A Traditionalist flip side to Max Bean

Here is a mostly algorithmic translation of an Argentine  blog   https://caminante-wanderer.blogspot.com/  from the 14th of April.  I touched it up a bit I think I got out all the kinks.  I encourage reader to visit that blog even if they read Spanish at a high school level. There is always google translator.

It is the Traditionalist flip side to Max Bean's NCR article of last week.  They both stick a fork in the Bergoglian turkey and declare it done.  Neither progressives nor traditionalist are happy with the Pope.  I don't think that surprises him either.  He thinks of himself as a moderate he thinks that is his strength.  In Greek tragedy it is the strength of the protagonist that turns into a weakness.   

Extra omnes

The images of the Holy Week ceremonies in the Vatican were the best graphic representation
of the current state of the church. A decrepit Pope, with the sullen expression on his face to which
we were accustomed in Argentina when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires and who reveals a tired
man and, above all, disappointed, irritated and saddened by the evident failure of his pontificate,
accelerated in the last weeks due to the unexpected outbreak of a Chinese virus.

Francisco did everything wrong. He had the opportunity to lead the profound reforms that
the Church needs, and he did not. Rather, it exacerbated the problems. His frustrated political
vocation as a ward boss of a Buenos Aires neighborhood led him to claim to become the leader of
world progressivism. They were just stunts, quite grotesque and they only got derogatory smiles,
although they cost millions of dollars. What effect did your daily bravado have on behalf of the
usual poor, migrants, displaced and peripheral? What was the use of the frequent congresses
organized by the despicable Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who let a ruffian like Gustavo Vera, a
communist like Manuela Carmena and a demon like Jeffrey Sachs take professorships at the
Vatican itself? Nothing at all. A clamorous void is the result of this pontificate in agony.

Francisco is finished. That's the truth. All of his attempts at leaderships lie shattered by
clumsiness and ambition. And the best proof of this is his frantic slapping of water like a
drowning man in his latest document. An indigestible document addressed to the "brothers and sisters of the popular movements and organizations", in which he demands a "universal salary" for precarious workers, without explaining where the money will come from.

It is not necessary to be a great analyst to realize that it is nothing more than talk, empty and insubstantial words with which he intends to recover the scarce portion of leadership that has slipped from his hands.

Last week, he appointed Argentine priest Augusto Zampini to lead a "task-force" to think of
urgent responses to the situations that the world is facing in the current epidemic. When I
read this news I wonder if these people are really aware of who they are and what they are doing.
Can anyone with a minimum of good sense think that world leaders and organizations would take
seriously and might be interested in what Father Zampini can advise them? They won't even laugh;
they will not answer the phone.

The Church has long ceased to have relevance on the international scene. “Saint”! Paul VI proclaimed her "expert in humanity" in his fateful address to the United Nations general assembly. We already see where that expertise ended.  Francisco chose to turn the church into a gigantic NGO expert in humanity, and deprived it of its own: the religious dimension. The Cacopardo article I published last week explains it clearly.

The Holy Father's homily at the Easter Vigil is revealing in this regard. He said:
"Tonight we conquer a fundamental right, which will not be taken from us: the right to hope."
The reality is that on that holy night, we did not conquer anything. The one who conquered
death with his death was Jesus Christ, and it is He who gives us new life. Give it to us. Therefore,
this "beautiful humanity" of which Bergoglio speaks, has no right to anything, much less the right to
hope. We all know that hope is one of the three theological virtues and, as such, it is infused into our
soul by baptism as a gift from God. Hope is a grace, not a right, unless the Pope refers to another
type of hope, the immanent hope that clings to the “Tutto andrà bene” and to the evening universal
applause. Yes, that is the hope of Francisco, that of the "color of hope" that they sang to us at the
beginning of the millennium, bland, human, stupid and destined to crash before any difficulty.

Bergoglio also faces an immediate and pressing problem that he will not be able to solve
with bergoglemas or fervorines: the Holy See is bankrupt. If, before the coronavirus, the economic situation of the Vatican State was very complicated, it is now catastrophic, since its only genuine
income, which is what allows it to function as a state - pay the salaries of the more than four
thousand employees, for example - They disappeared, and nobody knows when and how they will
return. I am referring, by the way, to tourism. And the default of the Vatican will not be like the
Argentine default that is also close: in these parts we already have ways to escape, the government
has the machine to produce banknotes and the country has natural and industrial resources. The
Vatican has none of that.

In short, it would not be strange if in a few months the Vatican City state ceased to exist
and, less than a century after its signing of the Lateran Pacts. And although economic
problems came from afar, it was Francisco who stopped doing what should be done and did what
should not be done. For example, he ignored the fate of Cardinal George Pell, whom he had
entrusted with the control of the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and persecuted badly and
artfully the people he himself had appointed to the Referential Pontifical Commission of the
Organization of the Economic-Administrative Structure of the Holy See (COSEA) when they
wanted to bring order to this tangle of corruption. Bergoglio, faithful to his style, preferred to
surround himself not only with obsequious, but also with rebels, scoundrels, useless fools and sodomites  whom he could easily handle because he knew their secrets. So it went.

But at this point it is appropriate to make a judgement. The situation of this
pontificate (and of the church?) is terminal.  What I have described has its roots in what happened decades ago.  Bergoglio was not born from under a cabbage leaf, nor did the stork bring him. Bergoglio was generated by the Second Vatican Council, that great event that opened the windows of the Church to the world. The radical change in the mission of the Church in the world that we see in Frances'  discourse and acts is nothing more than the logical conclusion of what was imposed at the Council.  Bergoglio did not invent anything; He applied what the venerable fathers decided with their vote almost sixty years ago.

As I have said more than once in this blog, Bergoglio would not be who he is if he had not
been preceded by those who were what they were: Paul VI, the ideologist of the immanentization of the Church and John Paul II - especially John Paul II -, the Directly responsible for the spread of the council virus to all corners of the world. He could have stopped the disaster. However, he believed that “neoconism”, staying in the middle and waving the flag of hope was enough. And we have ended
in a resounding failure.

No one knows what the world will be like when this surreal situation that we are experiencing ends.
What we do know is that this pontificate, will enter hospice care with an expected end.