Image: Cardinal Müller and Pope Emeritus Benedict — Source
Today, 19 July, there appeared a new interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is an interview which he had given in early July to the prominent secular German news agency DPA (German Press Agency); this means that this interview is now being picked up by numerous news outlets. We shall now quote from the German newspaper Die Welt and its own report on this interview.
Even though many of the published media stories have stressed that part of the new interview in which Cardinal Müller defends himself – especially with regard to accusations that he was negligent in dealing with sexual abuse cases both while being the Bishop of Regensburg and then later as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) – we will point out other apt and pertinent aspects of this fuller interview.
In this interview – which was conducted at the beginning of July in Müller’s own Rome apartment (that is to say, most probably after his return from his 1-2 July visit to Germany, to his hometown, Mainz) – Cardinal Müller touches upon his recent dismissal from his prominent curial position as the Prefect of the CDF. Importantly, he reveals that Pope emeritus Benedict himself was “disappointed” about this dismissal. As Die Welt puts it:
It is sad [according to Müller] that now no German is any more to be found in a high curial office. That is also the same view of Pope emeritus Benedict: He, too, says Müller, is “disappointed” that his [Müller’s] contract [five-year mandate] has not been extended.
In the interview, Cardinal Müller also explains that the office had been “a good fit and was well suited” for him. Some “interested circles,” however, claimed that there existed “purported tensions,” “but the pope always assured me that he does not believe these rumors, and that he has full trust in me,” explains the German cardinal. But he still does not know the “exact reasons” for this dismissal, according to Die Welt.
However, Cardinal Müller did make use of this interview in order to criticize the phenomenon of careerism and the courtiers within the Vatican, and to warn against having a “personality cult of the pope.” According to Die Welt:
Some people practice a “hypocritical devotion to the pope” according to the motto “the Holy Father has an idea, and we follow it unconditionally, and everybody is full of admiration” [according to Müller]. “The pope is also only a human being. That is to say, not everything he does and says is from the onset perfect and unsurpassable.”
Müller himself “does not regard himself as an opponent to the pope, nor as an ‘agitator,’” in the words of Die Welt. He says:
I believe that I was never a conservative, nor a hardliner. To categorize the spiritual and religious life in terms of conservative and progressive is a sign of immature thought [“Armutszeugnis”]; it merely betrays the aggression of those who prefer to discriminate against others, rather than dealing with their arguments.
When reflecting about his own role in Rome – he had been called to Rome by then-Pope Benedict himself in 2012 – Müller says, according to Die Welt:
At the beginning, he was told: “typical German professor who does not understand that, if need be, 2+2 can also be made five,” relates Müller. “I did not grow up in Rome; I am not a curial [prelate]. I insist upon that. I am a bishop who came from the outside. Perhaps, as a northerner, one will always remain a foreign body [“Fremdkörper”].”
As Die Welt reports, Müller does not speak “one bad word about the Argentine” pope, and he “has had a relationship with the pope which was ‘good from the beginning, I [Müller] believe.’”
However, Die Welt continues, Müller does indicate in the interview “what he thinks about some of the personnel decisions of the pope”: “One’s own work can only be successful with qualified employees,” Müller is convinced. He continues, saying: “In former times, one always said that a good ruler is characterized by the fact that he calls the best – also sometimes uncomfortable – counselors to his side, and not the opportunists and mediocre people who at all times have tried to get close to those in power.” According to Die Welt, Müller counts himself to be among the “circle of the uncomfortable counselors.” He himself does not think highly of “the behavior of the courtiers” at the Vatican, nor of the conduct of the “careerists who try, with the help of flattery, to get into some kind of small positions [“Pöstchen”]. “Rather take the risk of some disadvantages than bending one’s conscience,” Müller said.
When speaking about one of the topics of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia – the apparently indulgent admission of the “remarried” divorcees to the Sacraments – Müller makes it clear that he is against it. “God is the measure of reality,” says Müller in the interview, “and not simply that which is factual. That which actually exists is not automatically good.” In a similar manner, Cardinal Müller rejects the idea of a promiscuous “marriage for all.”
The theme of not bending one’s conscience – as discussed in this new 19 July interview – also came up during another recent Müller-interview , one which took place right after the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner in Cologne on 15 July. When speaking about the dignified funeral ceremony for Cardinal Meisner, Cardinal Müller then said:
We believe that we shall be rewarded for the merits which we gain here on earth. We are, after all, collaborators with God; we help build His Kingdom, also against resistances or a lack of understanding. But that is also a sign that we are on the right path with Christ Who also went this path on which people also often did not understand Him. It is a path which has led to the Cross, but also then to the Resurrection, to the triumph over evil, over death, and over the alienation of man from God.
Moreover, Cardinal Müller stressed in this 15 July interview that
Each of those present [at the funeral Mass] were also especially touched by the word of Pope Benedict; he is really – as it clearly showed itself here once more – a master of the word who speaks out of a deep Faith and who gives us courage to continue on the path of the Faith.
Cardinal Müller then concluded this short 15 July interview in Cologne with some words about Cardinal Meisner himself – one of the four dubia cardinals: “He is for me a great witness of our Christian Faith in the midst of our world.”
These words echo the words of Archbishop Georg Gänswein who, on that same day, also gave some interviews and said the following words about Cardinal Meisner:
A giant has been given a farewell; or a spiritual giant had to go. I can only hope that he, now from up above, gigantically intercedes for us.
Gänswein also explained that Cardinal Meisner “has lived out of the spiritual and for the spiritual,” and that he may “already now see some spiritual fruits.” Gänswein stressed that the now-famous message written by Pope emeritus Benedict – as recited by Gänswein publicly – was “a spiritual encouragement for all of those who listened to it; and spiritual encouragements for this our time are very good and very much needed.”
All these different statements – which show us a close connection between Cardinal Müller, Archbishop Gänswein, the now-deceased Cardinal Meisner and Pope Benedict himself – may have to be seen in the greater light of some recent denials and dismissals. Perhaps they should be even more fully seen in the context of the larger current crisis within the Catholic Church under the papacy of Pope Francis.
The author thanks 1P5’s Matthew Karmel for kindly providing some additional links for this article.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
It is sad [according to Müller] that now no German is any more to be found in a high curial office.
Er…….Marx, maybe? Kasper, anyone?, Woelke?
I don’t think so.
Um……no, Your Eminence. That’s actually a good thing!
This interview is a good thing. Even if they are talking only to deny the “calumies”, they have at least started to talk a bit more.
What is the point of the article? Muller and Benedict are talking and one says “I’m disappointed I was let go” and the other says “Yeah, me too.” What does this clarify? Also, Muller is a company man. Francis could have knocked him over the head with a twobyfour and Muller would have described it as “I had it coming. We still are friends.” I’m not one that needs to be convinced that the Vatican is a political cesspool. The only way you will find out the truth is by your anonymous friends who can’t reveal themselves. You know when you hit close to home when the hornets pour out of the nest looking to hurt you. Regarding those who are priests, they are not holy men. Regarding those that are laymen, they are PR rats who have no problem telling and spreading falsehoods. This is what the Vatican is today. And it didn’t start under Francis. Again, you need to go back 50 years or so. What a mess to clean up and how do we do it.
Muller’s mentioning of papolatry is important. If you are going to take anything away from this article, let it be that.
“What a mess to clean up and how do we do it.”
We don’t. It’s in Christ’s hands now. Pray if you want to help but there’s nothing you can do to directly intervene. We westerners seem to apply democracy or legalism or litigiousness to everything: when it comes to the Church there’s no vote or lawsuit or revolution that the people can directly lead to change things.
All talk. All talk. That’s what they do best.
But they are a mile wide and an inch deep.
Who really cares who said what to who about what. And who really cares what is being possibly ” telegraphed” by one to the other or even to the laity.
Cardinal Mueller whines. Pope Benedict signals…..WHAT???
Only a Heavenly solution will purify The Church. Putting our hope in Bishops is to set up failed expectations. Sadly, a chastisement will all but certainly precede a restoration.
Yup, Ocoter 13th is just around the corner
True, but 2029 is a date we must keep in mind as well. In 1929 Our Lady visited Sister Lucia in Tuy Spain and that is where she requested the Pope to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. A 100 year limit is suspected because Sister Lucia was told that if the request was not heeded, then they would follow in the folly of The King of France when he failed to comply with the requests to The Sacred Heart of Jesus. Exactly 100 years later, the king of France lost his head. We may have 12 years for things to devolve further. Just a thought, of course I don’t know, but it seems most people only expect something on October 13, 2017.
That is the year I’ve expected the Antichrist to make his appearance, based on the same line of reasoning.
I dread the thought of another 12 years of this…But the Mass is still reasonably available, and it’s my understanding that there will be a period of time when it will no longer available except for the lucky few.
We have 40 years or so the prophecies say for the “age of peace” or “age of Mary” I hope and pray it lasts for much longer, it of course is depending on the grace. After this period of peace mankind will again get so corrupted (but even worse, how that’s possible I don’t know) and then the Antichrist will come.
Right now we’re just in the Antichrist trial run or precursor.
I know some private revelations speak of a minor chastisement and then a short period of peace, but I don’t know how well that seems to fit. Sister Lucia said the devel was in the mood for a “decisive battle”, meaning the last battle. And it would be waged over marriage and the family. I’ve also read that the Era of Peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima, could well refer to eternity. It’s good to discern the signs of the times, but I try to remind myself that no man knows the day nor the hour.
I trust in our Lady, she would not lie.
The second secret of Fatima;
“You have seen hell [the children’s vision of hell is the first secret] where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
“I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart… If people attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace.”
No consecration has happened yet, there has been no peace in the world
On June 13th, 1929 Our Lord spoke with Sr. Lucia and told her
“‘But My God’ (Lucia answered), ‘the Holy Father probably will not believe me, unless You, Yourself, move Him with a special inspiration.’ ‘THE HOLY FATHER’ (OUR LORD ANSWERED), ‘PRAY MUCH FOR THE HOLY FATHER. HE WILL DO IT BUT IT WILL BE LATE. Nevertheless, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia. It has been entrusted to Her”
I hope there will not be 12 more years of increasing immorality, breaking of families, every sacred inside and outside of the Church being attacked and corrupted, the further expansion of islam which will bring civil war if there are indeed any true men left to fight it, and continued loss of faith and of souls…please, Lord, no.
I hope right along with you Maggie. I see what is going on and I have difficulty believing it’s not some nightmare and I haven’t awakened yet. No matter what comes, we must ask The Lord for the graces to persevere til the end and to never lose hope, no matter how dark the night.
Don’t worry about that date. We’ve got more to endure in the next few years than Catholics in the whole history of the Church have had to deal with. We are in the days of Noah right now. The Ark took 100 years to build, the Kings of France were given 100 years, and our Lady has given 100 years.
There is a surreal quality about these utterances of Cardinal Muller. He submitted 20 concerns regarding Amoris Laetitia, an exhortation with profound implications for marriage, children and the flourishing of societies worldwide These concerns were rejected putting eternal souls in peril. The Cardinal speaks blithely of dynamics with Bergoglio, as if Bergoglio rejected his offer of going out for a brew on Friday after work.
Agree 100% – it’s all just so very wierd.
I often feel as if I woke up one day and found myself in Bizzaro World.
The answer is ultramontanism; essentially the belief that the pope can do no wrong, believe no wrong, and teach no wrong. The CDF proposed a large number of corrections and clarifications but, according to Muller’s thinking, the pope has the final say and if the pope says no to the corrections then that’s the Holy Spirit saying no, because it’s a papal teaching document so it’s infallible, so it’s not possible for it to contain errors in its final draft. You see, the pope’s signature is magic and it has the power to make 2+2=5 as our good friend Spadaro says. Or some sort of nonsense like that.
Another nothingburger, clickbait article from OnePeterFive.
Don’t criticize OnePeterFive…I hope you are not a troll.
He thinks that female deacons are permissible — he’s that kind of Catholic.
Another one of Phil’s sock puppets perhaps?
Thank God I haven’t eaten breakfast yet, Reverend Deacon! The spawn of Satan ….
Female deacons are permissible and in fact existed in the early Church. That’s back when the Mass was celebrated in Novus Ordo style. Your understanding of actual Church liturgical history is lacking, Comrade.
On the contrary, it is you Milton who are ignorant of the facts. The existence of female deacons has been refuted time and time again. I won’t repeat the arguments here.
The Mass was said in the Novus Ordo style, was it? When and where was that? Do you *seriously* believe that the NO is the re-discovery of the early liturgy?! It is an invention of the 1960s and copies faithfully the 16th century’s Lutheran/Anglican meal service as invented one Winter by Cranmer and Bucer. Its inventors have admitted so.
So much ignorance, so much lacking from Catholics’ knowledge of Church history – recent as well as ancient.
St. Paul disagrees with you, Comrade:
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well (Romans 16:1-2)”
For all your pretense of loving “tradition,” Mr. Stalin, you are woefully ignorant of the early Church’s traditions – traditions that are rooted in Sacred Scripture itself.
Female deacons, as well as things like celibacy, are traditions with a lowercase “t.” They are subject to change according to the whims and surprises of the Spirit. Female priests are another story, being forbidden by Tradition with a capital “T.”
St. Paul imho would agree with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994).
Female deacons are a figment of your imagination mate.
There are mountains of evidence that the ladies termed “deacons” in the early Church were helpers in charity, nothing more. There is not a hint of liturgical or other priestly functions being exercised. There is more to a word than the title, but that thought is perhaps beyond you.
Nope, you’re wrong. St. Paul chose his words carefully. Female deacons are also mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians (1:1) and the first epistle to Timothy (3:8,12). Female deacons are a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine. The same is true of priestly celibacy. Pope Francis would be well within his rights to permit female deacons or to allow priests to marry. You “traditionalists” seem to have a problem not only with obedience to the Church authorities but are also ignorant of the early Church’s traditions. You guys are traditionalists in name only and like to play Pope.
And you, Milty, seem not to know the meaning of the word “tradition.”
Your little fantasy is adorable.
