Daily Archives: March 2, 2013
Fairly balanced article from John Allen, the only readable journalist at the National Schismatic Reporter concerning my favourite papabile, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco.
You can forget the last argument against him, probably added merely for the sake of symmetry and because there was nothing else; certainly, the “caso Boffo” would be either unknown or not interesting for most foreign Cardinals.
The other points are, if you ask me, very fair.
I would add an element that he has not mentioned explicitly, though he touches on it: Bagnasco has the reputation of one you don’t want to have against you. Whilst he can smile, he can stab too, as he has amply proved with his decision to defenestrate Berlusconi. This was a decision I never thought right, but which showed a man who is not too shy for a fight. The same he did in the Englaro case, or in the controversy concerning the atheist advs on the buses not long thereafter.
These were all cases where the head of the Bishop’s conference could choose whether to meow or to roar. Bagnasco chose to roar. A national quarrel for atheist advs on buses: can you imagine Vincent “Quisling” Nichols even thinking of doing it? But again, Bagnasco clearly believes in God…
We never know what Cardinals do once they become Pope; but boy, this man can bite.
I would say this is, in these troubles times, exactly what the doctor ordered.
One of the many things that drive me mad of the secular press is this fashion of never mentioning the Church without mentioning the “scandals”.
Whilst the big problems are now around 30 years past, and the more recent problems (like Vatileaks) are embarrassing but nothing that will make Church history, it seems no journalist worth his hell can write an article about the upcoming Conclave without mentioning a Church “beset by scandals”.
Last time I looked, the last not one, but two German President had to resign due to a corruption scandal (Wulff) or grave controversies (Koehler). If this is not “beset by scandals”, I don’t know what is, and right at the top of the Institutions.
Or we want to say that the oh so anointed President of the United States is the political son (erm, bastard) of the most corrupt political machine existing in the United States, without any of his many admirers ever mentioning that he hails from Chicago, a town clearly “beset by scandals”.
In the meantime, France has a former President (Chirac) condemned to two years in prison (suspended, I grant, but you get the drift).
I will, for a human sense of patriotism, say nothing about Italy.
Summa summarum, it is not clear not me why the magic locution “beset by scandals” is almost never applied to the democratic institutions of modern abortionist Democracies, but is considered de rigueur whenever the Vatican is mentioned. Nor is this adjective applied very often to the BBC (whose men, women and people in the middle take the biscuit without discussion), or to the English educational system (worse percentage of suspected child abusers than the Church) or the so-called of England (same ballpark) or the NHS beset by malfunctions, scandals, and homicidal nurses. I will not even bore you with the Liberal Democrats, a party who seems to have made sexual perversion, creepy behaviour or perversion of justice a prerequisite to obtain positions of responsibility.
No, the NHS is such a great achievement of Socialism that it makes it to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, but the Vatican can’t be mentioned without the “scandals” making it to the very same sentence.
I am, I must say, rather fed up. Particularly because this soundtrack will accompany us through the conclave, the election and the Easter celebrations which this year will, you can bet your pint, attract huge curiosity from the secular world because of the brand new Pope.
Seriously, the press office of the Vatican should say a couple of things on this, before the conclave begins.
I truly am sick and tired. Are you?
The “are you saved?” reblog…
Being born and bred in Italy, I have known the strange expressions used by some Protestants only later in life. One day, a young Canadian man asked me whether I had a “personal relationship with Christ”, and I must have looked at him in total disbelief. He proceeded, then, to explain Proddies have quite a buddy in Jesus. Great fun of course, and no “relationship” problems at all, considering the chap also proceeded to inform me he was “saved”, which caused another puzzled look before he explained to me he believes, therefore, well, he must be saved, must he not….
I wasn’t an observant Catholic in those long gone days, but even I would have answered, on demand, that when I die and not before I will know if I’m saved; and no, Jesus had never invited me to breakfast up to then.
These and other funny expressions (memorable the…
View original post 652 more words