You might have missed it, but some days ago a non-magisterial document issued by some retarded Vatican commission for the non evangelisation and the surrender to the world stated that there is no need to evangelise the Jews. I was expecting a formal condemnation of the Apostles for their intolerance and lack of understanding of the Old Covenant, but I think the Vatican commission for the dialogue with the infidels and the pleasing of the retarded stopped short of that.
It seems to me that a vast exercise in plate licking is taking place. Not only Francis is spreading heresy everytime his one and a half lungs breathe some air, but there is a sort of internal competition within the Vatican to curry favour with him, and push his heretical agenda in any way that would be noted by the Evil Clown. Unless, of course, the very same Evil Clown is the one who has planned the launch of this ballon d'essai in order to better promote his “my Rabbi buddy is 100% fine” agenda.
I am now eagerly awaiting for the angry reactions of Bishops and Cardinals to this affront to Christ and His Church, for their strong reaffirmation of the mission of the Church, and for their warning to Francis to either start running the shop like he is the Pope or consider asking the Castros for the concession of a humble abode, where he might spend his last days preaching social envy to the stinking socialists.
I wonder how long I will have to wait.
Upon the election of Jorge Bergoglio, Rorate Caeli published the opinion of Marcelo Gonzalez, an Argentine Catholic journalist.
The Horror!Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.
I will not beat around the bush here: one year later, every single word of the man has been proved extremely accurate. Let us see in detail. No links, because it would take me occupied for hours. Search this blog.
1. He openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals.
Check. Salvation for atheists. “Who am I to judge”. God slaps you on the wrist at the worst. Hold on to your Koran. Countless others statements of the same tenor.
2. Faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.
Check. A notorious and scandalous homosexual at the head of the Vatican Bank, and left there after a worldwide scandal. The 300-page homo report buried in the sand. Creepy insistence on an imperfect church, that smells like the sheep. If you're orthodox and respect the rules, he doesn't trust you, and holds you for a hypocrite.
3. A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass. Has persecuted those interested in implementing Summorum Pontificum.
Check, and check. The TLM is a “fashion” for “addicted”. The FFI is openly persecuted. There is clearly no interest in fostering Summorum Pontificum. A past of Pinocchio and Tango Masses emerges.
4. Famous for his inconsistency. Unintelligible.
Check, and check. Runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. Gives air to his teeth without the faintest idea of what he is saying. Journalists all over the world wonder what he really wanted to say. Baffled readers decide he must have said something smart, because he is the … Bishop of Rome.
5. Entourage under grave suspicion of moral misbehaviour.
Check. I will say two words: Monsignor Ricca. In addition: mockery of those worried for the homo lobby; hey, they do not go around with the gay mafia ID card.
6. Has not missed an occasion for “dialogue” of the most extreme sort. Blessed by Proddie “ministers”.
Check, and check. With Francis, Christianity is at times a distant echo. Hold on to your Koran. The Jews have their own reserved lane to salvation. Personal message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan: he shares their joy. May their life glorify the Almighty. Observers are not sure whether Francis believes in Allah. Not improbable. A Proddie preacher is called “brother bishop”. Francis washes feet to infidels and women.
7. Coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions.
Check, check, and check. “Casogate”, showing the extreme easiness with which taboo words escape his mouth. An orgy of Peronism for one entire year, showing the most appalling ignorance of basic concepts of economics. Francispeak and Doublespeak like it's going out of fashion.
8. No polyglot. No curial experience. Does not shine for his sanctity. Has not fought against abortion. Very weak against sodomarriage. No manners.
Check. Check. Check. Check. Check, and check. Italian is limping. English basically non existent. He reorganises the Curia by creating more red tape, and spending vast amounts of money for external consultants. He puts an homosexual friend at the head of a bank. He insists on a church that is, in a creepy way, dirty. He speaks against abortion only in private (with Bishop Scicluna, say), but never when he has a worldwide audience. He wants to avoid “obsession” with abortion and homosexuality. He does not show up at a classical music concert, and lets it be known he is not a “Renaissance Prince”. He is, simply, a boor.
9. Conversion cannot be excluded. Still, the future appears terrifying.
Check. And check. Think of the upcoming Synod, and all the archbishops and Cardinals now happily free-wheeling.
The author of the article (and Rorate by association) were, after the publication of this blog post, attacked for weeks in the most slanderous manner. Some of those who had accused them (like the Remnant troops) have made amend. Others have taken refuge in an extreme Pollyannism that refuses to see reality, merely because reality is not a pretty sight. Others still would attack one for saying the “Hail Mary”.
I have suspended judgment after the article, as I did not know the new Pope and, much as I listen with attention to what Rorate writes, I want to make my own opinion first. I think I can say that in the same way as I did not want to join the critics without proof, I have not been slow in looking at reality when it has progressively appeared to us in all its… horror.
One year later, the prophecy of the words reported above is absolutely uncanny. This again shows not only how well Mr Gonzalez had understood Francis, but also that Francis has – with the Uriah Heep ” 'umbleness” that is his own most distinctive mark – made no adaptation whatsoever to his new job, and has given us a Pope that is just as bad as the Cardinal Archbishop.
A vulgar man. Just as well at ease with, well, “casi” and coprophagia as he is with homosexuals in his own closest entourage. Who is he to judge?
A man with no fear of the Lord, who thinks He will slap one on the wrist at most. With no respect of Jesus, Whom he accuses of willing deception of the Apostles. With no respect for the Blessed Virgin, of whom he says she might have felt betrayed and lied to on seeing Christ on the Cross.
A man deeply confused, and who cannot give a justification for his job as Pope – even atheists are saved; Muslims should hold to their Koran; Jews don't need Christ anyway – other than helping people to feel more “joy” and to get more social justice before the inevitable salvation; a salvation from which he excludes, in case, only the “Neopelagians” who still love and follow Catholicism.
Horrible things are very probably about to come, with the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously offered to public adulterers. The Pope applauds the Cardinal who is at the head of the movement.
I am sure I am forgetting various other issues. No, I really am.
One year later, we can say it very loud: Bergoglio is the horror.
Let us pray for the restoration of sound Catholicism. Either with a converted Bergoglio, or with a Church free from Bergoglio.
The celebration of Francis as a marketing tool has now found an echo in the Boston Globe. The competition is said to be “envious” of a Pope that is able – and alas, all too willing – to accommodate everyone.
The most Jewish Pope, says the Rabbi, and who can contradict him. Different from our chap, who has the bad habit of thinking before he opens his mouth in public, says the Mormon. Hey, he even makes “pranks” (he doesn’t; but journalists must write fast and create a story), and is so different from the Presbyterians (who are the Presbyterians again? Ah, now I remember…). What a revolutionary change from the serious men of the past. So cool!
“At times, he seems to yak on about whatever comes to his mind, just as you and I do”, says the journalist. How wonderful! And by the way: no, I don’t do it. I don’t know about you, but when I open my mouth I always know what I am saying and why. A bad habit they taught me as a child. Uncool, I know. But they said only the stupid do otherwise. A promising red nose career, ruined.
The competition will now have to start thinking about countermeasures. A Twitter contest perhaps? Having Welby dance Tango? Should Mrs Schori present the next Academy Award ceremony?
A Pope betrays his role by being the clown of the world. The world finds him entertaining, and approves of him. Therefore, say the secular media, the chap is really good. Others will have to learn his marketing tricks.
The Most Jewish Pope.
What do you want more?
We do not know much about the Temple Veil. We have the usual Flavius Josephus, and some Jewish sources with descriptions that might, following the use of the time, be willed exaggerations in order to make the point.
What is undoubted is that the veil was not a proper veil, but an extremely thick, finely interwoven curtain, extremely beautiful and extremely heavy. It had the role of a “movable wall”. As it procured access to the Sancta Sanctorum, entry to which was forbidden to almost everyone almost every time, there was the need of a system making necessary the cooperation of several men to procure entrance, thus avoiding the possibility of “sneaking in” on the sly that a door would have easily afforded. In this way, the veil procured security from entrance without having to tear down a wall every year. As you can imagine, a work of this sort would be of exceptional strength and weight, the finely interwoven tissues giving it extreme resistance and making it unthinkable that anyone may ever rent it to obtain entrance.
The “veil” was, therefore, not a small matter. Firstly it was a beast of a thing, and secondly with its magnificence and its role it was a massive witness of the sacrality of the Sancta Sanctorum, which contained the Ark. The highly symbolic character of this exceptional artifact is absolutely evident.
This “veil” is reported by the Gospels. Matthew says:
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
A big earthquake takes place immediately after Our Lord dies. The veil is torn, but not simply damaged: it is “rent in twain from the top to the bottom”, and the comparison with the rocks leaves no doubt about the magnitude of the events (both the earthquake and the astonishing renting of the veil). The fact itself and the emphatic report of the Evangelists do not leave any doubt: at the very moment of Jesus' death, Judaism stops being the religion of the Covenant. The veil is torn and access is possible to everyone, because the Sancta Sanctorum is no more necessary. Christianity is born, and Judaism is now officially past its “sell by” date. In a few decades the Temple itself will be destroyed by, in another symbolic turn of events, Rome, the appointed fulcrum of the new religion and of the Only Church. The humiliation is total and definitive, and the consequence inescapable: the Temple is gone because God has no use for it. Nothing like complete and irreversible destruction screams “you're fired”, but the real “pink slip” was the renting of the veil with its unmistakable meaning.
The disciples of Jesus clearly grasped it. We see this in the Acts, with Peter boldly calling the Jews to conversion on the day of Pentecost. Evidently, there is a need to convert Jews to the new faith if they are to be saved. If it were not so, Jesus' very death on the cross would make no sense, and the entire Christian message would be a fraud. But it is so, and the Jews recognise the great danger coming from the followers of Christ. They understand that the Christians are far more than a strange branch of Judaism: they are an alternative to it, and one that risks to wipe them out. Saul understands the dangers very well, and is very zealous in his work of eradication. The rest is, well, Scripture.
There can be no doubt that for the first Christians, and for all those who came after, a Jew belongs to the wrong shop. The wrong one, not the nice old one. The Jews themselves certainly can't think they belong to the new religion, and would in fact never claim they do. The Jews do not believe in the Trinity, or the Holy Ghost, or Jesus. A smart child of seven would understand that the two religions are not compatible. They are, in fact, two religions, of which one is now false, because past “sell by” date.
A child of seven would understand all this, but a Jesuit of 76? Hhmmm, let's read from Evangelii Gaudium:
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29).
The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the Sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word”.
No need for conversion to Christ. Actually, no need for Christ in the first place. In this vision, Jesus is a nice chap and bringer of “joy”, but is ultimately superfluous as “we cannot consider Judaism a foreign religion”, and we do not include them among those who need to convert. When Peter told the Jews on the day of Pentecost they need to convert, he was clearly wrong. Tsk, tsk! Should talk to the atheists instead. No, wait!…
The gravity of these words does not need any comment, but I note that this is exactly, to the last word, the mentality that allows Francis to consider his pal, Rabbi Skorka, perfectly fine in all that he does, and even worthy of encouragement to do it even better and in general go on with his own religion.
Converting him? No, no, no!
This exhortation seems to me just another Modernist document: orthodox here, perhaps laudable here or there (51,000 words is a lot), but then clearly heretical in some statements, thrown in almost casually in the midst of the ocean of words but such that they will slowly shape the public consciousness in the matter.
We will see what else comes out. I have read some good things about abortion, but then again he is the Pope.
