NEWS: May 29, 2013
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
FRANCIS & JUDAS
- During the homily he delivered at his Mass on May 14 at Santa Marta Inn, Pope Francis commented on the episode that, in many ways, is the paradigm of his pontificate. He referred to the complaint of Judas about the “waste” Mary Magdalene was making when she washed the sacred Feet of Our Lord Jesus Christ with an expensive perfume at the Bethany supper offered by Simon the leper.
/bev156_Magdalene.jpg)
Judas objected, contending that she should have saved the perfume, sold it and given the money to the poor. A quick look at the reports of St. Mark (14:3-9) and St. Matthew (26: 6-16) of that episode shows us that both Evangelists attribute the objection to the Apostles as a whole. St. John, more conscious of the vices of Judas, reports Judas as the one who authored it (12:4).
This comparison of the texts lets us suppose that it was Judas who raised the indignation of the Apostles. This was a mutinous and deceitful ploy, an attempt to set the Apostles against Our Lord and to pressure Him to reject Magdalene’s homage.
We sense the depth of Judas’s hatred for that act of glorification by considering that no one with a bit of good sense would provoke a whole group of men to go against a single woman. Further weakening her position, she was facing a general ambience that was strange to her.
Were it not for his uncontained hatred, Judas could have waited until later to ask Our Lord whether her action was correct or not. But he was no longer interested in learning from Him. His mind was made up; he detested that act of public glorification and wanted to stop that display. Thus, disregarding any sense of courtesy that men should normally show toward a fragile woman, ignoring the honor they owed their Messiah and God, Judas instigated the Apostles to reject Magdalene’s gesture.
Seeing the position of Judas, Our Lord took a divine attitude that anticipates medieval Chivalry’s protection of the weak, Scholasticism’s refutations of heretics, and the Constantinian Church’s glorification of God with riches and pomp. He said: “Why do you harass this woman? For she has wrought a good work upon me … Wherever this gospel will be preached in the whole world, that also which she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Matt 26: 10-13)
This is, therefore, an episode dense in symbolism: On one hand, it prefigures a long series of enemies of richness and solemnity in God’s worship: all types of heretics, as I have listed elsewhere. (1) Last on this list, we find the progressivists who have been controlling the Church since Vatican II. They are doing everything they can to transform the Catholic Church into a Miserablist Church despoiled of all her properties and glories, a proletarian Church compatible with Communism. It is the Church of the Poor, as Francis called it in his first audience, or the Servant, Humble and Fraternal Church that he prayed for with the Italian Bishops some days ago. (2)
On the other hand, this episode of Mary Magdalene symbolizes the Constantinian Church, the Church that offers to God the best of what nature provides and man produces in quality and beauty. She must have splendorous churches and solemn ceremonies to glorify the One who created all of nature and redeemed mankind.
Now, as Pope Francis speeds up his desacralization, the Miserablist Church with its patron, Judas Iscariot – a theme we have pointed out for a long time - is becoming increasingly linked to the Bergoglio Revolution.
So, Francis needed to disengage himself from this embarrassing and infamous association. Toward this purpose, nothing appeared better than to criticize Judas in that episode of Mary Magdalene. So this is what he did on May 14, 2013.
Francis’ objections
In a quite superficial sermon, as his teachings ex hospitio [from the inn] have often been, Francis said these words, summarized by Vatican Radio:
/bev156_Inn03.jpg)
“Let us think of that moment with the Magdalene, when she washed the feet of Jesus with nard, which was so expensive. It is a religious moment, a moment of gratitude, a moment of love. And he [Judas] stands apart and criticizes her bitterly: ‘But ... this could be used for the poor!’ This is the first reference that I personally found in the Gospel of poverty as an ideology. The ideologue does not know what love is, because he does not know how to gift himself.”
Thus, we have his first accusation:
Judas was wrong because he adopted poverty as an ideology
Then, in another excerpt more accusations come:
The Pope warned that those who “isolate their conscience in selfishness,” in the end “lose.”This is how Judas ended up … he “was an idolater, attached to money”.
“This idolatry has led him to isolate himself from the community of others: this is the drama of the isolated conscience. When a Christian begins to isolate himself, he or she also cuts off his or her conscience from the sense of community … Instead, the Christian who gives his or her life, who loses it, as Jesus says, finds it again ... And those who, like Judas, want to keep it for themselves, lose it in the end. John tells us that ‘at that moment Satan entered into Judas’ heart.’ And, we must say: With Satan the payback is rotten. He always rips us off, always!”
Thus, the second and third accusations of Pope Bergoglio are:
In these accusations, what first strikes me is what the Pope omitted. He did not condemn Judas for his infamous moral behavior, which has justly raised horror in Catholics everywhere and in all times. Instead, he chose to present Judas as an egocentric intellectual, like so many others. His only rigorous censures were that Judas was an idolater of money - which we will analyze below - and the inexact remark that the Devil entered Judas’s heart on that occasion. (3)
Let me analyze these accusations.
Poverty as an ideology
The first charge he makes is that Judas was wrong because he understood poverty as an ideology.
What does Francis mean by ideology?
For Catholics ideology was always synonymous with philosophy. Each man, movement or current of thought can be defined by the ideas that he or it upholds. So, the ideology of a man or movement is an ensemble of principles that orients their actions. This definition supposes that man is a rational being.
/bev156_Aquinas.jpg)
However, in the last phase of JPII’s pontificate, throughout Benedict’s and now in Francis' a new concept of ideology has been conveyed to Catholics. An ideology is an abstract, artificial and duplicitous system elaborated by cold reason without taking into consideration the ardor of love. An ideology is a system invented by some elites to fool the people and maintain their control over power and wealth.
Below, in another of Francis’ ex hospitio teachings (April 19, 2013), he addressed the topic of ideology:
“The ‘doctors’ answer only with the head. They do not know that the Word of God goes to the heart … They are the ‘scientists,’ the great ‘ideologues,’ those who do not understand that the word of God … is directed to the heart … because it is the beautiful word that brings love and makes us love. …
“The ‘ideologues’ are the ones in the Gospel who discuss among themselves: ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ It is a problem of the intellect! And when ideology enters the Church, we do not understand anything of the Gospel. …
“The ideologues falsify the Gospel. Every ideological interpretation, no matter the source, is a falsification of the Gospel. And these ideologues – as we have seen in the History of the Church - end up as intellectuals without talent, moralists without goodness. They do not speak of beauty because they do not understand it. Instead, the way of love, the path of the Gospel is simple: It is the road understood by the Saints! …
“Let us pray to the Lord for the Church to be free from any ideological interpretation and to open her heart to the simple, pure Gospel that speaks of the gate of love and so much beauty! … (original here)
/bev156_sedia.jpg)
Reading these lines, we see that Bergoglio considers any intellectual effort to understand the Gospel as wrong and qualifies it as an “ideology." Only love matters. However, the Catholic Church teaches that in the human soul the intellect has primacy over the will and the sensibility. To deny this is to establish anarchy in the soul.
Now, Francis denies this hierarchy and condemns it: It is an ideology. If one were to accept his judgment, all Catholic theology and exegesis should be rejected...
If we apply this outlook to Judas, Bergoglio’s charge against him would translate thus: Since Judas argued that the perfume should be sold and the money given to the poor, he was objecting intellectually; with this he became an ideologue. So, it is the way Judas placed his objection – not his hatred for the glorification of Christ – that would be wrong.
We see that this accusation against Judas - he adhered to the ideology of poverty – is meaningless. Any man who uses his intellect to articulate an idea can be similarly condemned.
An idolater of money
Francis also accuses Judas of being an idolater of money. In this second accusation he lacks precision.
St. John tells us that Judas was a thief who stole coins from the moneybag (12:6). The revelation stops here. Most persons who steal money do it to buy other things. A minority of thieves steal money to hoard it because they love money as such. The accusation of being an idolater of money only applies to the latter.
In his sermon Francis forgot to explain why Judas should be considered as one of this latter brand of thieves. Since no explanation was given, his second accusation is wide open to discussion.
It is sad to say, but these two ex hospitio teachings are of a very poor intellectual level.
Isolated from the community
When Bergoglio comes to his third accusation - Judas was an egocentric who had isolated himself from the community - in principle he is correct. Any traitor is motivated by his own interests and has no care for anything else.
But, what Francis is stressing here is not this banality. Instead, he is repeating the progressivist thesis that no one can have a private relationship with God and individual spiritual life, but rather must share everything with the community. It is a kind of spiritual Communism.
With this we see that the accusations Pope Francis made against Judas have little to no actual value.
Certainly they do not excuse Francis from being a follower of Judas in his hatred for the external glorification of God and in his pretext that the Church must give up her pomp and sacrality to better help the poor.
What remains to be analyzed on another occasion is whether or not Francis’ eagerness to please the Jews - his first letter some hours after being elected was for them - can be considered as selling the Mystical Body of Christ to the Jews, as Judas did with Our Lord.
The pre-Vatican II Church honored Mary Magdalene for her gesture toward Our Lord
This comparison of the texts lets us suppose that it was Judas who raised the indignation of the Apostles. This was a mutinous and deceitful ploy, an attempt to set the Apostles against Our Lord and to pressure Him to reject Magdalene’s homage.
We sense the depth of Judas’s hatred for that act of glorification by considering that no one with a bit of good sense would provoke a whole group of men to go against a single woman. Further weakening her position, she was facing a general ambience that was strange to her.
Were it not for his uncontained hatred, Judas could have waited until later to ask Our Lord whether her action was correct or not. But he was no longer interested in learning from Him. His mind was made up; he detested that act of public glorification and wanted to stop that display. Thus, disregarding any sense of courtesy that men should normally show toward a fragile woman, ignoring the honor they owed their Messiah and God, Judas instigated the Apostles to reject Magdalene’s gesture.
Seeing the position of Judas, Our Lord took a divine attitude that anticipates medieval Chivalry’s protection of the weak, Scholasticism’s refutations of heretics, and the Constantinian Church’s glorification of God with riches and pomp. He said: “Why do you harass this woman? For she has wrought a good work upon me … Wherever this gospel will be preached in the whole world, that also which she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Matt 26: 10-13)
This is, therefore, an episode dense in symbolism: On one hand, it prefigures a long series of enemies of richness and solemnity in God’s worship: all types of heretics, as I have listed elsewhere. (1) Last on this list, we find the progressivists who have been controlling the Church since Vatican II. They are doing everything they can to transform the Catholic Church into a Miserablist Church despoiled of all her properties and glories, a proletarian Church compatible with Communism. It is the Church of the Poor, as Francis called it in his first audience, or the Servant, Humble and Fraternal Church that he prayed for with the Italian Bishops some days ago. (2)
On the other hand, this episode of Mary Magdalene symbolizes the Constantinian Church, the Church that offers to God the best of what nature provides and man produces in quality and beauty. She must have splendorous churches and solemn ceremonies to glorify the One who created all of nature and redeemed mankind.
Now, as Pope Francis speeds up his desacralization, the Miserablist Church with its patron, Judas Iscariot – a theme we have pointed out for a long time - is becoming increasingly linked to the Bergoglio Revolution.
So, Francis needed to disengage himself from this embarrassing and infamous association. Toward this purpose, nothing appeared better than to criticize Judas in that episode of Mary Magdalene. So this is what he did on May 14, 2013.
Francis’ objections
In a quite superficial sermon, as his teachings ex hospitio [from the inn] have often been, Francis said these words, summarized by Vatican Radio:
At his Mass in the modern chapel of Santa Marta Inn Francis reveals his miserablist doctrines
Thus, we have his first accusation:
Judas was wrong because he adopted poverty as an ideology
Then, in another excerpt more accusations come:
The Pope warned that those who “isolate their conscience in selfishness,” in the end “lose.”This is how Judas ended up … he “was an idolater, attached to money”.
“This idolatry has led him to isolate himself from the community of others: this is the drama of the isolated conscience. When a Christian begins to isolate himself, he or she also cuts off his or her conscience from the sense of community … Instead, the Christian who gives his or her life, who loses it, as Jesus says, finds it again ... And those who, like Judas, want to keep it for themselves, lose it in the end. John tells us that ‘at that moment Satan entered into Judas’ heart.’ And, we must say: With Satan the payback is rotten. He always rips us off, always!”
Thus, the second and third accusations of Pope Bergoglio are:
- Judas was an idolater of money; at that moment [when he made the objection] Satan entered his heart;
- Judas was wrong because he isolated himself from the community.
In these accusations, what first strikes me is what the Pope omitted. He did not condemn Judas for his infamous moral behavior, which has justly raised horror in Catholics everywhere and in all times. Instead, he chose to present Judas as an egocentric intellectual, like so many others. His only rigorous censures were that Judas was an idolater of money - which we will analyze below - and the inexact remark that the Devil entered Judas’s heart on that occasion. (3)
Let me analyze these accusations.
Poverty as an ideology
The first charge he makes is that Judas was wrong because he understood poverty as an ideology.
What does Francis mean by ideology?
For Catholics ideology was always synonymous with philosophy. Each man, movement or current of thought can be defined by the ideas that he or it upholds. So, the ideology of a man or movement is an ensemble of principles that orients their actions. This definition supposes that man is a rational being.
St. Thomas refuting heretics and teaching the people - Would he be an ideologue as well?
