There are reports on the Catholic press that Cardinals Sarah and Mueller are refusing to give interviews concerning the Apostolic Excrementation. Clearly, after Bishop Schneider's intervention they are going to have more, not less requests for them.
If silence in the face of heresy is unjustifiable and unacceptable in a bishop, it should be more so in a Cardinal. And the more so when one of these Cardinals is, actually, the formal guardian of orthodoxy within the Church apparatus (after the Pope, of course) and the other is the author of a book called “God or nothing”, and prefers now to do… nothing rather than speak for God.
Let me say this once again: there is no possible excuse for such a behaviour. To try to excuse any bishop or Cardinal for his silence concerning AL is exactly the same as finding excuses for almost all the Apostles leaving Jesus alone on the Cross.
Excuses are always easily found. “If they decided to speak, this would damage the Papacy”, it is reported. If the rumours are true, one can easily imagine that this is the very excuse the two have informally given to try to justify their silence, and which they now want to be discreetly filtered through the press in order to get their “get out of jail” card.
“My shutting up and doing nothing is a very orthodox one”.
What is more important: to defend God or to, allegedly, damage the Papacy? Who has ever said that the Papacy must be protected in preference to Truth itself? What kind of rubbish is that? Was then, say, right not to say anything against the Nuremberg Laws in order to avoid damaging the German Chancellorship? Or shall we shut up concerning the persecution of Christians lest more persecution follows?
And by the by: how is defending Truth damaging to the Papacy? It is damaging to Francis, not to the Papacy! On the contrary: what damages the Papacy is exactly the allowing that Francis ridicules and debases it, and prostitutes it to his social justice warrior ideology.
This is utter nonsense. No Bishop or Cardinal has any excuse for shutting up, and all those who do so will be exposed as hirelings every time they dare to pretend they are good shepherds in other matters.
My suggestion to Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Mueller is that, if they shut up now, they should as well shut up forever, and never again talk to us about an orthodoxy they were not willing to defend when the trumpet called them to battle. They will not get away with it, nor will anyone who does not speak now.
Ubi honor, ibi onus. One isn't a Bishop or Cardinal in order that he may shut up when it is time to speak. I can't fathom many other times in the entire Church history when it was so necessary that the shepherds speak.
When John XXII threatened to proclaim a false dogma, concern for the Papacy was absolutely nowhere to be found. When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to pagan deities (during the atrocious persecution of Diocletians) no excuses were found for him. Have our Cardinals become so emasculated that they do not think of this? For heaven's sake, one truly has the impression that these people spend their time in splendid palaces, playing with dolls.
If the rumour is confirmed, both Cardinal Sarah and Mueller would confirm thrmselves as not true shepherds, but hirelings. Hirelings now increasingly embarrassed by the public outcry at their silence, and looking for excuses to get away with it. Not going to happen.
Whoever shuts up now has lost face, full stop. Whenever he gives an interview or even publishes a book about the defence of orthodoxy, they will be told what the faithful think of their hypocrisy.
This is not going to go away. We will never forget this treason, nor will the Angels in heaven.
God help the Cardinal who dies in his shameful silence, whatever excuse he might have picked for his dereliction of duty.
One struggles to keep pace with the events at the Synod. Not only for the astonishing chaos caused by the equally astonishing incompetence of the Evil Clown, but because we get to know things in a delayed manner, and therefore miss some piece of information that becomes clear only later.
It appears obvious to me that Francis’ intervention on Tuesday was not due to the speech of Cardinal Erdo the day before, but rather (or principally) to the letter of the thirteen cardinals given to him on the same day. Only we did not know about the letter at the time, so we could not link the two events in any way.
It also transpires that already on the first real day of work, thirteen cardinals have given the Pope what can only be understood as a serious warning, politely but clearly expressed, not to mess around with Doctrine. If you read the letter – which is everywhere now on the net – you will see that the criticism moves on various issues not only of transparency and – I dare to say – common decency, but more importantly on the Instrumentum Laboris being unsuitable as the starting point for any kind of credible Catholic document.
Francis, ass that he always is, perhaps does not get the message. More probably, though, he does. Then he stomps his humbly shod feet to the ground and delivers that masterwork of pettiness and childishness: the bitchy address of Tuesday, in which he says in so many words that he is still the one who calls the shots whilst (hopefully) understanding that no, he doesn’t; that being a pope is a different matter than being one of the many idiots who can ruin with impunity South or Central American Countries; and that he will not be allowed to do as he pleases.
My bet (but again, I am an optimist) is that Francis was so bilious at the revolt of his own Cardinals, and possibly also at Erdo’s speech, that he reacted to the double whammy with a very childish reminder that… he is the Pope, but knowing that he will not dare go beyond the line now clearly traced in the sand. Yes, he is the pope, which everyone but a couple of Sedevacantists already know, and is exactly why they are so worried.
The bomb of the Cardinals’ letter then causes an attempt from third parties at defusing it. No, we were told: Cardinal such and such other were not among the signatories. One or two actually say they have signed… another letter!
Woah, stop there!
We do not really care who has signed, though we know it by now. It appears obvious that such a letter was not presented to all Cardinals and Bishops before being signed, as it would have come to the ears of the pope way before delivery. Rather, the thirteen have clearly decided themselves to act fast and without fluffing around, because there isn’t time to lose, and you don’t need a genius to understand that their concerns are shared by the vast majority of the Synod participants. So who cares if Cardinal Titius, or Caius, has not signed? Thirteen Cardinals have certainly signed a clear letter of warning to the Pope. They tell him that they will not allow him to hijack this synod in the same way as he has tried to hijack the last one. They tell him that they don’t like his ways, and don’t trust him one bit. They tell him – in so many words – that they know he is on the side of the heretics, and won’t allow him to give them a licence to sacrilege. If this isn’t enough to make you smile, I don’t know what is.
Note also – though they are not so important – the names: Mueller, Napier, Pell are three heavyweights of the current administration, Caffarra is one (as V II Cardinals go) to count on. As far as I know, a letter of the sort is unprecedented in modern times. It is unthinkable for a rational mind to think that these prelates, and countless others, will fold in case of SHTF scenario after leaning so much out of the window. Won’t happen, Frankie boy. If you are still planning anything very stupid, all signals say that you are in for the ride of your disgraceful life.
Then there is the matter of the content of the letter. Were there, actually, two letters, of which only one was leaked? Is that so surprising in these tragicomic days? Or was there – far more probably – only one letter, and the content was leaked only in its most savoury parts? We don’t know. But we will know in due course. It must be a very stupid Pope who thinks that he can hide one single sigh uttered during this synod for long.
The strange days continue. Father Lombardi licks the Pope’s boots so thoroughly his tongue is now completely black and I am glad I cannot find the link anymore, because I could otherwise write something less than charitable. But then Lombardi and Rosica are fully irrelevant. They remind one more and more of Comical Ali, as their faggoty talk is given the lie from extremely strong interventions from people who are saying – in all possible ways – to Francis that they will not be fooled.
Archbishop Gadecki delivers his three-minute speech and, in a nutshell, lectures Francis about basic Catholicism. He makes very clear that he speaks for the entire Polish Bishops’ conference. One wonders how stupid must Francis be in order not to understand the message.
It goes on: Cardinal Sarah delivers an absolutely devastating (for the heretics) three-minute address at the Synod, that falls short of accusing Kasper & Co. (and Francis with them) of heresy and treason merely for reasons of basic politeness. Sarah is as blunt as you can expect any Cardinal to be. He even openly criticises the entire 2014 Synod in its ways and message, well knowing who is responsible for both.
You would think the question has been already settled, and the heretical side (headed by Francis) has now understood they are closely watched and will not be allowed to play any trick, whatever instrument or excuse Francis may choose for it.
You would, wouldn’t you? I certainly do. But the problem is that at the helm there is a man so incompetent, so ignorant, so petty, so full of himself, so out-and-out Incompetent South American Dictator that no one knows what kind of stupid thing he may not do. Not, mind, because of great courage and dedication to the heretical cause; but because he is too stupid to understand the consequences of what he does.
Already the fact that he keeps changing the rules of this utterly discredited Synod and is obviously unable to see how unspeakably incompetent, petty and stupid he looks should be a warning. This one is a loose cannon. You can hope that he uses his brains (whatever he has of them) and stays put, but the simple truth is that we don’t know: people with a basic sense of what is good for them wouldn’t go around behaving like spoiled children as he does, either.
We hope and pray. I suggest you pray for the man – as salutary penance – that he may see the light, or at least be dissuaded from the worst. But please also pray the Lord that He may carry the man away to wherever he is supposed to go – I think I know where – before he does something very, very stupid.
From lightning and storm; from plague, disease, and famine; from war, murder, sudden death, and Francis. Good Lord, deliver us.
Read on Rorate Caeli the news of Cardinal Sarah openly warning Francis & Co. about the heresy of detaching the Magisterium from pastoral practice.
His words are brutally clear, and I quote them here again. The emphasis is, I think, Rorate’s.
“The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice — which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions — is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I affirm solemnly that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium.”
To call the “theology on his knees” “heresy” and “dangerous, schizophrenic pathology” is, I think, as clear as any word ever pronounced by Cardinal Burke himself. The clear mention that the Church in Africa will “firmly oppose every rebellion” drives another concept home: we will oppose rebellion even if headed by the Pope.
Cardinal Sarah is another one who decided to warn Francis before he does something extremely stupid, instead of waiting for him to do so and then complaining.
One can hope many others will follow his example in the months to come.
I never understood the motto “keep your friends close and your enemy closer”, and I always thought that it does not make sense. I always had the impression it is the favourite excuse of those who do not have the guts to keep their enemies away from positions of power and influence, and want to let necessity appear virtue.
Of course it may make sense, in a democracy, for a President or Prime Minister to have people he dislikes in his cabinet. In this way, they are invested in his government, and will find it more difficult to attack him from a position of “allies”. But even in this case, such a policy is born of the necessity of limiting their ability to disrupt the work of the Government, and is invariably linked with a delegation of power and influence to them. All this is, in a word, not the fruit of brilliant thinking, but the unavoidable consequence of the atomisation of power in every modern Democracy.
Not so for a Pope. A Pope does not need to be elected. If he is orthodox, he will always float above every accusation of being “harsh” or “merciless”. His prestige and grasp on power will be, in time, greatly enhanced. Pope Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII are great examples of this strong, but in the end winning attitude.
Francis is in a different boat. He is also Pope, but he has put himself in such a mess that his papacy can now be very seriously damaged; because of this, even as a Pope Francis must pay much attention to thread carefully, lest he should one day lose not only his face, but possibly his very job. In October, Francis got a first glimpse of what trouble might be in store for him if he were to be really stupid. Since October, the criticism has not really abated. He can't completely isolate himself from his enemies, because all of his enemies are Catholic, and none of his friends are. An orthodox Pope can afford to be uncaring of tactics (Pius X was famously undiplomatic), but a Pope like Francis cannot.
Francis would, like everyone else, keep the Sarahs away and surround himself exclusively with the likes of Ricca, Forte, and Baldisseri. If he does not do it it's not because he is a superior mind or a refined strategist, but because at this point the rare Sarah is, to him, the better evil.
Keep your enemies as far as you can, and smile at those you are forced to keep near. This, I think, pretty much sums it up.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.