sábado, 14 de fevereiro de 2015

Escritor Católico Argentino: "Papa não tem Amigos, nem Ideologia.Sempre foi Carrerista"

Jack Tollers é filho de argentino com inglesa. É promotor criminal e autor de muitos livros católicos. Ele conhece a atuação do Papa Francisco há bastante tempo e não tem uma opinião muito boa sobre o Papa.

Não dá para saber muito bem se ele confiável, mas não me parece muito longe da realidade o que ele diz, talvez exagerado. Mas devemos saber sim o que ele argumenta.

Tollers deu entrevista para o site From Rome.

Não vou traduzir para não prejudicar os termos usados.

Here is the text of our unedited interview, which we conduced by email:
Q.1 Can you tell the readers of the From Rome Blog something about yourself, where you are from, what’s your education and professional background?
I’m a middle aged Argentine with an English mother and an Argentine father, born in Buenos Aires, partially educated in England and France. A criminal prosecutor, I have been married for the better part of nearly 40 years, with one of those “bunny-like” families Bergoglio seems to hate so much (fifteen grandchildren and counting).

Q.2 What parts of Argentine have you lived in?
I have lived most of my life in Buenos Aires’ outskirts.

Q.3 When did you first hear the name Jorge Mario Bergolio?
I think that that was in the early eighties when he became the Rector of the “Colegio Máximo”, the Argentine Jesuit’s main college, not far from where I live. In those days a group of us youngsters were very good friends with a local Jesuit priest very much known for his anti-progressive stance. In those days, most Catholics in this country leaned one way or the other. But I remember quite distinctly how this Jesuit told us that this Bergoglio fellow played quite another game, playing the progressive music most of the time, but now and again switching sides to the more conservative band if need be. This was when John Paul II had been recently elected and of course there was quite a lot of “band switching” going on in those days. But Bergoglio did it in a somehow blatant manner that was the talk of those days, all of it underscored by a surprisingly successful career.

Q.4. What did the newspapers say of him when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires?
Bergoglio was very wary of the Press in general, and had few friends among journalists in general. However he was always very much highly touted by “La Nación”, the country’s “serious” newspaper (if you know what I mean), and always openly praised by it’s  foreign correspondent in Rome, one Elisabetta Piqué, who’s 2001 interview of the recently appointed Archbishop was something of a scoop. By 2005 she wrote that Bergoglio had very good chances of being elected Pope, and when Benedict was finally chosen, said that Bergoglio had been the Cardinal’s second favorite. Of course, none of us believed it, not for one second. Now we take her more seriously. But going back to your question, I don’t remember any Argentine newspaper (except “Página 12”, and that for political reasons only) criticizing Bergoglio, ever, on any count (even when same-sex marriage was legally approved in the country: despite the general brouhaha that preceded and ensued, Bergoglio kept to himself in a very who-am-I-to-judge fashion).

Q.5. Do you know any of his family or friends personally?

His family is very small and from quite humble origins (the class question cannot be discarded here, it is quite obvious that Bergoglio resents any mention of his parents or sister). So nobody that I know of has ever known or met anyone of his family. As to friends, he never had them, not old friends, that is to say, friends who have nothing to do with his personal ambitions, his power games, his downright careerism. Not a single Jesuit, not a single priest, not a single friend from old times, shall we say. A quite different story you will hear if you refer to people like Rabbi Abraham Skorka who happens to live with him in Santa Marta, believe it or not.*

Q.6. Do the Jesuits in Argentine have or did they at one time have, a reputation for fidelity to the Catholic Faith?
Yes, I suppose so, before Vatican II, Jesuits were generally seen as conservative in a conventional, freezed, deadpan way, I suppose so. Fr Castellani was their enemy and he got into hot water when he decided to confront them in the Forties, long before the Council. He was expelled by these conservative Jesuits who later were to play the liberation-theology game, among other things. But of course, as Louis Bouyer has so frequently pointed out: yesterday’s conservatives are today’s progressives, because they are in the same league, a league in which truth, fidelity and so on are… how shall I put it?, subject to change. But all this is irrelevant: Bergoglio is way over these sort of distinctions, he doesn’t give a fig, he belongs to altogether another cabal.

Q.7 Did he have a reputation for fidelity to Catholic Doctrine, when he was in Argentina?
He certainly did not.

Q.8. There is a very disturbing report by Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014, at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910?eng=y . In this report, it says that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio actively promoted the reception of communion by those who were not living in accord with Church rules.  Is that true, are the sources reliable? Do you have any personal knowledge that this was the case?

Everyone in this country knows of Bergoglio’s typical dealings as those depicted by McGavin (see Magister’s article). By the way, Magister’s take on Bergoglio is, in general, spot on.

Q.9. In all his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, can you cite anything which he said or taught which was contrary to the Catholic Faith?

Nope. That wouldn’t be Bergoglio. He just isn’t like that. One must never forget that, before anything else, he’s a Jesuit (and if St Ignatius didn’t want his offspring to take up high positions in the Church, then he had very good reasons to forbid them doing so. Not that they would ever obey him here, ha, ha).

Q.10  Some Catholics, confused by Bergoglio’s speaking style, consider it very likely that he is a sociopath, namely, that for him, there is only the right and wrong which his conscience agrees with, and that this right and wrong is not based on Christ’s teaching, but on his own personal whims.  Do you think that is an accurate description of the man?

Yes, I agree. But a “sociopath”? That was Kolvenbach’s take on him when he quite publicly opposed Bergoglio being appointed Archbishop of Buenos Aires. And yes, lots of people think he’s in some way or another a deranged person. But I’m not so sure. For instance, what we take to be a “confused” manner of speaking is no such thing for him. In Bergoglio it’s deliberate, it’s a way of going forward, it’s an agenda. No “whims” here. His “confused” speak responds to a “confused” faith, which in turn only echoes a very, very, confused character whose name I will not mention here. But who is out to confuse us all. If that maddens us, it doesn’t mean that they (pace C.S. Lewis) Screwtape, his nephew, et al, are entirely mad, in the sense that they think and act meaninglessly, without a purpose.

Q.11. Was Cardinal Bergoglio ever friendly with the Freemasons in Argentina?
As I’ve said, he has no friends. But, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised. In this country now and again they express praise for the man and celebrated his election in quite a public manner.

Q.12 Is it possible that Pope Francis is consciously and deliberating trying to transform the Church into something more compliant with the New World Order?

Of course. If not something worse (but that defies description).
+ + +
For more background, read Jack Tollers essay about Bergoglio, onlineat the Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog.
Editor’s Note:  Here, Mr. Tollers, who responded to my question in English, has used an English construction which is inexact: for it is one thing to say that, on occasion, when the Rabbi visits the Holy Father, that he stays at Santa Marta, another to say that he lives there as a resident.  Mr. Tollers’ use of “happens”, should therefore be understood as “happens-now-and-then”, which is the sense I, the Editor, have understood the phrase from the start. Yet, I leave Mr. Tollers’ original words, for sake of the record.

Rezemos pelo Papa Francisco. Nós precisamos muito dele. Precisamos que ele honre o papado com amor e fé.

(Agradeço a entrevista de Tollers ao site The American Catholic)

5 comentários:

Adilson J. da Silva disse...

Boa noite de sábado.

Eu desconhecia esse leigo. Me parece que seu livro "Catecismo para tiempos difíciles", a julgar pela descrição do produto, meio que pende para liberalismo Diz a descrição "En cierto sentido, un catecismo no puede sino repetir lo mismo, las viejas verdades de siempre. Pero en otro, en el modo de formular la fe, cada tiempo tiene sus propias exigencias, sus propias dificultades, sus propias urgencias". Será? Não foi a experiência que tive quando precisei abandonar o protestantismo. Eu recorri aos antigos, à biografia dos santos e ao que a História aponta lá no passado. Precisei recorrer a livros velhos (ex. Monsenhor Cauly e ao catecismo Maior de São Pio X) para dar o catecismo aos meus filhos. Então, pergunto: a melhor forma de nos conduzir e conduzirmos os que nos são próximos, não seria olhando para o passado, para os antigos, para onde encontramos mais rigor? O Concílio Vaticano II deixou muitas coisas estranhas entra no santo seio Católico. Eu particularmente não vou a uma missa nova, pois a última vez que fui achei que estava participando de um culto protestante. Então falei para mim mesmo: não foi pra isso que abandoei o protestantismo, e não desejo mais voltar para o lugar de onde sai. Muitas pessoas me chamam exagerado por isso. Nobre Pedro, sabes dizer se o Tollers é tradicionalista? Vou dar uma lida cuidadosa na entrevista acima e em seguida. Não quero falar compreender para não cometer o pecado de falso juízo.
Boa noite. Abraço.

Pedro Erik disse...

Caro Adilson,
Creio que ele é tradicionalista. Na frase que você escolheu não vi nada de liberalismo, amigo. E as respostas dele na entrevista são de um tradicionalista.
A frase em si me lembrou Chesterton que disse que cada época tem um santo que é o inverso da cultural do tempo.
Tollers disse que a doutrina é a mesma de sempre, certas épocas exigem acento em algum ponto da doutrina. Vivemos em um tempo em que a vida e a família estão em risco como nunca foi visto.

Pedro Erik

Pedro Erik disse...

Além disso, Adilson, ele escreveu sobre John Henry Newman o grande teólogo sobre como a doutrina muda sem deixar de ser a de sempre.

Pedro Erik

Adilson J. da Silva disse...

Bom dia, nobre Pedro. Ontem esqueci de postar o presente comentário. Não queria deixar de postar. Como havia prometido no meu comentário anterior, li a entrevista e agora posso falar algo. Eu cometi um erro de digitação, nas últimas palavras de meu comentário. Eu quis dizer: "não quero falar sem compreender..." Pois bem. Realmente, nobre Pedro, o Toller é sim, para minha alegria, um tradicionalista, e dos bons. (mais um pecado venial para confessar. rsrss) Li a entrevista e, sinceramente, as questões Q11 e Q12 me assustaram muito. Fiz meu comentário anterior muito apressado, e não atentei para a existência de dois bons livros do Tollers: um que você citou, sobre o cardeal Newman (que aliás deverei comprar) e um outro sobre o cerimonial da missa. Na resposta que ele dá na questão Q3, há muitas coisas que esclarecem as recentes declarações de muitos americanos, como foi noticiado (você sabe muito bem disso). Eu deveria ter comentado a postagem após a leitura da entrevista. Esse erro pretendo não mais cometer. Fui infeliz na observação e não atentei cuidadosamente para a pequena descrição que citei e você esclareceu. Obrigado pela orientação. Acho que futuramente vou publicar em meu blog essa boa entrevista. Um abraço e continues assim, com o coração paciente e disposto a me enriquecer.
Att. Adilson

Pedro Erik disse...

Ok, meu amigo.
Acho que o Essay for Development of Christian doctrine de Newman está disponível na internet.
Pedro Erik