| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 32.342
Post: 14.428 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
Obviously I do not look in all the right places for what I was looking for, but I did find it remarkable that since the Tornielli-Valente book was released - touted to be THE ANSWER
to Mons. Vigano's testimonies,- I have not seen it mentioned in any of the many summaries of Church news I regularly check. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone bothered to review
the book, which has been out more than a week now. That in itself is remarkable. How could such a major pro-Bergoglio propaganda offering not be considered even worth reviewing?
I can understand Francis-hostile commentators choosing to ignore the blatant apologia pro Bergoglio but I at least expected some of them to cite the major argument(s) presented
in his defense, and I was curious how the authors deflected or spun the facts already known about Bergoglio's open patronage and tolerance of McCarrick despite a record of sexual
misconduct that everyone now says was the most open of 'open secrets' in the Church.
Now, someone has written to indicate what the burden of the Tornielli-Valente opus was - but he makes it his take-off for questioning papal infallibility in the question of canonizations.
Unfortunately, John Paul II - whom Torneilli and Valenti appear to have made the primary scapegoat for McCarrick - and his sainthood come out quite scathed by
De Mattei's analysis...
The 'Viganò case' and the
to which it has brought Pope Francis
by Roberto de Mattei
Translated for Rorate caeli by Francesca Romana from
November 14, 2018
An answer has finally arrived. Not the answer – vainly expected - from Pope Francis, but a significant one nevertheless, from a journalist who is part of his close entourage. The author is Andrea Tornielli, the Vatican reporter for La Stampa, who is in charge of the website Vatican Insider. Along with the journalist Gianni Valente, he just published The Day of Judgment, an extensive paper on the “Viganò case”, with the eloquent subtitle: C onflicts, power struggles, abuses and scandals. What is really happening in the Church (Edizioni Piemme, 255 pp.).
Tornielli’s main thesis is that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony on the scandals in the Church is an “attempted coup” against Pope Francis, hatched by an international politico-media network “in alliance with sectors of the American [Wow! Just shows you the extent of the defensive paranoia now gripping Casa SAnta Marta and the papal court!] Of course, instead of answering Mons. Vigano's basic question about McCarrick, Bergoglio and his men prefer instead to cry "Conspiracy! A coup against the pope!", clearly their chosen defense mechanism.]
La Stampa’s Vatican reporter interprets the current religious war as a struggle for power rather than a battle of ideas and seems to forget that this conflict was not triggered by those who defend the Tradition of the Church, but by those who would like to alter it completely.
We fail to understand then, why the accusation of using the weapons of the media is reserved only for Pope Bergoglio’s critics and not his own “fans”. Didn’t the Vatican assign McKinsey the project of unifying the instruments of communication by creating a single digital platform on which to deploy articles, images and podcasts? [Resulting, of course, in that super-dicastery for communications which shamefully debuted with the 'mother of fake news'.] It is Tornielli himself who reports this in La Stampa of March 22nd 2018.
For the editor of La Civilta Cattolica, Antonio Spadaro, the importance that Pope Francis gives to the Web and social network goes back to the very day of his election. At that time Jorge Mario Bergoglio activated “thousands of people, connecting them with his person and with what was happening, showing that he himself is a social network”, the Jesuit affirmed, while presenting his book Cyberteologia. Pensare il cristianesimo al tempo della rete (Edizioni Vita e Pensiero). [Cybertheology. Thoughts on Christianity in the age of the Net].
If there are experts in the techniques of manipulation and exploitative use of news, we find them precisely among Pope Francis’s closest collaborators, from Spadaro himself to Monsignor Dario Edoardo Viganò ( no connection at all to his namesake Carlo Maria), the former Minister of Vatican Communications, forced to resign, in March 2018, as a result of the flagrant falsification of a confidential letter by Benedict XVI.
Mons. Dario Viganò also commissioned the German film director Wim Wenders to make the apologetic film, Pope Francis. A Man of His Word. In Italy a “magazine” is issued regularly carrying the name Il Mio Papa, which reports Pope Francis’s week. [The fact that it continues to be published five years on obviously means it continues to 'sell', indicating Bergoglio's continued popularity in Italy - unless the Bergoglio Vatican has been buying up all the copies for distribution to wherever they see fit!]
No Pope has ever used the weapons of the mass-media as much as Jorge Mario Bergoglio has.
As far as the revelations made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò are concerned,
- Tornielli doesn’t deny that Pope Francis had directly received information from him that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually corrupted his very own seminarians and priests.
- Neither does he deny the existence of the immorality inside the Church and of the widespread wickedness that allows it to grow.
- He admits that the problem of the scourge of homosexuality “exists” (p.169), even if he downplays it, by remaining silent on the existence of a group of active sodomites inside the ecclesiastic structures and of a likewise active “gay friendly lobby” which sustains them. [AHA! No wonder no one's buying the book... Is there not even a trace of apology in these admissions?]
Tornielli is unable therefore to disprove Archbishop Viganò, but he has to defend Pope Francis.
- He does this by acting like a gambler, who, finding himself in difficulty, raises the stakes.
- In this case, by not being able to deny the existence of deep corruption in the men of the Church, he strives to pin most of the responsibility onto Pope Francis’s predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II.
In particular, Tornielli puts in the dock John Paul II, to whom he attributes the rapid ascent of Cardinal McCarrick. “John Paul II had met McCarrick, had visited his dioceses four years previously, was impressed by that brilliant Bishop, who knew how to fill his seminaries, dialoguing at all levels with politicians, being a protagonist of interreligious dialogue, firm on the principles of moral doctrine and open on social issues.” (p.38).
The appointment of the Archbishop of Washington, even then “gossiped about” in the Vatican, did not pass through the Plenary of the Congregation for Bishops, where it should have been discussed, but arrived instead through a “summary examination “as happened at times and happens for certain appointments, decided precisely “by the apartment” [the Pope] with no passage of collegial discussion by the members of the Ministry.” (p.40).
“It is offensive” of Monsignor Viganò “to imply” that in 2000, the year of McCarrick’s appointment, John Paul II “was so ill that he wasn’t able to take care of the appointments, not even the most important, not even those that carried – at that time – the sure attribution of the Cardinal’s Red Hat and thus inclusion in a future conclave...
“There is no need to know the secret archives of the Washington Nunciature (which in any case Viganò will have consulted), to know that in reality, Pope Wojtyla in 2000, still had in front of him five years of a very intense life in every respect.” (pp. 40-41)
Tornielli insists:
Wojtyla was by no means as “ill”, as Viganò in his dossier would have us believe. Quite the opposite. He appeared in fact, perfectly able to follow certain procedures of nominations, at least the most significant, the most important. Among these there was undoubtedly, the appointment of the new Archbishop to the federal capital of the United States...
Moreover, it should not be forgotten the direct knowledge Pope Wojtyla had had about McCarrick, a Bishop appointed by Paul VI, but promoted actually four times by the Polish Pope: first with his appointment to Metuchen, a diocese created ex novo; then with his transfer to Newark, dioceses visited by John Paul II in 1995; then with his appointment as Archbishop of Washington, despite his already advanced age; and finally with his immediate inclusion in the College of Cardinals”. (pp. 43-44).
On April 27th 2014, John Paul II, however, was proclaimed a saint by Pope Francis, along with John XXIII. The canonization of a Pope means that in the execution of his office as Supreme Pastor of the Church, he had to have exercised on a heroic level, all virtues, including that of prudence. But whether out of complicity, negligence or imprudence, a Pope “covered up” for a “sexual predator”, one could legitimately doubt his wisdom and prudence. And if for Tornielli this is so, it means that he doesn’t consider John Paul II a saint. [I would have written, "does Tornielli not then consider John Paul II a saint?", not drawn the conclusion De Mattei does.]
In any case, a prelate close to John Paul II and Pope Francis, Monsignor Sciacca, Secretary to the Apostolic Signatura, “one of the most experienced canon lawyers of the Curia” (p.200), interviewed on September 9th 2014 by Tornielli himself, denied the infallibility of canonizations.
If canonizations are not infallible, and Pope Francis could have erred about John Paul II, it is possible that that same day he erred also in proclaiming the sanctity of John XXIII and that likewise he was able to commit an error on October 14th 2018 in canonizing Paul VI. [But why limit the hypotheticals to the three popes? There have been quite a few questionable 'sainthood causes' advanced by this pope, and no doubt, by those before him.][/b[ This is not a minor point.
By raising the stakes, Tornielli not only places the supernatural prudence of Pope Wojtyla in doubt, but casts a shadow on recent canonizations, and, above all, reveals the impasse in which the Bergoglio pontificate finds itself. An impasse which is precisely about the theme of infallibility.
Infallibility is in fact considered by Pope Francis a legacy of the Old Church, that which proclaimed and anathematized, that defined and condemned. The primacy of the pastoral over doctrine and of mercy over justice impedes Francis from exercising the munus of infallibility, which is the most categorical and least pastoral act a pontiff can make.
Yet if he wants to impose his directives on the Church, Pope Bergoglio is in need of “quasi-infallibility” which excludes any form of disobedience to his will. To carry out his program, the “quasi-infallible” Pope is constrained to become a “Dictator Pope”, which is happening today.
Those who are faithful to Tradition, on the contrary, believe in papal infallibility, and know its extent and limits.
- The notion of the limits of infallibility allows those who have the sensus fidei to resist the “Dictator Pope” .
- The extent of infallibility will one day allow the Pope who wants to make use of it, to disperse the smoke of Satan penetrated inside the Church, by condemning errors without appeal and reaffirming with equal solemnity the perennial Truth of the Gospel.
The roots and fruit of ecclesial idolatry
by JONATHAN B. COE
November 16, 2018
In this present crisis in the Church, with more and more revelations of a “sodomitic filth that insinuates itself like a cancer in the ecclesiastical order” (St. Peter Damian), and the subsequent cover-ups and payoffs, the Body of Christ is pierced again with new thorns and nails, and the Mother of God is pierced again in seeing her Son’s sufferings. In bringing some good out of all the depravity, the thoughts of the hearts of many are being revealed (Lk 2:35).
The apostle Paul certainly saw the redemptive side of scandal and division: “For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1Cor 11:19). At least the laity, operating as Mary’s Heel, can say to a prelate like Cardinal Blase Cupich or a priest like James Martin, “We know who you are, and we know that you know that we know.”
In a recent essay in this magazine, I explored how the four primary idols (wealth, pleasure, power, and honor) that Aquinas identified were on full display in the American Catholic Church. And that’s just the problem: Instead of being the Catholic Church in America, we have become the American Catholic Church. The Church and the culture in many precincts have become indistinguishable.
St. Ambrose gave a special place to the Idol of Honor: “Ambition often makes criminals of those whom no vice would delight, whom no lust could move, whom no avarice could deceive.” He was undoubtedly echoing the words of the apostle James three centuries earlier: “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice” (James 3:16).
All of this can be traced back — long before Ambrose and James, and even before the creation of the world — to when Satan led his rebellion against the reign of God (see Is. 14:13: “I will ascend…”). This was then passed on to the human species when he seduced our original parents: “You shall be like gods…”
You can have honor without power and power without honor but the two usually work together, like brothers who have different DNA but all their genetic material in common. Pulling the right levers of ecclesial power preserves one’s honor, and once honor has been secured and/or augmented, power is reinforced and expanded.
Such practices are writ large in the Francis papacy and have become his stock-in-trade. The Holy See told Cardinal Gerhard Müller to stop investigating British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who was alleged to have sexually abused a girl when she was 13 or 14 years old. Murphy-O’Connor, a member of the infamous “St. Gallen Mafia,” played a major role in getting Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio elected pope in 2013.
Raymond Arroyo on World Over on EWTN recently cited Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, who reported that Francis, through his Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, quietly told American bishops not to invite Cardinal Raymond Burke to speak at their dioceses. Burke should be used to such maltreatment by now after the pontiff removed him from both the Vatican Supreme Court and the influential Congregation for Bishops.
It was also reported by Tosatti that Athanasius Schneider, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, has been ordered not to travel outside his native country without first talking to Francis. With such muzzling tactics, the Holy See defends its honor and power with a ferocity like Athanasius of Alexandria defending the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in the fourth century.
In recent months, many orthodox Catholics have found themselves saying these words out loud: “We have a bad Pope; he cannot be deposed; we must pray he resigns.” Instead of “Houston, we have a problem,” it’s “Rome, we have a problem.” [NO! - It's 'Rome, you are the problem!", or more specifically, "Pope Francis, you are the problem!"]
As someone who served in different leadership positions for several years in both evangelical and evangelical-charismatic circles, the revelations of homosexual predation in 2018 and subsequent cover-ups took me aback. However, in looking at the power plays and selfish ambition, I feel like I’ve seen this movie before.
Often, but not always, the clergy comes into their leadership roles with unmet emotional needs. Perhaps they were in a dysfunctional family and their need for love, acceptance, and belonging was not fulfilled.
They then look to their vocation, local church, or episcopate to meet these needs. An idolatry develops: they’re not there to serve the people; the people and all the ecclesial machinery are there to serve them.
Their ministry, rather than being a healthy resource that feeds their soul and spirit as they imitate Christ’s Passion of self-donation, becomes a Source often akin to a Deity. The Idols of Power and Honor are difficult to placate, and, such an endeavor results in many of the works of the flesh that Paul identifies: enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, and envy (Gal 5:20).
In shepherding the sheep, there should be care and concern without control. Unfortunately, in one organization I was involved with for over eight years, control became the operative word.
In feeding the Idols of Power and Honor, the sheep must be controlled to keep the clergy happy. Such spiritual abuse, in my pre-Catholic days, was hidden behind words like “accountability,” “shepherding,” and “making disciples.”
There was a particular young man I knew who was rebuked by his pastor for not telling the pastor that he had made plane reservations in order to fly out of state to visit his fiancée and her parents during the holiday season. His plans had no negative impact on the life of the local church. That young man was me.
In like fashion, Francis must control the comings and goings of Burke and Schneider to prevent the “mutiny” that he sees brewing that is threatening his power base. He must oust, demote, and marginalize those prelates and priests who defend the sacred deposit of the faith while promoting prelates like Blase Cupich who support his “revolution.”
This is how Group Think develops in ecclesial structures. Often those who lie prostrate before the gods of honor and power discern in which direction the power elite is moving and align themselves with that elite while the true believers, who have been acolytes of Francis from the beginning, just do what comes naturally.
The Idols of Honor and Power transform shepherds who should be tenderly caring for their flock, whether in a local parish or an episcopate, into politicians who must calculate each move with Machiavellian expediency.
In a religion as large as Catholicism, it creates fertile soil for the “Bishop Bureaucrat” who knows all the rules and how to work the levers of power and depends on a large contingent of “professional Catholics” to carry out his wishes.
Benedict XVI described these professionals as people “who make a living on their Catholicism, but in whom the spring of faith flows only faintly, in a few scattered drops.”
The fervent devotion to the Idols of Honor and Power is reflected in recent bald-faced lies and gaslighting. The more desperate you are to defend your power and prestige, the more patently false statements you will make.
The priests and prelates sometimes remind me of a title from a Judge Judy book: Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining.
- We’re told by Cupich (over and over), Francis, and Martin that the real problem is “clericalism” when a recent landmark study (and the John Jay Report) by Father Paul Sullins, a retired Catholic University of America sociology professor, refutes that thesis: “The data show that more homosexual men in the priesthood were correlated with more overall abuse and more boys abused compared to girls.”
Prevaricating prelates include Bishop Richard Malone of the diocese of Buffalo, who, in response to a whistleblower’s claim on 60 Minutes, said he had no knowledge of any priests serving in ministry who are facing allegations of sex abuse. The truth is that Fr. Dennis Riter, who is currently pastor of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Dunkirk, New York, is facing multiple credible allegations of child sex abuse.
In response to the findings of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, Cardinal Donald Wuerl said that “I think that I did everything that I possibly could,” and added that the report “confirms that I acted with diligence, with concern for the victims and to prevent future acts of abuse.” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro asserted that Wuerl “is not telling the truth.”
Life Site News reports: “A review of the approximately 300 cases cited in grand jury report reveals several examples of Wuerl mishandling of priests who committed sexual abuse; sending them back to parish work after completing time in counseling centers; failure to report sexual abuse by priests to the authorities; and rendering only ‘minimal cooperation’ when he did work with the police.”
In this ocean of mendacity, many in the laity are disappointed with the prelates: “Where is the hue and cry; where are the ‘good bishops’; and where are the sons of Athanasius? Where are the Howard Beales [Peter Finch] from the movie Network: ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’?”
We must remember that Athanasius was a minority of a minority. First he was in a minority of bishops who did not get seduced by the Arian heresy, and then he was in the minority within that contingent who raised a hue and cry.
Good men are not hard to find but good men with courage are rare. Fortitude is not the defining mark of the human species.
Ancient Hebrew wisdom tells us that the fear of man is a snare (Prov 29:25), and no doubt many bishops don’t relish the idea of becoming a pariah, especially with the pontiff’s history of ousting, demoting, and marginalizing those who don’t conform to his agenda. Consequences can be severe: remember that both Archbishop Viganò and Fr. Kalchik are in hiding.
Mary’s Heel is therefore likely to be made up of a minority of a minority of priests and prelates – good men who are also courageous –and the laity. This is the way it often goes: Athanasius was not in fashion, Elijah was part of a small minority, and while everyone bowed to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue, only three — Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego — refused to worship it.
Along with possessing the cardinal virtue of fortitude, I also think that the sons of Athanasius will be deeply rooted in the theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. The fear of man is a snare but “perfect love casts out fear” (1Jn. 4:18).
Spouses who love each other are willing to lay down their lives for each other; parents charge into burning buildings to save their kids. Bishops who love Christ and his Church will be fearless in proclaiming the truth, and becoming persona non grata will be a small price to pay for serving their King.
Lao Tzu was correct in saying, “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”
The sons of Athanasius will have supernatural faith. They will truly reverence God and believe that they must someday give an account before the judgment seat of Christ for their decisions in this life. The desire for honor and power will be trumped by the fear of hell fire and by the hope of hearing, “Well done, you good and faithful servant.”
They will live life in the light of eternity. Power and prestige will be regarded as dung in comparison to intimacy with Christ.
Their hope will be in a heavenly reward rather than the ephemeral rewards of a corrupt ecclesial order. They won’t sell their soul for the red hat, and if asked the question, “Could you be happy if all you had was food, raiment, a roof over your head, and the fellowship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?,” they would answer with a resounding “Yes!”
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/11/2018 22:17] |