Should I Even Bother? A Catalog of Recent Atrocities from the Bishop of Rome July 5, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Yes, I said atrocities. What else can you say when the man given the office of the Chair of Peter, chosen to be Christ’s sweet vicar on earth, accompanied by unimaginable torrents of Grace if he would only avail himself of them, instead of adhering to his own, stupid will, says that priests should butt out of people’s moral lives?
At a general audience after the conference, the Pope was asked about how to balance Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage while welcoming Catholics who are divorced and remarried.
Francis replied that neither “rigorism nor laxity” was the right response. “The Gospel chooses another way: welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning, without putting our noses in the ‘moral life’ of other people,” he said.
Is that not an atrocious statement? Is it not, at some fundamental level, a profoundly anti-Catholic statement? No amount of burying our heads in the sand or attempts at explanation can even begin to limit the damage a statement like this causes.
In a sense, however, Francis is forced into such statements by his own ideology. If the divorced and remarried – living, in many cases, manifestly immoral lives, which much blame for the original divorce, and thoroughly lacking any real repentance in that regard – are to be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, to carry on as if they ARE attempting to lead solid, moral lives, then of course priests would have to totally ignore the myriad moral failings of many of their sheep, and simply pretend that all is just peachy.
This is not Catholicism, however. It is straight up protestantism, as we saw last week. In order to continue his great project in remaking the Church in the light of Martin Luther and Immanuel Kant, such statements become inevitable. Confession goes out the window, unless it is “confession” for fashionable, worldly “corporate sins,” like poverty or supposed environmental degradation.
We also see just how banal and morally corrupt this “accompaniment” proclaimed by Francis really is. It’s nothing but “I’m OK You’re OK We’re All OK” encounter therapy writ large – a perfect embodiment of the progressive zeitgeist of which Francis is so fervent an acolyte.
But that’s not all! After all, there are seven days in a week, and Francis can apparently hardly let one go by without some assault on the Faith or another. To that end, Francis declared how he decapitates opposition from “ultraconservatives” and had some – for a change – interesting things to say about Pope Benedict’s unprecedented abdication:
When asked how he was getting along with the “ultra-Conservatives,” Pope Francis – without challenging this depreciative description of the ostensibly orthodox part of the prelates – claims that “they say ‘no’ to everything” in relation to his own proposed reforms. As reported by La Nacion, he more specifically says:
“They do their work, I do mine. I want an open and understanding Church which accompanies the wounded families. They say ‘no’ to everything. I continue my path without being sidetracked. I do not behead people [sic]. I never have liked it. Let me repeat: I reject conflict.” He [Pope Francis] concluded with a conspicuous smile: “You remove a nail by applying pressure upwards. Or you tranquilize them, put them to the side, when they reach retirement age.” [emphasis added] [Or you force them out, on thoroughly specious, if convenient, grounds, as in the case of Bishop Robert Finn, among others]
At least he had the wherewithal to admit, though not in so many words, that he views the most orthodox, “conservative” prelates as his ideological opponents, to be anesthetized as events permit.
Now, to those comments on Pope Benedict:
He was a revolutionary. In the meeting with cardinals, shortly before the March 2013 Conclave, he told us that one of us was going to be the next pope and that he did not know his name. His generosity was unparalleled. His resignation brought to light all of the Church’s problems. His resignation had nothing to do with personal issues. It was an act of government – his last act of government. [emphasis added]
Here, Francis appears to be slamming the door on the hypothesis of Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict’s long-time aid, who recently posited that maybe there was a sort of duarchy working in the papacy with his boss’s abdication. That is, Francis was the “active” pope, while Benedict was the contemplative one. This is, of course, nonsense, and would completely obliterate the notion of papacy as it has always been understood by the Church. I was really shocked to read such doctrinal shlock from a guy like Ganswein who is supposed to be very bright and at least fairly orthodox – it only confirmed for me either how desperate the guy is, or how deep the rot has become.
Now, regarding Francis’ claim that Benedict’s abdication had nothing to do with personal issues – that certainly fits in with my surmise from the moment this abdication was announced. I also agree the abdication was a revolutionary act, in at least two senses. It was unprecedented, yes (Pope Celestine was a very different case), but it was also revolutionary in what it subsequently unleashed.
One could almost read from the above that Pope Benedict’s abdication was a final, deliberate surrender to the forces he had opposed for 40+ years, ever since the young, radical theologian at Vatican II realized the chaos and destruction he had helped unleash (thus, the “generosity”). From Francis’ standpoint, Benedict’s relative orthodoxy would have been the source of all the Church’s problems. His abdication, then, revealed the total failure of the restorationist project, in Francis’ mind, perhaps. Of course, it is very convenient for Francis to imply that Benedict’s last act was, indeed, a surrender to the progressive faction of the Church.
We’ll see if there are subsequent revelations. One thing progressives love to do is to gloat when victorious. That’s how we found out about the “St. Gallen group” in the first place. Is the above a little bit of revelation from Francis, or him just talking nonsense again? I have my own beliefs, obviously, but ultimately I leave it to you to decide.
I have another question for you readers – do you find the coverage of Francis helpful, maddening, pointless, or? I’m of two minds – while I feel we now know this man to a T, and further revelations may only serve to aggravate, at the same time, it’s hard to turn away from a car wreck, you know? Plus, it is important, at least for the record, for someone, anyone, to say “this is wrong,” or “this is not Catholic.” But, I don’t want to be boring, beat you down, or, God forbid, cause people to lose faith.
This is an important point, maybe too important to leave appended to the end of a long post. I may repost this as a stand alone tomorrow. I do appreciate your input. I can’t guarantee it will result in any change, but I will absolutely consider your comments seriously.