It saddens me to see that the overwhelming majority of the commenters on the original post at Rorate Caeli seem to be staking out positions vis-à-vis Pope Benedict that resemble plaintiff and defense briefs; i.e., they are being selective in the facts they draw attention to.
A certain Anonymous (one of many so dubbed) wrote: "No matter. In the end BXVI will triumph."
That's not the point, is it? It's the Faith that needs to triumph, isn't it?
Yet another Anonymous wrote: "Serious housecleaning is necessary in the Vatican. . . . I can name several Cardinals who would be Benedict XVI's enemies, and would have no problem trying to embarrass the Pope."
This comment reminds me of the similarly disingenuous cries by American "conservatives" back in the eighties: "Let Reagan be Reagan." Well, just as Reagan was being Reagan, Benedict XVI is being Benedict XVI—that is to say, Hegelian. Or in plainer English, two-faced. No credible religion can contain both Hans Küng and Marcel Lefebvre, yet if one looks at all of Benedict's recent actions and statements, what else can one conclude but that having the Catholic faith do just that is the pontiff's plain desire?
Perhaps it is time that His Holiness paid less attention to German idealist philosophy and more to popular British moral philosophy—specifically, to the dictum of the philosopher Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."
Why should they go quietly? They have always won before, haven't they? I would not bet a penny, at least not yet, that they won't win again.
Straight spines are as scarce as hen's teeth at the Vatican. Without the support of our prayers and of our divine Lord, our irreformable Catholic faith may once again suffer indignities (and worse) at the hands of temporizing shepherds.
The Holy Father has better things to do with his time than to Google "Williamson" and see what comes up. Besides, he has a staff responsible for such basic research. That no one in that staff did any research on Williamson is an impossibility. That leaves only one possiblity: some people knew about Williamson, yet chose not to tell the Holy Father, hoping that it would embarass him and the whole effort to bring the SSPX back into the fold.
.jpeg)
Comments
A certain Anonymous (one of many so dubbed) wrote: "No matter. In the end BXVI will triumph."
That's not the point, is it? It's the Faith that needs to triumph, isn't it?
Yet another Anonymous wrote: "Serious housecleaning is necessary in the Vatican. . . . I can name several Cardinals who would be Benedict XVI's enemies, and would have no problem trying to embarrass the Pope."
This comment reminds me of the similarly disingenuous cries by American "conservatives" back in the eighties: "Let Reagan be Reagan." Well, just as Reagan was being Reagan, Benedict XVI is being Benedict XVI—that is to say, Hegelian. Or in plainer English, two-faced. No credible religion can contain both Hans Küng and Marcel Lefebvre, yet if one looks at all of Benedict's recent actions and statements, what else can one conclude but that having the Catholic faith do just that is the pontiff's plain desire?
Perhaps it is time that His Holiness paid less attention to German idealist philosophy and more to popular British moral philosophy—specifically, to the dictum of the philosopher Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."
Straight spines are as scarce as hen's teeth at the Vatican. Without the support of our prayers and of our divine Lord, our irreformable Catholic faith may once again suffer indignities (and worse) at the hands of temporizing shepherds.