BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI







What did the media really expect to see
in the private papal apartment in Castel Gandolfo?

This CBS news reportage finds the papal bedroom 'remarkably simple'. DUH!

Because the Fondazione Vatican JR-B16 had earlier shown a picture of the bedroom as it was from B16's last use of it, no one can say that the bedroom made open to tourists since Friday was somehow dressed down from what it was when used by the popes. (In fact, the new pictures show a not altogether tidily made up bedcover, where it is less than carefully draped over the pillows.)

The bedroom was the only room in the private apartment that ABC News photographed in its initial slide show on the 'new' Castel Gandolfo Museum!

One will grant the bedroom in CG is more spacious than the bedroom we are shown for JMB at Casa Santa Marta, but his bedroom has a separate sitting room and little study beyond the bedroom (see photos in earlier post).


ROMEREPORTS video of the papal bedroom.


Considering that Venerable Pius XII and Blessed Paul VI both died in the papal bedroom at CG, which was also
occupied by Saints John XXIII and John Paul II (and by Benedict XVI, future Doctor of the Church), I really
think the bedroom and its adjoining chapel should have been consecrated as a shrine and pilgrimage site, and
treated differently from the rest of the rooms open to tourists. I think there should also be a historical
plaque on the balcony from which Benedict XVI delivered his last public words as Pope... Does no one at
the Bergoglio Vatican have any sense of history and sacrosanct places? The ROMEREPORTS video does not
show any explanatory sign for the visitor - as other museums would have - of how sacrosanct this papal bedroom is.

The ff post is not exactly sequitur, but it bears reading because it gives broader context to a relatively trivial public curiosity about papal bedrooms...

I cried when Pope Paul VI died

October 21, 2016

When Pope Paul VI died, the Bear and his bride Red Death were virtually walking out the door to head cross-country for a second assignment to Defense Language Institute for the Arabic Egyptian dialect course. Watching the coverage on the Bear's adoptive parents' television, we both teared up.

We knew next to nothing about the man. It never occurred to us to wonder whether he was a good pope or a bad pope. All we knew was that he was the Pope. He was a revered father figure - a symbol of our identity as Roman Catholics. To be Catholic was to hang a picture of the pope on your wall, probably next to a picture of JFK, as in Red Death's childhood home.

Perhaps if we had been paying more attention, we might have picked up on the controversy over Humanae Vitae. But neither of us had so much of a whiff of anything like that, let alone the intricacies of the second Vatican council.

The Bear cannot help but look upon those days of blessed ignorance with nostalgia. Now, as passengers in the Barque of Peter, the Captain is on the bridge barking commands to rock and knock us between bulkheads, pursuing a punishing zig-zag course as if to dodge torpedoes of orthodoxy.

One can hardly help forming opinions about Francis and what he says. He possesses an overexposure Kim Kardashian can only dream of. No remote father figure he. Francis is more like a carping mother [PRUSSIAN NANNY, NOT MOTHER!]: constantly, constantly criticizing and exhorting. He will not let us alone. He lacks the wisdom to understand why this is bad. That doesn't matter, though, because he lacks the discipline to step out of the spotlight and let the Church proceed upon her stately course. Somehow, Francis has convinced himself it needs every single idea that enters his head to correct course and ensure safe passage.

The Bear has said it before: Francis sees himself not so much as Pope than as Prophet. He is the third source of revelation, along with Holy Scripture and Tradition. Unlike the prophets of old, however, his message is not one of sin and repentance, but worldly opinions and accommodation in the name of mercy.

One day, the world will learn, if there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind but Francis'S, that the Church can get along without Pope Francis. On the Vatican website, instead of his latest confounding homily, will be the umbraculum of the sede vacante Holy See without a pope.

The Bear doubts anyone in his family will cry for him.

Saying the traditional Mass at a Novus Ordo altar-table: Push the table up against the existing functionless 'altar', set the requisite six candles and Crucifix as Benedict XVI recommended even for the N-O, set up the necessary TLM Mass cards - and voila! Except, what's with all that greenery in front of the tabernacle?

I wish we could e-mail this to all the priests in the world...

Dear Fathers:
An Advent challenge for you

Oct. 22, 2016

A note and call to action for our priestly readers (and for our lay readers, send this post to your local parish priests):

We often hear from diocesan priests who either pray a private traditional Latin Mass but whose public Masses are Novus Ordo, or priests who say one TLM a week, with the rest of their Masses being the Novus Ordo.

What they tell us is that they either have no room in their schedule to add the TLM, or that one TLM a week is all they can do, due to the ignorance of their Novus Ordo parishioners which would not support any or additional traditional Masses.

Looking at this situation dispassionately (and without the blue hairs complaining vociferously in our ears, as we know you dear Fathers deal with), it all seems to boil down to fear of the unknown: Your parishioners don't know what they're missing, your schedule is already full even if the pews aren't, and you don't know how to introduce them to the traditional Mass.

Bold idea and challenge for priests: Whether you have a weekly TLM already or not, choose your highest attended Novus Ordo Sunday Mass and, the first week of Advent, make it a TLM.

This would preferably be a Sung Mass. If you can't pull together polyphony or chant, your typical choir will work. And if they can't pull off a full Missa Cantata, a "four-hymn sandwich" Low Mass will do. If you don't have servers trained in the TLM, just ask the nearest parish that offers it. They will surely part with two servers for one Sunday to spread tradition. And don't worry about the fine details. If you're missing certain things, most won't notice anyway.

Also: Do NOT announce this in advance (if you are comfortable with this). You don't need the heat from the "liturgy group" of ladies before it happens. Just make a quick announcement a couple of minutes before Mass begins. You can tell the congregation that Cardinal Sarah, "from the Vatican," asked you to celebrate Mass ad orientem in Advent, and you are expanding on his request by making it a traditional Latin Mass as well. If Pope Francis's Vatican wants it, who can complain? [But who says the Bergoglio Vatican 'wants' it???]

What may just happen after forcibly exposing your Catholics to true Catholicism is that your already-on-the-schedule TLM becomes more widely attended or, if you don't have a current TLM, you may just get that "stable group" of parishioners to justify starting a new Sunday TLM and ending one of the most likely numerous Novus Ordos with sparse Sunday attendance.

Last: If you try this, please let us know! Send us an email and let us know how it went, what the response was and what your future plans are for the TLM. Feel free to write as much as you want. Send your story to athanasiuscatholic@yahoo.com. If you request it, we'll keep your name and the name of your parish private.

Catholics in the USA!
Julian Assange of Wikileaks,
a snotty leftist hacker, may be
the best friend you have right now
by Oakes Spalding

Oct. 17, 2016

Wikileaks, under the leadership of Julian Assange, has been publishing embarrassing leaked emails from the Clinton campaign for a number of weeks.

(This post will contain no links. Things are changing so fast, there isn't a lot of point. Go to Drudge for the latest. It will be up for at least the next few months.)

There have been so many devastating Wikileaks reveals that they threaten to drown each other out.

For Catholics, the most interesting revelations have been that Clinton operatives view faithful Catholics as enemies and set up two Catholic front groups to control and influence not only the Catholic vote but the direction of the Catholic Church itself.

In a free country with a free media, these leaks would be the lead stories every day on the major networks and on the front pages of every newspaper. No one has denied their accuracy. Instead, there has been almost a total mainstream media blackout.

A small exception was a report on CNN, where it was announced that if anyone read Wikileaks material without it being filtered through CNN, he might be breaking the law.

And the content of the leaks themselves have shown the media to be completely in the tank for the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign.

If we had an honest government, many of the leaks would have prompted FBI investigations. Instead, the US government is now cracking down on Wikileaks and Assange to retaliate against them for releasing information that put the Clinton campaign in a negative light. Does that make sense?

Assange has been in sanctuary in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for the past four years. Technically, he's attempting to avoid extradition to Sweden (and then perhaps the United States) for accusations of sexual harassment that came up at precisely the most convenient (for his opponents) moment. Does that sound familiar?

Take a good look at his face. He may not be long for this world. In the last 24 hours his internet access (in the embassy) has been cut off, and they've acted against other alleged Wikileaks operators, attempting to block them as well.

The British government has also just acted against RT News. It is alleged (without any evidence that I know of) that Russia is the source for some of the Wikileaks material.

The US may have just launched, or be about to launch, a cyberwar with Russia to protect the Clinton presidential campaign. Does that make sense?

So, fearing the worst, Wikileaks has apparently just activated its "dead man" switch, revealing a key to decrypt some of its most important data.

What does it all mean? This isn't our country anymore.

And by "our", I'm not just referring to fellow faithful Catholics. Far from it. Faithful Catholics are just 1% (or whatever) of the current community of peasants. You better start making friends with some of the others.

The bad guys want to keep that boot grinding down. It's their country. Or they think it is. And they'll do anything to keep it that way.

Julian Assange is a snotty, leftist hacker. But right now, he may be the best friend you have.

Tomorrow, he'll be you.


Fr. Rutler's weekly pastoral note tackles the Wikileaks scandal on the Hillary Clinton anti-Catholic strategy...
Are Americans turning into people
who will willingly martyrize martyrs?
by Fr. George W. Rutler

Oct. 23, 2016

Last Sunday, seven saints were canonized: two martyrs, four priests and a contemplative nun. The martyrs were Salomone Leclercq, who was killed during the French Revolution in 1792, and José Sánchez del Río, who was only 14 when he was tortured and shot in 1928 while resisting the anti-Catholic government of Mexico.

It is embarrassing to match these figures against various people in our own country who call themselves Catholics while trying to refashion the Church to their own liking.

Recently discovered WikiLeaks documents have revealed attempts by politicians to strip the Church of her Catholic principles so that she might be a pliant agent of a secular agenda. I have written about this recently with reference to saints who saw similar attempts in their own days. (See www.crisismagazine.com: “Two Newmans and Two Catholic Springs.”)

One of the politicians wrote: “There needs to be a Catholic Spring in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.”

This mixture of arrogance and ignorance is contradicted by the fact that dictatorships are the typical construct of governments hostile to the Faith. The emperor Julian the Apostate set the tone in the fourth century. Then fast forward a millennium to Henry VIII shrinking the Church in England into the Church of England, and that manipulation grew with gusto when the French revolutionaries created a Gallican Church, the Nazis set up a Reichskirche, and the Chinese Communists imposed a Patriotic Church.

The outward forms of those sects camouflaged their pliant obsequiousness to their respective tyrannies. They were enabled by morally ambiguous politicians who professed to be “personally opposed” to sin while giving free reign to its public promotion.

A Church refashioned to indulge the suburban conceits of lukewarm Christians [or even worse, CINOs, Christians in name only, which Democrats who call themselves Christians are] would not be the Church of Christ Crucified. There were more mockers at the foot of the Cross than adorers.

Archbishop Kurtz, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has responded:

---

“There have been recent reports that some may have sought to interfere in the internal life of the Church for short-term political gain. If true, this is troubling both for the well-being of faith communities and the good of our country. . .

As Catholics, we hold onto our beliefs because they come to us from Jesus, not a consensus forged by contemporary norms. . . We also expect public officials to respect the rights of people to live their faith without interference from the state.”

---

In 1922, Chesterton said, “America is a nation with the soul of a church.” If compromised Catholics sell that soul in a Faustian bargain, our nation will be like a whitewashed sepulchre and will not produce willing martyrs, but will produce people who willingly martyrize the martyrs.

In the category of bizarre info-manipulation moves, one must take note of the Bergoglio Vatican's tendency and attempts to suppress previously published material from the Vatican website for various reasons known only to those responsible for the censorship. In the early days of this pontificate, for weeks and weeks Benedict XVI's cameo portrait was not included in the Vatican home page's image links to the popes preceding the current one.

And we are all familiar with the on-and-off appearance of Eugenio Scalfari's (unedited) accounts of his conversations with JMB, glorified under the rubric DOCUMENTS of this Pontificate. I do not know if they are back on as of today, but it does not matter because they have been included in the Vatican-published volumes of Bergoglio's various interviews... Well, here are the latest twists and turns from the [shadowy] Vatican webmaster(s):

Pius XI’s writings return to Vatican website,
but not JPII’s exhortations on marriage
by Steve Skojec

October 21, 2016

On Wednesday, it was noted that Pope Pius XI’s page on the Vatican website had vanished, along with all of his encyclicals, even though the work of popes both before and after him remained.

We noted that his Mortalium Animos is damning of modern-day ecumenism, and Quas Primas is, of course, another encyclical that has — inasmuch as it promotes the civic duty to recognize Christ the King — shoved down the memory hole in action, if not in fact.

Others noted that Casti Connubii — still arguably the most authoritative papal document on marriage and family — is an even more inconvenient bit of magisterial truth. But despite many suspicions, at some point yesterday, his page — and his documents — returned. There was no notation of any kind, so we may never know what happened, or why. And perhaps it doesn’t ultimately matter, if it was really (as is likely) just a mistake.

Nevertheless, Bai MacFarlane of Mary’s Advocates observed something similar yesterday, and it’s a problem that hasn’t been resolved:

---

Five translations of Saint Pope John Paul II’s often-quoted instruction to tribunal judges was removed from the Vatican’s website some time last year. It is now only available in Italian.

Each year, the Pope gives an address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota and these are instructions to the world’s canon lawyers from THE legislator, the Pope. In 1987, Saint Pope John Paul II gave an address that cautioned against misusing the grounds for nullity of marriage – particularly “on the pretext of some immaturity or psychic weakness” (Canon 1095).

I posted a YouTube video on the Mary’s Advocates channel, showing how the Vatican’s website used to have a page showing all of Saint Pope John Paul’s addresses to the Roman Rota (in up to six different languages). That webpage was removed some time last year, which I demonstrate in my video by using a public webpage archiving tool, “way back time machine.” ...

In Saint Pope John Paul II’s 1987 address to the tribunal, he cautioned against the “scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage being practically destroyed by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity of marriage in cases of the failure of marriage.”

He taught, “By preventing the ecclesiastical tribunal from becoming an easy way out for the dissolution of marriages that have failed, […] it also brings about an increased commitment in the use of resources for pastoral care of people after marriage.” He cites Familiaris Consortio’s instruction for helping married couples in day-to-day married life, long before anyone is thinking about divorce.

In my research, I found that in the active tribunals that cover half the population of the United States in 2012, they granted annulment (on average) in 98.7 percent of the cases judged.

In the summer of 2015, Pope Francis made some newsworthy changes to the annulment process, making them less expensive and faster. However, the grounds for annulment themselves were technically not changed. Sometime after that, the English translation of Saint Pope John Paul’s 1987 speech the Roman Rota appears to be missing from the Vatican’s website, along with the list of all of his speeches in multiple languages.

---

The sad thing is that in an age where we have a Vatican that can’t be trusted — and a complicit Catholic media helping them to edit inconvenient statements out of papal speeches in real time — occurrences such as these automatically take on the suspicion of being anything but an accident.

I am reminded time and again by even my most suspicious friends who have dealt with the Vatican directly of the first rule in such cases: Never ascribe to malice what can be equally easily attributed to incompetence when it comes to the Vatican and the Internet.

Nevertheless, it is a bit easier to believe an entire missing webpage is an accident than the surreptitious removal of easily accessible translations.

PRAY FOR HIM BECAUSE IN PRAYING FOR HIM, WE ARE REALLY PRAYING FOR THE CHURCH ABOVE ALL....

I obviously do not waste my time trying to look for JMB photos unless I have to do it to illustrate something specific... I came across the photo above on canon12.com, and decided I should lift it for the record. It could be a good gambit for a 'caption this photo' play, but I am simply posting it as a great 'speaks for itself' shot, without further comment.

Earliest known portrait of St. Augustine - from a 6th century fresco in the Lateran Basilica, Rome.

Augustine and 'the fat lady'
by Regis Martin

October 22, 2016

There were no operatic productions in the time of Saint Augustine of Hippo. That inspired mix of music and drama and dance had not yet been invented. But the sainted North African bishop would certainly have understood and, who knows, perhaps have even approved, the buxom lady with horned helmet, spear and sword, whose aria at the close of Wagner’s famous Ring Cycle gave rise to the oft-quoted, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”

The reference, of course, is to the fierce Valkyrie Brunnhilde, whose stirring peroration foretells The Twilight of the Gods (Goetterdammerung), which brings crashingly to a close the world as we know it.

So why would Augustine sign on for something so, well, Wagnerian? Because, using the clearest moral lens around, he recognized that the journey home to heaven will not end until the end, until the very last ballot is cast, and the choice for or against God crystallizes round the soul for all eternity. In short, when the fat lady gets up and, belting out her final burst of song, the face of finality reveals itself once and for all.

It may take some getting used to, but in the case of Augustine, destined to become the foremost teacher in the West on the mysteries of grace and free will, there was always this persistent, fugitive sense of fear, of salutary doubt, whispering to him that, at the end of the day, he might not make it.

That at the hour of death he would find himself left behind, lost forever despite every holy desire that he be gathered into the arms of Almighty God.

Indeed, even the lightest of sins, he tells us, when counting up their cost, caused him to “tremble.” Notwithstanding, in other words, every conviction of faith he possessed that it was God to whom he was going, and that Christ was the only way to get there, he remained very much afraid that he might fall short of reaching the goal, that the entire shooting match could be lost in a shot.

He was, we are told in the Confessions, “a man made deeply afraid by the weight of my sins.” And so we must never, he argued, presume on a gift the offer of which none of us has the least entitlement to in the first place.

This was especially true for all the souls he had to make special provision for, since he was their bishop. What else are shepherds good for if they will not first have a care for their flocks? Not to assist them along the way would amount to a dereliction of duty that would surely forfeit the bishop’s own salvation.

Given the episcopal exigencies of Augustine’s life, therefore, the road was never better than the inn. And whoever thought otherwise (was it Cervantes?) was a fool. What’s the point of a road if it does not take you to the inn? So, yes, there has got to be a road and, for the baptized certainly, it is marked at every turn by the Sign of the Cross.

But it’s only a good and useful road if, in following along its many byways, we reach the promised inn at the end. We go to the House of the Father, as Pope Saint John Paul II repeatedly said in the last hours of his life, and there amid the precincts of an unending felicity we shall find all that we were looking for when, stumbling about in a land of shadows, we sought out the unseen sun. But we must not imagine that our admission will be automatic.

Professor Peter Brown, in his superb biography of Augustine, which I happily rediscovered the other day after first reading it almost thirty years ago, tells us that Augustine would often remind his flock that they must think of themselves as invalids, perpetually on the brink of losing everything:

---

Like the wounded man found near death by the wayside in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, his life had been saved by the rite of Baptism; but he must be content to endure, for the rest of his life, a prolonged and precarious convalescence in the Inn of the Church.

---

What a lovely image that is. Yes, we are all wounded – by the Devil with the lesion of concupiscence, and by the gracious wound of God’s love – and the knowledge that this is so remains both true and consoling.

It is true because, moving between the shores of being and nothingness, we could at any moment interrupt the trajectory and by the shortest route possible take ourselves straight to hell. Or, under the impulse of grace, we could actually set our minds and wills on reaching heaven.

After all, says Augustine, “Love is my gravitation,” and where it goes I too shall go. Why not, then, choose to love one whose very being is love?

How wonderfully consoling it is, too, that for all the backsliding we do (and for some of us the practice of recidivism has been perfected almost to the point of scientific precision), we need not despair because, in his unfathomable mercy, God has given us a remedy that is never far away. Which is to say, the ministry of the sacraments, of the medicine box wherein the flow of forgiveness never runs dry.

“O felix culpa!” Shouldn’t this be Augustine’s last word? Which he spoke with such an astonishment of gratitude that maybe even the fat lady will get up and, who knows, seeing the promised Redeemer walk onto the stage, sing a very different song altogether.

The grace of a happy death is one we should wish and pray for everyone. I may be faulted for taking liberties with the second verse of the 'Hail Mary', but since I first visited the great Shrine to St. Joseph [who is the patron saint of a happy death, in addition to being Patron of the Universal Church] in Montreal in the mid-1980s, I took to adding his name in the prayer, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, [and St. Joseph], pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death", and therefore, in all the rosaries I have ever prayed since then.

This is the bishop Bergoglio passed over for the likes of Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin and Keith Farrell as unworthy for now to get a red hat. A friend remarked that in this talk, perhaps Mons. Chaput decided to throw all caution to the wind, and I would have liked to think so too.

But the message that CRISIS chose to make into the headline for this talk is something that Mons. Chaput ought to address first of all to the current pope, to whom he makes some genuflections in this talk which I thought were completely unnecessary. What JMB has done from Day 1 is precisely to plug himself - and the church he is a-buildin' at the expense of the Catholic Church - into the worst aspects of the dominant secular culture, falling into bed gladly and willingly (to mix my metaphors badly) with the arch-promoters of this culture.

Time for Catholics to unplug
from our secular culture
by Mons. CHARLES J. CHAPUT, O.F.M. CAP.
Archbishop of Philadelphia

October 20, 2016

Editor’s note: The following talk, originally titled “Remembering Who We Are and the Story We Belong To,” was delivered October 19, 2016 at the 2016 Bishops’ Symposium co-sponsored by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and the McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame and is published here with permission of the author.

Much of what I say today you probably already know. But that doesn’t prevent a good discussion, so I hope you’ll bear with me.

As I sat down to write my talk last week, a friend emailed me a copy of a manuscript illustration from the thirteenth century. It’s a picture of Mary punching the devil in the nose. She doesn’t rebuke him. She doesn’t enter into a dialogue with him. She punches the devil in the nose. So I think that’s the perfect place to start our discussion.

When most Catholics think about Mary, we have one of two images in our heads: the virginal Jewish teen from Galilee who says yes to God’s plan; or the mother of Jesus, the woman of mercy and tenderness, “our life, our sweetness and our hope.”

We can too easily forget that Mary is also the woman clothed in the sun who crushes the head of the serpent. She embodies in her purity the greatness of humanity fully alive in God. She’s the mother who intercedes for us, comforts us and teaches us — but who also defends us.

And in doing that, she reminds us of the great line from C.S. Lewis that Christianity is a “fighting religion” — not in the sense of hatred or violence directed at other persons, but rather in the spiritual struggle against the evil in ourselves and in the world around us, where our weapons are love, justice, courage and self-giving.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem described our spiritual struggle this way: “There is a serpent [the devil] by the wayside watching those who pass by: beware lest he bite thee with unbelief. He sees so many receiving salvation and is seeking whom he may devour.”

The great American writer Flannery O’Connor added that whatever form the serpent may take, “it is of this mysterious passage past him, or into his jaws, that stories of any depth will always be concerned to tell, and this being the case, it requires considerable courage at any time, in any country,” not to turn away from God’s story or the storyteller.

If our theme as a meeting this week is reclaiming the Church for the Catholic imagination, we can’t overlook the fact that the flesh and blood model for our Church — Mary as mater et magistra — is quite accomplished at punching the devil in the nose. And as Mary’s adopted sons, we need to be bishops who lead and teach like the great Cyril of Jerusalem.

Having said all that, my thoughts today come in three parts. I want to speak first about the people we’ve become as American Catholics. Then I’ll turn to how and why we got where we are. Finally I’ll suggest what we need to do about it, not merely as individuals, but more importantly as a Church.

We need to recover our identity as a believing community. And I think a good way to begin doing that is with the “catechetical content” of our current political moment.

My focus today isn’t politics. And I won’t waste our time weighing one presidential candidate against the other. I’ve already said elsewhere that each is a national embarrassment, though for different reasons. But politics involves the application of power, and power always has a moral dimension. So we can’t avoid dealing with this election at least briefly.

Here’s what I find curious. Given Mr. Trump’s ugly style and the hostility he sparks in the media, Mrs. Clinton’s lead should be even wider than it is. But it’s not. And there’s a lesson in that. It’s this. Even many people who despise what Mr. Trump stands for seem to enjoy his gift for twisting the knife in America’s leadership elite and their spirit of entitlement, embodied in the person of Hillary Clinton.

Americans aren’t fools. They have a good sense of smell when things aren’t right. And one of the things wrong with our country right now is the hollowing out and retooling of all the key words in our country’s public lexicon; words like democracy, representative government, freedom, justice, due process, religious liberty and constitutional protections.

The language of our politics is the same. The content of the words is different. Voting still matters. Public protest and letters to members of Congress can still have an effect. But more and more of our nation’s life is governed by executive order, judicial overreach and administrative agencies with little accountability to Congress.

People feel angry because they feel powerless. And they feel powerless because in many ways they are. When Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, he assumed that only two basic social structures were possible in the modern era, democracy and aristocracy. Because of its mass appeal, democracy would be the winner. Once we assume that power flows from the people, the ordinary citizen, not some self-styled nobility, obviously has the right to rule.

Or at least that’s the theory. Reality is more complex. Tocqueville noted that even in America, both “aristocratic [and] democratic passions are found at the bottom of all parties.” These passions might be hidden from view. But they’re very much alive and well. It’s worth noting that aristoi is just the Greek word for “the best,” and in practice, social elites come in all shapes and sizes.

The 2016 election is one of those rare moments when the repellent nature of both presidential candidates allows the rest of us to see our nation’s pastoral terrain as it really is. And the view is unpleasant.

America’s cultural and political elites talk a lot about equality, opportunity and justice. But they behave like a privileged class with an authority based on their connections and skills. And supported by sympathetic media, they’re remaking the country into something very different from anything most of us remember or the Founders imagined.

The WikiLeaks email release last week from the Clinton entourage says a lot about how the merit-class elite views orthodox Christians. It’s not friendly.

But what does any of this have to do with our theme? Actually quite a lot. G.K. Chesterton once quipped that America is a nation that thinks it’s a Church. And he was right. In fact, he was more accurate than he could have guessed.

Catholics came to this country to build a new life. They did exceptionally well here. They’ve done so well that by now many of us Catholics are largely assimilated to, and digested by, a culture that bleaches out strong religious convictions in the name of liberal tolerance and dulls our longings for the supernatural with a river of practical atheism in the form of consumer goods.

To put it another way, quite a few of us American Catholics have worked our way into a leadership class that the rest of the country both envies and resents. And the price of our entry has been the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new “Church” of our ambitions and appetites. People like Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Kennedy, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine are not anomalies. They’re part of a very large crowd that cuts across all professions and both major political parties.

During his years as bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI had the talent of being very frank about naming sin and calling people back to fidelity. Yet at the same time he modeled that fidelity with a kind of personal warmth that revealed its beauty and disarmed the people who heard him.

He spoke several times about the “silent apostasy” of so many Catholic laypeople today and even many priests; and his words have stayed with me over the years because he said them in a spirit of compassion and love, not rebuke.

Apostasy is an interesting word. It comes from the Greek verb apostanai — which means to revolt or desert; literally “to stand away from.” For Benedict, laypeople and priests don’t need to publicly renounce their baptism to be apostates. They simply need to be silent when their Catholic faith demands that they speak out; to be cowards when Jesus asks them to have courage; to “stand away” from the truth when they need to work for it and fight for it.

It’s a word to keep in mind in examining our own hearts and hearts of our people. And while we do that, we might reflect on what assimilating has actually gained for us when Vice President Biden conducts a gay marriage, and Senator Kaine lectures us all on how the Church needs to change and what kind of new creature she needs to become.

So how did we get to this moment, and when did the process begin?

I suppose 1960 is a good place to date the start of our current troubles. That’s when candidate John Kennedy promised Houston Baptist ministers that — if elected — he’d keep his Catholic faith separate from his presidential leadership.

Or we could use 1984 as a start date. That’s when Mario Cuomo gave his widely praised but finally incoherent defense of Kennedy’s approach to public life — the “I’m personally opposed to evils like abortion, but” tactic —in a speech here at Notre Dame.

Or we could use 1962 as another reasonable start date. That’s when President Kennedy told a group of policy advisers that “The fact of the matter is that most of the problems, or at least many of them that we now face, are technical problems … administrative problems. They are very sophisticated judgments which do not lend themselves to the great sort of ‘passionate movements’ which have stirred this country so often in the past. Now they deal with questions which are beyond the comprehension of most men.”

That last Kennedy line — describing our problems as “beyond the comprehension of most men” — sums up the spirit of today’s leadership classes. Briefly put, their message is this: “Smart people should run things, and most people aren’t smart enough to qualify. But the country shouldn’t worry as long as the really smart people like us — in other words, the technologically and managerially gifted — stay in charge. So don’t rock the boat with a lot of useless noise from the deplorables.”

In effect, technology and its comforts are now our substitute horizon for the supernatural. Technology gets results. Prayer, not so much — or at least not so immediately and obviously. So our imaginations gradually bend toward the horizontal, and away from the vertical.

Religion can still have value in this new dispensation by helping credulous people do socially useful things. But religion isn’t “real” in the same way that science and technology are real. And if, as John Kennedy said, our main social problems today are practical and technical, then talking about heaven and hell starts to sound a lot like irrelevant voodoo. The Church of our baptism is salvific. The Church where many Americans really worship, the Church we call our popular culture, is therapeutic.

Let me put our situation this way. The two unavoidable facts of life are mortality and inequality. We’re going to die. And — here I’m committing a primal American heresy — we’re not created “equal” in the secular meaning of that word. We’re obviously not equal in dozens of ways: health, intellect, athletic ability, opportunity, education, income, social status, economic resources, wisdom, social skills, character, holiness, beauty or anything else. And we never will be. Wise social policy can ease our material inequalities and improve the lives of the poor. But as Tocqueville warned, the more we try to enforce a radical, unnatural, egalitarian equality, the more “totalitarian” democracy becomes.

For all its talk of diversity, democracy is finally monist. It begins by protecting the autonomy of the individual but can easily end by eliminating competing centers of authority and absorbing civil society into the state.

Even the family, seen through secular democratic eyes, can be cast as inefficient, parochial and a potential greenhouse of social problems. Parental authority can become suspect because it escapes the scrutiny and guidance of the state. And the state can easily present itself as better able to educate the young because of its superior resources and broader grasp of the needs of society.

Clearly our civil liberties and our equality before the law are hugely important premises for a decent society. They’re vital principles for our common public life. But they’re also purely human constructs, and in a sense, fictions.

What Christians mean by “freedom” and “equality” is very different from the secular content of those words. For the believer, freedom is more than a menu of choices or the absence of oppression. Christian freedom is the liberty, the knowledge and the character to do what’s morally right.

And the Christian meaning of “equality” is much more robust than the moral equivalent of a math equation. It involves the kind of love a mother feels for each of her children, which really isn’t equality at all. A good mother loves her children infinitely and uniquely — not “equally,” because that would be impossible. Rather, she loves them profoundly in the sense that all of her children are flesh of her flesh, and have a permanent, unlimited claim on her heart.

So it is with our Catholic understanding of God. Every human life, no matter how seemingly worthless, has infinite dignity in his eyes. Every human life is loved without limits by the God who made us.

Our weaknesses are not signs of unworthiness or failure. They’re invitations to depend on each other and become more than ourselves by giving away our strengths in the service of others, and receiving their support in return.

This is the truth in the old legend about heaven and hell. Both have exactly the same tables. Both have exactly the same rich foods. But the spoons in both places are much too long. In hell people starve because they try to feed themselves. In heaven they thrive because they feed each other.

For all of its greatness, democratic culture proceeds from the idea that we’re born as autonomous, self-creating individuals who need to be protected from, and made equal with, each other. It’s simply not true. And it leads to the peculiar progressive impulse to master and realign reality to conform to human desire, whereas the Christian masters and realigns his desires to conform to and improve reality.

I want to turn now in my last few minutes to what we need to do.

Talks like mine today are always a mixed experience. In describing a hard time, the words can easily sound dark and distressing. That’s not my intention at all. Optimism and pessimism are twin forms of self-deception. We need instead to be a people of hope, which means we don’t have the luxury of whining.

There’s too much beauty in people and in the world to let ourselves become bitter. And by reminding us of that in The Joy of the Gospel, his first apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis gives us a great gift. One of his strongest qualities — and I saw this at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia — is his power to inspire confidence and joy in people while speaking candidly about the problems we face in a suffering world. [Here Chaput feels compelled, inexplicably, to genuflect slavishly to his pope - as if he had been the first and only pope to ever proclaim the 'joy of the Gospel' or 'to inspire confidence and joy in people while speaking candidly about the problems we face in a suffering world'! And all he had to do was preface those two sentences with "As other popes have done before him..."

Serenity of heart comes from consciously trying to live on a daily basis the things we claim to believe. Acting on our faith increases our faith. And it serves as a magnet for other people. To reclaim the Church for the Catholic imagination, we should start by renewing in our people a sense that eternity is real, that together we have a mission the world depends on, and that our lives have consequences that transcend time. Francis radiated all these things during his time in Philadelphia. [And so did John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and the popes before them, for far longer than JMB has been pope!]

If men and women are really made for heroism and glory, made to stand in the presence of the living God, they can never be satisfied with bourgeois, mediocre, feel-good religion. [But Bergoglio and his myrmidons are constantly telling us now that the Gospel is merely an ideal that most people should not be expected to live up to because they simply can't! Somehow forgetting conveniently that we have God's grace to call upon in order to live us we should... All in all, Mons. Chaput did not even have to mention the pope at all to make the points he makes above, because they are far from exclusive to Bergoglio. And it would have been best if he had not brought him up at all. Is there a rule that a bishop must at least make a token bow to the pope everytime he speaks?]

They’ll never be fed by ugly worship and shallow moralizing. But that’s what we too often give them. [Tell that to this pope!] And the reason we do it is because too many of us have welcomed the good news of Vatican II without carving its demand for conversion onto the stone of our hearts.

In opening ourselves to the world, we’ve forgotten our parts in the larger drama of our lives — salvation history, which always, in some way, involves walking past St. Cyril’s serpent.

In Philadelphia I’m struck by how many women I now see on the street wearing the hijab or even the burqa. Some of my friends are annoyed by that kind of “in your face” Islam. But I understand it. The hijab and the burqa say two important things in a morally confused culture: “I’m not sexually available;” and “I belong to a community different and separate from you and your obsessions.”

I have a long list of concerns with the content of Islam. But I admire the integrity of those Muslim women. And we need to help Catholics recover their own sense of distinction from the surrounding secular [and ecumenical, if we go by JMB's direction] meltdown.

The Church and American democracy are very different kinds of societies with very different structures and goals. They can never be fully integrated without eviscerating the Christian faith. An appropriate “separateness” for Catholics is already there in the New Testament. We’ve too often ignored it because Western civilization has such deep Christian roots. But we need to reclaim it, starting now.

Catholics today — and I’m one of them — feel a lot of unease about declining numbers and sacramental statistics. Obviously we need to do everything we can to bring tepid Catholics back to active life in the Church. But we should never be afraid of a smaller, lighter Church if her members are also more faithful, more zealous, more missionary and more committed to holiness. Making sure that happens is the job of those of us who are bishops.

Losing people who are members of the Church in name only is an imaginary loss. It may in fact be more honest for those who leave and healthier for those who stay. We should be focused on commitment, not numbers or institutional throw-weight. We have nothing to be afraid of as long as we act with faith and courage.

We need to speak plainly and honestly. Modern bureaucratic life, even in the Church, is the enemy of candor and truth. We live in an age that thrives on the subversion of language. And here’s one example.

“Accompaniment,” when Pope Francis uses the word, is a great and obvious good. Francis rightly teaches us the need to meet people where they are, to walk with them patiently, and to befriend them on the road of life. But the same word is widely misused by others. Where the road of life leads does make a difference — especially if it involves accompanying someone over a cliff. [But is that not precisely the 'accompaniment' that this pope teaches???]

Here’s another example: A theologian in my own diocese recently listed “inclusivity” as one of the core messages of Vatican II. Yet to my knowledge, that word “inclusivity” didn’t exist in the 1960s and appears nowhere in the council documents.

If by “inclusive” we mean patiently and sensitively inviting all people to a relationship with Jesus Christ, then yes, we do very much need to be inclusive.

But if “inclusive” means including people who do not believe what the Catholic faith teaches and will not reform their lives according to what the Church holds to be true, then inclusion is a form of lying. And it’s not just lying but an act of betrayal and violence against the rights of those who do believe and do seek to live according to God’s Word. Inclusion requires conversion and a change of life; or at least the sincere desire to change.

Saying this isn’t a form of legalism or a lack of charity. It’s simple honesty. And there can be no real charity without honesty. We need to be very careful not to hypnotize ourselves with our words and dreams. The “new evangelization” is fundamentally not so different from the “old evangelization.”

It begins with personal witness and action, and with sincere friendships among committed Catholics —not with bureaucratic programs or elegant sounding plans. These latter things can be important. But they’re never the heart of the matter.

When I was ordained a bishop, a wise old friend told me that every bishop must be part radical and part museum curator — a radical in preaching and living the Gospel, but a protector of the Christian memory, faith, heritage and story that weave us into one believing people over the centuries.

I try to remember that every day. Americans have never liked history. The reason is simple. The past comes with obligations on the present, and the most cherished illusion of American life is that we can remake ourselves at will.

But we Christians are different. We’re first and foremost a communion of persons on mission through time —and our meaning as individuals comes from the part we play in that larger communion and story.

If we want to reclaim who we are as a Church, if we want to renew the Catholic imagination, we need to begin, in ourselves and in our local parishes, by unplugging our hearts from the assumptions of a culture that still seems familiar but is no longer really “ours.” It’s a moment for courage and candor, but it’s hardly the first moment of its kind.

This is why Mary — the young Jewish virgin, the loving mother, and the woman who punches the devil in the nose — was, is, and always will be the great defender of the Church.

And so we can say with confidence: Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us. And St. Cyril of Jerusalem, patron of bishops, be our model and brother in our service to Mary’s son, Jesus Christ.

So be it: Amen.

Is your priest a bad preacher
who says nothing substantive?
Instead of complaining, give him a book of Benedict XVI's homilies:
The emeritus Pope has left very well worked-out sermons
on the various readings for the liturgical year

October 11, 2016

When a diocese or an episcopal conference commissions surveys and inquiries among Catholics who attend Mass and asks what would they most like to be changed in the parish. And the response whether in Europe or in the Americas is the same: the homilies.

There is a clear consensus that homilies and sermons in the Catholic parishes of both hemispheres are usually boring, repetitive, empty of content, and in general, are not prepared, much less worked on!

Of course, it is easier to complain about the priest than to help him with a solution. You will probably help most constructively by giving him - through the parish - the homilies of Benedict XVI which are classified according to the Liturgical Year.

If the priest cannot prepare his own homilies, he could always easily adapt from an authentic master homilist as the emeritus Pope.

The Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC, bac-editorial.es) has just published El Año Litúrgico Predicado por Benedicto XVI: el Ciclo A, which supplements the first volume published earlier for the homilies corresponding to Cycle C of the liturgical year.

"Even before he was elected pope, his homilies were magisterial works of approaching Biblical texts starting from the questions and problems of contemporary men. As Pope, his homiletic style was further enhanced by the enrichment of his preacher's heart with the universal experiences of the Petrine ministry," the BAC says in its pre-publicity for the new volume.

"Besides his homilies on the readings for the first cycle of the liturgical year, this volume also includes the homilies at the start of his papacy, which are authentic treasures of preaching and the Christian life".

A parish priest - or any faithful Christian who wishes to understand Scripture better as it is presented during the liturgical year by Benedict XVI - will find a variety of homilies.

For instance, there are three homilies on Pentecost and three Regina caeli mini-homilies on this feast day.

For the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity, there are also three homilies and an Angelus allocution.

For the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, the book has two homilies preached about the baptism of babies as well as of adults.

For Palm Sunday, two homilies that Benedict XVI delivered in Cologne in 2005 and in 2011 in Madrid.

Both volumes were prepared by Pablo Cervera Barranco, former editor of BAC and current editor of the Spanish edition of Magnificat magazine (www.magnificat.com/espanol/)

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the blurb on the Cycle C volume, nor information on whether there will be a Cycle B volume.

In 2008, 2009, and 2010, Sandro Magister undertook to anthologize Benedict XVI's homilies throughout the liturgical year in the three annual cycles of Gospel readings prescribed by the Novus Ordo - the Gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke, respectively.

I definitely have someone in mind who could certainly benefit from Benedict's homiletic art, but he is much too invested in his own off-the-cuff
improvisations on Scriptural exegesis, and probably thinks there is nothing for B16 to teach him.

October 23, 2016 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com

Forgive me for this re-post but I just realized that I never did get to complete my initial post on the Tornielli-Galeazzi 'Bergoglio enemies list'. I had not translated the entire article, and there were some initial reactions that needed to go on record. I worked on it on my working site in PAPA RATZINGER FORUM but it turns out I never did transfer it over to the B16 FORUM, and I thought I had. So just to keep everything together, here is 'all of it' in one post:

I was peacefully trolling through some sites before calling it a night when I came across this item for Ripley's 'Believe it or not!' Who would have thought this at all?
Is it really wise PR strategy to come out with this piece of utter paranoia about the pitifully few persons they cite (whom nonetheless they describe as a galaxy)
compared to the mega-popularity worldwide of their lord and master, whom they tout as the most popular man who ever walked the earth?

Now JMB is doing a Nixon - with his main propagandists on the staff of LA STAMPA (and therefore principals of VATICAN INSIDER, a 'service' of La Stampa) -
Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi (whom I did not suspect to have gone overboard completely for Bergoglio), compiling an 'enemies list' with the astounding
claim that almost all the disparate elements they list are not just admirers of Vladimir Putin but in fact financed somehow by the Russians!

THOSE CATHOLICS AGAINST FRANCIS WHO ADORE PUTIN!
A trip through the galaxy of Bergoglio opponents. A front on the Web that unites followers of Lega Nord (northern Italian
nationalist party), those who are nostalgic for Ratzinger, and enemies of the Council (V-II): "Church in confusion because of
the pope". The Russian leader as a point of reference. Theories on the supposed invalidity of the 2013 Conclave, and polemics
over don George's statements about the 'enlarged ministry' of two popes".
by GIACOMO GALEAZZI and ANDREA TORNIELLI
Translated from

October 16, 2016

Uniting them all is aversion to Francis. The galaxy of dissent against Bergoglio covers the Lefebvrians who have decided to "await a traditional pope" before returning to communion with Rome [But didn't Mons. Fellay meet with Bergoglio and Mueller just a few days ago, as a sign that things are proceeding apace for the FSSPX to come in from the cold?], to the Catholics of the Lega Nord who contrast Francis with his predecessor Ratzinger and have launched a campaign entitled «Il mio papa è Benedetto» (My pope is Benedict).

There are the ultr-conservatives of the Fondazione Leanto and websites close to sedevacantist positions, who are convinced that writer Antonio Socci is right to maintain the invalidity of Bergoglio's election simply because in March 2013, one balloting was nullified without having been counted. The reason? One balloted to avoid any doubts and without any objection at all from the cardinal electors.

And still, prelates and traditionaist intellectuals are signing appeals or portests against the pastoral openings of the Argentine pope towards communion for remarried divorcees and dialog with the Chinese government.

The dissent against the pope unites persons and groups who are very diverse and hardly assimilable:
- There is the 'soft' distancing taken by the online journal La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and its monthly Il Timone, both edited by Riccardo Cascioli.
- There is the almost daily scolding online of the Argentine pope by Sandro Magister, emeritus Vaticanista of L'Espresso. [Emeritus? I was not aware Magister has been fired or has retired!]
- There are the apocalyptic irredeemable tones of Maria Guarini, who hosts the blogsite "Chiesa e Post-concilio.
- And finally, the harshest criticisms coming from ultra-traditionalist and sedevacantist sites who believe there has been no valid pope since Pius XII.

La Stampa visited the offices and met with the protagonists of this opposition to Francis, which is numerically limited but very much present on the Web, in order to describe an archipelago that traverses the Internet, but even through private meetings with ecclesiastics, mix up their frontal and public attacks on the pope with more articulated strategies.

On the front lines against the pope, the writer Alessandro Gnocci, who writes on the sites Riscossa Cristiana and Unavox: "Bergoglio is carrying out a programmatic surrender to the world, the mundanization of the Church. His papacy is based on the brutal exercise of power. Such a capillary [detailed] debasement of the faith has never been seen before". [AMEN A THOUSAND TIMES!]

[10/19/16 Let me fill in the middle section of the article that I did not translate originally, with a translation from Robert Moynihan, on his Vatican Letter dated 10/18/16 (thanks to Aqua for the text)]

Fondazione Lepanto, located between the paleochristian walls of St. Balbina Basilica on the Aventine Hill, is one of the cultural power houses of anti-Francis sentiment.

The foundation’s books combined with the Corrispondenza Romana news agency and the meetings held in the sitting room on the first floor, make it one of the headquarters of the anti-Bergoglio front.

“The Church is going through one the biggest moments of chaos in its history and the Pope is one of the causes of this,” says historian and President of Fondazione Lepanto, Roberto De Mattei. "This chaos has to do, above all, with the Pope’s magisterium. Francis is not the solution but part of the problem.”

Opposition, De Mattei added, “is not just being expressed by these so-called traditionalist circles but it extends to bishops and theologians who were trained according to the Ratzinger and Wojtyla schools of thought.”

De Mattei prefers to refer to it as “resistance” rather than “dissent.” This resistance was recently expressed by 45 Catholic theologians and philosophers who criticized the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia and by 80 figures – who gradually turned into several thousand – including Catholic cardinals, bishops and theologians, who made a declaration of “loyalty to the unchanging magisterium of the Church.”

One of the hotbeds of resistance, the historian underlined, “is the John Paul II Institute for the family, whose heads were recently removed by Bergoglio.”

Traditionalists are also targeting Francis for the part his migration policy is playing in destabilizing Europe and obliterating western civilization.

“There is a strong geopolitical element in the circles that oppose Francis,” observes Agostino Giovagnoli, Professor of Contemporary History at the Milan's Università Cattolica and expert on dialogue with China (photo). "They are accusing Bergoglio of not proclaiming the truths of the faith with sufficient vigour, but in reality they are blaming him for not defending the West’s primacy. This opposition has political motivations that are masked by theological and ecclesial questions.” [Like most European opinion-makers and 'intellectuals', JMB appears to have the 'self-hatred' of the West that Cardinal Ratzinger reproved Europeans for nurturing. For all its ups and downs (mostly downs) in the latter half of the 20th century, Argentina prides itself as being the most European of the states of Latin America. JMB himself is a first-generation Argentine born to Italian immigrant parents.]

China is an example of this. “There is an alliance between Hong Kong circles, sectors within the US and Europe’s right-wing: they are accusing Francis of putting the goal of uniting the Church in China before the defense of religious freedom,” he continues. "Such positions are often expressed by Catholic news agency Asianews. These critics say the Pope should affirm religious freedom as a political argument against Beijing instead of seeking dialogue through diplomatic means.”

Opposition — which also finds backing in the Curia — is also being voiced by clerics with Vatican connections, such as the liturgist and theologian Fr. Nicola Bux, a consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and dismissed early in this Pontificate as a consultant to the Office of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations.

“Today, there are quite a few lay people, priests and bishops are asking themselves where we are headed,” he tells La Stampa. "In the Church, it has always been possible to express one’s opposition to ecclesiastical authorities, even the Pope. Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini notoriously put his opposition to the reigining Pope in writing too but John Paul II never removed him from his post as Archbishop of Milan, nor did he consider him a conspirator.”

The Pope’s job, Bux continued, is “to safeguard ecclesial communion, not to favour division and rivalry, siding with progressives against the conservatives.”

“If a Pope upheld a heterodox doctrine, cardinals in Rome could declare his fall from office."

Italian researcher Flavio Cuniberto has authored a book criticising the Pope’s social magisterium, and recently launched a protest in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale. )

In a rippling crescendo, researcher Flavio Cuniberto — who has authored a book criticising the Pope’s social magisterium, is a scholar of René Guenon and of traditionalism close to the esoteric right — recently launched a protest in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, stating that “Bergoglio has not updated Catholic doctrine, he’s destroyed it , and acts as though he is a Catholic but is in fact not: the distorted idea of poverty elevates the old notion of pauperism to the dogmatic sphere.”

The Pope praises recycling and thus “the virtues of the good late-modern consumer become the new evangelical virtues", he adds.

On his official Facebook page, Antonio Socci claims that Benedict XVI did not really want to resign but still considers himself Pope and wants in some way to share the “Petrine ministry” with his successor.

Ratzinger himself has denied this interpretation outright on more than one occasion between February 2014 and the recent interview-length book “Final Conversations,” confirming that his resignation is completely valid and publicly demonstrating his obedience to Francis.

The theory was fueled by the interpretation drawn from some words pronounced last may by the Prefect of the Papal Household and Benedict XVI’s secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein.

During a book presentation, Fr. Georg stated: “There are not two Popes therefore but an extended ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member.”

Socci published Bergoglio and Ratzinger’s photos next to each other with the caption: “Which of the two?”

He went on to write: “One contrasts love and the truth (Bergoglio), while another sees them united in God (Benedict XVI)”.

Among the many comments to these remarks, Paolo Soranno wrote: “Francis seems to be serving God Rainbow (who does not impose religious and moral principles) and not the Catholic God.”

The opposition intensifies on the web, with people letting all fury loose protected by their computer screen, as was apparent from some comments beneath the articles posted on social networks.

The “messainitaliano” website, which promotes the old liturgy but also publishes vitriolic comments on the Pope, speaks about the “tedious ideological monotony of the current pontificate.” [Perhaps not so tedious - as it's 'spirit of Vatican II' on megadoses of steroids!]

On the web, one comes across comments about the Church eventually dissolving into some kind of a UN of religions with a touch of Greenpeace and a hint of a trades union organization, given that “today, moral sins are downgraded and Bergoglio established social (or socialist) sins as well.”

Maria Guarini’s ultra-traditionalist blog “Chiesa e Postconcilio” publishes titles such as: “If the next Pope is Bergoglian, the Vatican will become a Cathomasonic branch.” [[Isn't it already???[

The opposition comes from the more conservative side of the spectrum but also finds a voice among some disappointed ultra-progressives.

Such is the case of the Ambrosian priest Fr. Giorgio De Capitani, who relentlessly attacks Francis from the left and does not therefore merit to be included in the groups described so far.

He tears the pontificate to pieces and feeds it to the wolves. “How many useless and obvious words. Peace, justice and goodness. The Pope is really getting on our nerved with all these tear-jerking words and gestures. Francis is a victim of his own consensus and all he is doing is creating illusions, pulling the wool over our eyes, steals some applause and fills some nincompoop journalists who know nothing of the faith, with rapture.”

Journalist Giuseppe Rusconi reflected: “Is our Shepherd really above all 'ours', or is he not showing that he favours the indistinct global flock, thus being perceived by non-Catholic public opinion as a leader who responds to the wishes of contemporary society? Is he doing it as part of a Jesuit strategy or out of personal choice? And when the shepherd returns to the pen, how many sheep will be bring with him? And how many of those lost will he find?”

[So far, Moynihan's translation. The rest below I posted earlier.]

This composite galaxy of dissent has elected some cardinals and bishops as their reference points. Magister on his blog has launched the papal candidacy of the Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, who is currently Francis's minister for liturgy, who is loved by conservatives and traditionalists and very much cited on their websites and publications.

Among those considered the polestars in this world are above all, the American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and the auxiliary Bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan, Mons. Athanasius Schneider.

But beyond the mediatic amplification offered by the worldwide web, it does not seem that any new schisms are on the horizon, such as that carried out by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

Of this, the sociologist Massimo Introvigne is sure: "There are more than 5000 bishops in the world. The dissent has mobilized maybe about a dozen, many of them retired, which just goes to show how thin it is". [Hey, Mr. Introvigne, let the church of Bergoglio do as it pleases - it is already in de facto schism - but the Catholics who uphold the deposit of faith as it was before March 13, 2013, will never ever leave the one true Church of Christ. In that sense, the schism will never come from us.]

Introvigne maintains that this dissent "is present more online than in real life, and is over-estimated. In fact, there are dissidents who write comments on the social networks using four or five pseudonyms to give the impression that there are more of them". [Excuse me??? You cannot be serious - and you can't make the dissent go away by trying to shrug it off!] He thinks this is a movement that "has no success because it is not united. There are at least three different dissents: the political one from American foundations [??? Which ones???], of Marine Le Pen (in France) and Matteo Salvini (Italy) who are not very interested in liturgical or moral issues - they often do not even go to church - but rather focus on immigration and the pope's attacks on capitalism. There is the more radical dissent by the FSSPX, or that by De Mattei and Gnocchi, who reject Vatican II and everything else after. [That is obviously a falsehood. The FSSPX continue to consider the pope has head of the Church - they are hardly sedevacantists - and De Mattei and Gnocchi did not turn critical about the Church until after March 13, 2013, specifically because of Bergoglio's statements and actions that are exaggerations of the worst criticisms against Vatican II.][/DIM] And even if there may be some ranking prelates who lend support to this dissent, the contradictions among the three are destined to explode, and a common front has no possibility of lasting". [Hey, opponents of Bergoglio don't need any formal coalition at all - their common indestructible front is opposition to the anti-Catholic actions and positions of this pope, and that opposition will last for as long as Bergoglio is who he is!]

Introvigne points to a surprising characteristic common to many of these opponents of Bergoglio: "It's the mythical idealization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is presented as the 'good' leader to contrast with Pope Francis who is the 'bad leader' because of his positions on homosexuality, Muslims and immigrants. Russian foundations very closely tied to Putin are collaborating with the dissenters of the pope".[Introvigne must be hallucinating. I do not ever recall any of the 'villains' mentioned in this piece as having even mentioned Putin at all, much less cite him as a 'good leader'. And of course, that last line appears to imply that Putin's supporters are somehow funding the dissenters against this pope. Can Introvigne offer one factual proof at all of his pathetically implausible scenario?]

BTW, the 'enemies' on the Stampa list appear limited to Italian sites and personalities (even if they somehow include the worldwide network of the FSSPX). Maybe the Fishwrap will supplement Stampa with an analogous list of Anglophone sites and personalities. [10/23/16 So far, no one has done something similar for the Anglophone world.]

Pravda on the Tiber?

Moynihan preceded his presentation with the ff commentary:

---

“With an article worthy of Pravda, the Vatican Insider website today presents its readers the equation ‘traditionalist Catholic’ = ‘enemy of Bergoglio’ = ‘lover of Putin.'”

—Francesco Colafemmina, an Italian Catholic philologist with a love for sacred art and architecture

---

In a new article entitled “Vatikan Pravda,” Colafemmina sharply criticizes an October 16 article on the Vatican Insider website by Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi which lists the names of “critics” of Pope Francis, and alleges that these “anti-Francis Catholics” are attracted to… Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Special note: Vatican Insider is different from and has nothing to do with Inside the Vatican magazine, which I founded and edit).

***

Today I have to report on a fascinating and troubling controversy that has arisen in Italy, but which has relevance for the entire Catholic Church, and for the world in general.

The origin of the controversy is a rather odd, rambling report on the various individuals and groups comprising the "Catholic opposition" to Pope Francis, published two days ago, on October 16, by Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi on the Vatican Insider website (a project of one of Italy's leading daily newspapers, La Stampa of Turin).

The oddest thing about the report is its final sentence, which quotes Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne as saying that those Catholics who are critical of Pope Francis are attracted to... Russian President Vladimir Putin(!).

One might have expected the authors to link the Catholic critics of Pope Francis to French monarchist movements, or to traditional Catholic movements devoted to the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, or the liturgy of the old Mass, but no, the authors link the supporters of Pope Francis to... Putin.

"Catholics who are anti-Francis but love Putin" is the title of the article.

I was startled by this headline, because it is the first time I have ever seen a direct attempt to link conservative Catholics with the former Soviet KGB agent, and I immediately asked myself, "Why this? Why now?" I don't yet have any comprehensive answer.

However, one odd thing, it seems to me, is that the impact of the article, in the end, is to prompt a reader to go look at the articles and websites listed. In other words, this article, by listing many of the opponents of Pope Francis and their websites, makes it much easier for those reading the article to consult those very articles and websites. Whether this is an intended or unintended consequence of the publication of this article, I do not know.

Clearly, this article seems aimed at dividing the Church into two groups, one "pro-Francis" and the other "anti-Francis." [Which was always Papa Bergoglio's ploy, as in his Casa Santa Marta homilies - 'us' (he and his myrmidons) versus 'them' (all the Catholics he dislikes, for he has not yet met a non-Catholic he could dislike - he loves them all! Bergoglio has not merely been divisive for the Church - he is openly polarizing the Catholic world. I do not think he has ever, once, sat down to think that the pope is supposed to be the visible symbol of unity in the Church!]

For the Church, the ultimate effect of this type of incipient "division" of the Church into two types of Catholics is something which seems likely to increase polarization, defensiveness and division, which would weaken the Church and so be a matter of rejoicing for the Church's enemies. [That seems self-evident, but not to Bergoglio and his subalterns.]

This unusual little article, thus, seems important, and it needs to be taken into consideration by anyone attempting to understand this pontificate — and by anyone attempting to defend the perennial faith of our Church.

The main purpose of this letter, then, is to bring your attention to this article, and alert you to the fact that a new phase in the ongoing cultural and theological struggle over the future of the Church seems to have been initiated this week. [Not that the paranoia which the Tornielli-Galeazzi article manifests can be taken as a sign of strength on the part of the pope who otherwise holds all the power and authority and media cards in this struggle! No one who reads it will say, 'Gosh, poor pope! All these types conspiring against him?' Indeed, one of the most ridiculous follow-ups to the story is this from Galeazzi:

---

After the publication of our investigation in La Stampa, an alert colleague at Avvenire, Luigi Rancilio, asked himself: 'How many people actually read these anti-Francis stories?'

So he analyzed the traffic on the blogs and sites cited, for the month of September, using Similarweb (not 100% precise but very reliable). With these results (in terms of average visits a day):
- La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana: 11,200
- Socci's blog: 6,833
- Il Timone (a monthly journal): 3,253
- Magister's blog: 2,870
- Riscossa Cristiana: 2,440
- Unavox: 1,456
- De Capitani's blog: 730
- Chiesa e Post-Concilio: 284
- Rosso porpora: 57
Even assuming that all these sites do not have common readers (which would be impossible), we are talking of only 23,123 persons exposed daily to the anti-Francis stories. The pope can sleep well.

---

[Perhaps they should have done this readership survey before doing the original investigation. They would not have wasted time and effort looking into sites that only a total 23,123 ever visit daily! Of course, that is more than the usual average attendance at St. Peter's these days for a Bergoglia GA or Angelus, but a drop of spit compared to the tens and maybe hundreds of millions daily who are daily sold Bergoglian blarney and malarkey by the media. I also think that, in fairness, Rancilio should have studied how many visits VATICAN INSIDER gets everyday. Or the Italian service of Vatican Radio or L'Osservatore Romano.]

And this is a confirmation for me of things I have heard in a number of conversations during the past year in which I have been told that an effort will be made to exploit the differences in theological emphasis in the Church in order to divide the Church and render her less able to stand against the various anti-Christian agendas which are developing with such rapidity in our time.

The agenda seems to be two-fold: to divide the Church in every way possible and by so doing to weaken her. [Can Moynihan really say he is surprised by this? Or even that he has had to 'confirm' what he has heard? Even a schoolchild knows the motto, "Divided, we fall; united, we stand."... And why would Bergoglio and his henchmen want the Church to fall? The better to 'resurrect' her as the triumphant 'church of Bergoglio', to which the entire world should profess their faith.]

I do note one interesting fact found in the second paragraph of the article: that one vote during the 2013 papal conclave which ended by electing Jorge Bergoglio as Pope, was not counted. The cardinals filled out their votes, the article says, but when the ballots were all brought to the front, and counted, it was seen that there was one extra slip of paper, one ballot too many. So, it was immediately decided to throw away all of those ballots and to vote again, the article says.

I had not heard before of this invalid vote, cast and then thrown away, and the authors seem to give Antonio Socci as the source for this information, and to accept it as fact, not questioning whether it is true or not.

Moynihan also translates some of the early reactions by entities names in the 'hit list'. First, from an Italian blogger who entitled this piece with the title Moynihan adopted. But as he chose to translate excerpts - but major ones - I have translated the entire article. The blog FIDES ET FORMA (Faith and Beauty) was begun by Francaesco Collafemmina early in Benedict XVI's Pontificate with the purpose of "informing and reviving the debate on the relationship between sacred art and architecture, the Catholic faith and the bimillennary tradition of the Church, as well as su topics on Catholic culture and current events".

Vatican Pravda
by Francesco Collafemmina
Translated from


I still remember a conversation with a Vaticanista friend of mine who is now entrenched with the troops defending Bergoglio. It was 2011 or maybe 2010. I gave him some limited support for the publication of a book dedicated to the internal war in the Vatican, and elsewhere, that had been launched against Benedict XVI.

He spoke to me of a planned information platform which would be set up by a leading Italian newspaper and in which he would play a role.
I confess that at the time I did not really understand the sense of the operation. [He is obviously referring to Tornielli.]

Many experiments of the kind had been launched by important names but had ended up as authentic flops. And why would a national newspaper invest in a multilingual portal dedicated to the Catholic Church, an institution that has become so marginal and opposed in the world today?

From a distance of six years, the project seems more clear to me today. The e-mails of John Podesta, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, revealed by Wikileaks, help us to understand. In an e-mail on February 11, 2012, exactly one year before the surprise renunciation of Benedict XVI, Podesta replies to activist Sandy Newman who calls for a 'Catholic spring' to overcome the 'medieval dictatorship' of the Catholic Church. This is being done, he said, having created two Catholic progressivist movements, but which were being ramped up to a new level of pressure.

In the same way, we could think of the online Catholic platform as intended to create the appropriate mediatic echo chamber of the one-way papacy that would follow Benedict's 'obscurantist' regime. The point is that we now understand, day by day, that this media pressure is not strictly linked to the life of the Church but to a geopolitical consideration in which the Church - that of Bergoglio - would be an instrument and certainly not the protagonist.

So, with an article worthy of Pravda, today that newspaper presents to its readers the equation 'Catholic traditionalist' = 'enemy of Bergoglio' = 'admirer of Putin'. Indeed, the headline of the article is emblematic: "Anti-Francis Catholics attracted by the power of Putin".

This is a fundamental premise, because the basic idea is that what attracts such Catholics is not Putin himself and his geopolitical vision but his power. In other words, the fault ultimately lies with Putin, the perfect dictator, the tyrant who emanates power, the enemy of democracy, homophobic and intolerant, the rich friend of Russian magnates, etc.

The author of this association, about which there is only a fleeting reference at the end of the article - even if the headline suggests that it would be the main argument of the story - is a famous Italian sociologist [Massimo Introvigne] who loves the Baltic republics and who has lately been seeking to remake his image with the revival of Russophobia and his connections with the American neo-con world.

Putting aside for now the notorious poison from this friend of Lithuania, whose sentences are clearly incontestable in their authenticity and arrogance, let us say that the article runs a fine-tooth comb with scrupulous precision through the 'dissidents' against Francis, or rather the true and proper 'enemies' and 'adversaries' of Bergoglio.

The list goes from Sandro Magister to Prof. De Mattei, passing through Antonio Socci and so many others who are named outright, along with their websites, in a sort of media proscription list worthy of Silla [Roman dictator, 138-78 BC, who rose to power by military force and the use of proscriptions].

This is a representation of war in the future. Which will not simply be a conflict between Russia and the United States [I do not know why Colafemmina completely ignores the massive reality of China which has the aspirations and the resources to match its size!], but rather a conflict between the ideological bubble of a West that has lost its identity, its roots, its non-negotiable ethical standards, against all the nations who, on the contrary, defend and promote their identity, their roots, their own values.

Russia is an emblematic example in this sense, an example close to us because it is a Christian country. [I continue to wonder at the fact that the Russians so quickly and extensively reclaimed the Christianity that had been stifled to virtual death for seven decades by Communism!]

But Russia is also a model of coexistence among diverse cultures and religions. A model opposed the failing or failed 'forced integration' of unprecedented numbers of immigrants in France, Germany and Great Britain. Russia is the bull's eye simply because it seems to be the only power that can oppose the unipolar vision [???] of the USA.

In any case, there is no precedent for the use of journalism to marginalize, ghettoize and perhaps, even to criminalise 'minorities' who are evidently fastidious and do not conform to the unconditional consensus of praise for Bergoglio. It is unprecedented, especially if we think of the so-called church of mercy whose true face is that of vendetta and perfidy. It is unprecedented because the use of the media for geopolitical ends, with the ultimate view of abolishing all freedom of expression y ridiculing dissent, fully demonstrates which 'power' is being served by such journalism.

A hysterical journalism that utilizes puerile methods to discredit as mere 'borderline inebriation' a variegated dissent that is often well-founded, associating sedevacantists with 'ultra-traditionalists', giving De Mattei a 'control room', hypothesizing the involvement of cardinals in a politico-theological faction, to end up with supposed funding received from Russia, is to write the plot for a possible novel by Joseph Thornborn, but it is certainly not journalism. [Thornborn is a former professor of creative literatue at Columbia University who now works in the Vatican - I have yet to find out what he does - and who has written four best-seller novels so far in Italian in the 'Vatican thriller' genre. One reviewer has said that if Thornborn had written his books before Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code, Brown might never have bothered to write.]

At the same time, it is ridiculous that this 'opposition' to Bergoglio is denounced for 'Occidentalism' by a professor at the Catholic University of Milan, yet the book's authors say these anti-Bergoglians are attracted by "the power of Putin".

There is the intention to create a malicious and unholy brew into which anything and everything is thrown in, associating dissent against Bergoglio to every element of social discredit: traditionalism, federalism, sedevacantism, ultra-traditionalism, esotericism, hyper-traditionalism, ultra-progressivism, putinism.
These are all concepts named in the article, which is an authentic manifesto of the thought police deployed by the current regime in the Vatican.

An attack launched with such aggressive violence would seem like an expression of the intention to shut up and definitively deprive of any authority whatsoever any dissent that is expressed against Bergoglio and his nascent church. [It's one of the rare times I have read anyone state this current obvious reality - that everyone else ignores - so unequivocally. When Bergoglio says or does anything that violates the faith as we have known and practised it before March 13, 2013 (with a double '13' in that date, I consider it the Church's own Ides of March, even if the Roman Ides was actually March 15.)]

The dissent to be silenced is that against the ideological bubble of the West which serves the religion of political correctness. Dissent against the intent to bring down ethical, ethnic, cultural and spiritual frontiers among peoples who must be subservient to a single universal paradigm.

And clearly, if 'the Church' (under Bergoglio) is to be the motor for this vision of global homogenization, then it must be helped on by silencing the dissenters. It was to be expected.

In November 2013, I published some extracts from an interesting book on the Church and her geopolitical perspective by Fr. Malachi Martin, among which is this passage:

---

The reduction of the pope from his high office will be the result of the conviction that the original Petrine and papal office as practised by the Roman Popes till the end of the 20th century was, in reality, nothing but a result conditioned by cultural modes that go way back for centuries. And that now it is time to degrade its importance in order to liberate 'the spirit of Vatican II' and shape the Church into an image according to the progressivist concept of a new era that is very different from what came before.

Catholics will then see the spectacle of a validly elected pope who will cut the entire body of the Church loose from her traditional unity and a papacy-oriented apostolic structure of a Church that until then had been thought to be a divine institution.

And at that time, the shudder that will shake the body of the Catholic Church will be the shudder of her death agony. Because her suffering will come from within, orchestrated by her own leaders and members. No external enemy will have brought her to that condition.

Many will accept the new regime, and many will resist it. But everything will be fragmented, and no one will be able to put together on earth the scattered members of the visible body of the Church as if it were a solid living organization.

---

[My goodness! Malachi Martin's words sound so prophetic.]

Moynihan continues with a second reaction: In a second article criticizing the Tornielli-Galleazzi article, the well-known and well-respected Fr. Bernardo Cervellera rejects that "the accusation made against AsiaNews that we are against the Pope and in favor of Putin."

The Galeazzi-Tornielli article had quoted Agostino Giovagnoli, Professor of Contemporary History at Milan's Università Cattolica and expert on dialogue with China as saying: “There is an alliance between Hong Kong circles, sectors within the US and Europe’s right-wing: they are accusing Francis of putting the goal of uniting the Church in China before the defense of religious freedom,” he continues.

"Such positions are often expressed by Catholic news agency Asianews. These critics say the Pope should affirm religious freedom as a political argument against Beijing instead of seeking dialogue through diplomatic means.”

Fr. Cervellera writes: "We are very sorry — for their lie, rather than for ourselves — that two Vatican experts have cited AsiaNews among 'those Catholics who are against Francis and worship Putin.' Because both statements, regarding the Pope and Putin, are false. I'm not here to list proof of this: all anyone has to do is actually read the articles we write.

For us it is a point of honor — and professionalism — not to register the thing that most pleases the powers that be, but all aspects, be they complex or contradictory, of a given event. This, for us, means being of service to the truth."

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 25/10/2016 03:12]

When someone like Edward Pentin - who has consistently projected seriousness and sobriety in the exercise of his journalistic occupation - finds
that he needs to blog about a Bergoglian homilette, one has to sit up and take notice, as much as one would prefer never to hear or read another
Bergoglian text at all! Our dearly beloved pope seems to be going farther and farther away from the mental discipline of simple common sense.
Should we be concerned about his sanity, or am I simply too stupid not to see the method in his madness? This homilette sounds madder than ever...

Pope Francis: Rigid people are sick
A person who is rigid in many cases conceals a "double life",
lacks the freedom of God's children and needs the Lord's help, Pope says in morning homily

October 24, 2016

Pope Francis again returned to the theme of rigidity today, saying those who unbendingly follow the law of God are "sick" and in need of the Lord’s help.

In his morning homily at Casa Santa Marta, the Pope drew on today’s Gospel reading from Matthew in which Jesus’s healing of a crippled woman angered the Pharisees, leading him to denounce the leaders of the synagogue as “hypocrites”.

This is an accusation Jesus often makes to those who follow the Law with rigidity, the Pope said. “The Law was not drawn up to enslave us but to set us free, to make us God’s children”, he said.

From Vatican Radio:

---

Concealed by rigidity, Pope Francis said, there is always something else! That’s why Jesus uses the word ‘hypocrites!’: "Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person. Rigidity is not a gift of God. Meekness is; goodness is; benevolence is; forgiveness is. But rigidity isn’t!” he said.

In many cases, the Pope continued, rigidity conceals the leading of a double life; but, he pointed out, there can also be something sick [behind it]. Commenting on the difficulties and suffering that afflict a person who is sincere about realizing their rigidity, the Pope said this is because they lack the freedom of God's children: “they do not know how to walk in the path indicated by God’s Law”.

“They appear good because they follow the Law; but behind there is something that does not make them good. Either they're bad, hypocrites or they are sick. They suffer!” he said.

---

[This is probably among the most perverse expressions of Bergoglio's distorted self-justifying exegeses of Scripture. "People appear good because they follow the Law"????
What is wrong with following 'the Law" and what 'Law' is he referring to here? People of faith follow the Law of God, as he spelled it out in the Ten Commandments, which are implicit in the two Great Commandments enunciated by Christ - to love God above all else, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

To love God is to observe his Law the best way we can - not choose which of his commandments we can follow, which we can bend, and which we can ignore altogether. [Of course, in AL, Bergoglio and his ghosts try all sorts of semantic casuistry to say just that: that there are commandments like that against adultery that can be bent if not ignored altogether; and if JMB treats one commandment in this way, what's to stop him from taking liberties with the other commandments, in the name of 'not being rigid', of 'being flexible'! Do not his blasphemous eucharistic leniencies constitute a violation of the First Commandment?] And to love one's neighbor as oneself follows from our love of God - and the practical measure of the Golden Rule to do unto others what you would have them do to you.]

[Pentin's note: Since this article was first published, this excerpt from Vatican Radio has been corrected to give a more accurate rendering of the original Italian text].

Pope Francis went on to recall the parable of the prodigal son, saying that the elder son showed a certain type of goodness but behind it was “the pride of believing in one’s righteousness”. He was rigid and conducted his life following the Law but saw his father only as a master, the Pope said.

“It is not easy to walk within the Law of the Lord without falling into rigidity”, he added, and concluded with a prayer calling on “our brothers and sisters who think that by becoming rigid they are following the path of the Lord". [First, someone who tries his best to live up to what God expects of man can hardly be called 'rigid'. In fact, one must find ways to let our fallen human nature conform to what God expects, which is nothing less than that we should be holy. Rigid is when you think you know best for yourself and for others, and will therefore not change anything about yourself regardless of what others (in this case, the Church, the Commandments, God himself) may think. So, tell me who is rigid par excellence by this definition?]

“May the Lord make them feel that He is our Father and that He loves mercy, tenderness, goodness, meekness, humility. And may he teach us all to walk in the path of the Lord with these attitudes,” he said.

The theme of rigidity, like his many criticisms of “doctors of the law”, is one of a number of topics the Pope returns to almost on a routine basis. [Of course, he never names who these despicable 'doctors of the law' are. Cardinals Kasper and Schoenborn are both highly credentialled 'doctors of the law' - but because they profess the same liberalisms that Bergoglio does, he calls them his favorite theologians. Among his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI certainly stand out as 'doctors of Church Law' because of which they may one day be proclaimed Doctors of the Church. Is he referring to them because of their adherence to the Law of God and to Church laws?]
He once called those who try to unbendingly follow the Law of God people as having “weak hearts” whom he confessed he would like to trip up with banana skins so they would know they are sinners. In June, he said “rigid” people in the Church who tell us “it’s this or nothing” are heretics and not Catholics. He has also warned about seminary formation being too rigid to allow for the development of priests.

To understand the Pope’s almost obsessive focus on rigidity and why he holds it in such disdain, it’s perhaps helpful to see how he views his ministry, the Church and the world.

According to one of his closest advisers, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, for Francis both the Church and the world are in constant flux, and so his pontificate is one of “discernment, of ‘incomplete thought’” for which the rigidity of rules is an obstacle. [Obviously, he applies that to God's laws as well - to the Ten Commandments and the Great Commandment of Love. God's laws as 'incomplete thoughts'! But in those commandments, what is there to discern that is not said as plainly as possible? What is there to complete? Bergoglio is saying, in effect, that even God does not have the last word, that man will always find something to change, to add or subtract to what he said - perfidious faithless men, perhaps, or men like Bergoglio and his acolytes, but not the simple believer who does not question God's Word in the commandments!]

The Holy Father, he added, doesn’t want to teach “a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world”. [But this is not simply about secular issues, much as that concerns this pope!

For him, Father Spadaro said, “neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems.”

The Pope also sees the Church as a “people of pilgrims” who transcend “any institutional expression, however necessary.” [But what is the entire 2000-year-plus history of Catholicism - Revelation, Tradition and Magisterium - if not the 'institutional expression' of the Church, which is a divine institution entrusted by Christ to humans? The People of God are not supposed to 'transcend' that but live by it in order to transcend the claims of the world! Do Spadaro and his fellow spin-doctors not realize the inanities they are saying in an attempt to 'rationalize' Bergoglio's mindset?] This tension, he added, “animates Francis’s reflection with regard to that which he has called ‘the conversion of the papacy’.

In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis further explains, and perhaps most clearly, where his aversion to rigidity comes from. He criticizes what he calls a "self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism" among those who "ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past." [Well, he may choose to call it 'a particular Catholic style from the past', but he is really referring to the deposit of faith that has been handed down to all Catholics and particularly to him as pope, but which he chooses to disparage, downgrade, debase and convert into a Pandora's box of probably Satanic evils.]

"A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism," he believes, "whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying." [That is soooo NOT TRUE! Teaching and imposing the discipline of the faith is not narcissistic nor authoritarian: the faith is not the personal opinion of those who carry out Christ's mission to evangelize the world - it is the Word of God translated into rules of God-pleasing human action and behavior.]

He further believes that "in neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others" and argues it is "impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity." [Excuse me, Father Bergoglio! Who are you to say that about the tens of thousands of Catholic missionaries throughout history who did spread the faith around the world even under the most impossible conditions? What do you have to show for yourself to match the results of evangelization by those missionaries, most of them unsung??? When you hypocritically write a papal document about 'the joy of the Gospel' but then say over and over that it is wrong to 'proselytize', i.e., to spread this joy to non-Catholic Christians, much less to non-Christians??? It only goes to show that you wrote EG primarily as a self-pandering manifesto.]

Elsewhere in the document, he says it is his hope "that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: 'Give them something to eat' (Mk 6:37)."

More sanctimonious one cannot be! Who exactly is he referring to in those lines??? He makes it seem that the one true Church of Christ - which he is trying his best to replace with a 'new improved model', namely, the church of Bergoglio - has been concerned only with 'imposing rules' and 'being rigid' with the faithful while ignoring the existence of material need. But in his insistence on paying attention to material need, he seems to ignore spiritual needs altogether. As if Christ came to earth to eliminate material need, and not to save souls for eternity.

It is most pitiful and abject that the current Successor of Peter should say that walking within the Law of the Lord means that people would find it difficult not to 'fall into rigidity', as if rigidity were totally negative. Strictly, religiously following any law, rule or regulation is necessarily rigid. The opposite of rigidity in this sense is flexibility.

Let us look at Merriam-Webster's definitions of 'rigid':

---

1a : deficient in or devoid of flexibility
1b : appearing stiff and unyielding
2a: inflexibly set in opinion
2b: strictly observed
3: firmly inflexible rather than lax or indulgent
4: precise and accurate in procedure

---

JMB appears to see the word only in senses 1 and 2, whereas it is senses 2, 3 and 4 that apply to discipline in the faith, i.e., following the Ten Commandments and Jesus's Great Commandment of Love. How uncharitable and merciless it is for the supposed Vicar of Christ to mock and denounce those who do their best to try and be holy, which means to overcome human nature which tends to do only what is easy!]

Finally, I think it is instructive to cite the flow of Jesus's words in Matthew 7 - which starts by the way, with the Lord's words denouncing those who see the mote in others' eyes, but not the beam in theirs (MT 7,1-5) [which is what I think of Bergoglio's carping, nagging and berating Catholics he dislikes] - and how, in many ways, his current Vicar on earth appears to be contradicting him:

---

The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.
The Narrow Gate
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14 [B"How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
False Prophets
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So by their fruits you will know them.

---

I'm sure any thinking Catholic will know who are the false prophets today, the bad tree and its bad fruit that must be cut down and thrown into the fire!

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 25/10/2016 19:35]

October 24,2016 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter

The following article illustrates yet another stealth tactic by the Bergoglio faith-demolishing functionaries. Earlier reports on this particular subject
said that this pope had wanted the question of priestly celibacy to be the main topic for his next bishops' synodal assembly, but that he was
dissuaded by his own immediate circle in the Vatican from brandishing such an obvious red flag when AL continues to bring a negative backlash.
But he'll work it into the agenda through the backdoor somehow, just you watch!

Celibacy for priests: A strong defense
Supposedly not to be discussed in the next synod, but
growing pressures urge on the ordination of married men.
A highly esteemed Italian theologian defends priestly
celibacy as not only opportune but necessary
by Sandro Magister


ROME, October 24, 2016 – Interviewed a few days ago by Gianni Cardinale for the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, Avvenire, the secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, confirmed that the theme chosen by Pope Francis for the new session in 2018 - “Young people, faith, and vocational discernment” - was at the top of the list of proposals made by the fourteen cardinals and bishops of the current Synod advisory council.

But Baldisseri also said that the next topic on the list was about the ordained ministries, without specifying further but with the obvious, implied inclusion of the question regarding ordination of married men [which this pope is known to favor, according to his good friend Cardinal Hummes of Brazil and a bishop of the Amazonia region in Brazil where the pope is reportedly ready to try out the ordination of so-called viri probati, men of established probity who are married at the time of being ordained as deacon or priest.]

Already once before, in 1971, a synod had addressed this issue. And many voices had been raised in favor of such ordination. That request was put to a vote and defeated 107 against 87.

And once again today there are insistent, widespread requests to introduce married clergy into the Latin Church on a larger scale, with Pope Francis having made it clear on several occasions that he is ready to listen:
> The Next Synod Is Already in the Works - On Married Priests (9.12.2015)
> Married Priests. The Germany-Brazil Axis (12.1.2016)
> Not Enough Celibate Priests? Make Way For Married Priests (21.9.2016)

But officially, this will not be on the agenda of the next synodal assembly. Baldisseri implies that the pope ultimately preferred to drop this issue and fall back on the more innocuous topic of young people, in part to keep from adding a new intra-ecclesial conflict to the still dramatic one ignited by the previous synod and by the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

But the ordination of married men remains on the agenda of 'the Church' [under Bergoglio], because the pope will certainly not drop it. [Whatever Jorge wants, Jorge gets, by hook or by crook, as we saw in the 'family synods'.]

The topic has been brought into focus recently with rare clarity by one of the most highly esteemed theologians, Giacomo Canobbio, professor of systematic theology at the Theological Faculty of Milan and former president of the Association of Italian Theologians, in an article in the influential and authoritative “Journal of the Italian Clergy,” published by the Catholic University of Milan and run by three prominent bishops: Franco Giulio Brambilla, Gianni Ambrosio, and Claudio Giuliodori.

Entitled: “Rethink the celibacy of priests?”, it begins by emphasizing that recently such a rethinking was called 'legitimate' by the Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, in a talk last February at the Pontifical Gregorian University.

But the rethinking to which Canobbio dedicates himself is not in the direction meant by Parolin [and the pope]. Cannobio dismantles commonplaces about priestly celibacy and leads the reader to conclusions that are to a large extent unconventional.

To begin with, Canobbio dismisses the illusion that a married clergy is the remedy for the decline in vocations to the priesthood. It is enough to look, he writes, at what is happening among the Orthodox and the Protestants, where priests and pastors are married, but vocations are in crisis all the same. This crisis, in fact, “stems from dechristianization, not from the link between the ordained ministry and celibacy.” [Priestly celibacy has been made into the principal bugbear by those seeking to explain sexually abusive priests as well as the lack of vocations, despite repeated studies to the contrary on both fronts.]

“The question nonetheless remains,” Canobbio continues. And he asks: “In a context of dechristianization, what meaning can the celibacy of priests take on when it comes to evangelization?” Since this connection does not belong to the fundamental contents of the faith, “could it be conjectured that, given the urgency of the mission that Francis is constantly recalling, it may be opportune to attenuate the obligation of celibacy?” [WHAT MISSION? When he is constantly saying all non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians can remain as they are, God accepts them 'as they are' [as if God 'accepted' anyone as he is - without sincere conversion of heart the way Jesus taught us to do!], and it is wrong for Catholics to even 'tell' non-Catholics about the faith. So what is there for missionaries to do in the 'church of Bergoglo'?]

In the initial part of the article, Canobbio examines how celibacy has been historically conjoined with the ordained ministry in the Latin Church: first, for practical reasons, and secondly, for reasons of a mystical and Christological character, because the priest operates in persona Christi, which implies total dedication to him and to the Church.

---

The ecclesiological dimension of the relationship between ordained ministry and celibacy therefore cannot be superficially set aside. We are children of history (and of the reflection that flows from it) and we cannot imagine what we would be if this had unfolded in a different form.

In fact, celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven has shaped not only the life of presbyters, but also the general arrangement of the Latin Church, and it must be taken into account that a different form of ordained ministry would involve a general rearrangement of the life of the same Church.

The legitimacy of such a rearrangement is a priori outside of the discussion: history has known many of these. We should nonetheless ask if full-time dedication to the ministry would not suffer some limitations if the presbyter had to provide for the necessary care of his family, and as a result if the Christian community could have recourse to its presbytery with the freedom that now, at least theoretically, it maintains it should rightly have.

---

Here are the rest of the essential passages in Cannobio's text:

---

Celibacy for the Kingdom of Heaven
by Giacomo Canobbio

ON THE VALUE OF TRADITION
That in the early days of Christianity those responsible for the communities were married appears to be undeniable. But bringing in this reason to maintain that it should be the same today is naive, to say the least, in the same way as maintaining that there should be a return to an ecclesiastical organization on the model of the apostolic Churches...

Nor does that argument appear cogent which appeals to the two lungs of the Church, Western and Eastern, to imagine a mutually beneficial exchange... If it is true that the complete form of the ordained ministry is the episcopacy, any reflection should be on the reasons why even in the Eastern Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox, bishops are selected from among the monks who are celibate....

Observing history with a dispassionate view, one can say that the decision to link the ordained ministry and celibacy is nothing other than the actualization of an element present in the New Testament, even though this decision took some time to be made in a definitive sense and even once made was ignored for several centuries...

As a matter of fact, however, the affirmation was gradually reached that celibacy is an essential obligation of the ordained ministries, and therefore, Latin Church legitimately chooses to ordain only those who decide to remain celibate.

The objection raised most frequently on the legitimacy of this decision seems to have little substance: the Church, in fact, can decide on the conditions to require of its ministers, because they are entering into the service of the Church and are not free to establish who can participate in this mission, and how. To maintain that this decision is authoritarianism and therefore a negation of the freedom of the Spirit would require demonstrating that the individual faithful can specify the articulation of ecclesial life.

THE NEED FOR MISSION AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF CELIBACY
The problem therefore does not concern the legitimacy of the decision, but rather the appropriateness of maintaining it in the face of the contemporary situation: if there were not enough celibate ordained ministers, could the Church change its decision?

We know that both Vatican II and Paul VI had taken the problem into consideration but ultimately that, except for a few exceptions, the disposition would not be changed...

In the decision between the two perspectives, one must recall the fundamental reason that led to the decision to ordain only celibate men: total dedication to the cause of the Kingdom in imitation of Christ. [If I were a man deciding whether to become a priest, this alone would be the strongest and best reason to justify celibacy.]

It must be recognized that this reason has appeared in clear form in relatively recent times and has not always been decoupled from sexophobic prejudices which lead to considering marriage a form of Christian life inferior to the celibate form....

So could the Christological reason recalled still justify today the link between celibacy and the presbyteral ministry?... Or could the demands of the Church’s life and mission require the interruption of a tradition that, albeit with fluctuations, goes back to the first centuries?...

The question is made even more acute by the current religious situation. In the face of the process of dechristianization in the countries of the developed world - which goes in lockstep with the trivialization of the sexual dimension of persons and of relationships - can it be hypothesized that maintaining the law of celibacy fulfills a function of evangelization?...

If the aim is to introduce the God of Jesus Christ in a decisive form into the life of persons, why not maintain a way of life that would signify how God can take such complete possession of a life in such a way as to manifest his lordship?

This is obviously a matter of “a” way, not the only one - none of the forms of Christian life can claim to exhaust the manifestation of the lordship of God - and it cannot be said that it is the best. But it is
the one that is most connected to the function of the ordained ministry. Moreover, this is a motivation that has gradually matured over the course of time.

The ordained ministry has the task not only of bringing others to live the Christian life, but also of showing that the Gospel can absorb all the energies, even the most noble - the affections, sexual relations - and yet make life complete...

Obviously a perspective of this kind requires that the accent be placed not only on celibacy, but on all the aspects of the imitatio Christi, beginning with poverty. The cause that the Kingdom of God should absorb all the good energies of a human person should be shown as the source of a life lived to the full...

Dedication to the cause of the Kingdom has a power of evangelization in and of itself. This can be seen in history: the mystics have always been effective poles of evangelization. A presbyteral ministry without the mystical dimension risks becoming a noble bureaucratic function.

Taking up the evangelizing value of celibacy in a consistent form necessarily also involves rethinking the way of exercising the ministry, freeing it from bureaucratic and organizational tasks that in fact impede the cultivation of the mystical dimension. It appears that this too, apart from being a recognition of the lay ministries, is a way to declericalize the Church.

It also involves admitting to the ordained ministry persons capable of withstanding the heavy demands of a celibate life for the cause of the Kingdom. Here and there one notices a discrepancy of aims: in order to have a sufficient number of presbyters, adequate attention is not paid to the psychological and spiritual conditions of candidates for the ministry, with the result of defections and/or of sexually deviant behaviors.

It helps bring clarity in ambiguous cases: tolerating situations of 'clandestine marriages' [Common-law cohabitation by priests?] in order to avoid a shortage of ordained ministers in the communities does not help bring about an understanding of the value of celibacy for the ministry.

Perhaps it could be accepted that in some situations - because of personal shortcomings, because of cultural influences - the same exceptions could apply that are provided for ministers of other Christian confessions who enter the Catholic Church. This would be a matter of exceptions, to be evaluated with great circumspection in order to emphasize that the Latin Church recognizes the evangelizing value of the celibacy of presbyters even when the number of these diminishes, and not on account of the requirement of celibacy.

CONCLUSION
Rethinking priestly celibacy appears not only opportune, but necessary for the following reasons:
1. To rediscover the reasons why the Latin Church confers the presbyteral ministry only on celibate men;
2. To reconsider the evangelizing value of a life decision for celibacy that ordained ministers make;
3. To reconsider the forms of exercising the presbyteral ministry;
4. To consider how the Church might carry out its mission in a context of de-Christianization;
5. To be able to admit, without duplicity or superficial maneuvers, exceptions to the law of celibacy for presbyters who for serious reasons of a cultural or personal character are not capable of meeting the requirement after a rigorous process of formation.

There remains the problem of how to guarantee a sufficient number of presbyters for the Eucharist, which is the center of life for Christian communities. But the question already posed by Karl Rahner still applies: How can it be established how many priests the Church needs today?

It is obvious that, if the traditional model of pastoral care (but beginning from when?) is maintained, the number of priests must necessarily be high. If one should continue to think according to this model, it can nevertheless be presumed that in the current social situation, the number of priests would not be increased even by removing the obligation of celibacy. It instead appears necessary to rethink the arrangement of pastoral care, and with it of the articulation of all the ministries in the Church.

---

Giacomo Canobbio is the scholar to whom Cardinal Camillo Ruini said he was most indebted for the theological pages of his latest book, on the ultimate realities:
> C. Ruini, "C'è un dopo? La morte e la speranza", Mondadori, Milano, 2016

Calls for the ordination of married men are particularly strong in Germany, including by official organisms of the Church like the ZDK (Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken), the powerful lay Central Committee of German Catholics.

Between 2010 and 2011, this committee brought the strongest of pressures to bear, prompting a reaction from those who instead defended the celibacy of priests.

In Germany this led to the idea of a book that would assemble contributions in support of the celibacy of the clergy, edited by Armin Schwibach and with an introduction by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences:
>"Reizthema Zölibat - Pressestimmen", mit einer Einführung von Walter Kardinal Brandmüller, Fe-Medienverlags, Kisslegg, 2011

The book is now out of print. But the letter of introduction by Cardinal Brandmüller - which reviews the history of celibacy in the Church, from the Gospels until today - is of definite interest and is available on this webpage, translated into Italian for the first time:
> Brandmüller: "Zölibat der Priester, verbindliche Überlieferung"
> Brandmüller: "Il celibato sacerdotale, una tradizione vincolante"

Beatrice on her site www.benoit-et-moi/2-16.fr calls attention to this timely and insightful article...

The new language of slavery
The lexicon of current events serves to create slaves - above all,
mental and spiritual slaves, therefore pyschological, and ultimately physical slaves
by Massimo Viglione
Translated from


Homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, femminicide [but not masculinicide], assesora (female counselor), presidenta (female president), giudicia (female judge), sexual identity, gay, gender identity, biological sex, gender disturbance, gender dysphoria, 'I am hetero', migrants, 'prejudice' of every kind, 'inter-religious discussion', multiculturalist, 'the role of women', etc. etc.

Nominalism was a doctrine with gnostic roots that had been condemned by the Church in the Middle Ages. In the simplest of conceptual terms, it meant the heretical attempt to replace reality with the flatus vocis (literally, an emission of sound), i,e., the use of a mere name or word or sound that does not have a corresponding objective reality.

In short, ideological lying.

Those who use words as an instrument of mass coercion know very well that words have weight that can influence the human mind heavily, sometimes even more than reality itself. Changing words or the meaning attached to words obviously does not change reality but rather, the ideological and psychological perception of reality by the individual and by society. [This is the whole basis of propaganda and advertising, in general, whereby perception, or image, is more important than what and how things and persons actually are.]

To make the most famous and striking example, just think of the change in meaning conferred by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution on the words 'liberty', 'equality','democracy', 'the people'... starting from which the changes have not stopped.

With every new epochal revolution - political, religious, social, or even simply intellectual and moral - a new vocabulary [familiar words given new meanings] arises.

Today the vocabulary of institutionalized nothingness is very rich and growing daily, operating changes on the mind of persons, especially the weakest and most gullible, distracted, naive or simply opportunistic.

And so, society changes to conform to the vocabulary. Our way of life changes - starting with our children, and with them, the future and the very history of mankind.

But since the epochal changes under way are endlessly subversive, they correspond to many subversive but empty words in a perfect revolutionary nominalism aimed at destroying the spiritual, moral, political, socio-economic and even ethnical-anthropological order of our world.

The terms I listed above, among so many that one could enumerate, serve to create slaves: slaves, above all, on the mental and spiritual, therefore phschological, and ultimately physical planes.

The fact that these nominalisms are increasingly supported by totalitarian legislation - whereby opponents are considered social monsters who deserve to be hanged (just try saying you are homophobic or xenophobic!) - is the incontrovertible proof of the point I am making, namely, that their task is to create slaves.

And who do we think are these slaves? If, for various reasons, we are not bothered at all that we have become or are becoming slaves, at least let us be concerned for our children and grandchildren, who are enslaved from birth onwards and will never realize that they are enslaved.

This thought should concern everyone, and not just lightly. But to be concerned is not enough. We must counteract. Soon. All of us. [HOW? The current thoughtmasters, because they also happen to be the temporal powers-that-be, control virtually all the means of communication and information in the global village. Can the intangible power of truth alone prevail over the concrete reality of the overwhelming forces and resources available to the legions of untruth?

Yes, Christ is with us when we fight for the truth which he himself embodies, but concretely, the balance of forces at present is too asymmetrical for the truth to prevail over untruth and unreason. Perhaps we can take heart from the fact that our side continues to hold its own in the battle of ideas that is sundering the Church, even if the 'enemy' is led by no less than the man who happens to be pope. But we cannot indulge in false hopes.]

Speaking of the semantic strategy (in every aspect of life today, we are living through George Orwell's nightmare of DOUBLESPEAK in his novel
B]1984) to impose a revolution, here's Cardinal Kasper building on his Lehrmeister-Caudillo's words... (with apologies to Fr. H for 'adapting'
his aphorism on Kasperism)

To Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’
now receive communion? Answer: 'Yes. Period.’
by Jan Bentz


October 24, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a recent publication of the German journal Stimmen der Zeit (Voices of the Time), Cardinal Walter Kasper published an article calling Amoris Laetitia a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s teaching.

“Amoris Laetitia: Break or Beginning” is the title of Kasper's article in which he analyzes the post-synodal exhortation and provides his opinion on the right hermeneutic in reading it.

In the first part called “Discussion regarding the binding character,” Kasper critiques Cardinal Raymond Burke for his statement that this pope's post-synodal documents are not necessarily binding. Instead, Kasper states, “This position is refuted by the formal character of an Apostolic Exhortation as well as its content.”

According to Kasper, critiques of AL boil down to the question of “remarried” divorced Catholics receiving Communion. [Was there ever any question of this when the two 'family synods' were convoked as a totally useless and obvious smokescreen that was supposed to provide cover for Bergoglio to allow 'communion for everyone' in the universal Church?]

As Kasper points out, the question is addressed by two different camps: One opinion is held by “conservatives,” some of whom (including German philosopher Robert Spaemann) see AL as a break from the tradition of the Church, whereas others (including Cardinal Gerhard Müller) say the publication does not change the position of the Church.

Another (held by Italian theologian Rocco Buttiglione) says the doctrine of the Church is developed further but not along the line of Pope John Paul II. Yet others acknowledge a “careful development” that is paired with a lack of “concrete guidelines.”

The last position among the “conservatives” is Norbert Lüdecke (Canon Law, Bonn, Germany) who says it is up to the individual conscience of the remarried divorced person to decide if he or she may receive Communion or not. [How can this be considered a 'conservative' position at all when it distills the 'my conscience above all' individualistic conviction of 1968 and its heirs? In fact, in stating something similar, AL actually makes the 'internal forum', i.e., the confessor and spiritual adviser, unnecessary to the 'discernment' process, in which the sinners can 'discern' for themselves whether they are worthy to receive communion or not.]

Kasper goes on to cite Buttiglione that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn presents the “decisive interpretation.” This citation refers back to a publication in L’Osservatore Romano. The same position is taken by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ in La Civiltà Cattolica, and is Kasper's position as well. [A silly game, of course, because the 'communion for RCDs' postulated by AL was first formally presented to the College of Cardinals - safe to say, in behalf of Jorge Bergoglio, and most gladly so - by Cardinal Kasper himself. So now, all he is doing is to agree with himself!]

Kasper critiques the “alleged confusion” as having been caused by a “third party” who have “alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God.” He continues to say that “behind the pastoral tone of the document lies a well thought-out theological position." [And who, pray tell, might that 'third party' be who "have alienated themselves etc..."? One would think that the predominant criterion in deciding what is right to the Church is to simply assent to the perception of 'the sense of faith and life" of the people of God? As if 'the people of God' were completely autonomous of the Church and self-directing!]

The Cardinal praises the “realistic, open, and relaxed way of dealing with sexuality and eroticism” in AL that does not seek to “indoctrinate or moralize.” [Didn't Benedict XVI do all that in Deus caritas est, for which even his worst critics praised him? Now, it seems everyone is crediting Bergoglio for inventing the wheel by his positive view of sexuality and eros!]

“With a grain of salt, one can say that AL distances itself from a primarily negative Augustinian view of sexuality and turns toward an affirming Thomistic view on creation.” [Kasper's unbalanced opinion about Augustine's views on sexuality is very well controverted in a paper entitled 'St.Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality' http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.pdf by Mons. Cormac Burke, of the Opus Del Prelature, a judge of the Roman Rota, and a professor at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome.

Kasper repeats his opinion that the moral ideal is an “optimum,” yet is unreachable by many. “Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil,” he states, “in the living life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings.”

“Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything.” The text provides ground for believing – so says Kasper – that the Pope, and with him the Church, moves away from a “legal morality” and toward the “virtue morality” of Thomas Aquinas.

Afterward, the Cardinal presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations. He bases his opinion on prudence as the “application of a norm in a concrete situation.” “Prudence does not give foundation to the norm, it presupposes it,” Kasper writes. He draws the conclusion that the “norm” is not applicative mechanically in every situation, but prudence is needed as fits the case.

With reference to Familiaris Consortio (No. 84), Kasper states that “remarried” divorcees are not anymore punished with excommunication but instead are “invited to participate as living members of Church life.” [Excommunication was never the question here - because the current Code of Canon Law abrogated that penalty for RCDs, retaining only the communion ban.]

Instead of choosing the path of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (“who had adhered to John Paul II’s decision”, in Kasper's words) to not allow “remarried” divorced Catholics to receive Communion and instead to insist that they practice abstinence in their sexual relations, Pope Francis “goes a step further, by putting the problem in a process of an embracing pastoral [approach] of gradual integration.” [He hasn't taken 'a step further' relative to John Paul II and Benedict XVI - he has repudiated them in favor of his own path!]

“Amoris Laetitia envisages which forms of exclusion from ecclesiastical, liturgical, pastoral, educational, and institutional services can be overcome,” Kasper explains.

He posits that when John Paul II gave permission for remarried divorced to receive Communion – if they lived as brother and sister – this was “in fact a concession.” The Cardinal reasons this by saying, “Abstinence belongs to the most intimate sphere and does not abolish the objective contradiction of the ongoing bond of marriage of the first sacramental marriage and the second civil marriage.” [It may be so, but the abstinence 'concession' was on the premise that, meanwhile, the couple would be taking steps to regularize their marital status. And if they are unable to, for various reasons including practical ones, then they would have to continue practising abstinence if they wish to receive communion because to do otherwise would be to persist in adultery.]

Kasper further denies the magisterial content of the provision: “This provision obviously does not have the same weight than the general norm; anyhow it is not a final binding magisterial statement.” In Kasper’s eyes, John Paul II’s request opens up a “playground” between the “dogmatic principle” and the “pastoral consequence,” which AL tries to widen. [Imagine calling the field of this discussion a 'playground'! Is this all just a game of papal one-upmanship for the Bergoglio camp?]

Another argument Kasper tries to use to justify allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Communion is the distinction between “objective mortal sin” and “subjective culpability.” He insists that Pope Francis “emphasizes the subjective aspects without ignoring the objective elements.” Kasper also alludes to the fact that sometimes people are not able to be convinced of an “objective norm” because it seems to them to be “as insurmountably estranged from world and reality.”

“The conscience of many people is oftentimes blind and deaf to that which is presented to them as Divine Law. That is not a justification of their error, yet an understanding and mercifulness with the erroneous person.” [Will God in his justice be understanding and merciful with his ministers who condone it when some in their flock are 'blind and deaf' to what is presented as Divine Law - and is Divine Law - at the risk of eternal damnation? This is the main flaw with all this 'understanding and mercy' argument that, in effect, condones sin outright.]

Therefore, Kasper states that “Amoris Laetitia lays the groundwork for a changed pastoral praxis in a reasoned individual case.” Yet he also says the “Papal document does not draw clear practical conclusions from these premises.” According to Kasper, the Pope leaves the question open, and the very fact of leaving it open is “in itself a magisterial decision of great consequence.”

Kasper explains that the direction of Pope Francis is clear: “One does not need to focus on footnotes. Much more important is that the gradual integration, which is the key topic in question, is directed essentially towards admittance to the Eucharist as the full-form of the participation of the life of the Church.” [Yes, but it has to be merited. The Body and Blood of Christ cannot be profaned at will by sacrilegious communion!]

Kasper quotes Francis’s statement from an in-flight press conference on April 16 wherein he responded to the question if in some cases remarried divorced can receive Communion with the poignant words: “Yes. Period.” This answer is not found in Amoris Laetitia but ‘corresponds to the general ductus.’” [i.e, what it is leading to.]

According to Kasper, this statement is in full accordance with Canon Law (915 CIC/1983) because it does not negate that “obstinacy to remain in mortal sin” can supposedly be judged in individual cases, and in some cases be excluded. It is even up for discussion whether an objective mortal sin is present in the given case.

He adds that the cause of scandal is not necessarily having a person who lives in a second civil marriage receive Communion. Rather, in such a situation, “not the admission but the denial of the sacraments is creating scandal.” [So we come full circle to Kasper's original presentation to the secret consistory of February 2014 in which he argued why the Eucharist should not be denied to RCDs, whom, of course, neither he nor his puppeteer do not consider to be adulterers. They know better than Jesus, remember?, because Jesus (who is God) was only speaking to and about men in his time, so he has to be updated! The ultimate relativism and hubris of Bergoglio and his kowtowers, to think that God's Word is not to be taken as absolute!]


The British couple at TORCH OF THE FAITH have this to say about Kasper's new forked-tongue verbosities...

Satanic double-speak

Oct. 25, 2016

LifeSiteNews carries the breaking story that Cardinal Walter Kasper has now claimed that the divorced and 're-married' are free to receive Holy Communion - Period....

Subverting the Sensus Fidelium
Kasper's article attempts to denigrate those who have critiqued Amoris Laetitia claiming they have somehow "alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God".

This is diabolical. It is obvious that Kasper is here making a blatant attempt to attack Catholics who are striving to remain faithful to the constant teaching of Christ's Sacred Magisterium, whilst subverting the sensus fidelium to his own relativistic ends.

Kasper tries to pull-off this sinister double-coup by re-interpreting the 'sense of the faith' in terms of the widespread acceptance of sexual immorality. This will just not do.

For, as Kasper well knows, it is a position which is clearly refuted even in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. For example, paragraph 12 of Lumen Gentium teaches that the sensus fidelium only manifests through faithfulness to Sacred Scripture, Tradition and obedience to the constant teaching of the Magisterium.

In other words, it is not to be construed as a kind of democratic model, wherein popular opinion holds sway. How necessary that teaching proves in a society which has so tragically lost the sense of sin that it now sees evil as good and good as evil.

An Un-Thomistic Reading of St. Thomas
In his phony attempt to sunder the theological harmony which runs between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in the realm of sexual ethics, Kasper next 'presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations'.

Indeed, he suggests that "Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil... in the living of life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings". This is a statement worthy of the slithering serpent in the Garden of Eden.

It is also a complete contradiction of St. Thomas Aquinas, who clearly and consistently rooted his ethics in the fact that one may never do an evil act, even if a good result may ensue.

The real teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas have a lucidity that enables his readers to access the good, true and beautiful. Kasper hideously subverts this purity with his decadent sophistry.

We find this echoed, for just one example, in HV 14 of Humanae Vitae, which reminds us:

---

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (Romans 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which by its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which therefore must be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family, or of society in general.

---

In his article, Kasper also comes out with this line: "Amoris Laetitia does not change one iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything." This is nothing but Satanic Double-Speak.

It is also a classical self-contradiction, which provides another clear example of St. Irenaeus's maxim that error refutes itself.

On Sunday evening, the priest who offered the Traditional Latin Mass that we attended described something of the plight of members of the Body of Christ who are being slaughtered and thrown into wells by Islamists to poison the water-supply in Syria.

Yesterday, we read about the hundreds of Christian children who had been forced into an industrial dough-making machine by jihadis in Syria and kneaded to death. The oldest was four years of age. We also read of other Christian children who were beheaded and crucified in front of their poor parents in Syria.

That cardinals like Walter Kasper can dedicate so much of their time to developing diabolical sophistry in defence of adultery and sacrilege, especially at a time when so many Christians are being slaughtered in such a hideous manner in the Middle East, and even as Kasper's own country disintegrates under the pressures of post-modern nihilism and mass Islamic immigration, is another telling sign of the sheer decadence that has overtaken so many in the Church.

It also stands as a portent of a coming chastisement.

You already know that adultery and sacrilegious Holy Communions gravely offend God, destroy souls and wreak havoc in society. Do not follow the foul lies of Satan and his minions, but remain in the Truth of Christ.

Let us be guided by St. Paul, in Galatians 1:8: "But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema".

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 26/10/2016 03:15]

Cardinal Zen dares to say
Catholics have no obligation to follow
a pope who betrays the Church
by Hilary White

October 22, 2016

I know we were all expecting the crack to come from a completely different corner of the Church, and that hardly anyone has been paying attention to the eagerness of the Francis Vatican to throw the Catholic Church in China to the communist wolves.

As with every jurisdictional Vatican compromise with Communist governments the one in the offing smells of betrayal. There have been four secret meetings between Vatican representatives and Chinese government officials in the past two years, the most recent being at the end of April.

Cardinal Zen, retired Bishop of Hong Kong, is not at all optimistic. He does not trust anything that Beijing would offer:

---

“We do not see any sign that would encourage the hope that the Chinese Communists are about to change their restrictive religious policy… It is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist government who cannot possibly judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop.”

---

The gist seems to be that the Vatican is working on a deal with the Chinese communists to “ratify” the government’s picks for Catholic bishops, essentially, placing the faithful into the care of those kinds of bishops that their brutal communist bully-boy government thinks are suitable.

But here it is: the first Cardinal of the Catholic Church who has finally confronted Francis.

Cardinal Zen – who has been one of the most outspoken defenders of the Faith in the worst possible circumstances – has said it: Do not follow this pope into his evil designs to destroy Holy Mother Church.

---

Should an agreement be reached between China and the Holy See, this will certainly have “the Pope’s approval”. But China’s Catholics will not be obliged to take it into consideration if their “conscience” tells them it is “against their principle of faith”. This is according to the Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen...
{From an article written in June 2016 by Gianni Valente for VATICANN INSIDER)

---

Don’t discount this, people. It means there are still lines that can’t be crossed. Cardinal Zen has been fighting this battle for the Catholic Church and the Catholic faithful in China for many years. And for most of that time he has had to fight it on two fronts; from attacks from Beijing – which are often of a most physically brutal kind – and from diplomatic attacks from Rome. It has been many years since anyone in the Vatican has had the best spiritual interests of the faithful in China at heart.

OstpolitiK wasn’t just something that got invented at Vatican II to bring in Russian observers from the KGB-controlled Russian Orthodox. Vatican Secretaries of State have been applying the flagellum to the Body of Christ in China for most of my lifetime. Given that we’re talking about a Catholic population of about 65 million people – about the equivalent of the population of Italy or Britain, twice the entire population of Canada – that’s not an insignificant betrayal. It makes the Mindszenty affair look like an embassy garden party.

It’s also not insignificant that the de facto leader of 65 million Catholics has called for the faithful to oppose the pope who is flogging Christ in the person of the Church in China.

It’s also notable that the article itself is another hit piece from our good friends at La Stampa/Vatican Insider who recently lashed out at the opponents of Jorge’s little plans for us all.

In a piece at One Peter Five, Steve Skojec speculates that they are lashing out precisely because they are discovering that the opposition is louder and more persistent – and more effective – than they had bargained for.

Steve wrote about the Vatican “quietly panicking over its inability to comprehend the sort of asymmetrical information warfare they are faced with...They cannot accurately gauge — let alone neutralize — the expansive influence of critics who operate almost entirely outside of established structures, instead building audiences predominately online and across a broad spectrum of social media platforms.”

I commented that this is something that utterly freaks them out. They really have no idea at all how the internet works or what it is for. I remember them being completely paranoid about people using their phones in the journalists’ room at the Conclave. They actually had it set up to block all internet access in the hall they set up for journalists, and then couldn’t figure out why no one came to use it. The real journalists did all their interviewing in bars and cafes in the Borgo on the other side of the piazza.

At their press conferences, they really don’t understand how information about what’s being said unofficially (the Q&A) gets out before the press conference is even over. Most of these people have only just started to use email. They are totally accustomed to thinking themselves in complete control of the message, and the fact that they don’t even know how information is spread is something they’re vaguely aware of, but terrifies them.

“How do these people keep finding this stuff out?!!!”, they ask. We’re magic.

It does seem like the Vatican machine is in defensive mode lately. We’ve been having people contact us with the very interesting information that certain key texts from previous popes have just gone magically missing from the .va website.

So far we have seen 'disappeared Pius IX on the social reign of Christ the King and the inadmissibility of “ecumenism” as the term is currently used in ecclesiastical circles; and some documents from John Paul II on the nature of marriage and the inadmissibility of allowing those in unrepentant adulterous liaisons to receive Holy Communion.

Soon, the Vatican censors may have to edit the Gospels and Epistles to leave out the parts Jorge Bergoglio believes to be incompatible with his theology of cheap mercy (i.e., all gain at no pain to the faithful) and his other ideological and narcissistic obsessions.

But since the Bible has been the best-selling book of all time for the past many centuries, adapting the New Testament for the church of Bergoglio on the Vatican site alone will certainly not automatically change the historical record of the Gospels nor all extant copies of the Bible anywhere in any way, shape or form. So you see, dear JMB, even you - though in your overriding hubris [the other word for the Original Sin], you may think you can improve on God - cannot change the Word of God by personal fiat.

About that Zagreb item...


Archdiocese of Zagreb forbids
Cardinal Burke to say TLM

oCTOBER 25, 2016

Cardinal Raymond Burke will be in Croatia until Wednesday, Oct. 26, to present his book on the Eucharist that has just appeared in Croatian.

On that day, he is scheduled to deliver the keynote speech at the conference "Tradfest" in Zagreb, the capital, on the subject "The Gospel of Life and a New Evangelization“.

Tradfest describes itself as “an unapologetic festival of traditional and conservative ideas in contrast to so called ‘progressive’ and militant secularist ideas and policies“.

Tomorrow at 5 pm Cardinal Burke was supposed to celebrate the Latin Mass in the small church of St. Martin near the Cathedral of Zagreb, but that scheduled Low Mass has been “cancelled or prohibited“, as the Blog “tomablizanac” reports.

Traditional Catholics in Croatia told Gloria.tv, that the Old Latin Mass was forbidden by the Archdiocese of Zagreb.

Maybe there will be a clarification from the Archdiocese or Cardinal Burke. According to Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, the local bishop has no say over the celebration of the traditional Mass if the faithful who want it can get a priest to celebrate it.

And Cardinal Burke is too seasoned a traveler for his staff to have failed to inform the local Archbishop that he was visiting Zagreb, especially since it was for an event that must have been planned months in advance. Even if the the rule is that any visiting bishop inform the host bishop of his visit (the host bishop apparently having the faculty to allow or disallow the visit).

In 2010 or 2011, Cardinal Schoenborn created an incident when he visited Medjugorje with great fanfare and media coverage, said Mass at the shrine, and met with some of the supposed Marian visionaries, but never informed the local archbishop of his visit. The latter complained publicly about the discourtesy, and Schoenborn - who was visiting the Vatican at the time of the compplaint - was directed by Benedict XVI to write the local bishop an apology. Which he did, in a handwritten note that was faxed then and there to the bishop.

I've been trying to post this item for the past several days, but finally, here it is. Anyone who has been following this thread will not be surprised
to find that my answer to Prof. De Mattei's question in the title is this: Bergoglio belongs to his own church which he has been busy setting
up these past three years and seven months - literally on the back of the Roman Catholic Church, in the belief that the overwhelming
majority of Catholics won't know the difference, nor would they care...

In the same way, I would not hesitate to answer the no-longer rhetorical question "Is the pope Catholic?" with a resounding NO! He's a Bergoglian
acting narcissistically for himself alone, who is founding Bergoglianism just as Luther founded Lutheranism, and the most dangerous of
anti-Catholics because he is doing it all while being the man elected to lead the Roman Catholic Church, not to replace it with his own
pseudo-church.

To which Church does Pope Bergoglio belong?
by Roberto de Mattei
Translated for Rorate caeli by 'Francesca Romana' from

October 19, 2016

Two anniversaries overlap each other in 2017: the 100 years of the Fatima apparitions, occurring between May 13th and October 13th 1917, and the 500 years of Luther’s revolt, beginning in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31st 1517.

However, there are two other much less discussed anniversaries which also fall next year: the 300 years of the official foundation of Freemasonry (London, June 24th 1717) and the 100 years of the Russian Revolution of October 26th 1917 (the Julian calendar in use in the Russian Empire: November 8th according to the Gregorian calendar).

Yet, between the Protestant Revolution and the Communist Revolution through to the French Revolution, the daughter of Freemasonry, there runs an indissoluble red thread which Pius XII, in his famous discourse Nel contemplare of October 12th 1952, summed up in three historic phrases, corresponding to Protestantism, the Age of Enlightenment and Marxist atheism: Christ – yes, Church – no. God – yes, Christ – no. Finally the impious cry: God is dead; in fact: God has never been”.

The anarchic yearnings of Communism were already implicitly present in the first Protestant negations – observed Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: “Whether from the point of view of Luther’s explicit formation, all of the tendencies, all of the mind-set, all of the imponderable elements of the Lutheran explosion, carried already in itself, in a very authentic and full way, even if implicit, the spirit of Voltaire and Robespierre, Marx and Lenin” (Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Sugarco, Milan, 2009, pp.61-62).

In this respect, the errors the Soviet Russia spread, starting from 1917, were a chain of ideological aberrations from Marx and Lenin which went back to the first Protestant heresiarchs. The 1517 Lutheran Revolution can therefore be considered one of the most nefarious events in the history of humanity, on par with the Masonic revolution in 1789, and the Communist one in 1917. Further, the message of Fatima, which foresaw the spreading of Communist errors throughout the world, contains implicitly the rejection of the errors of Protestantism and the French Revolution.

The start of the centenary of the Fatima apparitions on October 13th 2016 was buried under a blanket of silence. That same day, Pope Francis received in the Paul VI Audience Hall, a thousand Lutheran “pilgrims” and in the Vatican a statue of Martin Luther was honoured, as appears in the images Antonio Socci published on his Facebook page.

Next October 31st, moreover, Pope Francis will go to Lund in Sweden, where he will take part in a joint Catholic-Lutheran ceremony commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. As can be read in the communiqué drawn up by the World Lutheran Federation and the Papal Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the aim of the event is “to express the gifts of the Reform and ask forgiveness for the division perpetuated by Christians of the two traditions.”

The Waldensian theologian and pastor, Paolo Ricca, involved for decades in ecumenical dialogue, voiced his satisfaction “seeing as it is the first time a Pope commemorates the Reform. This, in my opinion, constitutes a step forward with regard to the important aims that have been achieved with the Second Vatican Council, which - by including in its texts and so giving value to some fundamental principles and themes of the Reform – marked a decisive turning point in the relationships between Catholics and Protestants.

By taking part in the commemoration, as the highest representative of the Catholic Church is prepared to do, means, in my view, to consider the Reform as a positive event in the history of the Church which also did some good for Catholicism.

The participation at the commemoration is a gesture of great relevance also because the Pope is going to Lund, to the home of the Lutherans; as if he were one of the family. My impression is, in a way I wouldn’t know how to define, that he also feels part of that portion of Christianity born of the Reform.”

According to Ricca, the main contribution offered by Pope Francis is

---

“his effort to reinvent the papacy, that is, the search for a new and different way of understanding and living the ministry of the Bishop of Rome.

This search – presuming my interpretation somewhat hits the mark - might take us a long way, since the papacy – because of the way it has been understood and lived over the last 1000 years – is one of the great obstacles to Christian Unity. It seems to me Pope Francis is moving towards a model of the papacy different to the traditional one, with respect to which the other Christian Churches might take on new positions. If it were so, this theme might be completely reconsidered in ecumenical circles.”

---

The fact that this interview was published on October 9th by Vatican Insider, considered a semi-official Vatican site, makes one think that this interpretation of the Lund trip as well as the papal intentions, have been authorized and are agreeable to Pope Francis.

During his audience with the Lutherans on October 13th, Pope Bergoglio also said that proselytism, is “the strongest poison” against ecumenism.

“The greatest reformers are the saints – he added - and the Church is always in need of reform”. These words contain simultaneously, as is frequent in his discourses, a truth and a deception.

The truth is that the saints, including St Gregory VII and St. Pius X, have [indeed] been the greatest reformers. The deception consists in insinuating that the pseudo-reformers, like Luther, are to be considered saints.

The statement that proselytism or the missionary spirit, is “the strongest poison against ecumenism” must, instead, be reversed: Ecumenism, as it is understood today, is the greatest poison against the Church’s missionary spirit.

The Saints have always been moved by this spirit, beginning with the Jesuits who landed in Brazil, the Congo and the Indies in the XVI century, while their confreres Diego Lainez, Alfonso Salmeron and Peter Canisius, at the Council of Trent, fought against the errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Yet, according to Pope Francis those outside the Church do not have to be converted. [How often has he said this! Yet he prided himself on the supposed 'continental mission' launched by the Latin American bishops in Aparecida in 2006 (all because he chaired the committee that drafted the final document). But it has been a resounding failure because it has not stopped the growth of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America at the expense of Catholicism.

As pope, Bergoglio has singlehandedly killed the very idea of Catholic mission, and I continue to believe that Benedict XVI meant that when he chose to say to the Pontifical Lateran University in October 2014 that 'inter-religious dialog is no substitute for mission'. ]

At the audience on October 13th, in an off-the-cuff response to questions from some young people, he said: “I like good Lutherans a lot, Lutherans who truly follow the faith of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, I don’t like lukewarm Catholics and lukewarm Lutherans.”

With another deformation in language, Bergoglio calls “good Lutherans” those Protestants who do not follow the faith of Jesus Christ, but “lukewarm Catholics” those fervent sons and daughters of the Church who reject the equalizing of the truth of the Catholic religion with the error of Lutheranism.

All of this brings us to the question: What will happen in Lund on October 31st? [I do not think it entirely unlikely that the Catholic bishop of whatever is considered to be Luther's home diocese in Germany will formally propose to Bergoglio to open a cause for the beatification and eventual canonization of Martin Luther, nor that JMB himself could proclaim Luther 'santo subito' then and there!]

We know that the commemoration will include a joint celebration based on the Liturgical Catholic-Lutheran guide, Common Prayer, elaborated from the document From Conflict to Communion: The Common Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, drawn-up by the Catholic-Lutheran Commission for the Unity of Christians.

There are those who rightly fear an “intercommunion” between Catholic and Lutherans, which would be sacrilegious, since the Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantiation.

Above all, however, that it will be said Luther was not a heresiarch, but a reformer unjustly persecuted and that the Church has to recuperate the “gifts of the Reform”. Those who persist in considering the condemnation of Luther proper and think his followers heretics and schismatics, must be harshly criticised as unworthy of 'the church of Pope Francis'.

But then again, what church does Jorge Mario Bergoglio belong to? [I wish I could design an appropriate logo and banner for Bergoglianism and the church of Bergoglio!]

I think I may have finally found an all-purpose tag to designate anything I post that has to do with the objectionable - because generally anti-Catholic - aspects of this pontificate...

Not surprisingly, Carl Olson has written an editorial commenting on outrageous, Bergoglio-inspired and blatantly anti-Catholic statements made
recently by two prelates - Mons. Kenney of Birmingham, a lead figure in the arrangements for the Bergoglian concelebration in Lund, Sweden,
next week, of the start of the fifth centenary of Martin Luther's schism (the CRUX interview with Kenney is the last post on the preceding page of
this thread); and Cardinal Kasper, in his latest defense of AL, as posted earlier on this page...

The liberty of dogma
vs. the tyranny of taste
Those who say that doctrines must serve the Church's pastoral mission have both
inverted the proper order of things and placed sentiment above shepherding.
Editorial
by Carl E. Olson

Oct. 25, 2016

Years ago I wrote an article titled "Dogma is Not a Dirty Word". In it, I noted how those who criticize the Church for being "dogmatic" fail to understand that everyone is dogmatic in a very real sense, as G.K. Chesterton noted in his 1905 book Heretics: "Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . Trees have no dogmas."

Along those same lines, in 1928, Chesterton observed, “There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.”

In fact, the unconscious dogmatist has a funny way of dogmatically insisting he is entirely free of dogma — or, at the very least, he has attained a special perch above and beyond the clutches of dogma and doctrine, which are sources of discord, confusion, and contention.

Examples abound within the secular realm. Far more disconcerting, however, are examples and instances within the Church. As when, to draw upon my dusty article, we encounter those who declare "that real ecumenism and real Christianity are not found in dry formulas but in the 'spirit of Christ'. Much is made of 'love' or 'sincerity' but often with little or no reference to the kind of demanding, self-denying life of holiness that Jesus set before his disciples."

This came to mind upon reading a recent Crux interview with Bishop William Kenney of the Archdiocese of Birmingham, who was appointed by Pope Francis in 2013 to be, as his online bio states, "co-chair of the international conversations between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches." It's not that Bishop Kenney is unaware of various theological or doctrinal concerns, but it appears he has happily moved past them, saying:

---

The things that we thought caused the Reformation have been taken away- the excommunication of the Lutherans was lifted, the condemnation of the Catholics were lifted. That is the formal Churches’ position now, it is not just a theological proposition. There are those who say this has already achieved unity;it is certainly a major step forward, and it has removed most of the problems of the Reformation.

---

Yes, he acknowledges, the "women priests question is complicated", but he then muses that when it comes to the Eucharist, "Lutherans have more or less the same doctrine as we have." [Even if they don't believe in the Trans-substantiation! How much less can they be in terms of Eucharistic doctrine?] How much more, or in what way less is not clear. But does it really matter? Apparently not.

"Would Martin Luther have been excommunicated today? The answer is no, he probably wouldn’t. And he did not want to split the Church - he came to that, but it’s not where he began." In truth, contra the bishop's Monday morning quarterbacking, Luther was a man of many moods and many positions, perhaps even multiple personalities.

As Dr. Christopher Malloy, a theologian who has studied and written extensively on Catholic-Lutheran matters, said to me in a lengthy June 2007 Ignatius Insight interview: "We need to pay attention to the following question: 'Which Lutheranism? Whose Luther?'"

Not to worry, however, as Bishop Kenney serenely assures readers: "In other words, the Reformation was all a big misunderstanding!"

All those conflicts and controversies over faith, nature, grace, salvation, justification, sanctification, Church authority, the Eucharist, baptism, holy orders, Scripture and Tradition, and so much more were apparently the products of a far less enlightened and much more dogmatic age.

If only the Church fathers at Trent had known. If only St. John Fisher and St. Thomas had comprehended. If only St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Sales, and others from the Counter-Reformation "got it". This is the essence of chronological snobbery, a disease that not just infects our age, but defines it.

Now, the story goes, we have entered into a post-doctrinal age, an era marked by the most grand and important thing of all — the papal gesture:

---

But there is enough convergence for Francis to have made his still-not-entirely-clear gesture? [The interviewer was referring to an earlier exchange about this pope's implied approval of a Lutheran wife receiving Catholic communion with her Catholic husband last November.]
KENNEY:If I wanted Francis to cause a pleasant revolution in Lund, he would say Lutherans can, under certain circumstances without asking all the time, receive the Eucharist. That would be a major gesture. The sort of thing I would like to see is that in a so-called ecumenical marriage, the non-Catholic party can always go to Communion with his or her partner. That would be a major step forward, and it’s pastorally very desirable."

---

Not that just "any Lutheran could receive at a Catholic Mass," the bishop helpfully explains, "we’re not there yet, and it would cause confusion." And, as we all know, we mustn't have confusion. Or ambiguity. Or a jumbled, incoherent relationship between doctrine and pastoral ministry. We mustn't have them, but we do. Surplus, in fact, abounds.

Speaking of such confusion, Cardinal Kasper has recently written an essay titled "Amoris Laetitia: Break or Beginning” ("Amoris laetitia": Bruch oder Aufbruch?), in which he, according to a LifeSiteNews.com report, "critiques the 'alleged confusion' as having been caused by a 'third party' who has 'alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God.'" And:

---

He continues to say that “behind the pastoral tone of the document lies a well thought-out theological position.” The Cardinal praises the “realistic, open, and relaxed way of dealing with sexuality and eroticism” in Amoris Laetitia that does not seek to “indoctrinate or moralize.”

“With a grain of salt, one can say that Amoris Laetitia distances itself from a primarily negative Augustinian view of sexuality and turns toward an affirming Thomistic view on creation.”

Kasper repeats his opinion that the moral ideal is an “optimum,” yet is unreachable by many. “Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil,” he states, “in the living life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings.”

---

Yet, as Archbishop Alexander K. Sample of Portland, Oregon, noted in his recent pastoral letter about AL, "As St. John Paul II explains, certain positive commandments, while unchanging and universal, admit of widely varying means to accomplish them. Moreover, at times external circumstances can impede a person’s ability to perform such good acts. There are negative commandments, or prohibitions, on the other hand, which are universally binding in each and every circumstance. They admit of no exceptions whatsoever and can never be chosen..."

Or, as Abp. Sample told me in a CWR interview, "the 'Thou shall not' commandments admit of no exceptions in the objective. Generally speaking, no one is forced to act in an evil manner against the commandments of God." Put simply, adultery is not an option, no matter how many "pastoral" smokescreens are tossed up by this or that cardinal.

But the [Bergoglian/Kasperian] approach and perspective is clear: doctrine — that is, the Church's consistent and venerable teaching on faith and morals — must take a back seat to "pastoral" measures. This was summed up succinctly by Cardinal-elect Cupich of Chicago in his April 2016 column about AL:

---

There are no changes in doctrine in this document, and in fact the pope urges the church not to step away from proposing the full ideal of marriage. At the same time he makes clear that doctrines are at the service of the pastoral mission. He also knows that this call for a more compassionate pastoral outreach of accompaniment, discernment and integration, one marked by tenderness, will leave some perplexed.

---

Ponder that statement for a moment: "doctrines are at the service of the pastoral mission." That is, to use non-theological language, complete nonsense.

First, ironically, it has the character of a dogmatic and doctrinal assertion; it is a splendid example of Chesterton's "unconscious dogmatist".

Secondly, it somehow overlooks the simple fact that the pastoral mission of the Church is based upon and flows from her beliefs — that is, her doctrine — about the person and work of Jesus Christ. As soon as someone says, "The Church pastoral mission is...", they must refer to doctrine. (Those who don't understand this basic point would do well to read the opening paragraphs of the Summa Theologiae.)

Third, it betrays the same sort of negative and narrow view of doctrine that is, unfortunately, found in some of the writings and statements of the Holy Father.

For example, Pope Francis states in his apostolic exhortation: "Our teaching on marriage and the family cannot fail to be inspired and transformed by this message of love and tenderness; otherwise, it becomes nothing more than the defence of a dry and lifeless doctrine." On the face of it, this sounds fine.

But note how it implies that doctrine — again, the teaching passed on to the Church by Christ — is "dry and lifeless" unless it is presented in a certain manner; that is, doctrine is reliant upon subjective elements in order to convey objective truth.

Yet God states that when his word goes forth, "it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa 55:11). Yes, we should present the truth with all of the charity and clarity we can muster, by God's grace, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Holy Spirit is held hostage by our limitations.

Revealed and authentic doctrine has power because it is given by God out of love, for the purpose of growing in truth and love. "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ," wrote the Apostle John, "does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn 1:9).

And while doctrine develops, it never changes into something else. As Abp. Sample explained well in his letter:

---

When discerning genuine development, we read parts in light of the whole, formulae in light of the essence, and the newer in light of the older. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Tradition does develop, but Tradition develops only in continuity, never in rupture. Pastoral practice and sacramental discipline develop as well, but practice and discipline must be completely consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Church.

---

Yet Kasper and Cupich and others would tell us differently. In claiming that doctrine must bow to pastoral measures and initiatives, they actually subvert one of the most basic fundamentals of Catholic doctrine: that it is God who initiates and it is man who responds, either in humble faith or in prideful resistance.

The Trinitarian mission - the saving work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - is to communicate and impart the gift of divine life and love, and the "ultimate end of whole divine economy is the entry of God's creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity" (see CCC 257-260).

The commandments are not "ideals", but means by which our love in and for God grows ever deeper. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments," (Jn 14:15) Jesus told the disciples.

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments," wrote the Apostle John, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 Jn 5:2-3).

The Apostle was not only unaware of the endless "complexities" of modern life, he was happily resistent to the false notion that only a few special men and women can be saints.

So, Christ's commandments are not burdensome, nor are his doctrines confusing. Yet some in the Church are convinced that teaching the commandments is both a burden and a sign of rigidity; they seem to believe that sentimental gestures are more important than shepherding. That is truly sad; it is also truly cowardly.

"We have the duty, as Bishops," wrote St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, "to be vigilant that the word of God is faithfully taught. My Brothers in the Episcopate, it is part of our pastoral ministry to see to it that this moral teaching is faithfully handed down and to have recourse to appropriate measures to ensure that the faithful are guarded from every doctrine and theory contrary to it" (par 116).

Alas, dogmas and doctrines are often viewed as chains that bind rather than keys that free. And when such is the case, we are in danger of being imprisoned and bound by our weaknesses and passions, as Chesterton warned: "Instead of the liberty of dogma, you have the tyranny of taste."

[The view that dogmas and doctrines are chains that bind is espoused everytime this pope rails against those who are 'rigid about the law' . Yet the law, any law, but especially the Law of God, is meant to be rigid in the sense that it must be strictly observed, unless exceptions are specifically made. But there are no exceptions to or exemptions from the Ten Commandments and Jesus's great Commandment of Love.

Catholics for the past 2000-plus years have lived with Church doctrine - what Christ taught - as best they can, and we have a multitude of known saints and many more unknown and unsung whose lives are a testament to the possibility that we human beings can transcend our fallen nature to live up to what God wants us to be, what he had originally created us to be.

It is not for Jorge Bergoglio, just because he happens to be pope now, to bring down God's standards for man, in the name of false mercy - which avails no one any good except Bergoglio's narcissistic delight in the cheap but meaningless 'popularity', or even adulation, that he thinks he is gaining by all his doctrinal laxities and pastoral leniencies. Yet not one survey in the past three years and seven months has shown that his 'nice-and-easy' Bergoglianism, with its effective rejection of the Church's mission to evangelize, has gained new converts or stemmed de-Christianization in Europe nor the outflow of Catholics from the Latin American churches to evangelical Protestantism.]

The blogger at NON VENI PACEM considers JMB a 'Lutheran/Calvinist', and I respectfully disagree - he is neither, even if he may espouse some of their anti-Catholic views. He is sui generis - he is Bergoglian, founder of Bergoglianism and the church of Bergoglio... The blogger's reaction to the Bergoglionade about people following the law being 'sick' is worth putting on record...

Pope Francis and total depravity
NON VENI PACEM
October 25, 2016

Francis yesterday continued his twisting of the One True Faith by demonstrating, once again, that Calvinist/Lutheran theology is at the core of his own false religion. All the “mercy” that Francis talks about is NOT the mercy of God, but rather a false mercy, because it is grounded in this false idea of Total Depravity. You absolutely MUST understand Total Depravity, and why it is false, if you want to make sense of how Francis operates.

First, here are the comments from yesterday:

---

“Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person. Rigidity is not a gift of God. Meekness is; goodness is; benevolence is; forgiveness is. But rigidity isn’t!” he said.

In many cases, the Pope continued, rigidity conceals the leading of a double life; but, he pointed out, there can also be something pathological.

Commenting on the difficulties and suffering that afflict a person who is both rigid and sincere, the Pope said this is because they lack the freedom of God’s children: “they do not know how to walk in the path indicated by God’s Law”.

“They appear good because they follow the Law; but they are concealing something else: either they are hypocritical or they are sick.”

---

I’ve written so many times about this: Francis thinks mankind is INCAPABLE of resisting sin and living a Christian life, because he personally is completely lost in sin. He doesn’t just think it is difficult, he thinks it is impossible. Instead of saying that renouncing sin is the path to freedom, he thinks trying to live by God’s Law takes away freedom.

Kids, this is the very definition of Total Depravity. Please go look it up. This is why the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc are not simply “variations” of a “reformed” Catholicism. No, they are a completely different religion, because they deny that men have free will. They deny that a sinful act is the result of a person making a conscience choice to do wrong, because they believe man is so utterly inclined toward sin that resisting it is futile.

Like every wretched heresy, this one is mixed with some truth to make it plausible. In this case, that men must cooperate with God’s grace on the path to salvation. Don’t be distracted by this. Of course we need to cooperate with God’s grace.

But that’s not all! Total Depravity goes even further, in claiming that even our GOOD choices are evil, because those choices are ultimately always grounded in selfishness. We simply are not capable of doing good, because even when we do good, we do so for our own interests. Our Will is not just impeded by concupiscence, but rather our Will is totally fallen, and we are not capable of choosing to love God.

So, why is this false? Because Total Depravity violates God’s perfect justice. If we truly don’t have free will, then we can’t be held responsible for our actions. It wouldn’t be fair. But we see throughout scripture that man is absolutely held accountable for his decisions.

I mean, isn’t this the whole point? God created us to know, love and serve Him in this world, and be with Him forever in the next. God laid out how to know, love and serve him, and now expects us to do just that. He wouldn’t do that if we were incapable of it.

Sometimes it helps to mention that God had to make the plan of salvation simple enough for the most stupid person ever born to understand it. Otherwise, imperfect justice.

I’m out of time. Please go google some more Lutheran and Calvinist theology to further explore how unCatholic Francis really is.

About the best way to describe this pope's most egregiously erroneous or false professions - whether secular or religious - some say he is un-Catholic, but I prefer anti-Catholic because that is stronger - it indicates he has positions that are against the faith as we know it, and not as he has been trying to distort it in his image and likeness since he became pope.

Benedict XVI and a historic Lombard queen
who was a Princess of Regensburg
by Sabrina Cottone
Translated from

October 24, 2016

Archbishop Georg Gaenswein has just become more acquainted with the figure of the Queen Theodolinda of the Lombards, who was Bavarian: portraits, stories about her life, relics like a fan, a comb, a cup, and objects like the vials in which she kept blessed oil brought from the Holy Land. [The Lombards, also referred to as Longobards, were a Germanic people who ruled large parts of the Italian Peninsula from 568 to 774. They gave the name to the Italian region now known as Lombardy, of which Milan is the capital.]

The emeritus Pope's personal secretary since 2003, who is also his equerry, was in Monza for a historical lookback to the sixth and seventh centuries when the Lombard monarchs professed Arianism, and the role of Theodolinda, a Catholic princess from Regensburg who became queen and served as a bridge between Pope Gregory the Great and the royal court and the Lombard people, of whom she was a beloved queen.

[Pope Benedict XVI, in his two-part catechesis on Pope Gregory the Great in 2008, provides us with the proper context for appreciating Theodolinde and this current story about her:]

---

The Pope [Gregory the Great] - who was a true peacemaker - deeply committed himself to establish an effective peace in Rome and in Italy by undertaking intense negotiations with Agilulf, the Lombard King. This negotiation led to a period of truce that lasted for about three years (598-601), after which, in 603, it was possible to stipulate a more stable armistice.

This positive result was obtained also thanks to the parallel contacts that, meanwhile, the Pope undertook with Queen Theodolinde, a Bavarian princess who, unlike the leaders of other Germanic peoples, was Catholic, deeply Catholic.

A series of Letters of Pope Gregory to this Queen has been preserved in which he reveals his respect and friendship for her. Theodolinde, little by little was able to guide the King to Catholicism, thus preparing the way to peace.

The Pope also was careful to send her relics for the Basilica of St John the Baptist which she had had built in Monza, and did not fail to send his congratulations and precious gifts for the same Cathedral of Monza on the occasion of the birth and baptism of her son, Adaloald.

The series of events concerning this Queen constitutes a beautiful testimony to the importance of women in the history of the Church.

Gregory constantly focused on three basic objectives: to limit the Lombard expansion in Italy; to preserve Queen Theodolinde from the influence of schismatics and to strengthen the Catholic faith; and to mediate between the Lombards and the Byzantines in view of an accord that guaranteed peace in the peninsula and at the same time permitted the evangelisation of the Lombards themselves.

Therefore, in the complex situation his scope was constantly twofold: to promote understanding on the diplomatic-political level and to spread the proclamation of the true faith among the peoples.

---

Mons. Gaenswein in front of the Cathedral of Monza.

Gaenswein was in Monza, a city nine miles northeast of Milan, because Benedict XVI agreed that a book La Cappella di Teodolinda nel Duomo di Monza. Atlante Iconografico (The chapel of Theodolinde in the Cathedral of Monza: An iconographic atlas), would be dedicated to him. The book is an opera omnia about the chapel and the Corona Ferrea ['Iron Crown', with which the Kings of Italy and the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were crowned since the High Middle Ages to the 19th century. According to tradition, a nail from the Cross of Christ, brought back from the Holy Land by St. Helena, was used in making the crown, and so, it has always been venerated as a relic. In 1546, St. Carlos Borromeo instituted the Cult of the Holy Nail, making the crown officially a relic. The crown has been contested by kings, emperors and popes, but it has remained in Monza.]

Gaenswein said that the emeritus Pope continues to receive many requests for interviews or to write prefaces for books but has decided not to do these anymore. "This is about having this particular book dedicated to him, and that's different".

It was Gaenswein's first visit to Monza. With the images from the chapel fresh in his mind, he spoke to a group of journalists at the foot of a statue to St.John the Baptist which dominates the new section of the Cathedral Museum.

---

From Wikipedia, more about Theodelinde and Monza: Theodelinde, daughter of Garibald I of Bavaria and wife of the Lombard king Authari (and later of king Agilulf), chose Monza as her summer residence. Here in 595 she founded an oraculum dedicated to St. John the Baptist. According to the legend, Theodelinde, asleep while her husband was hunting, saw a dove in a dream that told her: modo (Latin for "here") indicating that she should build the oraculum in that place, and the queen answered etiam, meaning "yes". According to this legend, the medieval name of Monza, "Modoetia", is derived from these two words. She also had a palace (the future Royal palace) built here.

---

He remarked to the newsmen: "This little-known Princess of Regensburg, who became Queen of the Lombards, had no political formation at all, but she succeeded in her political activity because her compass was the faith. So she was able to pacify opposing and incompatible realities. This is a very important message".

Even for today? "Of course. She was not merely a messenger but a creator of peace. And she was a woman, the first woman to have done so [in Italian history], and she did this when she was little more than a girl."

During his visit, he said, what struck him most was how "faith is able to bring peace, to pacify realities that seemed impossible to pacify". A truth that has lasted, he says. "Even if the Corona Ferrea is based on a myth, it is nonetheless a unique symbol for the world, for having brought the effects of peace. Where there is peace, there is humanity; where there is none, there is a lack of humanity".

Benedict XVI, he noted, has always appreciated the contributions to the Church of feminine genius, and as Pope, he canonized and proclaimed the multifaceted and very complex Hildegarde von Bingen a Doctor of the Church.

"He had begun to study the figure of Theodolinde - although not as profoundly as he might have wished - because there is a link of the heart, from one Bavarian to another... She was from Regensburg, where Joseph Ratzinger was a professor, where he had a home to which he always returned for a month in August while he was Prefect of the CDF in Rome. But after he became pope, it has become a museum and research center".

Of course, Gaenswein - who has shared times of joy as well as difficult times with Benedict XVI - was asked how Papa Ratzinger is doing these days, when he is out of the public eye, despite the recent book-length interview with Peter Seewald.

"As you know", Gaenswein said, "the book was not intended at all, but Seewald came to visit Benedict XVI, before he announced his renunciation and after he retired, in order to gather more material for a new biography of the pope that he was writing. But at a certain point he realized that 'I have received some very beautiful answers, and it would be a pity not to publish them first'. He had to convince Benedict XVI to have the interviews published as a separate book. And the pope said, 'If Pope Francis agrees that it can be published, then I will yield'. And so it came about."

Gaenswein also addressed the problem of Benedict's eyesight.

---

He says in the book that in 1992-1993, he suffered from an embolism that destroyed part of one eye. But more than 20 years have passed, and he has not had further problems with it, and so no one else was even aware of it. When I presented the book in Munich and said this, the headline everywhere was that Benedict XVI is half-blind!

He is almost 90 years old, his mind is very clear, even if his legs increasingly cause him problems. He lives like a monk, he has not left the Vatican, and he has appeared in public only when Pope Francis asks him to. The last occasion was on June 28 for a modest ceremony to commemorate the 65th anniversary of his priesthood. You can see that he seems to become 'smaller'. But he continues to take active interest in the life of Italy and of Germany, and of course, of the Church.

---

Gaenswein, who is Prefect of the Pontifical Household and is among the principals involved in drawing up the pope's official schedule, was asked whether Pope Francis will come to Monza on March 25 when he makes a pastoral trip to Milan.

He said:"One day can be a lot or too little. The pope has a great desire to be seen by as many as possible. But preparations are still under way, and for now, I do not have an answer."

The beautiful childlike faith
of Benedict XVI
by Luca di Fiore
Translated from

Oct. 21, 2016

On Oct. 20, German journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict XVI for the book Ultime conversazioni, Peter Seewald, presented the book at the Catholic University of Sacro Cuore in Milan, describing it as a "walk through the life of a giant of thought who nonetheless has a contagious simplicity".

"Meeting him today, one has the sensation of being with a man who already lives partly in the next world. When I recently asked him if he looked forward to celebrating his 90th birthday, he answered, 'Oh I hope not!'"

When he talks about Benedict XVI, Seewald, who was a staff member for Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazine and Stern in his earlier career, is able to recreate that alchemy of profoundness and lightness that characterizes the person and the discourse of the emeritus Pope.

The presentation at the Aula Magna of Sacro Cuore was the only public presentation in Italy of the book published by Garzanti. It is Seewald's fourth interview book with Joseph Ratzinger - two when he was cardinal, one when he was the reigning pope, and now this one.

At the event which was organized by the Centro Culturale di Milano, Seewald also said that the emeritus Pope had received a message from Casa Santa Marta about the book: "The reigning pope thanks his predecessor and sends his congratulations. But he wishes to point out one error: These should not be the 'last conversations'." [Rather strange that the note appears to have been written by someone in behalf of JMB. You'd think a handwritten personal note would have been more appropriate.]

Don Stefano Alberto, who moderated the presentation, asked how the book came about. Seewald said that when Benedict XVI resigned in February 2013, he was sure it meant the end of his 'career' as a papal interviewer. But his publisher in Germany insisted that he should carry on 'the Ratzinger theme' with a full biography of Benedict XVI. [Seewald's earlier books along this line were presented as the information he learned about Joseph Ratzinger in the course of his assignments to write about him rather than as formal biographies.]

And so, he resumed visiting Benedict XVI at the Vatican. The emeritus Pope did not want the biography published until after his death. But, after some insistence on the part of Seewald ["I had a historic document in my hands and I did not think it was right that the world should not know about it"], he agreed to have part of their conversations published now, on condition that Pope Francis approved it.

"I was aware that the widespread image of Joseph Ratzinger and his Pontificate is against historical fact. For instance, that his election as pope was a mistake and that his sudden resignation confirmed this." A misconception that Seewald says is not merely false but also harmful in that it prevents or discourages access to his message.

In Seewald's account, Pope Benedict is seen as a giant of thinking, whose theological work alone before he became pope already earned him a place in history. But his pontificate too, he says, had extraordinary success, and yes, he enjoyed great popularity as well (think of the 'astronomical' printing numbers for his encyclicals and the apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist). [And I would add, the crowds he drew to St. Peter's which outnumbered those for John Paul II in his peak years. Of course, the first few months of Bergoglio as pope dwarfed all those numbers, but afterwards, attendance for JMB has steadily halved, and halved again, and now the figures are so down that it has been months since the Vatican media have given any at all.]

"It is a very personal book, perhaps too personal," Seewald says. "I did not wish to evoke the magnificent theologian and great intellectual as in the earlier three books. I wished rather to depict this person who is so charismatic, one who makes you think that he can do things no one ever has, while at the same time, remaining very humble". Joseph Ratzinger, says Seewald, never saw his life "as a career but as a journey".

Don Stefano praised Seewald for his courage in calling Benedict XVI 'the Pope of Jesus'. He is, of course, "the first pope ever to have written a book about Jesus of Nazareth, showing us that without a connection to the real presence of Jesus, there is no joy".

Seewald describes Benedict XVI's Catholic faith as "extremely beautiful - both poetic and musical. There is an intrinsic musicality even in his speech which makes his words more pregnant. He possesses an impressive compositional ability: his words do just reach the mind - they touch the heart."

"Anyone who has had the good fortune to meet him as many times as I have will have experienced his holiness which he manifests simply but contagiously. He can be very entertaining, and he laughs a lot".

For his part, Don Stefano remarked that "whoever reads this book will find himself immersed in joy and peace".

Seewald says that "In this last stage of his life, he is still the great thinker and teacher that he is, but he retains the faith of a child, as in the Gospel exhortation that we must be children at heart".

He concluded: "This book is an excursion into the life of a person who is nonpareil and who has brought fulfillment to his faith. Benedict is pure Catholicism. At this historical period in which we do not know where we are going, it is a book we can hold on to. Benedict XVI represents the rock on which the Church of the future will be (re)built."