Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2010 13:20:03 GMT
On the "SSPX Schism in a nutshell" thread I linked to an Attila Sinke Guimaraes post which I had seen linked to by a SSPX supporter in one of Fr. Zuhlsdorf's comboxes. Because of this link I assumed that Guimaraes was SSPX also.
I was particularly startled by his throwaway remark that Frederick Ozanam, the early nineteenth-century founder of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, was such an obvious "modernist" that his beatification by Pope John Paul II must be invalid. For one thing, "modernism" is usually applied to developments AFTER the late C19 - the church historian Ignaz von Dollinger, for example, is not usually called a Modernist although he was generally hostile to papal authority and died in formal schism after refusing to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility when it was defined by Vatican I. Now that I have read the profile of Guimaraes to which I linked above, I can see better where this particular burst of dementia is coming from - because he sees the French revolution as a force for radical evil, he regards any form of Catholic liberalism, however defined - anything short of a return to Catholic absolute monarchy - as a deal with the devil.
Having taken another look at the Guimaraes article, it seems to be me to be nearer sedevacantism than the SSPX. It also seems to me to exemplify a style of writing I have come across in some traditionalist authors - Malachi Martin and Paul Kramer are two examples - which works by innuendo rather than structured argument, assuming and insinuating the worst about the hierarchy and the Vatican at every opportunity, while always leaving themselves wiggle-room so they can't be pinned down to a precise statement.
A fisking follows. My comments are in square brackets:
THE CANONIZATION OF WOJTYLA, THE MORAL-FREE POPE
- One of the first declarations of Pope Ratzinger was that Karol Wojtyla would be set on a fast track toward canonization. [It is just possible that Guimaraes as a Brazilian may have adopted the Italian habit of referring to Popes by surname - e.g. Papa Pacelli for Pius XII, Papa Mastai for Pius IX - but its effect in English is to insinuate that they are not really Popes. I notice that he does also refer to "John Paul II" and "Pope Benedict XVI", which implies that his earlier use of the surnames is a conscious choice to be disrespectful.]
On May 13, Ratzinger announced he had dispensed with rules that normally impose a five-year waiting period before beatification can even start. Actually, he was just repeating what he had already stated before he was chosen Pontiff on the eve of the conclave.
Given the favorable hullabaloo that the media raised over the death of John Paul II [appears to insinuate that the widespread emotional response to Pope John Paul's final sickness and death was an irrational "hullabaloo" completely artificially created by the media rather than a spontaneous and appropriate response by large numbers of the faithful, albeit encouraged by meda coverage of the Pope's last days and funeral] Ratzinger’s comment on the eve of the conclave about speeding up the process of JPII can easily be seen as a smart campaign maneuver to attain the papacy. His later announcement of a new track for sainthood especially designed for Wojtyla can also be understood as a way to make himself appear more appealing to public opinion, which has never found him so. He places himself under the umbrella of Wojtyla's popularity.
So, regarding politics and tactics, Ratzinger has acted, and continues to act, as a politician persuing his own interest. [The present Pope is thus presented as a Tammany Hall politician whose election is entirely due to public relations management, and it is incidentally insinuated that no-one could possibly have acted as he did in this matter from sincere reverence for John Paul II or any other honest motive. Incidentally the present Pope is sneered at for being unpopular and 'Wojtyla' denigrated for being popular - Morton's fork rides again.]
Machiavelli would have advised the same thing. This kind of “divinization” of close friends or relatives for political advantages was not rare in the decadent Roman Empire. For example, the emperor Caracalla made his brother Geta, whom he had murdered, a god. [The present Pope is thus implicitly presented as a godless Machiavel, and the idea that a special reverence is due to the Papal office is placed on the same leval as the pagan Roman emperor-cult. He seems to tap into theeprejudice that the Papacy is more like the imperial monarchy than the Fisherman.]But, what does this announcement mean on a doctrinal level?
