jump to navigation

Italian priest – post-VII Church a return to the corruption that reigned prior to Trent November 5, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, Holy suffering, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, the return.

Wowzer.  That’s an interesting claim, but one that, on the surface, might be shocking to some.  Let’s see what this Don Ariel Levi di Gualdo has to say, via Rorate (I add emphasis and comments):

Catholica – In your last work, you suggest the role of certain Roman dicastries behind the denunciations of many grave scandals. Could you clarify this, above all, in explaining what the lack of seriousness in some Curia services consists of and what the most troubling compromises would imply?
Don Ariel – In this book, I explain that we did have the Second Vatican Council, but, in practice, during the following years, we returned to the period that preceded the Council of Trent, with its corruption and alarming internal struggles for power. After abundant discourses ad nauseum about dialogue, collegiality – for nearly half a century now – new forms of clericalism and authoritarianism have emerged [Having had some experience in dealing with certain parts of Church administration, I can attest to this new clericalism and authoritarianism, which I think is much worse than anything before the Council.  But “liberals” have always used a first recourse to authoritarianism to squash any opposition to their rule, be it secular or ecclesiastic.]  The progressive champions of dialogue and collegiality use aggression and coercion against anyone who thinks outside of the “ religiously correct.” It is always possible to make light of the dogmas of the Faith, to deconstruct them according to an anthropological logic, but woe to those who dare place in doubt the “sacred” and “infallible” character of the magisterium exercised by some theologians imbued by Hegel and the theology of Karl Rahner – thoughts that lead them alongside modernism and heterodoxies of every type: that [type of] man will be banned from this united and powerful “clique” in the Roman Curia as well as from the Pontifical Universities. [Or, they will be brushed aside as “crazy,” “uncharitable,” “judgmental,” “triumphalist,” and/or “restorationist.” Or, they will be told they adhere to an “outdated ecclesiology” – as if the Church’s understanding of Herself can ever change! Again, there is none so utterly intolerant of dissent than a doctrinaire progressive.]
To this we need to add that from the 1970s onwards, there has been the insertion of homosexual ecclesiastics in which the number, by cooptation, [interesting, and disturbing, choice of word. It means people in the hierarchy have been co-opted by the homosexual lobby. Does that mean REALLY coopted, to the point of sharing the same disordered inclinations, or does it simply mean they have been co-opted effectively, through blackmail, concern over scandal, intimidation, etc?  Some hard examples would be really valuable, but that’s the whole point, the entire system is organized to prevent such.]  has increased considerably over the years. Today these constitute a veritable lobby – mafia-style – powerful and ready to destroy whoever stands in their way. Processes in the inversion of values have emerged – good becomes bad, virtue is changed into vice, and vice-versa. They have gone as far as transforming sound doctrine into heterodoxy when one of these ecclesiastics is denounced to the authorities, with proof and testimonies to support it; given that the condemnation of one alone would be enough to place the whole system in danger. [Scary, scary stuff. Doctrine is turned upside down, in practice if not formally, in order to protect and justify those guilty of the worst immoralities, in order to protect and advance ecclesial careers?  Quite a claim.]  We have seen then, in many cases, the innocent punished and marginalized and the culprits of grave moral conduct, protected. [Like Msgr. Ricca, formerly at the Papal guest house cum residence and now head of the Vatican Bank?[  When it was seen opportune to expel someone from the Roman Curia, they were welcomed and protected by bishops in those dioceses where circles of influence have been installed, surrounded prevalently by homosexuals. Once again, corrupt as this system is, it is not possible to act in any other way, since if one culprit is punished, he would vindicate himself by dragging down all of the other members of this mafia: it is necessary therefore, to protect him despite the costs.
The overall impression is that of incoherence in the governing of the Church: this appears to demonstrate the promotion of some prelates.
————-End Quote—————–
Don Ariel then goes on to discuss why Pope Benedict may have been compelled to name as bishops many men who seemed to have widely divergent theological and ecclesiastical views from the Pope.  That is more speculative, and I won’t get into it.
He also notes that the Pope now seems far more powerless than any time in modern memory.  The changes in favor of “collegiality” transferred power not to bishops, but to largely unknown bureaucrats and functionaries, both in the Curia and in the national episcopal conferences. The net effect is that “collegiality” did not “restore” power “taken” from the bishops at Vatican I back to them – it created a whole new structure that has wound up – according to many – dominating both popes and bishops.
I’ll try to post something happy fun fun to change the mood next.


1. Brad - November 5, 2013

Well those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass takes the dogmas more seriously and better in behavior and that of the sayings past Popes of Council of Trent and so forth saying how powerful this mass is as better than what the past last 6 popes sayings of the new mass of 1969. Also the last 6 Popes is not against the ideas of Pope St. Pius V’s programs and issues. Pray we and all get ourselves out of the evil wings. Pray that all will read the dogmas more seriously and change of behaviors toward Jesus at Holy Communion.

2. Lorra - November 6, 2013

The pope isn’t powerless. He chooses not to exercise that power to the detriment of the faith of millions of Catholics.
How the Vicar of Christ can be more concerned with the Archbishop Lefebvres in his church than the Karl Rahner/Hans Kungs is beyond me; unless, of course, he shares the same theology as the latter.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: