Category Archives: Bad Shepherds
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church.
Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.
Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.
I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.
What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“.
Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.
We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.
The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.
You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.
Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope. It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense.
Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.
Let him be a heretic.
You will remain faithful.
The Remnant reports of a DCLeaks revelation that George Soros’ OSF prepares weekly (laudatory) reports about the social and political activism of the Evil Clown.
Now, this does not mean that Francis prepares these reports, or helps them to be prepared. It does not mean that Francis himself is in Soros’ pocket, either. But what this makes clear is that the two are perfectly aligned in their own utterly diabolical Weltanschauung.
Francis has appointed himself the high priest of the religion of Soros: a satanical sect promoting everything that is evil from environmentalism to Muslim invasion to the destruction of borders.
The naive part of the Catholic world needs to wake up to the reality of a Pope working against all that the Church represents day in and day out.
They can choose to close their eyes, but they must pay attention: at some point, obstinate naivety becomes willing silence in the face of an evil that was certainly recognised, if brushed away because of convenience and cowardice.
We live in very stupid times if we think that countless adults, people who are fully functional in all other spheres of life, can systematically ignore or excuse this Pope’s behaviour and get away with it.
A child of seven can commit a mortal sin.
Think of this, you Pollyannas out there, and shiver.
I am pretty sure you already know about the scandal first unveiled by LifeSiteNews (actually, by Wikileaks). However, I think I might add a reflection or two of my own.
The first reflection is that when an openly evil man like Soros, who is against everything the Church stands for, thinks he can influence Vatican prelates through financial support it is obvious that something very, very wrong is going on within the Vatican walls. This would be true even if neither Cardinal Maradiaga nor Pope Francis were open to such kind of influence. It would be true because of the very fact that the like of George Soros think that they could influence the Vatican. Put in another way, the leaks show how corrupt Francis is even if he does not willingly accept the help of the likes of Soros. He is morally corrupt exactly because he thinks like them without need of monetary corruption.
The second reflection concerns, more directly, Cardinal Maradiaga. In his case the corruption is, more likely than not, monetary besides being moral. This does not mean, of course, that Maradiaga uses such donations to put money in his own pocket (though I want to go on record and say I would not be surprised at all if this were the case: one who thinks so evil can do a lot of evil). Still, it seems to me impossible that Cardinal Maradiaga does not know about such donations, and does not consider them an easy way to maintain a net of people through whom he can distribute favours and exercise influence.
The third and last reflection is, I am sure, in the mind of many: is this not the tip of the iceberg? How many “catholic” organisations are funded, directly or indirectly, by the open, public enemies of the Church? Should not Pope Francis, who always has such a big mouth about transparency, order an impartial review about such “donations”, and force all his bishops to answer about what happens in their own dioceses as well? Not holding my breath…
The smoke of George Soros has entered the Church.
Francis doesn’t seem fazed at all.
And it came to pass the Evil Clown appointed a “commission” to study the bloody obvious, and debate about heresy.
Predictably, he included the open dissenter Phyllis Zagano. Equally as predictably, the usual stupid feminist “I want a prick, or at least to be a priest” organisation
“praised the commission’s “gender-balanced” and “lay-inclusive” appointments and mentioned Zagano by name”.
Therefore, yours truly poses himself two questions: why the Evil Clown does this, and what will come out of it.
The first question has an easy answer: Francis does this in order to sow more confusion about the Priesthood, give some fodder to the feminist pigeons, and enhance his image as the Pope of dissenters, heretics, and perverts. He can’t change the priesthood more than he can change the rules of physics; but what damage he can do, he will. of course, the “commission” will end up stating the bloody obvious, but he will find the way to insert a foot note or two insinuating that maybe, just maybe, things aren’t so clear after all.
However, I think something more subversive than talk will come out of it.
Think of this: the V II church reacted to the Sixties and Seventies by parroting the Protestants with the new position of the “extraordinary minister for making oneself important”. They are, by universal admission, not ordained. Yet, they parrot the priest as much as they can. A lot of small “c” catholics live with it perfectly well, feel like little priest as they stand there with the chalice like idiots, and do not see a problem at all.
It stands to reason that this time the same will happen with the office of the Deacon: the Vatican will reaffirm that a Deacon is ordained, and can therefore only be male. However, it will waffle at length about “inclusion”, and end up with the institution of the equivalent of the “extraordinary minister” for the Diaconate. This office might be called the “extraordinary Deaconette”, for example, and be allowed to do as much of what the deacon does (which, I think, will be a lot. What does a lay deacon do? I think he visits the infirms, gives spiritual counsel to people, helps the priest in organising the work of the parish, things like that) and be called an “extraordinary Deaconette”, or some such like rubbish. The rabid feminists will condemn the “exclusion” but welcome the “step forward” (and demand a prick), the Pollyannas will be all excited that (phew!) “doctrine hasn’t been changed”, and the secular press will praise the Pope who, though clearly uncomfortable with Catholicism, does all he can to
demolish reform it.
Outlandish, you say?
Ever read Amoris Laetitia?
I was a lapsed Catholic. Moved by the obvious disinterest which priests around me showed in Catholic values and Mass attendance, badly catechised, and surrounded by a more and more secular world, I started to lose the habit of thinking with the Church that had been rudimentally transmitted to me as a child. Slowly, other things went out of the window, due to the influence of the secular values when one stops seeking the nourishment only the Sacraments can give. I preferred to consider abortion a terrible evil I would not have the courage to avoid, and preferred to leave it at that. I refused, or rather neglected, to think rationally about the necessary consequences of being a Catholic. I was the socially conservative version of the Cafeteria Catholic. I was disgusted by fags; but mainly only out of common decency, rather than of deeply felt religious values.
In all this, never one day, never one minute did I lose the faith in God. Feeling abandoned by the platitudes of the V II Church and not yet acquainted with Traditionalism (a movement I really discovered only in 2005, thanks to the Internet), I spent countless hours with “do it yourself” exercises, with up to seven different Bibles on my table, trying to understand and deepen the faith about which I felt so strongly, if confusedly, and which made me despise the secular priests of questionable virility I saw around me and on TV, and the shallow rhetoric of poverty and social justice that had nothing supernatural in it.
Faith is the biggest grace I ever received, and never losing faith for one second is, in itself, a grace in the grace. I feel as if a good God would patiently wait, through my Years Of Stupidity, until I finally found the fountain of pure water, Catholicism as it was always intended and had never been taught to me. Coherent, logical, manly, as beautiful and as hard as a diamond.
I confess that I suffer of “excessive doctrinal security”. I could, if it depended on me, depose Francis, defrock him, and send him to die at the stake without flinching; and I would be ready and proud to be called at my own judgment there, on the spot, whilst the Argentinian’s corpse is still burning, and the smoke still rising high in the Roman sky.
Faith is a grace, that I have obviously not deserved. But I think it my duty to make use of it, and help others along the way.
And I want you to see it, this faith. I want you to feel it, I want it to jump on you unexpectedly, like a lion. You may disagree with me, hate me, mock me. But my faith, you will not be able to deny or even ignore.
It is a grace. Fully undeserved. Given to a wretched sinner, concerned about his own salvation more than it’s comfortable to him. Given to him, I think, so that he may use it to help others.
However, even if I had not been graced with a strong faith, and had gone through periods of doubt – something up to now always spared to me, but common to even many saints in form of perceived distance of God from them, or of punishing spiritual aridity – never would I dare to present my doubts, my trembling and wobbling faith, as something desirable, or that makes me more “complete” than the one who never had such doubts.
“Never doubted God? You’re missing something, my boy’!”
Who would be such an idiot as to express himself in that way? Someone without faith, of course. Someone who cannot avoid thinking in totally secular terms, and likes it, and wants you to think in the same way. Someone who thinks so much in terms of moral relativism and pensiero debole, that he boasts of his own lack of faith.
Someone, in short, like this one.
Every time Francis speaks from his lowest orifice (which is, as you all know, very often), I take a tour on “moderate” blogs to see what people comment there; that is: what your average non-traditionalist Catholic, who at least appears to give a damn, thinks.
Normally I see three categories of people: those who are seriously upset and say so (they are possibly Traditionalists, though); the never-dying Pollyannas; and those who write something on the lines of: “Phew! This was said from an aeroplane/off the cuff… again! So it’s not infallible! Yahoo, the Magisterium hasn’t changed! I can now relax, smile, and keep thinking everything is fine!”.
The first position is, clearly, the only acceptable one. The second might well lead to damnation, because at this point it is nothing else than shameless, willed complicity with continued attacks to Christ and His Church for the sake of one’s comfort; the third, which I hope is mainly due to ignorance, must be eradicated fast.
The Pope can’t change the Infallible Magisterium more than he can change the course of the planets. Therefore, this idea that we can smile and relax because the Pope has not changed what he cannot change anyway is a huge red herring.
Unfortunately, too many very badly catechised Catholics still seem to think that Catholic Doctrine is something with which a Pope can do everything he wants, provided he does so “infallibly”.
Truth can never contradict truth. Nothing can be truthful, that contradicts established Truth. No Pope has, ever had, or will ever have any right to simply proclaim a “truth” today which is in contrast with Divine Truth. He is intrinsically unable to do it in the same way as you are intrinsically unable to grow wings.
If the Pope were to wake up one morning, and were to infallibly proclaim that a new commandment, “Thou Shalt not Condemn Fornication, Cohabitation, Sodomy, and Adultery” shall be added to the existing ones, there would be interesting discussions about when he has ceased/will cease to be a Pope, and whether he should be burnt at the stake after he has been deposed. There will be tons of ink employed in explaining that we must resist a heretical Pope pending his deposition or death. There would be interesting debates whether to use the paper with the new pronouncement as fish wrap, or toilet paper. But most certainly one thing would not change: the Commandments.
Therefore, it is perfectly absurd to rejoice and delude oneself that things are fine (or only moderately uncomfortable; as in the case of the embarrassing uncle always prone to put his foot in his mouth) merely because Francis hasn’t changed the course of the planets, or transformed himself into an elephant, or grown a third foot.
The scandal of a heretical Pope does not consist in his doing what is impossible to do, but in doing what is very possible for a Pope to do, and which we are witnessing every day: spreading heresy and blasphemy, attacking the Sacraments, criticising everything that is holy, praising everything that is evil.
This is what is happening, and therein lies the problem.
Papal heresy must never be downplayed. It’s a huge evil. We have real problems here, we can’t just delude ourselves things are fine merely because we don’t have the imaginary ones.
This is a real bomb, coming from a publisher known for his “neocon” (means: “I will put up with everything provided I pay less taxes”) stance. As I write this, it leads Fox News’ editorial page.
The article asking for Pope Francis’ resignation is signed by Adam Shaw. The man is clearer and more cogent than the vast majority of non-traditionalist Catholic sites and blogs out there. Actually, his clear arguments put their weakness and complicity with Francis to shame.
Let us quote some of his statements, with some comments from yours truly when opportune:
Pope Francis’s three-year-old papacy, marred by controversy from the beginning, has hit a new low.
Note here: the man is not only fed up with MarriageGate. He is fed up with three years of total mess.
From his “Who am I to judge?” statement on gay people that seemed to offer a hint at a change in church teaching, to his fumbles on contraception, to his recent claim that Donald Trump is not Christian, his off-the-cuff remarks cause headlines across the globe, often followed by some sort of “clarification” from the Holy See Press Office.
Notice the subtle indictment here: the man is a maverick and the Vatican apparatus is left to clean up after he has piddled outside of the potty again.
His papacy has been a litany of confusing statements for the faithful on the most sensitive and delicate topics. While clear on political topics dear to his heart, but where Catholics can legitimately hold differing opinions, such as immigration, economics and climate change, on matters of doctrine, Francis muddied the waters to an extent that many well-meaning Catholics feel they no longer know where the Church stands on issues of faith.
Another well-spotted point, that you won’t find anywhere on “Patheos”: when he wants to make Socialist propaganda, Francis is neither nuanced nor ambiguous. He only discovers his Jesuit side when he wants to attack everything Catholic.
For a “pope of the people” he certainly doesn’t give Catholics much credit. For a Catholic marriage to be valid all that is needed is the freedom to marry, consent from both parties, and the intention to marry for life and be open to children. That’s it.
I would correct this, or perhaps make explicit what the author might be thinking already: Francis hates and despises Catholics, and his forma mentis is entirely secular. This is why he does not believe in the Sacraments (and does not like Catholics).
For Pope Francis to say the great majority of marriages are null implies that the great majority of Catholic are ignorant fools who cannot understand the responsibilities of a bedrock of society that has existed for thousands of years.
It also suggests severe doubt in the mercy and grace of God. The rule of thumb when the validity of sacraments, whether it be marriage, the Eucharist or the priesthood, is concerned, is to assume validity unless something clearly contradicts that. So just like a priest doubting his faith as he is ordained is still a priest, a bride with jitters is still validly married — God makes up for our frailties.
I would say, here, that at the root is a different, extremely secular, atheist thinking: sacraments have no value, they confer no sacramental grace. They are simply rituals, ceremonies. This is why Francis thinks they can be tampered with, and does not see anything in them beyond a ceremony of purely formal value; which, in turn, is why he thinks those living in adultery are just in the same position, if they are “committed”.
Francis’ words put the devil’s doubt into the hearts and minds of good Catholic couples who may be going through a rough time, and who instead of saying “We’re Catholic, we’re married, this is until death parts us,” may now say, “Well, the pope says most marriages aren’t valid anyway…maybe ours isn’t either” and give up.
Francis makes the work of the devil. Yep, this is literally what the man says, and kudos to him. he also encourages them to discount the value of their marriage (whilst he encourage concubines to consider themselves married).
Insane. Or Atheist Church hater. Tertium non datur.
Francis’ statement demonstrates a lack of faith in the Church and its ability to vet couples seeking marriage, to teach them about what marriage is, and to administer the sacraments effectively.
Yep, that’s the point. The man does not believe in the Church. He does not believe in anything Catholic. Not in Catholic virtues, not in Catholic doctrine, actually not even in a Catholic God.
If most marriages are invalid because couples don’t understand a life-long commitment, does that mean most priestly ordinations are invalid too? If so, are most masses invalid? Most confessions?
Well spotted again; and in fact, this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from Francis’ atheist statement. If a sacrament like Catholic marriage (of which every child knows it is a commitment for life) cannot be understood, how can First Communion be understood? What about Holy Orders? How can confession be valid, if the concepts of “contrition” and “firm purpose of amendment” are not understood, because nowadays people “don’t know what they are saying”? Why should people not doubt whether they have validly received the sacrament of Last Rites (yes, I keep calling it that way)? And so on…
The Church’s authority rests, in part, on its claim to be able to communicate the sacraments and the teachings of Christ. Francis has cast doubt on the former, has done a poor job of the latter, and by doing so has brought the Church’s legitimacy into question.
Another extremely good point. This is a man who declares the total bankruptcy of the organisation he leads; her total inability to do what Jesus put her on earth to do. “Go ye therefore, and utterly fail in teaching all nations; even those in which you have a millenary tradition…”
His comments come after he dealt more confusion to Catholic marriages by allowing the liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper to take control of last year’s Synod of the Family — who turned the whole thing into a referendum on gay people and communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.
Francis’ subversion is rightly recognised. The Fake Synod, falsely manipulated by the “gay” clergy, is not forgotten…
Francis made things worse this year with his vague document on the family — Amoris Laetitia — in which he buried the hot topic of divorced and remarried Catholics in a footnote, and muddied the waters some more by saying that such couples could receive sacraments “in certain cases.”
… nor is the huge scandal of Amoris Laetitia.
When asked to clarify he said “I don’t remember the footnote.” Wonderful.
The man is embarrassing even in his evil arrogance.
Once upon a time Catholics would have been stuck with a bad pope, but since Pope Emeritus Benedict opened the door for a pope resigning when he can no longer do his job, it is time for the faithful to look at Francis and ask — “is this man able to lead the Holy Catholic Church?”
I must disagree here. Catholics were never required to stick with a heretical Pope without asking for his removal. However, the power to remove him is not in their hands. Benedict’s resignation would make it easier for Francis to save face, but is not the reason why he can be asked to go, or can legitimately be seen as unable to lead the Holy Catholic Church.
At this point it is clear, Bergoglio has repeatedly proven himself unable to lead, and is doing incalculable damage to the Church that will take decades to heal.
I think “unable to lead” here means “astonishingly incompetent”. Nothing to add on the incalculable damage.
Pope Francis should resign, and Catholics should demand it, so the Church can begin recovering from the havoc his ill-advised and arrogant papacy has wrought.
Two very important points to close, both again very well spotted: it is a duty of a faithful Catholics to react to this impiousness by demanding that the Pope resign (as opposed to Pollyanning around blathering nonsense like “relax, the Holy Ghost is in charge!”), and the damage done is so massive, that even if Francis resigned today it would a very long time before the Church can be said to have recovered from it.
Even the mainstream press now starts to demand that the man be made to leave; and again, with words clearer than you would read in fake Catholic sites and blogs.
The world woke up, and discovered that the Pope is an Evil Clown.
This is the other side of the medal. The first part is here.
In his disgraceful off-the-cuff godless madness, Francis did not only say that the great majority of marriages are null. He also said that he is sure that the “faithful” cohabitations he has seen in Argentina are real marriages.
This truly is a bizarro world, in which the married aren't married, but the concubines are, because they are “committed” or “faithful” or whatever.
This is the kind of nonsense you could hear from an atheist lesbian, not from a Pope. This is the kind of nonsense you could hear from people who have no idea of what a sacrament is, have no fear of the Lord, consider concubinage not only harmless but positive, and think they can make their own religion.
This man is an atheist. Nothing that the Church believes finds him aligned to it, unless it is in a twisted way that he managed to reconcile with his twisted, socialist, atheist ideology (as when he is against abortion because the unborn baby is “poor”, or “marginalised”). In all the rest, the man is pure Catholicusm-free space.
Not, mind, because he doesn't know better; but because he hates Catholicism and wants you to understand it. He abandons himself in public utterances to a completely secular ideology, whilst continually criticising the Catholic one. It isn't a coincidence. It's what he thinks, and what he wants to do.
Most marriages aren't such. Let us allow mass annulments. Many adulterers are “married”. Let us allow them to go to confession and receive communion. Sacraments don't count. Rules don't count. The feeling of the couple for each other is all that counts, it is the way this idiot thinks he can “recognise” a marriage in a cohabitation.
Please, Lord, free us from this scourge!
You read it correctly. This is what the man said.
This is, of course, part of the evil plan to destroy Sacraments in which he does not believe, and damage the Church he hates.
This is, plainly, Pope Francis The Atheist speaking.
The attack to Communion and Marriage goes through the attack to the sacramental life of every Catholic.
According to the Evil Clown, your marriage is likely invalid. Means your “divorce” and “remarriage” are ok. Not ok for Catholicism, of course, because for Catholicism you are still a concubine living in public sin. But ok for Francis because, if you are “committed”, who is he to judge? Therefore, you can receive communion anyway, and also go to confession, which is not made for the saints but for sinners.
Bam. Three sacraments torpedoed in one go. I suspect this is the usual childish, stupid reaction to the continued criticism of Amoris Laetitia. “Why do you keep blabbering about marriage?” – asks the man – “it's all rubbish anyway!”.
Please, Lord, rid us of this tool soon!
Who will win this battle? Clearly, a rhetorical question.
From the excellent Denzinger-Bergoglio, I attach their long list of ante litteram condemnations of Francis’ blasphemies, heresies and outright socialist bovine excreements from the very mouth of the last of the great Popes.
You notice here an extremely strident contrast not only between an intelligent and pious Catholic and a stupid and corrupted Socialist, but also the difference between coherent thought and off-the-cuff, self-contradicting anarchy.
I smile when I read article attributing to Francis the willful adherence to philosophical positions of the past. The man has no philosophical approach at all: firstly because he is too stupid for that, and secondly because he is too ignorant for that.
His populist rhetoric, his relentless enviro-madness, his attacks to the sacraments, his insults to Christ and the Blessed Virgin, his very confusion about the difference between the Trinity and the false god of the Muslims are not the result of profound philosophical study. They are the same rubbish arrogant, uneducated idiots think and profess every day. And they are spouted with the same abundance of self-contradictions your typical illiterate peasant, or your typical self-righteous prostitute, would not be able to avoid.
There’s nothing educated or in any way (even wrong way) “lofty” in what Francis says. You could have taken any semi-illiterate peasant from any field in Guatemala, and the “theology” would have been exactly the same. The man is simply too ignorant to think in philosophical terms, too stupid to think right even in simple things, and too stupid to notice it. It is a farce of a pope, running a farce of a papacy.
Mock him. Laugh at him. Bury him under a tidal wave of ridicule.
Because of you, and by God’s grace, someone might wake up from his stupor.
I have written some time ago that our Cardinals resemble a bunch of girls, playing with dolls.
We had another explanation recently, as it emerged that in the recent interview given about the SSPX (I have written about it here) Cardinal Yogurt found the way to kick Tucho “Tina” Fernandez (yes: this chap here; and yes, I think that, too…) in the shins about the latter’s statement, more than one year ago, that the Papacy could be moved away from Rome and the curia run by way of video conferences or, for all we know, tweets and wheelchairs. Cardinal Yogurt waits one year, substitutes Bogota’ for Medellin, and calls Tucho “Tania” Fernandez a heretic.
Again: girls, playing with dolls.
The most astonishingly heretical document in the history of the Church has just been published under his watch as the (deputed) guardian of the theological edifice of the Church, and this man has nothing better to do than to give interviews in which he profits to settle scores with his enemies within Francis’ entourage like Tucho “Tara” Fernandez . And by the way, I can’t avoid the suspicion that he whispered himself the saucy details to some journalist, as obviously the matter had not been picked the first time.
We should find a name for this girl, too. I don’t know what the accepted feminine equivalent of “Gerhard” is, and I doubt he would like “Tucho”.
“Gerda” Mueller might well work. He has certainly deserved such a beautiful name.
Francis has just called Pope JP II (together with every one sane person who knows the first three things about marriage, or Catholicism, or life in general) not catholic and heretical; and at this point, the use of cocaine cannot be excluded anymore. The arrogance of the man is clearly going to the point where loss of the sense of reality appears too evident to dismiss one of its obvious causes – let me tell this to you once again: cocaine – out of hand. We are now firmly beyond outlandish, but we know that the man is not clinically mad.
This, from the man who, in four months’ time, will travel to Sweden to celebrate the most successful Heresiarch in the history of Christianity.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Or you might say that this is, simply, loss of the sense of reality.
Let me tell you an episode.
Many years ago in Germany a football trainer, Christoph Daum, who was slated to become the trainer of the German National Team, was addressed by sarcastic comments of Uli Hoeness, the well-known Bayern Munich grandee, which implied that the man was unworthy of the job because he made use of cocaine.
Mr Daum then proceeded to sue Mr Hoeness for libel. Mind: in many Countries (and, I am pretty sure, in Germany too) the demonstration that the accusation is true makes one not culpable of libel. Therefore, many thought and said (and yours truly thought too, and said as much) that Mr Daum could not possibly be a cocaine user, because he could not possibly be so stupid as not to know that Mr Hoeness’ defence team would not have any problem in showing his cocaine addiction, if there were one. In Italy, in the same situation, a test would have been like the “amen” in the church.
The polemics went on some time, and the pressure on the man grew. The police was probably thinking of (or had started, or were about to start, I can’t remember) investigations. At some point, the man announced that he would voluntarily (officially at least) allow a cocaine test on his hair. He doubled down by saying that he did so because he had an absolutely clean conscience. Again, one would have thought that, if he had known he was a cocaine user, he would have started some sort of prudent backpedaling, instead of once again stressing his absolute innocence. Everyone knew at this point the truth would come out in a matter of just a few days.
It turned out the man was found to be a heavy consumer of cocaine and lost his face and his job, whilst the entire Country (and yours truly with it) wondered what level of lucid madness might have moved Mr Daum to first sue Mr Hoeness (which practically made his undoing guaranteed from the start), and then keep lying when he should have known better than anyone else.
The answer given by doctors was enlightening: Realitaetsverlust.
The man has (partially) lost the sense of reality, apparently a common effect of the use of cocaine. Facts and consequences of the fact did not present themselves to him with the usual clarity. He could appear normal to those around him, but causal links had started to go down the drain, and were substituted for an imaginary reality in which obvious, and easily demonstrable lies will never be recognised as such. The man wasn’t mad, or stupid (he actually disappeared to Florida with a ticket bought before the day the results would be made public, evidently having adapted to reality at least in that). Simply, the heavy use of cocaine impaired his sound judgment, not allowing him to see obvious logical links everyone else could see.
How could Christoph Daum sue Mr Hoeness and think he would not be exposed as a liar? How can Francis slap JP II in the face and think that people will not compare Catholic rules with his own ramblings? How could Mr Daum openly, insistently, shamelessly proclaim his innocence with the very act with which he condemned himself as a shameless liar? How can Francis accuse every normal Catholic out there of being a heretic just for believing in Catholicism, even as he himself praises the worst heretic of them all, and think that he will not be exposed as the greatest hypocrite and liar in Church history?
One possible answer is the same as for Mr Daum. And at this point, this answer is not outlandish at all, and would explain a lot of what the man has kept saying in public in the last years.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But the events give one pause.
Pope Evil Clown, the one who invited Cardinal Danneels to the “Synod”, has now issued a new Motu Proprio making it easier for bishops guilty of bad administration to be dismissed. This, I am informed, does not only apply to so-called “child abuse” cases (very many of them: priestly faggotry cases), but to pretty much everything that a bishop can be accused of, from financial matters to the dealings with his priests. They call it “harm to the community”. Really, it can be everything.
My take on this is that this motu proprio is meant to make it easier for Francis to go all FFI on unpleasant bishops. I suspect that we will see an increase in the number of unpleasant bishops being removed under the pretext of something or other; this is never difficult to find in a big apparatus like a diocese, and particularly so when the scope of the motu proprio is so large.
Not that I cry for those bishops, mind. With the exception of Bishop Schneider, all of them have betrayed their flock, and none of them deserve to wear the purple anyway. However, there is the unworthy bishop and then there is the faithless bastard, and I suspect the number of the latter is about to increase.
Pray for the Church. That she may be freed from the Evil Clown soon.