“To canonize a servant of God the Catholic Church demands evidence that is absolutely convincing. Her decree is the last act of a long and detailed process during which the life of the deceased person is examined with a most rigorous critique. The process does not advance unless the Catholic practiced all the virtues to a heroic degree, and uncontestable miracles were worked through his or her intercession” (Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, Vancant-Mangenot, Paris: Letouzey, 1923, vol. II, 2, col. 1627).
Until Vatican II, all Catholics knew these rigorous conditions. The confusion started with liberalizations introduced by Paul VI. Further, the new Code of Canon Law (1983) abolished all the canons (141 canons) that regulated the processes of beatification and canonization. These canons simply disappeared in the new Code. Eliminating these canons delivered a blow of relativism to the beatification and canonization processes. The traditional seriousness that surrounded these procedures vanished and an arbitrary, erratic new system was established.
[First of all, Guimaraes fails to make it clear to his readers that the older procedures were a matter of discipline rather than doctrine - they grew up over the course of the second millennium and were only codified around the time of the Counter-Reformation (if anyone on the board has more precise details I would be grateful for enlightenment). They are thus disciplinary matters, which can be changed by Papal authority, rather than irreformable doctrine - a distinction which Guimaraes fails to make clear. Whether it was wise to make the changes which were made is another question. Secondly, there was a rationale for the new changes which can be found by consulting such works as Kenneth Woodward's MAKING SAINTS, and which Guimaraes also completely fails to mention. This was that the old system involved a lengthy, abstruse, and expensive legal process dominated by a few skilled lawyers. This meant that certain types of candidate - such as diocesan bishops or founders of religious orders, whose successors were prepared to commit the necessary resources to work through it, had a built-in advantage, while other candidates, perhaps equally worthy, might be neglected. It was also argued that a lengthy process had the disadvantage of making it difficult to obtain recognition for contemporary or near-contemporary saints whose experiences might appeal to contemporaries in ways that older saints, however worthy, might not. It may be added that pre-Vatican II Popes dispensed from some requirements, notably delays after death and between beatification and canonisation, in certain cases - for example, in the cases of St. Therese of Lisieux and St. Maria Goretti - and some mediaeval saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi, were canonised within a few years of their deaths.]
What criteria were employed? No one can say for sure, but in the last 25 years, it often seemed that there was only one criterium: whatever Wojtyla wants. This also explains why the number of the blesseds and saints grew completely out of proportion. [Out of proportion to what? Pray do tell. Guimaraes ignores the existence of regulations for the new process - however open to criticism their details may be - and presents the whole process as an arbitrary exercise of Papal will, as if John Paul II had just picked names out of the newspapers or gone into the Congregation for Saints and grabbed up dossiers at random. Similarly, while he conducted more canonisations and beatifications than all previous Popes combined, this should be seen in relation to the fact that the changes were designed to speed up the process and would necessarily produce a certain "clearing the backlog" effect.]
It is my opinion that the infallibility linked to the previous processes also vanished. [On what is your opinion based, sir? If they were infallible before - and the predominant theological opinion is that they were - how could they lose that infallibility? Guimaraes seems to think that his opinion, based on assertion alone, is sufficient to override solemn Papal decrees. Take that view, and what is left of the Magisterium?] I think that no one is obliged to believe that all these new “saints” and “blesseds” are really such.
Another sad consequence: by abolishing the wise previous conditions for elevating a person to sainthood, and by enormously increasing the number of “blesseds” and “saints” in an arbitrary way, Wojtyla gave a powerful argument to the Protestants, who, as everyone knows, abhor the Catholic saints. If everyone is considered a saint, true Catholic sainthood is abolished.
[An increase in the number of saints is not the same thing as making everyone a saint. This argument would only have any substance if some of the new saints were demonstrably devoid of sanctity. This Guimaraes now asserts as follows:-]
In fact, the selection of saints that pleased Wojtyla was far from being perfect. He decreed that modernists like Frederic Ozanan and Angelo Roncalli be raised to the glory of the altars. [By calling them modernists Guimaraes is not just saying they were flawed - he is accusing them of formal heresy, and saying they were not really Catholics at all. This is a serious charge which traditionally is only established after elaborate legal proceedings - but while Guimaraes treats the traditional canonisation process as infallible and irreformable, he treats the formal heresy process as something which can be dispensed with on his own arbitrary fiat. He accuses the popes of being governed only by their own arbitrary will, but this is what he is doing himself - a nice case of projection.] He championed existentialists like Edith Stein and religious indifferentists like Mother Teresa [Again Guimaraes treats highly questionable accusations against Mother Teresa - who has been denounced by secularists precisely for wishing to make converts - as self-evidently accurate and assumes that St. Edith Stein's philosophical approach is intrinsically incompatible with Catholicism without explaining why this is the case], along with others whose orthodoxy of thought and heroic practice of virtues are widely open to discussion.
We also witnessed others be declared saints to repay some financial favors the Vatican received. I refer here to a case of the Vatican escaping an imminent financial bankruptcy that followed the Marcinkus scandal. It has been widely spread that a certain international organization offered the needed money to fill that enormous financial hole. As retribution for the favor, among many other advantages given to this organization, its founder was beatified and then canonized in a very short time.
[This is a clear insinuation that Opus Dei secured the beatification and canonisation of Mgr Escriva through bribery; Guimaraes offers no evidence for this claim other than widespread rumour, and does not declare himself directly but tries to lure his readers into a false sense of their own cleverness by leaving them to fill in the final dots themselves. He is not just saying that Mgr Escriva's cause could have been handled better; he is accusing both the Pope (and presumably other Vatican officials) - and the leadership of Opus Dei of SIMONY - a mortal sin, one of the most serious that can be committed. How would he like to be accused of serious criminal offences on so flimsy a basis? But perhaps he gets his ideas of due legal process from the former Brazilian military dictatorship of which he was and is such an enthusiastic admirer.]
Just in passing, let me observe that Msgr. Paul Marcinkus - responsible for Vatican finances - was also Wojtyla’s close friend and personal bodyguard. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison for many financial crimes but found refuge at the Vatican. Wojtyla ignored the sentence and prevented any one from touching Marcinkus. Since the Vatican is a sovereign state subject to the Pope, Marcinkus remained comfortably installed there until his sentence expired. There is a curious paradox in this case: the same John Paul II who made bad persons saints, made a known criminal innocent. Why? Just because he was his friend…
[Note that Guimaraes does not just touch on the Pope's actions - which are indeed open to question - but puts the worst possible construction on his motives.]
For the festivities of the Millennium, John Paul II had everything in place to establish a common martyrology with Protestants and Schismatics. He praised Protestant heresiarchs Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin so emphatically that his eulogies led one to think that they would be included in this martyrology. If they were included, why not also Photius and Cerularius, the two heads of the Greek Schismatics? He also raised the possibility that everyone killed under Nazism and Communism could be declared a “martyr” - no matter what religion they professed. I have already dealt in detail with these possibilities in an open letter to the Pope (Quo Vadis, Petre? Los Angeles: TIA, 1999, pp. 10-26). Fortunately, at the last moment there was a strong reaction against that “common martyrology” in the Roman Curia, and so far, John Paul II’s desire hasn't become a reality.
[Note that Guimaraes does not offer any evidence for this extraordinary assertion -that Pope John Paul II wished to formally canonise the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and other schismatics - other than his own writings and his assertion. The idea that non-Catholic Christians martyred for confessing the Name deserve some degree of veneration is not the same thing as proposing their formal canonisation. Once again we see the assertion that the Vatican, if it has not fallen into heresy, is teetering on the brink. I wonder does this "revolt of the curia" of which he speaks have any existence apart from its role as a convenient explanation of why a former prophecy of apostasy by ASG has not come true?]
The rigid requirement for miracles became less and less rigorous until we reached a case where a mere cure of varicose veins was admitted as a “miracle” sufficient to raise someone to the glory of the altars. To consider this cure as a miracle is ludicrous, since it is common knowledge that varicose veins can be cured with the application of various creams and remedies advertised everywhere. [Does he mean to say that no condition where a natural cure is possible can ever be considered to have been miraculously healed? Sounds like a Positivist.]
Further, some months before JPII’s death, news reports came from the Vatican stating that even such "miracles" would be suppressed as a condition for sainthood. [These reports were based on what authority? And have they been fulfilled? When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, a "news report" in the SUNDAY INDEPENDENT described Cardinal Neves as a possible successor, omitting the minor detail that he died in 2002. By the standards here displayed this would count as evidence that Cardinal Neves was indeed John Paul II's successor as Pope!]
Now, Pope Ratzinger has put Wojtyla on a fast track to sainthood.
Leaving aside a multitude of disputable aspects of Wojtyla’s life [which of course he does not bother to detail but which serves to arouse his readers' darkest suspicions], let me deal here with only one. Wojtyla’s extremely bad example in morals would certainly annul any attempt to make him a saint. For in the Catholic Church, a saint must be an example of the highest moral conduct. And Pope Wojtyla was not. [So what enormities has John Paul committed? Murder? Adultery? In the following paragraphs Guimaraes explains.]
I present facts, rather than interpretations. I invite my reader to look at the photos I am posting at the right of this article that portray Wojtyla with a variety of half-naked women. During the Holy Mass – at the Epistle, Offertory, and Communion - there they are, exposing themselves blatantly with Wojtyla’s endorsement. Am I selecting a few isolated pictures to prove a point? No. You need only visit TIA website (click here), and you will become weary of seeing other examples.
[These refer to pictures of semi-clothed tribal women participating in public liturgies, apparently from Papal visits to New Guinea and similar places. At this point I will note that standards of modesty are to some extent culturally relative and that by Mr. Guimaraes' professed standards he too is guilty of indecency by reproducing these images.]
Is it only a question of exposure of native women? No. Many times he hosted indecent performances of acrobatics at the Vatican that clashed frontally with Catholic Morals. [Pictures of these are also reproduced - the women are wearing one-piece leotards, transparent stockings and ballet shoes and are engaged in balancing acts and contortions similar to those of acrobats in circuses. While the prudence and expediency of such displays in a liturgical context, and in church, is highly questionable, none of this amounts to positive sinfulness - yet ASG describes this in a tone which could not be more severe were he describing the worst excesses of the Pornocracy.]
I ask Catholics, how can a man who encouraged such things be presented as a model of sanctity, as one who lived a life of perfect purity? No honest person can present such a man as a saint. It is impossible! According to the most elementary Catholic sense, this man is not a saint. [Sez you.]
Now then, if John Paul II is made a saint as announced, this act will constitute an indirect destruction of Catholic Morals. Does Pope Ratzinger have the right to do this?
Let me quote the very famous Spanish theologian of the 16th century, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., who lived at the time of the immoral Popes of the Renaissance [whose activities should serve to put Joh Paul's misjudgements in their proper proportions - namely as a fleabite compared to Mount Everest.]. He stated:
"A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done if the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? .... He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should be obeyed in what is evil; .... The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented" (Obras de Francisco Vitoria, Madrid:BAC, 1960, pp.486-487).
[Having completely failed to establish that the actions of Popes John Paul and Benedict amount to destroying the Church, or that the right of resistance advocated by this individual theologian applies to private individuals as distinct from subordinate Church authorities, ASG concludes]
Given the data presented in this article, and the advice of Fr. Vitoria, it is my opinion that regarding the possible canonization of Wojtyla, Pope Benedict XVI should be strongly and frontally resisted. [Once again it is "we Resist You To the Face", taking St. Paul's criticism of St. Peter as a model. But St. Paul was St. Paul, and ASG is not. And what does he mean by "resist"? It seems to be sedeprivationism - opt out of Papal authority until such time as it agrees with ASG.]
END OF FISKING
That was time-consuming; I'll take the rest of the day off. If anyone can point out any more blunders by ASG - there are sure to be some - be my guest.
This is an example of the "cultic milieu" of schism into which many traditionalists are being lured. This is why it is so important to establish that in criticising church authority there are lines traditionalists must not cross.
I was particularly startled by his throwaway remark that Frederick Ozanam, the early nineteenth-century founder of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, was such an obvious "modernist" that his beatification by Pope John Paul II must be invalid. For one thing, "modernism" is usually applied to developments AFTER the late C19 - the church historian Ignaz von Dollinger, for example, is not usually called a Modernist although he was generally hostile to papal authority and died in formal schism after refusing to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility when it was defined by Vatican I. Now that I have read the profile of Guimaraes to which I linked above, I can see better where this particular burst of dementia is coming from - because he sees the French revolution as a force for radical evil, he regards any form of Catholic liberalism, however defined - anything short of a return to Catholic absolute monarchy - as a deal with the devil.
Having taken another look at the Guimaraes article, it seems to be me to be nearer sedevacantism than the SSPX. It also seems to me to exemplify a style of writing I have come across in some traditionalist authors - Malachi Martin and Paul Kramer are two examples - which works by innuendo rather than structured argument, assuming and insinuating the worst about the hierarchy and the Vatican at every opportunity, while always leaving themselves wiggle-room so they can't be pinned down to a precise statement.
A fisking follows. My comments are in square brackets:
THE CANONIZATION OF WOJTYLA, THE MORAL-FREE POPE
- One of the first declarations of Pope Ratzinger was that Karol Wojtyla would be set on a fast track toward canonization. [It is just possible that Guimaraes as a Brazilian may have adopted the Italian habit of referring to Popes by surname - e.g. Papa Pacelli for Pius XII, Papa Mastai for Pius IX - but its effect in English is to insinuate that they are not really Popes. I notice that he does also refer to "John Paul II" and "Pope Benedict XVI", which implies that his earlier use of the surnames is a conscious choice to be disrespectful.]
On May 13, Ratzinger announced he had dispensed with rules that normally impose a five-year waiting period before beatification can even start. Actually, he was just repeating what he had already stated before he was chosen Pontiff on the eve of the conclave.
Given the favorable hullabaloo that the media raised over the death of John Paul II [appears to insinuate that the widespread emotional response to Pope John Paul's final sickness and death was an irrational "hullabaloo" completely artificially created by the media rather than a spontaneous and appropriate response by large numbers of the faithful, albeit encouraged by meda coverage of the Pope's last days and funeral] Ratzinger’s comment on the eve of the conclave about speeding up the process of JPII can easily be seen as a smart campaign maneuver to attain the papacy. His later announcement of a new track for sainthood especially designed for Wojtyla can also be understood as a way to make himself appear more appealing to public opinion, which has never found him so. He places himself under the umbrella of Wojtyla's popularity.
So, regarding politics and tactics, Ratzinger has acted, and continues to act, as a politician persuing his own interest. [The present Pope is thus presented as a Tammany Hall politician whose election is entirely due to public relations management, and it is incidentally insinuated that no-one could possibly have acted as he did in this matter from sincere reverence for John Paul II or any other honest motive. Incidentally the present Pope is sneered at for being unpopular and 'Wojtyla' denigrated for being popular - Morton's fork rides again.]
Machiavelli would have advised the same thing. This kind of “divinization” of close friends or relatives for political advantages was not rare in the decadent Roman Empire. For example, the emperor Caracalla made his brother Geta, whom he had murdered, a god. [The present Pope is thus implicitly presented as a godless Machiavel, and the idea that a special reverence is due to the Papal office is placed on the same leval as the pagan Roman emperor-cult. He seems to tap into theeprejudice that the Papacy is more like the imperial monarchy than the Fisherman.]But, what does this announcement mean on a doctrinal level?
“To canonize a servant of God the Catholic Church demands evidence that is absolutely convincing. Her decree is the last act of a long and detailed process during which the life of the deceased person is examined with a most rigorous critique. The process does not advance unless the Catholic practiced all the virtues to a heroic degree, and uncontestable miracles were worked through his or her intercession” (Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, Vancant-Mangenot, Paris: Letouzey, 1923, vol. II, 2, col. 1627).
Until Vatican II, all Catholics knew these rigorous conditions. The confusion started with liberalizations introduced by Paul VI. Further, the new Code of Canon Law (1983) abolished all the canons (141 canons) that regulated the processes of beatification and canonization. These canons simply disappeared in the new Code. Eliminating these canons delivered a blow of relativism to the beatification and canonization processes. The traditional seriousness that surrounded these procedures vanished and an arbitrary, erratic new system was established.
[First of all, Guimaraes fails to make it clear to his readers that the older procedures were a matter of discipline rather than doctrine - they grew up over the course of the second millennium and were only codified around the time of the Counter-Reformation (if anyone on the board has more precise details I would be grateful for enlightenment). They are thus disciplinary matters, which can be changed by Papal authority, rather than irreformable doctrine - a distinction which Guimaraes fails to make clear. Whether it was wise to make the changes which were made is another question. Secondly, there was a rationale for the new changes which can be found by consulting such works as Kenneth Woodward's MAKING SAINTS, and which Guimaraes also completely fails to mention. This was that the old system involved a lengthy, abstruse, and expensive legal process dominated by a few skilled lawyers. This meant that certain types of candidate - such as diocesan bishops or founders of religious orders, whose successors were prepared to commit the necessary resources to work through it, had a built-in advantage, while other candidates, perhaps equally worthy, might be neglected. It was also argued that a lengthy process had the disadvantage of making it difficult to obtain recognition for contemporary or near-contemporary saints whose experiences might appeal to contemporaries in ways that older saints, however worthy, might not. It may be added that pre-Vatican II Popes dispensed from some requirements, notably delays after death and between beatification and canonisation, in certain cases - for example, in the cases of St. Therese of Lisieux and St. Maria Goretti - and some mediaeval saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi, were canonised within a few years of their deaths.]
What criteria were employed? No one can say for sure, but in the last 25 years, it often seemed that there was only one criterium: whatever Wojtyla wants. This also explains why the number of the blesseds and saints grew completely out of proportion. [Out of proportion to what? Pray do tell. Guimaraes ignores the existence of regulations for the new process - however open to criticism their details may be - and presents the whole process as an arbitrary exercise of Papal will, as if John Paul II had just picked names out of the newspapers or gone into the Congregation for Saints and grabbed up dossiers at random. Similarly, while he conducted more canonisations and beatifications than all previous Popes combined, this should be seen in relation to the fact that the changes were designed to speed up the process and would necessarily produce a certain "clearing the backlog" effect.]
It is my opinion that the infallibility linked to the previous processes also vanished. [On what is your opinion based, sir? If they were infallible before - and the predominant theological opinion is that they were - how could they lose that infallibility? Guimaraes seems to think that his opinion, based on assertion alone, is sufficient to override solemn Papal decrees. Take that view, and what is left of the Magisterium?] I think that no one is obliged to believe that all these new “saints” and “blesseds” are really such.
Another sad consequence: by abolishing the wise previous conditions for elevating a person to sainthood, and by enormously increasing the number of “blesseds” and “saints” in an arbitrary way, Wojtyla gave a powerful argument to the Protestants, who, as everyone knows, abhor the Catholic saints. If everyone is considered a saint, true Catholic sainthood is abolished.
[An increase in the number of saints is not the same thing as making everyone a saint. This argument would only have any substance if some of the new saints were demonstrably devoid of sanctity. This Guimaraes now asserts as follows:-]
In fact, the selection of saints that pleased Wojtyla was far from being perfect. He decreed that modernists like Frederic Ozanan and Angelo Roncalli be raised to the glory of the altars. [By calling them modernists Guimaraes is not just saying they were flawed - he is accusing them of formal heresy, and saying they were not really Catholics at all. This is a serious charge which traditionally is only established after elaborate legal proceedings - but while Guimaraes treats the traditional canonisation process as infallible and irreformable, he treats the formal heresy process as something which can be dispensed with on his own arbitrary fiat. He accuses the popes of being governed only by their own arbitrary will, but this is what he is doing himself - a nice case of projection.] He championed existentialists like Edith Stein and religious indifferentists like Mother Teresa [Again Guimaraes treats highly questionable accusations against Mother Teresa - who has been denounced by secularists precisely for wishing to make converts - as self-evidently accurate and assumes that St. Edith Stein's philosophical approach is intrinsically incompatible with Catholicism without explaining why this is the case], along with others whose orthodoxy of thought and heroic practice of virtues are widely open to discussion.
We also witnessed others be declared saints to repay some financial favors the Vatican received. I refer here to a case of the Vatican escaping an imminent financial bankruptcy that followed the Marcinkus scandal. It has been widely spread that a certain international organization offered the needed money to fill that enormous financial hole. As retribution for the favor, among many other advantages given to this organization, its founder was beatified and then canonized in a very short time.
[This is a clear insinuation that Opus Dei secured the beatification and canonisation of Mgr Escriva through bribery; Guimaraes offers no evidence for this claim other than widespread rumour, and does not declare himself directly but tries to lure his readers into a false sense of their own cleverness by leaving them to fill in the final dots themselves. He is not just saying that Mgr Escriva's cause could have been handled better; he is accusing both the Pope (and presumably other Vatican officials) - and the leadership of Opus Dei of SIMONY - a mortal sin, one of the most serious that can be committed. How would he like to be accused of serious criminal offences on so flimsy a basis? But perhaps he gets his ideas of due legal process from the former Brazilian military dictatorship of which he was and is such an enthusiastic admirer.]
Just in passing, let me observe that Msgr. Paul Marcinkus - responsible for Vatican finances - was also Wojtyla’s close friend and personal bodyguard. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison for many financial crimes but found refuge at the Vatican. Wojtyla ignored the sentence and prevented any one from touching Marcinkus. Since the Vatican is a sovereign state subject to the Pope, Marcinkus remained comfortably installed there until his sentence expired. There is a curious paradox in this case: the same John Paul II who made bad persons saints, made a known criminal innocent. Why? Just because he was his friend…
[Note that Guimaraes does not just touch on the Pope's actions - which are indeed open to question - but puts the worst possible construction on his motives.]
For the festivities of the Millennium, John Paul II had everything in place to establish a common martyrology with Protestants and Schismatics. He praised Protestant heresiarchs Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin so emphatically that his eulogies led one to think that they would be included in this martyrology. If they were included, why not also Photius and Cerularius, the two heads of the Greek Schismatics? He also raised the possibility that everyone killed under Nazism and Communism could be declared a “martyr” - no matter what religion they professed. I have already dealt in detail with these possibilities in an open letter to the Pope (Quo Vadis, Petre? Los Angeles: TIA, 1999, pp. 10-26). Fortunately, at the last moment there was a strong reaction against that “common martyrology” in the Roman Curia, and so far, John Paul II’s desire hasn't become a reality.
[Note that Guimaraes does not offer any evidence for this extraordinary assertion -that Pope John Paul II wished to formally canonise the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and other schismatics - other than his own writings and his assertion. The idea that non-Catholic Christians martyred for confessing the Name deserve some degree of veneration is not the same thing as proposing their formal canonisation. Once again we see the assertion that the Vatican, if it has not fallen into heresy, is teetering on the brink. I wonder does this "revolt of the curia" of which he speaks have any existence apart from its role as a convenient explanation of why a former prophecy of apostasy by ASG has not come true?]
The rigid requirement for miracles became less and less rigorous until we reached a case where a mere cure of varicose veins was admitted as a “miracle” sufficient to raise someone to the glory of the altars. To consider this cure as a miracle is ludicrous, since it is common knowledge that varicose veins can be cured with the application of various creams and remedies advertised everywhere. [Does he mean to say that no condition where a natural cure is possible can ever be considered to have been miraculously healed? Sounds like a Positivist.]
Further, some months before JPII’s death, news reports came from the Vatican stating that even such "miracles" would be suppressed as a condition for sainthood. [These reports were based on what authority? And have they been fulfilled? When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, a "news report" in the SUNDAY INDEPENDENT described Cardinal Neves as a possible successor, omitting the minor detail that he died in 2002. By the standards here displayed this would count as evidence that Cardinal Neves was indeed John Paul II's successor as Pope!]
Now, Pope Ratzinger has put Wojtyla on a fast track to sainthood.
Leaving aside a multitude of disputable aspects of Wojtyla’s life [which of course he does not bother to detail but which serves to arouse his readers' darkest suspicions], let me deal here with only one. Wojtyla’s extremely bad example in morals would certainly annul any attempt to make him a saint. For in the Catholic Church, a saint must be an example of the highest moral conduct. And Pope Wojtyla was not. [So what enormities has John Paul committed? Murder? Adultery? In the following paragraphs Guimaraes explains.]
I present facts, rather than interpretations. I invite my reader to look at the photos I am posting at the right of this article that portray Wojtyla with a variety of half-naked women. During the Holy Mass – at the Epistle, Offertory, and Communion - there they are, exposing themselves blatantly with Wojtyla’s endorsement. Am I selecting a few isolated pictures to prove a point? No. You need only visit TIA website (click here), and you will become weary of seeing other examples.
[These refer to pictures of semi-clothed tribal women participating in public liturgies, apparently from Papal visits to New Guinea and similar places. At this point I will note that standards of modesty are to some extent culturally relative and that by Mr. Guimaraes' professed standards he too is guilty of indecency by reproducing these images.]
Is it only a question of exposure of native women? No. Many times he hosted indecent performances of acrobatics at the Vatican that clashed frontally with Catholic Morals. [Pictures of these are also reproduced - the women are wearing one-piece leotards, transparent stockings and ballet shoes and are engaged in balancing acts and contortions similar to those of acrobats in circuses. While the prudence and expediency of such displays in a liturgical context, and in church, is highly questionable, none of this amounts to positive sinfulness - yet ASG describes this in a tone which could not be more severe were he describing the worst excesses of the Pornocracy.]
I ask Catholics, how can a man who encouraged such things be presented as a model of sanctity, as one who lived a life of perfect purity? No honest person can present such a man as a saint. It is impossible! According to the most elementary Catholic sense, this man is not a saint. [Sez you.]
Now then, if John Paul II is made a saint as announced, this act will constitute an indirect destruction of Catholic Morals. Does Pope Ratzinger have the right to do this?
Let me quote the very famous Spanish theologian of the 16th century, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., who lived at the time of the immoral Popes of the Renaissance [whose activities should serve to put Joh Paul's misjudgements in their proper proportions - namely as a fleabite compared to Mount Everest.]. He stated:
"A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done if the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? .... He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should be obeyed in what is evil; .... The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented" (Obras de Francisco Vitoria, Madrid:BAC, 1960, pp.486-487).
[Having completely failed to establish that the actions of Popes John Paul and Benedict amount to destroying the Church, or that the right of resistance advocated by this individual theologian applies to private individuals as distinct from subordinate Church authorities, ASG concludes]
Given the data presented in this article, and the advice of Fr. Vitoria, it is my opinion that regarding the possible canonization of Wojtyla, Pope Benedict XVI should be strongly and frontally resisted. [Once again it is "we Resist You To the Face", taking St. Paul's criticism of St. Peter as a model. But St. Paul was St. Paul, and ASG is not. And what does he mean by "resist"? It seems to be sedeprivationism - opt out of Papal authority until such time as it agrees with ASG.]
END OF FISKING
That was time-consuming; I'll take the rest of the day off. If anyone can point out any more blunders by ASG - there are sure to be some - be my guest.
This is an example of the "cultic milieu" of schism into which many traditionalists are being lured. This is why it is so important to establish that in criticising church authority there are lines traditionalists must not cross.