The following text (original title: Manifiesto para reivindicar la doctrina católica) was written by the Spanish priest Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, dated February 19, 2023. Father Vegara was the parish priest of parish priest of San Isidro in the Diocese of Orihuela-Alicante since 2018. He was “suspended” in 2024 for calling Bergoglio a “heretic” and an “antipope” in this manifesto.
I have removed one sentence which was very hard to understand. The removal is noted in square brackets.
Source of the original document: here
“Enough of silence, but cry out with a hundred thousand tongues, for the world is corrupt because it has been silenced!”, proclaimed St. Catherine of Siena.
1-FOUNDATION OF THE DEFENSE OF DOCTRINE:
In matters of doctrine and faith there is no room for human respects, but every silence is culpable, as St. John says: “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.” (2 Jn 10-11) Thus it is understood that the main duty that St. Paul entrusted to one of the first bishops, St. Timothy, is to maintain“the truth”(2 Tim 1:14), so that the Church may truly be the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Hence the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in number 2088: “The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it”, and the Code of Canon Law recalls the same in canons 750: “all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them”, and 752: “the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it”, obviously referring to the same doctrine. Thus it is also indicated in canon 760: “The mystery of Christ is to be set forth completely and faithfully in the ministry of the word, which must be based upon sacred scripture, tradition, liturgy, the magisterium, and the life of the Church”. Moreover to the defense of the faith can be applied these words of Jesus: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:15-17). Hence in Denzinger 1105, rejecting the contrary thesis, the denouncement of the heretic is ordered. The reason for such sharp instructions lies in the fact that Catholic doctrine is not a mere theory but contains the very person of Christ, for expressing his whole saving mystery. That is why it is so important to guard that doctrine in its integrity, as is pointed out in these words: “when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Lk 18:8), since, having lost a single doctrinal point, the person of Christ and his saving action disappear. Consequently, aware that we are in the great trial of the Church, of which the Catechism speaks (n. 675-677), and in the great apostasy announced by the Apostle (cf. 2 Thess 2:3), and feeling concerned for my own priestly ministry, especially in the face of widespread episcopal defection, I first of all make my own the words of the Psalmist: “I have not hid thy saving help within my heart, I have spoken of thy faithfulness (…)” (Ps 39:10), and also Daniel, so that I may avoid being a “dumb dog” (cf. Is 56:10), or a “sleeping watchman” (cf. Ezek 3:17), in which case God could not count on me to stand in the breach that threatens to demolish the whole church (cf. Ezek 22:30), and not wanting to be counted among the number of cowards and accomplices (cf. Rev 21:8), but seeking, as the apostles said, to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), to cry out with all my might: “Are you such fools, you sons of Israel?” (Dan 13:48), do you not see that you have condemned the Church and take her to be executed, as prefigured by the chaste Susanna? In fact, as Jesus gave himself up to the passion and was condemned by his own priests, so now the Church is heading for a similar passion, and we will also be her priests who condemn her: some by action, and others by omission?
2-JUSTIFICATION OF THIS MODE OF DEFENSE:
As the prosecution of a complaint against the pope is legally fallacious according to canon 1404: “The First See is judged by no one”, since otherwise, it would not be effectively the first, but would be subject to another superior instance before which it would be accountable, and the indications of canons 331, 333 § 3 and 1405 would not be fulfilled in the sense of the supreme and total power of the pope, which prevents the said See from even being denounced or accused, since these actions only seek to initiate the judicial process: impossible on one who, being supreme judge, cannot also appear as a party, which leads canon 333 § 3 to conclude: “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff”, and this both in the magisterial sphere and in the disciplinary sphere, to the point that canon 1372 goes so far as to demand canonical sanction for anyone who appeals to any instance against an act of the pope, I have no other means left, to vindicate Catholic doctrine, and unburden my conscience, before the stones have to cry out (cf. Lk 19:40), than to make public this manifesto, in which, having assumed that, as Scripture warns: “it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them” (Rev 13:7), it is only licit to seek supernatural success, perfectly formulated by the apostle: “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal 6:14), I, Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, accuse the so-called “Pope Francis”, first of all, of being a heretic, as I will try to prove from his own magisterial documents:
3-ARGUMENTS FOR THE HERETICAL CHARACTER OF POPE FRANCIS:
3.1- In the apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium of 24 November 2013, we find:
“247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).”
