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.

Bishop Barron Talks Nonsense About Hell

Tweet

It doesn't look empty to me

This is a follow-up to Friday's more general post on Bishop Robert Barron's apologetics. Here I want to specifically evaluate one aspect of Barron's views on Hell.

Before beginning, I want to head off one possible misunderstanding. In the following, I talk about the chances or "odds" that an individual person or a group of people may be saved. In doing so, I don't mean to imply that those chances may ever be known in any particular case, nor even that they are chances in the conventional sense - that eternal salvation is metaphysically equivalent to, say, a coin flip. What I do want to do, among other things, is to point out the logical consequences of language. You can't claim both X and Not X. If A implies B and B implies C, then you can't claim both A and Not C. And so on.

Or to anticipate, if you claim there's a "realistic hope" of X happening, that means something. For example, among other things, it doesn't mean "there's virtually no chance" of X happening or "there's only a minuscule possibility" of X happening, etc.

In a number of well-known videos and articles (see here, here, here and here), Catholic apologist Bishop Barron argues that while

Catholic doctrine (claims) that Hell exists . . . the Church has never claimed to know if any human being is actually in Hell.

Barron, cites the views of Hans Urs von Balthasar:

Balthasar argued that . . . we may reasonably hope that all people will be saved . . . we may entertain the lively and realistic hope that all people will eventually be drawn into the divine love.

And then writes:

My own conviction is that Balthasar has this more or less right.

But Barron adamantly claims that the Balthasar/Barron view is not universalism - the view that everyone will be saved, or the view that we know in the case of each person that he will be saved. Instead:

When the Church says that Hell exists, it means that the definitive rejection of God’s love is a real possibility.

All of this is of course utter obscurantist nonsense.

Let's put Hell aside for a moment and ask a series of abstract questions having to do with odds.

When you flip a coin, is it realistic to hope that it might come up heads?

Yes.

When you flip a different coin, is it realistic to hope that it might come up heads?

Yes.

Is it realistic to hope that both coins will come up heads?

Probably. It depends what is meant by "realistic."

Okay, what about flipping 106 billion coins and getting heads on all of them?

The answer to the last question is No. At some point between 1 to 1 odds and 105,999,999,999 to 1 odds our hope becomes unrealistic.

The previous answers assume that there's a 50% chance on any flip of getting heads. But what if we're using a "trick" coin that, say gives a 99% chance of heads? In that case, we might have a realistic hope of getting all heads if we flipped 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 200 coins.

But we would still have no realistic hope for that 106 billion. The odds of getting 106 billion heads even with a coin that came up heads 99% of the time are over a billion to one.

Indeed, even if we define "realistic" conservatively as having, say, at least a 1% chance (which might be "realistic" but is still pretty small), then to have a realistic hope of getting heads on all 106 billion flips, the chance of getting heads for one coin would have to be on the order of 99.9999999%, give or take a few nines. That's not certainty, of course, but it's as close to certainty as virtually anything ever gets.

If I (being the ingenious and clever sinner that I am) use a magnet on a slot machine, giving me a 99.9999999% chance that I will come up a winner, in common-sense language, I would be perfectly within my rights to say that I know or I'm certain that I will win.

I would.

On one estimate, there have been approximately 106 billion human beings born on earth since 6,000 BC.

To say that we have a realistic hope that all of those were or will be saved, then (see above) there would have to be at least a 99.99999999% chance for each one of us, considered individually, to be saved.

It follows that there would be only a .00000001% chance (if that) for each one of us to go to Hell. To claim that that amounts to a "real possibility" is an abuse of common-sense language.

The main point is that the "realistic hope" of universal salvation contradicts the "real possibility" of individual damnation. You just can't assert both things at the same time. Or, rather, if you do, you're talking nonsense.

A subsidiary point is that Barron's "realistic hope" makes him for all extents and purposes a universalist. Or if he is not technically a universalist - for each person, there's a whopping .000000001% chance that he will not be saved - then he's a watered-down universalist. His giant frothing mug of universalism contains one atom of water.

Lastly, of course, those incredibly low "odds" for damnation are in complete contradiction to the words of Jesus, the opinions of the Church Fathers and the traditional formulations of the doctrine of hell by the Church.

I hope I'll be saved. I hope you'll be saved. I hope that that drunken, abusive guy who had a fatal heart-attack while in bed with his mistress will be saved. If I am a true Catholic and a magnanimous fellow, then I hope (or should hope) that Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot will be saved. Perhaps in some sense it is "realistic" to hope for Napoleon, etc. After all, God will forgive anyone if they sincerely repent.

But it isn't realistic to hope for all of them to be saved in sum. If Christianity is true, then they won't be. Not all of them.

Maybe Barron should have taken a statistics course.

Why does all of this matter? Well, obviously, logic matters and the truth matters, whatever one's purpose.

But beyond that, I think what we might call Barron's trickery is obvious. And I do mean trickery. It is incomprehensible to me that a man of at least middling intelligence, such as Barron, cannot see what he is doing. Obviously, Barron thinks scaring people with Hell is medieval or low-class or fundamentalist or whatever. Respected contemporary theologians or apologists just don't do it. And you know how much he wants to be respected.

Or to be more charitable, perhaps he thinks scaring people with Hell just won't work to convert them or get them to stay. (As I argued a few days ago, there's no evidence for that, whatsoever. Indeed, the opposite is much more likely.)

But he can't explicitly ditch Hell since it's such an obvious Church teaching. Hence, the bait and switch.

Traditional Catholicism is often criticized for putting inordinate importance on being Catholic. But of course, for the Church, being Catholic has always been a means to an end. The end (or at least one of the primary ends) is the salvation of one's soul. Or as the Church used to put it for the first 98% of its existence before people like Barron came along, the salvation of as many souls as possible.

The irony is that it's the anti-traditionalist Barron who really seems to have the fetish for being Catholic, without really telling us what it's for. By strongly implying that everyone will be saved, he's jettisoned the practical importance of saving people, and thus eliminated at a stroke what the Church historically affirmed as its most important mission.

And he calls himself an evangelist?        

*Post heading picture: The damned being cast in to Hell by Frans Francken II, Oil on oak – 1605-10

An Open Letter to Pope Francis from a Jewish Convert: I Want my Money Back!

Tweet

The following is a full online reprint of a recent blog post by the writer and historian Michael Hoffman. It's not a real letter, of course, but a dramatization or parody. I'm running it below because I think it's quite good--perhaps the sharpest piece that I've yet read on the subject. In a sense, all it does is declare the obvious. But too often these days that is the least obvious thing to do.

Hoffman has unpopular views on a number of subjects. Some of his views are strange. A few are diametrically opposed to the views that I have put forward on this blog. For example, Hoffman doesn't seem to like Israel very much.

For the purposes of this post, I don't care. Sue me, Chris Ross. 

If you are a faithful Catholic or traditional Christian, read the following and tell me where or how Hoffman gets it wrong. How can his argument (in parody/dream form) be answered? Why should, given the most recent Vatican pronouncements on the subject, Jews convert to Catholicism or Christianity? Or worse, from the point of view of Catholic teachings, why shouldn't Catholics convert to Judaism? After all, according to Church teachings, my Christian baptism and Catholic conformation do not guarantee that I will be saved. So, wouldn't I have a better chance by, as it were, just pulling a Sammy Davis?

Or is the Covenant a purely racial thing (as Hoffman suggests)? I'm sure I have a Jewish ancestor somewhere.

More to the point, why did God come to Earth (in Israel), preach (primarily to Jews) and suffer and die at all?

(Shut up. Because mercy.)

(Shut up yourself. Go to hell.)

See, dialogue is a beautiful thing.

An Open Letter to Pope Francis by Michael Hoffman:

His Holiness, Pope Francis
Vatican City
January, 2016

Dear Holy Father

I am a Jew. I have the assurance, as did Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, of direct descent from King David on my father’s side (my mother, I was assured was descended of Hillel).

I am 74-years-old. I converted to the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 17 in the last year of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. I did so because I was under the conviction that I had to accept and have faith that Jesus Christ was my savior, and I believed it. And I believed that I had to be a baptized member of his Church to have a chance of salvation. So I converted and was baptized in the Catholic Church, and then I was confirmed.

Over the years I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to both Peters’ Pence (the pope’s own treasury about which you of course must be very familiar), and my local parish and diocese.

During that time I attended thousands of Masses, hundreds of holy hours and novenas, said thousands of rosaries, and made hundreds of trips to the Confessional.

Now in 2015 and 2016 I have read your words and those of your “Pontifical Commission.” You now teach that because I am a racial Jew, God’s covenant with me was never broken, and cannot be broken. You don’t qualify that teaching by specifying anything I might do that would threaten the Covenant, which you say God has with me because I am a Jew. You teach that it’s an unbreakable Covenant. You don’t even say that it depends on me being a good person. Logically speaking, if God’s Covenant with me is unbreakable, then a racial Jew such as I am can do anything he wants and God will still maintain a Covenant with me and I will go to heaven.

Your Pontifical Commission wrote last December, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews…it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”

You are the Pontiff. I believe what your Commission teaches under your banner and in your name, and what you declared during your visit to the synagogue in January. As a result, I no longer see any point in getting up every Sunday morning to go to Mass, say rosaries, or attend the Rite of Reconciliation on Saturday afternoon. All of those acts are superfluous for me. Predicated on your teaching, I now know that due to my special racial superiority in God’s eyes, I don’t need any of it.

I don’t see any reason now as to why I was baptized in 1958. There was no need for me to be baptized. I no longer see why there was a need for Jesus to come to earth either, or preach to the Jewish children of Abraham of his day. As you state, they were already saved as a result of their racial descent from the Biblical patriarchs. What would they need him for?

In light of what you and your Pontifical Commission have taught me, it appears that the New Testament is a fraud, at least as it applies to Jews. All of those preachings and disputations to the Jews were for no purpose. Jesus had to know this, yet he persisted in causing a lot of trouble for the Jews by insisting they had to be born again, they had to believe he was their Messiah, they had to stop following their traditions of men, and that they couldn’t get to heaven unless they believed that he was the Son of God.

Your holiness, you and your Commission have instructed me in the true path to my salvation: my race. It’s all I need and all I have ever needed. God has a covenant with my genes. It’s my genes that save me. My eyes are open now.

Consequently, you will be hearing from my lawyer. I am filing suit against the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. I want my money back, with interest, and I am seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the psychological harm your Church caused me, by making me think I needed something besides my own exalted racial identity, in order to go to heaven after I die.

I am litigating as well over the time that I wasted that I could have spent working in my business, instead of squandering it worshipping a Jesus that your Church now says I don’t need to believe in for my salvation. Your prelates and clerics told me something very different in 1958. I’ve been robbed!

Sincerely,
Pinchus Feinstein
2617646 Ocean View Ave.
Miami Beach, Florida 33239

P.S. I'm transmitting this letter to Hoffman, an ex-AP reporter from New York, in the expectation that he will bring it to the attention of those who should know about it. I am transmitting it to him in the form of a dream, but nevertheless, it represents the feelings of many victims of your robber Church.—Pinch

Do the Writers at America Magazine Know They're Going to Hell?

Tweet

What, Me Worry?

Do they?

That's not a rhetorical question. Or rather, while if, so to speak, current trends continue there's a high probability that they are going to hell, I'm honestly interested in whether or not they are aware of that.

I'm not merely referring to the recent pro-gay marriage ruling piece, which presumably sums up the editorial view of the magazine. Though, admittedly that was the proximate cause for this post. But more generally I'm referencing their obstinate dissent, denial and opposition to Catholic doctrine and teaching expressed for so many years. In addition, of course, what makes their conduct even more hellish is their maniacal desire to spread their poison to others--dragging as many souls as possible with them.

Nor is this purely a claim about being wrong about Christian truths, or acting wrongly on them. There are many non-Catholics and non-Christians who do these things yet who will in fact be saved. This is because many of them are innocent of these Christian truths. That's perhaps not quite enough to be saved. But at least many of them haven't knowingly rejected Christ so far. They just haven't met Him yet. If they don't fall prey to the lies of America magazine and their like, perhaps they will.

Rather, the writers at America magazine have been exposed to the truth. Most of them took an oath to defend it (as priests or monks), yet they have broken that oath.

Christians often think it is unseemly to talk of these things. How can anyone know who is really going to hell? And we shouldn't presume. Nor should we judge.

But to simply throw up our hands and declare complete ignorance on the matter is to mock God and the Church. The Church is (fairly) clear on what constitutes mortal sin. And to the extent that there is a chance that those wallowing in it may repent, they (if no one else) deserve straight talk.

The current Pope thinks, or at least says he thinks, that Mafia members are going to hell (if they don't repent). Let's take his lead.

Do the writers at America magazine know they're going to hell?

Here are the possibilities:

1. They don't anymore believe in hell (or perhaps even in God). Therefore, they don't believe they're going there.
2. They think hell is the destination of fascist traditionalists who make a pharisaical show of taking communion on the tongue and think Jesus invented maniples. At the same time, heaven is for those who understand that Christianity is really about equality and having sympathetic feelings for illegal immigrants. Therefore they believe they're going to heaven, not hell. After all, they went to a pro-illegals rally just last week.
3. They know they're going to hell, at least subconsciously. But they just can't help going down the path they are on. Or so it seems to them. Earthly things, such as the accolades they receive from secular powers are just too attractive. They know it's wrong but they do it anyway. This obvious sign of their own selfishness coupled with weakness makes them bitter and perhaps even more spiteful and irrational. Thus, they have the demonic urge to take as many people as possible with them.

Some think the answer is 1.
I actually believe it is 3.

Or, rather, the writers at America magazine might have half-convinced themselves that it's 1.
But they know in their hearts it is 3.

As bad as that sounds, I think it's the charitable interpretation. Or at least the hopeful one. Their brains and hearts are not yet dead. They are still men, subject to the same human urges and temptations as all of us.

We can pray for them.

