The Missionaries of Mercy, of which I am one at the moment I write this, are set to reconvene at the order of Pope Francis over in Rome on Mercy Sunday, 2020. Questions arise in my black and beady heart about the very possibility of true mercy during the pontificate of Pope Francis.
You have heard that it was said that Pope Francis hates the always boring fundamental theology, that he thinks that fundamental theology is absurdly irrelevant to the life of the Church. That’s probably your clue that fundamental theology is the most important and most enthralling subject for him, that it is the driving force of his entire pontificate. Fundamental theology is everywhere to be seen in Pope Francis’ statements and actions with doctrine, morals, interreligious dialogue, permeating and transforming every aspect of pontifical wherewithal with steely consistency.
But this fundamental theology is, surprise, surprise, filled with a self-referential, Promethian, Pelagian, self-absorbed remaking of the faith and of Christianity, not only as originating with himself, but in the words and actions of underlings that are promoted and defended and brought to bear on the entire life of the Church.
Let’s take on just one of the many stand-out incidents of fundamental theology nuclear warfare against the faith that is tolerated and promoted in this pontificate, bypassing for now the manipulation of the Amazonian tribes, bypassing Amoris laetitia, etc. Let’s make an incisive analysis of the raison d’être of the now destroyed John Paul Institute for Marriage and the Family. Let’s examine its new mission statement. This will help to make some things click in the bigger picture. While this was published and rightfully criticized earlier this year, it only now takes effect in these days as the new academic year begins. It is right this moment in the face of the students. The author’s cleverness and unabashed clarity reveal a nexus of heresy [there, I said it]. An in depth analysis on the level of fundamental theology is warranted:
- “La ricomposizione del pensiero e della pratica della fede con l’alleanza globale dell’uomo e della donna è ormai, con tutta evidenza, un luogo teologico planetario per il rimodellamento epocale della forma cristiana. E per la riconciliazione dell’umana creatura con la bellezza della fede. Detto nei termini più semplici, attraverso il superamento di ogni intellettualistica separazione fra teologia e pastorale, spiritualità e vita, conoscenza e amore, si tratta di rendere persuasiva per tutti questa evidenza: il sapere della fede vuole bene agli uomini e alle donne del nostro tempo.”
So, my translation:
- “The recomposition of thought and of the practice of the faith by way of the global covenant of man and woman is now, with all evidence, a planetary theological source for the epochal remodeling of the Christian form. And for the reconciliation of the human creature with the beauty of the faith. Said in more simple terms, by way of the overcoming of every intellectualistic separation between theology and the pastoral, spirituality and life, knowledge and love, one treats of rendering as persuasive using all this evidence: the knowing of the faith well loves the men and women of our time.”
That needs unpacking [with my comments]:
- “The recomposition of thought…” [thought is reason is logic; to recompose thought is to throw logic out the window, to insert premises where they don’t belong and to forbid premises where they do belong. “The recomposition of thought” is the very end of thought. All that remains is bullying, ultimately dialectical violence.]
- “The recomposition of thought and of the practice of the faith…” [Faith as provided by God is supernatural. When we assent to the faith we already have the first step of theology. When reason is applied to the data of faith (viz.: The Word became Flesh and dwelt amongst us”), this results in theology. When we make an act of the will to put the faith into action, theology into practice, we have what John Paul II called Veritatis slendor, the Truth’s splendor, with the splendor of the truth being love. If instead we pervert thought, reason, logic into an exercise of bullying, and understanding of the faith as God’s truth that could be put into practice as God’s love manifested in our lives is going to be turned into compliance to bullies in fear.]
- “The recomposition of thought and of the practice of the faith by way of the global covenant of man and woman…” [The covenant of man and woman as the image of God in marriage and the family is global, universal, constitutive of who we are as creatures of the Creator in whose image we are made. Yes. But in this context this being the image of God is the leverage by which destruction of thought and the practice of the faith is to be brought about. This is a declaration of war on faith and reason by way of an attack on marriage and the family.]
- [Here’s that whole sentence with a confirmation of its own interior “logic”:] The recomposition of thought and of the practice of the faith by way of the global covenant of man and woman is now, with all evidence, a planetary theological source for the epochal remodeling of the Christian form.” [In other words, all tribes and tongues and peoples and nations are bidden to use in our time as a given theological first principle the leverage of marriage and the family to change, remodel the Christian form, which is the faith given by God. In other words, we are bidden to use what is the image of God to destroy God-given faith, replacing this with our own recomposition for our epoch. This implies that any generation might want to use a different kind of leverage to destroy God-given faith. This is dialectical materialism par excellence.]
- [The next sentence is a “cool and with-it syntax” run-on from the previous sentence:] “And for the reconciliation of the human creature with the beauty of the faith.” [Given the self-absorbed, Promethean, Pelagian, self-referential sentence analyzed above, this follow up “sentence” is no surprise, expressing as it does a Nietzcheanesque “Will-to-Power”, replacing our Redeemer and Savior, Jesus, with anti-theology bullying, as if that brow-beating is going to be our redemption and salvation. No wonder that Jesus is entirely ignored by such self-appointed leaders of all, the self-appointed light-bearing architects of the universe.]
- “Said in more simple terms…” [how very condescending of our new redeemers and saviors. We are so stupid! Please, say it more simply!]
- “by way of the overcoming of every intellectualistic separation…” [wrought by those meanies, those rigid believer guys, who think with their un-recomposed thought that we actually do need to be redeemed and saved in that they think with their stupid un-recomposed thought that there actually are – in what is said to fallenness – separations between…]
- “between theology and the pastoral…” [The idea here is that if theology does not affirm all sinful behavior it is not pastoral. However, any pastoral activity which is not in accord with the always Divine Son of God, our Supreme Pastor, is not pastoral at all. It is ludicrous to say that there is no sin when Jesus would forgive our sin if we want to be forgiven. To reject all theology so as to merely affirm people’s sin is to mock God. Jesus took our place, the Innocent for guilty, dying for us, the punishment we deserve, so that He could have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us. To mock mercy is to mock God. This is bad. This is really bad.]
- “[between] spirituality and life…” [This refers to one of the most damaging practices taken up especially by the Jesuits, which is to equate psychology and spirituality, holding psychology to be some sort of infallible crystal ball into one’s spiritual life. This brand of self-referential psychology attempts suppress all that is not one’s ideal, trumpeting that success in suppression is to be equated with granting oneself salvation. No need for Jesus. Suppression is however, nothing more than desperate arrogance. Admitting in our weakness our need for that enmity, that grace, that love of God by which we can, though weak, follow the will of God in choosing good and avoiding evil is entirely rejected with this outlook. Jesus Himself is rejected.]
- “[between] knowledge and love…” [So, knowledge is bad and evil, only formless, relativistic – if it feels good, do it! – love is to be acceptable in this bullying recomposition of thought and faith. Note that Marxists hate education, and set out to destroy all that which makes education possible. This is truly frightening. This is the kind of “rationale” which oversees genocides.]
- “one treats of rendering as persuasive using all this evidence: the knowing of the faith well loves the men and women of our time.” [In other words, if one knows the faith, this will mean that that knowing is necessarily relative to our time, so that whatever anyone does – including that which is thought sinful in other times – is to be well loved in our own time, you know, love the sinner and the sin, because we’re with it, up-to-date, nice! That “one treats of rendering as persuasive” this relativism of our time is to use the terminology of torture: “rendering” and “persuasive.” I am in anguish over how many good priests are being smashed down by their bishops taking them out of assignments just for being joyful, believing Catholics (viz.: see the threats of the bishops of Malta against their priests and seminarians). This is bullying. But, as the Master, so the disciple. Those good priests, as Confessors, are not rigid. They lead their penitents in the joy of the Holy Spirit to being free from sin, not by rationalizing sin (what’s called solicitation, btw), but by introducing them to Jesus. While such good priests are Confessors who are portrayed as being masters of torture chambers should they simply declare the beauty of the faith, it is instead the the bullying of the “recomposition of the faith” that throws people into the darkest of existential peripheries. How ironic.]
Regardless of all this Prometheanesque rubbish, this Missionary of Mercy will remain with Jesus, He who is always, in heaven and on earth, the Divine Son of the Living God, Himself eternally God. Jesus is the one and only Redeemer, the one and only Savior. The clever architects of the universe, those self-proclaimed bearers of light, those who announce that they are not blind, not in need of redemption and salvation… they are not the ones, the only ones. It is Jesus who is the One, the only One. He is the mighty and majestic Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception. He has forgiven my blindness, my sin. I thank Him for that. Jesus always has mercy for us that is based on justice, based on truth, based on honesty and integrity. I beg Jesus that I might remain with Him, come what way. I am weak. He is strong. I beg Him to lift me up into His strength, His goodness and kindness, His mercy, His justice, His truth. Begging for Jesus Himself, I am at peace.
What is a good mission statement for the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family? That’s for another article. But if you have some ideas, drop a comment.
Part of the work of the Holy See – what all the dicasteries do – is to take note what people are saying round about the world. As the centuries have come by, this used to be done through bishops, and then also through the mass media. But now it is also done by google, or duckduckgo, or whatever. As far as the Holy See knows, this entire article was just baiting for your comments. Let us know your thoughts…