When the Soviets relented from murdering dissidents, they simply declared them all as 'mentally ill'. This effectively rendered them into non-persons, so they didn't even need shooting.
My memory wasn't faulty. There are multiple reports available online from 2017 that Pope Francis had six months of psychoanalysis when aged 42. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume he has very much personal knowledge of mental illness.
I can't help but believe that Pope Francis is working vigorously to hasten a schism, knowingly and willingly.
This is the impression that I have as well. He seems to be pretty confident that there will be a schism. It's almost as though he can't wait for it.
I remember this well. Solzhenitsyn wrote about this. I see this scary trend in demonizing enemies,---in words from the Vatican. "They are mentally ill--" and then the tell tale phrase "we must accompany them"
Yes! Wouldn´t he love to get rid of Burke, Sarah and Brandmuller and the few "troublemakers" who dare oppose him and pack the court with the likes of James Martin, Cupich, Zuppi, Sorondo, Paglia etc. etc.
Please God, people aren't as exercised by what he has to say as he is himself. The biological solution is fast approaching for him. He perhaps has hopefully left it too late. His coterie of heretics and apostates is rather small, so that he has to keep reappointing them to positions of power, even if they have disgraced themselves. We blame so many bishops and priests for keeping quiet, but maybe they are just waiting patiently for him to go away. He is perhaps seeming to make a greater impact than he actually is, because of the shock value of his statements. However, most people are not as aware of the details of their Faith as the people who frequent this forum. I'd say most Catholics simply think of him a nice man, in as much as they think of him at all. Nearly all these nuances are lost on them. Ironically, the biggest threats to his plans might be indifference. God works in mysterious ways.
At the moment I have a higher opinion of Hilary Clinton than I do of Pope Francis Actually I believe he mentioned quite some time ago that the would not be too bothered by a Schism, so this is not new news. I can see where he is coming from. The Modernists are now at the helm, if there was a schism they would get all the dough and all the infra structure (including Vatican City) . The Liberal Media and Governments would back them like crazy. All that they would be loosing would be the people who ask questions.
It is worth reading the comments on this article also if you have the time. Pope Francis speaking to journalists on the papal plane from Madagascar, Sept 10, 2019. (Edward Pentin/EWTN News) Sep. 10, 2019 Pope Francis Addresses Criticism of His Pontificate and Discusses ‘Schism’ On the papal plane from Madagascar on Tuesday, Pope Francis said he always welcomes constructive criticism but not ‘pills of arsenic’ which he says can come from ‘rigid’ critics who hide behind orthodoxy and should be treated ‘with meekness.’ Edward Pentin http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-defends-himself-and-discusses-schism In one of his most pointed answers during his inflight press conference from Madagascar, the Pope addressed the subject of his critics, how he responds to them, and whether he is concerned about schism within the Church. He was answering a question raised in response to his remark on the plane to Mozambique last week when he told a journalist: “For me it’s an honor if Americans attack me.” Here below is the full question and answer. The translation is provided by the Vatican which unusually published quickly the full transcript of the press conference: Jason Horowitz (New York Times, United States): On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening? Pope Francis: First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms. After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently. *** My comments: Pope Francis stated "Let there be dialogue" but he has done everything he can to shut down the voices of the orthodox clergy and laity. He didn't dialogue with the four Dubia cardinals and to my knowledge no orthodox clergy were invited to the Youth Synod or the Sex Abuse Summit both in Rome or the World Meeting of Families in Dublin which were all held within the last 13 months or so. In addition, the orthodox clergy and laity working and in attendance at the John Paul Institute have either been replaced of their position and/or ignored. How the pope can say that he copies Saint Pope John Paul II is beyond me. He is dialoguing with others just not anyone who is upholding the doctrines and traditions of the Church. But we all know this and so does he. And where are the results of the investigation of Vigano's claims? Is this another example of "dialogue"? The only very controversial thing that I can remember being addressed in the past 1.5 years is the sex abuse allegations in Chile but I can't help wonder if that was a bit of a PR thing. Just look at what it resulted in for those possibly pushing a homosexual agenda in the Church. We had Juan Carlos Cruz tell us that Pope Francis said that God made him that way, of course, eluding to his homosexuality.
HH, To read the comments you need to click on that grey bar at the bottom of the article with "View Comments" on it to see them. I hope that I helped. Click on this at the bottom of the NCR article:
The only reason anything happened in Chile is because he originally misjudged the way the wind was blowing and attempted to defend the abusers, accusing the accusers of being liars. He had to very quickly row back. Other than that, he has equivocated and procrastinated, not surprisingly since so many of his supporters have turned out to be perverted abusers. It is ironic to see this most rigidly ideological of popes project his rigidity onto his opponents. I know of no historical situation to compare with the present. Schisms generally seem to have involved factions walking away from the Church in somewhat of a huff, leaving the traditional Church behind. On this occasion, it is the radicals who imagine they have become the establishment, but I expect it is more likely that the traditionalists, in the knowledge of their truth and with the support of the Holy Spirit, will grin and bear it and cling on to Mother Church, no matter what they do in Rome. Additionally, when the true nature of the radical faction becomes more overt, when the threatened compromises with the abortionists and the complicity with the climate tyrants become more apparent and the attempt to establish homosexual abuse as respectable come to light, I think we might be surprised how many 'rigid' Catholics still exist. The ambiguous comments by Pope Francis about homosexuality over the years suggest he is dubious whether the machinations of perverts like Martin will gain universal acceptance.
I recall in the late 80's, at a men's retreat in the Chicago area, Father John Hardon said then that the schism is defacto already taking place. No wonder he was so hated by his fellow Jesuits.
Not that I know of, but one could say with some certainty, that Cardinal Ratzinger alluded to as much without calling it out when he prophesied in 1969 that the "church would become very small, but very holy". He was not in any way advocating for schism, but could obviously see it coming even back then.
I have no problem believing in global warming or climate change or whatever one wants to call it. But, it is only man-made via sin! It is the result of grave sins against God and his 10 commandments He simply lifts his restraining arm, as man embraces emphatically the sins of this world and gives the devil more power.......for a time. Its that simple.
