Unpacking the Latest Pinto Propaganda Production

Four Cardinals face the music...

Thanks to One Peter Five for the following excerpts from the latest Pinto propaganda release...

"They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. [Writing letters is not illegal...I guess!]. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. [The Pope is a busy man, he might have gotten round to it...someday!] That is a slap in the face. [The four cardinals are traitors!] The pope can choose to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different from imposing upon him a counsel. [They're only cardinals! Pope can do what he wants, it's his Church, so there!]
They are not a council with any kind of competences. [They're only cardinals!] On the contrary, they as cardinals are bound in a higher degree to be loyal to the pope. [But they are traitors!] He stands for the gift of unity, the charisma of Peter. [They are schismatics!] That is where the cardinals have to support him, and not hinder him. [They are schismatics and traitors!] By what authority do the authors of the letter act? On the fact that they are cardinals? That is not sufficient. [They're only cardinals!] Please. Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions,  [Writing letters is not illegal], I suppose! but to oblige him to answer [to expect a reply?! Treacherous madness!] and to publish the case is another matter. [Informing the Faithful that the Pope has not replied?! The faithful have no rights to know! Traitors!]
The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four cardinals contest. [Apart from the most controversial elements of Amoris Laetitia which were rejected by the Synod Fathers, but still, Church history is something we write! Not something history itself records! Because the Pope says so!].

I am not the type who can threaten (people). [I am a nice guy! Trust me on this!] To write something like this is quite a journalistic license and is not serious. [You published what I said and now I look silly! Bastards!] What I have said is, rather: Francis is a lighthouse of mercy and has infinite patience. [The Pope is just like Jesus. Moreover, he is Jesus re-enfleshed on earth!]

For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing. [He is a nice guy too. Trust me on this!] It was a serious act that these four have published their letter. [Traitors!] But to think that he would remove their cardinalate – no. [The Pope is a nice guy! Trust me on this!] I do not believe that he will do that. [No guarantee he won't mind, because he's unpredictable, some might say volatile. But he's such a nice man!] In itself, as pope, he could do such a thing. [He could do it. So don't make him go red boiling with rage.] The way I know Francis, he will not do it. [But he probably won't because he is a nice guy. Such a nice, sweet man!]
This is crazy. [The cardinals are crazy! What have they done!?] Such a council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. [They're only cardinals!] The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts. [They are traitors! Damn their eyes!] And this is a fact: [I need an invented 'fact' to support my argument] Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X. [See! There's no problem here! Dubia schmoobia! In spite of a four year moratorium on any concrete evidence to support my argument, just...just...BELIEVE!!]
I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. [Traitor!] Meisner was a great bishop of an important diocese [Cologne]  [Traitor!] – how sad that he now with this action puts a shadow upon his history.  [Traitor!] Meisner, a great spiritual leader! [I thought he was a company man! But now? Traitor!] That he would arrive at that, I did not expect. [Traitor!] He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict, and he knows that Benedict XVI and Francis are in full agreement about the analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage. [See! There's no problem here! Dubia schmoobia! In spite of a four year moratorium on any concrete evidence to support my argument, just...just...BELIEVE!!And Burke – we have worked together. [And I thought I knew you. But you turned on me. Traitor!] He seemed to me to be an amiable person. [Yes, even I thought you were a nice guy! Well, kind of. But now...Traitor!] Now I would ask him: Your Eminence, why did you do that? [You've broken my heart. You've let the Pope down, you've let me down. Face it, you've let yourself down. You treacherous bastard! Shut it, 'Cardinal Nobody' and don't try and foil our darstardly, wicked masonic plan!]"

Comments

Nicolas Bellord said…
The BBC has just announced a new farcical series entitled "Fawlty Church Towers" with Mgr Pinto playing the role of Manuel as lackey to Pope Farce.
I wonder if the late Mr. Sachs would appreciate.
Left-footer said…
Not to be read while eating scrambled egg and using computer. Hysterically funny, and right on target.

God bless!
Mark Thomas said…
The other day via certain "traditionalist" blogs, I encountered what I believed were polarized reports and commentary in regard to Monsignor Pinto. It was claimed that he had uttered certain remarks in regard to the Four Cardinals. After having read the latest rendering of Monsignor Pinto's remarks in question, my concerns proved correct.

Despite the claims of certain traditionalists, Monsignor Pinto did not declare that His Holiness Pope Francis would revoke the status of each Cardinal associated with the dubia.

Furthermore, certain traditionalists who had claimed the above, claimed also that Pope Francis had sent his "henchman" Monsignor Pinto to make it clear that the Four Cardinals would lose their red hats.

The traditionalists in question smeared Pope Francis and Monsignor Pinto. Will the traditionalists in question apologize publicly for the false claims that they issued about Pope Francis and Monsignor Pinto?

That said, I am not here to condemn the traditionalists in question. They made horrific mistakes in having smeared Pope Francis and Monsignor Pinto. But I recognize that I am a sinner in dire need of God's mercy. Therefore, I do not engaging in the casting of stones at people.

The valuable lesson in all this is that as Catholics, we are called to obey the following teaching, #2478, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."

Certain traditionalists did not do that in Monsignor Pinto's case and, by extension, to His Holiness Pope Francis. Pope Francis did not send Monsignor Pinto to warn the Four Cardinals that they were about to lose their status as Cardinals.

As brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, we are called to love each other. The left-wing right-wing polarization of certain Catholics only serves Satan as we end up attacking each other and choosing sides.

Instead, we need to gather around His Holiness Pope Francis, our Supreme Shepherd, as neither right-wing nor left-wing Catholics.

The false reports about Monsignor Pinto serve as a valuable lesson in regard to the terrible consequences that result when we disobey #2478 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said…
The false reports about that which Monsignor Pinto said supposedly have given way to his actual comments in question. As I read his actual comments, I realize that Monsignor Pinto issued a sound statement in regard to the Four Cardinals.

Therefore, in fairness to Monsignor Pinto and his actual comments...

1. He noted correctly the Four Cardinals had the right to submit a dubia to Pope Francis. In fact, he noted that right more than once.

(In turn, Pope Francis has every right to refrain from addressing the dubia. Many outstanding Churchmen have declared that the dubia is designed to trap His Holiness Pope Francis...and that Pope Francis should ignore the dubia.

Eample: Father Francis G. Morrisey, a renowned canon law expert, declared that His Holiness Pope Francis should not answer the dubia as they’re all "trick questions like the Pharisees asked Jesus.")

2. Monsignor Pinto noted correctly that the Cardinals revealed to the public that which had been a confidential matter. (That is indeed a slap in the face to Pope Francis. The Cardinals turned their confidential action into a public matter.)

3. Monsignor Pinto is absolutely correct in that the Four Cardinals are bound to a higher decree of loyalty in regard to their service to the Holy Father. (Unfortunately, the Four Cardinals unleashed chaos when, in light of the horrific polarization between left-wing and right-forces within the Church, they publicized a confidential matter that was destined to provoke controversy.)

4. In fairness to Monsignor Pinto, he repeated the following in regard to the Four Cardinals: "Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions, but to oblige him to answer and to publish the case is another matter." (The Cardinals were on firm ground until they pushed Pope Francis then went public with the dubia.)

5. Contrary to reports issued by various traditionalists, Monsignor Pinto did not claim that Pope Francis planned to revoke the status of the Four Cardinals.

6. Monsignor Pinto is 100 correct in that the "council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts."

We can place right-wing and left-wing spins upon Monsignor Pinto's comments. But when one distances himself from a polarized point of view and reads his actual comments, it becomes clear that Monsignor Pinto's comments are 100 percent unassailable as they are accurate and reflect Catholic teaching.

Again, Monsignor Pinto is far from alone in his comments about the Four Cardinals and dubia.

Anyway, where do we go from here? I believe that the controversy over the dubia will reside as Pope Francis, a man of God, peacemaker, and noted bridge-builder, will take the high road in the matter at hand.

Despite the major mistakes that they have just made, I believe that the Four Cardinals are also men of God. They will not lead a schism, which, incredibly and sadly, certain traditionalists favor.

The Blessed Virgin Mary will intercede on behalf of Her children to obtain a peaceful resolution to the situation at hand. The Blessed Virgin Mary calls us to remain united to Her son's Vicar — the Vicar of Christ — His Holiness Pope Francis.

Let us be charitable to each other. Let us gather about our Supreme Shepherd, Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


We can take monumental comfort in that it's the faith of the True Church that "in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate."
The American Mathematical Association recently voted that the sum of 2+2 can not be rigidly restricted to 4.

Many youth in America are to be accompanied when they say that 2 + 2 equals 5, 3, or even, 7 which is a holy number remember. Is there anything more annoying than math professors (most of whom are men) dogmatically insisting that 2 + 2 equals 4 and only 4? Clearly, their rigidity and insensitivity does not serve society, rather, it makes of math a mono culture that refuses to welcome and include the sum of 3,5,7 along with 4 as the sum of 2 + 2. We can do better for the special snowflakes who are free and easy , ever-liberating, and inventive while doing their so-called wrong sums. If we had stifled the creativity of past generations, would be have ever discovered and been free to enjoy the benefits of the vibrating ab belt or hair in a can
Thomas said…
The chaos that has been unleashed is due to the fact that the explicit teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI does indeed appear to be contradicted in practice by the infamous footnote in AL and its (unmagisterially) permitted interpretation by His Holiness Pope Francis. That is a serous matter of doubt that urgently needs clarification. Any member of the faithful, let alone a Cardinal, has the right and the duty in Canon Law to speak their mind freely and publicly to their ecclesiastical superior, including, and sometimes especially the Pope. The Cardinals did so on this grave matter privately and respectfully in the first instance as Christian charity demands. On receiving no answer they made their concern public, still in a respectful manner. The argument that the Pope is accountable to no one is the worst exaggeration of 'Papolatory' that would confirm every Protestant and secular prejudice about Catholicism. St. Paul confronted Peter publicly about compromising over the Gospel, St. Catherine of Sienna confronted Gregory XI respectfully but robustly about remaining in Avignon. The Pope can be asked for clarification over the doctrine he teaches and it is his duty to respond. He is not an innovator of doctrine but its defender. It is his job to care for the sheep and the shepherds and to respond to their legitimate concerns. The four Cardinals are not pretending to be some Council of authority over the Pope (do Francis and his advisors have reason to fear that?). The recent synods did not approve what is being proposed, in fact many bishops explicitly opposed it, but the final reports ignored and bypassed their concerns. Amoris Laetitae deliberately left open the way for the still controversial and synodically unapproved proposal to be implemented by extra-magisterial means (a footnote the Pope said he couldn't remember and an off-the-record briefing). I am not a traditionalist, no partisan of liturgical forms, but if the Pope wishes to impose a novel teaching and practice on the Church about marriage and divorce as a matter of absolute obedience, then let him say so clearly by invoking the full magisterium of Jesus Christ of which he is currently the custodian. Let him try. Until such an attempt he and others have no right to demand unquestioning obedience to his every thought and personal agenda which is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, and absolutely no right in Christian charity to try to silence and reprimand (albeit by proxies) those who simply ask him to clarify what he teaches.The scandal is not of the Cardinals' making. God bless, save and help our Pope.
Regan Wick said…
Why not a definitive No to Communion-for-Divorced-Civilly-Remarried (CDCRM)? The only answer that explains why Francis would not simply restate the consistent Church teaching is that it is not what he wanted.

Then why not a definitive Yes to CDCRM? Too controversial and risk of schism.

So in the end, no definitive answer. Qui tacet consentire videtur
Nicolas Bellord said…
I agree one hundred percent with what Thomas (NOT Mark Thomas) has written although I would favour some modifications to the Novus Ordo Mass such as the very modest suggestion of Cardinal Sarah.
I would favour some modifications to the Novus Ordo Mass

Modify it by eliminating everything from the opening procession to the mass is ended go and be eucharist for one another or whatever'n'hell the local presider says at the ending of the Lil' Licit Liturgy.

The Mass is the Holocaust of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; it His Salvific Self-sacrifice .

The Sacramental re-presentation on earth of the pluperfect Salvific sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary in which His burning love substituted for the material fire of the Old Testament holocaust, (all of which sacrifices were instituted to prepare the once chosen people to accept the Messias as their Saviour) is the single most important act occurring on earth at many moment of any day or any year since His ascension into heaven and, as such, it must be the absolute summit of the good, the true and the beautiful the One True Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is capable of producing which automatically eliminates the Lil’ Licit Liturgy which is as inapt for the sacramental re-presentation of the Holocaust as would have been a yodeling contest at Calvary.
Nicolas Bellord said…
Mark Thomas: One of the last acts of Christ on earth as recounted in St John's Gospel was to admonish Peter, as first Pope, to feed his sheep. And he did so three times. It is quite proper for anyone not just Cardinals to ask a Pope to clarify what he said when it is ambiguous or people have simply not understood what he has said. To fail to respond to such questions is a dereliction of duty on the part of Pope Francis. Have you never failed to understand a sermon and then asked the priest giving the sermon to explain something further? I have and usually received an explanation. In one case I received no proper answer and that was because the priest in question is a heretic and refused to engage.

I would be interested to know why Father Morrisey thinks that Pope Francis should not respond and why he thinks the dubia are trick questions.

The four Cardinals were perfectly justified in revealing their dubia when Pope Francis had not replied after two months. Why should they not? There is scriptural authority for their so doing.

The four Cardinals have not 'obliged' Pope Francis to respond but the faithful are entitled to draw their own conclusions from his failure to respond.

The Cardinals did not hold themselves out as some kind of Council entitled to hold the Pope to account. They are merely four of the faithful who are entitled to ask the Pope to clarify what he has said. One can bet one's bottom dollar that if four ordinary members of the laity had asked for clarification they would have received no reply; indeed many eminent theologians have asked for this and had no reply. So it is useful that four very senior Cardinals have done so. The failure of Pope Francis to respond is nothing short of scandalous. I wonder what St Catherine of Siena would have said! As you suggest Pope Francis will take the high handed route - what hubris! Traditionalists are not looking to a schism or advocating such. However they are concerned that a Pope is failing in his duty.