Pope Receives a Very Curious Message in His Own Paper: the Mario Palmaro Riddle

"Mario Palmaro (1968-2014): A great example, for All"

Nothing could make more sense: Mario Palmaro, the great late Traditional Catholic writer, who died so young in 2014, was an example for all. But why this one-page homage to Mario Palmaro, an apparent ad, in page 4 of today's (October 8) edition of L'Osservatore Romano, in the middle of the Synod? Is it the anniversary of the birthday or date of death of the late writer? No, that is not the case at all: Palmaro was born on June 5, 1968, and died on March 9, 2014. Is any of his books being republished with fanfare at this moment? Not really. Even the biography highlighted in the apparent ad was released months ago, in March 2015.

"The Next Synod is a Battle between Christ and the Antichrist: - On whose side will you stand?"

Luca Signorelli
Preaching and Deeds of the Antichrist (c. 1500 - detail)
Orvieto Cathedral, Cappella Nuova

Alessandro Gnocchi continues to be one of best commentators on the present state of the Church.  The following excerpt from his column in La Riscossa Cristiana is an example of his determination to see things as they are.  Gnocchi uses strong words that provoke thought:

The Traditionalist: The Keeper of the Gifts

by Alessandro Gnocchi

[Italian daily] Il Foglio

November 6, 2014

[Notre-Dame de Chartres Cathedral, June 28, 2014]

***

Traditionalist, yes, but not distant from the world,

as some of us would like to be in times of ruin and destruction.

Talking about the Traditionalist is a little like seventy years ago when Leo Longanesi said “Let’s talk about the elephant.” (1) The intellectual bad habits of Italy straddling between fascism and anti-fascism were always the same; anyway, Italy was a little Catholic, Apostolic and Roman, greatly resembling the Church of today, which anyway, is always a little Italian. At that time, Longanesi made mockery of the quirks and hypocrisies of an intellectual class that liked showing off in exotic discourses and loved “talking about the elephant” instead of the destruction of which it was both the victim and the perpetrator. Similarly, a great show is put on in today’s Church, by those who prefer “talking about the traditionalist”, instead of acknowledging the superficial atmosphere of self-demolition, in which, as the saying goes, “they are both singing and carrying the cross.”(2)

It’s easy to say “traditionalist” with the same levity as Longanesi said: “Gentlemen, let’s talk about the elephant” - said the ineffable gentleman - “it’s the only animal of a certain importance that we can safely talk about without risk, these days.”

Yet the traditionalist, if we really want to know him, is not an animal you talk about resorting to banality. He is not the one reviled in the sermons and tischreden [little speeches at the table] of [the papal household of Casa] Santa Marta; he is not the one of the windbags in the press reviews of the mass-media; he is not the one of the sociology-lovers hanging onto the fleeting instant of doctrines which are in continuous evolution; he is not the one of the bishops who issue pitiful decrees of excommunication against the faithful who dare to attend the Mass of Ages. He is not any of these things and others more besides.

The traditionalist is not at all what he seems. He is in ‘mysterious and inalienable intimacy’ with the thing he no longer possesses, he is a haven for the bond between heaven and earth in times of an oblivion dictated by worldly desires that infiltrated into the temple: it is his very own poverty and his very own solitude that create a place for soul and flesh to encounter greatness and wretchedness, salvation or perdition. The rock on which he can save himself or be shipwrecked is the evangelical life in the world - without being of the world.

"Over half the Bishops (in the Synod) have already switched religion"

Alessandro Gnocchi, in his weekly piece for La Riscossa Cristiana in which he responds to letters he has received, calls our attention to this truly lamentable event that clearly shows where most of the Bishops and Cardinals are in terms of their understanding of the Catholic Faith and the immutability of doctrine.  It also shows that most of our prelates have abandoned the principle of non-contradiction and live in a Church worthy to be a construction of Lewis Carroll.  We are not only "back to the future".  We have also gone "Through the Looking-Glass".

Abortion, Dogma, and the Mystery of Anti-Dogmatic Bishops: The Strategy of the Piece of Metal Wire

This piece is from the column that Italian Catholic author Alessandro Gnocchi writes for Italian traditional Catholic website Riscossa Cristiana every Tuesday.  Gnocchi responds to questions that readers send him.  The following is his response to someone who asked about Bishop Nunzio Galantino (Secretary General of the Italian Conference of Bishops - CEI) and his remarks about the“expressionless faces” of those who recite the Rosary outside of clinics where abortions are performed.  Gnocchi’s response goes beyond Galantino’s foolish and typically pompous remarks and his subsequent denial/explanation of what he meant.  Gnocchi points out that there is a definite pattern at work here, one which is essentially anti-dogmatic.

The Strategy of the Piece of Metal Wire

Dear Summa,

I begin by saying that in response to your last question (“what can we do?”), all I can say is: nothing.  We can do nothing because we find ourselves in the presence of superficiality, of verbal diarrhea, of scorning other people’s intelligence, or a lack of intelligence in the person speaking.  Or even better, there is a bit of all of this, because the quality of the actors on the stage is truly very thin.  But that is secondary, in so far as the seesaw game of statements and denials corresponds to a precise strategy that I try to explain in an image that may seem banal: it is the strategy of the piece of metal wire.

To break a piece of wire, dear Summa, you have to twist it continually in opposite directions.  This is the purpose of all those who apply this strategy in politics, either by themselves, making statements and then denying them, or with the complicity of fake adversaries who maintain the contrary.  The purpose, in every case, is always the same: to break apart the organism, the institution, the bonds holding together whatever is being worked over.

Op-ed by Alessandro Gnocchi Secular Christianity: A Morality for the Garbage Can is a sign of a Morality in the Garbage Can

["Green" ad of an American Protestant "Megachurch"]

Often one can use a simple question about a specific matter that seems inconsequential in order to comment on a matter of real importance. Our friend, Alessandro Gnocchi, does this in a reply to someone who asked him a question about what he heard in a homily in his parish church on a recent Sunday. He complained that the priest spoke about the moral obligation for the Christian to not only recycle what can be recycled in one’s garbage, but also to separate these items to be recycled in a prescribed manner. The priest said that if the Christian does not do this, he should go to Confession. The man in the pew said that although one should respect recycling laws, this really has nothing to do with preaching the Gospel. The following is Gnocchi’s reply.

_____________________________

Dear Foschi:

I try to imagine going to Confession with this priest, so zealous in his diffusion of the new gospel of this deeply socially aware Catholic.  

--How many time have you failed to separate your garbage item to be recycled as you have been ordered?

--Three times, Father.

--And do you repent of this?

--Not too much, Father, because this strict separation of items to be recycled is really a pile of dung.

--Annibale, don’t make your position worse in the eyes of the Constitution. To give you absolution you have to promise that you will not do this again. Paper with paper, plastic with plastic, moist things with moist things, dry things with dry things, and don’t try to be sly and throw banana peels in with the dry things because in the secret place of the garbage your parish priest sees you even if the town official does not.

But this will not be enough, dear Foschi, because you will have to confess whether you turn off the lights every time you leave a room even if you intend to re-enter that room in a few minutes, whether you turn off the faucet while you are brushing your teeth or while you are lathering yourself in the shower, and whether you turn off the motor of your car when you are stopped at a red light even if this means that you are leading the other 400 drivers in the line behind into the temptation to utter nasty words because you made them miss the green light. 

The situation is dramatic but not serious.  But it is not a laughing matter.  This Church that has decided to embrace the world could in the end only preach what the world wants, to impose what the world loves and to prohibit what the world detests.  It has taken only a few decades of “aggiornamento” to produce a genetic mutation that takes great  pride in how it turned out.  After having gone through a period of spending time at the headquarters of the Communist Party, the Catholic has turned now to secularism and presents himself on the scene as a “cattolaico”, a Catholic secularist.  [Trans. note.  This is a play on cattolico, Catholic, and laico, secular.  In English we may coin the world "Catholaic", but it does not have the same force and meaning as cattolaico in Italian.] One little “a” inserted into the word that means Catholic, but what a difference!  This is what makes your priest an apostle of recycling and also whatever other civic duties, even up to the point of saying that the laws of the secular State must be totally respected even if they go contrary to the laws of God, because in the secrecy of your house your mayor sees you and your parish priest does not.

The secular Catholic is a follower of a new religion that has its own rites in the practice of secular law and has its own Pontifex Maximus in the President of the Republic.  A king can be tolerated but only if he eventually abdicates.   Then are  various ministries, among which stand out those priests who, in order to please the world and its prince, are scandalized and tear their garments when they see a Mafioso going to Mass and who says that he believes in God. Instead they go into raptures in the presence of those most honorable men who never even think about the Mass, who would never talk about God, and who carry out all those laws against nature that the State demands be passed. 

Having adopted the language and the values of the world, this exemplar of this new genetic mutation has no defenses against the aggression of the world and is not able to raise any reasonable argument in his defense.  Indeed, in taking this course he ends up on the mad road to auto-demolition.  In particular, the secular Catholic makes use of, as if they were his own, the two battle horses used by the secular world to attack the concept of Christ’s Kingship over the peoples of the world.  The first battle horse maintains that Christ himself would have sanctioned the separation of Church and State in his affirmation:  “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.  The second explains that the secular, and then secularism, came into existence to maintain the rights of freedom against clericalism. 

To respond to the first is very simple.  Caesar is a man, and therefore he owes to God what every other man owes to God.  In fact, Caesar owes more to God than other men, because he has a great responsibility for his subjects.  Saint Thomas, in De Regimine Principum writes:  “The end of the upright life that we live is the blessedness of heaven.  For this reason one of the tasks that falls to the king is to attend to the upright life of the multitude so that they my attain heavenly beatitude.  He does this by ordering those things that lead to the blessedness of heaven and by prohibiting,  as much as possible, those things that are contrary to its realization.  What is the path to beatitude and what are the things that are obstacles on this path is known from Divine Law.  The teaching of the Divine Law is the task of the priests, according to the prophet, Malachi.”

If the first argument used by the secularists is false in reference to doctrine, the second is false with respect to history.  Secularity and then secularism were not born to oppose clericalism and to defend the rational foundations of freedom.  Whether from an historical perspective or a theoretical perspective, clericalism, which is a degenerative phenomenon, arises instead as a consequence of secularity.

From the end of the thirteenth century in Europe, the laity, meaning here “those not ordained or in vows”, slowly left the obligation to be religious to the clergy on behalf of themselves.  But in this act of giving over to others this duty, which is seen also in a public way, “laicization” itself is sanctioned in fact and in principle, understood as a withdrawal from the necessity to fertilize and to fortify contemporary society by means of personal faith.

For his part, the cleric who accepts such an assigned task without worrying about whether he should ask the layman to not abandon the religious dimension of his life, becomes, according to a most happy play on words invented by Peppone, the leftist mayor in the Don Camillo novels: “a clerical cleric”. At first it was used to describe authoritarian ways of procedure in the religious domain, but then it ended up by being adopted for lower levels of contemporary life.  This is effectively a form of interference.  But it is not interference by the Church, it is not interference by religion, it is not interference by a religious phenomenon: it is the interference of an “clerical cleric” called into being by the advent of the secular.  It is not by chance that the secular man finds himself at ease with a Catholic suffering from clericalism.  He is always ready to deal with and negotiate in those places in society where decisions are made.  And he is quite willing to concede to him the control of the garbage can. 

[Translated by Father Richard G. Cipolla. Source:  Riscossa Cristiana]

The Oh-so-very-bourgeois Antibourgeois Revolt and the Heresy of Formlessness

Alessandro Gnocchi

[T]he affirmation that graciousness is the prime matter for Grace is in evidence and has its origin in page after page of the Gospels, where the Good News makes itself known through good manners as the seal does through wax.  “Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus: ut, qui paschalia festa peregimus, haec, te largiente, moribus et vita teneamus” says the Collect of the Traditional Mass for the Sunday after Easter, Dominica in Albis.  “Almighty God, grant, we beseech thee, that we who have gone through the Easter mysteries may, through thy bounty, hold fast to what they contain in our practices and in our life.” And, in the Gospel for this Mass we see the gracious act of the resurrected Jesus in helping Thomas overcome his rude incredulity.  It is for Thomas, who eight days before had not been present at Jesus’ appearance in the Upper Room, that the Lord returns to show with ceremonial humility the wounds on his body:  “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe”…."My Lord and my God!"  Thomas’ acclamation of faith comes from his being won over by the supreme act of graciousness towards him by his Lord and his God.  Thomas confesses Jesus’ divinity as no other apostle had done until then, and then he brings the Happy News as far as Persia and India, all the way to his martyrdom.

It is in this personal encounter that is so intimate and ceremonial, where the purest form of the sacred acts like a wax impression of the materiality of the gesture and the word, it is here that man has a fruitful relationship with God.  Here resides the strength of true conversions, provided that the ceremonial, were it also for the weakness of man, can be repeated by turning to the rite.  Saint Gregory the Great explains in the Third Nocturne of the Ascension:  “The slowness of the disciples to believe in the resurrection of the Lord, more than showing their weakness, functioned  in behalf of our own certainty of belief. In fact, their doubt was the occasion for the Resurrection to be shown as real with many encounters with the risen Lord as proof….The story of Mary Magdalene so ready to believe, is less useful to me than that of St. Thomas who doubts for some time, because this apostle, in his doubt, touched the wounds of the Lord and in this way took away from our hearts the wound of doubt”.

Gracious formality in everyday life responds to the liturgical nature of man.  In this way Saint Francis de Sales loved to teach that good manners are the beginning of holiness, or when Leon Bloy said that “only persons without depth do not trust appearances”.  But today one sees a type of Christianity that feels that it is more authentic the more it takes a negative attitude towards the least sign of reverence for form.  Religion as practiced now finds glory in getting to the substance of things, ending up by trying to find meaning in matter left to itself.  This oh so very bourgeois antibourgeois revolt has introduced a type of heresy of formlessness that feeds on an exegesis of the ugly as the only reading of the Gospel.

But the life and teaching of Jesus, the most true gestures of those around him, are all instances of a “waste” of beauty, born of spiritual devotion to the mystery of all that exists.   In great events and in small things, in kingly gestures and in the small, everyday cares, the characters in the Gospel are gentlefolk called to good manners.  

Among the clearest examples is the dinner at Bethany in the house of Simon.  This is a ceremonial occasion so full of gestures and ulterior meanings that one needs to look at the accounts of this meal in the different Gospel writers to fully understand the meaning of this event.  That evening, recounts St. Luke, Jesus entered the house of Simon the Pharisee and sat down at table.  “And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was sitting at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.”  The master of the house, looking in consternation at this display of so much attention given to a woman known as a sinner, had certainly organized a dinner with everything at the highest level, with a careful choice of foods to be served, correct service, every course of the highest quality.  But the one he had invited, the one for whom all this was prepared, reproached him, because those good manners of the Pharisee are not the acting out of the Good News that his guest is bringing to him as a gift.  “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.  You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.  Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little”  Minutiae of a sterile formalism, one would say today, but Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, sees that there is no formalism here.  Because the rite with which one adores the Lord and the ceremony with which one renders homage to one’s neighbor do not fulfill their purpose if everything is not done as prescribed.

- Must-read: Mario Palmaro's last interview -The Message to Traditionalists: “Spread the Faith in the World” - SSPX missed opportunity, Criticizing the Pope, thoughts on death

We present below Francesca Romana's translation of the interview granted by the late Mario Palmaro to the weekly newsmagazine of the Dehonians in Italy, Settimana. In it, he deals with the Society of Saint Pius X and the "missed opportunity", Pope Francis, criticism of Popes in general (when, how, and why a Pope can or even must be criticized), why many traditional Catholics behave in a certain way, the persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and he also speaks about his approaching death.

______________________________

An Interview with Professor Mario Palmaro

by Lorenzo Prezzi

The Message to Traditionalists: 
“Spread the Faith in the World”

THE LOST OPPORTUNITY OF THE “LEFEBVRIANS”

Professsor Palmaro, you (and the ecclesial world you in some way interpret) rightly supported Pope Benedict’s attempt to bring into [full] communion the “schismatic” Lefebvrian movement. But in July 2012 when their General Chapter refused the invitation from the Holy See, what was your view on the matter? What do you think now of that attitude?

Even though I have never been part of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius (FSSPX) founded by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, I had the fortune of getting to know them firsthand a few years ago. Together with the journalist Alessandro Gnocchi, we decided to go and see this world with our own eyes, and to describe it in two books and some articles. I must say that many prejudices that I had held turned out to be unfounded; I met very good priests, nuns and brothers dedicated to a serious experience of Catholic life, graced with openness and cordiality. I was struck very favorably by the figure of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Bishop who leads the FSSPX - a good man of great faith. We discovered a world of lay faithful and priests who pray every day for the Pope, even if they have placed themselves in a definitive position of being critical especially with regard to the liturgy, religious liberty and ecumenism. We saw many young people, many religious vocations, many “normal” Catholic families who frequent the Fraternity. Priests in their cassocks, while walking the streets of Paris or Rome, were stopped by people asking them for comfort and hope.

We are well-acquainted with the polymorphism of the contemporary Church in the world, which is to say that nowadays calling yourself Catholic is not the same as following the same doctrine; heterodoxy is greatly diffused and there are nuns, priests and theologians who openly contest or deny portions of Catholic doctrine. For this reason, we asked ourselves: how is it possible that there is room for everyone in the Church except these brothers and sisters who are Catholic in every way and are absolutely faithful to 20 of all the 21 councils which have taken place in the course of Catholic history?

While we were writing the first book, news arrived about the revocation of the excommunications through Pope Benedict XVI’s historical decision. What remained at that point was the canonical regularization of the Fraternity. Pope Benedict held this reconciliation dearly and it has yet to be concretized. I maintain that Benedict’s pontificate was a historical opportunity for full reconciliation, and it was a real shame to let this train pass. I have always sustained that the FSSPX must do all that is possible for their canonical regularization, but I would add that Rome has to offer Monsignor Fellay and his faithful the guarantee of respect and freedom, above all in the celebration of the Vetus Ordo and in the doctrine that is normally taught within the Fraternity’s seminaries, the perennial one.

DEFENSIVE AGGRESSIVENESS

The full support towards Pope Benedict XVI does not seem to be carried out now with Pope Francis. Are popes accepted or are they “chosen”? What does the papacy represent today?

The fact that a pope is “liked” by people is completely irrelevant to the two-thousand-year logic of the Church: the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has to please Our Lord. This means that the exercise of his power is not absolute, but is subordinate to the teaching of Christ, which is found in the Catholic Church, in Her Tradition and fostered by the life of Grace through the Sacraments.

Now, this means that the pope himself can be judged and criticized by the [ordinary] Catholic, on the condition that this happens in the perspective of love for the truth, and that as a criteria of reference, Tradition and the Magisterium are used. A pope contradicting a predecessor in matters of faith and morals has to, without question, be criticized. 

We must distrust both the worldly logic where the pope is judged by democratic criteria which satisfies the majority, and the temptation to “papolatry” according to which “the pope is always right.” Furthermore, for decades now we have become used to criticizing many popes from the past in a destructive manner, exhibiting scarce historiographic seriousness; well then, we don’t see why reigning popes or the most recent ones are spared in any way from any type of criticism. If Boniface VII or Pius V are judged why not also judge Paul VI or Francis?

AGAINST MODERNISM

In the world of the sites (internet) and magazines on Tradition, of late, a frequent display of strong aggressiveness has been noted. Is it true? What are the causes? What do you think of this?

The behavior-problems in some tradition-associated people or entities is serious and cannot be denied. A truth presented or proposed without charity is a truth betrayed. Christ is our way, truth and life and therefore we must always take our example from Him, Who was always steadfast in the truth and invincible in charity. I believe the world of Tradition is sometimes sharp and polemical for three reasons: the first, is a certain syndrome of isolation, which renders [them] suspicious and vindictive, and manifests itself through personality problems; the second, is the genuine scandal that certain directions in contemporary Catholicism stir up in those who know the doctrinal teaching of the popes and the Church prior to Vatican II; the third, for the lack of charity that official Catholicism has shown to these brothers, who are apostrophized with contempt as “traditionalists” or “Lefebvrians” forgetting that, anyway they are nearer the Church than the members of any other Christian confession ever could be or even any other religion. The official Catholic press does not even dedicate a line to this reality – which includes hundreds of priests and seminarians – and yet they might offer pages to thinkers that have nothing even vaguely Catholic about them.

Commenting on the Vatican instruction with regard to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, you invoked conscientious objection for the religious as to the liturgical indications. In what way [then] must the religious obey their spiritual family? How do you place conscientious objection in the tradition of the Syllabus?

The issue of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, is in my view very sad. It concerns provisions made by an external commissioner and decided upon by Rome in unusual haste and with equally unexplainable severity. Since I know this religious family very well, I find this decision to be completely unjustifiable and [so] along with other three scholars I presented a sort of appeal to the Vatican.

In synthesis, I remind you, that the provisions “remove” the founder, and forbid the celebration of the Old Rite to all of the priests in the Congregation, [this] in manifest contradiction to what was established by Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. You are right: the resistance to an order from legitimate authority always poses problems for the Christian, even more so if he is a member of a religious family. Nonetheless, in this case there are some aspects clearly unacceptable, and I maintain that the priests of the Franciscans of the Immaculate should continue to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Vetus Ordo, securing that bi-ritualism which I know was the normal practice for the Friars. I would add, in a Church shaken by thousands of problems and rebellions where glorious congregations are dying out for lack of vocations, it is not good to see the Franciscans of the Immaculate being hit like this as they instead, have abundant vocations all over the world.

In your opinion, what are the most evident limits of the “conciliar” (or “liberal” if you wish) Catholic sensibility? What are its most obvious weaknesses?

In my view, the fundamental problem is its relationship with the world, marked by an attitude of subjection and dependency, almost as if the Church must adapt Herself to the whims of men, when instead we know that it is man who needs to adapt to the will of Christ, the King of history and the universe. When Pius X harshly attacked Modernism, he wanted to ward off this mortal temptation to Catholicism: the changing of doctrine to go along with the spirit of the world. Given that humanity has been prey to the process of dissolution which began with the French Revolution (followed by modernity and post-modernity) the Church is more than ever called to resist that spirit of the world. Many choices made by the Church in the last 50 years are instead the symptom of giving in [to it]: the liturgical reform, which constructed a Mass for contemporary sensibilities by destroying a Rite in force for centuries, orienting everything towards the word, the assembly, participation, [while] mortifying the centrality of the Sacrifice; the insistence on the universal priesthood, which has devalued the ministerial priesthood, disheartening generations of priests and bringing on an unprecedented crisis in vocations; “sacred” architecture which built anti-liturgical monsters; the de facto abolition of the Four Last Things, when the theme of the salvation of souls (and the risk of eternal damnation) is the only supernatural subject matter which differentiates the Church from a philanthropic agency; and so forth.

BECOMING SAINTS

Believers are united on the essential and are divided on controversial issues. Everyone, however, is called to respect and accompany those who are burdened by suffering and the fatigues of life. How does one’s spiritual sensibilities change when suffering passes through the days with violence, as is happening to you?

The first thing that shakes you up about sickness is that it hits us without any warning and at a time we do not decide. We are at the mercy of events, and we can do nothing but accept them. Grave illness obliges one to become aware that we are truly mortal; even if death is the most certain thing in the world, modern man tends to live as if he should never die.

In sickness you understand for the first time that life on earth is but a breath, you recognize with bitterness that you have not made it that masterpiece of holiness God had wanted. You experience a profound nostalgia for the good that you could have done and for the bad that you could have avoided. You look at the Crucifix and you understand that this is the heart of the Faith; without sacrifice Catholicism wouldn’t exist. Then you thank God for having made you a Catholic, a “little ” Catholic, a sinner, but who has an attentive Mother in the Church. So, grave sickness is a time of grace, but often the vices and miseries that have accompanied us in life remain, or even increase [during it]. It is as if the agony has already begun, and there is a battle going on for the destiny of my soul, because nobody can be sure of their own salvation.

On the other hand, this sickness has allowed me to discover a remarkable amount of people who love and pray for me; families who recite the rosary in the evening with their children for my recovery. I have no words to describe the beauty of this experience which is an anticipation of the love of God and eternity itself. The greatest suffering I experience is the idea of having to leave this world which I am so fond of and is so beautiful even if also so tragic; of having to leave many friends and relatives; but most of all, of having to leave my wife and children who are still at a tender age.

Sometimes I imagine my home, my empty study, and the life that will continue there even if I am no longer present. It is a scene that hurts, but it is extremely realistic: it makes me realize what a useless servant I have been, and that all the books I have written, the conferences and articles, are nothing but straw. But my hope is in the mercy of the Lord, and in the fact that others will pick up part of my aspirations and battles and will continue on in “the ancient duel”.

[Source: Settimana (Ed. Dehoniane), October 27, 2013, issue n. 38/2013, p. 12-13. Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana.]

