19 October 2014

Synod: desolations, tensions, and temptations

The Holy Father mentioned a few moments of "desolation, of tensions and temptations". . .

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

 - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

 - The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

 - The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

 - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

That's some masterful Jesuitical tight-rope walking, folks! Obviously, the Holy Father was paying careful attention to the synod discussions.

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->


  1. I think that it's time to drop the reading of Francis' utterances as those of a wise oracle. All the worrying signs he gave in the last few months, calling the Argentinian woman, comments to the press in the airplane, his support of Card. KKK, etc, were not mere informalities, but expressions of his very ideas. He tried to manipulate the synod by overriding the choice of redactors by the bishops and imposing his progressive picks, a progressive text-book control of process to control the outcome. It's out in the open what Francis is about.

    The only Jesuitical thing about such remarks is that, as usual, he's manipulating his audience by making escape goats of the synod fathers, even throwing his minions under the bus, whatever it takes to keep the good faith of the people towards him. Or, as Lenin taught, "accuse your victim of what you yourself are doing."

    St. Peter, pray for us.

    1. Too much of your reading here depends on knowing the mind of the Pope in a way that simply isn't possible. IOW, there's no way to know his intentions as he knows them. His words, deeds, etc have multiple interpretations, including the ones you've suggested. I have it difficult to believe that none of these alleged subversive tendencies of his emerged before his election. How did he go from being a moderately-traditional cardinal to a wily underminer of the faith in 18 mos.? Seems a stretch. The better explanation, I think, is that he wanted a much more "pastoral" tone to the synod and his more progressive cronies saw an opening and jumped into it. That move backfired. . .now he's left holding the dirty bag. Yes, he appointed these progs and should take some of the responsibility their manipulations caused. However, nothing here is a firm indicator to me that the Pope is out to destroy the Church.

  2. Isn't the real problem that we still do not know where the Pope stands on these issues? Masterful Jesuitical tight-rope walking it may be, but once again it seems that he criticizes absolutely everybody else while trying to raise himself above any blame at all. What use is a Pope who makes the riddles of Confucious seem transparent and clear? How can such a man confirm his brethren in anything?

  3. Eighteen months? No, over a decade as archbishop of Buenos Aires . Francis is the typical Latin American bishop. I know, in from there.

    Francis' close friend, Card Hummes, was my bishop and confirmed me. In a recent interview, he said that he didn't know if Jesus would condemn gay unions. His colleague, Card Braz de Aviz, told a newspaper that the Church had always approved of civil unions among gays.

    To those from Latin America, it's as though Card Mahoney had been elected pope.

    Sure, my conjectures are just that. But Francis' actions in the synod were quite obviously manipulative leaning towards heterodoxy. After such blunt play of hand, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

    Thank God for His protection of the pope from error when IN UNION WITH THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS, who are the ones who preserved the Church this time.

    1. Erratum: not Card. Braz de Aviz, but Bp. Damasceno of Aparecida.

  4. I don't think the Pope's mind is all that hard to read here. Is he not looking for a better way to bring God's mercy to people than either legalism or permissiveness? To find a better way requires being open to the possibility of there being a better way, an openness Pope Francis has certainly signaled by his promotion of Cardinal Kasper.

    I suspect he'd rather err on the side of permissiveness than of legalism, though he'd rather not err at all. Of course, given the Jesuit infatuation with probabilism, what he thinks is an error may not be what everyone thinks is an error.