A memorable letter from the Pope to the Bishops of Chile, worthwhile for it to be called "the great Francesco", how great was Peter on the Via del 'Quo vadis, Domine?»

MEMORABLE ONE LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE BISHOPS OF CHILE, DESERVING FOR IT TO BE CALLED "THE GREAT FRANCESCO ', HOW GREAT WAS PETER ON THE WAY OF "WHITHER GOEST THOU, DOMINATED

.

Regarding the story of child abuse cases occurred in Chile, the Pope wrote to the bishops of that country: "As far as I'm concerned, I acknowledge, and I want you to send him faithfully, who have committed serious errors of judgment and perception of the situation, in particular for lack of truthful and balanced information. As of now I apologize to everyone I hurt and I hope I can do personally, in the next weeks, in the meetings I will have with representatives of the interviewees'.

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo.

.

PDF format Print article

 

.

TEXT OF LETTER OF POPE FRANCIS I

.

.

The Supreme Pontiff Francis I on the chair of the Bishop of Rome

Often holiness, or no holiness, when studying the heroic virtues of a candidate for beatification is hidden in small things; I think I can say with some’ of modest experience, since I work on the causes of the saints. It is in fact behind the little things, seemingly insignificant, hiding the greater good, namely the sanctity, or the great evil, ie the Demon.

.

During Holy Week which it preceded a few days before the Easter Sunday, Chronicles from the Holy Gospels have heard the story of Peter's denial [cf. MC 14, 66-72], and we have heard resound the dramatic sentence: "And all the disciples, They left him and fled " [cf. Mt 26, 56].

.

The Blessed Apostle Peter He was also to escape a second time, in their old age, this time in Rome, there it tells the wonderful story known as the Whither goest thou? this episode, contained in Acts of Peter, He tells of the Blessed Apostle on the escape road from Rome, in an attempt to escape the persecutions of Nero. On the way of escape, He would meet in a vision the Lord Christ. According to this tale Peter asked Jesus the question: «Domine, Whither goest thou ?» ["Lord, where are you going?»]. The Lord Jesus answered: «I go to Rome to be crucified, » ["I come to Rome to crucify me again ']. At that point Peter realized that he could not run again, but he had to turn back, to face martyrdom.

.

For several centuries, the Popes They had among their various clothing of shoes red vermilion, the significance of which was deep and precise, with all due respect to certain illiterate de La Repubblica who wrote triumphantly: "The successor of Benedict XVI also waives the Prada shoes» (!?).

.

Prada … Are we joking? Or as is wont to say better: possible that the ignorance of those who presume to know do not have their own limits, men who never sense of human decency!

.

Those shoes redheads, which then he was actually closed the slippers, They accounted for Peter's martyrdom, retreating on the road Whither goest thou, He went to his martyrdom, dragged in chains to the Vatican Hill where he arrived with bleeding feet, to finally be crucified. And, come to the gallows, not feeling worthy to rise to execution in the same position of the Word of God who died and rose, He asked to be crucified upside down. Thus, at the end of his life, heroism that led him to accept the grace of martyrdom, also it joins the supreme virtue of humility.

.

From the seemingly small things is therefore also recognizes the Pope Francis I, who has publicly admitted that he had wrong in assessing the painful cases of pedophilia that have rocked the Catholic Church in Chile, until reaching to assert :

.

"As far as I'm concerned, I acknowledge, and I want you to send him faithfully, who have committed serious errors of judgment and perception of the situation, in particular for lack of truthful and balanced information. As of now I apologize to everyone I hurt and I hope I can do personally, in the next weeks, in the meetings I will have with representatives of the interviewees' [please read the full text of the letter, WHO]

.

From the history of the Church one should take everything, not only what matters to exalt man Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or to bring down the man Jorge Mario Bergoglio in a merciless way. Therefore I wonder and wonder: certain particularly careful historians, but also rightly critical of this pontificate which deserves its fair share of criticism, perhaps they intend to present Urbi et Orbi also the detailed list of the Supreme Pontiffs who have publicly admitted having committed a serious error? Because to want to be honest and realistic, should be told how many faithful servants which, although totally innocent were sacrificed so that would fall upon them the king's faults, that as the King can do no wrong, ever! And the list of these innocents sacrificed the public pillory, it would be a long list what the Autostrada del Sole, on the contrary, instead, King of the list in error, There is?

.

For instance: the Holy Father John Paul II has repeatedly admitted that “the Church was wrong”, He also asked several times sorry, even when certain apology was not necessary and appropriate. That being said I wonder and wonder: perhaps it appears to someone that he, in twenty-six long years of pontificate, has publicly stated only once, for example concerning the shameful case of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ: «… I made serious errors in assessing and perceiving the situation, in particular due to the lack of truthful and balanced information "? I don't know. But it, to the records, it turns out that he claimed that the Church was wrong, asking for forgiveness for his mistakes too, both when it was appropriate and when it was not appropriate. But now pay attention: the Church was wrong, but he was not wrong, because not only the King is never wrong, but if he is really wrong, then someone else's head is sacrificed in order to blame poor third parties, the shame and anger of the people. And pay attention to the fact that we are talking about saints, who blessing God are and remain models of heroic virtue, despite never having been, nor can they ever be, models of perfection.

.

I invite you to meditate on this letter from the Supreme Pontiff Francis, who has done something great with it, especially if we consider that to induce a Jesuit and an Argentine to admit that they were wrong, it is certainly not the simplest thing in the world. All the more reason I tell you: in many other things the Supreme Pontiff may have been induced by third parties, or by real criminals who surround him and try to circumvent him, to throw themselves into unhappy and wrong expressions, but nobody, to a Jesuit and an Argentine, it can convince him to publicly admit that he was wrong. Therefore, this laudable act of humility, it is all the choice of the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, to be ascribed as such to his total honor and merit.

.

This makes him, for the case in question, a great authentic; much greater in this than many of his Supreme Predecessors, also included Blessed and Holy Pontiffs, who recognized all historical errors before the world, real or imagined, of the visible Church, however, they never admitted their own mistakes in any way; and when they have made serious mistakes, sometimes even coarse, they have always let the blame fall on the innocent, and today they are venerated Blessed and Saints. Yes, they asked forgiveness for true or alleged errors committed by the visible Church centuries earlier, but, while under their eyes an immense havoc was done to numerous human lives of young people, many of which destined to remain marked for life - again in reference to the unprecedented discourse of the Legionaries of Christ -, their silence and their indifference was total, up to verging on real cynicism. When then in their beatification and canonization processes serious and pertinent questions were raised about certain of their errors, the requesting answers were often silenced and the speech closed with the peremptory sentence: «The Supreme Pontiff was deceived!». The problem, unfortunately, however, it has not been resolved, why to be, this statement should have been followed by very detailed explanations: by whom he was deceived, when, how and for what purposes. And, said this, perhaps it is good not to go further, because when the emotionality and the ephemeral sentimentality of the present moment and of the "Saint immediately!They will have gone out, the story will risk being very severe with certain figures, on the contrary … terribly severe, and at that point, it will not be possible to put a patch on it in any way, because it was put there first.

.

Amen!

.

From the island of Patmos, 12 April 2018

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:



or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

AVAILABLE THE BOOK OF MASS DE L'ISLE OF PATMOS, WHO

.

.

.

.

.

About Padre Ariel

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo Presbitero e Teologo ( Click on the name to read all its articles )

5 thoughts on "A memorable letter from the Pope to the Bishops of Chile, worthwhile for it to be called "the great Francesco", how great was Peter on the Via del 'Quo vadis, Domine?»

  1. It is certainly more virtuous to think well, even if you can't guess. I only asked one question, And’ really an exemption ? I add another: it makes a difference if the source of bad information is just a rag, or on the contrary a supreme authority ? In Inf. XXVII , Guido da Montefeltro is misinformed by Boniface VIII: what can you do, if not to trust the Pope ? And yet, petty, how he awoke ! Are (purely for school hypothesis) I, who am no one, were informed today by the Pope that there’ hell does not exist, what could I say when I was in it instead ? In conclusion, if we talk about saving each one's soul, it is good for each of us to verify his sources. If we talk about general politics, both ecclesiastical and worldly (for instance, if we talk about gas and bombs) then let's say that a very very high percentage of information is Fake.

  2. The fact that Pope Francis has officially apologized in his capacity as “Supreme Pontiff” after he had vigorously defended his choices in front of journalists on the plane returning from his pastoral trip, expressing himself on that occasion, if not mistaken, like a private doctor, arouses many perplexities in me.
    In fact, he writes, in “Rejoice and” to n. 170: “It is true that spiritual discernment does not exclude the contributions of human wisdom, existential, psychological care, sociological or moral. But it transcends them. AND EVEN THE WISE RULES OF THE CHURCH ARE NOT ENOUGH. We always remember that discernment is a grace. Even if it includes reason and prudence, exceeds them, because it is a question of glimpsing the mystery of the unique and unrepeatable project that God has for each one and which is carried out in the midst of the most varied contexts and limits.”.
    This leads me to creep into my mind the suspicion that the current Pope considers himself infallible by grace regardless of “wise church standards”.
    I will be happy if this worm of mine will be eliminated…

  3. I was misinformed, it is really an exemption ? The first who was misinformed, he heard himself say You will not die, but you will be like Gods. And he passed on the bad information.
    The Pope chooses with authority the people he wants to be informed of, to blame them is again to blame them, albeit smelly.

    1. Given that he has been misled, or even admitting it was him, doing everything by himself, to fall into error, what else should he have done?

      If he hadn't said anything, he would surely have been accused of pride and arrogance; saying something, instead it risks making the figure of Eve who was misinformed by the Great Tempter.

      then tell us concretely: what he should have done?

      Then keep in mind that the history of the Church does not begin with the pontificate of Francis I. Or do you think John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, they were surrounded by saint's shins?
      But let's also go to the popes of the pre-council, to avoid suspicion on the part of some: Pio XII, in the second phase of his pontificate, he was surrounded by such reliable people, who did not even appoint a Secretary of State. E Pio XI, who in an explosion of anger screamed to be “surrounded by snakes”? And some bishops from the French and German areas, that during the Vatican Council I, rumored that Pius IX was a dangerous mentally ill, to the point that some of them later gave birth to the Old Catholic schism?

      I guess she too, like all of us, he will have heard the Gospel of the Passion during this Passover, in which resounds a sentence that speaks for itself: "Then, all the disciples abandoned him fled " [Mt 26, 56]. Add to this the betrayal of Judas, to understand that even the Word of God, he had put smelly rags around.

  4. Hello Father.
    I like to think that his vision is the right one, out of love for the Church and out of devotion to the Roman Pontiff. She says that, precisely because he is a Jesuit and because he is Argentine, Francis was spontaneous in making that public admission of error, with their apologies. Undoubtedly the fact is commendable in itself, as well as being meritorious for the whole Church. I too am absolutely convinced of spontaneity, but – and I hope the good Lord can forgive me for this thought – I cannot exclude that the Pope may not have said those words in a disinterested way, but by calculation… who knows, perhaps aspiring to an image recovery (!?). After all, he gave reason to think that this way of acting is not completely alien to him, also taking into account that he is an Argentine Jesuit!
    I hope I'm wrong, what do you think?

Comments are closed.