bergoglio's plot to kill the Curia -- part II
Despite the preponderance of clichés and the misrepresentation of the facts, the article featured in the previous post has a point....
bergoglio really does want to kill the Curia.
Well there's the good Curia and the bad Curia.... depending on your point of view.
Here is my point of view.
The good Curia are the Cardinals, priests and bishops that are still orthodox and oppose the introduction of more Vatican II novelties.
The bad Curia are the modernist ones that have infiltrated into the Church heirarchy before and especially after Vatican II.
bergoglio wants to kill the good Curia.... he has no problem with the bad Curia.
bergoglio's goal is to finish the takeover of the Curia by the modernists... and not just any modernists, but the radical modernists.... the ones that want to wipe out the slightest trace of the pre-Vatican II Church.... the ones that want to turn St. Peter's into a museum for tourists.
This is what is euphemistically referred to as "the reform of the Curia" (IMO).
And remember that the Cardinals specifically said that bergoglio was "elected" pope in order to accomplish the mission of "reforming the Curia".
... as if Paul VI and JPII/Ratzinger had not already "reformed" it enough.
Excerpts from "The story behind Pope Francis’ election"
[Do you get the feeling as I do that the "holy spirit" did some arm twisting in order to get some of the Italian Cardinals to vote for bergoglio? Could the Vatican "gay mafia" have had a role to play?]
It was a surprising outcome, and even if Bergoglio suspected something was up, few others did, including many of the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel with him.
“I think it all came together in an extraordinary fashion,” Chicago Cardinal Francis George told the Chicago Tribune.
The field had been considered fairly open, with two main camps each looking for a champion: There were those who wanted a pope who would reform the Roman Curia, the papal bureaucracy — and preferably someone from outside Europe to represent the church’s demographic shift to the Southern Hemisphere. Then there were the electors who wanted to defend the Curia, and they were joined by some who also hoped to keep the papacy in Europe, or even return it to an Italian.
In the days leading up to the conclave, however, Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan had increasingly emerged as an apparent front-runner because he was seen as an Italian who could fix the Vatican, a combination that some said could attract votes from both camps.
"[Bergoglio] is not part of the Italian system, but also at the same time, because of his culture and background, he was Italo-compatible,” French Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois told reporters. “If there was a chance that someone could intervene with justice in this situation” — reforming the Curia — “he was the man who could do it best.”
As Bergoglio gained steam, Scola’s fortunes continued to decline, thanks also to “ancient envies and rivalries,” as La Stampa’s Giacomo Galeazzi put it, among the 28 Italian electors – a bloc far larger than any other country’s, but also more fractious and “inexorably hostile to Scola.”
“In the last few hours there were signs that Scola’s strong candidacy was a giant with clay feet,” Galeazzi wrote.
That night, sequestered at the Casa Santa Marta residence that houses the cardinals during a conclave, the reform camp began to coalesce around Bergoglio.
Also surprised, apparently, was the Italian bishops’ conference, which was so sure that Scola would win that it sent out a message of congratulations to Scola on his election as soon as the white smoke appeared over the Sistine Chapel.
Yet there was to be no Italian restoration.
“You don’t ask why they [the Italian Cardinals?] changed their votes. Nor do you know who changed their votes. But it became fairly clear as we voted that perhaps it was going to go in some other unexpected way, but more quickly also,” said George. “There are surprises. That’s a sign of the Holy Spirit, I think.”