But we can also bear Christian and Catholic witness. What they need is to see that there are some people who can't, pardon me, be bought--that that isn't how it has to be, for anyone, including them.

There were only three disciples at the foot of the cross. All the rest denied Him, including Peter. But we know the rest of the story.

Pope to Humanity: Go to Hell

Tweet

Don't worry your pretty little head about it

I was going to write a lengthy and reasoned piece on the encyclical, titled (provisionally) "20 Things Wrong With Laudato Si." And I was going to include the following theological topic as one of those twenty things. But then it became clear to me that it would be inappropriate and unseemly to include the Pope's apparent denial of the existence of hell on the same list as his misunderstanding of carbon credits or his ignorance of public choice theory or whatever.

A few months ago, the Pope gave an interview where he allegedly denied the existence of hell in favor of annihilationism. This was dismissed (or ignored) by the usual suspects as unverified or hearsay, etc. However, a few days ago the Pope implicitly denied the existence of hell in a papal encyclical. Not only that, but he seemed to, this time, move beyond annihilationism to universalism.

A few traditionalist commentators pointed this out (here and here, among other places), but on the main the issue has not been discussed by many. I find this odd. Or perhaps it's not. The Pope's un-Catholic theology is a bit like Bill Clinton's women problem. It's so obvious and so pervasive that most people eventually end up wanting to ignore it. It's old news. Move on.

Yeah. But he's the Pope. It matters.

Here are the relevant passages, not from some second-hand interview with Eugenio Scalfari, but from an actual, official, coat-of-arms-stamped papal encyclical:

83. The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things [there follows a footnote to Tielhard de Chardin, whose teaching and books were proscribed by the Church]...all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love, and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator. 

243. At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with us will share in unending plenitude. Even now we are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven. Jesus says: “I make all things new” (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.

Does Francis deny hell in these passages? Not quite. It's still just possible to read, say, the second passage as consistent with the Thomist scheme of exitus reditus--all things come from God and all things shall return to him--though for Aquinas, all "returning" does not mean that all will be saved. So, to make it consistent according to the encyclical, all of us are moving or "journeying" towards God. All of us are called to lead the animals to Him. But then the referent shifts and "we" now only refers to some of us, as in some of us "will share in unending plenitude." Then the referent of "we" moves back to all of us as in "we (all of us) are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven." It is our common home, though not all of us will get there. Thus, the referent now moves back to some of us. The passage doesn't explicitly say that all of us will experience eternal life. It merely says, "Eternal life will be a shared experience." Thus, we read it as some of us will experience eternal life. "Each creature"--not each creature, as in every creature that exists but each creature, as in every creature that is in fact saved--will be "resplendently transfigured, (and) will take its rightful place." "Those poor men and women" does not refer to all poor men and women, but only to some of us poor men and women--the poor men and women who in fact end up being saved.

Of course that is not how anyone will read the passage.

Rather, the implication is unmistakable. We're all (according to Laudato Si) going towards God and heaven--leading the animals. And yes, that means every animal--not only our terriers, but rats and gnats and micro-organisms, etc. And we're all going to get there.

This is not Catholic teaching. And it is not Catholic teaching because it is not the teaching of Christ, from whom all Catholic teaching ultimately stems from, of course. Wherever the animals may be going (bless them), human beings are not all going to heaven. Some of us are going to hell. If all of us end up "face to face" with God, some of us will see His face for only a moment before we hear, "I do not know you," and we are cast down. Forever.

I don't like it either but it's true.

Or if we are Catholics, we believe it's true.

Is the Pope Catholic?

It's the Pope's job to get this message out. Not merely because it is true, but infinitely more importantly so that everyone is aware of it. Being aware if it is the first step to making sure that we each have the best chance of avoiding that most horrible of fates. If we aren't aware of it, there's a much greater chance we will go there.

Or so says the Catholic Church.

It's the Pope's job. It's his most important job. Sure a Pope can and should speak of other things. Pope Benedict XV tried to end World War I. That was laudable. Much more than laudable.

But no Pope, NO pope, has, prior to Francis, denied the premises of the Christian theory of salvation.

This Pope just did so. He did so only a few days ago.

I'm not here concerned with whether or not that's heretical or whether or not he's a heretic. He's one man, and he's responsible for his actions. Though, even so we should pray for him (at the least).

Rather, here I'm worried about those other 6,999,999,999 persons. Shouldn't I be? Shouldn't any Catholic be at long last? Doesn't the encyclical itself say that we should be?

The Pope wants to save humanity from carbon emissions. He doesn't (according to his words) want to save it from hell. Of course, he wouldn't put it that way. Rather, he doesn't believe in hell. Or if he does, he doesn't want to tell anyone about it.

The practical effect of that is the same.

Pope to humanity: Go to hell.

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.