This source is in French, but credible sources consider it reliable.
What it says in the world's second most beautiful language is as follows:
1. Monsignor Ricca has not offered, but has in fact presented his resignation to Bishop Francis on Saturday.
2. The resignation extends to his activity as, ahem, “homo hotelier” at the Vatican.
3. Further misconduct in recent years has emerged.
Now this may seem little but, if confirmed, would not be good at all.
For Pope Francis to prefer to travel to Rio and leave such a scandal crying to heaven for vengeance can mean only one of the two: he wants to leave undistubed the cult for his person as he travels to Brasil, or he wants to protect his homo “buddy” by allowing him to go away gracefully. In both cases, personal interest has come before the reputation and prestige of the Church, and great scandal was given – and as I write, is still given – to faithful Catholics.
The one with Magister's sources being “untrustworthy” – once again, a masterpiece of ineptitude and arrogance – will now unavoidably turn against either Father Lombardi or, far more probably, Bishop Bergoglio. There can be no doubt that here either Magister is untrustworthy, or Bishop Bergoglio*. Tertium non datur. To paraphrase Jane Austen, in this matter there isn't enough trustworthiness for both of them.
Therefore, either the Bishop of Rome is a liar – and therefore qua definitione untrustworthy – or he is so carelessly arrogant – and still untrustworthy – as to send his own press man to state heavy words without caring for a proper homework first. Before you get all angry at me, reflect on how you would scream if, say, Obama had been – obviously mutatis mutandis – in Bishop Francis' actual situation. We would all say that …. well, you all know what we would say.
To 2. I am surprised that the obvious scandal of a sodomite priest running three hotels for priests has not caused more horror, tragic hilarity and, in time, close scrutiny. The man has probably used his position to arrange every possible kind of “meetings” with and between his buddies, from all over the world; people he wanted to link to himself, link to each other and make part of his network. His position must also have put him in the knowledge of many a secret, and in a position to destroy many a career. He must have been a very powerful man, this dirty little scumbag. Bishop Francis trusted him, though, and actually felt comfortable living under a roof run by him.
From the conclave (charitable version; please spare me from the other one):
“Ah, this Francis is one with a safe instinct for choosing the right people! Let us give him the task to reform the Curia from the homo mafia, and from the other problems!”.
This serves Francis right. Should have stayed in the Papal Apartments. In this particular case, the punishment for his “humble” hubris came particularly swift, and particularly hard. A faggot as host, lunch buddy for three months and even protégé? Hats off: he could not have done worse. Takes some doing. Respect.
To 3. Every attempt to depict a Pope that was impressed with Ricca's “conversion” will die with this particular piece of news; then everyone knows the gossip must have been there, and Bishop Francis would look even more as a managerial Waterloo if the story were to be spread.
Well then: arrogant, simpleton, or a mixture of the two. I personally vote for the first hypothesis. The man is too smart to be a nincompoop; he is good enough at marketing himself (no shame, though; which helps); but in the end he is clearly not smart enough to run the Church.
More and more, the hubris of this stubborn but not exceedingly prescient Pope emerges. Whilst the world media try to make of him the next Mahatma Gandhi, those who can think for themselves have abundantly photographed this man. Click around and read the one or other priestly blog, and you will read for yourself.
If you have a very robust sense of humour, you will find this papacy at least grotesquely entertaining. I try to take it with as much humour as I can, but I am an emotional man and am easily angered, so it's not all that easy.
I do hope, though, this particular kind or Circus Medrano will come to an end, obviously in the Lord's good time. I do not have any illusion about Francis' successor, but one can at least hope in some shrewdness.
Alexander VI was at least a clever man, an orthodox Pope, and a great peacemaker.
This here is bad even at being a bad Pope.
* the reader's intelligence will not be insulted by implying the “untrustworthy” stunt is an initiative of Father Lombardi.
And it came to pass that the broom so loudly rumored decided to imitate the Pontiff and… did not show up.
Instead, we have a commission to look into the Istituto Opere di Religione (IOR); something actually anticipated by the Pope in one of his mane extemporaneous sermons, or talks, or off-the-cuff declarations, and did not surprise anyone.
This has been discussed for months now. If he did snub the concert for this, then we know with absolute certainty it was an excuse.
This Pope is, it appear, an enemy of money per se, so the idea of having a bank might not be entirely savoury to him. You see, to preach Franciscan simplicity and have a bank does not really strike the fantasy of this fickle creature, “the people”. Therefore, he might well abolish it, causing the loss of around 120 well-paid jobs and forcing religious order the planet over to go to other institutions to place their money.
People like Barclays, who give money to Stonewall, come to mind.
So if he decided to shut down the shop (which I doubt, but you never know; the man clearly “hath no music in himself”, so he is fit for … a lot) we would end up indirectly financing Stonewall; at least we would end up doing it in an additional way besides those we already do not know.
Populism against common sense. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. My pint goes on a revised and improved Istituto Opere di Religione, but no killing.
There are limits even to Franciscanism.