Also, keep in mind this is something for insiders: most readers of “Repubblica” will barely notice the event, and will not be motivated to go on the Internet and read it. Which, by 51,000 words, is rather understandable.
Therefore, the public perception of the Pope will continue to be dominated by the interviews. This here is, in the end, merely a sideshow.
The Germans have a beautiful saying; they call it Die LKW-Theorie.
The theory in question says that if you want to avoid close scrutiny for your project, you can submit to the deciders an entire truckload of documents at the last minute, pointing out that the decision is now expected very fast or else the client will walk away. The deciders have therefore the double whammy of time and sheer quantity of material put in front of them, with all the bad news conveniently buried in the middle of the paper avalanche. Only the strongest will resist the trick, but many are those who will cave in, faced with the pressure of angry salesmen threatening to lay at their feet with the powers that be the charge of every misconduct from, and including, Adam. Every time this happens, men are divided from boys; then you discover that just a few men, and a great many boys, walk around in your typical office on any given day.
The theory is there because the time has honoured its application, making of it a staple of German – and, I am sure, not only German – office life. In short, it works.
I had to smile and think of the “LKW-Theory” when I realised the sheer mass of the papal exhortation, exceeding the 50,000 words including the notes. This is more than four times the 12,000 words interview to Civilta’ Cattolica. It would appear that after the scandal caused by the 12,000 words interview a new strategy is employed, based on the drowning of the prospective reader under such a tidal wave of information that he will not be encouraged to read anyway. And who would, on reflection, want to be “encouraged” for hours on end? It would make despondency look appealing.
This is, I think, part of the motivation for an effort reaching Soviet Politburo proportions. Most people will just not touch the document, or shall I say the small book. I can’t imagine this effect was not intended.
Still, from what I could read up to now another theory might be applied. Yours truly would like to name it, following the German habit, the Smorgasbord Theory.
According to this theory, you need to offer a buffet in which absolutely everything and the contrary of everything is present, so that everyone will be able to pick and choose the food he likes most and everyone will be happy in the end. The smoked herring lover will find Francis’ take on the herring absolutely fascinating, whilst the the chocolate mousse fan will declare that Francis is a dessert champion and the apple pie lover will praise the perfect balance of the ingredients, with the pastry just after his liking.
In this never ending exhortation – evidently written in its groundwork by a pen far smarter and more lucid than Francis, as you can see comparing the writing style with Francis’ inordinate and shallow ramblings – there is pretty much everything most V II Catholic hearts – not mine, not mine! – can desire. Vatican II rhetoric is pretty much everywhere, and once again one has the impression these people think that before 1961 we were in the Stone Age. There are the strongest words against abortion ever heard from the non-obsessing, non narrow-minded Francis, drowned somewhere in the mare magnum of the work. Apparently, Pius XI is mentioned in a note (wow! What a blessing! The Holy Ghost truly is making overtime! Give me the tambourine!). The rhetoric of “joy” is everywhere, which should work well with the tipsy readers. Francis the writer contradicts (not corrects) Francis the interviewee with beautiful regularity (say: on “proselytism”), showing that the skilled anonymous ghost writer knows a bit more of Catholicism than Francis; but still remaining within solid V II, peace ‘n joy, inclusive ecumenical stuff. At least one blunder (actually: heresy) is huge: the idea that the covenant with the Jews is still valid and when God tore the veil in the Temple he was merely suggesting to the Jews that it might be wise to build a new version, with electric motors and extensive use of carbon fiber. This, I suspect, is another V II fad that evidently had to be part of the Smorgasbord to please… Francis’ buddy, the pro-homo Rabbi.
For the rest, one would have to dig deep in the paper mountain. Let me tell you that I refuse to do it and reject the idea Francis can use the LKW-theory with me, or take me by sheer exhaustion. The best and worst parts will come out in the press anyway, and I will comment on them as and when I see fit. But I refuse – as I already did with the 12,000 words interview – the logic of “how can you criticise Marxism if you have not read “Das Kapital” “. I do not doubt in the word mountain there will be tons of V II waffle, some well worded phrases, and some horrible statements.
