One really couldn’t make it up.
The accusers of Cardinal Pell are:
Accuser one: drug addict; knows jail from the inside (clue: not as a guard) for a violent, drug-related crime; appears to accuse people of having molested him as a profession.
Accuser two: alcoholic; criminal record; broke; appears to accuse people of having mistreated him as a profession.
Both accuser say the “crime” happened in the late Seventies, and consisted in “inappropriate touching”.
Say the criminal drug addict and the criminal alcoholic.
From the linked article:
Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell’s case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn’t. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement.
Could not agree more.
The question now is this: does the obvious anti-clericalism of the Australian public and justice system arrive to the point of doing all they can to obtain the conviction of Pell? I would say “no”, but I wouldn’t be so sure.
A system that allows no statute of limitation for the accusation in questions, and which mounts a trial on the word of two criminal addicts and obviously desperate idiots, can do everything and anything.
Cardinal Pell’s post is so pithy, that you will read it in perhaps a minute. But he punches hard, for sure.
I keep being unable to see how Francis can even think of trying to see his revolutionary agenda sanctioned at the next Synod. He might as well fall on the sword. It is very obvious there will be a huge counterreaction if he tries another stunt like he did in October.
I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws.
The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result.
Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.
The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.
In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.
Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you! When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!
This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”
You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs.
When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.
Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.
Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth.
On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments.
I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift.
Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it.
I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.
We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!
The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.
At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances.
“But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”
“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”.
Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.
Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.
We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?
Don’t make me laugh.
Do you know Italian politics? Well, you should. Or politics of all sorts, come to that. Then people are the same everywhere.
In every Country which calls itself “civilised”, the barrage against a person in a position of great authority, or even the chef (the Primo Ministro, or Prime Minister, or Bundeskanzler, or whoever he may be) begins with absolutely damning statements along the lines of “he’s such a wonderful gardener”, “I love his choice of ties” or “his concern for kindergarten teachers is just wonderful”.
This is the way people in position of power and influence criticise their boss in a way that still does resemble, very vaguely, some plausible deniability. But seriously, everyone who has a brain understands what it is all about. Newspapers thrive about this, because when what it is left unsaid is left unsaid very loud it can only be manna for them.
The game usually goes on – and I am sure this time is no exception – with the powerful (former) supporter stating that no, you all got it wrong; how could you misunderstand him; you naughty boys; of course, the Primo Ministro is so much more than a wonderful gardener! And there was, obviously, no intention to criticise in any way such a wonderful head of government! Who, as everyone knows, has been so successful, and has the undivided confidence of the entire nation!
In this way, the critic safely comes back in a covered position, after having launched the message for all the planet to see. The attacked, meanwhile, has no ways to mount an open attack against him. He looks revengeful if he acts, and weak if he doesn’t. The impression for everyone who has brains is clear: he is losing the support of his own people.
This is how politics works. If you do not understand these dynamics, I suggest you limit yourself to Mickey Mouse.
Cardinal Pell today launched what, for Church standards, must be one of the most scathing attacks launched on a Pope in modern history. A member of the “”Gang of Eight”, Pell is in charge of re-ordering the finances of the Vatican, both in terms of spending and governance. He is, therefore, at the very heart of Vatican power. But he also, apparently, believes in God, which I can’t say for the… wonderful gardener. Pell not only has the chuzpah to thunder, but he also has a newly acquired position from which Francis cannot remove him without looking extremely stupid even in the eyes of the Polyannas. This will get interesting.
Let us, then, read what the good man had to say about Francis. He was ill, so he sent a written address to the Summorum Pontificum fan waiting for him. I quote:
1. “Pope Francis is the 266th pope and history has seen 37 false or antipopes,”
2. “The story of the popes is stranger than fiction,” […] [and today] “we have one of the more unusual popes in history, enjoying almost unprecedented popularity. He is doing a marvellous job making the financial reforms,”
The first cannonade is terrifying. Talking of a very contested Pope, the Cardinal reminds the Traditionalist faithful that… they should not be so shellshocked, because we have lived all this many times.
” But Mundabor! He does not mean it that way!”
But dear reader, oh yes he does!! No one in his right mind would, otherwise, have chosen to speak of the scaffold when everyone is talking about the convicted felon!
Not happy, the good Cardinal is mindful of those who would think, in their innocence, that he is not really making a comparison between Francis and his numerous heretical predecessors. Those, he decides to help with another generous helping of Traditional Tiramisu, if they are smart enough to appreciate the ingredients. He goes on praising a Pope who has made nothing else than headlines for his heterodoxy because of his… job as a financial reformer.
Oh, how this old heart laughs!
This is not even “damning with faint praise”. This is shooting with the cannon of an M1 tank, and then saying to Francis: “don’t worry, Frankie boy. It’s merely a bit of faint praise…”
I give you my reading of the events here. If I am right, you read it here first. If I am wrong, I have left my crystal ball home.
What I think is happening is that as Francis keep positioning himself as the “good reformer”, Catholic Cardinals start positioning him as the “heretical Pope”. All, of course, in view of the 2015 synod, which will be a real “make or break” for Catholicism as we have known it up to now.
Francis keeps spouting heretical drivel every day, and now his own cardinals start saying: “look, don’t listen to the old man, he is a disgrace that has recurred many times in Church History”. A dozen of orthodox Cardinals and Archbishops among the most prestigious can destroy this papacy, as it ha snot happened for now many centuries that Cardinals openly criticise a Pope in doctrinal matters. If Francis does not get this, then we are steering the biggest conflicts in many centuries, because I can’t imagine the Church remaining silent as an old lewd man walks and defecates all over Her.
If Pell’s warning shot does not make Francis understand that his own very cardinals are ready to call him heretical, I do not know what will. One of his own close entourage has just fired a warning shot so near to the target, that there can be no doubt he has the target in his sights, and will keep him there. If Francis still has a brain at all, he will understand that the warning shots are now landing increasingly nearer to the hotel run by the faggot, and he should prepare himself to run for cover if he continues with his heretical folly.
Obviously, the “counter-interview” will soon come. Francis here, and Francis here. So orthodox. We all love him. Wonderful Pope. What had you understood. Can’t believe it. Perish the thought.
But all those with ears heard it loud and clear.
God bless Cardinal Pell.
We need tanks like him against Francis’ “Revolutionary War”.
The way the Bishop of Rome starts to tackle administrative simplification in the Vatican is by… creating another administrative layer and using the usual tricks of the political trade: a new organism with a new name, more red tape, and lots of grandiloquent talk.
Both IOR and APSA remain (obviously; only revolutionary nutcases would have thought the Vatican would close its own bank), but now there is an Ueberministry meant to do what was supposed to be done before, too. Or do you think before today there were no auditing, no controls, and no accountability rules? Cue subterranean power struggles for who gets the money to spend, and who controls whom. That at the end someone might be held accountable, is not certain. The Commander-in-Chief is one who puts his perverted buddy at the head of the Vatican bank, and leaves it there when the scandal erupts. Oh yeah, this is the one who wants to clean up the Vatican.
This reminds me all too much of the usual politicians’ reaction: let’s change some names, move a couple of offices here and a couple of competences there, and create a new organisation with a new name that we can put on our flag.
The height of the hypocrisy is to say the wealth of the Vatican must be used to help the needy. Clearly, someone seems to think up to yesterday it was used to buy Mozzettas.
Now don’t get me wrong: it might even be that in future corruption in the Vatican will be reduced, and accountability become more effective. But as always, if this happens it will be because there is a real will to make it happen and men willing to fight for it; not because more red tape has been created, more potential for conflicts of attribution and rivalry between various organs has been generated, and a new name has been fed to the press.
I hope the transparency begins by telling us how much the army of consultants hired by Francis is costing. Hey, “the Church must use its wealth to help the poor”, so one thinks he is entitled to know…
I will wait for the results for a very moderate amount of confidence. For the moment, I notice the methods are the same used everywhere else.
At least we have some good news: at the head of the new Ueberministry was put Cardinal Pell.
It could have been Maradiaga.
Let me say first that whoever expected Cardinal Pell to say: “Yes! Francis is a flaming Modernist!” needs an urgent reality check. Not only is the man a Cardinal, but in virtue of his being the quota-member for Australia of the Gang of Eight he is in a particularly exposed position. Therefore, asking him about the heresies of the Bishop of Rome is not going to yield any particularly original result.
Still, Cardinal Pell's argument is notable for his… complete lack of sensible argumentation. Bishop Fellay has explained in detail in a long sermon what is wrong with Francis. He has quoted him verbatim. He has analysed Francis' thinking – and actually only some of his many antics – in detail. Not even the most biased commenter could say Fellay's indictment was an emotional outburst. On the contrary: the fact that it came after months of controversies in which the SSPX had avoided open criticism of Francis' clearly heretical statements lends even more weight to the Bishop's entirely justified criticism and righteous anger.
What has, then, Cardinal Pell to oppose to this? If he has tried in the past to bend over backwards and explain to us why water is not wet I have missed his interventions. Still, his latest words are notable in that they are absolutely devoid of any sensible content or decent argumentation. To say that “Francis is a son of the Church” is, as an argument, rubbish, and by the way Luther was an Agostinian.
No, Cardinal Pell's statement has simply no basis: no basis in fact, and not even the attempt to provide one. The Church of V II demands that every … rubbish her prelates spit be believed merely because they say so. This is, to every well instructed Catholic, rubbish.
