EL VATICANO ¡Todo aquí! (1 Viewer)

Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
Abro un hilo que recopile todos los temas relacionados con El Vaticano.

Inicio el hilo con un largo pero muy interesante artículo que trata sobre la división existente dentro de la Iglesia Católica...

Está en inglés.

October 18, 2016, Tuesday -- Vatican Pravda?

"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 (link). 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. (link) For the full text of this article, see below. (Special note: the Vatican Insider website is different from and has nothing to do with Inside the Vatican magazine, which I founded and direct; to subscribe to Inside the Vatican monthly magazine, click here)


==================


Pravda on the Tiber?


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 (shown here talking privately with Pope Francis during a flight on the papal airplane) and Giacomo Galeazzi


(photo left) on the Vatican Insider website (a project of one of Italy's leading daily newspapers, La Stampa of Turin).


I publish the entire article below, but here is the link.


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."


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.


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.


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.


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.


==================


The Controversial Article


Below is the Vatican Insider article which has aroused such controversy.


Once again, I publish the entire text of the article here, but it can also be found at this link.


So everything that follows is from the article, not my own writing, which ends here.


================================


Catholics Who Are Anti-Francis But Love Putin


Journey to the world of Francis’ opponents, where regionalists, Ratzinger nostalgics and enemies of the Council are joined by a common disapproval of the current Pope: “There is chaos in the Church because of the Pope”




(This photo, taken on February 11, 2013, the day that Pope Benedict announced his resignation, illustrates the Vatican Insider article, which has the following caption: "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, however, has denied this interpretation")


October 16, 2016


By Giacomo Galeazzi and Andrea Tornielli


Rome


The glue that holds them together is their aversion towards Francis. The world of Francis dissenters ranges from Lefebvrians who have decided to “wait for a traditional Pope” before renewing their communion with Rome, to catholic regionalists who compare Francis to his predecessor Ratzinger and promote the campaign “Benedict is my Pope.”



Then there are the ultra-conservatives of Fondazione Lepanto — a foundation that aims to protect the principles and institutions of the Christian civilization — and websites that share sedevacantist positions, adamant that the Catholic writer Antonio Socci (photo) was right to argue that Bergoglio’s election is invalid, simply because a vote was cancelled without a scrutiny in the March 2013 Conclave.


This was because one of the cardinals mistakenly placed an extra ballot in the ballot box.


The voting resumed immediately to wipe away any doubts and without any of the cardinal electors raising any objections.


Prelates and traditionalist intellectuals have signed appeals or protested against the Argentinian Pope’s open pastoral attitude with regard to communion for remarried divorcees and dialogue with the Chinese government.


Opposition to the Pope unites people and groups that are very different among them: soft criticism is expressed by online newspaper La Bussola Quotidiana and monthly newspaper Il Timone, directed by Riccardo Cascioli.



The Argentinian Pope is also reproached almost on a daily basis by L’Espresso’s former Vatican affairs journalist Sandro Magister (photo).


Then there are the revelatory and mocking comments made by Maria Guarini (photo below left) in Italian blog Chiesa e Postconcilio and the harsher criticisms made by ultra-traditionalist and sedevacantist groups, those who believe there has not been a worthy Pope since Pius XII.


Italian newspaper La Stampa visited the places and protagonists of this opposition to Francis which is contained in terms of numbers but widespread on the web. Those behind this opposition, use the Internet and private meetings between clerics, combining frontal and public attacks with more articulate strategies.



Alessandro Gnocchi, who writes for the Riscossa Cristiana and Unavox websites, is on the frontline of web criticism against the Pope: “Bergoglio is systematically surrendering the Church to the world, the Church is becoming worldly. His pontificate is based on the brutal handling of power. Never has the faith been so debased.”


(Photo below of Alessandro Gnocchi, who is included among the "opponents" of Pope Francis because he has written that "the Church is becoming worldly")




Opposition headquarters


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 (photo). This chaos is above all to do 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 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.


Political-theological opposition


The attack against Francis is global.




“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.”


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 (photo), a consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Office of 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, below, 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 Italian newspaper Il Giornale. He stated 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 old pauperism to the dogmatic sphere.”


The Pope praises recycling and thus “the virtues of the good late-modern consumer become the new evangelical virtues.”


Theories about the two Popes


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 I 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.”


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.”


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?”


This mixed opposition has identified some bishops and cardinals as reference points.


On his blog, Magister put Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah forward as a papal candidate. Sarah is currently Francis’ liturgy minister and is much loved by conservatives and traditionalists who often quote him on their websites and publications.


Risk of a schism?


Among those considered pole stars, are first and foremost US cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Athanasius Schneider.


But beyond the amplified stories present on the web, there do not seem to be any further schisms on the horizon, after Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s in 1988.



Sociologist Massimo Introvigne (photo) is adamant about this: “There are more than 5,000 Catholic bishops in the world, only about 10 of them are active in their opposition, many of whom are retired, meaning that 10 is not substantial.”


Introvigne claims that this opposition “is present both on the web and in real life and is overestimated: there are dissidents who write comments on social networks using four or five different pseudonyms, to give the impression there are many of them.”


According to the sociologist, the movement “is not successful because it is not united. There are at least three different kinds of opposition: the political opposition of American foundations, the opposition of Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini who are not particularly interested in liturgical or moral issues — they often do not even go to church — but in immigration and the Pope’s critiques against turbo-capitalism.


"Then there is the opposition expressed by those who feel a nostalgia for Benedict XVI but do not contest Vatican II.


"And there is the radical opposition of the Society of St. Pius X or the likes of De Mattei and Gnocchi. This form of opposition rejects the Council and everything that came after it. Despite support from the odd Church figure, the contradictions between the three standpoints are destined to explode and a common front has no chance of lasting.”



Introvigne pointed out a surprising trait that many of these circles share: “It is the mythical idealization of Russian President Vladimir Putin (photo), who is presented as a 'good' leader in contrast to the 'bad' leader, the Pope, because of his stance on homosexual people, Muslims and immigrants. Russian foundations that have strong ties with Putin co-operate with the anti-Francis opposition."


[End of article]





===================


[Beginning of responses to the Vatican Insider article]


"Vatikan Pravda"?


In his critical comment on this article, Italian Catholic scholar Francesco Colafemmina, who is from Apulia in southern Italy (photo), does not mince words.




"The emails of John Podesta, head of the electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, revealed by Wikileaks, help us to understand," Colafemmina writes. "In a February 11, 2012 email — exactly one year before the resignation of Benedict XVI — Podesta answers the activist Sandy Newman, who had asked for a 'Catholic springtime' to overcome 'the medieval dictatorship' of the Catholic hierarchy. Podesta responds that he had created two 'progressive' Catholic movements, but that she is right that they need to be brought to a higher level of effectiveness in exerting pressure on the Church."


Colafemmina concludes that the original editorial aim of the Vatican Insider web project was "to create an adequate space for a one-way mediatic resonance in support of a papacy that would follow the allegedly 'obscuratist' papacy of Pope Benedict."


And he adds: "The point is that, thank God, we understand better each day that this 'media pressure' function is not connected to internal Church matters only, but rather concerns a geopolitical dimension in which the Church, led by Bergoglio, is merely a tool, and certainly not the protagonist."


He continues: "Frankly, I think Bergoglio's pontificate coincides with a clear project: to introduce the Church into the reality of the so-called New World Order. I do not mean to say in paranoid tones that there is a kind of 'conspiracy,' but rather that there is a political or geopolitical necessity.


"We live in a world increasingly dominated by financial elites and the power of technology. In this world, which has erased classical culture, which no longer rests on the cultural roots of Europe, but rather on the dictates of an amorphous cultural and moral indifference, the Church has two possibilities: (1) to be crushed by the dominant culture, or (2) to try to survive.


"To survive, the Church must assume, in a kind of deadly mimicry, the very characteristics of the dominant culture: contradiction, temporariness, ahistoricism, entropy — in particular this last, which the great sociologist Zygmut Bauman has said is the keystone of the 'culture' of the financial elites. Entropy, chaos, unpredictability, are the 'salt' of the equity markets, the 'salt' of modern politics, the 'salt' of the speculators.


"So, the issue is far more profound than the age-old controversy between traditionalists and progressives within the Church. Do you really believe that the Catholic Church with all her properties, with her embassies, with the dissemination of her ministers in every corner of the world, is underestimated by the powers of this world? Not at all...


"Bergoglio is nothing other than the expression of a large slice of the College of Cardinals, bishops and above all diplomats who had come to understand at the end of the pontificate of John Paul II that to survive the Church did not have any options other than that of working out a 'decent compromise' with the world, according to the incisive definition of the controversial, but prophetic, Jesuit Fr. Malachi Martin."


He continues: "In truth, the title in the printed newspaper edition of the article [in the Turin, Italy, newspaper La Stampa] is emblematic: 'The Anti-Francis Catholics Attracted by the Power of Putin.'


"A fundamental premise, because the basic idea is that what attracts these Catholics is not Putin's statesmanship and his geopolitical vision, but his 'power'...


"In other words, in the final analysis, everything is always the fault of Putin, the perfect dictator, the tyrannical man who exudes power, the enemy of democracy, the homophobic and intolerant, the wealthy friend of Russian oligarchs, and so on.


"The source of this association — which is only a fleeting reference at the very end of the article, though the title suggests it is the main argument of this pseudo-investigation — is a well-known sociologist [Massimo Introvigne]...


"The article passes through a sieve with scientific scrupulousness the Catholic 'dissidents,' indeed the real 'enemies,' 'opponents' of Bergoglio.


"It ranges from the 'Emeritus' Vaticanist of Espresso, Sandro Magister, to Professor De Mattei, passing by Antonio Socci and many others.


"It gives the first and last names of all of them, in a sort of mediatic 'proscription list' worthy of Sulla [Note: In 82 BC, when the Roman leader Lucius Cornelius Sulla was appointed dictator rei publicae constituendae ('Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic'), he proceeded to have the Senate draw up a list of those he considered enemies of the state and published the list in the Roman Forum. Any man whose name appeared on the list was ipso facto stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all protection under law; reward money was given to any informer who gave information leading to the death of a proscribed man, and any person who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the remainder went to the state)... Many victims of proscription were decapitated and their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum.]


"This shows clearly the nature of the future war.


"Not simply a conflict between Russia and the US, but a conflict pitting the ideology of a West without identity, without roots, without non-negotiable ethical references, against all the countries that, on the contrary, defend and promote their own identity, their own roots, their own values.


"Russia is a prime example in this regard, and an example close to us, because we speak of a Christian nation.


"But Russia also constitutes a model of the co-existence of religious and cultural diversity. An opposite model to that of the failing forced integrations of France, Germany and Great Britain.


"Russia is in the bull's-eye simply because it is the only great power antagonistic to the unipolar American vision."


And he continues: "In any case, there is no precedent for this use of journalism to marginalize, ghetto-ize, criminalize, these admittedly sometimes irritating minorities who do not conform to the unconditional assent regarding Bergoglio... It is unprecedented because this use of the press for geopolitical purposes, in order in the end to cancel all freedom of expression, through the ridiculing of dissent, shows what power such journalism is serving."


And he concludes: "None of this was unexpected. In November 2013, I published a few extracts from an interesting book on the Church and her geopolitical prospects by Fr. Malachi Martin [Note: The Keys of This Blood]. In particular this: 'The reduction of the Pope in his high office will be the result of the belief that the original Petrine and papal office as practiced by the Romans and all the Popes until the last third of the 20th century, was in fact nothing more than the result conditioned by the time of cultural fashions that stretch back for centuries; and it is now time to degrade the importance to be able to release the 'spirit of Vatican II' to model the Church in an image that suits the liberal conception of a new era, very different from the previous one. Roman Catholics will then have the spectacle of a Pope validly elected who cuts the entire visible body of the Church loose from the traditional unity and the papacy-oriented apostolic structure that the Church has hitherto always believed and taught was divinely established. The shudder that will shake the Roman Catholic body in that day will be the shudder of its death agony... Many will accept the new regime. Many will resist. All will be fragmented. There will be no one on earth to hold the fractionating members of the visible Roman Catholic body together as a living compact organization.”


=====================


"Both statements are false"


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." (link)


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."


=========================


"You can also betray a person with too much applause"


The English translation of Father Cervellera's very interesting article has just appeared, published in AsiaNews, which covers in a professional and faithful way all events related to the Church in Asia. The text is below.


The article may also be found at this link.


Here is the full text of the article by Father Cervellera (photo).


October 18, 2016


VATICAN-ASIA


The "Enemies" of Pope Francis



By Fr. Bernardo Cervellera (photo)


The charge made against AsiaNews that we are against the Pope and in favor of Putin, is an opportunity to outline what motivates our commitment to evangelization. And also to ask for greater professionalism from those who write about the Pope. The Pope does not need public defenders. Facilitating dialogue between "conservatives" and "progressives" to realize the Council and concern ourselves with the world so that it encounters Jesus Christ. Christ’s “enemies” were also his "friends."


Rome (AsiaNews) – Not a day goes by without AsiaNews publishing reports of the Pope's homilies, speeches, audiences, summaries of encyclicals. We are among the fastest agencies to offer what the Pope teaches on-line with translations into Italian, Chinese, Spanish and English.


Many Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans are grateful for the speed with which they can access the Pope’s words, particularly since the official sites are too slow.


We chose to offer this service, which occupies us every day, even on Sundays, to help the Churches in Asia to receive the words of the Pope as soon as possible. We did this with Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now with Pope Francis.


