Henry Sire’s critics and the legitimacy of his criticism

[Henry Sire’s critics and the legitimacy of his criticism]
[A series of tweets from the author’s Twitter about his book and its object – The Dictator Pope]
Henry Sire – 7/2/18

As part of my promised ongoing commentary on the deep crisis of the Church, this evening I plan to touch on both my critics and the legitimacy of my criticism of in the .

My critics ( ) have said is unbalanced and tendentious. How do I respond? Well, these two writers are themselves very tendentious, but with a different viewpoint, and it is not surprising that they have criticised me. What I would say is that, obviously, my book is not intended to give a rounded picture of Francis’s pontificate. It is intended to sound the alarm in a highly dangerous situation of the Church. I would add that it is balanced in the sense that it counterbalances the media picture of Pope Francis, which has been one of uncritical adulation. Is it appropriate for Catholics to criticise the Pope openly? It is always legitimate to criticise where there is good reason for criticism. For comparison, one could look back to the reign of Pius XII. Pius XII was for the most part an exemplary pope, but there were some things that were not right about his pontificate. It would have been perfectly right to criticise those things publicly, precisely because it is important that the ideal should not be tainted by bad things, and that people should not be reconciled to abuses because they are associated with a good pope. However, in the present case we have a completely different situation. The truth is that the cardinals made an enormous mistake in 2013 in electing a man who is, frankly, well below the personal standards expected in the papal office. It is no exaggeration to say that Bergoglio represented one of the most corrupt strands in the L. American church. If the cardinals had been aware of his true background they would not have elected him. It is very necessary to try to ensure, firstly that the Catholic world should realise the highly abnormal situation we are in, and secondly that the same mistake should not be made again.

Get AQ Email Updates

3 comments on “Henry Sire’s critics and the legitimacy of his criticism

  1. Dictator Pope official site – 7/3/18

    Henry Sire

    Today I continue my commentaries on the crisis of the Church, from its deeper roots to the St Gallen lobby. Regarding the heartburn about my @NovusOrdoWatch retweet, that potentially explosive story is now appearing in many places. If Bergoglio covered up abuse in Argentina…

    How would I describe the goals of the St Gallen ‘mafia’? The name ‘mafia’ was applied to the St Gallen group by one of its own leaders, Cardinal Danneels. The aim of this group, as it operated between 1996 and 2006, was to oppose the conservative aspects of John Paul II’s papacy and try to prevent Cardinal Ratzinger from being elected pope to succeed him. They wanted a liberalisation of Church doctrine, particularly in sexual matters, and a weakening of papal authority.

    As for the deeper, underlying roots of the crisis of the Church, one must look to the return of Modernism, the heresy which Pius X failed to suppress in the early 20th century.

    The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council failed to see this spectre before them, and gave way to the main trends of Modernism. But what has been even more devastating to the Church has been the destruction of traditional spirituality by the false liturgical reform and the appalling state of the clergy caused by the Council’s deliberately opting for a protestantising theology of the priesthood and discarding the holy model that had served the Church so well in the past.

    Some readers where surprised by my comment yesterday about Pius XII, whom I regard as an exemplary pope, as I alluded to problems in his pontificate. I was referring, amongst other things, to his waning years, when he allowed ‘a Pentagon’ of five cardinals, allied with lay financiers & his nephew, to become a powerful, closed and rather unspiritual clique of exceptional influence in the Church. Even a good, great or holy pope is not immune from mistakes or blind spots at times. How much more this is true now, under a pope who cannot be truthfully called good, great or holy?

  2. According to the conferences given by Canon Gregory Hesse+, STD, STL in the early-mid 2000s (YouTube) Papa Pacelli was indeed an orthodox, pious pope. It is an inarguably fair characterization.
    Yet, Pius XII attended a school notorious for its Modernist tendencies, spent only two years in a seminary and gave Bugnini carte blanche to overthrow the Triduum liturgy in the 1950s. In short, his credentials are often overlooked by hagiographers.

  3. Henry Sire – Dictator Pope official site – 7/5/18

    I my previous book “Phoenix from the Ashes”, I wrote that the most obvious sign of modern society, as far as religion was concerned, was the progressive distancing of the world from Christianity since the Reformation and the movements that followed.

    It was the Reformation that began the corruption of the traditional order, by undermining sacred authority and introducing the rule of oligarchies and elites. What do I mean by this?

    By the traditional order I mean the hierarchical and paternal structure that has been natural to human society since the patriarchy of Abraham and beyond. That structure is also strongly visible in the early Church, even from the first few centuries and when we get to the society of mediaeval Europe we find it markedly parallel to the hierarchy of the Church. With the Reformation however this is overthrown, and it is striking how the most typically Protestant societies develop an oligarchic character a very different thing from true hierarchy. By the movements that followed the Reformation I mean rationalism, the French Revolution, and the ideology of liberal pseudo-democracy that dominates today.

    With the European Union we now have the prime example of an oligarchy masquerading as democracy, and pressing systematically for the elimination of what remains of Christian values in the modern world.

    The common idea about the Protestant movement is the following: it was mainly the result of clerical corruption and simply an honest move of ordinary christians to reform the Church. I entirely agree that the Reformation was mainly the result of clerical corruption but it was certainly not a movement of ordinary Christians. It was led by intellectual heresiarchs such as Luther, Calvin and Knox, supported by kings and social elites, and it is obvious that a moral reform of the Church is not the same thing as the introduction of new doctrine. But the essential evil of Protestantism was that it was an attack on the sacraments and on the sacred as such, and it represented a secularisation of Christianity whose consequences were soon felt in the movements I mentioned earlier.

Leave a Reply