Let the Cardinal – now that he has thrown the stone – reply publicly and in detail, point for point, to Bishop Fellay. Let him prove with reasoned arguments why Bishop's Fellay accusations of Modernism levelled at the Bishop of Rome would be rubbish.
If he does it and does it well, we will agree with him and applaud his superior wisdom.
If he doesn't, we will know who is talking rubbish.
As they say, relata refero, so take this with a pinch or three of salt.
Cardinal Pell says we have “little” (I’d have preferred “nothing”) to fear, says the article, which doesn’t quote his words directly, and doesn’t even put the “little to fear” words in quotation marks.
Cardinal Pell seems to indicate his evaluation comes not from intimate knowledge of the man, but from past work made with him.
It isn’t much, but it’s something.
If this Pope is so humble, he will quickly understand he has a lot to learn in matter of liturgy, and it would be very wise to keep Monsigner Marini by him and – as he is such a good listener – listen to what he says.
If this Pope thinks he can demolish the liturgy and make of it a kitsch (I see a lot of kitsch in this Pope; my bad, no doubt) happening for former juvenile tambourine-player and a sort of kindergarten-ersatz, then the mildest things that can be said is that he isn’t so humble after all.
We shall see. Stranger things happened at sea than a Cardinal who understands as a Pope he has very special duties, and he won’t die if he wears red shoes and a Mozzetta.
The problem here is, though, that to remain by the examples the Pope does not refuse to wear the Mozzetta and the red shoes out of hate for the colour red, but out of an ideological orientation that seems rather ingrained, and an integral part of the persona he wants to project.
If kitsch liturgy and inappropriate dress are part of one’s message, one won’t change it so easily. Still, one never knows…
I was made aware, some time ago, of the televised debate between Cardinal Peel and that man Dawkins. I started to listen to it but I couldn’t go on once I realised it was the usual vulgar televised debate with the mob cheering and booing. I was, in fact, surprised a Prince of the Church (more importantly: one on the right side)would consent to such a circus instead of making clear the matter between faith and atheism is a) not subject to debate, and b) not subject to booing anyway.
It turned out, though, something worse than this happened. For reasons unknown to me – and frankly astonishing – Cardinal Pell seems – as you can see in detail from the description given in Michael Voris’ video above – to have express some kind of tolerance of understanding for homo-relationships.
Whilst he was cut and the listeners couldn’t hear his reasoning to the end – which alone tells you what kind of “debates” these are – more worrying is the fact the Cardinal didn’t feel the need to say what he meant afterwards.
Now, yours truly is a simple and stubborn person. If he knows some teaching belongs to the deposit of faith, and some debater of him points out the Pope has just said the contrary, I will just answer “than the Pope was wrong on this matter”, and that’s the end of it. But not everyone is so simple, or so stubborn, as your truly, and when a well-known conservative prelate like Cardinal Pell is taken in off-side they might well be confused.
Voris does, as almost always, an excellent job by reminding everyone that no matter how popular a conservative Cardinal you are, when you’re dead wrong you’re dead wrong; he gently suggest the Cardinal should say a word or three on the matter.
I think he’s absolutely right, and I think the Cardinal owes an explanation not only to the faithful Catholics all the world over, but to himself.
I am pretty sure that the readers of this blog like Cardinal Pell. It will therefore please them to know that our valiant soldier has taken Christ’s Sword in his hands and is, once again, vigorously whirling it around.
His very effective communication style is miles away from the mellifluous and innocuous tone of our Bishops here in Blighty. His sentences are rather short and rather clear. They are rather uncomfortable, too.
Apparently, in Australia the year 2011 will see parliamentary debates about two issues directly involving Catholic teaching: so-called homo “marriages” and euthanasia. As it happens so often, many local Catholic politicians are bravely deciding to shut up in the hope that no one notices that they’re supposed to be good Catholic when it’s uncomfortable, too.
Cardinal Pell has noticed.
Some snippets of a true Shepherd’s prose:
“If a person says, ‘Look, I’m not a Christian, I’ve a different set of perspectives,’ I disagree but I understand,”
If a person says to me, ‘Look, I’m nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,’ I understand that.”
“But it’s incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions.”
Cardinal Pell doesn’t make any discount to Catholic politicians trying to draw political capital from their religious affiliation and clearly tells them what this entails. He says that
“If you’re espousing something that’s not a Christian position, don’t claim Christian backing for that.”
He is totally unapologetic about his position, too. Try this (emphasis mine):
“I’m not telling people how to vote,” […] “I’m telling people how I think they should vote. I’m an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen.”
“I’m telling people how I think they should vote”. When was this last heard in England or Wales? Alas, such clarity of Catholic message is unheard-of among those who have the task of proclaiming and defending it among us.
Do you want proof? Look no further than here.
I rest my case.