Fauci Backlash? He Sounds Like 50 Years of AmChurch Catholicism

A couple weeks ago Katty Kay of the BBC interviewed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is tied to Georgetown University, and, like myself, went to Jesuit schools. I have enough anecdotal materials on Jesuit schools, that, like Fr. Hardon used to say, “I could write books.”

The money quote driving so much criticism is this:

“My own personal ethics on life are enough to keep me going on the right path, and I think there are enough negative aspects about the organisational Church that you are very well aware of,” says Fauci. “I’m not against it. I identify as a Catholic, I was raised, baptised and married in a Catholic Church, but as far as practicing, it seems almost like a proforma thing that I don’t really need to do.”

How Dr Anthony Fauci delivers ‘inconvenient truths’ to world leaders, 30 Nov 2023 BBC News.

Dear reader, if you don’t recognize the modernist here, then I haven’t done a good job in the podcasts. The entire thing is self-referential. Besides, he sounds like someone who went with the Richard McBrien’s Catholicism explanation of reality.

I did enjoy some reactions to this Fauci quote — George Upper writes in Western Journal, “my grandfather used to say that he didn’t need to go to church, because he could worship God in nature…” Upper is smart to recognize this excuse. And it is the same used by modernists, like Fauci above, who use the immanentist (God is everywhere) simplified form of monism… In a Forum Focus, Frank Morriss was quick to point out that Maritain reacted to such malarkey as “a good abridgment of anglo-modern stupidity.”

For a modernist like Fauci, God is an abstract concept of some kind. I don’t know if Fauci has even formulated the thoughts well enough to evolve along Tielhald de Chardin’s cosmic spiral evolution to hell and error (and have no doubts, unlike Pope Francis suggested recently, there’s no salvaging de Chardin, he was a trash heap of errors wrapped in acts of fraud), but, like a good immanentist, Fauci’s words above indicate that he thinks God is a principle from within himself. (this is the ordinary end point of monism, and it is the intended purpose of modernism). Behind all that self-referential psycho-mush he uttered, he is caught in this anglo-modern stupidity, and he got there being in Jesuit schools.

It should be even more punctuated when, during Advent, we prepare for the Incarnation — God became a Man. Jesus was an infant, even. Why is this important? Because while God is everywhere, indeed, Fr. Hardon used to say that the most succinct definition of nothing is “where God is not”, there was special place where God decided *to be*. He became a man with human ears, with human hands, with a face.

With those human hands, human mouth, and body, Jesus worked miracles. And it was, as Fr. Hardon would say, get this, underline it in red, encircle it in blue, and highlight it in yellow, ONLY with His human body. Martha and Mary asked Jesus to come when their brother Lazarus died. Jesus came (and wept). And with His human mouth cried out, “Lazarus, come out.” Lazarus, already stinking from decay in the grave, came out. God is everywhere, but He wants us to be with His Human Presence.

Dear Reader, you know where I am going: The real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus is only in some places. And He wants to work miracles today, for those who believe that what looks like bread and wine is *in reality* really, truly, and substantially His human self there with us. The same Human self, in fact, Who called Lazarus out of the tomb, or pushed mud into the eyes of a blind man to cure his blindness…

Fauci speaks like so many AmChurch (American Catholics) modernists, that we know what he’d say of the Blessed Sacrament… that is is a symbol of community, or that it is a culmination of togetherness, and so on. An abstract idea. Why? The devil seduces people to see Jesus and the Blessed Sacrament as an abstract symbol because we can ignore and “grow beyond” abstractions… we cannot, however, ignore a Man. Especially a God-Man.

I realize that people found this quote revealing about Fauci, but acting as if he is something special or unique among American Catholics is just, well, as Maritain put it: “anglo-modern stupidity.” He sounds like many of our erstwhile Catholic cohorts have for decades now…

Afterthoughts… I perhaps should have used the headline “Fauci is nothing special – just one of millions of Catholics weaponized by the modernist AmChurch Bishops…” It’s true, Fauci is nothing special, he is, rather in fact, a cheap and rather dull weaponized clone of all the Catholics that had their brains scrambled by the modernist Judases that have plagued us for nearly a century in the AmChurch. It’s what I railed on long ago on a BFP podcast wherein I said that they tell us that the Latin Americans coming to the US are “the future of the Church”, but if they [the US bishops] do to them what they did to us, they’ll all be gone also, they will all turn out to be Fuacis themselves… Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

This article, Fauci Backlash? He Sounds Like 50 Years of AmChurch Catholicism is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.

John B. Manos

John B. Manos, Esq. is an attorney and chemical engineer. He has a dog, Fyo, and likes photography, astronomy, and dusty old books published by Benziger Brothers. He is the President of the Bellarmine Forum.
  • John Nicolas says:

    I like what you say, this Fr. Hardon SJ you refer to, is he the one of the Catholic Dictionary?
    It is true that modernism leads to Pan-entheïsm, the conviction that god is everywhere, and that god is basically our own essential nature. Every good traditional Catholic knows that this is heresy.
    I don’t seek to offend anybody here,
    However, few people know that this was also the conviction of John Paul II, Karol Woytila, known as a saintly Pope. It is hard to find in his words, but it is there, and hidden in such a clever way, that most people haven’t recognised it. In “Redemptor Hominis” 1979, John Paul II states that the other (non-christian) religions are inspirations of God, the Holy Spirit. But Psalm 95, 5 is very clear. It says “the gods of the heathen peoples (gentiles) are devils”. So if you ascribe the evil works of the devil to God the Holy Spirit, then this is not only heresy, it is blasphemy as well.
    Jesus Himself was accused, by the Pharisees, of working miracles with the help of the devil. That is blasphemy, and in reverse, it is also blasphemy to say that the works of evil are God’s work.
    Karol Woytila wrote in the same encyclical “Redemptor Hominis” that Peter’s answer “thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” was an answer directed not only to Jesus Christ, but to each and everyone of us. Which means that Peter is saying to each of us, that we are Christ.
    I couldn’t believe that I didn’t notice this before, but it is there.
    We get this message in all of his writings, God is in you, and whatever religion you profess is of lesser importance. That is why he so strongly promoted the inter religious dialogue.
    This is why I believe that the Pope’s we have had since October 1958 were anti-Pope’s, because they all preached a new Gospel, a new Church, a new theology, and a new Liturgy.
    I’m not a sedevacantist, I believe that there is a hidden, true Pope and how or when the Church will be restored I don’t know, but I believe it will happen, at some point, through God’s Intervention, and many people will be shamed.
    One of the most clear signs that our present Church is a counterfeit Church, is the disappearance of the Sacred Heart devotion. It was replaced by sr. Faustina’s Mercy devotion. Yes, I know, God is infinitely Merciful, but the worship of the physical Heart of Jesus approved by the traditional Catholic church, was not only a true Catholic practice, it was a recognition of the Incarnation of the Lord, that God had become human in the flesh, with a true human heart of flesh and blood. That is the significance. Sr Faustina and K. Woytila, completely eradicated this practice from the Church, with their efforts for a divine mercy devotion. Even in Paray-Le-Monial in France, where the Sacred Heart appeared to St. Margareth Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, the picture of the Sacred Heart has been replaced by a Jesus emitting light from His breast area. I believe that this was a succesfull Satanic Operation, to rid the Church of one of it’s most important devotions.

    • John B. Manos says:

      Yes! Fr Hardon wrote catechisms and the modern catholic dictionary, and many others. His Catechism of the Catholic Church is still an excellent source and being printed.

      Our 1977 WFF National conference was on Modernism and we’ve been preparing the transcripts and audio to be published on the website soon. These observations and many more are all right there in the talks! Stellar stuff!

      I like the reference to St Margaret Mary Alacoque- truly there, with the revelation of the Sacred Heart (as the incarnate Jesus told us— I.e. what He wants) is the key – His Real Presence (because the Blessed Sacrament is the Sacred Heart) – to fighting modernism which had its beginnings in the French Revolution.

      I have to think about whether the Divine Mercy image was intended as you suggest – the concept of luminous rays is a known phenomenon of authentic Catholic mysticism. It’s particularly more known in the eastern churches, but would not be understood there to be an ethereal or abstract thing, but (like the transfiguration) an emphasis of the body. As such, that understanding would not work the way you suggest. However, as I suspect we both can demonstrate, there’s so many things abused and inverted by demonic deceptions today that I could see people abusing the image to work the error you suggest.

      Monism, and as the holy fathers propound upon, immanentists, believe god is everything (thereby excluding an incarnate God) which would have a natural wayside of admitting pantheism. But pantheism would eventually be denied by a true immanentist as they believe everything, even the tree and the rock is god, and therefore the “many gods” of pantheism – to a monist – is the same god but manifested in many ways. Subtle distinction but these concepts are definitely fellow travelers.

  • Get VIP Notice

    Have new blog posts delivered right to your inbox!
    Enter your email: