The Pope as Arch-Troll

Tweet

What does he get out of it?

Some have argued that Pope Francis is not an ideologue. That is, while he wants to be or be seen as a liberal "revolutionary," this isn't because he has any particular belief in liberal theology per se. Rather, it's about power. His power, of course. To "change" the Church is not only a means for Bergoglio to solidify a certain power base, but is a manifestation or sign of the exercise of power itself, and, thus, is worthwhile on its own terms.

Just as, say, a sculptor gets satisfaction out of transforming natural material into a shape that conforms to some inner intention or design of his own, the tyrant gets satisfaction out of transforming people, or transforming those things that are important to people in a way that lets them know they are under his control. How he transforms people or things, or to what apparent end, is secondary to the act itself.

In a sense this is similar to the motivation of the classic social-media "troll." People often speak of "liberal" trolls or "conservative" trolls who wish to fight ideological battles online by, say, spreading "fake news" or rudely insulting their enemies or whatever. Yet this is a misapplication of the original meaning of the term.

"Troll" (as used in social media) originally meant someone that wanted to provoke emotional reactions, not to advance any particular agenda, but for the sheer enjoyment of the provocation itself. Thus a troll might pretend to be liberal to stir up conservatives, or pretend to be conservative to stir up liberals. The object was simply to get people to react, preferably in a way that showed distress or confusion. Or to put it more plainly, the goal was to screw with people.

I used to think Jorge Mario Bergoglio was motivated largely by vanity. He wanted to be a different pope, a better pope, a pope loved by the world, and so on. By transforming the Church to conform more with the liberal zeitgeist he would be praised by the media (made up of liberal journalists) and go down in history (written by liberal historians). Power was a means to achieve worldly praise.

But I gradually came to have a different view, a view solidified by the events of recent days: During Holy Week, Catholics were "stunned" and "rocked" to hear that their apparent leader had denied (or so it seemed) one of the central tenets of their faith, a denial particularly stark on the eve of Good Friday.

Catholics regularly affirm that after Jesus died on the cross, He descended into hell to save the righteous who had perished without knowing Him, just as the righteous that came after would be saved through His Church. But if there were really no hell, what did that mean? What did Jesus die to save us from?

It was another gut-punch to all faithful Catholics, arguably one of the worst, but still simply another in a long-line against Catholic mothers (who breed like rabbits), Catholic priests (who are joyless Pharisees), Catholics in difficult marriages who have tried to conform to what they thought were the teachings of the church (what goody-goodies), and just Catholics in general who have made what many might see as sacrifices . . . for what?

The denial/non-denial from the Vatican of the Pope's hell comments was blackly comic. It scrupulously avoided explicitly contradicting the essence of what the headlines claimed, nor did in affirm that the Pope himself believed what all Catholics have always been told they had to believe.

Francis himself could have simply issued a short statement affirming that he subscribed to the orthodox view. He didn't. Why?

I actually don't think it has anything to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, if he in fact believes in anything. It's laughable to even consider the proposition that Bergoglio is a devout annihilationist (someone who subscribes to the theological claim that the souls of those who are not saved do not go to hell but simply cease to exist). I would be surprised if he has ever seriously considered the question for more than a few seconds in his adult life.

Why did he do it?

Because, to use the blunt language I used above, he enjoys screwing with us. He actually gets sadistic glee from knowing that he has, as it were, spit in our soup yet again. And he knows that we know he can do it anytime.

The Pope, trolling his own flock.

Should this make us angry? Of course. But I wonder how many Catholics are still angry at him. I have to confess that I'm not, or not really, in the same way that I assume I wouldn't necessarily be angry per se at, say, a political tyrant, at least after a certain point. Bergoglio is who he is. I can't change that. Presumably no one can.

But what of all the good bishops who continue to go along with it - this sadist, this troll, this monster, continuing to squat on the Throne of St. Peter?

Don't they have compassion for their flocks? How can they let this go on?

Francis Again Asserts There is No Hell

Tweet

Francis the Annihilator

UPDATE (10:30 CST): The Vatican just issued a denial/non-denial here.

In his fifth interview with the veteran Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis allegedly reaffirmed that he is a theological annihilationist: There is no hell. Rather, the souls of those who are not saved will simply cease to exist:

Scalfari: Your Holiness, in our previous meeting, you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still from his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished? 

Francis: They are not punished, those that repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.

(Translation, Rorate Caeli, from la Repubblica)

A few hours ago, The Times of London ran with this headline:

Pope Francis ‘abolishes hell’, saying souls of unrepentant sinners will simply disappear

But as Scalfari himself implies, this is not the first time Francis has appeared to put forward this view while "in office." By my count, it is at least the third time. We referenced the first here. OnePeterFive and LifeSiteNews commented more recently on the issue during the last eruption.

Three years ago, many claimed that Francis' alleged annihilationism must have been an invention of Scalfari. But this position has become less and less credible as Francis and the Vatican have declined to deny that this is in fact what Francis believes.

Since the view is a controversial "headline grabber" because it is, among other things, opposed to traditional Catholic doctrine as stated and re-stated for the last 2,000 years including in the current Catechism, it is unclear why no such denial has been made.

Unless, of course, it is what Francis actually believes.

Forgive us if we again state the obvious:

The view that hell does not exist is a heresy as defined by the Church. If Francis holds this view, he is a heretic. That he has appeared to continue to state and re-state the view for at least three years arguably makes him a formal heretic. I say, "arguably" here because he has not as yet been subject to a formal correction on it by a high-level body of, say, Cardinals or bishops within the Church. However, Francis is surely aware that his view is heretical and has obstinately continued to put it forward. Or so it would seem.

And, yes, arguably that means we should add those square quotes to his title.

The title of the interview, published yesterday, is:

“È un onore essere chiamato rivoluzionario”

(It is an honor for me to be called revolutionary.)

Why hasn't the Pope been publicly "called on this" by an official body of cardinals or bishops?

Or by just one cardinal or bishop?

Well, assuming the motivation is not fear - of being, say, summarily kidnapped by the Chinese secret police or the equivalent, or, much worse, losing some spiffy perk or, so much worse, being ostracized by one's peers - then the answer is obvious:

The cardinals and bishops don't care. That Francis is a "heretic" is unimportant. Indeed, we don't speak in those terms anymore.

It's so old pope.

What matters is that Francis cares about people and trees.

Unless they're from China.

But that's unfair. There are still many good priests and bishops, and all have legitimate fear that in the current climate, speaking against, well, the current climate, will put their position and, thus, their flock at risk.

Even good priests who go out of their way to get along are being "removed" - if not by Francis, then by one of his men - if dissident thoughts are detected.

But if the Catholic faith is true, then there is a hell. And some people, including many baptized in the Catholic faith are going there. If the Catholic faith is true, then there's a good chance that Francis, his fellow "revolutionaries," and the myriad small and petty men toadying for favor under them are going there.  

The bad joke (bad for us and for them) is that hell doesn't frighten them. They don't believe in that bullshit, anyway.

Pope: There Is No Hell

Tweet

He had the right idea

What?!

Oh my God, not again.

What?!!!!!!!!

Did he really say that?

Probably.

It's another piece by Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist journalist, who in a number of "conversations" with Pope Francis, has alleged various Pope whoppers including the now famous, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." In past cases, ardent Pope defenders have argued that Scalfari is an anti-Catholic propagandist and is not publishing word for word quotes in a formal interview but, rather, later reconstructions of a conversation, and thus there might be as much Scalfari wish fulfillment in some of the statements as actual truth claims.

For the first interview over a year ago, the Vatican website put it up then took it down, supposedly verifying the above point of view. Yet neither the Pope himself, nor Vatican spokesmen have ever denied any of the statements. And of course the Pope continues to have these conversations with his "friend". Many Pope watchers who haven't drunk the One Should Go Through Any Contortion Physically Possible to Defend this Man Kool-Aid, have concluded that this is simply how the Pope chooses to communicate. These are quasi-heretical statements after all (for the above, not even quasi) and thus he has to preserve a certain plausible deniability. It's a clever strategy for planting seeds of doubt about the Faith without blowing it by being too obvious.

Planting seeds of doubt about the Faith? Yes, that's what I just said. If you haven't drunk the Kool-Aid and haven't been living on Mars, that's exactly what this Pope is doing. Well, and I forgot to to add, if you want to be honest with yourself and face up to what's happening, however depressing or shocking that may be.

On to the Scalfari piece. It's an editorial reflection in La Repubblica on what the journalist wants to see happen in the Church, so it's not a new interview, per se. But he includes a part where he describes the Pope's thoughts on the issue. Here is the relevant passage:

[...] Whoever has had the grace to meet Pope Francis knows that the egoism of the most dangerous enemy of our species. The animal is selfish because it is only guided by his instincts, the most important thing is their own survival. Man is also driven by socializing and he therefore feels love towards the other, in addition to the survival of the species to which he belongs. If egoism wins the upper hand and the love for others is suffocated, it darkens the divine spark which is in him and condemns himself. 

What happens to these extinct souls? Will they be punished? And how? 

Francis' answer is unambiguous and clear: There is no penalty but the annihilation of that soul. All others live on to share the the happiness in the presence of the Father. The extinguished souls have no part in this feast, with the death of the body is its end and this is the motivation of the missionary Church: to save the lost. This is also the reason why Francis is through and through, a Jesuit. [...]

This theological view is called Annihilationism, by the way, and it is the view of some sincere Protestant Christians. In fairness, it has some Biblical support (though I think the weight of Biblical evidence is strongly against it.) But it has never been a teaching of the Catholic Church. Indeed, it is a clear heresy. The current Catechism of the Church states:

(1035) The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." (Matthew 25:41) The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The Scalfari editorial came out a few days ago, in Italian of course. And as far as I can tell, it hasn't been picked up by many of the Traditionalist blogs, let alone any mainstream sources. We picked it up from The Eponymous Flower through Pew Sitter. Once again, it is vulnerable to the criticism that there's no proof Pope Francis actually said it. And once again, the usual suspects, many of them well-intentioned, will say that caution is urged. We should be careful when inputing heresy (at second-hand, from an atheist) to the Vicar of St. Peter. And so on and so forth, etc. etc.

Enough!

We have a bad one here guys, a real bad one. A Dig Up the Body of Your Papal Predecessor, Put His Corpse On Trial, Convict him and Then Throw It Into The Tiber, honest to goodness Bad Pope.

What to do?

Pray, obviously. But beyond that, I guess I would say, stop defending this man. Stop making excuses. Don't be afraid of the truth. Or rather, I am afraid of the truth, but I'm more afraid of it if it remains hidden. I didn't think we would get someone like this either. But we did.

And it's going to get worse.