Maeders' revelations reported in Rorate Caeli presumably refer to the same problem as Cardinal Ratzinger did on Good Friday, 2005 when he said, “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the Priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency!".It apparently is still there.
I must say, were I to employ a company of soldiery dressing in eye-catching medieval costume and stolidly standing guard outside my apartments for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for nearly two years, I think it might have caught my attention just a weensy bit earlier than this.
What's revolting is the public manner in which Pope Francis fired Colonial Daniel Anrig. Let's see - what did the man do wrong? Oh, yes, he did his duty as a soldier to protect his superior. For this he is fired. It apparently never occurred to el Supremo to have a private discussion with the Colonial and to discuss security procedures, if he felt that they needed to be changed. In fact, isn't there something in the Gospels about discussing *privately* an issue with someone before you take it to a more public venue? Instead, this revolting pontiff humiliates and denigrates the soldier in order to puff up his own public image of what a humble man he is. The man is a cretin. He is disgusting. And that's putting it mildly.
Annie: How do you know he didn't have that private discussion? After all the Colonel had had his tenure extended to the end of January 2015 and all the Pope did was not to extend it further. For all I know this might have been by mutual agreement.Whilst the present papacy has given rise to many serious and justifiable concerns I think we need to be careful about knocking the Pope on every possible occasion. It just devalues proper concerns.
Nicolas,"How do you know that he had that private discussion." You're kidding, right? Pope Francis is the top guy. In the Gospels, he's all the levels rolled into one. He's The Man. The Boss. If Colonial Anrig disagrees with the Pope's take on security, then all Francis has to do is to QUIETLY let the soldier's assignment run to it's natural end, which is this coming January, and then assign someone else to the post. The Pontiff could have a nice dinner for the colonial, thank him for his services - wash his feet! - and generally thank the man for his loyal service - you know, say and do the kind, compassionate schtick that PF's always promoting. How hard would it be for el Supremo to keep his mouth shut until that took place? No muss, no fuss, and no humiliating a good man publicly. Instead, an officer doing his best to protect his superior finds his reputation shredded by our Man in Rome. This pompous, pretentious, puffed up pope, with his banana of a papacy, is revolting. The worst sinner deserves better.
No Annie I am not kidding. The Colonel's tenure is not being removed. It seems quite fair to me that he should be told in advance and not wait till the actual date. The rest is pure speculation on your part and that of others as to how the Pope has handled this and what his reasoning is. What sound evidence do you have that this was mishandled?Many of us have concerns about this papacy but one must be very careful not to latch onto incidents which may reinforce our disquiet but have no sound basis for doing so. Rome is a rumour mill and one should be sceptical about what one hears.
The colonel was absolutely guilty, infact he trode mons.Ricca and co. toes, anything else and this is not ream or gossip it's simple truth.God bless.
CORRECTION: "The Colonel's tenure is not being RENEWED."
Nicolas,"What sound evidence do you have that this was mishandled?" The public slandering of Colonial Anrig in the media. Pope Francis publicly castigates the officer for having a soldier stand duty at his bedroom door throughout the night. This is indefensible. If the Holy Father wanted a different approach to his security - fine. But he has a moral obligation to do so privately, rather than drag the poor man's reputation through the mud of the media. It's called detraction. It's more than that; it's slander, since there is no suggestion that the man was disobeying the Pope's orders. Detraction and slander are sins, dontcha know. You have to hand it to el Supremo, though. He never misses an opportunity to throw a man under the bus if it promotes his "humbleness" schtick. The man is a cretin.
Annie: "publically castigates" and " drag the poor man's reputation through the mud of the media". But how do you know that the Pope was responsible for this? We do not know.I would imagine that the Pope returning to his bedroom finds a sentry on guard. He invites him to sit down. Are you suggesting that the Pope called the media to witness this event? More probably it seems to me is that there was a third person present who witnessed this and either that third person or the sentry himself informed the media later. But in reality neither of us know what happened and we are both speculating. You really cannot call someone a 'cretin' based upon such speculation. You are slandering the Pope.Can you not understand that there are properly documented incidents that do give rise to concerns about this papacy amongst orthodox Catholics. If you then add in incidents where there is no real evidence of what exactly happened you are giving the progressives ammunition to dismiss the real concerns of the orthodox by lumping the documented together with pure unfounded speculation so as to dismiss all concerns.
There's one thing to make clear, swiss guards don't protect the pope in S.Marta because the place is in Italy, not in Vatican State, so the vatican gendarmeria, a sort of police corps,can protect the pope's safety together with the italian police, as due to any political leader, i.e. that swiss guards are actually useful for tourists, photos and for official receiving and visits of world leaders to the pope in Vatican apartments, and these are facts; the imperial suite where the boR lives in, doesn't need swiss guards in front of the door, there's nothing to be added.God bless+
Nicolas,"You really cannot call someone a 'cretin' . . .". I just did. In fact, I did it twice.But I'll make it third time the charm dear, just for you: The man is a cretin.
So what are the facts? One of the Pope’s security staff, employed on a fixed-term basis, has been told that his contract will not be renewed when it expires shortly . He hasn’t been sacked, hence the inverted commas in the press story – “sacked” – so they can’t be accused of lying. As for the “being too strict” thing, this is clearly journalistic spin, “from what we journalists have been able to reconstruct….”. Did the Pope really say to someone “I am sacking him for being too strict”? No. “From what the journalists were able to construct” it seems the two men had a different vision of the way things should be done. (Rorate’s usual rather homoerotic (“ooh, you’ll never guess what I heard on the grapevine”) bitching can be disregarded, unless you are disposed to give your brain cells a rest - which I find a prerequisite for reading their nonsense).If you are going to bandy words like “disgusting” and “cretin“ about, you should be prepared to back it up with facts, the more so if you claim to be a Catholic.
Post a comment
Virus normalcy, the so-called 'new normal', is for Christians almost certainly more abhorrent than it is for people of other reli...