"The pontificate of Francis can, perhaps, best be understood as a political project. His election at the conclave in 2013 was—unbeknownst to the world at the time—the result of a campaign planned out in advance by four radical cardinals who saw then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the perfect vehicle for the revolution they wanted to launch within the church. (The story of how Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels, and Karl Lehmann formed “Team Bergoglio” is detailed in Austen Ivereigh’s worshipful biography of Francis, and even though the cardinals subsequently denied the account, their protestations are supremely unconvincing.)And on and on. You can read the rest at the Weekly Standard link above."As the Catholic News Agency reported at the time, this politicking wasn’t simply a matter of bad taste: The apostolic constitution, Universi Dominici gregis, expressly prohibits cardinals from forming pacts, agreements, promises, or commitments of any kind. Oh well.
"During his time on Peter’s throne, Francis has worked to dismantle many orthodox positions in an attempt to radically reorient the church toward -- by total coincidence -- the long-held preferences of those four radical cardinals. For instance..."
Here's what I can't figure out. There are men in positions of authority who know what we know. Abp Carlo Maria Viganò, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Gerhard Müller (wherever he is now): they know, and they know a great deal more.
Why do these, the best, hold their cards so close to the vest? What keeps them from saying what they know? Heck: what keeps Pope (possibly emeritus) Benedict from saying what *he* knows? Is Gänswein keeping him on Ambien and a short leash?
I can't help thinking I must be missing some fairly huge chunks of dispositive information here. I'd be willing to lay down in front of a Francis-freight train for any of the gentlemen mentioned above, if it would save their lives and help save the Church. Why don't they just spill all they know?
Or am I seriously in the wrong about what I think I "know"?
Priests take a vow of obedience, so they are in a hard place.
The RCC has faced several bouts of severe corruption during its 2,000+ year history. Perhaps it is time that the laity become more involved in its administration. We need to rethink the amount of power— which is not the same thing as religious authority— that rests in the hands of the Curia.
First and foremost the Church is a religious entity, not a corporation. A corporation or even the govt is self-serving, goal-driven, and every man grasping and climbing for his own success.
Sure there are people like that in the Church hierarchy, but don’t be too sure that deep down they don’t love God, and believe they are acting in the Church’s best interests. Most “progressives” honestly have hope for the Church and are devoted to the faith.
Unlike a corporation or the govt, the Church has always respected the individual. It is never going to be organized and systematic, thank God. It’s messy, because it’s not a military-like operation pushing people to perform.
This idea of speaking out is really like finking on fellow Churchmen. We do not, traditionally, go outside the Church with dirty laundry, because that will harm the Church. It’s a religion, founded by Christ, and we are all on the same team here. we do not break down, belittle or weaken the team.
Bishops are not mere pompadours living well. They are probably the smallest, best-educated group in the world. A respect and consideration is shared among bishops. They are entitled to it as they know one another and truly understand the larger picture. It is wrong for laity to read a few blogs and presume to understand the hierarchy, canon law, etc, simply because they arrive at wrong, usually harmful, conclusions. Why not listen to our bishop with an open mind instead of jumping on FR to trash him? The goal is unity, not discord.
People who are dignified and charitable do not go around blabbing, playing true confessions with others’ reputations. The reticent, quiet attitude of Benedict is the ideal. He has no obligation to tattle tale on his brothers for what would be seen as a short-term splash. Priests care about the Church, not degrading someone who is a blip in history. A man of the Church does not muddy the waters, act hysterical or betray his brethren. That is the code. It’s being watered down by the tackiness of modern times, but the Church still retains a more refined an complex way of joining heaven and earth.
Mrs. Don-o,
Here is an old expression:
There are 4 groups of men who never break rank. They have a sacred bond and will always keep it, and keep secrets, no matter the outcome.
Military
Doctors
The Church
Homos
Here’s an interesting thing. Rarely do these groups mix. But in the Catholic Church we have 2 groups combined, one a circle (homosexuals) hidden inside a larger encompassing circle (clerics). This gives a sort of double protection to gays operating anywhere in the Church.
The hierarchy itself could be seen as it’s own closed circle with a code of trust and secrecy. That would protect gay bishops 3 ways. Also, they, the older ones anyway, probably are accustomed to this safety net.
This is the ultimate clericalism.