Why Bergoglio is Not the Pope

He made an interview with La Vanguardia. No, the fact of the interview is not itself a reason why he cannot be a Catholic or a Pope. But what he said in it is. Note he considered the interview important enough to be regiven in full text by Catholic News Agency,* from which I quote.

Violence in the name of God dominates the Middle East.

It's a contradiction. Violence in the name of God does not correspond with our time. It's something ancient. With historical perspective, one has to say that Christians, at times, have practiced it. When I think of the Thirty Years War, there was violence in the name of God. Today it is unimaginable, right? We arrive, sometimes, by way of religion to very serious, very grave contradictions. Fundamentalism, for example. The three religions, we have our fundamentalist groups, small in relation to all the rest.

And, what do you think about fundamentalism?

A fundamentalist group, although it may not kill anyone, although it may not strike anyone, is violent. The mental structure of fundamentalists is violence in the name of God.

Wait a second - fundamentalists are violent EVEN IF they aren't physically hurting anyone?

Simply because of their "mental structure"?

That it could be extremely arrogant to pronounce oneself on someone's mental structure has not crossed his so-called "holiness's" mind? What he means is obviously the culture (which does influence mentalities) ... one can hope. Because the mental structure of the neighbour - unlike your own - is invisible to one. It cannot even be pretended Bergoglio knows all that many fundamentalists. Personally, that is.

But supposing he knows some, supposing he found these having a violent mentality, he is still shooting from the hip and killing a dove when he is extending such experience to:

• all Muslim fundamentalists;
• all Jewish fundamentalists;
• all Christian fundamentalists.

Today, there are Jewish Haredim who refuse to serve the Tsahal. Of course, in certain interactions with Christians, they have shown a violent attitude. A bitter and nauseating one. But it is more like Tsahal being violent in the name of the Shoah, and that seems, by now, to be pretty well established as a social culture among many, though not all, Zionists. Perhaps not even the majority. But there is the Tsahal who made the first killing** after the ceasefire. And they are not a fundamentalist group.

Hamas are. And they started enmities by 33 rockets - who killed no one.** But there are lots of Salafists in the West who know very well they are in no position for a violent jihad - shall we assume they all have a violent "mental structure", if not individually, at least in their groups? I would rather not.

Now, Christian fundamentalists - where is any group of them fighting violently at all?***

How many are simply exposing themselves to verbal violence, without retaliating with equal grossness - in an effort to argue? I can see how Bergoglio could call them condemning, but hardly how he could call them violent. Even mentally.

I wonder if Bergoglio got this piece of shit° - to call his attitude to fundamentalists what it is - from his friend Skorka ... or from his other friend Tony Palmer. Kent Hovind and Tas Walker would be considered fundamentalists by quite a few tests. Not the least that of Biblical Inerrancy. But calling them violent is ... sorry, flabberghasting.

To me, they are civilised men. Bergoglio in his famous appeal and reachout (showing his friend Tony Palmer as an example) has shown himself dishonest and sentimental. If that clumsy piece of ecumenism failed, Bergoglio feels it must be the other guys' fault.

But in another sense, perhaps it is not quite bad to say "fundamentalist" Christians have a "violent mental structure". That might be how the Pharisees described Our Lord after each of the floggings of the money lenders. That might be how Alessandro Serenelli felt about the uncompromising attitude of Saint Maria Goretti. You know, that mental violence of calling his proposition of getting her pregnant so they could marry (as I think he meant it°°) - in fact, so many people could in that way be described as having a "violent mental structure" that I wonder if there are many up in Heaven who got there without having it, and especially who got there without passing through Purgatory.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sts Cyriac, Deacon, and Largus
and Smaragdus, and XX companions, Martyrs
8-VIII-2014

* Link later (sorry, Erik!)

Update, link now:

Full text of Pope Francis' Interview with 'La Vanguardia'
Vatican City, Jun 13, 2014 / 07:00 am
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-interview-with-la-vanguardia---full-text-45430/

** As far as media are telling us.

*** Some Hispanic Evangelicals were violent some months ago to a Catholic priest. Do NOT know if they fit the fundamentalist description. But if so, it would usually be of the Seventh Day Adventist type of Anticatholicism.

