Go here to read Father Z’s review. I have the book and I heartily recommend it. The pontificate of Francis was far, far from normal, and if it is regarded as normal it will do major damage to the Church for decades to come:
This is not a book for comfortable evening reading as if a novel in an arm chair. That would be too depressing. It serves as a resource. It serves as a public record. It is hard evidence. It is a thorough prosecution.
So, I’m shocked, shocked that there is such a book. I’m as shocked as Capt. Renault.
Seriously, the book is shocking. We can, over years, allow the details of what Francis & Co. did and said to slip away in the rear view mirror. But once they are all recalled, laid out and detailed, the results are truly shocking.
The book is also shocking for me, as a priest and, especially, as a convert. As a new Catholic who came into the Church in the years of the vigorous John Paul II, and who was ordained by him, and who got to know well Card. Ratzinger, I have as Catholics ought a deep respect for the papacy. I venerate the office of the Vicar of Christ and the munus Petrinum because they are willed by God for the good of souls.
I am not shaken in my respect for the office of the Vicar of Christ, the munus Petrinum. We must distinguish between the office and the men who obtain it.
How far will Robert Prevost take the Francis pontificate? Attached from Twitter –> 1983: meet a young Robert Prevost, the future Pope Leo XIV, protesting alongside other Catholic priests against the Cruise missiles installed by Reagan at the U.S. base in Comiso, Sicily. Supposedly Prevost joined a march organized by the Italian Communist Party.
Francis’ pontificate made a big mess, that was the goal: “make a mess”.
Leo’s taking up things and providing direction: “manage the mess… make it seem normal”.
Which will be worse(?)
As I understand it, LQC, (from Anthony Stine’s podcast), the “Young Augustinians” group of which Prevost was a member was itself organized and sponsored by the Italian Communists. Whether this was well known at the time is uncertain, to my limited knowledge.
I have read some comments from authoritative sources that, while not revealing confidential information from the conclave that elected Francis, give rise to concerns that indicate the process more closely resembled a political convention rather than a religious duty and function. If true, it goes a long way to explaining some of the actions and statements of some our higher clergy that cause unrest in the pews.