Circumstances require a bit of an interruption from work on the article that I had intended to have ready for posting today. Given the absurdity of the subject of this commentary, however, please be assured that I will be detaining you for very long.
As you are no doubt aware by now, the “ever-merciful” “Pope Francis” has written to the president of his counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Pontifical” Council for the New Evangelization to grant “jurisdiction” to priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to hear confessions and to give absolution. This is very interesting on number of levels, not the least of which being the fact that Jorge Mario Bergolio is layman who has no authority to confer canonical jurisdiction on anyone, no less to “grant” it to true priests whose very fraternity is not, to use the jargon of the “new ecclesiology, in “full communion” with him as a putative Successor of Saint Peter.
Here is the full text of the letter that Bergoglio has sent to Salvatore “Rino” Fisichella:
To My Venerable Brother
Archbishop Rino Fisichella
President of the Pontifical Council
for the Promotion of the New Evangelization
With the approach of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy I would like to focus on several points which I believe require attention to enable the celebration of the Holy Year to be for all believers a true moment of encounter with the mercy of God. It is indeed my wish that the Jubilee be a living experience of the closeness of the Father, whose tenderness is almost tangible, so that the faith of every believer may be strengthened and thus testimony to it be ever more effective.
My thought first of all goes to all the faithful who, whether in individual Dioceses or as pilgrims to Rome, will experience the grace of the Jubilee. I wish that the Jubilee Indulgence may reach each one as a genuine experience of God’s mercy, which comes to meet each person in the Face of the Father who welcomes and forgives, forgetting completely the sin committed. To experience and obtain the Indulgence, the faithful are called to make a brief pilgrimage to the Holy Door, open in every Cathedral or in the churches designated by the Diocesan Bishop, and in the four Papal Basilicas in Rome, as a sign of the deep desire for true conversion. Likewise, I dispose that the Indulgence may be obtained in the Shrines in which the Door of Mercy is open and in the churches which traditionally are identified as Jubilee Churches. It is important that this moment be linked, first and foremost, to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist with a reflection on mercy. It will be necessary to accompany these celebrations with the profession of faith and with prayer for me and for the intentions that I bear in my heart for the good of the Church and of the entire world.
Additionally, I am thinking of those for whom, for various reasons, it will be impossible to enter the Holy Door, particularly the sick and people who are elderly and alone, often confined to the home. For them it will be of great help to live their sickness and suffering as an experience of closeness to the Lord who in the mystery of his Passion, death and Resurrection indicates the royal road which gives meaning to pain and loneliness. Living with faith and joyful hope this moment of trial, receiving communion or attending Holy Mass and community prayer, even through the various means of communication, will be for them the means of obtaining the Jubilee Indulgence. My thoughts also turn to those incarcerated, whose freedom is limited. The Jubilee Year has always constituted an opportunity for great amnesty, which is intended to include the many people who, despite deserving punishment, have become conscious of the injustice they worked and sincerely wish to re-enter society and make their honest contribution to it. May they all be touched in a tangible way by the mercy of the Father who wants to be close to those who have the greatest need of his forgiveness. They may obtain the Indulgence in the chapels of the prisons. May the gesture of directing their thought and prayer to the Father each time they cross the threshold of their cell signify for them their passage through the Holy Door, because the mercy of God is able to transform hearts, and is also able to transform bars into an experience of freedom.
I have asked the Church in this Jubilee Year to rediscover the richness encompassed by the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The experience of mercy, indeed, becomes visible in the witness of concrete signs as Jesus himself taught us. Each time that one of the faithful personally performs one or more of these actions, he or she shall surely obtain the Jubilee Indulgence. Hence the commitment to live by mercy so as to obtain the grace of complete and exhaustive forgiveness by the power of the love of the Father who excludes no one. The Jubilee Indulgence is thus full, the fruit of the very event which is to be celebrated and experienced with faith, hope and charity.
Furthermore, the Jubilee Indulgence can also be obtained for the deceased. We are bound to them by the witness of faith and charity that they have left us. Thus, as we remember them in the Eucharistic celebration, thus we can, in the great mystery of the Communion of Saints, pray for them, that the merciful Face of the Father free them of every remnant of fault and strongly embrace them in the unending beatitude.
One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.
A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.
Trusting in the intercession of the Mother of Mercy, I entrust the preparations for this Extraordinary Jubilee Year to her protection.
From the Vatican, 1 September 2015
There are several brief points that need to be made before addressing a section of Bergoglio’s letter that is being overlooked in the initial reaction to the news about Society of Saint Pius X.
First, Bergoglio’s letter does not represent a formal recognition” of the inherent ability of the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to administer the Sacrament of Penance, which the Argentine Apostate refers to as the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.” Bergoglio’s letter to Rino Fisichella is merely an indult during a so-called “holy year of mercy” that does not contradict earlier admonitions issued by the conciliar Vatican and its local “bishops” concerning the Society’s lacking jurisdiction to administer the Sacraments. Bergoglio is making it clear that he is establishing something that did not exist before even though the Society's spin doctors are making it appear as though the false pontiff is confirming them in the Society's long-held position that its bishops and priests have had full authority to hear confessions and grant absolution.
Second, Bergoglio's reference to the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" is very important as the counterfeit church of conciliarism does not believe in penance as the path of making satisfaction for sins or as a means of daily sanctity. As far as I am aware, none of the Society's Mass centers labels the Sacrament of Penance as the "Sacrament of Reconciliation." This little drop of poison thus places a bit of subtle pressure upon the Society to get with the nomenclature of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose so-called Roman Rite is guided by the monstrous General Instruction to the Roman Missal that includes the following oft-cited (at least on this site!) parapgrah about the inapplicability of outward signs of penance in today's world:
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
There must be a new language for a new religion and its false liturgical rites, good readers, noting that Bergoglio also referred to the "Sacrament of Confession" in his letter to Rino Fisichella, but not to the Sacrament of Penance.
Third, the transparency of the timing of Bergoglio’s “merciful” treatment of the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X should be apparent to one and all. I mean, one does not have to have a doctorate in Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) or in Canon Law (J.C.D.) to realize that the Argentine Apostate is seeking to blunt as much opposition from within the ranks of “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of his false religious sect just prior to his “apostolic journey” to the Marxist-Leninist, single-party “Republic” of Cuba and the United States of America that begins on September 19, 2015, the Feast of Saint Januarius, and ends on September 28, 2015, Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, and prior to his “synod of bishops” on the family that will provide a means, albeit by various feats of circumlocution, for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics to receive what purports to be “Holy Communion” in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and to provide “mercy” to those who are said to be “stable” and “loving” “same-sex relationships” and/or have paid for their bodies to be surgically mutilated in the delusion of changing the gender given them by God. This is transparent. It is evident.
“Pacification of spirits” has been what Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2008, have sought to accomplish, doing so with remarkable overall progress if one considers the complete surrender of the priests/presbyters within the indult/Motu world to the “need” to remain silent about things that many of them know are offensive to God and repugnant to the spiritual and temporal good of souls in exchange for the “privilege” of remaining in communion with known heretics, blasphemers and apostates. Some exchange. Indeed, this is an exchange made in Hell itself.
Wojtyla/John Paul II and Benedict XVI were so kind as to tell us that they wanted to silence those who had a misguided view of the “Second” Vatican Council in order to “break down” “one-sided” attitudes in order to accept the false doctrines of conciliarism according to the Modernism's "evolution of dogma," although both the Polish Personalist and the Bavarian Balthasarian used different phrases to disguise the reality of a concept that is both philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned.
Indeed, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II noted specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)
5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.
a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.
To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)
However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)
Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that was reviewed most recently in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.
Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable. (Obviously, the Society of Saint Pius X is still trying to having both ways by claiming fealty to the man they believe is the Vicar of Christ on earth while disobeying him openly and refusing to accept the orthodoxy of at least some of his teachings. See the post at Novus Ordo Watch Wire: Twelve Inconvenient Questions for the Society of Saint Pius X.)
Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who repackaged his predecessor’s “living tradition,” itself nothing other than Modernism’s philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “evolution of dogma,” as the “hermeneutic of continuity,” was quite specific about the necessity of using Summorum Pontificum as the means to “pacify spirits”:
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)
Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?
Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.
On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)
Those who do not see that Jorge is trying to silence the bishops, priests and lay faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X have to close their eyes to the truth, which, if you think about it, is just a continuation of the over forty year delusion that one can recognize a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter while picking and choosing those of his teachings that contradict the teaching of Holy Mother Church’s twenty general councils and of her true popes prior to the “election” Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. To be lulled into this trap at this late date, especially with everything that Bergoglio has said and done since March 13, 2013, is truly inexcusable.
Fourth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, apart from having excommunicated himself from the bosom of the Catholic Church by virtue of his public adherence to countless heresies and his manifestly scandalous participation in the supposed “religious ceremonies” of false religions long, long before he stepped out on the balcony of Basilica of Saint Peter to manifest his thoroughly heretical beliefs universally as the supposed Successor of Saint Peter, is a layman. He is neither a true priest nor a true bishop. He has no authority from the Catholic Church to give any kind of legitimate commands or grant any kind of “merciful” indults. Those unconvinced about the falsity of the conciliar rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination should review the material in the appendix below.
Fifth, it should go without saying that the indult Bergoglio extended to the Society of Saint Pius X yesterday, the Feast of Saint Giles and the Commemoration of the Twelve Holy Brothers, helps to prepare the way for its bishops and priests to be received into “full communion” with a false religious sect that teaches and acts in a manner that is demonstrative of Antichrist, not Christ the King, and that makes a mockery of each of the Ten Commandments both in doctrine and in praxis.
Sixth, perhaps even more importantly than Berogoglio’s proviso concerning the Society of Saint Pius X is the apostate’s treatment of the moral crime of abortion, which is willful murder, that minimizes its horror while using almost the exact same language about a supposedly difficult, existential "decision” facing a woman who finds herself pregnant unexpectedly. The man most people in the world believe is “Pope Francis” clearly does not believe that fornication is any kind of real problem and he clearly finds no blame to be assigned to those who use the privileges God Himself has reserved for the married state in a sinful manner. Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that a woman should be “surprised” to find herself pregnant even though the conception of a child is the nature of the exercise of the marital privilege during a woman’s fertile years of childbearing.
Perhaps even more shockingly, the lay Jesuit revolutionary who turns seventy-nine years of age in three and one-half months, referred to the unspeakable crime of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in almost exactly the same terms as that used by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in his infamous commencement address at the University of Notre Dame du Lac, Notre Dame, Indiana, on Sunday, May 17, 2009, the Fifth Sunday after Easter.
Consider Bergoglio’s choice of language in the letter to Rino Fisichella that was released yesterday with that of Obama’s seventy-five and one-half months ago:
Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. (Jorge to Rino: Yo, Time to Blow Some More Smoke in the Faces of the Gullible.)
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.
He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama/Soetoro Speech at the University of Notre Dame du Lac.)
Although Bergoglio is not wrong in saying that many women have killed their babies surgically as a result of pressure being placed upon them by the fathers of their children and/or their own parents and friends, to say nothing of the butchers at facilities such as Planned Barrenhood and of obstetricians and gynecologists who love to strike fear into the hearts of older women about the "dangers" to themeslves and their preborn child if they do not kill the baby, the false "pope" does not name the source of this pressure, thus leaving open for the consideration of other "pressures" (such as the necessity of holding onto a particular job, pursuing one's studies, facing economic poverty, the possibility of a child to be born with one or more birth defects) as making a woman's "decision" more difficult to the extent that they experience what he describes as an "existential and moral ordeal." Obama/Soetoro referred to a "heart-rending decision."
Without for a moment minimizing the scars of women who have had their babies killed by surgical executioners, the fact remains that there is no "decision" to be made, only a child to be welcomed and love unto his eternal salvation. A woman must be instructed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance that she must be sorry not only for the act of child-killing but must repent of the act of fornication that led to the conception of the child she paid to have murdered if she is in the state or to repent for the act of adultery in the case of a married woman. Moreover, married women who have killed their children because of pressure from husbands and/or the various ecomonic considerations must be counseled to welcome as many or as few children as God wills for them to have without seeking to frustrate the natural process of the transmission of life. Then again, the counterfeit church of concilairism has inverted the ends of marriage, making it "understandable" to the likes of Bergoglio that a married woman might have to "agonize" over accepting the child given her by God.
