Since the beginning of Lent, 2022 the cardinals who will elect the future pope have been passing this memorandum around. Its author, who goes by the name of Demos, “people” in Greek, is unknown, but shows himself a thorough master of the subject. It cannot be ruled out that he himself is a cardinal.
– Sandro Magister
*
The Vatican today
Commentators of every school, if for different reasons, with the possible exception of Father Spadaro, SJ, agree that this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe.
1. The Successor of St. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, a major source and cause of worldwide unity. Historically (St. Irenaeus), the Pope and the Church of Rome have a unique role in preserving the apostolic tradition, the rule of faith, in ensuring that the Churches continue to teach what Christ and the apostles taught. Previously it was: “Roma locuta. Causa finita est.” Today it is: “Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur.”
(A) The German synod speaks on homosexuality, women priests, communion for the divorced. The Papacy is silent.
(B) Cardinal Hollerich rejects the Christian teaching on sexuality. The Papacy is silent. This is doubly significant because the Cardinal is explicitly heretical; he does not use code or hints. If the Cardinal were to continue without Roman correction, this would represent another deeper breakdown of discipline, with few (any?) precedents in history. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must act and speak.
(C) The silence is emphasised when contrasted with the active persecution of the Traditionalists and the contemplative convents.
2. The Christo-centricity of teaching is being weakened; Christ is being moved from the centre. Sometimes Rome even seems to be confused about the importance of a strict monotheism, hinting at some wider concept of divinity; not quite pantheism, but like a Hindu panentheism variant.
(A) Pachamama is idolatrous; perhaps it was not intended as such initially.
(B) The contemplative nuns are being persecuted and attempts are being made to change the teachings of the charismatics.
(C) The Christo-centric legacy of St. John Paul II in faith and morals is under systematic attack. Many of the staff of the Roman Institute for the Family have been dismissed; most students have left. The Academy for Life is gravely damaged, e.g., some members recently supported assisted suicide. The Pontifical Academies have members and visiting speakers who support abortion.
3. The lack of respect for the law in the Vatican risks becoming an international scandal. These issues have been crystalized through the present Vatican trial of ten accused of financial malpractices, but the problem is older and wider.
(A) The Pope has changed the law four times during the trial to help the prosecution.
(B) Cardinal Becciu has not been treated justly because he was removed from his position and stripped of his cardinalatial dignities without any trial. He did not receive due process. Everyone has a right to due process.
(C) As the Pope is head of the Vatican state and the source of all legal authority, he has used this power to intervene in legal procedures.
(D) The Pope sometimes (often) rules by papal decrees (motu proprio) which eliminate the right to appeal of those affected.
(E) Many staff, often priests, have been summarily dismissed from the Vatican Curia, often without good reason.
(F) Phone tapping is regularly practised. I am not sure how often it is authorized.
(G) In the English case against Torzi, the judge criticised the Vatican prosecutors harshly. They are either incompetent and/or were nobbled, prevented from giving the full picture.
(H) The raid by the Vatican Gendarmeria, led by Dr. Giani in 2017 on the auditor’s (Libero Milone) office on Italian territory was probably illegal and certainly intimidating and violent. It is possible that evidence against Milone was fabricated.
4. (A) The financial situation of the Vatican is grave. For the past ten years (at least), there have nearly always been financial deficits. Before COVID, these deficits ranged around €20 million annually. For the last three years, they have been around €30-35 million annually. The problems predate both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.
(B) The Vatican is facing a large deficit in the Pensions Fund. Around 2014 the experts from COSEA estimated the deficit would be around € 800 million in 2030. This was before COVID.
(C) It is estimated that the Vatican has lost € 217 million on the Sloane Avenue property in London. In the 1980’s, the Vatican was forced to pay out $ 230 million after the Banco Ambrosiano scandal. Through inefficiency and corruption during the past 25-30 years, the Vatican has lost at least another € 100 million, and it probably would be much higher (perhaps 150-200 million).
(D) Despite the Holy Father’s recent decision, the process of investing has not been centralized (as recommended by COSEA in 2014 and attempted by the Secretariat for the Economy in 2015-16) and remains immune to expert advice. For decades, the Vatican has dealt with disreputable financiers avoided by all respectable bankers in Italy.
(E) The return on the 5261 Vatican properties remains scandalously low. In 2019, the return (before COVID) was nearly $ 4,500 a year. In 2020, it was € 2,900 per property.
(F) The changing role of Pope Francis in the financial reforms (incomplete but substantial progress as far as reducing crime is concerned, much less successful, except at IOR, in terms of profitability) is a mystery and an enigma.
Initially the Holy Father strongly backed the reforms. He then prevented the centralization of investments, opposed the reforms and most attempts to unveil corruption, and supported (then) Archbishop Becciu, at the centre of Vatican financial establishment. Then in 2020, the Pope turned on Becciu and eventually ten persons were placed on trial and charged. Over the years, few prosecutions were attempted from AIF reports of infringements.
The external auditors Price Waterhouse and Cooper were dismissed and the Auditor General Libero Milone was forced to resign on trumped up charges in 2017. They were coming too close to the corruption in the Secretariat of State.
5. The political influence of Pope Francis and the Vatican is negligible. Intellectually, Papal writings demonstrate a decline from the standard of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Decisions and policies are often “politically correct”, but there have been grave failures to support human rights in Venezuela, Hong Kong, mainland China, and now in the Russian invasion.
There has been no public support for the loyal Catholics in China who have been intermittently persecuted for their loyally to the Papacy for more than 70 years. No public Vatican support for the Catholic community in Ukraine, especially the Greek Catholics.
These issues should be revisited by the next Pope. The Vatican’s political prestige is now at a low ebb.
6. At a different, lower level, the situation of Tridentine traditionalists (Catholic) should be regularised.
At a further and lower level, the celebration of “individual” and small group Masses in the mornings in St. Peter’s Basilica should be permitted once again. At the moment, this great basilica is like a desert in the early morning.
The COVID crisis has covered up the large decline in the number of pilgrims attending Papal audiences and Masses.
The Holy Father has little support among seminarians and young priests and wide-spread disaffection exists in the Vatican Curia.
The Next Conclave
1. The College of Cardinals has been weakened by eccentric nominations and has not been reconvened after the rejection of Cardinal Kasper’s views in the 2014 consistory. Many Cardinals are unknown to one another, adding a new dimension of unpredictability to the next conclave.
2. After Vatican II, Catholic authorities often underestimated the hostile power of secularization, the world, flesh, and the devil, especially in the Western world and overestimated the influence and strength of the Catholic Church.
We are weaker than 50 years ago and many factors are beyond our control, in the short term at least, e.g. the decline in the number of believers, the frequency of Mass attendance, the demise or extinction of many religious orders.
3. The Pope does not need to be the world’s best evangelist, nor a political force. The successor of Peter, as head of the College of Bishops, also successors of the Apostles, has a foundational role for unity and doctrine. The new pope must understand that the secret of Christian and Catholic vitality comes from fidelity to the teachings of Christ and Catholic practices. It does not come from adapting to the world or from money.
4. The first tasks of the new pope will be to restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition. Theological expertise and learning are an advantage, not a hinderance for all bishops and especially archbishops.
These are necessary foundations for living and preaching the Gospel.
5. If the synodal gatherings continue around the world, they will consume much time and money, probably distracting energy from evangelization and service rather than deepening these essential activities.
If the national or continental synods are given doctrinal authority, we will have a new danger to world-wide Church unity, whereby e.g., the German church holds doctrinal views not shared by other Churches and not compatible with the apostolic tradition.
If there was no Roman correction of such heresy, the Church would be reduced to a loose federation of local Churches, holding different views, probably closer to an Anglican or Protestant model, than an Orthodox model.
An early priority for the next pope must be to remove and prevent such a threatening development, by requiring unity in essentials and not permitting unacceptable doctrinal differences. The morality of homosexual activity will be one such flash point.
6. While the younger clergy and seminarians are almost completely orthodox, sometimes quite conservative, the new Pope will need to be aware of the substantial changes effected on the Church’s leadership since 2013, perhaps especially in South and Central America. There is a new spring in the step of the Protestant liberals in the Catholic Church.
Schism is not likely to occur from the left, who often sit lightly to doctrinal issues. Schism is more likely to come from the right and is always possible when liturgical tensions are inflamed and not dampened.
Unity in the essentials. Diversity in the non-essentials. Charity on all issues.
7. Despite the dangerous decline in the West and the inherent fragility and instability in many places, serious consideration should be given to the feasibility of a visitation on the Jesuit Order. They are in a situation of catastrophic numerical decline from 36,000 members during the Council to less than 16,000 in 2017 (with probably 20-25% above 75 years of age). In some places, there is catastrophic moral decline.
The order is highly centralized, susceptible to reform or damage from the top. The Jesuit charism and contribution have been and are so important to the Church that they should not be allowed to pass away into history undisturbed or become simply an Asian-African community.
8. The disastrous decline in Catholic numbers and Protestant expansion in South America should be addressed. It was scarcely mentioned in the Amazonian Synod.
9. Obviously, a lot of work is needed on the financial reforms in the Vatican, but this should not be the most important criterion in the selection of the next Pope.
The Vatican has no substantial debts but continuing annual deficits will eventually lead to bankruptcy. Obviously, steps will be taken to remedy this, to separate the Vatican from criminal accomplices and balance revenue and expenditure. The Vatican will need to demonstrate competence and integrity to attract substantial donations to help with this problem.
Despite the improved financial procedures and greater clarity, continuing financial pressures represent a major challenge, but they are much less important than the spiritual and doctrinal threats facing the Church, especially in the First World.
– Demos
Original story by Sandro Magister in L’Espresso.
I’ll tell you this: if the pope changes Catholic doctrine prohibiting artificial contraception and prohibiting same-sex unions, I’m out of the church. I already give it 50-50 odds. That’s a sad commentary on the current state of corruption in the church and church leadership.
What? The pope is not going to do that.
Odds are 0% that he will do that.
wrong move.The Maccabbees didn’t leave Judaism when they saw things drift, they stayed and fought. Benedict has prepared you for this . His step-aside was a war play.
If you leave the Church, you will go to hell.
What are people thinking here?
I know the devil tempts Catholics to leave the Church.
“If you leave the Church you will go to hell.” Ignorant! Barbaric! Our Church does not teach such horrible, untrue things anymore! Billy Graham, who died in 2018, was a world-renowned Protestant evangelist, who loved Christ with all his heart– and made millions of converts for Christ. I doubt that his soul is in Hell. And Queen Elizabeth II, who died recently, was a devout Anglican, who publicly professed her faith in Christ, encouraging millions to honor Jesus on His birthday, in her annual Christmas addresses. I doubt if her soul is in Hell. The famous Christian author and apologist, C.S. Lewis, who died in 1963, was a devout Anglican, who made millions of converts for Christ — I doubt if his soul is in Hell. And there are many more beautiful souls who loved Christ with all their hearts, and lived by His teachings– I am sure they all could not possibly be in Hell! Ridiculous!
Yeah, Vatican II changed that teaching about non-catholics going to hell. Even athiests can be saved. Just be a good person and God loves you. God loves all his children.
Billy Graham and Queen Elizabeth were never Catholic. They did not leave the Church. CS Lewis was not either.
And yes, apostasy, schism and heresy are mortal sins that have the same punishment in the Church-latae sentatae excommunication.
If you die without repenting, you will go to hell.
Catholic teaching.
No, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches– you are poorly educated in Church teachings and confused. Read the works of Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict (emeritus), for starters. In the end, God has the final say on your soul. Pope Francis rebukes violent, manipulative, mean-spirited Catholic evangelists who tell people “you will go to Hell!” Yes, leading a terribly sinful life– without repentance– will probably result in Hell– whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheist (etc.). There is a lot more to this than mere acceptance of the Catholic Faith. There are Pro Life and Pro Traditional (man-woman) Marriage and Family, and Anti-Contraception teachers and workers, in all religions. And those who are Orthodox– including devout clerics and laymen– in Ukraine. Greece, Russia, etc.– are probably not going to Hell. The Jews who were killed in Hitler’s Holocaust are probably not in Hell.
You reject the Faith of the Catholic Church.
You should read the Gospels if you do not believe the Church.
The Church does not declare anyone as being in Hell.
You keep changing the subject like always.
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication. CCC
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Learn the Faith and stop being so aggressive.
Yes, “Hell”– learn the Faith and stop being so aggressive!
Reply to: Someone leaving the Church is committing spiritual suicide. I am not going to sugar coat the possible consequences of that. People who have never been Catholic are a different thing.
What if he was raped by a priest? You expect him to stay in the church?
Yes. Why would you let some jerk get between you and Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?
It is challenging. It is a great trespass that one needs to forgive and it can take a long time.
The Church will pay for your counselling.
Every diocese has a number that you can call to talk to someone about that.
Yes. Stay in the Church. Christ conquers. Christ reigns. Christ orders.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was a dogma of the Catholic faith from the resurrection until 1970 A.D. While it is possible for non-Catholics to go to heaven, it is unlikely, and requires an extraordinary grace or lack of knowledge of the Truth of Jesus Christ. Only a poorly catechized Catholic could think a dogma of the faith proclaimed throughout almost two millennia by the apostles, the extraordinary magisterium, the church fathers, the doctors, countless saints, and Our Lady herself could be validly changed by modernist boomers in the 1960s and 1970s. Apostates, heretics, schismatics, and heathens are unlikely to go to heaven, as are most baptized catholics.
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in there at.
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! (Matthew 7:13-14)
“There is no salvation outside the Church” is an infallible teaching of the Church. It did not end in 1970.
Don’t worry. Absolutely NOTHING can “destroy” Christ’s true, Biblical teachings– because all of it is 100% true! No Communist or atheist revolution, and no other religion or philisophy, can possibly destroy the religion of Christ, or the Bible. There are millions of Roman Catholic priests, bishops and layman who would never stand for “changing” the Church’s teachings on sexuality — because sexual sins are horrific mortal sins, horrifically destructive, also, to the Church and to all societies. “Free sex” (including “free gay sex”) totally destroys and ruins entire nations– it is extremely corrupt and sinful. Same thing, with drugs– extreme destruction, eventually killing an entire civilization. The West is completely naive, corrupt and ridiculously idiotic, allowing such horrifically sinful ways of life. A heretical, immoral, undisciplined Pope and cardinals won’t get very far, propagating theology that is extremely wrong and mortally sinful. They will eventually be put down and outcast by prominent theologians and Canon Law. To sincerely follow Christ’s Biblically-correct, true teachings, requires good religious and moral training– and good discipline, to listen to Christ, and follow, obediently. Otherwise– you end up in “you-know-where”— Hell– after living a bad life of “Hell-on-earth.” Christ loves us and died for our sins, so we might enter Heaven. All of the heretical, immoral clerics need to repent, and obediently follow Our Lord.
He was a man who knew where the bodies were buried, worth heeding his information.
I do not believe this was written by Cardinal Pell.
Why?
THIS is written by Cardinal Pell:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-catholic-church-must-free-itself-from-this-toxic-nightmare/
” regularly worshipping Catholics everywhere do not endorse the present synod findings.”
You can complain all you want. If they were really out there, they would have participated.
I told everybody to do the survey. No one did.
I saw people here claiming to be faithful Catholics bragging about how they would not participate.
Cardinal Pell seems to forget that these were listening sessions and If the working document accurately represents what they heard then they did their job.
The listening sessions are not intended to form doctrine or policies.
Listen to the Holy Spirit. What He is trying to tell you, not what the Internet loudmouths want you to click on.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t talk to me.
What’d you do?
Nothing, I was just Holy Ghosted.
Cardinal Pell would have understood that the ” synod of synodality” is a different thing that the “German synodal path.”
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-city-religion-crime-fraud-24213bd109391b4cd50eeb503541e07c
Time for laity to choose the pope amongst the cardinals. The Vatican dirty mafia is responsible for all this work of the Devil.
Why? do you want Fr. Martin as pope?
“… this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe…. ” Better the wounds of a friend than the kisses of an enemy. IMHO, Cardinal Pell stands a prophet without equal, and his death threatens to silence his important voice. It is left to others to carry on his voice in these trying times.
“I think it’s just pure speculation as to whether he’s the author or not,” Father Fessio said Jan. 12 on EWTN’s The World Over With Raymond Arroyo. “He’s said enough things publicly that we can understand what his views were on these things. I will take a sed contra on this. George Pell was a loyal son of the Church. He would not publicly criticize the Holy Father, and I doubt that he would put his signature to something, even anonymously, that would be public criticism.”
“… He would not publicly criticize the Holy Father…” Is it possible that Fr. Fessio has not considered that Cardinal Pell wrote the piece precisely because he was a loyal son of the Church, and that as a loyal son he deemed it necessary to make a bold statement? Consider: the letter gives evidence for the claim that Pope Francis’ pontificate is a disaster for the Church. The totality of this evidence renders such a negative assessment not only possible but, it can be reasonably argued, necessary. I think Pell thought extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures. True, the letter sounds like something Ab. Vigano would write, but Ab. Vigano has never shied away from putting his name to his animadversions. In the end, if it does turn pout to be a spurious Pell document, I will gladly eat crow that Jon will even more gladly serve me.
Dan, thank you for reading and responding.
My reaction to the memo and the claim that Cardinal Pell wrote it was “Then he can’t be in Heaven and may be in Hell.”
I think the difference between your reaction and mine is that you are forgetting that nothing justifies it. You think it is justified, probably because of things you read online.
Very few people practice virtue today and many call evil good and good evil.
It did sound more like Archbishop Vigano but I do not think it was him.
He could not sign it if it was intended for the Cardinals because no Cardinal would even take it seriously.
There are lies and errors in the memo that Cardinal Pell would not make.
I do not think any Cardinal wrote it. It may have been written by a layman.
“There are lies and errors in the memo that Cardinal Pell would not make.” I don’t know who you are who is responding to me but you write as someone who is in the know. I know it is not Jon as your tone is far too gentle. As a layman I have to ask myself two questions: why would Sandro Magister claim it was a cardinal and subject himself to ridicule if, as you say, no cardinal would take the letter seriously? What does Sandro have to gain? The second question has to do with the lies and errors in the memo. If this is true, it would be a great service if these could be identified and corrected, for the good of everyone. After all, it is no small matter for anyone to call evil good and good evil, or to say the writer of this memo might be in hell. Perhaps the editors at Cal Catholic would allow you to expand on your post for this very purpose. I hope this is so. Kind regards to you.
The writer probably is not in Hell because they are probably not dead.
I have no knowledge of who wrote the memo and I have some concern that the whole thing is a hoax.
I do not know.
Too many things don’t add up.
I would like to recommend to you the book “God or Nothing” by Cardinal Sarah.
“There are lies and errors in the memo that Cardinal Pell would not make.” and “My reaction to the memo and the claim that Cardinal Pell wrote it was “Then he can’t be in Heaven and may be in Hell.””
George Weigel writes in First Things: “The first, an article, appeared in the London Spectator the day after the cardinal’s death and was a biting critique of the working document for the Synod on Synodality’s “continental phase,” which is taking place throughout the world in the first quarter of this year. The cardinal had asked me for comments on a draft of the article when I was working in Rome in early December, and was concerned during the week of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s funeral in January that the article hadn’t appeared yet, given what he regarded as the urgency of the situation.” Pell argued the Synodal process had turned into a “toxic nightmare.” Then Weigel writes: “The cardinal was also deeply concerned that the chief Relator (or leader) when the Synod meets in October 2023 is scheduled to be Luxembourg’s Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., who has “publicly rejected the basic teachings of the Church on sexuality on the grounds that they contradict modern science.”” This harsh evaluation calls to mind the equally harsh criticism displayed in the Demos’ letter. Try as I might, I cannot find any source that claims anyone else for this letter other than Pell himself. The onus is on you, friend, to show Pell could not be the author in the face of a seemingly unanimous testimony otherwise.
I do not have to prove anything.
One person claims that the memo was written by Cardinal Pell.
The rest of us accept it or disbelieve it.
Weigal accepts it. Fessio does not.
I do not.
I heard Fr. Fessio say that he does not think the memo was written by Cdl. Pell, on EWTN’s “World Over Live” program. He is an excellent source, he is very close to the Vatican, and he knows a great deal. Others say that they think Cdl. Pell really did write the memo. And some have believed, knowing Pell personally, that he would have courageously signed his name to the memo, and would have never written it anonymously. And why was the memo signed “Demos,” indicating common (Greek) laymen?? Regardless– it doesn’t matter. Here are the facts: Cdl. Pell is gone from this world, and deserves our respect and prayers. And yes– the current Pope and some of his cardinals have put forth some very wrong ideas about our Catholic Faith. “This, too, shall pass.” Our Catholic Faith is of Christ, and it is 100% true, and it stands forever– no matter what.
Hopefully, things will go better, at the next conclave… and hopefully, in time, the tragic “goofs” of our Church’s current leadership can be fixed.
Regarding the sudden, unexplained dismissal of Abp. Georg Ganswein, by Pope Francis– was Pope Francis a little jealous of Abp. Ganswein– and Pope Benedict (emeritus), too?? Or, what might have been going on with Pope Francis, exactly? Ganswein was serving two papal households…. I am sorry he was put in such a difficult position, and wrote his book, which is coming out at a really bad time, right after the death of Pope Benedict. It serms he should have waited a few years, to publish his book. Will Pope Francis be the next Pope to “retire,” if he ever decides he is medically too ill to fulfill his Petrine duties?? He signed the Vatican papers regarding this, also.
Not sure, the exact origin of the problems regarding the book of Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict, which Abp. Ganswein was involved in. But they were always very cordial and friendly to one another. Cdl. Sarah wrote a moving tribute on the death of Pope Benedict. Not sure about the Pope’s reaction in this situation.
On Jan13, Italian Vatican journalist Sandro Magister told the “National Catholic Register” that Cardinal Pell himself had given Magister the memo, and was pleased that Magister would publish it — without Pell’s name attached to it. Sandro Magister also said that Pell authored the entire memo.
From the” beating a dead horse department,” courtesy the NCR (Register, not Reporter):
Last week, Magister revealed to the Associated Press that Cardinal Pell was the author. He also told the Register Jan. 13 that “the text was handed over to me personally by Cardinal Pell” who was “very pleased that I published it, provided I did not mention the name of the author.
“And he wrote it all,” Magister said, “from the first words to the last.”
So it is the word of one person-the blogger who published it. The Cardinal cannot confirm or deny, can he?
Just listen to yourselves people. Just listen to yourselves. You all sound like gossipy teenagers relishing every lugubrious detail (“did he write it? did he not?). I mean, grown men and women of this commentariat, acting worse than school kids. And “Dan” there is the worst. So Pell may or may not have written this memo, the sentiments of which are already known anyway to have been shared by him, with or without Magister confirming anything. Does this add an inch in favor of your salvation? No! Is this within your control? No. Why not pay more attention to things that are within your power to change or alter, like your personal sins, your family life, your use of your time? Many of you spend too much time here. But I suppose those are more difficult things to deal with, so “Vatican politics” is the default preoccupation for folks here. Sad.
“jon” – I think we’re all aware of our personal sins, whereas you seem oblivious to yours.
“jon” and his low-class, belligerent, aggressive, pugnacious buddies are absolutely blind to the corruption in the Vatican, pointed out by Pell, Vigano, the four Cardinals of the “Dubia,” and many others. Like Christ’s cousin, St. John the Baptist– it is a very important duty to God, to publicly expose and denounce corruption. Those who are cowardly, refuse to face the truth, and evilly cover-up corruption– and those who evilly rebuke and reprimand brave and virtuous people denouncing corruption– face stern punishments, on the Judgment Day. St. John the Baptist was brutally martyred– yet died a Saint.
Inventing the adverb “evilly” somehow deserves a stern punishment on Judgment Day.
There’s nothing “funny” about sin and corruption. And there’s nothing “funny ” about the Judgment Day.
Good one, funnily.
Thumbs up.
jon, you are right.
“I mean, grown men and women of this commentariat, acting worse than school kids. And “Dan” there is the worst..” jon, it is not childish to be concerned about the state of the Church. Cardinal Pell gave us his take on things before he died– was he being childish? You dismiss real concern on the part of some of us on the course Pope Francis is leading the Church and it is no small matter for some of us to take strong notice of a cardinal or two who are of the same mind. By impugning to some of us base motives, you appear to me to deny us both the reality and the validity of our concerns. If I am wrong on this point let me know. You are wrong on one point: it is within the power of all of us to change or alter matters through prayer — even matters concerning Holy Mother Church. Finally jon, give good thought to Hermione (2:09 p.m. 1/17). Whenever you write “Dan” instead of Dan, her words come to mind. Don’t demean yourself unnecessarily in anyone’s eyes.
Yes, I do deny the validity of “Dan’s” concerns here because they’re inconsequential in the long run, meaning that the identity of the person who wrote this memo is in the long run inconsequential to our salvation. Is there any doubt that that is mostly what “Dan” is concerned about here? That’s all that he wrote about. Plus, the fact that he is willing to “beat a dead horse” over an inconsequential matter most likely shows that he hasn’t been praying about the Church (as he claims one must do to effect change). A person who has prayed diligently for the Church would not subsequently feel any need to go online and “beat a dead horse” about an inconsequential matter. The Church is not a mere human organization like the Republican Party where it’s all about “intrigue” and gossip and scandal; the Church is God’s Bride and the principal means of salvation on this Earth. It is the Devil who relishes mocking the Church and the people who run it. Why don’t you concern yourselves instead on how many converts will be baptized in your local Catholic parish this coming Easter? How many visits to the sick has your local parish priest done this week? How can you help your local parish promote the US Bishops’ initiative to renew reverence for the Eucharist? These are more consequential things you can be involved in (albeit less glamorous compared to Ganswein’s current predicament). Less concern please on what Ganswein’s future will be, and definitely less concern please on who will head the upcoming Synod. You have no control over both. However you had your chance to shape the Synod if you had attended your parish’s listening session. Now, if you didn’t go to that listening session, then you (especially you “Dan”) reveal the invalidity of your “concerns.”
jon, there is much of consequence and concern and its potential impact on people’s eternal destiny.
Sandro Magister has torpedoed any chance of Pell becoming a saint.
And someone who believes the things in the memo and lets it effect their respect for the Church or the Pope could have their eternal destiny effected as well.
The fact (as you have noted often) that people who claim to be traditional Catholics do not know the very basics of virtuous behavior is concerning.
Read that first line in the memo. That alone would indicate that it is all a hoax.
The Pope has never done or said most of what he is accused of by some people who post here. Neither has Cardinal Hollerich. Things are taken out of context.
As often as other people who post here have pointed out that you cannot believe anything and everything you read on the Internet, people don’t just drink the poison, they add more and spew it back out.
Prayer is our only answer to this, as well as encouraging people to read the Bible, the Catechism, the documents from the Church so they are not so easily misled.
Pray the Rosary and the Psalms.
Read the New Testament Letters.
Read the Gospel.
“Sandro Magister has torpedoed any chance of Pell becoming a saint.” I don’t think at this point C. Pell is worried about the opinion of men. I have no doubt he has approval from a much higher office.
