Daily Archives: November 16, 2013
not only faithlessness has become mainstream, but the Bishop of Rome nods – diplomatically speaking – to doubts about the faith being expressed in front of a televised audience, and in his very presence.
If you know the first two things about diplomacy, you know that the official exchanges made before the press are agreed in advance. This means that Francis himself bears responsibility for what is said of him during these very formal exchanges, which must not give raise to disagreements or unpleasantness of any kind.
The Italian President, Napolitano, is an ex-communist who, by all his virtues as a politician, can certainly not be called a man of faith in any Catholic sense of the word. Among other things, though, the man is intelligent enough, and more than enough of a gentleman – which I would not dare to say of Bergoglio – to not even try to offend the religious sensibility of, of all people, the Pope. Not in a private setting, and most certainly not in a diplomatic one. We can, therefore, start by absolving President Napolitano of every malice in this matter.
Napolitano is not the Pope. Francis is.
Such are, then, the Italian President’s words:
“Ci ha colpito l’assenza di ogni dogmatismo, la presa di distanze da posizioni non sfiorate da un margine di incertezza; il richiamo a quel lasciare spazio al dubbio proprio delle grandi guide del popolo di Dio”.
My translation (somewhat different from the official one) is as follows:
“We were favourably impressed by the absence of any dogmatism, the distancing oneself from positions not brushed by a degree of uncertainty; the call to leave room to doubt typical of the great guides of the people of God”.
Poor President Napolitano has obviously no clue that when the great guides of the people of God had doubts, this was counted among their weaknesses (say: Moses not attacking to conquer the Holy Land, which Joshua later does; or St. Peter denying Christ or wanting to leave Rome to escape persecution, and being stopped by Jesus’ “Quo Vadis”), not their strenghts. More importantly, their doubts were certainly not dogmatic, nor would they have considered as good the presence of any such doubts. Truth is not compatible with doubt, and even Napolitano should very well know this. But again, he isn’t the Pope.
Francis, though, is. His approving of such a text, to be spoken in his presence in a highly formal setting, leaves no doubt as to his agreement with Napolitano’s words; an agreement not explicitly given, but evident enough from the context of the event. An agreement that can be described with the will of Francis to be described in that way, though of course he would not explicitly say that he has himself doubts about the certainties taught by the Church.
This is very, very grave. Can you imagine a Pope Pius XII (or even a Pope Benedict XVI) allowing such un-Christian words to be said in his presence?
One listens to Napolitano and his willing and nodding host and thinks of Pontius Pilate words: what is truth? Yeah, Pontius Pilate would have been more after the liking of the two men. No “excessive doctrinal security”, you see.
If you ask me, Francis has lost his faith many years ago. If he still believes in some kind of deity, this deity is not the God of the Christians. It is, on the contrary, a sort of big Father Christmas unable to even “slap” anyone, embracing of every perversion and heresy, and distributing toys all the time out of his only recognisable trait: mercy.
What does, then, a cleric who does not believe anymore in a God able to mete terrible justice? He decides that everyone is saved and – having archived the issue of salvation as in the end irrelevant – proceeds to direct his attention to other issues: poverty, social “inequalities”, and the like. This means making of the Church a glorified NGO, not the Bride of Christ.
Beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothes. And I am not talking of Napolitano.
For once, let me say this time Francis is evidently acting like a Pope should. I am afraid I won’t say it very often, so take good note.
Francis is quoted by the CNS as follows:
“Curiosity pushes us to want to hear that the Lord is here or over there, or it makes us say, ‘Well, I know a visionary who receives letters from Our Lady, messages from Our Lady,'” the pope said. But Mary is “not a postmaster of the post office sending out messages every day.”
This is, clearly, the end for all the self-deluded souls who have tried to hide for decades behind the absence of a formal papal condemnation for which, in presence of the bishop’s condemnation, there was never any need in the first place.
I also commend (what a day!) Francis’ choice of anticipating the final decision on Medjugorje with this warning shot that is, in fact, the sentence itself. When the final report comes it will contain extensive, crushing evidence. It is fitting that the poor idiots, being very slow-witted, are given some time to realise that there is no alternative but to shut up and stop waiting for the next bogus fax.
Francis obviously completes here the very slow work initiated – far too late anyway – by Pope Benedict. But he has evidently decided to act, so he is the one who carries the main merit of the decision.
Allow me to say, on this occasion, with great joy: well done, Pope Francis!
Monsignor Ricca, the creepy scandalous sodomite at the head of the Vatican Bank: who is he to judge?
Maria Immacolata Chaouqui, a rather sluttish E & Y consultant now promoted to “adviser” of the Pope. St Catherine of Siena, she ain’t.
Rabbi Skorka, the infidel who is in favour of so-called same sex couples. Closest buddy evah.
Clelia Luro, who left her husband to become the concubine of a former Catholic bishop. Phone call every week. Recently passed away.
The text below comes from a time when Popes were not ashamed to call themselves, and be called, the Pope.
Their authority came not only from their office, but from the way they exercised it. And they felt obliged to transmit intact the deposit of the Faith, and to use it to understand a changing world and face the challenges of turbulent times. They never demanded that the Catholic way of thinking adapt itself to the world. Rather, they demanded that the world adapt to it.
A beautiful example is “Our Apostolic Mandate”, the letter to the French bishops with which St. Pope Pius X moved decisively against the Sillon.
The soundness of thinking and the clarity of language are very far away from the waffling of our times. There are no circiterisms. There are no appeals to emotions. This is not something written so that people feel good…
View original post 1,177 more words