Dear Bishops: Illuminate Us About God

Swamped with a Million Tasks

To Aldo Maria Valli

Disce elevare ingenium, aliumque rerum ordine ingredi

(Learn to elevate the mind, and enter into another order of things)

(Cardinal Tommaso de Vio, OP, known as Cajetan)

A dear friend of mine, Aldo Maria Valli, has been managing a trendy website for years with the suggestive title: duc in altum. Regrettably, he carries out this program with a tone that is too harsh towards the Holy Father, who as the Vicar of Christ, certainly leads us upward. However, as a good Catholic, he is right in painfully observing the climate of spiritual dryness, sleepiness, and sloppiness we are currently experiencing.

We are witnessing a widespread retreat of pastors into the world, yielding to its allurements under the pretext of dialogue, care for the poor, and mercy for the frail and suffering. The figures of the immigrant and the homosexual seem to occupy all the space, overshadowing other aspects and deeper needs of the human drama of our time.

Moreover, we have the impression that pastors want to blend indiscriminately with ordinary people, appear as any other faithful, and hide in the crowd under the pretext of wanting to be brothers and not seem like rulers. Eventually, one wonders: what is the purpose of having them as bishops? Is it only a matter of living in the episcopal residence?

We no longer hear about the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Yet the Council speaks of the "hierarchical constitution of the Church"[1]. Indeed, the priesthood, and therefore the episcopate, which is the fullness of the priesthood, is not merely about performing a specific task or service, like that of a newsvendor, a postman, or a grocer. Certainly, the bishop announces the good news of salvation to us, transmits the message of the Gospel, and enchants us with the divine elixir of grace. But Christ willed the priesthood as a salvific power, whose holder, the Apostle, or the Bishop, could share it in varying degrees and measures with his collaborators, the priests, deacons, and ministers, both men and women.

The Church is thus governed by a monarchical regime (the Pope) and an aristocratic regime (the bishops). Simultaneously, however, one discerns elements of democratic governance within the laity, religious institutes, the Roman Curia, episcopal conferences, and the functioning of the College of Cardinals. The Church's regime, therefore, cannot be the same as that of a political society, namely democracy, where the people choose their rulers.

The important thing to note, about divine institution, is that the episcopal ministry is an implicitly multiple and graded power, shareable at lower levels, involving different acts and offices, some reserved to the bishop, others that he can share or delegate to inferior ministers, such as priests and deacons.

Christ did not establish the Church in the sense that a group of His followers later appointed Him as their leader to represent them before God, satisfy their needs, meet their desires, and fulfill their requirements. He said: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

The Church is not born from below, from man, but from above, from God; the plan it must realize is not a human project, but a project revealed by God; the goal to be reached is not simply human, but divine; the forces to achieve it, consequently, cannot be merely natural, but must be supernatural, the forces of grace.

The faithful must aim to ascend, certainly, but not in the sense of climbing to power, as often happens in the political field, but a climb towards holiness, towards heaven. The great ambition of the Christian is to serve, not to command; and if he commands, he does so to serve. But serving does not limit itself to satisfying earthly needs. The bishop’s proper service is to help us ascend to heaven: duc in altum.

The bishops say they want to listen. That's fine. But we would also like to hear from them. They want to be among us. That's fine. But where are we going? Do we already know by ourselves? And how do we know? Because Rahner told us? It almost seems like they do not want to precede us. But aren’t they supposed to show us the way? Aren’t they supposed to open the path for us? Do they represent Christ to us or are we the ones who represent Christ to them? In the end, doesn’t placing such emphasis on this seem like a way of shirking responsibility? You have labored for many years to attain your current position: what have you discovered in your ascent? What do you see from up there? And how can we climb to where you are?

The impression we have had for many years (I am now in my eighty-first year) is that bishops, with few exceptions, do not speak out on matters of faith. They do not expose themselves, appear in public, publish, intervene, or comment; they ignore, pretend not to see, do not want trouble, and fear being ridiculed by the modernist majority. We are often confronted with news of scandal, absurdity, or heresy. Yet, everything moves forward with disquieting tranquility, as though nothing has occurred. Perhaps the gravity of these situations is not fully appreciated, or they may feel insufficiently equipped to address them.

It seems they hesitate to voice their opinions alone, finding assurance only in expressing themselves collectively. Rather than opening a path and taking risks, they seem taken by the reassuring and non-risky concern of recording what has already been said or voted on by the majority. Thus, we see the proliferation of episcopal conferences and assemblies of bishops, the frequent meetings, and the myriad of collaborative documents across various levels. However, these common documents often lack incisiveness and merely repeat and disseminate already-known teachings of the Magisterium.

There is undoubtedly the fact that the information is dominated by a secularist mentality that is deaf if not hostile to expressions of Catholic culture, especially those that may be the ideas of the bishops. However, I firmly believe that newspapers like Avvenire and L’Osservatore Romano should give much more space to the thoughts of bishops and cardinals (emphasis mine).

The bishop and the cardinal, alongside the Pope, inherently serve not just their diocese but the whole Church Already the theologian addresses the Church. With much more reason and authority do the bishop and the cardinal, who, cum Petro et sub-Petro, are true teachers of the faith. We would like to see them more around the Pope, speaking to us about God, the great challenges of the Church today, its opportunities, its sufferings and joys, its hopes, doubts, and certainties.

We have 250 bishops in Italy and 120 cardinals in the Church. Certainly, many make publications, and some are interesting. But why do their articles so rarely appear in Avvenire and L’Osservatore Romano?

Catholic journalists and Vaticanists are not lacking. The service they render in interpreting and channeling needs, proposals, questions, discomforts, and upheavals emerging from various sectors of the Church is precious. They, when, like Valli, are animated by zeal for the good of the Church, suggest paths, offer stimuli and remind us of neglected values. But they—and they recognize this—can never replace the inspired word of the bishop (emphasis mine). And this seems to be lacking.

Sixty years ago, the global episcopate gave splendid proof of itself with the elaboration of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. But since then, it seems that among them a mentality has developed in which they no longer feel able to express themselves alone, as has always been the custom in the history of the Church. One only has to think of the great bishops of the early centuries and all the holy bishops who have punctuated the history of the Church in its most important junctures and turns.

The doctrinal strength of the Church lies in the episcopate around the Pope. The effectiveness of the Pope’s teaching and pastoral efforts is closely linked to the cooperation of bishops (emphasis mine). He is ineffective, however, when he is isolated in his teaching and, worse still, when he has to deal with a body of theologians who, instead of supporting and explaining the pontifical interventions, believe they have the right or duty to form a sort of alternative progressive magisterium.

Today, with a progressive Pope, it would seem that the Pope is no longer isolated but has regained the support of theologians. But in reality, this is not the case. The cunning modernists, while projecting an image of backing and defending Pope Francis, in truth, exploit his specific shortcomings and naivety, manipulating him to spread a heretical Catholicism that does not reflect the true teachings of the Pope at all.

And what are the Bishops doing? Aside from a few who criticize the Pope from pre-conciliar positions, the vast majority remain silent. Some support the Pope, but they interpret him in a modernist sense. And what does the Pope do? He seems unable to face this genuinely difficult situation head-on, indicating a split within the Episcopate and possibly within the College of Cardinals.

This division, evident during the Council’s proceedings, has not only persisted but has also deepened over time. Rather than making direct statements, the two cardinal factions now send theologians and laypeople to advance their agendas. The silence of the Episcopate suggests a unanimity around the Pope, a unanimity that in reality does not exist.

What leads me to this conclusion is the enduring presence of the modernist and traditionalist camps, openly endorsed by theologians, priests, religious, and laypeople, who would not exhibit such influence, arrogance, and audacity without the hidden support of Bishops and Cardinals.

The amount of publications and websites that testify in contradictory ways to the profound discomfort of a Catholic world agitated by an almost inextricable tangle of controversies and disputes is impressive. And undoubtedly behind all this excited and subversive movement is the shadow of Freemasonry, with its ideas and financial support.

Here lies the root of the Church's current ills: it is found in the Episcopate (emphasis mine). Today, we suffer from a crisis in the Episcopate, the likes of which has never occurred in the entire history of the Church, except during the periods of Donatism, Arianism, and the Reformation of Luther.

