During the March 2013 interregnum following the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, and in the conclave itself, proponents of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, as Benedict’s successor described him as an orthodox, tough-minded, courageous reformer who would clean the Vatican’s Augean stables while maintaining the theological and pastoral line that had guided the Church since John Paul II’s election in 1978: dynamic orthodoxy in service to a revitalized proclamation of the Gospel, in a world badly needing the witness and charity of a Church of missionary disciples.
That was how I had perceived Cardinal Bergoglio when we met for over an hour in Buenos Aires ten months earlier. During that conversation, the cardinal expressed gratitude for what I had done to explain John Paul II to the world in Witness to Hope. In turn, I told him how taken I was with the 2007 “Aparecida Document”, in which the bishops of Latin America committed themselves to a future of intensified evangelization. It was, I said, the most impressive explication of the New Evangelization I had yet read, and I thanked him for the leading role he had played in drafting it.
So, when Cardinal Bergoglio was elected pope on March 13, 2013, I anticipated a pontificate in broad continuity with its two predecessors, if with distinctive personal accents. So, I daresay, did most of the cardinals who voted to make the archbishop of Buenos Aires the 266th Bishop of Rome. Francis, it was thought, would be a reforming pope who would further energize the Church for mission and evangelization by straightening out the Vatican mess that had destabilized the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
That is not quite what transpired over the next twelve years.
Pope Francis’s evident compassion for the dispossessed and the poor certainly helped the world understand better that the Catholic Church follows its Lord in extending a healing hand to the marginalized on the peripheries of society. His inaugural apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), was a ringing affirmation of the evangelical intention of the Second Vatican Council, in continuity with John Paul II’s great encyclical Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer) and the Aparecida Document. So was the Pope’s challenge to young people at his first World Youth Day in Brazil: don’t be afraid of trying new ways to bring others to Christ, even if some of those ways don’t work.
Yet within a year of his election, Pope Francis re-opened what was thought to be the settled question of whether Catholics in canonically irregular marriages —who remain members of the worshipping Church —could legitimately receive Holy Communion. In doing so, he set in motion dynamics that would become an impediment to the re-evangelization of the secularizing Western world and sowed confusion where the New Evangelization had seen great success, not least in sub-Saharan Africa. This pattern of unsettling what was thought settled continued throughout the pontificate and engaged questions of the moral life (including the Church’s response to the increasingly bizarre claims of the sexual revolution), questions of Church order (including who the Church was authorized to ordain), and questions of Catholicism’s relationship to world powers eager to bring the Church to heel (as in China).
In late 2016, Pope Francis invited me to what would be my third and last private audience with him. It was a friendly, candid conversation, like its predecessors. But when I suggested that the arguments over Holy Communion for those in irregular marriages, which had intensified following his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), were an impediment to the passionate evangelization he had proposed in Evangelii Gaudium, the Pope dismissed my concerns by saying, “Oh, arguments are fine.” Of course they are, I thought, in many other circumstances. But is it in the nature of the papacy to unsettle what has been settled?
There remains a great work of reform to be done in Rome: financially, theologically, and otherwise. Even more fundamentally, however, the next pontificate must understand what the Francis pontificate seems not to have grasped: Christian communities that maintain a clear understanding of their doctrinal and moral identity and boundaries can not only survive the acids of post-modernity; they have a chance to convert the post-modern world. By contrast, Christian communities whose self-identity becomes incoherent, whose boundaries become porous, and who mirror the culture rather than trying to convert it wither and die.
For as always, the bottom-line question for the Catholic future is, “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8) —the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3), and none other.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you, especially for trying on Amoralist Laetitia. Happy Easter!
On April 5, 2018, David Warren summed up what was on offer from the Pontiff Francis:
We had a choice: it was either him…or Jesus.
https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2018/04/05/more-merciful-than-jesus/
Mr. Weigel was kind in his observation:
“So, when Cardinal Bergoglio was elected pope on March 13, 2013, I anticipated a pontificate in broad continuity with its two predecessors… That is not quite what transpired over the next twelve years.”
David Warren was more direct in his observation of Francis:
“By now I am convinced that he is not an honest man.”
If Pope Francis was expected to in broad continuity with the two previous popes, he certainly was not that. So it results in the question did he purposely present a incorrect image or was he influenced by insiders or the Vatican version of the deep state.
Weigel’s conviction that “This pattern of unsettling what was thought settled [doctrine] continued throughout the pontificate” aligned the Church with the secular world, and prevented the Church from converting it, was what many who contribute to this website saw.
It’s difficult to conceive that an intelligent, widely experienced man could come to the conclusion that such a policy of accommodation would convert our world culture. Perhaps Francis thought such a presumed merciful Ecclesial posture promising salvation at no cost would draw the multitudes in? Which it did not. It simply received favorable comments, like what a kind, wonderful Pope. And nothing more.
Hopefully our new pontiff will realize the futility of such a skewed promotion of Catholic Christianity. Catholicism is a religion of blood and fire. And nothing less.
Amen Father
Thank you Mr. Weigel, spoken like a true Prophet, hopefully Rome is listening.
A mostly accurate critique, perhaps delivered in a kinder key than required.
Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Mr. Weigel writes: “During the March 2013 interregnum following the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, and in the conclave itself, proponents of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, as Benedict’s successor described him as an orthodox, tough-minded, courageous reformer….”
I’m amazed and awed that Mr. Weigel scooped or scoped news from the innards of the 2013 conclave. How was Mr. Weigel privy to seriously restricted, secretive, even sacrosanct sources? Aren’t discussions at conclave forbidden outside the conclave?
Even ex post facto? Who can believe what was alleged to have been said in such circumstance?
On another note, Mr. Weigel correctly concludes that Francis’ pontificate failed to grasp that: “…Christian communities whose self-identity becomes incoherent, whose boundaries become porous, and who mirror the culture rather than trying to convert it wither and die.” Just so: The community of the Francis I pontificate, typically incoherent, confusing, messy, and disturbing to many of the orthodox faithful, has passed. Let us pray that another pontificate does not resurrect to repeat the mistakes of that one now ended.
I think?? that, i view of his extraordinary qualifications and reputation, Mr Weigel has some
privileges with the Vatican that regular reporters from secular media don’t have. I’m certain he wasn’t admitted to the conclave but the information that he posted seems to have been accurate and I’m guessing?? that he was on who received and analyzed it for the interested public.
The book “Theistic Evolution” by Wolfgang Smith (RIP, devout Catholic, MIT Math professor) explains the many fabulous fantasies of the Jesuit heretic Teilhard de Chardin. Read the book – it explains all of PF’s stunning and incoherent beliefs and acts. Hat tip to William Briggs for citing this important book. If one ignores the Teilhard influence on PF one is doomed to ignorance. Jesuit heresies have plagued the Church for 150 years. H/T Malachi Martin also.
R.R. Reno at First Things disgracefully fired (with a regrettable publicly published attack) the writer Maureen Mullarkey who early on diagnosed the malignancy of PF’s papacy.
Agree 100% that Reno acted disgracefully in that.
He showed himself (and like-minded staff at FT) to be a member of the establishment court, a country-club-catholic.”
St. Peter at the gate when Francis arrives: “I see Francis you started your papacy advising to make a mess.” Francis replies:” If I may interrupt on my behalf blessed Peter, Mission accomplished.” What happened next was covered in a cloud.
What cloud would that be I wonder. Are you saying Bergoglio ended up like a cut up varmint beyond the side of the road off over the edge down there. I can’t tell.
The lodge boys of Italy are making him as their own, he died on Anselm’s day so they’re mixing that up with the Poverello business along with, would you believe:
‘ At this time of mourning, our Communion wishes to pay tribute to the vision of Pope Francis, whose work is connoted by a profound resonance with the principles of Freemasonry: the centrality of the person, respect for the dignity of every individual, building a community of solidarity, and the pursuit of the common good. His encyclical Brothers All represents a manifesto. Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood is the triple value asset of Freemasonry. Overcoming divisions, ideologies, single thinking to recognize the richness of differences and build a humanity united in diversity, this is what Francis fervently wanted, the same design the Grand Lodge of Italy pursues.
Pope Francis has been able to combine faith and reason, complementary dimensions of human experience, renewing the Anselmian principle of “credo ut intelligam.” A faith capable of questioning, welcoming doubt and dialogue, which we also find in the Masonic initiatory method, founded on a path free of dogma, substantiated by the unceasing search for truth. ‘
Everyone’s so deeply moved.
Preparations for using the Holy See to prey on the faithful -your evil clouding.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/freemasonic-lodge-hails-pope-francis-work-as-deeply-resonant-with-their-principles/
I’ve had a number of Masons in my family. As far as US & Canada goes I don’t think it’s a big deal. American Masonic Lodges are part of a shrinking, fraternal organization for geriatric men these days. When I look at photos of local Masons they all qualify for AARP membership & most are old enough to have been receiving Social Security for years. Things may vary in Europe & Latin America.
I don’t really recommend LSN as a reliable source of unbiased info. Occasionally they have something worth paying attention to like the prolife ad made for Volvo.
From the report at LIFESITE those Italian ones have formulated a relevance and importance for themselves and their declaration of purpose, all out of proportion and very high sounding yet establishing the unorthodoxy or at least questionableness of the Francis thrust.
Questionable.
Unorthodox.
Illicit.
Pernicious.
Pertinacious.
I’ve heard that Freemasonry in Europe is a different thing than in the US. I wonder what the average age of Masons is in Italy compared with the US?
Notorious.
Lodge boys from where I live, plus from the US and Canada, are all heard to say things like:
“I don’t go there anymore.”
“We’re just a trade association like Rotary.”
“Don’t be misled it’s a knife and fork (dinner party) club.”
“We’re all about wine and cheese a bit overrated.”
“I never saw anything wrong there.”
“Just like any other good fraternity. You can leave if you’re unhappy.”
“We’re about charity and brotherhood, look at all what we do.”
“If I tell you I take it too seriously I would be lying to you.”
“Yes the aprons are a bit avuncular but it’s ancient you know.”
“How could you claim to know anything since you’re not a member?”
“I quite like the simple society it offers.”
“Relax. My brother goes so I miss out on nothing.”
Total number of world lodgers is minute compared to everyone else, they are unrepresentative of anything except themselves but they claim to speak for everyone -“Every-man”- about something called the Great Architect and an implacable Brotherhood and their “goodwill”.
They are on the edge of extinction and will have to go into hiding to survive.
It does not matter what the typical old man seeking fellowship at his lodge actually believes. The secular modernism that Masonry has always promoted now dominates global thought, and Francis was clearly more of a secular syncretist in his thought than a Catholic.
To say the very least!
Kinda omits the near suppression of Tridentine Latin Masses, the attack on contemplative orders, and an encyclical on prayer which stated cloistered contemplative orders should get a REAL job like social work.
I was unable to open your article a few days ago in the CWR. Could you please send it to me?
Thank you.
There were two articles. The first was quickly and surely responsibly withdrawn, probably by the author, and probably because of breaking and more complete information–rendering the carefully qualified article still too speculative, hypothetical, and in error. The general theme would have been that if the current conclave procedure were to be modified in some only-rumored ways, this might have compromised the accumulated wisdom and memory of the college of cardinals…
To which, yours truly responded:
Yes, memory, wisdom…and sanity! Two points and a memory jog:
The unified HUMAN PERSON and mind, according to Augustine—and even according to our own self-knowledge—consists of memory, intellect, and will. And will depends upon intellect, while intellect depends upon memory. But, already having replaced intellect with the zeitgeist, and the will with impulse, and Rome with der Synodal Weg—why not also replace memory with amnesia?
SOBER MINDS might simply recall (!) Pope Pius XI’s “Syllabus of Errors,” especially the final #80 which reads: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress [“progress”?], liberalism and modern civilization [“civilization”?].”
About now INSTITUTIONALLY lobotomizing even our personal and shared memory—as the elementary “capacity to simply recall”—we have this from emeritus Pope Benedict:
“The first so-called ontological level of the phenomenon of conscience [!] consists in the fact that something like an original memory [!] of the good and the true (they are identical) has been implanted in us, that there is an inner ontological tendency within man, who is created in the image and likeness of God, toward the divine…
“This anamnesis of the origin, which results from the god-like constitution of our being [!], is not a conceptually articulated knowing, a store of retrievable contents. It is …an inner sense, a capacity to recall [!], so that the one whom it addresses, if he is not turned in on himself [!], hears its echo from within. The possibility for and right to mission rest on this anamnesis of the Creator [!], which is identical to the ground of our existence. The gospel…must be proclaimed to the pagans, because they themselves are yearning for it in the hidden recesses of their souls” (“Conscience and Truth,” 1991, 2000; then in “On Conscience: Two Essays by Joseph Ratzinger,” Ignatius/National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2007).
SUMMARY: Memory, what’s that? God, what’s that? Patrimony and Conclave? What’s that? Sanity…
Tragically and sadly, the very best thing that can be said about this pontificate is that it brought the evil in the Church to the surface where hopefully it can be purged by a future and faithful pope.
Agree.
This week a journalist or blogger repeated the characterization (as has been done thousands of times these long 12 years) that the Pontiff Francis modeled his behavior on the strategy of “Peronist” misdirection: that strategy was described as “signalling in one direction and then turning in the opposite direction.” Duplicity.
For Juan Peron the dictator of Argentina, this was particularly described as “signalling left and turning right.”
For Cardinal Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio (later referred to as “The Dictator Pope” in the book of the same name, written under a pseudonym in 2017 by Henry Sire, and updated under his own name in 2018), George Weigel is summing up the Pontiff Francis as a Peronist, who as Archbishop of Buenos Aries “signalled JP2/B26,” and then as Pontiff “turned against JP2/B16,” rejecting their testimony about “the hermeneutic of continuity,” and promoting “the ideology of rupture dog-whistled by the Spirit of Vatican 2.”
JP2 and B16 testified to the Splendor of Truth and The Logos = Jesus of Nazareth.
An admirer of Pontiff Francis, the “Vatican beat” journalist Francis X. Rocca, made an monumental contribution to the annals of unintended incrimination, in his obituary for the Pontiff Francis, calling him “the most influential fugure of the global left.” On that, I surmise all onservers can repose in agreement.
The Pontiff Francis’ tenure was a testimony about himself. David Warren of Canada put the choice offered by the Pontiff Francis in stark terms in April 2018: it’s a choice between the Pontiff Francis and Jesus.
(borrowing the theme given for a wider discourse on the apostasy of the Church Establishment by Fr. Robert Imbelli), my own conclusion is that the Pontiff Francis lived to serve as “the decapitator of the body of Christ.”
I have learned to trust only in Christ crucified and risen, and those few known to suffer and sacrifice for his name. As to Cardinals and Bishops and the Church Establishment, (and Church influencers who offer narratives about how we ought to understand Popes and Cardinals and bishops etc) we are warned by Jesus: “I send you out as sheep among wolves, therefore be ye wise as a serpent, and gentle as a dove.”
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle….”
I have just recently glanced at the obituary by FX Rocca mentioned here.
For most of the recent pontificate, Rocca was Rome & Vatican correspondent for the WSJ and so an influential prism through which the ‘teachings’ of PF were conveyed to a politically influential cohort of US readers
On the question of PF’s handling of clerical sexual abuse, the story of Bishop Borras of Chile is mentioned in outline.
That’s it.
Words fail me….
I appreciate that your analysis doesn’t overlook Pope Francis’s strengths — his compassion for the marginalized and his call to missionary discipleship are indeed significant contributions.
Criticism has its place in the life of the Church, but it must always be offered with a spirit of caritas, not only to point out what may be lacking but to build up communion. It seems essential to also recognise the enduring good fruits of this pontificate — some of which, I believe, will prove to have lasting theological and historical importance.
What matters most for our salvation is that we draw spiritual profit from what is good and let go of what might scandalize or discourage us.
Too often today, ecclesial debates get framed in political terms — “progressive” vs. “traditionalist” — when the deeper theological concern should be avoiding the extremes of passatism and modernism. Both represent distortions: the former by rejecting legitimate developments after the Council, and the latter by bending doctrine to fit the world.
The true measure of a faithful Catholic remains the perennial teaching of the Church, as synthesised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which transcends the categories of trend or faction.
In that light, our shared task isn’t only to evaluate this pontificate, but to live fully and gratefully in the Church as she is — a pilgrim people under grace, always in need of both renewal and fidelity.
Your undifferentiated Q.E.F. stuff is extremely polished undifferentiated Q.E.F.
Quot homines, tot sententiae -requires some charity but is not the faith and is not a a grace in hope.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/freemasonic-lodge-hails-pope-francis-work-as-deeply-resonant-with-their-principles/
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I must admit, when I read Q.E.F. in your comment, I briefly wondered whether I’d stumbled into a geometry textbook — or perhaps into a Vatican footnote from 1957. Either way, I appreciate the precision.
On the matter of Freemasonry and papal praise, I’d suggest that when someone outside the household praises the father, it’s often not because they fully understand him — but perhaps because something he said rang true, however faintly, to something they once hoped to believe in. Even St. Paul found a foothold on the Areopagus.
Of course, “liberty, equality, fraternity” only makes sense in the Christian vision when it’s rooted in our common origin and destiny — not just in abstract slogans. Otherwise, it’s a bit like using fine theological terms without knowing who coined them or why.
Anyway — I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’m still just trying to keep up with the Catechism. But as a great theologian once said (or maybe it was Columbo): “It’s always the small inconsistencies that give away the deeper logic.” Thanks again for engaging. It’s in charity that iron sharpens iron, and sometimes also in wit.
Mr. Giosue:
Believing (as you do) that it is good “to build up communion,” I conclude that (unfortunately for the Church), the divisive actions and speech from the Pontiff Francis indicate that he was intent on dissolving communion.
Friend in Christ,
Thank you for your reply — and for taking the time to express your concern with such directness. That’s already a form of communion, even if it may feel like an uncomfortable one.
Now, I admit — my instinct is always to begin, as Lieutenant Columbo might, with something like: “Just one more thing…” But unlike Columbo, I’m not here to catch anyone out — only to wonder aloud, and maybe to build a small bridge where one seemed unlikely. So here goes.
I believe the next pontificate will have a vital task: to hold together what now feels frayed. That means gathering up what was luminous in the Francis years — a deeper attention to human dignity, to mercy, to global south perspectives, ecology, interreligious dialogue — and wedding it to what Benedict left unfinished: the re-rooting of Catholic life in sound doctrine, liturgical beauty, and a humble yet confident ratio fidei.
It must also, I think, be a papacy of reconciliation — East and West, as Saint John Paul II so ardently hoped, but also North and South. Perhaps even (if Providence wills) from Africa itself — a continent now on the front lines of the Church’s great challenges and promises.
There, the next Pope must reckon with the pressures of radical Salafi Islam, the explosive growth of Pentecostal prosperity preaching, and the geopolitical weight of China and Russia — not to mention the quiet secular colonisation that creeps in via international institutions. None of these can be met with pastoral improvisation alone. They require depth, clarity, and a rediscovered moral imagination.
In this light, I sometimes wonder whether we haven’t mistaken communion for comfort. True communion isn’t the absence of disagreement — it’s the presence of Christ in disagreement, sustaining us through it, purifying our vision. As St. Paul said, “There must be factions among you so that those who are genuine may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:19). The trick is not to idolise the division, but to walk through it in charity.
I won’t deny that Pope Francis has sometimes spoken in ways that bewilder, and acted in ways that unsettle. But I also suspect — as C.S. Lewis once said about God — that He’s not safe, but He’s good. Francis, for all his flaws, may have been a hammer that cracked the hard shell of something we didn’t know had grown too rigid. The question is not whether the shell was good, but whether the pearl inside is still alive.
So I continue to hope — and to try, however poorly — to speak with both truth and caritas. Even when others disagree. Even when I’m wrong (which, to my wife’s great amusement, is not uncommon).
Gratefully yours,
Paolo Giosuè
Mr. Giosue:
I appreciate your very conciliatory exchange, so to begin, thank you.
Regarding the Pontiff Francis, there is ample evidence that his behavior and speech regarding “communion” were not matters of “disagreement,” but rather a prolonged campaign of animosity, contempt and persecution of those among the faithful he wanted to punish.
So while I continue to appreciate your charitable and civil discourse , it is a simple duty to speak candidly about the Pontiff Francis, and such candor involves addressing the ugly truth about his behavior.
May we all be conformed to the beauty of Christ.
Dear Chris,
Thank you again for your kind words and the seriousness with which you express your convictions.
In moments like these, I find it helpful to recall how Our Blessed Mother stood at the foot of the Cross: not with many words, not with outrage, but with the quiet, steadfast strength of one who loves both truth and sinners without contradiction. And Saint Joseph, though silent in Scripture, guarded both the Word and the Mother with a fidelity that spoke more than speeches ever could.
I do not deny the pain or scandal that some have perceived during this pontificate. But perhaps our duty — yours and mine — is to pray and suffer for the Church without surrendering to bitterness, so that the beauty of Christ, as you so fittingly said, may shine even through what wounds us.
There is a time for clarity, yes — but also for entrustment. And I believe Mary, the Help of Christians, still walks among us, drawing us back to her Son and protecting even the trembling shoots of communion.
Rosa Mystica, intercede pro Ecclesia,
ut in corde Filii tui renovetur unitas et veritas.
“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi nulla mors, sed vita aeterna.”
— S. Ambrosius
(“Where Peter is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is no death, but eternal life.”)
In corde Iesu et Mariae,
Giosuè
Was Pope Francis in fact a believer? I remember years ago the question,
“Is the Pope Catholic?” It was meant as a joke. Francis made it a very serious
question.
There was a time when the rejoinder of the obvious was “aren’t all swans white”.
Then one day, Cygnus Atratus was observed in Australia.
Francis was arguably the black swan.
I think that’s a legitimate question. I heard a lot from Francis about mass immigration, climate change, wealth redistribution, and support for homosexuality. On the other hand, I heard very little, if anything, about Jesus’ call to radical and wholehearted discipleship. Being a progressive doesn’t make one a believer.
On March 13, 2013, the website Rorate Caeli printed an article written by the Argentinian journalist Marcelo González entitled “The Horror!” with regard to the recent election of Pope Francis. Perhaps Mr. Weigel never read it, but for those of us who did, we were disabused of any notion that Pope Francis would be “an orthodox, tough-minded, courageous reformer.” Gonzalez was from Buenos Aires, knew the truth, and should have been heeded. He turned out to be 100% right.
Looked it up. Well, as the Germans say: “We learn from suffering.” And Lord knows, the faithful have learned a lot in the last 12 years!
We are about to find out if the Cardinals have learned anything good.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-horror-buenos-aires-journalist.html
Stunning article, dear Fool!
It was written just days after Bergoglio was elected. Yet the writer predicts the chaos and confusion of the ensuing dozen years perfectly, as if he could see into the future.
The cardinal electors should have done their homework twelve years ago.
I pray they will now.
That Bergoglio unsettled what was already “settled” in the Church, there can be no doubt. That he worked tirelessly for twelve years to dismantle the principles of the Church’s doctrine, worship, and moral theology, is more to the point.
You speak the truth, and yet, Franciscus failed. Am blowing a kiss to Pachamama. 💋
“Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many; then call on the name of your god, but put no fire to it.” So they took the bull that was given them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, crying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no answer. They limped about the altar that they had made. At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud! Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
(1 Kings 18:25-27)
Jesus Christ is Lord. Happy Easter!
Your message put a smile on my face.
I agree: Bergoglio largely failed–because Jesus Christ is always the true Head of the Church and God is not mocked. But on another level, Bergoglio caused much harm to the Church and to the world.
We cannot be too vigilant, it seems, when the enemy constantly “prowls about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Peter 5:8)
Under Bergoglio, those who love the true Faith were galvanized into action, while those “who are perishing because they refused to love the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10) were confirmed in their erroneous ways.
And so the solemn words of the Scripture are fulfilled: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” (Revelation 22:11)
The majority of souls, who live somewhere in the spectrum between these two extremes, are still open to conversion or corruption, and their eternal destiny depends (in some degree) on the missionary zeal of those who already know the Truth.
God will have His way.
This is a time of great sorting, separating the wheat from the chaff (Matthew 3:12). It is up to the true disciples of Jesus to proclaim the word of God, to pray and intercede, to “be holy still”, to bear witness to the Truth.
What we face is either a new springtime of the Faith (a true renaissance of the Church) or else an intensification of the great Trouble we’ve been living through. In a real sense, it’s up to the faithful to choose which path we will take, notwithstanding the fact of God’s eternal knowledge and providential designs.
“As one sees the power of AntiChrist spreading, one can only pray that the Lord will give us mighty shepherds to defend His church against the power of evil in this hour of need.” PPBXVI as Pope Emeritus.
Bishop Barron, writing at First Things today relates the speech Bergoglio gave at the conclave which may have given that impression.
Francis, as pope, disabused that earlier mistaken or misleading early impression. Barron finds much to admire and much to question or lament about the next 12 years of the Francis papacy.
https://firstthings.com/francis-in-full/
The impression is that Bergoglio was “orthodox, tough-minded, courageous.”
Barron’s piece was another disgrace of whitewashing gullible indifference to the massive harm done not only to God’s Church but to God’s desired witness, and the entirety of humanity during the last 12 years. How many more babies died as a result of the great moral relativist, forced to talk down abortion out of one side of his mouth, while simultaneously taking specific actions that clearly had the effect of supporting it? And how many more died as a result of the cowardice of those priests and prelates who stubbornly refused to figure this out?
Cardinal Bergoglio must have kept his cards close to him back then, because I don’t know how anyone could have an hour conversation with him and have concluded that (the future pope) would actually provide clarity for the Church. Still, may his soul rest in glorious peace and may any and all beneficial seeds he sowed as pope bear, through grace, great fruitfulness for the Church.
According to the Vatican Press Office, 90.000 people visited Bergoglio’s coffin the “people’s pope”.
