Daily Archives: January 22, 2018
It has been asked in the comments whether the Papacy will ever recover from the damage Francis inflicted to it. In my eyes, when we have the right Pope the Papacy will recover very, very fast.
People feel the need for a spiritual guide. Not only Catholics, but many Christians around the world yearn for a reassuring figure guiding the, in the end, most reassuringly permanent institution in the world. Imagine a new Pius, or a new Leo, unapologetically doing what a Pope is supposed to do. We would have a Trump-like reaction: the MSM would insult the man every day, and countless millions – possibly billions – of people would emit a big sigh of relief and think to themselves: “finally!”
Also, the Papacy is not simply another political institution. Its foundation in Christ makes it more resilient to the vagaries of time and troubles of the last occupant. Whilst it undoubtedly is a political office, it is first and foremost a religious one. It is like a big statue made of silver, ready to shine again once a good polishing has been applied.
The recovery of the Papacy has never been my concern and, in fact, if it had been I would have never shot at the disgraceful behaviour of Francis the way I did all these years. My concern is, in fact, another: where is the Pius, or the Leo, we need to get out of this? In a world where a wet kitten like Burke is taken as example of orthodoxy and courage, how can the Papacy recover its attractiveness and prestige? A Pope Burke would, as things stand now, merely slow the decline as he is eaten alive by the enemies of Christ because of his sheer lack of testosterone. Benedict 2.0. If we are lucky.
We don't have any use for a Pope Burke. I can't see, in the natural order of things, any hope around me for a Pope Pius or Pope Leo.
I would gladly set for a Pope Donald, one who is tough and always ready for a fight, whatever his private shortcomings.
He would repair a lot of damage, all right.
And it came to pass the Evil Clown shot himself in the (black) boot for the,mlikely, 1547th time. When in Chile, the man defended his pal, Bishop Barros, in the usual intemperate, boorish words of his, openly accusing of slander any and all of his accusers. His words were so harsh his own chief abuse guy, Cardinal O'Malley, called them “inexplicable”. I think “sadly very explicable” is more like it.
Now, a Pope does not have to believe every accusation against every bishop. However, the kind of angry answer given by the Unholy Father (with the “is that clear?” conclusion that really says it all) is indicative of the scale of the problem we are facing here, and it is something you would never hear from Benedict.
It is, by the way, perfectly legitimate to suspect Francis of cover-up in clerical scandals whenever the culprit is a pal of his. This is a man who allows a notorious sodomite priest to run the very hotel where he lives, and promoted him to the top of the Vatican Bank!
Francis does not reason in terms of right and wrong, but in terms of friends and enemies; and, being the dim-witted man he is, he does not realise how evident this is to everyone else.
It would be better now for this old, angry, vulgar man to take his age as an excuse and just stay home, avoiding public utterances as much as his unmeasurable ego allows him. No trips, no interviews and, for heaven's sake, no aeroplanes! The time is coming fast when the expensive trips become so embarrassingly empty of faithful, and full of controversies, that not even his most ardent propaganda helpers will be able to conceal the utter failure of this radioactive Pontificate.
When your own Cardinal O'Malley calls your words “inexplicable”, basically saying that you are either a nincompoop out of control or an evil man, you know your Pontificate is on its way down and – hopefully soon – out.