Don Nicola Bux: "Pope Francis has an aversion to the Church"

Don Nicola Bux: "the pope can not spread his private ideas instead of the eternally valid Catholic truth." Pope Francis at the General Audience of 2 January 2019.

(Rome) The well-known liturgist Don Nicola Bux is contradicting statements made by Pope Francis at the General Audience on 2 January. In an interview with the daily Quotidiano di Foggia,  the theologian esteemed by Benedict XVI said: "The Pope can not spread his private ideas instead of the eternally valid Catholic truth. The Gospel is not revolutionary".

Don Nicola Bux was one of the advisers who were especially appreciated by Pope Benedict XVI. This is especially true for the liturgical area. Don Bux supported the liturgical renewal, which the German Pope wanted to promote through the recovery of the sacred and the promotion of the traditional Rite.

Under Pope Francis, this changed. Like all the other consultors for the liturgical celebrations of the Pope, Don Bux was no longer confirmed in office. In an interview that Bruno Volpe conducted with him, he commented on Pope Francis' controversial statement on January 4, who two days earlier had stated during the first General Audience of 2019 that the Gospel was "revolutionary."

What was evidently meant to be a tribute to the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution was supposed to be taken seriously as a statement from the ruling Pope's mouth, however. The statement of the theologian and liturgical expert Don Nicola Bux took it seriously and contradicted it energetically. Here is the full interview:

QF: Don Nicola, is the gospel, as claimed by the pope, revolutionary?

Don Nicola Bux: No. This is a thesis that came into fashion in the 1970s after the publication of a few books, permitting the ideas of '68 and Marxism to shine through. It was intended to make the figure of Jesus more attractive, but has no theological foundation.

QF: Why?

Don Nicola Bux: The Gospel tells us that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to complete it. A revolution, on the other hand, spares neither the past nor the present. Jesus is one of them, as St. Paul says so beautifully. He unites everything in himself. It is true that it is written in the Secret Revelation that He makes everything new, but this verse is to be read in the sense that He brings everything to perfection.

QF: Better atheists than Christians who hate?

Don Nicola Bux: I think that the problem is that the Pope deviates from the text prepared for him and directs his eyes to the audience. My impression is that certain statements come from a certain complacency, but above all from his aversion to the Church. Pope Francis prefers, instead of a people in the true sense of the word, a vision of the Church as a blurred, undefined people. He does not realize that he is sliding into a contradictory and Peronist perspective, a form of schizophrenia that even clashes with the idea of ​​mercy so much hailed.

QF: Why?

Don Nicola Bux: When I say that someone who hates, that is objectively in a state of sin, does well to stay away from the Church, but at the same time asks divorced men who are remarried by marriage, who are objectively also sinners, in to come to the Church and give them Communion, which is impossible, I find myself this is a contradiction. Both are in a state of sin. But why be strict with those who hate, but merciful with the remarried divorced? Let us return to Peronism. At present, paradoxically, one wants to let in those who are outside but wants to push out those who are inside. Certain statements are dangerous when they fall on weak or less conscious circles, and have devastating consequences. We risk emptying the churches even more.

Q: That means?

Don Nicola Bux: It's a matter of principle. Can the Pope spread his private opinions instead of the everlasting Catholic truth? No. He is not a private doctor, and it is inconceivable to change her at will or to provide versions of her that contradict the Catholic doctrine and beliefs that are not even found in a museum. And there's something else to say about that, too.

QQ: What do you mean?

Don Nicola Bux: If the museums were useless, nobody would visit them. Do you not agree? The Pastors of the Church must always express their faithfulness to the sound and everlasting doctrine and truth without any contamination, and have to preserve it carefully.

Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Quotidiano di Foggia / Vatican.va (Screenshots) 

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

A Pact Between Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X for the Isolation of Tradition?

Is Pope Francis preparing to eliminate the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society of Saint Pius X. 

(Rome) More and more voices are dealing with the rumors that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is about to be dissolved.

The two authors Fabrizio Cannone and Alessandro Rico see it as a papal maneuver to assassinate tradition from behind. Fabrizio Cannone, born in 1974, holds a Doctorate in Church History and Religious Studies, and has written for Corrispondenza Romana, Fides Catholica, Homme Nouveau and numerous other Catholic media. Most recently, he published the book: "The Inconvenient Pope. History and background of the beatification of Pius IX." (1)

Alessandro Rico, born in 1991, studied philosophy at the Sapienza and Political History of Ideas at the LUISS in Rome. In 2017 he published together with Lorenzo Castellani the book "The end of politics? Technocracy, Populism, Multiculturalism". (2) He calls himself a "Catholic, Conservative and Opponent of Political Correctness". Both are close to the Catholic tradition.

Pope Denies Immaculate Conception

(Rome) The bishop of Porto, Manuel Linda, has denied the virginity of Mary just before Christmas. But even Pope Francis, who appointed him to this office in March, seems to have his difficulties with the Most Blessed Virgin and Mother of God. In his less-publicized address on December 21 at the Christmas reception for the Holy See and Vatican City staff, the Catholic leader spoke about Mary and Joseph.

Pope Francis de facto denied on this occasion the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed in 1854. Mary is revered by the Church as comceived without sin. She was born without the stain of original sin, and remained without sin for the rest of her life. In the Eastern Church, she is addressed with the title of Panagia.

In contrast, Pope Francis said in his speech:

"So who is happy in the crib? The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph are full of joy: they look at the Infant Jesus and are happy because, after a thousand worries, they have received this gift of God with much faith and love. They are 'overflowing' with holiness and therefore with joy. You will say to me, "Of course! It is the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph! 'Yes, but we should not think that it was easy for them: One is not born holy, but they will become it, and so will you.”

"Perhaps the Pope does not know the dogmas of his own Church?" Asks today the Roman website Chiesa e post concilio (Church and the post-counciloar period).

The Bishop of Porto corrected himself two days after his denial of virginity. From Pope Francis six days after that, nothing is known. The Vatican officially published its confusing statement on its website in Italian and English.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred velron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Cardinal Zen: "I must choose between rebellion against the Pope, and silence."

"Global Times on the Vatican delegation in the People's Republic of China. Cardinal Zen: "I have to decide".

(Rome / Beijing) Vatican spokesman Greg Burke indirectly confirmed the Vatican operation in the People's Republic of China to force legitimate, faithful bishops to resign, giving way to schismatic, bishops.
 

"Practical steps"

 

On Saturday, December 15, the Global Times, a regime friendly, English-language newspaper in the People's Republic of China, reported the presence of a Vatican delegation in China. This had taken place in the Communist empire because of "practical steps in the implementation of the agreement on the bishops".

 
Last September, for the first time since the Communist takeover in 1949, a bilateral agreement was signed between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China, but its contents are kept secret by both sides. As the Global Times confirmed, this is about episcopal appointments.
 
In 1958, the Communist regime established its own religiously dependent Catholic Church, independent from Rome, the so-called "Patriotic Association," and has since appointed its own bishops without the consent of Rome. These bishops were excommunicated from Rome.
 
Simultaneously with the signing of the secret agreement, Pope Francis lifted the excommunication of these bishops and recognized them as legitimate bishops. The agreement also appears to require that these bishops be appointed and recognized as diocesan bishops by Rome. Since autumn 2017, it is known that the Vatican is urging two faithful bishops to resign to make way for bishops excommunicated so far.
 
Last week, as the newspaper reported, a Vatican delegation was in the "Middle Kingdom" to hold "talks on the implementation of an agreement on the appointment of bishops."These," said a spokesman for the Holy See,  "talks were conducted with both government and church representatives."
 
The spokesperson, according to the article, was Vatican spokesman Greg Burke, who was contacted by the Chinese newspaper last Friday.
 
The newspaper also quoted Wang Meixiu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as saying that the talks were about filling vacant episcopal chairs. 

The "new model"

The Global Times also confirmed that a bishop appointed by the regime is being used by the Vatican as a legitimate diocesan bishop. Underground Bishop Guo Xijin of Mindong accepted the papal call to resign last Friday. He is replaced by the regime's Bishop Zhan Silu.
 
Bishop Guo Xijin was a dialogue partner of the Vatican delegation. He will be, as the Vatican wishes, auxiliary bishop of Bishop Silu in his former diocese. He confirmed this to Global Times after the meeting with the delegation from the Vatican.
 
Global Times presented the unusual resignation and role reversal as a "normal castling," which goes back to "practical", ecclesiastical "necessities."
 
There is talk of a "new model" that, if accepted by both sides "with good will", could be established with regard to episcopal nominations. Should that translate to mean that the diocesan bishops in future come from the Patriotic Association and the auxiliary bishops from the Underground Church?
 
Global Times concludes:

"The Press Office of the Holy See did not respond to questions as to whether the delegation's mission also included discussions on the establishment of diplomatic relations or a possible visit by Pope Francis to China."

Cardinal Zen: "Unacceptable, so I'll be silent from now on"

Meanwhile, Cardinal Joseph Zen, emeritus bishop of Hong Kong and gray eminence of the Chinese Underground Church, commented on recent events. He was disappointed with the monthly Tempi that Rome forces legitimate and faithful bishops to resign to establish bishops who have been unfaithful and have turned away from Rome.

"I have told these two bishops that they should not resign voluntarily so as not to cooperate with evil. But I have also advised them to obey if the Pope orders it, because a pope's command must always be obeyed."

At the beginning of the year, Cardinal Zen experienced the great defeat when it became clear that Pope Francis is against all warnings, for the agreement with Beijing (see also "The problem is who sits in the cage" ). Because of this disappointment, the cardinal reasons, since it is impossible for him because of his office and as a Catholic, to criticize the Pope, he will at last to retire to a monastery and to keep silent.

He said to Tempi :

"There is the problem of the seven bishops excommunicated and pardoned by Francis. So far none of them has been placed at the head of a diocese. If this happens, I will be silent for ever, because that would be unacceptable and would force me to decide to rebel against the Pope or to remain silent. I will be silent."

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Global Times / Wikicommons (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Underground Bishops Expected to Subject Themselves to Communist Ones Favored by Pope as Sign of Obedience

“Gesture of obedience": Archbishop Celli with legitimate bishops of China, who have to resign in favor of bishops who belong to the state.

(Beijing) Two legitimate bishops were called to resign yesterday on behalf of Pope Francis. They have to give way to Patriotic bishops loyal to China’s Communist regime.

Underground Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin was the Bishop of Mindong, officially recognized by Rome. He was rejected by the Communist government in Beijing. At the insistence of Rome, he will now resign to make room for a bishop in the diocese, whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Francis last September. The repeal was a one-sided advance of Rome for the signing of the secret agreement between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China on the same day. The content of the agreement is kept secret in agreement of both sides, but should relate to episcopal appointments.

Pope Francis abolished the excommunication of seven bishops whose episcopal ordination had been ordered by the communist government without the consent of Rome. Part of the agreement seems to be that not only the excommunication should be repealed, but all previously bishops of Rome as diocesan bishops must be used and recognized. In order to make this possible, the Vatican negotiators urged legitimate bishops in the fall of 2017 to renounce their offices. They must subordinate themselves in rank to the bishops who belong to the state and become their suffragan bishops.

Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin was also urged to do so. In the past two years alone, he was arrested twice and taken to an unknown location. A popular method in the People's Republic of China is to exert pressure, intimidate, or subject regime opponents to re-education.

His place as Diocesan Bishop of Mindong will be occupied by Vincent Zhan Silu. This became known yesterday after Bishop Guo gathered his priests in the afternoon to explain the situation to them.

Bishop Guo, who will be Auxiliary Bishop of Mindong in the future, had just returned from a place near Beijing. Curial Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, the head of the Vatican delegation that had prepared the agreement and signed it on behalf of the Pope, had sent him there.

Archbishop Celli handed Bishop Guo a letter from Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin and Cardinal Fernando Filoni, Prefect of Propaganda Fide. In it they asked him to cede the leadership of the diocese to Zhan Silu. Archbishop Celli emphasized to the bishop that Pope Francis awaits his resignation as a "gesture of obedience". It is a "sacrifice for the overall situation of the Chinese Church,” which he has to bring into being.

The news, AsiaNews said, has "saddened" many priests and believers. Until now it was the case that an episcopal bishop, reconciled to Rome and recognized by the Holy See, subordinated himself to the Underground Bishop and became its Auxiliary Bishop. "Now the opposite is the case," says AsiaNews.

In the diocese of Mindong, the vast majority of the faithful and the priests belong to the Underground Church. The Natuonal Patriotic Association has counted at best ten percent of the faithful and 20 percent of the priests. Thanks to the Vatican-Chinese agreement, the state-owned organization is now also in control of the underground church.

The question of who benefits from the agreement does not have to be asked. Cardinal Joseph Zen, emeritus bishop of Hong Kong and gray eminence of the Underground Church said in September. It is the government in Beijing.

Bishop Peter Zhuang Jianjian was also summoned to meet Archbishop Celli. He too will resign "as a papal wish" as Diocesan Bishop of Shantou. His place will be taken over by Bishop Joseph Huang Bingzhang.

The paths approved by Rome  are still a stumbling block for those affected. In order for the legitimate bishops, after their resignation, to become auxiliary bishops of their previous dioceses, they need the approval of the communist government and the bishops' council. They depend on those from whom they have so far been able to stay away from great sacrifices but successfully.

Even before signing, Cardinal Zen said that the Vatican would hand over the faithful underground church to the regime.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Picture: AsiaNews

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Papal Blessing for Global Migration Pact

Secretary of State Pietro Parolin grants blessing to the Global Migrationspakt in Marrakech on behalf of Pope Francis.

The Global Compact for Migration is signed. Above all, it bears numerous signatures of representatives from countries of origin. Significantly lower are the signatures of representatives of the target countries. In some state chancelleries one is still able to ask the simple question about the cui bono. The Holy See was represented in Marrakesh by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin and gave the Pact the blessing of Pope Francis.

In September 2015, Pope Francis was the only representative of religion and thus the recognized highest moral authority in the New York Glass Palace of the United Nations, giving his blessing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Officially: Transformation of Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Abortion or not. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State did the same with the Global Migration Pact in Marrakesh.

The migration compacts represent another step towards globalization and thus the curtailment of state sovereignty. Ornaments or no. What they mean exactly must first be shown, and not just because they have to be put into action. Rather, because terms are out of focus and therefore fluid. That's the intent. Since 2015, this approach has been pre-explored on a grand scale with the fluent synonymisation of refugee and migrant. The text of the treaty seems to be deliberately conceived as work in progress. It is spongy, so that its concrete implementation leaves a wide scope for those who can shape it. These are the ones who wanted the pact. They have given themselves a remarkable instrument in hand.

Vatican announces new commandments and new sins

At the beginning of the week, the Vatican gave the green light to the Global Compact for Migration on behalf of Pope Francis. Specifically, this means the absolutization of migration as a right. In other words, for the Holy See under Francis, migration under all circumstances is always a good thing, and the reception of migrants by the countries of destination under all circumstances and is always a duty.

In terms of religious history and theology, the "Welcome Culture", postulated overnight in 2015, has been elevated to the rank of a commandment by the Holy See and a violation of it to the status of a sin.

The next step will be in a few days, on the 19th of December, before returning to the Glass Palace in New York. There the UN General Assembly will formally decide on the Migration Pact. The result of the vote is already known.

The Vatican is not a member of the UN, which is why the Secretary of State was present with the status of Permanent Observer in the Moroccan metropolis. As such, it can not only attend the UN conferences, but also speak.

What did Cardinal Parolin say in Marrakesh?

He announced that he had already, “initiated the process, in order to find the most efficient ways in which the Catholic Church institutions and Catholic organizations around the world" could benefit from the global pact. What exactly that means, is in view of the matter is in substance less tangible than the more than unclear contract text. More decisive is the declaration of intent, which is an unconditional commitment to the UN migration agenda.

In fact, for more than five years, Pope Francis has been among the most active among the leading contributors to the migration agenda, even though he is not its inventor.

Merkel's Marrakesh message

Next to him, on the political level, is Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her message in Marrakech consisted of three central points:

-Mass migration is a "normal phenomenon”

- if done legally, "it is a positive thing”

- the handling of a "global phenomenon" can not be "entrusted to individual states" but "only to the international community".

Migration is a global phenomenon insofar as it occurs in many countries worldwide. However, this is not a specific case for a global phenomenon because no migration movement takes place globally. Every situation in each country of origin is different, the migrant, smuggler and boat routes are different, the destinations are different and the situation is different and are the motives of each individual migrant.

This refutes the claim that individual countries can not handle the migration. What else?

In reality, Merkel spoke in favor of the disempowerment and disenfranchisement of the sovereign states, which in a central question in general, human movements, would no longer be one, that is, sovereign. From this perspective, the Migration Pact turns out to be a gigantic attempt to enforce global free movement, which would be the first step towards the end of today's states.

Did someone say so? Has anyone so decided, for example, the German Bundestag? No. Through the back door to the democratically legitimized legislative bodies and above all facts concocted contrary to the constitutional obligations. Sovereignty and democracy were apparently in the minds of some rulers yesterday.

The pact is therefore by no means irrelevant, as some commentators try to assure, just because it does not contain concrete measures and is more like a declaration of intent. The meaning lies exactly in this declaration of intent. It reflects what the truly powerful aspire to, and that is alarming.

"Adverse circumstances"

Secretary of State Parolin justified his presence in Marrakesh by pointing out that "more and more people are forced to leave their homes because of adverse factors". The formulation was surprisingly generic. The political arm of Pope Francis, Curial Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, already described "climate change" as a reason for immigration to be recognized. If one takes the disaster-making of the UN prophets of doom at the World Climate Summit in Katowice at their word, such as the UN Socialist Secretary General Antonio Gutierres, then "whole countries" are threatened by climate change so that they would be uninhabitable in the near future. As a precaution, however, he did not give a concrete example of his daring claim.

However, the notice already announces which arguments could be used to justify coming waves of migration.

Cardinal Parolin

Parolin seconded the advocates of the migration agenda in Marrakesh, categorically identifying migration as the "involuntary journey" that "puts migrants and their families in vulnerable situations.” The most common reason for migration, economic migration, is concealed and neatly excluded from all discussions.

As far as Pope Francis is concerned, everyone has a right to go where he wants to go. But the countries of destination have no rights, because they have to absorb and shut up. If you do not, you are guilty. This is the new moral of the new globalist era.

What was blessed in Marrakesh

Secretary of State Parolin has blessed the very nature of the Marrakesh Conference. The goals can be summarized:

-Reduction of sovereignty of states

- “Persuading" public opinion worldwide that migration is an absolute right and always a positive phenomenon

- definitive elimination of any distinction between refugees and economic migrants and between illegal and regular migration

-Compulsion to accept migrants.

In this sense, Secretary of State Parolin in Marrakesh declared migration as a means of "human development.”

As early as July 2017, Sanchez Sorondo, political advisor to Pope Francis, said:

"Humanity is experiencing a magical moment: For the first time, the Magisterium of the Pope and the Magisterium of the United Nations agree.”

Text: Andreas Becker

Image: Nuova Bussola Quotidiana

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Pope to Canonize Terrorist Marxist Bishop and Marxism

Enrique Angelelli: a disquieting beatification despite a dubious background and with an ideological stale smell.
 
(Rome) It had already become apparent and some had feared that the Argentine Bishop Angelelli would be beatified. The train of dubious canonizations continues unabated.

On October 17, the new substitute of the Cardinal Secretary of State, the Vatican diplomat and Archbishop Edgar Peña, signed a letter (Protocol No. 423.517) as one of his first acts, appointing Msgr. Marcelo Colombo, emeritus bishop of La Rioja, the date for the beatification of Bishop Enrico Angelelli Carletti, former Bishop of La Rioja.

"It is my pleasure to inform you that the Holy Father grants that the celebration of the beatification rite of the Reverend Servant of God, Enrico Angelelli Carletti, Bishop of La Rioja, will take place in this city on Saturday, April 27, 2019. "

The Pope will not attend in person, but will be represented by Cardinal Angelo Becciu, Prefect of the Congregation of the Congregation of the Causes of Peña, as a substitute in the State Secretariat.

Who was Bishop Enrico Angelelli Carletti?

Beatification of Angelelli

Bishop Angelelli was a representative of Marxist liberation theology, who had had friendly contacts with the Communist Eastern Bloc since the 1950s, particularly the Pax Movement, which infiltrated the Catholic Church on behalf of the regime. Since the 60s, he was closely associated with the left-wing terrorist movement Montoneros. The Montoneros were part of left-wing extremism that was radicalizing and seeking a violent seizure of power in Argentina, as was attempted in many Latin American countries by communist revolutionary movements with Soviet and Cuban support. The result was terror and counter-terror, with - this is an Argentine feature - right and left Peronists faced each other as enemies. When terror threatened to overthrow the country, the military intervened to restore order, as the generals declared in 1961.
 
Not only did the dubious left-wing orientation make Angelelli a controversial Church leader during his lifetime, he was described a contemporary pamphlet:

"Anyone who thinks like a Marxist and speaks like a Marxist is also a Marxist!"

Doubtful circumstances of death

Doubtful are the circumstances of his death. Officially, he died in a tragic traffic accident, most likely due to a mistake made by his companion, another liberation theologian and priest belonging to the left-wing Third World Priestly movement supported by Angelelli. His passenger said that he could no longer remember the accident. He quit the priesthood shortly thereafter.

"Who thinks and speaks like a Marxist is also a Marxist"

Several years after the death of Angelelli, another Marxist priest, the Capuchin Antonio Puigjané, suddenly declared that the bishop had actually been assassinated. The order was given by the then military dictatorship. Since then, he has been diligently elaborating on the myth of the murdered "Bishop of the Poor."
 
Puigjané himself hit the headlines as a left-wing terrorist, as he wanted to topple even then in 1988, five years after the end of the military dictatorship, the already democratic government of Raul Alfonsin.
 
There were no lack of circles in Argentina and in Western Europe, inside and outside the Church, who willingly jumped on this unusual move and indignantly denounced any involvement of the hated military regime as fact, although no evidence could be presented for such a daring assertion. None of the eyewitnesses of the accident and at the accident testified to anything like this.
 
Under quite different political auspices - meanwhile, in Argentina, under the moderate left-wing Peronists - the case of the traffic accident was reopened 38 years later and two leading military figures were convicted without concrete evidence, as the principals of an assassination attempt. In the same period, the ex-Capuchin Puigjané was pardoned prematurely, although his terrorist attack had cost eleven lives.
 
The issue is still controversial in Argentina. Critics speak of a political process, which served less the truth, but to the settling of old scores (see to Angelelli, the situation in Argentina and left myths: The Unequal "Martyrs" ).

Did Angelelli die in odium fidei?

However, whether a traffic accident or assassination, neither in one case or the other are there indications that the death of Angelelli occurred in odium fidei. But hatred of faith is a prerequisite for recognizing a death brought on as a martyrdom for Christ.

Angelelli, a leftist taboo

After Francis had declared Pope John XXIII. an unmiraculous saint, no less doubtfully, he declared the death of Bishop Angelelli an assassination and the bishop as a martyr. The recognition of his death as martyrdom shortens namely the lengthy path of the beatification process, since no miracle is needed.
 
With the miraculous beatification of Bishop Angelelli by an event, whether a traffic accident or assassination, which is reinterpreted to be a martyrdom, Pope Francis is creating a new, questionable category of "political martyrs."
 
Last August, another Argentine archbishop, Msgr. Hector Aguer, broke the Angelelli taboo . He asked why not a contemporary of Angelelli, the Catholic intellectual Carlos Alberto Sacheri, to be beatified, who really became a victim of terrorism, but of Marxist terrorism. Sacheri was executed in front of his own children. He had previously pointed out and criticized the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church with a book.
 
But in this, the political left is always blind. Meanwhile, the Church leadership seems to have become blind.
 
What conclusion can be drawn from Pope Francis' unusual approach?

Probably only one: The confirmation of a long-standing suspicion that the obstinate, Argentine Pope wants to canonise a disturbing, highly politicized and long-overstated direction in the Church, the alliance between Christianity and socialism, historically compromised by Soviet dictatorships, terrorism, hostility towards the Church, denunciations, abortion ... Should we list more?

Text: Andreas Becker
Image: InfoCatolica
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG 

The case of Julio Cesar Grassi -- Cardinal Bergoglio Refused to See the Victims to Protect them From Murder Threats

August 31, 2018 0

Jullio Cesar Grassi: sexual abuse case in Argentina

by Antonio Tortillatapa
 
The case of Julio César Grassi has been holding Argentina under his spell for 25 years now.
Julio César Grassi (born 1956) was ordained a priest in 1981. As part of Liberation Theology and post-conciliar, humanitarian social engagement, he was particularly involved in social work and "pastoral accompaniment" for poor children and disabled people from deprived backgrounds in Argentina.
 
The decade-long economic decline of Argentina, the political turmoil, the impoverishment of large parts of the population and the chronic recurrent disappointed hopes with deep frustration of the poor population strata, formed an excellent [hunting] ground for the activities of Grassi.
 
Under Grassi's leadership, a large complex of social welfare institutions and homes for the care and support of children and adolescents from precarious conditions emerged.
 
Grassi promoted everything with a great media hype through television and radio, with publications and with very complex and opaque financial transactions.
 
Grassi excelled in tying politicians and wealthy, well-known personalities to his activities and facilities. Especially in the Peronist milieu (or in the political leadership caste of Peronism at the end of the 20th century), he found many sympathizers.
 
At the same time, his ability to raise funds for his facilities was very great, and he became widely known through television appearances.
 
One focus was the establishment of Felices Los Ninos ("Happy Children") for children and adolescents with problems.
 
The center of activities was the Argentine diocese of Morón, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.
 
In 1992, a lawsuit was filed against Grassi on behalf of children and adolescents at the Felices los Ninos in a local court.

The case was not pursued and the proceedings suppressed.

In 1995, the world public was shaken by many cases of severe and widespread and institutionalized sexual abuse of children and wards in the Catholic Church in North America.
 
Pope John Paul II wrote extensively to the bishops of North America.

At the same time, the sexual abuse of children and the disabled in Church institutions in Belgium came to light, in addition to abstruse advertising for pedophilia in local diocesan newspapers and religious books (affair Barzin , affair Roeach3 , case Anneke ).
 
At the turn of the millennium, the tremendous extent of child abuse was perceived in the ecclesial context of Western Europe and North America; it was discussed in great detail in the media.
The Church establishment responded in 2005 mainly with cover-up, beautification, attempts at deescalation and slick financial compensation.
 
The number of trials became Legion, the convictions increased rapidly and the compensation payments reached astronomical heights in the US.
 
In 2002, the Argentine TV station Telenoche reported in a sensational report that a lawsuit had been filed against Grassi for pedophile abuse.
 
The news struck like a bomb: huge popular upheaval, broad media interest, loud defiance of Grassi, and spirited complaints from angry family members.
 
Anticlerical resentments, clerical protective reflexes, competition between media holdings, financial irregularities and political fronts additionally colored the Grassi case: a victim was very fiercely defended by a protagonist of the Montoneros (left-wing Peronists); at the same time, much of the Peronist nomenklatura was associated with the omnipresent Grassi on television.

Extensive police and financial investigations took place.
 
The complaints were examined very carefully; especially the cases "Gabriel", "Ezequiel" and "Luis" were very stressful.

The sealed-off structures of the facilities were screened, tons of little Christian material came to light, many co-workers testified, and not least the horrendous financial mismanagement and embezzlement came to light.
 
Grassi defended himself in a very strange way:

He did not respond to the allegations and substantiated very hard-backed complaints with exhaustive, substantive evidence and evidence, but threatened with very expensive lawyers, attacked the victims loudly, tingled through radio and television stations and railed against a media extermination campaign by the Argentine press group Clarin against him (Grassi) and his private broadcaster.
Grassi refused to comply with a subpoena in court, became fleeting and also gave an interview with the radio before the camera.
 
The matter escalated: In 2003 there were threats and attacks with firearms on witnesses and claimants.

The Grassi case has now become nationally known.

The Argentine episcopate was already aware of the explosive nature of the Grassi affair in 2003: the responsible Bishop of Morón, Justo Oscar Laguna, had immediately forwarded the case to the next higher instance, the Archbishopric of Buenos Aires, given the complexity of the case and the manifold additional interests.
 
The victims and the witnesses, intimidated and threatened with firearms, asked Cardinal Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires, for a meeting to stop the attacks on the victims and the witnesses.
 The request for a conversation was denied.
 
By contrast, the plaintiffs and the witnesses were able to raise their concerns with Monsignor Justo Oscar Laguna (1929-2011), Bishop of Morón (1980-2004) and former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner.
 
From various sides much pressure was exerted on the judicial organs.

On 10 June 2009, the Tribunal N ° 1 of Morón sentenced Don Julio Cesar Grassi to 15 years' imprisonment for sexual abuse of minors and corruption.
 
In September 2010, the Second Chamber of the Court of Cassation of the Province of Buenos Aires rejected all appeals against this verdict.
 
On 27 November 2012, the Supreme Court rejected all recourses and confirmed in January 2013, the first instance imprisonment of 15 years.
 
However, Grassi then remained on the loose for a long time for unclear reasons.
 
He was arrested only on 23 September 2013 (according to the 2 + 1 rule in force in Argentina - the period of pre-trial detention is double and is counted towards the sentence - he would have been released in 2018).
 
In 2016, Grassi was sentenced to another 15 years in prison for financial fraud and tax evasion.
Theoretically, Grassi will remain in custody until 2033.

By the way: the word misericordia (mercy) did not even fit in this context.
 
Sources:

• Wikipedia (Spanish edition): Julio César Grassi
• Federico Fahsbender: Cuatro libros encargados por el papa aseguran que el padre grassi es inocente.
• «Caso Grassi: la causa que desvela al papa Francisco» . Infobae

Text: Antonio Tortillatapa
Image: Wikicommons / InfoCatolica
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG 

Benedictine Professor: Why Are Almost All of the Cardinals and Bishops Silent?

July 9, 2018 1

Current issue of "Catholica". Why are almost all cardinals and bishops silent about the end of Catholicism that Pope Francis brings about? The "other understanding of the Church" behind Amoris laetitia.

(Paris) The international magazine for culture, politics and religion, Catholica, which has been published in France for 30 years, counts "well-known authors such as Émile Poulat, Robert Spaemann, Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde, Vladimir Bukowski, Stanislaw Grygiel, Thierry Wolton and Jacques Ellul and Pietro De Marco," says Vatican writer Sandro Magister. The editor-in-chief is Bernard Dumont.

Bernard Dumont

In its latest issue, Dumont, whose editorial is also freely available on the Internet, deals with the "unbelievable" silence of almost all cardinals and bishops - with the exception of the four signatories of Dubia - "the dissolution of the traditional form of catholicity by the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been set in motion." Bernard Dumont discusses the apparently desired end of "Roman Catholicism" without, however, raising an outcry, as the historian Roberto Pertici once complained. The end is proclaimed by Rome or those who invoke Rome, and all are silent and seem to submit to the inevitable fate. See the analysis of Prof. Pertici: The reform of Pope Francis was already written by Martin Luther .

Why is this?

 

The belief reduced to ethics

 

Dumont also published in the new edition the text of a Benedictine monk and theologian who analyzes and criticizes "perhaps the most radical upheaval in Catholicism of our time." No longer does the sacrament have primacy in the Church, of which the Second Vatican Council said it was the "culmen et fons" of the life of the Church, but ethics.
 
This subversion is also reflected in the question of remarried divorced as well as the inter-communion with the Protestants.
 
The Benedictine theologian is Fr. Giulio Meiattini, who this year already published the monograph  "Amoris laetitia? The Sacraments Reduced to Morality" (publisher La Fontana di Siloe, Turin 2018). He is a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of Madonna della Scala in Noci and Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Apulia and at the Pontifical Athenaeum Sant'Anselmo in Rome.
 
Meiattini accuses Pope Francis and his whisperer, Cardinal Walter Kasper, of promoting "cunning" rather than the much-cited "distinction." There is cunning in Amoris laetitia and the mind behind it.

"The state of confusion is obvious".

With these words the theologian and monk begins his essay. It is claimed that the confusion is only supposed, and only the result of a new style of government. Such a picture of the current situation is not something Fr. Meiattini takes pleasure in.

"Can the confusion and disagreement between bishops on tricky points of faith be fruits of the Holy Spirit? Not in my opinion."

Several small steps mean a large one in sum

P. Giulio Meiattini OSB

Then Meiattini indicates that in the matter of remarried divorced people a ready-made plan was pursued from the beginning. With the opportunity of being able to deliver the only speech in February 2014 to the Cardinals' Consistory procured by Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper "laid the groundwork". Nevertheless, two bishops' synods failed to produce a common line to the problem being discussed. Anyone reading the reports of the "circuli minores" of the 2015 Synod can easily see that there was no common position.
 
The pope would have had to examine and understand, which would have been the first task of "distinction", "which processes" would be initiated and pursued, and which not. However, such a distinction did not take place. The path taken was not changed.
 
The fact is that a large majority of the Synod Fathers wanted "no change in the traditional order". The editorial committee of Relatio finalis therefore took care not to include any innovations in the text.
  For this reason, a "small step," according to Meiattini, was undertaken instead of a big one: The editorial committee formulated some undefined positions, which meant a "change of atmosphere".
 
The non-rejection of these ponderous formulations, which received the necessary two-thirds majority only with extreme difficulty, sufficed that the next "small step," with some ambiguous footnotes in Amoris laetitia, were sufficient to indicate a new direction.
 
These small steps, which, strictly speaking, did not reinforce the traditional position, were enough to split the episcopate. The next step was papal confirmation of the guidelines of the ecclesiastical Province of Buenos Aires on the Eighth Chapter of Amoris laetitia.
 
In reality, these guidelines are not mere interpretations, because they contain statements and instructions that were neither found in Amoris laetitia nor adopted by the synods, and never found a majority there.
 
Through a series of "small steps", a "big step" was finally taken within three years, with a profound intervention. But this has nothing to do with "synodality," according to Meiattini.
Faith would be reduced to ethics in Amoris laetitia , that is the total thrust.

"Ethics has neither the first nor the last word."

"I do not understand how the Bishop of Rome can write such a thing"

And Meiattini continues:

"To be honest, I can not understand how a bishop, especially that of Rome, can write such sentences: 'One should not burden two limited people with the tremendous burden of perfectly recreating the union that exists between Christ and his Church '(AS, 122)."

This formulation is an expression of a very different way of thinking: A gospel ethic, freed from the sacrament, becomes a "mighty burden" rather than a "sweet yoke" and a "light burden."
 
Such a statement can only be reached if one understands Christianity - perhaps unconsciously - only as ethics. In this way we arrive at results that correspond to the Lutheran concept of simul iustus et peccator, condemned by the Council of Trent.


Intercommunion with the Protestants follows the same logic. What is only decisive is the presumed, inner feeling. For the objective criteria, all conceivable attenuating circumstances are taken into account, and the subjective decision of conscience is decisive. Why, then, according to this pattern, should not even a Buddhist or a Hindu be able to receive the Catholic Eucharist, according to P. Meiattani?

"Damaging the relationship between morality and sacraments can ultimately lead to a non-Catholic understanding of the Church."

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Catholica / Vida inteligente / Cooperatores veritatis (Screenshots)
 Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG