? If it does not, it is pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means pantheism. The distinction which Modernists make between science and faith leads to the same conclusion. The object of science, they say, is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now, what makes the unknowable unknowable is the fact that there is no proportion between its object and the intellect — a defect of proportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the philosopher. Therefore if any religion at all is possible, it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this might not be that soul of the universe, of which certain rationalists speak, is something which certainly does not seem to Us apparent. These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next.

40. To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep a sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren, to investigate the causes which have engendered it and which foster its growth. That the proximate and immediate cause consists in an error of the mind cannot be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced to two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to account for all errors. Such is the opinion of Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, who wrote: “A lamentable spectacle is that presented by the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find the truth outside the Catholic Church wherein truth is found without the slightest shadow of error.” (Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This describes the false concepts of God and the Holy Faith held by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and everyone else of his Modernist ilk. One who hold such concepts of God and has gone so far as to make a “joke” about His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son’s Sacrifice of Himself in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross to atone for our sins can find it only a “light matter” to denigrate the importance of sins, whether natural or unnatural, against Holy Purity. It is this disbelief in God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church that accounts for Bergoglio’s denial of the unicity of the Church, his hatred of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, his vendettas against those who point out his heresies and errors, and his truly shameless promotion of venality, perversity, and indecency imaginable:

Pope Francis: Before answering I will say: do the investigation, eh, do the investigation … because there is a danger of saying: he was condemned. Who condemned him? Public opinion, gossip. But what did he do? We don’t know, something … If you know why, say so, otherwise I cannot answer and you will not know why. Because it was his failure, a fault against the sixth commandment — but not total — of small caresses and massages that he gave to the secretary, so stands the accusation. This is sin, but it is not of the most serious sins, because the sins of the flesh are not the most serious. The gravest sins are those that are more angelic: pride, hatred. These are graver. So Aupetit is a sinner, as am I — I don’t know if you are aware ... but probably — as was Peter, the bishop on whom Jesus Christ founded the Church.

Why did the community of that time accept a sinful bishop, and with sins of such an angelic nature as denying Christ! But it was a normal Church, it was accustomed to everyone always being sinful, it was a humble Church. You can see that our Church is not used to having a sinful bishop. We pretend to say my bishop is a saint. … not this red hat … we are all sinners. But when the gossip grows, grows, grows, and takes away the reputation of the person. He will not be able to lead because he has lost the reputation, not because of his sin, which is sin — like Peter’s, like mine like yours — but because of the gossip of the people responsible for reporting things, a man who has lost his reputation so publicly cannot govern. And this is an injustice and that is why I accepted Aupetit’s resignation, not on the altar of truth, but on the altar of hypocrisy. This is what I want to say. (Full text: Bergoglio’s in-flight press conference from Greece.)

Comment Number One:

It is necessary to first of all deal with Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s unspeakable blasphemy against Saint Peter, our first pope.

Saint Peter’s triple denial of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He underwent His trial by the Jewish high priests on the morning of Good Friday was forgiven by Our Lord Himself, not by the “community,” and that triple denial was undone by Saint Peter’s triple profession of love when he received the official commission from Our Lord to “feed his lambs” and “tend his sheep”:

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. [18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. (John 21: 16-19.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had promised the spiritual supremacy of Holy Mother Church as record in the Gospel of Saint Matthew and the promise was fulfilled when Saint Peter made His triple profession of love for Him to undo his cowardly triple denials that Our Lord had prophesied at the Last Supper that he would make. Saint Peter was forgiven by Our Lord, not by the “community.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio just can’t help but to blaspheme Our Lord, Our Lady, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and any other saint in his quest to turn sanctity on its head in his ceaseless efforts to indemnify others for their sinful behavior.

Now, insofar as sins of the flesh being the least of sins, it is necessary to point out that there are differences between sins of passion, although most of these are the result of people placing themselves into the near occasions of sin, and sins of malice committed by those who have planned to sin and to persist in its state with no contrition and without any desire to reform their lives.

This having been noted, however, sins against Holy Purity, although less grave than sins of heresy and blasphemy in the hierarchy of evils, are nevertheless grave, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s dismissive view of them was dealt with as follows by Saint Alphonsus de Liguori:

THE man who indulges in impurity is like a person labouring under the dropsy. The latter is so much tormented by thirst, that the more he drinks the more thirsty he becomes. Such, too, is the nature of the accursed vice of impurity; it is never satiated. "As," says St. Thomas of Villanova, “the more the dropsical man abounds in moisture, the more he thirsts; so, too, is it with the waves of eternal pleasures." I will speak Today of the vice of impurity, and will show, in the first point, the delusion of those who say that this vice is but a small evil; and, in the second, the delusion of those who say, that God takes pity on this sin, and that he does not punish it.  

First Point. Delusion of those who say that sins against purity are not a great evil.  

1. The unchaste, then, say that sins contrary to purity are but a small evil. Like “the so wallowing in the mire" ("Sus lota in volutabro luti” 2 Pet. ii. 22) , they are immersed in their own filth, so that they do not see the malice of their actions; and therefore they neither feel nor abhor the stench of their impurities, which excite disgust and horror in all others. Can you, who say that the vice of impurity is but a small evil can you, I ask, deny that it is a mortal sin? If you deny it, you are a heretic; for as St. Paul says: "Do not err. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 or. vi. 9.) It is a mortal sin; it cannot be a small evil. It is more sinful than theft, or detraction, or the violation of the fast. How then can you say that it is not a great evil? Perhaps mortal sin appears to you to be a small evil? Is it a small evil to despise the grace of God, to turn your back upon him, and to lose his friendship, for a transitory, beastly pleasure?  

2. St. Thomas teaches, that mortal sin, because it is an insult offered to an infinite God, contains a certain infinitude of malice. "A sin committed against God has a certain infinitude, on account of the infinitude of the Divine Majesty." (S. Thom., 3, p., q. 1, art. 2, ad. 2.) Is mortal sin a small evil? It is so great an evil, that if all the angels and all the saints, the apostles, martyrs, and even the Mother of God, offered all their merits to atone for a single mortal sin, the oblation would not be sufficient. No; for that atonement or satisfaction would be finite; but the debt contracted by mortal sin is infinite, on account of the infinite Majesty of God which has been offended. The hatred which God bears to sins against purity is great beyond measure. If a lady find her plate soiled she is disgusted, and cannot eat. Now, with what disgust and indignation must God, who is Purity itself, behold the filthy impurities by which his law is violated? He loves purity with an infinite love; and consequently he has an infinite hatred for the sensuality which the lewd, voluptuous man calls a small evil. Even the devils who held a high rank in heaven before their fall disdain to tempt men to sins of the flesh.  

3. St. Thomas says (lib. 5, de Erud. Princ., c. li.), that Lucifer, who is supposed to have been the devil that tempted Jesus Christ in the desert, tempted him to commit other sins, but scorned to tempt him to offend against chastity.  Is this sin a small evil? Is it, then, a small evil to see a man endowed with a rational soul, and enriched with so many divine graces, bring himself by the sin of impurity to the level of a brute?” Fornication and pleasure," says St. Jerome,” pervert the understanding, and change men into beasts." (In Oseam., c. iv.) In the voluptuous and unchaste are literally verified the words of David;” And man, when he was in honour, did not understand: he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them." (Ps. xlviii. 13.) St. Jerome says, that there is nothing more vile or degrading than to allow oneself to be conquered by the flesh. ” Nihil vilius quam vinci a carne." Is it a small evil to forget God, and to banish him from the soul, for the sake of giving the body a vile satisfaction, of which, when it is over, you feel ashamed?  Of this the Lord complains by the Prophet Ezechiel;” Thus saith the Lord God: Because thou hast forgotten me, and has cast me off behind thy back” (xxiii. 35.) St. Thomas says, that by every vice, but particularly by the vice of impurity, men are removed far from God. “Per luxuriant maxime recedit a Deo." (In Job cap. xxxi.)  

4. Moreover, sins of impurity, on account of their great number, are an immense evil. A blasphemer does not always blaspheme, but only when he is drunk or provoked to anger. The assassin, whose trade is to murder others, does not, at the most, commit more than eight or ten homicides. But the unchaste are guilty of an unceasing torrent of sins, by thoughts, by words, by looks, by complacencies, and by touches; so that, when they go to confession they find it impossible to tell the number of the sins they have committed against purity. Even in their sleep the devil represents to them obscene objects, that, on awakening, they may take delight in them; and because they are made the slaves of the enemy, they obey and consent to his suggestions; for it is easy to contract a habit of this sin. To other sins, such as blasphemy, detraction, and murder, men are not prone; but to this vice nature inclines them. Hence St. Thomas says, that there is no sinner so ready to offend God as the votary of lust is, on every occasion that occurs to him.” Nullus ad Dei contemptum promptior." The sin of impurity brings in its train the sins of defamation, of theft, hatred, and of boasting of its own filthy abominations. Besides, it ordinarily involves the malice of scandal. Other sins, such as blasphemy, perjury, and murder, excite horror in those who witness them; but this sin excites and draws others, who are flesh, to commit it, or, at least, to commit it with less horror.  

5. “Totum hominem," says St. Cyprian,” agit in triumphum libidinis." (Lib. de bono pudic.) By lust the evil triumphs over the entire man, over his body and over his soul; over his memory, filling it with the remembrance of unchaste delights, in order to make him take complacency in them; over his intellect, to make him desire occasions of committing sin; over the will, by making it love its impurities as his last end, and as if there were no God. "I made," said Job, “a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin. For what part should God from above have in me?" (xxxi. 1, 2.) Job was afraid to look at a virgin, because he knew that if he consented to a bad thought God should have no part in him. According to St. Gregory, from impurity arises blindness of understanding, destruction, hatred of God, and despair of eternal life.” De luxuria cœcitas mentis præcipitatio, odium Dei, desperatio futuri sæculi generantur." (S. Greg., Mor., lib. 13.) St. Augustine says, though the unchaste may grow old, the vice of impurity does not grow old in them. Hence St. Thomas says, that there is no sin in which the devil delights so much as in this sin; because there is no other sin to which nature clings with so much tenacity. To the vice of impurity it adheres so firmly, that the appetite for carnal pleasures becomes insatiable.” Diabolus dicitur gaudere maxime de peccato luxuriæ, quia est maximæ adhœrentia: et difficile ab eo homo eripi potest; insatiabilis est enim delectabilis appetitus." (1, 2, qu. 73, a. 5, ad. 2.) Go now, and say that the sin of impurity is but a small evil. At the hour of death you shall not say so; every sin of that kind shall then appear to you a monster of hell. Much less shall you say so before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, who will tell you what the Apostle has already told you: "No fornicator, or unclean, hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Eph. v. 5.) The man who has lived like a brute does not deserve to sit with the angels.  

6. Most beloved brethren, let us continue to pray to God to deliver us from this vice: if we do not, we shall lose our souls. The sin of impurity brings with it blindness and obstinacy. Every vice produces darkness of understanding; but impurity produces it in a greater degree than all other sins.” Fornication, and wine, and drunkenness take away the understanding." (Osee iv. 11.) Wine deprives us of understanding and reason; so does impurity. Hence St. Thomas says, that the man who indulges in unchaste pleasures, does not live according to reason.” In nullo procedit secundum judicium rationis." Now, if the unchaste are deprived of light, and no longer see the evil which they do, how can they abhor it and amend their lives? The Prophet Osee says, that being blinded by their own mire, they do not even think of returning to God; because their impurities take away from them all knowledge of God.” They will not set their thought to return to their God; for the spirit of fornication is in the midst of them, and they have not known the Lord." (Osee v. 4.) Hence St. Lawrence Justinian writes, that this sin makes men forget God.” Delights of the flesh induced forgetfulness of God." And St. John Damascene teaches that “the carnal man cannot look at the light of truth." Thus, the lewd and voluptuous no longer understand what is meant by the grace of God, by judgment, hell, and eternity.” Fire hath fallen upon them, and they shall not see the sun." (Ps. Ivii. 9.) Some of these blind miscreants go so far as to say, that fornication is not in itself sinful. They say, that it was not forbidden in the Old Law; and in support of this execrable doctrine they adduce the words of the Lord to Osee: “Go, take thee a wife of fornication, and have of her children of fornication." (Osee i. 2.) In answer I say, that God did not permit Osee to commit fornication; but wished him to take for his wife a woman who had been guilty of fornication: and the children of this marriage were called children of fornication, because the mother had been guilty of that crime. This is, according to St. Jerome, the meaning of the words of the Lord to Osee.” Ideirco," says the holy doctor, “Fornicationis appelandi sunt filii, quod sunt de meretrice generati." But fornication was always forbidden, under pain of mortal sin, in the Old, as well as in the New Law. St. Paul says: “No fornicator or unclean, hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph. v. 5.) Behold the impiety to which the blindness of such sinners carry them! From this blindness it arises, that though they go to the sacraments, their confessions are null for want of true contrition; for how is it possible for them to have true sorrow, when they neither know nor abhor their sins?  

7. The vice of impurity also brings with it obstinacy. To conquer temptations, particularly against chastity, continual prayer is necessary.” Watch ye, and pray, that ye enter not into temptation." (Mark xiv. 38.) But how will the unchaste, who are always seeking to be tempted, pray to God to deliver them from temptation? They sometimes, as St. Augustine confessed of himself, even abstain from prayer, through fear of being heard and cured of the disease, which they wish to continue. "I feared," said the saint, "that you would soon hear and heal the disease of concupiscence, which I wished to be satiated, rather than extinguished." (Conf., lib. 8, cap. vii.) St. Peter calls this vice an unceasing sin.” Having eyes full of adultery and sin that ceaseth not." (2 Pet. ii. 14.) Impurity is called an unceasing sin on account of the obstinacy which it induces. Some person addicted to this vice says: I always confess the sin. So much the worse; for since you always relapse into sin, these confessions serve to make you persevere in the sin. The fear of punishment is diminished by saying: I always confess the sin. If you felt that this sin certainly merits hell, you would scarcely say: I will not give it up; I do not care if I am damned. But the devil deceives you. Commit this sin, he says; for you afterwards confess it. But, to make a good confession of your sins, you must have true sorrow of the heart, and a firm purpose to sin no more. Where are this sorrow and this firm purpose of amendment, when you always return to the vomit? If you had had these dispositions, and had received sanctifying grace at your confessions, you should not have relapsed, or at least you should have abstained for a considerable time from relapsing. You have always fallen back into sin in eight or ten days, and perhaps in a shorter time, after confession. What sign is this? It is a sign that you were always in enmity with God. If a sick man instantly vomits the medicine which he takes, it is a sign that his disease is incurable.  

8. St. Jerome says, that the vice of impurity, when habitual, will cease when the unhappy man who indulges in it is cast into the fire of hell. “Infernal fire, lust, whose fuel is gluttony, whose sparks are brief conversations, whose end is hell." The unchaste become like the vulture that waits to be killed by the fowler, rather than abandon the rottenness of the dead bodies on which it feeds. This is what happened to a young female, who, after having lived in the habit of sin with a young man, fell sick, and appeared to be converted. At the hour of death she asked leave of her confessor to send for the young man, in order to exhort him to change his life at the sight of her death. The confessor very imprudently gave the permission, and taught her what she should say to her accomplice in sin. But listen to what happened. As soon as she saw him, she forgot her promise to the confessor and the exhortation she was to give to the young man. And what did she do? She raised herself up, sat in bed, stretched her arms to him, and said: Friend, I have always loved you, and even now, at the end of my life, I love you: I see that, on your account, I shall go to hell: but I do not care: I am willing, for the love of you, to be damned. After these words she fell back on the bed and expired. These facts are related by Father Segneri (Christ. Istr. Bag., xxiv., n. 10.) Oh! how difficult is it for a person who has contracted a habit of this vice, to amend his life and return sincerely to God! O how difficult is it for him not to terminate this habit in hell, like the unfortunate young woman of whom I have just spoken.  