° I think this is the one and only place in over 2000 articles on my blogs that I have so far used this expression. But it is a piece of hatemongering shit.

°° Italian legislation, done by enemies of the Church postponed marriage till 18 for both sexes. I am not sure if, but think there would surely have been some exception clause for those pregnant wnating to marry father of the child.

Update, close analysis of first quoted paragraph (more poisonous than I thought):

I originally quoted it just to make sure the reader gets Bergoglio was not just targetting "Muslim Fundamentalism" or for that matter Protestant Fundamentalism. He was talking about minoritarian non-modernists, non-ecumenists, in "the three religions". But I had missed there was more to it. Here comes my analysis of that more:

[Violence in the name of God dominates the Middle East.] It's a contradiction.

Contradiction in terms? Well, unprovoked violence in the name of God is. If neither the rights of God nor of fellow man have been agressed by someone thinking differently, that is indeed a non-warrant for any kind of violence with any kind of religious motivation.

But Bergoglio did not say "unprovoked".

Violence in the name of God does not correspond with our time. It's something ancient.

O ... K ... Seems the law of God is not the rule for Bergoglio. "Our times" are the rule. And "something ancient" is the crime or heresy against that rule.

Growing crops to feed us and growing wine to confort us are very ancient things too. The latest of these inventions is just after the Flood, it is wine. Most things that are really useful are more ancient than that.

With historical perspective, one has to say that Christians, at times, have practiced it. When I think of the Thirty Years War, there was violence in the name of God. Today it is unimaginable, right?

O ... K ... today Protestants when remaining Christians seem to be our allies, in face of Muslims and in face of Atheists, in face of ISIS and in face of Evolutionist school boards. Perhaps even better allies than Bergoglio?

Some of them - far from all - do attack us also.

And often they support Zionism too and are not our allies against Zionism.

If Catholics ever get to war again, I am not certain who our opponent would be nor who our supporters would be. But beating ISIS would be one licit goal of war. Unlike the bad wars of the recent decade, which were wars "in the name of Western values" and "in the name of the spirit of our time", but not in the name of God or of justice and of protection to Christian faithful.

We arrive, sometimes, by way of religion to very serious, very grave contradictions.

The Reformation was a very serious and very grave contradiction.

It is a contradiction in terms to be Christian and to deny Indefectibility of the Church, just as it is to be Christian and deny Inerrancy of the Bible.

Is Bergoglio warning the Protestants against that one? No. He is only telling them "we are a family that has drifted a bit apart" ... Was Ralph Milner and was Father Roger Dicconson just dealing with people who had drifted away from them? Or were Zachris Antelius and George Bäär / Ursinus?

The Reformation was a crime as well as a religious contradiction, but it was one which came about by a - kind of - religion.

And that religion was not fundamentalism.

In the beginning of Protestant opposition against Old Age and against later Evolution, you find people close to Catholicism. The Anglican pseudo-Bishop who was debating Huxley, Wilberforce, was not only son of the abolitionist but brother of the Convert. Earlier, you find a chemist whose father remained a Catholic. By mid-19th C. Barnes denies and Haydock affirms in each their Bible commentary that the Flood was Global.

And Calvin is infamous for having insulted the prophet whose grave was vandalised by violent Muslims in the Niniveh region, Jonah, by claiming the Book of Jonah could have been a religious novel.

So, the bad guys of the Reformation were not the Fundamentalists - we Catholics were the Fundamentalists. And we were the good guys, collectively, whatever may be said about certain individuals.

That being so, someone who is against Biblical Inerrantism cannot in any way be considered a faithful Catholic, unless perhaps he is careless about thinking it through, or in a subordinate position relying on the guys he considers his bishops. A bishop who is against Biblical Inerrancy has no such excuse. A bishop without superior on Earth, that is a Pope, has no such excuse. And a bishop or Pope who is not at all Catholic, is not at all Pope or Bishop: he lost powers or became ineligible before accessing them when so apostasising from the Faith.