Take Skojec's Red Pill


So yesterday brought another great shock as ALL the Chilean Cardinals offered to resign en masse.

Some background to this can be gleaned from this post.

If you are cynically minded, you might be thinking that is rather convenient. A resignation accepted closes the narrative without full process or assignment of culpability and application of penalty, it merely allows malefactors to assume indistinct responsibility and go quietly into retirement.

Pope Francis' Motu Proprio - As A loving Mother written by the Pope and published by the Vatican on 4th June 2016 makes it clear bishops CAN be removed from office, so why is this process not being used in regard to the guilty bishops in Chile? It would lead a cynical person to consider that this could even be some sort of stage managed PR stunt.

Indeed, one might think this is a way for the Chilean bishops to avoid culpability, but it also leads to bigger questions.

The whole debacle is about a priest, Father Fernando Karadima. Essentially, Karadima had been influential in the spiritual formation and careers of dozens of priests and several bishops. One of these bishops, long associated with Karadima, Juan Barros Madrid, was appointed by Pope Francis to lead a small diocese in 2015, provoking opposition there (see here for details). Members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors tried without success to make Pope Francis recognise the validity of the charges against Barros. As I reported in some detail here, it was notable that in labelling Juan Carlos Cruz and his fellow Chilean survivors guilty of slander the Pope openly aligned himself with Cardinals Ezzati and Errazuriz who, in an exchange of derogatory e mails in 2015 conspired to block Juan Carlos Cruz for consideration for membership of the  Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. However, Errazuriz, one of Pope Francis' C9 Cardinals, it has been confirmed, is NOT offering his resignation.

So this is CLEARLY linked to four individuals. Karadima, Barros, Errazuriz and Pope Francis. Why are they all resigning and Errazuriz (the Pope's confident) not? Is there a ton of further dodgy revelations each one of them is responsible for? Are they scapegoats? What is going on here??

Some high profile religious commentators are suggesting that the mass resignation is somehow positive for the Pope:
But I honestly think it is just a huge cop out. Cardinal Errazuriz stays in place and is not removed from the C9. Not one bishop removed - all allowed to resign. This certainly represents an opportunity for Pope Francis to do something, but it is already clear that in reality nothing changes.

I thought this was a brilliant summary from Steve Skojec at One Peter Five which ticks all the boxes. Can it be true that some people still haven't woken up?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bishop John Arnold - "A Nasty Little Bully"

Image
Pat Buckley has posted  a letter from a Salford priest giving the low down on what is going on in that diocese. I think it is really important because it is a report from the diocese, but also because if you pay attention to communications from the CCBEW you would think Bishop Arnold is the best bishop in the country! This despite the fact he is clearly seriously at odds with much of the Catholic faith and overly concerned with issues best described as mission creep. He advised the Catenian Association to drop "practicing Catholic" from its statutes and is obsessed with CAFOD and climate change, issues which might seem trendy, but in reality only diminish the Gospel. Arnold is chairman of CAFOD and approved the appointment of the current director who is clearly at odds with Catholic teaching . He also loves an "LGBTQI+ Mass" - more on some of that stuff here . To me he epitomises so many of the bishops: he likes the trappings and power but is very uncomfortable wit...
Read more

Real Life Catholics on BBC TV defend Church Teaching on Contraception.

Image
This morning on BBC TV Sunday Morning Live there was a good debate inspired by Melinda Gates (who identifies as Catholic) comments about the pope potentially changing doctrine on contraception. The Catholic contributors were Fr Paddy McCafferty, Clare Short and Obianuju Ekeocha. I think they did really well. Uju's direction is very interesting and easily wrong foots those who want to impose western ideas of morality on Africans in an imperialistic way. Interesting that the presenter agrees with her on this. Fr Paddy gave a great account of his experience as a priest. He was compassionate, realistic and honest, while upholding the value and importance of the doctrine. Clare said she had experience of both ways and the Catholic way is better by far. I thought that was awesome! I especially liked her focus on equality and bringing the responsibility of both husband & wife into the discussion. Watch out for the bit where the other lady says "Pope Francis has ind...
Read more