Daily Archives: December 3, 2014
There has been some discussion about the behaviour of some Cardinals who might have conspired to deceive Pope Benedict into believing that, in case of abdication, a successor able to continue on his line would have been picked. Rorate has some reflection, but they are not the only ones.
It is, in my eyes, inconceivable that Benedict would choose to abdicate whilst still able to function, but without a funded hope that the Cardinals would pick a, say, Benedict XVII. No, of course he thought that his abdication would further, not thwart, his work. To think otherwise is to imagine a man so selfishly absorbed in his own desires that he does not care of what happens to the Church after him, provided he can write his books. This is, in my eyes, almost as absurd – and almost as offensive – as to think that Benedict could have been cowed into the abdication by any threat whatsoever.
Still, I would like to make a couple of consideration.
1. If Benedict was more or less assured that things were “fine” and decided to abdicate on the strength of this confidential knowledge, in what is this different from the “canvassing” so lamented when Cardinal Murphy O'Connor would be the one guilty of it? I am not talking of “pacts” or “agreements” here, but of several people observing with Benedict how sound, dependable, through and through papabile – say – Cardinal Scola is. Is, then, a Pope abdicating on the strength of such “canvassing” not guilty of the same behaviour? Mind, I do not think such “canvassing” is there in the first place. I merely say that if you condemn Murphy O'Connor, it's difficult to see how, in this scenario, you should not condemn Ratzinger.
2. If the scenario is true, then Benedict would prove a further disappointment. It would mean that he could be gulled into a false sense of security not only in the weeks or months preceding his abdication, but actually since his ascendancy to the Throne; because in order to commit a mistake of that magnitude Benedict must have been a bad judge of the character of many Cardinals for many years. He must, in other words, have been blind to the character of many trusted people in his entourage, and of many of the very Cardinals he has himself appointed.
I am not in the mind of the Pope Emeritus. I will never know whether he – without any suggestions from outside – simple made the decision that the time was right and the Cardinals sound enough; or whether he was perhaps thinking of waiting another Consistory or two – to be used wisely – before proceeding to his historical step, and was then reassured from the noises and hunches he heard around him that no, everything was fine and he could abdicate assured of a happy ending.
In both cases, Benedict must feel a horrible burden on his soul, because it must be clear to him that it was his “middle of the road” (or so he thought) appointments that made Bergoglio's election possible in the first place.
JPII's Conclave didn't pick Bergoglio. It picked Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger was there, and was therefore very aware of the role played by the Bergoglio candidature. If he had appointed better Cardinals, he would now not be forced to witness the demolition of his work, and the utter shame in which Bergoglio is dragging the very institution of the Papacy. It must be very sad, for a Pope, to outlive his own mistakes, and have them stare at him in the face every day.
Pope Benedict was the tragic, if involuntary enabler of all that has happened since that dratted evening of the 13 March 2013. Without him, ithis mess would simply not have been possible. Bergoglio's election was made possible by his multiple mistakes in the appointment of Cardinals; mistakes which, frankly, are in tune with his very mediocre episcopal appointments.
Pope Benedict has made his own bed. Whether he was “helped” in so doing does not change the fundamental drama of the man, because there isn't a big difference between being simply gullible all the time and being, in addition, double gullible in the last months of his pontificate. Which leads us to another point that I think very important.
Pope Ratzinger's tragedy is the Church's tragedy. It is the fruit of the illusion that there be, somewhere, a viable “V II road” able to serve the Church well. There isn't. A Cardinal is either solidly and unashamedly Catholic, or he is a walking booby trap. A Conclave is either full of people who really believe in God and are afraid of gravely displeasing him, or there is no way of knowing what they could be able to do. Pope Benedict knew them personally, and therefore had to know what Conclave he would leave better than every Vaticanist, or gossiper, much less blogger. Half of the Cardinals were hand-picked by him, well knowing what their future task would be.
Quisque Faber Fortunae Suae. Pope Ratzinger has, entirely with his own hands, fabricated a nightmare retirement, as he must look in astonishment at what Humble Wolf is doing to his sheep. The longer the retirement, the longer the suffering, because it is not probable at all that he will outlive Francis and, God willing, see sanity restored.
Pope Benedict has, with his historic decision, also put himself in the position of the one who must repeat to himself, every day, “what have I done?!”
Not pretty. Not pretty at all.
But the bed he made.
Sickening and sad, but also interesting story on LifeSiteNews about a mother whose husband – and biological father of their two children – not only discovers his own perversion and throws himself in a world of militant faggotry, but also manages – no doubt, through extremely perverted judges – to obtain the custody of the children; children who must henceforward endure life in the presence of an über faggoty father and his own, also militant, “lover”, and in the midst of a “community” that could inspire a film comedy in very, very bad taste.
This immense tragedy also has a message for the big public, particularly the liberal one: watch out, mothers!
In the new brave world of “faggots’ rights”, a woman could have her children taken away by her husband, because the husband belongs to the new Most Favourite Minority, the one of the sexual perverts.
I cannot avoid thinking that there is some horribly poetic justice in a “liberal” mother who, after saying for years how much she supports what she calls “gay rights”, loses her own children exactly on the altar of this particular, and oh so enlightened new religion.
Serves you right, Ma’am. And you will you take part in the next “gay parade”? What? Please, ma’am: language!
But the issue concerns, in fact, every mother, not only the liberal ones, as the risk of losing one’s children to faggotry is clearly not limited to the effeminate liberal environment; though it stands to reason that the liberal metrosexual with limp wrist and shrill voice is far more likely to develop an utter perversion than the robustly masculine type you tend to find in a traditionally minded environment where men are expected to be men, and women women.
It truly is almost funny – no; it is clearly an unmitigated tragedy; but with a funny angle nevertheless – to see how liberal thinking eats not only its own children, but their own mothers, too.
Christianity is sanity. Once the traditional valued championed by Christianity are seen as merely an “option”, the result will be a societal demolition the first liberal generation could not even imagine. A demolition caused by the simple fact that once Christian values are abandoned, sanity goes with them; a fact that the proponent of such an abandonment will, at some point, get to experience on their very skin.
Christianity is sanity. Liberal thinking is utter madness.
Mothers, think of your children, and start making the right choices before you prepare for them a world you would not have thought in your most horrible nightmares.
A nice article in the “American Catholic” manages to point out, in a short space, one trait of this pontificate that more and more people are noticing: the resentment and divisiveness of a Pope who is using the Papacy to settle some bills; bills, I add, certainly accumulated as he spent a life aware of how people despised him for being, not to put too fine a point on it, a fraud.
The article goes on with another half-funny reflection on the legacy of this papacy, and reaches the conclusion that the longer this papacy will be, the bigger the damage it will cause: possible schism if very long, chaos if of mid duration, and hopefully soon forgotten if the man kicks the bucket – or otherwise frees the Chair of Peter from his heretical, rapidly enlarging backside – pretty soon.
It is, to me, a source of ever renewed satisfaction to see that what only a handful of us was saying some twelve or fifteen months ago is now rapidly becoming mainstream knowledge: a Pope who hates Catholics and likes all those who have no intention of becoming such; nay, positively hate the Church. A petty man, of no intellectual or spiritual value, but in possession of an astonishing dose of hypocrisy, allowing him to sink in populism and easy slogans in a way that would have had even Paul VI blush and lower hid head in shame.
The way this works is that as more and more Catholic publications pick up the story and decide to talk about the elephant in the room, the mainstream media find it more and more difficult to ignore – as they would certainly like to – the reality around them, and must face the brutal fact of a Pope who hates Catholics, and certainly isn't liked by those among them with solid Catholic credentials. Actually, it can now be safely said that how you like Francis is the best indicator of how sound a Catholic you are.
Result? This papacy is drowning in divisiveness and criticism, and an old man with a lot of bile but without much of a brain seems unwilling or unable to restrain himself; so bitter is his resentment against everything that is Catholic, and against all those who have seen, a long time ago, what a joke of a religious he was.
May your Papacy be short, Your Hypocrisy.
You will not be missed.
It has been observed often in the history of the Church that when the scandal or disorder from bad Pipes reached an alarming level, at some point a radical choice – the choice of a radically good man – was made to put a remedy to it.
Cardinals – and humans – being what they are, it is questionable whether those saintly Popes thus chosen would have been selected if a stark contrast to their predecessors had not been needed. It can, in these cases, be said that the bad popes involuntarily pushed, in a way, the drive to a very good one. Without the great scandal, it is more likely that a mediocre, comfortable, tepid administrator would have been chose as the “safe bet”.
Now let us apply this to the present situation.
What chances did a Burke have in 2013? Very little. Besides being from the only remaining Superpower, Burke was certainly seen as too much “right wing” for most palates. We could and did hope; but it was the hope in a big, pleasant surprise.
This could, however, change if Francis keeps making the mess he is making now, and kicks the humble bucket (or resigns) before having filled the next Conclave with people as rotten as he is. If this is the case, the Cardinals might well look for a strong signal of “continuity with Catholicism” after the hippy phase of Francis’ papacy. At this point, all those who have opposed hippiedom would be automatically considered Papabili, and the considerations made above would lose much of their importance; or, if Burke is still considered not electable because a born and bred US citizen, He could indirectly help others: Piacenza, Pell, Mueller (another German?) or Sarah come to mind.
It can be, therefore, argued that one like Burke would – provided at the next conclave the Cardinals want to put things right – become more and more strong the more Francis’ papacy goes on; and with him, although to a lesser extent, the other V II – Cardinals involved. But this presupposes that Francis does not have the time or political strength to flood the next conclave with new appointments in the style of Cupich (who I predict will soon get his red hat), which is to be hoped – imagine the violence of the criticism, and the calls to ignore the appointments at Francis’ death: another civil war in the making – but not sure at all.
The more Francis attacks Catholicism, the more a Pope Burke becomes thinkable in the mind of many Cardinals. Cardinals who would not have considered him if, say, a successor to Scola would have to be found. Cardinals who, if they do not consider him because of his US roots, could well elect another whose choice would have been seen as too “conservative” before Francis.
In Italy we say that the devil makes the pans, but not the lids; meaning with this that in all devil’s works there is an incompleteness, an imperfection, some missing part that allows good souls to detect the evil, and contributes to the work of Providence, which ensures the ultimate defeat of Satan’s evil works.
With Francis, Satan got a huge pan.
But the lid is still not there.
The frequency with which this man does something very stupid for a Catholic, but rather well-sounding for the secular world cannot but astonish. Methinks, newspapers will soon have to hire extra personnel to follow the antics of this pathetic excuse of a priest. I seriously think at this point he would be considered a clown even among the Anglicans, who have a very strong tradition in the matter and can therefore recognise them swiftly.
Apparently, every year the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sticks its “ecumenical” nose very deep in Islam’s intimate parts by sending the usual bla bla message stressing how wonderful it is that there are faithful Muslims. This year, it appears the Bishop thought the world would be a better place if he were to send the message personally.
If you think I am kidding you, the original of the message is here. And no, it’s…
View original post 724 more words