Rorate: Socci on a Papacy in Collapse

This Blog
This Blog

Papacy in Collapse: “The Crisis of the Bergoglio Party (which will leave the Church devastated) has begun” (Socci)

1. Just a couple of weeks ago, still before the end of the Synod, our special guest-writer and expert of Roman ways Don Pio Pace warned: “are we going towards the failure of the ‘opening’ pontificate of Francis? The Postconciliar Church seems intrinsically ungovernable.”
2. This Thursday, Nov. 5, Damian Thompson in the cover article for the Spectator details what he calls “the Catholic civil war”. But the guilty party is clear from Thompson’s conclusion: “It’s beginning to look as if Jorge Bergoglio is the man who inherited the papacy and then broke it.” (The Spectator cover illustrates the point well.)
3. Also this Thursday, Italian religious analyst Antonio Socci published a text that goes in the same direction as Thompson’s: the collapse of the pontificate amidst the civil war begun by the Pope himself. And Socci goes further: he identifies the Bergoglio Party (the same that caused the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio) as the center of the current crisis. It is indeed very important to remember that it was the CURIA that caused the vexations that led to the complete weakening of Pope Ratzinger, and the Sodano Curia and (what we now know as the Mafia Club of) the St-Gallen Group, led by ultra-progressive Cardinals such as Danneels and the heirs of Martini, who congealed around Bergoglio in the momentous 2013 conclave.
The Crisis of the Bergoglio Party (which will leave the Church devastated) has begun…
Antonio Socci,
November 5, 2015
A personal premise: in 2012, I wrote a kind of fantasy-novel, “The Days of the Tempest” wherein I told the tale of a new foreign Pope who would have arrived in 2015, closed the IOR, hosted persecuted Christians in the Vatican palaces and would have lived in the, working-class suburb of Torpignattara in Rome. I was very keen on the idea of evangelical renewal.
Today, unfortunately, we have to recognize that in three years Pope Bergoglio hasn’t done what we expected him to do or what he said he was going to do. He attempted to regulate the curial and economic machine, but in reverse, with confusing results and at times was counterproductive.
Further, he has caused the Church to collapse into doctrinal confusion which is much, more serious than any financial scandal.
Is it the fault of obscure opponents? Nonsense. Only in dictatorships are the failures of the regime justified with presumed sabotages from its opponents. The Argentine Pope has said many times that he wanted chaos as he considered it creative: he should be pleased now.
The Vallejo-Chaouqui business however, certainly doesn’t conjure up “the conservatives of the past” but seems, if anything, the start of the crumbling of the “ Bergoglian Party”.
The newspapers that are talking about a war between Pope Bergoglio and the Curia, forget to say that it was precisely the party of the Curia that “invented” and elected Pope Bergoglio. Today that Party finds itself in the same situation as the Democratic Party (P.D. [note: the Socialist Party in Italy]). Bitterly regretting its choice; because Pope Bergoglio is “unfit”. Inadequate. This cannot be ignored…
The other day, the New Yorker reported that among those who elected him in March 2013, he wouldn’t even get ten votes from them today.
The present Pope is a son of that Peronist political culture which brought Argentina to collapse i.e. a very wealthy country gone bankrupt. Pope Bergoglio himself has frankly acknowledged that in his younger days, his past function as head of the Argentine Jesuits was a disaster. A top man in the “Company” declared to an American journalist, that, at that time, “Bergoglio created an awful lot of problems. He has some remarkable gifts, but was surrounded by a court of very faithful pasdaran (guards) and a personality cult creates divisions.” He added “it will be a catastrophe for the Church to have someone like him in the Apostolic See. It took us two decades to try and fix the chaos he created.”
The Italian mass-media lives in a bubble of papal worship, similar to an idolatrous obsession. They see Pope Bergoglio as the absolute Good and whoever dissents from this is depicted as an emissary of Evil or a dark conspirator. You don’t find any news about Pope Bergoglio in the newspapers, only hymns, sung masses and genuflexions.
Even those who have written books using confidential documents from the Vatican Offices, feel the need to assert that they are doing this to help the Pope in his messianic work of renewal in the Church
In fact, reading the newspapers, those who openly dissented from the Kasper-Bergoglio thesis, it seems, are deliberately being hit. But must the mass-media control Power closely or hunt down the dissidents? Then we have the absurdity of the Vatican communiqué regarding these recent events which had to specify: “it is absolutely necessary to avoid the mistake in thinking that this is a way of helping the Pope’s mission.”
This is a surreal specification which betrays the concern of the “Bergoglian establishment”, i.e. by trying to help “The Big Boss” you end up harming him.
On the other hand, once the deadly mechanism of the mass-media circus is triggered as an instrument of power – and Pope Bergoglio did this unscrupulously, for instance, by using his brotherly friend Scalfari to reveal what he truly thinks – then what occurs is that you lose control of that same mass-media machine. Then, if there is some unpleasant news the word “conspiracy” is shouted, as happened in the case of Monsignor Charamsa’s “coming out”. Yet, what induced him to do this if not the Bergoglian ambiguities and choices on the subject of homosexuality? In fact, Charamsa hit out ruthlessly at the Cura, which he accused of “homophobia”. He is also a strong supporter of Bergoglio.
The Bergoglian crisis – even after the double defeat at the two Synods – is evident. Of course, the “Marino of the Vatican” [Note: Ignazio Marino is the inept former mayor of Rome who has recently resigned] is sustained by the enthusiastic support of the secular media.
For months now we have been deluged with exaltations about the Pope from the newspapers and television. Pope Bergoglio himself is embarrassed about it: “I don’t like the mythology of Pope Francis” he confessed to De Bortoli. Nonetheless, he then makes himself like it, since he is using the papal-worshipping circus as a formidable means of pressure inside the Church, to force Her to bend to the Scalfarian agenda.
Still – as I said – not everything is always controllable in the information business. The rare times something dissonant emerges with respect to the uniform “Giornalista Collettivo” [“Collective Journalist”, i.e. journalists speaking in one voice] choir – (as Giuliano Ferrara named it) – from Casa Santa Marta, the “bombardiers” begin to soar.
It happened twenty days ago with the “Quotidiano Nazionale” which had published the news of the Pope’s supposed brain tumor. The same night, at midnight actually, in a totally irregular way, Father Lombardi, caused an uproar about it, almost as if it were a sacrilege.
A reaction which surprised and aroused suspicion since popes’ illnesses have always been fantasized about, without these virulent reactions from “across the Tiber”. Obviously news can also be fabrications; accidents of the profession. Nonetheless a fabrication is never a conspiracy. The only question to ask about news is this one: is it true or false?
Instead the “Giornalista Collettivo” choir immediately picked up the Vatican refrain of “a conspiracy against the Pope”. In the end, after days of conspiracy hunting, we were still in the dark about the situation. Everyone accepted the denials and the thing was buried.
Here then are some “pearls” found in the denials. Professor Fukushima, among other things, said: “perhaps the misunderstanding comes from a brain operation I did on a person of similar age and build as that of the Pontiff, with a name that sounded similar.” The neurosurgeon, Gaetano Liberti, Fukushima’s student, who also works in the ‘San Rossore’ clinic declared (in denial of course) among other things: “we are doctors and we wouldn’t have violated in anyway the privacy of any patient, even less so a figure as influential as Pope Francis.”
After all this, the director of the “Quotidiano Nazionale” , Andrea Cangini, an honest and serious journalist, gave an interview to “Tempo”.
Question: “Does the Holy Father really have a benign brain tumor? Eveyone is denying it, do you confirm it?” Answer: “Certainly. What we wrote was verified. But I assure you we have no intention of backing civil wars in the Vatican.
Another question: “You confirmed you had documental proof. Of what type?” Answer: “If I gave you more elements, I’d put my source in jeopardy. It is written proof.”
In the face of such a declaration it was natural to expect an invitation from Father Lombardi to publish this “proof”. Unfortunately the Vatican was careful in not challenging the “Quotidiano Nazionale”. It’s strange. Cangini is an esteemed professional and “QN” is an important daily newspaper, usually far from temerarious rows. In any normal country it would have been asked to show the documental proof about what it had reported. Instead – nothing. Having left this story in suspension might be another reason for Pope Bergoglio’s waning, and of the uproar inside the Curia and his “party”. Yet one has the impression that the uproar has only just begun.

Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana

Get AQ Email Updates

3 comments on “Rorate: Socci on a Papacy in Collapse

  1. Hard views of Pope Francis from Spectators

    Posted on 5 November 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

    I bring to your attention a couple hard-hitting pieces not for the purposes of depressing you, but informing you.

    I’ve advised elsewhere that if this pontificate, or perhaps “parenthesis”, is getting you down, then stop paying so much attention to the news. That said, some of you who are tough and well-balanced – not likely to fly off the nearest window ledge at the mention of turmoil in the Church – should know what is being said. On the one side there is the rah rah rah from the catholic libs who think that Pope Francis is the 7th Apparition of Vishnu (whom I believe they may prefer to worship rather than the true King of Fearful Majesty) and those who are boo boo boo Pope Francis is bringing on the eruption of Mount Doom.

    I am trying to take the longer view. I remind myself that each pontificate is a parenthesis in the long history of the Church and of our Salvation. This parenthesis will close one day and another will open.

    That said,…

    You might want to look at a piece by George Neumayr at American Spectator. He is not a fan of Pope Francis … [Fr. Z’s comment in brackets]


    The lack of charity for which he condemns them was on sad display in his own remarks.

    The scandalous synod on the family skidded to a stop last weekend in Rome but not before Pope Francis got in a few more licks at conservatives, whom he caricatured in his final remarks as heartless.

    The speech was notable for its nastiness, displaying the very lack of charity he routinely assigns to conservatives. The synod, he said, had exposed “closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.”

    He continued: “It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.”

    Under the lightweight leftism of Pope Francis, the question “Is the Pope Catholic?” seems less and less rhetorical. Previous popes, reading the remarks above, would conclude that the speaker held to the theology of liberal Protestantism. They would find the false contrasts between divine law and mercy, upon which Francis habitually relies, pitiful in their shallowness, and they would find his constant resort to straw-man fallacies and motive-mongering against traditionalists to be an unsightly blot upon the papacy. With a pope like this one, orthodox Catholics don’t need enemies. [Harsh stuff, but there is one point to make: it is often hard to know to whom the Pope is referring when he talks about all these horrible people in the Church. Who are they? I’ve never encountered such creatures. Are they indigenous to Argentina? Then maybe those comments should be made in Argentina.]

    All the tortured throat-clearing from pundits about the “nuances” of Pope Francis is very unconvincing. He is not nuanced at all. He is an open left-wing Catholic, perfectly comfortable with the de facto heretics within his own order and inside his special cabinet of cardinals. Cardinal Walter Kasper, whom Pope Francis has identified as one of his “favorite” theologians, and Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany, who is one of his closest advisers, stand to the left of Martin Luther.

    Well, say the pope’s desperate propagandists, Francis may not possess a deep mind but at least he has a big heart. If so, it seems to bleed for everyone but orthodox Catholics, whose fidelity to the faith under secularism’s ceaseless encroachments is treated with contempt.

    Like many modern Jesuits, Francis often sounds like he loves every religion except his own. Could anyone imagine him every talking about imams, rabbis, or even a feminist witch, in the same caustic style that he disparages Catholic traditionalists? If he did, he would have an “ecumenical” crisis on his hands.

    Early in his pontificate, video footage captured him teasing a blameless altar boy for holding his hands together piously. Were they “stuck” together? the Pope asked the bewildered boy. That is what passes for humor in the liberal Jesuit order. Visit almost any Jesuit college or school and you will soon encounter similar instances of anti-Catholic gibes presented as “reform.”


    There’s more there. As I said… he is definitely not a fan.

    Then there is a piece from Damian Thompson at The Spectator [again Fr. Z’s comments in brackets]:

    Pope vs church – the anatomy of a Catholic civil war

    His scattershot reforms and wild statements make him look out of control to ordinary conservative Catholics

    Last Sunday, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica carried an article by Eugenio Scalfari, one of the country’s most celebrated journalists, in which he claimed that Pope Francis had just told him that ‘at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask [to receive Holy Communion] will be admitted’.

    Catholic opinion was stunned. The Pope had just presided over a three-week synod of bishops at the Vatican that was sharply divided over whether to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacrament. In the end, it voted to say nothing much. [Thanks be to God.]

    On Monday, the Pope’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said Scalfari’s report was ‘in no way reliable’ and ‘cannot be considered the Pope’s thinking’.

    Fair enough, you may think. Scalfari is 91 years old. Also, he doesn’t take notes during his interviews or use a tape recorder. Of course he’s not ‘reliable’. [Why does His Holiness keep going back to Scalfari? Does he want the chaos that always ensues?]

    But that didn’t satisfy the media. They pointed out that the Pope knew exactly what he was letting himself in for. This is the fourth time he has chosen to give an interview to a man who relies on his nonagenarian memory. In their last encounter, Scalfari quoted the Pope as saying that two per cent of Catholic priests were paedophiles, including bishops and cardinals. Poor Lombardi had to clean up after that one, too. Last time round, Catholics gave Francis the benefit of the doubt. This time many of them are saying: never mind Scalfari, how can you trust what the Pope says?

    We’re two and a half years into this pontificate. But it’s only in the past month that ordinary conservative Catholics, as opposed to hardline traditionalists, have started saying that Pope Francis is out of control.

    Out of control, note. Not ‘losing control’, which isn’t such a big deal. [Out of control, like a loose cannon on the deck of a pitching ship: it can pitch down a hatch, through the hull, and then everyone goes down to Davy Jones’ locker.] No pontiff in living memory has awakened the specific fear now spreading around the church: that the magisterium, the teaching authority vested in Peter by Jesus, is not safe in his hands.

    The non-Catholic media have yet to grasp the deadly nature of the crisis facing the Argentinian Pope. They can see that his public style is relaxed and adventurous; they conclude from his off-the-cuff remarks that he is liberal (by papal standards) on sensitive issues of sexual morality, and regards hard-hearted conservative bishops as hypocrites.

    All of which is true. But journalists — and the Pope’s millions of secular fans — get one thing badly wrong. They assume, from his approachable manner and preference for the modest title ‘Bishop of Rome’, that Jorge Bergoglio wears the office of Supreme Pontiff lightly.

    As anyone who works in the Vatican will tell you, this is not the case. Francis exercises power with a self-confidence worthy of St John Paul II, the Polish pope whose holy war against communism ended in the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

    But that’s where the similarities end. John Paul never hid the nature of his mission. He was determined to clarify and consolidate the teachings of the church. Francis, by contrast, wants to move towards a more compassionate, less rule-bound church. But he refuses to say how far he is prepared to go. At times he resembles a motorist driving at full speed without a map or a rear-view mirror. And when the car stalls, as it did at the October synod on the family, he does a Basil Fawlty and thrashes the bonnet with a stick.

    I am sure that many of you have formed your opinions and that it will be tough to move you from them. I bring these two pieces to your attention to inform, rather than to budge.

    I advocate the long-term view. Pontificates are parentheses. Some are short, some are long. Some are important, some are not. God opens them and closes them according to a plan we cannot see.

  2. “We’re two and a half years into this pontificate. But it’s only in the past month that ordinary conservative Catholics, as opposed to hardline traditionalists, have started saying that Pope Francis is out of control.”

    So according to Fr Z it doesn’t mean anything when “hardline traditionalists” call out the Argentine Jesuit commie currently on the Chair of Peter; but when “ordinary conservative Catholics” who have finally gotten their heads out of their you know whats in the past month say he’s out of control then that legitimizes it!

    What an idiot!! As much as I have always despised modernist worldly relativist liberals like Kasper, Daneels, Bergoglio and the rest Neo-Catholics IMO are far worse.

    While the liberals I mentioned above are heretics, at least they stand for something. While Neo-Catholics are like brainless and spineless vermin that floats in the direction the prevailing winds and current happen to be blowing and drifting at the time.

  3. Kenneth Woodward weighs in on the Ross Douthat entanglement with progressive modernists in the Ivory Towers (courtesy of First Things):

Leave a Reply