The Sunset of a Papacy. Pope Francis also has his fans against him.

What is happening in the Catholic Church? Are we on the verge of an earthquake? There are lots of signs that would induce us to think so, and the article by Alberto Melloni from the columns of “La Repubblica” yesterday, is really quite sensational, revealing, as it does, the severe split on the part of some progressive Catholics from Pope Francis, whom they used to support enthusiastically.

Melloni, symbol of the “School of Bologna” and the “progressive wing of the Church – initiates his indictment by highlighting that the German Cardinal Marx, in his recent letter of resignation, “was in effect asking for the Pope’s resignation”.

Marx is the leader of the powerful and affluent German Episcopate, which, through its Synod, seems to want a revolution. The German bishops are historically the supporters of Bergoglio, but their undue haste is not endorsed by him, and now they are plainly disappointed.

Melloni then cites other recent episodes, like the Papal Decree limiting to ten years “the mandate of the leaders and bodies of lay ecclesial movements”. A norm – according to Melloni – that “constricts the rights of the faithful” and “establishes the liquidation of the leaders presently serving, in the name of an ideologically defined good.”

Moreover, this is about the leaders of the movements, who are very much aligned to the Bergoglian Papacy and who, these past years, have practically faded away: you no longer see their vitality, nor their public appearances (and [therefore] in my view, the decree has some positive aspects).

Then Melloni criticizes the banishment of Enzo Bianchi from his community, which he in fact retains “harmful to the ecumenical credibility of the Church”.

He then attacks the inspection of the Congregation of the Clergy, ordered by Bergoglio –an “action” Melloni says “that is unprecedented and useless…illustrating what roughness those who have served the Pope loyally are treated with– for example, the retiring Prefect, Cardinal Stella,

It should be borne in mind that Cardinal Stella is thought to be one of the strategists in Bergoglio’s election of 2013, therefore this is another serious rupture in the Pontiff’s world. Melloni criticizes likewise “the audit of the Vicariate of Rome” arranged by Bergoglio, who is charged with giving ‘credence to chatter”.

Melloni is extremely harsh about the entire Cardinal Becciu affair. In his view it is likely that “the indictment is still extremely fragile” and we would want to “avoid a pointed defense which would send world-wide, a trial of the central government.”

Behind these and other episodes, Melloni explains: “some see the excessive influx of coarse advisors; others his authoritarian attitude […..…]. But the increase in such cases, according to the progressive intellectual, “is preparing for a tempest”.

It is not the first “missile” raining down on Bergoglio from the clerical left. But now his increasing isolation appears clear: it’s enough to consider the cases listed by Melloni (Cardinal Marx and the German Bishops, the lay ecclesial movements, Enzo Bianchi, Cardinal Becciu, the Vicariate) to realize that they are all figures and worlds supporting him.

The Argentine Pope is a complex personality, at times difficult to decipher. Some of his initial emphases on Jesus touched deep cords like the need for mercy for modern man, but the Gospel says the Good Shepherd is also the Truth made Flesh and asks for conversion.

In his present solitude, the Pope finds himself having to acknowledge bitterly that his Papacy, for some time now, has been precipitating towards painful failure.

Even the historical leader of the Community of St. Egidio, Andrea Riccardi, for whom the Vatican is a second home, published a book entitled: “The Church is burning: the crisis and future of Christianity”, where he envisions an apocalyptic scenario: “the end of Catholicism” and “a world without the Church”.

If you consider how Bergoglio was acclaimed at the very beginning by the ecclesiastical world (the dream was: a triumphant “Bergoglio effect” ) you can understand how intense the disillusionment is today.

After these past eight years – the Church – has not flourished, but appears annihilated. Religious life is in a comatose state. The Church’s central government, in the Vatican, is in permanent chaos. Confusion, even doctrinal, reigns supreme in the entire ecclesial community. The balance of Sunday Mass attendance is devastating and vocations are now in free-fall (among other things, with the collapse of sacramental marriages). The clergy and the bishops seem to have gone adrift.

Those who thought that breaking with the great pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI would have assured a bright future, are today disproved. Those –like Bergoglio - perhaps with the best intentions – who were under the illusion that the Church, by immerging itself in the world, could be invigorated, today are witnessing a historical defeat.

On the other hand, the sociologists of religion – like Rodney Stark – had demonstrated this for years (after all, the Gospel says that if salt loses its flavor it becomes unusable).

Today the voice of the Church cannot be distinguished from that of the United Nations. The voice of Peter does not counter the dominant, secular, leftist ideologies; actually it is often in harmony with them - and - with such politicization – generates bewilderment in the faithful and enthusiasm for the all-time enemies of the Church.

Apart from rare interventions from Benedict XVI, you no longer hear a Catholic voice directing believers and all peoples, in continuity with the constant Magisterium of the Church. Never has the Church been so conformist and so irrelevant in the world on questions of enormous importance for all of mankind.

They have created a “desert” and called it “revolution”. But every revolution devours its children and now there has been a rupture between Bergoglio and his supporters.

The current crisis might induce him into resigning (probably not) or carry on desperately, awaiting the “tempest” announced by Melloni.

In conclusion, there is a third possibility: Pope Francis could acknowledge that the attempt to give a future to the Church by adapting it to a worldly mentality has failed and the right road is that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It seems impossibile - like miracles. But they can happen.

Today great courage is needed of course to recapture the heroic way of Popes Wojtyla and Ratzinger, because this is a time of persecutions. Benedict XVI, in his last intervention, affirmed that “the real threat to the Church, and thus for the Petrine Service, comes from the universal dictatorship of ideologies apparently humanistic; contradicting them involves exclusion by the basic consensus of society.”

Ratzinger listed the dogmas of these ideologies, underlining that “today those who oppose them are socially excommunicated…. Modern society” he added “ intends formulating an anti-Christian credo: those who contest it are punished by social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Anti-Christ is all too natural.”

But Francis (besides God) would have Benedict XVI at his side and all the remaining faithful Catholics of the world - and there are many. In this way the Church could truly help in the freeing and freedoms of people.

Great piece but the author loses me at the end with this:

“In conclusion, there is a third possibility: Pope Francis could acknowledge that the attempt to give a future to the Church by adapting it to a worldly mentality has failed and the right road is that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It seems impossibile [sic] - like miracles. But they can happen.”

Bergoglio and his ilk will never reverse course and admit that their modernist agenda failed. At this very moment, they’re busy attributing their failures to the Latin Mass subculture and “rigid” priests and seminarians. In other words, it’s not that their vision of a Catholic Church that has gone “full on Episcopalian” and remade itself in the image of liberal protestantism was tried and failed, but rather that it still hasn’t yet been tried. (Why they would possibly think that liberal protestantism’s playbook would work for them when it never even worked for the liberal protestants themselves is a question that only a modernist true believer can answer).

The very least Francis could be doing is besides raising theological questions on the assertions made in the Islamic codex (which is their code of observance and behavior) known as Sharia, and should be defending the Chinese Catholics.
Ignores this http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
and also seems to ignore what Our Savior went through to establish the new covenant , Then Plays with suppressors of the faith

Francis continuing destructive confusing pontificating on temporal worldly social behavior,which has nothing to do with and avoids articles of faith and morals rebukes or restrains contemplative religious orders to favor such behavior .

By refusing to question and expound on the profound differences with the claims made by Islam and its followers Reaching out to and defend what Judeo/Christian beliefs are.Or challenge claims that Islamist make they are following God’s command using deceit and deception when ruthlessly murdering and torturing non believers and destroy their edifice .Smply because of its assertion of being monotheistic. Then winds up making a point of honoring it and placing it on an equal level because of that claim. Is leading to misguided conversions which is the result of my so called Pope playing games with this so called mono theistic cult and is creating a serious fracture within Christianity and The Roman Rite .

I definitely agree with you the utter destruction of Christianity is the motivation of the most Satanic among them. And there are also the gays who don’t necessarily have a larger agenda but are simply hellbent on dismantling the Church’s historical opposition to their lifestyles and are willing to demolish as much of the Church as is necessary to accomplish the homosexual agenda. And these overlapping groups perhaps account for the majority of the modernist liberals we’re talking about.

Still, though, I think there remains some element of misguided liberal who, despite all evidence to the contrary (in every nation, in every decade and an every context), honestly and truly believes that if only the Church “got with the times” and went “all in” on liberalism (on sexuality, abortion, women priests, etc etc.), that people would come flooding back.

Such a mentality has zero basis in reality, of course, but the truth is that I actually hear that kind of thing from some lay heterosexual Catholics in San Francisco.

Missed it first time around. Not sure how. Am glad to have been pointed to it by you for the first time today. Knew the jist of it inherently but had a hard time expressing that nugget of wisdom to others. Have now learned the powerful and compelling vocabulary necessary to do that.

This passage was particularly impactful:

“Most concerningly, psychopathic ideologies reliably generate (temporary but) functional psychopathy in otherwise normal people who, by means of these manipulations, become sufficiently convicted fellow travelers with and sympathizers to the ideology. Quite literally, aside from the direct effects of demoralization and the destabilization caused by the growing drift of their beliefs away from reality and toward unreality (pseudo-reality), a psychopathic ideology makes its sympathizers believe and act in psychopathic ways themselves, at least in a functional sense. These are the demands and costs of upholding the paralogic (so as not to be a “fool” in pseudo-reality) and paramorality (so as not to be the wrong kind of person in pseudo-reality), and slowly these victims of the ideology become the monsters they were too weak to fight. As noted previously, virtues like tolerance and empathy are intentionally perverted until they begin to bifurcate so that they carry a political valence (paramorality good, morality bad) that increasingly favors the pseudo-real ideology and becomes legitimately psychopathic as the effect strengthens.

“Eventually, a normal person subjected to these circumstances ceases to be normal. This occurs when they “awaken” to a “full consciousness” in the pseudo-reality. At that point, they will have reached a place where, from their perspective, pseudo-reality is reality and reality is the pseudo-reality. That is, they will be psychopathic themselves, in thrall to the paralogic of the pseudo-real delusion and with bifurcated and narrowed ethics and moral virtues under its paramoral system. Presumably, in the majority of such previously normal people, this effect is temporary and contingent upon participation in the cult, though it is likely that some of the relevant psychological damage will be long-lasting, if not permanent. Nevertheless, in the short term, the result of this dynamic is a growing body of functionally and legitimately psychopathic people accruing more and more power for themselves, which they use (in psychopathic ways) to enforce their ideological pseudo-reality on everyone, most notably everyone else.

“This process is quite exquisite. The deficiencies of the paralogic, caprice of the paramorality, and dissonance around the pseudo-reality itself will all tend to engender in the susceptible normal person a similar sense of distress about inhabiting reality as the pseudo-reality exists to enable. Obviously, this is convenient for recruitment, indoctrination, and eventual (psychopathic) reprogramming because the pseudo-reality is constructed in such a way as to enable those specific psychopathologies to flourish and avoid detection and treatment. In this regard, one might refer to the spread of a psychopathic ideology and its pseudo-reality by now-familiar phrases like “the madness of crowds,” which is more apt than one might realize at first blush, and even sociopolitical “zombification.”

“Importantly, this circumstance implies that the average “fellow traveler” in a cult ideology not only does not realize they’re a cultist who is using tools and tactics of manipulation (paralogic and paramorality) on people in their lives, both normal and ideologically “awakened” fellow cultists; they cannot realize this without first abandoning the paralogic and paramorality that has captured them and rejecting the ideological pseudo-reality in a fundamental way. They find themselves in the broken position not only of being functionally psychopathic but also of being reality-inverted such that they believe all normal people who are not (yet) cultists are the cultists while they, themselves, are not. This represents a complete reversal of sanity, and the conversion of normal to ideologically psychopathic is, by that point, complete. These people, as many have learned the hard way throughout history, are the otherwise good people who are capable of perpetrating genocides.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.