ALMOST EVERY day some new atrocity, in word or deed, is committed by the man performing as pope of the Catholic Church. It all seems like a crass, nightmarish reality show. Whether he be hobnobbing with Cuban Communists or praying with, as opposed to for, non-believers or telling Catholics that sin is part of their “identity” or appointing an archbishop who approves of same-sex “marriage” or preparing his Marxist eco-cyclical or secularizing St. Peter’s Square or insulting cloistered nuns and heaping scorn on other devout Catholics with their “prayers and ideas,” almost every day Jorge Bergoglio shows why the position of sedevacantism, which holds that the papacy is currently vacant, is common sense. This emperor has no clothes. A non-Catholic cannot logically be pope.

Here Fr. Anthony Cekada answers some of the common objections.

— Comments —

Josh F. writes:

As equally serious as it is to assert that this “pope” is not The Pope is the assertion that this or that homosexual is a man. Our objective is the same. Protect those divine positions from degradation.

A reader writes:

I understand why some Catholics don’t think that Francis is a real pope. But, why does Josh say that gay men are not men, or that a homosexual is not a man?

Laura writes:

Josh is referring to “man” as a spiritual category. Or at least, that’s how I interpret his point. We had a longer exchange about this, which I have omitted because I thought it was not germane to the post.

I don’t agree with the analogy. A man who engages in homosexual acts is a man.

Josh F. writes:

You say, “I don’t agree with the analogy. A man who engages in homosexual acts is a man.”

Which is like saying a “pope” who engages in unCatholic acts is The Pope.

There is seemingly nothing in your belief system that can disqualify a male from being a man given the simple passage of time? Not even the natural or unnatural sexual aversion for females OR the sexual attraction to males disqualifies one from being a man. This is like claiming there is no actual sedevacantist stance. It must be mere posturing?

Laura writes:

No, not even unnatural acts disqualify a man from being a man because it is a biological category as well.

By the way, it is not that Jorge Bergoglio is simply engaging in “un-Catholic acts,” it is that he is openly denying the dogmas of the faith in his teachings, in his words and actions.

 This is like claiming there is no actual sedevacantist stance. It must be mere posturing?

I don’t understand what you mean. No one is born the pope.

JD writes:

I’m inclined to agree with Josh, though I’m unable to explain why. What he is suggesting seems to make sense. When you say that unnatural acts don’t disqualify a man from being a man, the idea of qualifying as a man implies additional conditions, beyond the condition of being born biologically male, and that there may be a disqualifying conditions out there. I realize that you’re probably saying that nothing disqualifies a man as a man. But, then, you say that being a man is a biological category as well. As well as what? What are the other categories of being a man?

I assume that we are not talking about man the species.

Laura writes:

A man is a physical and spiritual entity. He is biologically male and has a soul made in the image of God. He doesn’t cease to be a man when he sins or when he denies his sexual nature.

Please follow and like us: