The Duplicity of Francis Analyzed in Three Concentric Circles (2)

February 08, 2021
Source: fsspx.news
Prof. Rubén Peretó Rivas

Pope Francis’s fluctuating discourse—some call it the “liquid magisterium”—never stops disturbing the Catholic faithful. On December 27, 2020, on his website, the Italian journalist Marcello Veneziani wondered about “the mystery of the Pope and his duplicity.” Here are some analyses by academics and Vaticanists in an attempt to pinpoint this mystery a little better, in three concentric circles.

The second circle embraces the psychological personality and political relations of the Pope.

It is in this murky context that, on his website on December 27, 2020, the Italian journalist Marcello Veneziani asks himself the question: “Who really is Francis?” His answer or rather his answers show his embarrassment:

“Is he the type who doesn’t take sides, [cerchiobottista: figuratively speaking, is said of someone who opportunistically does not take a clear stand in an argument, proving both of them right.—Ed.] or ecumenical?”

“Or is it the bare minimum for a pope, which he cannot avoid? Should we then view this as a Jesuitical ruse to confuse adversaries, reassure and keep Christian families, traditional Catholics and his living predecessor, Ratzinger, in hand, and then proceed more quickly with the work of demolition and change?”

“Or is it just that Bergoglio is both, he’s radical, progressive, pauperist, no borders [against borders and immigration control—Ed.], but from time to time he feels the call of his origins, his childhood, his past priesthood; he lacks a clear line and strong convictions, he lacks strong doctrinal consistency, and so he sways, zigzags, like the undecided, the followers of Hamlet, and drunken people.”

“Perhaps he would be more of a pope if it weren’t for this Pavlovian reflex, according to which all progressive action corresponds to planetary public praise, and all traditional action corresponds to blame or deafening silence and censorship.”

“Pope Bergoglio understands that if he is to enjoy the esteem and support of the media and the global establishment, he must stand in the middle between Greta [Thunberg, Swedish environmental activist], Carola [Carola Rackete, activist pro-German immigration, captain of  Sea-Watch 3, the humanitarian ship which forced the Italian blockade in June 2019] and Gino Strada [Italian surgeon, founder of ONGEmergency], not to be in the odor of sanctity, but ‘in the smell of advertising.’”

An Argentine Pope Marked by Peronism

Argentinian scholar Rubén Peretó Rivas does not see Francis as a psychologically split Pope, but rather politically aligned. In a letter to Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli on December 30, he said: “Those who promoted and voted for the bill were his own friends. This is not an interpretation, but what the number of votes says: 70% of Peronist deputies and 68% of senators from that same party voted in favor of the bill.”

“The centrist party, the very one that Pope Francis constantly reprimands and for which he harbors deep class resentment, voted widely against the bill in both houses. In short, legal abortion in Argentina is the work of Bergoglio’s friends.”

In passing, the Argentinian philosopher notes: “His other friends, the bishops, have today expressed their regret at the adoption of this law, even though, curiously, the reasons for which they consider it unjust are those of the Bergoglian magisterium.

“In a brief statement, stuffed with messy gender language [or inclusive: ‘brothers and sisters,’ ‘Argentine men and Argentine women,’ ‘boys and girls’], the Argentine Bishops’ Conference deplores that the new law ‘increases divisions in the country.’ The tragedy, for the bishops, is that we will be less united and that fewer bridges will be established. The fact that abortion is the murder of a helpless human being is a detail that does not even seem worthy of interest.”

Ultimately, for Professor Rivas, this alignment with Peronism risks ending up influencing the psychology of the Pope: “What happened in Buenos Aires [during the legalization of abortion] shows once again that Peronism is a political party with the biology of an amoeba, capable of adapting to any circumstance likely to favor its maintenance in power and the increase of the wealth of its leaders.”

“Pope Bergoglio has never stopped supporting this political party which was able to count on his help and support to win the 2019 elections.” And he adds, with the harsh frankness of the Argentines among themselves: “I wonder if the pontiff will share with them the same zoological biology.”

According to the philosopher José Arturo Quarracino, who wrote it to the Vaticanist Marco Tosatti on December 30, the Argentine government is itself following the anti-birth policy of the globalists. Indeed, it was in the name of a so-called “health law” that the legalization of abortion was voted in.

“Abortion is a matter of public health,” said the President of Argentina to justify its legalization. Now, writes the Argentinian scholar, “this ‘health’ foundation was not created or invented by the government, which claims to be progressive, national, and popular, etc., but simply copied, as we have said many times.

It was invented in 1972 by John Davison Rockefeller III, in his Comprehensive Birth Control Plan for the United States, at the request of then President Richard Nixon: “Contraception is the method of choice to prevent an unwanted birth. We believe that abortion should not be seen as a substitute for birth control, but rather as part of a comprehensive maternal and child health care system.” A curious way to take care of children’s health by killing them.

“In other words, the law sanctioned is not a progressive law born and developed by the duo Alberto Fernández-Cristina Kirchner, but a law based on the anti-natalist and genocidal ideology of the global financial power that the Rockefeller family represents.”