There were female deacons in the early Church and they were ordained. For example the Apostolic Constitutions say:
“Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew enjoin, O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her with all the Presbytery and the Deacons and the Deaconesses and thou shalt say: Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and woman, that didst fill with the Spirit Mary and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah, that didst not disdain that thine only begotten Son should be born of a woman; Thou that in the tabernacle of witness and in the temple didst appoint women guardians of thy holy gates: Do Thou now look on this thy handmaid, who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess and grant unto her the holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily accomplish the work committed unto her, to thy glory and the praise of thy Christ.”
You are the one fantasizing and rewritting the Church’s history and traditions.
Bold of you, Milty. But foolish too. Your own ignorance is what is mostly what’s on display here.
sure, you can have female deacons at your church, go for it.
Pitiful and frightening that you would consider yourself knowledgeable about truths which do not even hold you by the heart.
“They know things that are not so.”
Oh the hypocrisy: slander and constant innuendo against Pope Francis and the Vatican is permitted (and very good for business) but how dare I criticize OnePeterFive’s criticism. LOL!
A little pressure is applied and they always show themselves.
Over to Steve / Brian / Jafin.
Some commenters are so stupid they effectively self-censor. The eyes-roll, and people reflexively move on to more intelligent discussion. Steve generally likes to leave the Miltons of the world to twist in the wind, and being critiqued by a fool is actually something of a back-handed compliment; leaving them to vent also denies them the delusion that their banned status somehow = my arguments are unassailable. Miltons gonna Miltons.
…”Leaving them to vent” …Yes, my son says never feed the trolls.
Kasper, dat you?
Ah, but Milty is a troll, I’ve seen his handle before. And there’s simply no troll like an old troll. Unlike his famous namesake, though, he wouldn’t know what slander was if his life depended on it.
I’ve seen your handle as well. Judging by the amount of time you and the other regulars like Stalin spend on these threads every day, I’d say you are the full-time trolls.
Now, calm down, Milty, calm down. Mommy will be back from the package store shortly and everything will be all right. You’ll see.
Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
Modernist two step. To paraphrase: “There are no problems between the pope and I. Except for the problems I will now mention in this interview including the unprecedented in modern times sacking of my post in the CDF. There is no problem with Amoris Laetitia. Except for the fact that I issued 22 pages of corrections of said document that went ignored by The Pope. Furthermore my interpretation of it is at odds with the way the Pontiff interprets it in a letter to Argentinian Bishops. The CDF’s role in vetting papal documents is cast away and a new shadow CDF is created by the Pontiff to push through the new vision. To sum it up, venerable bretheren, there is nothing to see here. Except when there is everything to see here. Black is white. White is black. There is no black and white, only grey. Yes is no. There is no crisis here. Except for the unprecedented crisis in the Church and what’s left of Christendom. Is that not clear?”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this guy is campaigning to be Bergoglio’s successor. He’s becoming a little too limelighted, though. This interview will hurt him in the long run. This is not “Romanita.”
Cdl Müeller’s philosophical worldview is similar to Ratzinger’s, that is both of them are Hegelian “reform of the reform” kind of theologians/philosophers.
They follow De Chardin and Delubac in truly believing themselves to be sitting right in the “theological sweetspot” (or as Hegel called it the synthesis) and being surrounded by extremists (read thesis and antithesis, or conservatives and liberals).
What is sad though, is that they’re so taken in by the concepts of “balance” and “moderation” that they don’t see that the revolution has already kicked in to second gear and has left them behind.
These philosophical corruptions were merely a stepping stone in launching forward the subversion of orthodoxy and were never the goal.
This why Müller still holds out hope that the “two wings” will somehow reconcile and meet him in the centre (and realize he was always in the right).
The Revolution has certainly kicked into high gear.
I like this post very much.
They’re upset about there being no Krauts at the top level anymore (Kasper and Marx excepted, I suppose)? Poor things! I’m more than happy about it. Half the heterodox New Theologians loved by the Vatican II-ites came from German-speaking lands and the other half were French.
Maybe you should send this to tbem:
This is sooooo precious.
Thank you Margaret. I needed this good chuckle.
You’re welcome. 🙂 Here’s another chuckle for you (this is even better):
Bergoglio has lost himself a good diplomat. Cdl. Muller calls those who surround the papal imposter “opportunists and mediocre people who at all times have tried to get close to those in power.” Here, we just call them a*s-kissers. It’s a wonder he can sit.
Completely out of touch with the reality of what is happening at Diocese, Parish and pew level.
Unless Muller has a problem with the Pope, Muller is a problem. Another company man who will not call out evil.
I believe he’s a well intentioned careerist. Meaning he does believe the faith, as preached by Ratzinger post council (that’s more than many of these villains.) But he wants to keep rising through the ranks, doesn’t understand the stakes, now hopes to either retire peacefully as “prefect emeritus” of the CDF, or perhaps make one final bid in the next conclave for the papacy. He’s not willing to be a martyr, he’s not willing to truly stand up for the faith. He’s a bit of a buffoon really…
How anyone can think that Ratzinger, evidently calm and at peace with the world behind those security gates in his luxurious Vatican home, is the great white hunter of Bergoglian heresies; or that this other Jerry, Muller, is of any use for those of us who wish to remain Catholics, is beyond me.
One of the great weaknesses of Traditionalists – and this goes all the way back to the earliest days of the movement in the mid-1960s – is the naive (but yes, pious) hope that someone “in Rome” will suddenly convert a la St. Paul, thrash the heretics within an inch of their lives before laicising the lot of them.
It’s been clear for decades that it’s not going to be like that. Wojtila didn’t do it and neither did Ratzinger. Meisner’s dead, the other three dubia Cardinals have gone to sleep and Schneider just gives interviews.
The Jesuits are nothing if not schooled in the arts of this world. Bergoglio is packing the College of Cardinals with men who think like him. I keep saying it – humanly-speaking, the war is already lost.
Learn to accept it. Only then will the correct strategy for the few remaining Catholics in the world show itself.
I agree. When all seems paralyzed, the rescue will certainly come via The Virgin Most Powerful. This is my hope. This is my comfort. As The Church is scourged, mocked with a crown of thorns, sentenced to carry the cross to cavalry and then crucified, I pray for the graces necessary to faithfully remain at the foot of the cross… staying close to our Blessed Mother.
We must do just that. Because much worse is coming. If Bergoglio is (as I believe) the False Prophet, then the Anti-Christ is already in the world.
I know not if The False Prophet is here yet but I doubt that he has assumed his position yet. None of the current clerics are charismatic and seductive enough. I would expect a frenzied following such as Hitler or Stalin received, but only greater. It certainly wouldn’t surprise if the Antichrist was amongst us in his secret years. The stage seems set for his imminent arrival or at least the arrival of one last type of antichrist prior to The Antichrist. The rebellion is long under way and I suspect that the restrainer has been lifted.
The False Prophet is the satanic version of St. John the Baptist. He sets the scene, he doesn’t need a frenzied following.
Good point comrade, yet we won’t know who until The Man of Lawlessness is revealed. The scene certainly seems to be set. The disturbing cooperation between high ranking churchmen and the secular powers is reminiscent of the plotting between Israel and Rome. On a societal level, the rebellion appears even more grave than during the time of Sodom. Man is so intoxicated by his sins, that he now rebels not only against the moral law, but against nature itself.
There certainly is a frenzy, of sin, of madness and a lemming-like desire for annihilation of self; whether by drugs, pornography, booze, sex, ISIS or liberal progressivism. There is a clamour for death all around. It can only be demonic.
The culture of death is seemingly prevailing at the present. But their time is short and I believe that is exactly why things are wratcheting up.
I reflected further on the False Prophet and realized that he doesn’t have to be charismatic. Caiaphas was a type of The False Prophet and he was never spoken of as a magnetic personality. Yet he sold out to Rome to achieve his treachery. Within a generation Jerusalem was destroyed. It is well within Catholic boundaries to consider that the False Prophet will be recruited from the bishops. Venerable Fulton Sheen said precisely this. Nero as a type of antichrist appeared not long after our Blessed Lord’s Passion.
If you spend time in Traditional circles enough, you won’t see the following. But stick your head into Novus Ordo-Land and Francis is seen as the greatest pope ever, except for MAYBE “St. John Paul the Greatestest.” In addition the “left-wing” media has even labeled him the leader of the global left. Atheists and sodomites love him. If he IS the false prophet and the anti-Christ is coming soon, he is setting the stage well for a frenzied following of the Beast.
Agreed. In NO land, it’s pretty close between the two. And even some Protestants loved JP2.
But there is nothing wrong per se in being loved by people who are trying to find God even if it is possible that they may be going the wrong way about it.
It is the truth of your sentence “Atheists and sodomites love him” which is the evidence and the enormous difference between the two.
I agree with your first two sentences.
Yep and I will be smiling when our mother comes to clean house.
Humanly speaking, the two operative words of your post.
And very deliberately chosen.
очень хорошо, Iosif Vissarionovich. And I mean, WELL said!
Great analysis. Unfortunately, this just goes to show how far away we are, as people, from turning back to God and how desperate we have become, for the number of traditional catholics willing to acknowledge such a truth seems low.
While I’m sure that on the supernatural side the lesson here is just that (i.e. trust in God and not men), I can’t help but think that the demons are holding up our helplessness before us as a deterrant, lest we rally back together.
I may be wrong here, but as a descendant of masons I know the psychological warfare they are waging and one thing’s for sure, helpless is exactly how they want us to feel.
They themselves know better than anyone that the pathway for societal change is as Gramsci would have it “a long march through the institutions”that is fueled on will alone and patience.
My pedigree is even worse. One great-grandfather, an Italian, was a member of Aleistair Crowley’s Satanic cult and made his hotel (in the north of England) available to them for its rituals.
What is starting to scare me more than anything is the idea that the atheistic, homosexual, anti-Catholic men inside the Vatican might start trying to destroy historic and importan documents.
Look, they can bankrupt the Vatican, liquidate all of the Church’s assets (St. Peter’s, the art work….all of it). But the written documents both secret and public are indispensable in my mind and I am scared that there could be “mysterious” fires, thefts, etc.
The bottom line is that I would be interested in, but perhaps may wish not to have found out were the information to be disclosed to me, what percent of the occupants in Vatican City are one or more of the following: atheistic, homosexual, anti-Catholic, pederast, Masonic, communistic…..satanic. It almost occurs to me that 75% of the people are one or more of the aforementioned. Of the remaining 25% I would guess 10% are faithfully and enthusiastically Catholic while the remaining 90% are lukewarm or semi-Protestant. In other words I am so pessimistic that I now believe 2.5% of the Curia is truly Catholic.
I have no basis for my estimate other than public comments made by the most aggressive anti-Catholics and the silence of others.
Still I wonder, why does Franics publicly chide and attack men like Cardinal Burke, Pell, etc. but never says a word about Sarah? Is he scared of Cardinal Sarah?
Your estimations seem reasonable to me since they are reflective of Catholics outside the curia. After all, those holding high places are ‘of the world’ these days, aren’t they?
I think Bergoglio is afraid of Cdl. Sarah and really afraid of appearing racist in any way.
Recall the backlash against – can’t recall the name of the German cardinal – who made an anti-African remark during the synod. We are very blessed in the United States to have these good priests filling vacancies in many of our dioceses. They actually know and preach the faith!
The German Cardinal = Kasper.
Yes! Thank you.
But what has Cardinal Sarah done or said to cause the fury of Francis?
He has certainly authored some excellent books, and has spoken on the need of more silence and reverence at Mass. Yet, this certainly would not cause the angst of Francis, would it?
Now Cardinal Burke……..Cardinal Pell……….yep…….that would cause Francis a headache.
I don’t think anyone said anything about causing Francis to be furious with Cdl. Sarah. He didn’t “do” anything, really. It’s just that he stands boldly for the Faith and tradition, especially in the liturgy. And Francis wants very much to change the Mass in a very big (and bad) way. And so he sees the good cardinal as a major impediment.
Yes, Cardinal Sarah is certainly a treasure for our Church.
I have been thinking on this, maybe I am wrong here, but
I wonder if Francis, being keen as he is, senses that if he were to go after Cardinal Sarah,
Francis own goose would be cooked. I think a firestorm would be unleashed by our orthodox prelates upon this pontificate, and the laity might want to scale those walls in defense of our Cardinal Sarah.
I am not so certain it is a racism thing with this guy. The world knows how much Francis loves anything and everybody. I doubt they would suspect racism from him.
This has me puzzled…
Rome seems to be one very dysfunctional family, where enablers of the main dysfunction abound. It is so pathetically sad and very disturbing.
Some of the greatest targets of the left are former Muslims.
Attacking them doesn’t appear to be a problem despite their colour.
Yes, it seems to me that only some of the Vatican website archive is backed up on independent servers. I’ve been concerned about this for a few years now. I’m just talking about digital versions.
He’s not scared of Sarah. He’s using him and he’s ready to destroy him. Useful puppet/window dressing. Just like he used and essentially destroyed Mueller. As with Mueller, he sidelines and humiliates Sarah.
The obvious stands out: Cardinal Robert Sarah is a Black African. Attacking him personally goes against the liberal zeitgeist. He has to undermine him from within and not directly assault him, because to do so will bring the accusation of Racism. Which is why Cardinal Kasper tried desperately to deny his racist screed against the African Church. These are men of their milieu and they operate within its boundary’s. The African Church is one of the only Churches that is actually growing stronger instead of weaker…
The Catholic Church in Africa represents one of the greatest obstacle to the fulfillment of their vile desires, which is why they are desperate for men like Cardinal Peter Turkson and will do all they can to make more Africans like him (sell outs) members of the hierarchy.
“Still I wonder, why does Francis publicly chide and attack men like Cardinal Burke, Pell, etc. but never says a word about Sarah? Is he scared of Cardinal Sarah?”
Sarah is Black and Francis is ‘ Politically correct’.
But what are we make of this when CNA says that Cardinal Muller has denied the story of the five questions put to Mueller by Pope Francis? viz:
Inter alia it says:
‘The cardinal was “flabbergasted to read this description of his meeting with the Pope”, Horst writes, quoting Cardinal Müller as stating: “This is incorrect”.
In fact, the whole meeting had run very differently Cardinal Müller asserted, and the claims made by the “anonymous German source” were quite false.
The comments echo a brief email sent by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, to both One Peter Five and Marco Tosatti yesterday. In it, Burke states that the claimed “reconstruction is totally false” and requests that the story be updated.’
It is a bit difficult to see how the story can be updated if he does not tell us what actually happened.
You’re stuck. One of the two parties is either lying or has a very faulty memory. You have to make a decision which party has more to gain from his version (cui bono), and then decide how much of that party’s description is accurate. All I know is that during my lifetime, “artful recasting” of reality (we used to call it lying) has become a way of life in high places. In fact, it seems the higher the place — the UN, the White House, the Kremlin, Brussels, the Vatican — the more likely the “story” is fanciful.
Yes. Mueller denies that the conversation happened the way we said it happened.
Burke said the reconstruction is false.
Neither said the topics we said were on the table were not discussed. We continue to receive information confirming the broad outlines of our story. Did we get some details wrong? I think so. I think the 5 questions were more like 5 themes of the working meeting, not a set of yes or nos. I suspect that the eyewitness to the conversation either misheard or in some other way misrepresented what he heard. Our sources on this story have remained resolute that the version of events they gave to us is what they were told.
There is now another German, a Michael von Laack, who claims to have more information on this story and had said he would even divulge the transcript of the discussion (from his own sources’ memories). Unfortunately, he made this claim on Facebook, and the next morning he had a cease and desist letter from someone whose identity he has not disclosed, threatening him with a 100,000 euro fine if he says any more.
We’ve also heard from a source in Rome who has been doing some digging that, again, we were thematically correct, but got some details wrong.
I accept this. We went out on a limb for that story. Took an editorial risk. Sometimes I do that when what I have is credible enough to move forward because by getting what is known out into the open, others (journalists, in particular) have license to dig more. We never presented that report as Gospel. We stated what it was and how we came by it. And we updated it with the denials as soon as we got them. From my perspective, if we’re going to be faced with trying to ferret out the truth from those who can find a mental reservation to justify the denial of anything (if not an outright lie), forcing them to comment on things like this has to sometimes be on the table.
I found Marco Tosatti’s anecdote yesterday about the former papal spokesman denying a story while journalists were playing back a recording of him giving them the information very telling.
As a retired lawyer I am puzzled by what is meant by a “cease and desist” letter with a fine of €100,000. Presumably defamation or libel is being invoked but these are civil torts. Only criminal acts attract fines and criminal libel was abolished some time ago – at least in the UK. I wonder what jurisdiction the writer thought he could bring a court action in. Damages for libel are assessed by the court. How can the writer put an exact figure on that at this stage? Who is his client? Quoting verbatim from such a letter may be a breach of copyright but telling other people what it is about in one’s own words is seemingly okay.
I cannot give legal advice but my musings are that one should engage with the writer of such a letter and ask him exactly what he means. What exactly is he objecting to and on what grounds? Where is there any defamation or libel in what is being narrated? In what way is the narration wrong? Can he provide an accurate version of what happened so that it can be published to put the matter right? Is this not a matter of public interest anyway? etc etc. One should not give way to idle bullying.
German law seems very odd to me. My impression is that it’s guilty until proven innocent. This is the (redacted) letter that van Laack posted to his public Facebook page.
So this is what van Laack originally threatened:
And this was him posting the letter that told him to shut up:
I am afraid my German is non-existent and Google is not very good at translating this into English!
It is all very odd. I wonder who wrote the letter. It refers to a legal adviser so presumably it is not a firm of lawyers writing on behalf of a client but some other entity which appears to have a client.
It seems to be suggesting that Mr Van Laack was threatening to publish some document. Are they suggesting that the said document is their property and therefore he has no right to publish it? It seems to me unlikely that he has obtained a document which belongs to Cardinal Mueller or whoever they are.
It would appear to me that the document he was threatening to publish is more likely to be a document prepared by some mole in which case it would not belong to them and they cannot prevent its publication unless they can claim that it is libellous or defamatory or contains some private confidential information or intellectual property whose publication could cause them damage.
One can, I suppose, prevent stealing private confidential information or intellectual property as in the case of a manufacturing company where details of some secret industrial process is stolen. I suppose in the case of such property being actually stolen there could be a criminal case. However this would seem very far-fetched in this case and one would have to prove financial loss resulting from the disclosure of the information in order to get damages.
So in my view one has to assume that the only real claim might be that there is to be defamation or libel in publishing this document. It is a matter of public interest though which provides some protection to the person publishing it in good faith. As I have said Mr Van Laack might think of asking them in what way his information is incorrect and offer to correct it!
The translation by Google is very muddled but it does look like a lot of bluster. One is reminded of the late unlamented Robert Maxwell who from a position of great power, wealth and influence, fired off these letters to gag people who were too terrified and poor to be able to respond.
I suspect that any court of law would be pretty bemused by all this and throw the case out.
This was the auto-translated version of his original message:
It was to the claims made in the image I just posted that the legal threat was in response. They wanted to stop him from announcing those details.
I have been told that in Germany, you can be silenced by threat of a fine, like this, and if you do not go to court to prove that you have some reason to say what you are saying that outweighs the potential damage it might cause the aggrieved party, you have to be quiet or pay the fine.
I’m not going to claim familiarity with German jurisprudence, but I have been told that this law has been used to good effect in other case, such as those relating to certain reporting on the Knights of Malta. It seems so foreign to my concept of how things are done.
Quite extraordinary! I see now the reference to a ‘legal adviser’ was a comment by Mr Van Laack referring to his adviser so the letter is presumably from a firm of lawyers. It is not very clear who they are representing i.e. who their client is. They do not explain what their objection is other than to say they assume it was confidential information which might impugn the good faith of their client.
This looks like a fishing expedition. Surely they have to show to the court some evidence that the information is confidential, defamatory or something. Just to say, it might be, seems totally inadequate to me.
Evidently free speech is pretty restricted in Germany – a hangover from a rather nasty past?
Surely they have to show to the court some evidence that the information is confidential, defamatory or something. Just to say, it might be, seems totally inadequate to me.
I’m under the impression that this is the phase they’re in now. Van Laack doesn’t have the money to fight in court, if I’ve understood him correctly, so he just has to wait for this to follow its course.
I suspect that Germany has a more developed law protecting privacy than we have in common law countries. Although we seem to have managed to import something from the EU. The Daily Mail commented on one such case:
“The so-called ‘super-injunction’ was granted by a High Court judge under human rights laws.
The married England international successfully claimed that exposing his infidelity would be a breach of his right to a ‘private and family life’.
So draconian is Mr Justice Tugendhat’s order that even its existence is supposed to be a secret.
This latest example of media censorship provoked fresh controversy yesterday.
A sweeping privacy law – now regularly used by sports stars to shield their lifestyles from scrutiny – has been put in place by judges without the endorsement of Parliament. [i.e. imported from the European Court of Human Rights]
Last month, a married Premier League manager succeeded in keeping his identity out of the papers despite being spotted visiting a brothel.”
However these have been about protecting the private and family(!!!) life of people where there is no legitimate public interest. In the Muller case there is surely a very legitimate public interest. A parallel might be a colleague of President Trump talking to a Russian diplomat and claiming it was a private conversation and others claiming that there is a legitimate public interest in what was said.
Mr Van Laack should surely plead public interest. If he cannot afford a lawyer then he should follow the advice of A.P.Herbert and throw himself on the mercy(!!) of the Court as a litigant in person. In England the Judge is then obliged to give him every help in presenting his case and the opposing lawyers are always supposed to draw attention to law which supports their opponent’s case as well as their own. Not sure it works that way in reality!
Why does Cardinal Mueller not explain what really happened? By litigating it suggests he has something to hide and they did not just discuss the weather. I suspect he is under pressure from the Vatican but they seem to be pretty hamfisted when it comes to the law viz: Manelli family v Volpi and the Vatileaks trial.
There is no free speech in Germany. Only tolerated speech. Take for instance the example of attorney Sylvia Stolz, who was falsely imprisoned for 3 1/2 years for defending her client in court, Ernst Zundel. She was ordered silent in the courtroom, the court attempting to prevent her from presenting evidence, she proceeded and was threatened with arrest. She began representing her client anyway, and was arrested. The subject at hand was “Holocaust denial.”
Regardless of one’s view on the subject and the client, even in a court of law, unpopular speech is not tolerated.
Steve, that “cease and desist” letter….was it written in Spanish by any chance?
“I believe that I was never a conservative…”
Errr…the head of the doctrinal office of the Catholic Church says he’s not a conservative… How absolutely ridiculous.
Not if it is looked at as a political philosophy. He should be a Catholic, which means he adheres to the Apostolic Faith and Tradition period.
“Conservative” and “liberal” are revolutionary political terms instituted during and after the French Revolution. In actuality, these should not apply to Catholicism; you’re either orthodox or a heretic.
That being partially my point. But also because Catholics are by their very nature conservative. We conserve the tradition that has been handed down to us.
In that sense, I understand. Yet, 99% of people are trapped in the philosophical ghetto of revolutionary politics and thus would read it very differently.
Sure. But the fact that Mueller said it!
Who that knows the origins of the left/right paradigm wants to be associated with American Conservatism when you’re speaking in context of doctrinal orientation? You summon the specter of capitalist usury, of conservation of classical liberalism, of relativism in governance and in philosophy.
You’re either heretical or orthodox. You can’t properly impose exported American political connotations to the faith. This seems to be precisely what he meant when he said: “To categorize the spiritual and religious life in terms of conservative and progressive…”.
On that note, I don’t think he is terribly orthodox anyway. After all, he did say something to the effect that Amoris Laetitia was not unorthodox.
But aren’t the orthodox schismatics AND heretics?
Nvm, I was just making a funny.