What Pope Francis describes as the "conscience of humanity" is actually a sickness

Elizabeth Yore over at Pewsitter notes how Pope Francis referred to anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy leftist mayors as "the conscience of humanity" See here.

There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, becomes a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth?
Suggested reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 1783-1785.

Photo courtesy of Mass Resistance and showing Boston Mayor Marty Walsh celebrating homosexuality.  And Pope Francis says that he and other leftist mayors are OUR CONSCIENCE.

Pope Francis: True unity presupposes unity in truth

Over at Pewsitter, Frank Walker looks at the false irenicism of Pope Francis. The idea that unity is the most important thing, something which trumps even the demands of truth, is an asinine notion which was recently advanced by the "pastor" of Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Pope Pius XII referred to as the "20th century Doctor of the Church," refutes this distorted idea of unity.  He writes, "St. Paul says there always will be heresies and he adds that God permits them to test the faithful. The disunity that is based on the incompatibility of truth and falsehood cannot and should not be avoided...To deplore disunity as such, instead of deploring heresies, instead of condemning these and calling them by their name, implies first of all that one would keep unity even at the cost of truth. But, of course, true unity presupposes unity in truth. Error, falsehood, can never be the basis for true unity. That holy, supernatural unity of which our Lord speaks in the priestly prayer ut unum sint - that all may be one - can come to pass only in the profession of divine truth, in the membership of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a unity which includes some but, by the same token, excludes others. As Father Werenfried van Straaten [the Bacon priest, my note] reminds us, 'Jesus' prayer that all may be one'...may not be separated from His other words: 'I say unto you that whoever does not enter by the door of the sheepfold is a thief and a robber...I am the door!' The same principle is expressed in the first encyclical of Pope Pius XI: Pax Christi in regno Christi, the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ. Even on the natural level, unity that is not grounded in truth is either a very silly or a very dangerous thing. That shallow comradeship so typical of modern society, for example, in which we approach everyone regardless of his relation to God in a spirit of 'tolerance' - the spirit incarnated in the words of Frederick II of Prussia: 'Let everyone attain beatitude in his own fashion' - that is a foolish pseudo-unity lacking any common principle to truly unite men. Such 'togetherness,' however, can be worse than foolish; it can be a sinister force when it is based not on a lack of principle, but on a common error - on an idol. The togetherness found in Nazism or in Communism is an amazing thing. Devotion to the common idol goes so far that the devotees are ready to die for it. So many young Germans gave their lives in the war while screaming, 'Heil Hitler!' They had given themselves in unity, to the devil." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 3-4).

This false irenicism will play a significant role in this pontificate as the push for a one-world religion intensifies.

Pray.

Pope Francis: The Homosexual Disorder is not a concern, only a commitment to Tradition

Pope Francis has admitted that he has "some nerve problems" which require treatment as well as various neuroses. See here. A neuroses is defined as, "A relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress such as depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior and hypochondria."

Now, I would never make light of another person's mental illness or disorder.  There but for the grace of God go I as Saint Philip Neri once said.  I have been through exhaustive psychological exams and screenings both for the United States Air Force (to obtain a security clearance above top secret) and for a religious community which determined that I was "too devoted to Magisterial teaching" (whatever that means). In both cases, I was given a clean bill of psychological health and determined to be free of any and all pathologies, neuroses etc.

But I find it alarming that a self-admitted neurotic with "nerve problems" would request religious communities to refuse orthodox candidates on the grounds that such people are mentally ill and " might not be suited for religious life."

What happened to "Who am I to judge?" Oh that's right, that rule only applies to those with a homosexual inclination. Pope Francis has no problem with priests who suffer from the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED" homosexual inclination, he only has a problem with candidates to the priesthood and religious life who are deemed "rigid" because of their commitment to truth, order and structure.

Frank Walker over at Pewsitter explains:


At the Radical Catholic there's no reason to start glossing over the Pope's naked contempt for the Faithful.  It's not like it's going to stop.

The great Vatican II is the Church in entirety!  Those Catholics who retain beliefs from the prior Church must be branded insane - and this in the Year of Mercy.

Doubling down on Cardinal João Braz de Aviz' warning to religious vocations directors from around the world about the consequences of distancing oneself from the "great lines" of the Second Vatican Council, the following day Pope Francis gave the same group a short list of warning signs that a young person might not be suited for religious life.*

Given the state of the Church, one might be tempted to expect such a list to include, say, active homosexuality, pedophilia, theological and/or pastoral dissent, careerism, inordinate fondness of polyester pantsuits, etc. But I suspect that even considering such things as being potentially harmful to religious vocations is to have already distanced oneself from Vatican II - perhaps irreparably so. No, the real threat to religious vocations is to be found elsewhere: deep in the Freudian Unconscious. Pope Francis explains:

All the people who know the human personality - may they be psychologists, spiritual fathers, spiritual mothers - tell us that young people who unconsciously feel they have something unbalanced or some problem of mental imbalance or deviation unconsciously seek strong structures that protect them, to protect themselves.

Faithful Catholics, people who are conservative, grounded, Christian; they are unbalanced.  Ask anyone who knows the 'human personality' like a psychologist.  Nothing trendy about psychology, no.  It trumps all.

While insinuating mental imbalance in one who seeks structure is somewhat new - I mention only in passing his description of Christian ideology as a "serious illness" - decrying the threefold evil of 'structures, rules and habits' is an established trope of Pope Francis' personal magisterium. As he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium (§49):

More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: "Give them something to eat."

Again, is there any doubt as to who is meant here? And could the modus operandi of setting up false dichotomies be any clearer?

Why is it that every aspect of the 1970s church, which produced, among other things, the endless sex abuse lawsuits and scandals, has to be replicated today?  How many faithful vocations were subjected to these psychological screening attacks back then?

Personally I find little encouraging in the fact there are about a hundred more ordinations in the U.S. this year.  It's still a miniscule number for a country with over 300 million people.  I know Pope Francis says he's all about quality, but I can't help but thinking they've probably become more lax in at least one key area.  After all, they'd probably have thousands of vocations if they really wanted them, not hundreds.

At his core, the place where there should be Faith and wisdom, doesn't something seem deeply twisted in the mind of Pope Francis?  It's almost a crushing hatred for those who obstruct his goals, a determination to succeed at their expense.  It's the kind of force which drove the Protestant Reformation: a deranged (ideological?) mind at the helm with all the powerful establishment lined up behind him.

I hate to say it, but I don't know what else to call it.