Francis in Rome to Worship staffers, using code for “douse the traditional”

Using VaticanSpeak to rather crudely discredit opponents in the liturgy wars:

. . . we can not forget, first of all, that the liturgy is life that forms, not an idea to be learned. [say what?] It is useful in this regard to remember that reality is more important than the idea [again ?] (see Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, 231-233).

And it is good therefore, in the liturgy as in other areas of ecclesial life, not to end up favouring sterile ideological polarizations, [oh no, give me a sterile polarization any
] which often arise when, considering our own ideas valid for all contexts, we tend to adopt an attitude of perennial dialectic [“we”? when he means those other benighted souls] towards [him] who does not share them.

Remarkable cut and thrust when you get down to it.


Thus, starting perhaps from the desire to react to some insecurities in the current context, we risk then falling back into a past that no longer exists [vs. the past that still exists?] or of escaping into a presumed future.

The starting point is instead to recognize the reality of the sacred liturgy, a living treasure that can not be reduced to tastes, recipes and currents, but which should be welcomed with docility and promoted with love, as irreplaceable nourishment for the organic growth of the People of God.

And stop it with your support of perfectly church-legal Tridentine mass.

Pretty turgid stuff, I’ll grant you, sounding as if translated by a Google program, but all in all a case of stern condescension and dismissal. Mercy, anyone?

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject.

When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

It’s how they talk in some quarters, but even allowing for that, it’s more scolding from the man who never responds directly to various criticisms, such as that of “the four cardinals'” asking about Amoris Laetitia, now 879 days ago.

Seán O’Malley, a Pope Francis Ally, plays the game as best he can

You don’t knock the big guy. Your position is tricky enough when you serve an autocrat.

O’Malley believes that the pope understands how important the issue of sexual abuse is: “His encounter with victims has made a very profound impact on his life and his ministry,” the cardinal said. And yet, the Church faces enormous structural and cultural barriers to establishing worldwide policies and procedures to deal with abuse, which O’Malley acknowledged. As for the meeting in February, “My worry is that the expectations in the United States are that this meeting is going to address all of our local concerns here,” he said, “which is not necessarily the case.”

A very sensitive one, at that. So O’M reads his mind or thinks he does, even after being double-crossed.

He detailed his proposal to establish Vatican tribunals to deal with bishops accused of wrongdoing—one of the major problems the Church has yet to address. The pope “was convinced to do it another way,” O’Malley said. “We’re still waiting for the procedures to be clearly articulated.”

Was convinced.

He often described problems in the Church passively, without directly assigning agency or fault. For example: American bishops have asked the Vatican for an investigation into Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal who was consistently elevated despite widely acknowledged rumors of sexual misconduct, until he was removed from ministry last summer.

After months of requests, an investigation appears to be under way. “Certainly, many of us have personally expressed to the Holy Father and the secretary of state the need to do something quickly,” O’Malley said. “I keep getting assurances. But we’re waiting for the documents to be produced.”

Personally expressed does not do it, hence leaks, which are dishonorable, or going public, which is not cricket and gets you defenestrated. Thus patience.

Best he can do in the present moment:

As for the meeting in February, “My worry is that the expectations in the United States are that this meeting is going to address all of our local concerns here,” he said, “which is not necessarily the case.”

Not necessarily does not do justice to the odds in this case. Especially in view of the insulting public undercutting of the U.S. bishops in November, engineered in part by his man Cupich, who could not get himself elected to the office a year ago.

Which is how an autocrat can finesse unseemly independence. You have your man among them, who after the blow was administered, has the chutzpah to jump up and lecture his unsuspecting fellows about what a great idea it was to abandon their best laid plans to do something on their own, as if they had not just got their lesson without his rubbing it in.

Opinion | The Vatican’s Gay Overlords – The New York Times

Gays rule.

[New book] includes the claim that about 80 percent of the male�Roman Catholic clergy who work at the Vatican, around the pope, are gay.

It contends that the more showily homophobic a Vatican official is, the more likely he belongs to that crowd, and that the higher up the chain of command you go, the more gays you find.

And not all of them are celibate [rather, “chaste,” celebate
meaning unmarried]. Not by a long shot.

Ah. And what about chanceries?

Nancy Pelosi Earned Fortune on IPO Stock Through ‘Illegal’ Insider Trading – Geller Report

Lotsa bucks speaker:

According to the House Press Gallery, House speakers earn an annual salary of $223,500, which amounts to a roughly $30,000 raise for Pelosi, who is now again the third-highest-paid elected official in the U.S. federal government (after the president and vice president). Of course, this is a substantial salary by any means, but it doesn’t come anywhere near to accounting for Nancy Pelosi’s huge net worth.

According to Time, estimates of Pelosi’s net worth vary. Roll Call’s most recent Wealth of Congress analysis says she’s worth at least $16 million, but OpenSecrets puts her around $100 million.

She has refused to talk about it. What we do know comes from her financial disclosure reports. For example, she and her husband, Paul, own a house and vineyard in California that’s worth at least $5 million and that brought in between $15,000 and $50,000 in grape sales in 2017. She owns a commercial property and a four-story building in San Francisco that each earned her at least $100,000. She also has stock in Apple, Facebook, and Disney.

Could be questioning her finances is a case of sour grapes?