FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL IN THE CHURCH

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.


Take a gander at this, people. It's the cover of the book on priestly celibacy which the Vatican did its utmost to suppress. Note who gets top billing: Benedict XVI. 

 

This is surely an issue of free speech. It applies to the entire Church, from the Vatican right down to the Diocese of Palmerston North New Zealand where, for example, an anonymous document served up to parishioners at St Mary's last Sunday tried to muzzle "those who pushed by pride fight on in an ever more civil war (sic) in which no one is the winner". 

No prizes for guessing who those proud people are - traditional Catholics who like Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict 'fight on' to preserve the Truth, the Tradition and Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, those people who are denigrated by Pope Francis, as catalogued in 'Pope Francis' Little Book of Insults'
 https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/tag/pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/

We've been told by Pope Francis' Head of Household, Archbishop Ganswein (aka Gorgeous George), that the Pope Emeritus Benedict had requested the removal of his name from the cover of this book, which defends the age-old tradition of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church. Benedict, said Ganswein, did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”

We've been told by Pope Francis' old chum, self-proclaimed atheist and journalist Eugenio Scalfari, that Benedict had "shown solidarity" with Francis by denying co-authorship of this book, and that "the issue with Ratzinger" (i.e. Pope Emeritus Benedict) "is closed".

"Benedict", Scalfari wrote, "had provided a text and on the basis of this Sarah sent to press a co-authored book with very polemical content. Almost all the major Italian newspapers prominently highlighted this news which, if it had been true, would have produced a considerable crisis by gathering, under the banners of a cardinal and Pope who had resigned but was still fully active, a number of bishops more or less discontent with the current pontificate, and thus putting Pope Francis in considerable difficulty.

"Ratzinger (sic) had made it known that he had not sided with Sarah at all nor had  ever authorized a co-authored book with him.”

Well. One wouldn't expect a 95 year-old atheist to realise that there's nothing 'polemical' about the book's 'content'. 

Consequently, there is no 'gathering' of bishops and no schism - not yet. Wait a couple of weeks, till Francis gets down to announcing a relaxation of the law of clerical celibacy, as he is widely expected to do. If Pope Francis is in 'considerable difficulty'- which he certainly should be - it's not because of the book's content, but its timing. It's the timing that makes it 'very polemical'. 

Will we ever believe another word Scalfari writes? The poor old chap's credibility is in shreds. Thank God for that, because his 'interviews' with Francis have 'reported' one heresy after another, all consumed in a feeding frenzy by the  media and spat out at a gullible public.

Can we turn then, to the Jesuits' America Magazine for the facts of the matter? 

America tells us that a 'Vatican source' is denying that Pope Benedict ever knew he would be listed as co-author of the book. 

But in the next breath, America says it's perfectly clear that Benedict gave Sarah permission to use the text he'd written in any way he wished. Including, one would reasonably think, giving credit to Benedict for his work, on the cover.

Oh, but, says America, quoting a source 'close to Benedict',“It is evident that there is an editorial and mediatic operation from which Benedict XVI separates himself, and to which he is totally extraneous.” 

Would we call that statement pharasaical, do you think? Or merely Jesuitical? 

Liberal Vaticanistas fell over one another in their attempts to deny Benedict's co-authorship of The Book which upset their married clergy applecart. The papalotrous commentator Austen Ivereigh tweeted, hand on heart, that GG "has expressly & repeatedly asked for Benedict not to be billed as co-author and insists Benedict did not co-write intro and conclusion."

The uproar, the 'polemics' which ensued induced the cardinal to back down, humbly stating that the book's author in future publications would be listed as himself, "with the contribution of Benedict XVI." 

But quite clearly, the book was already in the hands of its English-language publisher, the Catholic Ignatius Press which has always been Benedict's publisher. We can imagine how Ignatius would have (politely) waved its contract around, and refused to kowtow to pressure to change the cover and signing arrangements already agreed upon by Benedict and Sarah.    

America also tells us it was after Cardinal Robert Sarah had explicitly stated that Benedict had given approval for the book and its cover that Archbishop Not-So-Gorgeous George flatly contradicted him, claiming that, "Benedict XVI did not co-author the book From the Depths of Our Hearts with Cardinal Robert Sarah, and this morning asked to have his name removed as co-author." 

'Tweet this' adds America. The Jesuits are not into making Cardinal Sarah look good. They hung him out to dry.

But then, in reporting an airborne interview with reporters on the papal plane a year ago, America doesn't make Francis look good, either, at least not in his role as Head of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church and all that entails in maintaining the Magisterium. (Ironically, the title 'Defender of the Faith', which should logically be the Pope's, was conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII for his defence of the Sacraments and the Mass against Martin Luther - and is still retained by his successor Elizabeth II.)

America says that "Pope Francis drew a distinction between his own personal beliefs regarding celibacy and what might be required for the church to provide proper pastoral care. 

“Personally", said Pope Francis, "I believe that celibacy is a gift to the church. Secondly, I’m not in agreement with allowing optional celibacy. No!” However, he continued, "there could only be a possibility in these far, faraway places—I think about the islands in the Pacific. It’s something to think about when there’s a pastoral need; there the shepherd has to think about the faithful.”

But wait, there's more: the Church's Chief of Religious Life (his proper title would occupy a paragraph or two), Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviv, has stated it was Pope Francis himself who directed the Amazon Synod to discuss ordaining married men to the priesthood to work in under-served areas such as the Amazon. According to the cardinal, it was all Francis's idea.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-religious-life-chief-pope-wants-priestly-celibacy-questioned-at-amazon-synod

And expect Francis' next move to be the ordination of female deacons. What next, you ask? Well of course, you know.

"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil" (Mt 5, 37). The Pope is dissimulating. He is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

If there's one thing we've learned from Vatican II, it's that constant drops of disobedience wear away the stone of Magisterium. This is demolition of the Rock of Ages, drip by drip. 

In this sorry saga of The Book we see the truth manipulated and massaged by forces ranged against it. NZ's bishops, priests and laypeople need to prep themselves for a showdown.

Cardinal Sarah writes of “the polemic that has sought to smear me by insinuating that Benedict XVI was not informed of the publication of the book From the Depths of Our Hearts ... I sincerely forgive all those who slander me or who want to oppose me to Pope Francis. My attachment to Benedict XVI remains intact and my filial obeisance to Pope Francis remains absolute.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-favored-interviewer-casts-cdl-sarah-as-leading-opposition-campaign

Wouldn't we rather stand with a man such as this, than with those opposed to him and his adherence to the Truth which cannot be modernised, because it is immutable?

"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed: nor hidden that shall not be known. For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops" (Mt 16:6).

Last Sunday - 3rd in Ordinary Time - the congregation at St Mary's Palmerston North were invited to read in their newsletter this anonymous polemic (emphases mine):

"It strikes me as significant that St Paul ... elected to deal with division in the church as his first issues to be addressed. Division, schism and apostasy are toxic to ecclesiastical life. People ... will sooner walk away than put up with all of the conflict. Often the only ones left are those who pushed by pride fight on in an ever more civil war in which no one is the winner. ... 

"I encourage all parishioners to be mindful of their obligation to treat church authorities with respect (especially Pope Francis)" - okay, that's fair enough, but an example of respect for church authorities must be set by the Pope himself -
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/tag/pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/

The author - unknown to at least one of St Mary's two parish priests, Fr Manoj Mathew, which seems odd - concludes with one of Pope Francis' slogans: "Find NEW WAYS to spread the word of God to every corner of the world."  

As a St Mary's parishioner rightly comments:

"Yes, but the word of God (Sacred Scripture) must always be interpreted in the light of unchanging Tradition and the Magisterium. These three are inter-compenetrated. All must agree.

Pope Francis has departed from this teaching and dismissed immutable Truth."

Bob Gill says:

I believe Cardinal Sarah will be 75 years old later this year and will be obliged to offer his resignation. I pray that Pope Francis will not accept it and will permit the Church to continue having the services of this valued leader of the faithful.

·     I say:

b   I believe you're right, that +Sarah will have to offer his resignation this year and you're right to pray Pope Francis will not accept it, because his track record shows he very promptly files away all such faithful and able prelates. The 'Resign at 75 Rule' is I believe a wicked tool for reshaping the Church into his modernist, global image.

Philippa O'Neill says:

I have no doubt he will accept it.

Bob Gill says:
Sometimes the Pope's own words and actions lead to him being criticised. Such criticism doesn't mean lack of respect for Church authorities.

I say:
It certainly doesn't necessarily imply lack of respect for Church authority (the Magisterium).