The Francis Haters have hated Francis from the moment he was elected. They have hated him without reason. Their hatred for him precedes reason. Their hatred is a hatred in search of any reason. They have hated him and hoped to find an excuse for their hatred in Amoris Laetitia. That failed. They hated him for Laudato Si. They hated him for Evangelii Gaudium. They hated him for asking us to pray the Rosary for the Church to be protected from the devil. (Because since when is hatred of the Rosary a sign of the demonic?) They have hated him and hoped to find an excuse in his care for the poor (“It’s just a show.”). They have hated him for everything he says and everything he does, for any reason and every reason and no reason. There is not a thing he can do or not do that will not be a reason for them to hate his living guts. So of course they hate him for failing to be guilty of the baseless charges they insist in clinging to.
Viganò claimed that Benedict imposed canonical sanctions on McCarrick, which Francis lifted. Viganò told us to ask Ouellet about it. Ouellet said it is false that there were canonical sanctions on McCarrick. The dissenter’s conclusion: Ouellet has just proven there were canonical sanctions! Pedro Gabriel’s take on this Orwellian spin:
“Instead of acknowledging the huge hole Ouellet’s letter punches on Viganò’s testimony (a death blow in my opinion), anti-Francis critics have, unsurprisingly, doubled down. All across the Catholic social media, the immediate reaction to Ouellet’s intervention was a kneejerk one. “Ouellet is lying.” – they say, supposedly out of fear of reprisals from his superior. After all, the idea of Francis as a “Dictator Pope” is part of the narrative those critics constantly peddle. Of course, Ouellet’s tone is not one of a fearful person who is trying to lay low in fear of his superior… on the contrary, it’s the tone of a person who is in possession of the facts and forcefully presents them as such, showing even a hint of understandable frustration for seeing such a stubborn insistence on statements which are contradicted by those facts.
And here is where the Orwellian redefinition of the word “sanctions” pays off. The argument now is that Ouellet’s clear and unmistakable refutation… does not provide “substantial refutation.” This is indeed Orwellian… if Ouellet’s letter is not a refutation, then nothing in the entire world is a refutation of anything.
Why is Ouellet’s letter not a substantial refutation? Because Ouellet has proven that there were restrictions in place, not “sanctions.” And that’s what Viganò has claimed all along – so I read in social media. Viganò never claimed there were “canonical sanctions” in place, only “restrictions” – so I see people unashamedly proclaim. Of course, we can go back to Viganò’s testimony (just scroll up to the beginning of this article) and see that that is blatantly false. But this does not deter people from claiming such absurdity.”
Sooner or later, my guess is that they will find some place in his history where, like Peter, he has really and truly sinned. When they do, this mob will eat him alive without mercy. Because they have not the slight interest in the gospel. What they crave is power. Period.
Still and all, the Holy Spirit guides the Church and is her soul. And I think Francis, for all his human faults, trusts in that in a way that the worldly hungerers after power do not believe and could not care less about.