On May 6th,
LifeSite News published an op-ed piece headlined "
Could Cardinal Prevost be the first American pope?" The subhead is: "Seemingly out of nowhere, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost is being discussed as a serious candidate in the upcoming conclave."
The author concludes a long list of problems evident from the prelate's past actions and pronouncements as follows: The question is whether he professes the faith whole and entire, in public and without compromise. If the answer is not a clear “Yes,” then the conclusion is clear: he cannot be validly elected or accepted as pope.
For traditional Catholics, the choice could hardly have been worse. We were hoping and praying for a good Catholic pope, not a conservative like Cardinals Erdo or Sara, but at least a moderate. Instead, we got a "reformer", complicit in advancing Francis' agenda, someone who has facilitated the appointment of heterodox bishops throughout the world, and tacitly denied the traditional teaching on the episcopate.
It's interesting that Cardinal Prevost chose to call himself Leo XIV. According to Wikipedia, the last pope of that name "brought the Roman Catholic Church into the modern era, encouraging a more progressive approach to faith and social reform. He wanted the Roman Catholic Church to be more active in communicating with the world and more accessible." Sound familiar? If you liked what Francis was doing, you'll be pleased when Leo XIV leads us further down that road.
The most distressing thing about the election of Cardinal Prevost is that the man's record suggests strongly that he does not embrace and uphold the Faith of our fathers. We continue with the last part of the LifeSite News article. The emphasis is Walt's.
In this piece, we have seen that Prevost has: * Conspicuously failed to profess the faith in relation to the grave threats to faith and morals in our day — to the point in which this silence is taken as “discretion” and counted in his favor as a candidate
* Indicated the state of his mind through his cooperation with the appointment of notorious liberals and the deposition of conservatives
* Cooperated in the consolidation of Francis’ longest-lasting legacy, namely the appointment of bishops embodying his ideals
* Implicitly denied the dogma of the Church’s visible unity, by casting it in the terms rejected and refuted by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos
* Minimized the importance of doctrine in the role of the bishop, contrary to Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the general sense of theology
* Dismissed those who "prefer the security of answers already experienced in the past" [read: traditional Catholics]
* Promoted the modernist idea of "synodality" in such a way as to destroy the traditional concept of the bishop's threefold power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying his flock
* Explicitly denied that a bishop is a "prince" in his diocese, contrary to the teaching of the magisterium and the liturgy
* Replaced the traditional understanding of the bishop’s role with that of "service" presented in naturalistic terms, and which he has already separated from doctrine and governance through his other words (even while he retains references to teaching and shepherding).
[T]he wider points discussed in this article... — doctrinal deviations which become clear after a careful consideration of his role as Prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops — are both cause for alarm in themselves, and as shedding light on his silence. They indicate that Prevost is not a coward or a tactician, but a loyal son of Francis, and that he will continue the work of his master and benefactor, if he is elected — even if he does so in a more discreet and moderate way.
This raises grave questions about whether or not Prevost can be said to profess the Catholic faith at all, and thus whether he is a member of the Church. If he is not a member of the Church, then it is not possible for him to be validly elected as pope.
At the very least, there is serious doubt on the matter: and a man whose visible membership in the Church is itself in serious doubt can only be doubtfully elected to the papacy, even if the conclave is unanimous. Should such a man be elected, the resulting doubt would not be about his popularity or policies, but about his very authority. This is why great theologians and canonists held that a doubtful pope is no pope at all....
The question is whether he professes the faith whole and entire, in public and without compromise. If the answer is not a clear “Yes,” then the conclusion is clear: he cannot be validly elected or accepted as pope.
While we wait to see what Leo XIV does -- please God, he may have some sort of Damascene conversion -- we must continue to
pray that God will find a way to end and heal the de facto schism in Holy Mother Church.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
