Saturday, 24 October 2020



By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

    (Written on October 22, 2020, published October 23)

    Yesterday, on the occasion of the Rome Film Festival, the director Evgeny Afineevsky presented a documentary called Francesco, which proposes several interviews done with Jorge Mario Bergoglio over the course of the last few years of his pontificate. Among other disconcerting statements, there are several about the legitimization of homosexual civil unions: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they [homosexuals] are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

    I think that both the simple faithful as well as bishops and priests feel betrayed by what Bergoglio has affirmed.

    It is not necessary to be theologians to understand that the approval of civil unions is in clear contradiction of the Magisterial documents of the Church, including recent ones. Such approval also constitutes a very grave “assist” to the LGBTQ ideology which today is being imposed on the global level.

    In the coming days the Italian Parliament will be discussing the approval of the so-called Zan law [against so-called “homophobia”] proposed by the Democratic Party (PD). In the name of protecting homosexuals and trans-sexuals, it will be considered a crime to affirm that the natural family is the building block of human society, and those who affirm that sodomy is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance will be punished. Bergoglio’s words have already been received by the gay lobby worldwide as an authoritative support for their claims.

    Carefully reading Bergoglio’s statements, someone has already observed that it does not include an approval of homosexual marriage, but only a gesture of welcome – perhaps poorly formulated – towards those who ask the secular state for juridical protection. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already unequivocally clarified that in no case may a Catholic approve of civil unions, because they constitute a legitimization of public concubinage and are only a step towards the legal recognition of so-called homosexual marriages. So much so that in Italy today it is even possible for people of the same sex to “marry” each other, after having been assured for years – even by self-styled Catholic politicians – that [civil unions] would in no way question marriage as it is defined in the Italian Constitution.

    After all, experience teaches us that when Bergoglio says something, he does it with a very precise purpose: to make others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers all over the world are announcing today: “The Pope Approves Gay Marriage” – even if technically this is not what he said. But this was exactly the result that he and the Vatican gay lobby wanted. Then the Vatican Press Office will perhaps say that what Bergoglio said was misunderstood, that this was an old interview, and that the Church reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. But the damage has been done, and even any steps backwards from the scandal that has been stirred up will ultimately be a step forward in the direction of mainstream thought and what is politically correct. Let us not forget the nefarious results of his famous utterance in 2013 – “Who am I to judge?” – which earned him a place on the cover of The Advocate along with the title “Man of the Year.”

    Bergoglio has declared: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

    All the baptized are children of God: this is what the Gospel teaches. But these children may be either good or evil, and if they break God’s Commandments, the fact that they are His children will not prevent them from being punished, just as an Italian who steals does not avoid going to prison solely because of the fact that he is a citizen of the nation where he commits the crime. The Mercy of God does not prescind from Justice, and if we think of how in order to redeem us the Lord shed His Blood on the Cross, we cannot but strive for holiness, conforming our behavior to His will. Our Lord has said: “You are my friends, if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:14).

    If familial or social exclusion results from provocative behaviors or from ideological claims that cannot be shared – I am thinking of Gay Pride – this is only the result of an attitude of challenge, and thus such exclusion has its origin in those who use that attitude to hurt their neighbor. If instead that discrimination results only from being a person who behaves like everyone else with respect for others and without any imposition of one’s own lifestyle, it should be rightly condemned.

    We know very well that what the homosexualist lobby wants to obtain is not the integration of normal and honest people but rather the imposition of seriously sinful, socially destabilizing models of life that have always been exploited to demolish the family and society. It is no coincidence that the promotion of the homosexual agenda is part of the globalist project, in conjunction with the destruction of the natural family.

    One of the most ardent supporters of the LGBTQ agenda and of the indiscriminate welcoming of homosexuals in the Church, the Jesuit James Martin, has been made a Consultor in the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See. As soon as the news came out about Bergoglio’s statements, Martin stormed social media with tweets, expressing his uncontainable satisfaction with this action which, in contrast, scandalized the majority of the faithful.

    Along with father Martin, there are cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, and other clerics who belong to the so-called “lavender mafia.” Some of these have been investigated and condemned for very grave crimes, almost always linked to homosexual environments. How can we think that a clique of homosexuals in the command post does not have every interest in pushing Bergoglio to defend a vice that they share and practice?

    In fact, I would say that it is part of Bergoglio’s intended behavior that he plays with equivocation and provocation – such as when he said, “God is not Catholic,” or when he leaves it to others to finish a discourse which he initiates. We have seen this with Amoris Laetitia: although he did not clearly contradict Catholic doctrine on the impossibility of the divorced and remarried accessing the Sacraments, he allowed other bishops to do so, later approving their statements and stubbornly remaining silent in response to the Dubia ["doubts"] of the four Cardinals.

    It may be asked: why would the Pope act in this way, especially when his predecessors were always very clear on moral matters?

    I do not know what Bergoglio has in mind: I limit myself to making sense of his actions and words.

    And I think I can affirm that what emerges is an attitude that is deliberately two-faced and Jesuitical.

    Behind all of his utterances there is the effort to arouse the reaction of the healthy part of the Church, provoking it with heretical statements, with disconcerting gestures, with documents that contradict the Magisterium. And at the same time, his statements please his supporters, above all non-Catholics and those who are Catholic in name only.

    By dint of provoking, he hopes that some bishop will grow tired of daily feeling afflicted by his doctrine and morals; he hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his deposition. And by doing so, Bergoglio would have the pretext of accusing these prelates of being “enemies of the Pope,” of placing themselves outside the Church, of wanting a schism. Obviously, it is not those who want to remain faithful to the Magisterium who separate themselves from the Church: this would be absurd.

    In a certain way, Bergoglio’s behavior is of the same matrix as that of the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte: both of them, in hindsight, were desired in their roles by the same élite, who are numerically a minority but are powerful and organized, with the purpose of demolishing the institution that they represent; both of them abuse their own power against the law; both of them accuse those who denounce their abuses of being the enemy of the institution, when in reality the denouncers are defending the institution from their destructive intent. Finally, both of them are distinguished by a bleak mediocrity.

    If canonically it is unthinkable to excommunicate a Catholic for the mere fact that he wishes to remain so, politically and strategically this abuse would allow Bergoglio to expel his adversaries from the Church, consolidating his own power. And I repeat: we are not talking about a legitimate operation, but of an abuse that, despite being an abuse, no one would be able to prevent, since “the First See is judged by none” – prima Sedes a nemine judicatur.

    And since the deposition of a heretical Pope is a canonically unresolved question on which there is no unanimous consent of canonists, anyone who would accuse Bergoglio of heresy would be going down a dead end and would obtain a result only with great difficulty.

    And it is exactly this, in my opinion, that Bergoglio’s “magic circle” wants to achieve: to reach the paradoxical situation in which the one who is recognized as Pope is at the same time in a state of schism with the Church he governs, while those who are declared by him to be schismatic for disobedience will find themselves expelled from the Church because of the fact that they are Catholic.

    Bergoglio’s action is above all directed outside the Church.

    The encyclical Fratelli Tutti is an ideological manifesto in which there is nothing Catholic and nothing for Catholics – it is the umpteenth embrassons-nous [“let’s embrace”] of the Masonic matrix, in which universal brotherhood is obtained not, as the Gospel teaches, in recognizing the common fatherhood of God through belonging to the one Church, but rather by the flattening of all religions into a lowest common denominator that is expressed in solidarity, respect for the environment, and pacifism.

    With this way of acting, Bergoglio is a candidate for “pontiff” of a new religion, with new commandments, new morals, and new liturgies.

    He distances himself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the globalist dictatorship. Those who do not adapt to this new code will therefore be ostracized by society and by this new “church” as a foreign body.

    On October 20 in Rome, Pope Francis prayed for peace along with representatives of the world religions: the motto of that ecumenical ceremony was “No one is saved alone.”

    But that prayer was addressed indiscriminately to both the True God as well as to the false gods of the pagans, making it clear that the ecumenism propagated by Bergoglio has as its goal the exclusion of Our Lord from human society, because Jesus Christ is considered “divisive,” “a stumbling stone.”

    This modern man thinks that he can obtain peace by leaving aside the One who said of Himself: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn 14:6). It is painful to note that this apostasy of formerly Christian nations is accompanied by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who ought to be the Vicar of Christ, not his enemy.

    Three days ago, the press announced that the Pope will not celebrate Midnight Mass on Christmas.

    I will limit myself to one observation: a few days ago, in the midst of the full-fledged “Covid emergency,” it was possible to celebrate an ecumenical rite in the presence of the faithful and the civil authorities, all wearing masks. And yet, on the contrary, someone has decided that it would be imprudent to celebrate the Birth of the Savior on the Holy Night of Christmas in the far vaster space of the Vatican Basilica.

    If this decision is confirmed, we will know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio prefers to celebrate himself by supporting the mainstream thought and syncretistic ideology of the New World Order, rather than kneeling at the foot of the manger where the King of Kings is placed.

    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

    22 October 2020

    Official translation


Anonymous said...

I just want to remind people, those who do not know about this, that the Bethlehem Grotto caught on fire immediately after Bergoglio left there, few years ago. This is a sign from heaven, how dark he is. Also, he fell from the altar in front of "Black Madonna" in Czestochowa, Poland - like somebody would pushed him out, while looking proudly straight at Her Holy Image. Few moments before that: HE NEVER KNELLED (as usually) in Her own Chapel - even Polish kings did that and JPII as well as Benedict the XVI - but not Bergoglio... Not many would know either, that he fell in the Mother Mary of Guadalupe, Mexico -Basillica... I just wonder what Heaven is saying us by all these signs... Impostor?

Johnno said...

I'm going to make a prediction that at some point the Chinese Communist-controlled bishops will step up and condemn Bergolio for heresy before any of the 'official' bishops or Cardinals.


It'll happen. Thus completing the circle of absurdity.

Even the Chicoms have limits to immorality.

Anonymous said...

Worldwide Rosary

Anonymous said...

Judging by the lockdowns been implemented in various crountries, its obvious that Christmas will be cancelled, in Britain even family Christmas Day dinners are been banned though people are stating they'll ignore it. Its also obvious that Easter next year will also be cancelled. My mother has a hospital appointment by phone in April 2021,so the hospitals are not planning on returning to any kind of normal. Abortions continued all through lockdowns, while people died from medical neglect. We are at the mercy of a death cult.

LineInTheSand said...

Don’t depose him for heresy, just judge if what he said is heresy. If it is, he is clearly not the pope due to the Church’s indefectibiity. Investigate if Benedict’s abdication wasn’t coerced.

Laity can’t do this alone.

Anonymous said...

One word .Borgoglio is a Heretic. said...

After I was sent to a Catholic "psychometric centre" in the UK for a two day assessment for my suitability for training for the priesthood, I received a copy of the report. Under the heading "Sexuality" was written. "Mr Thomas reported a boring history in this area. He reported that he is heterosexual and has no unusual sexual attractions or activities." Yes, those are the very words of the report. Boring. On the other hand, looking at the bookshelves of the spirituality interviewer in that "psychometric centre", I observed a vast range of heterodox new age volumes with an obvious focus on the novels of Paolo Coelho, who is of the very Devil.

Peter Lamb said...

In my opinion vigano is the worst of evil double agents, or controlled opposition keeping trusting, Catholics who wish to be "Traditionalists" in the ambit of the novus bogus "church" by recognising bergoglio as "pope" no matter what he says or does. This is just the old non-Catholic evil "Recognise and Resist" position. Just look at this satanic deceiving evil by a "Bishop" of the "Catholic Church":

"And since the deposition of a heretical Pope is a canonically unresolved question on which there is no unanimous consent of canonists, anyone who would accuse Bergoglio of heresy would be going down a dead end and would obtain a result only with great difficulty."

There you have it!!! Bergoglio is an heretic, says vigano, BUT, BUT, BUT, my dear Catholics, the deposition of an heretic, (who, per definition, denies at least one article of the Catholic Faith and who is no longer a Member of the Church), cannot be achieved because "canonists" cannot reach unanimitity on the matter. What a LIE !!! What utter POPPYCOCK you conniving deceiving snake! Popes, Saints, Vatican I, Doctors of the Church, truly Catholic theologians - all have stated unambigiously, clearly, categorically and logically that an heretic is automatically deposed BY GOD IN TERMS OF DIVINE LAW the second he utters heresy !!!

Peter Lamb said...


Vatican I declared, “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: "The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

Peter Lamb said...

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”(The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.)

Peter Lamb said...

St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Peter Lamb said...

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 –“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as
an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —
“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement
and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally
invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception
of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor
even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself,
together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. —
“Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in
the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in
any way . . .— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments
of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows
therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability
and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected,
by that very fact and without the need to make any further
declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title,
authority, office and power.”

Peter Lamb said...

Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950 – “Appointment to the
Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this
appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected
be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least
public ones) are excluded. . . It cannot be proven however that the
Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.
He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and
it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church
in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess
heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible
anyway) he would lose his authority.

Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927 – “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a
pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without
hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power,
insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be
cast outside the body of the Church.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 – “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of
jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A
Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a
member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949 –
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as
a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any
declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no
longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
On the general topic of admonition, The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, among other things, the following:
“Since contumacy implies obstinate persistence in crime, in order to become liable to these punishments a person must not only be guilty of crime, but must also persist in his criminal course after having been duly warned and admonished. This warning (monitio canonica), which must precede the punishment, can emanate either from the law itself or from the ecclesiastical superior or judge. Contumacy can therefore occur in one of two ways: first, when the delinquent does not heed the warning of his ecclesiastical superior or judge, addressed to him personally and individually; second, when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”
the Encyclopedia’s statement that a pope would become a public heretic “were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ“.We should be content with the principle of Nullam Partem ["no part"] with heretics,Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam [1302]; Denz. 469)