Pope Signs Document Nobody Asked Him To Sign

Pope Signs Document Nobody Asked Him To Sign

So the Pope did what nobody was asking him to do: sign a document that appears to have emanated from Harvard’s SJW dungeon, the same serpent that had such a hard time convincing Eve to eat that apple whispering into the authors’ ears.

Why the Pope signed I leave for you to tell me. Here, the highlights (all emphases mine) from “A document on human fraternity for world peace and living together.

Through faith in God, who has created the universe, creatures and all human beings (equal on account of his mercy), believers are called to express this human fraternity by safeguarding creation and the entire universe and supporting all persons, especially the poorest and those most in need.

Creatures are equal to human beings? Mary remove mousetraps what a dumb thing to say. Surely they can’t mean it. Look at those parentheses: I’m misreading it. Maybe they only meant to imply the false and pernicious lie that all people are equal, a belief contradicted directly in scripture?

Now if this description of this Netflix cleaning show is accurate, people have a hard enough time safeguarding their sock drawers, so I don’t know how they’re going to begin to safeguard the entire universe. Who’s going to be in charge of the extra-galactic patrols?

This transcendental value served as the starting point for several meetings characterized by a friendly and fraternal atmosphere where we shared the joys, sorrows and problems of our contemporary world.

The meeting was, after all, sponsored by Kleenex&tm;.

There followed some words about “therapeutic achievements“, “social injustice”, “inequality”, “discrimination”, and so on, cut and pasted from the New York Times opinion page. Then came the real meat.

In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity…

No, no, and no.

In the name of human fraternity that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders them equal…


Now war, poverty, torture, calamity, and other assorted horrors the document decries are bad and undesirable. Which everybody knows. And which everybody has always known. While there does exist the odd bloodlusting fool who calls for torture and terrorism, these people are not what anybody would consider to be a pressing problem. Not when — ahem — people are apostasizing on the pretext that today is Tuesday.

Surely the eternal souls of his flocks are of more importance than their attitude about recycling? The document nods in that direction:

[T]he most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles.

This is profoundly true. And so is this, more or less:

While recognizing the positive steps taken by our modern civilization in the fields of science, technology, medicine, industry and welfare, especially in developed countries, we wish to emphasize that, associated with such historic advancements, great and valued as they are, there exists both a moral deterioration that influences international action and a weakening of spiritual values and responsibility. All this contributes to a general feeling of frustration, isolation and desperation leading many to fall either into a vortex of atheistic, agnostic or religious extremism, or into blind and fanatic extremism, which ultimately encourage forms of dependency and individual or collective self-destruction.

Over-reaction is not as good as reaction — be a reactionary — but it is not a surprise it occurs, especially in a declining civilization.

But then comes this, the most curious and inexplicable bullet point, which is here broken in two pieces.

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action.

That there is or should be freedom of expression and action is utterly false. It is as far from truth as infinity is from 0; this sentiment is even the opposite of what they preached earlier about having no freedom of action to commit torture, etc. In children, there is not and should not be freedom in thought and belief. Consciences have to be formed, not discovered. Keep children in mind when you finish reading the paragraph.

Here is where the meat turns rancid.

The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

No. But if it were true God wanted diversity of religions, then He should not have issued that first Commandment. And then we may as well embrace or have “dialogue” with Santeria Voodists, worshippers of Santa Muerta, Wiccans, Satanists, Baalites, Aztec heart surgeons, Planned (Un)Parenthood baby-blood drinkers, whatever demon Nancy Pelosi bows to, and on and on. If what this paragraph says is true, then there is no need for the Church, and thus no need for the Pope. Smart money says he doesn’t resign, though.

The rest of the document, littered with “rights”, and no remembrance Christ said he came to bring the sword.

If you cannot say This Is Right, you must bow to somebody who will.


  1. Leftism is a religion. It is the religion of Marxist nihilism. It’s goal is the destruction of Western Civilization.

    If Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not an anti-pope, how would one differ from him?

  2. Sheri

    “Maybe they only meant to imply the false and pernicious lie that all people are equal, a belief contradicted directly in scripture?
    No. But if it were true God wanted diversity of religions, then He should not have issued that first Commandment.”

    Your comments imply the current Pope has read the Bible and/or has some belief in it. There is zero evidence to show for that theory. He has definately read and embraces liberation theology and Marxist doctrine. There’s plenty of evidence for that.

    Seems the church decided to go the way of Gillette, Nike and the Super Bowl by embracing SJWs in order to get MONEY. Having not read the Bible, the church does not care or not know or not believe that the LOVE OF MONEY is evil and thus slides into the abyss along with millions of souls it is desperately trying to take with it rather than deliver to God. Maybe they should have more on Satan and his tactics…..

  3. L Ron Hubbard alias John B()

    The chair is truly empty

    (There is no Jedi remaining)

  4. c matt

    Who’s going to be in charge of the extra-galactic patrols?

    Why, the US Space Force, of course.

  5. L Ron Hubbard alias John B()

    Space Opera is where it’s at

    George Lucas never did consult with me

    Not that I remember


  6. Andrew

    Once you accept self-determination and freedom from authority as the ultimate good, the rest follows. Including a God who most of all desires your happiness (as desired by you) and expects you to grow out of the lord thing

  7. Uncle Mike

    Why is the (alleged substitute) Pope a heretic? What is his grand scheme?

    It cannot be to build up the Church, since his actions and words have the opposite effect. Is he attempting to destroy Catholicism? What gives?

    The un-Pope is evidently cheesed that he has been “forced” to adhere to a certain religion? Who forced him? Since when are Catholics recruited by force?

    What religion is the anti-Pope talking about? It must be some other religion he adheres to. I’d like to know: is the Pope Catholic? Apparently not.

  8. Oldavid

    G’day, Uncle.
    Do I know you from somewhere?

    You should read a couple of comments above.

    As to your apparently rhetorical questions I can only answer for myself.

    Pope a heretic? More likely apostate, I reckon, but it is an opinion that I’ll have to own up to on Judgement Day just as I’d have to own up to being a supine sycophant ignoramus if I blindly followed his obvious errors.

    That said, I have no authority whatsoever to depose, or to declare him deposed, or to declare him illegitimate, or antipope, etc… that’s for the proper authorities in God’s good time… although I might reasonably believe that it will happen.

    There have been plenty of popes and antipopes that have bent and broken the rules of Faith and Reason for their own personal convenience and ambition but none of that ever has, or ever can, change the Christian Faith.

  9. Oldavid – What the Pope says is the Catholic faith. This is distinct from the Christian faith. A subtle but important difference. Good call.

  10. acricketchirps

    “What the pope says is the Catholic faith”

    Do you have a reliable source for that info, McC?

  11. John B()

    Cricket :: ignore that

    Miss understood which mcc you wanted verified

  12. Oldavid

    Nonsense, McChuck, St Paul put paid to that way back in the 1st Century: “I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed”. And that was because Peter was giving undue deference to Rabbinical customs.

  13. Oldavid

    I suspect that T’Googlio Monster sock puppet didn’t sign that because no one asked him to; he signed it because it is coherent with his master’s objectives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *