Kazakhstan: The Pope Attends a Congress of Religions (2)

Source: FSSPX News

Pope Francis greeted by Ahmed el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, signatory of the Document on Human Fraternity

On September 14 and 15, the VII Congress of Spiritual Leaders of World and Traditional Religions was held in Nour Sultan, the capital of Kazakhstan, which was attended by Pope Francis, who insisted on making the trip. The first article described this event and the impossibility for a Catholic to go there.

It has already been said how poor the Final Declaration was, but the more so because it did not mark a real consensus, instead speaking in generalities on points which, concretely, are not accepted in the same way by the various participants.

There is one particular point worth emphasizing, as it repeats and aggravates the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity.

Back to the Abu Dhabi Human Fraternity Document

Its full title is Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together which was signed by the Holy See and Al-Azhar University, and was later adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on December 21, 2020.

It was the subject of several comments on the FSSPX.News site. But one of the proposals that had raised the most protest was the following: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

It is a grave error to attribute false religions to divine wisdom; it is to attribute error and evil to God.

After having been warned twice, in particular by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the Pope ended up saying, twice, that it was about the “permissive will” of God.

We must explain: according to theology, God wills the good, and everything that is good comes from this will of God, but He “allows” evil. Thus, all that is bad is only permitted by God, who never wills evil.

This explanation was not entirely satisfactory, and it comes in addition, to undergo a serious denial.

The Declaration of the Participants in the Congress of Religious Leaders

It should be noted that, in its preamble, the participants in the congress “respecting the richness of religious and cultural diversity.” If cultural wealth does not pose difficulties, religious richness poses a serious one. Because the only religious “richness” is our High Priest, Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. There is no other. This sheds light on what follows.

It should also be noted that there is a difference between the text read in front of the delegates, and the printed text, as explained by InfoCatolica.

The version read in front of the delegates is as follows: “We note that pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. Therefore, any attempt to coerce a particular religious doctrine is unacceptable.” This statement is made also in the Abu Dhabi document.

The English version of the text says: “We note that pluralism in terms of differences in skin color, gender, race, language and culture are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation. Religious diversity is permitted by God and, therefore, any coercion to a particular religion and religious doctrine is unacceptable.”

An Aggravated Error

Compared to the Abu Dhabi document, the error has become even more serious.

First of all, there is a logical inconsistency in moving from differences “in color of skin, gender, race, etc.” to religion. This is called a fallacy of false consequence. The conclusion is not contained in the premises.

A second point is that the term in English used here instead of “sex” is “gender.” A term that can refer to sex as such, but which here is translated as “gender,” in the current ideological sense. This gives a very special meaning to the text.

But the most serious point is saying that “religious diversity is permitted by God and, therefore, any coercion towards a particular religion and religious doctrine is unacceptable”.

“Religious diversity” includes the only true religion, which is the Catholic religion. Several possibilities should be considered.

– Either, and this is what appears to be the thought of the editors, the term “permitted” is to be a substitute for “wanted,” which is seriously erroneous.

– Or it means “permitted,” but it should be noted that Catholicism is included in this diversity. It is in no way given a special place. And since “permitted” refers to evil, Catholicism is considered evil.

– Finally, even if Catholicism were not included, which seems totally irrelevant, the fact remains that, since “permitted” designates an evil, it is deeply erroneous to say that it cannot be fought against.

Even if one must sometimes give up fighting it, that can only be in the case of cautious tolerance, in order to avoid a greater evil. But in no case can evil be granted a right to immunity which is only due to the good.

Thus, however the text may be understood, it is deeply flawed, and it was adopted and signed by Pope Francis.

But could it be otherwise in such a Congress? Inexorably, this interreligious dialogue leads to the creation of a single world religion, which no longer has anything to do with the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, the true Son of God.