Daily Archives: October 18, 2013
“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.”
1. Bertrand Russell
2. Pope St. Pius X
3. Justin Welby
4. Pope Francis
5. St. Francis
6. Eugenio Scalfari
6. Stephen Fry
7. Pope Benedict XVI.
8. Padre Pio
The Archbishop of Lima, Cardinal Cipriani, has criticised Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Mueller for the latter’s obvious sympathy for Liberation Theology. The (already) Cardinal called the soon-to-be Cardinal “naive”, and actually did it twice in one week.
The substance of the criticism is predictable: Mueller tries to recycle radioactive material, and it won’t wash. Instead, the Cardinal’s ruler descends with unmistakeable speed on Mueller’s fingers with the words
Mgr. Müller’s job is to defend the sound doctrine of the Catholic faith so he should stop being naive and be more prudent.
Note here that Cardinal Cipriani explicitly refuses to “read heresy through orthodoxy”, a game very much en vogue nowadays. He does not bend over backwards to explain that if we understand Liberation Theology as being something different from Liberation Theology, but still Liberation Theology, then Liberation Theology is fine. On the contrary, he sees unorthodox positions being represented and not only says it openly, but states very clearly that Mueller, in virtue of his job, is the very last (but one) who should indulge in such, ahem, Bergoglisms.
Archbishop Mueller had answered he was not upset at being called “naive” (which is rather strange, as the man is notorious for being very easily upset), so the Cardinal repeated it again in order for the words to sink in.
Archbishop Mueller is, as we have already abundantly seen last year (the search function is your friend: right hand column, below the “tag cloud”) one who takes it rather lightly even with dogmas and is therefore not likely to be impressed by the need to be orthodox. Do not expect, therefore, any change on his side.
Still, it happens so rarely that a Cardinal intervenes in favour of orthodoxy, and even has the guts to do so with a man he knows a protegé of the new Pope. Rarely indeed.
There is a saying in Italy: “to speak to the wife so that the mother-in-law understands”.
In this case, it might well be that the Cardinal criticises the wife (Mueller) so that the person he does not want to criticise, but must perforce get the message, understands the criticism is actually meant for him. Who the mother-in-law would be in this case, I do not need to tell.
Who knows. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with Circus Bergoglio is mounting, and signals are already sent in the right direction. Or perhaps I am an incurable optimist.
The Mary Ever Virgin Reblog.
From Rorate Caeli, an interesting selection of flowers from the very colourful garden of Archbishop Mueller. The flowers are many, all of them extremely poisonous, but I would like to draw your attention to this one:
In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
Please read this again, and a third time, and tell me whether language can be ever distorted at the point of not letting this words mean what they clearly want…
View original post 616 more words
Read on the Eponymous Flower about the interview to Palmaro and Gnocchi, the two Italians who wrote a candidly critical article on the Bishop of Rome on the socially conservative Italian newspaper “Il Foglio” and had their collaboration with the effeminate Radio Maria terminated around two hours after the newspaper got into circulation.
I would like to point out to some elements that I think are important.
1. The two good men point out to the drama everyone of us is living: one does not want to criticise the Pope, but there comes a point where silence is not possible. I personally think what would make me worse off if I were to die on the same day the Pope does something very stupid again: to die after writing, or to die after having remained silent. This blog answers the question, I hope, eloquently.
2. The two men followed their conscience. The Bishop of Rome goes to extraordinary lengths to get the approval of anticlerical journalists, and to pander to the anticlerical part of the country. I have had no news as I write of Francis calling Radio Maria and telling them “who are you to judge?”. Mind, Radio Maria isn’t a small sender made from parish volunteers. It’s a substantial operation.
3. Palmaro and Gnocchi make a point already made several times on this blog: Francis is the Pope, of course he will be orthodox most of the times. But this does not mean he can hope we count the orthodox statements against the heretical ones.
4. The cry of good Catholics against the antics of the Jesuit Pope has now abundantly reached the mainstream, and it is not going to go away. Catholicism is a religion, not simply an ideology. The Bishop of Rome will never manage to neutralise and castrate it as David Cameron did with Toryism. Francis will soon discover his position – not title: he doesn’t use it – will not shield him from justified criticism.
5. The last point I would like to point out to is this: of course it is legitimate to criticise the Pope, say the two, if the criticism is not against the teaching of the Church. St. Paul and St. Catherine of Siena did it too, very publicly and very vocally. Too many people forget this.
Enjoy the article.