Pope Francis is a living proof that nobody, including heads of churches, can claim seriously that they are infallible. His apologies made on behalf of the Catholic Church for alleged crimes against the poor Indians of Canada show he’s fallen victim to his own propaganda.
There are no unmarked graveyards or graves in Canada that would be the last resting places for unfortunate Indian children, and the so-called residential school’s only crime was that they tried (without success) to introduce their students to the 19th and 20th centuries.
In-depth research has shown that the spots marked as unattended Indian children’s graves or graveyards either contained not a single deceased body, or used to be your usual graveyards. The Catholic Church would hand them over to local (read: Indian) authorities, and it would be those authorities that had so many other concerns on their minds that they would allow these graveyards to sink into the state of shameful disrepair.
The worst crime committed in the residential schools read: “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” The education system at the time was based, very logically, on the biblical (and time-tested) view that children unaware of consequences of bad (undisciplined) decisions aren’t aware, either, that there exist consequences, too.
Whether there exist any other ways to drive the message of consequences into young people’s heads remains to be seen. Judging by the current situation, sparing the rod has been a major error. Society will be paying for it for a long time to come.
Christian or Marxist?
In any case, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, elected the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in March 2013, and the first Pontiff from the Americas, has become known for ways that many identify with the teachings of Marxism rather than Christianity.
So, Pope Francis’s crocodile tears were nothing new to write home about. After all, Pope Francis’s name is supposed to reflect the life and deeds of St. Francis of Assisi of Italy. Humility and outspoken support for the world’s poor and marginalised people are this Pope public relations’ calling card. To show he means business, he has been involved actively in a number of areas of political diplomacy and environmental advocacy.
A Jesuit provincial of Argentina in 1973, initially, his mother did not support his decision to enter the priesthood, despite the fact that she was a devout Catholic. By the time he was ordained, however, she accepted his calling and asked for his blessing at the end of his ordination ceremony.
Pope John Paul II, originally a Polish poet named Karol Wojtyla, elevated Bergoglio to Cardinal in 2001. That made him eligible to Papacy.
Upon Pope John Paul II’s death in 2005, Bergoglio was in the running for the job. According to rumour emanating from the Holy See, Bergoglio would win the second-most number of votes to Josef Ratzinger who would become Pope John Paul’s successor named Pope Benedict XVI, following the 2005 conclave.
Does any of that make him infallible?
Not one iota.
He Catholic Church protests that many outside of it have been taking the word too literally. There’s a lot of difference between infallible and impeccable, in the first place. The church joins u-issue with the view that her Popes are sinless or that they claim inspiration from God for every pronouncement they make.
Herewith a quote from an official source:
The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. A dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement must first meet several specific requirements:
- The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter.
- The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.
- The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter.
In this way, the official statement continues, he (the Pope) must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent.
If one or more of these elements is missing, the pronouncement would not become infallible, no matter how nicely and wisely put.
It’s questionable whether Pope Francis met the first two points, and it is patently clear he failed to meet the third one.
And wrong he was. On both counts, too.
Whose turn is it to turn red?
That the buffoon currently residing at 24 Sussex Dr. in Ottawa is unaware of his own country’s history puts Canadian voters to shame.
That Canada’s Supreme Court rules to admit hearsay as proper proof of Canadian Indians’ myths and legends’ veracity (and validity in territorial and other tangible claims) is a sign of a judicial system gone stir-crazy with political correctness.
But that Cardinals of one of the most powerful churches allow their CEO to make such pronouncements on their church’s behalf, and they don’t chase him out of office and the church itself presto subito, that’s a sign of a malaise that’s getting way too close to being mortally dangerous.