PopeWatch: Left-Wing Catholic

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

George Neumayr at The American Spectator holds nothing back in regard to his assessment of Pope Francis:

All the tortured throat-clearing from pundits about the “nuances” of Pope Francis is very unconvincing. He is not nuanced at all. He is an open left-wing Catholic, perfectly comfortable with the de facto heretics within his own order and inside his special cabinet of cardinals. Cardinal Walter Kasper, whom Pope Francis has identified as one of his “favorite” theologians, and Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany, who is one of his closest advisers, stand to the left of Martin Luther.

Well, say the pope’s desperate propagandists, Francis may not possess a deep mind but at least he has a big heart. If so, it seems to bleed for everyone but orthodox Catholics, whose fidelity to the faith under secularism’s ceaseless encroachments is treated with contempt.

Like many modern Jesuits, Francis often sounds like he loves every religion except his own. Could anyone imagine him every talking about imams, rabbis, or even a feminist witch, in the same caustic style that he disparages Catholic traditionalists? If he did, he would have an “ecumenical” crisis on his hands.

Early in his pontificate, video footage captured him teasing a blameless altar boy for holding his hands together piously. Were they “stuck” together? the Pope asked the bewildered boy. That is what passes for humor in the liberal Jesuit order. Visit almost any Jesuit college or school and you will soon encounter similar instances of anti-Catholic gibes presented as “reform.”

In his final remarks at the synod, Francis ripped into the orthodox and praised the heterodox, identifying the latter as the “true defenders of doctrine” for preferring “people” to “ideas,” for “overcoming the recurring temptations of the elder brother (cf. Lk 15:25-32) and the jealous labourers (cf. Mt 20:1-16).”

If future popes are to take these cheap polemics seriously, they will have to rewrite the parable of the prodigal son, excising any condemnations of him for cavorting with prostitutes. It turns out that sex outside of indissoluble marriage is no big deal. The story could be retitled the parable of the progressive son, who stands as a forerunner of the “Christian Newness” that granting Communion to those in a state of adultery promises. In the parable of the progressive son, the sin-obsessed father would cry at his own rigidity and FedEx the fatted calf to the son’s brothel.

Go here to read the rest.  Sometimes the simplest explanations are the truest.  The reason Pope Francis usually sounds like a left-wing Jesuit is because that is what he basically is, God help us.  His frequently confused statements, along with his occasional nods to traditional Catholic beliefs, helped conceal this for a fair amount of time, but the evidence is now overwhelming  that he is a typical modern Jesuit which is bad news for anyone who believes that there is more to the Church than Vatican II and its disastrous aftermath that is now being played out before our eyes.

More to explorer

25 Comments

  1. The Society has changed little in the past 350 years, when Pascal gave this description of it.
    “Know then that their object is not the corruption of manners- that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them- that would be bad policy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world. Accordingly, having to deal with persons of all classes and of all different nations, they find it necessary to have casuists assorted to match this diversity. On this principle, you will easily see that, if they had none but the looser sort of casuists, they would defeat their main design, which is to embrace all; for those that are truly pious are fond of a stricter discipline. But as there are not many of that stamp, they do not require many severe directors to guide them. They have a few for the select few; while whole multitudes of lax casuists are provided for the multitudes that prefer laxity.” (lettre V 20 mars 1656)

  2. Well he’s merely saying what a whole lot of Catholics immersed in their faith have been thinking. We knew after the first sentence or two that this wasn’t from Michael Voris.
    Is it all true? Is it partially true? Is it just the “smoke” of confusion?
    The fact that we even have to ponder such questions about our shepherd tells us the answer is not a good one. Shepherds, by definition, cannot function as such with a herd of underlings having to explain to the sheep what he really meant to say. By then they’ve become wolf fodder.

  3. Latin American Jesuits are the biggest reason for the decline of the Church in Latin America. No single order, not even the Legionnaires of Christ, deserve suppression more.

  4. Penguin Fan,
    In October of 1979 a new Polish pope (your favorite and mine) went down to Medellin, Columbia and, pounding his fist on the table, told the Marxist Liberation-theology loving Jesuits loudly and clearly “No more.”
    Who would have guessed that their evil would be resurrected to contaminate men’s souls for the diabolical?

  5. With all due respect, DonL, what does “No more” even mean? How many left wing radical priests or bishops were laicized over the last 30 years because they weren’t remotely Catholic? How is it possible that Cardinal Daneels still has priestly faculties? Because the popes have not been willing to police the shepherds. History shows that “No more” really just meant, “Bide your time.”

  6. Father of Seven
    My point is that some laxity in defending the faith, is much different than having an agenda that, in confusion, seeks to alter, corrupt, confuse the truths of the faith.
    JPII is a saint!

  7. I am still not sure what to make of this Pope, though I am troubled by some of his words and actions. I am sure of one thing, though: the more anyone is convinced that the Pope is leading us astray, the more he ought to pray for the Pope’s conversion. Our Lord said: to whom more is given, more will be expected. The Pope faces a terrible judgement if he is not faithful, so we ought to pray for him for his sake as well as for the sake of the Church.

  8. Father of Seven you are so right.
    What does “No more” mean?
    And after that did they stop?
    The problem is the majority of faithful Catholics dont realize that all the popes in the last 50 years or so have had and have the same strategic agenda.
    They see most of us as not being too smart so they adopt different tactical methods and means to stay hidden.
    Open your eyes, folks
    We all need to open our eyes.

  9. I recall when JPII was booed by thousands of “Catholics” in Nicaragua, as arraigned by the Cardinal brothers–two of the many Marxist liberation Theology Jesuits, that believed using UZIs and warfare were the appropriate means of bringing the preferential option for the poor into reality.
    I recall no other recent pope booed by the Marxist who have entered and captured large portions of the Church. He must have been doing something right.

  10. That’s a great quote from Pascal, MPS.
    .
    It’s long past time to suppress the Jesuits again. Fathers Schall, Hardon, and Fessio (etc.) will land on their feet; the rest can go hang.

  11. they do not require many severe directors to guide them. They have a few for the select few

    You just identified the select few.

  12. The poor and oppressed that the Roman Pontiff cares for the most come from his native part of the world, except Cubans.
    The poor and oppressed Catholics in Africa, the Middle East, China, India, Pakistan……..where there is no garbage theology……they are on their own.
    This pontificate stinks like a Georgia cow pasture in July.

  13. Today, to ask, Is the Pope Catholic? in order to make the point about something obvious is not longer rhetorical and no longer funny. Or if one were to ask, is the Pope a Communist? or is the Pope a heretic? it would not raise eyebrows among orthodox Catholics. Such is the reign of our dear Pope Francis and it could get worse. But if it came to a schism all but a few would stay with him. Why? Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has effectively become mostly Protestant and the Pope agrees with them and is one of them. That’s why he’s so popular. The devil has to lovin’ all of this.

  14. I loved saint JP1. Our current pontiff is nothing like him. However, just because he is a saint does not mean that everything he did or didn’t do in his life was saintly. The only point I wanted to make was that our recent popes have not done their job to police the shepherds they entrusted to guard over us. If an openly heretical person such as Daneels still has full faculties and a position of honor in the Church, it’s no wonder the faithful are stuck with so many faithless shepherds.

  15. Father of seven
    Rome has always been circumspect in its dealings with the Belgian Church. The clergy are wedded to the national establishment, suspicious of Rome and jealous of their privileges and immunities. Moreover, as salaried civil servants, with the pensions and emoluments that go with that position, they are financially independent of their congregations.
    In a conflict with the Holy See, there is a good chance that the government would back the dissenters and refuse to recognise (or pay) any replacements appointed by Rome. The Church buildings, rectories &c are state property and maintained out of the ecclesiastical budget, as are the Catholic schools, whose teachers, too, are civil servants.
    The Vatican dreads a schism above all things and will go to great lengths to avoid it, especially in a country where the ordinances of religion are free to every Catholic, without any contribution on their part, at the expense of the general taxpayer.

  16. Mark Belgium down as exhibit number one as to why the “wall of seperation” (q.v.) is there to protect the religion from the state, and not, as the American Left would have it, vice versa.

  17. Ernst Schreiber wrote, “Mark Belgium down as exhibit number one as to why the “wall of seperation” (q.v.) is there to protect the religion from the state…”

    Yet a cardinal principle of Conservatism has always been “the sacred and indissoluble alliance of Throne and Altar” and separation a tenet of Liberalism

  18. “Yet a cardinal principle of Conservatism has always been “the sacred and indissoluble alliance of Throne and Altar” and separation a tenet of Liberalism”

    Not in America. One of many reasons why American conservatives are a different breed from those who call themselves conservative elsewhere.

  19. I’m not well-versed enough in the political philosophy undergirding Throne and Altar conservatism to offer a ground opinion. That said, I have to wonder if Throne and Altar haven’t both dissolved in the solute of Blood and Soil?
    .
    Would, for example, Joseph de Maistre (in M P-S’s sense of Conservatism, the only Conservative political philosopher I’m even slightly acquainted with) either state-throne or state-altar as Throne and Altar in the traditional sense?
    .
    And, since I’m already spec’latin on a hypotissis, knowin’ I don’ know nuttin’ as it were, I’ll toss out one more: I wonder if Whig, were it not archaic to the point of anachronism, wouldn’t serve as a shorthand descriptor for Conservatism, American Style.

  20. Would Joseph de Maistre recognize either state-throne or state-altar as Throne and Altar in the traditional sense?
    .
    (Serves me right for traipsing through the parentheticals)

  21. Ernst Schreiber wrote, “ I have to wonder if Throne and Altar haven’t both dissolved in the solute of Blood and Soil?”
    Blood & Soil (Blut und Boden) was a watchword of Romantic Nationalism, a liberal movement. Fichte’s famous dictum that frontiers should be based, not on dynasties and treaties, but on language and nationality was directed against both the dynastic state and the confessional state, dear to Conservatives.
    Thus, in the Dual Monarchy, it was Conservatives who defended the “indivisible Habsburg Monarchy” against the Pan-Germanists. They need not have worried; Bismarck, an arch-conservative, would never agree to the incorporation of Austria’s German lands into his German Empire – for that would have given it a Catholic majority.
    Belgium is the reverse of a nation-state; the only bondof unity between its Flemish and Walloon populations was Catholicism (the old Catholic South Netherlands) and the Crown. Northern Ireland is another example of a confessional state

    All the Counter-Revolutionaries, like de Maistre, Bonald, Chateaubriand and the rest, believed only a national establishment of religion could give a state legitimacy.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: