Francis: 'All religions are a path to reach God'
Followed up by a misleading Vatican translation, since partially corrected, and the usual raft of excuses and implausible defences, Francis has gone further than before.
Editors’ Notes
This article originally consisted of an extract from Fr Bowden on the saints and heresy, and some commentary. As the commentary has grown, it became necessary to separate Fr Bowden’s text. It is now here:
Francis’ address to an “inter-religious meeting with young people,”
Friday 13 September 2024
Translation made by The WM Review from the Italian provided.
“All religions are a path to reach God. They are – let me make a comparison – like different languages, different idioms, to get there. But God is God for everyone. And since God is God for everyone, we are all children of God.
“‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and our religions are languages, paths to reach God. Some are Sikh, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, some are Christian, but they are different paths. Understood?”1 [Our translation (see note below). Emphasis added]
These are some of the words which Francis addressed to an inter-religious meeting of young people during his 2024 trip to Singapore. A fuller section of the text is available with the footnotes.
The story was broken by
at LifeSiteNews. A few days before, Francis had made similar comments, although not as brazen as this.Within hours, the Vatican website published a sanitised English translation. This sanitised version represented Francis as saying the following, with significant changes in bold:
“[Omitted: ‘All’] Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children.
“‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. [Omitted: ‘But they are different paths.’] Understood?”2
The Italian version remained unsanitised, as did the French and Spanish translations.3
The sanitisation tells that whoever produced this English translation knew that it was problematic, and that it needed to be sanitised.
Some have seized on this falsified translation, insisting that the differences are “subtle but important.” These self-appointed defenders of Francis thereby concede that the original, unsanitised translation was problematic, and that the interpolations change the meaning in a significant way. (If they did not think this, they would not have been criticising those using the original text, or be saying that the differences were important.)
The text we used initially, still available in the footnotes, was that of a live translation from the event.
Following the publication of the Vatican’s sanitised version, we made our own translation directly from the Italian, and have updated the translation and title to reflect slight differences of grammar from the live translation (e.g., plural rather than singular – nothing like those of the Vatican’s English translation).
Update: The plot later thickened, with the Vatican partially correcting their “corrected” statement. If the first “translation” showed that they realised that the initial statement was problematic, the second correction shows that they realised the first was inaccurate.
And unfortunately, “useful idiots” are always on hand to defend each stage, even if it contradicts the last, and to condemn those who dared to believe their lying eyes.
Analysis of the statement
The whole tenor of the New Testament, Old Testament and the tradition of the Church runs contrary to what Francis said. One chief example is Our Lord’s words in the Gospel of St John:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6)
There should be no need to multiply such texts. I will, however, add this, from 2 John, which is even clearer and cuts off any possible equivocations:
“Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1.9)
The ideas expressed in Francis’ address were condemned in advance by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928):
“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.
“Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
It is most disappointing to see some seizing on Pius XI’s words “false opinion” (seeming to present a lighter censure for this error) and overlooking his further comments about even those who hold this false opinion in good faith, saying that “in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism.”
They also are overlooking the last sentence, which states that even “one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” This is why the expression of this idea seems to be apostasy, rather than just “mere” heresy.
Are those who do not hold these ideas in good faith in a better position? That would be absurd.
What to think of Francis’ making such a statement
We must be frank: these words and ideas are blasphemous and heretical, and represent a manifest departure from the Catholic faith by heresy and, as we saw above, perhaps even apostasy. They cannot be excused in any way, such as by suggesting that Francis does not really realise that they are heretical. It is evident and manifest that this man is not a Catholic, and by that fact he is also not the Roman Pontiff.
This is discussed at length here.
St Robert Bellarmine calls for the laity simply to anathematise someone who preaches such doctrine:
“I respond that the people indeed ought to discern the true prophet from the false, but by no other rule than by carefully attending to whether the one who preaches says things contrary to those taught by his predecessors, or to those taught by other lawful pastors, and especially by the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for the people are commanded to listen to their own pastors: Luke 10: “He that heareth you, heareth me.” And Matthew 23: “What they say, do” (Luke 10:16, Matthew 23:3).
“Therefore, the people should not judge their pastor unless they hear something new and contrary to the doctrine of other pastors.
“Furthermore, this is what Paul advises in Galatians 1: that we should anathematise those who teach new doctrines that are contrary to what has been preached before.”
What should we do?
Some are trying, as did the Vatican translator, to parse his words into an orthodox sense, while others are saying that it isn’t clear what he really meant. This is simply disrespectful to Francis himself. And, as St Pius X said:
“[W]hen we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents.”4
He has been perfectly clear. It will be tempting for some to excuse Francis’ words, to minimise their import, and to close their eyes to their necessary consequences.
Those who say that we should continue to treat him as the Roman Pontiff “for safety’s sake,” perhaps because of a supposed uncertainty as to whether he really is a heretic or not, or on the risible grounds that this “doesn’t count” because it wasn’t expressed ex cathedra, should also consider the matter carefully. As Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò said a few days before:
“[I]t seems absurd to me that there are conservative Catholics who do not understand how ‘recognizing’ Bergoglio as Pope, while criticizing him and accusing him of heresy, is primarily in Bergoglio’s interest. If he is the Pope, he cannot be judged by anyone; but if he has used malice to seize power in order to destroy the Church, then he is not the Pope, and as such he may be ‘recognized’ as never having been elected.” (Emphasis added)
The reader is also invited to consider whether the Conciliar-Synodal Church’s view of ecumenism, heresy, schism and non-Catholic religious has more in common with that of the saints, or that of the world.
Finally, it is important at this time to do reparation for this outrageous blasphemy, in some ways much worse (given that it has been said by the supposed Roman Pontiff) than that of the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony.
However, even now some are trying to defend Francis and these statements.
Objection: ‘The Hermeneutic of charity’
Over the years, a subset of online influencers (“popesplainers”) have tried to defend Francis by pointing to contrary statements in which he appears to affirm Catholic dogma. They then claim that we must apply what they call “the hermeneutic of charity” in order to reconcile the texts in a favourable light. Anyone who does not do this is accused of applying “the hermeneutic of suspicion.”
Avoiding the problem seems to be a primary concern for this breed of influencers and YouTube televangelists today. This is not a serious way of proceeding. We cannot, by an act of the will, decide that contradictions can be reconciled.
These “popesplainers” will even defend this idea by appealing to apparently contradictory passages of Holy Scripture.
The problem here is not the idea that apparently contradictory texts can or must be reconciled. The problem is taking a course of action which is proper in some contexts, and applying it in other unwarranted and inappropriate contexts. We are indeed obliged to think this about any difficult texts in Holy Scripture (or to conclude that there is a problem with the translations). As St Augustine writes:
If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.5
The same approach must be taken towards the dogmatic and definitive teaching of the Church. It is also right for this to be a default but rebuttable starting-point, when faced with other apparent contradictions.
But the problem arises when the “popesplainers” insist that this approach must also be applied to plain and evident contradictions within texts which are not guaranteed against such contradiction or doctrinal deviation.
Given that this hermeneutic, appropriate to the Word of God, is often applied to whatever Francis says (beyond all teaching contexts, even non-definitive) the “popesplainers” are ultimately treating him as if he and his words were divine.
Even at the best of times, it would be blasphemous to treat a pope as comparable to Scripture. Popes do not enjoy a perpetual infallibility in everything he says, nor are their infallible statements inspired by the Holy Ghost. If they were, such a hermeneutic would indeed be necessary; but they are not.
This is discussed further elsewhere. It is utterly scandalous that the misconceptions of fanatical and uninformed anti-Catholics are being used to avoid the problem and to defend the indefensible.
Some say that a problematic statement like this should be taken in the wider context of the speakers’ other words and actions.
Most of the time, those who make such an appeal to “context” are the ones who acts as if each given scandal is the first. On the contrary, we are indeed taking this problematic statement in the wider context, not only of Francis’ reign, but also of sixty years of religious revolution.
Those who appeal to “context” typically point to other occasions in which the person has affirmed the truth which has subsequently been denied. For instance, some popesplainers have pointed to occasions in which Francis has said that Our Lord is the only way to God, and so on.
We should indeed always give others the benefit of the doubt. If we hear a fellow Catholic saying something erroneous, it may well be that they have mis-spoken, or perhaps are erring in good faith. In many cases, it would be stupid, aside from uncharitable and unjust, to assume that someone is mistaken about basic matters of our religion.
But at some point, the benefit of the doubt, the best presupposition, and even “the hermeneutic of charity” must give way – not to a contrary “hermeneutic of suspicion,” but to reality. Our minds are indeed able to recognise reality, and contradiction. Those who deny this are denying the intellectual nature of the virtue of faith, as well as the mind’s capability to know truth, as discussed here:
Persevering in a voluntaristic rejection of reality, especially when souls and the Faith is at risk, is not a duty imposed on us, and it is unworthy of creatures with the God-given gift of reason.
It is absurd to think that prior affirmations of truth must necessarily “cancel out” later denials, that we are forbidden from noting the whole context of destruction, that we are obliged to throw up our hands in the face of enemies of the Church who have noticed this alleged “loophole” in our epistemology, and that we are helplessly assume the best of the wolves in sheep's clothing before us.
But this is not all. We have already been warned against “the hermeneutic of charity” and its appeal to “context.”
Popes against the ‘hermeneutic of charity’
Previous popes have already warned us against those who try to hide their errors, heresies and apostasy behind a contradictory veneer of orthodoxy and plausible deniability. For example, Pope St Pius X wrote in Pascendi, his 1907 encyclical against the modernists:
“[T]he Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast […]
“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful.
“But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.”6 (Emphasis added)
The theologian Borgo, quoted by Scavini (1869), also wrote:
“It is fitting to mention a very common malice of heretics and especially of those vile and cowardly ones who lack the honesty to fully express what they think, such as (and most of all) the Jansenists.
“When they want to insinuate a more repugnant error, they break it into pieces and scatter them here and there in their writings; they make others drink the poison in sips, causing less harm to the unwary.
“But those who thoroughly understand the wicked design know well how to gather and bring together the scattered limbs of the monster; then, what simple readers feel is the wholesome disgust and horror due to heretical doctrine."7
Pope Pius VI, in Auctorem Fidei, unveiled the same tactic at even greater length, and then says exactly what should be done to meet this tactic, and it is the opposite of “the hermeneutic of charity.”
Rather, it is to assume the worst interpretation of an ambiguous passage, and to denounce it as such:
“In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. […]
“If they are sound in doctrine, as they wish to seem, they cannot take it hard that the teachings identified in this manner – teachings that exhibit errors from which they claim to be entirely distant – stand condemned.”8
The example of the saints is very different
This article is accompanied by a text taken from Fr Henry Sebastian Bowden's book The Witness of the Saints, which was originally published in 1886 as an introduction to Butler's Lives of the Saints. The short book considers the four marks of the Church in relation to the saints.
In the extract, Bowden considers how the saints viewed heresy, heretics and religious differences, and contrasts that with the view of "the world".
There is a very great contrast between the two, and Francis’ understanding is manifestly closer to the latter.
Those who try to excuse Francis’ words, minimise their import or avoid acknowledging the truth should consider whether their own reactions have more in common with those of the saints, or with the world.
They should consider whether they are being motivated by faith, hope, and charity, or by fear of the unknown.
The reader is also invited to consider whether the Conciliar-Synodal Church’s view of ecumenism, heresy, schism and non-Catholic religious – now expressed clearly in this statement – has more in common with that of the saints, or that of the world.
It is important to be patient, just and kind, especially to those who err in good faith. But as Bowden shows, even the meekest and kindest saints demonstrated a very different attitude to that expressed by Francis.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Further Reading:
Follow on Twitter and Telegram:
The full section:
“… One of the things that impressed me the most about you young people, about you here, is your capacity for inter-religious dialogue. And this is very important because if you start arguing: ‘My religion is more important than yours...’ ‘Mine is the true one, yours is not true...’
“Where does all this lead? Where? Someone answer, where? [someone answers: ‘Destruction’]. That's right.
“All religions are a path to reach God. They are – let me make a comparison – like different languages, different idioms, to get there. But God is God for everyone. And since God is God for everyone, we are all children of God.
“‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and our religions are languages, paths to reach God. Some are Sikh, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, some are Christian, but they are different paths. Understood?
“But inter-religious dialogue among young people takes courage. Because youth is the age of courage, but you can use this courage to do things that will not help you. Instead, you can have the courage to move forward and for dialogue.
“One thing that helps a lot is respect, dialogue. Let me tell you something. I don't know if it happens here, in this city, but it happens in other cities. Among young people, there is something ugly: bullying. [...]
[There follows a discussion of bullying, after which Francis continues.]
“Because overcoming these things [bullying] helps in what you do, inter-religious dialogue. Because inter-religious dialogue is built on respect for others. And this is very important.
“Any questions? No? I want to thank you and repeat what Raaj told us: do everything possible to maintain a courageous attitude and promote a space where young people can enter and dialogue. Because your dialogue is a dialogue that generates a path, that opens a way. And if you dialogue when you are young, you will also dialogue as adults, as grown-ups, as citizens, as politicians. And I want to tell you something about history: every dictatorship in history, the first thing it does is cut off dialogue.
“I thank you for these questions, and I am happy to meet young people, to meet these courageous ones, almost ‘audacious’, you are great! I wish all of you young people to move forward with hope and not go backward! Take risks! Otherwise, the belly grows! God bless you and pray for me, I do for you.
“And now, in silence, let us pray for one another. In silence.
“May God bless all of us. And when some time passes, and you are no longer young, you will be grown-ups and even grandparents, teach all these things to the children. God bless you and pray for me, don't forget! But pray for, not against!”
This is how the text was translated live:
“Every religion is a way to arrive at God. There are different languages to arrive at God, but God is God for all. And how is God God for all? We are all sons and daughters of God. But my god is more important than your god, is that true?
“There is only one God and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they are different paths. […]
“In order to have inter-religious dialogue between youth it takes courage, because youth is really the time when there is courage in our lives. But you can also have this courage and use it for things that really don’t help you, or you can use that courage to move forward and engage in dialogue. […]
“You can build and move forward with inter-religious dialogue when you respect each other, and this is very important. […]
“Let’s pray for each other… May God bless all of us. And as time passes and you become older, especially as you become grandparents, pass this on to the children and grandchildren.
“God bless you and pray for me, but pray in favor, not against [me].”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-pope-francis-every-religion-is-a-way-to-arrive-at-god/
Tutte le religioni sono un cammino per arrivare a Dio. Sono – faccio un paragone – come diverse lingue, diversi idiomi, per arrivare lì. Ma Dio è Dio per tutti. E poiché Dio è Dio per tutti, noi siamo tutti figli di Dio. “Ma il mio Dio è più importante del tuo!”. È vero questo? C’è un solo Dio, e noi, le nostre religioni sono lingue, cammini per arrivare a Dio. Qualcuno sikh, qualcuno musulmano, qualcuno indù, qualcuno cristiano, ma sono diversi cammini. Understood?
Toutes les religions sont un chemin vers Dieu. Elles sont - je fais une comparaison - comme des langues différentes, des idiomes différents, pour y parvenir. Mais Dieu est Dieu pour tous. Et parce que Dieu est Dieu pour tous, nous sommes tous fils de Dieu. “Mais mon Dieu est plus important que le vôtre !” Est-ce vrai ? Il n'y a qu'un seul Dieu, et nous, nos religions sont des langues, des chemins vers Dieu. Certains sont sikhs, d'autres musulmans, d'autres hindous, d'autres chrétiens, mais ce sont des chemins différents. Understood ?
Todas las religiones son un camino para llegar a Dios. Y, hago una comparación, son como diferentes lenguas, como distintos idiomas, para llegar allí. Porque Dios es Dios para todos. Y por eso, porque es Dios para todos, todos somos hijos de Dios. “¡Pero mi Dios es más importante que el tuyo!” ¿Eso es cierto? Sólo hay un Dios, y nosotros, nuestras religiones son lenguas, caminos para llegar a Dios. Uno es sijs, otro, musulmán, hindú, cristiano; aunque son caminos diferentes. Understood?
Saint Pius X Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912
Quoted in Nicolau, On Holy Scripture, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, Trans. Fr Kenneth Baker, Keep the Faith Press. n. 116, p 615.
Pope St Pius X, Pascendi Dominic Gregis, 1907. nn. 4, 18.
Quoted in Petro Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa – ad mentem S. Alphonsi M. De Ligorio, Liber Secundus Mediolani: Apud Ernestum Oliva edit.-Bibliop, 1889 pp. 646-648.
Prior to this, he writes:
“They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
“Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
“It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 1794. Translated by Novus Ordo Watch
Out with the old, in with the new. This is a counterfeit of the Church, presented as better than the real thing.
Thank you again WM Review for a detailed exegesis and for supplying the facts.
Great article. It's a shame logic and reason cannot win over souls buried in the rubble of mortal sin. We need to pray, make sacrifices and do our best to bring people to places with valid sacraments whilst protecting them from the errors they may find there.