[FrankenPope Critic Antonio] Socci Refuses To Be Buttered Up
[As the late Mario Palmaro also did]
by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 3, 2016
Part II of Antonio Socci’s new book, La Profezia Finale (The Final Prophecy), is a 140-page open letter to Pope Francis, providing a scathing overview of his papacy in light of the remarkable confluence of Marian prophecies of apocalyptic dimension beginning in the 20th century — first and foremost Fatima, of course.
By apocalyptic, it must be said, I do not mean the Apocalypse, or the end of the world, but rather apocalyptic in the secondary senses of “a great disaster: a sudden and very bad event that causes much fear, loss, or destruction” and “something viewed as a prophetic revelation” (Merriam Webster Dictionary). And this kind of apocalypse is precisely what we see in the vision of “the Bishop dressed in White,” published by the Vatican without the Virgin’s explanation of its precise meaning — a text we have yet to see but which undoubtedly exists.
Shortly after publication of his searing critique of this pontificate, Socci received a handwritten letter from Francis himself, not unlike the telephone call Francis made to Mario Palmaro, the late co-author of another searing critique of the pontificate bluntly entitled “We Do Not Like This Pope.” The gist of the letter and the phone call alike was: I appreciate your criticism of me.
All well and good, as it demonstrates that the faithful are indeed within their rights to be critical of a Pope when criticism is warranted. After all, the Pope is not an absolute dictator. Yet there is no indication — at least not yet — that Francis has been moved by such criticism to alter his course, despite Socci’s plea in the closing lines of his book that Francis “be one of our true shepherds in the way of Christ, with Pope Benedict, who supports you with prayer and counsel: help also the Church, today confused and bewildered, to recover the way of its Saviour and thus reignite the light that will permit humanity not to lose itself in an abyss of violence.”
To his credit, Palmaro did not allow himself to be buttered up by a flattering show of personal attention from the Roman Pontiff. Even during his telephone conversation with Francis he had the courage to say that he would not refrain from speaking out should the obvious crisis of this pontificate continue. And he maintained his strong critique of the Church’s direction under Francis until his death, evidencing the strong motive of conscience that impelled him to defend the Church’s common good.
The same is true of Socci. Following his column about the note he received from Francis, Socci leveled severe criticism of Francis’ utter failure to oppose the introduction of the abomination of “gay marriage” in Italy. Quoting from a letter condemning “gay marriage” that Francis had penned when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Socci remarks acidly: “Very strong words. But Bergoglio as Pope has not repeated them today because — as he said — [during the inflight press conference while returning from Mexico] ‘the Pope is for everyone’: that is, he wishes to please everyone.”
Noting that both Francis and Matteo Renzi, Italy’s Prime Minister, had expressed strong opposition to “gay marriage” before they ascended to their positions of power, Socci concludes: “Evidently power (ecclesiastical and political) provokes amnesia. Or else there arose in them [Francis and Renzi] the desire not to step on the feet of certain forces that assisted them in arriving finally at the chair they occupy and which today sustain them in it.”
Harsh words indeed. But surely justified in view of the apocalyptic situation in which the Church now finds herself — as doubtless predicted in that “Final Prophecy” we know as the Third Secret of Fatima.