Criticisms of Pope Francis from within the Vatican Curia made public

Life Site ^ | Wed May 27, 2015 | Maike Hickson

[annalex]

Criticisms of Pope Francis from within the Vatican Curia made public

Maike Hickson
Wed May 27, 2015 - 2:25 pm EST

May 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The prominent German monthly journal, Cicero, a secular-intellectual publication, has entitled its May issue “The Struggle for Rome” (“Der Kampf um Rom”) and has dedicated it to the papacy of Pope Francis. In it, Guiseppe Rusconi, the well-respected Swiss Rome-Correspondent and journalist for Inside the Vatican, reports on the internal criticisms of Pope Francis as they were privately and candidly disclosed to him from within the Roman Curia itself.

Rusconi's revelations caused an immediate stir in Rome, since he simultaneously posted the Italian version of his article on his own website, rossoporpora.org, where he summed up and specifically quoted forthright comments made by high-ranking clergymen from the Roman Curia who also openly revealed to him the atmosphere within the Vatican. They spoke with the explicit request that they should remain anonymous.

Rusconi starts his article with the stunning quote from one of his sources: “Francis has remained with his heart and mind the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. That would also be fine, if he were not, for two years now, the Bishop of Rome and therewith Pope of the Universal Church.”

As Rusconi says, many Curial members are still indignant about Pope Francis' last Christmas address in 2014 to the Roman Curia:

The large stomach of the Vatican still has not yet digested the last address of Pope Francis to the Curia on December 22 of last year. […] The address still burns under the skin of many Curials. 'If someone would have had the courage to get off his chair and to leave the Sala Clementina while the Pope was presenting his list [of reproaches and accusations], then, I think, all – or nearly all – would have left: right-wing or left-wing, young or old,' comments which came from my first interlocutor with the bitterness of a man who feels wounded. And he earnestly requested once more: 'That my name will not be made public! Can I rely on that?'

Rusconi describes the atmosphere within the Curia, as follows: “The Curia finds itself in an uncomfortable, even insecure situation.” He describes the intensification of conflicts in Rome:

Today, with the distance of two years, some of those wearers of the purple color who were then joining in jubilation might regret to have given their own vote to the then-76-year-old Archbishop. A struggle for Rome has started, and it is not at all clear who stands where – also because Francis himself speaks in a contradictory way. But there is already taking place a wrestling [a grappling]. And from October 4 on when between 200 and 300 bishops will meet in Rome for the [2015] Synod in order to speak about family questions, it could come to even harder fights.

Pope Francis' expression of “Who am I to judge?” also finds much criticism:

With this renunciation to judge, this 'sentence which has been abused by many media, Pope Francis did damage to the Church,' stressed another interlocutor from the Vatican with whom I met for lunch in Trastevere. 'He has, without intending it, favored the advance of the homosexual lobby which he claims to fight.'

Concerning the question of the family, many members of the Curia do not understand Pope Francis' intentions. As one source says to Rusconi: “One simply does not understand what Pope Francis' aims are. After a very firm principled declaration, he follows up with words and gestures that cause insecurity and confusion among orthodox Catholics.” In the eyes of this man, Pope Francis is tempted “to want to win the hearts of those who are, according to the current teaching, living in an irregular situation [i.e., remarried couples].”

Rusconi discusses some of those Cardinals who push for a liberalizing agenda with respect to the Church's moral teaching, namely, Reinhard Cardinal Marx and Walter Cardinal Kasper, both of whom are now meeting with resistance and adverse criticism. For example, he says about Cardinal Marx himself:

The President of the German Bishops' Conference [Cardinal Marx] does not have an easy status and standing in Rome these days, since he has claimed for the German Church the right to go its own pastoral ways with respect to the problem of the remarried divorcees, and independently of any majority of the Synod. 'We are not a subsidiary of Rome,' Marx has declared. The Swiss Curial Cardinal, Kurt Koch, promptly felt reminded of the 'German Christians' who bowed down to the Nazis during the Third Reich. In the same way, the German Curial Cardinal, Paul Josef Cordes, also disapproved of the ideas of Marx. He declared in the newspaper Die Tagespost: 'As a social ethicist, Cardinal Marx might have some knowledge about the [commercial-financial] dependencies of subsidiaries toward their mother company. But, in the context of the Church, such comments should rather be left to the village pub.'

One of Rusconi's interlocutors criticizes Pope Francis for trying to fight material poverty while omitting to speak about the danger of spiritual poverty, and even the loss of Faith. He says:

But the Church is universal, and the greatest poverty is the spiritual poverty, as one sees it especially in the Occident, where the number of Catholics is continually dwindling. Unfortunately, the Pope has very little interest in Europe.

The same source, as presented by Rusconi, comments on the Synod of the Family:

I think, he [Pope Francis] wants to lead the forthcoming Synod on the Family in October onto a certain path so that the Synod Fathers feel urged to choose [putatively] merciful solutions – which would be, in my eyes, not be a true mercy – especially with regard to the question whether remarried people shall be admitted to Holy Communion.

The journalist Rusconi concludes his very important synopsis of some of the internal criticisms from within the Curia with these words: “The dispute in the fall, however, could turn out just the same: sour and sharp.”

Not a pretty picture; and not an edifying example or ethos, is it?

[annalex]

The only thing that changed is that the society got sexualized and cannot think beyond the penis. So there is a greater need for celibate priesthood today.

I agree that a homosexual tendency should be a disqualifier for the priesthood, and it is.

Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.

[Gluteus Maximus]

I agree that a homosexual tendency should be a disqualifier for the priesthood, and it is.

But it was always a disqualified, but that rule was left almost entirely unenforced. One of the main points I'm trying to make with you and Salvation is that it will remain unenforced so long as the enforcers are themselves largely homosexual. Do you understand that point?

Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.

Great, but this bespeaks, quite obviously, your refusal to size up the world as it really is. Monarchy? I don't know what to say. It's exactly the same issue with the patently obvious impracticability of the clerical celibacy rule. You can admire it as a fine ideal, but the results have proven disastrous in practice.

Let me ask you this. The RCC has just lost Ireland due to the sex abuse scandals caused by homosexuals in the ranks of the clergy, and it's obvious that the celibacy rule contributes (at least significantly) to the homosexual infiltration problem. Yet you remain unconvinced. So here's my question: what would it take to convince you? What additional horror committed by the RCC homosexual clergy would finally prompt you to embrace the reality that I described in detail above?

I suspect that there is nothing that the clergy could ever do that would convince you. For you and, I suppose, Salvation, the celibacy rule is a sort of tenet of the faith that you cling to without regard to all evidence to the contrary. I hope I'm wrong about that.

So, once again, is there any scenario you can imagine that might cause you to rethink your position?

[dsc]

“it’s obvious that the celibacy rule contributes (at least significantly) to the homosexual infiltration problem.”

The Soviet Union contributed more than anyone else to the homosexual infiltration problem, by establishing a homosexual infiltration program.

Hoodo thunk that those lovely Soviets would try to harm an enemy? And yet they did.

It is only because the modern world is sex mad that it appears to some that the celibacy rule would attract homos.

[Gluteus Maximus]

But the fact remains that the celibacy rule contributes significantly to the gay clergy problem, correct?

[annalex]

it will remain unenforced so long as the enforcers are themselves largely homosexual

I agree: homosexual infiltration of the curia is where the Holy Inquisition should start. What are you proposing: marry them all off?

I don't know what to say

I never asked you to say anything. If you think that having professional liars rent every office in the land on a 4-year cycle is a better idea, perhaps you also like the growing national debt and crumbling infrastructure.

what would it take to convince you?

Convince me of what? I totally agree that homosexuality in the Church is a huge problem. What I don't agree is that providing pedophiles with female sexual partners is going to set a better example for the people of Ireland. We want priests that give the gift of their sexuality to God and wish to be celibate. We largely have those men. Today, the younger the priest, the better he is: chaste, orthodox, devoted. The crisis is over.

the celibacy rule is a sort of tenet of the faith

It is generally a good idea to learn something about the subject, them post opinions on it. Celibacy is not a dogma of the faith. It is what is called a discipline: something that can be changed by the Magisterium of the Latin Church. The argument is not that married people cannot be priests in the Latin Rite, but that it is not going to benefit the Church.

[Gluteus Maximus]

You misunderstand my proposal. I will repeat it. The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with married, heterosexual men of good moral character. That can be accomplished by ordaining thousands of married deacons. We have a few bishops who would do that. These men will form a generation cohort that will re-infiltrate the RCC clergy and return it to the people. It will start something of a war, as the entrenched sodomites will not relinquish power without a fight.

I outlined the plan above. This is the only way I know of to remove and replace a corrupt corps of cadres. It works, though. Stalin's example is the one to study and to follow, excepting of course for the violent tactics. But the strategy is right.

[dsc]

“But the fact remains that the celibacy rule contributes significantly to the gay clergy problem, correct?”

Why would that be correct? What assumptions underlie that conclusion?

Why would a sodomite enter a vocation that he is forbidden to enter, where the practice of his perversion is prohibited?

The assumption here seems to be that seminaries are rife with sodomites, and therefore a congenial environment for them. But it was not always so. The question to ask, then, is how did it get this way?

We find, when we look, that the USSR, and specifically the GRU and KGB, are responsible for creating that environment. Seminaries were *made into* places that are attractive to sodomites by the Soviets. There is nothing intrinsic to seminaries that is attractive to sodomites. The celibacy rule is irrelevant to this issue.

And before you go into anti-anti-communist mode, consider this: If you were an officer in the KGB, wouldn’t you be smart enough to think of infiltrating firebrand communists into the seminaries? And as one of their missions, wouldn’t you tell them to work their way up to the admissions committee, then flood the place with sodomites?

[dsc]

“The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with married, heterosexual men of good moral character.”

Road apples, Gluteus Maximus, road apples.

[annalex]

The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with married, heterosexual men of good moral character

The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with heterosexual men of good moral character. The married vocation does not guarantee good moral character, and good moral character is all we ask from a priest. There is no reason to replace Roman Catholic priesthood with Eastern Rite priesthood or Anglican priesthood, where the fact that they marry did not prevent the same problems with abuse happening.