ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI
Ooops! Unexpected page change...
If I have not posted anything so far on this new book, it's because the material I previously had needed to be translated, and I haven't had much time in the past few days, but now 1Peter5 has come up with an English wrap-up that also quotes more from the book than the articles I have in Italian. Of course, this is pure manna for me since it reinforces my worst biases about Jorge Bergoglio, but why not?
I used to think I would be able to 'neutralize' my biases by seeking one to report at least one unconditionally good thing during the day that the media reports about Bergoglio - outside of the usual papolatrous puffery and his pro forma seemingly Catholic statements - but that has not been possible. Anything unconditionally good would be reported even in media and Internet circles not friendly to the pope, if only because it would be a rarity. But I'm still keeping my eyes open for any good Bergoglian rarity whatever.
Mysterious new book looks
'behind the mask' of the reigning pope
By Steve Skojec
November 30, 2017
A remarkable new book about the Bergoglio papacy is set to be released in English this coming Monday, December 4th, after an Italian debut earlier this month that is rumored to have made quite a splash in Rome. Entitled
The Dictator Pope, it is described on the Amazon pre-order page as
“The inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.”
The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing
how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”
OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this
unusual [How about 'bizarre' and 'diabolical'?] pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing
the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.
The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff: The historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. The author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle.
The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led
some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear.
Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes in Corrispondenza Romana that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and
delusion”
[??? It may be an incorrect translation of the Italian word 'delazione', which means 'snitching'] in Francis’s Vatican.
Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter.
The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.
If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:
Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.
Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary:
“Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2103, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”
Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland, the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the late Jesuit Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.
The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical 'accomplishments' that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)
The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor [recently deceased] have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne.
After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight.
The so-called “Kasper proposal”
[Right, Kasper being the fall guy for Bergoglio] launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family, and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not been seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.”
And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group? Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger.
Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde who said it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four DUBIA cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.
Colonna points out that indications existed — particularly through certain press interviews with Cardinal Murphy O’Connor — of possible pre-meditated collusion between Bergoglio and the St. Gallen conspirators who worked to elect him. Colonna writes:
In late 2013, the [then] Archbishop of Westminster gave an interview to the Catholic Herald in which he admitted not only to campaigning at the Conclave, but to gaining Bergoglio’s assent to be their man.
The article by Miguel Cullen in the September 12, 2013 edition of the Herald says, “The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left theMissa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.”
Murphy O’Connor said, “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: “Si – capisco” – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.’” The admonition to Bergoglio to “be careful” certainly seems to imply that Murphy O’Connor – and Bergoglio – knew he was at least bending the rules.
This is supported again in the same article in the Heraldwhere Murphy O’Connor is quoted saying, “All the cardinals had a meeting with him in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’”
In an interview with the Independent after the Conclave, Murphy O’Connor also hinted there was a particular programme laid before the 76 year-old Argentinian, that he was expected to accomplish in about four years. The English cardinal told journalist and author Paul Vallely, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” A fair enough comment after the fact, but this was the same phrase recorded by Andrea Tornielli in La Stampa in an article dated March 2, 2013, eleven days before Bergoglio’s election: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.”whispers a cardinal and long-time friend of the archbishop of Buenos Aires.”
Four years has certainly been enough.
From this analysis of Francis’s inauspicious beginnings as the handpicked pope of the most progressive forces in the Church, Colonna takes us on a brief but informative tour of his life and background.
- He mentions Bergoglio’s strained relationship with his parents — his father a “struggling accountant” and mother a temporary invalid — noting that he rarely speaks of them.
[True, he only speaks about his grandmother.]
- He examines Bergoglio’s precipitous rise through the Jesuits in Argentina, despite opposition from his superiors at certain critical points along the way.
- Highlighted too, was the assessment of the unusually young provincial by the Jesuit Superior General — offered when
“ Bergoglio applied for a dispensation from the Jesuit rule forbidding him from becoming a bishop [I had not read about this before!] — allegedly describing him in no uncertain terms as unsuitable for the role. I say allegedly, because the text of the evaluation has never been made public. Writes Colonna:
Father Kolvenbach accused Bergoglio of a series of defects, ranging from habitual use of vulgar language to deviousness, disobedience concealed under a mask of humility, and lack of psychological balance; with a view to his suitability as a future bishop, the report pointed out that he had been a divisive figure as Provincial of his own order. It is not surprising that, on being elected Pope, Francis made efforts to get his hands on the existing copies of the document, and the original filed in the official Jesuit archives in Rome has disappeared. [Is this fact or scuttlebutt?]
Despite these setbacks, Bergoglio was seen, at the time, as a champion of Catholic conservatism in the mode of John Paul II by Cardinal Quarracino, his predecessor in the archbishopric of Buenos Aires and the man who ultimately ignored the warnings and raised him to the episcopacy.
[Quarracino did notraise him to the episcopacy – he was already an auxiliary bishop, created so by John Paul II.]
The perception of Bergoglio’s conservatism appears to have stemmed largely from his opposition to the Marxist liberation theology that had become so prevalent in the region — an opposition which, as Colonna explains, was not so much because of ideological disagreement as class warfare:
Bergoglio himself was a man of the people, and in Latin America “liberation theology” was a movement of intellectuals from the higher classes, the counterpart of the radical chic that led the bourgeoisie in Europe to worship Sartre and Marcuse.
With such attitudes Bergoglio had no sympathy; although he had not yet identified himself explicitly with the “theology of the people”, which arose in direct competition with the Marxist school, his instinct made him follow the populist line of Peronism, which (whatever the cynicism of its creator) was more in touch with the genuine working class and lower middle class. Thus, Father Bergoglio backed the apostolate to the slum districts, but he did not want their inhabitants recruited as left-wing guerillas, as some of his priests were trying to do.
His Peronism helps to make clear, in another illuminating moment, Francis’s infuriating habit of saying diametrically opposing things from one day to the next:
The story is told that Perón, in his days of glory, once proposed to induct a nephew in the mysteries of politics. He first brought the young man with him when he received a deputation of communists; after hearing their views, he told them, “You’re quite right.” The next day he received a deputation of fascists and replied again to their arguments, “You’re quite right.” Then he asked his nephew what he thought and the young man said, “You’ve spoken with two groups with diametrically opposite opinions and you told them both that you agreed with them. This is completely unacceptable.” Perón replied, “You’re quite right too.”
An anecdote like this is an illustration of why no one can be expected to assess Pope Francis unless he understands the tradition of Argentinian politics, a phenomenon outside the rest of the world’s experience; the Church has been taken by surprise by Francis because it has not had the key to him:
he is Juan Perón in ecclesiastical translation. Those who seek to interpret him otherwise are missing the only relevant criterion.
The book is packed with such fascinating insights into the phenomena of the Francis papacy, in part
by viewing the present through the lens of his past. From indications that his notorious simplicity was simply a means of shedding any 'ballast' that might impede his pursuit of power to his ostentatious humility (often with cameras conveniently waiting to capture the moment) to his masterful manipulation of an over-eager media into displaying the image he wishes to portray, the layers of the Argentinian pope are peeled back and examined, offering a deeper understanding of the man himself.
Colonna does not spend much time on the question of the validity of Francis’s papal election, but he does raise questions about the convenient (for the St. Gallen group) timing of Benedict’s abdication and considerations made both by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh and Vatican journalist Antonio Socci on the politicking and the questionable canonical validity, respectively, in the 2013 conclave.
“Whether one chooses to uphold Socci’s view or not,” Colonna writes, “there is something rather appropriate in the fact that the political heir of Juan Perón should have been raised to the head of the Catholic Church by
“what was arguably an invalid vote.”
[Invalid or not, like it or not, that vote will never ever be put to the test and will stand – Jorge Bergoglio was, for all intents and purposes, validly and legitimately elected the 266th successor of St. Peter.]
The book does not merely content itself with the pre-pontificate history of Bergoglio. Under the microscope, too, are the critical agenda items of the ongoing papacy, foremost among them, those promises which have never materialized.
From reform of the curia to a supposed “zero tolerance” policy on clerical sexual abusers to Vatican bank and financial reform, some of the major initiatives of the Francis papacy have failed to reach fruition, been abandoned, or have received only lip service.
Later chapters deal, among other important topics, with the heavily-manipulated synods on the family, the Vatican response to orthodox resistance, the saga surrounding the DUBIA, the gutting and reinvention of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Vatican-supported coup within the Knights of Malta, and the persecution of those ecclesiastics who fail to toe the line for the papal agenda — along with an examination of the KGB-style tactics deployed by “Kremlin Santa Marta”. (On a personal note, I was both pleased and honored to discover a chapter subheading entitled “The Dictatorship of Mercy,” with a direct reference to the article in which I coined the term.)
There is a great deal of material in this book for all Catholics, but it will be of particular interest to readers of this website, who have watched many of these developments unfold in real time. There are also new things to learn from the text, particularly in its examination of the pope’s Argentinian history. If you or someone you know is interested in getting up to speed quickly on where things are with this papacy — and why it is so singularly controversial — this book appears to be an excellent starting point to cover much of the necessary ground.
At 141 pages, it provides a sufficient amount of depth without overwhelming the reader with too much information, and the language and presentation make it an easy, fascinating read.
[141 pages is too short, however, for it to contain a comprehensive day-to-day catalog of all the anti-Catholoic things this pope has said and done in the past almost five years!]
I believe
The Dictator Pope will prove to be a critical tool in understanding and documenting the present papacy, and so, despite already having a copy of the text, I’ve also pre-ordered the book, both in support of the author and to help bolster its status via the one metric that seems to garner the most attention: sales rank. I encourage you to do the same. Already in Italy, the e-book is an Amazon best seller, having attained the rank of #60 in that country and hovering at #1 or #2 in books in its category. It would be fantastic to thrust it to the top of the charts in the English-speaking world as well.
That would send quite a message.
Beatrice on her website, www.benoit-et-moi.fr, first called my attention to the book with this commentary-book review from an Italian website...
That dark side of Bergoglio that
attracts and deceives –
and ultimately, destroys all
Christ's one true Church is the first true victim
of everything that has been happening
by 'kattolika'
Translated from
November 23, 2017
What we are about to share will not please many – and above all, will not be accepted, even without reading or verifying what's in it - by the 'fandom' of the Bergoglian world. We apologize to these overly sensitive persons
[I think the current English term for such persons is 'snowflakes'] but if we didn't have courageous authors as there always were in the past to describe the situations or the personality of the popes who have marked various epochs in the Church's history, for good or bad, today we would not have any elements who would understand why in the past, the people of Rome themselves have felt so involved in their bishop, the Bishop of Rome, that they did not hesitate to publicly give 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' to what he said or did.
Those who love and know genuine history also know perfectly well that in many cases, the Romans did not dispute the legitimacy of a pope's election but rather, in weighing the work of 'their bishop', acted or reacted either with hosannahs, or with true uprisings in an attempt to be rid of pontiffs with questionable behavior.
But the saints always taught the people the way of prudence, of calm, and above all, of praying for the pope – to name just a few examples, Catherine of Siena, Phillip Neri and John Bosco.
They defended not the bizarreries or defects of any pope but his office and the proper exercise of his primacy.
Indicative is the incident during which St. Bosco, hearing the cries of
"Viva Pio Nono" (Long live Pius IX), told the people: "Do not shout 'Viva Pio Nono', but rather
'Viva il Papa!'" to teach them what was the proper attachment to a pope, whose role and primacy was, in the 19th century, threatened by various powerful enemies of the Church – by protestants, freemasons and liberals.
Unfortunately, we must note that it was probably in the pontificate of Paul VI, precisely he who had made the gesture of renouncing the papal tiara that 'protected' the pope's triple role, that we came to the idea of the
ad personam pontificate, in which the pope's name became an adjective to describe not just his pontificate but also 'his church' and his followers, i.e., 'the church of Montini', the Montinians; 'the church of Wojtyla', the Wojtylians; 'the church of Ratzinger', the Ratzingerians; 'the church of Bergolgio', the Bergoglians…
[Not that any of the popes before Bergoglio ever professed anything but that the Church they led was the Church of Christ, and no one else's.]
But yes, Don Bosco was right, because
today the Church no longer seems to be the Church of Christ, but the church of whoever happens to be the pope, a church in his name and in his image and likeness. But there is a difference with the 'nominal' popes before Francis, because where the media became instrumental in unleashing a popstar 'fandom' towards the pope, John Paul II
[who was dubbed John Paul II Superstar by TIME magazine early in his pontificate] many times denounced indications of a personality cult around him, and Benedict XVI virtually sought to eclipse himself in the media spotlight.
Now, Bergoglio has made the media the 'curators' of his image, and his most direct and immediate spokesmen. His very friendship with avowed atheist Eugenio Scalfari, who through his media empire, proudly transmits what he believes to be the 'essence' of a heretical pope, reinforces the emergence of a new 'religion' for a church in the image and likeness of the current pope.
These premises are necessary and fundamental to undertake a healthy and honest reading of a new book which, although it contains few new and unpublished facts - much of it it what is already known and documented - treated in a professional, impartial and objective way, supported by available and accessible sources.
The author gets directly into facts – some well-known, others less – that gave rise to the character and psychology of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He does not dispute the legitimacy of his election, but
he does ask how was it possible that the cardinal electors could have known so little and were so totally deceived about him as to place the Church of Christ in the hands of a man without scruples, with behavioral problems well-known to those who had to deal with him at various levels in the Church, and above all, to someone who had shown himself ready to make any compromise in order to advance his thirst for power that would allow him to realize his personal dream of a church in his likeness and image.
The author analyzes the facts of Bergoglio's personal life honestly and impartially, reports the documented facts, and reconstructs what seems to have been the man's clear course. It emerges that
most of the cardinal electors were in the dark about Bergoglio mostly because the latter had been so skillful at masking not just his true intentions but also his modus operandi.
The author also shows that
Bergoglio's true 'charism' is in being the great 'faker' of his own persona – no one really knows who he is and what he thinks [except, obviously, what he wants the world to think he is and what he thinks!]
But his 'charism' attracts the weak and the insecure who, having entered into his radius of interest, often do not realize that they are being manipulated to his advantage, and when they do realize it, it is often too late and it is best that they leave. Because when he notes that he has been 'uncovered', at best, he quickly divests himself of those who have done so, because they are no longer useful to him; and at worst, they can be the objects of psychological pressure from the man himself who will continue to use them to sow divisions, insecurities and suspicions in his own entourage.
All of this is documented in black and white, with proofs, but narrated in a calm, respectful and long-suffering tone. The author seeks to keep himself impartial without hiding the pain and difficulty of saying the truth, of narrating the facts that are key to understanding the psychological complexity of
Bergoglio – the modernist Jesuit who became pope because, whereas the cardinals who elected him thought that through him, they would effect 'true reform' in the Church where it is urgently needed, they found themselves with a revolutionary dictator who is uncontrollable, uncommunicable, hardly humble and hardly charitable [or merciful!]
Of course, we did not get to Bergoglio from scratch! The book also shows the responsibility of many cardinals and bishops who are corrupt, careerist and unscrupulous – not just those of the small St. Gallen group, but also the protectors of the gay lobby ensconced in the Vatican since the 1970s.
About this most serious scourge in the Church that goes hand in hand with the scandal of sex-predator priests, the author goes through a brief history of concrete facts to show that
this pope is not concerned at all about the 'gay lobby' or the sexual crimes of priests, unlike Benedict XVI who used an iron fist in at least suspending and/or dismissing more than 800 priests and bishops. Instead he seems to be reinforcing these questionable elements by giving them prestigious jobs and promotions.
[Does the list contain other names besides Mons. Ricca, 'Don Mercedes' Inzoli and Cardinal Coccoplamerio's bingeing protégé, that we know of?]
The book is not about gossip, nor being anti-Bergoglio; it does not accuse him of being a heretical or illegitimate pope; there is no polemic over obeying a pope who is exercising his legitimate authority. But it documents facts that show what is happening in 'the Church' under Bergoglio, and far from attacking the papacy or the Petrine ministry, it seeks to defend them from insidious subversion and worse adversities.
That is why – with immense pain and filial respect – we wish to share and urge reading this book with true discernment in the spirit of free children of God. If it is read properly, this book, the conclusions to which it leads us, will not constitute a trial and verdict, but instead
make us pray even more assiduously praying for this pope and for the Holy Church of Christ which has been the first true victim of everything wrong that is taking place.
To pray as well that we may be blessed with holy bishops and priests, cardinals inspired by the saints and not by careerism, and for ourselves, lay faithful who are devoted to Christ and his Church, but are surrounded by confusion and advancing darkness.
Our task is not to judge the pope
[We cannot judge anyone, only God can – but we certainly can hold personal opinions, which is what everyone has been doing about Bergoglio, those who adulate him and those who dislike him] but that, in understanding what he wants,
we can wisely discern what things we can concede to him from what we cannot, as many documents show – from the DUBIA letter to that of the Franciscan theologian who was dismissed from his position in the US bishops' conference for having dared to write what he did to the pope, to what this pope has said and done about liturgy, the worship of God, and sacramental discipline.
All these cannot simply be coincidences nor do they constitute a conspiracy against this pope, because who would gain from such a conspiracy when those who criticize what needs to be criticized are simply defending Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine? If it were nothing but a malicious plot, then it would be most counter-productive for the Church and the faith.
But facts are facts, and let the readers use their reason and wise discernment.
Here is a translation of Prof. De Mattei's commentary:
Cardinals Burke, Brandmüller and Müller
and 'The Dictator Pope'
by Roberto de Mattei
Translated by Francesca Romana for Rorate caeli from
November 29, 2017
Over the last few weeks three interviews from prominent cardinals have appeared. The first was given by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller to Christian Geye and Hannes Hintermeier for the
Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung on October 28th 2017; the second was given by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke to Edward Pentin on November 14th for
The National Catholic Register; the third, by Cardinal Müller to Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera on November 26.
Cardinal Brandmüller revealed
his anxiety concerning the possible beginnings of a division in the Church. ['Possible beginnings'??? Unfortunately, I cannot get to the original article because the Corrispondenza site is deemed 'not secure' by Google Chrome, but if that is a correct translation of what De Mattei wrote in Italian, then one must wonder why the good cardinal would call the split in the Church today that is now almost five years long 'possible beginnings'!]
“The fact alone that a petition with 870,000 signatures addressed to the Pope asking him for clarification has still not been answered and likewise the 50 scholars of international ranking have yet to obtain a reply - raises questions. This is truly difficult to understand", Brandmueller notes.
“Addressing some dubia, i.e. doubts and questions to the Pope, has always been an absolutely normal way to dissipate ambiguities.
Simply speaking, the question is the following: Can something that was considered a sin yesterday be good today? Further, we now have the question whether there are actually acts - as has been the constant teaching of the Church – that are always and in all circumstances morally reprehensible? Such as in the case of killing an innocent person or adultery for example? This is the point.
If there should be in effect a “yes” response to the first question and a “no” to the second, this would be a de facto heresy, and consequently a schism. A split in the Church.”
Cardinal Burke, who confirmed that he was in constant communication with Cardinal Brandmüller, advanced a fresh warning “on the gravity of the situation which continues to worsen” and reaffirmed the need to shed light on all the heterodox passages in Amoris laetitia, saying that we are,in fact, faced with a process which constitutes “a subversion of the essential parts of Tradition”.
“Above and beyond the moral debate, the sense of sacramental practice in the Church is being increasingly eroded, in particular as regards Confession and the Eucharist", he says.
The cardinal once again addresses Pope Francis and the entire Church, by stressing
“how urgent it is for the Pope, in the exercise of the ministry he has received from the Lord, that he confirm his brethren in the faith, by expressing clearly the teaching on Christian morality and the importance of the Church’s sacramental practice.”
Cardinal Müller, for his part, confirms that there is the danger of a schism inside the Church and the responsibility of this division does not belong to the Dubia Cardinals of Amoris laetitia, nor the signatories of the Correctio filialis to Pope Francis, but
the Pope’s “magic circle”, which is blocking open and balanced discussion on the doctrinal problems raised by these criticisms. [It is infuriating how Mueller consistently seeks to exculpate Bergoglio when his followers are simply following his lead, precisely!]
“Attention: If the perception of an injustice is given by the Roman Curia, it could inevitably set in motion a schismatic tendency, difficult afterwards to recover from. I believe that the cardinals who expressed their doubts on Amoris laetitia, or the 62 signatories of an even excessive letter of criticism to the Pope should be heard, not liquidated as “Pharisees” or grumblers. The only way out of this situation is through clear and frank dialogue... [Yes, exactly, but tell that to the pope who refuses to engage in a dialog with anyone who does not agree 1000 percent with him!]
Instead, I have the impression that in the Pope’s “magic circle” there are those who are mainly concerned about snitching on presumed adversaries, thus blocking open and balanced discussion. Classifying all Catholics according to the categories of “friend” or “enemy” of the Pope, is the gravest damage they are causing in the Church. One remains perplexed if a journalist well known to be an atheist, boasts of being the Pope’s friend; whereas, a Catholic bishop and cardinal like myself is being defamed as the Holy Father’s opponent. I don’t believe that these people can give me lessons in theology on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. [Quite a snit from someone who is so full of himself he does not even realize it.]
According to his interviewer, Cardinal Müller, has yet to digest the “hurt” of his three collaborators being dismissed shortly before his non-renewal as head of the Congregation last June. “They were good, competent priests who had worked for the Church with exemplary dedication”, is his judgment. “People cannot be sent away [like that] ad libitum, without evidence or procedure,
simply because someone anonymously reported that one of them made some vague criticism of the Pope …”
[Hey, Your Eminence, anyone can say anything to the pope - it is still he and only he who decides what action to take and takes it! Don't blame the snitches!]
Under what kind of regime are people treated this way? Damien Thompson in The Spectator wrote about it last July 17th.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/ pope-francis-is-behaving-like-a-latin-american-dictator-but-the-liberal-media-arent-interested/).
The dismissal of Cardinal Muller’s collaborators
“brings to mind his most authoritarian predecessors – or, indeed, some Latin American dictator who hugs the crowds and advertises his ostentatiously humble lifestyle while his lieutenants live in fear of his rages”, Thompson wrote.
[Which 'authoritarian predecessors' might Thompson mean???]
This aspect of Pope Francis’s Pontificate is now the object of a book, recently published with the significant title
The Dictator Pope
https://www.amazon.it/Papa-Dittatore-Marcantonio-Colonna-ebook/dp/B077M5ZH4M
The author is an Oxford-educated historian who hides under the name of “Marcantonio Colonna”. His style is sober and documented, but his accusations against Pope Bergoglio are numerous and strong. Many of the elements he has based in the formulation of his accusations are well-known, but
what is new is the accurate description of a series of “historical pictures”: the intrigue of Pope Bergoglio’s election, piloted by the St. Gallen Mafia; Bergoglio’s Argentinean behavior and actions before his election; the obstacles Cardinal Pell encountered after having attempted a financial reform of the Curia; the complete overhaul of the Pontifical Academy for Life; the persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate; and the decapitation of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
The mass-media, always ready to lash out with indignation at any episode of bad government and corruption, are silent about these scandals. The foremost merit of this historical study is having brought them to light. [Well, these episodes were already well in the light - it is just they were all just condoned and not condemned at all by the media captive to Bergoglio.
“Fear is the dominant note of the Curia under the law of Francis, along with reciprocal suspicion”. It is not only about informers who are seeking to obtain advantages by reporting a private conversation – as Cardinal Müller’s three members of staff discovered.
In an organization where morally corrupt people have been left in place and even promoted by Pope Francis, underhanded blackmail is the order of the day. A priest in the Curia said ironically:
“The saying goes that it is who you know that counts not what you know. In the Vatican, here’s how it is: what you know counts more than who you know.”
Marcantonio Colonna’s book, in short, confirms what Cardinal Müller’s interview conceals: the existence of an atmosphere of espionage and snitching which the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith attributes to a “magic circle” conditioning the Pope’s choices, whereas the Oxford historian reports it as Pope Francis’s
modus gubernandi and compares it to the autocratic methods of the Argentinean dictator Juan Peron, of whom the young Bergoglio was a follower.
One might respond that
nihil sub sole novum (There is nothing new under the sun)
(Ecclesiaste 1, 10). The Church has seen many other deficiencies in government.
However,
if [is there any doubt about it???] this pontificate is actually bringing about a division among the faithful, as the three cardinals highlighted, the motives cannot be limited to the Pope’s way of governing, but have to be sought in something which is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church: the separation of the Roman Pontiff from the doctrine of the Gospel, which he has, through Divine mandate, the duty to transmit and guard. This is what is at the heart of the religious problem of our times. [And what is that but rank apostasy???]