Second Point. Illusion of those who say that God takes pity on this sin.  

9. The votaries of lust say that God takes pity on this sin; but such is not the language of St. Thomas of Villanova. He says, that in the sacred Scriptures we do not read of any sin so severely chastised as the sin of impurity.” Luxuriæ facinus præ aliis punitum legimus." (Serm. iv., Dom. 1, Quadrag.) We find in the Scriptures, that in punishment of this sin, a deluge of fire descended from heaven on four cities, and, in an instant, consumed not only the inhabitants, but even the very stones." And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all things that spring from the earth." (Gen. xix. 24.) St. Peter Damian relates, that a man and a woman who had sinned against impurity, were found burnt and black as a cinder.  

10. Salvian writes, that it was in punishment of the sin of impurity that God sent on the earth the universal deluge, which was caused by continued rain for forty days and forty nights. In this deluge the waters rose fifteen cubits above the tops of the highest mountains; and only eight persons along with Noah were saved in the ark. The rest of the inhabitants of the earth, who were more numerous then than at present, were punished with death in chastisement of the vice of impurity. Mark the words of the Lord in speaking of this chastisement which he inflicted on that sin: “My spirit shall not remain in man for ever; because he is flesh." (Gen. vi. 3.) "That is," says Liranus, "too deeply involved in carnal sins." The Lord added: “For it repenteth me that I made man." (Gen. vi. 7.) The indignation of God is not like ours, which clouds the mind, and drives us into excesses: his wrath is a judgment perfectly just and tranquil, by which God punishes and repairs the disorders of sin. But to make us understand the intensity of his hatred for the sin of impurity, he represents himself as if sorry for having created man, who offended him so grievously by this vice. We, at the present day, see more severe temporal punishment inflicted on this than on any other sin. Go into the hospitals, and listen to the shrieks of so many young men, who, in punishment of their impurities, are obliged to submit to the severest treatment and to the most painful operations, and who, if they escape death, are, according to the divine threat, feeble, and subject to the most excruciating pain for the remainder of their lives. “Thou hast cast me off behind thy back; bear thou also thy wickedness and thy fornications." (Ezec. xxiii. 35.) (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost, “On Impurity”.)

I thus dispense with Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s making light of the 2021 resignation of Michael Aupetit on “the altar of hypocrisy” except to note that the even one otherwise disposed to the Argentine Apostate, Vaticanologist John Allen of Crux News, has, after reviewing several other scenarios, hypostatized at the time that there was much to the Michael Aupetit story and that his “pope” knew all about it (see In Vatican’s clumsy stab at censorship, the massage becomes the message).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio makes light of lots of things that are very grave, including his own sins of heresy and blasphemy.

As noted above, the false “pontiff” is ever ready to indemnify all manner of sins of impurity. The whole point of Amoris Laetitia, March 16, 2016, was to excuse sins of adultery and fornication in the name of “accompaniment” while inviting people in what he called “irregular” situations to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, and as noted recently in          , the false “pontiff” is working overtime to normalize sodomy and its related vices. Such is the work of Antichrist, not the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.

