The Francis Effect: A Gathering Storm

Written by Christopher A. Ferrara

The Complete Series: All four parts of Christopher Ferrara's weeklong series, "The Francis Effect",
appear in the following post. Those who commented on other sections of this aricle are encouraged to
respost their comments on this final version of the article. This article will also appear in its entirety
in the net print edition of The !emnant. MJM
The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one
will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests
who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres... churches
and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises
and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the
service of the Lord.
ur Lady of !kita" ctober #$" #%&$

'ntroduction
"n #arch $, Cardinal Timothy %olan, America&s foremost Catholic prelate, appeared on '(C&s )#eet
the *ress+ and commented as follows on the )coming out+ of a )gay+ college foot,all star-
Good for him( I would have no sense of judgment on him.. God bless ya. / don&t
think, look, the same (i,le that tells us, that teaches us well a,out the virtues of
chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to 0udge people. So I
would say, Bravo.
)'o sense of 0udgment.. Bravo.+ That is how a *rince of Church in the 1ear of "ur 2ord 3456 reacts
to a cele,rity&s announcement that he engages in unspeaka,le acts7)men with men, working that
which is filthy 8!omans 5-39:+7acts that cry out to heaven for vengeance, as Churchmen used to
teach ,efore the )opening to the world+ at ;atican //. <ere we see the vast ripple effect of the )who am
/ to 0udge=+ mantra that *ope Francis launched into the collective consciousness of humanity ,y going
out of his way to speak to reporters a,out homoseuals in the hierarchy at ) a surprise news
conference+ they had not even re>uested. The )Francis effect+ is disarming prelates and priests alike.
/t threatens to disarm us as well, unless we take a stand against what is happening.
As *ope 2eo ?///, citing his predecessor Feli ///, teaches- )An error which is not resisted is approved@
a truth which is not defended is suppressed.+ 8Inimica Vis A5B$3C:. That is why this article has ,een
written. For the ,ad news concerning this pontificate shows no signs of a,ating. "n the contrary, it
seems to worsen ,y the day. This lengthy piece will consider trou,ling developments that occurred in
rapid succession during a span of less than three weeks- from Fe,ruary 56 to #arch D. / felt compelled
in conscience to write it ,ecause / must agree with what the prominent moral theologian Eerman
EriseF wrote a,out this pontificate- )*ope Francis has failed to consider carefully enough the likely
conse>uences of letting loose with his thoughts in a world that will applaud ,eing provided with such
help in subverting the truth it is his 0o, to guard as inviola,le and proclaim with fidelity.+
#y purpose is twoGfold- First, to attempt to give an overview of how serious our situation has ,ecome.
Hecond, to clarify what is at stake for the Church in the controversies now swirling a,out Francis, lest
the true teaching of the #agisterium ,e lost in all the confusion. The controversies to ,e discussed
here7all erupting during the threeGweek period in view7include-
G Francis&s apparent endorsement of the neoG#odernist drive to admit divorced and remarried
Catholics to <oly Communion via )pastoral solution@+
G <is intimations of a )pastoral+ relaation of the teaching of umane Vitae@
G <is apparent opening to )gay marriage+ in the form of )civil unions@+
G <is personal endorsement of the multiGdenominational, doctrinally indifferent *rotestant )*entecostal+
movement, which Francis gave in a video created for the ,enefit of a ,reakaway Anglican ),ishop+ in
that movement@
G <is continuing disparagement of the traditional liturgy and the growing num,ers of the faithful
devoted to it, including young people.
/ hope in this way to render a service to the readers of this newspaper. (efore / present the details,
however, / will address a threshold >uestion- %oes a Catholic even have a right to pu,lish an article of
this sort=
n )ublic Criticism of )opes
Home Catholics hold that we must never engage in pu,lic criticism of the *ope7no matter what he
says, no matter what he does. )Ie must not incite indignation concerning the <oly Father+ say these
people, even as they themselves7>uite rightly7call for indignation concerning wayward prelates such
as Cardinal %olan, pu,licly criticiFing them without reserve for doing nothing other than what the *ope
has done, authoriFed, encouraged or tolerated himself.
(ut )incitement+ is not my intention here. / write ,ecause the !o"e#s own words and deeds have
already aroused indignation among the faithful. /ndignation is not a sin when it is warranted. "n the
contrary, it is a Catholic&s natural reaction to conduct that threatens the good of the Church and the
welfare of souls. The (ishop of !ome is no more eempt than any other mem,er of the hierarchy from
the indignation of his su,0ects when he wounds them or the Church of which he is head. /ndignation
over a prelate&s ,ehavior7even if that prelate were a *ope7is not to ,e confused with hatred or
rancor toward the one who holds the office@ it is, rather, an appropriate reaction to a wrong and a
natural impetus for seeking its redress. 'or is seeking redress to ,e confused with a lack of )charity,+
as it so often is in this age of emotivism. "ne is of course o,liged in charity to forgive a wrong, ,ut
there is nonetheless a duty to repair it, especially when it harms the common good of the Church.
The origin of the pious prescription )no pu,lic criticism of the *ope+ is mysterious, as it is certainly not
to ,e found in the official teaching of the Church or the common opinion of theologians. 'or is there
any sign of a theology of a,0ect silence in the face of papal wrongs throughout the long history of
pu,lic opposition7often fierce7to wayward *opes, ,eginning with *aul&s pu,lic re,uke of *eter for
his scandalous refusal to eat with Eentiles- )(ut when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
the face, ,ecause he was to ,e ,lamed 8Eal. 3-55:.+ To the facile o,0ection that saints may criticiFe
erring *opes, one might offer the facile reply that we ought to imitate the eample of the saints.
'owhere, however, does the Church impose any )saints only+ limitation on o,0ecting pu,licly to what a
*ope has said or done in pu,lic.
There were no known saints involved, for eample, in the pu,lic opposition to John ??// 8r. 5K59G5KK6:
when he insisted in a series of Hunday sermons that the ,lessed departed do not see Eod until after
the Eeneral Judgment7thus, among other dire conse>uences, nullifying the traditional teaching on
the efficacy of prayers for the souls in *urgatory. Theologians at the Lniversity *aris concurred that,
while the matter had never ,een defined as dogma, the *ope was in error, and they petitioned him to
recant his opinion. The *ope ultimately did so, noting that he had never imposed his view upon the
Church and that everyone had ,een free to disagree with him. John ??//&s more energetic opponents,
including Cardinal "rsini and Ming 2ouis of (avaria, called upon the cardinals to convoke a council to
condemn him as a heretic. 'one of the papal critics in this affair stands condemned ,y the 0udgment of
the Church.
To address another facile o,0ection, some Catholics maintain that even if it may ,e permissi,le to
epress criticism of a *ope in given circumstances, one must never do so on the /nternet or in the
press. (ut it is precisely on the /nternet and in the press that *ope Francis has insisted on making his
opinions and gestures known to all of humanity. The *ope has the whole planet ,uFFing a,out the
latest thing he has said or done7all of it ,roadcast worldwide nearly every day with the assistance of
a pu,lic relations team headed ,y *! )wiFard+ Ereg (urke, a former Fo 'ews and $ime magaFine
correspondent and a mem,er of "pus %ei.
"ne must dismiss as simply ludicrous the idea that in an age of mass communications the only
Catholic way to epress an o,0ection to what a *ope has deli,erately ,roadcast to the world is some
sort of private entreaty. !eflecting the reality of modern social communications, the 5$BK Code of
Canon 2aw provides that the faithful, )according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which
they possess. have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their
opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to ma%e their o"inion %nown to the
rest of the &hristian faithful.+ 8CCC N 3538K::. The canon does not provide )ecept when it comes to
the *ope.+
!ecogniFing the right and duty of the faithful in this regard, *ope Francis personally telephoned the
late traditionalist writer #ario *almaro after he and his coGauthor had pu,lished a newspaper article
leveling a scathing assessment of the pu,licityGseeking aspect of this pontificate under the ,old title
)Ie %o 'ot 2ike This *ope.+ %uring the conversation, after epressing concern for %r. *almaro&s
health 8he would soon succum, to liver cancer at the age of 6D:, the *ope than%ed him for his
criticisms, assuring him that he )understood that those criticisms had ,een made with love, and how
important it had ,een for him to receive them.+ Further eercising his right and duty, *almaro later told
the press )he cannot Ostate o,0ectively that *ope Francis met our criticisms.&+ *almaro added the
caveat that must guide any Catholic who raises a pu,lic o,0ection to a *ope&s actions- )we did not
want to 0udge the *ope as a human person. Ie distinguish the action from the person.+
<ow odd it is that neoGCatholic proponents of the opinion that the *ope may never ,e criticiFed in
pu,lic, who generally tend to ,e au courant with )the modern world,+ ,lithely ignore the modern reality
of instantaneous worldwide communications, eploited ,y the *ope himself, and insist upon a way of
proceeding that was not even morally o,ligatory in the days of >uill pens, parchment paper, and letters
delivered ,y horse,ack and ship. Iith all the world agog at *ope Francis, and with damage to the
Church&s image mounting in proportion to the praise he garners from her worst enemies, the
proponents of this novel ,an on pu,lic criticism of *opes now find themselves constrained to remain
silent a,out matters uppermost in the pu,lic consciousness of virtually the entire human raceP Their
pious notion, utterly without foundation in Church teaching, confines them7and them alone7to a kind
of deep sea diving ,ell, su,merged ,eneath tempestuous waters, wherein the storms whipped up ,y
Francis cannot reach them, while every other happening in the Church is received loud and clear and
is fair game for comment and the harshest of criticism from inside the diving ,ell, especially the doings
of those dastardly ,ishops, who are to ,lame for everything. This is the a,surdity they imagine is
en0oined upon the faithful ,y a duty that turns out to ,e nothing more than their view of how things
should ,e.
*aradoically enough, this notion of papal immunity from pu,lic criticism has arisen precisely during
an unparalleled epoch7our own7in which a series of *opes has said or done things that have
caused pu,lic scandal. The idea, / suppose, is that o,0ecting to these scandals pu,licly might threaten
the faith of Catholics who are not e>uipped to handle such commentary, so that the ,etter approach is
to say nothing at all. "n the contrary, the ,etter approach is not to ignore papal scandals ,ut to
educate Catholics to the historical reality that the history of the papacy is riddled with the scandalous
acts and omissions of errant *opes and that this reality does not undermine, ,ut rather demonstrates,
the indefecti,ility of the Church, for not even the worst of *opes has ,een a,le to destroy her or to
negate any part of the deposit of the Faith. Those who take upon themselves the task of commenting
on Church affairs do not serve the Church ,y hiding historical reality from the faithful, who will learn of
the current scandals anyway from the mass media and may suffer a loss of faith precisely ,ecause
they do not understand that *opes can and do err in matters not within the limited scope of papal
infalli,ility.
/ndeed, the work of the <oly Ehost can ,e seen in the First ;atican Council&s narrow dogmatic
definition of the *ope&s infalli,le teaching authority. The *ope is infalli,le only when he- )speaks E?
CAT<E%!A, that is, when, in the eercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to ,e held ,y
the whole Church.+ 8F/!HT ;AT/CA' ECL#E'/CA2 C"L'C/2, Hess. K, cap. 6:. "f course, the *ope has
no power to define doctrines as he pleases, for as ;atican / also teaches- )the <oly Hpirit was
promised to the successors of *eter not so that they might, ,y his revelation, make known some new
doctrine, ,ut that, ,y his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully epound the revelation
or deposit of faith transmitted ,y the apostles.+ A *ope, or a Council approved ,y a *ope, can define
as dogma only what the Church has always ,elieved as doctrine, al,eit without a formal definition.
Accordingly, even in defining the dogma of papal infalli,ility itself the Fathers of ;atican / were at pains
to demonstrate that they were )faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the ,eginning of the
Christian faith.+
Therefore, when a *ope is not defining dogma or simply repeating doctrine the Church has always
taught, he is suscepti,le to errors of 0udgment, false opinions, and prudential ,lunders, as the long
history of the papacy demonstrates. 8Cfr. %r. John !ao&s definitive historical study Blac% 'egends and
the 'ight of the (orld:. Ihich ,rings me to the merits of this discussion.
)art ''
Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce
issue Father Brian Harrison, O.S., Inside the Vatican, Feb. 2014
! *arnin+ Come True
/mmediately after Cardinal Jose #ario (ergoglio was elected *ope, the !orate Caeli ,log site
presented a dire report ,y an Argentinian 0ournalist, who wrote that as Arch,ishop of (uenos Aires the
Cardinal was a )sworn enemy of the traditional #ass,+ that he was )AfCamous for his inconsistency 8at
times, for the unintelligi,ility of his addresses and homilies:,+ that he was )accustomed to the use of
coarse, demagogical, and am,iguous epressions,+ that he was )loose in doctrine and liturgy,+ and
that )he has not fought against a,ortion and only very weakly against homoseual Omarriage&8approved
with practically no opposition from the episcopate:.+
<onesty compels one to admit that every element of this grim assessment has ,een ,orne out ,y the
,rutal dismantling of the Franciscan Friars of the /mmaculate on the *ope&s direct order, and ,y his
astonishing plenitude of distur,ing statements and actions during the scant year he has ,een in office.
These include the phrase that will ,e em,lematic of his entire pontificate, which is now appearing on
"Iho am / to 0udge=" tee shirts marketed to gayGrights activists and assorted other radical li,erals in
order to taunt the Church.
!larmin+ !dulation by a ,ostile *orld
/n the case of *ope Francis the falli,ility of *opes in matters not involving doctrinal definitions is
remarka,ly evident. /t does no good to deny this when the entire world is heaping praise upon him for
his unheardGof pastoral novelties 8e.g. the 0ailhouse footGwashing ceremony, including a #uslim
woman:, his numerous statements suggesting a revolutionary relaation of Church discipline in the
name of a false )mercy,+ and his repeated pu,lic insults of traditional Catholics and the traditional
liturgy, which he has cavalierly ,elittled as a )0ust a kind of fashion+ to which certain mem,ers of the
faithful are )addicted.+ As if to reward his ,ehavior, Francis has ,een lauded as )*erson of the 1ear+ ,y
the world&s most prominent leftGli,eral news magaFine 8$ime:, the world&s leading )gay+ magaFine 8$he
)dvocate:, the world&s leading )rock culture+ magaFine 8*olling Stone: and the world&s leading )rock
culture+ video outlet 8#T;:. Even the trashy li,ertine >uarterly G+ ,aga-ine 0oined the adulation ,y
naming Francis )(est %ressed #an of the 1ear,+ using the occasion to mock the overdressed *ope
(enedict. All of these tri,utes, and innumera,le others of like kind, have ,een ,estowed eplicitly at
the epense of Francis&s predecessor and the Church&s teaching on faith and morals. Any Catholic
who still retains the sensus catholicus must view with alarm this unprecedented torrent of praise from
the realm of (elial. Homething is seriously amiss.
The )ope-s )raise for Cardinal .asper-s !ttack on ,oly Matrimony
"ver the past few weeks Francis has continued to delight the makers of world opinion with one
,om,shell after another, the eplosion of which our ,rethren in the diving ,ell resolutely refuse to
mention. 2et me ,egin with Cardinal Masper&s keynote address to the College of Cardinals on
Fe,ruary 347the only address the *ope called for. *ope Francis later praised this twoGhour oration as
)a ,eautiful and profound presentation that will soon ,e pu,lished in Eerman.+ Masper is one of the
Church&s most notorious postGconciliar #odernists, who, among other heresies, has denied the
historicity of the Apostolic Huccession. 'ot surprisingly, then, his address to the cardinals calls for a
)pastoral solution+ that would allow certain divorced and )remarried+ Catholics, living in a state of
pu,lic adultery, to receive <oly Communion.
Masper&s proposal comes in the section of the address entitled )The *ro,lem of the %ivorced and
!emarried.+ /n the first place, a divorced Catholic, married in the Church, cannot )remarry+ as any
su,se>uent civil ceremony is not a marriage. / will put that o,vious point aside for the sake of
discussion.
'ow, whenever a #odernist contrives to undermine some aspect of the Faith, he la,els it a )pro,lem+
for which there must ,e a new )solution.+ /n this case, Masper advocates a )change of paradigm+
respecting the Church&s perennial practice of ecluding the divorced and remarried from <oly
Communion to protect the sanctity of the (lessed Hacrament. According to Masper, ),etween the
Church&s doctrine on marriage and the family and the Oreal life& convictions of many Christians, an
a,yss has ,een created.+ (ut today this same )a,yss+ eists ,etween all manner of Church teaching
and the )real life+ of )Christians.+ The name for this a,yss is apostasy, as in the )silent apostasy+ John
*aul // lamented not long ,efore his death. For a #odernist like Masper, however, the proper response
to apostasy is to accommodate it.
Iith all the deviousness of the ecclesial termite he is, Masper ,egins ,y arguing that if a divorced and
remarried Catholic can make a spiritual communion )why can he not then receive Hacramental
communion= /f we eclude divorced and remarried Christians from the sacraments 8.: do we not
perhaps put up for discussion the fundamental sacramental structure of the Church=+ The outrageous
implication of Masper&s ),eautiful and profound presentation+ is that the Church has un0ustly denied the
sacraments to the divorced and remarried for centuries, indeed throughout her history.
Masper introduces his revolutionary proposal for a change in practice with the disclaimer- )/ wish only
to pose >uestions, limiting myself to indicating the direction of possi,le answers.+ The #odernist
typically employs )>uestions+ to sow dou,ts a,out what the Church has always taught, only to supply
an )answer+ that destroys fidelity ,y suggesting that the Church has erred. Thus did Hatan proceed in
the Earden of Eden, opening his deadly dialogue with a seemingly innocent >uery to Eve- )Ihy has
Eod commanded you that you should not eat of every tree in paradise=+ followed ,y the suggestion
that Eve has ,een misled- )'o, you shall not die the death.. 8Een. K-5GD:.+
"ne of the )>uestions+ Masper poses involves another outrageous implication- )The >uestion that is
posed in response is- is it not perhaps an eploitation of the person who is suffering and asking for
help if we make him a sign and a warning for others= Are we going to let him die of hunger
sacramentally in order that others may live=+ /n other words, the Church has cruelly inflicted spiritual
starvation on the divorced and remarried ,y not allowing them to receive Communion ,ecause of their
adultery, sacrificing these poor souls for the ,enefit of the pious. This rank calumny of <oly Church is
Masper&s ),eautiful and profound+ assessment of her perennial practice for protection of the <oly
Eucharist from sacrilege ,y open adulterers.
Masper praises the )heroic virtue+ of a,andoned spouses who never remarry, only to declare
immediately that, nevertheless, )many a,andoned spouses depend, for the good of the children APC, on
a new relationship and a civil marriage which they cannot a,andon without committing new offenses.+
These new relationships, Masper declares, )prove their new 0oy, and even sometimes come to ,e seen
as a gift from heaven.+ Ho Masper&s )profound and ,eautiful+ view of divorce and remarriage is that the
good of children is served when a parent takes up with a new lover and ,rings him or her into the
former marital home, destroying the children&s respect for the sanctity of marriage while inflicting
profound trauma and often permanent psychological harm upon them, and that this adulterous
relationship can even ,e seen as a gift from heaven. <ow can any Catholic remain silent in the face of
this despica,le su,terfuge, which conceals the terri,le evil of divorce ,ehind a lie a,out its ),enefits+=
)Ioe to you that call evil good, and good evil. 8/saiah D-34:.+
Masper then discusses )two situations+ involving the divorced and )remarried.+ The first concerns those
whose marriages in the Church might well have ,een contracted invalidly ,ut who have not o,tained a
decree of annulment and are now in second )marriages+ ,y way of civil ceremony. Hhowing 0ust how
devious he is, Masper argues that the Church cannot simply make annulments easier to o,tain
,ecause, as he rightly o,serves, the spouse opposing annulment 0ustly protests that )we lived
together, we had children@ this was a reality that cannot simply ,e declared null.+ Ho Masper
proposes, not to avoid laity in granting annulments, ,ut rather to dis"ense with the traditional
annulment "rocess altogether.
#any pastors, he argues, are )convinced that many marriages cele,rated in a religious form were not
contracted in a valid manner+ and the traditional presumption of validity should now ,e viewed as a
)fiction.+ (ut, without an annulment, how can a marriage in the Church ,e ignored at the )pastoral+
level= Masper proposes that since the annulment process is only a matter of ecclesiastical law, the
Church could simply allow a local ,ishop to empower a priest )with spiritual and pastoral eperience+
or the diocesan penitentiary or episcopal vicar to make some sort of )pastoral+ decision that the prior
marriage in the Church ought not to impede reception of the (lessed Hacrament ,ecause it was
pro,a,ly invalid. (ut, under this a,surd proposal, who would defend the marital ,ond against such
)pastoral+ determinations and who would review the local )pastoral+ decision= Apparently no,ody. The
potential for marital chaos and the destruction of the divinely ordered nuclear family is selfGevident.
The second situation Masper presents is that )most difficult situation+ of a marriage that was )ratified
and consummated ,etween ,aptiFed persons,+ yet )the communion of married life is irremedia,ly
,roken and one or ,oth of the spouses have contracted a second civil marriage.+ /n other words, a
valid &atholic marriage followed ,y a civil divorce and an adulterous civil union on the part of one or
,oth spouses. <ere Masper contends that )AtChe early Church gives us an indication that can serve as
a means of escape from the dilemma.+ %ilemma= Ihat dilemma= The one Masper has invented.
As we know, when a #odernist wishes to attack some element of the Faith through a change in
discipline, he typically appeals to some alleged practice of the Church around 3,444 years ago. / will
not tarry over Masper&s ,ogus #odernist scholarship, devoid of a single citation to a patristic source
>uoted in contet, or his fraudulent claim that the Council of 'icaea 8K3D: authoriFed the admission of
the divorced and remarried to <oly Communion. 2et the reader consult !o,erto de #attei&s demolition
of Masper&s specious arguments.
<aving imagined an historical foundation in the alwaysGuseful )early Church,+ Masper calmly lays out
his fiveGpoint plan for de facto approval of divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church. <e presents
this as )a way ,eyond rigorism and laity+7meaning, of course, a way to laity-
/f a divorced and remarried Q 5. !epents of the failure in his first marriage, 3. /f he has
clarified the o,ligations of his first marriage, if going ,ack is definitely ecluded, K. /f
he cannot a,andon without other offences to his commitments in the second civil
marriage, 6. /f however, he makes an effort to live in the second marriage to the ,est
of his possi,ilities, starting from the faith and ,ringing his children up in the faith, D. /f
he has the desire for the sacraments as the source of strength in his situation, must
we or can we deny him, after a time of a new course 8metanoia: the sacrament of
penance and then Communion=
Masper claims this is not )a general solution,+ or )a wide road for the great masses,+ ,ut rather )a
narrow way on the part of pro,a,ly very few of the divorced and remarried, interested in the
sacraments.+ /f we would ,elieve that, we would ,e prime customers for the purchase of the (rooklyn
(ridge. Masper assures us that this )solution+ calls for )discretion+ and is )not compromise ,etween
rigorism Ai.e. what the Church has always re>uiredC and laity Ai.e. what Masper wishes to achieveC.+
Masper is right. This is not a compromise ,etween rigorism and laity@ it is simply a prescription for
laity.
(ut Masper&s ),eautiful and profound+ suggestion for authoriFing mass sacrilege is neither profound
nor ,eautiful@ it is evil, as seen immediately from the o,vious o,0ections-
/irst, having )repented+ of the )failure+ of a sacramental marriage, the divorced and
remarried person still remains in an adulterous second union ,ased on nothing more
than a civil ceremony. <ere Masper attempts to patch the gaping hole in his argument
,y defending civil marriage, arguing that a civil marriage )with clear criteria is distinct
from other forms of Oirregular& coha,itation, such as clandestine marriages, common
law couples, a,ove all fornication and soGcalled primitive marriages.+ !eally= "n what
authority does Masper so declare= "n the authority of his own worthless opinion,
which the *ope endorses as ),eautiful and profound.+
Second, the idea that the Church could countenance )living in the second marriage to
the ,est of AitsC possi,ilities+ without the traditional re>uirement of a,stinence from
seual relations is nothing short of monstrous. Consider what Masper is really saying-
that a couple living in an adulterous union should )perfect+ it and "ersist in it until
death, thus defying Haint *aul&s very warning that )neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers. shall possess the kingdom of Eod 85 Cor. 9G54:.+
Third, even more monstrous is the idea that someone living in a continuous state of
adultery, having repented only of the )failure+ of a sacramental marriage, could ,e
allowed to approach the confessional on a regular ,asis without having to confess,
repent of, and promise ,efore Eod to cease his continuing adultery.
/ourth, and most monstrous of all, is the idea that an adulterer in this situation should
have recourse to <oly Communion as a )source of strength+ while he continues to
enjoy the fruits of an adulterous relationshi".
/n a most infuriating #odernist fashion, Masper presents his suggestions for the su,version of <oly
#atrimony under the guise of defending its indissolu,ility- )The indissolu,ility of sacramental marriage
and the impossi,ility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of
the Church&s ,inding faith that cannot ,e a,andoned or undone ,y appealing to a superficial
understanding of cheapened mercy,+ he piously affirms. <e does so in the very process of outlining
a plan to dispense cheapened mercy that would undermine the indissolubility of marriage. <is
proposal, he claims, would ,e a way for the Church )to tolerate that which in itself is impossi,le to
accept.+ 'onsense. Masper is proposing to accept that which is impossi,le to tolerate.
Echoing the *ope&s own sentiments, Masper declares that )AaC pastoral approach of tolerance,
clemency and indulgence+ would affirm that )the sacraments are not a priFe for those who ,ehave well
or for an elite, ecluding those who are most in need.+ "n that ,iFarre premise, everyone in a state of
mortal sin would ,e entitled to receive <oly Communion because he is in a state of mortal sin, while
those who ),ehave well+ would ,e hogging spiritual goods they don&t re>uire.
Ihat Masper is really after7as if anyone didn&t know it7is simply the Catholic Church&s practical
defection from the indissolu,ility of marriage, while affirming it in principle 8the defection in principle
can always come later:. /nsulting <oly Church yet again, he declares that his )solution+ is necessary to
)give witness in a credi,le way to the Iord of Eod in difficult human situations, as a message of
fidelity, ,ut also as a message of mercy, of life, and of 0oy.+ /n other words, until now the Church has
,een without credi,ility and mercy toward the divorced and remarried, her discipline 0oyless and
lifeless, because she heeds "ur 2ord&s divine warning that the divorced and )remarried+ are guilty of
adulteryP Masper&s ),eautiful and profound+ conclusion is thus an implicit attack on Eod <imself. (ut
that, after all, is what #odernism always involves.
Finally, consider the immense stakes involved in this insane pursuit of a way to admit pu,lic adulterers
to the sacraments. <ere / will >uote from Father (rian <arrison&s recent letter to Inside the Vatican.
AICon&t this reversal of ,imillenial Catholic doctrine mean that the *rotestants and
"rthodo, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have
,een more docile to the <oly Hpirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ=
/ndeed, how credi,le, now, will ,e her claim to ,e the true Church= "n what other
controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church ,een wrong, and the
separated ,rethren right= .
Admitting Athe divorced and remarriedC to Communion without a commitment to
continence will lead logically to one of three faithG,reaking conclusions- 8a: our 2ord
was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous7in which case he can scarcely
have ,een the Hon of Eod@ 8,: adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful7in which
case the Church's universal and ordinary magisterium has always ,een wrong@ or 8c:
Communion can ,e given to some who are living in o,0ectively grave sin7in which
case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally ,y always teaching the
opposite, but the way will also be o"ened to &ommunion for fornicators, "racticing
homose/uals, "ederasts, and who %nows who else=
2et us make no mistake- Satan is right now sha%ing the &hurch to her very
foundations over this divorce issue..
%ia,olical is not too strong a word for Masper&s proposal. 1et our friends in the diving ,ell will pretend
that the *ope did not solicit and then praise it. #eanwhile, the world eults over the potential for an
overthrow of the Church&s uncompromising defense of <oly #atrimony. Iill Masper&s proposal
,ecome a reality= Ie must pray that the <oly Ehost prevents such a disaster. 'evertheless, Catholics
deceive themselves, and each other, if they pretend it is not the !o"e himself who7whatever his
su,0ective intention7has stoked the fires of dissent and re,ellion ,y commissioning and then lauding
Masper&s )profound and ,eautiful presentation.+
Part III
Still More 'nsults for Traditionalists
*ope Francis has pu,licly insulted faithful traditional Catholics so many times that one wag at C''
has compiled what he calls )The *ope Francis 2ittle (ook of /nsults.+ The insults keep coming.
"n Fe,ruary 56, during an audience with (ishops of the CFech !epu,lic, the *ope was informed of
the growing num,ers of young people who are attracted to the traditional 2atin #ass. /nstead of
epressing approval of this development as a sign of true renewal in the Church, Francis dismissed
the development, stating that )he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it Athe
2atin #assC.+ Iith amaFing condescension he added- )Ihen / search more thoroughly, / find that it is
rather a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much
attention. /t is 0ust necessary to show some "atience and %indness to "eo"le who are addicted to a
certain fashion. (ut / consider greatly important to go deep into things, ,ecause if we do not go deep,
no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.+
/t must ,e said that Francis appears to ,e guilty of the very fault of which he pu,licly accuses others-
liturgical superficiality, and this to an astonishing degree. /n all candor, it is Francis who has not )gone
deep+ at all ,ut rather rendered the shallowest of 0udgments on a matter that could not ,e more
profound. <ow is it possi,le for a !oman *ontiff to dismiss as )a kind of fashion+ the Church&s received
and approved rite of divine worship down through the centuries, going ,ack at least to the time of
*ope %amasus 8r. K99GKB6:, if not to the Apostles themselves, a work of the <oly Ehost that is nothing
less than the liturgical foundation of Christian civiliFation=
/f anything is )a kind of fashion+ it is the new rite of #ass concocted ,y committee a mere 6D years
ago, which almost immediately collapsed in a welter of previously unthinka,le a,uses and
profanations, including the )*inocchio #ass+ and the )Tango #ass+ over which Francis himself
presided as Cardinal (ergoglio. <ow can Francis defend and even participate in what his own
predecessor admitted is the )collapse of the liturgy+ 8!atFinger, ,ilestones, p. 56B: while disparaging
the #ass that nurtured the faith and heroic virtue of legions of saints and inspired the world&s most
su,lime works of art and architecture and music, including Eregorian and polyphonic chant=
Contrast Francis&s shallow view of the liturgy with the deep understanding so evident in the thinking of
*ope (enedict, which motivated his determination to )li,erate+ the traditional #ass from its false
imprisonment after the Council. As (enedict so famously o,served in his letter to the world&s (ishops
accompanying Summorum !ontificum- )Ihat earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and
great for us too, and it cannot ,e all of a sudden entirely for,idden or even considered harmful. /t
,ehooves all of us to preserve the riches which have develo"ed in the &hurch#s faith and "rayer, and
to give them their "ro"er "lace.+ *ope (enedict knew well what was at stake in freeing liturgical
tradition from its captivity ,y the liturgical fashion police who have thoroughly ,analiFed Catholic
worship since the Council- )(ut when the community of faith, the worldGwide unity of the Church and
her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is
the Church to ,ecome visi,le in her spiritual essence=+ 8,ilestones, 56$:. Ihere else indeed=
Francis&s remark that preserving the Church&s precious liturgical patrimony is merely a matter of
showing )patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion+ evinces a distur,ing
incomprehension of the vital function of the sacred liturgy in the #ystical (ody. Even the young people
whose attraction to the traditional liturgy Francis professes he cannot understand are a,le to see the
reality of the ruinous liturgical impoverishment that has ,een visited upon the Church, the massive
theft from the Church&s treasury of spiritual goods. As *ope (enedict o,served in his historic letter to
the (ishops, it is "recisely young "eo"le who recogniFe what we have lost and are now leading the
movement for its recovery-
/mmediately after the Hecond ;atican Council it was presumed that re>uests for the
use of the 5$93 #issal would ,e limited to the older generation which had grown up
with it, ,ut in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young "ersons too
have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of
encounter with the #ystery of the #ost <oly Eucharist, "articularly suited to them.
(ut where *ope (enedict sees a powerful attraction in young souls to that which is o,0ectively
,eautiful, su,lime, and most appropriate to the worship of Eod7the primary purpose of the liturgy7
*ope Francis, with yet another epression of contempt for his own su,0ects, sees only an )ostentatious
preoccupation for the liturgy,+ as he declared in 0vangelii Gaudium. <is remarks in the &orriere
interview reflect the worrying persistence of an irrational hostility toward the Church&s liturgical
tradition, which it is his duty as *ope to protect and preserve, not ,elittle and disdain.
The 01ishop Tony2 !ffair
Also on Fe,ruary 56, *ope Francis continued to indulge his haFardous penchant for offGtheGcuff
interviews ,y speaking into a smart phone video recorder wielded ,y one )(ishop+ Tony *almer during
a visit at the *ope&s personal residence in Casa Hanta #arta. )(ishop+ Tony, an old friend of the
*ope&s, is the )/nternational Ecumenical "fficer+ for a ,reakaway Anglican sect called the Anglican
Episcopal Church of the CEEC 8Celtic Anglican Tradition:, which ordains women as )priests.+ *almer,
it must ,e noted, did not re>uest a recorded interview. !ather, the !o"e as%ed him )why don&t we
make a video=+7knowing that *almer would show it at an upcoming )*entecostal gathering+
conducted ,y )prosperity Eospel+ *rotestant ministers.
%uring the video Francis stated- )/ am here with my ,rother, my bisho" brother, Tony *almer. <e told
me a,out your conference, your meeting, and it is my pleasure to greet you.+ (ut *almer is no ,ishop.
<e is a layman in a clerical costume. Are we to conclude from the *ope&s remark that he, like Masper,
does not accept the infalli,le teaching of his own predecessor, 2eo ?///, in )"ostolicae &urae 85B$9:
that )Ie pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have ,een,
and are, a,solutely null and utterly void+= That would ,e a grave em,arrassment to *ope Emeritus
(enedict, given that in the C%F&s doctrinal commentary on John *aul //&s Apostolic 2etter )d $uendam
1idem 85$$B:, (enedict, then Cardinal !atFinger, enumerated *ope 2eo&s solemnly declared invalidity
of Anglican orders as )among those truths connected to revelation ,y historical necessity and which
are to be held definitively.+
Francis proceeded to epress to *almer the usual )ecumenical+ ,romide that the division of Christians
is not the result of anything like the spread of 2uther&s heresies, ,ut rather )a long road of sins that we
all shared in. Iho is to ,lame= Ie all share the ,lame..+ The *rotestant re,ellion against divinely
constituted authority, apparently, had nothing to do with it. /n proper ecumenical fashion, Francis
alluded vaguely to a future Christian unity ,ased on feelings of ,rotherhood rather than acceptance of
revealed truth in its entirety- )Ie must cry together like Joseph did. These tears will unite us. The tears
of love.. And let&s pray to the 2ord that he unites us all. Come, we are ,rothers. 'et us give each
other a s"iritual hug, and let Eod complete the work that he has ,egun.+
*almer promptly eploited the video at the conference, calling it )special and historic,+ and using it to
demonstrate that the Catholic Church was coming around to the *rotestant way of thinking. )%iversity
is divine@ it&s division that&s dia,olical,+ declared *almer in praise of the KK,444 *rotestant
denominations that have arisen since )2uther&s protest.+ /n other words, there must ,e )unity in
diversity,+ regardless of doctrinal differences. Hpeaking of the )charismatic renewal,+ *almer eulted-
)It#s the glory that brings us together, not the doctrine. If you acce"t that &hrist is living in me, and the
"resence of God is in me, and the "resence of God is in you, that#s all we need. Because God will sort
out all our doctrines when we get u"stairs.+ This is the heretical nonsense to which the *ope lent the
dignity of the *etrine office.
Ruoting from the 5$$$ )Joint %eclaration on the %octrine of Justification,+ a meaningless piece of
paper signed ,y the nonGauthoritative *ontifical Council for *romoting Christian Lnity and the 2utheran
Iorld Federation, )(ishop+ *almer falsely asserted- )This ,rought an end to the protest of 2uther.
(rothers and sisters, 2uther&s protest is over.+ <e failed to mention the ;atican&s companion document,
which stated that )there are many points of convergence ,etween the Catholic position and the
2utheran position+ and that )AtChe Catholic Church is, however, of the opinion that we cannot yet s"ea%
of a consensus.+ /n other words, the supposed agreement ,etween Catholics and 2utherans
concerning the defined dogma of 0ustification is, like all other claims of )ecumenical progress,+ illusory.
)The protest of 2uther+ goes on, 0ust as it always has, along with divorce, contraception, a,ortion, and
the )ordination+ of women and professed homoseuals in the *rotestant sects7all the )fruits+ of fifty
years of useless )ecumenical dialogue.+
The Twistin+ of Matthew #%:$3%
A week after Masper&s ),eautiful and profound+ attack on <oly #atrimony, the *ope delivered a
sermon 8Fe,ruary 3B: in which he turned the famous account in #atthew 5$-KG$ on its head in order to
0ustify his apparent preoccupation with finding a way to admit o,0ective pu,lic adulterers to <oly
Communion. Francis spoke of the *harisees& attempt to trap "ur 2ord respecting divorce and <is reply
that in marriage )the two ,ecome one flesh.+ 1et the *ope conspicuously omitted any mention of "ur
2ord&s declarations immediately following- )what Eod hath 0oined together let no man put asunder+ and
)whosoever shall put away his wife, ecept it ,e for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery- and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.+
The key verses intentionally passed over in silence, Francis somehow converted "ur 2ord&s fearsome
vindication of the a,solute indissolu,ility of marriage during <is encounter with the casuitical
*harisees into a thinly veiled suggestion that "resent day &atholics are *harisaical for upholding
without compromise "ur 2ord&s teaching against the *hariseesP As Francis opined-
when this love fails, because it fails so many times, we have to feel the pain of the
failure, we have to accom"any those "ersons who have e/"erienced this failure of
their own love. 'ot to condemn themP To walk with themP And to not take a casuistic
attitude towards their situation.
/ronically, the *ope&s twisting of #atthew 5$ into a reprimand of those who defend Christ&s teaching on
the indissolu,ility of marriage re>uired precisely what he condemns in supposedly )rigorist+ Catholics-
casuistry.
A few >uestions on this sermon-
/irst, what does Francis mean ,y )love fails+= #arital love is not a mechanism that
,reaks down under stress through no fault of the operators@ it is a continuing act of the
will, aided ,y the grace of <oly #atrimony. /t is not the sacramental marriage that fails,
for that is an indissolu,le ,ond, ,ut rather one or ,oth spouses in the o,ligation to
respect the ,ond )for ,etter, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health,
until death do us part.+ The results of that moral failure are indeed tragic, ,ut life is
filled with tragedies the Church cannot simply sweep aside in the name of mercy. As
Cardinal #Sller put it in the C%F&s recent doctrinal letter, which Masper was evidently
authoriFed to contest in his address to the cardinals- )A further case for the admission
of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy.. The mystery
of Eod includes not only his mercy ,ut also his holiness and his 0ustice.. Eod&s
mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the
Church.+
Second, who, according to Francis, is )condemning+ the divorced and remarried=
*erhaps it is "ur 2ord <imself, who calls them adulterers in the very verses Francis
failed to mention. (ut no one, in fact, is )condemning+ particular individuals in the
sense of 0udging the state of their souls, much less the imaginary )rigorists+ the *ope
seems to see under every ,ed and around every corner at a time when laity is all ,ut
universal in the Church.
Third, what is the )casuistic attitude+ to which Francis refers= *erhaps it is the
Church&s )rigoristic+ ,imillenial insistence7maintained ,y John *aul //, *ope (enedict
and even Cardinal #SllerP7that the divorced and remarried, without eception, are
not permitted to partake of the (lessed Hacrament unless they commit to ceasing
their adulterous relations.
/ourth, how eactly should we )walk with+ the divorced and remarried other than to
lead them in the way the Church has always indicated= Cardinal Masper has clearly
,een assigned the task of finding a way to )walk+ with them ,y proposing )solutions+
that would allow people living in adultery ,e treated as if they had ,een validly
married ,y civil authorities7despite the continued eistence of a sacramental
marriage with an a,andoned spouseP
"ur friends in the diving ,ell would have it that no one may discuss pu,licly the immense implications
of what the *ope is saying, and what he is doing ,y lauding Masper as point man for a potentially
catastrophic change in Church practice that would reduce her infalli,le doctrine on marriage to a
virtual dead letter. They would counsel keeping >uiet a,out the scandal while the mass media and the
#odernists who have infested the entire hierarchy, including the upcoming Hynod, run riot with it and
create immense pressures for the change. Ie must not ,e >uiet. Ie must eercise our duty as
Catholics and confirmed soldiers of Christ to defend the Church&s traditional doctrine and practice in
the worldwide pu,lic de,ate the *ope has improvidently ignited, which the Catholics in the diving ,ell
propose to ignore.
Part IV
While Pope Francis has not altered any Catholic doctrines in his interviews and disquisitions, he is sowing seeds
of confusion among the faithful, a high price to pay, even for skyrocketing poll numbers"..)atrick J.
1uchanan

4et !nother 56plosive 7ewspaper 'nterview
The *ope continues to give freeGranging, eplosive interviews to /talian newspapers. The latest edition
of this )magisterium+ ,y newspaper is an interview with the editor of &orriere della Sera on #arch D.
As with all the other interviews, this one contains ,om,shells whose detonations the world media duly
note while the diving ,ell constituency covers its ears. / will address si key statements from the
interview-
/irst, confirming eactly what Antonio Hocci was widely ridiculed for suggesting, Francis eplicitly
declares that the Church now has two *opes7a reigning *ope and a retired *ope- )The *ope
emeritus is not a statue in a museum. It is an institution. Ie weren&t used to it. 94 or T4 years ago,
O,ishop emeritus& didn&t eist. /t came after the 8Hecond ;atican: Council. Today, it is an institution. $he
same thing must ha""en for the !o"e emeritus. Benedict is the first and "erha"s there will be others.+
'otice that Francis does not say that the other *opes who have resigned in centuries past had this
status, for in fact they ,ecame cardinals and lost all indices of the papal office. 'o, this is yet another
postGconciliar novelty in the Church. 'ow, a ,ishop emeritus is still a ,ishop ,ecause, in receiving the
fullness of <oly "rders according to a sacramental formula, including the laying on of hands, he
received an indeli,le mark on his soul that can never ,e effaced. (ut a man who ascends to the office
of ;icar of Christ does not undergo any such ontological change. Ho what precisely is Francis
suggesting here= Iho knows= (ut one thing is certain- we are witnessing still more confusion a,out
the distinction ,etween one thing and another that has ,edeviled the Church since the Council. And
confusion in the Church is always a sign of the Adversary at work on her human element.
Second, Francis revealed that he and *ope Emeritus (enedict jointly agreed that (enedict would in
effect )come out of retirement+ despite his earlier statement that he would remain )hidden from the
world.+ Haid Francis- )Ie A(enedict and heC have spoken a,out it and we decided together that it
would ,e ,etter that he sees people, gets out and participates in the life of the Church. <e once came
here for the ,lessing of the statue of Ht. #ichael the Archangel, then to lunch at Hanta #arta and, after
Christmas, / sent him an invitation to participate in the consistory and he accepted. <is wisdom is a gift
of Eod. Home would have wished that he retire to a (enedictine a,,ey far from the ;atican. / thought
of grandparents and their wisdom. Their counsels give strength to the family and they do not deserve
to ,e in an elderly home.+
Ho, as Francis sees it, the newly created *ope Emeritus serves as a kind of consulting *ope to the
reigning *ope. (ut what if the consulting *ope pu,lishes advice that contradicts the reigning *ope7
say, in a newspaper interview with &orriere della Sera= Iell, what&s a little more confusion in the postG
conciliar Church= As Hocci has written regarding Francis&s revelations- )The tempests approach.+
Third, taking aim at the Church&s traditional discipline respecting the divorced and remarried, Francis
continued his theme that it would ,e *harisaical )casuistry+ to continue to refuse to admit them to <oly
Communion-
There are many separated families in which the pro0ect of common life has failed. The
children suffer greatly. Ie must give a response. (ut for this we must reflect very
deeply. /t is that which the Consistory and the Hynod are doing. (e need to avoid
remaining on the surface. $he tem"tation to resolve every "roblem with casuistry is
an error, a simplification of profound things, as the *harisees did, a very superficial
theology. /t is in light of the deep reflection that we will ,e a,le to seriously confront
particular situations, also those of the divorced, with a pastoral depth.
/n other words, Francis is at least considering a )correction+ of the supposedly superficial, *harisaical
theology concerning the divorced and remarried that the Church has always defended. 8/f not, then
what )superficial theology+ is he referring to=: This would apparently involve something along the lines
suggested ,y Cardinal Masper. Francis left no dou,t of this during the interview-
Corriere. Ihy did the speech from Cardinal Ialter Masper during the last consistory
8an a,yss ,etween doctrine on marriage and the family and the real life of many
Christians: so deeply divide the cardinals= <ow do you think the Church can walk
these two years of fatiguing path arriving at a large and serene consensus= If the
doctrine is firm, why is debate necessary2 AEood >uestionPC
/rancis- &ardinal 3as"er made a beautiful and "rofound "resentation that will soon
,e pu,lished in Eerman, and he confronted five points@ the fifth was that of second
marriages. / would have ,een concerned if in the consistory there wasn&t an intense
discussion. /t wouldn&t have served for anything. The cardinals knew that they could
say what they wanted, and they presented many different "oints of view that are
enriching. The fraternal and open comparisons ma%e theological and "astoral thought
grow. / am not afraid of this, actually I see% it.
/ourth, Francis clearly opened the door to )civil unions+ as an accepta,le legal su,stitute for civil
)marriage+ ,etween homoseuals.
Corriere- #any nations have regulated civil unions. /s it a path that the Church can
understand= (ut up to what point=
/rancis- #arriage is ,etween a man and a woman. Hecular states want to 0ustify civil
unions to regulate different situations of coha,itation, pushed ,y the demand to
regulate economic aspects ,etween persons, such as ensuring health care. /t is a,out
pacts of coha,itating of various natures, of which / wouldn&t know how to list the
different ways. 4ne needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their
variety.
(ut there are no )different cases+ of )civil unions.+ /t is only homoseual activists who are promoting
them as a compromise on )gay marriage.+ <ence the mass media immediately seiFed on the o,vious
implication that the *ope has opened the door, at least a crack, to the Church&s acceptance of )gay
marriage+ so long as it is called )civil union.+ As C'' declared, for eample- )*ope Francis- Church
Could Hupport Civil Lnions.+ #eaning, civil unions for )gays,+ who are the only ones demanding them.
Eiven the media storm the *ope&s remark had stirred up, the ;atican issued yet another of its urgent
)clarifications+ of *ope Francis&s remarks. (ut the clarification only confirmed the media&s
interpretation. Father Thomas !osica, the English language spokesman for the <oly Hee *ress "ffice
issued this statement-
The *ope did not choose to enter into de,ates a,out the delicate matter of gay civil
unions. /n his response to the interviewer, he emphasiFed the natural characteristic of
marriage ,etween one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke
a,out the obligation of the state to fulfill its res"onsibilities towards its citi-ens5. !o"e
1rancis sim"ly stated the issues and did not interfere with "ositions held by 0"isco"al
&onferences in various countries dealing with the 6uestion of civil unions and same
se/ marriage.
Just a momentP The state has a,solutely no )responsi,ility toward its citiFens+ to invent civil unions for
sodomites who demand the ,enefits of marriage. "n the contrary, it has a responsi,ility to forbid such
unions for the common good, and Catholics have a duty to oppose them and refuse to cooperate in
their implementation. Accordingly, in 344K the Congregation for the %octrine of the Faith, under the
future *ope (enedict, declared as follows in a document that John *aul // s"ecifically a""roved and
ordered to be "ublished-
/n those situations where homoseual unions have ,een legally recogniFed or have
,een given the legal status and rights ,elonging to marriage, clear and em"hatic
o""osition is a duty. "ne must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the
enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possi,le, from
material cooperation on the level of their application. /n this area, everyone can
eercise the right to conscientious o,0ection.
The Church teaches that respect for homoseual persons cannot lead in any way to
approval of homoseual ,ehaviour or to legal recognition of homose/ual unions. The
common good re>uires that laws recogniFe, promote and protect marriage as the
,asis of the family, the primary unit of society. A&onsiderations *egarding !ro"osals to
Give 'egal *ecognition to 7nions Between omose/ual !ersons, K June 344KC.
Father !osica&s )clarification+ portends Francis&s disastrous a,andonment of this teaching in favor of
the local ,ishops& conferences that have already caved in on )civil unions.+ Then again, it must ,e said
that Father !osica himself seems to ,e at sea over what Francis said to &orriere. As he states- )Ie
should not try to read more into the *ope&s words than what has ,een stated in very general terms.+
<as he not conferred with the *ope on eactly what he meant= "r is !osica, on his own initiative,
engaging in frantic damage control regarding another spontaneous remark Francis uttered without
consulting anyone=
/ifth, Francis dropped a thinly shrouded ,om, concerning umanae Vitae, which the interviewer
,latantly prompted him to undermine ,y reference to the infamous Cardinal #artini, who declared in
344B that )Jesus would never have written umanae Vitae.+ Francis, who has praised #artini as )a
prophetic figure+ and )a man of discernment and peace,+ took the interviewer&s hint-
Corriere: At half a century from *aul ;/&s umanae Vitae, can the Church take up
again the theme of ,irth control= Cardinal #artini, your confrere, thought that the
moment had come.
/rancis- )ll of this de"ends on how umanae Vitae is inter"reted. *aul ;/ himself, at
the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete
situations. (ut his genius was prophetic, he had the courage to place himself against
the ma0ority, defending the moral discipline, eercising a culture ,rake, opposing
present and future neoG#althusianism. $he 6uestion is not that of changing the
doctrine but of going dee"er and ma%ing "astoral 8ministry9 ta%e into account the
situations and that which it is "ossible for "eo"le to do. Also of this we will speak in
the path of the synod.
Ruestions a,ound-
Ihat does Francis mean ,y )how umanae Vitae is interpreted+= There is nothing to
interpret- affirming what the Church has taught for all time, the encyclical
une>uivocally for,ids as )intrinsically wrong+7that is, wrong under any circumstance
7)any action which either ,efore, at the moment of, or after seual intercourse, is
specifically intended to prevent procreation7whether as an end or as a means.+
Ihat does Francis mean ,y )much mercy+= "ne of the spiritual acts of mercy is to
admonish the sinner. #oreover, the Church has always taught that a sinner cannot ,e
granted a,solution a,sent a firm purpose of amendment- )/ firmly resolve with the help
of thy grace. to amend my life. Amen.+ The Church does not dispense her own
)mercy+ as a sort of kindly gratuity, ,ut rather o,tains Christ&s mercy through the
Hacrament of Confession. (ut the mercy of Eod&s forgiveness cannot ,e o,tained
without a sinner&s repentance. <ow can priests show )much mercy+ respecting the
mortal sin of contraception unless a penitent re"ents of it, vowing not to commit it
again=
/f, in the name of )mercy,+ people were to ,e ecused from the o,ligation to cease
contracepting ,ased on )concrete situations+ and what )it is possi,le for people to do,+
what mortal sin would not ,e ecusa,le on those grounds= <ow does this not
represent the threat of a total collapse of the Church&s moral edifice within the
confessional=
"n the other hand, if Francis is not suggesting that confessors allow for the sin of
contraception out of )mercy,+ what does he mean, and what eactly does he have in
mind when he says )also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.+
Si6th- *ursuing his vision of a )synodal+ Catholic Church and a )conversion of the papacy+ in line with
"rthodo theology 8cf. Evangelii gaudium, n. 369: the *ope told &orriere that )"rthodo theology is
very rich. And / ,elieve that they have great theologians at this moment. $heir vision of the &hurch
and of synodality is marvelous.+
Consider- Iith the four ,ishops of the Hociety of Haint *ius ? suddenly ,ack in the )schism+ penalty
,o, even though they affirm the *ope&s authority and indeed appeal to it for an end to the crisis in the
Church, Francis looks to the theology of true schismatics for a )marvelous+ )vision of the Church+
premised precisely on denial of the !o"e#s authorityP #oreover, )marvelous+ "rthodo synodality
involves autocephalous national churches, which, if applied to the Catholic Church, would mean the
destruction of her very unity, if that were possi,le. 'o further comment is necessary.
Conclusion
Ihen *ope John ??// gave his errant sermons on the (eatific ;ision T44 years ago, he encountered
fierce pu,lic opposition until he retracted his error, even though the sermons were heard ,y few and
were pro,a,ly completely unknown to the vast ma0ority of Catholics. Home T44 years later, the
statements of a *ope ,ecome known to the entire world within hours of their utterance and are
amplified and repeated with enormous impact ,y the glo,al mass media. Today, we are witnessing
almost daily scandal provoked ,y a *ope who has rocked the Church and delighted the Church&s
enemies, not with a single erring opinion, ,ut with a cascade of distur,ing remarks and suggested
radical innovations the media eploit to attack the very foundations of the Faith, followed ,y frantic
attempts at )clarification+ ,y the ;atican *ress "ffice. This has ,een going on almost from the moment
*ope Francis said )Eood evening+ on the ,alcony of Haint *eter&s (asilica a year ago, and it has only
gotten worse.
/n the mere three wee%s covered ,y this article, the *ope has managed to do and say enough to
suggest what !o,erto de #attei called )a cultural revolution proposed in the name of prais,+ speaking
only of Cardinal Masper&s stunning advocacy of de facto Church approval of divorce and remarriage in
an address Francis solicited and then praised as ,eautiful and profound. 1et in the midst of the
,ooming eplosions Francis has ,een setting off to the world&s rapturous applause7one after another
in seemingly endless succession7the diving ,ell constituency continues to insist that we ignore the
thunderous noise emanating from !ome, act as if all is well with the papacy, and continue to ,lame the
,ishops alone for everything that has gone wrong in the Church since ;atican //.
/t is time for Catholics to unite in recogniFing that the postGconciliar crisis ,egan with, and is ,eing
perpetuated ,y, acts and omissions of the conciliar *opes, and that it will end only when some *ope7
please Eod, this one7finally acts decisively to steer the (ar>ue of *eter ,ack to the course from
which it deviated nearly half a century ago. /t is time to stop pretending that the *ope&s su,ordinates
are solely to ,lame for what the *ope has done, authoriFed, or tolerated for decades. This pretense
has inflicted immense harm upon the (ody of Christ ,ecause it effectively dispenses with the essential
role of the *ope as supreme ruler of the Church, who is ultimately responsi,le for her state, and
discourages the faithful from eercising their right to protest pu,licly the conse>uences of papal
misrule, which the Church&s enemies are left free pu,licly to praise and promote.
*ope (enedict&s li,eration of the traditional #ass, which immediately launched a worldwide movement
for its restoration, is ,ut one indication of the !oman *ontiff&s singular power to renew and reform a
Church undergoing the deepest of crises. *ope Francis, however, is seemingly intent on disparaging,
if not halting, that liturgical revival and dragging the Church ,ack to the liturgical, theological, and
pastoral tumult of the 5$T4s7with the threat of even more unheardGof novelties to come. To continue
to insist on the ridiculous proposition that the *ope Francis must not ,e criticiFed in pu,lic in the midst
of pu,lic scandals of worldwide magnitude provoked ,y Francis himself, is nothing less than to
,ecome complicit in accelerating the ecclesial autoGdemolition *ope (enedict at least attempted to
arrest. Ihat *ope Francis is doing and saying pu,licly to the Church&s detriment must ,e opposed,
0ust as pu,licly, ,y loyal Catholics who love the Church and cannot ,ear to see the spotless (ride of
Christ humiliated ,efore a gloating world.
1et not a word of this article has ,een written against the person of *ope Francis. 2ike the late %r.
*almaro, whom the !o"e than%ed for his severe "ublic criticism in a news"a"er, we do not )0udge the
*ope as a human person. Ie distinguish the action from the person.+ /ndeed, we ought to presume
that Francis is wellGintentioned@ or even perhaps that his deli,eration, focus and sense of restraint are
somewhat compromised, as would ,e natural with anyone of his advanced age. (ut this does not
change the o,0ective signification of the words Francis utters, or their dangerous am,iguity, or the
confusion and division they have caused. 'or can even the ,est of intentions avoid the damage
Francis is un>uestiona,ly inflicting on the Church&s divinely mandated witness against the errors of
this world.
Four years ,efore his death in 5$TT, the great %ietrich von <ilde,rand, hailed ,y *ope *ius ?// as a
)twentieth century doctor of the Church,+ wrote that )the poison of our epoch is slowly seeping into the
Church herself, and many have failed to see the apocalyptic decline of our time.+ 8$he :evastated
Vineyard, p. TD:. Forty years later the poison of our epoch has penetrated into nearly every corner of
the Church. 'ow there is almost a palpa,le sense that time is running out, that the Church&s human
element is surrendering almost entirely to the spirit of the age, that the apocalyptic decline of our time
has reached a depth that presages divine chastisement.
(y now it should ,e selfGevident to any Catholic who understands the nature of the Church that only
the !o"e has the power to avert what is coming, and that therefore it is the height of folly to pretend
that only the *ope is immune from criticism concerning the disastrous misrule of the Church over the
past halfGcentury. At this turning point in salvation history, when virtually every word and deed of the
*ope is a matter for worldwide discussion, no Catholic worthy of the name should ,e counseling
silence a,out what is happening in the Hee of *eter. To remain silent, to refrain from epressing our
conscientious opposition, is to refuse to dispel scandal among our ,rethren when we have the
o,ligation and the means to do so, and to allow them, and ultimately ourselves, to succum, to the
reigning confusion, which has led to nothing less than mass apostasy.
There will ,e no such silence on these pages. There never has ,een. For silence in the face of grave
harm to the (ride of Christ is not the Catholic way, especially when that harm results from the
notorious pu,lic conduct of a *ope. #ay "ur 2ady of Fatima, to whom *ope Francis&s pontificate is
consecrated, intercede for us, illumine the *ope, and deliver the Church from the peril to which her
own leaders have eposed her.