(New York) The New York Times (NYT) tries to give the impression that there is an organized and conspiratorial group in the Catholic Church that wants to overthrow Pope Francis. And at the center would be Princess Gloria of Thurn and Taxis.
If it were another medium, you could break a smile about it. However, the article was published by the New York Times on December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. The New York daily newspaper is not only regarded as an influential newspaper worldwide, but above all is the leading organ of the global, left-liberal mainstream.
Their weight can be briefly illustrated by two examples.
The New York Times issued the slogan on the day after the 2016 US presidential election that the Internet, which the same newspaper had praised eight years earlier when Barack Obama was elected, as the ingenious instrument of a new grassroots movement, allowed and spread "fake news" which was the only thing that made the election of Donald Trump possible. A direct consequence of this article is the "Fake News" discussion and the Network Enforcement Act in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Several articles show how much careful attention even in the Vatican, the pronouncements of the New York daily newspaper are listened to. Several times Pope Francis responded to direct calls from the editorial office, and not only in the withdrawal of the cardinal dignity of Theodore McCarrick.
On December 8, Jason Horowitz published the article “80s Party Girl Now Has a Salon for Conservative Catholics. "
We are talking about Gloria von Thurn and Taxis. Noteworthy is not the distinctively drawn portrait of the princess in residence in Regensburg, but the attempt to whisper a new slogan to the world public.
The New York Times is introducing the mainstream slogan that there is an internationally organized, conspiratorial group in the Catholic Church to overthrow Pope Francis. It is not said that the princess is the head of this conspiracy, but at least its central hub. Her castle is something like the place of conspiracy.
The story sounds familiar and commemorates the inner-church secret circle of St. Gallen, which Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini SJ, who at that time Archbishop of Milan, founded in the 1990s. The difference: the secret circle of Sankt Gallen really existed, while the alleged conservative conspiracy is an invention of the New York Times. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, not suspected of being a conservative, chatted about the existence of the progressive secret circle to his biographers and self-confidently performed a feat in the 2015 book launch, revealing that the members of the secret circle called themselves "the Mafia":
"The group was called 'Sankt Gallen'. But we called it 'the mafia'.”
Horowitz makes every effort to put the idea of the existence of a conservative "secret circle of St. Gallen" in the reader's and probably especially those minds of the disseminators. In addition, he throws everything arbitrarily into a pot, of which he must certainly be aware.
There is the Princess who invites and collects everything that is against Francis, "conservative and traditionalist Catholics," and of course there is somehow a connection to US President Donald Trump, the archenemy of the New York Times par excellence. It goes on with the former nuncio in the USA, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, with Cardinal Raymond Burke, with the traditional Institute Christ the King and High Priest, although one does not exactly understand how and why, then of course there is Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who prior to his appointment to Rome was Bishop of Regensburg, and even Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart leader charged with the unpardonable "offense," of organizing the successful election campaign of Donald Trump. Bannon is currently trying to repeat his hussar's charge in view of the European elections in 2019.
Reporting by the NYT
These ingredients seem to have more the purpose, even to less religiously interested readers, to facilitate the "political" assignment. After all, it should be clearly communicated who is friend and who is enemy, and that the fight takes place globally. No doubt remains as to which side Pope Francis stands or is ranked. The Wall Street Journal wrote in late 2016, when the first shock over the Trump election victory had passed and the ranks were rearranged:
"Pope Francis is the new leader of the global left."
There is no doubt that there are enough faithful people in the Catholic Church who would rather have another pope sooner than later. There are also some circles who still view Benedict XVI. as the truly legitimate successor of Peter. Thats the one thing. But a very different matter is a conspiracy to overthrow Pope Francis. Of course Jason Horowitz knows that too. If he nevertheless suggests the story, it does not lack intentionality. The most common intention is to distract. Above all, a more typically leftist outlook is projected onto the opposite side. There is more evidence that it has become more difficult to understand each other inside and outside the Church. Even more: On the left side of the enemy's delusion against the right seems to have progressed so far that only the smallest idea of "opposition" thinking and feeling is apparent. It simply lacks the willingness to even deal with it.
The article reveals something else: Pope Francis has become very dear to certain circles of the left-liberal establishment. So much so that since the day of his election he has been generously supported by the media; so much that since then they have defended him to such an astonishing degree; so much so that, if necessary, they are eager to brush aside even serious issues.
Elvina Princess Pallavicini
Horowitz uses another blueprint. He portrays the German princess as a new princess Pallavicini. The Roman princess (1914-2004) once said: Anyone who can transform his house can become anything in Italy, even president. Above all, the two princesses share the faithfulness and love of the Catholic Church. The subliminal comparison honors the mistress of the castle of St. Emmeram. Because one thing the energetic Roman woman did not do: neither conspired nor did she want to overthrow a pope. Nothing would have been further from their thinking, but it's not only Horowitz who does not seem to understand that anymore.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: NYT / Wikcommons / CR (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
AMDG
19 comments:
The Third Secret allegedly portrays a "pope under the influence of Satan". That appears to be what we have. Nevertheless, it is all in God's hands. In his own mind, he is allowing it. We have to accept it but not like it at all.----Both National Socialism and Communism showed demonic ways to control the populace. The key stone has always been the use of the media to influence and manipulate the populace. That would be the NYT and its more than obvious Bolshevik foundation. Here in the Midwest, we have one of the spawns of the devil in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which is just a baby NYT.
I hope to God there is a conspiracy to overthrow this evil man, and who better than the parties mentioned!
A conspiracy? Of course there isn't. I've never heard anything more ridiculous. And may I just use this website to send a message directly to Princess Gloria - Your highness,'The cranes are flying south for winter and the semolina was moved to the second cupboard on the left last Friday.'
@Blotto: Every deep conspiracy has its disinformation specialists. A number of bishops, at least two who were named, were working for the KGB around Pope John Paul II. Reports on them were found in the files of the Stasi when Germany merged.----If it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck and not a crane.
All I know, JBQ, is that the NYT is a turkey of a newspaper and this article ain't the first (or last) canard they've hatched. Big Bird's position seems secure for the foreseeable.
The subtext here is that while it is perfectly acceptable for the left to conspire, the right has no cache to do this.
Hopefully! If these news were true, I would place myself at the feet of such an illustrious lady as her safe and humble servant.
There's plenty of both cash and cache about for the small but well resources knuckle draggers who want Francis the 'turbulent priest' out of the way. Try the cash behind Tom Monaghan's Legatus cronies, Acton, Napa and the AltTrads behind Burke and Schneider as well as the cache of subversives at First Things, Crisis mag, EWTN and the dirty little Spanish clericalist site, 'Bergoglio Denzinger' that generates weasel Acta Apolstolicae Sedis like rubbish.
The big problem with the anti-Francis 'conspiracy' is that it is not centralised but small, discrete and usually run by too smart by half low achievers and self-loathers.
If you love yourself so much, why don’t you tell everyone who you are?
Gaybriel just doesn't stop for a breath, does he? Unless he gets the vapors, that is.
"low achievers and self-loathers."
As apt a description of most post-conciliar clergy today as I have ever heard, to be honest.
Fortunately for us all, heaven is not restricted to high achievers.
Why be so restricted in your chronology, Athelstane? The mediocrity goes way back beyond the narrow time frame of the post-conciliar period.
Who are your superstars? Ray Brown, a man unable to follow his sincere religious avocations because the Unitarians didn’t pay as much as Notre Flame?
Hello Peter,
My claim doesn't speak to the presence of mediocrity in the priesthood in past ages. *Of course* we have always had mediocrity in the clergy.
The difference is that in past ages, the Church was at least getting its share (frequently much more than its share) of the best and brightest (and yes, genuinely devout) to leaven the mass.
In fact, let us just look at Nouvelle Theologie, and like-minded efforts in Catholic philosophy in the mid-20thy century: I might strongly disagree at many points with Rahner, Balthasar, de Lubac, Chenu, Lonergan, Maritain et al, but there's little question that these were first class minds. Where are those minds today in Catholic theology? Elizabeth Johnson, Candida Moss and Roger Haight are not worthy to clean Rahner's sandles.
P.S. I do think it worth noting that virtually every Francis-critical group or outlet you mention is some stripe of conservative or neo-conservative, not traditionalist. God knows that Tom Monaghan has no use for Catholic tradition, for example.
I was going to say, pizza king has more in common with Gaybrielle than we do.
Greetings again Athelstane. When you speak of the past wealth of theological genius you are correct but the talent and energy continue into the present but with a different focus from say before the Second Vatican Council.
A principal reason for the existence and work of the greats of the Nouvelle Theologie (Ressourcement), not a co-ordinated enterprise by the way, was the growing conviction especially in the late 30s through to the 1950s that the neo-Scolaticism that was largely in possession throughout the Church was far too narrow in its focus to be of further use to the Church. The premises, philosophical-theological underpinning as well as its language were overly represented by the 'Roman School'. Reg Garrigou-Lagrange is synonymous with this line of theological speculation.
The theologians of Ressourcement accomplished many great things, among them: a) they did a very successful and credible task of going back to the sources of the Catholic Tradition and separated its core from the many and varied theological schools of thought that had packaged the Tradition in its own distinctive wrapping material; b) they founded, possibly by accident the science of historical theology. Some of its best know current exponents are Richard Gaillardetz, Massimo Faggioli, Orm Rush and the late Richard McBrien. The service they render is of enormous value because their work is to investigate the where, when, why and how of different schools and streams of systematic theological speculation. Two Christian groups that are terrified of historical theology are evangelical protestants and Alt Trad Catholics; c) the thinkers of the Nouvelle Theologie provided the theological underpinning and the language of Catholic humanism that were vital to the expression of the Church's mission and identity at Vatican II. However, the documents of Vat II, contain ample evidence of the often deep tension between the Nouvelle Theologie concepts and those of the Roman School. There's nothing new in this. At Trent the same kind of struggle went on between the 'School men' and the Catholic humanists. The cautious, probably very fearful, 'School men' prevailed back then. At Vatican II, their voice was decisively diminished.
It is highly significant I believe that in the current often lively debate between the so called 'Libs' and Trad/conservatives, the latter have no recognisable theologian to represent them and persuasively articulate their position. The people who are often held up as intellectual giants seem to be singularly absent from the Academy but over represented in popular blogs where whining, declamation, denunciation, private revelations and an anger are the currency of 'dialogue.'
They decided that the focus of Scholasticism hitherto was “too narrow”. In other words, it doesn’t include enough resources that refute the program and attempt to discredit by evolving modernistic aspects conceived to change Catholic teaching making it more in line with modern “thinking”, you mean.
Who are the geniuses of the modern age, and why?
The Humanists were just as contemptible in the 16th century as they are now.
I mean what I wrote and wrote what I mean. Read a few books written by the historical theologians I mentioned, Tancred. The exercise might improve you mind, broaden your horizons and provide you with the opportunity to dig yourself out of the ideological hole you have dug for yourself.
Post a Comment