An online publication in an article about Bergoglio* and his role with Argentinian "Fascist"** or rather Military Junta Dictatorship goes off the hook, off subject, off at a tangent while giving "background":
A year ago Catholic Pope Francis came to power over the global Catholic Church after Pope Benedict resigned from office. The unprecedented resignation of a Catholic pope happened within days of Pope Benedict being served an arrest warrant by the same international court that would try Pope Francis in March.
Catholic Pope Benedict's Feb. 2013 guilty verdict came after months of deliberation by 36 jury members and six international judges on 150 cases surrounding over 50,000 missing Canadian native children.
The international jury found that native children were being raped, tortured and murdered in residential schools across Canada - the majority of which were Catholic-run institutions. The 80 schools were jointly owned by the Canadian government, Queen Elizabeth and the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada.
Since 2008, 32 child mass gravesites have been discovered on Canadian institution and native residential school grounds. Even though human remains were uncovered on at least two sites, all child mass gravesites have been refused further excavation. Evidence of the Canadian child holocaust was chronicled in Kevin Annett's book," Hidden No Longer" that can be read for free here ...
It is a sad fact that Kevin Annett is himself an ex-pastor from United Church of Canada. He found his own sect guilty, and he found, as habitually among such anti-Catholic sectarians, the Catholic Church guiltier.
I suppose the international jury he assembled illegally (it has as far as I known not been given legal status by any government) was composed by 12 men all of whom were in one way or another anti-Catholic sectarians like himself. Or victims of maltreatance being pushed beyond competence of plaintiff and witness to that of judge.
In this very sordid affair of pushing off a perfectly legitimate complaint against the English Crown (under Hannover-Windsor usurpers) for signing and especially House of Commons for voting and House of Lords for not vetoing pseudo-laws calculated to kill a people, a crime in which Catholic clergy can not have been abetters and in which Catholics were partly themselves victims, while the Catholic Church was under pressure - a kind of persecution close to the infamous Kulturkampf of Otto von Bismarck (another "great German" that Catholic Germans and Austrians do very well without thanks, but whom Hitler idolised) - with just a little less intensity than Esquimaux and Amerindians ways of life, it is more than one tour that is being very sordid up to the present moment.
One of them - and very much not the least - is abusing a papacy weakened by false ecumenism - or a pseudo-papacy. If Benedict XVI and Francis I are not popes, they are not representative of the Popes being falsely accused by Kevin Annett and their plea of guilty will prove nothing against the memory of Pope Pius XI.
And if Jorge Mario Bergoglio was indeed involved with criminal activities with the Junta, using his culpability - if such - in Argentina to extract such pleas of guilt about Canada, then that also would be very sordid indeed.
So is of course marginalising a Catholic voice that refuses to bow down to such proceedings.
This post was reverted to draft after being for a moment published with only the title ready. How so? I was putting the mouseclick before the first character then in the edition box, I was pushing the "new line" key, and instead of seeing the link now in footnote one glide down a line or two, something else happened. I closed the editing, watched and saw the draft was no longer a draft as it should be.
Was there a bug? Or is there some spying on me and on my writing about the internet?
Well, back to Canada and Argentina. In Argentina the victims were left wing Peronists, sometimes striking such, sometimes also excommunicated by the Church.*** It is possible, though my speculation should not influence anything, that such and such a priest might have considered not just some but all of the ones persecuted by the Junta as rebels against the Church and as a danger to the baptismal faith of their children. It is possible that in such a case they may have concluded that illegally taking children away form parents who were Catholic or lax Catholic except for being left wing was somehow the equivalent of officially and in a Catholic state legally taking away validly baptised children from parents who were not Catholic at all. Like - which was practised under Inquisition - parents who had fallen into heresy soon after taking their children to the Church door, or like parents who were not baptised themselves, but who had given a Christian domestic a right and duty to baptise any child of their who was dying, precisly by her being a domestic and therefore having the child as her "neighbour" in the sense of loving God and neighbour as oneself.°
That such and such a priest may have been involved in such a confused conclusion does not make this conclusion a correct Catholic application for Argentina of correct Catholic principles. That such and such a priest may have collaborated with a secret plot of stealing children°° does not make such collaboration anything like a Catholic action.
But what about the Catholic Church in charge of such a priest?
Now, the Catholic Church has been persecuted more than once before. It was under pressure in the Canadian case, as mentioned. The Papacy cannot control all that happens in the Church as a company can control what happens in a local office of their brand. A bishop is not a simple executive of the Pope. He can be judged by the Pope, he can be deposed by the Pope, but he cannot be under uninterrupted surveillance by the Pope.
If he is under pressure - as both Argentine Junta and Canadian governments did to Catholics (though in the Argentine case not to bourgeois Catholics ... er ... well, that goes in a way for Canadian case as well, perhaps) - he should report to the Pope what compromises he makes and what compromises he is not punishing in inferiors - because he is in no position to punish them. Or he should punish even if taking a risk.
But it is very hard for me to imagine a Pope answering "do it! avanti!" it is rather a case of answering "well, if that is what you need to do ... *sigh*".
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St John of God
PS, as to Canadian case, see previous posts in series./HGL
* examiner.com : Catholic Pope Francis charged, trial set, for trafficking orphans
** I consider myself a Fascist, but in Argentinian context I spell that Juan and Evita. And, a bit earlier, Farrell. To me the Junta was a Communist dictatorship with free market, a bit like China, and with a Catholic sauce on it, a bit like Stalin put Orthodox sauce on his Communist bread of wheat flour with gypsum. When the Swedish fascist movement Nysvenskarne (of whom I am no party member, I resent their history of supporting, as the Protestants they were back then, eugenicism, which Social Democrats with thir marginal support instituted in Sweden before Hitler followed suit in Germany, but with whom I agree on certain other matters) gives examples of Corporativist régimes and codes it honours, they often cite Peronism along with Mussolini's Charta del Lavoro.
*** One or more of the ministers in one of Perón's governments was or were excommunicated, he was himself not so, nor was Evita. Obviously, other members of his following were practising Catholics. One cannot totally separate, nor totally confuse the "left wing" in economic matters, which was later persecuted by the Junta for precisely that reason, from or with the "left wing" as far as Anticlericalism is concerned, such as really did merit to be excommunicated.
° Mortara case.
°° Not of Communists, but of Left Wing Peronists, mind you! Communism is at least a definable party allegiance, precisely as Lutheran or Albigensian is a definable religion, and Communism is incompatible with the Catholic faith precisely as Lutheran or Albigensian tenets are so. Peronismo is not the same thing, and in order to accuse anyone of being "virtually" a Communist (something I did the other day about Pensacola Mayor, but then I am not in charge of anyone able to put him in prison or of stealing his children) is to state it was not just a Peronist, but a Left Wing Peronist. Now Peronist is definable, but not Anticatholic. Left Wing Peronist can be construed as Anticatholic - there were such among them, but it is not definable.