The Virtue of the Shepherd

Today’s pervasive mistake is the excessive focus on pastoral care, equating it with the whole of theology—a stance notably supported by Rahner. This error logically connects with the reduction of the entire Christian perspective to salvation (it is not always clear from what) and to fraternal life in joy, forgetting that Christ asks the Father for His own, beyond the remission of sins, to be able to know the Father (cf. John 17:3). It was Luther who forgot the contemplative perspective of Christianity, limiting Christian life to the problem of salvation and the horizon of fraternity (emphasis mine).

Similarly, Lefebvrists and modernists have – with conflicting motivations – created in many the mistaken belief that the Second Vatican Council was solely a pastoral council, which is not true at all, but has nevertheless fostered a short-sighted and simplistic pastoralism, which has ended up flattening the view of many to the savory everyday life, drying up the interest in “the things above” (Col 3:2). Even Hegel, who was an immanentist, speaks of the "elevation" (Erhebung) of the spirit. But who today speaks any more of spiritual elevations?

We must remember that Jesus Christ, as the shepherd, not only fosters love among the sheep but also detects the threat of the wolf, defends the flock, and leads it to lush pastures. Metaphorically speaking, Jesus guides us in our practical deeds to lead us to contemplation. Without falling into Gnosticism, we must remember that the perspective Christ offers us is to "know the truth" (John 8:32). Freedom and love are consequences of this.

When Christ encourages us to love each other and to live by His commandments, it is not for the sake of the act itself, but to guide us toward a future where, through obedience to the Father, we may gather and lovingly contemplate His face as His children

The concern for evangelization is holy, laudable, and obligatory. But it should be clear that if it is not clear and certain beforehand what we must announce, if we do not first clarify and understand the contents of the faith, evangelization becomes mere empty rhetoric, leading to confusion, misunderstandings, and at best, the spreading of misconceptions or exaggerated tales, rather than proclaiming the true Gospel thus resulting in doing harm and failing to bring the benefits of salvation. Truth does not arise from action and is not the effect of action, but is presupposed to be known by the agent, who teaches how to put it into practice to arrive at the contemplation of truth.

This is why in the past the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stood at the forefront of all the dicasteries of the Roman Curia. It is precisely because the Popes recognized the importance of evangelization that they held dear the assistance of that dicastery, which in matters of faith distinguished truth from falsehood, promoted the true and condemned the false, clarified what was obscure, provided certainty in uncertainty, resolved doubts, and encouraged good initiatives. The leading role of the CDF underscored Christ’s highest priority: that people attain a full understanding of the truth, that is, the beatific vision, obviously practicing moral truths through the exercise of charity. But Christ subordinates moral truth to speculative truth.

Certainly, there is a non-arbitrary risk of getting lost in theoretical questions or engaging in useless subtleties to relish prevailing over others and flaunting one’s knowledge. But it would be profoundly unjust to accuse the CDF of such an error, which instead is deserved if directed against many presumptuous, biased, and proud theologians who have always existed and today exist more than ever, even though it is true and recognized by all, starting from the last Popes themselves, that in the past the Holy Office exaggerated in severity.

The most notable development is the unrestrained and unprecedented rise of numerous errors and heresies, old and new, that are claimed under the Catholic name. Historically, heretics would willingly depart from the Church, abandoning the Catholic name and declaring their opposition. On the other hand Bishops, Popes, and Councils ensured that the faithful were informed of their stance and excommunicated them along with their followers making it straightforward for the faithful to tell apart Catholics from heretics. Now, the same heretics, whether traditionalist or modernist, consider themselves the true Catholics, believing the true Church is theirs, excluding all who do not think like them, be they Bishops, Popes, or Councils.

Pope Francis has adopted a particular approach to address this crisis. He perceives that the human, rational, and moral foundations of Christianity have weakened (emphasis mine). Humanity, despite reaching very high levels in science, medicine, technology, and economic and political organization, finds itself on the brink of self-destruction after centuries of nihilistic, destructive, and divisive ideologies, as evidenced by the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Francis dedicates all his efforts to speaking to us, the faithful, every day about God and Christ, even at an ecumenical level. However, alongside this pastoral mission, he implements another one of an exclusively humanistic type, aimed at proposing universal and fraternal human values and at reconstructing mankind, destroyed by the false ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries and the resulting world wars. In this context, he sometimes refrains from mentioning God or Christ, which scandalizes traditionalists and brings a smug grin to modernists and Freemasons. Yet, this is nothing more than the practical implementation of a famous prophetic sentence by the great and venerable Pius XII, who said: "A whole world needs to be remade, from subhuman to human, from human to Christian."

The Theologian Replacing the Bishop

Today, the mythical figure producing doctrine, the one who updates you on discoveries regarding the Word of God and the concept of God, the one who corrects your errors about God and shows you that your idea of God is outdated and surpassed, the master of faith, the light of the Church, the mystagogue, and the initiator to the divine mysteries, the master of anagogy, who guides you through the arduous and rugged paths of the Absolute, who makes you feel the taste of the Eternal by opening infinite spaces to your self-awareness, the prophet of the eschatology of the present and the realized future, who makes you experience the ineffability of the pre-conceptual Transcendent, the uselessness of concepts and dogmas, as well as the tenderness of divine mercy, is no longer the Bishop, the parish priest, the catechist, the confessor, nor the Pope; it is the theologian and the biblical scholar, the professor of the Gregorian University or the Faculty of Theology of Tübingen or Frankfurt.

Today we have lay doctors in theology, both men and women. In itself, this is undoubtedly progress. But what often happens? The theologian or the theologian, by putting on the market "creative" ideas that are entirely personal, strange, and bizarre but pleasant and original, drawing on supposed supernatural apparitions, Protestant or modernist theologians, novelists, poets, filmmakers, singers, actors, journalists, Freemasons, Kabbalists, Buddhists or Hindus, self-proclaimed prophets, parapsychologists, ufologists, visionaries, and private revelations, assure us with total certainty that they are finally showing us the truth, disregarding the teachings of common sense, experience, sound reason, history, Popes, Councils, Bishops, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, the Holy Fathers, the Saints, the prophets, and Sacred Scripture itself. The important thing is to make a bold claim: success is guaranteed.

How did we get to this point? Over the past few centuries, there has been a monstrous elephantiasis of the theologian's office and a simultaneous gradual loss of the Bishop's authority and, consequently, the Pope's. But how could this happen?

It has been the deformation of a normal ecclesial development process, whereby the necessary maturation of the lower, the lay subject, has led to, on the one hand, the layman's insubordination to the Bishop, overturning the hierarchical relationship today, so that certain presumptuous laypeople pretend to act as teachers to the Bishops. On the other hand, there has also been the positive and providential fact that good and zealous laypeople, sincerely loving the Church and souls, noticing that Bishops are absent or unheard, try to remedy as best they can, calling the same Bishops to their duty and attempting to address scandals and heresies, sometimes successfully, sometimes indiscreetly and imprudently, without adequate preparation, even if perhaps with good intention.

To better understand what is happening, we need to recall what happened in the early centuries of Christianity. Back then, the Church Fathers, using the philosophy of Plato and the Stoics, set forth the fundamental teachings of Christian doctrine, which were later recognized as dogmas or core truths by Popes and Councils

The Fathers were the first theologians, meaning the believers who used reason to understand the revealed data and explain it comprehensibly to the people. They were also the first exegetes or biblical scholars with their commentaries on Scripture. They were also the first moralists, explaining and justifying the duties and laws of Christian morality.

The most important problem, naturally, was the concept of the true God, to be distinguished from the gods of paganism, the God of reason, but above all, the God of Jesus Christ, Christ Himself as God, the divinity of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit, the divine attributes, the knowledge of God, mystical experience, divine worship, the paths to God, the heavenly endeavor of salvation, how to speak about God. Here we have a mine of precious teachings, always relevant, from which the Bishops could always draw.

In the 13th century, as is well known, European Christendom was well established. However, dangerous and seductively spiritualistic dualist heresies, such as the Cathars from the East, began to emerge. On the other hand, an important novelty occurred: through Muslim philosophers at the University of Paris, the works of Aristotle were introduced, which evoked considerable interest while eliciting disquieting reactions in the monastic and episcopal schools. Consequently, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decreed that Bishops should enlist the help of well-prepared individuals for teaching Catholic doctrine and combating heresy.

Thus, Saint Dominic of Guzmán conceived the idea of founding a religious institute, which became the Order of Preachers, to comply with the conciliar directives. This led to the development of Aristotelian theology at the universities of Paris and Bologna by the Dominicans, especially through Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas Aquinas, alongside the Augustinian monastic theology that had already flourished with Saint Bernard, Saint Anselm, and the Victorines.

However, a return to paganism began to surface. In the 14th century, in England, theology started to be tainted by William of Ockham, who abandoned Aristotelianism to restore voluntarist individualism and Protagorean sensualist skepticism (emphasis mine), while the European Episcopate, fragmented by nationalist sentiments, fell prey to this individualistic trend, losing sight of the universal values of Christian faith and morality. As a result, the Bishop's duty to guide, safeguard, and instruct in the faith was overlooked.

The resolution of the Western Schism in 1415 did not entirely heal the wound inflicted on the Episcopate by Ockhamism, so when Luther rebelled against the Pope, the German Episcopate, infected by Ockhamism and nationalism, was unable to stop and correct Luther (emphasis mine). What was the consequence of Luther’s actions? The figure of the Bishop weakened and disappeared, leaving the interpretation of the Word of God and the establishment of the doctrine of faith to the exegete and the theologian.

From this point onward, the progressive separation of the Papacy from the Episcopate began (emphasis mine), reaching a dramatic stage today. The Council of Trent will mark a beautiful resurgence of the Episcopate's loyalty to the Pope; however, subsequently, the Papacy will have to rely primarily on force to enforce discipline., as the Episcopate will no longer restore the unity with the Pope that it had exemplified since the early centuries of the Church, after solving the Christological issues of those early centuries. Sadly, these concerns have reappeared, despite the Church having already given a conclusive response.

The First and Second Vatican Councils were moments of happy unity between the Episcopate and the Pope. From their teachings, Bishops have much to draw upon for effectively carrying out their mission today. A notable inspiration for the Bishop comes from the Decree Christus Dominus, which was specifically issued to them by Vatican II. It outlines the dignity of their office, which involves the fullness of the priesthood.

The comparison with the Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, dedicated to the presbyterate, is interesting. To better understand the dignity of the episcopal office, we can observe that while the Church tradition considers the aspiration to the presbyterate as a normal thing, even though the candidate may be invited to embrace the presbyterate by a man of God or a Bishop, Saint Paul (1 Tim 3:1) praises those who aspire to the Episcopate. In reality, it is generally the Bishop, after suitable consultation or prophetic direction, who issues the invitation or call to the Episcopate

What does this mean? It means that the person may exhibit qualities to become a Bishop without being aware of or desiring it. Indeed, many Saints declined the offer to become Bishops, not out of a desire for comfort, but from a place of deep humility. This highlights the profound difference between the presbyterate and the Episcopate. Those who become priests are generally content with this state and do not aspire to move beyond it.

The Church is established upon the Apostles, not priests, theologians, or laypeople (emphasis mine). The latter can be numerous, and we hope they are. Bishops are chosen from many, if not countless, candidates. What does this mean? Whether in the natural or spiritual realms, significant energy production does not require an array of generators. A few, if they are up to the task, are sufficient. Today, with all due respect, we sometimes wonder: how did such and such become a Bishop? Who promoted him?

It is worth noting that episcopal vocation is not signified by special human qualities in organizational, social, or administrative fields, popularity, political or ecclesial affiliations, eloquence, joviality, athleticism, or a tendency to joke—all attributes that are highly valued today, as seen in the type of Bishops that emerge. Rather, the key qualities are the strength of faith, fidelity to the Pope, wisdom of judgment, experience in guiding souls, theological preparation, perseverance in work and commitments, courage in one’s convictions, sobriety, humility, chastity, honesty, loyalty in thought and speech, love for prayer and liturgy, readiness for sacrifice, an austere life, and acts of charity and mercy. In the Eastern tradition, a Bishop is generally chosen from among monks. This gesture signifies that the Bishop must primarily respond to our call: duc in altum (lead us to the heights)!

This means that those who appoint someone to become a Bishop or the priest who accepts to be ordained a Bishop must be certain that his acceptance is motivated not by ambition, but by a desire to serve God and souls, even unto martyrdom, as evidenced throughout the Church's history by the example of many Bishops.

