Novo Testemunho de Viganò. Agora sobre o Silêncio e os Ataques do Papa Contra Ele

O site LifeSiteNews divulgou novo testemunho dado pelo cardeal Carlo Maria Viganò. O testemunho foi dado ao próprio site e trata especificamente das reações e falta de reações do Papa Francisco em relação ao que Viganò denunciou (em poucas palavras, Viganò denunciou que o Papa acobertou o cardeal McCarrick, que abusou de jovens seminaristas).

Viganò mostrou que não está de brincadeira, nem vai deixar o assunto morrer no silêncio do Vaticano.

Ele fez um testemunho bem forte ao ponto de Viganò perguntar se o Papa Francisco deseja substituir Jesus Cristo.

Em resumo, Viganò:

• Diz: "Minha decisão de revelar esses fatos graves foi para mim a decisão mais dolorosa e séria que já tomei em minha vida. Fiz isso depois de longa reflexão e oração, durante meses de profundo sofrimento e angústia, num crescendo de notícias contínuas de eventos terríveis, com milhares de vítimas inocentes destruídas e as vocações e vidas de jovens sacerdotes e religiosos perturbados.”

• Explica por que ele acredita que tem o dever de se manifestar apesar de seu juramento de manter o “segredo pontifício”, acrescentando que “o propósito de qualquer segredo, incluindo o segredo pontifício, é proteger a Igreja de seus inimigos, não encobrir e tornar-se cúmplice em crimes cometidos por alguns de seus membros ”;

• Reafirma com vigor sua acusação central de que “desde pelo menos 23 de junho de 2013, o Papa soube por mim sobre como o perverso e maligno McCarrick estava em suas intenções e ações, e em vez de tomar as medidas que todo bom pastor teria adotado, o Papa fez de McCarrick um dos seus principais agentes no governo da Igreja, no que diz respeito aos Estados Unidos, a Cúria e até mesmo a China, como estamos vendo nos dias de hoje com grande preocupação e ansiedade por aquela mártir da Igreja ”;

• Aponta para a resposta do Papa de que ele "não diria uma palavra", mas observa que ele se contradisse, comparando "seu silêncio ao de Jesus em Nazaré e antes de Pilatos", e comparando Viganò ao "grande acusador, Satanás, que semeia escândalo e divisão na Igreja, embora sem jamais pronunciar o meu nome", embora sem nunca proferir o meu nome. Se ele tivesse dito: "Vigano Mentiu", ele teria desafiado a minha credibilidade enquanto tenta afirmar sua própria. Ao fazê-lo, ele teria intensificado a demanda do povo de Deus e do mundo para a documentação necessária para determinar quem tem dito a verdade. Em vez disso, ele colocou no lugar uma calúnia sutil contra mim - calúnia sendo uma ofensa que ele mesmo muitas comparou com assassinato. Na verdade, ele fez isso várias vezes, no contexto da celebração do Santíssimo Sacramento, a Eucaristia, onde ele não corre nenhum risco de ser desafiado por jornalistas. Quando ele falou com os jornalistas, ele pediu-lhes para exercer a sua maturidade profissional e tirar suas próprias conclusões. Mas como pode jornalistas descobrirem e conhecerem a verdade se aqueles diretamente envolvidos com o assunto recusam-se a responder a quaisquer perguntas ou liberar quaisquer documentos? falta de vontade do papa para responder às minhas acusações e sua surdez ao apelo pelos fiéis de prestação de contas são dificilmente compatíveis com o seu apelo para a transparência e construção de pontes.

• Levanta a preocupação com as revelações de que o papa Francisco desempenhou um papel em encobrir ou bloquear as investigações sobre outros padres e prelados, inclusive o padre Julio Grassi, padre Mauro Inzoli e o cardeal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor;

• Diz que foi o cardeal Marc Ouellet, prefeito da Congregação para os Bispos, que lhe falou das sanções do papa Bento XVI contra McCarrick, e conclama o cardeal a "testemunhar a verdade";
• Em direção aos leigos católicos apreensivos com a terrível da Igreja, diz: “Faça o seu próprio ato de fé e completa confiança em Cristo Jesus, nosso Salvador. É de São Paulo em sua segunda Carta a Timóteo,  que tiro meu lema episcopal, Scio cui credidi (Eu sei em que eu acrredito). Este é um tempo de arrependimento, de conversão, de orações, de graça, para preparar a Igreja, a noiva do Cordeiro, pronta para lutar e vencer com Maria a batalha contra o velho dragão ”.

Abaixo vai o testemunho original:

Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)

Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
(Psalm 103:33-34)

*****

It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.

Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.

Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?

The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

*****

Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).

To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

The Lord is in full control of the boat!

May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

Vídeo: "Ei, Padres, Tenham Culhões de Homens, Assumam Responsabilidade, Parem de Pedir Perdão e Ajam"

Brendan Lee, um professor de história da Igreja, fez um vídeo, como leigo católico, exigindo que padres, bispos, cardeais e o Papa parem de pedir misericórdia pelos abusos sexuais, enquanto acobertam aqueles padres e cardeais que abusaram de crianças e adolescentes.

Ele repete várias vezes: "padres, sejam homens!", ajam como homens, assumam responsabilidades, parem de falar em misericórdia enquanto ao mesmo tempo não denunciam os clérigos que fizeram crimes contra crianças e adolescentes.

Faltam homens na Igreja, os tempos de Papa Francisco exacerbou isso. A impressão que se tem é de que a Igreja virou um partido político do politicamente correto, com medo das represálias do mundo, quando não defende os erros do mundo mesmo. Sobraram pouquíssimos homens na Igreja. Pouquíssimos, nem seu nomeá-los, com receio de elogiar quem não merece de fato.

Padre Jesuíta, Fundador Ignatius Press: "Papa, Seja Homem, Responda às Acusações"

A CNN fez uma extensa descrição da crise na Igreja, uma descrição justa, por incrível que pareça em se tratando da CNN.

No final da reportagem, a CNN traz a palavra do padre Joseph Fessio, um jesuíta (assim como o Papa) e fundador da conhecida editora Ignatius Press, que diz que é "deplorável" que o Papa Francisco tenha fugido de responder às acusações contra ele e contra os  cardeais acusados de acobertar ou praticar abusos sexuais.

Se referindo ao Papa, padre Fessio diz:

"Papa, seja homem, se levante e responda às acusações".

Aqui vai a parte da reportagem da CNN que traz a palavra do padre Fessio e também discute a relação entre Francisco e Bento XVI

The silent Popes: Why Francis and Benedict won't answer the accusations dividing their church

By Daniel Burke, CNN

..

The 'private' Pope

Since retiring in 2013, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has lived a quiet, almost cloistered life. Now 91, friends say that he is frail but mentally sharp.

In his farewell address as Pope, Benedict promised to stay "hidden" from the world, even as he knew his unique personal history would make a complete disappearance nearly impossible.

Private letters between Benedict and a German cardinal published last week in Germany reveal his concern for privacy, and that he not be seen as interfering in church matters.

In one letter, Benedict defends his decision to resign, when he became the first Pope in 600 years to abdicate St. Peter's Throne.

With 'pope emeritus,' I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope," he wrote.

But Benedict's decision to retire as "pope emeritus" has had its own complications. Some conservative Catholics look to him as an anti-Pope, or at least an anti-Francis.

The Rev. Joseph Fessio, an American Jesuit who studied under Benedict and has published his works at Ignatius Press, said the former Pope likely knows of the efforts to pit him against Francis.

"In some ways, he has become the face of 'the Resistance,' " Fessio said, "even though he hasn't done anything to be a resistor."

When Benedict does make public remarks, conservatives often scour them for hints of unhappiness at the church's current situation, or leader.

Last year, a Catholic website ran a piece under the headline "Benedict XVI is silent, but we all know what he thinks."

In the piece, the author argues that Benedict's praise of a deceased cardinal's faith in the church, that he held faith in the church "even if at times the ship is almost filled to the point of shipwreck," could be interpreted as a dig at Francis. (The late Cardinal Joachim Meisnerhad also publicly questioned Francis' decision to open the door for remarried Catholics to receive Communion.)

Benedict's longtime aide, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, called the interpretations of the former Pope's remarks "stupid." But Fessio isn't so sure.

"He's got a very wry sense of humor, and he understates things," Fessio said. "He's not going to say, 'The church is a mess under Francis.' But his support for Meisner was a semi-coded message that he is aware of what's going on in the church right now."

Ganswein has said the former Pope will not comment on Vigano's letter, knocking down reports that he had approved its contents as "fake news."

Besides a reluctance to be seen as interfering, Benedict may have other reasons to hold his tongue, some Catholics say.

He was Pope from 2005 to 2013, when much of the alleged misconduct outlined in Vigano's letter took place. Even allies acknowledge that Benedict did not lead the Vatican curia with a firm hand.

"When it comes to Benedict, it's damned if you did, and damned if you didn't," said Paul Elie, a Catholic journalist who has written about the relationship between the two popes.

If Benedict knew about the allegations against McCarrick and didn't put him under sanctions, that's not good," Elie said. "And if Benedict didn't know about the allegations, that's not good either."

But Fessio and other Catholics say Francis should answer Vigano's charges, instead of making vague remarks about "scandal" and "division" during morning homilies at Casa Santa Marta, his Roman residence.

"He's attacking Vigano and everyone who is asking for answers," Fessio said. "I just find that deplorable. Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions."

Já que China pode Escolher Bispos, que Trump Também Possa

Medonhamente, o Papa Francisco está permitindo que a China, um país comunista, determine quem pode ser bispo da Igreja Católica.

O Padre Z vendo o total desprezo pela Igreja de Cristo no Vaticano, mostrou um twitter do Catholic Foot Soldier, dizendo que já que a China pode nomear bispos que Trump também possa.

Padre Z (que é padre mesmo) diz que esse é um dos melhores twitter que já viu "desde que o Vaticano se vendeu para a China"

O twitter mostra o nível estúpido da decisão do Papa Francisco.

1) Vídeo: As Cartas de Bento XVI. 2) Padre John Zuhlsdorf e as "Bençãos Apostólicas" de Bento XVI

No vídeo acima, o meu ex-professor de teologia, Dr. Taylor Marshal, debate com Timothy Gordon (autor de Catholic Republic) sobre aquelas cartas de Bento XVI que mencionei no blog ontem,  sobre maçonaria que se infiltra na Igreja, sobre Fátima, e muitos outros assuntos

Não tenho tempo para traduzir o vídeo, mas, vou relatar o que eles disseram sobre as cartas de Bento XVI. Ele falam desse assunto no começo do vídeo e no final do vídeo. No meio, há um debate sobre maçonaria. Sobre as cartas, eles afirmam que:

1) O Papa Bento XVI com as cartas assustou todos aqueles que achavam que ele estava senil em sua residência e se mostrou muito ciente do que acontece na Igreja;

2) Todos relacionavam a renúncia do Papa aos problemas de abusos sexuais ou com os Vatileaks (corrupção financeira no banco do Vaticano) e agora essas análises estão de lado;

3) Não aceitam a ideia de que Bento XVI foi forçado a renunciar;

4) Se as cartas de Bento XVI são dirigidas para um cardeal que fez da Dubia (alguns jornais disseram que sim), isso é um fato muito relevante, pode mostrar apoio de Bento XVI à Dubia;

5) O Papa Bento XVI pediu logo no primeiro dia de papado que rezassem por ele para que ele não fugisse por causa do medo dos lobos. Ele tem sido criticado justamente por fugir dos lobos. Ele conhecia muito bem os inimigos dentro da Igreja;

6) Mencionam a máfia gay dentro da própria Congregação para Doutrina da Fé;

7) Lembram um vídeo em que Bento XVI chega na Alemanha e muitos cardeais não o cumprimentam (mostram a passagem do vídeo a partir do minuto 50:56), aparentemente não queem cumprimentar ou acham que ele não está dando a mão. Em todo caso, Bento XVI parece humilhado pelos cardeais, fica com a mão "no vácuo" muito tempo sem ser cumprimentado;

8) Afirmam que Bergoglio ficou em segundo lugar na eleição de Bento XVI e que Bergoglio parece ser o escolhido pela máfia gay. O próprio McCarrick, o cardeal acusado de praticar abusos sexuais, disse em vídeo que trabalhou para eleger Bergoglio. E que McCarrick trabalhou para que a Igreja aceitasse que a China nomeasse bispos para a Igreja, como Francisco está fazendo agora desgraçadamente. 

9) Finalizam dizendo que a Igreja precisa ser defendida, há muitas evidências de "concerto diabólico" (maçônico, gay, comunista) para destruir a Igreja. E que no fim a Igreja, em sua pureza, vai triunfar de qualquer jeito.

Hoje também eu li um artigo interessante sobre as cartas de Bento XVI, escrito pelo Padre John Zuhlsdorf, muito conhecido como Padre Z.

Padre Z diz que o Bento XVI apesar de dizer nas cartas que se tornou Papa Emérito para não perturbar o Papa Francisco por meio da mídia, e

- Usa vestimentas papais;

- Mora no Vaticano;

- Manteve o nome Bento XVI;

E nas cartas divulgadas ontem Bento XVI deu "bençãos apostólicas" ao seu intelocutor.

Bom, "bençãos apostólicas" apenas o Papa dá. Pode ser que Bento XVI tenha se esquecido ou se equivocado de forma inconsciente, mas ele não e mais Papa para dar "bençãos apostólicas".

Vejam o texto do Padre Z:

ASK FATHER: If in letters Benedict XVI imparts still the Apostolic Blessing…

Posted on 20 September 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Debates about the true status of Benedict XVI could root the stuff of novels.

There are those who say that Benedict XVI is still really Pope.  There are different reasons given.  One is that his abdication was under duress and is, therefore, void.  Another is that he himself did not intend to resign: why else would he remain in Vatican City, retain the papal name Benedict XVI and dress in the classic white cassock with white zucchetto, but not the simarra which, with its pellegrina or cape, is a symbol of jurisdiction?  Some wonder if there isn’t a way in which Benedict remains Pope but with a solely contemplative role, while Francis is pope with an active role which includes potestas, such that the munus Petrinum is now shared.

Here is another bit of information to toss into the speculation ring.

I received an email from a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Can Benedict XVI impart an apostolic blessing if he has ceased to be the Pope?

In the Bild article leaking excerpts of Benedict XVI’s letters to Brandmuller, he ends one with:

Beten wir lieber darum, wie Sie es am Ende Ihres Briefes getan haben, daß der Herr seiner Kirche zu Hilfe kommt. Mit meinem apostolischen Segen bin ich

Ihr

Benedict XVI

My translation:

Let us pray, as you did at the end of your letter,  that the Lord will come to the help of His Church.  I am with my apostolic blessing

Your

Benedict XVI

It may be that His Holiness B16 dashed that off as a matter of habit.  Heck, I know an older priest or two who still mention John Paul in the Eucharistic Prayer.

It may be that His Holiness is using the term somewhat loosely.

That said, the Apostolic Benediction is given by the Pope.   They do so solemnly on occasions such as the Urbi et Orbi blessing.  It is done at audiences (except when Francis chooses not to bless at all).  They do so also in writing for some occasions.

A few others in limited circumstances impart the Apostolic Blessing.  A priest can give it with an indulgence when someone is dying.  Bishops could give the blessing three times a year on solemn feasts.

However, in general Popes give this blessing and Popes customarily end special letters with an expression that they impart the Apostolic Blessing.

It is possible that Benedict XVI was using terms loosely, and really meant his pontifical blessing, his episcopal blessing as a bishop.

Finally, I suspect that Benedict, who by all reports is still as sharp as a scalpel, knows very well what he can and cannot do, none better.

Bento XVI Critica Cardeais que Condenam sua Abdicação e a Escolha por "Papa Emérito".

O jornal The Catholic Herald divulgou hoje cartas de Bento XVI a cardeais que criticaram sua abdicação e a escolha que ele fez de usar o nome "Papa Emérito".

Em suma, ele disse:

1) As críticas à abdicação dele são ruins porque diminuem, desvalorizam o pontificado dele.

2) Escolheu o uso de "Papa Emérito" para não ser cardeal e não ficar nos holofotes e para mostrar que não é mais Papa.

Hummm...pelo que disse o jornal, eu não gostei não das respostas. 

A primeira parece mostrar preocupação pessoal e não com a Igreja e a segunda é muito frágil, ele esta vivo e sempre será visto como Papa. 

Como eu já falei aqui muitas vezes, eu considero a abdicação do Papa Bento XVI uma dos maiores erros e mais estapafúrdios da história da Igreja.

Aqui vai o relato do jornal, tirem suas próprias conclusões:

Leaked letters: Benedict XVI rebukes criticism of resignation

Benedict XVI rebuked a cardinal who criticised his decision to resign and take the title Pope Emeritus, leaked letters reveal.

In the letters – which were leaked to the German newspaper Bild, who then passed them to the New York Times – Benedict says he can understand the “deep-seated pain” his resignation caused. However, people’s anger at his decision is devaluing his entire pontificate, leading to it being “conflated with the sadness about the situation of the Church today.”

The New York Times says that the letters were addressed to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the four ‘dubia’ cardinals, who had recently criticised Benedict’s resignation in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

“The figure of ‘pope emeritus’ does not exist in the entire history of the Church,” the cardinal said. “The fact that a pope comes along and topples a 2,000-year-old tradition bowled over not just us cardinals.”

In his first letter, dated November 9, 2017, Benedict responds: “Eminence! You said that with ‘pope emeritus,’ I had created a figure that had not existed in the whole history of the Church. You know very well, of course, that popes have abdicated, albeit very rarely. What were they afterward? Pope emeritus? Or what else?”

He referred to the case of Pope Pius XII, who had prepared a resignation in case he was captured by the Nazis.

“As you know, Pius XII had prepared a declaration in case the Nazis were to arrest him, that from the moment of the arrest he would no longer be pope but once again cardinal.

“In my case it would certainly not have been sensible to simply claim a return to being cardinal. I would then have been constantly as exposed to the media as a cardinal is — even more so because people would have seen in me the former pope.”

“Whether on purpose or not, this could have had difficult consequences, especially in the context of the current situation,” he added.

Benedict added that he chose the title ‘pope emeritus’ to make it clear that he no longer holds the Petrine office.

“With ‘pope emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope,” he wrote. “If you know of a better way, and believe that you can judge the one I chose, please tell me.”

In his second letter, Benedict said that a “new agitation is gradually being generated” which could inspire more books like Fabrizio Grasso’s ‘The Abdication’, which envisions a situation where multiple popes emeritus could dilute papal authority.

“All this fills me with concern, and it was precisely because of this that the end of your F.A.Z. interview so unsettled me, because it would ultimately promote the same mood.”

He concludes the letter: “Let’s pray, as you did with the end of your letter, that the Lord comes to the aid of his Church.”

O Que Fazer com o Papa Francisco? 2 Anos da Dúbia.

O Papa Francisco não responde nem a cardeais. Hoje completa-se dois anos que 4 cardeais (sendo que dois já morreram de lá pra cá) pediram explicações ao Papa, por meio de um documento tradicional chamado Dubia, e ele não respondeu. O documento é público e conhecido mundialmente. Mas os cardeais continuam sem resposta.

Agora, mais recentemente temos a acusação do arcebispo Carlo Viganò que acusa o Papa de saber dos abusos sexuais do cardeal McCarrick desde 2013 e não ter feito nada. Perguntado sobre isso, o Papa disse que não dizer nenhuma palavra.

Ele não parece também que renunciará, como pediu o Viganò.

Acusações contra o Papa,desde seus tempos na Argentina abundam na internet. Algumas acusações são tão cabeludas, que eu não tive coragem de relatar no blog. Muitos também não têm, mesmo porque são difíceis de se comprovar de longe.

Então, fica a pergunta: o que a Igreja (cardeais, arcebispos, bispos, padres e leigos) farão com o Papa.

Se ele não responde aos sérios questionamentos, nem renuncia, o que a Igreja pode fazer?

O renomado canonista Edward Peters, indicado pelo Papa Bento XVI, simplesmente disse que se acusações de Viganò são verídicas, o Papa deve renunciar e ele exige isso.

Os sites e blogs mais tradicionalistas estão há bastante tempo pedindo a renúncia do Papa, e outros começaram a pedir depois das acusações de Viganò. O meu blog declarou o Papa Francisco herético ao mudar o Catecismo relativo à pena de morte. Eu tenho dificuldades com o Papa Francisco desde a sua primeira entrevista, que foi no Brasil, quando ele disse que qualquer educação é importante não importa a religião.

Os blogs e sites que eram defensores do Papa, mas mantinham certa ortodoxia católica, estão ou em silêncio ou pedindo pelo amor de Deus que o Papa responda.

Os blogs que se dizem católicos mas defendem atos homossexuais, eu não considero católicos, não trato das opiniões deles.

Recentemente, Jonathan Last escreveu um excelente artigo no site The Weekly Standard. Depois de um relato minucioso da situação, ele apontou 4 saídas dessa enorme crise da Igreja:

1) Renúncia do Papa. Já falamos que essa hipótese é remota. Last disse que o fato de termos dois papas que renunciaram seria uma desgraça e correria o risco da Igreja se tornar um partido político;

2) Capitulação. Os católicos simplesmente desprezariam o que ocorre com a Igreja e o Papa Francisco vai levando a Igreja sem credibilidade e sem força doutrinária. Também uma desgraça;

3) Cisma. Last diz que tem havido aqui e acolá algum papo sobre cisma, mas Last acha que tem baixa probabilidade de ocorrer e os católicos devem rezar para que não ocorra;

4)  Resistência. Last diz que forças conspiraram para que Bergoglio chegasse ao poder, forças também interna da Igreja (clérigos e leigos) devem se unir para tirá-lo de lá. Last sugere começar por não fazer mais doações para a Igreja se ela não resolver a crise. E disse que bispos deveriam organizar um novo conclave. Bom, cadê os dois cardeais da Dubia?

Hoje leio também o texto de Christopher Ferrara. Ele começa falando de como os católicos menos ortodoxos que defendiam o Papa estão desesperados para que o Papa reaja respondendo às acusações.

No fim, Ferrara descarta que o Papa vá renunciar e também diz que a solução é a deposição do Papa Francisco.

Ferrara aponta que isso já foi feito no passado, bispos se reuniram e depuseram Bento IX e Gregório VI, além de mandarem Silvester III para o monastério, elegendo um novo papa, Clemente II, no Sínodo de Sutri. Naquele momento, Bento IX, que havia comprado o pontificado, lutou ainda no futuro e foi novamente deposto.

Vou colocar aqui a parte do texto dele que fala da opção da deposição.

Can the Church Defend Herself Against Bergoglio?

Written by  Christopher A. Ferrara
...Yes, deposition.  Canon212 has linked to an interesting and timely piece on the role of the Synod of Sutri, near Rome, in 1046, which dealt with the problem of three rival claimants to the papacy, each installed by a Roman faction: First, the execrable Benedict IX, mentioned above. Second, the interloper Sylvester III, installed in the Chair of Peter after Benedict had been driven from Rome.  Third, the well-intentioned but dimwitted Gregory VI, whose election was tainted by a seemingly simoniacal negotiation with Benedict, who had returned to Rome in 1045 and ousted Sylvester, according to which Benedict would receive a generous pension if he resigned the papacy, which Benedict did only to rescind his resignation.

The Synod was convoked by Henry III, the German king and soon-to-be-crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a pious and austere Christian and an exponent of the Cluniac spirit of reform. The Synod declared that Benedict IX (who had refused to appear) was deposed notwithstanding his attempt to undo his resignation. As for Sylvester, the Synod declared that he be “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery.” Gregory was also declared deposed, either by the act of the Synod itself or by Gregory’s own voluntary resignation in view of the Synod.

At Henry III’s designation, the German Bishop of Bamberg became Clement II, but he died after only a year, whereupon Benedict reasserted his claim to the papacy for the third time in 1047, only to be driven from Rome again by Imperial troops in 1048.  Damasus II, another German bishop designated by Henry, reigned for a mere three weeks before dying, whereupon Pope St. Leo IX succeeded to the papacy, reigning until 1054.  Leo, as John Rao observes, was the first in a line of Popes who “took charge of the movement of innovative Christian restoration” which included a breaking of the dominance of Roman nobility over papal elections. (Rao, Black Legends, 147-148).

As the cited article on the Synod of Sutri notes, although the scurrilous Benedict IX objected to his deposition by the Synod, “the Church has always accepted his deposition as valid. The King of Germany then appointed Clement II as Pope, who promptly crowned the King, Holy Roman Emperor. Benedict IX, after the death of Clement, claimed the papacy again! The Church to this day recognizes Clement II as a true Pope.” 

Moreover, Benedict IX himself is recognized as a true Pope—a valid but deposed Pope—during three separate periods listed as three distinct pontificates in the canon of Popes. This was possible owing to the lack of any set canonical form for papal elections; a Pope could gain or regain the office by various machinations.  Indeed, even the Vatican’s own website states that Benedict was Pope from 1047-1048, the very year of his third ascension to the office from which he was finally driven by force.

Only with the ascension of Pope Nicholas II in 1059 was it established that henceforth the cardinal-bishops would elect the Pope, with the other cardinals having the right to confirm or veto the nominee.  By 1100 what we now know as the College of Cardinals, embracing all the cardinals of different titles, had the exclusive right to elect a Pope, and the members of the College “have held it ever since.” (Eric John, The Popes, 181).

These lessons of history should suffice to dispel the pious fable, never a teaching of the Magisterium, that every Pope is chosen by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church. This theological error, which Bergoglio has exploited to the hilt, is a key element in the related error of papalotry, which elevates the person of the Pope above the office he occupies and makes of him the leader of a personality cult everyone is commanded to “love” (in the superficially emotional sense) and obey no matter what he says or does, rather than a custodian and defender of the Deposit of Faith whose lovability, personality and opinions are utterly irrelevant to the exercise and scope of his office. 

As Pope Benedict has observed, when it comes to the election of a Pope “the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he [sic] dictates the candidate for whom one must vote….There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”  Bergoglio is undeniably one of them.

So what can be done to defend the Church against Bergoglio?  That the mode of papal election by cardinals has persisted for nearly a thousand years has led to the general impression that it pertains to the irreformable divine constitution of the Church, but it certainly does not.  As to matters of purely ecclesiastical law such as this one the Church has always allowed for departures from traditional practice in cases of emergency or grave necessity. And just as a synod was employed to address three rival claimants to the papal throne in 1046, declaring at least two of them deposed, so today might it be possible for reform-minded cardinals and bishops, comprising an imperfect council, to undo the incalculable damage caused by the cabal that lobbied for Bergoglio’s election before the last conclave—a cabal that included none other than McCarrick, whom Bergoglio rewarded by rehabilitating that monster despite the massive evidence of his unspeakable crimes.

What would be the grounds for a declaration of deposition at such a gathering of prelates?  One could readily point to the evidence that a faction that included Bergoglio himself had agreed upon his election before the conclave, and that all those involved, including Bergoglio, were thereby excommunicated latae sententiae in accordance with Article 81 of John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis, which provides:

The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.

To quote Cajetan on this point (citations taken from the linked article by Robert Siscoe), deposition by an imperfect council is appropriate “when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them.”

I am not saying that such a case has been proven. Rather, what I am saying is that this hypothetical imperfect council could determine that it has been proven and act accordingly, and that the Church would judge any resulting deposition of Bergoglio in the same manner it judges the deposition of Benedict IX.

Another ground for deposition—as determined by the imperfect council, not any of us—would be that Bergoglio has deposed himself by promulgating heresy, fracturing the Church’s universal discipline respecting marriage and the Eucharist, and undermining the teaching of even his own immediate predecessors on matters of fundamental morality upheld by the Magisterium for two millennia. Surely the Church cannot be without any remedy for a Pope who relentlessly attacks her very foundations!  To quote Cajetan again: “Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently, it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation; and those that juridically correspond to the crime, are of themselves necessary”—meaning the resort to an imperfect council.

If a synod was able to declare the deposition of a pope in 1046, why not an imperfect council today—or, for that matter, another synod? It will be argued that such a deposition would provoke massive schisms in the Church.  But that would not be the first time that defense of the Church’s common good has done so, as the Great Western Schism demonstrates. And are we not in the midst of schisms already, provoked by none other than Bergoglio himself, whose insane drive to shatter the Church’s bimillennial discipline has produced the totally unprecedented situation in which what is still considered mortally sinful in one diocese is an imperative of “mercy” in another?

In any case, this much is certain: barring Bergoglio’s conversion and reversal of course, the Church cannot abide this pontificate any longer. One way or another, the Church will have to repel an attacker at her very summit. Either the human element of the Church will act according to the means which seem possible, however extraordinary, or Heaven itself will intervene in a manner that might well involve a divine chastisement due to the negligence of time-serving pastors who left their sheep completely undefended against the wolves who preyed upon them, including the wolf the cardinals improvidently elected Pope.

Some four months before Archbishop Viganò’s testimony  Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, the Archbishop of  Utrecht, Netherlands, perhaps the most liberal territory in the entire Church, protested that Bergoglio’s blatant nod to intercommunion with Protestants in Germany means that “the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and that the situation reminds him of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which refers to the Church’s “final trial” before the Second Coming, “that will shake the faith of many believers… [a] ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.

What can the Church do when confronted by a Pope who, as a prominent cardinal declares to the whole world, “fail[s] to maintain and transmit faithfully … the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and is leading “an apostasy from the truth”? It seems absurd to argue that she can do nothing but exhort the faithful to pray and do penance while a papal malefactor, treated as if were an absolute dictator, is allowed to continue wreaking havoc upon faith and morals to the detriment of countless souls, without the least impediment, for so long as he shall live.

No, Bergoglio must go.  The successors of the Apostles, the only ones in a position to end his rampage, must demand his resignation and, should he refuse as expected, act in this unprecedented emergency to declare his removal from the office he has criminally abused and whose very credibility he threatens to destroy. May God give them the grace to do what must be done and what history will vindicate as a rescue of the Church during the height of the worst crisis in her history.

As Máfias Gays ("Máfias Lavanda"): Igreja, Universidades, Associações de Psicologia, Hollywood

Hoje, li que um jurista do governo nos Estados Unidos está defendendo que a Igreja Católica é uma organização criminosa, por conta dos acobertamentos de pedofilia e abusos sexuais.

Hummm...como disse Roberto de Mattei não se pode confundir a Igreja ("Corpo Místico de Cristo") com o Papa, os bispos ou leigos católicos.

E se for por conta do acobertamento de crimes de abusos sexuais ou de defender a prática de pedofilia o jurista teria que enquadrar inúmeras instituições e religiões.

Ontem, eu falei aqui do Budismo. E também já relatei aqui os casos da Igreja Anglicana.

Além disso, há casos de acobertamento de abusos sexuais contra crianças e defesa aberta de pedofilia em muitas outras instituições.

Benjamin Wilker escreveu essa semana sobre diversas máfias gays, também conhecidas como "máfias lavanda" ou "máfias alfazema".

Vejamos parte do artigo dele publicado no National Catholic Register.

Beware These 3 Lavender Mafias Outside the Church

We need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist — at Harvard, in Hollywood, and especially in the Church

Benjamin Wiker

Yes, you read that correctly. Lavender Mafias—the plural. The coercive network of homosexualization that has gained so much power within the Catholic Church hierarchy is just one of a number. To understand more fully the current crisis in the Church, we need to be aware of them all, since they all work together toward a homosexualization of the culture.
That there is such a thing as a Lavender Mafia in the Church used to be a rumor, but with the seedy revelations of the rise of Theodore McCarrick to the cardinalate, it’s now an established fact. Only the existence of a widespread network of protection and coercion in the highest reaches of the Church hierarchy could explain McCarrick’s ongoing power and prestige despite the fact that his homosexual proclivities were widely known among his fellow bishops and cardinals. Only such a network could make sense of McCarrick’s curial Teflon coating under Pope Francis’ watch that kept sanctions from sticking to him but not honors and advancements.
But if any doubt remains about the existence of a Lavender Mafia within the Church, the deeper investigation into the McCarrick affair called for by an increasing number of bishops and a flood of the laity, will reveal exactly how deep and wide such a network really is. One suspects that’s why there is so much stalling among the bishops, the cardinals and the Vatican.

Psychology
There’s also a Lavender Mafia that’s taken over the professional discipline of psychology, and this takeover has been a great support for the effort to homosexualize the Church. (An excellent summary of what happened to psychology can be found in Robert Reilly’s Making Gay Okay.) The basic story is as follows.
Prior to 1973 the American Psychological Association’s authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) defined homosexuality as a “sexual deviation,” that is, a sexual disorder (putting it more or less in line with the Catholic Church’s definition). As with their account of other sexual disorders, the APA’s assessment was built upon actual clinical experience and psychological studies.
But in the early 1970s homosexual activists decided that the APA’s negative classification of homosexuality had to go (the pro-gay psychiatrists working from within the APA, calling themselves the GayPA). Homosexual activists disrupted the 1970 national meeting of the APA in San Francisco, and the 1971 national meeting in Washington, D.C. The gay advocates did not present any new scientific evidence to support their desires; they simply thugged up the meeting by shouting out their demands. The goal: to bully-shame the APA into officially affirming homosexuality as natural.

...
Academia
Are there other important Lavender Mafias? Yes, but space does not permit me to do much beyond note their existence.
A very powerful one exists in academia. I first ran up against it when I was in graduate school at Vanderbilt University in the mid-1980s. By then, the pro-gay (or, more accurately, pro-lesbian) contingent was so firmly entrenched in the academic hierarchy that—as with many other graduate schools—one was forbidden to say anything other than the party line. Gays and lesbians were actively recruited as both students and faculty, thereby ensuring that the academic Mafia only became more powerful over time.
This pattern exists among almost all of the top universities (and the bottom and middle as well), and contributes powerful intellectual support to the gay agenda in the Church (especially given that so many Catholic universities are indistinguishable from secular universities). Imagine my “surprise” to find out that Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, got his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt. Liew claims that Jesus was a gender-fluid drag queen, and that washing his disciples’ feet was a homoerotic experience. Blasphemy with tenure.

...
Hollywood
An equally powerful Lavender Mafia exists in the entertainment industry (along with an equally disordered heterosexual culture, as the #metoo movement has revealed). In parallel to the Church, the result has been the regular preying of homosexual men upon vulnerable boys, the systematic covering up of this widespread evil, and the threatening of anyone who dares to bring it to light.
To get a disgusting taste of the evil ways of this network and what it does to those who threaten it, just google “Elijah Wood Hollywood Pedophilia” and read the first 10 or so articles. Wood (who played Frodo in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) spoke up publicly about the powerful pedophilia ring in Hollywood one day, and the next, retracted his statements. All it took was a threatening phone call to make poor Frodo cringe before the ring. So far, unlike the Church’s scandal, Hollywood has been able to keep the lid from being blown off its pedophilia problem.
The Hollywood connection is important because it has so publicly advocated for the homosexualization of culture by producing a significant number of very popular pro-gay comedy shows (such as Will & Grace and Modern Family) that drilled in the message that homosexuality was as good, clean, witty, fun and moral as heterosexuality. In short, “no disorder here, folks.”
Although these popular shows postdate the subversion of the Church by the Lavender Mafia, they helped to reinforce the assumptions that led to the scandals. After all, if two gay men on the screen could fulfill the moral requirements of heterosexual marriage (life-long, exclusive monogamy aimed at childrearing), then single gay men in the Church could fulfill the requirements of clerical celibacy. Right?
The problem with this idyllic presentation by Hollywood is that actual gay sexual culture doesn’t look like that. It looks like what’s now being uncovered in the scandals at all levels in the Catholic Church. That’s one of the reasons that Hollywood (and the Left in general) are not very keen to dig into the Church’s current moiling sexual mess: it reveals the reality of gay sexual culture that they’ve so carefully hidden from sight.
And that is one very good reason why we need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist, but most especially in the Church.

Dalai Lama: "Eu sei de Pedofilia de Budistas desde anos 90"

Certa vez li que o próprio Dalai Lama é pedófilo e homossexual, acho que foi em um guia politicamente incorreto. Bom, em todo caso o budismo apóia abertamente o homossexualismo.

Agora leio que o Dalai Lama disse que conhece casos de pedofilia entre professores budistas e seus alunos desde a década de 90, e que isso não é novidade.

Acho que quem conhece o budismo não vai se assustar mesmo.

Dalai Lama não fez nada desde sempre.

Vejam texto abaixo do Yahoo News

Dalai Lama: I knew of sex abuse by Buddhist teachers since 1990s

The Dalai Lama said Saturday that he has known about sexual abuse by Buddhist teachers since the 1990s and that such allegations are "nothing new".

The Tibetan spiritual leader, revered by millions of Buddhists around the world, made the admission during a four-day visit to the Netherlands, where he met on Friday with victims of sexual abuse allegedly committed by Buddhist teachers.

He was responding to a call from a dozen of the victims who had launched a petition asking to meet him during his trip, part of a tour of Europe.

"We found refuge in Buddhism with an open mind and heart, until we were raped in its name," the victims said in their petition.

"I already did know these things, nothing new," the Dalai Lama said in response on Dutch public television NOS late Saturday.