Jorge's Most Outrageous Interview to Date, part one

Nearly three years after he appeared without on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has stripped away any pretense of being anything other than an apologist for international Marxism, which is but the stepchild of Judeo-Masonry, and its agenda of One World Governance.

It is not to toot one’s own horn to state the simple fact there was no need to “wait” to see whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a Catholic as his record as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, provided all of the evidence that one needed to recognize a man who has been a career-long blaspheming heretic. That some preferred to “wait and see” as they tried to praise the “pope” when he said something that sounded like true elements of Catholicism while reserving to themselves the right to reject that which they knew to be false was inexcusable at the time and even more so now.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a minion and precursor of Antichrist. It is bad enough that he distorted the meaning of the Prophet Jonas’s preaching to the inhabitants of the city of Ninive in his “homily” during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Ember Wednesday in Lent. Although this wretched, indecent and vulgar-tongued apostate has given many interviews in the past that have been replete with heresy, the one that he gave today, February 18, 2016, Thursday of the First Week of Lent and the Commemoration of Saint Simeon, shows to anyone who has a modicum of intelligence that he is a willing tool of the New World Order. Modernism is an instrument of helping to establish, institutionalize and propagate this New World Order.

Without any further delay, therefore, permit me to turn your attention to several of the answers provide by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in this latest interview before providing a brief and charitable (charity seeketh the truth, of course) interjections, comments and primal screams:

Question from Philip Pullella of Reuters:

Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?

Interjection Number One:

Yes, I want to interject even before providing Bergoglio’s answers.

Philip Pullella loaded his questions with emotionally laded statements about deporting eleven million illegal immigrants and separating families, thereby “grooving” one for the portly Argentine Apostate to whack out of the park to the delight of his fellow revolutionaries:

Bergoglio: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Two:

What naked hypocrisy and self-righteous pomposity.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has “excommunicated” Donald John Trump from a generic “Christianity” because of his positions on protecting the borders of the United States of America.

I mean, this is the same man who met on the South Lawn of the White House on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, with President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, a man whose hands are dripping with the blood of the innocent preborn by means of his administration’s full-throated support for the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn, which has included pressuring governments of Latin America to permit baby-killing-on-demand, without saying of condemnation of our current president and his policies.

Indeed, the hideous “Father” Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., told us five months ago that “Pope Francis” was not going to raise the issue of abortion and “gay marriage” and the ObamaCare health insurance mandate to provide converage for contraception and other "family services" with Obama/Soetoro during his visit to the United States of America as he did not want to involve himself in “politics”:

(CNSNews.com) – If you’re expecting Pope Francis to address the Obamacare contraceptive mandate or religious freedom when he visits the nation’s capital on Tuesday, Father Thomas Rosica, adviser to the Vatican, said that won’t happen. In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Rosica said the pope’s “playbook” for the visit will not be “a political manual,” but rather “the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“What I do think is going to happen … is that he's coming as the cardinal said, as a pastor of souls, and his playbook for this visit, the lexicon, if you will, is not a political manual, it's not the handbook of a particular party, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, which cuts across all divisions, which cuts across all of our categories,” Rosica said.

“But in dealing with those real problems, Father Rosica, one thing about this pope, is that he’s willing to step on feet on all sides of various issues. He's also going to be meeting with President Obama, and I don't have to tell you the Catholic Church is in something of a struggle with the Obama administration about the issue of religious freedom and the debate about the Obamacare mandate when it comes to contraception and insurance coverage of that, birth control by church-related groups. Do you expect him to bring that up with the president?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked.

“No,” Rosica said, “but what I do think is going to happen … is that he's coming as the cardinal said, as a pastor of souls, and his playbook for this visit, the lexicon, if you will, is not a political manual, it's not the handbook of a particular party, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, which cuts across all divisions, which cuts across all of our categories.

“The beauty of this pope is we can't pigeonhole him. He's a gentleman. He deals with heads of state with great grace and dignity,” said Rosica.

“The visit to the White House, the president and his wife, and the whole team at the White House are doing a very good job, and they have a certain decorum that's required of them at that stage to welcome the pope as the greatest, I should say, not just the great, the greatest moral leader in the world right now, and this is an opportunity for the president and his whole team to welcome him and to listen to the message of a peacemaker,” he added.

“The backdrop of this whole visit is not what's happening in American politics or a presidential campaign. The backdrop is a world steeped in violence and bloodshed and rancor and hatred, and here we have coming to your city, to our diocese, a real prince of peace. If there's any princely title that should be associated with Francis, it's a prince of peace, it's a bringer of peace,” Rosica said.

“When peacemakers come, they upset those who are not at peace. So, if people are going to be upset in any side of the spectrum here, let them look inside themselves and see what those issues are first, because in the presence of Francis, as you know and as I know, you're in the presence of extraordinary goodness, of kindness, of intelligence and of humanity. So, humanity is coming to teach us how to be more human,” he added. (Vatican Adviser: Pope's Playbook for DC Is Not a Political.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has “excommunicated” Donald John Trump from a generic “Christianity” because of his positions on protecting the borders of the United States of America as he, Bergoglio, deliberately immersed himself into what he knows is a hot-button political issue in this country during an election year. He is an insidious, crapulous hypocrite.

Bergoglio's "excommunication" of Donald Trump from even a generic "Christianity" means that a person who holds a governmental position, whether elected or appointed, can support the execution of the innocent preborn and be considered a “Christian.”

A “Christian” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one who opposes the death penalty.

A “Christian” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one who supports the right of foreign nations to cross the borders of nations of other nations at will without any regard for just laws.

A “Christian” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one who supports “drastic measures” to reduce global warming in order to support “climate change.”

A “Christian” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one who supports schemes of income redistribution in the name of “economic justice.”

A “Christian” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one who welcomes those who welcome those who live in sinful relationships, whether natural or unnatural, without any degree of judgment. “Who am I am to judge?” Remember that one?’

Hypocrisy.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio jokes and laughs with mass murderous such as Raoul and Fidel Castro without a word of condemnation.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio accepted a sacrilegious crucifix from Bolivian President Evo Morales that was emblazoned with a Marxist hammer and sickle without a word of condemnation.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has given comfort and succor to homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites and divorced and civilly remarried persons without for a moment questioning whether they were Christians. Indeed, he has reaffirmed such people, including a homosexual “couple from Argentina with whom he met in the “papal” nunciature in Washington, District of Columbia, on Wednesday, September 23, 2015 (see Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part nine).

Yes, Jorge’s “mercy” does not extend, of course, to those who disagree with what he thinks is part of “openness” and “tolerance,” to those who deny “climate change,” to those who are anti-Jewish, that is, to those who believe teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the simple fact that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour instituted on Maundy Thursday at the Last Supper that He ratified by shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday as the earth quaked and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Behold Jorge the self-righteous and truly Pharisaical hypocrite, a man who condemns those who “judge” the immorality of sinful actions for what they are and as he condemns a nominal Protestant, Donald John Trump a man who is not very knowledgeable about First and Last Things even according the false teachings of his false religious sect to which he belongs, on a matter that is not part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus subject to free discussion among men.

Moreover, leaving aside the specifics of Trump’s immigration policies, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has demonstrated yet again that he really does not believe in the Natural Law or has the faintest clue concerning various principles that flow from its binding precepts, one of which pertains to the right of nations to control their borders in order as means to protect its citizens and to provide for public health and safety, and in this regard his own "revolutionary hermeneutic" ignores the fact that his two immediate predecessors in the current line conciliar antipopes did, while stressing conciliarism's concept of "human dignity" to disucss the rights of migrants, at least acknowledge the existence of the right of nations to regulate migration:

Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that "[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. "The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life" (World Day of Peace 2001, 13). (Message for the 97th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2011, September 27, 2010.)

Jorge has his own personal “hermeneutic” for dealing with the statements of our true popes and those of his conciliar predecessors: he ignores them.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s answers about Donald Trump have once again reaffirmed “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” Protestants in their native anti-Catholicism. Although without for one second ignoring the account that I must render to Christ the King, Our Divine Judge, at the moment of my own Particular Judgment, it is truly frightening to consider the incalculable harm to souls for which Bergoglio must answer when He faces Our Lord upon his death.

Perhaps it is good also to note that Jorge’s answer to Philip Pullella can do nothing but fuel the rhetoric of the various actors amongst the organized crime families of naturalism, whether of the naturalist “left” or the naturalist “right,” as those who support unrestricted baby-killing and sodomy in all instances invoke the name of “Pope Francis” to justify their positions.

A final note on this one answer is in order.

I have been noting for a long time now that “pro-life” Americans will never get any help from the conciliar “popes” when it comes to the farce that are elections. We now have a situation, though, that a conciliar “pope” is actually working for the pro-aborts, statists, sodomites, population-controllers, climate control ideologues and others within the matrix known as the One World Order in openly bold and unapologetic. manner.

All right, although Jorge’s answer to the next question will be examined in a bit more depth in part two of “Still Selling the Rope After All These Years,” will reveal once again his penchant for throwing Catholics under the bus in order to appease Communists, Protestants (Lutheans, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, evangelicals, Pentecostalists) Hussites, Jews, Hindus Buddhists, atheists, homosexuals, lesbians and transvestites and whoever else he believes lives on his imaginary “existential peripheries”:

Jean-Louis de la Vaisserie, AFP (France): The meeting with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and the signing of the joint declaration was greeted by the entire world as an historic step. But now today in the Ukraine, Greek Catholics feel betrayed. They speak of a political document that supports Russian politics. In the field, the war of words has reignited. Do you think you’ll be able to go to Moscow? Were you invited by the patriarch? Or, (will you) go to Crete to greet the Pan-Orthodox Council in the spring?

Pope Francis: I’ll begin with the end. I will be present…spiritually. And with a message. I would like to go greet them there at the pan-orthodox synod. They are brothers, but I must respect them. But, I know that they want to invite Catholic observers and this is a good bridge, but behind the Catholic observers I will be praying with my best wishes that the Orthodox move ahead because they are brothers and their bishops are bishops like us.

Then, Kirill, my brother. We kissed each other, embraced, and then a conversation for an hour (Fr Lombardi corrects)…two hours. Old age doesn’t come on its own. (laughs) Two hours where we spoke as brothers, sincerely and no one knows what was spoke about, only what we said at the end publicly about how we felt as we spoke. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Three:

Bergoglio treated Russian Orthodox “Patriarch” Kirill his “brother” as they issued a document that was In Direct Defiance of Catholic Truth. You can be sure that Jorge will be in Crete at the Pan-Orthodox Council meeting in a few months.

Back to Jorge’s longwinded answer:

Secondly, that statement, that declaration about Ukraine. When I read this, I was a little bit worried because it was Sviatoslav Schevchuk who said that the Ukrainian people, some Ukrainians, also many Ukrainians felt disappointed and betrayed. I know Sviatoslav very well. In Buenos Aires, we worked together for four years. When he was elected – at 42 years old, eh, good man – he was elected major archbishop, he came back to Buenos Aires to get his things. He came to me and he gave me an icon - little like this – of Our Lady of Tenderness. And he told me, ‘This has accompanied me my entire life. I want to leave it to you who accompanied me over the last four years. It’s one of the few things I had brought from Buenos Aires and I keep it on my desk. That is, he’s a man whom I respect and also familiarity. We use “tu” with each other (Editor’s note: “tu” is the informal way of addressing someone in Italian – they speak as friends) and so on.

So, for this it seemed strange to me and I remembered something I said here to you: to understand a piece of news, a statement, you need to seek the hermeneutic of everything.

But, when you said this, it was said in a statement from January 14th, last February, last Sunday…an interview made by brother…I don’t remember…a priest, a Ukrainian priest, in Ukraine it was conducted and it was published. That news, the interview is one page, two, a little bit more, give or take. That interview is on the last page, a little like this. I read the interview and I’ll say this: Schevchuk, in the dogmatic part declares himself to be a son of the Church and in communion with the bishop of Rome and the Church. He speaks of the Pope and his closeness of the Pope and of himself, his faith, and also of the Orthodox people there. The dogmatic part, there’s no difficulty. He’s Orthodox in the good sense of the word, that is in Catholic doctrine, no.

And then, as in an interview like this one, everyone has the right to say his things and this wasn’t done in the meeting, because the meeting, it was a good thing and we have to move forward. This, he didn’t do in the meeting, the encounter was a good thing and we must move forward. This, the second chapter, the personal ideas that a person has. For example, this, what I said about the bishops who move pedophile priests, the best thing they can do is resign. This isn’t a dogmatic thing, but this is what I think. So, he has his personal ideas. They’re for dialoguing and he has a right to have them.

Thirdly…ah, all of what he’s speaking about is in the document, that’s the issue. On the fact of the meeting: the Lord chose to move it ahead, the embrace and all is well. The document. It’s a debatable document and there’s also another addition. In Ukraine, it’s a moment of war, of suffering, with so many interpretations. I have named the Ukrainian people, asking for prayers, closeness, so many times both in the Angelus and in the Wednesday audience. There is this closeness. But the historical fact of a war, experienced as…I don’t know if…well, everyone has their own idea of this war, who started it, what to do and it’s evident that this is a historical issue, but also a personal, historical, existential issue of that country and it speaks of the suffering. And, there I insert this paragraph. You can understand the faithful, because Stanislav told me that so many faithful have written to me saying that they are deeply disappointed and betrayed by Rome. You can understand that a people in this situation would feel this, no? The final document but it is a jotting down of some things. Pardon, it’s debatable on this question of Ukraine. But there, it says to make the war stop, that they find agreements. Also, I personally said that the Minsk accords move forward and are not eliminated. “With the elbows what wasn’t written with the hands.” (Original phrase in Italian: “Con il gomito quello che non e scritto con le mani”)

The Church of Rome, the Pope has always said, ’Seek peace.’ I also received both presidents. Equality, no. And so for this when he says that he’s heard this from his people, I understand it. I understand it. But, that’s not the news. The news is everything.

If you read the entire interview, you’ll see that there are serious dogmatic things that remain, there’s a desire for unity, to move ahead in the ecumenical – and he’s an ecumenical man. There are a few opinions. He wrote to me when he found out about the trip, the encounter, but, as a brother, giving his opinion as a brother. I don’t mind the document how it is. I don’t dislike it in the sense that we need to respect the things that everyone has the freedom to think and in (the context of) this situation that is so difficult. From Rome, now the nuncio is on the border where they’re fighting, helping soldiers and the wounded. The Church of Rome has sent so much help there. It’s always peace, agreements. We must respect the Minsk accords and so on. This is the entirety. But, don’t get scared by that phrase. And this is a lesson that a piece of news must be interpreted with the hermeneutic of everything and not just a part. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Four:

As noted above, this subject will be explored in greater detail in a few days if the news cycle permits me to do so.

For the moment, however, Ukrainian Rite Catholics have every right to believe that they will be thrown under the bus and that their churches will give over to the heretical and schismatic Orthodox. Such a betrayal would actually be a good thing if the bishops of the Ukraine come to realize that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false religious sect. Uniat Rite bishops are true bishops, presuming that their respective episcopal lines have not been compromised, and could do much for Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

In essence, though, Jorge Mario Bergoglio said he considers Archbishop Sviatoslav Schevchuk a fuddy-duddy who is letting nationalistic sentiment get in the way of what he, Bergoglio, believes are the promptings of the "spirit."

Bergoglio was then asked a follow-up question about whether he discussed a possible “papal” visit to Moscow:

de la Vaisserie: did the Patriarch invite you to come to Moscow sometime?

Pope Francis: Patriarch Kirill. I would prefer – because if I say one thing, I have to say another and another and another. I would prefer that what we spoke about, us, alone, will remain only what we said in public. This is a fact. And if I say this, then I’ll have to say another and another…no! The things I said in public, the things he said in public. This is what can be said about the private conversation. To say it, it wouldn’t be private. But, I tell you, I walked out of it happy, and he did too. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Five:

Translation: Jorge’s going to Moscow, where I am sure that even some “conservative” Catholics within the structures of the conciliar sect hopes that he decides to stay as he has made qualms about being a Marxist-sympathizing advocate of liberation theology.

Now, the next question, which dealt with a bill pending in the Italian parliament to provide “civil union” status to those engaged in sins of natural or unnatural, perverted vice, displays Jorge the Consummate Revolutionary Hypocrite in all of his contradictory self-righteousness:

Carlo Marroni, Il Sole 24 (Italy): Holy Father, my question is about the family, a subject which you addressed often during this trip. The Italian parliament is discussing a law on civil unions, a subject that is provoking strong political clashes but also a strong debate in society and among Catholics. In particular, I would like to know your thoughts on the subject of adoption by civil unions and therefore on the rights of children and of sons and daughters in general.

Pope Francis: First of all, I don’t know how things stand in the thinking of the Italian parliament. The Pope doesn’t get mixed up in Italian politics. At the first meeting I had with the (Italian) bishops in May 2013, one of the three things I said was: with the Italian government you’re on your own. Because the pope is for everybody and he can’t insert himself in the specific internal politics of a country. This is not the role of the pope, right? And what I think is what the Church thinks and has said so often – because this is not the first country to have this experience, there are so many – I think what the Church has always said about this. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Six:

Perhaps it is only me. However, I see something of a contradiction here. (For those of you who are not New Yorkers, I am being sarcastic.)

The "pope" is for everybody?

Well, he's not for Donald Trump, is he?

Bergoglio is amazingly bold hypocrite. He is shameless.

Furthermore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio made a point of scheduling a Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on the border of the United Mexican States with the United States of America in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to interject himself directly in the issue of illegal immigration during a heated presidential election cycle, knowing full well what he was doing, but he cannot interject himself in Italian “politics” to oppose legislation to endorse “civil unions”?

Well, apart from the hypocrisy of Jorge’s self-righteous condemnation of Donald John Trump, Bergoglio does not want to oppose the legislation for “civil unions” in the Italian Parliament as he has shown himself to be completely capable of becoming an advocate for those things that he wants governments and international agencies to endorse and implement, starting with the green-is-red ideology of environmentalism that was the foundation of Laudato Si, May 24, 2015 (see Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, and Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two).

Dissatisfied with Bergoglio’s dodge of the initial question about “civil unions” in Italy, another journalist tried to press the false “pontiff” after some intervening questions about the Zika virus and the status of “exhortation” on “marriage and the family” that he will issue late this spring. For the sake of coherency, here is the follow-up question on the matter of “civil unions”:

Franca Giansoldati, Il Messaggero (Italy): Holiness, good evening. I return back to the topic of the law that is being voted on in the Italian parliament. It is a law that in some ways is about other countries, because other countries have laws about unions among people of the same sex. There is a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith from 2003 that dedicates a lot of attention to this, and even more, dedicates a chapter to the position of Catholic parliamentarians in parliament before this question. It says expressly that Catholic parliamentarians must not vote for these laws. Considering that there is much confusion on this, I wanted to ask, first of all, is this document of 2003 still in effect? And what is the position a Catholic parliamentarian must take? And then another thing, after Moscow, Cairo. Is there another thawing out on the horizon? I’m referring to the audience that you wish for with the Pope and the Sunnis, let’s call them that way, the Imam of Al Azhar.

Pope Francis: For this, Msgr. Ayuso went to Cairo last week to meet the second to the Imam and to greet the Imam. Msgr. Ayuso, secretary to Cardinal Tauran of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. I want to meet him. I know that he would like it. We are looking for the way, always through Cardinal Tauran because it is the path, but we will achieve it.

About the other, I do not remember that 2003 document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith well but every Catholic parliamentarian must vote according their well-formed conscience. I would say just this. I believe it is sufficient because – I say well-formed because it is not the conscience of 'what seems to me.' I remember when matrimony for persons of the same sex was voted on in Buenos Aires and the votes were tied. And at the end, one said to advise the other: 'But is it clear to you? No, me neither, but we’re going to lose like this. But if we don't go there won't be a quorum.' The other said: 'If we have a quorum we will give the vote to Kirchner.' And, the other said: 'I prefer to give it to Kirchner and not Bergoglio.' And they went ahead. This is not a well formed conscience.

On people of the same sex, I repeat what I said on the trip to Rio di Janeiro. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Interjection Number Seven:

Although I will get to the question to the specific subject of so-called “civil unions” in a moment, perhaps it is good to review what Jorge Mario Bergoglio said on his flight back to Rome from Rio di Janiero on Monday, July 29, 2013:

"There's a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I've never seen it on the Vatican ID card."

"When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem ... they're our brothers." (Apostate on sodomites: 'Who am I to judge?'.)

There are those five lethal words: “Who am I to judge?” (A detailed commentary of this was included in Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part four.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that an inclination, something that is acquired, not innate, to commit the sin of Sodom is intrinsically disordered, and he does not believe that actual perverse acts against nature are Mortal Sins that need to be confessed and absolved. Although Jorge had tipped his hand about “civil unions” when he was the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, his five words, “Who am I to judge?”, demonstrated conclusively that he does not consider practicing practitioners of perversity to be in need of any kind of conversion. If he did believe this, you see, he would not have greeted his former student from Argentina and the student’s “partner” with such great joy.

Now, as to the pending legislation in the Italian legislature, Bergoglio’s ignorance of the 2003 document of the conciliar sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is very striking. Informed lay Catholics kept track of such pronouncements even long before the internet. Documents such as Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, made news. Big news. This document was, as they say, “in all the papers.” Here is the pertinent passage to which the journalist who posed the question referenced:

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment. (Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003.)

This is actually very sound moral reasoning. It is, though, moral reasoning that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not like, which is why he claims to be ignorant of it, although I suspect that “Cardinal” Bergoglio was very aware of the document at the time and ignored it with impunity.

The false “pontiff’s” invocation of “conscience,” therefore, cannot be reconciled with either the document of the conciliar sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in this instance, did apply right principles to the question, or with the entire patrimony of Holy Mother Church’s teaching on the necessity of opposing evil legislation.

Writing in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, Pope Leo XIII explained that Catholics have a solemn duty to oppose all unjust laws:

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are “to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word,” at once adds: “And to be ready to every good work.” Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: “If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Bergoglio has a long record of refusing to oppose legislation to decriminalize such evils as baby-killing and “gay marriage.”

He has said not one word about the Belgian legislature having enacted legislation in 2014 to permit the killing of “disabled children in some circumstances up to the age of eighteen years, and he greeted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a Catholic, with great love and affection in Rio di Janeiro during World Youth Day in 2013 without uttering a word to her publicly or about the pending legislation there. This silence continued after the Brazilian Congress passed the bill following Bergoglio’s departure to Rome.

So many other like examples can be given of such selective silence on the part of a man who places the alleged “rights of man” and of the “planet” over the immutable precepts contained in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Indeed, it was as “archbishop” of Buenos Aires in 2010 that Bergoglio encouraged his brother “bishops” to refrain from opposing legislation to legalize “same sex marriage,” preferring instead that they seek to get the legislators to propose and pass a “civil unions” bill, something that infuriated his brother “bishops” (see the appendix below).

One will see from reading the appendix below that Jorge Mario Bergoglio really supports "civil unions." So do many of his bishops, something that separates both them and the man who is now their "pope" from the Catholic truth expressed by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, condemning "new speices of union" as it relates to those engaged in natural vice, which applies with equal force to those engaged in unnatural, perverted practices:

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Finally, at least for present purposes as the work to deal with Bergoglio’s answers on the Zika virus require more time than is available at a late hour, it is important to note that the false “pope’s” call upon Italian legislators to use a well-informed “conscience” on something that even his false religious sect’s so-called “doctrinal” congregation has stated must be opposed calls to mind the views of Richard “Cardinal” (created by Angelo Roncalli/John XIII on December 15, 1958, along with, among others, Giovanni Battista Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, the future “Pope” Paul VI; the future “Pope” John Paul I, Albino Luciani, was consecrated as a bisop twelve days later) that he expressed in a radio interview in 1965 at the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the state legislature) considered a bill to permit the sale of contraceptives to married couples.

Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. (As a matter of historical interest, the repeal effort was sponsored by a young state representative named Michael Dukakis, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidency 23 years later.) In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, "An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,” and effectively scuttled the opposition.

Cardinal Cushing announced:

“My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—upon those of other faiths.”

Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that "I could not in conscience approve the legislation" that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, "I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others."

So there it was: the "personally opposed" argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to "impose" his opinion.

Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. "But my thinking has changed on that matter," he reported, "for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do."

(Notice that the Catholic position is reduced still further here, to a matter of purely sectarian belief—as if it would be impossible for a non-Catholic to support the purpose of the Birth Control law. The cardinal did not explain why that law was enacted in 1899 by the heirs of the Puritans in Massachusetts, long before Catholics came to power in the legislature.)

Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church."

Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the "personally opposed" politician had his rationale. (Cushing's Use of The "Personally Opposed" Argument.)

Today’s conciliar revolutionaries such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s and 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to a blind eye as Catholics in one moral evil after another, including those that cry out to Heaven for venageance, and those that deny the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

Yes, apostate birds of a feather do stick together.

It should be clear by now that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church. He is an apostate. While we must pray for his conversion—and for that of his fellow revolutionaries, we must nevertheless refuse to recognize and thus accept him as that which he is not, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Our Lady has given us the way out of this mess, and it rests in trusting entirely in her Fatima Message. May our daily Rosaries during this Lenten season of prayer, penance, fasting, and almsgiving sustain us in our resolve to persevere in the true, uncompromised faith until the day we die.

To be continued.

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.

Appendix

"Cardinal" Bergoglio and "Civil Unions: in Argentina

Buenos Aires—The very idea was anathema to many of the bishops in the room.

Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, and the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to stop that from happening. It would lead tens of thousands of its followers in protest on the streets of Buenos Aires and publicly condemn the proposed law, a direct threat to church teaching, as the work of the devil.

But behind the scenes, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who led the public charge against the measure, spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples.

The concession inflamed the gathering — and offers a telling insight into the leadership style he may now bring to the papacy.

Few would suggest that Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, is anything but a stalwart who fully embraces the church’s positions on core social issues. But as he faced one of the most acute tests of his tenure as head of Argentina’s church, he showed another side as well, supporters and critics say: that of a deal maker willing to compromise and court opposing sides in the debate, detractors included.

The approach stands in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Benedict XVI, who spent 25 years as the church’s chief doctrinal enforcer before becoming pope, known for an unbending adherence to doctrinal purity. Francis, by comparison, spent decades in the field, responsible for translating such ideals into practice in the real world, sometimes leading to a different approach.

“The melody may be the same, but the sound is completely different,” Alberto Melloni, the director of the liberal Catholic John XXIII Foundation for Religious Science in Bologna, Italy, said of the two.

Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

“He listened to my views with a great deal of respect,” said Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights leader and theologian who wrote a tough letter to Cardinal Bergoglio and, to his surprise, received a call from him less than an hour after it was delivered. “He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.”

Mr. Márquez said he went on to meet twice with Cardinal Bergoglio, telling him of his plan to marry his partner and discussing theology. The man who would become pope gave him a copy of his biography, “The Jesuit.”

Cardinal Bergoglio’s readiness to reach out across the ideological spectrum and acknowledge civil unions for gay people could raise expectations that he would do the same as pope. But some of this strategic flexibility may have stemmed as much from Francis’ position at the time as from his personal ideology.

Though Benedict publicly condemned legal recognition of unmarried heterosexual couples, much less gay couples, there was often an expectation of some discretion in putting his positions into practice.

While the pope in Rome issued the doctrine, bishops like Cardinal Bergoglio were “on the frontier, in the field,” and had to contend with the complexities of local politics, said Sandro Magister, a Vatican expert for the newspaper L’Espresso in Italy.

Mr. Magister noted, for instance, that Benedict made it clear in 2005 that divorced Catholics who had remarried without an annulment should not receive communion. But Benedict did not instruct bishops how to enforce that, he said.

There was little ambiguity in Cardinal Bergoglio’s vehement opposition to the gay marriage law, which was approved by the Senate in July 2010. In the months between the bishops’ meeting and the Senate vote, the cardinal, in a letter, called the bill a “destructive pretension against the plan of God.”

Clashing with Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who supported the law, he endorsed protests involving tens of thousands of people against the bill, incurring the ire of some gay rights leaders here.

“The reality, beyond what he may have said in private meetings, was that he said some terrible things in public,” said Esteban Paulón, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals. “He took a role, in public, that was determinedly combative.”

But others who observed the bishops’ private annual assembly in 2010 said that the cardinal was earnestly hoping for compromise on the issue.

“Bergoglio’s thinking was very clearly demonstrated both with what he said and in the message of his pastoral work,” said Roxana Alfieri, a social worker in the communications department of the bishops’ central office here.

“He didn’t want the church to take a position of condemning people but rather of respect for their rights like any vulnerable person,” said Ms. Alfieri, who sat in on the bishops’ 2010 meeting.

Cardinal Bergoglio was operating in one of Latin America’s most socially liberal countries. Though Roman Catholicism remains the official religion of the state and 76.8 percent of Argentina’s population is Catholic, only 33 percent cited religion as very important in their lives, according to a 2010 Pew study, and just 19 percent said they regularly attended mass.

While the archbishop’s support for civil unions was shared by some of the more liberal bishops in attendance, it was defeated by the majority, reflecting the broad resistance of conservative bishops.

One priest in the province of Córdoba who spoke publicly in favor of the gay marriage measure, the Rev. Nicolás Alessio, was suspended from his work by another archbishop, Carlos Ñáñez. In an essay written after the election this month of Pope Francis, Father Alessio continued to speak out on the subject, calling Argentina a “model for the rest of the continent” on gay rights.

Nearly three years since the passage of the law, more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have married in Argentina, and specialized tourism for gay and lesbian travelers has grown here, with about 50 tourist couples also taking advantage of the right to marry.

“This is something Rome cannot forgive, tolerate or allow to advance,” Father Alessio wrote. (http:Old Colleagues Recall "Cardinal Bergoglio's Pragmatic Streak.)