On 16 September the Vatican published the document A Path of Hope: Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate. This document, the fruit of the wisdom of three Pontifical Dicasteries, is of considerable importance, for it confirms the synodal church's project of neutralising the true Church of Jesus Christ in favour of Dialogue, elevated to the rank of a divinity.

At no. 24 of the Note we read: “Perseverance in interreligious dialogue seeks to demonstrate that fundamentalism is a falsification of religions, one that stands opposed to their deepest vocation. In a well-known address, taking up the words of a Byzantine Emperor, he (Benedict XVI) affirmed that «spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul»”. This paragraph takes up the Pope's Regensburg address, which however referred to Muslims; but this is of no interest to the synodal church, and the proclamation of the Gospel is placed under suspicion of violence and of an unacceptable fundamentalism, from which the god Dialogue is called upon to save us. Given that — overflowing with rhetoric — in Magnifica Humanitas (25) Leo XIV too has stigmatised the proclamation of the Gospel by means of violence, I should like to ask the principal architect of this Note, Cardinal Fernández: in these last centuries, in which country of the world has the Catholic Church imposed the Gospel by force?

 

The Note follows the characteristic synodal style: to say everything and the opposite of everything, with a marked flair for deception. Having relativised Jesus Christ and replaced him with the god Dialogue, the Note sets out to reassure Catholics: «It is not, in truth, a question of founding a great world religion in which all beliefs are flattened out. Such a possibility must be excluded out of respect for oneself and for others» (53). Highly incisive is the following paragraph, where our dear Cardinal Tucho invites us to renounce dogmas, because they cause the weakest to suffer: «To reach this goal, a genuine transformation of mentalities is necessary: to abandon the logic of defence, hostility or conquest, and to adopt an open, benevolent, courageous attitude. Monolithic and isolated models, which encourage a closed vision of reality, prove increasingly inadequate and ultimately a source of violence and suffering for the weakest». And to press the point further he adds: «The disobliging defence of one's own position and proselytism, as the sole mode of encounter with “the other”, no longer make any sense in a world that increasingly resembles an interconnected global village in continual ferment». Let us highlight the deception: previously it made sense to proclaim the Gospel and to make converts, but now, in the interconnected global village, it no longer makes any sense. The whole Note stresses that the proclamation of the Gospel must be replaced by dialogue: “To those who might be tempted to insist exclusively on the obligation to proclaim Christ, it is recalled that the Declaration Nostra aetate includes the necessity of dialogue with other religious traditions, considering that it now «forms part of the Church's evangelising mission»” (22).

 

In the document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Dialogue in Truth and Charity. Pastoral Orientations for Interreligious Dialogue (2014) we find written exactly the opposite: “Both dialogue and proclamation constitute «authentic elements of the Church's evangelising mission… intimately related, but not interchangeable»” (39).

It is clear that the guiding spirit of Robert Francis Prevost, namely “Pope Francis”, is the true inspirer of this document; one of his addresses from 2019 is also quoted, in which it is affirmed that Christianity has much to learn from other religions: «I believe that in this field religions, like universities, without needing to renounce their own distinctive features and their own particular gifts, have much to contribute and to offer; everything we do in this direction is a significant step towards guaranteeing to the younger generations their right to a future, and it will also be a service to justice and peace». In the synodal church everything must be «levelled», just as in Totò's beautiful poem, and even what we read at no. 22 of Dominus Iesus is turned into an archaeological relic incapable of generating dialogue and universal fraternity:

With the coming of Jesus Christ the Saviour, God willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism «characterised by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that “one religion is as good as another”». If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation».

To tell the truth, the CDF Declaration is indeed cited, but only in order to prevent it from speaking the «truth». In accordance with the by now consolidated style of Leo XIV, which I have already pointed out on several occasions, «truth» is flaunted far and wide, but only to be vilified.

In the 2014 document cited above we find written: “For Catholics, dialogue requires a reasonably deep knowledge of the Church's doctrine, a «solid faith, and spiritual and human maturity […] to the extent that they deepen their own faith, Catholics will be better able to grasp the meaning, the necessity and the importance of encountering believers of other religions»” (31). The same concept is taken up by the Note at no. 22, but in reality, instead of a profound knowledge of the Church's doctrine, it reveals a crass ignorance that makes true Catholics shudder. This Note is enamoured of the sound of its own voice, instrumentalising the true Magisterium and using it for its own purposes. Under the banner of «everything and the opposite of everything», for the benefit of the gullible, Redemptoris missio of John Paul II is also cited, «which reaffirms the permanent value of the missionary mandate, followed by Dialogue and Proclamation» (21).

 

In a previous article published on this blog, I wrote that many cardinals and bishops «live like Alice in Wonderland, having ended up in a magical world full of nonsense»; one might equally say that they resemble aliens who, during their space voyages, stop off in Rome to visit St Peter's, and perhaps even read a few pages of Cardinal Zuppi's newspaper, Avvenire. On 27 July a journalist from katholisch.de interviewed one of these aliens, asking him for an opinion on Leo XIV. The extraterrestrial replied: “He is a cautious and wise man. The choice of his name sent a clear signal. He is giving greater importance to the direct collaboration of the Roman Curia and is expressing his trust in it. At the same time, he recognises that there are tensions and difficulties within the Church that must be overcome. He acknowledges this reality and is seeking to heal existing wounds with wisdom. A clear line of reasoning is evident. This is reflected in his personnel decisions, as well as in his magisterial writings and his public statements… The most important task of a Pope is to be the first witness of Jesus Christ. That is the crucial point. He must provide convincing answers, grounded in faith, to the questions of the present. Criticism will be inevitable, even if so far he has received almost exclusively positive feedback”.

The journalist grew curious and asked the alien whether he had a name, and the mysterious creature replied: Georg Gänswein.

Antonio Romano