1. Moscow Conference

    image
  2. Rome 2017

    Rome 2017
  3. Fatima Portugal

    Fatima Portugal 2017
  4. Ask Father

    image

Now Francis Targets "Rigid" Youth

But what does "rigid" mean? And why
does Francis never tell us?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 8, 2017

For the past four years, Pope Bergoglio has almost daily denounced the “rigidity” of the rigid Catholics he seems to see everywhere at a time when moral, doctrinal and disciplinary laxity are rampant in the Church.

But the umpteenth denunciation of “rigid Christians,” during a sermon at Casa Santa Marta, had a slightly different twist. Now it seems Pope Bergoglio perceives a growing threat of “rigidity” among young Catholics. Speaking of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus as a “rigid” young man who followed the Mosaic Law, Francis provided the usual twisting of Scripture into an indictment of present-day Catholics:

“They are rigid people living a double life: They make themselves look good, sincere, but when no one sees them, they do ugly things. On the other hand, this young man [Saint Paul] was honest. He believed that. I think, when I say this, of the many young people in the Church today who have fallen into the temptation of rigidity. Some are sincere, they are good. We have to pray that the Lord might help them to grow along the path of meekness.”

So, according to Pope Bergoglio, there are two types of “rigid” people in the Church today: the hypocrites, whom he is quite certain “do ugly things” when no one is looking, and then there are the sincerely rigid people who, like Saint Paul, “are honest” in their rigidity. That is, they practice what they preach, but are still “rigid.” And now we are expected to believe that even “many young people have fallen into the temptation of rigidity,” although Pope Bergoglio allows that some are sincerely rigid like Saint Paul.

It would be easy enough to laugh off this endless j’accuse as rather puerile behavior unbecoming a Pope, and go about our business without paying it the least attention any longer. But there is a deeper and more sinister meaning to it all: Consider that the one thing Pope Bergoglio has failed to do in his endless demagogic attacks on the “rigid” is to tell us what exactly — or even approximately! — he means by the word. The epithet always stands in rhetorical isolation without contextual support. What is to account for this glaring omission?

The answer, of course, is obvious, and everybody still paying attention to Pope Bergoglio knows it: By “rigid” he means staunch adherence to the Church’s doctrines on faith and morals and her related disciplines, including the traditional Latin liturgy, to which “rigid” young people are being attracted in growing numbers.  

By “rigid” Bergoglio means, in essence, too Catholic for his liking, and thus not inclined to accept the tenets of Bergoglianism, including the notion that people engaging in sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony, claiming that they have effected a “second marriage” with someone to whom they are not married, should be admitted to Holy Communion if they “discern” that they are not guilty of adultery, despite what Our Lord said to the contrary. No other Pope has even countenanced such an atrocity, but not to approve it is a form of “rigidity,” according to Bergoglio alone among all the Popes of history.

The not so obvious point, however, is that while everyone knows what Pope Bergoglio means by “rigid,” few have focused on the significance of his failure ever — under any circumstances — to tell us what he means by it.

Why? The only reasonable answer is chilling: Pope Bergoglio knows that what he is constantly condemning is nothing other than sound Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxis but that he cannot openly admit this without exposing himself as simply an opponent of what the Church has always believed and practiced. In other words, the Bergoglian campaign against “rigid” Catholics is not motivated by a sincere conviction that they really are deviating from the Faith, for if that were his sincere conviction he would specify in all sincerity in what particular respects they have deviated — doctrinally, morally, liturgically or otherwise.

But this he cannot do for the simple reason that in his mind “rigid” and “traditional Catholicism” are equivalent, and he knows full well that he cannot state explicitly that essentially Modernist conviction. Thus he employs the ecclesial equivalent of “virtue signaling” in politics, hurling the accusation of “rigidity” to signal the accuser’s moral superiority over Catholics who simply want to practice the faith of their fathers without Bergoglian alterations — including the “many young people” he publicly humiliates because they seek the authentic religion that is their birthright as baptized members of the Mystical Body. Think of “rigid” as the ecclesial analog of “bigot” or “racist” or “homophobe” in the political sphere, where code words conceal what is really an attack on traditional values representing what little remains of the moral order of Christendom.

What a mystery confronts us as this pontificate continues its destructive course. Only God knows why the Church suffers this affliction; and only He knows when it will end with the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart. May it come soon.