ByBishop Carlo Maria Viganò
10/26/2020
[color][size][font]


On the occasion of the Rome Film Festival, yesterday the director Evgeny Afineevsky presented a docuмentary entitled Francesco in which some interviews that have been made with Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the last years of his pontificate are reproduced. Among the other statements, some phrases related to the civil union of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have caused confusion. “What we have to do is a law for civil unions. In this way they will be protected by the law. I am in favor of it.
I believe that both the simple faithful and the bishops and priests have felt betrayed by what Bergoglio has affirmed. It does not take a theologian to understand that the approval of civil unions openly contradicts the docuмents of the Magisterium of the Church, including the most recent ones. It also constitutes a very serious endorsement of the LGBTQ ideology that is currently imposed worldwide.
These days the Italian Parliament will have to debate the approval of the so-called Zan law, at the proposal of the Democratic Party. In the name of the protection of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and transsɛҳuąƖs, it will be considered a crime to affirm that the natural family is the cell of human society, and whoever affirms that sodomy is a sin that cries out for vengeance to God will be punished. Bergoglio's words have already been accepted around the world by the gαy lobby as an authorized endorsement of his demands.
Reading Bergoglio's statements carefully, some have observed that they do not approve of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, but that it is simply a welcoming gesture - perhaps poorly formulated - towards those who ask the State for legal protection. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already unequivocally clarified that in no case can a Catholic approve civil unions, because they suppose the legitimization of the concubinage and are but a step towards the legal recognition of alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages. To such an extent that today in Italy it is possible for people of the same sex to marry , after having been assured for years - even by politicians who call themselves Catholic - that relationships in fact would not question marriage as it is defined in the Constitution.
On the other hand, experience has taught us that when Bergoglio says something he says it with a very precise objective: that others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers around the world announce: "The Pope approves gαy marriage ", although that is not exactly what he said. But that is neither more nor less what he and the gαy lobby wanted to achieve .Then the Vatican Press Office will say that what Bergoglio said was the object of a misunderstanding; that this is an old interview and that the Church reiterates its condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as inherently disorderly. However, the damage has already been done, and even any step back in relation to this scandal will be a step forward towards single thinking and political correctness. Let's not forget the dire results of his 2013 statement, "Who am I to judge?", Which earned him the cover and man of the year title in The Advocate *. (* Magazine that is the main means of communication of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ movement in the USA - N. del T.)
Bergoglio has affirmed: “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have the right to be part of a family. They are children of God and have the right to a family. No one should be excluded or suffer because of it. ' All the baptized are children of God; the Gospel teaches us. But a son can be good bad, and if he violates the Commandments of God, not because he is his son will he get rid of the punishment, the same as an Italian who steals does not get out of jail for the mere fact of being a citizen of the country in the who commits the crime. God's mercy does not dispense with justice, and if we think that the Lord shed his Blood on the Cross to redeem us, we cannot help but aspire to holiness by adjusting our behavior to his will. Our Lord said: "You are my friends, if you do what I command you" (Jn.15, 14).
If family or social exclusion derives from provocative behaviors or ideological claims that cannot be shared - for example, gαy pride - it is nothing more than a consequence of an attitude of defiance, and as such comes from those who use that attitude to harm the neighbor. If, on the other hand, such discrimination is against those who behave like everyone else respecting others and without imposing their way of life, they are unjustly condemned.
We know very well that what the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby wants is not the integration of normal and honest people, but to impose seriously sinful models of life that destabilize society, and that are always instrumentalized to destroy the family and society. It is not by chance that the promotion of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ project is part of the World Cup project and goes hand in hand with the destruction of the natural family.
In the Dicastery for Communications of the Holy See, the Jesuit James Martin works as an advisor, who is one of the most ardent defenders of the LGTBQ program and the indiscriminate reception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the Church. As soon as the news of Bergoglio's statements was released, Fr. Martin flooded social networks with messages expressing his irrepressible satisfaction for this gesture, which, on the other hand, has scandalized the majority of the faithful.
Besides Fr. Martin there are cardinals, bishops and other priests and religious who belong to the pink mafia. Some of them have been investigated and convicted of very serious crimes, almost always linked to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ environments. How are we going to think that a clique of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the staff is not very interested in leading Bergoglio to defend a vice that they share and practice?
I will also say that it is proper to Bergoglian behavior to play equivocation, provocation - "God is not Catholic," he said - or else to let others finish a speech that he began. We have already seen it with Amoris laetitia: without going so far as to blatantly contradict the Catholic doctrine on the impossibility of the divorced from receiving the sacraments, he allowed other prelates to do so, to later approve what they affirmed and stubbornly giving silence in response to the dubia of four cardinals.
It may be asked: for what purpose does the Pope act in this way, when his predecessors were always very clear on moral issues? I don't know what Bergoglio has on his mind; I limit myself to proposing an explanation for his actions and his words. And I think I can affirm that an intentionally hypocritical and Jesuit attitude is revealed. Behind his statements is an attempt to arouse the reaction of the healthy part of the Church, provoking it with heretical statements, disconcerting gestures and docuмents that contradict the Magisterium. And at the same time pleasing those who support him, especially non-Catholics or nominal Catholics.
By dint of provocation, he hopes that some bishops will tire of seeing doctrine and morals attacked on a daily basis. He hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his removal. With this, Bergoglio would have a pretext to accuse those prelates of being enemies of the Pope, of having left the Church, of desiring a schism. It is clear that whoever separates from the Church is not the one who wants to be faithful to the Magisterium; it would be absurd.
In a way, Bergoglio's behavior is in the same style as that of Italian President Conte. Both the one and the other, well thought out, were those who wanted in that position the elite itself, numerically minority but powerful and organized, in order to destroy the institution that each represents; both abuse power by breaking the law; both accuse those who denounce their abuses of being enemies of the institution, when in fact they defend it from them. And finally, both are distinguished by an overwhelming mediocrity.
If canonically it is unthinkable to excommunicate a Catholic for the mere fact of wanting to remain a Catholic, politically and strategically this abuse could allow Bergoglio to expel his adversaries from the Church consolidating his own power. I emphasize: we are not talking about a legitimate operation, but about an abuse that, however, no one would be in a position to prevent, given that Sedes prima a nemine judicatur. And just as the deposition of a heretical pope is a canonical question that has never been resolved, on which there is no unanimous consensus of the canonists, whoever accused Bergoglio of heresy would get into an impasse and would hardly achieve anything.
In my opinion, that would be precisely what Bergoglio's magic circle proposes : to reach the paradoxical situation that those who are recognized as pope are at the same time in a state of schism with the ruling Church while those whom they declare schismatics by disobedient are expelled from the Church precisely because they are Catholic.
Bergoglio's action is above all a revolt directed outside the Church. The encyclical Fratelli tutti is an ideological manifesto that has nothing for Catholic and nothing for Catholics; It is the umpteenth embrace of the Masonic matrix, in which universal brotherhood is not achieved, as the Gospel teaches, by recognizing the fatherhood of God through belonging to the only Church, but by reducing all religions to a lowest common denominator which is expressed in solidarity, respect for the environment and pacifism.
Acting in this way, Bergoglio presents himself as a candidate for pontiff of a new religion with new commandments, new morals and new liturgy. It distances itself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the world dictatorship. Whoever does not conform to this new code will be excluded from society and this new church as a foreign body.
On October 20, the Pope prayed for peace with representatives of the world's religions; the motto of that ecuмenical ceremony was Nobody Saves Alone. But that prayer was addressed indistinctly to the true God and the false pagan gods, implying that the ecuмenism propagated by Bergoglio has the object of excluding Our Lord from human society, because Jesus Christ is considered a cause of division and a stumbling block. Thus, modern man believes he can achieve peace regardless of the One who said of Himself: «I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except through Me ”(Jn.14,6). It is painful to note that Jorge Mario Bergoglio adheres to this apostasy of the nations that were Christian, when he should be the Vicar and not the enemy of Christ.
Three days ago, the press spread the news that the Pope will not celebrate the Mass of the Rooster this Christmas. I will limit myself to stating that a few days ago, in a state of emergency due to the covid, it was considered possible to celebrate an ecuмenical rite in the presence of the faithful and the authorities, all wearing a mask. And instead, in the much larger space of the Vatican basilica, someone has considered it unwise to celebrate the Birth of the Savior on the holy night of Christmas.
If this decision is confirmed, we will know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio prefers to celebrate himself by supporting the unique thought and the syncretistic ideology of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr to kneel at the foot of the manger where the King of Kings is lying.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
October 22, 2020
(Translated by Bruno of the Immaculate / Onward Faith)[/font][/size][/color]

"By dint of provocation, he hopes that some bishops will tire of seeing doctrine and morals attacked on a daily basis. He hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his removal. With this, Bergoglio would have a pretext to accuse those prelates of being enemies of the Pope, of having left the Church, of desiring a schism. It is clear that whoever separates from the Church is not the one who wants to be faithful to the Magisterium; it would be absurd."

Commentary:

This fear of Vigano's confuses me:

He seems to fear exactly what I am praying for: A movement of cardinals and bishops declaring the pope's heresy and deposition.

His words would seem to have a chilling effect on such hopes.

Why would he want to do that???

A more suspicious man might think he tipped his cards here a bit too much, revealing himself as false opposition.

I certainly am not making that accusation, but the thought does linger a bit.

"Don't depose the pope; he'll declare you schismatics" doesn't have much in it to fear.

Yet he seems to want to stop that from happening (which is the same thing as saying he wants Francis to remain in power?).

"By dint of provocation, he hopes that some bishops will tire of seeing doctrine and morals attacked on a daily basis. He hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his removal. With this, Bergoglio would have a pretext to accuse those prelates of being enemies of the Pope, of having left the Church, of desiring a schism. It is clear that whoever separates from the Church is not the one who wants to be faithful to the Magisterium; it would be absurd."

Commentary:

This fear of Vigano's confuses me:

He seems to fear exactly what I am praying for: A movement of cardinals and bishops declaring the pope's heresy and deposition.

His words would seem to have a chilling effect on such hopes.

Why would he want to do that???

A more suspicious man might think he tipped his cards here a bit too much, revealing himself as false opposition.

I certainly am not making that accusation, but the thought does linger a bit.

"Don't depose the pope; he'll declare you schismatics" doesn't have much in it to fear.

Yet he seems to want to stop that from happening (which is the same thing as saying he wants Francis to remain in power?).

Or woman.  And I do.  

"By dint of provocation, he hopes that some bishops will tire of seeing doctrine and morals attacked on a daily basis. He hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his removal. With this, Bergoglio would have a pretext to accuse those prelates of being enemies of the Pope, of having left the Church, of desiring a schism. It is clear that whoever separates from the Church is not the one who wants to be faithful to the Magisterium; it would be absurd."

Commentary:

This fear of Vigano's confuses me:

He seems to fear exactly what I am praying for: A movement of cardinals and bishops declaring the pope's heresy and deposition.

His words would seem to have a chilling effect on such hopes.

Why would he want to do that???

A more suspicious man might think he tipped his cards here a bit too much, revealing himself as false opposition.

I certainly am not making that accusation, but the thought does linger a bit.

"Don't depose the pope; he'll declare you schismatics" doesn't have much in it to fear.

Yet he seems to want to stop that from happening (which is the same thing as saying he wants Francis to remain in power?).

Read yet another way, he could simply be revealing Bergoglio's strategy, but then saying how asinine it is ("It is clear that whoever separates from the Church is not the one who wants to be faithful to the Magisterium; it would be absurd.").

I really can't tell which is the case: My first interpretation, or this one.

But the thought lingers that in a couple recent letters, he seems to be encouraging the cardinals/bishops to desist from deposing the pope by suggesting that is what Bergoglio wants.

To me, that makes no sense: 

If a group of cardinals/bishops declares his heresy, how does that REALLY help Francis?  

++Vigano packages it as a way for Francis to rid himself of his enemies and steamroll through the rest of the hierarchy.

Yet any sizable group of cardinals/bishops who no longer regarded him as pope would cast doubt upon everything Francis did subsequently, so again, without coming to any conclusions, I am confused by this perspective of ++Vigano.