Catholica interviews Don Ariel di Gualdo.
Questions about a lobby…
In Number 120 of the French, political and religious magazine Catholica of the 28th June 2013, an interview given to Don Ariel Levi di Gualdo was published: “Questions about a lobby.” A lobby that gave rise to frequent aggressive and suffocating reactions by the media under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and these, all of a sudden, are now no longer spoken of, without anything happening or indications of anything happening [to change the situation]. Now there is complete silence. Thus [this lobby] continues its detrimental, disintegrating activity undisturbed.
Don Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, is a priest in the diocese of Rome. [Tip: Chiesa e Post Concilio blog; Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]The Interview. In the years following Vatican II, we returned to the period which proceeded the Council of Trent, with all of its corruption and alarming internal struggles for power. Benedict XVI’s renunciation constituted a singular event, and like [having] “time-out” at the peak of a crisis, [occurred] at the same time as the 50th anniversary of a council destined to rejuvenate the ecclesiastical institutions, was being celebrated. This act still remains quite indecipherable. Many spoke of ungovernability, at a time in which numerous tensions and struggles for power had progressively been made evident, with the Vatileaks case being of special indication.
Among the authors that were induced to express themselves about the situation, a Roman priest has attracted our attention because of his clear speaking. His name is Don Ariel Levi di Gualdo, author of a book entitled E Satana si fece trino, (And Satan became trinity) which evokes the satanic trinity explained in the under-title: relativism, individualism, disobedience. One of our Roman correspondents asked him a few questions about some aspects of the present disorder. With pleasure we are publishing here his answers.
Catholica – In your last work, you suggest the role of certain Roman dicastries behind the denunciations of many grave scandals. Could you clarify this, above all, in explaining what the lack of seriousness in some Curia services consists of and what the most troubling compromises would imply?
Don Ariel – In this book, I explain that we did have the Second Vatican Council, but, in practice, during the following years, we returned to the period that preceded the Council of Trent, with its corruption and alarming internal struggles for power. After abundant discourses ad nauseum about dialogue, collegiality – for nearly half a century now – new forms of clericalism and authoritarianism have emerged. The progressive champions of dialogue and collegiality use aggression and coercion against anyone who thinks outside of the “ religiously correct.” It is always possible to make light of the dogmas of the Faith, to deconstruct them according to an anthropological logic, but woe to those who dare place in doubt the “sacred” and “infallible” character of the magisterium exercised by some theologians imbued by Hegel and the theology of Karl Rahner - thoughts that lead them alongside modernism and heterodoxies of every type: that [type of] man will be banned from this united and powerful “clique” in the Roman Curia as well as from the Pontifical Universities.
To this we need to add that from the 1970s onwards, there has been the insertion of homosexual ecclesiastics in which the number, by cooptation, has increased considerably over the years. Today these constitute a veritable lobby – mafia-style - powerful and ready to destroy whoever stands in their way. Processes in the inversion of values have emerged – good becomes bad, virtue is changed into vice, and vice-versa. They have gone as far as transforming sound doctrine into heterodoxy when one of these ecclesiastics is denounced to the authorities, with proof and testimonies to support it; given that the condemnation of one alone would be enough to place the whole system in danger. We have seen then, in many cases, the innocent punished and marginalized and the culprits of grave moral conduct, protected. When it was seen opportune to expel someone from the Roman Curia, they were welcomed and protected by bishops in those dioceses where circles of influence have been installed, surrounded prevalently by homosexuals. Once again, corrupt as this system is, it is not possible to act in any other way, since if one culprit is punished, he would vindicate himself by dragging down all of the other members of this mafia: it is necessary therefore, to protect him despite the costs.
The overall impression is that of incoherence in the governing of the Church: this appears to demonstrate the promotion of some prelates.
Catholica - In your opinion, what are the causes that limit authority in such a coercive way?Don Ariel - It is paradoxical that under the pontificate of the “theologian Pope” we have seen an increase in nominations, to key positions in Church government, of individuals who are in total contradiction to what the theological premises of Benedict XVI represent: prelates of dubious theology or of insignificant profile with respect to the present challenges, such as that of the new evangelization. A common trait characterizes them: behind the façade of humility – the prevalence, not of the Church, but of their own person. In the decades to come, I do not know how the pontificate of ‘the splendid doctrine’ will be judged, but by the facts [it is] contradicted with the presence of these people. Nevertheless, at present, I ask myself how [is it possible] that the hidden influence ( puppeteers) of a few, has become so powerful to end up reducing our Peter, navigator without a crew, in a barque tossed by waves and tempest gales, to such impotence?
What is certain, on the other hand, is that the Gospel does not leave any space for equivocations of this kind: God will not judge us on our words, but according to the wisdom of our works (Mt. 11,19). We will have to respond to God for the talents that He has given us, and eventually for that talent buried for fear of thieves. (Mt. 25, 12). I believe that the Supreme Pontiff has received a talent both heavy and precious from God, which must be made to yield fruit: “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. A talent which imposes on the one who has received it, to commit himself so that “ the gates of hell do not prevail against it” (Mt. 16,18). Without any doubt, when historians study this pontificate emerging from such a difficult and distressing age, in this context of profound decadence that weighs on the Church, they will show how Benedict attempted to act for the good of the Church of Christ, on the basis of what the circumstances permitted him to do. The crowds, at his death, will undoubtedly, not shout “santo subito”, but it is probable that within the decades to come he will be “santo sicuro” (a saint for sure). […]