That thesis contradicts the words of Christ at the Last Supper, when he spoke of the new covenant (cf. Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20, and 1 Cor 11:25), for it is evident that covenant that has not been revoked remains in force, and has not given way to a new one, which consequently can only come into force after the revocation of the previous one, as is stated in Hebrews: “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. (…) In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:6-7.13).
[Sentence hard to understand, therefore removed] This is why Jesus said: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mt 5:17), which indicates that the law and the prophets did not have a definitive meaning in themselves, but that their meaning would be fulfilled by Christ, whose fulfillment would then be the only truly definitive thing, revoking all that had gone before, not by abolishing it in its deepest sense, but by assuming it and perfecting it. Hence, since the meaning of all salvation plans is in reference to Christ, to make the Mosaic covenant perfect and irrevocable is to detach it from Christ, to make it efficacious on its own, thus rendering the incarnation and redemption idle, and to deny the new, definitive and central character of the covenant of Christ: “God who is over all be blessed for ever” (Rom 9:5), means undermining the very specificity of Christianity.
3.2- The apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, signed on March 19, 2016, contains, among others, the following aberrations:
“299. […] the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care (…). They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all.”
How can it be said that in public sinners, who have ostensibly broken with the life of grace, and reject the indispensable grace of conversion, the Holy Spirit pours out gifts and charisms? What good can be done to the Church by those who harm her by public scandal? Bearing in mind the gravely sinful character of the breaking of marriage and the establishment of another bond, which goes against the sixth commandment, it must be made clear that, although public sinners continue to belong visibly to the Church, their sin deprives them of all channels of grace, which are not directed to their conversion. Therefore, they have only one form of integration: conversion, which is the only happy and joyful experience that can open them to the gifts and charisms of the Holy Spirit.
“Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church […]”
It is evident that the gravity of the transgression of the sixth commandment is being denied, for if sin kills spiritually, what life and maturing within the Church is left for the sinner? The motherhood of the Church can then only be expressed in intercession and in a heartbreaking call to conversion, which is the only way one can return to live for God.
“301. […] Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. (…) A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
It is false, in the first place, that it can be the case that, in order to stop sinning, it is necessary to commit another sin, because this is against the justice of God. Also, in the second place, because it goes against the grace of God, that a subject is incapable without his own fault to leave a situation of sin, and, in the third place, that he who leads a public life of sin, can be in grace, which would indicate that the moral norm is in itself unjust, because it points out as a sinner the one who is not; It is invalid for some cases, ceasing to be universal, and objectively insufficient, since subjective conditions would prevail. Consequently, the moral norm would lose all truly normative value.
“303. […] Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”
Could God, denying his own goodness, justice and mercy, ask someone to continue in a sin, not being able or willing to remove someone from it? Obviously God never asks less than conversion and charity, for He never refuses to give them.
In morals there are no ideals but duties that, for this very reason, must be possible, for one cannot demand the impossible; in moral theology the Christian life is never an unrealizable ideal, for nothing is unrealizable for grace, except salvation without conversion; for this reason this is always the first effect of grace.
“304. It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. […] It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.”
How can one speak of a general norm if it does not embrace the universality of cases? The general moral norm of the Christian life is the fulfillment of supernatural charity, and thus it is evident that only he who fulfills supernatural charity responds faithfully to God and is in a state of grace, and he who does not, is in sin.
“At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.”
It is precisely the task of morality to discern under which norm each practical situation falls, and which are the characteristics that take an act out of one norm and place it under another, and thus casuistry occurs, on the contrary, when unacceptable acts are recognized in the norms.
“305. […] Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity […].”
The obligatory formation of conscience is directed to the knowledge of objective moral good and evil, in order to seek the former, and get out of the latter; therefore, it goes against the objective essence of morality and against the justice of God that someone can remain without one’s own fault in objective evil, and on top of that grow in grace; In what grace, if remaining in this state of objective sin already supposes resisting the first and indispensable grace, which is that of conversion? Morality would then lose all objective character, to be subordinated to the subjective evaluation of the circumstances, with which one comes to fall into the subjectivity of situational ethics, as if the intention were enough to establish the goodness of an act, when the truth is that this goodness requires that of all the elements: act itself and intention, while the evil of a single element produces by itself the moral degradation of everything.
“307. In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur […]”
It is a great mistake to think that marriage is an ideal, which would include it in the realm of the practically unrealizable, but in the light of the Gospel it should be understood as a perfectly feasible path, as is every vocational path of following Christ, for those who remain faithful to the grace of God.
3.3- The apostolic exhortation treated was completed by the document entitled “Criterios básicos para la aplicación del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia” [“Basic criteria for the application of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia”], made by the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires, where, among other things, it is said:
“We will dwell only on chapter VIII, given that it refers to ‘guidelines of the Bishop’ (300), in order to discern on the possible access to the sacraments of some ‘divorced in new union’.
6) In other more complex circumstances, and when a declaration of nullity could not be obtained, the above option may not in fact be feasible. However, a path of discernment is equally possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considers that he or she would fall into further fault, harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. Notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue to mature and grow with the power of grace.”
In the first place, the objectivity and universality of the moral norm disappears, and a situational ethics is advocated once again, according to which circumstances could establish “limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability”, to the point of erasing the moral objectivity of the act, since a morally evil act would lose its objective evil through the subjective evaluation of the circumstances, which, contrary to what is affirmed there, would not be merely mitigating, lessening the evil, but really determining, converting it into goodness, as can be seen in the fact that access to communion is allowed, which requires the state of grace. Secondly, a Machiavellian principle is established, according to which a good end – protecting the offspring of the new union –, would justify an evil means – to maintain that sinful union. Thirdly, the Sacrament of Penance is attacked, which can only be received when there is repentance for the evil done, which is the new adulterous union, and purpose to amend it, which requires putting an end to such a moral irregularity. Fourthly, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is profaned, which demands the state of grace, incompatible with the objective situation of stubborn and scandalous sin that maintaining the state of adultery entails. Fifthly, the Sacrament of Matrimony is destroyed, which, on the one hand, ceases to be the only source of grace for sexual union between baptized persons, and, on the other, loses its indissolubility and unity. Sixthly, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is emptied, since the administration of [the Sacrament of] Penance no longer depends on the objective judgment of the sacred minister, and neither does the administration of the Eucharist, but anyone can demand both sacraments according to his subjective judgment, and, seventhly, the whole supernatural order of grace disappears, which begins with conversion, which is no longer indispensable, and which continues with the moral practice of the objective virtues, which are now governed by the morally sovereign subjectivity of the individual, subject only to a highly imprecise and not at all objective discernment.
3.4- The above document acquires magisterial force by the formal approval of the same made by Pope Francis in a letter dated September 5, 2016, in which it is said:
“The writing is very good and fully explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do much good. May the Lord reward you for this effort of pastoral charity.”
Therefore, the very serious doctrinal flaws of this document acquire magisterial rank, comparable to that of the interpreted exhortation itself, thus considerably sharpening the dogmatic disintegration already carried out by the latter.
3.5- Another important document is that of Abu Dhabi, dated February 4, 2019, which states:
“– Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. 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;”
In the first place, it is false that religious freedom can be understood in an absolute sense, as if man had the right to choose indistinctly any religion, since objectively only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of revelation and the means to attain salvation. Therefore, the true meaning of religious freedom resides in the freedom that every man must have to follow his own conscience, which excludes any religious imposition on anyone against his conscience. However, conscience, which is a subjective moral norm, does not have an absolute meaning either, which would put an end to the primacy of moral objectivity, but conscience has the priority duty to form itself adequately, to know the objective moral truth, including the religious truth. But obviously this duty must be assumed by each individual, from which the goodness or badness of his choice will be derived, and not imposed from outside, and, secondly, attributing the diversity of religions to the “wise divine will with which God created human beings”, supposes, above all, naturalizing all religions, by equating them in the order of creation, which is natural according to the state of pure nature, also dissolving the supernatural order, which, as revealed, is superior to mere natural creation, as well as denying the fundamental specificity of the Catholic Church as the full depository of salvific truth, and, finally, to impute to the wisdom of God first of all the lying falsehood of endorsing religions that are extremely opposed to each other, when truth is based on consistency or absence of contradiction, and also the evil of assuming religious theories and practices that, as false, are also evil, since good is inseparable from truth, being false and, therefore, identifiable with evil, which is not true. It must be recognized that it is difficult to utter more enormous blasphemies.
3.6- Also important is the apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi, dated June 29, 2022, which contains:
“5. The world still does not know it, but everyone is invited to the supper of the wedding of the Lamb (Re 19:9). To be admitted to the feast all that is required is the wedding garment of faith which comes from the hearing of his Word (cf. Ro 10:17).”
As it is evident that it refers to access to Eucharistic communion, which requires the state of grace, the Protestant type of error is made, of thinking that the only sin is the one that goes against faith, and it is omitted that any serious infraction of the commandments goes against charity, and deprives the mentioned state of grace, which is not ordinarily recovered without receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Therefore, while theoretically accepting a Protestant thesis, contrary to Catholic doctrine, one incites, in practice, to receive Communion sacrilegiously.
3.7- The next document to be considered is the response, published on October 2, 2023, of Pope Francis to the first “dubia” presented by five cardinals:
Response to the second “dubium”:
“The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: it is an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children. Only this type of union does the Church call a “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), which is why they cannot be called “marriage,” strictly speaking.”
The seriousness of the falsehood, so slyly slipped in, an unequivocal proof of his bad faith, lies in establishing an analogous relationship between what is radically opposed, since only marriage is morally good, while all those other forms are morally bad.
“Nevertheless, in our dealings with people, we must not lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”
Evidently the rupture of the essential link between objective truth and charity prepares the ground for any aberration, since, outside of truth, only falsehood remains, which contradicts the authenticity of any virtue, including charity.
God is the truth, and he who does not seek the truth, or seeks something else above the truth, as what is not truth can only be a lie, cannot truly do the true will of God, because he himself is not in the truth, and because obviously God cannot even not be in the truth, in order not to incur in falsehood.
“For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage. For, when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”
The appeal to pastoral prudence is used to justify any kind of blessing, however aberrant it may be, including that of something as abominable as a homosexual couple.
It is interesting to note the profuse use of a strongly connotative language, that is: based on notions loaded with connotation, which is the emotional factor that accompanies the ideological one, and which manages to deceive and trick, inoculating the so characteristic misericorditis buenista [a constant referring to “mercy”], from which a humanist image of God as a perfect projection of the highest ideals of man is devised; thus humanity would be able to replace the revealed God, who would remain as a mere terrible and merciless caricature.
“On the other hand, even though there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).”
Once again we see the same machiavellian sinuous and devious tactic, of trying to justify with something good – pastoral charity –, what is radically bad – an objectively immoral situation.
“Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, since not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this ‘would lead to an intolerable casuistry’ (Amoris laetitia 304).”
Now, in the name of pastoral prudence, all general norms are eliminated, in order to, contrary to what has been manifested, lead to a casuistry that dissolves all objective morality.
Response to the fifth “dubium”:
“There are many ways to express repentance. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, declaring themselves guilty is a cruel torment. Yet, the very fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and the search for divine help.”
It is clear that the confession of sins committed would no longer be necessary for sacramental validity, which, in reality, would be null and void.
“Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful overly precise and certain purposes of amendment, which end up being abstract or even egocentric, and that even the possibility of a new fall “should not prejudice the authenticity of the resolution” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum on the Occasion of the Course on the Internal Forum Organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary [22 March 1996], 5).” [brackets in the original]
In the name of a false love of God towards us and of a twisted interpretation of the Magisterium of John Paul II, the hitherto necessary purpose of amendment is diluted.
3.8- Yet another document is the letter, approved by Pope Francis, from the Prefect of the [Dicastery for the] Doctrine of the Faith to Bishop Negri, dated October 31, 2023, which reads:
“Can a transgender person be baptized?”
“[‘]Concretely, this entails that the doors of the sacraments should not ‘be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself ‘the door’: baptism. […] [T]he Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems’.
So, even when doubts remain about a person’s objective moral situation or subjective disposition toward grace, one should never forget this aspect of the faithfulness of God’s unconditional love, which is capable of generating an irrevocable covenant even with the sinner: a covenant that is always open to an unpredictable development. This is true even when a purpose of amendment does not appear in a fully manifest way in the penitent […]” [first use of brackets in the original]
To claim that baptism can be received unconditionally, goes against the very essence of a sacrament that calls for conversion as an unavoidable first step and necessary condition towards salvation; that is why Jesus began the public ministry, proclaiming: “repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15), and culminated it, before ascending, by entrusting the same to the apostles: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mk 16:15-16). Now, conversion presupposes the intention of changing, breaking with the former life, to begin a new one, and of keeping the divine commandments, and these demands are obviously incompatible with the very serious transsexual condition, freely assumed and maintained.
