Skip to main content

Francis's Death Penalty Tactic: More Abortions, Denial of Moral Law & Objective Truth?

Pope Francis has a new game plan that includes the new tactic of precise unambiguous language.

The old plan was to use ambiguous language to allow sexual intrinsically evil acts.

In the new plan, Francis is saying the death penalty is an intrinsically evil act in precise unambiguous language, it appears, to possibly negate natural moral law.

Dr. Joseph Shaw at the Lifesitenew  and S. Armaticus at the Deus Machina blog made the same observation on Francis's new language:

-Shaw: "The Pope speaks in this address with a level of technical precision not always to be found in his remarks.'

-Armaticus: "Since May, the 'literary construct' used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity.'

If what Dr. Shaw, Edward Feser and Armaticus are saying below is true then the new plan is to possibly bring about more abortions while claiming to be pro-life and negate objective truth as well as natural moral law. Fr. Edmundus Waldstein, O.Cist.,at, gives a overview before we get the Shaw, Feser and Armaticus :

"In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now, Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces." (Dubia and Initiating Processes, December 7, 2016,

Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for Catholic said anyone who would praise Haring "as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive."

In the beginning of the post, titled "Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent," Mirus said:

"Pope Francis praised...Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican Council."

The article presented some of the moral theologian's dissenting heretical teachings:

"In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization, contraception and artificial insemination...According to Haring, under difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts."

The Kasper proposal agenda which became Amoris Laetitia is in significant segments about allowing, in a ambiguous way, intrinsically evil acts such as adultery and implicitly homosexuality. Fr. Z said at his website on April 16, 2016:

"'Homosexuality' was the bigger issue with the Kasperites... This is still the Kasperite strategy."

The Kasper agenda and Amoris Laetitia's unavoidable logic is:

It follows that if unrepentant adulterers can receive Holy Communion, then unrepentant homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too.

The bigger agenda of Cardinal Kasper and Haring (besides allowing intrinsically evil acts), which Francis may or may not understand, is a Hegelian philosophic idealistic subjective metaphysics of historical becoming which denies the eternal and/or objective truths of the Classical Greek/Thomistic metaphysics of being.

Waldstein, O. Cist., explains:

"This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy.... Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church."

"I call this sort of historicism “soft” since its proponents would not all be willing to affirm the dark core of Hegel’s account of the good. But by adopting historicist terms they tend to draw conclusions that imply the basically subjectivist, modern account of the good, and the account of freedom that follows from it. Thomas Stark has shown how these problems play out in the theology of Cardinal Kasper." []

What happens when you reject the objective truth of Thomism and common sense is you negate natural moral law.

Dr. Joseph Shaw shows how "conservative" moral Catholic theorists such as Germain Grisez who reject Thomism for Kantian philosophy play into the abortionist game plan and the apparent new Vatican plan.

In an LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Francis Dr. Joseph Shaw explains how the Pope has aligned with Grisez:

The Pope speaks in this address with a level of technical precision not always
to be found in his remarks. He says:

'It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a
human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which –
ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.'

This logically implies that the 'willful suppression of life' in self-defence and war is also always and everywhere ruled out.

This aligns his position with that made famous by the American theologian Prof
Germain Grisez (who, as a matter of fact, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis
protesting about the undermining of the teaching of the Church on marriage, with his longstanding collaborator Prof John Finnis). Grisez argues that warfare is morally possible if we think of soldiers not intending to kill, but intending to incapacitate.

This raises the question of whether Pope Francis or his collaborators would like at
some point to take advantage of another implication of Grisez’s position. Grisez’s
view is that it is intrinsically wrong to intend to take a life, and that this is always
wrong (even in a just war). On the other hand, it would be permissible to remove anon-viable fetus from the womb, if the intention was not to kill but to remove the fetus from the womb for the sake of the mother’s health. Indeed, to facilitate this removal, it would be permissible to cut the fetus into pieces first.
(See Germain Grisez ‘Towards a consistent Natural-Law ethics of killing’  American Journal of Jurisprudence 15 (1970) p4; cf. Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) p311)

This view was condemned by Pope St John Paul II in Evangelium vitae 62 (cf. §§40,
60, 63). It should be emphasised that Grisez and his collaborators accepted the
position of Evangelium vitae as binding on Catholics.

The condemnation of the death penalty in all circumstance could be part of a
strategy to adopt this understanding of a consistent pro-life ethic. While it looks at
first like a very strong ‘pro-life’ position, it allows so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’, and
adopting it would enable the Church to make an enormous concession to the
practice of abortion.

Is should be noted that the great majority of abortions are carried out under the
justification of the ‘health of the mother’, whether physical or mental, and while
Grisez would insist that few could be truly justified on his theory, it would not be easy
for legislators to distinguish which were and which were not. The practical result of
adopting this approach would be the end of the Catholic campaign against legal
abortion, and the resolution of the confrontation between the Church and the world on this most explosive of issues.

In short, the implications for the pro-life movement would be catastrophic.
(LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Pope Francis with Dr.
Joseph Shaw, Oxford professor.
October 20, 2017)

Philosopher Edward Feser explains in the article "Live Action, lying, and natural law" why Grisez's theology is "incompatible with biblical revelation, traditional Catholic moral teachings and traditional natural law":

The answer, in my view, is that the project of the “new natural lawyers” is inherently deeply unstable.  The point of the theory from its inception has been to provide an alternative philosophical foundation for Catholic moral teaching, especially concerning sexuality.  

But it is very difficult – I would say impossible – to defend traditional sexual morality without treating biological facts as normative.  And that requires attributing to biological phenomena essences in virtue of which they point inherently to certain ends; that is to say, it requires attributing to them something like Aristotelian formal and final causes.  Hence references to “acts of the reproductive type,” to “the language of the body,” and the like keep finding their way into the arguments of “new natural lawyers” – language which seems at best metaphorical and at worst unintelligible unless understood as a roundabout way of referring to the formal and final causes of biological phenomena.  

Yet writers like Grisez and Finnis, officially committed as they are to the Humean “fact/value distinction,” have for decades been badmouthing traditional Scholastic natural law theorists for committing the so-called “naturalistic fallacy” in grounding ethics in Aristotelian metaphysics.  The attempt of the “new natural lawyers” to square this circle – to smuggle in a bit of disguised Aristotelianism after all, under the Humean radar – results in obscurantism and incoherence. 

The results of the “Grinnis” approach are in some cases not only obscure, but decidedly untraditional.  For example, “new natural lawyers” often hold, not only that it is better not to impose the death penalty (something many Catholic moralists have held over the centuries, Pope John Paul II being the most famous example), but that the death penalty is always and intrinsically immoral – a claim that is simply incompatible with biblical revelation, traditional Catholic moral teaching, and traditional natural law theory.  (Tollefsen and I debated this issue several years ago when we were co-bloggers at the now defunct Right Reason group blog.  You can find his statement of his position here and my reply here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine.)

Tollefsen’s conflation of lying and deception is of a piece with his conflation of intentional killing and murder.  And just as the latter conflation implies a kind of quasi-pacifism – Grisez and Co. hold that it is wrong even in a defensive war ever to intend to kill attacking enemy soldiers (one may in their view at most foresee and allow their deaths as an unintended side-effect) – so too the former conflation implies a radical restriction on “practices of undercover work, espionage work, and other forms of journalistic, police, and governmental work,” as Tollefsen acknowledges in a reply to Kaczor.

Tollefsen does not elaborate, but it seems likely that he would have to condemn as “unloving” many deceptive practices that do not involve lying and which have been considered justifiable by traditional natural law theorists and Catholic moralists.  (In fairness to Tollefsen, he does tell us in another follow-up article that he thinks that certain methods employed by police in infiltrating gangs and busting drug dealers can be justifiable.  He does not tell us, though, whether all of the kinds of broad mental reservation and evasion allowed by traditional natural law theory are sufficiently “loving” or conducive to the “unity” of the “inner self” with one’s “appearance in the world.”)

Hence, though the “new natural law” position is commonly regarded as conservative (and in some of its applications is conservative), it leads in other cases to what Tollefsen has called “liberal and progressive” outcomes, and certainly to outcomes that depart from traditional Catholic and natural law teaching.  My own view is that these outcomes and the novel premises they are based on are philosophically and theologically highly dubious – and pastorally unwise too, leading as they do (in the ethics of killing and deception, as we have seen here, but in other areas too) to a kind of otherworldly rigorism.   

One of the great achievements of the Scholastics was to provide an Aristotelian corrective to the Platonic austerity of earlier writers, leading moral theology in a more sober, humane, and realistic direction.  It is no surprise that the “new natural lawyers,” in abandoning an Aristotelian metaphysics of human nature, have in some respects returned to something like the rigorism of the earlier writers. 

In any event, it is important to emphasize that their novel conclusions are applications of Grisezism rather than of Thomism, traditional natural law theory, or traditional Catholic moral theology. 

[For criticism of the “Grinnis” school from the point of view of traditional natural law theory, see: chapter 5 of my Aquinas; David Oderberg’s paper “The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law”; the first edition of Ralph McInerny’s Ethica Thomistica and chapter 9 of his Aquinas on Human Action; Anthony Lisska’s Aquinas’s Theory of Natural Law; Henry Veatch’s “Natural Law and the ‘Is’-‘Ought’ Question,” in Swimming Against the Current in Contemporary Philosophy; and Russell Hitinger’s A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory.  Chapter 5 of Aquinas also contains a general defense of traditional natural law theory; and for a defense of the traditional natural law approach to sexual morality in particular, see chapter 4 of my The Last Superstition.]
(Click to read whole article:

At The Deus Ex Machina Blog,  in "From 'Pseudosacral Homopoetic Prose' To Transrational Brutalism And How We Got Here"  explains what may be the end game plan of those who are prepping Pope Francis in using precise unambiguous language:

Since May, the “literary construct” used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity to the following:

“On the contrary, traditionalist ideology has a faith like this [the pope makes a gesture of putting on earmuffs]. “The benediction should be done like this. In Mass, fingers should be like this, with gloves, like before …” What Vatican II has done with the liturgy has been something truly grand, because it has opened worship of God to the people. Now the people participate.”

This latter passage is from the Vox Cantorix blog post titled Of Bergoglian earmuffs and socks, and appeared on the 4th of September, 2017.

So as we can observe is that over the span of 3 1/2 months, Francis the bishop of Rome has gone from using cryptic and enigmatic “literary constructs” to express a “certain thought”, to using outright clear and precise verbiage to express that same “certain thought”.

Aside, the latter construct is not very Jesuitical, if I do say do myself… Reason being that the latter “literary construct”, i.e. “traditionalist ideology” is a very precise term.

Come to think of it, the expression “traditionalist ideology” is as specific and as precise and as understandable as anything that one can come across, when going through the various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments of Francis,  i.e the Francis “magisterium”.

Actually, this “literary construct” is as precise and definitive as say… oh… this passage below is precise and definitive:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Now you can’t get any more precise and clear and definitive than the above, now can you?

Which brings me to the subject matter at hand.

If one were to hear the expression “traditionalist ideology”, one might be excused if one experiences a feeling of cognizant dissonance. Yes, it is an oxymoron. One cause for the above could be due to reading the many posts about what constitutes an IDEOLOGY on this blog. But I digress…

So in an attempt to combat the dissonance, one might do a word search on a random search engine (hint: DuckDuckGo) and find the term IDEOLOGY defined as follows:

Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has.

Now in our case, we would be referring to Catholic society.

So drilling down into the definition, we notice the term “normative beliefs”. Here is what we would find if we follow the links:

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.

Which leads to the question of where do “norms”, or to be more precise, “moral norms” come from?

In Catholic Society, “moral norms” originate from two sources, namely: as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and as known through “divine revelation.”

So naturally, something that is known as a “norm” would be closely associated with an underlying “law” from which that norm originated. Now, when I use the term “law” I am speaking in a very general case.

In the specific Catholic sense, the origin of the law is defined as follows: (see here)

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”

So from the above, it is plainly obvious that any “moral norm” must originate in Natural Moral Law which originated in God and was divinely revealed by His Son.

Which then begs the question, how does one get from:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 [emphasis added] (see here)?

The obvious answer is: one can’t.

So the question that is in need of an answer is: by what thought process can one get from A to B, given that both cannot be correct? I.e. they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive positions.

The answer is that this circle can only be “squared” by a POST-MODERNIST thought process. Here is another short video that sets the proper CONTEXT for the above. When viewing this, think about how closely Dr. Peterson comes to explaining the phenomenon of Francis, bishop of Rome.

And the reason that the POST-MODERNIST thought process can explain this logical contradiction is that…

…the post-Modernists to some degree, because their in-coherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic.

So what’s the point of this exercise and why am I beating this POST-MODERNIST dead horse again? Where is the “newness” you dear reader might be asking right about now?

The “newness” of the above has to be the “novelty”, in Jesuitical terms, whereby a pathological, consummate and seemingly incorrigible Jesuit is now using clear, precise and specific language to argue his position.

Yes, he is using the term IDEOLOGY!

And please ignore the fact that that word doesn’t mean what Francis thinks it means.

So the point of the above 1500 or so words, is to NOTE that this new game being played, is no longer a game based on a sleight of hand nor nuance nor even acts of omission. The game now being played presently is one of negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is a game of explicit and overt negation of the NATURAL LAW and it’s source NATURAL MORAL LAW. 
(Click for whole article:

If you don't want to view the Dr. Peterson video above then below is my summary of Postmodernism.

Does Pope Francis believe that there is no "possibility of an objective basis for truth" and that there is no objective meaning or reality? ( definitions of nihilism)

The nihilist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.

In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")

De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:

"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."

"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."

"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)

By Francis's greatest modern theologian's logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or "narrative."

They change the "narrative" or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their "narrative" point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their "narratives" are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin "narrative" is "news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion." (

They usually use their "narratives" in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is the Pope's favorite theologian's central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau")

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the Plural, " Page 511)

In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a sign of "absence."

Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau's influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

"It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church." (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

"Certeau... came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the "law of conflict," that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is "shattered." ("Michael de Certeau - in the Plural", Page 359)

Francis's greatest modern theologian doesn't believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Pope's most eminent modern theologian doesn't even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If the Pope is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The "Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s... Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals - or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter..."

"Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology..."

"Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track..."

"Here it is useful to recall Derrida: 'deconstruction never had any meaning... than as a radicalization... within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'" ("Explaining Postmodernism," Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and it appears Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal ideology or group.

Instead of economic Marxism, the post-modernist in the 1970's focused on what de Certeau and other Postmodernists termed "oppression" of groups.

Power not truth for groups such as women, gays, transexauls, workers and any sub-category of minorities was the new goal to achieving control.

An example is abortion: women had to have power over their bodies so the truth that the unborn baby is human must be denied and politically incorrect.

Another example is homosexual acts: gays had to have power over their bodies so the truth that it is was a sin and leads to disease and a early death had to be denied and politically incorrect.

Remember that liberals, who never use Marxist words, are nothing but Postmodernist who use words like equality and compassion as masks for raw power grabbing.

Venezuela is another example.

The liberals from Fr. James Martin to Pope Francis will not lift a finger or say a word to stop the Venezuelan people from being starved and brutalized because the country's dictator is part of their liberal group.

The liberals new plan to achieve power in the Church is praxis theology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis's "decision - making process" outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is "the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory."

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia "might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter." Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks how footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia "can be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between... two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other." ("Catholic Theology," Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis theology.

Rowland says "praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics." When one rejects classical metaphysics, he is rejecting objective truth and natural moral law. She then explains praxis ideology or "theology":

"Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process." ("Catholic Theology," Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of Pope Francis and praxis "theology," then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

The Church has a Pope who has betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

It appears that Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "secular (liberal or Marxist)" ideology which denies objective truth.

Pray for the Church, the beloved bride of Jesus Christ.

(End note: I apologise for the different typesetting and size of words. Copying and pasting different typesettings caused the problem which could only be clean up so much with the limited time I had to write this post and do other projects.)


Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 |   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul