“No Catholic Likes to Criticize the Pope, But We Could no Longer RemainSilent” — Interview with Palmaro and Gnocchi

Thursday, October 17, 2013


(Milan) This 9th of October, Philosophy of Law Professor Mario Palmaro and journalist Alessandro Gnocchi published this in the daily newspaper “Il Foglio”, a tough but clear-cut criticism of the pontificate of Pope Francis up to now ( see separate report in German). A text which has been interpreted as a “charge” and “admonition” of the Pope. The article caused a stir, found much approval, but fell off the rails because of its “too hard” criticism. Not only that, even on the day of publication, both were terminated after ten years of collaboration with Radio Maria Italy. Program Director, Don Livio Fanzaga, justified the drastic decision because criticism of the Pope is “incompatible” to the position of a facilitator of Radio Maria.The station had “clear principles”: it is “loyal to the Pope and his teaching and his pastoral guidelines”. So it had been under John Paul II and Benedict XVI., and it has been also under Francis. The daily newspaper “Libero” gave an interview to the two Catholics fired.

Let’s start with the article: What the Pope has said or done, that two Catholic journalists don’t like?

There are two problematic aspects: form and content. Francis adopted a behavior and a style that is leading to the unraveling of the papacy in its formal structure, which tends to lead towards a dissolution of the Pope to one bishop among many, and not the “sweetness of Christ on earth”, of which Saint Catherine of Sienna speaks.

At the level of content not only ambiguity is found in the interviews of the Civiltà Cattolica and the Repubblica, but objective philosophical and doctrinal errors.

We speak to each other as fellow journalists: We discuss the classic case of a non-message. Here are two baptized Catholics who have heard for months what the Pope says and for months experienced discomfort, while that’s obviously what they hear are very large steps away from what the doctrine says. At the end, after all, it is their job to write and comment, write and comment on them. Thus, it provides not only a basic rule of information, but also the Church law. The letter to Scalfari, the interview with Scalfari, the interview with the Civilta Cattolica , are only the most recent, glaring examples. They went around the world, they led to calls for revolution, they amazed thousands upon thousands of Catholics, and thus souls, and no one has something to say?

In contrast, there is a unanimous choir of jubilation, extending to certain conservative Catholics like Enzo Bianchi, Hans Küng to the open church haters like Pannella.

You have criticized the interview granted to Eugenio Scalfari. The interview was not right or the interviewer?

The choice Eugenio Scalfaris is unprecedented and leaves many Catholics stunned. He is not only a Laicist or a non-believer, but a historical antagonist of catholicity. The daily La Repubblica is the symbol of a radical chic culture that has made divorce and abortion the supporting pillars of a new nihilistic society in which there is no room for Christ and the Sacraments. It would have been otherwise had Scalfari to met him in a discreet way to talk with a view to his own good and in the hope of his conversion.

In connection with the Pope’s interview Civilta Cattolica, you say that it puts the propositions of the teaching on abortion and mercy in opposition. What does that mean?

The first form of charity is the truth. The good doctor does not conceal from the patient the severity of his illness, in order that he can cure it. God wants to forgive us ceaselessly, but he expects us to repent, to acknowledge it, that we have sinned. A church that is silent on morality, not clashing with the world, it would be lacking in charity toward sinners. It is easy to say that the 300 dead off Lampedusa is “a shame”. Much harder it is to say that 300 aborted children is a far greater shame.

And for this and other reasons, you have the “Normalists” criticized the Catholics who, in contrast to the secular press wish to realize a revolution against the Church’s Magisterium. But what has changed in reality?

We have a very simple reason for why we describe these as Normalists. These gentlemen do in six months none other than to conceal the errors of Pope Francis: the conscience of ethics, bioethics, to the religious life. With all respect to good will and good intention, they do enormous damage, because they – by saying it is all quite normal and there had been no change, and say there is catholicity where it does not exist – with an end to ease the bare statements of the Pope as Catholic. These poor ones are given the illusion, that the media is moderately stronger than Bergoglio and think that their subsequent corrections reach those addressees. In reality they do not understand anything about how the machinery of mass media works today. They are not able to correct the Pope, but the Pope is the one who absorbs it.

But even if the Pope should make un-Catholic statements, then why do the Normalists do these things as if they don’t see them at all?

Because the focus of the problem is no less than the Pope. The proper way Catholics see him is as the leader of the Church through history and it would never actually have to criticize. To make it more understandable: if the interview in the Civiltà Cattolica had been by a theologian or even a bishop, it would have long since been criticized in all parts were not fitting.

But aside from the interviews haven’t you also criticized the interpretation of the Pope to the Second Vatican Council. Is not that too harsh criticism?

We stick to the facts: With the Second Vatican Council, the Church openly declared to be open to the world and to want to respond to its expectations. A revolution that has produced their results in these decades: the seminary have emptied themselves, in many [probably most] of them un-Catholic teachings are common, and are even professors’ chairs, such as desired by Carlo Maria Martini, to be given to unbelievers.

You have portrayed Bergoglio also as having an exaggerated feeling with the mass media. Are you not thinking that it rather strengthens the image of the Church?

For this purpose, the answer is always McLuhan: The media creates an illusion that is the facsimile of the Mystical Body, and which he calls “a stunning appearance of the Antichrist.”

But yesterday [11 October 2013] the Pope insisted in his homily to the fact that the devil is a reality and not a metaphor and said, “Whoever is not with Jesus is against Jesus, there are no half-measures”. Does not that contradict your image of a “progressive Pope”?

During these months, Pope Francis has said many things Catholic. But that’s normal: he is the Pope. In our article we have only compared what Francis Pope says about conscience with what Pope John Paul II in the Encyclical 1993 Veritatis Splendor wrote. Well, one says the exact opposite of the other, and we think that no matter how convoluted a turn of brain, you can’t say that they are basically saying the same thing. No one has commented on what we have written. No one has refuted us even a single line. A friendly gentleman told us publicly even to go to confession. [LOL] Of course this gentleman does not know that that has already happened, we said these things in the confessional and the confessor received the answer that he thinks

exactly the same, but he can not say it. This gentleman should also know how many letters and phone calls we have received from Catholics who simply could not take it any more and thanked for what we have written.

These considerations have gotten you fired at Radio Maria. Was this decision to avoid this adventure, or had you already factored it in before?

We had thought about it, but we could no longer remain silent. We were friends with Father Livio Fanzaga before this incident and are there even now. He is the program director and he determines the line. If this line specifies that you must not ever criticize the Pope, when he talks about football, then two such as we obviously out of place. We’re also allowed to say that we do not share this line. You can not stifle the intelligence and can not censor more than legitimate questions from the outset. That does the Catholic world no good and it does the Church no good. If something creates a certain bitterness, then the fact that the call came after ten years of working two hours after the article appeared, without even a moment to think about it. Ten years in which we had the freedom to say whatever we felt it necessary even about hot topics. This rashness hurts.

Do you think that this expulsion was decided somewhere else?

That one would have to ask Father Livio, who is a good priest and a good man.

However, can you stay at a Catholic station and yet criticize the Pope?

Of course, provided that the criticism is not contrary to the teaching of the Church. If Paul of Tarsus had not criticized the first pope, then we Catholics today would be circumcised, because Saint Peter wanted to raise the standard. If Saint Catherine had not rebuked the Popes, the Pope would still be sitting in Avignon Pope today.

The Pope seeks dialogue with many people with various militant atheists. You can expect his phone call? That he would like to hear the reasons of two staunch Catholics and perhaps intervened to get you back broadcasting on the radio?

We think that it would be much better if the Pope dedicated himself to his office: to encourage his flock in the true faith, the Catholics due again that they know the catechism and the Doctrine of the Faith, and to work for it, so that those who are far away are converted.

Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Una Fides

Monday, October 14, 2013

Scandal: Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Pozzo Leave Hall During Sandro Magister Lecture

(Rome) to a scandal occurred in Rome during the presentation of the conference proceedings on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum on the 10th of October at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) during proceedings of the presentation of collected papers of the Third Conference on Summorum Pontificum, which had taken place in 2011. Raymond Cardinal Burke, Professor Giovanni Turco and the Vaticanist Sandro Magister three speakers were present. Cardinal Burke recalled in his address to the “real reasons” why Pope Benedict XVI. in 2007, issued the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum: “to guarantee the right of all believers for this Rite, and for mutual enrichment between the new and the old.” We could understand the comments as a criticism of Pope Francis, in his Civilta Cattolica interview of the motives of Benedict XVI. downplaying the granting of Summorum Pontificum and trying to reinterpret it. The Cardinal also recalled Benedict’s suffering, which he expressed in his letter to all the bishops, with the declared purpose and meaning of the Motu Proprio. A condition that was related to the liturgy and with the changes. An affliction that I witnessed and felt even in small and large seminar on the cardinal. Cardinal Burke Recalled the “Real Reasons” for Summorum Pontificum Giovanni Turco, Professor of Political Philosophy talked about the importance of Summorum Pontificum as the right of every believer “to have the non-suppression of the traditional rite.” He also spoke about the over hasty and sloppy abolition of Latin and its translation into the national languages, pointing to translation errors corresponding in real doctrinal error. Magister Effected Polite but Harsh Criticism of Decisions in the Liturgy by Pope Francis Finally, Sandro Magister gave his contribution as a lecture on which Katholisches.info already reported (see separate report Pope Francis and the Liturgy – “Pure Functional Access” Reservations to Tradition, weakness in the knees before the Lord ). Master analyzed in a critical manner, the previous decisions of Pope Francis in the Liturgy: The ban for celebration in the old rite by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the dismissal of all five consultants for the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, who were close to the liturgical understanding of Benedict XVI., the refusal to genuflect in the Holy Mass at the words of consecration, although from papal Mass to papal Mass always newly master of ceremonies Guido Marini always included the two relevant points and finally the halting by CDF, that they no longer check the bizarre special forms in the Mass of the Neocatechumenal Way, as Benedict XVI. had ordered. Magister has also expressed the opinion that the Pope is “friendly” to everyone, “except with the traditionalists.” “Scandal Currently The Dominant Characteristic of Climate in Rome” The lecture finally came to a scandal. Magister so openly expressed his criticism of Pope Francis, that Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Pozzo had to leave the room. “The response of Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Pozzo is indicative of the currently prevailing climate in Rome,” the website

Chiesa e Postconcilio (Church and Post-Conciliar). “Was it because of the time for both of them or was it simply a precaution, because of the polite but harsh criticism by Magister of Pope Francis? The withdrawal of a Cardinal during a major event is something glaring. All interpretations are allowed, “said the Spanish Catholic blogger Francisco de la Cigoña. Text: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Giovani e Tradizione Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com


About The Voice Of Bombay's Catholic Laity

Bombay Laity Ezekiel’s Chapter 3 Task as Watchman 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.
This entry was posted in Church Worldwide news. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s