Jorge Demands That His Clergy Suborn Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance

There is really no need to repeat in this commentary what has been stated at least fifty or sixty times before in various commentaries that I have written for this website.

However, let me summarize the following facts that have produced the truly Modernist piece of propaganda on behalf of those steeped in what are unrepentant Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, leaving all subjective considerations solely to the Divine Judge, Christ the King that is Fiducia Supplicans, December 18. 2023.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has stated repeatedly that sins against Holy Purity are the “least of sins.” See, for example, The "Least of Sins"? Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Contra Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Second, the Argentine Apostate has also stated on various occasions, including in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, that is not Catholic to hold people to “impossible standards” of perfection, meaning, of course that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself did not mean it when He said, “ Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect [Matthew 5:48], and, thus, that Our Divine Redeemer has commanded the impossible, a belief that is both heretical and blasphemous.

As Pope Pius XI noted in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951, when discussing situations wherein a husband and wife must maintain themselves in Josephite manner, “God does not demand the impossible.” The ineffable graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion, Death, and Resurrection on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient to keep the commandments and the precepts that flow therefrom perfectly. Those who do not take sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural seriously, will find every excuse imaginable to rationalize such sins, up to and including directly blaspheming God in the process.

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used countless opportunities to indemnify sodomite behavior, starting with the following five words by which he dismissed the sodomite behavior of “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, “Who am I to judge?”, on Monday, July 29, 2013, and it was only two months later that a Frenchman said that “Pope” Francis had said to him in a telephone conversation that his “homosexuality” did not matter.

Bergoglio has made it a point to speak about “different kinds of families,” and he has enabled and empower the likes of James Martin, Timothy Radcliffe, New Ways Ministry, and DignityUSA while engaging in multiple meetings with those who had attempted to accomplish the ontologically and biologically impossible feat of mutilating their bodies by chemical and surgical means to change the genders God had given them while they in the womb. See, for example, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Leaves No Doubt: The Books Are Really Cooked, the Fix Is Really In.

Fourth, Senor Jorge the Blaspheming Heretic has made it a point to appoint and/or promote sodomite-friendly “bishops” such as Wilton Gregory, Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, John Stowe, Robert McElroy, et al., while going out of his way to punish the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, and he almost immediately undermined the 2021 declaration by the then named Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the conciliar clergy could not "bless” sodomites engaged in some kind consensual union in unnatural vice:

Entirely unsurprising, therefore, the lay Jesuit revolutionary, who has been so very “welcoming” towards “bishops,” priests/presbyters and ordinary laymen steeped in perversity throughout his wrecking ball of a career as a false cleric imbued from his seminary days in false principles that he has put into practice with the anti-apostolic zeal of a demon, slyly undermined the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” reply to the “dubium” concerning “blessings” for those living in “civil unions” during his Angelus address of Sunday, March 21, 2021, which was Passion Sunday in the calendar of the Catholic Church but which was the “Fifth Sunday of Lent” in the disordered world of the counterfeit church of concilarism:

Today too, many people, often without saying so, implicitly would like to “see Jesus”, to meet him, to know him. This is how we understand the great responsibility we Christians and of our communities have. We too must respond with the witness of a life that is given in service, a life that takes upon itself the style of God – closeness, compassion and tenderness – and is given in service. It means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love. Then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution, or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time. It is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness. (Angelus Address, March 21, 2021.)

Permit me a bit of conjecture, please.

As a Modernist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a seasoned practitioner of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows full well that news of his refusing to approve the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to the “dubium” about “civil unions” would have been leaked if he chose to reject it. Clever little demon that he is, I believe, he “approved” the response but set about undermining so that “both sides” could “play ball,” so to speak, as he has absolutely no problem with the de facto practice of “blessing” “civil unions” as he his own appointees have permitted lesbians to have their children, conceived by artificial insemination or by “surrogate” mothers, baptized, and he has shown his own openness to sodomite-friendly priests/presbyters and he has said to private individuals that God does not “care” about homosexuality. (From Antipope Approveth, Antipope Undermineth What He Approveth.)

