The National Catholic Register portal (EWTN News) reports on a 60 Minutes interview wherein correspondent Ross Douthat, a layman operating within the conciliar sect, pressed President Donald Trump on the Gospel mandate to forgive enemies. Trump declared he “probably cannot do that now because I do hate some of my enemies and I always will,” adding regarding his eternal destiny: “I’m a religious person, so in theory, I go to heaven… I hope so. I don’t want to go to hell.” Conciliar “priests” Gerald Murray and Gabriel Mosher offered psychologized commentary, while lay apologists Matt Mehan, Luma Simms, and JD Flynn criticized Douthat’s line of questioning as “inhumane” and “toying with someone’s soul.” This spectacle manifests the total collapse of the supernatural order in the conciliar sect, replacing the immutable demands of Christ the King with a therapeutic sentimentalism that guarantees the damnation of souls.
The Naturalistic Reduction of Supernatural Forgiveness
The cited article reveals a radical inversion of the Catholic doctrine on forgiveness. Our Lord commanded: “Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you” (Mt 5:44). This is not a psychological exercise in “vulnerability” or a matter of “lifestyle,” as the Dominican “father” Mosher suggests, but a conditio sine qua non of salvation. The Council of Trent teaches that “no one can be justified without the grace of God through Jesus Christ” (Sess. VI, Can. 1), and this grace is forfeited by mortal sin, among which hatred of neighbor (odium proximi) ranks as a grave violation of charity. St. John writes: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself” (1 Jn 3:15).
The conciliar “priest” Murray reduces this dogmatic reality to a vague risk: “a man who dies hating his enemies risks losing Christ’s invitation.” Risks? The Catholic faith teaches certitude: he who dies in mortal hatred is excluded from the Beatific Vision. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (not the modernist catechism cited in the article) declares: “He who does not forgive from the heart… shuts the door of mercy against himself.” The article’s framing—“Catholic teaching holds that forgiveness is not optional”—presents dogma as mere “teaching,” a Modernist linguistic shift condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (prop. 26): “The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief.” Here, the principle is emptied of its binding force, becoming a therapeutic suggestion.
The Sin of Presumption Masquerading as Hope
Trump’s response—“I’m a religious person, so in theory, I go to heaven… I hope so. I don’t want to go to hell”—exemplifies the sin of presumption (praesumptio), a sin against the Holy Ghost. The Council of Trent anathematizes those who say: “Man can be justified by faith alone… without the cooperation of his own will” (Sess. VI, Can. 9), but equally condemns the presumption of salvation without perseverance in grace. St. Augustine warns: “God who created you without you, will not save you without you” (Serm. 169). The Quas Primas encyclical insists: “Christ reigns in the wills of men… because He inclines our free will and conquers it with His inspiration, so that we are inflamed for the noblest deeds.” A will fixed in hatred is de facto in rebellion against Christ’s Kingship.
The conciliar sect’s “priests” fail to name this sin. Fr. Mosher speaks of “charmed life” and “capacity to forgive,” psychologizing grace. Grace is not a capacity; it is a supernatural participation in the Divine Nature (2 Pet 1:4), conferred sacramentally and maintained by charity. The silence on the necessity of Sacramental Confession, firm purpose of amendment, and the restoration of sanctifying grace is de facto heresy. As Pius XI taught: “The Kingdom of Christ… demands its followers not only to renounce earthly riches… but also to deny themselves and carry their cross.” The cross here is the heroic forgiveness of enemies, impossible without actual grace.
The Conciliar Clergy’s Complicity in Soul-Destroying Indifferentism
The most damning element is the participation of “Fr.” Murray and “Fr.” Mosher in this theater. By engaging Trump—a non-Catholic, outside the una sancta—as a “believing Christian” without proclaiming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, they commit the error of indifferentism condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (prop. 16, 17, 18): “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation… Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion.” Trump is a Presbyterian; his “faith” lacks the sacraments, the Mass, the Papacy, the full deposit of faith. To treat his eternal destiny as a matter of generic “religiousness” and “forgiveness” is to deny the necessitas medii of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, these “priests” operate under the usurper antipope Leo XIV (Prevost), in a structure that has ipso facto lost jurisdiction through manifest heresy (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice; Canon 188.4, 1917 Code; Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). As the Defense of Sedevacantism file demonstrates: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… a non-Christian in no way can be Pope… he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member.” Their “absolutions” and “counsels” are null; they are blind guides leading the blind into the pit (Mt 15:14).
The Lay Critics’ Sentimental Humanism
The objections of Mehan, Simms, and Gigliotti—that Douthat’s questions were “inhumane,” “toying with someone’s soul”—reveal the anthropocentric inversion of the conciliar religion. The salvation of souls is not a matter of human comfort but of divine justice. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 110:10). Douthat’s questioning, however imperfectly motivated, at least touched the kern of the Gospel: the absolute demand of charity. The critics prefer a “secularism of our times, so-called laicism” (Pius XI, Quas Primas) where the soul’s eternal fate is a private matter, off-limits to public discourse. This is the laicism Pius XI condemned: “the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations… the Church’s authority to teach men… was denied.”
JD Flynn’s hope that Douthat “planted a seed” reduces the verbum Dei to a psychological nudge. The Word of God is living and effectual, more piercing than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12), not a “seed” in a therapeutic garden. This is the fruit of the Modernist error condemned in Lamentabili (prop. 59): “Christ did not proclaim any specific, all-encompassing doctrine suitable for all times and peoples, but rather initiated a certain religious movement.”
The Systemic Apostasy of the Paramasonic Structure
This entire spectacle—Trump, Douthat, the “priests,” the lay critics—occurs within the conciliar sect, the “Church of the New Advent,” the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican. It is a theatrum mundi simulating Catholic discourse while denying its substance. The False Fatima Apparitions file correctly identifies the strategy: “Stage 3 (1958-2000): Takeover of the narrative by modernists, concealment of the Third Secret, ecumenical reinterpretation.” Today, the narrative is fully secularized: forgiveness is “vulnerability,” salvation is “hope,” the Church is a “community of believers,” and the Kingship of Christ is ignored.
Pius XI in Quas Primas instituted the Feast of Christ the King precisely as a “special remedy against the plague that poisons human society… the secularism of our times, so-called laicism.” He declared: “If men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society.” The conciliar sect has abolished this feast’s true meaning (moving it, altering its propers), and with it, the public confession of Christ’s rights. The result is the chaos displayed: a president boasting of hatred, “clergy” psychologizing sin, laity defending privacy over salvation.
There is no remedy in this structure. As the Syllabus condemns (prop. 80): “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The conciliar “pontiff” has done exactly that. The only path is the status confessionis: adherence to the immutable Tradition, the true Mass, the true Sacraments, the true Bishops—outside the conciliar sect, in catacumbis, where Christ the King reigns in truth. “He shall rule from sea to sea: and from the river unto the ends of the earth” (Ps 71:8). Not in the studios of 60 Minutes, nor in the chancery of the usurpers.
Source:
In Interview With Catholic Journalist, Trump Chafes at Forgiving Enemies (ncregister.com)
Date: 10.11.2026