Bergoglio Disclosed. Tell Me How You Speak and I Will Tell You Who You Are

Bergoglio Disclosed. Tell Me How You Speak and I Will Tell You Who You Are

In autobiographical remarks, Francis confessed that from time to time he had experienced feelings of omnipotence and of desolation, of disorientation and of the desire for compensation, in a psychological equilibrium that was never resolved. Does that not sound like mental instability? [For more on this aspect, see Deus ex Machina’s Clinical Evaluation of the Francis bishopric of Rome in comment below]

Sandro Magister – 3/2/18

Yesterday, March 1, there was a presentation in Rome with great fanfare, at the curia of the Society of Jesus, of the book “A Pope Francis Lexicon,” published in the United States by Liturgical Press and edited by Joshua McElwee and Cindy Wooden, the latest in a substantial series of studies on the key words of Pope Francis, on his language, on his communication style, which are in fact extremely different from those of his predecessors.

Settimo Cielo as well, a few days ago, called attention back to the oratory of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in particular to the highly uncommon way in which at the beginning of this Lent, speaking off the cuff to the priests of Rome, he reviewed his own life:

> How Bergoglio Is Rewriting His Life. The Years of the “Great Desolation”

In these autobiographical remarks of his, Francis confessed that from time to time he had experienced feelings of omnipotence and of desolation, of disorientation and of the desire for compensation, in a psychological equilibrium that was never resolved.

And his account also seemed to proceed in disorder, on a par with his thought. When Bergoglio speaks off the cuff he is never linear, concise, direct, unequivocal. He does the exact opposite. He says and does not say, restates, contradicts himself.

One glaring recent example of this tortuous expression of his was the inflight press conference on the trip back from Peru to Rome:

> “È stato un viaggio… non so come si dice in italiano, ma in spagnolo…”

But perhaps the unsurpassed example of his sibylline speech – yes, no, I don’t know, you figure it out – remains the response that he gave at the Lutheran church of Rome on November 15, 2015, to a Protestant woman who had asked him if she and her husband, a Catholic, could receive communion together:

> “Non è facile per me risponderle…”

To what extent and in what sense does this manner of Bergoglio’s expressing himself reveal his personality?

The post from Settimo Cielo on the pope giving an account of himself has stimulated a series of comments in this regard.

First of all, the doubt has been removed that Bergoglio may speak in a disorderly way only in Italian but not in Spanish, the language that is most natural to him.

We have received messages from Argentina:

“Even in Spanish Francis is rather disorderly when he improvises, although perhaps a bit less than in Italian.

And from Spain:

“He is disorderly and confused even when he speaks in Spanish. Sometimes he does not finish his sentences. He uses many expressions typical of Argentina, excessively local and informal.”

Having established this, an Italian reader has gone to the heart of the matter like this:

“I believe that Bergoglio’s disorderly and sloppy improvisation is intentional. His jumping from tangent to tangent makes it difficult for the interlocutor to come to grips with anything. This is the case, for example, of the inflight interviews, which he constructs and measures with undoubted political and manipulative skill. A skill that however in the end turns out to be to be short-lived, at least when the journalist presses him.

“As for his recent autobiographical account, the fact that he describes as an age of ‘omnipotence’ the period in which he was a superior makes one think. It reveals an affective approach to power that turns out to be problematic to say the least. The periods that he calls ‘dark’ in his life are in practice those in which he has no position of authority.”

From Argentina we received this other analysis:

“In the first place, Bergoglio’s methodological-expository disorder begins with an idea or a concept, but then moves on to another, sometimes in forced forms.It is not a ‘scholastic’ exposition in the Thomist manner. As a Jesuit he was trained to use images and representations, rather than concepts.

“In other words, his exposition is similar to his way of thinking. Rather than reflecting in an orderly deductive way, he describes situations or moments that are useful to him in exposing or imposing an idea or an image, and he talks about them. This is why his way of expressing himself is ‘disorderly’ or ‘disorganized.’ It is also in part why he often does not arrive at a conclusive idea: it is the listener or the reader who must deduce it.

“At bottom, he is not a trained thinker, he is an intellectual with an acute ability to read the other person psychologically, he knows very well to whom he is speaking and what he has to say to this person. His way of formulating something is of strong impact, it startles, but it does not have behind it a substance that one could grasp to ‘fill the soul.’

“Personally, I have not been able to fully read ‘Amoris Laetitia.” I can not connect ideas or concepts, it does not have a common thread in its formulations. It does not measure up to the writings of St. John Paul II, let alone Benedict XVI.

“At bottom, his thought and way of reflection does not create a school, nor does he make disciples.The people around him are less than mediocre. Only he must shine, unlike the previous popes, who surrounded themselves with outstanding colleagues, apart from a few exceptions.”

From Spain there are those who agree with this analysis of the Argentine reader, except on one point:

“I agree, except on the ability of Bergoglio to read people psychologically. If he really knew how to do this, he would understand that people expect something more to keep listening to him: not a large number of words juxtaposed in an extravagant way, but clear and true content.”

Also from Italy:

“From an overall perspective, I would say this. There is in Bergoglio the typically Jesuit formative-cultural element, oriented more to the image than to the concept, heightened by a personality that seeks impact rather than real sharing – in keeping with his authoritarianism – all supported by a very acute psychological penetration.

“However, the way in which he has recounted his life reveals a basic ambivalence. That which is the exercise of a power of suggestion and of impression is, at the same time, the expression of an unresolved, fragile personality, with pockets of poorly digested rancor. His political and psychological skills allow him to manage this instability socially. But the result is not constructive. I think that with Pope Francis it may never be possible to define in a clear and crisp manner – and even he does not know this – how much in him is the calculated exercise of a consciously destabilizing power, aimed at setting ‘processes’ in motion, and how much is the expression of a personality like his own, unstable and thirsty for compensation.”

And finally, for now:

“In many ways Bergoglio reminds me of Marcial Maciel, the charismatic founder of the Legionaries of Christ. He too, the pope, must be deciphered from a psychological rather than a theological point of view. I am convinced that part of his secret lies in his family of origin, of which, on balance, we know very little and about which he himself says little and in an evasive manner. I am struck, among other things, by the figure of his sister, Maria Elena [in the photo], with that homeless look and oddball mannerisms.

Both Bergoglio and Maciel have, had in common a strong personality, charismatic, but with that surface charisma proper to unstable personalities. Both are, were allergic to going deeper, to intellectual work. Both are, were masters of the art of dissimulation and with a special intuition in grasping the vulnerable points of interlocutors and bending them to themselves. Both with a mental energy out of the ordinary. Both implacable and vindictive towards the enemies, when these are weaker than they.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/03/02/bergoglio-disclosed-tell-me-how-you-speak-and-i-will-tell-you-who-you-are/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

One comment on “Bergoglio Disclosed. Tell Me How You Speak and I Will Tell You Who You Are

  1. Deus ex Machina Clinical Evaluation of the Francis bishopric of Rome
    /

    /
    Deus ex Machina Clinical Evaluation of the Francis bishopric of Rome
    Starts at the 01:48 mark of the video.
    /
    Post-conciliar post-Modernists completely reject the structure of Western Civilization. And I mean completely. They cannot come out and say it directly, so they use a proxy: capitalism.
    /
    So I can give you an example in one term. Francis, who is considered the the head of the international left, thereby being the equivalent of the “head trickster” for the post-Modernist movement presently, regards Western culture, let’s call it the patriarchy, as “phallogo-centric”.
    /
    So “phallo” comes from “phallis”, which is the insistence that what you see in Western culture is the consequence of a male dominated, oppressive, self-serving society. And you might say, well, you know… societies do tend to be self serving, and people in power do tend to act in their own best interest, but attendency is not an absolute, and that’s one of the things that needs to be considered continually. There are no shortage of flaws in the manner in which the neo-Modernists structured the semi-rational Institutional post-conciliar church. And compared to any hypothetical, but completely irrational utopian FrancisChurch, it’s an absolutely dismal wreck. But compared to the rest of the global “religious” sects, and of societies throughout the history of mankind, it’s doing better then they are.
    /
    So the prescribed treatment should be to return to the rational, Phallogo-centric, patriarchal Faith that has underpinned the Catholic Church since its founding.
    /
    So the first thing you might want to know about Francis and post-Modernism is that they doesn’t have a shred of gratitude.
    /
    And there’s something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have gratitude, especially since they live in what so far is the best of all possible worlds in terms of economic conditions. And if your not grateful, you are driven by resentment. And resentment is about the worst emotion that you can possibly experience, apart from arrogance.
    /
    Resentment, arrogance and deceit, there’s an evil triad for you.
    /
    And if your bitter about everything that’s happening around you, despite the fact you are bathed in wealth, there’s something absolutely wrong with you.
    /
    So here’s what Francis and the post-Modernist’s believe:
    /
    They don’t believe in the individual, that’s the “logos” part. Western Culture is “phallogo-centric”. Logo is “logos”, that’s partly the Christian word, but it’s also the root word of logic. Not believing in the “Logos” by definition means that they don’t believe in the “Biblical” Jesus Christ, second person of the Most Holy Trinity.
    /
    They also don’t believe in logic. They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West, such as the pre-conciliar Holy Roman Catholic Church continue to dominate and to justify their dominance.
    /
    They don’t believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is “logos”. Again, they don’t believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. So the reason they don’t let people who they don’t agree with speak on campuses or teach at their universities is that they don’t agree with letting people speak. It’s not part of the ethos.
    /
    Ok, so what else do they believe and not believe.
    /
    They believe that since you don’t have an individual identity, your fundamental identity is group fostered. And that means that you’re basically an exemplar of your race, hence white privilege. Or your an exemplar of your gender, or your sex or your ethnicity.
    /
    Or you’re an exemplar of however you can be classified, so that you are placed in the position of victim against the oppressor. Because that’s the game.
    /
    For the post-Modernists, the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups. They do not communicate with one another because they can’t. So the Dubia will never be answered by Francis. All there is, is a struggle for power. This is why the power centers of the opposition, like the FFI or the Knights of Malta must be pacified and taken over. And if your in the predator group, such as the Traditionalists or conservatives, which means your an oppressor, than you better look out, because your not exactly welcome. And neither are your ideas.
    /
    So that’s what the post-conciliar church and the Traditionalists are up against.
    /
    Prescription
    /
    I would say that it’s time for Traditionalists and conservatives to stop apologizing for being Traditionalist and conservatives. You don’t apologize to these people. It’s a big mistake. They read apology as an admission of guilt. You don’t apologize and you don’t back down.
    /
    You young people who are the students, you need to take over the student unions. You need to take them back, because they are absolute snake pits and they have been since the 1990’s. Older people who are the parishioners, you need to take over the parishes. You need to take them back, because they are absolute snake pits and they have been since the 1970’s.
    /
    So that’s what the Traditionalists and conservatives, true Catholics are up against. I mean, what’s happened is, also as a consequence of this post-Modernist neo-Marxist intellectual invasion is that the center keeps moving. It’s moved way to the right now, so if your classical conservative, you’ve move far closer to the Traditionalist, and this phenomenon is self evident.
    /
    And so for all of you who are interested in pursuing the Traditional agenda, there are a lot of post-conciliar conservatives that you can be talking to. Especially on the parish level.
    /
    And then finally with regards to talking to, and even proselytizing young people, you finally have something to sell to them. It’s not easy to sell quasi-logical post-conciliar conservatism to young people because they want to change things by their very nature. By selling them Traditionalism, you are selling them change, meaningful change and a coherent, comprehensive Faith firmly grounded in Reason.
    /
    But that’s not what conservatives want to do by their very nature. They want to maintain things as they are. Well, now you’ve got something to sell to young people.
    /
    You can sell them salvation through acquiring meaning in their lives, derived through acceptance of responsibility and aided of actual grace.
    /
    The left is selling them rights and license. You can sell them responsibility as a path to meaning which simultaneously is the true path to salvation, “worked out in fear and trembling”.
    /
    Epilogue from Dr. Peterson:
    /
    “And I can tell you, because I’ve received many letters, (…) young people are absolutely starving for someone to provide them with the sense of responsibility.
    /
    And say, look, here’s something worth living for, man!
    /
    You know, you can find meaning in life with freedom, but freedom is a chaotic sort of meaning. And freedom isn’t the sort of thing that makes people happy. It’s the sort of thing that makes people troubled, because freedom expands your series of choices. That makes you nervous and uncertain. But that’s not a bad thing, but it requires that you shoulder the responsibility of the freedom.
    /
    But responsibility per se is what gives your life meaning, genuine meaning, in the face of suffering. And young people are starving for that.”

Leave a Reply