It seems that Bergoglio is impudently attempting to "raise the stakes" in a crescendo of heretical assertions, so as to force the healthy part of the Church - which includes bishops, priests and faithful - to accuse him of heresy, in order to declare this healthy part of the Church schismatic and "enemy of the Pope.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio attempts to force certain cardinals and bishops to separate from communion with him, thus obtaining not his own deposition for heresy but rather the expulsion of Catholics who want to remain faithful to the perennial magisterium of the Church. The purpose of this trap would be - according to the presumed intentions of Bergoglio and his "magic circle" - to consolidate his own power within a church that would have no more "Catholic" than the name, but which would in reality be heretical and schismatic.

I await your declaration of heresy ++Vigano.  Or is this theory your get out of jail free card?

Good job, +Vigano!  He's waking up a lot of people.

Common ground at last:
Please, please declare his heresy and deposition!!!

I'm confused.  Would you become a sedevacantist if Vigano declared his heresy and deposition or would you condemn Vigano?

If even a small minority of bishops/cardinals with current jurisdiction (10%+) convened a council to declare the heresy of Francis, then convened a 2nd council to declare that God had deposed him, I would join them and declare sedevacante.

But not without them.

Agree.  But it could happen at the same council/committee.

Agree.  But it could happen at the same council/committee.

Since that seems to have been the heart of the debate between Bellarmine (1 council) and JST/Cajetan (2 councils), rendering the issue uncertain (therefore leaving us at liberty to follow either opinion), I agree.

OK. Cool. But what when the pope they elect goes back to Pope Saint John Paul II the Great as their model and not Pope Saint Pius X?

Presuming such a pope-elect had UPA, then they will have to convene another council to declare his heresy and deposition, and so on, and so on.

Cardinal Burke joins the party:


Statement on the Declarations of Pope Francis Regarding Civil Unions

ON OCT 22, 2020

The worldwide communications media have reported with strong emphasis, as a change of course, the news that Pope Francis has declared that persons in the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ condition, as children of God, “have a right to have a family” and that “no one should be thrown out or be made unhappy because of it.” Moreover, they write that he has declared: “What we have to create is a civil union. In this way they will be legally covered. I have defended this.” The declarations were made in an interview with Evgeny Afineevsky, director of a docuмentary, “Francesco,” premiered on October 21, 2020, on the occasion of the Rome Film Festival (Festa del Film di Roma).

Such declarations generate great bewilderment and cause confusion and error among Catholic faithful, inasmuch as they are contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and of the recent Magisterium by which the Church guards, protects and interprets the whole deposit of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They cause wonderment and error regarding the Church’s teaching among people of good will, who sincerely wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches. They impose upon pastors of souls the duty of conscience to make fitting and necessary clarifications.

First of all, the context and the occasion of such declarations make them devoid of any magisterial weight. They are rightly interpreted as simple private opinions of the person who made them. These declarations do not bind, in any manner, the consciences of the faithful who are rather obliged to adhere with religious submission to what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the ordinary Magisterium of the Church teach on the matter in question. In particular, the following are to be noted.

1. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that 'ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are intrinsically disordered'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2357; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning sɛҳuąƖ Ethics, no. VIII[1]), inasmuch as they are contrary to the natural law, closed to the gift of life and void of a true affective and sɛҳuąƖ complementarity. Therefore, they cannot be approved.

2. The particular and sometimes deep-seated tendencies of persons, men and women, in the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ condition, which are for them a trial, although they may not in themselves constitute a sin, represent nonetheless an objectively disordered inclination (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖitatis problema, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Persons,” no. 3[2]). They are, therefore, to be received with respect, compassion and sensitivity, avoiding any unjust discrimination. The Catholic faith teaches the faithful to hate sin but to love the sinner.

3. The faithful, and, in particular, Catholic politicians are held to oppose the legal recognition of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Persons,Diverse questioni concernenti l’omosessualità, n. 10[3]). The right to form a family is not a private right to vindicate but must correspond to the plan of the Creator Who has willed the human being in sɛҳuąƖ difference, “male and female He created them” (Gen 1, 27), thus calling man, male and female, to the transmission of life. “Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.” (Ibidem, no. 9[4]). To speak of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ union, in the same sense as the conjugal union of the married, is, in fact, profoundly misleading, because there can be no such union between persons of the same sex. In what regards the administration of justice, persons in the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ condition, as all citizens, can always make use of the provisions of law to safeguard their private rights.

It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is guarded, protected and interpreted by the Magisterium. Equally sad and concerning is the turmoil, confusion, and error they cause among the Catholic faithful, as is the scandal they cause, in general, by giving the totally false impression that the Catholic Church has had a change of course, that is, has changed its perennial teaching regarding such fundamental and critical questions.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Rome, October 22, 2020


[1] “... suapte intrinseca natura esse inordinatos.” Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio, Persona humana, “De quibusdam quaestionibus ad sɛҳuąƖem ethicam spectantibus,” 29 Decembris 1975, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 68 (1976) 85, n. 8. English Translation, p. 5, VIII.
[2] Cf. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Epistula, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖitatis problema, “Ad universos catholicae Ecclesiae episcopos de pastorali personarum ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖium cura,” 1 Octobris 1986, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 79 (1987) 544, n. 3. English Translation, pp. 1-2, no. 3.
[3] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Nota, Diverse quaestioni concernenti l’omosessualità, “De contubernalibus eiusdem sexus quoad iuridica a consectaria contubernii,” 3 Iunii 2003, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 96 (2004) 48, n. 10. English translation: English Translation, pp. 5-6, no. 10.
[4] “Poiché le coppie matrimoniali svolgono il ruolo di garantire l’ordine delle generazioni e sono quindi di eminente interesse pubblico, il diritto civile conferisce loro un riconoscimento istituzionale. Le unioni omosessuali invece non esigono una specifica attenzione da parte dell’ordinamento giuridico, perché non rivestono il suddetto ruolo per il bene comune.” Ibid., 47, n. 9. English translation: Ibid., p. 5, no. 9.