Who thought this modernist thug was ever fit for ordination?
Clearly trying to distance himself from the blowback that his boss might remove the red hats from the Four Cardinals, this intellectually challenged clericalist and papal hitman has, by his seemingly backing off, doubles down.
Maike Hickson has the story at OnePeterFive.
Let's take a look at hit-man Pinto's statement, shall we?
They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. That is a slap in the face. The pope can choose to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different from imposing upon him a counsel.
The Cardinals followed Scripture. They addressed the matter privately. When that did not elicit a response, they took it "to the Church." They had every right and duty to ask the questions and every right to expect an answer.
They are not a council with any kind of competences. On the contrary, they as cardinals are bound in a higher degree to be loyal to the pope. He stands for the gift of unity, the charisma of Peter. That is where the cardinals have to support him, and not hinder him. By what authority do the authors of the letter act? On the fact that they are cardinals? That is not sufficient. Please. Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions, but to oblige him to answer and to publish the case is another matter.
The first loyalty of the Cardinals and any Catholic is loyalty to Christ. We don't worship the Pope. What Pinto is suggesting is papolatry and a sin.
The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four cardinals contest.
The man is deluded or he is a liar. I suggest he is a liar and he needs to be called out for it. Synod votes must be two-thirds. Neither Synod voted to allow Holy Communion for those living in adultery. That is what Francis Bergoglio did, notwithstanding. The majority did not vote for this.
I am not the type who can threaten [people]. To write something like this is quite a journalistic license and is not serious. What I have said is, rather: Francis is a lighthouse of mercy and has infinite patience. For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing. It was a serious act that these four have published their letter. But to think that he would remove their cardinalate – no. I do not believe that he will do that. […] In itself, as pope, he could do such a thing. The way I know Francis, he will not do it.
Well, the light's gone out in that "lighthouse of mercy." I don't believe Pinto. I have every belief that this was and continues to be discussed and as I opined earlier, this was a trial balloon.
This is crazy. Such a council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts. And this is a fact: Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X.
Again, the man is in to deception. Francis has made an abrupt rupture with his predecessors. Not one of them would have promulgated Amoris Laetitia. The man is deluded and frankly, promoting evil. The first duty of the Cardinals is to Christ. If the Pope is acting contrary, then there are examples in history and in the writings of Saints and Doctors on what must be done. That process has begun. These men are monsters and now that they know that they have been found out, expect their anger to increase along with their evil.
I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. Meisner was a great bishop of an important diocese [Cologne] – how sad that he now with this action puts a shadow upon his history. Meisner, a great spiritual leader! That he would arrive at that, I did not expect. He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict, and he knows that Benedict XVI and Francis are in full agreement about the analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage. And Burke – we have worked together. He seemed to me to be an amiable person. Now I would ask him: Your Eminence, why did you do that?
The man is a heresiarch, a common thug, a pathetic excuse for a priest.
But we must thank him, he has exposed himself and those around Bergoglio for what they are.