“Pope Francis’s” disbelief in the true God and His Sacred Deposit of Faith has, as noted once again only a few weeks ago, led him to have a contempt for the Ten Commandments, which he dismissed as follows on the Feast of Saint John Chrysostom, January 27, 2017:

‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ All the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is how when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is faintheartedness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope. May the Lord make us grow in memory, make us grow in hope, give us courage and patience each and free us from that which is faintheartedness, being afraid of everything…  Confined souls in order to save ourselves. And Jesus says: ‘He who wills to save his life will lose it.’” (Fear of Everything--the "sin" that paralyes Christians.)

Yes, “Pope Francis” believes that those who are concerned about saving their souls will lose their life, thus twisting Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s admonition for us not to seek to preserve our physical life and/or to seek the favor and esteem of others in order to curry favor with the world. Our Lord exhorted us to carry the cross on a daily basis, and most of those crosses simply involve the performance of our daily duties for the love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. (For example, getting up in the morning when we want to roll over and go back to sleep; doing a chore we disdain or think that is beneath our dignity; doing our work, whatever it might be, without being prompted to do it, etc.)

Here is the context of what Our Lord taught:

[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. [28] Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16: 21-28.)

Those who seek to keep the Ten Commandments are not seeking to save their physical lives in this passing world as Saint Peter urged Our Lord to do just moments after he had received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Far from it. Those who, despite their own sins and failings, strive to keep the Ten Commandments as they make reparation for their sins are seeking to please the Most Blessed Trinity according to the teaching of the Beloved Disciple, Saint John the Evangelist, as follows:

[1] My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: [2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [3] And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him. (1 John 2: 1-5.)

[21] Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: [22]And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. [24] And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3: 21-24.)

[1] 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. [4] For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. [5] Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5: 1-5.)

Perhaps even more to the point is the teaching of the Divine Master Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 19-20.)

Bergoglio’s hatred of those who keep the Ten Commandments is just one of many things he has in common with an Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther who he, the Argentine Apostate, believes is a “witness” to Our Lord:

“[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).

“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)

“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).  (As found at: The Thirty-Three Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote.)

This is pretty much an exact representation of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said repeatedly, including on Friday, January 27, 2017, at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy otherwise known as the Casa Santa Marta behind the walls (imagine that, and they even have guards there, too!) of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

As the words of Holy Writ quoted above prove beyond any question, the false beliefs of Bergoglio and the man he admires as a “witness” of a generic Christian “faith” are mortal enemies of Our Lord and of His true Church, thus making them mortal enemies of the souls for whom Our Divine Redeemed shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem.

Pope Pius XI, writing to condemn German national socialism, which arose, of course, as the direct consequence of Martin Luther’s overthrowing of the Social Reign of Christ the King in various of the German states five hundred years ago this very year, explained that we are bound to the “conscientious observation of the Ten Commandments”:

29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations. 

30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that "right is common utility," a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: "Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good" (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

It is important to highlight the following sentences from the first paragraph quoted above:

If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Bergoglio believes that the Ten Commandments are a "burden" to men by preventing them from going "forward," and he does not believe that God makes it possible for men to do what He has taught them, thus blaspheming God as a deceiver.

Pope Pius XI reminded us that there is a God who actually rewards the good and punishes all evil, and that the "conscientious observation of the ten commandments and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but the practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says --Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do."

The Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is possible to keep the Ten Commandments perfectly nor does he believe that it is necessary to do so. All that matters to him is "going forward," which he is doing very rapidly by throwing himself headlong into hell at the moment of his Particular Judgment if he does not repent of his errors and abjure them publicly before he dies.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a pagan, and his only zeal is to make his own “dreams” about God the foundation of what purports to be Catholic teaching.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s religion is himself.

Entrusting ourselves as ever to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, may we remain steadfast in our refusal to have anything to do with even the whiff of heresy that emanates from the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Heaven cannot be obtained by making compromises with error or by being silent about it. We must call error by its proper name, not seeking to "tolerate" it in ordert to "understand" it better, no less than disparaging those who seek keep what Pope Pius XI called the "conscientious observation" of the Ten Commandments.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing.

A blessed Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary to you all.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.