As if we needed any further proof that psychiatry is one giant fraud, we have news from Bergoglio himself that he saw a psychoanalyst every week for 6 months in his middle age, when he was 42, a Jewish woman no less. He seems to have made no effort to convert her even though she was near death, consistent with his many anti-evangelical statements.
There was a statement alleged to have come from Vladimir Putin regarding Bergoglio. I cannot for the life of me figure out if the news is fake or whether it is real.
I came to the piece through Fr. Zuhlsdorf's site. In the piece we found the following (emphases from his site):
President Putin has slammed Pope Francis for “pushing a political ideology instead of running a church”, and warned that the leader of the Catholic Church “is not a man of God.”
“Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position,” Putin said.
“If you look at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God. Not the God of the Bible,” Putin said at the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt.
“He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression.
“As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity.”
The charges made against Bergoglio are certainly true, but the tone is certainly not that of Vladimir Putin, who is the most diplomatic statesman around. He is very cautious in his statements and I fail to even see why he would bother taking time from his busy efforts rebuilding Russia to criticise a man who is busy destroying the Catholic Church, of which he is not a member (the 'which' refers to Putin here but since heretics cannot be members of the Church...). I just don't see Putin making these statements, and at a cathedral no less.
Mind you, I would certainly not respect him less if he said it!
The truth is that Bergoglio's attack hounds have been critical of Putin so it would be only fair of Putin to point out that Bergoglio is not a man of God and that he is deceiving people. I just don't think that Vladimir Putin said it, because I have not seen any confirmation of this piece from trustworthy newspapers or blogs, and even Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems to think it is fake news.
There were many comments on this piece at the website, but one in particular was noteworthy:
Fake news or not (I think it is largely invented), Pope Francis is to blame for having said things that make people wonder if articles like this are true. What this article says would not be remotely plausible if it pertained to either of our previous two popes. Not so with Pope Francis. Even if Putin never said what the article says he says, it is plausible that he did say those things and it is also plausible that there is some element of truth to at least some of them.
The truth is the more absurd a story coming from the Vatican nowadays the more likely that it is true, and the more anti-Catholic it is the less we can dismiss it. Even Bergoglio's defenders cannot pretend that the man is not a disaster for the Catholic Church.
The same priest writes about the 'North Korean' situatoin and suggests some solutions. There was only one contributor who wrote anything worthy of a Catholic response, while the rest showed off their americanism. As it turns out, he is British, and seemed generally to be the most informed. One of his responses captures his general attitude towards the 'problem', and he had many.
Simples. Don’t threaten North Korea. Don’t put THAAD missiles in South Korea. Don’t carry out massive battle manoeuvres in the south. In fact go back home and look after your own people.
I have a novel idea: Just leave North Korea alone!
My idea runs roughly along the same sentiments in other words. The fact is that most other countries have come to terms with the fact that North Korea is a nuclear power, including all of its neighbours, which are well within the range of North Korean weapons. It is only the U.S. which thinks it is so special that it has a right to prevent another country from defending itself.
North Korean concerns are not exactly unjustified, as the U.S. has been on a global campaign to take down anyone who opposes its policies and not strong enough for self-defence. We have seen Iraq, Libya and Syria attacked militarily by the U.S. and on top of that you can add other countries the U.S. has bombed int the recent past on multiple continents. As a sovereign country, North Korea have every right to defend themselves or at the very least to assure the destruction of anybody who attacks them, adn contrary to popular opinion, it is the U.S. which is the aggressor as it keeps holding military drills - some with such ominous names as "Operation Decapitation" - and imposing sanctions on what is already one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Truth is, sanctions are considered an act of war.
It is time for the U.S. to stop acting as if it is special - and being allowed to get away with it - and live with the rest of the international community as part of the community, and not as an overlord. It is the U.S. which is the real rogue state!
There is simply no good reason why anybody should accept the ridiculous notion that the U.S. has a right not to be under threat from other countries, given that it threatens virtually all countries on the planet. Furthermore, there is nothing irrational about the behaviour of North Korea: They simply seek the survival of their nation, as do most right-thinking people (which obviously excludes most of the Western politicians and electorate at this point in time). I would hope that at least Catholics can agree that it is unjust to threaten a country with annihilation simply for seeking the means to preserve itself,...
This week there is no point even pretending that there was a selection of stories from which to pick the most meaningful. Towering head and shoulders above anything else is the absurd notion floated by Bergoglio that God "cannot be without us".
Reading that I was reminded of the scene in the movie Jerry McGuire - one of the more wholesome movies made over the past 2 decades, if we ignore the fornication and slight male nudity. The iconic scene from the movie is in most people's minds where the lead character says to him "You had me at hello. You had me at hello."
That scene though is preceded by a very moving sequence whereby, having returned home early from his business trip in an attempt to reconcile with his wife, he is forced to embarass himself in front of a women's study group, where the women spend their time consoling themselves on account of what men have done to them.
He enters the room saying "I am looking for my wife", then after a long expalanation about why the biggest night of his life was nowhere what it would have been because there was an emptiness, he confides that it is because he did not get to share it with her. "You complete me", he says, to a room full of bawling women. It is to that statement that she responds with that he had her at hello.
I'll get back to that scene in a moment, but I would like to divert to another scene in another more expensive but not as memorable movie, actually a series of movies. These movies are a take on the old Roman story of Persius, and they are The Clash of the Titans and its sequel, The Wrath of the Titans.
As I have not studied Greek mythology I cannot vouch for the fidelity of the Hollywood version to the original, but the relevant part of the story goes roughly as follows. Zeus made man and sent Hades to the netherworld, presumably on account of some family feud. They were 3 siblings, along with Poseidon, and together they had imprisoned their father, Kronos, in Tartarus, the prison built purposely to hold him who had to be stoped by his 3 sons after he tried to destroy the world. This is the plot of the second film, in which Zeus has been held captive in Kronos.
If a god being held captive sounds a bit far-fetched a bit more plot-ine will help. The gods in this mythoology need the prayers of men to sustain their power. Sinze Zeus built men out of his goodness, he feeds on their hopes and dreams. Hades, who controls the netherworld, feeds on their fears. The stronger the fears of men, the stronger Hades gets, and conversely the more men pray to Zeus in hope, the stronger he becomes. That's the plot of the first movie.
In the second movie, men have stopped praying to the gods, and the gods have become weak. They have become so weak, in fact, that they have become mortal. Unlike human beings, whose souls live on after death, the gods die into emptiness, making their death all the scarier. This brings us back to Bergoglio.
I picture Bergoglio having a movie night, on one of his sober nights (I assume he must have them) and somebody proposing that they watch a bit of Greek/Roman mythology, what with "While in Rome" and all. So someone pops in one of the Titans movies, presumably the second one since it is the one which shows the gods' need for man, and given that Bergoglio seems to have slept through all of his theology classes, he comes out thinking that he has found "serene theology", only second to Kasper's "theology on the knees". Since the man believes that all religions are equally good, he is not bothered with the fine details and so he hatches up a homily which takes the best of the Titans movies and Jerry McGuire, and comes out with the notion that God needs man.
Now, if Bergoglio were not hamstrung by the fact that the canon of Scripture has been declared cloased and immutable, he would probably have gone ahead and rewritten Genesis, and the first words of God to man would have been not "Go forth and multiply" but "You complete me".
As it is, he has to settle for one of his infamous homilies, and not willing to make it too obvious that he stole the homily from a movie, the words that come out of his mouth are instead:
Dear brothers and sisters, we are never alone. We can be far, hostile; we can even say we are ‘without God.’ But Jesus Christ’s Gospel reveals to us that God cannot be without us: He will never be a God ‘without man’; it is He who cannot be without us, and this is a great mystery! God cannot be God without man: this is a great mystery!
There is a non-heretical way of reading some of what he said, and at least one theologian has made the point that the incarnation means that God cannot be without man since Christ assumed a human nature. That would, however, betray the thrust of Bergoglio's theology, which is that we really do not owe God anything, and God is always chomping at the bit to absolve us of sin since in Kasper's words, mercy is central to God's being. He is essentially nothing but a big mercy machine, so obviously to have any utility he would need man, otherwise he would have nobody to forgive. The theologian in question finds no way to read the statement that God cannot be without us in a Catholic sense. In fact, not even a world champion gymnast would be able to do enough gymnastics to find any...
