Pope Francis – as all Pope’s preceding him – is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “he who stands in the place of the Master in His absence.” Now, since Francis stands in Christ’s place while He is away, Francis – as all previous Pope’s - is tasked (i.e., obligated) with “minding-the-store” i.e., clearly i.e., unambiguously – articulating the teaching’s of Jesus Christ¹ and the teachings of Christ’s Church (The Roman Catholic Church and providing implicit-guidance² to denominational Christian Church’s) while occupying the seat-of-Peter³.

¹ “God, made man” i.e., “God come to earth” i.e., “God is with us”, i.e., “the 2^nd Person of the Triune God” etc.

² I argue/opine that irrespective of whether denominational Christian Church’s explicitly acknowledge the Church of Rome i.e., the Roman Catholic Church as their origin, each tacitly/implicitly understands such as the fact, and each implicitly takes tenuous (each allowing themselves whatever latitude they deem necessary, so as to satisfy the particular formation of their particular moral consciousness and its compliment theology) guidance from Rome. That is to say, Rome’s understanding of Christian teaching is something of a mooring-line for denominational Christian Church’s. Note that mooring-lines allow the ship (Church) movement… As consequence, denominational Christian Church’s enjoy a certainundefined/unspecified latitude i.e., theological/moral freedom [whether explicitly or only tacitly acknowledged], which allows the typical denominational Christian Minister a moral circumspection and theological confidence… Note: this comment is my speculative opinion… 

³ “…And so I say to you, you are Peter” [i.e., rock], “and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16: 18

If one happens to be unaware of Christ’s teaching, and those teachings of Christ’s Church, then - very likely - one may/would wrongly⁴ (Francis abuses both the teaching of Jesus’ and those of Christ’s Church i.e., the Catholic Church) come to understand that those teaching’s pretty much reflect the teachings of the American social-political Left; this because Pope Francis (as the “Blind guide” that he seems to be; we wonder whether Francis practice of distorting Church teaching is intentional, or merely resultant from an inveterate sentimentality?) has emphasized – and distorted – ‘straining-out-the-gnat,’ while perversely ‘swallowing-of-the-camel’ i.e., Francis has largely made much of politically-correct etiquette – treating such (the politically-correct) as morally obligatory – as he hasmumbled, de-emphasized and/or perverted core/central moral Church teachings, treating – on occasion even intimating that the insistence of such teachings as orthodoxy (e.g., traditional marriage, traditional-family and natural law morality), as passé bigotry…

⁴ Pope Francis tends to employ something akin to the magician’s prestidigitation, or slight-of-hand to advance a theological view which connotes a “process god” i.e., a view in which God is identified with the dynamism of the Universe; thus, a god very unlike  the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and very unlike the Lord Jesus Christ. Pope Francis seems to rely upon ambiguous language - couched in popular sentiment – which allows him to make amenable to the common Catholic/Christian the advancement of insidiously corruptions of doctrinal and sociological teachings, papering over inherently contradictoryintimations-of-teachings (these are alluded to – or made reference to – without formally and explicitly promoting such teachings; this allows for casting such reports upon such matters as predicated upon some visceral animus for Francis - or representative of some variety of some bigotry ...  With time, the corrupt – and generally irrational - teaching, as consequence of the moral entropy attending the culture-of-death, is made to acceptable to those dynamic “Catholics/Christians” [seeming a large majority of those that profess Christ] who are animated by the dynamically entropic dominant-worldview. That is to say, Francis is attempting to alter Church teaching – and the Catholic Church - via a campaign of ambiguity. A Pope is supposed to bring clarity to doctrine/teaching, Francis is making unclear what was formerly clear; ambiguity allows the gradual advance of evil.

Of course, Francis is quite popular among sentimental-Catholics⁵, but those that hold him to the principle of non-contradiction⁶, understand him as unquestionably antichrist, but are equally uncertain as to whether Francis is merely sentimental i.e., ruled by his passions, or whether Francis is consciously seeking to subvert the Church. 

⁵ Unprincipled i.e., those that abandon teachings which conflict with their emotions/feelings of reflex i.e., those to be counted upon to abandon the field-of-battle-when-victory-is-in-doubt... A distinction should be drawn between the sentimental-Catholic and the “avowed” Catholic such as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Bob Casey Jr. et al; the former are unprincipled cowards (cowardice is concomitant to their lack of principle…), while the latter are obdurate wolves adorned in fleece ...

⁶ Contrary predicates may not simultaneously inhere in a subject related to the same aspect of existence e.g., “An entity may not simultaneously exist and not exist;” or again, “an object may not simultaneously be changing and unchanging,” and again, “a biological entity may not simultaneously be alive and dead.” Etc.

Now Pope Francis is obliged to address moral matters which tend to confuse the public. We offer, but a few examples of things Francis ought to address – as a responsibility of his office, and so as to mitigate confusion: 1.) As SCOTUS is presently considering whether to strike down the 1973 Roe vs. Wade (the case which legalized terminating innocent intrauterine humans) the Pope as Pope could – publicly – reflect/assert that overturning the decision would re-establish the abandoned unalienable Rights which the decision tacitly abolished. 2.) Francis could have also indicated that, the same SCOTUS Court should have unanimously rejected Biden’ vaccine-mandate; a mandate which implicitly presupposes the illegitimacy of citizen sovereignty, and Francis should have stated that the perceived tenuousness of citizen sovereignty is a logical consequenceof Roe-vs.-Wade decision. Pope Francis has promoted vaccines (which are experimental because they haven’t been subjected to the normal rigorous testing prescribed by U.S. Food & Drug Agency; thus reducing the global population to the moral status of lab-rats! Pope Francis in advocating vaccines implicitly denies human-beings as sovereign moral agents; thus, Francis tacitly asserts humans haven’t the God given right to act contrary to the dictates of the State! Ruminate – for a moment – how Francis would have comported himself – as Pontiff – during the 1930’s and 1940’s…?). 3.) Pope Francis – as the vicar-of-Christ is ontologically obliged to state that there are but 2 genders i.e., male and female⁷, and if the behavioral-sciences – (and note Francis is - ostensibly - a “scientist” who ostensibly possesses a degree in chemistry) – seem to be spreading errors regarding such things asgender dysphoria – in their normalizing sundry perversities, Francis could utilize his office to ask “What competency do disciplines (the empirical science disciplines) – professionally bound to 4-Space (i.e., material existence) – possess to address metaphysical considerations⁸”? And of course is morally obliged to explain – to the world – that the empirical scientist, as scientist - is not competent to speak/argue/suggest regarding anything whatsoever which cannot be empirically measured or may be pointed to or immediately experienced. Additionally, Francis (a duty shared by all people religious, but particularly it is an obligation of the clergy) – has the moral duty – to explain the ubiquitous moral duty (a duty shared by all humans; the neglect of this duty is known as “Sloth⁹.”) ofall humans to acquire the understanding as to the limitations of understanding (e.g., the limitations of the empirical sciences), so as to avoid being manipulated i.e., moral beings have a obligation for moral sobriety – whereby each human utilized a portion his/her leisure to make an effort to know/understand those things which a free citizen ought to know e.g., the fact of original sin which – if understood – argues humans should be trusted to be untrustworthy!

⁷ “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Matthew 19-4.

⁸ For example: “the disposition of the human soul.” Note: even the denial of existence of the human soul is beyond the competency of the empirical sciences … The empirical-sciences cannot address things moral, right/wrong, good/evil and such because their criteria and method place all such things beyond the realm of the science’s measure! Many – implicitly, and/or explicitly – treat only those things which may be measured as meaningful, or as subjects with which society should be concerned, but if the sciences restrict themselves – and hold that society – too –should restrict itself to the concerns to the measurable, then neither the empirical sciences or society may discuss any topic whatsoever, since such discussions are ineluctably laden with metaphysics i.e., with ideas/concepts which transcend empiricalmeasure…

⁹ Sloth is the Capital Sin that may be defined as: “Not attending to that which one is dispositionally obliged to attend.” Sin (sin is:” turning/rejecting from God”) which renders one susceptible to other sins…

Thomas J. Donegan

guildma@msn.com

Post A Comment