, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pierce II

Today we move back to a „big picture” view of the subject of our recent interest, one Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx.

We have been focusing on the good Cardinal over the past few posts, but the time has come to begin to explain why it is “him” that we are focusing on specifically. Especially, when there are so many other “juicy” candidates, saying ridiculous things, and ones who are closer to power in Francis’ central committee cardinal committees. (see here). The reason is due to the fact that our “Peirce/Ockham pragmatic method” (see here) selection criteria that the Deus Ex Machina blog has adopted, has indicated that he is the most important actor in this Synod of Shame process outside of Francis. And since this blog is exclusively focusing on the upcoming Synod of Bishops for the next 251 days, Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx is the logical first choice. We will start with him and work out way down the order from most to the least important.

Man Marking Marx – The Cardinal of “Bling”

Today will focus on some of Card. “Bling” Marx’ character traits and try to produce a profile that can give us a good idea of the man who is the “driving” force behind Francis’ TRUE AGENDA at the Synod of Bishops. But more on this in a subsequent post.

The two of the most striking character traits of the Cardinal are the blind ideology (see here) and the raw ambition of the man. A excellent example of this man’s ideology and ambition can be discerned from his relations with his fellow bishops both in the German Bishops’ Conference and in Rome. Needless to say, Cardinal “Bling” Marx has relationship issues. It is these relationship issues that have earned Cardinal Marx the “Bling” moniker on the Deus Ex Machina blog.

Allow me to explain. The “Bling” moniker was assigned to Marx due to the transparently outrageous and totally vile campaign that he led against a fellow bishop and the former bishop of Limburg, Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz. The information below should provide you dear reader, with a good idea of the type of character we are dealing with.

Here are excerpts from the Corrispondenza Romana via the Eponymous Flower blog (see here).

Are punitive measures soon to be weighed against the power hungry Archbishop Reinhard Marx of Cardinal of Munich and Freising?” Asks Corrispondenza Romana .

The question is being asked since the cardinal decided to do some renovation work on his chancellery. Here are the details:

The Archdiocese is currently building a chancery in the city on the Isar. Now, the costs have been published. 51 million euros for the beautification of the Archdiocese, says Vicar General Peter Beer. At seven and a half million more than recently estimated, because the roof was to blame. Whether you have reached the end of the story, it seems not yet to be clear.

So the cost was not only an initial bill for 51,000,000 Euros (FIFTY ONE MILLION Euros was approximately $67,000,000 at the time of the post), but some cost overruns were incurred as well. 7,500,000 Euro for the roof? Could be the most expensive roof in all of Christendom. But I digress… And that’s not all, a further cost was incurred, namely:

The diocesan employees were outsourced for the construction and distributed to six locations with additional costs. There they have to stay longer than planned. Probably until the end of the 2015.

But there is more. Looks like Cardinal “Bling” Marx is a serial “big spender”. Here is the tab “Bling” Marx ran up in 2008:

His colleague, Cardinal Archbishop Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising in 2008 came out with at least eight million euros of renovation costs for his episcopal palace. The order is important to note. Apart from that the Bishop of Limburg seems to be surrounded by bad advisers. After the costs appeared, not once has any asked for them.

And “Bling” Marx likes to travel in style:

There was a media campaign waged against Bishop Tebartz van Elst until he was gone. Not a word of criticism, however, was heard for the little “luxury” Archbishop Reinhard Marx allowed himself in his indulgent 13 million euros stays in Rome – which it may be added have become more frequent. This unequal treatment shows that the real reasons for the attacks in the case Limburg were to be sought elsewhere. (see here)

So is it any wonder why the Corrispondenza Romana asks the following question:

Will the German press launch a campaign against the “Swank-Cardinal”? Will Rome exile Cardinal Marx for a break in a monastery and then cashier him coldly?

The reason that the Corrispondenza Romana was asking this question was due to a media smear campaign that Cardinal “Bling” Marx led against a brother bishop, i.e. the former Limburg, Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz as indicated in the above paragraphs. Yet no such mention ever appeared in the media regarding “Bling” Marx questionable expenses. Here are the relevant facts:

Really amazing when you think back to the smear campaign against the Limburg Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz who went through all the tabloids last year. From the “bishop of bling” was the kind of talk which was circulated by the media or better by the cocoa poured to the amusement of the “people”. There was talk about a gilded bathtub and particularly brave, intelligent contemporaries actually made a determined search, but they could find nothing.

But what exactly did Bishop van Elst do?

However, concerning 31 million, of which the finance committee of the Diocese now talks, is not the impression manipulated by the critics, only to a small part, the Bishop’s house. It’s about a building complex comprising a diocesan center and other facilities. The finance committee, which now matches the chorus of critics, however, seem to have been asleep for years.

In other words, the Bishop of Limburg had to renovate a large building complex that was left in a state of ruin by his leftist progressive predecessor. It was this renovation that was used in the smear campaign. The subsequent investigation that was conducted into this affair found that the charges were groundless.

However, if you dear leader thought that after the findings cleared Bishop van Elst, an apology was in order, and he was reinstated back at the diocese of Limburg, you would be NOT CORRECT.

Not only did Bishop van Elst’s accuser (actually accusers) not apologize, but Bishop Van Elst was summoned to Rome and:

And so it happened: the “hopeful” bishop had been banned by the Pope to a convent and after being allowed to mull over the matter with some Montegras, so that the pious people of God might not yet even think of an uprising, he was deposed.

But how did Francis get involved, you might ask?

The answer is that an up an coming bishop and competitor for the presidency of the German Bishops’ Conference led a smear campaign in the media and even in Rome. And it later turned out that Francis knew about the whole think and was tracking the developments. (see here)

But back to Marx and his fellow bishops. Here is how a fellow cardinal and the former Archbishop of Cologne described Bishop van Elst and what he had to say about Marx:

It was just Cardinal Marx, who vehemently and also in Rome campaigned for the removal of Tebartz van Elst. So loudly that Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Archbishop of Cologne at that time pointed to the lack of “episcopal fraternity” being exhibited at the time for the Limburger Pastor, who was actively exposed by some clergy and lay church officials to a public lynching. Meisner called out Cardinal Marx explicitly by name. And what the attitude of the German bishops was really concerned with: Only a handful of bishops in the Bishops’ Conference had resisted the Marx-Woelki-Langendörfer-Synod which attempted to enforce the sexual revolution in the Church.

As to Cardinal Meisner, here is more.

Cardinal Meisner defended his brother Limburger and praised his “theological depth and decidedly Catholic orientation”. A description of the Tebartz van Elst that already stood out from the majority of the German bishops. But nobody wanted to hear, media, liberal laity and priests and Brothers in the Episcopate had tasted blood. The hypocrites indeed railed mightily about the money, but in reality it was about a factional dispute within the Church. The mob, which calls for the crucifixion, is there always.

Concluding, it is plainly evident that with Marx, we are dealing with an individual whose character is total devoid of any sense of either guilt, remorse, justice, shame, humility or even that trait that he continuously talks about,i.e. mercy. What we are witnessing is the ascent to the upper echelons of the Catholic Church leadership of a very amoral and aggressive political ideologue. He is driven by two factors. First, by his blind ambition and who ever gets in his way, will be eliminated. And secondly by pride. He doesn’t have the proverbial ounce of self doubt nor the least sense of self criticism. He’s right, and damn the consequences. He is the epitome of a thug in ecclesiastical garb.

And why can he get away with this thuggery in broad daylight you may ask?

Well, the answer is that thuggery is all the rage in Rome these days.

Like the old Italian expression states: the fish starts rotting at the head.