Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Bergoglio’s Gig: Abrogation of Duties and Becoming a “Cafeteria-style Catholic”

Cafeteria-style Catholicism is Now OK
Or: Pope Francis vs Vatican 1: Cafeteria-style Catholicism is Now OK

First Vatican Council:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

From Session 4: 18 July 1870 “First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ”

And remember, this need for, requirement to make a “judgment” is reiterated in the 2005 statement by Pope Ratzinger, specifically with respect to whether or not one is fit for admission to a seminary to study for priesthood.

Now, here is Pope Bergoglio on judging whether “these people” may serve as priests:

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Another quote:

"Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" the pontiff told a news conference in response to a question. "You can't marginalize these people."

This pope has certainly made it easier for the Roman Catholic in the pew to become a “cafeteria catholic” – all of those individuals who left the Roman church because they divorced and remarried, or wanted to practice “artificial” birth control, soon may feel safe to be flooding back into the pews!


  1. I'm not following you here John. Begoglio reiterated that Catholic teaching on homosexuality hasnt changed. His line about who am i to judge is only refering to the person with the orientation that doesnt practice. Is that not what we also belive?
    god bless.

    1. Where was this standard of judgement when Jan Hus was being burned? It's all the more evident that Roman claims to authority all through history were nothing more than a farce.

    2. Ratzinger: "Ye [bishop] must judge":

      it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"….

      The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt in this regard, he must not admit him to ordination.

      Bergoglio: "What, me worry?"

  2. I think the problem here it that you seem to think that "qualities" are being defined differently by ratzinger and bergoglio. Bergoglio clearly has not time for practising homosexuals. I say he isnt going back on anything.

    1. Who said anything about "going back". The big thing with, say the Called-to-Communion gang, is the epistemological certainty of Roman Catholicism. With this pope and his "who-am-I-to-judge" statement, he's clearly misrepresenting his own duty to "be the judge". Perhaps this was his attempt to "outwit" the press, as some have written about it today. If that's the case, then he's being disingenuous.

      In any case, he's made it possible for Roman Catholics everywhere to say "who am I to judge?", and then go on living their lives in whatever way they want.

  3. ah but no!! He was clearly only applying "who am i to judge" to the non sexually active homosexual who is faithful to God. If any catholic out there took that to mean they can lay off judging homosexual activities in general then they have misread him.

    1. But it does mean they have license to look the other way -- and not only wrt homosexuality, but it seems from what he's said it may be time to re-look the old divorced/remarried thing. As I said, welcome Cafeteria-style Catholicism!