Daily Archives: April 18, 2017
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!