This service is especially useful to Chinese Catholics. And since the AsiaNews site is sometimes blocked by the Beijing authorities, we have been given the go ahead to another, more anonymous, website titled "Ascoltiamo Papa Francesco.net" [Listen to Pope Francis –ed]to republish our articles on Pope Francis in Italian and Chinese (seeing is believing), even if the website owners sign our articles (in a clear breach of professional ethics). But this fact matters little to us: "provided that Christ be announced" as Saint Paul says. (Philippians 1, 18).


Given this experience, 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.


With regards China, while we exalt its achievements in space and its progress among the great powers of the world, we do not forget the problems of pollution or the Dalai Lama, who for us is almost like a migrant, an exile, similar to those many exiles and migrants Pope Francis embraced in Lampedusa.


Equally so on questions regarding the Catholic Church, while we report on Pope Francis enthusiasm towards Xi Jinping, we can not forgo reporting on the deep sorrow that the silence regarding persecution is causing among underground Christians. Because this regards an estimated 5 million people who for decades have given their lives — sometimes even their blood — for the Gospel and who now, suddenly, have disappeared from public concerns.


In the article in question, an academic among the most optimistic regarding dialogue between China and the Vatican — I remember that in 2005, after the death of John Paul II, he had predicted that a diplomatic agreement would be signed, one that we still await with faith and hope — well, this "super-optimist" says that we are "allied" with "Hong Kong environments, sectors in the US and European right" to push Pope Francis to favor religious freedom over the unity of the Church in China.


This opinion, in our view, is unfounded: we have never received visits or awards from a US president or Secretary of State, nor European.



But perhaps the super-optimistic academic meant — at most — that we often publish articles by Card. Joseph Zen (photo), who is as concerned about the fate of underground Christians as we are. If I were Pope Francis I would appreciate my Cardinals telling me about the problems that these Christian suffer who are ... very much on the peripheries, the face of the suffering Christ, part of my flock for which I have to give my life.


Unfortunately Pope Francis has few friends of this caliber. He does not even have them amongst expert Vatican journalists.


And in fact, my greatest pain is to see the blacklist drawn up in that article: that site, that journalist, that priest, the bishop, the cardinal.


I wonder what it's for, and I fear it is being used to divide, thanks to the unguarded work of these coryphaei who are self-appointed "infallible interpreters" of the pope, and defenders of the pope.


When Pope Francis rose to the papacy, it was clear that he wanted to actuate the Second Vatican Council (as he says in his encyclicals).


For this it was necessary (and is still necessary) to unite, to dialogue and find a common way among so-called Catholic "conservatives" and "progressives," whose division is one of the nastiest wounds that we have been carrying around for decades.


If you listen to everything Pope Francis actually says, then you realize that he really is a Pope of tradition in development, above the "hermeneutic of rupture" typical of conservatives and progressives.


Unfortunately it seems that the two parties — also thanks to the secular media — are driving their divisions deeper and hardening their stance even more.


It is the Pope’s task, as the symbol of unity of the Church, to work to repair this. It is the task of expert Vatican journalists to outline how this work is progressing. I have no comment on this desire to hand down judgements on who is good and who is bad.


My advice, if you really want to help Pope Francis, is to support his position of dialogue — which is something we would also like to see among the "souls" of the Church in China — drawing out the shred of truth which the Spirit — as our Pope always says — also instills in Muslims, Jews, Hindus ... let alone we Christians.


This work of dialogue with the most distant positions is all the more urgent because of the abyss of secularization and indifference that is engulfing the world. The world believes if the Church is united ("that all may be one so that the world may believe," says the Gospel of John).


This is what should concern us — right and left in the Church — rather than being seen as exhibitionist "superapostles," we should be concerned about how to interest the world in faith in Jesus.


Unfortunately, the debate among many Christians is now polarized on "for or against the Pope" and not on the mission to the world.


In a similar vein this is seen in all debate on diplomatic relations with China, and no one is discussing how to bring the Christian faith to this country that thirsts for God, before diplomacy.


As for the Pope, the Pope does not need public defenders.


First of all, because he is well "armored": a press office, a television center, a newspaper, a radio...


But then, especially since Pope Francis himself said he is not interested in hearing people shout "Long live the Pope!"


He wants to hear "Long live Jesus Christ!"


And even if it should be the case that the Pope is hurt or criticized, it only conforms him even more to Jesus Christ who was scourged, even struck by his "enemies", but betrayed by his "friends."


You can also betray a person with too much applause.


The Moynihan Letters are posted here.


Note: The Moynihan Letters go to over 20,000 people around the world. If you would like to subscribe, simply email me an email address, and I will add you to the list. Also, if you would like to subscribe to our print magazine, Inside the Vatican, please do so! It would support the old technology of print and paper, as well as these Moynihan Letters. Click here.

What is the glory of God?


"The glory of God is man alive; but the life of man is the vision of God." —St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the territory of France, in his great work Against All Heresies, written c. 180 A.D.
 

Registrado
27 Abr 2008
Mensajes
24.039
Calificaciones
53.866
Y este hombre que no calla ni debajo del agua, ¿ya solucionó los problemas de los curas investigados y/o acusados por pedofilia y abusos varios?

Creo que es lo mas importante de momento, que limpie a su iglesia de tanto cura sinverguenza. Y despues que de sus discursos de amor y paz y perdón y lo que quiera.
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
El Vaticano se somete al islam
por Giulio Meotti
8 de Noviembre de 2016


Traducción del texto original: The Vatican Submits to Islam (2006-2016)
Traducido por El Medio


Compartir

Si el 11-S fue la declaración de la yihad contra Occidente, el 12-S será recordado como uno de los arrodillamientos más dramáticos de la sumisión cultural de Occidente al islam.

El 12 de septiembre de 2006, el papa Benedicto XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) aterrizó en Baviera (Alemania), donde nació e impartió sus primeras clases de teología. Se le esperaba allí para dar una conferencia a la comunidad académica en la Universidad de Ratisbona. Esa lección pasaría a la historia como el discurso papal más polémico del último medio siglo.

En el de este año, el del décimo aniversario del discurso, tanto el mundo occidental como el islámico le debían una disculpa a Benedicto, pero, por desgracia ha ocurrido lo contrario: el Vaticano se ha disculpado con los musulmanes.

En su conferencia, el papa Benedicto explicaba las contradicciones internas del islam contemporáneo, pero también ofrecía un terreno de diálogo con el cristianismo y la cultura occidental. El papa habló de las raíces judías, griegas y cristianas de la fe europea, explicando por qué son distintas del monoteísmo islámico. En su charla incluyó una cita del emperador bizantino Manuel II Paleólogo: "Mostradme lo que Mahoma ha traído de nuevo, y no encontraréis más que cosas malvadas e inhumanas".

Este barril de dinamita quedó suavizado por la cita de una sura coránica de la juventud de Mahoma, "cuando Mahoma seguía sin poder y amenazado", señaló Benedicto.

La charla del papa Benedicto no fue ninguna sorpresa. "No es ningún secreto que al papa le preocupaba el islam", apuntó Christopher Caldwell en el Financial Times.

Había expresado públicamente sus dudas de que pudiera acomodarse en una sociedad pluralista. Ha relegado a uno de los principales asesores del papa Juan Pablo II sobre el mundo islámico y moderado su apoyo a un programa de diálogo interreligioso dirigido por monjes franciscanos en Asís. Ha adoptado el punto de vista de los moderados y conservadores italianos respecto a que el principio rector del diálogo interreligioso debe ser la reciprocidad. Es decir, que considera una ingenuidad que se permita la construcción en Roma de una mezquita con financiación saudí, la mayor de Europa, mientras que los países musulmanes prohíben la construcciones de iglesias y centros de caridad.

En Ratisbona, Benedicto escenificó el drama de nuestro tiempo y, por primera vez en la historia de la Iglesia Católica, un papa hablaba del islam sin reciclar clichés. En esa conferencia, el papa hizo lo que está prohibido en el mundo islámico: debatir libremente sobre la fe. Dijo que Dios es diferente de Alá. Nunca volveremos a escuchar algo así.

La cita de Manuel II Paleólogo rebotó por todo el mundo, agitando a la umma [comunidad] musulmana, que reaccionó con violencia. Incluso la prensa internacional se unió a la cantinela unánime de condena del "ataque del papa contra el islam".

La reacción al discurso del papa demostraba que éste estaba en lo cierto. Todos, desde los líderes musulmanes al New York Times, exigieron que el papa se disculpara y se sometiera. Los principales medios lo convirtieron en un defensor incendiario del "choque de civilizaciones" de Samuel Huntington. En la región bajo la Autoridad Palestina, se prendió fuego a iglesias cristianas, y los cristianos se convirtieron en blanco de ataques. Los islamistas británicos pidieron "matar" al papa, pero Benedicto les retó.

Al mismo tiempo, en Somalia, una monja italiana fue fusilada. En Irak, Al Qaeda decapitó y mutiló a un sacerdote ortodoxo sirio después de que los terroristas exigieran que la Iglesia Católica se disculpara por el discurso. Los Hermanos Musulmanes de Egipto juraron tomar represalias contra el papa. Un líder paquistaní, Shahid Shamsi, acusó al Vaticano de defender a la "entidad sionista". Salih Kapusuz, número dos del partido del entonces primer ministro (y ahora presidente) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, comparó al papa Benedicto XVI con Hitler y Mussolini. El líder supremo de Irán, el ayatolá Alí Jamenei, insistió en que las palabras del papa correspondían a la "cadena de la conspiración estadounidense-israelí", y acusó a Benedicto de formar parte de la "conspiración de los cruzados".

Enseguida se aumentaron masivamente las medidas de seguridad en torno al papa Benedicto. Dos años después, el papa fue vetado para hablar en la universidad más importante de Roma, La Sapienza. Tras el caso Ratisbona, Benedicto ya no volvería a ser el mismo. Los apaciguadores islamistas y occidentales lograron cerrarle la boca.

Unos días después de la conferencia, agotado y asustado, el papa Benedicto se disculpó. "Lamento profundamente las reacciones en algunos países a algunos pasajes de mi conferencia [...] que fueron considerados ofensivos hacia la sensibilidad de los musulmanes", les dijo el papa a los peregrinos en su residencia veraniega de Castelgandolfo. Esa cita "no expresaba en modo alguno mis opiniones personales. Espero que esto sirva para aliviar los corazones".

El papa pudo haberlo dicho para evitar más violencia. Pero desde entonces, las disculpas hacia el mundo islámico se han convertido en la política oficial del Vaticano.

"Las posturas predeterminadas frente al islam militante recuerdan desgraciadamente a las posturas predeterminadas de la diplomacia del Vaticano frente al comunismo durante los últimos 25 años de la Guerra Fría", escribió George Weigel, destacado investigador estadounidense. La nueva agenda del Vaticano busca "alcanzar un acomodo político con los Estados islámicos y renegar de la rotunda condena pública de la ideología islamista y yihadista".

Diez años después de la conferencia de Ratisbona, tan relevante como siempre después de los ataques del ISIS en suelo europeo, otro papa, Francisco I, ha tratado de muchas maneras separar a los musulmanes de la violencia, y siempre ha evitado mencionar la palabra prohibida: islam. Como escribió Sandro Magister, uno de los periodistas sobre asuntos católicos más importantes de Italia: "Ante la ofensiva del islam radical, la idea de Francisco es que 'debemos mitigar el conflicto'. Y olvidarnos de Ratisbona".

Todo el cuerpo diplomático del Vaticano se cuida mucho hoy de evitar las palabras "islam" y "musulmanes", asumiendo en su lugar la negación de que exista un choque de civilizaciones. Cuando regresaba del Día Mundial de la Juventud en Polonia el pasado agosto, el papa Francisco negó que el islam fuese intrínsecamente violento, y afirmó que a toda religión, incluido el catolicismo, subyace un potencial violento. Antes, el papa Francisco había dicho que hay "una guerra mundial", pero negó que el islam tuviese algún papel en ella.




En 2006, papa Benedicto XVI (izquierda) dijo lo que ningún papa se había atrevido a decir: que hay un vínculo entre la violencia y el islam. Diez años más tarde, el papa Francisco (derecha) jamás llama por su nombre a los responsables de la violencia anticristiana y jamás pronuncia la palabra 'islam'. (Imágenes: Benedicto: Flickr/Iglesia Católica de Inglaterra | Francisco: Wikimedia Commons/korea.net).



En mayo, el papa Francisco explicó que el "concepto de conquista" es fundamental para el islam como religión, pero se apresuró a añadir que algunos podrían interpretar el cristianismo, la religión de poner la otra mejilla, de la misma manera. "El verdadero islam y la lectura correcta del Corán se opone a toda forma de violencia", afirmó el papa en 2013. Un año después, Francisco declaró que el "islam es una religión de paz, compatible con el respeto a los derechos humanos y la coexistencia pacífica". Afirmó que son los males de la economía global, y no el islam, los que inspiran el terrorismo. Y hace unos días, el papa dijo que "aquellos que se dicen cristianos, pero que no quiere refugiados en su puerta, son unos hipócritas".

El pontificado del papa Francisco ha estado marcado por su equidistancia moral entre el cristianismo y el islam, lo que también hace sombra a los crímenes de los musulmanes contra su propio pueblo, los cristianos de Oriente y Occidente.

Pero también están los cardenales valientes que dicen la verdad. Uno es el líder católico estadounidense Raymond Burke, que participó en una reciente entrevista con los medios italianos, en la que dijo:

Está claro que los musulmanes tienen un objetivo último: conquistar el mundo. El islam, a través de la sharia, su ley, quiere gobernar el mundo y permite la violencia contra los infieles, como los cristianos. Pero nos cuesta reconocer esta realidad y responder a ella defendiendo la fe cristiana [...]. He escuchado varias veces una idea islámica: "Lo que no logramos hacer con las armas en el pasado, lo estamos haciendo hoy con la tasa de natalidad y la inmigración". La población está cambiando. Si esto persiste, en países como Italia la mayoría será musulmana. [...] El islam se autorrealiza con la conquista. ¿Y cuál es la conquista más importante? Roma.

Por desgracia, el primer arzobispo de Roma, el papa Francisco, parece estar sordo y ciego ante estas importantes verdades. Benedicto XVI tardó cinco días en disculparse por su valiente conferencia. Pero abrió la veda, que cumple ya una década, de las excusas del Vaticano sobre el terrorismo islámico.

Aún se espera que el papa Francisco visite la iglesia de St.-Étienne-du-Rouvray, donde el padre Jacques Hamel fue asesinado por islamistas este verano. Ese asesinato, diez años después de la conferencia de Ratisbona, es la prueba más trágica de que Benedicto estaba en lo cierto y Francisco se equivoca.

https://es.gatestoneinstitute.org/9289/vaticano-somete-islam
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
sábado, 5 de noviembre de 2016
El pecado estúpido - Fray Rabieta




Si había algo que impacientaba a Fray Rabieta era cierta clase de monjas y más si se veía obligado a confesarlas—cosa que le ocurría a menudo, como el otro día. Esta sería de unos treinta y pico, monja típica del país, del paisaje católico de nuestros días.

-Ave María purísima… ¿cuánto hace que no se confiesa?
-Diez días.


-Ajá, ¿y qué se le ofrece confesar hoy?
-No lo sé. No estoy segura…


-Bueno, pero escúcheme si no tiene pecados para confesar, aquí no tiene nada que hacer… esto no es un consultorio psicoanalítico ni cosa que se le parezca… Si no se quiere acusar de ningún pecado en particular, hágame el favor y deje que lo haga el que sigue en la fila ¿eh?
-Se trata del Papa… me doy cuenta de que no lo amo como debería… y a veces me sorprendo pensando cosas feas de él…


-No es la única, pero ¿cuál es su pecado?
-Bueno… ya le dije… eso mismo… es más fuerte que yo, pero hay cosas de este Papa que no me gustan nada…


-Bueno, hermana, no veo yo dónde está su pecado…
-A veces incluso hablo más de él, delante de las otras hermanas…


-A mí me pasa lo mismo que usted, pero eso no es ningún pecado. Es más: a veces es obligación.
-¡Obligación! Pero si al Papa lo eligió el Espíritu Santo… ¿quién soy yo para juzgarlo?


-Ahora sí que se ha acusado de un pecado. Porque decir que a este pelafustán lo eligió el Espíritu Santo es una estupidez, y la estupidez es pecado, dice Santo Tomás. Pero aquí hay algo peor, usted lo está acusando al Espíritu Santo de haber elegido a este cachivache, como si la Tercera Persona de la Santísima Trinidad fuera, ¡oh, la blasfemia, que Dios me perdone!, estúpido.
-No, no… no Padre, no diga cosas así.


-Pero Ud. me está obligando, si continúa sosteniendo estupideces como esa… Y además insisto: la estupidez es pecado y decir que el Espíritu Santo eligió a este Papa—o a cualquier otro, para el caso—es suma estupidez y blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo (lo que, según Cristo, no tiene perdón ni en este vida ni en la otra, fíjese lo grave que resulta ser todo esto).
-Pero… pero… a mí me enseñaron eso…


-Ya lo sé, y eso disminuye un tanto su responsabilidad… hasta hoy. Porque a partir de hoy, a partir del día en que se le hace saber que todo eso es una estupidez, que son patrañas clericales y mentiras agendadas, Ud. tiene la res-pon-sa-bi-li-dad de estudiar bien el asunto y verá entonces que es imposible que al Papa lo elija el Espíritu Santo ¿me entiende? Y si así fuera, la historia de la Iglesia se transformaría en un aquelarre sin sentido… con los Papas que hemos tenido, ¡Dios mío! (aunque estoy de acuerdo con Ud.: este es particularmente malo, además de argentino, mama mía). Y si así fuera, San Pablo pecó gravemente al “resistirle en la cara” a San Pedro, cuando el Concilio de Antioquía… Lo cual sería otro disparate, fíjese si quiere…
-Pero entonces, ¿quién gobierna la Iglesia ahora?


-Este cachivache que no voy a nombrar siquiera… porque no se me antoja… Este palurdo que es el Papa. Y es el único Papa, no empecemos con las necedades de que ahora hay dos, uno emérito, y el otro contante y sonante, etc. etc… ¡Dios mío, fuera así y los sedevacantistas la tendrán realmente difícil! ¡Porque resultaría ser que no sólo la Sede no está vacante sino que par dessus le marché hay dos Papas, ja, ja!
-Pero Benedicto abdicó por inspiración del Espíritu Santo…


-¡Ay hermana, cuántas estupideces les enseñan a repetir! A ver, ¿de dónde sacó esta nueva estupidez? ¿Quién le dije tamaña sandez?
-No me acuerdo, pero lo leí en algún lado…


-Bueno, leyó una verdadera tontería. La abdicación de Benedicto fue otra estupidez (y por eso mismo, un flor de pecado), y la elección de Francisco fue una estupidez mayor, cometida por la mayoría del colegio de cardenales que se destacan por ser príncipes… de la estulticia y que constituyen una verdadera maldición para la Iglesia Católica Romana que pasa por uno de los trances más oscuros de sus dos mil años de existencia por culpa de toda esta manga de… ¿qué diré yo?… de pelmazos. Porque la mayoría de todo estos ni siquiera son herejes, o apóstatas, o endemoniados (aunque algunos hay, no vaya a creer). Más bien se acomodan como Sánchez Sorongo, y no quieren renunciar a sus pequeños privilegios, sus burgueses costumbres, un derpa en la Vía de la Conciliazione y un auto con chofer… Pero son verdaderos estúpidos, y la estupidez es pecado, y pecado grave en el caso de quienes tienen responsabilidades muy de notar como esta gente… no querría yo estar en sus zapatos cuando el Juicio…
-Bueno, Padre, creo haber entendido algo. ¿Me absuelve Ud.?


-Sólo si se arrepiente y promete tratar de no repetir estupideces nunca más, de estudiar seriamente las cosas antes de pronunciarse y de intentar no ser otra monjita tontuela que abundan tanto en nuestro días y que constituyen la desesperación de sus atribulados confesores…
-Lo prometo Padre, se lo prometo.


-Pues ya la absuelvo de sus pecados. Vaya en paz ahora, y la próxima vez, tráigame pecados más tradicionales, pecados como los de antes…



Visto en: Fray Rabieta



Nacionalismo Católico San Juan Bautista
 

Registrado
15 Feb 2012
Mensajes
105
Calificaciones
314
No me gusta leer barbaridades y falta de respeto hacia el representante supremo de una religion tan importante como es la catolica. Por favor, muestren respeto a algo que ha existido por mas de 2,000 anios. No tengo nada personal en contra de vosotros, solo os pido respeto hacia el Papa y hacia la Iglesia Catolica. Solo eso. El "cotilleo" no debe llegar hasta ese punto. Tengamos un poco de respeto por las cosas serias, por favor......
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
No me gusta leer barbaridades y falta de respeto hacia el representante supremo de una religion tan importante como es la catolica. Por favor, muestren respeto a algo que ha existido por mas de 2,000 anios. No tengo nada personal en contra de vosotros, solo os pido respeto hacia el Papa y hacia la Iglesia Catolica. Solo eso. El "cotilleo" no debe llegar hasta ese punto. Tengamos un poco de respeto por las cosas serias, por favor......
Nadie está criticando ni insultando la religión católica sino a aquellos representantes que no respetan la fe católica, que están llevando a la Iglesia por caminos oscuros y equivocados, confundiendo a los creyentes, y, por ende, avergonzando a los católicos.

Como católica practicante tengo todo el derecho y la obligación de denunciar irregularidades o los actos de las personas que hacen [email protected] a la Iglesia de Jesús.

Si te refieres al post de Fray Rabieta, permíteme decir que no ha faltado a nadie al respeto y sí muestra tener mucha paciencia con sus feligreses, al igual que sentido del humor. Faltaría más.

Este hilo no tiene como finalidad el cotilleo, sino la exposición de datos que evidencian manejos digamos que poco ortodoxos dentro de la IC.
 

Registrado
5 May 2011
Mensajes
19.762
Calificaciones
115.432
No me gusta leer barbaridades y falta de respeto hacia el representante supremo de una religion tan importante como es la catolica. Por favor, muestren respeto a algo que ha existido por mas de 2,000 anios. No tengo nada personal en contra de vosotros, solo os pido respeto hacia el Papa y hacia la Iglesia Catolica. Solo eso. El "cotilleo" no debe llegar hasta ese punto. Tengamos un poco de respeto por las cosas serias, por favor......
Que empiece el Papa actual por respetar algo tan serio como a su propía feligresía. Y que llame a las cosas por su nombre, porque denota una falta de respeto aberrante y nauseabunda al obviar temas tan serios e importantes como el extremismo islámico y demás.
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
Misericordia et Misera: Francis’ “Apostolic Letter” extends SSPX Faculties

November 21, 2016

Print Friendly
SSPX Faculties extended indefinitely…

Antipope Francis
“Apostolic Letter” Misericordia et Misera
on Mercy and Peace
November 20, 2016




At a special press conference today, the Vatican released Francis’ latest official document, the “Apostolic Letter” Misericordia et Misera. The text is available in sundry languages at the Vatican web site, of which we make the following two available via direct links:

Amazingly, the document does not shy away from using the word “adultery”, in its opening sentence even. Of course, it only mentions this word in connection with forgiveness, but it’s still noteworthy because Amoris Laetitia had refused to use the term and spoke instead of “irregular situations”.

Not surprisingly, the text is permeated with countless references to “experience” and “feeling”. The word “experience” and its cognates appear as many as 28 times throughout this comparatively short text. This was to be expected, since for Modernists, all religion, all faith, is ultimately reduced to personal experience, and no one has emphasized this more than Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis.

As far as the big news that had been rumored regarding the Society of St. Pius X, it turns out that in Misericordia et Misera, Francis simply extends indefinitely the jurisdictional faculties SSPX priests and bishops need to impart sacramental absolution validly (well, validly only under the supposition that Francis is Pope, which he is not, of course). We had already hinted that this might happen back in 2015, and when Bp. Fellay explicitly stated in April of this year that Francis would extend their faculties, it was a given that it would happen. What makes the whole matter amusing is that Francis, not being a true Pope, has no power to extend any faculties to the SSPX, and even if he did, the SSPX’s position has always been that their absolutions are valid with or without his faculties. So, the whole thing is a farce on both counts: Francis doesn’t have it and the SSPX doesn’t think they need it — but it’s given nonetheless.

The “Missionaries of Mercy” Francis dispatched with the beginning of the Year of Mercy will continue indefinitely as well: “This extraordinary ministry does not end with the closing of the Holy Door. I wish it to continue until further notice as a concrete sign that the grace of the Jubilee remains alive and effective the world over” (n. 9).

In n. 10 of the “Apostolic Letter”, Francis claims to want his confessors to be “clear in presenting moral principles”, when this is exactly what he’s been fighting against since day one of his bogus pontificate — unless, of course, he simply means he wants the principles to be presented in order for them to be explicitly ignored.

In n. 12, Francis extends the faculties he gave to all “priests” of his sect to absolve from the sin of abortion (previously, each “priest” had to obtain special faculties from his local “bishop” for this). He then also extends, as just mentioned, faculties to the priests of the Lefebrvian SSPX: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”

At n. 16, Francis makes the puzzling claim that “[o]nce mercy has been truly experienced, it is impossible to turn back.” Needless to say, he does not clarify what he means, but note that once again it is all about experiencing mercy, and he even goes on to describe mercy as “an encounter between two hearts.” Experience, feeling, encounter — try to find something objective here, something that appeals to the intellect rather than the emotions.

The term “sanctifying grace”, by the way, does not appear in Misericordia et Misera at all. Shocker. “Beatific Vision”? You’ve got to be kidding. Of course not.

Overall, the document actually does appear to emphasize somewhat the need for sincere repentance and amendment of life as a condition of forgiveness. It’s just too bad that this is something most people won’t hear about because hardly anyone reads Vatican documents, and of course in his daily preaching Francis always acts as though anyone will obtain forgiveness simply by asking. Those Vatican II Modernists are sly. The “orthodox footnote” is always close by, it just gets drowned out in what they do and in how they speak.

Francis never says what happens to those who do not repent and are not forgiven by God, by the way. Our Lord, on the other hand, mentioned it frequently (e.g., see Mt 18:8; Mt 25:46). This is not new with Francis, though. Consider, for example, that when Benedict XVI published his first encyclical, on charity, he deliberately omitted a few words from the Scripture verse he quoted: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting” (Jn 3:16). Benedict omitted the words “may not perish.” See it for yourself at the Vatican web site here (at n. 1, second paragraph).

Toward the end of Misericordia et Misera, Francis threatens: “Now is the time to unleash the creativity of mercy…” (n. 18). Considering what we have seen so far in terms of creativity, we’d hate to ponder what the future might hold.

The Jesuit Antipope then introduces the concept of mercy as a social value, which, he says, “impels us to roll up our sleeves and set about restoring dignity to millions of people; they are our brothers and sisters who, with us, are called to build a ‘city which is reliable'” (n. 18). Unfortunately, that “reliable” city Francis dreams of is not the city which Pope St. Pius X said “cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it”. That is, the Bergoglian idea is not that city which “has been in existence and still is… Christian civilization, … the Catholic City” (Pius X, Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate), which Bergoglio abhors. No, Francis’ “reliable” city, not being the Catholic City, will crumble because it will be built on sand (cf. Mt 7:24-27). St. Pius X sought to “restore all things in Christ” (Encyclical E Supremi, n. 4) — Francis wants to restore all things in man. In his worldview, Christ only exists to forgive our sins and as an incentive to be nice to our neighbor. This is diabolical.

Francis ends his document by instituting a World Day of the Poor to be observed every year “on the Thirty-Third Sunday of Ordinary Time” (n. 21).

For all those who are looking for real Catholicism, we recommend St. Alphonsus’ refutation of the false Bergoglian concept of mercy:

The sinner exclaims, “But God is merciful!” This is the third delusion which is common to sinners, and through which so many are lost. A learned author observes, that the mercy of God sends more souls to hell than the justice of God; because these miserable ones, boldly trusting in His mercy, never cease to sin, and thus are they lost. God is very merciful. Who is there that can say He is not? But notwithstanding this, how many are there who are daily sent to hell? God is merciful — but He is also just, and for that reason He is obliged to punish those who offend Him. He uses mercy, but to whom? Even to those who fear Him. “So great is His mercy also toward them that fear Him So is the Lord merciful unto them that fear Him.” (Ps. ciii. 11-13.) But to those who despise Him, and abuse His mercy in order the more to despise Him, He executes His justice upon them. And very rightly. God pardons sin; but He cannot pardon the wish to sin. S. Augustine declares, that he who sins, thinking to repent after he has committed the sin, is not a penitent, but a mocker of God. And, on the other hand, the Apostle tells us, that God will not be mocked, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked.” (Gal. vi. 7.) It would be mocking God to offend Him as we please, and how we please, and afterwards to expect to reach heaven.

But, as during my past life God has shown so many mercies towards me, and has not punished me, therefore do I hope He will show mercy for the future [as in, “God never tires of forgiving” –N.O.W.]. This is the fourth delusion. Therefore, because God has had compassion upon thee, for this reason, He must ever show mercy to thee, and must never chastise thee? No, indeed, for the greater have been His mercies to thee, the more oughtest thou to tremble lest He should never pardon thee again, but should chastise thee if again thou dost offend Him. We are told not to say, “I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the Most High is a patient rewarder,” (Ecclus. v. 4,) for God endures, but will not do so for ever; when the mercies which He is willing to show towards a sinner come to an end, then does He punish the sinner for his sins altogether. And the longer He has waited for the sinner to repent, so much the more severe will be the sinner’s punishment; as S. Gregory observes, “Those whom He waits for the longer, He punishes the more severely.” If, therefore, my brother, thou feelest that thou hast offended God many times, and that God has not sent thee to hell, thou oughtest to say, “It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed.” (Lam. iii. 22.) Lord, I thank Thee that Thou hast not sent me to hell as I deserved. Think of the number who have been condemned for less sins than thine. And with this thought thou oughtest to seek as far as thou canst to atone for the offences thou hast committed against God, by repentance, prayer, and good works. The patience that God has shown towards thee ought to animate thee, not, indeed, to displease Him more, but to serve Him better and to love Him more; seeing that He has shown so many mercies to thee, which He has not shown to others.

(St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Preparation for Death [Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott & Co., 1869], pp. 171-172)


Just saying.
 
Registrado
9 Jul 2015
Mensajes
65.738
Calificaciones
178.607
Abro un hilo que recopile todos los temas relacionados con El Vaticano.

Inicio el hilo con un largo pero muy interesante artículo que trata sobre la división existente dentro de la Iglesia Católica...

Está en inglés.

October 18, 2016, Tuesday -- Vatican Pravda?

"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 (link). 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. (link) For the full text of this article, see below. (Special note: the Vatican Insider website is different from and has nothing to do with Inside the Vatican magazine, which I founded and direct; to subscribe to Inside the Vatican monthly magazine, click here)


==================


Pravda on the Tiber?


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 (shown here talking privately with Pope Francis during a flight on the papal airplane) and Giacomo Galeazzi


(photo left) on the Vatican Insider website (a project of one of Italy's leading daily newspapers, La Stampa of Turin).


I publish the entire article below, but here is the link.


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."


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.


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.


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.


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.


==================


The Controversial Article


Below is the Vatican Insider article which has aroused such controversy.


Once again, I publish the entire text of the article here, but it can also be found at this link.


So everything that follows is from the article, not my own writing, which ends here.


================================


Catholics Who Are Anti-Francis But Love Putin


Journey to the world of Francis’ opponents, where regionalists, Ratzinger nostalgics and enemies of the Council are joined by a common disapproval of the current Pope: “There is chaos in the Church because of the Pope”




(This photo, taken on February 11, 2013, the day that Pope Benedict announced his resignation, illustrates the Vatican Insider article, which has the following caption: "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, however, has denied this interpretation")


October 16, 2016


By Giacomo Galeazzi and Andrea Tornielli


Rome


The glue that holds them together is their aversion towards Francis. The world of Francis dissenters ranges from Lefebvrians who have decided to “wait for a traditional Pope” before renewing their communion with Rome, to catholic regionalists who compare Francis to his predecessor Ratzinger and promote the campaign “Benedict is my Pope.”



Then there are the ultra-conservatives of Fondazione Lepanto — a foundation that aims to protect the principles and institutions of the Christian civilization — and websites that share sedevacantist positions, adamant that the Catholic writer Antonio Socci (photo) was right to argue that Bergoglio’s election is invalid, simply because a vote was cancelled without a scrutiny in the March 2013 Conclave.


This was because one of the cardinals mistakenly placed an extra ballot in the ballot box.


The voting resumed immediately to wipe away any doubts and without any of the cardinal electors raising any objections.


Prelates and traditionalist intellectuals have signed appeals or protested against the Argentinian Pope’s open pastoral attitude with regard to communion for remarried divorcees and dialogue with the Chinese government.


Opposition to the Pope unites people and groups that are very different among them: soft criticism is expressed by online newspaper La Bussola Quotidiana and monthly newspaper Il Timone, directed by Riccardo Cascioli.



The Argentinian Pope is also reproached almost on a daily basis by L’Espresso’s former Vatican affairs journalist Sandro Magister (photo).


Then there are the revelatory and mocking comments made by Maria Guarini (photo below left) in Italian blog Chiesa e Postconcilio and the harsher criticisms made by ultra-traditionalist and sedevacantist groups, those who believe there has not been a worthy Pope since Pius XII.


Italian newspaper La Stampa visited the places and protagonists of this opposition to Francis which is contained in terms of numbers but widespread on the web. Those behind this opposition, use the Internet and private meetings between clerics, combining frontal and public attacks with more articulate strategies.



Alessandro Gnocchi, who writes for the Riscossa Cristiana and Unavox websites, is on the frontline of web criticism against the Pope: “Bergoglio is systematically surrendering the Church to the world, the Church is becoming worldly. His pontificate is based on the brutal handling of power. Never has the faith been so debased.”


(Photo below of Alessandro Gnocchi, who is included among the "opponents" of Pope Francis because he has written that "the Church is becoming worldly")




Opposition headquarters


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 (photo). This chaos is above all to do 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 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.


Political-theological opposition


The attack against Francis is global.




“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.”


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 (photo), a consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Office of 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, below, 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 Italian newspaper Il Giornale. He stated 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 old pauperism to the dogmatic sphere.”


The Pope praises recycling and thus “the virtues of the good late-modern consumer become the new evangelical virtues.”


Theories about the two Popes


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 I 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.”


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.”


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?”


This mixed opposition has identified some bishops and cardinals as reference points.


On his blog, Magister put Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah forward as a papal candidate. Sarah is currently Francis’ liturgy minister and is much loved by conservatives and traditionalists who often quote him on their websites and publications.


Risk of a schism?


Among those considered pole stars, are first and foremost US cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Athanasius Schneider.


But beyond the amplified stories present on the web, there do not seem to be any further schisms on the horizon, after Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s in 1988.



Sociologist Massimo Introvigne (photo) is adamant about this: “There are more than 5,000 Catholic bishops in the world, only about 10 of them are active in their opposition, many of whom are retired, meaning that 10 is not substantial.”


Introvigne claims that this opposition “is present both on the web and in real life and is overestimated: there are dissidents who write comments on social networks using four or five different pseudonyms, to give the impression there are many of them.”


According to the sociologist, the movement “is not successful because it is not united. There are at least three different kinds of opposition: the political opposition of American foundations, the opposition of Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini who are not particularly interested in liturgical or moral issues — they often do not even go to church — but in immigration and the Pope’s critiques against turbo-capitalism.


"Then there is the opposition expressed by those who feel a nostalgia for Benedict XVI but do not contest Vatican II.


"And there is the radical opposition of the Society of St. Pius X or the likes of De Mattei and Gnocchi. This form of opposition rejects the Council and everything that came after it. Despite support from the odd Church figure, the contradictions between the three standpoints are destined to explode and a common front has no chance of lasting.”



Introvigne pointed out a surprising trait that many of these circles share: “It is the mythical idealization of Russian President Vladimir Putin (photo), who is presented as a 'good' leader in contrast to the 'bad' leader, the Pope, because of his stance on homosexual people, Muslims and immigrants. Russian foundations that have strong ties with Putin co-operate with the anti-Francis opposition."


[End of article]





===================


[Beginning of responses to the Vatican Insider article]


"Vatikan Pravda"?


In his critical comment on this article, Italian Catholic scholar Francesco Colafemmina, who is from Apulia in southern Italy (photo), does not mince words.




"The emails of John Podesta, head of the electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, revealed by Wikileaks, help us to understand," Colafemmina writes. "In a February 11, 2012 email — exactly one year before the resignation of Benedict XVI — Podesta answers the activist Sandy Newman, who had asked for a 'Catholic springtime' to overcome 'the medieval dictatorship' of the Catholic hierarchy. Podesta responds that he had created two 'progressive' Catholic movements, but that she is right that they need to be brought to a higher level of effectiveness in exerting pressure on the Church."


Colafemmina concludes that the original editorial aim of the Vatican Insider web project was "to create an adequate space for a one-way mediatic resonance in support of a papacy that would follow the allegedly 'obscuratist' papacy of Pope Benedict."


And he adds: "The point is that, thank God, we understand better each day that this 'media pressure' function is not connected to internal Church matters only, but rather concerns a geopolitical dimension in which the Church, led by Bergoglio, is merely a tool, and certainly not the protagonist."


He continues: "Frankly, I think Bergoglio's pontificate coincides with a clear project: to introduce the Church into the reality of the so-called New World Order. I do not mean to say in paranoid tones that there is a kind of 'conspiracy,' but rather that there is a political or geopolitical necessity.


"We live in a world increasingly dominated by financial elites and the power of technology. In this world, which has erased classical culture, which no longer rests on the cultural roots of Europe, but rather on the dictates of an amorphous cultural and moral indifference, the Church has two possibilities: (1) to be crushed by the dominant culture, or (2) to try to survive.


"To survive, the Church must assume, in a kind of deadly mimicry, the very characteristics of the dominant culture: contradiction, temporariness, ahistoricism, entropy — in particular this last, which the great sociologist Zygmut Bauman has said is the keystone of the 'culture' of the financial elites. Entropy, chaos, unpredictability, are the 'salt' of the equity markets, the 'salt' of modern politics, the 'salt' of the speculators.


"So, the issue is far more profound than the age-old controversy between traditionalists and progressives within the Church. Do you really believe that the Catholic Church with all her properties, with her embassies, with the dissemination of her ministers in every corner of the world, is underestimated by the powers of this world? Not at all...


"Bergoglio is nothing other than the expression of a large slice of the College of Cardinals, bishops and above all diplomats who had come to understand at the end of the pontificate of John Paul II that to survive the Church did not have any options other than that of working out a 'decent compromise' with the world, according to the incisive definition of the controversial, but prophetic, Jesuit Fr. Malachi Martin."


He continues: "In truth, the title in the printed newspaper edition of the article [in the Turin, Italy, newspaper La Stampa] is emblematic: 'The Anti-Francis Catholics Attracted by the Power of Putin.'


"A fundamental premise, because the basic idea is that what attracts these Catholics is not Putin's statesmanship and his geopolitical vision, but his 'power'...


"In other words, in the final analysis, everything is always the fault of Putin, the perfect dictator, the tyrannical man who exudes power, the enemy of democracy, the homophobic and intolerant, the wealthy friend of Russian oligarchs, and so on.


"The source of this association — which is only a fleeting reference at the very end of the article, though the title suggests it is the main argument of this pseudo-investigation — is a well-known sociologist [Massimo Introvigne]...


"The article passes through a sieve with scientific scrupulousness the Catholic 'dissidents,' indeed the real 'enemies,' 'opponents' of Bergoglio.


"It ranges from the 'Emeritus' Vaticanist of Espresso, Sandro Magister, to Professor De Mattei, passing by Antonio Socci and many others.


"It gives the first and last names of all of them, in a sort of mediatic 'proscription list' worthy of Sulla [Note: In 82 BC, when the Roman leader Lucius Cornelius Sulla was appointed dictator rei publicae constituendae ('Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic'), he proceeded to have the Senate draw up a list of those he considered enemies of the state and published the list in the Roman Forum. Any man whose name appeared on the list was ipso facto stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all protection under law; reward money was given to any informer who gave information leading to the death of a proscribed man, and any person who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the remainder went to the state)... Many victims of proscription were decapitated and their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum.]


"This shows clearly the nature of the future war.


"Not simply a conflict between Russia and the US, but a conflict pitting the ideology of a West without identity, without roots, without non-negotiable ethical references, against all the countries that, on the contrary, defend and promote their own identity, their own roots, their own values.


"Russia is a prime example in this regard, and an example close to us, because we speak of a Christian nation.


"But Russia also constitutes a model of the co-existence of religious and cultural diversity. An opposite model to that of the failing forced integrations of France, Germany and Great Britain.


"Russia is in the bull's-eye simply because it is the only great power antagonistic to the unipolar American vision."


And he continues: "In any case, there is no precedent for this use of journalism to marginalize, ghetto-ize, criminalize, these admittedly sometimes irritating minorities who do not conform to the unconditional assent regarding Bergoglio... It is unprecedented because this use of the press for geopolitical purposes, in order in the end to cancel all freedom of expression, through the ridiculing of dissent, shows what power such journalism is serving."


And he concludes: "None of this was unexpected. In November 2013, I published a few extracts from an interesting book on the Church and her geopolitical prospects by Fr. Malachi Martin [Note: The Keys of This Blood]. In particular this: 'The reduction of the Pope in his high office will be the result of the belief that the original Petrine and papal office as practiced by the Romans and all the Popes until the last third of the 20th century, was in fact nothing more than the result conditioned by the time of cultural fashions that stretch back for centuries; and it is now time to degrade the importance to be able to release the 'spirit of Vatican II' to model the Church in an image that suits the liberal conception of a new era, very different from the previous one. Roman Catholics will then have the spectacle of a Pope validly elected who cuts the entire visible body of the Church loose from the traditional unity and the papacy-oriented apostolic structure that the Church has hitherto always believed and taught was divinely established. The shudder that will shake the Roman Catholic body in that day will be the shudder of its death agony... Many will accept the new regime. Many will resist. All will be fragmented. There will be no one on earth to hold the fractionating members of the visible Roman Catholic body together as a living compact organization.”


=====================


"Both statements are false"


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." (link)


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."


=========================


"You can also betray a person with too much applause"


The English translation of Father Cervellera's very interesting article has just appeared, published in AsiaNews, which covers in a professional and faithful way all events related to the Church in Asia. The text is below.


The article may also be found at this link.


Here is the full text of the article by Father Cervellera (photo).


October 18, 2016


VATICAN-ASIA


The "Enemies" of Pope Francis



By Fr. Bernardo Cervellera (photo)


The charge made against AsiaNews that we are against the Pope and in favor of Putin, is an opportunity to outline what motivates our commitment to evangelization. And also to ask for greater professionalism from those who write about the Pope. The Pope does not need public defenders. Facilitating dialogue between "conservatives" and "progressives" to realize the Council and concern ourselves with the world so that it encounters Jesus Christ. Christ’s “enemies” were also his "friends."


Rome (AsiaNews) – Not a day goes by without AsiaNews publishing reports of the Pope's homilies, speeches, audiences, summaries of encyclicals. We are among the fastest agencies to offer what the Pope teaches on-line with translations into Italian, Chinese, Spanish and English.


Many Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans are grateful for the speed with which they can access the Pope’s words, particularly since the official sites are too slow.


We chose to offer this service, which occupies us every day, even on Sundays, to help the Churches in Asia to receive the words of the Pope as soon as possible. We did this with Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now with Pope Francis.


This service is especially useful to Chinese Catholics. And since the AsiaNews site is sometimes blocked by the Beijing authorities, we have been given the go ahead to another, more anonymous, website titled "Ascoltiamo Papa Francesco.net" [Listen to Pope Francis –ed]to republish our articles on Pope Francis in Italian and Chinese (seeing is believing), even if the website owners sign our articles (in a clear breach of professional ethics). But this fact matters little to us: "provided that Christ be announced" as Saint Paul says. (Philippians 1, 18).


Given this experience, 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.


With regards China, while we exalt its achievements in space and its progress among the great powers of the world, we do not forget the problems of pollution or the Dalai Lama, who for us is almost like a migrant, an exile, similar to those many exiles and migrants Pope Francis embraced in Lampedusa.


Equally so on questions regarding the Catholic Church, while we report on Pope Francis enthusiasm towards Xi Jinping, we can not forgo reporting on the deep sorrow that the silence regarding persecution is causing among underground Christians. Because this regards an estimated 5 million people who for decades have given their lives — sometimes even their blood — for the Gospel and who now, suddenly, have disappeared from public concerns.


In the article in question, an academic among the most optimistic regarding dialogue between China and the Vatican — I remember that in 2005, after the death of John Paul II, he had predicted that a diplomatic agreement would be signed, one that we still await with faith and hope — well, this "super-optimist" says that we are "allied" with "Hong Kong environments, sectors in the US and European right" to push Pope Francis to favor religious freedom over the unity of the Church in China.


This opinion, in our view, is unfounded: we have never received visits or awards from a US president or Secretary of State, nor European.



But perhaps the super-optimistic academic meant — at most — that we often publish articles by Card. Joseph Zen (photo), who is as concerned about the fate of underground Christians as we are. If I were Pope Francis I would appreciate my Cardinals telling me about the problems that these Christian suffer who are ... very much on the peripheries, the face of the suffering Christ, part of my flock for which I have to give my life.


Unfortunately Pope Francis has few friends of this caliber. He does not even have them amongst expert Vatican journalists.


And in fact, my greatest pain is to see the blacklist drawn up in that article: that site, that journalist, that priest, the bishop, the cardinal.


I wonder what it's for, and I fear it is being used to divide, thanks to the unguarded work of these coryphaei who are self-appointed "infallible interpreters" of the pope, and defenders of the pope.


When Pope Francis rose to the papacy, it was clear that he wanted to actuate the Second Vatican Council (as he says in his encyclicals).


For this it was necessary (and is still necessary) to unite, to dialogue and find a common way among so-called Catholic "conservatives" and "progressives," whose division is one of the nastiest wounds that we have been carrying around for decades.


If you listen to everything Pope Francis actually says, then you realize that he really is a Pope of tradition in development, above the "hermeneutic of rupture" typical of conservatives and progressives.


Unfortunately it seems that the two parties — also thanks to the secular media — are driving their divisions deeper and hardening their stance even more.


It is the Pope’s task, as the symbol of unity of the Church, to work to repair this. It is the task of expert Vatican journalists to outline how this work is progressing. I have no comment on this desire to hand down judgements on who is good and who is bad.


My advice, if you really want to help Pope Francis, is to support his position of dialogue — which is something we would also like to see among the "souls" of the Church in China — drawing out the shred of truth which the Spirit — as our Pope always says — also instills in Muslims, Jews, Hindus ... let alone we Christians.


This work of dialogue with the most distant positions is all the more urgent because of the abyss of secularization and indifference that is engulfing the world. The world believes if the Church is united ("that all may be one so that the world may believe," says the Gospel of John).


This is what should concern us — right and left in the Church — rather than being seen as exhibitionist "superapostles," we should be concerned about how to interest the world in faith in Jesus.


Unfortunately, the debate among many Christians is now polarized on "for or against the Pope" and not on the mission to the world.


In a similar vein this is seen in all debate on diplomatic relations with China, and no one is discussing how to bring the Christian faith to this country that thirsts for God, before diplomacy.


As for the Pope, the Pope does not need public defenders.


First of all, because he is well "armored": a press office, a television center, a newspaper, a radio...


But then, especially since Pope Francis himself said he is not interested in hearing people shout "Long live the Pope!"


He wants to hear "Long live Jesus Christ!"


And even if it should be the case that the Pope is hurt or criticized, it only conforms him even more to Jesus Christ who was scourged, even struck by his "enemies", but betrayed by his "friends."


You can also betray a person with too much applause.


The Moynihan Letters are posted here.


Note: The Moynihan Letters go to over 20,000 people around the world. If you would like to subscribe, simply email me an email address, and I will add you to the list. Also, if you would like to subscribe to our print magazine, Inside the Vatican, please do so! It would support the old technology of print and paper, as well as these Moynihan Letters. Click here.

What is the glory of God?


"The glory of God is man alive; but the life of man is the vision of God." —St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the territory of France, in his great work Against All Heresies, written c. 180 A.D.
Esto es un hilo, o una epístola, o un sermón, vamos, que no me interesa mucho, y en inglés, al menos si me interesara, lo habría puesto e n el traductor.
 
Registrado
9 Jul 2015
Mensajes
65.738
Calificaciones
178.607
No me gusta leer barbaridades y falta de respeto hacia el representante supremo de una religion tan importante como es la catolica. Por favor, muestren respeto a algo que ha existido por mas de 2,000 anios. No tengo nada personal en contra de vosotros, solo os pido respeto hacia el Papa y hacia la Iglesia Catolica. Solo eso. El "cotilleo" no debe llegar hasta ese punto. Tengamos un poco de respeto por las cosas serias, por favor......

Cuando El Papa y la Iglesia católica respete a las personas. Para empezar, que saquen algo de dinero de su banco, y lo repartan.

“Quiero enfatizar que el aborto es un pecado grave. Con la misma fuerza, sin embargo, afirmo que no existe ningún pecado que la misericordia de Dios no pueda alcanzar
upload_2016-11-21_23-56-11.png upload_2016-11-21_23-56-43.png

Bastante aguantamos a políticos, monarquías, etc... como para aguantar encima al Papa y a los curas.
Y eso que en mi época era cuando teníamos que entrar en la iglesia con velo, al menos en esa España profunda castellanaleonesa, y las 6 beatas, siempre en los banco de delante, y eran las que y creo que siempre metiendo cizaña al cura del pueblo.
El cura vivía con su hermana, y tenia sobrinos, sobrinas, que vivian como reyes, vamos que no les faltaba de nada, los pobres del pueblo, lo justo para pagar la luz.

Anda que les den..

Que yo conozca solamente puedo hablar, hace años, de 4 curas, que a yudaban a un barrio, en la ciudad donde me fui a vivir, e incluso trabajaban de albañiles dos.
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
El secuestro de Francisco. ¿Ha cambiado algo el Papa en materia el aborto? Nada
22/11/2016 11:55 en Enormes minucias, Portada



  • El aborto continúa siendo un “crimen horrendo”.
  • Lo que ocurre es que hay tantos abortos, tantos homicidios cobardes, que el Papa se ve obligado a que sean los sacerdotes de base quienes puedan absolver el horrible pecado del aborto.
  • Los sacerdotes no perdonan, porque el que perdona en la confesión es Dios, no el hombre.
  • Y el aborto sigue siendo tan miserable, hoy como ayer.

El Papa Francisco ha permitido que la mujer que aborte, reciba la absolución de un cura, en lugar de la de un obispo. Lo han pregonado todos los medios. Ni la mitad de ellos han recordado las palabras de Francisco acerca el aborto: es un crimen horrendo. Aun menos son lo que han recordado que Francisco no ha reducido un ápice la gravedad del pecado: el aborto es tan grave que seguirá implicando excomunión inmediata.

Francisco no ha cambiado la doctrina, sólo ha facilitado perdón, para quien no se arrepienta, de crimen tan miserable.

Pero la interpretación más idiota, es decir, la más general, podemos resumirla así: “Encima del dolor sufrido por la mujer que aborta, la Iglesia le cierra la puerta”.

¿Pero quién lo ha dicho? El pecado de aborto siempre será perdonado, como todos, si el confesor ve arrepentimiento en el penitente.

Ahora bien, el aborto es el crimen más cruel, con la víctima más inocente y más indefensa de todos los crímenes. Entonces, ¿de qué estamos hablando cuando nos referimos al dolor de la madre? Dolor del bebé que muere de forma sangrienta.

¿Y por qué todo este jaleo? Pues porque el Papa Francisco sabe muy bien lo que hace pero vive secuestrado en el Vaticano. Y Espero que no pase de secuestrado a mártir.

Eulogio López

[email protected]
 
Registrado
26 Ago 2013
Mensajes
24.276
Calificaciones
137.760
Resisting the Pope? “The Remnant” and the Suppression of the Jesuits

January 16, 2017

Print Friendly
Read The Remnant at your own risk…

Resisting the Pope?
The Remnant and the Suppression of the Jesuits




In their desperate quest to find some historical precedent for acknowledging a blaspheming public apostate (“Pope” Francis) as the Vicar of Christ while at the same time resisting and contradicting the man’s every utterance, the semi-traditionalists at The Remnant have published a superficially-researched and sloppily-written blog post that turns out to be nothing more than yet another propaganda piece for their recognize-and-resist position.

We are talking about the blog post “Resisting Papal Errors: Another Historical Precedent for Cardinal Burke” by Chris Jackson (Jan. 12, 2017). The author cites the case of Christophe de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris from 1746-1781, who refused to suppress the Jesuits in his diocese after Pope Clement XIV (r. 1769-1774) officially declared them suppressed and ordered them to disband. Beaumont, so Jackson argues, is a heroic model of resistance against a Pope who leads the Church into ruin, and sets a clear precedent that legitimizes the conduct of people like “Cardinal” Raymond Burke with respect to “Pope” Francis.

For the purposes of this post we will leave aside the disgraceful audacity that tries to draw a parallel between a hapless disciplinary decision by a clearly Catholic Pope and the abominable heresies and blasphemies being spewed on a daily basis by Jorge Bergoglio. Our main focus will simply be on evaluating whether The Remnant is right in citing the case of Abp. Beaumont’s resistance of the suppression of the Jesuit order in his diocese as an example of licit opposition to a validly-reigning Roman Pontiff.

Pope Clement XIV suppresses the Society of Jesus
On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV abolished the Society of Jesus (also known as the Jesuits) in his brief Dominus ac Redemptor Noster. As is clear from the language used, the suppression of the Society was universal and definitive and effected by nothing less than the Holy Father’s apostolic authority:

…after a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power, SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY [OF JESUS]: we deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated; we abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise; in like manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present Brief as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED, of what nature soever the said authority may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal….

(Pope Clement XIV, Decree Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, July 21, 1773; English here; underlining added.)

What occasioned the Pope to take such drastic measures against the Society of Jesus, once founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola to combat the Protestant heresy, and opposed only by the enemies of the Church and the holy Catholic Faith?

For Chris Jackson, the answer is clear-cut: “Pope Clement XIV cravenly caved in to pressures from the Church’s enemies and secular kings and ended up doing their bidding by eliminating their greatest foe and the Church’s greatest ally.” Sounds fairly simple, doesn’t it? The Pope was simply a weakling who couldn’t stand up to the Church’s enemies! Time for all real Catholics to resist! Right? Well, not so fast. The historical developments that led to the suppression of the Jesuits were a bit more complex than Jackson would have us believe.

But first, let’s look at the source on which the Remnant blogger bases his evaluation of Pope Clement’s decision to abolish the Jesuits. He uses a single authority, the Novus Ordo Church historian Warren H. Carroll (1932-2011), who expresses his horror at the suppression of the Jesuits and speaks positively about Abp. Beaumont’s resistance. Although Jackson does not tell us exactly what text he is quoting, it is presumably vol. 5 of Carroll’s History of Christendomseries: The Revolution Against Christendom.

While we have no reason to dispute the historical scholarship of Dr. Carroll, we certainly are suspicious of his theological evaluation of the historical record, for the simple reason that he was not a traditional Roman Catholic but a “conservative” Novus Ordo who submitted to Vatican II — precisely the kind of person The Remnant likes to refer to as a “Neo-Catholic”.

Ironically, Jackson endorses Carroll as a “[f]amed Catholic historian” only one paragraph after blasting “neo-Catholics”. This endorsement was clearly not vetted by veteran Remnantcolumnist Christopher Ferrara, who has a less glowing opinion of the scholar: In his recognize-and-resist manifesto The Great Facade (2nd ed., 2015), Ferrara identifies Carroll as a “neo-Catholic historian” (pp. 75, 223) and criticizes him for making “baseless remarks” in “typical neo-Catholic fashion” against Alice von Hildebrand “on the EWTN web site” (p. 93, fn. 10).

As Jackson himself mentions, Carroll was the founder of Virginia-based Christendom College— among whose founding faculty was none other than Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, another favorite Neo-Catholic target of Mr. Ferrara’s. The fact that the “famed Catholic historian” Warren Carroll once defended “Pope” John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran on the EWTN web site (see here), as lamented by Ferrara in The Great Facade (p. 223, fn. 57), doesn’t increase one’s confidence in Carroll’s theological assessment of (anti-)papal acts, either.

Instead of relying on a single Novus Ordo author other writers at The Remnant decry as a “neo-Catholic”, we suggest that genuine traditional Catholics instead to turn to — drumroll, please! — traditional Catholic sources on Church history.

One such work is Fr. Reuben Parsons’ Studies in Church History, which enjoys the approbation of Pope Leo XIII. There we read the following regarding what motivated Pope Clement XIV to suppress the Jesuit order:

Very few historians contend that Clement XIV. was actuated by other motives than a desire for peace, when he signed the Brief Domimus ac Redemptor. Picot, than whom no more judicial or veracious publicist has descanted on the events of the eighteenth century, may be regarded as representing the best thought of our day when he says: “Only after four years of pontificate, and because of the reiterated pressure of the ministers of several great powers, did Clement XIV. decree the so intensely desired abolution. . . . He insisted principally on the benefit of peace, which he believed to be involved in the destruction of those religious. Undoubtedly he thought that since several sovereigns were leagued against the Society, the Holy See would strive in vain to uphold it, or that it could no longer be of much use to the Church; and this consideration overbalanced, in his mind, the other reasons which militated in favor of so precious an organization. … It would seem that Clement XIV. was not hostile to the Jesuits; but he saw the Catholic courts conspiring against them, and he thought that he could fight no longer in their behalf”.

It is not necessary for us to dilate on this point; but the reader may reflect with profit on the considerations emitted by the ex-Jesuit, Cordara, in his correspondence with his brother, the Count of Calamandrana. In his seventh letter, he shows how the Pontiff could, without injustice, suppress the Society, even though he knew it to be innocent of ill-doing. A sovereign, he says, can certainly disband a faithful and valorous regiment, if reasons of state, such as public order, etc., seem to demand the sacrifice. The Holy Father was threatened not only with temporal losses, but with direful schisms; “therefore he deemed it wise to avoid greater evils by sacrificing the Society.” Clement XIV. did not abolish the Jesuits because of immoralities, or even because of any relaxation of discipline; he did not touch the question of the Society’s guilt of the charges brought against it; indeed, the moderation of the Brief caused Tanucci to prohibit its circulation in the kingdom of Naples. “Clement XIV.,” adds Cordara, “perceiving that the sovereigns were imbued with the opinions of Febronius, and filled with prejudices against the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, thought to impede their designs by inflicting two wounds on himself, as well as on the Church. The first wound was the suppression of our Society; the second, more difficult to heal, was the quasi-suppression of that ancient and venerable Constitution, the Bull In Coena Domini, which formed, by itself, the strength of the Holy See, supporting it in face of the Catholic universe.

These two measures will perpetuate the memory of the pontificate of Ganganelli [Clement XIV]; but this souvenir will always be accompanied by tears and moans. Would any other Pope, living, like Ganganelli, in those evil days, have acted differently? Who knows? Without doubt the Pope, as supreme pastor, possesses sovereign and legitimate power over the entire flock, even over monarchs, who are sons of the Church; but can he exercise that power, when kings declare war against him? At that unfortunate period, the power of kings greatly surpassed that of the Pope.”

Another Jesuit author, Cahour, who, we may remark en passant, does not imitate Cordara by styling Pope Clement XIV. “Ganganelli,” as Cretineau-Joly and certain other Jesuit apologists are wont to do (they never speak of “Pope Rezzonico” or of “Pope Chiaramonti”), asks, concerning the Brief of suppression: “Was it legitimate? Yes; because the Holy See had a right to suppress what it itself had established. Was it prudent and opportune? Many say that it was not. As for me, I respect the strange situation in which the vicar of Jesus Christ found himself; and I regret that on this occasion the sacrifice of Jonah, made to the fury of the waves, served only to augment the tempest”. The Jesuit Boero contends that “the true and legitimate defense of Clement XIV. is furnished by himself in his words, ‘I was forced to it — compulsus feci‘: and he enters into a labyrinth who abandons this line.”

(Rev. Reuben Parsons, Studies in Church History, vol. 4 [New York, NY: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1897], pp. 489-491; italics given; paragraph breaks and underlining added.)

In volume 2 of his History of the Catholic Church (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1935), Fr. Charles Poulet also concludes that the Pope’s hand was forced in the suppression of the Jesuits (p. 307), and he notes that it was for this reason that Clement XIV did not call his document a motu proprio, the label given to papal documents containing decisions made by the Pope of his own accord (see Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Motu Proprio”).

Historian Fr. Fernand Mourret mentions some further motives that may have led Pope Clement to suppress the Jesuit order, but note that he too makes clear that we are not simply dealing with papal weakness or diplomacy here:

All was certainly not weakness and mere diplomacy in Clement’s attitude. The Pope seems to have been convinced, as Benedict XIV had been, of the existence of certain abuses in the famous Society [of Jesus] and of the need of providing some remedy for them. To induce patience in the courts and to wait for a more favorable moment for his moderating action, he was eager to give the crowns some pledge of his intentions. He took away from the Jesuits the Frascati seminary and the Greek college; with extreme rigor he ordered an inspection of the Roman College. But he failed to count on the obstinate fierceness of the powers. On July 4, 1772, the Spanish court plainly threatened the Pope with a schism. In return for his condescension, he was given to expect the restitution of Avignon and of Benevento, detained by France and Spain. At this attempt at bargaining, the Pope’s pride revolted. He replied that he did not traffic in these matters.

(Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, vol. 6 [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1947], pp. 466-467; underlining added.)

A lengthy article that appeared in the October 1888 edition of the American Catholic Quarterly Review gives additional background on the abolition of the Society of Jesus:

What, then, was the real reason for the suppression of the Jesuits? In one word, it was the choice between two evils, which had been forced upon Clement by a powerful and unscrupulous political combination, the least of which evils seemed to him to be the suppression of the Society [of Jesus]. In other words, it was a measure extorted from an unwilling Pope, who was friendly to the Jesuits and had no confidence in their traducers, to save France, Spain, and Portugal from following the example of England by throwing off their allegiance to the head of the Church, thereby apostatizing from the faith and driving the whole Church in those kingdoms into all the untold evils of schism.



Threats were made that kingdoms would throw off their allegiance to the Church unless the prayer [=request for the supression] were granted, and these threats certainly had some significance when we call to mind the political system of Europe, which allowed the masses of the people to be ruled and kept down by a corrupt and tyrannical oligarchy. The example of England, forced into schism by the reckless tyrant Henry VIII., stood out as a warning of what might occur again if some concession were not made to the combination of tyrants who were now really laboring for the same end, and who were determined on the suppression of the Jesuits — the Pope’s body guard, as they were called — as the most effective mode of storming the castle itself and carrying the citadel of the Church by assault.



But the agents of Satan seemed to be inspired with diabolical hatred and with an invincible determination to succeed, and they pressed their suit with such insolence and brutal disregard of the feelings of the Holy Father that he at length felt compelled to yield, not because he thought it was right in itself, not that he had lost confidence in the Jesuits, not because he approved of his own action, but simply to avoid what he was made to believe would be a greater evil. Not only were threats used that kingdoms would throw off their allegiance to the Church, but in 1772 the Spanish Ambassador determined to terrify the Pope into submission, and with extraordinary pertinacity bullied the Holy See by this solemn warning on a certain occasion in public audience: “Beware, lest my master, the king, approve the project which has been entertained by more than one court, the suppression of all the religious orders! If you would save them, do not confound their cause with that of the Jesuits.” “Ah,” replied the Pontiff, “I have for a long time thought that this was what they were aiming at. They seek even more— the entire destruction of the Catholic religion — schism, perhaps heresy, such are their secret designs.” “This conversation,” remarks the historian, “raises the veil and shows that the abolition of the Jesuits was merely considered expedient for fear of greater evils. The Vicar of Christ was placed in a dilemma of the most grave and difficult character. He neither censured the Society, nor believed in the absurd calumnies launched against it, but, administering the affairs of the Church, considered it advisable to bow temporarily to the storm for fear of that greater injury to faith and morals which might be the sequence of another line of conduct.”

(H. L. R., “The Suppression of the Jesuits by Pope Clement XIV”, American Catholic Quarterly Review XIII, no. 52 [October, 1888], pp. 696-706; underlining added.)

Here we see that the reality behind the suppression of the Jesuits is a lot more complex and difficult than The Remnant‘s Chris Jackson has made it seem. What he smugly trashes as the cowardly capitulation of a weak Pope, was in reality a most difficult papal decision made in the greatest anguish. Clement XIV judged the suppression of the Jesuit order to be the lesser of two horrendous evils, one of which he was condemned to choose. Had he acted differently, we can only imagine how many neo-traditionalist armchair theologians would today be blasting him for allowing half of Europe to fall into schism and perhaps heresy simply for refusing to suppress a religious order!

The Archbishop of Paris resists the Suppression
Having now examined the motives that led to the universal disbanding of the Jesuits in 1773, we must now turn to the question of resistance to the decree of Pope Clement XIV. Although there was not much resistance to it, there was some, and Jackson brings up what is probably the most vivid example of a Catholic bishop refusing the Pope’s order, the case of Abp. Beaumont of Paris. Jackson quotes Beaumont’s letter of rebuke to the Pope at length, and there is no need for us to repeat it here, especially since the point is conceded: Abp. Beaumont did indeed refuse the Pope’s command.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is not whether there was a disobedient bishop somewhere — the issue is, was it morally permissible to disobey the suppression of the Jesuits? After all, just because a Catholic bishop did something, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.

This is where Jackson’s entire post fails spectacularly: The conclusion which the author means for everyone to accept — namely, that it was lawful for Abp. Beaumont to resist the papal abolition of the Jesuits — is not proved in the article at all; it is, rather, assumed. Jackson does not provide any evidence that this refusal was morally or theologically permissible, much less necessary — he simply hopes you will assume this or infer it from the fact that the suppression of the Jesuits resulted in a great weakening of the Church. But the mere fact that a papal decision leads to undesirable consequences does not mean that the Pope’s subjects have the right to refuse or resist it. As shown above, it was clear that both the suppression of the Jesuits and the refusal to suppress the order would result in horrendous evils. The question was, which of the two evils was more tolerable than the other?

Since Jackson does not in any way prove that Abp. Beaumont’s disobedience to the Pope was justified or laudable, we could simply say the author failed to prove his case and leave it at that. However, we will go above and beyond strict duty here and prove that not only was Abp. Beaumont’s refusal to implement the Pope’s order not permissible, it actually resulted in his automatic excommunication!

We can demonstrate this fairly easily by reading very closely what the Pope, in the same decree in which he suppresses the Society of Jesus, prescribes for anyone who fails to implement his sovereign judgment:

Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. Our will and meaning is, that the suppression and destruction of the said Society, and of all its parts, shall have an immediate and instantaneous effect in the manner here above set forth; and that under pain of the greater excommunication, to be immediately incurred by whosoever shall presume to create the least impediment or obstacle, or delay in the execution of this our will: the said excommunication not to be taken off but by ourselves, or our successors, the Roman Pontiffs.

Further, we ordain and command, by virtue of the holy obedience to all and every ecclesiastical person, regular and secular, of whatever rank, dignity, and condition, and especially those who have been heretofore of the said Company, that no one of them do carry their audacity so far as to impugn, combat, or even write or speak about the said suppression, or the reasons and motives of it, or about the institute of the Company, its form of government, or other circumstance thereto relating, without an express permission from the Roman Pontiff, and that under the same pain of excommunication….

(Pope Clement XIV, Decree Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, July 21, 1773; English here; underlining added.)

So, there we have it: If words have any meaning, then the Archbishop of Paris incurred automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) reserved to the Holy See by refusing to suppress the Jesuits in his diocese and audaciously resisting the Pope. That a blogger at The Remnant can so nonchalantly side with an excommunicated archbishop and single-handedly presume to exonerate him based on his reading of a Novus Ordo historian, is a frightening thought. This is serious business.

Of course, the semi-traditionalists have a history of not worrying much about (putative) papal excommunications if they have personally judged them to be unfair or simply “disagree” with them — and by doing so, they have imbibed two dangerous errors of Pascal Quesnel, condemned by Pope Clement XI in 1713:

[ERROR n.] 91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, aslong as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.

[ERROR n.] 92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.



Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

(Pope Clement XI, Bull Unigenitus; Denz. 1441-42)

Here we see once again that the semi-trads have simply created their own little “reality”, one in which they decide whether what comes from the Pope is to bind their consciences or not. The Pope, in their view, has no authority of himself — the authority ultimately comes from the consent of the faithful, after each individual has judged for himself whether a particular papal judgment is prudent, “traditional”, or otherwise meets their approval. This is a form of Gallicanism.

Those who accept the Suppression
The resistance of Abp. Beaumont is perhaps also seen in a clearer light when we examine how other clerics, especially the Jesuits themselves, reacted to the suppression.

Jackson himself quotes Fr. Lorenzo Ricci, then the Superior General of the Jesuits. Although Fr. Ricci believed the suppression of his order to be unjust and declared that his order was innocent of any wrongdoing, he did not presume to question or second-guess the Pope’s decision. Rather, he accepted it with humble obedience.

In Russia, while the Eastern Orthodox Empress Catherine the Great refused to obey Pope Clement’s order to suppress the Society of Jesus, the Russian Jesuits themselves knew they were bound by the papal order and begged the empress to obey the Pope. We read about this in the very same book from which Jackson quotes in his post, albeit at a different location:

The [Jesuit] fathers, however, declined to accept existence at the cost of obedience, and, in the name of his brethren, the Rector of the College of Polotsk wrote to the empress, and, while expressing deep gratitude for her good intentions, begged permission to obey the [papal] Brief of suppression. To this strange letter, in which the Jesuits earnestly petitioned for their own destruction, the empress replied that they were bound to obey her in all things not relating to matters of faith; but in order to dispel their scruples, she wrote to Rome, and obtained from Clement XIV. a decree, dated June 7th, 1774, authorizing the Jesuits of White Russia [=Belarus] to remain in statu quo till further orders.

(B[arbara] N[eave], The Jesuits: Their Foundation and History, vol. 2 [London: Burns & Oates, 1879], p. 278)

Perhaps the Jesuits themselves didn’t understand submission to the Pope quite as well as The Remnant does today.

One person we can hopefully all agree on did understand how to act in the face of the suppression of the Jesuit order, is the Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787). In a 19th-century book about the saint’s life that carries numerous approbations from various bishops of the United States, we read the following:

During the stormy pontificate of Clement XIV [St. Alphonsus’] heart was torn by the troubles that disquieted the Church, and he continually offered up prayers to God for the hapless pontiff and his persecuted flock. What particularly distressed him was, that most of the crowned heads of Europe, to their eternal shame be it recorded, incited by Jansenist or infidel influence, insisted on the suppression of the world-renowned Society of Jesus. “No one,” says his friend and biographer Tannoia, “can imagine how he sorrowed over the storm that raged against the Jesuits; he never spoke of it without feelings of the deepest distress.”

“It is nothing but intrigue on the part of the Jansenists and the unbelieving,” said the saint; ” if they succeed in overthrowing the company [of the Jesuits], their wishes will be accomplished, but if this bulwark falls, what convulsions will there not be in Church and State! The loss of the Jesuits will place the Pope and the Church in a most disastrous situation; the Jansenists aim at them, because through them they will be the more certain of striking at Church and State.”

Such were the fears and sentiments of St. Alphonsus, but the judgments of God are impenetrable! Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus, by a brief dated July 22, 1773. When the aged bishop heard this, he felt as though a thunderbolt had been hurled against him. It may well be believed that of the thousands of Jesuits which this brief disbanded, not one felt the blow more keenly than Alphonsus. Respect for the pontifical judgment closed his mouth, but the unspeakable anguish of his heart was plainly depicted on his venerable countenance. When he received the brief, he adored in silence the judgments of God, and then said: “The will of the Pope is the will of God.” One day the grand vicar and other persons of distinction appeared to cast blame on the dispositions of the Pope: “Poor Pope,” he exclaimed, “what could he have done in such delicate circumstances, when so many monarchs demanded their suppression. As for us, we have only to adore the secret judgment of God, and remain in peace.” Yet he seems to have regarded the suppression as merely temporary: “I assert,” said he with unusual energy,” that if but a single Jesuit be left in the world, he alone will be sufficient to re-establish the Society [of Jesus].”

(Austin Carroll, The Life of St. Alphonsus Liguori [New York, NY: P. O’Shea, 1886], pp. 414-415; underlining added.)

It does not look like St. Alphonsus would have made the list of Jackson’s “courageous men of the Church who carried the cross of the Faith even in the face of persecution from Christ’s own vicar” — bummer! As the Church’s “prince of moral theologians” (Catholic Encyclopedia), however, we may surmise that St. Alphonsus took the right course of action even in this case.

“The will of the Pope is the will of God!” — Thank heavens that these words were spoken by St. Alphonsus Liguori and not by a sedevacantist on the internet! Can you imagine what a Chris Ferrara, a Michael Matt, a Steve Skojec, or a Hilary White would have said to that? Can you imagine? Cries of “Papolatry!”, “Papal Positivism!”, and “Ultramontanism!” would incessantly reverberate throughout the cyber-globe. We would never hear the end of it.

Concluding Thoughts
As we come to the end of Jackson’s post, we see that he did not provide any evidence — only his own opinion, really, supported by one Neo-Catholic historian at best — that Abp. Beaumont’s resistance against Pope Clement’s suppression of the Jesuits was morally permissible. In what seems like a final effort to persuade his readers that the recalcitrant Archbishop of Paris acted rightly, the Remnant contributor quotes the following anecdote, presumably from Warren Carroll’s work again (Jackson does not cite the source), regarding the death of Clement XIV in 1774:

In his final hours he knew what he had done, crying in despair “I have cut off my right hand.” Ghosts pursued him in his sleep; in the silence of the night he would kneel before a miniature of the Virgin detached from his prayer book, perhaps remembering that she is ever the refuge of those who have no other hope.

(Chris Jackson, “Resisting Papal Errors: Another Historical Precedent for Cardinal Burke”, The Remnant, Jan. 12, 2017)

Perhaps Jackson hopes that the reader will accept this depressing episode as substitute “proof” that resisting the Pope’s abolition of the Society of Jesus was the right thing to do, when, of course, all it could possibly establish, at best, is that the Pope regretted his own decision, not that submitting to the papal judgment was optional.

However, not all historians are as bleak in their description of the death of Clement XIV as Jackson’s unidentified source is. Fr. Mourret, for example, notes that the Pope “died piously, assisted by St. Alphonsus Liguori, on September 22, 1774” (History of the Catholic Church, vol. 6, p. 470). Yes, the very St. Alphonsus who, despite his personal anguish over the suppression of the Jesuits, kept silent and venerated the papal judgment as the judgment of God, bilocated to console and assist the dying Pontiff. How is that for heroic!

By the way, the Jesuits were universally reconstituted by order of Pope Pius VII in 1814. In his bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum of August 7, Pope Pius abrogated the brief Dominus ac Redemptor Noster of Clement XIV: “This letter and its intended effects we wish now to abrogate expressly and in particular, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.” Let us not gloss over the fact that abrogating a prior papal document is only possible because formerly that document was actually in force. It takes another papal act to repeal it, not brazen “resistance” by inferiors who consider themselves above the judgments of the Pope.

It is a real pity that The Remnant has given its readers such a distorted view of the facts concerning the abolition of the Jesuit order. That is what happens when you publish propaganda instead of historical analysis, when the position you take is not determined by Catholic teaching applied to empirical facts but by a blind and dogmatic ideology that you simply refuse to give up, come hell or high water.

Once again it appears that, contrary to what they proclaim and what they continually tell themselves, the semi-traditionalists simply do not believe in the Papacy. That is the horrible damage the recognize-and-resist position causes in souls. Yet it is not difficult to see that papal authority would be chimerical and no legislation or judgment of the Pope could ever really be effective if each subject were first entitled to evaluate the directive and personally decide whether it is prudent or not and then make a decision as to whether to carry it out. The idea is preposterous theoretically and unworkable in practice.

Note that we are not talking about commands that are in themselves sinful — those must obviously be refused. An example would be if the Pope directed a bishop to go around his diocese stealing money from people in order to raise funds for a renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica. That would be sinful and would have to be refused. But for the Pope to order that the Society of Jesus will be abolished, is not in and of itself sinful. The decision might be prudent or imprudent and lead to good or bad consequences, but it is certainly not wrong per se (unlike stealing, fornication, or blasphemy, for instance). The Pope has to answer for his own judgments and decisions in the end; his inferiors do not have to answer for them. And the Pope answers only to God, not to a group of cardinals or to individual bishops, and certainly not to bloggers on the internet, be they at The Remnant or at Novus Ordo Watch.

The same Papacy that has the authority to approve the Jesuits also has the authority to revokethat approval; and if the Pope one day decrees that they are suppressed, then they are suppressed. If the Pope permits, one may voice one’s opinion that the decision does not seem prudent, or one may lament that it will inflict great harm on the Church — but one cannot simply resist it. And there are probably not a few who are thinking that it would be a real blessing if in our day the Jesuits were once again suppressed!


  • 83
 
C

chica

Guest
hay que ponerlo en español, este es un foro en español, no en inglés.



EL EXTRAÑO CASO DE EMANUELA ORLANDI



by Laura Poggiani






Indice



El caso de Emanuela Orlandi, hija de un vendedor de la Prefectura de la Casa Pontificia, hizo mucha sensación a su tiempo y sucesivamente todavía de más a causa de las declaraciones sobre su hipotética suerte que, puntualmente, se han asomado en los momentos más distintos.

Del entonces quinceañeros Emanuela se perdieron las huellas el 22 de junio de 1983. Aquel día la chica fue a las 17.00 a una lección de flauta cerca del Conservatorio Pontificio y sucesivamente, a las 19.00, le llamó por teléfono a la hermana contando de haber recibido una propuesta de volantinaggio por un desfile de moda y preanunció la inmediata vuelta a casa. Algunos testimoniaron luego de la haber visto a la parada del autobús donde también se acercó un coche BMW negro. Sucesivamente el cardenal Oddi declaró que Emanuela aquella tarde regresó a Vaticano para salir de ello sobre un coche.

Inicialmente pareció una desaparición de una adolescente como mucha, pero cosa de poco tiempo se convirtió en uno de los casos más oscuros de la historia italiana que implicó Vaticano, Instituto por las Obras de Religión (IOR), Banda del Magliana, Banco Ambrosiano y servicios ocultos de muchos Estados, en un enredo que no ha sido desenredado todavía.

Su caso rebota de nuevo sobre las páginas de la crónica cuando, después del atentado a Giovanni Paolo II, Alì Agca revela que, a suyo decir, Emanuela Orlandi estaría vivo y escondido en Turquía dónde hasta se habría casado pero también esta voz, como mucha otras, no semeja encontrar grandes cotejos.

Todo esto hasta junio de 2008, cuando a la improvisación Sabrina Minardi, la ex compañera del jefe de la asillamada "Banda" del Magliana, Enrico De Pedis, dicho Renatino, revela que Emanuela habría sido secuestrado y matada después de que su padre, en virtud del trabajo que desarrolló a la época en la Prefectura vaticana, se puso en contacto con de los papeles candentes. El secuestro habría sido solicitado, según una confianza hecha por De Pedis al mismo Minardi, hasta de Mons. Paul Casimir Marcinkus, entonces presidente del Instituto por las Obras de Religión (IOR), el banco del Vaticano, interesado a regular algunos juegos de poder; el Minardi además habría añadido de haber acompañado personalmente a chicas complacientes a encuentros privados con el monseñor.

La mujer también revela la colocación del escondite donde prisionero Emanuela habría sido tenido y esta vez estas declaraciones semejan encontrar cotejos objetivos.

Lo que ha llevado a conectar el De Pedis al Orlandi es un conjunto de hechos muy curiosos y particulares, primero entre todos el extraño hecho de la sepultura de De Pedis. La basílica de Sant'Apollinare a Roma, en cuyo cripta se encuentran su cuerpo, hace parte del mismo edificio en que tuvo sede la escuela de música frecuentada por la chica, dónde Emanuela fue visto por la última vez.

A avalorar la hipótesis y a hacer volver a las crónicas la extraña unión también fue el hijo de Roberto Calvos, según el que el caso de la muerte del padre y los oscuros hechos del Banco Ambrosiano sería atado estrechamente a la desaparición de la joven. Todos hechos conectaron a la Banda del Magliana y a Enrico De Pedis.

Les se evidencia al mismo tiempo en el ámbito de las investigaciones como Emanuela te pareces físicamente a otras a 11 chicas, todas desapariciones en el mismo período y aunadas por la idéntica pasión de desfondar como modelos.


EL TEMA DE EMANUELA




Capricornio asc. Sagitario, su TN enseña, ya desde el primer vistazo, algunos elementos cuanto menos inquietantes. Júpiter, dispositore del Asc., se encuentra en Casa IX, aquel del extranjero, opuesto a Marte, definido por la tradición lo "pequeño maléfico", nos habla de posibles accidentes, también graves, que puedan haber implicado Emanuela. La Luna, expresión de la feminidad, es también ella en una posición bastante delicada: dispositore de la Casa 8, aquel de la muerte, es situado justo en las 8° y forma el ápice de una figura, llamada "Punto de Tales", que la colega justo a la oposición Giove/Marte mencionado. Además, la Luna también es cuadrada sea a Saturno, definido el Gran Maléfico de la tradición, que a Urano, planeta de los acontecimientos imprevistos.
Todo parece, por lo tanto, hablar de un acontecimiento repentino y violento (Urano/Marte en aspecto a la Luna) que puede causar la muerte, casa 8° pesadamente implicado. Marte-violencia, además, es particularmente negativo: además de los ya emplazados aspectos, son también cuadrado a Neptuno y a cuadrado all' As, un engaño a la base de un acontecimiento que puede causar violencia al sujeto.


A la luz de la astrología Uraniana, el análisis del TN de Emanuela añade ulteriores detalles interesantes.

SOLE=MARTE/ZEUS
Heridas de quemaduras y fuego en general.


SOLE=URANO/HADES
Grande peligro, sujeto que se encuentra de repente expuesto a acontecimientos que causan ferite/morte repentino, homicidio en las horas diurnas, pérdidas a causa de desacuerdos y a tensiones.

SOLE=HADES/VULKANOS
Deformacion. Mutilación. Cuerpo que se contamina y se debilita. Constricción a vida de dependencia.


LUNA=SATURNO/APOLLON Oras de lección. Separación. Abandono de un proyecto educativo. Separación entre naciones.

LUNA=MARTE/ADMETOS
Obbligo de trabajar en sitios abarrotados. Trabajo de prisionero o de esclavo. Situaciones de terror.


MARTE=SATURNO/ADMETOS
Periodo muy triste. Enfermedad, separación o interrupción del trabajo por un largo período de tiempo. Muerte por inversión.



A la luz de lo que emerge con la Astrología Uraniana, por lo tanto, se reducen notablemente las esperanzas de todavía encontrar Emanuela en vida.


Sobre la triste suerte de Emanuela también las Estrellas Fijas semejan aumentar la dosis.

Marte juntado Fomalhaut.

Fomalhault, Alfa Piscis Austrinus, dicha también "boca" del pez, favorece el sublevarse de hostilidad de parte de personas potentes o encumbradas. Además esta conjunción también indica muchos enemigos sea secretos que patentes, momentos de fuertes dificultades personales, peligro de traumas o heridas.

Un último detalle interesante: el Sol de Marcinkus es juntado al de Emanuela mientras aquel de De Pedis es al trigono exacto de los dos.
 
D

Deleted member 14019

Guest
recuerdo muy bien este caso, yo vivià en España en ese momento, es un misterio terrible y como tantos otros sin resolver, el vaticano metido en medio, se hablaba de fiestas y orgias con adolescentes y drogas y tambien de la mafia, es que como siempre digo, ese sitio es el infierno en la tierra...me temo que jamàs sabremos lo que le ha ocurrido a la pobre chica...

http://www.sinembargo.mx/17-03-2013/559526
 
D

Deleted member 14019

Guest
LA ELITE Y LA PEDOFILIA IV :EL VATICANO Y EL CASO EMANUELA ORLANDI

ETIQUETAS: REESCRIBIENDO LA HISTORIA PUBLICADO POR AXIER AUGE DOMINGO, 3 DE MAYO DE 2015
LA ELITE Y LA PEDOFILIA IV :EL VATICANO Y EL CASO EMANUELA ORLANDI





ROMA - Desde 1983, cuando tenia15 años de edad, Emanuela Orlandi desapareció en una calle en su camino a casa de una clase de música, los investigadores han tenido problemas para resolver su desaparición. Varias teorías han empatado el presunto secuestro a la intriga que involucra los servicios secretos italianos, el crimen organizado, incluso el intento de asesinar a Juan Pablo II - o, posiblemente, a los tres.

El lunes, la policía expertos forenses persiguieron otra ventaja, la exhumación de la tumba de un notorio jefe del crimen local en una iglesia del Vaticano , donde algunos especularon Emanuela podría haber sido enterrada. Además de sus restos, se encontraron con cientos de otros huesos en un antiguo osario cercano en la cripta. La policía dijo que los prueban para ver si alguno podría haber sido de Emanuela.

La exhumación añade un nuevo capítulo a la de 29 años de edad, el misterio que ha cautivado a los italianos, en particular debido a Emanuela era la hija de un empleado del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano - y un ciudadano del Vaticano, un hecho que muchos ven como una clave para la comprensión su desaparición.


Una teoría dice que fue secuestrada por orden de un arzobispo estadounidense Paul C. Marcinkus , ex presidente del banco del Vaticano que estaba vinculado a un gran escándalo bancario italiano en la década de 1980.

Otros citan una llamada telefónica anónima el Vaticano recibió semanas después de la desaparición de Emanuela, exigiendo la liberación de Mehmet Ali Agca, el hombre armado que le disparó al papa Juan Pablo II en la Plaza de San Pedro en 1981, a cambio de su liberación.

En 2005, una llamada anónima a un programa de televisión sobre la desaparición añadió una pieza al rompecabezas: "Para encontrar la solución al caso ve a ver quién está enterrado en la cripta de la basílica de San Apolinar," un hombre no identificado, dijo , en referencia a la tumba del jefe de la mafia local Enrico De Pedis, conocido como Renatino, quien fue baleado en Roma en 1990.



Policías forenses entraron en la basílica de San Apolinar

La persona que llama también implicaba que Emanuela había sido secuestrado como un favor al cardenal Ugo Poletti, que en 1983 era el vicario general de Roma.

Cardenal Poletti murió en 1997, y el arzobispo Marcinkus en 2006.

Aún quedan preguntas acerca de por qué el Sr. De Pedis, un miembro de la banda criminal Magliana, fue enterrado en una iglesia propiedad de la Santa Sede. Su tumba se encuentra en una pequeña habitación cerrada con llave en una cripta debajo de la iglesia. Lorenzo Radogna, el abogado de la esposa del Sr. De Pedis, dijo el lunes que el cadáver sería llevado a la parcela familiar en el cementerio principal de Roma o incinerado.

Sentar rumores a descansar que el Vaticano había obstruido las investigaciones sobre la desaparición de Emanuela, el mes pasado la Santa Sede aceptó la apertura de la tumba del señor De Pedis.

Pietro Orlandi, hermano de la joven desaparecida, dijo el lunes que la decisión refleja una nueva colaboración entre el Vaticano y los fiscales italianos que investigan el caso.

"Es muy positivo", dijo el Sr. Orlandi. "Sobre todo porque este no había sido el caso en el pasado." El Vaticano "silencio durante 29 años sigue siendo inexplicable para mí", dijo. "Nunca esperé que ella este enterrada allí, pero era importante para aclarar una duda." Dijo que estaba convencido de que la verdad detrás de la desaparición de su hermana "se conoce a mucha gente."

Sr. Orlandi también dijo que planeaba llevar una marcha al Vaticano a finales de este mes, con la esperanza de que el papa "reconocer públicamente" su hermana.




Hay quienes han afirmado tener pruebas de que Emanuela aún estaba viva, y no ha habido informes de avistamientos de la ahora adulta Emanuela, en lugares como Turquía e Inglaterra.

Un libro publicado el mes pasado va tan lejos como para sugerir que ella está viviendo en Roma. "La reapertura de la tumba es lanzar las personas fuera de la pista", dijo Roberta Hidalgo, el autor del libro.

Funcionarios de la policía confirmó el lunes que la tumba contenía el cuerpo del señor De Pedis, identificados mediante sus huellas dactilares. Dijeron que las pruebas se llevarán a cabo en los otros huesos encontrados en la antigua cripta.


"La esperanza de la familia es que no se encontraron los restos", dijo Massimo Krogh, abogado de la familia Orlandi. "Obviamente, siempre y cuando no encuentran nada, ellos pueden esperar que todavía está viva."
fuente:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/world/europe/opening-of-crypt-revives-a-mystery.html?_r=0

Vaticano se estremece con nuevas investigaciones respecto la muerte de Manuela Orleandi



Emanuela Orlandi y Mirella Gregory

La fiscalía de Roma liga la desaparición de Emanuela Orlandi con la de Mirella Gregory, ambas desaparecidas en 1983.

El caso de los sacerdotes pedófilos de Boston es un evento que sacudió a la Iglesia Católica y al Vaticano el año 2002, revelando los sistemáticos abusos a menores que se cometieron.


El mismo caso hizo que el arzobispo Bernard Francis Law renunciara en Boston y llegara a Roma con un cargo en la Basílica de Santa María Maggiore, informa Il Corriere della Sera.

Se investiga también el timbre de una carta de Kemmore Station de Boston. Un timbre similar entrelaza una carta anónima que relaciona la muerte de Orlandi con Gregori a una segunda carta, de la Asociación de Pedofilia "Nambla" de Estados Unidos, aparecida 19 años después de la primera, informa Il Corriere.

Durante la prolongada investigación del caso de Emanuela Orlandi existieron numerosos mensajes de un posible autor, en que se revela a un supuesto americano. Estos mensajes llegaron a los involucrados en Roma mediante telefonemas y cartas. Il Corriere reporta que se enviaron incluso pruebas como la marca de la lencería íntima de una de las desaparecidas, y que solo la madre conocía.


El escándalo que relaciona las nuevas pruebas al grupo de los sacerdotes pedófilos emerge por el interrogatorio que se desarrolló a la iglesia. En éste, se habló de la formación del Grupo de pedófilos de Nambla, en Kemmore Station, Boston.
fuente:http://www.lagranepoca.com/24545-va...estigaciones-respecto-muerte-manuela-orleandi

La pederastia ha costado a la Iglesia más de 2.000 millones de dólares



La cruz de los abusos del clero católico

Los casos de abusos sexuales a menores han costado ya a la Iglesia católica a nivel internacional más de 2.000 millones de dólares, informaron hoy los estadounidenses Michael Bemi y Patricia Neal en el simposio organizado por el Vaticano para afrontar los escándalos de clérigos pederastas.

Michael Bemi, del National Catholic Risk Retention Group, de Vermont, y Patricia Neal, directora del programa de protección de niños VIRTUS, manifestaron en la tercera jornada del simposio, que se celebra en la Pontificia Universidad Gregoriana de Roma, que esos casos han tenido "profundas consecuencias negativas" para la Iglesia católica, "cuyo corazón han perforado".

Los dos expertos precisaron que no hay valoración que pueda hacerse a las miles de víctimas, niños y adultos vulnerables, cuyas vidas cambiaron para siempre; que no se puede poner un precio a las que se quitaron la vida por la desesperación y que simplemente han analizado los daños causados a la Iglesia por estos escándalos, que nunca se sabrán al cien por cien.

Ese dinero se pagó en los acuerdos a los que se llegó en las demandas puestas por las víctimas a las diócesis, en juicios, asesoramientos legales, terapias para las víctimas y seguimiento de los agresores, entre otras.


Sobre las personas que sufrieron abusos, Bemi y Neal señalaron que todavía no existe un estudio a nivel mundial, pero que sólo en EEUU se estima que fueron unas 100.000, a las que hay que sumar los cientos de víctimas de los casos denunciados en Irlanda, Alemania, Australia, Austria, Bélgica, Brasil, Canadá, Chile, India, Holanda, Filipinas y Suiza, entre otros países.

fuente:http://www.periodistadigital.com/re...eligion-papa-vaticano-gregoriana-abusos.shtml

El Papa Ratzinger defiende los abusos sexuales de la Iglesia, “Abusos sexuales y el Vaticano”




Os ofrecemos “Abusos sexuales y el Vaticano”, documental producido por la cadena británica BBC y poco difundido, sobre la intensa labor del Vaticano y el Papa Benedicto XVI para encubrir el abuso sexual a menores por parte de miembros de la Iglesia Católica. Ha sido censurado en varios países, uno de ellos en Italia.

Se habla del documento en latín Crimen sollicitationis del Vaticano, fechado en 1962 y que durante 20 años fue responsabilidad directa del hoy exPapa Benedicto XVI y entonces cardenal Ratzinger. En el documento, resumiendo en dos palabras, se ordena mediante el secreto de confesión callar a los niños, a los sacerdotes implicados y a los testigos bajo pena de excomunión.

En el 2001 Ratzinger envía una corrección del documento original, que hoy en día sigue en vigor. Todo en él sigue igual menos una cosa: El Vaticano se arroga la competencia exclusiva de éstos casos expresamente. Lo transmite como orden a todos los obispos del mundo. Esos mismos que luego le elegirían Papa.


Los obispos colaboraron y colaboran en el amparo del delito de la pedofilia ocultando los casos, trasladando de iglesia a los pedófilos, e incluso pagando en algunos casos a víctimas para callarlos. Un sacerdote durante diez años encargado de callar a los niños en EEUU, afirma que disponía para ello de 5,5 millones de euros al año. Las informaciones sobre éstos asuntos se enviaban y envían al Vaticano mediante los nuncios, los embajadores del vaticano en cada país, para aprovecharse de la impunidad de las valijas diplomáticas. Al menos siete sacerdotes buscados por la justicia norte americana, están escondidos en el Vaticano o escondidos con su ayuda. Algunos de ellos fueron trasladados a sacerdocios sudamericanos y de otros países empobrecidos, permitiendo que algunos siguieran cometiendo delitos sexuales…

Documental “Abusos sexuales y el Vaticano”:



enlace del documental:
 

Mirando este Tema (Miembros: 0, Invitados: 1)