How many devils in sheep’s clothing in and around Santa Marta?

How many devils in sheep’s clothing in and around Santa Marta?

null
Francis spreading his Christmas cheer to the Roman Curia

Sandro Magister
Settimo Cielo (Seventh Heaven)
December 22. 2016
Google translation of magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2016/12/22/quanti-diavoli-in-veste-di-agnelli-a-santa-marta-e-dintorni/

Two years ago fifteen diseases . Last year the twelve medicine . This year Pope Francis, in the speech of Thursday, December 22 for the Christmas greetings to the Roman Curia, he chose to go through the three “elements” that thrive among the prelates of the Vatican: “open”, the “hidden” and especially “malicious”.

To him the word:

“It was necessary to talk about diseases and treatments because every operation, to achieve success, must be preceded by a thorough diagnosis, by accurate analysis and must be accompanied and followed by precise requirements.

“In this path is normal, healthy indeed, experience difficulty that, in the case of the reform, could be presented in different types of resistors:

– Open resistance, which often arise from the good will and sincere dialogue;

– The hidden strengths, arising from or petrified hearts frightened that feed from the empty words of the “spiritual gattopardismo” who verbally says he is ready to change, but want everything to remain as before;

– There are also the malevolent resistance, sprouting distorted minds and occur when the devil inspires bad intentions (often “in sheep’s clothing”). This last type of resistance is hiding behind the words and justifying, in many cases, accusatory, taking refuge in the traditions, in appearances, in the formalities, in the known, or in wanting to carry all the staff without distinguishing between the act, the actor and the action.

“The lack of reaction is a sign of death! So good resistance – and even less good ones – are necessary and deserve to be heard, accepted and encouraged to express themselves.”

After that the pope, as if he had taken a weight has lifted this hymn to the ongoing reform of the curia:

“All this is to say that the reform of the Curia is a delicate process that must be experienced:
with fidelity to the essential,
with continual discernment,
with evangelical courage,
with ecclesial wisdom,
with attentive listening,
with tough action,
with positive silence
with firm decisions,
with much prayer,
with deep humility,
with clear vision,
with concrete steps forward and – when necessary – even with setbacks,
with determined will,
with vibrant vitality,
with responsible authority,
with unconditional obedience;
but in first with the surrender to secure the Holy Spirit [Kudos to Austen Ivereigh at Crux? – AQ moderator Tom], trusting in His necessary support.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/12/22/how-many-devils-in-sheeps-clothing-in-and-around-santa-marta/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

2 comments on “How many devils in sheep’s clothing in and around Santa Marta?

  1. Pope says “malevolent” resistance to his reforms takes “refuge in traditions”

    DEC 22ND 2016 BY DEACON NICK DONNELLY

    Pope Francis again returned to his critique of ‘spiritual diseases’ during his annual Presentation of Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia. This year this included his analysis of what he considers ‘good’ resistance and ‘bad’ resistance to his reforms. The fact that the Holy Father gave priority to resistance to his reforms in his critique of spiritual diseases takes on particular significance in light of the cardinals’ dubia, although Pope Francis made no direct reference to the dubia submitted by Cardinals Burke, Caffara, Meisner and Brandmüller.

    Pope Francis, to begin with, made it clear that his diagnosis of spiritual diseases was not just meant for the Curia but for the entire Church. Presenting them in terms of the ascetical practices of the Desert Fathers, the Holy Father said that it was necessary to talk about diseases and treatments because every successful operation must be preceded by a thorough diagnosis, by accurate analysis, and be accompanied and followed by precise prescriptions. His objective in undertaking such an analysis of spiritual diseases is to produce a reform that becomes a permanent personal and structural conversion.

    Pope Francis said that it was normal, even healthy, to be faced with difficulties during the course of reform, which can be presented as different types of resistance. He went on to outline three types of resistance to his reforms, ranging from good resistance, hidden resistance, and malevolent resistance:

    Good Resistance

    According to Pope Francis there is resistance that arises from good will and sincere dialogue.

    Hidden Resistance

    Pope Francis uses the word “nascoste” to describe this type of resistance, which has the meaning of covert, underhand and stealthy. He says this resistance arises from petrified or frightened hearts that speak empty words in the spirit of the “Gattopardismo” (A reference to a character in an Italian novel and film) who verbally says he is ready to change, but wants everything to remain as before. (The Vatican translates “Gattopardismo” as ‘spiritual window dressing’). “Gatopardismo or lampedusiano” is an Italian political term that has its origin in the novel El gatopardo, by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa (1896-1957). It refers to a political approach of “changing something so that nothing changes”.

    Malevolent Resistance [resistenze malevole]

    Pope Francis told the Roman Curia that malevolent resistance came from distorted minds which occurs when the devil inspires “cattive” intentions, bad or wicked intentions [che germogliano in menti distorte e si presentano quando il demonio ispira intenzioni cattive]. He said that such malevolent resistance often appears “under the guise of lambs”. This last type of resistance hides behind words of self-justification, and accusations, taking refuge in traditions, in appearances, in formalities, in what is known, or wanting to make everything personal without distinguishing between the act, the actor and the action.

    Pope Francis concluded his “analysis” of resistance by indicating that he welcomed all resistance, even the ones he judged less good, because the absence of a reaction was a sign of death. The Holy Father said good resistance, and even the less good, are necessary and deserve to be heard, accepted and encouraged because it is a sign that the body is alive.

    Comment

    Some of Pope Francis’s comments on resistance were ‘anticipated’ by Fr Antonio Spadaro, his close confidant, in his op ed for CNN about the cardinals’ dubia. He distinguished between good dialogue and bad dialogue to explain why Pope Francis responds to some debate and not others:

    Fr. Antonio Spadaro: An open and interesting debate

    I think that Amoris Laetitia has created an open and interesting debate within the Catholic Church thanks to Francis, a Pope who never blocks dialogue, if it is loyal and motivated by the good of the Church.

    The case, however, of those who use criticism for other purposes or ask questions in order to create difficulty and division, would be different, of course.

    The interesting questions of the four cardinals, in reality, were already raised during the Synod, where the dialogue was deep, extensive and most of all, frank. Amoris Laetitia is only the mature fruit of Francis’ reflection after listening to everyone and reading the Synod’s final document.

    In outlining different types of ‘resistance’ it appears that Pope Francis and his inner circle are judging the motives and integrity of those who question and challenge the “reforms” which this pontificate is imposing on the Curia and entire Church. The word ‘resistance’ in itself has a negative connotation and appears to show an opposition to real dialogue. Instead of judging the actions of their critics, they appear to be judging their hearts and condemning them as coming from bad motives. Pope Francis goes so far as to suggest that some critics resisting his reforms have distorted minds inspired by the devil.

  2. Francis and his cadre are not merely appearing to judge the internal motives of the “resistors”, they ARE doing so.

    It is perfectly clear from this:

    “Pope Francis told the Roman Curia that malevolent resistance came from distorted minds which occurs when the devil inspires “cattive” intentions, bad or wicked intentions [che germogliano in menti distorte e si presentano quando il demonio ispira intenzioni cattive]. He said that such malevolent resistance often appears “under the guise of lambs”. This last type of resistance hides behind words of self-justification, and accusations, *taking refuge in traditions*, in appearances, in formalities, in what is known, or wanting to make everything personal without distinguishing between the act, the actor and the action.”

    Note: ‘malevolent’ means literally ‘bad willing’: an indisputable judgment of the internal intentions of persons.

    Note also: ‘cattive’, ‘bad’, ‘wicked’ intentions: an indisputable judgment of the internal intentions of persons.

    So Francis has made multiple judgments of the personal intentions of his adversaries.

    Now note the breathtakingly blind hypocrisy: This Francis, who is constantly judging the internal intentions of others, thus judging their persons, within the same breath proceeds to accuse the “resistors” of doing exactly what he just did: “wanting to make everything personal, without distinguishing between the act, the actor and the action.”

    And then he has the further gall to criticize the ‘hidden resistors’; those who resist his program in an underhanded, stealthy way.

    It’s obvious that Francis is speaking of the allies of the four cardinals, but he does not come right out and say it like a man. He talks in his usual secretive, effeminate, passive/agressive manner, thus practicing the same underhanded stealth he is in the very act of condemning.

    This man is utterly blind to the Holy Spirit; a distorted mind, inspired by the devil.

    And *that* may be a personal judgment, but unlike Francis’ judgments, it’s also factual; Francis has exposed his own hypocrisy with indisputable clarity, as an *objective* reality.

    The four cardinals and their allies, on the other hand, present no actual evidence, unlike Francis does, of such judgment of persons. Pope Who-Am-I-To-Judge is once again rashly judging.

    Some of us are getting bone tired not only of this man’s Pharisaical hypocrisy, but his constant, pointless, personal, judgmental pop-psychoanalysis.

    Such blindness is hardly cured, but we’ll need to do a ton of prayer and penance in order to even hope that it will be. And while we’re at it, let’s pray that we ourselves be cured of the same, if need be, and/or preserved from it.

    As to Spadaro’s sputum, I just have a couple of questions:

    1) If Francis “never blocks dialogue” unless it is disloyal, HOW was it disloyal of the Four Cardinals to *privately* submit their dubia, as they initially did, since that in no way created any “difficulty and division”. And so why couldn’t Francis dialogue with them? Why did he have to force the Cardinals to go public? Is not the difficulty and division therefore Francis’ own fault?

    2) You will say that those questions were already raised during the Sin Nod. Ah!, in that case, Francis must have good answers to them; the “mature fruit of his reflection”! So why doesn’t he answer NOW?

    We both know what the answers are.

Leave a Reply