Cardinal Ruini Offers Common Sense to Francis-Hating Hysteria

Cardinal Ruini Offers Common Sense to Francis-Hating Hysteria October 13, 2015

I have no difficulty in recognizing that there are differences, some of them significant, between Pope Francis and his closest predecessors. I collaborated for twenty years with John Paul II, and then briefly with Benedict: it’s natural for me to share their sensibilities. But I would like to add something. The elements of continuity are much more important that the differences.”

That’s because the Church is indefectible.  Only those who do not, in the final analysis believe the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth–and who therefore believe that they, not Jesus, are responsible to save the Church (from the Pope no less!)–waste time being terrified that the Synod is about to destroy the Tradition, or imagining that Francis is the enemy of the Faith and they alone are its saviors.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph


  • Doyle

    People can disagree with process, form and even non magisterial ideas bruited about (Communion for the divorced and remarried) without challenging the indefectible nature of the Church.

    Would it be wrong to say that those challenging are in fact part of the process of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? Failure to actively challenge during a time of deliberation may result in trouble for the Church regardless of the teachings themselves. How full are the pews? What is the best way to fill them so people hear the Good News? That question is important and is not doctrinal. I believe these questions could be profoundly impacted by this Synod–but in which direction?

    • Sean

      Holy Mother Church herself seems to think the laity have an important role to play, which is why canon law explicitly grants them the right to manifest their opinions to their superiors.

      Of course it also requires them to do so with charity and it is clear that many don’t, but there’s a difference between criticizing poor tone and criticizing, well, the mere fact of other people’s objections.

    • Sean

      Also worth noting, indefectibility relates to the Church, but there are other things to be worried about. If the souls of my family members go to Hell because they are, for instance, seduced to comfort in their sins by being extended a welcoming hand to repentance-free communion, it will be small comfort that at least the Church is indefectible.

  • St. Therese was often terrified that death would be the final end of human life, with no afterlife. This does not mean that in the final analysis she did not believe in the immortality of the soul. Beliefs and emotions are different things.

  • [Only those who do not, in the final analysis believe the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth]

    The Church can remain true to the magisterium, continuing to stand, and proclaim the truth, while policies and actions taken in its administration are poor missteps that damage the reputation of the church, are ineffective in evangelization, and scandalize the laity. Take the way the Galileo trial was handled. Doctrinally sound, administratively ghastly, creating a dent in perceived credibility that has lasted nearly 500 years.

    I’m not suggesting that this is happening now.. I am simply pointing out that the Synod remaining true to doctrine and the Synod producing disasterly results are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

    There are many who, like you say think, that they themselves must point out the evils of Francis, and like you say, that is silly. I suggest, however, that there are far more who are rationally concerned as they listen to the concerns being expressed by several faithful bishops and cardinals.

    For goodness sake, Cdl. Kasper has authored a book, speculating AGAINST the literal Resurrection of Christ. Is it really unreasonable to worry when such a person has such a powerful voice in Church administration?

    • Stu

      Yes. These Synods have been disasters. And since the Holy Spirit didn’t plan or execute them, who “owns” it?

      The fact that the Holy Spirit is there as a firewall only proves that the men will muck it up from time-to-time.

  • ivan_the_mad

    “the Synod is about to destroy the Tradition”

    Very silly indeed; synods are precisely the reason we have Tradition!

  • JustACatholic

    Does the Church’s indefectibilty prevent individuals within the hierarchy, including the pope, to do things that can harm the Church? Make bad decisions? Does it prevent a synod from doing something that has the potential to cause harm? If not, then it seems reasonable to have concern.

  • Cypressclimber

    Mr. Shea:

    Here’s something to add to your “all is well” file:

    The archbishop said he had given the book in which Kasper makes the proposal, The Gospel of the Family, to all the priests of his archdiocese. “I wanted them to read that because I thought it was very rich theologically,” he said.

    “I think that he has reasoned this proposal well, given the theology that he offers,” said Cupich. “I do think that we should look at a way in which people are not just accompanied but integrated and reconciled.”

    I seem to recall you applauding the Cupich appointment, and similarly mocking anyone who thought maybe it was a questionable appointment.

    Edit: the quote is from the National “Catholic” Reporter, today’s edition.

    • chezami

      I think the Cupich appointment was a bad call. I don’t think Cupich giving his two cents at the Synod is the End of Days. Relax.

      • Cypressclimber

        I never said the synod is the End of Days. I am very relaxed — it’s a beautiful day here.

        And I’m glad to hear you acknowledge the problems with the Cupich appointment. Perhaps I misremember, but I seem to recall you taking a different line at the time.

        My point in bringing this up is simply to illustrate what those of us who have concerns, have concerns about — not the “End of Days” straw man, but the very realistic scenario of our good pope, like Pope Paul VI, making some rather bad calls.