What We Expect from the Bishop

Therefore, a Bishop who wants to fulfill his duty and speak to us about God persuasively and effectively must always keep before his mind and the aspiration of his heart the example of the martyr Bishops. If thoughts of a comfortable and worldly life cross his mind, he must be able to dismiss them immediately.

You, dear Bishops, must lead us to look upward, to lift our gaze from the things that are before our eyes and that fall under the senses, which, while beautiful and useful, are still temporal, to the supersensible, metaphysical, invisible, purely intelligible, spiritual, heavenly, and divine realities.

I still cherish the sweet memory of the then Monsignor Giacomo Lercaro, Archbishop of Ravenna, who administered the sacrament of Confirmation to me in 1950. It is difficult to describe the religious emotion I felt as a child, instilled by our catechists, in front of this figure surrounded by an aura of sanctity, who was described to us as an almost celestial being. Are not the Angels of the seven churches in the Apocalypse the Bishops of their respective churches?

Dear Fathers, you must lead us upwards. I know it is demanding. But God has appointed you for this purpose. The disappointment you may cause in the people of God if you are not faithful to your charism can be fatal and may generate hatred towards the Church. This guiding upward is what the Holy Fathers call anagogia. We know how to look at what is before us, our peers; we know how to look downward, at the material goods of the world and nature. We know how to look inward, at our conscience. But to lift our gaze to the supernatural truths, the mysteries of faith and future life, grace and beatitude, glory and eternity, only you, in the name of Christ and union with the Pope, can teach us.

From above, close to God, we acquire through faith the same thought as God, the same gaze as God, and with that loving gaze, we descend to help our brothers, to heal their wounds, to console their sufferings, and to ignite the hope of forgiveness and mercy.

Therefore, when we see a Bishop who becomes absent and does not make himself heard when the wolf comes to scatter and devour the sheep, it raises the suspicion that he accepted to become a Bishop out of ambition rather than a sincere love for God and souls. Perhaps it would have been better if he had remained a simple priest.

But the problem becomes more complex because when such Bishops multiply, if a priest with zeal might be suitable to become a Bishop, they refrain from inviting him, anticipating that the episcopal conduct of such a person would be a reproach to the other Bishops. Thus, opportunistic Bishops who avoid problems proliferate. Something similar happened with the Anglican Episcopate after Henry VIII's Reformation or with the German Episcopate after Luther's Reformation.

In military terms, one might say that these Bishops have gone to ground. It is a clear and serious dereliction of their responsibility. It is a false way of wanting to be above the fray; in reality, it is a failure to take a stance that reveals duplicity and opportunism. They are content to preserve their position. They settle for meager worldly success. Their amiability, fraternalism, egalitarianism, pauperism, and misericordism, lacking deep and spiritual motivations, do not convince (emphasis mine).

Unfortunately, they act as though nothing were happening. Everything happens—Lefebvrists protest, gays run rampant, modernists dominate, transhumanists plan the future, some seek extraterrestrials, scandals multiply, heresies proliferate, the faithful decline, freemasons smirk, the good are unheard, ridiculed, and marginalized, the poor remain poor—but they proceed calmly.

Their concern with avoiding any appearance of superiority, shunning clericalism, refraining from imposing tones, and maintaining a readiness to learn from everyone seems overemphasized. By acting this way, they overlook their essential and irreplaceable duties as guides, supports, protectors, teachers, educators, fathers, doctors, and judges, sanctifiers.

The simplicity and modesty many adopt, alongside their desire to 'be approachable,' are indeed commendable. Their affability and cordiality draw sympathy and have effectively eradicated the arrogance and haughtiness once seen in past shepherds. Yet, their pastoral care seems excessively centered on temporal concerns, overlooking the spiritual path.

Seldom do we encounter reflections on death, suffering, sin, grace, holiness, paradise, hell, and purgatory. It is also rare to hear them emphasize heavenly matters, the afterlife, the need to see God, and the quest for His presence

Questions about the essence of truth, the dignity of thought, the existence of God, the reasons for faith, the dignity of man, the foundations of morality, the reciprocity between man and woman, the essence of mysticism, the value of religious life, the value of conscience and freedom, immortality and spirituality of the soul, the relationship between philosophy and theology, faith and science, religion and politics, the importance of metaphysics, and the value of reason are rare or almost absent.

When do they speak of St. Paul, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Jesus, Edith Stein, and Maritain? When do they talk about the great Popes of history, starting with St. Peter, and then Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, Innocent III, St. Pius V, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XII, St. John XXIII, St. Paul VI, St. John Paul II?

Why do they never revisit the great spiritual themes addressed by Pope Francis on holiness, Gnosticism, the fight against the devil, trust in God, listening to His Word, the mystery of Christ, and the action of the Spirit? (emphasis mine)

We are troubled by divisions, protagonism, antagonisms, endless polemics, conflicts between rigorists and laxists, traditionalists and modernists, charlatans and theologasters, visionaries and spiritists, magicians and diviners. Are they unable to advise, comfort, encourage, enlighten, correct, and inspire us?

Events unfold dramatically, shockingly, scandalously, alarmingly, discouragingly, fearfully, and anxiously—wars, calamities, terrorism, mafia, social clashes, wild immigration, heresies, schisms, apostasies, defections. And where are the Bishops?

We are not advocating for a solipsistic spirituality of evasion, abstraction, or intimacy that distances itself from the world: on the contrary, our goal is to give further strength and rationale to engagement in the world and works of mercy. Rather, we aim to provide a contemplative foundation for actions in the world and support of those in need.

Unfortunately, many of the few bishops who adhere to the Pope's teachings do so superficially and mechanically, merely repeating the same words without delving deeper, almost fearing a rebuke from the Pope. No one dares to express reservations or constructive criticism. We certainly cannot approve of the biased and unreasonable opposition to Francis from some bishops like Mons. Williamson and Mons. Viganò (recently excommunicated, Ed.). Other prelates, such as Mons. Schneider and Cardinal Zen, may seem overly severe.

To Guide Us, Bishops Must Support the Pope, Overlooking His Faults

It is hard not to recall that Francis did not respond to the famous "dubia" from four Cardinals regarding Amoris Laetitia. The memory of Cardinal Burke’s demotion from Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and the sudden dismissal of Cardinal Müller, who had criticized the Pope, from his position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, creates a certain unease.

Has Francis adequately considered the examples and inputs from the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI? Were his praises of Luther appropriate? Should he have been clearer on Pachamama and divorced and remarried individuals? Is his pastoral approach to homosexuals correct? Is it right to arm the Ukrainian army? Is Zelensky fighting a just war?

The intervention by the Pope in 2013 to appoint a commissioner to the Institute of the Franciscans of the Immaculate even though their excessive attachment to the old form (vetus ordo) of the Mass was not to be approved. Also, the dismissal of Albrecht Von Boeselager - a decidedly controversial figure - from the Order of Malta raises additional questions, especially regarding the reasons for such interventions.

It must be acknowledged that the Holy Father, after years of apparent leniency towards modernists and severity towards Lefebvrians, has recently taken a more impartial position fitting for the universal Pastor of the Church, as the father of all the children of God and a promoter of peace and concord.

He has shown this commitment through significant measures, including the removal of Enzo Bianchi, a well-known modernist, and the reaffirmation of St. Thomas Aquinas as Doctor Communis Ecclesiae. Francis advocates for conciliar renewal not through rupture but through continuity."

Francis speaks to us about God in various ways, sometimes emphasizing certain themes while neglecting others. And you, dear Bishops, where are you? It seems as though you are leaving the Pope alone amidst the storm. Even though the Synod's work is underway, and the Holy Spirit is present, you, along with the Pope, are the teachers, and we are the disciples. How can we manage without your support?

Yes, walking together is fine, but together with you and under you, who, along with the Pope, represent to us the apostolic nature of the Church, mediating and explaining the Gospel of Our Lord. Do not be afraid to command us, to tell us what we should think about Christ; we trust you. We cannot study the Gospel on our own. A certain Luther tried that once, and it did not end well. We do not want the same misfortune to be repeated

P. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP

Fontanellato, 24 luglio 2023

sources:

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/cari-vescovi-parlateci-di-dio-prima.html

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/cari-vescovi-parlateci-di-dio-seconda.html

Notes:

[1] Dogmatic Constitution *Lumen Gentium*, Chapter III.

[2] The Cardinal recounts his version in In buona fede, interview with Franca Giansoldati, Solferino Editions, Milan 2023.