It is no accident that the figure of Antichrist in the White House who supports unrestricted baby-killing and the figure of Antichrist in the Casa Santa Marta within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River who says tht he is opposed such killing speak of the crime of willful murder with such great "understanding" of the "difficulties" involved. Most, although far from all, of those "difficulties," however, are entirely self-made, stemming from an unwillingess to keep oneself from the near occasion of sin and a casual embrace of contraception as that which is normal, natural and completely morally acceptable.
To write as "Pope Francis" did to Salvatore Rino Fisichella makes it appear as though there are circumstances in which a woman may be convinced that it is "necessary" for her to kill her preborn child and that she can do so with the certain knowledge of absolution in the conciliar church's "Sacrament of Reconciliation" no matter her rationale for having done so. A good confessor must make the necessary distinctions in each circumstance is presented before him, and if he cannot administer absolution if it is his judgment that the pentinent is not comittted to amend her life after having killed the fruit of her womb. Will she give up her sins of fornication if she is single or, if giving, give up her adultery?
These are not heartless or insensitive questions. As the late Father John Joseph Sullivan instructed his students at Holy Apostles Seminary when I was his student there, priests do not beat up penitents in the confession. At the same time, however, they have the obligation to ask prudent questions in a fatherly manner that bear on the circumstances of a sin if they judge such questions necessary. Bergoglio, though, is making it appear as though there can never be a circumstance in which a woman who has killed her child can be denied absolution (not that it is available from a conciliar presbyter, of course) in the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.” Sadly, there are such circumstances if a priest judges that there is not true contrition and a firm purpose on the part of the penitent to amend his life. Bergoglio is making it appear that the retention of sins in the case of abortion would not be “merciful.”
Well, not if you consider the man to whom Jorge addressed his letter, Salvatore Rino Fisichell.
Who is Salvatore Rino Fisichella?
Well, have you no powers of recollection?
Let me refresh your memories for you.
The conciliarists also get pretty touchy when one criticizes the "suffering 'pope'" for his committing, in the objective order of things, Mortal Sins against the First and Second Commandments by esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and when he terms their places of false worship as "sacred" to the true God of Divine Revelation. And this is to say nothing of how touchy officials in the Vatican become when anyone should question whether "Pope" John Paul II fulfilled Our Lady's Fatima request for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops or when anyone should question whether Our Lady's actual Third Secret has been released. Would anyone care to deny this for the public record? Can we say the word "suspension" of any priest, whether truly ordained or not, who has questioned these matters?
The conciliar revolutionaries have also gotten very touchy over criticism directed at the president of the "Pontifical Academy for Life," "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella (whose first name is Salvatore but is referred to most commonly in the media by his middle name, Rino) who had said last year that the conciliar "bishop" of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who had excommunicated the physicians who killed the twin preborn babies of a nine year-old girl was incorrect, making it appear to all the world, especially those who understand the plain use of language, that he condoned those killings. Here is just a reminder of a story that I carried earlier this year:
ROME, February 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), has told the Associated Press that he has no intention of stepping down after five senior members of the Academy issued a statement last week expressing their loss of confidence in his leadership.
“I won’t respond to these people. Too much space already has been given to them,” Fisichella told AP.
Fisichella’s response follows comments late last week from Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See Press Office and a subordinate of the cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who told media that the statement has not been received by either the pope or Bertone. Lombardi, who has gone on record supporting Fisichella, told the Catholic News Agency that issuing the statement to the press was an “astonishing” move.
The author of the statement, Luke Gormally, an Ordinary Member of the Academy and the former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told LSN that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further.
Gormally told LSN, “Certainly, for the immediate future I have no further action in mind.”
The five signatories to the statement say they believe that Archbishop Fisichella’s speech at the Academy’s plenary meeting made it clear that he does not grasp the meaning of the Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition on the killing of unborn children.
His speech, they said, “had the effect of confirming in the minds of many academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails.” They called this an “absurd” situation.
Fisichella, they said, maintained that the article he wrote last year, which appeared to condone the abortion of the twin children of a nine-year-old rape victim in Brazil, had been “vindicated” by a clarification issued in July 2009 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.
“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” he wrote.
These assertions were roundly refuted at the time by a statement from the Brazilian diocese detailing the assistance that the girl and her family had been receiving from the local priest and the diocese before she was spirited away by a pro-abortion group for the abortion. This response was never given space in either the secular press or in L’Osservatore Romano and no official response to it was ever publicly made by any office of the Vatican, although Bishop Cardoso was later honoured for his actions by the pro-life group Human Life International.
Gormally told LSN today that his statement had originally been meant only as his own response to LSN’s request for information on the outcome of the PAV plenary meeting, but that later other members expressed an interest in signing. The group later released it to other news outlets.
He said he is “content” with the situation as it is and said that the statement has achieved what it set out to do by clarifying for the public what he believes the true situation is with the Academy. The statement said that within the Vatican Curia, it is “widely perceived” that Fisichella is an “inappropriate” president of the Academy.
Gormally told AP that an article by Catholic News Service, in which Fisichella had declared that there was “harmony” at the PAV plenary meeting, had been a work of deliberate “disinformation.” The statement, he said, had corrected this situation.
On Friday, February 19, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said the statement by the five PAV members “was received neither by the Holy Father, nor by the cardinal Secretary of State, who would seem to be the natural recipients,” nor, he said, had it been presented at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, “which would have been the natural place to address the matter.”
“It’s a bit strange that persons who are members of an academy address a request of this kind without addressing it to the competent authorities. It’s astounding and seems incorrect that such a document should be given public circulation,” Lombardi said.
However, Fr. Lombardi himself has had a hand in the growth of the controversy surrounding the PAV and Archbishop Fisichella’s article.
On March 21 2009, just days after Fisichella’s article was published, Fr. Lombardi, while accompanying the pope on a visit to Africa, told media that in his speech to Angolan dignitaries Benedict XVI had in no way intended to condemn “therapeutic abortion.” In his speech, Pope Benedict had observed, “How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare!”
Lombardi, aware of the growing scandal surrounding Fisichella’s statements, hastened to assure journalists that the comments had nothing to do with the Brazilian case, and openly endorsed Fisichella’s assertions.
He said, “In this regard the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply, when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something quite different … The Pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.”
Fr. Lombardi later declined LSN’s direct request for a clarification of his remarks. (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also So Long to the Fifth Commandment, the Statement of those "Pontifical Academy for Life" members who criticized Fisichella, Dr. Marian Therese Horvat's The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position, and Rotten To The Very Roots.)
See Vatican officials criticized. See Vatican officials circle the wagons and shoot at the critics. See defections from the Holy Faith up close and personal. And is Benedict/Ratzinger who has indeed appointed Fisichella to oversee his "new evangelization" effort? (See Benedict Creates Office to Evangelize the West.) It is impossible to make any of this up. It's just not possible to do so. (As found in: Touchy, Touchy, June 30, 2010.)
Consider one passage from the above-quoted text:
Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.
“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” he wrote.
Failing to meet the “pastoral needs of the girl”?
How is the execution of twin babies meeting anyone's "pastoral needs"?
Ah, this is why I believe that Jorge’s supposedly “merciful” invitation to women who have killed their babies to receive absolution is nothing other than a smoke screen to minimize the crime of willful murder without exhorting those who violating the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to reform their lives. Additionally, of course, most conciliar “ordinaries” have already delegated the ability of their priests/presbyters to absolve the moral crime of abortion thus making Bergoglio’s big show of “mercy” in a letter addressed to a man who had the temerity six years ago to condemn a conciliar “bishop” for excommunicating a baby-killer just as much of a smoke screen as his “overture” to the Society of Saint Pius X.
The hour is late (or early!),
Every Rosary we pray, offered up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church Militant on earth and for that of the world-at-large, and those of the whole world, including the conciliarists who blaspheme God regularly by means of lies such as the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
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. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.
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.
Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.