Former priest, now full-time heretic commie Leonardo Boff said it very clearly: Francis is one of us.
He gives facts and places, too: a meeting not happened because Francis was too angry after the thirteen cardinals letter, and an official request of material written by a heretic for his own opus diabolicum.
What kind of chap Boff is would be clear, to casual observer who does not know him, simply by reading this interview: he states he still “celebrates” every now and then, and talks of women deacon with the same levity with which I talk of Italian football.
Such a man openly claims his vicinity to Francis, a Pope who uses his writings for his own heretical “pastoral” documents.
In sane times, such an interview would cause an immediate, scandalised denial from the Vatican. In this case, you may be sure the reaction will be the usual one: silence, and a “wink-wink” to heresy.
From their friends you will recognise them.
This is a priest in good standing, according to Pope Francis.
The FFI is still persecuted, one of its founders still kept in seclusion and slandered.
Open you eyes and behold the shameless inadequacy of this disgraceful Pope.
Another very interesting blog post from Father Ray Blake concerning, among other things, a poorer Church.
Whilst this is not the only interesting point Father makes, I would like here to write some reflections on this issue.
It seems to me that particularly after V II poverty has been vastly overrated, if not almost deified. Reading about the Church of the past I never got the impression that the Church feels the need to be poor, or that there be any particular grace in being poor. True, God's providence works with everything, and poverty can be an excellent way to grow in holiness; but in others, poverty will lead to degradation or outright revolt against God, so again there is no indication poverty is a blessing in itself.
Padre Pio did not treat his rich followers differently than the poor ones, nor did he consider them second-class followers. In all ages, pious people have used their riches to give us the massive monuments to Christianity that we find all over the Christian world. Even today, in many countries, an awful amount of the expenses of the Church is actually paid by the rich (I wish I remembered where I read here in the UK donations from wealthy individuals make 40% of the total income). Whilst everything can be a vehicle of God's grace, and God may use poverty and financial misfortune as a medicinal remedy, or even as a special sign of affection for those He loves – and whom He will allow to get, through their poverty, nearer to him – I don't think it can be said that poverty is desirable in itself. If it were so, Catholics would not seek to alleviate poverty, but would rather limit themselves to congratulate the poor for the blessing so copiously showered upon them from God; and the more starving, the better.
In fact, we see that the contrary happens: the poor is given the chance to grow in holiness through patience, perseverance in prayer, lack of envy for the rich, gratefulness for their help and useful activity to better his situation if he can; and the rich can grow in charity by helping the poor, using God's grace ad maiorem Dei gloriam, and grow in charity avoiding the sin of pride, loving the poor and the afflicted, and understanding wealth is, like every other grace, given to one so that he makes good use of it.
This is not the narrative I see too often around me, and which rather states the childish equivalence “poor, good” and “rich, bad”. In this I see the sin of envy that causes socialism, communism, and liberation theology, and that this envy is covered under a blanket of supposed pious feelings makes it the more odious.
I make a point of saying a prayer for every obviously rich man I see on the streets of Central London – you see a lot of Ferraris, and the like – in the same way as I pray for every one I see on a wheelchair or with an obvious disability; not because I think that the rich is more in need of prayers than I am, but because it helps me to understand that God's providence works in the rich and the poor alike, and I do not need to be despondent, much less envious, because others have infinitely more earthly goods than I have.
I know, the one or other can take some saint out of context and let him state that rich people go to hell, & Co;, but these generally colourful encouragements to embrace one's condition or use one's wealth properly can never be used to go against the univocal Church teaching on wealth, about which I have written in the past (the search function is your friend).
The mentality that wealth is “bad” unavoidably leads to the other mistake that the Church and Her components must, consequently, be poor. Again, it is not known to me this is the way the Church traditionally saw itself. Rome alone has several thousands churches all telling a different tale. Granted, it can be part of the rules of a religious order that its members be poor, but such rules do not extend to the order itself, nor to parish priests, much less to the Church as institution.
If you ask me, the Church must not only be rich, but she must be splendid. She must have beauty and splendour to honour God, and the financial muscle to intimidate her enemies; her priests and bishops should be always ready to suffer persecution and death for Christ, but they should also live, whenever possible, in a way at least proportionate to the dignity of their office; if they have special powers and responsibilities, their outward appearance, residence, transport and general way of life should reflect their special role.
Modern bishops don't want to live in palaces, but they would also not be able to justify, with their Christian zeal, their living there. Their modesty is the modesty of the mediocre, and their simplicity the somplicity of the philistine who doesn't know beauty, and therefore thinks doing without it is no big deal; it's the modesty of the one who refuses the fine wine, because his horizon does not go beyond Pepsi. Many agree with such bishops, and with the Pepsi mentality.
Of course such people don't understand why the Church should be rich and splendid and powerful: they would want the Church to be as mediocre and little as they are. Of course they want the bishop to drive a Ford Focus and live in an apartment: they would be envious if he had a Mercedes S-Class and lived in a palace. Of course they want the Church to “sell her treasures”: they will never understand their beauty.
There is nothing wrong with a Prince of the Church living in a palace, provided he is a true Prince of the Church. Princes are not called to be poor. But they are called to be true Princes of the Only Church, rather than caricatures of social workers desperate for approval.
Give me a strong Bishop, truly committed to Christ, truly ready to fight the fight. I will, with many others, make some sacrifices so that he can have the palace and the S-Class Mercedes, the cooks and the servants, the glory and the splendour of the Only Church.
The usual Rorate Caeli has the complete text of Leonardo Boff’s interview with Der Spiegel (a rabidly anti-Catholic German magazine known for having swallowed the legend of “Hitler’s diaries” whole).
First of all, let us consider Boff left the priesthood. He is even less qualified than the likes of Kueng (who nominally is still a priest) to talk about the new Papacy with any pretence of credibility. Still, it might be useful to examine how the mind of such apostates work.
1. To him, even Scherer is too much of a conservative. He might be satisfied with the revolutionary credentials of Lenin, but I doubt.
2. He thinks “the Pope can do anything”, showing an ignorance of Catholicism that you would be put to shame by a properly instructed boy of ten. This man was allowed to become priest and friar. It truly says it all.
3. Boff met Bergoglio once. He says they got along famously, but I have never read the same statement from the other party. He sounds like those people indulging in “name dropping” to make themselves important with the shallow and the simple. “yeah, I met Tom Cruise once. We are practically friends”.
4. Boff defends Pope Francis from accusations of having help the Argentinian generals, and mentions one of the alleged victims of the alleged “betrayal”. Not good for the “Spiegeltruppen”, for sure….
5. He also credits him with the intention of making three (or four) quarters of a Revolution, and I mean a theological one. He is in urgent need of a doctor, besides a confessor.
Note that the interviewer never challenges him with questions like “don’t you think the Pope is supposed to be Catholic” or “what do you think of the deposit of faith”; his questions are merely aimed at criticising Bergoglio more than Boff does, in order to let Boff appear, in some twisted ways, a moderate.
Der Spiegel is a publication for atheists who have sworn enmity to the Church. They and their readers are made for Leonardo Boff.
Just in case someone is confused (I am; time and again)…..
The National Catholic Register is very orthodox. Excellent bloggers like the Archbold brothers can be found there. They still belong to the Legionaries of Christ, a group that, whatever you may say of their disgraceful founder, can’t be defined as “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination. They were, last time I looked, in the process of being bought by EWTN.
The National Catholic Reporter is, on the other hand, the disgusting, openly heretical, leftist, pacifist and, well, cretin-ist publication often exposed on these pages as well as in countless other blogs. They are good to test your patience on very calm, relaxed days. They are also good to start being extremely worried should you, for a strange coincidence, happen to be of their opinion. Can’t remember it ever happening to me, though. We might agree on 2+2=4, but that’s about it.
Therefore please keep in mind: reporter= bad. Very easy to memorise, I should say.
Similarly, if you look at the “good” American Catholic you land here, a thoroughly orthodox site always good for some good reading and, at times, a good laugh.
But if you are inattentive, you may easily land on this site, a Franciscan outlet which, when it writes something right, does it purely unintentionally and on which I have read, in months past and whilst being inattentive, some of the most stinking post-Liberation Theology crap ever. Might be improving, though, as the Grim Reaper incessantly works through the ranks and files of the once-glorious Franciscans.
This should be easier, as upon seeing that one has landed on a Franciscan site the desire to click oneself away should be, actually, automatic and almost irresistible.
Think before you click, then, and be aware of the consequences. I remember serene afternoons utterly ruined at the thought of the people reading the “reporter” and leaving comments about how wrong Catholic doctrine is, perhaps ruining others in the process. Not a nice thought.
Hans Küng lives in a world apart, rarely disturbed by inconvenient things like, say, reality.
From his separate planet, this vecchio malvissuto (yes, Manzoni again) has given an interview to the German Frankfurter Rundschau (reds, mind you; think of them as of the German “Guardian”) and has said some astonishing but, nevertheless, rather entertaining things. Let us examine some of the pearls of this heretical wannabe “thinker”, whose logic a child knowing his Penny Catechism could demolish without a second thought (and therefore, “cannabis thinker” might be more appropriate).
The Rundschau says that;
Küng argues that John Paul’s harsh treatment of Latin American liberation theologians such as Gutierrez and Boff represented the “exact opposite” of decent Christian behaviour
This is really, really not funny. The late Pope slept very soundly for about five years (means: the usual useless appeals, followed by other useless appeals) before finally acting against the so-called Liberation Theology. This inaction was a scandal and nothing less than a disgrace. But no, in cannabislandia you are unchristian because you move against heresy. I’d like to know with what behaviour (after the many years of sound sleep) Mr. Küng would have been satisfied. Conversion to heresy, methinks. Or passing the joint.
On the “santo subito” events, our man says:
“The whole thing was just a con act by conservative and reactionary Catholic groups, especially those ones that are very strong in Spain, Italy and Poland.”
One really wonders whether this man reads the newspapers. All over the planet, conservative Catholics are in a frenzy because of the rush with which this beatification has been pushed through, and the chap thinks that it has been… manipulated by them. I wonder when in Mr. Küng’s mind you start being “conservative”. Probably when you wear a priest’s habit (or when you don’t want to smoke joints).
The biscuit must, though, go to this one:
“John Paul II is universally praised as someone who fought for peace and human rights. But his preaching to the outside world was in total contrast with the way he ran the church from inside, with an authoritarian pontificate which suppressed the rights of both women and theologians.”
Even by sixty-eighters standards, this is rather unbelievable. A Pope is criticised for being…… a Pope! He is considered oppressive for being…. Catholic! What does this chap smoke in the morning ?!
It is beyond me how this man could ever be considered a Catholic, let alone a theologian. Either he is not compos mentis because of excessive marijuana consumption, or he is so firmly in the hand of the devil that he doesn’t even care to disguise it anymore in any conceivable way. He reminds one of the beautiful words of Father Corapi:
My grandmother, who had only an eighth grade education, knew more than many theologians because she knew the truth.
Hans Küng has culpably and willfully chosen not to know the truth; or perhaps he knows it all too well and tries to undermine, it because he is on Satan’s side.
In all this, he cannot even see the great scandal which, alone, destroys all his pot-related (or, alternatively, satanic) theories: that he has not yet been defrocked.
In both cases, another beautiful Corapi saying applies:
When you crash against the rock, you will not damage the rock but you will hurt yourself.