Just 3 years ago 135.000 people paid their last respects to ppBXVI – 10 years after he stepped aside without abdication.
50% more Catholics paid their last respects to the author of Summorum Pontificum than the author of the ugly Traditionis Custodes.
FACT.
Great article, Mr.WEigl, as usual. I’ve been reading your magnific stuff for decades. My question: if PF had been previously perceived as you perceived him, what happened? Why did he change? , or did he really change at all? Id love some insight into that question. Thank again for all that you do for the Church
This is your best commentary since you released Witness to Hope
An evolutionary interpretation of the human condition is the polar opposite of Christianity, which holds to the permanent imperfectability of the human condition. Yet, churchmen, get taken in almost as frequently as their atheistic counterparts to insult God and believe this, and they’re more interested in the favorable opinion of religion haters than grace from God. The ways one responds to the simple primordial temptation, you shall be as gods, can be both subtle and complex. Weigel has always amazed me with his gullibility towards Francis.
Why should it have taken any time at all to assess Francis as unfit for his office? In a faithful Church, at a parish setting, he would have been drummed out of a local parish council with the instructions, come back when you acquire a minimal interest in learning a little bit about the Catholic religion, or at least enough to respect it. Small children preparing for a first Communion understand with a greater sense that faith must be coherent.
Among the continuing not so bright ideas of Francis that required rejection from the beginning that George Weigel might have pointed out in his private audiences:
No Holy Father, caring about the mass slaughter of the unborn is not “an obsession.” Neither would the creation of a committee of scholars to restudy Humanae Vitae likely discover, in contrast to the hundreds of millions who previously read its unambiguous language and content, that it might have meant the exact opposite of what everyone thought it meant.
And God is not an incoherent idiot who abandons His creation to different moralities in different localities. Neither is God an incoherent idiot who abandons His creation to different moralities at different times in history that can be reversed, by the “discerned will’ of the Holy Spirit at a later time in history.
And It is not “merciful” for a man to “discern” that in his concrete circumstances God might be asking him to start a new family with a different woman. God is not really big on interpreting “mercy” in such a way that includes abandoning a first wife and family.
Also, it is not really an act of “loving creation” by insisting that we can’t really identify the unborn as persons because to do so would offend too many of the most important people in the world. And there actually is a connection between fornication and unwanted pregnancies.
And God is not an idiot who needs to “learn” from his creation how to be a better God through history.
And he never really did have to lie to invincibly gullible scholars about having “drafted” documents he had nothing to do with drafting.
You write in your text: “But is it in the nature of the papacy to unsettle what has been settled?” However, there are many controversial issues in Moral Theology that have not been “settled,” as you say. Or perhaps they have, but only by certain theological schools, not necessarily by the Magisterium or by a Council. When one studies moral theology, one realizes the different arguments that exist and ways of approaching problems, always in the context of the search for truth and wanting to be faithful to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. There are theological schools that see their own opinions as absolute truths, when in reality they are not. If one carefully examines Amoris Laetitia, and if one reads the footnotes, and if one goes directly to the texts cited, then one realizes that the issues are not “black and white,” and that reality is more complex when one pays attention to it. Pope Francis quotes extensively from St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Paul II, and other authors whose orthodoxy no one would question. There are many complex situations in the field of morality that require deep study, discernment, prudent judgment, and an understanding of the virtue of epikeia. Of course, a thorough analysis of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics would help to understand these key concepts. In other words, to properly understand Amoris Laetitia, it is necessary, first, (1) to read the entire apostolic exhortation thoroughly and completely; (2) to have a good foundation in Aristotelian ethics and (3) in St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as (4) to be very attentive to the reality of many couples living in difficult situations that cannot be reduced to a Manichean “black and white” view. In this case, as in others, Pope Francis has shown that he knows what he is talking about, has extensive pastoral experience, and is, in fact, quite orthodox. He is faithful to the Gospel, to Tradition, to the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church (and not to a particular theological school that sees everything as “black or white”).
“If one carefully examines Amoris Laetitia, and if one reads the footnotes, and if one goes directly to the texts cited, then one realizes that the issues are not ‘black and white’…”
Christ’s words were black and white. A Catholic man who is validly, sacramentally married to a woman and who divorces her and marries another woman outside the Church, commits adultery. He is not truly married to the second woman, and engaging in the marital act with her is a mortal sin. Without confession and a firm purpose of amendment, he cannot receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege. That is the unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church. It will never change.
Thank you for your comments. In them, you accurately reflect the point of view that I want to question and criticize. You write: “Christ’s words were black and white. A Catholic man who is validly, sacramentally married to a woman and who divorces her and marries another woman outside the Church, commits adultery. He is not truly married to the second woman, and engaging in the marital act with her is a mortal sin”.
First, the words of Christ must also be interpreted with common sense, with the help of exegesis and with the help of the Tradition of the Church. An example is Mk 9:43-47. The apostolic constitution Dei Verbum also asks us to read the Word of God with discernment, and Joseph Ratzinger himself, in his speech given in New York in 1988, entitled “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today,” follows this line of thinking.
Second: many marriages considered “valid” are not in reality. It is enough to talk to an experienced canon lawyer to realize the magnitude of this problem worldwide.
Third, you say that if this person has relations with a new woman, then he commits a mortal sin. Can we really judge with certainty that a person X is committing a mortal sin? Let us recall the conditions for a mortal sin as taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1856-1861). It requires (1) grave matter, (2) full knowledge, and (3) full consent. Well, what if the person in question acts with some ignorance? Is it still a mortal sin? You may want to review number 1860 of the Catechism. Saint John Paul II also reminds us something similar in Veritatis Splendor. And also the Treatise on Grace contained in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, where in one article he says that we cannot know with certainty whether or not we are in mortal sin.
Here are some real examples, more common in the Middle Ages and in third world countries: a soldier goes to war and disappears for several years. His wife knows nothing, and after a few years she remarries. Suddenly, her first husband returns. Was she committing mortal sins with her new spouse?
Another common example: a married couple separates and begins canonical proceedings for annulment of marriage, and in that country the process takes about eight years (I know of such a case personally). One of the two has serious psychiatric problems and further complicates the whole process with lies and corruption. The ex-wife, knowing in her heart that the first marriage is null —even though the court has not yet declared it so—decides to rebuild her life and, after those eight years, still awaiting the ruling, she joins this new man who does love and respect her. Are they committing a mortal sin—and therefore deserve hell for all eternity—if they have sexual relations in their new commitment? Who are we to judge that!!??
I could go on. It is worth reading Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia carefully, a true example of moral theology in harmony with St. Thomas Aquinas, the Tradition of the Church, extensive pastoral experience, and a correct sense of discernment and mercy…
If you would give the Aquinas citation we could share your interpretation.
Certainly Aquinas argued that one cannot intellectually KNOW for certain whether he is in a state of grace. However, a man who LOVES the Lord greater than any created being or thing, knows that he loves the Lor, and thus chooses the Lord first, above, and always as a greater, final end.
A man who loves a woman in his second marriage cannot love the Lord more than he loves the woman if his knowledge of certainty about grace is not certain.
Where one has no knowledge, one may still have Love. Love of the Lord comes first.
Baloney. AL is junk theology. It is a capricious rationalization of accommodation. What AL argues is that a man can “discern that in his concrete circumstances” he can reason that his abandonment of his first family essentially doesn’t matter, and he can make the assumption, abuse the concept of “discern”, that pursuing a new woman and a new family is what “God is asking of him at this time.” Francis, as he was frequently throughout his pontificate, was oblivious to his mercilessness to the victims of sins he trivialized.
“the ex-wife, knowing in her heart that the first marriage is null —even though the court has not yet declared it so—decides to rebuild her life and, after those eight years, still awaiting the ruling, she joins this new man who does love and respect her. Are they committing a mortal sin—and therefore deserve hell for all eternity—if they have sexual relations in their new commitment? Who are we to judge that!!??”
***********
I can’t predict who’s going to perdition but no, “knowing something in our heart” & acting on that without an annulment is not the way Catholics are instructed to behave. And yes, that is a sin.
You are exactly right. Oprah Winfrey Catholics would say no one is supposed to suffer from life events. Catholics who are Catholic know this is what we are called to do.
RIP, PF🩵.
Eternal rest Grant unto him, O Lord, and let Your perpetual light shine upon him.
O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fountain of mercy for us, I trust in You!
Reflecting on the pontificate of Francis, I find it remarkable that a man chosen to lead and inspire an institution – the Catholic Church – had such intense dislike of it.
The tomb of the Bishop of Rome says everything he believed in: FRANCISCUS
We must pray that Francis ll does not appear on the loggia! We must stick ever closely to Christ and His Mother!
I have only a couple of works by the late pontiff, must do a bit for laudate so and consign them to the compost bin!