“Read that first line in the memo. That alone would indicate that it is all a hoax.” You may have greater insight into this matter than I, for the first line tells me no such thing. If it is a hoax, it is a particularly cruel defamation by Sandro Magister, the likes of which I can find no parallel in Church history (though my knowledge admittedly is not terribly extensive), and the kind which could lead Magister to hell.
“And someone who believes the things in the memo and lets it effect their respect for the Church or the Pope could have their eternal destiny effected as well.” Better the wounds of a friend than the kisses of an enemy. To tell the truth sends no one to hell. And since the Church through Christ is the arbiter of truth, one who loves the truth will love the Church. Simple mathematics.
” that people who claim to be traditional Catholics do not know the very basics of virtuous behavior is concerning.” Since jon considers me to be the worst of the lot, you could do me a great service by exposing my lack of virtuous behavior, especially as I am only vaguely aware of exactly what my offenses against virtue in this forum may be. So please, indulge me this one time, and thanks in advance.
If Dan and others here have not learned by now what their offenses are, they will never learn. They are blind to their own offenses and only look at others’.
I agree with Blind. Tell them further what they have done wrong, and you get accused of “persecuting” them. No need to belabor the point. Jon said it already. They will always find things to criticize about the Church to throw mud at the Catholic Church, the Pope, cardinals. It’s just politics for them. They don’t pray so they come here to throw mud.
There was a reason that Cardinal Pell’s brother said to Pope Francis at Cardinal Pell’s funeral “He was your friend.”
Dan is starting to understand the issues. He may not agree but he is starting to get it.
Evil is never good. Sin is never good. If anybody cannot see the sinfulness of the memo and the publishing of the memo, they need to get back to the basics of the faith.
The Lord never approves of sin.
The Lord does not approve of lies.
Satan is the father of lies.
Dan or “Dan”, I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I will not anymore.
Kick Satan to the curb.
to the curb and jon: my concerns are between me and God, and I have every right to express them here or any other forum even if it means having to endure your foolishness.
Why don’t you go pick a fight with the highly-esteemed Italian Vatican journalist, Sandro Magister?
Thumbs up!!!
All Dan wrote, was repeating a now well-known news fact– read it again. Want to go pick a ridiculous, ignorant, violent fight with Cardinal Pell? He’s dead.
I’ll talk to his Boss.
What I have realized is that being doctrinally orthodox is not enough. One has to obey the Will of the Lord in all things. Behavior needs to be orthodox as well.
Sin-yours or someone else’s-never justifies defamation, detraction, slander, etc.
Sins of the tongue are now sins of the keyboard.
Perhaps it was a piece of satire, not meant to be taken seiously.
Dan – Pay no heed to the one that shall not be named here. We “people” have got to be reminded at all times that he is always right and the rest of us are, well, just plain wrong. Oh, and he’ll be rebutting this comment by posting glowing praise to himself under pseudonyms. Just sit back and enjoy the chuckle.
It is a disgrace that this “Catholic” website always prints nasty comments to other good, decent posters.
“I agree with Blind. Tell them further what they have done wrong, and you get accused of “persecuting” them. No need to belabor the point. Jon said it already. They will always find things to criticize about the Church to throw mud at the Catholic Church, the Pope, cardinals. It’s just politics for them. They don’t pray so they come here to throw mud.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. I deny the memo is an act of sinfulness, and it is not mudslinging to be of this persuasion. I think it was C Pell’s love for the Church that prompted the memo, as he was, the Pope’s true (perhaps truest) friend. This is not politics for me any more than for C. Pell; I can’t even imagine what it means to obsess with Church politics. Pell wrote about the direction the Church is taking, and that is my concern as well. As to the strange charge that I don’t pray– how in the world would you have such a window into my devotional life? All I will grant you is that I, along with most people I have met, need to pray more, with the goal that we might follow St. Paul’s advice in I Thess 5:17.
Can’t imagine what it means to obsess with Church politics? That’s the majority of what you write about here. You’re blind to your offenses.
Some deny sodomy is an act of sinfulness. They are not correct.