Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Friend of Pope Benedict XVI Gives Moral Support to Correctio Filialis

A long-term friend of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, Monsignor Nicola Bux, has been repeatedly raising his orthodox voice with regard to the current crisis in the Catholic Church. Only a few days ago, we reported on some of his recent statements concerning the situation in the Church. Now we can report on yet another set of statements he made in a 5 October interview conducted by the Italian website La Fede Quotidiana. Our gifted and tireless colleague in Germany, Giuseppe Nardi, has already translated the whole interview into German.

In this new interview, Don Bux – as he is called in Italy – comments on the recently published, but now quite harshly criticized Correctio Filialis, the filial correction of Pope Francis concerning some of his statements in the papal document Amoris Laetitia. For Don Bux, this filial document, “corresponds to the invitation to dialogue, as repeatedly invited by the pope himself.” The pope “has called for a loyal confrontation,” explains the priest and collaborator of Pope Benedict with regard to the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Moreover, Don Bux stresses that “canon law recognizes that the faithful have the right – and sometimes even the duty – to express their thoughts to the shepherds, for the good of the Church.” The “shepherds themselves are not infallible,” he adds. The faithful are obliged to obey the pope when he teaches “in a ‘final’ manner a doctrine of Faith or morals,” says Don Bux. The same obligation applies to non-fallible documents, i.e., “to acts of the pope that are aimed at rendering with more clarity certain aspects of Faith and morals as revealed by God.” However, Bux adds, “one may not obey when the shepherds, and especially the pope, instead of strengthening [the Faith], weaken the Faith of the Christians with their thoughts, words, or deeds.” Here Don Bux seems to make an indirect reference to the filial correction which explicitly not only quotes Amoris Laetitia itself, but also cites other words and actions of the pope outside of that official document.

Don Bux then makes the very clear statement that, in such a case of the weakening of the Faith, the Christians do “have to express their opposition with due respect. The authority of the pope in the Church is not to be mistakenly confused with an absolute power over it.” The Italian priest hopes that both Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s and Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s separate proposals for a further discussion about these matters will be heeded.

While Don Bux himself is “not a moral theologian,” he also makes it clear that the numerous appeals, statements and dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia indicate that “a clarification is needed.” “There have been found not only theological errors and ambiguities, but also those of a philosophical and logical nature,” he explains. (Some of the these philosophical and logical errors and ambiguities of Amoris Laetitia have been repeatedly, and very well, explained by Professor Josef Seifert.) Don Bux characterizes the adverse reaction to the criticism of Amoris Laetitia as “an impertinent debate, because one does not want to respond directly to the [presented and substantive] arguments.” Amoris Laetitia “is causing much confusion, with regard to its application, especially in the case of the remarried and divorced persons and their access to Holy Communion.”

For all to hear and read, Don Bux insists that the pope has “the duty to preserve the Faith as it has been entrusted to the Church” and that he has to “proclaim it, so that, also in our times, people can convert to Christ and thus not remain in disbelief. Thus, the pope may not revolutionize the Church.” Later in the interview, the Italian clergyman reminds us of the ultimate mission of the Catholic hierarchy, which lies not in solving “political problems,” but, rather, “in the proclaiming of the Gospel and in the administration of the Sacraments.” The Catholic prelate’s mission is “to honor God and to save people’s souls.” As Don Bux puts it, “Jesus Christ came into the world to rescue souls from sin and to lead them to God the Father.” Thus the Italian priest rejects the idea of a Church “in which everyone, without necessarily converting to Jesus Christ and independent from the Ten Commandments, continues to live just as he likes.”

Therefore, Don Bux admits that “the Church now finds itself in the state of a great confusion” and – in the words of Professor Ernesto Galli Della Loggia (we have already published an article about this same discussion here) – that it “enters into competition with the UN, the FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization]” which are not Catholic at all. Thus Don Bux concludes this excellent interview with the words: “Jesus said that it does not help a man to gain the whole world while at the same time losing his soul.”

57 thoughts on “Friend of Pope Benedict XVI Gives Moral Support to Correctio Filialis”

  1. Don Nicola Bux is an excellent Priest of Jesus Christ and serves Him very well. That Amoris Laetitia as well as many other statements and actions of the Pope and his favorites have caused great distress and confusion within the Church and to the whole world is quite obvious via the unprecedented number of calls for clarity regarding the administration of the Sacraments and, indeed, even the very nature of Sin and Grace as well as the Nature of the Church and Her Mission.

    One question: Did Don Bux actually say: “the Church now finds itself in the state of a great confusion” ? Itself is an improper pronoun for the Church. Herself is the proper pronoun when referring to the Church and gender confusion of the Church should not be accepted for She is Mater et Magistra (a document worth rereading The Blessed Ever Virgin Mary (Our Holy Mother and Teacher) is the Archetype of the Church and She is not an It and neither is the Church, for She is the Virgin Bride of Christ.

    I hate seeing or hearing the Church regarded as IT. This improper language regarding the Nature of the Church is contra fides et ratio and, as an aside, that Document itself is worth a reread in these ridiculous times where Faith is being presented contra Reason.

      • Which is what I suspected, and is why I asked the question and clarified my response to say that I am certain that Don Bux knows that the Church is She and not It. I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out how important language is, especially when referring to the Church or Her Blessed Lord.

        Thank you for the elucidation on the point I labored to make 🙂 Brevity is a friend, which, alas, I know not.

          • What kind of prayer are you looking for? I don’t remember the context of the above request. Sorry, I am quite fallible via memory.

          • You were asking for prayers for yourself Father. I have a prayer asking for a miracle so he can be beatified. But I wondered if you have another. I pray to him for you anyway. I’d just like a more appropriate one.

          • Ok. Ask Fr. Casey that I would be as faithful to the Lord as He is and that my pronunciation of Latin would greatly improve so that I can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal of the Holy Roman Church without blame. Amen.

          • O God, I adore Thee. I give myself to Thee. May I be the person Thou wantest me to be, and may Thy Will be done in my life today.

             I thank Thee for the gifts Thou gavest to Father Solanus. If it is Thy Will, make Fr RP as faithful as Fr Solanus. ‎

             As he joyfully accepted Thy divine plans, I ask Thee, according to Thy Will, to hear my prayer for Fr RP.  through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

             “Blessed be God in all His designs

            Hope that will do. X

          • Yes, Chloe, that will do very well thank you for your beautiful and kind prayer. And May the Good Lord grant you His greatest blessings in this life and in the life to come. Amen.

        • Very definitely a translation issue. The links lead one to the Italian text of the interview with Don Bux, which can be checked. Furthermore, I don’t know how one might describe the Church as “it” and not “she” in Italian. But my Italian, never good, is rustier than ever.

      • I don’t understand why you posted that link. That video is praising Bp. Barron for his orthodoxy (at least as in so far as it is expressed in the Bishop’s assessment of the film “Silence”).

        • I don’t know where do you get that conclusion?

          Watch it again, from 8:25 and pay good attention.
          Especially when mr.Math says at 11:20 “There we go,…the main character (the jesuit priest in the movie) now has saved his people by abandoning the Faith!…”

          • With due respect, you misunderstand the video. At 8:25, there is a criticism of an earlier interview with Bishop Barron, but the actual discussion of Bishop Barron’s thoughts on “Silence” is positive. The commentator is surprised at the strong orthodoxy of Bishop Barron’s analysis. The criticism you cite at 11:20 refers to the plot of the movie. It isn’t a criticism of Bishop Barron.

            And I note that Bishop Barron’s commentary on “Silence” is entirely orthodox and praiseworthy. I found the film’s message very troubling, and Bishop Barron’s reaction was dead on. You are mistaken to cite it as evidence of Bishop Barron being “mistaken.”

          • You-re right. Indeed, I was here to quick with watching (listening), even for the second time, I took just a part of it. Thank you for paying attention and letting me know. This is indeed a justifiably and good pointed criticism by Bp. Barron of the heretical movie “Silence” made by non-catholic, anti-catholic M. Scorsese.
            This was not good example from me for pointing to unorthodoxy of Bp Barron, on the contrary, with thanks to you I know now, he can think orthodox too! So thank you again for effort and perseverance in this.
            God bless you!

  2. The shocking reality of current events in the Church, in the Geo-political arena, in the state
    of the world ( SIN! ) is moving so fast it’s difficult to take it all in, there CAN BE nothing short
    of DIVINE CORRECTION and the only question is when and how heavy that will be….

  3. Question: if the pope were to make a heretical statement ex cathedra, would that simply make him a ‘formal/material heretic” (not sure of the term here) or not pope? I’ve always believed that God would prevent a pope from doing this. Is that a stupid idea?

    • Not at all. Highly respectable theologians through ages have taken the position that it is literally impossible for the Pope to make a heretical statement ex cathedra – the grace of the office would prevent it. But other, equally respectable theologians, have speculated on the possibility of exactly that happening, and what it would mean. I’m not going to get into the details – I’ll leave that to actual theologians and/or historians – but it is by no means a “stupid idea”.

        • Even after the definition of Vatican I, there remains some uncertainty as to what it means. For example, I quote Ott (Fundamentals, pg. 287 [1954]):

          The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation.

          That is, as Vatican I made clear, the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter so that he may guard and expound true doctrine, and not so that he may claim divine inspiration for his personal opinions:

          For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. (Pastor Aeternus 4:6)

          In summary of how this has been received, I quote Fr. Devine (The Creed Explained, pg. 319 [1897]):

          That assistance is not given by way of inspiration; but rather by way of co-operation; therefore it supposes that the agent himself acts; that the Church, or the Pope, uses the ordinary and necessary means of ascertaining the truth. […] If, therefore, the Pope, or the Council, should have the intention of defining that which is false, then God in His wisdom would save His Church in some way according to His Providence, either by changing the mind of the person defining, or dissolving the Council, or taking the Pontiff out of the world. […] All agree that the Church, or the Pope, cannot err in the definition itself, but they do not agree as to whether they will infallibly use the required diligence in the examination.

          What – if any – effect not using the “required diligence” in ascertaining the truth of a particular proposition has upon an ex cathedra definition of the same remains, to the best of my knowledge, unclear.

          • It seems to me this part answers the question:

            If, therefore, the Pope, or the Council, should have the intention of defining that which is false, then God in His wisdom would save His Church in some way according to His Providence, either by changing the mind of the person defining, or dissolving the Council, or taking the Pontiff out of the world

            Obviously, whether or not the required diligence is done is one thing, but God’s providence and the Church’s declaration that a pope cannot proclaim dogma ex cathedra and be in error is another. A pope can be in error and can clearly propagate heresy, but the question at hand I think is another matter.

          • I recommend reading the Official Relatio of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser delivered at the First Vatican Council (11 July, 1870). It gives a good deal of insight into the minds of the Council Fathers when drafting Pastor Aeternus. For example:

            But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

            Richard F. Costigan called this “the most enigmatic statement to be found in any of the literature” touching upon the issue of papal infallibility. What would it mean for the judgment to be “impeded”? If we say someone’s judgment is impeded, do we mean that he is actually incapable of rendering judgment, or that the judgment he attempts to render is defective? Would God supernaturally intervene and prevent the Pope from making such a judgment? Or is a judgment which is clearly in contradiction to the Deposit of Faith proof that the judgment of the pope – humanly speaking – is defective? I don’t think this question has been sufficiently answered, even after Vatican I.

            An additional point to consider comes from the same Relatio:

            It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same sources (fontes) which the Church has, viz., Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops.

            Clearly, the Pope needn’t seek consent from either his fellow bishops or from the faithful in making an infallible judgment. But – and I think this was so obvious to all at Vatican I that it was said merely in passing – even a pontifical definition must receive consent from the universal magisterium itself, i.e. must be in harmony with all which has proceeded it. In other words, it must be true, objectively speaking. The Pope declaring it true doesn’t make it so, and the dogma of papal infallibility wasn’t pronounced for that end.

            As I said, I’m no theologian (obviously). But I don’t think the matter is as clear as we may like it to be, and I believe there remains legitimate room for additional clarification.

          • I agree some further clarification would be nice. It would be nice if Vatican I could have been actually finished.

            While I understand that the pope declaring something true obviously doesn’t make it true, the fact that the proclamation is made means that the thing proclaimed always was true. At least, that’s what papal infallibility is understood to do. And of course, that which is true will be in line with all the universal magisterium.

            The interesting thing to me, though, is the part that says such a preaching must have consent of the whole magisterium, which in this case seems to be not that which has gone before, but the episcopate. No necessity to seek consent, but consent is needed? Huh… I’d like a theologian to parse that one for me as I find it a bit difficult if I’m honest…

          • In turn, the question can be asked whether a pope whose judgment is “impaired” can, in fact, make such a proclamation. What of insanity (temporary or otherwise)? What of some other psychological or physiological constraint? Would such fall under the “Providence of God”? In earlier times, I think it was widely assumed a pope simply could not “lose his mind”; but today, a pope suffering from something like dementia or Alzheimer’s is a real prospect. Are we prepared for that? How would we discern it? Who would determine him to be unfit? And what are we to make of a judgment rendered by a pope suffering from such a condition were it to become known?

            I understand Bishop Gasser to be saying that the Pope must draw his definitions ex cathedra from the sources of Scripture and Tradition, and that they must be consonant with the whole magisterium. As he says in another place in the Relatio, “The purpose of this prerogative [i.e. papal infallibility] is the preservation of truth in the Church.” But I agree that I’d like to see theologians dig into this further.

            Another thought occurs: What if a pope – say Francis – were to declare ex cathedra a proposition which obviously does not satisfy the known criteria – and, furthermore, declares that those criteria themselves are no longer to be observed. An irremediable situation? I really don’t know.

    • Well, according to Vatican I, when a pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly, which means it is impossible to be wrong…

      So, as I see it there are only 2 possibilities. First, and the idea I personally favor, a pope would simply find it impossible to utter the error. How exactly I don’t know (he simply cannot speak? Speaks the correct formula instead? He drops dead? Or the idea to speak an error “infallibly” simply never occurs to him?)

      The second possibility is that, either in the moments before, or during, or for a longer period in the past, such a pope would cease to be pope. I find that idea less certain because such is hardly a safeguard… more like a loophole, and would cause great confusion.

      But I am not a theologian so I don’t know for sure. This is, however, how I see it.

      • I agree. The second possibility is very much a loophole. I can’t see how it could possibly apply. How could anyone know for certain that he ceased to be Pope?

        I too am very obviously not a theologian. But surely that is completely unexplainable.

      • I must admit that it seemed to me, that if this horror should happen it would mean the PF was not pope. That otherwise an impossibility had taken place. But like you, I’m not a theologian. One thing strikes me very hard is that we have had popes who have in some way promoted or ignored heresy in the past but what we have now is a thousand times worse. Beyond belief, in fact. Pope John XXII seems positively orthodox in comparison. It’s all so muddling. However, today’s incredible turn out for the Rosary in Poland is a thing to bring joy & encouragement to us all. Thank you for your reply

      • Infalliability is effectively a negative charism of the office. Basically the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from making statements that are both infalliable and wrong. How such a thing occurs is known to the Holy spirit

        • Well infallible means “impossible to be false” so such a statement by it’s nature could never be wrong… but yes, you are right, it is a negative charism that prevents him from authoritatively and definitively proclaiming as doctrine or dogma any error or heresy.

    • The “Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing” refers to the bishops of VC II who brought about the architecture of that disastrous council and sought its evil effects.
      Obviously Jesus was talking about equivocaters, modernists, persons who say one thing yet mean another, speak with forked tongue, the only way to judge them is by their fruits.

      Why should a noble animal such as the wolf by sullied by association with modernist scoundrels in this prophecy of the Creator Himself? Maybe it could be the fact that they are both predators, why isn’t that the term used throughout the decades long homosexual priest – altar boy victim scandals?

      However, there could be another explanation. A while back I had an inspiration that if you took a world map of wolf habitat at the time when Jesus Christ walked the Earth, you would find that the bishops from the cities that fell within that habitat would be the ones that sought to destroy the Church from within. I’ve never done the exercise of comparing the color coded wolf map circa 33 A.D. with the cities the Council Fathers came from, but I suspect that the correlation would be an exact fit.

      • That is very interesting.

        Wolves, wolf recovery and wolf control happen to be topics with which I have extensive experience, on my ranch personally, as a county representative to the Federal animal damage control program dealing with livestock depredation losses, as a writer of policy for the county and in negotiations with State and Federal agencies.

        The notion of wolves as a “noble” animal is a romantic imposition of personal feelings typically and commonly by those who have no personal risk of loss caused by wolf behavior. There is an old adage among those who are involved with wolf management; “Everyone loves wolves…. Unless you have to live with them.”

        I cannot imagine a better animal with which to compare our prelates today. They are skittish and run from all perceived danger when alone. When in a group they exhibit what we all know as “pack behavior”. They have the praise of many who know nothing about them and the disdain of many who know them intimately. They have cost wildlife populations, livestock and especially the sheep endless suffering, killing some to eat and many to simply lay around gutted, despairing, crippled till they die. They kill for seeming sport “just because they can”. They prey on all targets of opportunity. They are the vectors of disease.

        A thought to ponder: The Predator has become the symbol of “goodness” in the worldview of Western society. And not just the wolf, but all predators; eagles that cause so much damage, birds of prey in general. Grizzly bear, coyotes, wolves, lynx, etc. All are given high status, status above that of animals traditionally associated with production and direct value to human life. This should come as no surprise.

        There are significant reasons our ancestors made great efforts to eliminate wolves.

        “And I will send in upon you famine, and evil beasts unto utter destruction: and pestilence, and blood shall pass through thee, and I will bring in the sword upon thee. I the Lord have spoken it.” Ez 5:17

  4. I’d prefer it if Benedict XVI himself gave moral support to the “Correctio Filialis” but if all we can muster is one of his “friends”…..oh well……. I suppose we’ll have to take it.

    Beggars can’t be choosers.

    Has anyone asked his housekeeper what she thinks of it?

    • Evidently our holy fathers–or as I like to call them “My Two Dads” (Americans will get it), are evidently fighting a proxy war. It certainly is Francis’s style to let his heretical and/or disgraced and/or previously considered dissident friends make outrageous statements that reflect, evidently, his values.

  5. “(Monsignor Bux) reminds us of the ultimate mission of the Catholic hierarchy, which lies not in solving ‘political problems,’ but, rather, ‘in the proclaiming of the Gospel and in the administration of the Sacraments.’ The Catholic prelate’s mission is ‘to honor God and to save people’s souls.’ As Don Bux puts it, ‘Jesus Christ came into the world to rescue souls from sin and to lead them to God the Father.’ Thus the Italian priest rejects the idea of a Church ‘in which everyone, without necessarily converting to Jesus Christ and independent from the Ten Commandments, continues to live just as he likes.’”

    What a great passage! Such clear teaching. But it seems the formal apparatus of the Church has been taken over by Utopians whose vision is of a worldly church that conforms itself to the zeitgeist and employs the calculus of politicians and demographers in formulation its statements. The voice of apostolic authority, empowered by the Holy Spirit and focused on the Heavenly Kingdom, it too seldom heard.

    Nevertheless, the Lord will prevail and bring graces out of this current chastisement of His Church due to lukewarmness. Those uttering falsehoods and flattery, as well as saber-rattling against the faithful who seek to correct these evils, reveal a crumbling facade of “dialogue” and “accompaniment” that must fall beneath its own suicidal skepticism. I very much like this quote from Bishop Athanasius Schieder in describing the reactionaries who oppose orthodox Church teaching:

    The … clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four (Dubia) Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth.

  6. From the Pastoral Guide by Saint Gregory the Great, pope
    (Lib. 2, 4: PL 77, 30-31)

    Let the pastor be discreetly silent, and to the point when he speaks

    A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.

    The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.

    When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.

    The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.

    Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously.

    Psalm 51:15, 16-17

    I will teach transgressors your ways
    and sinners shall return to you.
    – My tongue shall sing of your justice.

    Open my lips, O Lord,
    and my mouth shall proclaim your praise.
    – My tongue shall sing of your justice.

    • Thank you for doing this.
      “They are dumb dogs who cannot bark.”
      This morning I thought of doing the same thing. The Office of Reading so many days recently has been rendering a bulls eye on current ecclesiastical events. St. Augustine’s Sermons on Pastors — in the past few weeks.
      What more be said?
      But it makes me wonder if the Bergoglios, the Kaspers the Martins are reciting their Office every day.

      • If they are, they are either ignoring it or trying to refute it, which will lead to their condemnation if they do not repent.

    • I posted this in my bulletin today and directed the faithful to read it. I preached on Lepanto and Fatima, the absolute need for every Catholic to pray the Rosary and Repent and do penance for their sins and luke-warmness and the rise of Islam due to the weakness of Christians and the majority of false pastors who do not rebuke sin and proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace. And yes, I mentioned the pope.

  7. That Mgr. Bux felt it necessary to write a book titled, “Come Andare A Messa E Non Perdere La Fede” (How to go to Mass and not lose your Faith – Italian only) should be more shocking than it is.

  8. No matter. At this point, it has become clear that only one voice can bring this to a head. No, it is not Cardinal Burke’s voice. He must do what he must do but don’t expect the long-anticipated “correction” to have much of an impact. The Francis crowd are relishing the prospect of it, knowing that it is basically the final bullet in the opposition’s gun.. They actually wish he’d get on with it so they can dismiss it as extremist and move on. Much as we love him, Cardinal Burke will be easily characterized – and thereby dismissed – as a lone-wolf extremist Cardinal by the “mainstream” Catholic and secular media. The only voice that will make a difference now is that of Pope Emeritus Benedict. The correction must come from him.

    • I agree that the truly effective correction WOULD come from B16, but…

      He has been a staunch supporter of Francis from the gitgo.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...