God’s love is unconditional only in itself, since God’s being is indeed love, as St. John tells us; but God’s love for us is conditional in its fulfillment, since it is only realized if we freely accept it.
“Can a transgender person serve as a godparent?
Under certain conditions, an adult transgender person—even after undergoing hormone treatment and sex-reassignment surgery—may be admitted to the function of serving as a godparent. However, since this task does not constitute a right, pastoral prudence demands that it should not be permitted if there is a danger of scandal, undue legitimization, or disorientation in the educational sphere of the ecclesial community.”
Where then is the life congruent with the faith in one who, living as a transsexual, maintains a rebellion against God the Creator, keeping himself in an objective situation of grave sin? Moreover, the commitment that the godparents have to acquire on behalf of the baptized infant, would lack all value, when the same subject lives in radical contradiction with the Catholic moral doctrine.
“Can a homosexual person who is cohabiting serve as a godparent?
According to Canon 874 § 1, 1° and 3° CIC, a person can serve as a godparent who possesses the proper ‘aptitude’ (1°) and who ‘leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on’ (3°; cf. can. 685, § 2 CCEO). Different from this is the situation where the common life of two homosexual persons consists not only in a simple sharing of accommodations, but rather, in a stable and declared relationship ‘more uxorio’ that is well-known to the community.
In any case, due pastoral prudence demands that each situation be wisely considered to safeguard the Sacrament of Baptism and especially its reception, which is a precious good to be protected, since it is necessary for salvation.”
On the one hand, it is simply said that the case of two homosexuals living together is “different”, when the reality is that it is a case completely opposed to the way of life consistent with the faith, and, on the other hand, not only is every possibility not categorically denied, but it is actually left open, as if there could be any case in which pastoral prudence could wisely consider the acceptance as godparent of a person whose behavior is so contrary to the faith.
“Can two homosexual persons be regarded as the parents of a child who is to be baptized, and who was adopted or was received by other means, such as surrogacy?
In order for the child to be baptized, there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion (cf. can. 868 § 1, 2° CIC; can. 681, § 1, 1° CCEO).”
First of all, it is evident that two persons of the same sex cannot legitimately act as parents for the simple reason that they are denying the complementary nature of paternity and maternity, which is the order willed by God, and furthermore, how can there be any hope that “parents” who are not really parents, and who live in radical opposition to Christian doctrine, will provide a minimally Christian education, when they cannot even provide the most basic human education?
“3. Can a transgender person serve as a witness to a matrimony?
There is nothing in the current universal canonical legislation that prohibits a transgender person from serving as a witness to a matrimony.”
“Can a homosexual person who is cohabiting serve as a witness to a matrimony?
There is nothing in the current universal canonical legislation that prohibits a homosexual person who is cohabiting from serving as a witness to a matrimony.”
The fact that the law does not consider this possibility, nor expressly disallows it, does not mean that it is congruent with marriage, and that the possibility of acting as a witness should be allowed, for what sense does it make to act as a witness to ecclesiastical marriage, reserved, as an article of faith, to man and woman, someone who contradicts in his own life such a concept?
3.9- The last document is the declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Francis, published on December 18, 2023, and called Fiducia supplicans, which contains:
“31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.”
It is all such a massive aberration that it incurs the most crass contradictions, for, to begin with, can one impart a blessing, which in itself is a pure rite, without any ritual form? And then how can one say that one does not intend to create confusion, when that is exactly what one achieves by trying to change evil into good? Or how can one affirm that one does not intend the legitimization of such a situation, if that is what the blessing before God signifies? And how can it be said that neither sin nor the union is blessed, when the former resides exactly in the latter, in which, in its turn, the couple, which is a union of two, is figured? What does it matter then what good there may be in a life, if it has no supernatural value, since mortal sin ruins everything, and leads to damnation, if there is no conversion? But what conversion can there be, if the church, by blessing it, legitimizes and, as the very name “blessing” [bendición] indicates, declares such a sinful situation “good” [buena]? This is the perverse effect derived from it: that, by covering up the reality of sin, conversion is prevented, which is always the first and indispensable effect of grace, and which is only possible when sin is discovered, recognized and abhorred.
The magisterial document goes so far as to speak of sanctification by the Spirit; But how can the Spirit sanctify that which the Scriptures has already declared to be abominable? indeed, this is seen in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”, and in Romans 1:27: “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error”. The same apostle also says: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thess 4:3-8) If God’s will is obviously contrary to every illicit or impure sexual act, how can one even claim the blessing, which is an action of the Spirit, of that which, besides being impure, goes against the nature created by God, who, as Jesus affirmed, at the beginning “made them male and female” (Mk 10:6)? The contempt for God truly goes to the extreme of dismissing this clear warning: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19), according to which the same Spirit would now have to bless the “perverse and shameful” act that profanes His temple, that is to say: He would bless His own profanation, which would be a double profanation: that of His temple and that of His act of blessing, which would be profaned, by turning to another profanation; is there then any greater blasphemy than to project on God the contradiction, which is the pure absurdity and thus the logical translation of moral evil? There is nothing more diabolical than the declaration as good of sin, which is the supreme and absolute evil before God; hence the forcefulness of this sentence: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Is 5:20)
The contradiction goes beyond all measure, equating homosexual and irregular relationships to any other type of relationship, as if they too could “mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love”; but what maturity and growth can sinful relationships have that do not involve the increase of sin itself? And what liberation from imperfections and frailties can be experienced by that which in itself is the fruit, more than of imperfection and frailty, of perversity and rebellion against God’s command? And it is said that it can express divine love, when it is impossible to conceive a more emphatic denial of it?
There is no better expression to define such a barbarity than that used in Scripture itself: that of the “abomination that makes desolate” (Dan 11:31; Mt 24:15 and Mk 13:14), which with this magisterial document takes a definitive step in the journey begun with Amoris laetitia, since it is precisely that the great abominable sin, which, for the Bible, is homosexual practice, is placed in the holy place, which is, first of all, the sacred action of the blessing, which comes to be profaned, and also, in short, since the approval is magisterial, the doctrine of the Church, which is violated from within, since the contradiction logically undermines the system it affects.
From this Pauline text we can see the importance of the blessing for God: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” (Eph 1:3-4), we can understand the gravity of the following quotations that today find their full application: “And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your offerings, and I will put you out of my presence.” (Mal 2:1-3), and also: “Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.” (Ezek 22:26). In short, the heretical, aberrant and scandalous character of the Magisterium of Pope Francis is thus established, which inevitably leads us to confront it with the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of all previous popes.
4-CONSEQUENCE OF THE MAGISTERIAL HERESIES OF POPE FRANCIS:
If it is argued that Pope Francis has not made any definition “ex cathedra”, nor, therefore, has he yet compromised the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, it is answered that, as indicated in point 892 of the Catechism: “To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere to it with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” The ordinary Magisterium is also covered by divine assistance, and must, even if it is not precisely definitive, avoid strict opposition to what has already been defined, so as not to frustrate the divine guarantee with which Catholic doctrine is supposed to be clothed, nor to involve God Himself, who would be the guarantor, into any contradiction, which is absolutely impossible, as Scripture assures us: “if we are faithless, he remains faithful – for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim 2:13), and also: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Heb 13:8); hence this exhortation is made: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). Consequently, it must be recognized, without ambiguity, that the acceptance of the teachings of Pope Francis, which, as has been seen, overturns fundamental points of moral doctrine, implies a rejection of the entire previous Magisterium, and not only that, it ultimately leads to the acknowledgment of the falsehood of a doctrine: the Catholic doctrine, which was entirely founded on papal Magisterium, intended to be established as true and irrevocable, which with the contradictions provoked by Pope Francis would have been clearly denied. Even then, once the substantial variability, contrary to the firm truth, of the Catholic doctrine was made evident, we would have to conclude the dissolution of the Catholic Church itself, which had raised as the supreme sign of its identity the fidelity to a dogmatic doctrine that would have disappeared, demolished in its totality with a single point that was suppressed. This, then, is the dilemma that is relentlessly imposed on us: since two contrary things cannot be true at the same time, but one must necessarily be false, and there is no middle ground, since the affirmation of one extreme necessarily implies the negation of the other, since both are contrary, we must choose between obedience to Pope Francis and fidelity to the dogmatic doctrine established by the other popes.
Of course, it would be completely wrong to argue that the essence of the Church can be separated from the permanence of its doctrine, as if, above all, that essence did not already possess a clear doctrinal meaning. Therefore any characterization of the Church that prioritizes or reduces it to a merely institutional aspect, in terms of maintaining, at all costs, the formality of a mere functional organizational chart, suffers from a serious theological insufficiency, reducing the Church to a mere empty shell, when, in reality, that Church, the Catholic Church, is shaped by the intimate connection, in historical continuity, of two elements: the doctrinal, which, through an organic development, is always deepened and perfected by progressive clarifying explanations, which obviously excludes any contradiction, which always causes a rupture, and the institutional, which, based on the uninterrupted chain of sacramental practice that ensures apostolic succession, establishes identity through the necessary personal replacement. The inexplicable marvel, in purely human terms, lies in the fact that throughout the already long history of the Church, there has never been any break in the described balance between the doctrinal and institutional aspects. Rather, no matter how inadequate the individuals who have embodied the supreme institution, which is the papacy – the authentic constitutive cornerstone of the church – have been, both the validity of the institutional succession mechanism and the respect for the doctrinal content have always been maintained. However, as the facts are there with all their solid objectivity, and it is now impossible for the impetuous subjective wave to mask or undermine them, it must be agreed that the disastrous papacy of Pope Francis has ruined everything.
5- Arguments for the invalidity of Pope Francis
As the only possibility then of preserving the dogmatic doctrine and safeguarding the very existence of the Catholic Church, founded in communion with that doctrine, comes my second accusation against Pope Francis: that of being a false pope, so that, in perfect logic, the rejection of Pope Francis’ Magisterium as spurious, reaffirms the validity of all previous popes, contradicted by the one who is now rejected.
5.1- The invalidity of the papacy of Francis, although it may seem strange, is not due to himself, but is based on the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation, which vitiates in origin all subsequent acts.
It may seem paradoxical, but such is human misery, and the pope who asked for prayers, so as not to flee before the wolves, ended up doing just that, and the wisest of all time made the greatest mistake in history, which has brought us to an unprecedented crisis: the great tribulation, “such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Mt 24:21).
The question lies in what moment Benedict resigned, as it is obvious that in the consistory, in which he merely expressed the intention, the resignation was not fulfilled, since, as he himself announced, the Petrine See (papal see) was not vacant until February 28; but on that date, the supposed resigning pope did nothing, and one cannot even say that what was announced came into effect, since the mere announcement of an action does not produce the action itself, and the entry into force of what was not done is also nothing; thus, saying that he resigns, but that the see will remain vacant on February 28, which is the immediate effect of the resignation, is the same as saying “I will resign”; however, doing nothing on that day implies failing to fulfill what was announced.
Since the resignation is a juridical act, we must refer to canon 124 and the following canons; the aforementioned states: “For the validity of a juridic act it is required that the act is placed by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act.” Obviously, there is nothing to argue about Benedict’s capacity, as it is clear that the pope has full capacity to resign, as recognized by canon 332 § 2: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.” Now, this canon emphasizes that for validity two things are needed: freedom and formal manifestation. We will assume the first; but the second, on the other hand, completely fails, being one of the essential elements whose concurrence is required by canon 124, as previously mentioned. Moreover, the visible nature of such an element means that what is pointed out by paragraph two of the same canon does not apply here: “A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid”, since it is precisely those external elements that fail.
Canon 126 is crucial because it establishes: “An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid”; here we see how the law does not remedy ignorance or error, but directly applies nullity.
The canons that already sentence the matter are 188 and 189; the first, applying nullity to the matter that concerns us, states: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself”, and where can such an error be placed? The following canon clarifies it: “To be valid, a resignation, whether it requires acceptance or not, must be made to the authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the office in question; this must be done either in writing, or orally in the presence of two witnesses.” Now, it seems that Benedict did precisely this in the consistory. However, paragraph three gives an important clue: “A resignation which requires acceptance lacks all force if it is not accepted within three months”; but obviously, a papal resignation does not require acceptance by anyone. Therefore, what is stated next should hold: “one which does not require acceptance takes effect when it has been communicated by the one resigning according to the norm of law”, that is: the effect of the resignation follows directly from the notification. But this was not what happened in Benedict’s announced resignation, as its effect was delayed. Thus, the pope ended up producing a completely invalid resignation because, when notifying it, he did not consider it fulfilled, therefore he had not made it, and upon the expiration of the announced period, he did nothing, so he continued not to make it, since the key lies in the fact that a papal resignation is only valid if it is made formally: through notification before at least two witnesses, with the intention that it take effect at that very notification (c. 189 § 3).
The postponement then becomes the element that directly denies what, according to the expression of canon 124, is the substantial element of this resignation: the immediate fulfillment of the effect, which, as canon 189 § 3 states, resides in the very notification, thus becoming one of the “requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act.” (c. 124 § 1) Therefore, that “substantial error” (c. 188): the lack of the substantial element produces, as it affects what “constitutes its substance” (c. 126), the nullity of the entire act by virtue of the law itself (c. 188).
In summary, since the resignation occurs in the same declaration, as this is the cause, and that is the effect, both – cause and effect – must be immediate and follow each other. However, in Benedict’s resignation, when the cause was established, the effect was not intended to be established, therefore there was no true cause, and when the effect was intended to be established, the cause was not established, therefore there was also no true effect.
5.2- In favor of the validity of Benedict’s resignation, one could argue that the pope has the supreme power to resign as he wishes. But this does not serve the case, for, although the pope can do in many things what he wants, he has, however, to do it himself, and not wait for things to do themselves, so that, if he announces the resignation, he has to fulfill it, and not say that it will be fulfilled alone on the date that seems to him, because the effects are only produced when the appropriate cause acts. Does this undermine the supreme papal authority? No, because nothing prevents the pope to change any canonical norm, when all receive from him their validity. Now, if he does not change them, he has to conform to them, which, in the end, is nothing more than conforming to himself: to the formality of his own authority, because what is unacceptable is to give room for contradiction, as if the pope could contradict his own norms, without even taking the trouble to modify them.
5.3- As an example, the validity of the appointment of a cardinal who, contrary to canon 351 § 1, is not a priest, could be raised; the answer must obviously be invalidity, as long as the normative condition of the priesthood is maintained, so that the pope who would insist on appointing someone who is not a priest, must first necessarily change the norm, to make the exception at least possible, and establish its juridical validity. Therefore, if this happens with the cardinal appointment, reserved to the pope, the same must be said of papal resignation.
5.4- In conclusion, if Benedict’s resignation was against the law, by introducing a deadline that the law forbids, and if the pope cannot validly contradict the law that he himself founded, it must be recognized that that resignation, as canons 124 § 1, 126 and 188 say, was completely null, and that this nullity, never remedied, entails the nullity of the conclave and of the election of Francis, since, as canon 332 § 1 expresses, the validity of the papal appointment is based, on the presupposition of the episcopal order, on strict compliance with the established juridical procedure, which currently requires that, after Benedict’s death, who remained pope until his death, his resignation and all that followed be ignored, and a conclave be held with the cardinals named until Benedict himself, who are the only ones really valid and capable of electing a pope who is also valid. Until then, it must be considered that the juridical situation of the Church is that of sede vacante, which is precisely the only way theologically to maintain the integrity of its doctrine, without which the ship of Christ would have been irremediably shipwrecked (cf. Mt 8:24; Mk 4:38, and Lk 8:23), and his promise would have failed completely (cf. Mt 16:18).
Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, February 19, 2023.
Sources mentioned in this document
Antipope Bergoglio: “Evangelii Gaudium” (2013)
Antipope Bergoglio: “Amoris laetitia” (2016)
Letter of the Argentian bishops to Bergoglio about Amoris laetitia and his response (Spanish; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, October 2016)
Abu Dhabi document (2019)
Antipope Bergoglio: “Desiderio desideravi” (2022)
Response to the dubia of the Cardinals Brandmüller, Zen (陳/陈), Burke, Sarah, Sandoval by the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (Dubia submitted on 10. July 2023, answer on 25. September 2023)
Response to the dubia of Bishop Negri by the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (Dubia submitted on 14. July 2023, answer on 31. October 2023)