Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part five

Surreal is the only word to describe the reaction to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia thus far. Various “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” find it hard to understand how their “pope” could approve a document with such manifest history. Others, though, are trying to play “if only the pope knew” amateur game of playing Sergeant Joe Friday to “get the facts” about who inserted Footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia as the footnote indicates that the path is indeed open for Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” absent a decree of conciliar nullity to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Here is the text of Paragraph 305 in Amoris Laetitia that contains “footnote 351,” which is nothing other than a direct quote from Bergoglio’s Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”.350 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Even this is nothing new. He spoke in almost the exact same terms before the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, as he condemned “fundamentalists” who reduced everything to “good and evil”:

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today.  Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion.  We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.  This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.  A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.  But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.  The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.  We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.  That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Once again, especially for those who are relatively new to this site or who may have forgotten, it was our last true pope, Pope Pius XII, who described Bergoglio’s false “belief system” when exactitude in an address that he gave to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus in September of 1957:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Amoris Latetia is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teahcing on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done, and Paragraph 305 and its accompanying footnotes are just further proof of what should have been obvious a long, long, time ago to all but those who had their heads in the sand,

Here is footnote 351 that was contained in Paragraph 305 of Amoris Laetita:

351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio claims that he did not remember the specifics of the footnote, saying only that he had spoken about the topic in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

Jean-Marie Guenois (Le Figaro): I had the same question, but it’s a complementary question because you wrote this famous ‘Amoris Laetitia’ on the problems of the divorced and remarried (footnote 351). Why put something so important in a little note? Did you foresee the opposition or did you mean to say that this point isn’t that important?

Pope Francis: One of the recent popes, speaking of the Council, said that there were two councils: the Second Vatican Council in the Basilica of St. Peter, and the other, the council of the media. When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because, thinking of those media who said, this, this and that, do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? Don’t you realize that the fall of the birth rate in Europe is to cry about? Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems. I don’t remember the footnote, but for sure if it’s something general in a footnote it’s because I spoke about it, I think, in ‘Evangelii Gaudium.’ (Full Text of Jorge's Gabfest, April 16, 2016.)

This is somewhat analogous to what the now retired baseball pitcher David Wells said when remarks critical of his then teammate with the incarnation of all evil in the world, the New York Yankees, Roger “The Rocket Fueled by Home Chemistry” Clemens, in 2003 were contained in his autobiography, “I was misquoted.” I think that Wells also said that he had not even read his own “autobiography,” which was actually written by a ghostwriter.

Similarly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia was ghostwritten for him by “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez. The conciliar “pope’s” feigned ignorance of what was contained in “footnote 351” has some “conservatives” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism trying to figure out if “Pope Francis” knows the implications of what had been issued in his own name. To descend to such delusional exercises is truly surreal.

After all, Bergoglio’s entire career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary has been dedicated to the work that he is now “canonizing” in his “homilies,” general audience addresses, speeches, exhortations, encyclicals and interviews. Amoris Laetitia reflects this egregious heretic’s Modernist mind with great accuracy even if he actually very little, if any, of its text. Some have the ability to write but are poor speakers or teachers. Others have the ability to speak and teach but are not good writers. Yet others can do both. All that Jorge can do is to speak his revolutionary, heretical clichés over and over and over again. He leaves it to others to “purdy up” his beliefs so that they can be put into the written word. No man who talks so endlessly and engage in endless meetings has any time to write serious works of even faux scholarship.

All of the angst about “footnote 351” is thus a case of straining at gnats as Bergoglio does indeed believe that true priests in the past and some conciliar presbyters in the past have used the confessional as a torture chamber. As a penitent who has make use of the confessional on a regular basis, I can report that I have never been subjected to a “torture chamber,” and only those with guilty consciences who are not ready to quit their sins can consider it to be “abusive” to be told to amend their lives for love of God and to save their own immortal souls.

It is not to “torture” anyone for a priest to be stern, if necessary, in the confessional. Padre Pio of Pietrelcina was unstinting in his insistence that penitents make an integral confession of their sins, and he would use his ability to read souls to tell them if they had omitted anything. He was also uncompromising on the matter of women’s attire, referring to those who dressed immodestly as “clowns.”

Padre Pio converted the souls of hardened sinners. Jorge Mario Bergoglio reaffirms hardened sinners in their lives of perdition, which is evident even in the following passage of Amoris Laetitia:

38. We must be grateful that most people do value family relationships that are permanent and marked by mutual respect. They appreciate the Church’s efforts to offer guidance and counselling in areas related to growth in love, overcoming conflict and raising children. Many are touched by the power of grace experienced in sacramental Reconciliation and in the Eucharist, grace that helps them face the challenges of marriage and the family. In some countries, especially in various parts of Africa, secularism has not weakened certain traditional values, and marriages forge a strong bond between two wider families, with clearly defined structures for dealing with problems and conflicts. Nowadays we are grateful too for the witness of marriages that have not only proved lasting, but also fruitful and loving. All these factors can inspire a positive and welcoming pastoral approach capable of helping couples to grow in appreciation of the demands of the Gospel. Yet we have often been on the defensive, wasting pastoral energy on denouncing a decadent world without being proactive in proposing ways of finding true happiness. Many people feel that the Church’s message on marriage and the family does not clearly reflect the preaching and attitudes of Jesus, who set forth a demanding ideal yet never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals like the Samaritan woman or the woman caught in adultery. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Brief Interjection Number One:

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not preach some kind of ethereal “ideal” that is unattainable. It is a trick of the Modernist mind to pose some kind of conflict between the “ideal” of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church and the compassion of Our Lord.

Our Lord understands the weakness of us erring sinners. However, he wants us to reform now, not at some ill-determined future moment. As was quoted in an earlier part of this continuing series, Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri used a sermon to ask “Who has guaranteed you tomorrow?” None of us knows when “tomorrow” may never come for us, which is why Our Lord told the Samaritan woman that the man with whom she was living was not her husband and why he told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more. Constant vigilance is necessary in the interior life, a vigilance that Bergoglio thinks is “impossible” for people to realize in the practical order of things.

This is both blasphemous and heretical as it is based upon the assertion that Our Lord teaches one thing without providing us with the supernatural helps to reform our lives so as to conform with His teaching out of love for Him and obedience to all that He has revealed to us for our sanctification and salvation. It is also disingenuous to claim that the Catholic Church has denounced decadence without being “proactive in proposing ways to find true happiness” as there can true happiness cannot exist within the souls of men if they are not in a state of Sanctifying Grace.  The Catholic Church has denounced decadence throughout her history precisely to provide her children with the path to true happiness, eternal life in Heaven, which not possible by persisting in unrepentant Mortal Sins.

How is this not clear to anyone who remains “mystified” by their supposed “pope’s” reaffirmation of hardened sinners? Amrois Laetitia is nothing if not Jorge’s own self-justification of heretical beliefs that have shaped his entire career as a presbyter and false bishop prior to his “election” by his brother apostates on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, that brought The Jorge Show from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Casa Santa Marta and thus the global stage

Berogoglio’s caricaturing of straw men who seek to throw stones at sinners is one of his boilerplate ways of making any thought of championing an “ideal” that makes those steeped in sins feel shameful:

49. Here I would also like to mention the situation of families living in dire poverty and great limitations. The problems faced by poor households are often all the more trying.36 For example, if a single mother has to raise a child by herself and needs to leave the child alone at home while she goes to work, the child can grow up exposed to all kind of risks and obstacles to personal growth. In such difficult situations of need, the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would “indoctrinate” that message, turning it into “dead stones to be hurled at others”.37 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Brief Interjection Number Two:

This is both a caricature of how single mothers are treated and a disparagement of those who seek to “impose straightaway a set of rules that only lead people feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s hatred for doctrine as a means to hurl “dead stone at others” is pathological in its intensity.

Moreover, to assert that single mothers, for instance, are scorned today is simply untrue. There are many homes for unwed mothers run by Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarisn, and some of these homes are run by Catholics who are concerned about the salvation of the souls of those they serve without, of course, recognizing that the path to salvation is not to be found in the conciliar church. Many Catholics who work in these homes seek to instruct unwed mothers, many of whom may have been convinced by pro-life activists on the front lines at abortuaries to spare their preborn children from execution, in the truths of the Faith and how to pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.

True compassion without condemnation for the mother or any condoning of her sins against Holy Purity is what characterizes the work of such Catholics, and it is what is shown within fully traditional venues by priests and parishioners alike.

Indeed, many faithful Catholic parents all across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time have found themselves faced with daughters who have gone astray despite their best efforts to raise them in the Faith. These parents do not condone what their daughters have done as they call them to correction. Good Catholic parents will never enable a child’s continuation in sin, but they will provide assistance to those who want to reform and to help them to sin no more.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s caricature does not exist in the “real world” that he likes to talk about so much, whether within his own structures or in the Catholic catacombs at this time.

What is clear from the whole tenor of Bergoglio’s ideology, which was articulated for him by Victor Manuel Fernandez in Amoris Laetitia, is that is premised upon not “indoctrinating” one in a set of “rules” as though those “rules” came from some human source and do not exist in the very nature of things, including in the deepest recesses of the human heart itself.  This is not the teaching or the practice of the Catholic Church.

Saint Peter Claver sought to reform the lives of the African slaves who were brought to Colombia in the Sixteenth Century, and he was unstinting in the warnings that he gave to erring sinners because he wanted them to know the true happiness in Heaven made possible for us by Our Lord’s Easter victory of the power of sin and eternal death. Indeed his very manner of preaching serves as a rebuke to that of the likes of Bergoglio and Fernandez and the rest of the revolutionary members of the conciliar junta:

The wonderful success of Father Claver indemnified him for all he underwent. Baptism conferred on hundreds of Negroes who pretended to be Christians, bad confessions set right, inveterate enmities extinguished, illicit connections broken or rectified by marriage, profanity and obscenity changed for songs of devotion, a general reformation of manners everywhere; such was the success with which God was pleased to recompense His servant. If any one, rebellious to his admonitions, was a scandal to others, he sometimes threatened him with the anger of Heaven, and the chastisement soon followed the threat. On one occasion he had in vain remonstrated with an obstinate Negro who needed neither his advice nor his threats. A few days afterward he was missed. And as a party of Negoes were searching for him they met an enormous crocodile while they killed, and found within, the head and some of the limbs of the unhappy slave—a conclusive proof of his punishment. This example produced such terror throughout the settlement that the most hardened began to dread the Divine Justice. One who had at first resisted, profited by these heavenly admonitions. The holy missionary saw him sowing corn in a field, and said to him, “You sow, but you will not reap.” He fell almost immediately; and although his youth, the strength of his constitution, and the trifling nature of his complaint gave him every hope of recovery, he elated all to the Father, prepared for his death, and died in most Christian sentiments.  (John R. Slattery, The Life of St. Peter Claver, S.J.: The Apostle of the Negroes, published originally by H. L. Kilner & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1893, and republished by Forgotten Books in 2015, pp. 144-145.)

This just a slightly different pastoral approach than that taken by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Victor Manuel Fernandez, Walter Kasper, Rene Cupich, Godfried Danneels, Reinhard Marx, Ranier Woelki, Vincent Nichols, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, et al. and their false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.  

The text of Amoris Laetitia is filled with little droplets of narcotics as a means to condition gullible readers into accepting its concluding section as consistent with Catholic teaching, which it is hardly the case.

Paragraph fifty-three, for example, makes it appear as though “older forms of marriage” were based upon what Bergoglio terms “authoritarian models.”

53. “Some societies still maintain the practice of polygamy; in other places, arranged marriages are an enduring practice… In many places, not only in the West, the practice of living together before marriage is widespread, as well as a type of cohabitation which totally excludes any intention to marry”.40 In various countries, legislation facilitates a growing variety of alternatives to marriage, with the result that marriage, with its characteristics of exclusivity, indissolubility and openness to life, comes to appear as an old-fashioned and outdated option. Many countries are witnessing a legal deconstruction of the family, tending to adopt models based almost exclusively on the autonomy of the individual will. Surely it is legitimate and right to reject older forms of the traditional family marked by authoritarianism and even violence, yet this should not lead to a disparagement of marriage itself, but rather to the rediscovery of its authentic meaning and its renewal. The strength of the family “lies in its capacity to love and to teach how to love. For all a family’s problems, it can always grow, beginning with love”.41 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

What older forms of the “traditional family marked by authoritarianism and even violence” is Jorge the slayer of straw men is being referred to in this paragraph?

Brief Interjection Number Three:

What older forms of the “traditional family marked by authoritarianism and even violence” is Jorge the slayer of straw men is being referred to in this paragraph?

This is a motherlode of propaganda as the Catholic Church has taught that marriage is hierarchical in nature.

The Holy Family exemplified this hierarchy as Our Lord, the God-Man, was the least in authority although He was the Creator and Redeemer of both Saint Joseph, His foster father, and His Most Blessed Mother. Saint Joseph was the first in authority in the Holy Father although he was the least in the Order of Grace but first in the Order of Creation (Nature). Our Lady, who sought only to do God’s Holy Will at all times in her life, submitted herself in her loving spirit of humility to Saint Joseph even though she was his superior in the Order of Grace (Redemption).

While there have certainly been abuses found in Catholic families over the course of two millennia, such abuses have been the fault of individual human beings, not with what Holy Mother Church taught about family life. Bergoglio is thus using yet one of the many straw men that he creates in order to caricature and disparage the “past.” He really does believe that the “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath represented an “ecclesiogensis,” that is, the birth of a new church.

This point is proved in a particular way in paragraph fifty-four wherein the Argentine Apostate continued to whack away at rhetorical straw men in order to show himself to be the apostle of “mercy” and “enlightenment.” He believes himself so “enlightened” as to endorse feminism and women’s “rights.” While this is nothing new for him, it does show that he is shameless in his embrace of an ideology that, though dating back to Eve herself, was given contemporary expression during the French Revolution and came into its own during the Bolshevik Revolution and its important into this country by means of those in North America who were as “enlightened” as he considers himself to be:

54. In this brief overview, I would like to stress the fact that, even though significant advances have been made in the recognition of women’s rights and their participation in public life, in some countries much remains to be done to promote these rights. Unacceptable customs still need to be eliminated. I think particularly of the shameful ill-treatment to which women are sometimes subjected, domestic violence and various forms of enslavement which, rather than a show of masculine power, are craven acts of cowardice. The verbal, physical, and sexual violence that women endure in some marriages contradicts the very nature of the conjugal union. I think of the reprehensible genital mutilation of women practiced in some cultures, but also of their lack of equal access to dignified work and roles of decision-making. History is burdened by the excesses of patriarchal cultures that considered women inferior, yet in our own day, we cannot overlook the use of surrogate mothers and “the exploitation and commercialization of the female body in the current media culture”.42 There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument, however, is not valid, “it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism”.43 The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Brief Interjection Number Four:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a complete ideologue who believes in the egalitarianism born of the French Revolution, which placed women at the barricades and eventually rent asunder the stability of the family in France by the Napoleonic Code, which sanctioned divorce and civil “remarriage,” and brought to “maturity” by Bolshevism and its useful idiots in the United States of America and the rest of the so-called “developed world.”

The Napoleonic Code’s section on divorce was decreed on March 2, 1803, and promulgated on March 31, 1803:

CHAPTER I.

Of the Causes of Divorce.

229. The husband may demand a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery.

230. The wife may demand divorce on the ground of adultery in her husband, when he shall have brought his concubine into their common residence.

231. The married parties may reciprocally demand divorce for outrageous conduct, ill-usage, or grievous injuries, exercised by one of them towards the other.

232. The condemnation of one of the married parties to an infamous punishment, shall be to the other a ground of divorce.

233. The mutual and unwavering consent of the married parties, expressed in the manner prescribed by law, under the conditions, and after the proofs which it points out, shall prove sufficiently that their common life is insupportable to them; and that there exists, in reference to them, a peremptory cause of divorce. (Chapter VI of the Napoleonic Code .)

In other words, divorce-on-demand, at least in some instances, was instituted under the Napoleonic Code. The cause of “women’s liberation” from an “enslavement” to an unhappy marriage had been advanced as the Cross, which is ever present even in the best of true marriages, was jettisoned in favor of a naturalistic concept of “happiness.” Although some readers may think this to be far-fetched, Amoris Laetitia is pretty much an endorsement of finding ways to justify every civil divorce proceeding under the pretext of showing “compassion” for the “reality” of peoples’ lives rather than demanding them to conform to an unrealistic “ideal.”

Perhaps even more to the point is that most Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, having been thoroughly imbued with the ethos of feminism by virtue of "religious education" programs and propaganda from the pulpit and as women have invaded the sanctuary itself in order to "take their place" next to the "presider" at the Protestant and Judeo- Masonic Novus Ordo service, serving as the extension of the hands of the presider as "altar servers," reading from the "lectionary" at the lectern an distributing what they think is Holy Communion. 

This proves yet again that we are undergoing quite a chastisement for the failure of a true pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's true bishops as Our Lady herself requested of Sister Lucia dos Santos in 1925 as a further elaboration of what she had requested on July 13, 1917.

Pope Pius XI explained in Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical letter on atheistic communism that was issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he issued his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi nationalism and racialism, that Marxism of its nature attacks the family by creating by "liberating" women from their families, thus impoverishng both themselves and their children in the name of "equality" and "self-fulfillment":

Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)  

Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force. The living wage is not a flat sum of money. Indeed, Holy Mother Church teaches that a just employer will pay his employees a sum proportionate to the work that they do and proportionate to the number of children with which he has been blessed by God. 

Pope Pius XI put the matter this way in Quadresgimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately.But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.) 

Women, having become accustomed to "equality" in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature), are now celebrating their ability to lead and to serve in positions that rob them of the dignity as women and have caused many to abandon all trace of recognizable femininity in favor of careerist approach to life that makes a commitment to their families a burden. This is why many women use contraception and kill their babies by surgical means if they escape the snare of contraceptive abortifacients of one sort of another, and the presence of so many women of child-bearing age in the work place has caused such a level of unemployment and under-employment for husbands and fathers that many wives and mothers are forced into the workplace ust to pay the bills and to have enough to pay for the confiscatory taxes that keep so many families enslaved to the civil state and to credit card companies.

Ah, behold the wreckage of a society where the naturalist ideology of feminism prevails even to a large extent in the minds of believing Catholics, including traditionally-minded Catholics across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide that many of them accept and applaud feminism as an advance in the direction of "full rights" for women when it is merely an enslavement of them to their own pride at the expense of their own eternal and temoral good and that of their families and their very nations.

Pope Pius XII issued a set of Papal Directive for Women of Today on September 11, 1947 in which he discussed the role of women in public life, a matter that Bergoglio believes is "settled" in favor of an indiscriminate "right" of women to seek elected office regardless of their domestic responsibilities:

There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function -- the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all.

Your own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families. We must not forget that the making of a home in which all feel at ease and happy, and the bringing up of children are very special contributions to the common welfare. So we rejoice in the fact, which you yourselves rightly recorded, that among rural families, which are still such a large part of society, woman's work in the home still goes hand in hand with her contribution to the social and national economy.

Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support.  (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Paragraph fifty-three of Amoris Laetitia is a revolution against such a papal allocution, which was merely a reiteration of the basic precepts of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption concerning the roles befitting the dignity and true femininity of wives and mothers. perhaps its is prudent to remember that Pope Pius XII explained that this is not a matter for the "world" to determine," stating that Holy Mother Church has every right to interpose herself in the temporal sphere when necessary:  

But under the pretense of saving the Church from the risk of being led astray in the "temporal" sphere, a slogan launched some ten years ago, continues to gain acceptance: return to the purely "spiritual." And by that is understood that the Church should confine her activities to a purely dogmatic teaching, to the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments, and that all incursion into, or even the right of examination in the domain of public life, all intervention in the civil or social order, should be denied her. As if dogma did not have a bearing upon every aspect of human life, as if the mysteries of the faith with their supernatural wealth, were not to maintain and invigorate the lives of individuals and, as a logical consequence, to harmonize public life with the law of God, to impregnate it with the spirit of Christ! Such vivisection is nothing short of being anti-Catholic. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Bergoglio believes that mothers cannot be "confined" to the home as this would be to disparage their equality with men, and in this he is thus aping the feminism of in French Revolutionaries in 1789 and  the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917, which itself spawned the feminism that has characterized the Zionist State of Israel from its very beginnings. 

Consider how closely the text below corresponds with the ideology expressed in paragraph fifty-three of Amoris Laetitia:

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich). 

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.

The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.

The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.

Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!

Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!

Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!

A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!

That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.

And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.  

It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us. 

It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women)  

Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.  

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.  

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women. (N. Lenin, February 21, 1920  To the Working Women.) 

This could have been written by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and/or Victor Manuel Fernandez as they are comardes-in-revolutionary-arms with the Franch and Bolshevik Revolutionaries, 

Contemporary feminism is but one expression of pride. It is an aspect of the narcissistic selfism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who once wrote that there was nothing more wonderful for him to experience than his own visage in a mirror. Rousseau's radical egalitarianism, which rejected all social distinctions based on nature and function found in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Redemption, helped to bring forth the French Revolution and its assault upon all legitimately constituted authority in the Church and in the world. Women were taught that their place was besides the men at the barricades, that they were to be "liberated" from the responsibilities of home and hearth, especially those of child-rearing.  

The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children would be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.  

Every man, woman and child is called to remember that he is a creature, a contingent being who did not create himself and whose mortal body is destined one day for the corruption of the grave. None of us is the equal to the Most Blessed Trinity. We must submit ourselves to everything He has revealed to us through Holy Mother Church without seeking to declare ourselves "equal" before Him, without Whom we do not take our very next breath. We must pray to Him humbly as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.  

Yes, my friends, it is the Rosary that is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the chief means by which the evils of the present day will be retarded and the seeds planted for the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Instead of babbling on about one naturalistic "solution" after another in alleged "debates," those who aspire to high office ought to be promoting Our Lady's Holy Rosary, which speaks more powerfully of our total reliance upon Christ the King and upon her, Our Immaculate Queen, than all of the meaningless verbiage that passes out like so much gas from the mouth and is then lost the fogs of the minds of men.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893, noted:

The third evil for which a remedy is needed is one which is chiefly characteristic of the times in which we live. Men in former ages, although they loved the world, and loved it far too well, did not usually aggravate their sinful attachment to the things of earth by a contempt of the things of heaven. Even the right-thinking portion of the pagan world recognized that this life was not a home but a dwelling-place, not our destination, but a stage in the journey. But men of our day, albeit they have had the advantages of Christian instruction, pursue the false goods of this world in such wise that the thought of their true Fatherland of enduring happiness is not only set aside, but, to their shame be it said, banished and entirely erased from their memory, notwithstanding the warning of St. Paul, "We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one which is to come" (Heb. xiii., 4).

When We seek out the causes of this forgetfulness, We are met in the first place by the fact that many allow themselves to believe that the thought of a future life goes in some way to sap the love of our country, and thus militates against the prosperity of the commonwealth. No illusion could be more foolish or hateful. Our future hope is not of a kind which so monopolizes the minds of men as to withdraw their attention from the interests of this life. Christ commands us, it is true, to seek the Kingdom of God, and in the first place, but not in such a manner as to neglect all things else. For, the use of the goods of the present life, and the righteous enjoyment which they furnish, may serve both to strengthen virtue and to reward it. The splendor and beauty of our earthly habitation, by which human society is ennobled, may mirror the splendor and beauty of our dwelling which is above. Therein we see nothing that is not worthy of the reason of man and of the wisdom of God. For the same God who is the Author of Nature is the Author of Grace, and He willed not that one should collide or conflict with the other, but that they should act in friendly alliance, so that under the leadership of both we may the more easily arrive at that immortal happiness for which we mortal men were created.

But men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness which alone lasts for ever.

It is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer, to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as "fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, "How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).

Here alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)

We must, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, use the shield of the Brown Scapular and the weapon of the Most Holy Rosary to combat the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own lives so that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the glorious day when all men and all women everywhere will exclaim:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.  

Pope Saints Soter and Caius, pray for us.