Fifth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the fiends he keeps appointing to his false religious sect’s dicasteries and hierarchy have sought to ignore and/or to diminish the relevance of the following words of Sacred Scripture that clearly condemn sodomy and its related vices in no uncertain terms, condemnations that were written under the direct and infallible inspiration provided by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael theo archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. (Jude 1 6-10.)

Although many of the conciliar revolutionaries talk about their love for Sacred Scripture and eschewing doctrinal pronouncements by re-reading (deconstructing, misrepresenting) Holy Writ as though those doctrinal pronouncements were made under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, the plain fact of the matter is that these revolutionaries, being Modernists, simply ignore those parts of Sacred Scripture that condemn their affinity for all things effeminate, unnatural, indecent, obscene, and perverse as many of them are effeminate, unnatural, indecent, obscene, and perverse (“Nighty night, baby”).

Victor Manuel Fernandez’s Fiducia Supplicans, therefore, is simply the manifestation of his fellow Argentine’s desire to make sodomites, lesbians, mutants, and others feel “included” even though their Mortal Sins exclude them from the life of Sanctifying Grace in their immortal souls and from eternal life in Heaven if they persist in these wretched sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance until the point of their deaths. All the document’s flowing words about the importance of blessings in stirring up graces within souls mean nothing as those who receive blessings must be willing to conform their lives to God’s laws.

Despite all the protestations to the contrary within the text of Fiducia Supplicans, the very fact that what purports to be the Catholic Church has seen fit to administer extra-liturgical, non-ritualized “blessings” to those who are said to be in “loving relationships” does indeed convey some kind of inherent “goodness” in that which is odious in the site of God as it perverts His love into an empty-headed concept of pure sentimentality. Ferndandez’s protestations that Fiducia Supplicans does not convey equate “same-sex” relationships with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are about as absurd as the repeated statements made by the likes of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself that conciliarism’s embrace of false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services are not an embrace of religious indifferentism. The converse is true, of course, with respect to the “blessings” of practicing sodomites, mutants, et al., as it is true about the claims that false ecumenism is not religious indifferentism when it is precisely that.

Furthermore, if “blessings” are so important to “Pope Francis,” when did he not impart them to journalists shortly after his bogus election in 2013 nor to individuals gathered to greet him below the balcony of the United States Capitol building on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom?

As if to show himself a complete pagan, Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the United States Capitol to greet the crowd that had gathered in the area below. Here is an account of what transpired when House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) led him out to the balcony:

In improvised remarks made from the balcony of the American Congress to huge crowds gathered in the National Mall in Washington, Pope Francis asked God to bless all the people of America, especially the children and their families. Speaking in his native Spanish, he asked the crowds to pray for him too, adding that “if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way”.

The Pope's impromptu greeting came after his address inside Congress to a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before taking his leave of the cheering crowds lining the Mall, the Pope said in English “Thank you very much – and God bless America!” (Bergoglio gives impromptu greeting to crowds in Washington Mall.)

It is as though Jorge said, "Hey, baby, send me some good vibes." To quote a friend of ours, "What a jerk."

I do not have “good wishes” to send your way, Senor Bergoglio. I offer prayers for your conversion as, objectively speaking, you are leading men and their nations to the eternal hellfire that awaits you if your persist in your apostasy to the moment you die. “Time” will be judge you then. Christ the King will do so, and you are deceiving yourself if you think that you’ve got it made.

Obviously, none of us have it “made,” which is why we must accept all penances with joy as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. (From Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part three.)

In plain English, of course, Fiducia Supplicans uses doublespeak to clumsily suggest that those who have do no desires to reform their lives want God’s assistance to “live better lives” even while continuing to sin unrepentantly. The real fact of the matter is that the sodomites, lesbians, and mutants have long desired these “blessings” as they convey precisely what Victor Manuel Fernandez says that they do; not: namely, “blessings” that connote God’s favor upon their lives.

Here is one of the efforts Fernandez made within the text of Fiducia Supplicans to absurdly claim that God can bestow his favor upon those who refuse to reform their lives by humbly confessing their sins and then to remove from their lives all associations that are sinful or present the near occasion of sin:

27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything. It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: “It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. [...] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”[19] (Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023.)

Blasphemy.

Heresy.

God is “mother?”

God hates sin.

God’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, which is directed at the sanctification and salvation our immortal souls, and no one truly loves another if he does or says anything that contrary to the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. You and I know this, of course, but Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez do not believe that sodomy excludes one from the Kingdom of God or hereafter. They are blasphemous heretics.

God does not suborn sin.

God does not bless sin, and He does not bless those who are intent of living in Mortal Sin.

It is that simple.

Blessings do indeed convey approval and/or permission. Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows this, and so does Victor Manuel Fernandez. They have tried to cloak their malice with a veneer of Catholicism, but we must always remember the following words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, and of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ"). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The Sacred Tribunal of Penance is where those who want to receive God’s favor must humbly accuse themselves and then promise to amend their lives and sin no more. Anyone who insists that God loves people the “way they are” are blasphemers as, though He wills the good of all men, He does not and cannot love sin and will never suborn it in the lives of the rational creatures for whom His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem. It is that simple.

Part two of this commentary will discuss the considerable pushback against Fiducia Supplicans by the conciliar “bishops” of Cameroon, Philip Anyolo, the metropolitan “archbishop” of Nairobi, Kenya, the two “bishops” of Kazakhstan, and even by the retired “archbishop” of La Plata, Argentina, Hector Aguer, who wrote the following:

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith has become a Dicastery of confusion. This is precisely what the Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández promotes. Not only the confusion of the faithful, but also of world opinion.

Now he is once again giving occasion for debate with the publication of the declaration Fiducia supplicans, on the blessing of homosexual couples and of heterosexual marriages who live in an irregular situation. It is scandalous that this statement contradicts what two years ago the Dicastery affirmed with the signature of Cardinal Luis Ladaria. In that statement it was said that a homosexual couple cannot be blessed because God cannot bless sin. That is the truth. Every blessing implies God’s complacency in the person, or the object blessed.

As it could not be otherwise, Fiducia supplicans multiplies excuses and explanations that simply reveal a clear accusation. The style is the style of dissimulation proper to Pope Francis: things are said half-heartedly in order to be fully understood against Tradition.

In the introduction it is said that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples because the blessing cannot be preceded by a prior moral analysis. A repeated pretext is that the Church must be more “inclusive,” and the criterion for this identification is sociological, or social psychological, as developed because of the pressure of the world: of fashion, and of the imposition of models according to alleged “new rights.” The Church is inclusive by nature, since it was formed thanks to Christ’s command to the Apostles: to address all nations. And the history of the Church shows that from the beginning all peoples have been incorporated into it. This declaration constitutes a true scandal which, decorated by pretexts, contrasts the secular doctrine on marriage.

Fiducia supplicans lets us see where chapter eight of the exhortation Amoris laetitia was pointing, where it was discreetly said that people living in these irregular situations can sometimes receive the sacraments. It was a beginning that is now revealed in its full dimension. But this is a consequence of Pope Francis’ method, which is dissimulation. This is how the current pontificate on many issues proposes a new position that “corrects” the doctrine of the Church and the unalterable Tradition of the same.

In conclusion: Fiducia supplicans should not be obeyed. And it is perfectly correct to deny blessings to homosexual “marriages,” and to marriages living in an irregular situation. (Archbishop Aguer: Francis' document Fiducia Supplicans must not be obeyed.)

This an excellent statement but it is so focused on Fiducia Supplicans that it does not recognize the entire conciliar enterprise is one of confusion, distraction, and dissimulation as one conciliar “pope” after another has claimed to be upholding doctrine and Tradition while redefining, undermining, or deconstructing them into insignificance.

Ah, “archbishop” Aguer’s call to disobedience, though, represents a de facto rejection of his fellow Argentinian’s claim to the papacy as, to call to mind the words of Pope Saint Pius X:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissent from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy or that “Pope Francis” is no pope at all as it would never be necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings if he were such.

You are here

Jorge Demands That His Clergy Suborn Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance

Support Christ or Chaos