|What, No Habit?|
(Rome) Some Catholic media are eager to want to prepare a moment of "joy" for the Pope at every opportunity. One could sometimes be confused with the behavior of cajoling or adulation. The Osservatore Romano stumbled about it, because it responded with great zeal a few days ago.
First it was the Austrian Mission Bishop Erwin Kräutler, who always strives at home to stay remarkably close to the to the Left "half of the empire." He did publicly declared what he had discussed with Pope Francis in a private audience and raised here by blurred dividing lines the impression that the Pope shares his opinion to a certain extent. The latter remains unproven, as it to is neither a statement of the Pope's nor a statement of the Vatican.
Then followed the Brazilian Frei Betto, who prides himself, to have the best contacts with the Cuban regime among all the Liberation Theologians. This gave the same consenting impression of the Pope, as previously Amazon Bishop Kräutler had, and wished for his part, a "rehabilitation" of the atheist idol Giordano Bruno. Again, there was no statement of the Pope and no opinion from the Vatican, which would confirm or deny free Betto's assertion.
The two incidents conveyed the impression together with previous similar incidents that Pope Francis demands no stop to such high-handedness in public. An attitude that raises further questions about them, is whether the Pope is simply indifferent to what others spread about his actual or perceived views. Or if they all report truthfully and the Pope actually raises towards them the impression of approval. Which raises the fundamental question of what position the Pope really takes. But that seems to be the biggest mystery of the entire pontificate.
L'Osservatore Romano Published a Photo of Pope Francis with Castro's Friend Frei Betto
The Atheist-appreciator Frei Betto seems then to have embellished too colorfully with his assertion and his addendum that he had been received by Pope Francis in the guest house Santa Marta. Hurrying advance the hurried Osservatore Romano to guess the papal will and published, apparently assuming the pope thus to pave a joy, a photo of the Pope with the Marxist tie Dominicans. The Pope Francis was then but too much of the "Closeness" with the Liberation Theology Castro Friend.
The Osservatore Romano prepared the printed edition of the next day for the afternoon of April the 9th, just a few hours after the meeting of the Pope with Frei Betto. In the meantime Brother Betto eagerly and quickly made sure to make public his version of the encounter and found willingly opened doors from all major media around the globe. Certain keywords appear to work real "miracles" in editorial offices: Frei Betto, liberation theology, a bit of Fidel Castro, a bit of Che Guevara, a nostalgic cry of Socialismo o muerte, plus Pope Francis and the invitation of the Brazilian theologian, to seek "a dialogue with this loving daughter," which is liberation theology, "a loyal daughter who" who only wanted good for the Church. And of course the requirement to rehabilitate Giordano Bruno. According to Frei Betto the Pope had smiled and replied, "to pray" for the heretic, as if he cherished the genuine intention to rehabilitate the grandiose schemer and a charlatan.
Giordano Bruno, the Idol of the Functional Atheists
Giordano Bruno is one of the few cases which the Roman Inquisition in 1600 actually put on the pyre. If was not long since been forgotten, then only because it was uncovered by Italian Freemasons in the 19th Century in their enmity against the Church. About their publications and anti-Christian idealization he was in functional terms, the idol of the atheists.
Pope Calls for Rectification
What has always happened then behind the walls of the Vatican, has been took heavy for the publication in L'Osservatore Romano to be digested. Anyway, Pope Francis demanded a correction from the newspaper, which appeared promptly the next day as two columns in the same place. "Contrary to what was published yesterday, April 10, by some media, there was no audience in Santa Marta with Pope Francis for Frei Betto, but only a very brief encounter at the end of the usual Wednesday meeting with the faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square, in which was a limited list of people who could exchange a word with the Pope. "
Vatican Spokesman Denounces Liberation Theologians
That's not all: Pope Francis also brought Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi into action. He clarified in the daily meeting with journalists: "The Pope did not receive Frei Betto in Santa Marta. It wasn't a real conversation, but merely a greeting in passing as part of the so-called hand kiss at the end of the general audience. The Pope paused for a moment, listened and at the end he concluded, as he does frequently, with an invitation to prayer. It certainly was not his intention to go into the matter Giordano Bruno."
What Conclusions Can Be Drawn?
Is it possible to draw a moral from the story? Certainly that Betto had laid things on too thick. Can we therefore interpret Pope Francis not arbitrarily, without having to fear a reply? If this were so, then do all the other controversial statements by audience visitors who have lack of response correspond to the facts? This seems but doubtful. The confusion caused by an excess of many voiced opinions is very large. A bad habit that tends to increase, but an easy remedy would be if the Pope would basically impose discretion on his interlocutors. To ensure that all unauthorized statements to actual or perceived papal statements were denied automatically as long as there is no official explanation. But Pope Francis, a veritable natural media talent on the papal throne, yet could not bring himself to such a measure. That he could have escaped the resulting and continually ceded confusion, might at least be excluded, however, as the prompt response to the Giordano Bruno séance by Brother Betto has shown.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi image: L'Osservatore Romano Trans: Tancred email@example.com
Link to Katholisches...
I am really concerned how Eponymous Flower has not caught up with this story. The photograph is alarming. The footage is also sickening. Even though the sedevacanists have been the only ones to report the story- it is important that they have, I could not imagine my father or husband or any other Pope in history behaving so inappropriately. All catholics should be horrified and alarmed at Francis' flaunting such behaviour.
Here is the link:
Everybody reads NOW. Kind of obvious, no? I leave the interpretation of such omens up to the anointed ones.
It is surprising that a correction and clarification issued. Would that there could be corrections of countlesss other scandalous incidents.
What about the Pope's answer to the Manellis (parents of several FFI priests and religious) who requested their children be freed from "the crypt?"
The Pope answered, "Soon, soon..." - Was that another secondhand report that needs clarification? Or was that his way of dismissing them?
Post a Comment