Bergoglio goes for low-hanging theological fruit, and neo-Catholics largely let him get away with it - Sunday 29th of July to Saturday 4th of August

There is really only one place to start this week and that is with the news that Bergoglio has altered the John Paul II Catechism to read that the death penalty is now  "inadmissible" in all circumstances because it violates "human dignity" . That God Himself in the Bible did not realise this, or the various Church fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or all the popes up until Bergoglio ought to get us suspicious.

I cannot do justice to the arguments against this latest heresy by Bergoglio so I shall simply leave it to you to have a look at the links below, one of which is from OnePeter5 and is titled "Pope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here’s Why." Rorate Caeli ran one under the title "What was black is now white".

The one thing I shall note is that the argument that Bergoglio uses is one that is expressly condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Bergoglio argues that using the death penalty deprives the convict of the chance of conversion. The Catechism of Trent tells us, in rather common-sensical terms, that he who knows that his life will end and is granted the grace of knowing when will scarcely convert at a later time if he cannot do it while at the point of oncoming death. So Bergoglio's argument is not even original, and is one which has been put down before as nonsensical.

It is interesting to note that the only person Bergoglio can quote to rationalise his new posture is himself, continuing his now-growing list of novelties by self-quotation.

As usual, the neo-Catholics were mostly out in force proving that they are part of the problem. To watch EWTN reporting that "the pope has changed the Church's teaching on the death penalty" or the "pope has strengthened the Church's opposition to the death penalty" would have  been to come away with the conclusion that a pope can change the Church's teaching. The Papal Pose was misex, with Fr. Murray arguing that it was a break, and Robert Royal at his usual neo-Catholic best when responding that canonists will have to determine whether it is 'de fide', when asked that by Arroyo. It's striking that these people are there to respond as experts and they do not even know that catechisms are not in and of themselves infallible, not even the venerable Catechism of Trent. They ought, however, to contain infallible truths.

Some of the Novus Ordites argued that it is a case of the pope implanting his prudential judgement and that we should take it seriously, having been offered this opinion. Excuse me, but the Catechism is there to tell us what the Church teaches explicitly, not to argue for selective enforcement of prudential judgements, regardless of where they hail!

This is nothing short of heresy because the Church has taught definitively about this issue from her beginning, and God has made it clear that the death penalty can be justifiably imposed by legitimate authority. To argue otherwise is to do nothing short of lying, and to pass it off to others it to shirk responsibility.

What is clear is that Bergoglio has gone after low-hanging theological fruit. He knows that even among those who argue for the licitness of the death penalty, many are opposed to it in practice. The death penalty is only available in a few countries and even in these it is rarely used. He knows that people will not die on 'death penalty hill', so to speak, protesting "thus far but no farther!" We can, however, be sure that if Bergoglio gets away with this he will not stop there.

The arguments he puts forward for it, namely that people nowadays have a realisation that the death penalty is opposed to human dignity, can be used to rationalise pretty much every heresy and Church teaching which is not popular with the modernists. It is pretty much what he has attempted to do with divorce and remarriage and you can be sure that he is testing waters by formally changing the Catechism on the death penalty. Next up on the line might just be your favourite teaching.

Some have argued that Bergoglio only did this to divert attention from the McCarrick scandal - given that it involves one of his closest aides - while others have argued that even with Bergoglio being an idiot, using heresy as deflection is a move too dumb even for him. I am not sure there is anything so dumb that Bergoglio will not do it, so I'll not dismiss the theory entirely.  I too was initially drawn to the theory that he used it as a distraction from the McCarrick scandal. However, I do pride myself in thinking outside the box, and I have wondered: What if the reverse is true?

What if Bergoglio used the McCarrick scandal to introduce formal heresy into the teaching of the Church? What if the McCarrick scandal was itself the distraction? Most of the Catholic and secular media is pre-occupied with other stuff anyway, and there is no better time to poison  the Church's  already-sub-standard Catechism . If he pulls it back on account of major opposition (yeah, as if Bergoglio listens to anyone!) then it will hardly be headline news. If it sticks, then he can use it as reference for even further heresy, knowing that EWTN and the rest of  the neo-Catholic establishment has his back arguing as dishonestly as ever that we need to try and take onboard something which is obviously a heresy simply because the pope has put his weight behind it.

I have often maintained that neo-Catholics, or 'conservative Catholics', will reject every heresy unless it comes from the pope. This incident proves me right, yet again!

All I can say is that I am in total agreement with Christopher Ferrara that The Reversible Magisterium Is No Magisterium.

If the teaching can be changed then it does not have to due with the faith and morals to be included within the deposit of faith, and we need to take Bergoglio no more seriously than the house cat when he utters his opinion regarding it, given that he has proved himself wrong with pretty much everything else, and his credentials as a pervert are rock-solid. If it is part of the deposit of faith and has to do with faith and morals, then it cannot be changed and Bergoglio has just added one more piece of evidence to his record-long and ever-expanding exhibit of abuses against the faith.

The McCarrick scandal continues and we have a few Catholics arguing that we need to stop funding NOChurch until this issue is cleared. This was penned in both  and Regina Magazine. Not all are in agreement, and Fr. Zuhlsdorf that dioceses do a lot of good with the donations they receive, and some unquestionably do, although what good they do that cannot be perfomed by the authentically authentic Catholic traditional orders to which the money could be diverted is hard to identify.

I do not give any money to the Diocese of Stockholm, and shall not consider doing it until the bishop apologises for putting on Lutherfest when Bergoglio was here in 2016. A lot of people feel duty-bound to do so because they want to remain on diocesan registers, and if they feel duty-bound to do it, then I certainly shall not hold it against them. My money goes to traditional orders and Catholic organisations which fight for a culture of life, so long as they are faithful to Church teaching. The argument among those who want to withdraw from their money is that the bishops will sell off stuff which is for their own personal good first, but it is difficult to disagree with a comment I featured on the 16th of August which went:

Alas, Alas, the archbishop will close your church to save money, auction off the contents, and then sell the land under the church long before he sells his beach house.

So be it! Whatever they are teaching is for the most part not the Catholic faith anyway. Maybe starving them will put off the wolves who are only in it for influence and comfort, and leave behind those who would serve the Church of God for little or no money.

As if to prove my point, the Italian governemnt put forward proposals to have crucifixes put up on all government buildings, not just schools and hospitals as is already the case. Well, one of Bergoglio's right-hand men, Spadaro, opposed this idea, not exactly surprisingly. Our money is going to keep these apostates well-wined and well-dined, as they insult us with every utterance our sustenance affords them.

Across the pond, Donald Trump continues to threated war against Iran. That story will go on for a while, it seems. NATO continues to fund Islamists in Syria  and elsewhere. In fact, it feels I could start a whole blog titled "How Donald Trump is playing you" dedicated to all those people who think Donald Trump is fighting for Christians and promoting peace, as opposed to fighting for zionists and wahabbists and promoting war.

It's not all doom and gloom though, although the bright sports are few and far between, and my main man Vladimir Putin is one of them. It was the 1030th anniversary of the conversion of St. Vladimir , which paved the way for the conversion of Russia to Christianity the first time around. Vladimir Putin took time out of his busy schedule to stress the point that the conversion of St. Vladimir the Great, as he is called in the Catholic Encyclopaedia (so he is a Catholic saint), formed the soul of future Russia. The Catholic Herald didn't miss  the occasion to push out yet more anti-Russian propaganda but at least they got one part right, and that is that Bergoglio is betraying Ukrainian Catholics. In that case, they are in good company, along with Chinese Catholics, Middle-Eastern Catholics, and the rest of us. The Remnant's coverage, titled "Putin Says Christianity Formed Russian Nation ", as is typicaly of traditionalists, was much more honest and fair.

That is just about it.

This week's Bergoglio victim of the week was the John Paul II/Novus Ordo Catechism. Already as it was I would not have recommended it, and believe me, I have studied it extensively. Now, it is clear that Bergoglio is intent on turning it into yet another non-Catholic - and perhaps even anti-Catholic if he really gets his way - project. This time it's the death penalty. Next time it will be marriage, the time after that sodomy and given time he might just make it all the way to the Trinity.

Maybe it's for the better. When Bergoglio made his change, I wrote in my commentary for the 2nd of August:

So Bergoglio decides to alter the Catechism in order to claim that use of the death penalty is against Christian teaching.

I say: Keep it coming!

We already knew he was a heretic, and we already knew that the new Catechism was faulty on many levels, and with this move he condemns both himself and the NOChurch Catechism.

We have good traditional catechisms, most notably the Catechism of the Council of Trent. You would be much better off using them than the NOChurch Catechism. Your soul will thank you. No matter, the NOChurch Catechism is this weeks Bergoglio victim.