We have decided to make a separate post in order to give everyone a chance of reading the very interesting and insightful comment from ‘Crow‘, one of our regular CP&S visitors. Crow’s comment was originally entered on the post, ‘Pope Francis is at peace with Vatican corruption but worries over young and traditional vocations‘, and in her comment she refers to other people’s comments below the article. (Please go there to read follow-up ones.)
The issue is one which seems to be becoming more crystallised as the Pope becomes more dictatorial. To take issue with the actions or statements of the Pope and to scrutinise his motives, to my mind, is not a matter of disloyalty – rather, it is the opposite, when the scrutiny is based upon a comparison of his actions or statements with the principles upheld by the Church since the time of the Apostles.
We, in Australia have lived through, and are now witnessing the repercussions of, a Royal Commission into sexual abuse, in which the Catholic Church participated to its everlasting shame. The statistics of the abuse reveal that a huge percentage were abuses of boys by men. This is a systemic abuse that occurred in my lifetime. At the time the abuses were being committed, I, myself, heard statements of the Vatican II style where it was said that priests should be sexually active as “How could a celibate person understand sexual matters?” At the time I thought they were wrong. And now I see where they led.
Geoff Kiernan correctly distinguishes the defence of Holy Mother Church from the attack by those who wish to turn her into a different church. And, as Kathleen pointed out, the fact that the Pope voiced concern about the increase of vocations in the traditional orders certainly leads one to question his objectives.
This is a man who is not what he seems – what he says is not in accordance with his actions. He does not speak directly and frankly and it appears that he is operating with an agenda which is never directly referred to by him. I will refer you to the article by Elizabeth Yore, “Six Scandals where the sexual abuse scandal touches Pope Francis” which was published here on 25 January 2017. There was also discussion somewhere that lobbying had been effected to obtain the vote by which he had been elected Pope (I cannot remember where I read that).
There are two aspects of historical interest which raise a question:
The first is the testimony of Bella Dodd regarding the infiltration of the Church. If that is true, (and I must say, I, like Toad, question why the relevant agents were not named), then there is no reason to assume that they would stop infiltrating the Church. If it is true, then the effects of Vatican II were very effective in achieving the objective of gutting the core strength of Catholicism, while leaving it with an empty and weakened facade.
The second historical issue is the manipulation of the Church by a gay group of religious and lay people who have used the mechanisms available within the Church to their own ends.
In this respect, and the sexual abuse scandal is evidence of this, it is apparent that one result of Vatican II was a highjacking of the Church in some significant areas by the gay lobby and paedophiles. Everybody here would be familiar with “Goodbye good men”, by Michael Rose, and I have been told by people with first-hand experience, that the same situation applied in Australia.
There is some internet discussion about the homosexuality of Pope Paul VI. There is also mention that Cardinal Montini (as he then was), corresponded with the Soviets against the express probibition of Pope Pius XII, at a time when priests were smuggled into the Soviet Union. This was an action that had serious repercussions in regard to the safety of the priests concerned. Montini, as Pope Paul VI, implemented the most profound changes on the liturgy, in a manner which had never been done in the 2,000 year history of the Church. The Church had always allowed for change to develop organically. The Latin Mass was suppressed and the Mass developed under Pope Paul VI was applied from the top of the hierarchy.
The prosecution of, and reaction to, abuse was extremely desultory in many instances within the Church. The only conclusion one can reach is that there must have been a significant network of paedophiles within the Church hierarchy, or, if not paedophiles, then a gay network, in which behaviour was condoned which previously would have been policed and sanctioned. It appears that the slack policing reached up to the Vatican. In scrutinising the current Pope, to my mind it is absolutely extraordinary that, at a time when the most shameful abuse has been shown to have occurred under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, and when Pope Francis himself has uttered the politically acceptable ‘zero tolerance’ platitudes to sexual abuse, he has personally effected the moving around of abusing priests and, as if to send a message to the abusers, Pope Francis personally appointed Cardinal Daneels, not to the Finance Committee, but to the Synod of the FAMILY! (Excuse the capitals – I realise they are a sign of a nut-case. I don ‘t deny that I am one BB).
It is interesting that Pope Francis is obviously very against the Latin Mass and traditional orders, although he says it in a disingenuous way. Why is this? Is he merely an old man who thinks that Vatican II Masses and attitude to Christ are modern? Or is he against the Latin Mass because it is here that the core strength of the Catholic Church resides? If it is the second, then we may be in for a rough ride.
That is, is this merely a political question where us curmudgeon conservatives disagree with the enlightened modernist? Or are we seeing someone who is implementing something more directed to a specific objective?