The demonstration of how a non-believer can reach shared analyzes and conclusions on the work of Bergoglio and the Counter-Church, without going so far as to define it as such. We know that and we remember that. But the part about the Council is really excellent.
FIFTH COLUMN
Of Marcello Veneziani
No, Holiness, a Pope cannot call “wild dogs” the next one, especially when it comes to Catholics, Christians, believers. Dogs is the derogatory definition that Muslims give of infidels and Christians. Even the most ruthless terrorists were defined by the pontiffs who preceded Francis, “men of the Red Brigades”, ISIS men. More cups. To descend to those lustful levels is not worthy of a Holy Father. Silence and prayer were the most dignified responses.
For goodness sake, let's not be beautiful souls. We know what a vermin there is in the intestines of the curia and in the slums of the Church. The pedophilia racket, like the gay lobby that Bergoglio himself once mentioned, these are just some of the dark sides of the Church. That pedophilia whose proportions are disconcerting, collegiality, mutual complicity, before its single and very frequent episodes. But beyond those murky turns that concern the sexual sphere there are at least two others: one focused on malfeasance and the other on the no-holds-barred war to conquer roles of clerical power. Tours that are certainly not born with Pope Bergoglio but they are the b-side of the Church, its face corrupted and has presented itself with ups and downs for several centuries, with a special emphasis since atheism and nihilism have also corroded faith within the sacred doors of the Church. One would want to invoke the dogs to heal the Church but the dogs of the Lord, what the Dominicans called themselves, to which the most brilliant Doctor of the Church also belonged, San Tommaso d’Aquino.
How did the Bergoglian party react to the precise accusations made by the Viganò dossier? On the one hand, disqualifying the source, the Monsignor, on the other, embarking on the most classic conspiracy theory. Bad double fall, which evades the main questions: but whether or not those accusations are founded, there are detailed and convincing answers to those precise testimonies, it can be proven that they are false documents, forced or not, they are sadly true? Nope, we react by insulting and shouting conspiracy, a bit like the communist regimes did when faced with every disruption, to every scandal, they shouted about the conspiracy of the dark forces of reaction and thus justified bloody repression. We heard from the official Bergoglians, present in all media as a single voice without cross-examination, follow this unworthy plan of low politics and bad regime. And we heard them shout about the connection between reactionary conspiracy and sovereignist politics, as did, for example, the historic defender of Bergoglio, Alberto Melloni. I do not intend to return to the lacerating topic raised by the dossier on Cardinal McCarrick and I have no confidential sources to discuss its veracity or otherwise, but I focus precisely on this crucial accusation: someone wants to divide the church and throw it into politics, in a reactionary and sovereignist sense.
Let's go back to what has happened in the last fifty years or so. Il Vatican Council II split the Church into two sides, the conservatives and the progressives. The categories of politics entered the Church on that occasion and entered it with the spirit of the time, that Council having opened the doors of the Church to the breath of the time and in Italy to the openings on the left. That laceration persisted with Pope Paul VI, it worsened with the liquidation of the Latin mass, the guitar and the beats in church, third worldism, until the announced Levevbre schism. And with distrust in the phenomena of popular devotion, as was the case of Padre Pio, phenomenon of religious populism, a saint by popular acclaim. The progressive Catholics of the Second Vatican Council felt closer to non-Catholic progressives than to non-progressive Catholics. A choice of field in which being Catholic became a secondary variable compared to being progressive. The division of the Church dates back to that precise moment. And the reactionary conspiracies, right-wing political choices have nothing to do with it. The arrival of Karol Magno, John Paul II, healed the fracture, because that Pope reopened the doors to the "conservatives", to Latin, to Lefevbre, to Padre Pio, to Tradition and Europe, without closing them to progressives and anti-capitalists. He defended the poor, the exploited, the desperate, he criticized the sated and desperate West, without causing the Church to lose its pastoral and spiritual role in the heart of Christian civilization. A Pope who was a philosopher and considered conservative also took this line, like Ratzinger who received much harsher attacks than Bergoglio but never dreamed of defining his detractors as wild dogs. And not only that: the Church of Benedict XVI it was never the Church of division and did not arouse splitting impulses. When it arrived Bergoglio, Instead, a precise choice of field was made, social, politics, cultural, I won't say doctrinaire due to the theological weakness of this pontiff. A choice of field in language, in the way of doing things, in the distance from the ritual, from the liturgy, from tradition. The Pope chose themes, interlocutors, authors to cite, territories and peoples that did not belong to the Church, to Christian civilization, who were not inspired by the saints, you have martyrs, to the fathers of the Church. And the very idea of ​​being called Francesco, an unprecedented pope, it was a clear sign of rupture. Now with these premises it seems absurd to me to reverse the sequence and accuse the "conservatives" of plotting against the Pope. It is Bergoglio who put them out of the Church, it made them feel like strangers and guilty. It is Bergoglio who split Christianity, which separated the present Church from its thousand-year tradition, who preferred to dialogue with non-Christians, non-Catholics, non-Europeans, swinging between atheists, Islamic and Protestant and opening up, albeit in a contradictory way, to couples other than families. It is no coincidence that Bergoglio has become the moral leader of all the left, acclaimed by liberals and radicals alike, by the progressive establishment and its antagonists. And on the topic of hospitality he went well beyond the openings of his predecessors, placing themselves drastically on one side, with NGOs, without ever considering the inconveniences, the dangers and the massive arrival of Muslims.
I will not say that the Pope has placed himself outside of Christianity and the Church, I would have no authority to say so, and I will not follow the tendency of some traditionalists to excommunicate the Pope, setting themselves up – in a paradoxical ultra-Protestant heresy – as an infallible tribunal of orthodoxy. But, It seems to me that the accusation of dividing the Church and throwing it into politics should be leveled against "Bergoglian politics" and his party, three quarters secular if not secularist. I do not advocate further papal resignations, I always hope for miraculous repentances. I feel my faith dying out and I see Christian civilization declining. However, I say to believers: the Popes pass, the Church remains. Battered, but it stays.
MV, The weather 5 September 2018