An Uprising of the Cardinals Has Stopped (For Now) The Bergoglian Heresy on Hell. The Staged Denial and the Risk of Impeachment.
[All Emphasis in Original]
The falling plaster which fell from the ceiling of St. Peter’s Basilica on Good Friday seems like a symbol of the disastrous Easter 2018 of Pope Bergoglio and his declining pontificate. After months of incidents and slip-ups, now we have the eruption of a new thriller — the interview with Scalfari on hell.
It was supposed to be a high-profile attempt to recover the consensus that Francis is a “revolutionary pope” (he loves to define himself this way), but instead it became a serious misstep. He understood this on Thursday morning when he received a certain very difficult phone call (as we shall see below) and ran for cover.
The Ignored Denial
But on Saturday the Vaticanist website “Il Sismografo” lamented that despite the “denial” of the “alleged sentence attributed to the Pope — something like ‘Hell does not exist’— already now for 48 hours it has caused an avalanche on the web, in every language.”
In fact it made a big splash abroad, but not in the Italian press. And above all — two days after the Vatican “denial” — “Repubblica” has not even mentioned it, as if it was non-existent. Why? Was it not unusual behavior? And why did Italian news outlets keep silent? So as not to step on the feet of the Vatican and “Repubblica”? It’s strange. In fact, this story made the specter of impeachment for heresy hover (and perhaps it still is hovering) over Bergoglio, which could cost him the papacy. Just as there is also hovering a sort of public moral-professional delegitimization over the “lay pope” of the Italian press, Bergoglio’s friend and confidant Eugenio Scalfari. Who is really telling the truth?
Either One or the Other
There are only two possibilities: either Bergoglio did make the explosive heretical affirmations which “The Times” carried with the headline “Pope Francis Abolishes Hell”, or else Scalfari made it all up and thus committed an unheard of professional gaffe which undermines the credibility of “Repubblica”, a very “loud” mistake to make at a time when every day they are decrying “fake news.”
If it’s true that Bergoglio said this, we are looking at the most colossal error in the 2000 year history of the papacy. If it’s not true that he said this, the supposed scoop of “Repubblica” would be the fake news of the century.
One or the other is true. Tertium non datur. There was only one possible third explanation that could have patched the hole at best, but in the Vatican they did not choose to make it. In fact — assuming that Scalfari did not render a sound account of their discussion about Hell — the matter could be finished if the press office had admitted that the two spoke about eschatological themes but that Scalfari completely misunderstood what the Pope said.
It would have been enough if the Pope, through his spokesman, restated his firm and convinced refutation of the heretical statements and his clear and explicit adherence to the Creed of the Church, adding that there was a colossal misunderstanding.
That would have made Scalfari very wrong and appear totally incompetent, but it would have closed the case. But that is not what the Vatican “denial” said.
They Are Telling Us The Truth
In fact the Vatican did not deny that the two spoke on this topic, and they did not say that Scalfari misunderstood, but only affirmed that Scalfari’s text was “the fruit of his reconstruction” in which “the actual words [of the Pope] were not recorded.”
But what were the actual words? Why won’t they reveal them?
Every published interview is a reconstruction. The Vatican should tell us if Bergoglio disavows and rejects the statement that was attributed to him or not (that unrepentant souls “are not punished…there is no hell, only the disappearance of sinful souls”). Why hasn’t it done that? Authentic Catholic intellectuals in America have also asked the same thing: Why hasn’t the Vatican denied the substance of what was said?
The little story of the way Scalfari does his interviews informally without notes is old: it was already put in place by the preceding papal spokesman, Fr. Lombardi, after the first two interview-chats between Scalfari and Bergoglio.
All of the Vatican efforts to distance the pope from what Scalfari wrote were dissolved by the decision of the pope to republish those interviews in a book and thus endorse them. Furthermore, on Thursday Scalfari said that he met Bergoglio for the umpteenth time “by his own invitation.”
“The Times” Believes Scalfari
Why did Bergoglio invite him to speak if he knew there was the risk that Scalfari would make one of his “explosive” non-authorized retellings of their conversation, attributing huge ideas to the pope which he doesn’t really think? Do they want to make us believe that once again, for the umpteenth time, Francis fell for it without wanting it to happen?
There is much that is doubtful. Such as, it is doubtful that “Repubblica” prints any of these interviews without some form of approval by the interested party.
“The Times” talked to an expert who said that on these interviews he “tends to believe Scalfari more than the Vatican,” because if you know that someone distorts your words, “you don’t continue to invite him.”
There is thus a game being played by Scalfari and Bergoglio for over five years now, in which the Argentine pope consents to a sort of double Magisterial track. When he speaks to Catholics he expresses himself a certain vague and theologically ambiguous way. He avoids explicit statements and thus little by little demolishes doctrine (the tactic of boiling frogs slowly).
Meanwhile, he speaks through Scalfari to the secular world, making known his true ideas, which are so totally modern, in order to build up his “revolution” and to have popularity among non-Catholics and the media.
It is no accident that “The Times” article, published on Friday on the front page, accredited Bergoglio’s words as substantially authentic and praised the pope, because with this “suggestion” on the non-existence of Hell he would be seeking “to reconcile the eternal truths with the customs and mentality of modern times.”
Already Stated By Cardinal Martini
As a matter of fact this idea about Hell has been a well known part of progressive theology. Cardinal Martini —who is considered one of the great precursors of this pontificate — in his final months wrote something of the sort in his book/testament:
“I nourish the hope that sooner or later everyone will be redeemed. I am a great optimist…. My hope is that God welcomes everyone, that He is merciful, and becomes ever stronger. On the other hand, naturally, I cannot imagine how people like Hitler or an assassin who abused children can be close to God. It seems easier for me to think that these sort of people are simply annihilated…”
With these ideas, progressive theology wants to be more merciful than God and than Jesus Himself, who in the Gospel describes with terrible words the punishments of Hell. This is the meaning of Bergoglian mercy: to improve the mercy of Jesus.
On Hell, he had allowed Scalfari to scout it out before him. Three times in “Repubblica” in the last few years, Scalfari has already attributed this statement to Bergoglio, without giving a direct quote. The Vatican has never denied it. It drew no reaction from the confused and annihilated Church. And so this time somebody thought that the moment had arrived to put these Bergoglian concepts inside quotation marks. When the interview was published on Thursday morning, there was no denial from the Vatican. Until at 3:00 pm, after several hours of delay, a statement was issued. Why? What happened?
It appears that this time – in the face of a direct quotation from Bergoglio stating two explicit heresies, contradicting two fundamental dogmas of the Church – an important cardinal (non-Italian) was outraged, called several of his colleagues and then, also in their name, directly sought to find out from the pope exactly what this interview could mean – because professing explicit heresy is one of the four reasons the Petrine ministry can be lost.
Bergoglio then consulted with the Sostituto [of the Secretariat of State] Msgr. Becciu and decided to quickly run for cover through his spokesman, while Scalfari, who is in on the game to this very moment, was given a heads-up.
This explains why “Repubblica” made no mention of the “denial” and did not respond to it. But where is this whole thing going to end?
(Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino)