Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture gives us examples of the every day betrayals Catholics have come to expect from the current Pope:
So, in responding to that question about Cardinal Zen’s predicament, Pope Francis answered questions that the reporter (Elise Allen of Crux) had not posed. Before even mentioning the Zen trial, he devoted more than 200 words to the Rome-Beijing dialogue, the Chinese mentality, and the notion that the Chinese regime is not democratic. Again, notice that this question had not been raised by the reporter; the Pontiff brought it up himself:
Qualifying China as undemocratic, I do not identify with that, because it’s such a complex country … yes, it is true that there are things that seem undemocratic to us, that is true.
Once again we have only the Pope’s “impressions,” rather than clear statements, much less denunciations. He does not want to say that China in undemocratic. He does allow, however, that some of Beijing’s actions might seem undemocratic to our unsophisticated Western understanding.
Does it seem undemocratic when the regime jails an elderly prelate, charging him with the heinous crime of providing legal support for human-rights activists? Pope Francis does not answer that question. In a scathing Wall Street Journal column, William McGurn writes: “The pope declined to even say China was undemocratic. All that was missing was a cock crowing in the background.”
McGurn notes that the trial of Cardinal Zen comes as the Vatican and Beijing are negotiating renewal of their secret agreement. So it might be awkward for the Vatican to criticize the Chinese regime. But Beijing evidently feels no compunction about giving offense to Rome; presumably the government could have scheduled the cardinal’s trial at a more auspicious time. For that matter, Chinese officials might have scheduled the latest round of negotiations for some site other than Tianjin: a city where Bishop Melchior Shi is living under house arrest. We are not privy to the conversations that the Pope says are “going well,” but every available indication suggests a thoroughly one-sided process, with Beijing dictating the terms and the Vatican meekly accepting whatever it can salvage.
But will the Vatican try to salvage the freedom of Cardinal Zen? Or will he be sacrificed to the cause of the Vatican-Beijing agreement—like the bishops of the “underground” Church, who were inveigled to resign their posts so that bishops sanctioned by Beijing could replace them? Leaders of other nations have rallied to the cardinal’s defense. It is scandalous that the Vatican, which he loyally serves, will not speak the truth—the truth that China is undemocratic, the truth the Cardinal Zen is a brave defender of God-given human rights, the truth that will set him free.
By the way, a month has passed since I wrote about the arrest of Bishop Rolando Alvarez, who dared to criticize an undemocratic government in Nicaragua. What I wrote is still true.
Inside sources in Rome say that the Vatican has been working quietly, diplomatically, to secure the freedom of Bishop Alvarez, since police of the Ortega regime surrounded his chancery building two weeks ago. But if that is the case, we could add “ineffectively” to that list of adverbs, because today the police staged a pre-dawn raid and took the bishop into custody. Prompting this immediate response from the Vatican:
[Crickets]
Go here to read the rest.
Sede Vacantists hold that we have no Pope. If only that were the case.
Does it seem undemocratic when the regime jails an elderly prelate, charging him with the heinous crime of providing legal support for human-rights activists? Pope Francis does not answer that question. In a scathing Wall Street Journal column, William McGurn writes: “The pope declined to even say China was undemocratic. All that was missing was a cock crowing in the background.”
Scandalous silence in defense of one of your own brings about assertions that hurt the Church, since the leader of the Church is it’s public face.
Defending the criminal actions of the perpetrator is a sign of indifference at best, accomplice at worse.
He is his own executioner.
The father of lies is not coming to save anyone. Phil Lawler should know that by now. I’m sure Cardinal Zen knows, particularly after he defended Francis on the grounds that surely Francis had to be uninformed. Then, when Francis refused to meet with the man who had firsthand information on the situation in China and had come to the Vatican just to inform Francis, well, the good Cardinal had his answer. As for me, I’ve gotten over any disappointment I used to feel over these little updates. God, in his permissive will, allows this trial in his Church. My job is to stay faithful.
Donald could you link to Lawler’s piece? Thanks.
Thanks for pointing that out to me Pauli. Link added.
I repeat one well worn pope’s famous statement of the awful truth: “The smoke of Satan has entered the tabernacle.”
Oh, contrary to the sede’s, we do have a Pope. We just have one who really doesn’t care about us or the Catholic faith.
Exactly, Mr. Dalton. Were the sedes in fact correct, things might well be in better shape.
One could wonder how many members of the Church are showing a lack of willingness to truly commit their lives to Christ and His Gospel messages and teachings.Some of their actions are more suggestive of the worldly hookup culture. After the one and original Pentecost the Apostles and the disciples showed a real commitment to Christ and were willing to present a countercultural message to the world. How many of our Church hierarchy shows the same fire in the belly?. Replacing Gospel authenticity with a faux Church of worldly social justice, How many of these hierarchy have grown to a full committed relationship with Christ and His Church? One could wonder if there was a spiritual failure to launch and we are stuck with a spiritually adolescent hierarchy unable to commit to the uncomfortable demands of the Gospel.