Below, in another of Francis’ ex hospitio teachings (April 19, 2013), he addressed the topic of ideology:
“The ‘doctors’ answer only with the head. They do not know that the Word of God goes to the heart … They are the ‘scientists,’ the great ‘ideologues,’ those who do not understand that the word of God … is directed to the heart … because it is the beautiful word that brings love and makes us love. …
“The ‘ideologues’ are the ones in the Gospel who discuss among themselves: ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ It is a problem of the intellect! And when ideology enters the Church, we do not understand anything of the Gospel. …
“The ideologues falsify the Gospel. Every ideological interpretation, no matter the source, is a falsification of the Gospel. And these ideologues – as we have seen in the History of the Church - end up as intellectuals without talent, moralists without goodness. They do not speak of beauty because they do not understand it. Instead, the way of love, the path of the Gospel is simple: It is the road understood by the Saints! …
“Let us pray to the Lord for the Church to be free from any ideological interpretation and to open her heart to the simple, pure Gospel that speaks of the gate of love and so much beauty! … (original here)
Pius VIII in the sedia gestatoria - It was rejected by the post-conciliar Popes
Reading these lines, we see that Bergoglio considers any intellectual effort to understand the Gospel as wrong and qualifies it as an “ideology." Only love matters. However, the Catholic Church teaches that in the human soul the intellect has primacy over the will and the sensibility. To deny this is to establish anarchy in the soul.
Now, Francis denies this hierarchy and condemns it: It is an ideology. If one were to accept his judgment, all Catholic theology and exegesis should be rejected...
If we apply this outlook to Judas, Bergoglio’s charge against him would translate thus: Since Judas argued that the perfume should be sold and the money given to the poor, he was objecting intellectually; with this he became an ideologue. So, it is the way Judas placed his objection – not his hatred for the glorification of Christ – that would be wrong.
We see that this accusation against Judas - he adhered to the ideology of poverty – is meaningless. Any man who uses his intellect to articulate an idea can be similarly condemned.
An idolater of money
Francis also accuses Judas of being an idolater of money. In this second accusation he lacks precision.
St. John tells us that Judas was a thief who stole coins from the moneybag (12:6). The revelation stops here. Most persons who steal money do it to buy other things. A minority of thieves steal money to hoard it because they love money as such. The accusation of being an idolater of money only applies to the latter.
In his sermon Francis forgot to explain why Judas should be considered as one of this latter brand of thieves. Since no explanation was given, his second accusation is wide open to discussion.
It is sad to say, but these two ex hospitio teachings are of a very poor intellectual level.
Isolated from the community
When Bergoglio comes to his third accusation - Judas was an egocentric who had isolated himself from the community - in principle he is correct. Any traitor is motivated by his own interests and has no care for anything else.
But, what Francis is stressing here is not this banality. Instead, he is repeating the progressivist thesis that no one can have a private relationship with God and individual spiritual life, but rather must share everything with the community. It is a kind of spiritual Communism.
With this we see that the accusations Pope Francis made against Judas have little to no actual value.
Certainly they do not excuse Francis from being a follower of Judas in his hatred for the external glorification of God and in his pretext that the Church must give up her pomp and sacrality to better help the poor.
What remains to be analyzed on another occasion is whether or not Francis’ eagerness to please the Jews - his first letter some hours after being elected was for them - can be considered as selling the Mystical Body of Christ to the Jews, as Judas did with Our Lord.
- See my Animus Injuriandi I (Los Angeles: TIA, 2010), Appendix I, chap. I; see also on this website;
- “Per una Chiesa serva, umile e fraternal” [Toward a Servant, humble and fraternal Church], L’Osservatore Romano, May 25, 2013, p. 8;
- Actually, while this scene took place before the Holy Week, St. John mentions that the Devil took possession of Judas only at the Holy Supper after Judas received Communion - about a week after the Bethany supper: “And when he had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him.” (Jn 13:26-27) Therefore, only at this time did the Devil “enter into Judas’ heart,” or possess him, and not at the episode of Bethany, as Bergoglio pretended. Since he is now a Pope, I believe he should have studied his Gospel a little better before making this statement.
St. John mentions that the Devil had put into Judas’ heart the decision to deliver Our Lord (13:2), and St. Matthew reports that it was after the Bethany supper that Judas decided to deliver Our Lord to the Jews (26: 14-16). Therefore, the Devil’s action on Judas' heart at Bethany was a temptation that he accepted, but not a possession, as Francis hastily concluded: “At that moment Satan entered into Judas’ heart.”
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |