Don’t Cry For Cardinal Bagnasco

The man on the left thinks he is a woman; the man on the right thinks he can receive.

The obvious waning of Cardinal Bagnasco's power within the Italian church has made some headlines in the past days, so I thought I would add a word or three.

Cardinal Bagnasco used to be one of the best – as V II Cardinals go – of Benedict's cohort. For a V II Cardinal he was very outspoken, and he has certainly given his contribution to the – failed, we can now say – attempt to avoid that Italy falls into the pit of legalised, and even protected, sexual perversion. He is the kind of man a Ratzinger would appoint as head of the Italian Bishops' Conference, but certainly not the choice of Francis, nor – if I remember correctly, that the Pope will now renounce to appoint the head of the Italian Bishops' conference himself – of his Italian colleagues.

Still, Bagnasco has betrayed. In a typical V II, “let us be stupid and call it pastoral” fashion, around two months after Francis' election he has dared to give communion to a scandalous, well-known, former Italian member of parliament, a pervert in drag commonly known under the name of Luxuria, which is Latin for lust.

The occasion was the death of a Father Gallo (which in Italian means, fittingly, “cock”, and a huge gallo Father undoubtedly was); one of those unspeakable priests who promote the likes of the above mentioned pervert. It was already extremely grave for the Cardinal to officiate at that mass, but it was unpardonable that he would accept to give communion to the idiot in rags in front of the entire country and without any sign of repentance and acceptance of Catholic teaching from the latter. In one day, Bagnasco not only has been the accomplice of an obvious sacrilege, but he has become a helper of the same people, and of the same cause, he wanted to oppose.

Please do not let my adrenaline level explode with one of the usual effeminate tambourine comments along the lines of: “oh, but we do not, oh know whether he has not oh repented before taking oh communion, and who are we to, oh, judge?”. The freaking pervert has presented himself for communion looking like a female: a walking scandal perfectly in tune with the scandalous crowd present, and the scandalous agenda he and them were there to promote. There's nothing else to say.

I remember well thinking at the time that Bagnasco might have been trying to save his appointment as head of the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana by showing to the new ringmaster that he can cope with a renewed circus programme. I cannot explain otherwise why he would be there, and why being there he would not give an example, in front of the entire country, of his love for Christ. Even in the absurd case that the new Pope would have ordered him to be there, no Pope can order him to whom he has to give communion if he thinks he shouldn't.

Bagnasco could have given a wonderful example. He did not. He chose to do what he knew would scandalise each and every good Catholic in the Country, and he the head of the Bishops' Conference.

Do not cry for his departure. It is better for the cause of sound Catholicism to have prelates who are very obviously the wrong ones, rather than those who appear to be sound, and then end up making the work of the Enemy anyway.


Posted on January 3, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. “It is better for the cause of sound Catholicism to have prelates who are very obviously the wrong ones, rather than those who appear to be sound, and then end up making the work of the Enemy anyway. ”

    there is certainly some truth to that. Would you extend this principle to the comparison between Benedict and Francis, given that Benedict did appear to be sound, but had his share of questionable opinions (and actions) no one would have regarded as sound Catholicism even fifty or sixty years ago?

    • If Benedict had given such scandal as to give communion to “Luxuria”, I would have entertained the thought seriously. Fortunately, Benedict gave us Summorum Pontificum, though he did some famously stupid things too (Assisi III comes to mind).
      Still, in the case of a Pope one might – just might – be tempted to make an exception in virtue of his unique role, albeit I am conscious that in the end it’s the Benedicts who have led to Francis.
      At some point, the tragedy that is V II had to explode. We are living the explosion now.

  2. I don’t understand how a cardinal could be at don gallo’s funeral, and how they could offer up a funeral like that for such a notorious figure as gallo. When he passed I saw people in Italy singing his praises. I knew something was wrong for that to happen. The only one’s courageous to speak out against all this was the sspx in Italy. When I was in Italy I also saw books on gallo at the bookstores next to saint Peter’s.

  3. Totally agree, that was a sad display…..much like when “catholic” pro-abortionists, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are given the Eucharist. What the heck is the priest/bishop/cardinal thinking when they do these things?

    Again though, I am no longer surprised by much anymore. The things that would have made our grandparents faint years ago have become the norm for us. Yes, it drives us nuts and is still mortally reprehensible, but it really doesn’t surprise us. The real problem is that fewer and fewer of us are seeing how wrong it is.

%d bloggers like this: