“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III
Presider-in-Chief Bergoglio is at it again. His rather schizophrenic brand of eschatology is again sowing confusion and dissent among the Faithful.
As everyone by now knows, he supposedly has denied the very existence of Hell.
In all fairness, when I first heard this I just blew it off as just another anti-Catholic rant.
Upon looking a bit deeper into the accusation, come to find out that this was published by Eugenio Scalfari, the 93 year old professional atheist of La Repubblica, Italy’s communist-friendly newspaper.
Scalfari, famed for never taking notes or using any recording devices, only relying on his memory, is reporting that his sit-down with Bergoglio went something like this;
[Scalfari:] Your Holiness, in our last meeting you told me that at a certain point our species will disappear, and God, always using His creative seed, will create other species. You never spoke to me about souls who die in sin and go to hell to suffer there for eternity. Instead you spoke to me of good souls who are admitted to the contemplation of God. But what of evil souls? Where do they go in punishment?
[Francis:] They do not go anywhere in punishment. Those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and go among the ranks of those who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and therefore cannot be forgiven vanish. Hell does not exist, only the disappearance of sinful souls.
Now I’m never one to take the word of a watered-down communist, but the official Vatican response came up as being, as usual for Bergoglio, confusing and more than capable of sowing dissent.
As reported by the National Catholic Register;
In a statement Thursday, the Vatican said the Pope had “recently received” Scalfari “in a private meeting at Easter, but did not grant him any interviews.”
It added that “as reported today” by Scalfari, “the article is the result of his reconstruction, in which the exact words spoken by the Pope are not quoted.” The statement said “no quotation marks in the above article should therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the Holy Father’s words.”
What the hell is that suppose to mean?
I have a novel idea… how about just a flat-out denial that he didn’t just piss all over 2,000 years of Catholic teaching?
I’m writing this in the most fair and objective way possible. The only conclusion I can come up with is that this man is playing with literal fire.