Still, one thing can be said already. For one who doesn’t even want to read the homilies prepared for him, Francis asks us an awful lot of reading.
Unfortunately, the massive material gathered by them now requires subscription. But Pave The Way – an organisation with extensive access to the Vatican archives – has now released an additional document, revealing that the Allies themselves had asked Pope Pius XII to stay silent about the german deportations of Jewish from Hungary, to avoid the Pope denouncing, whilst doing so, the massacres perpetrated by the Russians.
Notice that whilst the Germans were deporting, the Russians were raping and the Allies were politicking, the Vatican was saving 25,000 Jews from Budapest alone through their vast net of religious institutions and brave helpers.
This documents reveals a typical Pius XII: a shrewd diplomatician forced to move in extremely difficult times; doing all he can to help the oppressed whilst at the same time paying attention not to do anything which might be of damage to the oppressed themselves – one can easily imagine what would have happened in France, in Poland, perhaps in occupied Italy if he had openly and frontally attacked the Nazi regime on the holocaust – and to his Catholic fold alike.
What once more emerges, is a Pope admirably mixing courage, intelligence, prudence and diplomacy.
What a splendid Pope we had, and how fitting that this great man be, in the mad decades that followed his death, be slandered from the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian wolves.
We already know that the beatification prayer for his beatification mass has been already approved. This makes his beatification, to all practical purposes, only a matter of when. But I do think that another cry is here appropriate:
Browsing the net, I have found that this rather impressive news had already been published by the Corriere della Sera last November. The link is not accessible without logging in, therefore I will link to this for those of you blessed with a knowledge of the most useless, but most beautiful language on the planet.
The information is very clear and rather complete, and it is improbable that the Corriere della Sera would risk a blunder on such a matter. It would therefore appear that the prayer has been written by don Nicola Bux, an advisor of the CDF, and that it has already obtained the imprimatur from Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the italian Bishop’s Conference.
It also transpires from the article ( I didn’t know it) that Rai Uno has broadcast a TV series about the life of Pius XII, obviously criticised by the professional holocaust-whinos among those of the Jewish persuasions. Being Rai Uno rather conservative, still clearly Catholic and with the best links with the Vatican, it seems clear to me that the work was meant to “prepare” the Italians to a beatification that it is now difficult not to consider probable in the next few years. In addition, it seems even more difficult to believe that all preparatory work would be made without at least a “safe” miracle, whose existence has been wildly rumoured but never confirmed.
I do hope that Pope Benedict will find the courage to proceed with the beatification of this great, great Pope, choosing – as he must in this case – to weather the storm caused by the liberal, the ignorant and some of the above-mentioned “older brothers and sisters”. A political decision, of course, by which the Holy Father will have to weight the positive and – if any 😉 – negative effects.
May I remind you on this occasion that, on the day of Pope Pacelli’s death, the great saint Padre Pio had a beatific vision of the Pope in paradise, surrounded by angels, which went on for hours. Padre Pio himself never made a mystery of such an occurrence and for the rest of his life showed the utmost certainty about the holy Pope being in Paradise. It goes without saying that the devout followers of Padre Pio – yours truly among them – will, due to the extraordinary power and duration of this vision, find it difficult not to be as persuaded about Pope Pius XII’s immediate access to Paradise as the great Saint himself was.
Let us hope and pray. It seemed clear to me, though, that it is now only a matter of “when”, not “if”.
I always thought that Pontius Pilate is treated too harshly by many Christians. People who don’t even dare to contradict their neighbour when he talks astonishing bollocks in some religious matter are instantly ready to demand that Pilatus be ready to risk a revolution to save their hero. They talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.
The reality on the ground is that the vast majority of the people in his position would have behaved like he did; nay, worse than he did. In fact, it can be easily said that Pilatus did for Jesus more than most would have done in his position and only receded when he saw that the Jewish leaders would give him no other alternative than acquiescence to their demand or all out fall out.
Still, the fact remain that Pilatus clearly sees that justice demands one behaviour, and politics suggests another. Put in front of the choice and being, well, a politician, he makes a politician’s choice; a shrewd move from a political point of view, but a catastrophic one from a moral one. He is, therefore, certainly guilty to an extent – and Jesus tells him so in his face – but clearly not evil, or cowardly.
Pilatus is remarkable for another revealing expression: when Jesus confronts him with the Truth, he replies with the famous: “What is truth”? Little he knew that two thousand years later, the same expression would still be used by all those who, like him, see the Truth in front of them but refuse to accept it, because the acceptance means a price they are not ready to pay.
Pilatus is, then, not evil, but rather a mix of good intentions, political calculations, and less than steely moral standards. He perceives himself as doing “what he can” to help Jesus, but what he can is determined by the way he thinks. At the same time, he is acted as well as acting, as it is abundantly clear from historical sources that Rome truly didn’t want to see further troubles in Palestine. If Pilatus had started an all out confrontation, the first victim would have been himself and I wonder how many of us would, in the same situation, choose the heroic option: to throw to the dogs career and privilege – or worse – in order to make a point about a person he had never seen before – though he had heard about him -, who was unpopular among his own, and not even a Roman citizen.
Pilatus could, of course, have called the bluff and invited the Jews to the homicide-suicide: open revolt, Roman representative deposed or even punished, but Jewish hierarchy massacred by that time. Still, this is more easily said than done, as such a radical option can only be chosen by someone who has made a radical choice for truth. This was clearly neither the case in the concrete situation, nor part of the job description in general.
Pilatus chooses, therefore, to do not what is moral, but what is rational. Clearly, if he had chosen to accept the risk of a revolt over an individual case of such small (we would say today) geopolitical relevance for Rome, the accusations of having been utterly emotional and of having started a mess for the sake of his pal’s skin would have been, in the Roman perspective, clearly impossible to refute. Pilatus’ drama is, therefore, a dilemma that continues to be fascinating to this day and only the most stupid must tell themselves “If I had been in his place I’d have saved Jesus, of course!” Well, firstly with such a mentality you wouldn’t have been in his place in the first place and secondly no, you don’t even have the cojones to criticise the scandalous behaviour around you, so the jewish mob would have scared the crap out of you and no mistake.
Pilatus has become the epitome of cowardice, and I do not think it is fair. He behaves with consideration and humanity *; he goes to great lengths to save Jesus; he extensively tests the waters and leans himself out of the window more than most politicians of today would think of doing; but he recoils when he sees that no half solution is possible and that he is put in front of the fundamental choice and asked to decide whether justice or ragion di Stato should carry the day.
There is, I am afraid, a Pilatus in every one of us. His dilemma is our dilemma in our everyday fight to be coherent Christians; his ultimate moral defeat is, very clearly, ours.
I love to think that he has been forgiven and is now safely in Paradise. For obvious reasons, I like the “Good Romans” mentioned in the Gospels (say: the Roman centurion with the ill servant; or the other centurion under the Cross, Longinus, who – if memory serves – went on to convert and, some say, become a bishop). Pilatus doesn’t match them, but I don’t think he is the worst, either.
Tomorrow, I’ll hear the whole story again. Once again, I’ll be confronted with Pilatus’ dilemma. Once again, I’ll as myself what I would have done in his shoes (I mean really done, not as an armchair general safely talking with the benefit of hindsight, and of two thousand years of Christianity). And once again, I’ll bow my head in shame.
A prayer for Pilatus is, I think, fully in order.
* note that even his order to have Jesus flogged is from the background of the hope that after the flogging the Jews might renounce to have him executed.