Andrea Gagliarducci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Concilium, Evangelii gaudium, Fr. Father Linus Clovis of the Archdiocese of Castries, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Robert Spaemann, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Sandro Magister, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St. Lucia in the West Indies, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Tagged 1968, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II
Today we pick up from where the post titled Francis Revolution Put On Hold left off. (see here) If you recall dear reader, in that post we outlined the chronology of the Francis revolution that Francis tried to
implement sneak and then force through the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 with respect to changes in the Catholic practice doctrine with respect to communion for divorced and remarried and homosexuality as being an objectively intrinsic disorder. In other words, the Gender ideology.
Just so that we are clear about how one (read Francis) goes from changing the definition of aberro-sexuality from objectively disordered to Full Monty Gender ideology, I will allow Sandro Magister to explain. In his post titled “Francis’ patient revolution” Magister describes exactly this process, that is outlined in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, i.e. the “program of his pontificate”: (see here)
“Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.”
You see dear reader, it is not about “possessing space”, i.e. does the Church bless a “marriage” between two shepherds or between two shepherds and their two sheep, or four educated attorneys (see here) for that matter, but rather what is key is to get the process started. Her is the relevant quote from the Relatio post disceptationem as we explained in the post titled The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch (see here):
The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect, all of which constitute an important educative challenge.
And it is all there in Evangelii Gaudium, the Apostolic Exhortation, ghost written by that infamous “kissing expert” Fr. Victor Emanuel Fernandez (see here) wrote and that Card. Burke still does not understand what it is. (see here)
Now back to the subject at hand. In the previous post, we outlined how the Francis revolution has been put on hold. The confirmation of this hypothesis comes from Sandro Magister and Andrea Gagliarducci. Assuming that both these gentlemen are correct, the question that we posed was this:
So the question now becomes this: why has Francis put the “revolution” on hold?
From observing the bishop of Rome over the past two years, it is quite apparent that Francis has not put his revolution on hold because he has either changed his mind on counsel received from the cardinals (read Card. Muller) or has acquired more in-depth theological knowledge and now sees the error of his previous ways.
The supporting evidence we have for these two assertions comes from two unlikely sources.
Over at the Rorate Caeli blog, excerpts from an interview appeared recently titled The Bergoglio Pontificate: “One Does Not Get Fully Rid of the Impression of Chaos” and “Autocracy” (Interview with Robert Spaemann)(see here). The subjects of the interview provide the following observations:
Question: But what follows from this attitude of the Pope? Francis once formulated in one quote that he warns against a Christianity of ideas and requests a Christianity of deeds. How do you assess this [statement]?
Spaemann: I find this formulation awkward. Both have to come together. Francis divides the two areas of the Church – theology and practice. And wants to keep them separate. The theologians shall do their work, but the shepherds shall not pay much attention to them. It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. However, in my view both have to be brought together. The theology becomes bloodless and abstract when the pastoral experience does not flow into it. But vice versa, the pastoral care also becomes empty and does not know what it shall teach if it does not have a theological foundation.
The key is the observation here is the It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. Now this observation is supported by the observations of another individual, one that knows Bergoglio, Senor Jack Tollers. In our post titled, Guest Post: The Real Jorge Bergoglio, (see here) we re-produced an interview that Senor Tollers gave the From Rome blog in which he said the following:
Take Bergoglio, for example. His studies amount to nothing substantial. The Jesuits over here have no professors worthy of the name, the subjects were tossed about in an un-scholarly manner, the philosophy would never be properly taught (and, it would only be crassly digested Suárez in the best of cases). The theology seats had been all but captured by badly trained Jesuits who were prone to repeat the last of Teilhard’s work, or Rahner’s, when not divulging the Liberation Theology’s tenets (the Nouvelle Theologie never made it over here, few people could read French or German, and St. Thomas was all but perfectly ignored).
Which bring us back to the second part of the observation, i.e. did someone, hint Cardinal Muller, put pressure on Francis to cease and desist from the doctrinal revolution. Here we are blessed to have the second interviewee share with us his observations. He is Hans Joas who represents the opposite philosophical school from that of Robert Spaemann. Here is what Herr Joas observes: (emphasis added)
Joas: With regard to the changes in the Vatican, I considered the public humiliation of his employees in the speech of the Pope before Christmas to be problematic. A critique of such a manner has to happen either in a non-public form or there must be the possibility of expressed disagreement. To humiliate people publicly I consider to be autocratic in a negative sense.
To which Herr Spaemann adds:
Spaemann: This Pope is one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time.
So the answer is that it is highly unlikely that Francis, “one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time” put his revolution on hold on the basis of council that he received from the cardinals.
Just to summarize, the evidence above indicates that Francis is both generally disinterested in theology, theologically challenged and is not predisposed to take council from his peers, such as members of the Curia. Given these two characteristics, the question then needs to be asked is this: what kind of “power” could have exerted such pressure on Francis, the bishop of Rome to have forced him to put the revolution on hold as per Magister and Gagliarducci?
For an answer to this above question, I would like to introduce you to Father Linus Clovis of the Archdiocese of Castries, St. Lucia in the West Indies. Fr. Clovis held a press conference in Rome recently a press conference that we will analyze in greater detail in a future post. In the presentation, Fr. Clovis related a quote from a person who knew Archbishop Bergoglio in Argentina and provided follow-up commentary, commentary that will no doubt put us on the right path to answering the above posed question. Here is what that person from Argentina observed: (it starts at about the 11:00 mark)
Apparently he loves to be loved by all and pleases everybody. So that one day, he may make a speech on TV against abortion, the next day on the same television show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo. He can give a wonderful speech against the Masons, and a few hours later, be dining and drinking with them in the Rotary Club.
So how can you make a decision on a man like this, who is everybody’s friend?
Father Clovis goes on to explain it this way:
Our Lord tells us, nevertheless, this is John 12th chapter, St. John’s Gospel, nevertheless, even many of the authorities believed in him, that’s in Our Lord, but for fear of the Pharasees they did not confess it less they should be put out of the Synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
This observation and commentary by Fr. Clovis, as it turns out goes a long way in helping to understanding the higher power that is most likely behind the putting on hold of the revolution. Which leads us back to something that we have been observing on this blog for the past year.
Over the course of the last year, we have observed a phenomenon that is contradictory by its very nature. On the one hand, Francis is obtaining high approval ratings from various polling data taken by various news and polling agencies. On the other hand, the number of Faithful who have been attending the general audiences and have come out to St. Peter’s Square on feast days and in the general attendance figures are very meager to say the least. This dichotomy between the Virtual Reality and Objective Reality of the Francis papacy we have outlined in various posts.
These observations, as it turns out could be the key to understanding the higher power that is most likely behind the putting on hold of the revolution. Here is one conclusion that we have reached in the post titled Francis is “Home Alone”: (see here)
What we could be seeing is Francis becoming more and more isolated inside the Sacred Walls of the Vatican. The continuous reports of the internecine conflict inside the Vatican is most likely taking its toll. (see here) It is beginning to dawn on all concerned that the abysmal failure that is the legacy of the Bergoglio reign in the Buenos Aires dioceses is being replicated in Rome, in the Universal Church. The Bergoglio papacy, which is grounded in a “sugar-coated” media narrative and favorable optics, is nothing more than a “Soap Bubble Papay™” (see here) Francis’ populist antics and attacks on the Catholic faithful might have translated into an appealing “media buzz” initially, but have simultaneously translated into low attendance figures at his audiences and low turnout in St. Peter’s Square for the feast days. And since the entire Francis papacy is constructed on the media narrative and optics, this chronic lack of bodies is nothing short of a death-blow to the Francis strategy Lord’s pastoral call.
As to the situation inside the Roman hierarchy, these clerics are cognizant of this situation and are rebelling. The “clique” that has helped Francis with administrating his “revolution”, i.e. the homo-lobby, is most likely seeing the writing on the wall and receding into the shadows. This abandonment by his supporting troops is leaving Francis “home alone” and looking for new friends. And it is this situation that explains the new overtures to Benedict, and appears to be a belated effort in “how to win friends and influence people”. (see here)
We concluded this post with the following observation:
Summa summarum, the Francis “Soap Bubble Papay™” is beginning to “dry up” from the very same causes that created it in the first place.
And it is this dichotomy between the Virtual Reality that is apparent in the polls and the Objective Reality that is observed at the general audiences and in St. Peter’s Square, that could be the most likely explanation for Francis putting the revolution on hold.
Concluding, George Elliot once quipped that: Cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside of itself; it only requires opportunity. From the above text, it would appear that the opportunistic Bergoglian “god of surprises” can be the cruelest of all.