THE POPE AND THE GAY LOBBY IN THE VATICAN, INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY
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
