Monthly Archives: April 2017
Pope Francis has dished us another portion of involuntary comics with his latest interview on the plane.
There is so much nonsense in this interview that even Aleteia readers should be able to detect it without difficulties.
The very assertion that a war between North Korea and the USA could destroy “a good part of humanity” shows basic ignorance of (or wilful deception about) the fact that North Korea does not have the ability to launch nuclear warheads. One thing is the ability to cause a nuclear reaction to take place is some huge cavern (every Western Country has the technology to do so), quite another is to have this ability transferred to a warhead. Francis' assertion is made even more stupid by the simple consideration that Trump's showdown with the North Korean is due exactly to the necessity to avoid that this kind of threat becomes reality one day (and if we listen to Francis it most certainly will). This man goes blabbering around and he hasn't the faintest idea of what the facts on the ground are.
Almost as dumb is the second pearl, the idea that North Korea would be willing to see reason if some neutral third party like Norway asks them to please be nice. I wonder what Francis has been smoking these past several decades, but whatever it was it blinded him completely to the obvious reality of a regime so dug in in its own ideological trench that nothing short of the certainty of harsh punishment can – if it all can – deter them from digging themselves deeper in it to the endangerment of us all. Heck, they don't even listen to the Chinese! But no, give them a Francismediator and soon it will be biscuits and wine all around.
Thirdly – and I will stop there out of sheer exhaustion – is the typical Francisidea (and, typically, uncatholic thinking) that the United Nations should be the world policeman dealing with these issues. The man comes to the point of complaining that the UN is not powerful enough.
You don't say, Francis dear? And you already go to school, dear little boy?
I thank God that Hitlery was defeated and we have at the helm a real man, with real balls, and the for him very typical “can do” rather than “will talk” attitude. A man forced to pick up the problems the Gay Mulatto left to grow unchecked, and apparently determined to see the end of them.
War is never pleasant. But at times, it is necessary. Effeminate leaders will dance around the issues and let them grow worse, but decisive leaders will tackle the dangers before they get out of control.
The stupidity of Chamberlain, who wanted to “avoid war”, was instrumental in giving us WWII. There is hope that this time, the modern Chamberlain was replaced in time before the worst happens.
As to Francis, he can set his heart at peace: in matters of peace and war, the UN will continue to count less than my cat.
And so will he.
God does not expect us to do mental gymnastics to figure out who is pope.
These words were posted as a comment by long-time reader and commenter extraordinaire, Akita.
This is one single line. One line that has, in itself, more reason in it than the endless streams of conspiracy theories or abstruse reasoning we read from many parts.
There was once, somewhere I forgot, a video interview with a pretender to the throne of Peter, appointed by a handful of people, mostly relatives, but still taking himself very seriously. Apparently the man spoke true Catholicism and was very nice and personable to boot. The problem is that the man did not practice true Catholicism, and niceness is neither here nor there.
Catholicism is complicated in its details but it is very simple in its logic. It is matter for theologians, for sure; but it is not made for them.
Catholicism is made for domestic servants, peasants, and miners. It is made for the cleaning lady and the factory worker. It asks for nothing more than to cling to the simple truths that have been transmitted. It does not require anyone to reason – much less decide – who is Pope. Particularly when – as today – there is no one claiming to be Pope that has not been elected in his parent’s kitchen, or thereabouts.
Whenever the next heresy or blasphemy of the Evil Clown leads you to doubt who is Pope (in which I always see the sure sign of the aspiring Cardinal) think about the words of Akita, and the situation will seem much clearer in an instant.
God bless the sensus Catholicus. God knows we have great need of it.
There are on the Remnant some beautiful reflections of Michael Matt about death in general and John Vennari in particular. You will hear in the video that Mr Matt has also suffered a very recent bereavement, and I am sure you will want to join me in my prayers for his sister.
Today I would like to add some reflections of my own as an unworthy addendum to what has been already said so well.
I am not a complicated guy. I am not the “doubter” guy. I believed in God before even knowing His name. There has never been a day I did not believe in God. Faith, to me, was never something conquered. It has always been there. What was not there was proper instruction, and when Providence finally led me to give this proper instruction to myself every piece fell into place, and every capital question in my little world was answered. When the desire took me to deepen some aspects of my faith (not in order to believe, but in order to better understand), Providence again guided me towards those sources which allowed me to quench this thirst, too.
I am a simple guy. I do believe that the Church has all the answers. Simple, by the way, does not mean “dumb”. Ask the atheists who dare to debate me on the faith.
This leaves me, more often than not, with a rather crushing question: will I be saved?
The beauty of Church thinking is not deprived of harshness. It is not the easy lie accepted by the Evangelicals, naively believing that their faith will save them. Actually, I sometime think in jest, I should be a Protestant, because my faith being so strong this would make me so comfortably assured of heaven!
Well, not. How strongly one believes an error does not make the error right. It only makes it easier for him to get in the hands of the devil in the end.
My faith is strong, and I am afraid of hell. I am afraid of hell because I can see all too clearly that the devil is looking for those whom he might devour, and it would be very stupid (and arrogant to boot) of me to think that I am safe from him. Of course, I try to practice the Catholic virtue of hope, and reflect that doing my duty and carrying on day after day, one day at a time, will get me through in the end. This is also the main reason why I pray the Rosary every day. But you see, the problem is not what happens if we persevere. The problem is whether we will persevere in the first place! How many wish for themselves a very long life, and do not reflect that a very long life is, in itself, no more than the postponing of an all-important verdict! A verdict which, if favourable, makes the length of said life irrelevant; and if unfavourable, the same.
This is why I do envy those like John Vennari. Those who have most clearly persevered to the end, and had the added grace of being able to prepare themselves so well. If I die with the grace of the Last Rites and knowing that I have persevered to the end, I cannot imagine any real sadness in my last hours. Yes, I will be sad to leave those I love. But I will also have the anticipation of meeting, one day, many more who left before me and got their prize already!
Life is overrated. Death is ignored. This is how the modern world goes to hell.
The only sensible way for us to go through life is by thinking every day of the end of it, and the all-important stake attached to it.
I do not wish to live 100 years. Lord, make me die tomorrow with a strong faith and a soul free of mortal sin, rather than making me live a long, long life in which I lose contact with You and merit damnation in the end.
Those who have persevered to the end are to be envied indeed. They have done already what we may only hope and pray we will be able to do.
May this be told, one day, for your humble correspondent, the ones he loves, the ones who read him, and the ones they love.
Pope “Evil Clown” Francis has spoken in front of the usual, convenient audience of opportunists and assorted sycophants, and was applauded when he issued the following admonitions to his abused sheep: “do not clericalise the laity” and “don’t be more Papist than the Pope”.
I must say I had to smile.
The laity is being “clericalised” (that is: seen as the authentic carriers of the Catholic message) because the clergy shamelessly, insistently, blatantly refuse to do their job. If the local priest talks rubbish all the time and the bloggers online talk sense, it is fairly obvious that everyone with even a faint interest in his salvation will look to the latter for his instruction, and will look at the former as an embarrassment at best and a disgrace at worst. Actually, woe to the one who swallows all the excrement the bad priest dishes to him and thinks he is being a good Catholic. He is dancing on the brink of hell as he smiles “peace beeeee with youuuuuuu” to his pew neighbour.
The same goes for the second, astonishingly clericalist affirmation of the Evil Clown.
Heck, my cat is more Catholic than he is! The plant in my living room! The spider outside of my front door! It is fair to say that even Luther is more Catholic than this tool here! And why would I, then, not want to be more Catholic than such a tool!? Who this idiot thinks he is, the metre of what is Catholic? What unspeakable arrogance!
Catholicism is not measured according to the Pope. On the contrary: the Pope is measured according to Catholicism!
Francis is not only an enemy of the Church. He is a very stupid one. His statements confirm both that good Catholics have ceased looking at the clergy for guidance on who and what is Catholic, and that every good Catholic knows that he is far more Catholic than the Pope.
And there we have him, this old lewd nincompoop, telling us to please consider that he is the Pope, and may we therefore eat all the heretical, socialist, blasphemous excrement he dishes us day in and day out, incessantly, with a Satan-driven logorrhoea that exposes every day the mediocrity of his intellect and the arrogance of what little intellect he has.
Repent or go to hell, you old lewd blasphemous cretin.
We, who are infinitely more Catholic than you are, will try to save our souls clinging to Catholicism instead.
Let me say my two words about the situation we are in, and the conclusion we must, logically, reach for ourselves.
I agree: Francis hates the Church.
I agree: Francis is a heretical Pope.
I agree: the crisis we are living in unprecedented.
Does this, then, un-Pope the Pope?
Things are what they are. We can’t create a parallel world because we don’t like the situation we are in. This would be just as naive as going around crying “not my President” after Trump’s victory. Trump is the President all right. Francis is the Pope all right. There is not even even an alternative pretendent not gone out of a cartoon.
If Pope Francis were to come out as a pedophile and celebrate black masses he would still be the reigning Pope pending his death or deposition, exactly in the same way as the heretical Honorius was still Pope, every day of his life, unchallenged, until he kicked the bucket. Also, reflect on the fact that the succession of the Pope would have been valid even if Honorius had never been officially proclaimed heretic. When he died, Christianity did not stop breathing waiting for a declaration which, alone, would give legitimacy to the Papacy. If this had been so, it would not have been possible to say that his successor was legitimately elected.
Any form of “Francis-is-not-the-Pope-ism” is a flight into absurdity. It is what it is. Reality stares us in the face. Denying it is of no use. Reality has a way of imposing itself on us.
As they say in Italy, “expert maintain that the bumblebee cannot fly; but he does not know it, and flies anyway” (I know, it’s not true). This bumblebee in white and his successors will be elected Pope, and seen as such by the entire planet, no matter how much we refuse to see reality.
Why, then, this situation?
How to reconcile the crisis beyond belief with the obvious fact, staring at us in the face, of a heretical Pope? I have no doubts whatsoever about the answer: the crisis beyond belief is the result of a rebellion beyond belief: the Second Vatican Council.
The Church is indefectible, but she is not – on this earth at least – a perfect, immaculate porcelain vase. Our Lord allows Her to be scarred, marred, dirtied by bad Popes and worse clergy, and still survive every crisis.
The unprecedented arrogance and rebellion of the Second Vatican Council has – nay: had to – cause an unprecedented crisis involving the very organs who were accomplices and drivers of this rebellion. V II was initiated by a Pope, and the explosion of this bubo takes the form of a grotesquely rebellious Pope. V II was enabled and supported by Cardinals, and the very institution of the Cardinalate might not survive the tragic times we are living, so discredited and utter shamed are them, all of them, with no exception. V II was driven in all corners of the planet by stupid bishops, and this stupidity comes now back to us amplified many times. V II was helped all the way by faithless priests, and we are now being flooded with effeminate excuses of shepherds. Last but not least, V II was embraced by a multitude of dumb oxes, calling themselves Catholic, who, after benefiting from an amazing string of excellent Popes, were ready to throw orthodoxy overboard in favour of the new fashionable way.
All of them culpable, all of them punished by the Lord: starting from the Papacy down to us, the dumb oxes.
It is clear to me – and I have written this several times now – that the Lord is punishing us for the unprecedented rebellion of V II, giving us an overdose of that same poison we once thought so good for us.
We are getting the aggiornamento rammed down our throat in the most brutal of ways, because this is what we have deserved.
When this crisis is gone – and you and I might die before seeing that day – the future generations will see with elegant clarity not a single culprit (Francis) but a blasphemous process, starting at the beginning of the Sixties and unavoidably leading to its end: chaos and shame.
Shame on the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests and, well, us. Shame on us for playing along with the church wreckers.
Francis is the explosion of the bubo. The bubo has been there more than fifty years. We reap what we saw.
This is all there is to know.
“Your Grace, when will you issue a formal condemnation of Amoris Laetitia?”
This should be the first and, if necessary, second, third, fourth and only question every Catholic journalist poses to every Cardinal at any time.
Every now and then I see headlines about this or that Cardinal who has given another interview.
I don't even open the link anymore.
These Cardinals make me think of generals inviting the soldiers to make their bunk accurately, or to clean their weapons properly, whilst the enemy is invading. Not wrong in itself, but one should focus on the real emergency and real priority.
There is one and only one thing to do for every Cardinal in the present situation: condemn Amoris Laetitia as heretical. If they do this, all the rest can wait. If they don't do this, whatever they say is obfuscation, hypocrisy and dereliction of duty however valid the reminder to properly clean our weapons.
There is a huge emergency going on, and no Cardinal should think that blabbering around about other issues will allow them to escape their duty. They should be reminded about it every time. They should, more to the point, not be allowed to look good giving interviews about safe issues (or moderately conservative ones) when they are just refusing to do their job.
I am not interested in knowing what Cardinal X or Y think about “divisions” in the Church. I am not interested in their opinion about whether Amoris Laetitia causes any kind of problem. I want to know when they will condemn the document as heretical.
Until that time comes, the Cardinals should spare us the latest utterances about things we already know, and reflect on the things they have a duty to say and we have the right to hear.
The chatting Cardinal who refuse to condemn Amoris Laetitia is still silent; and he is perfectly useless, or worse.
It appears the Evil Clown is engaging in another one of his easy stunts, concerning his security in Egypt. All smoke of course, but it let me to think – with horror – at the consequences of an attempt on the life of the
If he dies we would experience the Immediate Canonisation of the man, with FrancisChurch officially becoming the received wisdom in all things Catholic. If he survives, the Vatican news people will spin the attempt to death, in a similar way as it happened for John Paul II. Not nearly as tragic, but not good at all.
No, let's hope nothing of the sort happens. Let's hope Francis dies a painless death within the oh so humble confines of his entire luxury hotel floor. Let's hope he goes without giving his supporters and minions of Satan any weapons to further the work of their dark master.
Please pray that Francis may stay alive and well. Intercontinental trips don't go on forever.
Whenever I read public stories of suicide I get my antennae out, and hope to find signs of healthy Christian thinking. Mostly, I fail.
The suicide of the (in the US) famous former (American) Football player Aaron Hernandez has led a bad Catholic magazine (no link to them) to say that “perhaps Hernandez was a genuine believer”. This, the poor lambs write because it was found that Hernandez had “John 3:16” written on his forehead and on his bible.
A genuine believer does not commit suicide. A genuine believer accepts the sentence he has brought on himself and decides to atone for his deeds for as long as the Lord gives him to live. A genuine believer recognises in his deserved fate the instrument of Providence put at his disposal by a merciful God to allow a murderer to die, in God’s time, at peace with Him.
It seems absurdly difficult to construct Hernandez’ suicide as anything other than executed in cold blood and, therefore, certainly deserving of hell. The preparation of the suicide (I spare the details to the sensitive) went on for minutes. Actually, the very writing on his forehead further corroborates this. This wasn’t a momentary lapse of sanity. This was planned. We do not call this “being a genuine believer”. We call this “being, with extremely high probability, one for Satan”. He might have repented in the last seconds, in the jaws of death already. But this very faint hope can not be blown into something like “belief”. Particulalry so, when this alleged evidence of faith was given exactly in preparation of the suicide, and therefore proves nothing more than the arrogance of another one who thinks he can make his own religion as he sees fit.
Suicides is punished with hell. It is extremely reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of suicides go to hell. It is reasonable to suppose that premeditation is a clear sign of an extremely high probability of hell. What the suicide thinks of his faith is utterly and completely irrelevant. Suicide is who suicide does. Unless perfect contrition intervenes before death it is hell, period.
Hernandez quote seems to indicate a tragic defiance of Christ in the very moment in which he claims to belong to him. It is a mockery, not a witness, of Christianity. And woe to the one (be him a priest, a journalist, or whatever else) who downplays the horrific, bloodcurdling reality of the suicides’ hell trying to invent a kind of spiritula life in a man full of tattoos, violent outside and inside the jail, and clearly willing to plan the taking of his own life.
Nor can as “excuse” be told that the man had – with a life sentence without possibility of parole – an unbearable burden to bear for a 27 year old.
No burden is unbearable. Particularly when – as in Hernandez’ case – he must have known that he had brought this burden on himself. Yes, I think the death penalty would have been a better closure for all parties involved. But hey, we live in “humanitarian” times. It was evidently deemed better to have the man live a life in captivity at taxpayer’s expense for possibly many decades, rather than admit that we are scared of our own death.
Do not believe those who downplay suicide or try to beautify their murderous perpetrators (yes, the suicide is a murderer: the murderer of oneself). The reality of hell is, again, bloodcurling, and suicide is the safest way to get there.
The news of every suicide must prompt us to pray more, fear the Lord, and take refuge in Him. It must put into us the terror of what could happen to us if we started to let our guard down. It must lead us to a horrified resolve to avoid that fate, no matter what the circumstances. It must be to us a warning that the devil walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.
Never downplay suicide. Never try to fabricate hypothetical excuses, much less try to present a suicide as a “genuine believer”.
Say a prayer for the man. He is most likely in hell, but your prayer won’t go to waste. And as you pray and think of the very probable destination of the man for whom you are praying, shiver. Yes, shiver. And then shiver again.
May every suicide fortify us in our resolve to – with God’s grace – never do the same.
Cardinal “I am in Soros’ pocket” Maradiaga gave an interview some weeks ago (everyone gives interviews to everyone these days). The interview is notable for the insulting remarks against the Four
However, this blog post is not about that. It is about a remark that the Soros-funded Cardinal makes before dropping a Mother of All Bombs on the Four
Cardinals Kitten and calling them Pharisees. Maradiaga states:
I think, in the first place, that they [the four cardinals] have not read Amoris Laetitia,
Well, yeah, the man might be on to something here.
The heresy in Amoris Laetitia is so widespread, so obvious, so all-pervasive, that the idea of having doubts whether it spreads heresy might well indicate that… one has not read it.
Kudos to the Soros-sponsored Cardinal, then. From the mouth of the heretics, and all that…
The recent events with “Anonimi della Croce” move me to write one or two considerations about anonymity.
Anonymity protects the identity of the blogger. There are many good reasons to blog anonymously. However, one must be aware of this: that being anonymous, the author will have no possibility to attach any credibility to his name, qua name. The only credibility he will have is the one of the argument he makes.
Homer was a great poet (or poets). You don’t need to know his real identity. His poetry speaks for him. You read and love his poetry, and could not care less whether you know the name of its author or not. What count is what is in the tin. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
The same happens with an anonymous blogger. If a Catholic Homer started to write beautiful verses in defence of the Church people would be drawn to his site by the poetry itself, not the name of its author. If, more prosaically, a Catholic blogger like yours truly starts to write his own considerations on the net, his pen name will never have any weight. The only thing that will ever count is whether the argument makes sense. If that particular rose smells sweet, you don’t need to know what name it has. If it doesn’t, exactly the same happens. This is the reason why anonymous Catholic blogs (as well as all sorts of anonymous sites, from whistleblowing ones to Wikileaks) work. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
This does not work anymore if an anonymous blogger starts publishing things which, in order to be believed, depend on his name. If I say “I have it from a reliable source that Francis is going to dance in drags in Saint Peter” this is not an argument that can stand in itself: it’s a piece of information that can be true or false. The reader needs an established name, and an established history of true revelations, to lend credibility to this. An anonymous chap saying so will not do the trick.
If, however, I say “I will now explain to you why Francis is a heretic” and proceed to make the argument, this argument will not need my name to be believed. It will stand, or fall, without any need for it. It is not about whether the information is true or false, it is about whether the argument persuades you or not. This is the sphere in which Catholic bloggers must operate.
Anonymity on the Internet is, inter alia, good because of this: that you always need to make a good argument, because no one will believe anything just because of you saying so.
“Anonimi della Croce” has ceased operations. If you try to access the site, you find nothing. Not even the archives.
That was it, then.
I do not give much credence to the idea that this was a “fake news” site, in the same way as I tend not to give credence to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. I have read several of their articles in their (and mine) mother tongue: they were well written – in a colloquial, emotional style – and made a very good argument against Francis and for the Church. It seems absurd to me that people who spoke with such obvious zeal for the Church would do that because they bat for Francis. It would be as if the “Pravda” had started to publish the entire collection of speeches of Ronald Reagan before trying to let you believe that he is, say, corrupt. It does not work that way: when the argument of your enemy is presented too well, it will work against you. If, therefore, these people had the intention to sell us a lie by giving us robust doses of truth first, they are stupid indeed. People don’t stop believing in truth because a site turns out to be fake.
Of course I wasn’t there, and of course we will probably never know the truth. What I think more likely happened is that a couple of priests with a good ear inside the things of the Vatican started to post on things they could not substantiate, and had uncritically collected from everyone willing to plant a rumour around. This can’t end well, because a bit of life experience tells us that most rumours are just that.
Then there’s the thing with “anonymity”, which might also have been the undoing of the two (I think) blog authors.
If you publish a post saying what you were told in a certain Roman cafe’ you are not really anonymous: your source knows who you are. And even if you have willingly given fantasy details about the place to protect your anonymity, if your information is detailed your informant will have no big trouble to trace you anyway. This kind of anonymity never goes on for long. Let’s say a prelate has five possible suspects of being “Fra Cristoforo”. The only thing he will have to do is to spread five different rumours to them, and those who publish on the blog are the anonymous bloggers. It really is a game with very short legs.
It can be that the two (I think) priests have been found and silenced. It can be that they have (wisely) recognised that publishing anonymous letters does not prove anything. It can even be – though I do not think it likely – that these are two people who are on the side of Francis and have been so stupid to attract a couple hundred thousand visitors a month with beautiful arguments against him.
The site is now gone. It was, in the end, a big soap bubble.
Beware of anonymous great revelations.
I visited the “Anonimi della Croce” site in order to see whether the famous letter showing that Benedict resigned because of external pressures was published.
Actually, it was, and on Good Friday already. The post is here. I will translate the important part below.
However, be informed from the start that there are a couple of big caveats:
- The letter is also anonymous. This means that the one who wrote the letter is not known. The letter could be, simply put, a fake.
- Benedict is the recipient, not the author, of the letter. Not to put too fine a point on it, I could write to any of my readers a letter stating “I know how hard it is to live with the terrible burden of having committed adultery”. This would not prove that you have committed adultery. I could then extract this letter from my sleeve at any time. Again, it would prove nothing.
The important part of the letter is this:
Il Suo pensiero di dimissione dal Suo stato deriva sicuramente da un grave conflitto interiore, dovuto ai motivi e alle pressioni che mi ha elencato. So per certo che in altre condizioni, Sua Santità non avrebbe mai pensato minimamente ad avanzare un gesto simile. Ma di certo, questo momento per la Chiesa di Cristo è da considerarsi terribile. E Lei Santità ne è il Capo. E solo Lei sa di cosa oggi la Chiesa ha bisogno.
Your thoughts about abandoning your state certainly derives from a grave interior conflict, due to the motives and the pressures you have listed. I know for certain that in a different situation, Your Holiness would never have thought of making such a gesture. However, it is certain that the actual situation of Christ’s Church must be considered terrible. And you, Holiness, are Her head. And only you know what the Church needs today.
There is a (paper) bomb hidden in these words: “the pressures you have listed”. The Italian “pressioni” leaves little doubt that this is not a generic indication of “pressing needs”, but rather directly refers to the pressure exerted on someone to move him to do something. There might also be several of those, and there are certainly a minimum of two, as allegedly Benedict “lists” a series of “motives and pressures”.
So, the famous letter was published.
However, in my opinion the letter does not prove much.
Firstly, the writer might have misunderstood Benedict.
Secondly, any priest worth his salt would never say to a Pope revealing to him that he is being blackmailed into resigning “only you know what the Church needs today”. He would actually say, no matter what the extent of the pressure is: “it would be gravely sinful, irrespective of the state of the Church, to yield to blackmail”.
Thirdly, Benedict has very officially stated that he has resigned out of his own free will and without external pressure, and I still trust the old man more than an anonymous letter.
Fourthly, if Benedict had mentioned “pressures” in the sense of “blackmail” it is likely that his “pen friend” would have used the word “ricatti”. You exert pressure on someone to make him do something, but this is clearly short of blackmailing. The teacher exerts pressure on his student, making clear to him that he either applies himself more or will sit the year. Ivanka Trump exerts pressure on her father to make him bomb a Syrian airport. The act of exerting pressure is strong, but not necessarily immoral and generally not criminal. The act of blackmail is fundamentally different, and is described with a different word. This letter is also confidential. Therefore, the writer would not hesitate to write “ricatti” (the plural of “blackmail”) if he thought this is what is in play.
What this most probably looks like is that several people were telling Benedict that the Church needs a strong man, and he – as he himself stated publicly – does not want to end up like JP II. And the man, weak and meek (in the bad sense) as he has been his entire life, has felt the burden of being put “under pressure” to resign. Which makes his decision, in this hypothesis, entirely his anyway; because he was the Pope, not a child of three.
If we were to know the author and circumstances of the letter, and the author ‘s relationship with Benedict, we could make a better assessment. But as it is, this seems hardly a smoking gun.
More a chocolate one.
The Los Angeles Times (no link, and please don’t go clicking around for it; trust me on this) has the usual mediocre heap of organic waste concerning the Church. On Easter Monday – evidently short on things to write about – they invented a story about the Vatican that fully reflect the face news mindset of the libtard media.
The article is wrong in so many ways you know it was written by people, and for people, unable to think logically. It presupposes a revolt against Francis that never took place. It places the heart and epicentre of the revolt in what is no more than timidity and cowardice of one of Francis’ useful idiots (Cardinal Mueller). It depicts the Church like a party or a public company: something that can simply change course, and that’s that.
The very way the argument is presented (along the lines of “some say church doctrine has changed, the enemies of the Pope says it hasn’t; some of them are very powerful, like Mueller”) is laughably absurd and clearly shows the total absence of a Catholic mindset. Nor is it any excuse that many Cardinals and Bishops seem to lack the mindset, too. It’s not difficult to know how the Church works. A journalist writing about Catholicism should actually be on top of the basics. But no, we have the blind writing for the stupid. Commiefornia for you.
What angers me – besides the total ignorance of the basics of Catholicism – is the whiff of Stalinism that comes out of the article. It reads like a piece describing the obscure working of a powerful lobby of enemies of progress. The sad truth is that they aren’t the former, and don’t have the gut to be the latter. What they do is meowing around, even as they keep stating what a nice chap Francis is and how all his heresies are in fact very orthodox, if we bend over backwards as we should.
The article appeared yesterday. I think the LA Times needed some spitting on Catholicism to kick off the post Easter season. The sources are all pretty old, so there is no “news” to report about. It’s just a marmalade jar prepared before the time for use when there is some extra space available to spit on the Church.
What is worst of all, though, is this: such articles may persuade the one or other among this bunch of cowards that they are really working on some kind of “resistance”. Fake news creating fake ideas in Mickey Mouse “conservative” prelates.
What a bunch of baloney. There is no resistance among the hierarchy. What passes for such is a limited number of people not able to do more than whisper some truth whilst Francis shouts his heresies, and they even do so whilst saying that Francis is on their side. There is a desert of cowardice and heresy that at this point only Divine intervention will cause to cease. Francis is now in the fifth year of his disgraceful Pontificate, and the number of FrancisCardinals and FrancisBishops keeps growing unchallenged. If he lives another couple of years it is clear that the point of no return, barring a divine intervention, will be reached. I am pretty sure it will get worse before it gets better. This is what we get for tolerating a hierarchy for which heresy must be explained away, or meowed against, rather than stomped and destroyed in front of the entire catholic community.
The revolt that isn’t there is allegedly fueled by cartoon Cardinals who can’t do their job of challenging the clown Pope.
Lord, have mercy!