Daily Archives: February 10, 2015
Not everyone is born to be a leader. Some are born to be generals, some are born to be soldiers, some are born to be thinkers, some are born to be, well, idiots.
Pope Benedict never had the stuff of the doer. He had even less the stuff of the leader. A man inclined to reflection and theoretical elaboration, he never showed that kind of energy that leads men to be relentlessly driven toward a goal, and completely focused on the practical task at hand. He also never had that kind of charisma, the quiet but solid authority that leads poets to say “oh captain! my captain!” to him. Benedict never was much of a captain, and Whitman would not have been terribly impressed.
His activity as Pontiff clearly shows the poor practical record. A man of words rather than actions, Benedict never had the will or energy to give his papacy the required bite. He gave us Summorum Pontificum, and then watched as it was ignored in the Third World and actively boycotted in much of the West. His episcopal appointments show a high degree of naïveté, weakness, or simply lack of interest in the extremely delicate task of appointing the men who run the Church. But he was happy with writing books, even as he was appointing almost half the Cardinals that would give us Bergoglio as his successor.
The lack of authority reached disquieting proportions when the world discovered that even his butler thought that Benedict had to be, in some way, protected from the people around him. No, this is not the stuff of a leader, and the request that the faithful pray for him, that he may not flee before the wolves, showed in time to be a tad more concrete than the somewhat coquettish remark of an old man faced with a great responsibility. Benedict was simply not born a wolf fighter.
The apex of both this naïveté and this lack of leadership was shown in the most dramatic way – though it became apparent only later – on the 11 February 2013. A weak and undecisive man, not endowed with the stuff of leaders in his strongest days, Benedict possibly felt overwhelmed by the 300 pages report about homosexuality within the Church; a report which very obviously sent him the message that it was now time to wear the armor, and go to war. This is when Benedict’s mistakes catch up with him, and they will now plague his existence for the rest of his days.
Benedict felt – rightly, I think – that he was not up to the task. It is difficult to wage war against the homo Mafia when not even your butler has any esteem in your qualities as leader. One cannot, as the Germans say, jump over his shadow, and very few are the men who experience a dramatic change in character and attitude at 83. His decision to resign is, in my eyes, fully understandable in a man who saw a task in front of him for which he had neither the attitude nor the energy, and for which he felt – or so it seems to me – that the Church he loves needed a far more suitable man than himself.
But the bigger mistake was not that. If Benedict had done his job properly in the appointment of Cardinals and Bishops he could have resigned with the knowledge – as opposed to the naive illusion – that his successor would have had the orthodoxy for the good fight, and the cojones to fight it. Then it would all have made sense. But nothing went as he was certainly planning.
Benedict’s biggest mistake was to think that he had prepared a Conclave fit for electing someone who would continue his work; and that he could therefore retire in good conscience, after almost eight years at the helm, because now simply too weak and too old to be a good helmsman.
Benedict’s failure of judgment in his appointments unluckily combined in a huge failure of judgment concerning his Cardinals and, as a result, his successor. Never a lion, the man was evidently also rather easily duped. Not a good quality in a Pope, however many books he can write.
I do not believe for a second that he was forced to resign, as lack of leadership quality does not a coward make. I truly believe that the man believes in God, and would die rather than cave in to the Church’s enemies. I find the idea that he would simply allow to be bullied aside extremely insulting to the man.
But that this gentle soul was not fit to look at men in the proper light, and was ultimately unable to understand where he was steering the Church, this seems blatantly obvious to me.
Soon it will be two years from that fateful day, the day that plunged the Church from the frying pan of rampant neo-Modernism and sexual perversion into the fire of open, shameless heresy and celebration of the very perversion this papacy was supposed to fight against.
The gentle, undecisive, naive man is still alive. He is far too loyal to say it, but he must now feel that his survival is his punishment. I doubt he thought, when he resigned, that he had another two years to live. But the man must be stunned, and horrified, at thinking what his pontificate has resulted to in the end: an attempt at hostile takeover from Satan himself.
Pray for Benedict; a kind, gentle man of thought and prayer who did not have the stuff of which effective Popes are made.
The “defrock Marx!” reblog…
Once-Catholic (hopefully, at least) Cardinal Marx is on record with the following words:
“Luther did not aim to split the Church, but, with his calls to reform, wished to draw attention to grievances that obscured the message of the Gospel,”
“After 50 years of joint ecumenical dialogue, it is possible for a Catholic Christian to read Luther’s texts appreciatively, and to learn from his thoughts.”
The first statement cannot be the fruit of crass ignorance. It must be willed deception. Luther was not simply a reformer. He was a heretic. His home-made theology was at variance with the Church, and led countless in the same pit of error and probable perdition. To say that a heretic merely wants to “draw attention” to “grievances” is pure deception. I do not need to tell you what the Cardinal’s motivation is: the Kirchensteuer, and the resulting need to be mainstream, accepting of…
View original post 196 more words
Great, great Cardinal Burke has given a “clarification” of his French TV interview that sounds like a second warning shot at Francis, and one even louder than the first. Go here to read the key parts of the good Cardinal’s clarification.
One might ask (though probably not if he is an assiduous reader of this blog) why the Cardinal would have to be so strongly worded in hypotheticals. In the end, no girl goes around saying to her parents “If you tried to force me to prostitute myself I would go to the police and denounce you”.
The problem is that, in this case, the prostitution attempt is officially planned and worldwide announced. It might not happen, of course; but it certainly will if no warnings are uttered.
It is now “officially official” that the text defined by Bishop Schneider as the fruit of “radical neo-Pagan ideology” has been approved in advance by Francis. Francis must, therefore, answer for every word of it. There can be no doubt (unless you are retarded; but you aren’t) that this aggressive neo-Paganism is exactly what all the talks of “mercy”, “who am I to judge”, “God of Surprises” & Co. aims at. There is almost no day in which Francis does not give further examples of his – let’s say it once again – aggressive Neo-Paganism, and today we have lines along the equivalence of being “green” and being “Christian”. Lord, give me strenght…
Cardinal Burke is not retarded. Not in the least. He understands very well the Neo-Pagan aggressiveness of the present Pontiff. He realises that explicit, public warnings are the only way how a Jesuit can be persuaded not to do anything stupid.
It is fitting that the bully be told that he is steering towards a sound thrashing; it gives him the opportunity to avoid the thrashing, and his opponents the possibility to avoid having to thrash him. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Francis is a boor and a bully now being told in public that enough is enough, and being showed a line he is not supposed to cross unless he is craving a lesson he will never forget.
It is necessary that it be so, because there can be no doubt that Francis would, otherwise, happily move to transform the Church Effeminacy Central, and let Her sink in an ocean of emotional, Presbyterian, vaguely New Age excrements.
Francis is barely recognisable as a Christian. “Radical Neo-Pagan” is the right description for him. He must be told what he cannot do. He must be told in public, by his own prelates. He must be told for all the world to see, that they may understand what kind of Pope we have.
Cardinal Burke is a gentle, kind, merciful, righteous man. No decent man could think that he is embarking in an ego-fueled trip for the sake of his own personal popularity. Francis, he ain’t. I suspect many a sleepless night behind this man’s courageous stance; and the decision, fruit of rich prayer and reflection, that this is the way to go, and there is no other.
Nor do I believe that the Cardinal is isolated, or embarking in a beautiful mission to martyrdom. Clearly, the man speaks for many. Clearly, he is the one who – in virtue of not having influential and prestigious tasks in the Vatican anymore – can talk more freely than many others. Clearly, many others are kept – intentionally – in the reserve, as Burke is the spearhead of the loyal (to Catholicism) opposition (to aggressive Neo-Paganism).
With his “clarification”, Burke has delivered a double whammy. Francis has been punched in the nose, twice, for all the world to see. His opponent in the ring is promising him that there are plenty more where the punches come from.
Francis has the choice. The mask has fallen. He is now officially seen as a dangerous heretic who must be warned from the consequences of his own actions.
God bless Cardinal Burke. Today’s Rosary is for him. He is the best V II can offer.
There is no “right to food”. Food never was any sort of fundamental “right”. Saint Paul already warned us that to those who do not want to work, we shall give no food. You can’t find any clearer evidence that food is not a fundamental right of the person.
Of course, charity demands that we feed the hungry. But this is not a subjective right of the hungry, merely the result of the charitable help of those who feed them because – let us say this once again – consider them, in their charity, worthy of being fed.
Charity is the love of neighbour coming from the love of God. It is a Christian duty, but it is a voluntary act as to the when and how much and to whom. I decide whether the hungry person is worthy of my charitable help, but the hungry person can claim no specific right to my help. “I am hungry” is neither here nor there. If he does not want to work, I will not feed him, and if I think he will get his calories in the form of alcohol, I will not give him ways to do so. You get the drift.
This is basic Christian thinking. Francis does not think like a Christian. He thinks like a Socialist. To him, food is a fundamental right. The fact that food is something that must be earned – at least at the level of good intention, of willingness To earn it if one were able to – utterly and completely escapes him. The whole concept of charity is unknown to him. To him charity is a non-issue, entitlement is the key. But where there is entitlement, there can be no charity. Charity is, by definition, the giving of something to which the recipient is not entitled. If the food is mine by right I am no recipient of charity, merely of what is due to me. You don’t consider your employer charitable for paying your wage, either.
This isn’t Christianity, but Socialism; and this is the way Francis thinks.
Then there is the other huge issue, which Francis regularly downplays or outright ignores: the root causes of collective poverty.
To Francis, the poverty of the ones is due to the wealth of the others. As if the wealthy were, by the mere fact of being wealthy, be robbing the poor of something that is theirs by right. This is, already, Communism and class struggle. I can’t imagine that Francis is so stupid that he doesn’t get it. He gets it, and he approves of it.
The main cause of mass poverty is corruption. Corruption makes of Countries that are otherwise wealthy in natural and human resources pits of poverty and desperation. In an ordered society, the natural inventiveness and industriousness of the people abundantly provides not only for the general population but also for those worthy poor whom the population wants to charitably assist. In an ordered society, risk-taking is encouraged and hard work is rewarded, because the fundamental basis of every creation of wealth is assured: the ability to create it and to peacefully keep and enjoy it. Some will risk more, some less. Some will want to be employers, others employees. As a result, some will be very rich, and a few will be astonishingly rich end employ thousand in the process, and more power to them. But as a sum total, an ordered society will provide for more than enough, and to spare.
Corrupt countries stifle private initiative with abuse, robbery, conflict (easily: armed conflict, as often in Africa), and uncertainty. This corruption creates more poverty, which in turn creates more abuse and makes it more difficult for orderly economic activity to develop. We see this mechanism at work in very many African Countries, many of them very rich in natural and all of them very rich in human resources.
Populism is, after corruption, the biggest enemy in any halfway democratic society. The encouragement of social envy, the lie of the entitlement to the riches of the wealthy and the false promise of getting them a big slice of a cake that is not theirs is the cause of the financial troubles of many a half-developed Country. Allende’s Chile and Chavez’ Venezuela are two very notable examples, but from Argentina to Brazil to Mexico pretty much every South-American Country has paid the price of this folly, as the decades of economic stagnation after the easy populism of the Eighties abundantly shows. When you think you can pump foreign creditors for huge amounts of debt and for many years and, when the chips are down, have the right not to pay your debts, disaster cannot be far away.
Populism and corruption easily create poverty even in the richest Countries. Venezuelans have a shortage of toilet paper, but no shortage of populism and corruption, and this is a Country very rich in resources. It is never the government’s faults, of course, nor of the idiots who continue to vote their populist rulers. The culprit is always the rich, big country up there. Francis-thinking at its worst.
Francis talks like a Socialist, and clearly thinks like a Communist. There is nothing Christian in what he says. He talks like just another stupid politician bamboozling the idiots with easy rhetoric of envy for the sake of his own self-aggrandisement. He hasn’t the faintest about Christian charity.
Like the other Argentinian, “Che” Guevara, Francis completely fails to understand the Christian message. Still, “Che” chose to fight and die for his wrong beliefs.
Francis lives in the company of perverts, and gets fat on delicacies.
The blog Unam Sanctam has a very interesting piece written by one of its Argentine readers, called Jack Tollers (name not new to me; but I wish I remembered why).
The explanation, put in simple terms, is this: Bergoglio is an excellent example of the worst part of the Argentinian Country and character. No education, no honesty or integrity, no style, double talk as a way of life, false modesty as a second skin, cutting corners all one’s life, and feeling smarter for it.
One is reminded of the man who stole a crucifix from the rosary of a dead man, and gloried in it; of the man who said Jesus “pretended” to be angry with his disciples; of the man who said that perhaps the Blessed Virgin felt belied and betrayed at the foot of the Cross.
All you already knew and hated of Francis (Francis the clearly ignorant, vulgar, boorish, arrogant, hypocrite, stunningly incompetent and envious man) comes alive as a particularly disquieting incarnation of character traits already ingrained in part of the population. He stands in front of you in 3-D, making you aware that what you have in front of you is not an exceptionally bad apple, but a particularly cunning (or lucky) apple in a vast, poisoned orchard.
Reading the well-written piece, several pieces of the puzzle called Bergoglio suddenly fell into place. How can a man so astonishingly ignorant of pretty much everything, including the bases of his own religion, reach the position of Primate? Because of the vast ignorance spread around him. How can such an envious, resentful, spiteful man ascend the hierarchy? Because he plays on the resentment and envy of the common people. How can his breathtaking hypocrisy be tolerated? Because it’s a kind of national sport. How can he get away with his fundamental lack of integrity? Because this is not seen as a negative trait among many of his compatriots. How could he avoid the knives searching for him along the way? Because he chose Rome and ditched the Jesuit revolutionary, Arrupe, when he understood Arrupe was the losing horse.
Several Argentinian commenters have written on my blog in the past, and they all said pretty much the same thing: Bergoglio incarnates the worst of the Country, which is why he succeeded; but this little work here explains it better than every comment could. It really allows Bergoglio to emerge from the Argentinian context like a piece of… wood naturally floating in putrid waters, and you know the object is entirely in its own element.
Go there and enjoy this brilliant description of a tragedy (Bergoglio) in a tragedy (Argentina).
Unfortunately, the tragedy is now common to the entire Church.
God willing, this might not be for very long. Rorate has an article about the succession already and the multiplication of such rumours since October at least lets one think there might be something in them after all. Notice how this very article already makes of Tagle (probably, with every reason) the enemy number one at the next Conclave.
But another man so crass, so stupid, so inadequate, so completely our of his depth, and so unable to see how out of his depth he is like this one we will not see for, I think, a very long time.
We cry for you, Argentina.