Are Francis Catholics Arian heretics? @FrDEMeikle [Francis's beloved] Mohammedans also do not, and cannot refer to God as He reveals Himself, as Father. So how many bishops (out of ~5,500) believe in the god of Tony [Annett]?
Fr. David Nix implied that Francis and his collaborator "Jesus is merely the 'privileged route to salvation'” Bishop Robert Barron are Arian heretics:
If Jesus is merely the “privileged route to salvation,” then all religions can be a vehicle to salvation. However, this notion is no different from Arianism. Here’s why: Jesus claims to be God. Jesus claims to be the only way, truth and life. If this is not true, then He is not God. And this is Arianism. Thus, religious indifferentism encapsulates a thousand heresies, including Arianism.
Notice that belief in the Trinity is inherently linked to the Catholic Faith being necessary for salvation (with implicit desire for baptism occasionally being enough for salvation.) But according to St. Athanasius, the Catholic faith is the One Faith which everyone must keep “whole and undefiled [or] without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
The Creed of St. Athanasius begins thus:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
St. Athanasius wrote this against Arius. Notice therefore that the notion that Christ is merely the “privileged route to salvation,” is not only a denial of the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation, but also a denial of the Trinity. Why? Again, as I wrote above, Jesus claims to be God. Jesus claims to be the only way, truth and life. If this is not true, then He is not God. And this is Arianism. [https://padreperegrino.org/2021/06/privilegedroute/]
Moreover, Bishop Robert Barron like Semi-Arians who supported the Arian heretics uses ambiguity and Catholic sounding "language" as a cloak for his "real sentiment" of promoting a soft "reign of terror" on those who reject the heretical Francis creed of Communion for adulterers and other errors.
Barron is calling for the predator Theodore McCarrick created American bishops to police non-heretical Traditionalist Catholics on social media. This call appears to want to mirror the Arian "reign of terror" on Traditionalist Catholics in the early Church.
F.A. Forbes in his book "St. Athanasius" on the Arian crisis wrote how the Arians and their allies the Semi-Arians policed Catholics in the early Church:
"[A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals."
Now, it appears that Barron wants a "new reign of terror, in which all who refused to accept the" Francis creed of Communion for adulterers and the death penalty being "inadmissible" are "treated as criminals" in the McCarrick American Church
The totalitarian-like Barron cloaks this "sentiment" like the Semi-Arians in Catholic sounding "language" and "eloquent ambiguity."
The Francis teaching that the death penalty is "inadmissible" is contrary to Scriptures and the irreformable teachings of the Catholic Church's ordinary Magisterium is called by Barron "eloquent ambiguity."
In the time of the Arian crisis those with forked tongues who spoke of "eloquent ambiguity" like this bishop were called Semi-Arians or semi-heretics.
St. Athanasius said Semi-Arians, that is semi-heretics, were accomplices and Arians in disguise trying to promote "the Arian madness" through ambiguous statements designed to have "an orthodox and a heretical interpretation."
(The Great Athanasius, page 136 and Bad Shepherds, page 27)
"They disguise their real sentiment, and then make use of the language of Scripture... as a bait for the ignorant, that they may inveigle them into their own wickedness."
(The Great Athanasius: An Introduction into his Life and Works, page 136)
Early Church expert Rod Bennett writing of the Arian crisis said:
"[T]he number of episcopal sees that can be shown to have remained in orthodox [Catholic] hands throughout the crisis can be counted on the fingers of one hand."
(Bad Shepherds, page 29)
Finally, the Catholic News Agency headline on December 7, 2013 reported Barron's beloved Francis's supposed ironic focus on "practical atheism":
"Pope: Neglect of human dignity causes 'practical atheism'"
Pope John Paul II in a General Audience on April 1999 said:
"The contemporary era has devastating forms of 'theoretical' and 'practical' atheism. Secularism... with its indifference to ultimate questions and... the transcendent." (Vatican.va>hf_jp_ii_ 14041999)
Francis's primary focus on only earthly human dignity, it appears, could be a form of practical atheism or secularism.
Francis rarely focuses on "ultimate questions and... the transcendent" such as heaven and hell as well as the Last Judgement, but almost always on non-ultimate/transcendent issues that tend to bring leftist pro-abortion politicians into power such as radical environmental issues, leftist economic policies and unlimited immigration.
This form of practical atheism has brought about the Francis's seamless garment teachings which we will see appears to be a form of Kantian practical atheism.
The abortion holocaust in Ireland can, to some extent, be blamed on the Irish bishops following Francis's seamless garment "pro-life" teachings that equates killing innocent human life with pro-abortion politician issues such as the death penalty, leftist economic policies and radical ecology policies.
Even after the abortion referendum was overwhelming lost, to some extent, due to the seamless garment focus as well as inaction by Francis and the Irish bishops, Dublin Bishop Diarmuil Martin had the gall to call for more seamless garment Kantian practical atheism. Martin said:
"Pro-life means being alongside... economic deprivation, homelessness and marginalization." (Crux, "After abortion loss, Irish prelates look to pope's vision of 'pro-life," May 27, 2017)
The seamless garment teachings of Francis and the Irish bishops, to some extent, can be blamed for the coming death of thousands even millions of babies
This teachings come about because of their apparent conscious or unconscious Kantian practical atheism which is this world materialistic and tends to exclude the eternal.
The practical atheist Immanuel Kant while not explicitly denying the existence of God said:
"God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me." (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)
Below is a summary of the type of Kantian practical atheism which appears to be part of the thinking of Francis and the Irish bishops.
In this part of the academic article "Categorical imperatives impair Christianity in culture" by scholar Douglas A. Ollivant it is explained that Kantian practical atheism infiltrated Catholicism and gives a background, to some extent, to why the protection of the unborn ended in Ireland.(July 20, 2010, Religion and Liberty, Volume 13, Number 4):
What he means is that Christian thinkers no longer speak about culture and politics in terms of the more enduring principles of moral virtue, law, and the common good but now focus on social justice, understood as solely the immediate, material rights and dignity of the human person.
Moreover, they have drastically reduced the role of prudence in politics accepted under the historical Christian anthropological understanding, which has recognized a variety of political regimes depending on the circumstances. This historical understanding also acknowledged the harsh realities of the political realm in a fallen (albeit redeemed) world, and the difficulties and agonies involved in fashioning a just or moral response to contingent events.
Instead of prudential judgments, Kraynak maintains that we now hear only moralistic pronouncements about peace and justice that severely limit the range of (legitimately recognized) political options.
The rights and dignity of each person replaces moral and theological virtues: rational and spiritual perfection. Further, an emphasis on personal autonomy or personal identity diminishes long-established Christian teachings about the dependence of the creature on the Creator, original sin, grace, and a natural law through which human beings may share or “participate” in eternal law.
This universalist language is incompatible with the more prudential approaches to public life articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, which was driven by their much richer understandings of the human person and his or her relation to the physical world and the divine..."
Led by the personal opposition of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church has grown ever more dubious of the appropriateness – and therefore the justice – of capital punishment. Many prominent Catholics in America – some out of deep conviction, others in reaction to the dissolving Democratic party monopoly on Catholic political allegiance – have sought to link opposition to the death penalty with opposition to abortion, having the effect (whether intended or not) of neutralizing any partisan distinctions on “life issues.”
When the pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. To vindicate the order of justice and to sustain the moral health of society and the security of innocent persons against potential criminals it may be appropriate to punish certain crimes by death. 
To quote at length from Kraynak:
Proclaiming a right to life easily turns into the claim that biological existence is sacred or that mere life has absolute value, regardless of whether it is the life of an innocent unborn child, or the life of a heinous criminal. And the claim that life is a “right” diminishes the claim that life is a “gift” from God: How can a gift be a right? Proclaiming a right to life eventually leads to the mistaken idea of a “seamless garment of life” that is indistinguishable from complete pacifism or a total ban on taking life, including animal life, even for just and necessary causes. It also makes one forget that the good life, not to mention the afterlife, is a greater good than merely being alive in the present world – an unintended but significant depreciation of Christian otherworldliness.