This news ties in with the latest reports of the wrecking ball approach of the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This is getting really very ugly. A papacy that was meant to embody 'mercy' more and more appears to be used - by some at least -as a smokescreen for a new and brutal era that seems well suited to thugs or nightclub bouncers.
Nightclub bouncers - I am sure there are many good ones - have a reputation for being rough around the edges and every now and then giving someone a 'good going over' if they've stepped out of line. They look quite respectable a lot of the time, but know how to pack a good punch and can leave you with a broken nose. Laws like those which forbid grievous bodily harm are known to go out of the window in the heat of the moment, when it is convenient.
Pope Benedict XVI was - in an age in the Church that probably demanded 'tough love', really very gentle with those who sought to oppose him. He would never - unlike Fr Thomas Rosica - think Lent - or any other time - was a time for getting even with your enemies. What a way to start Lent!
'That man criticised me, because my own words make me look and sound heretical. Sue that man!'
|People are still confused as to what STFU means. Does it mean 'Surrender to Francis Unconditionally?'
Cardinal Donald Wuerl and others are very good at talking about compassion and mercy but then go onto attack other bishops as 'dissenters', while not taking time to tell us who or what they are dissenting to. Is it the Bishop of Rome they are dissenting to or the timeless teaching of the Eternal Word of God, Jesus Christ and His Church? It is rather important to ascertain whether 'dissenting' bishops are being loyal to Jesus Christ by voicing concern over the 'agenda' promoted in the pontificate of Pope Francis.
While we are on the subject of 'agendas', is it really appropriate for the Pope to say that the issue of married priests 'is on my agenda'? Does the Vicar of Christ really have an 'agenda'? I think it is safe to say that Pope Francis does have an agenda, not far down the list of which seems to be the habitual insulting and public denigration of priests, seminarians and other Catholic Christians he thinks don't live up to the mark. Questioning, in public, the psychological state or moral state of 'traditionalist' seminarians is, I think, pretty outrageous and an insult to the intelligence of Catholics. Has it escaped His Holiness's notice that the former Bishop of our Diocese and others now known as notorious were not particularly 'traditionalist'. I don't recall the abusive priests and scandalous bishops or those who covered up serial abuse in Belgium and Ireland and the US being 'traditionalist', but I suppose it would be unhelpful to let truth get in the way of a good old fashioned smear campaign.
It would be nice if goodness and charity always filled a moral vacuum, but in a fallen world, it doesn't seem to be the way things work out as malice and pride fills Rome quicker than ISIS fill a war-zone. I don't think people should be sued or labelled dissidents or 'thrown to the wolves' for just asking whether the 'agenda in Rome' is the same agenda, if we can use that crass word, as the Divine Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.