Unbelievable - dying Mario Palmaro's only way to arrange Traditional Funeral Mass: ask for city permit and shame pastor into "allowing" it

The other-than-human hatred for the Traditional Mass continues even after death - in January, our contributor Joseph Shaw presented the Latin Mass Society's guide on a way of ensuring your own Funeral Rites are conducted according to the Traditional Roman Rite (at least in some jurisdictions, see here: A Practical guide to having a Traditional Funeral Mass).

Now, used as he was to the diabolical hatred for the Latin Mass, the late Mario Palmaro (requiescat in pace) devised, during the several months of excruciating suffering and pain caused by the disease that led to his death, another way to ensure the pastor of the cathedral of his city, Monza, would "allow" his funeral Mass to be performed in the Traditional Roman Rite in the Duomo:

"Mario Palmaro leaves a wife and four young children, yet in order to have a Catholic funeral he had to resort to a sort of ploy: while still alive he asked the pastor (archpriest) of [the Cathedral of] Monza, to have the Holy Catholic Mass (V.O.) [i.e. Vetus Ordo] celebrated at his death; the priest answered - 'no way.' But Mario had already written to the Mayor [for a permit], if the funeral were to be refused in the Church, that it be done by a Catholic priest (faithful to the Vetus Ordo) in the square [outside the cathedral]. And the Mayor gave his consent. So, faced with something that could have become a shameful scandal, the pastor had the Mass of All Ages celebrated inside the Cathedral in the presence of a deeply moved crowd." [Riscossa Cristiana, in Italian]*

A great friend of Rorate was present in the Duomo, and he tells us well over one thousand faithful attended the Funeral Mass. Palmaro acted based on experience: one of the first articles we published in translation here by Mario Palmaro and Alessandro Gnocchi was on the denial of the Traditional Funeral Mass for Alessandro Gnocchi's own father (Another traditional funeral Mass denied by a diocese, Nov. 11, 2011).

A subitanea et improvisa morte, libera nos, Domine.

*[Important update, Mar 19, 9:00pm]: the original text of this note, translated above, was the following: "Mario Palmaro lascia la moglie e quattro figli in giovane età e per avere il funerale cattolico ha dovuto ricorrere ad una astuzia: ancor vivo ha chiesto all’arciprete di Monza che nel duomo, alla sua morte, fosse celebrata la S. Messa cattolica; l’arciprete rispose picche. Ma Mario aveva già scritto al sindaco che nel caso gli fossero state vietate le esequie in Chiesa, fossero fatte da un sacerdote cattolico (fedele al vetus ordo) in piazza. E il Sindaco acconsentì. Così, di fronte a quello che poteva divenire uno scandalo vergognoso, l’arciprete ha fatto celebrare la S. Messa di sempre nel duomo alla presenza di una immensa e commossa folla di fedeli." || Several days after our publication, it was changed to this in Riscossa Cristiana, which was brought to our attention today, and changes the order of events: "Ma Mario minacciò di chiedere al Sindaco l’autorizzazione a celebrare le esequie in piazza, con un sacerdote cattolico (fedele al vetus ordo). Così, di fronte a quello che poteva divenire uno scandalo vergognoso, l’arciprete ha fatto celebrare la S. Messa di sempre nel duomo alla presenza di una immensa e commossa folla di fedeli." [Translation: "But Mario threatened to ask the Mayor for a city permit to celebrate the funeral in the square with a Catholic priest (faithful to the vetus ordo). So, faced with something which could have become a shameful scandal, the archpriest allowed the Holy Mass of Ages to be celebrated in the Duomo in the presence of a deeply-moved crowd of people."]

Rest in peace, Mario Palmaro

Mario Palmaro
(Jun. 5, 1968 - Mar. 9, 2014)

Mario Palmaro, the great Italian traditional Catholic lawyer, bioethicist and professor, who due to the current circumstances in the Church was compelled to become a forceful opinion writer (often with his close friend Alessandro Gnocchi) and radio presenter, died late yesterday at the age of 45, following months of suffering.

Palmaro, whose writing and words had been a sunny presence in the years of Benedict XVI, had been dismissed from Radio Maria for an article on the current pontificate published in Il Foglio. His last major article, published in January, was a call to arms: "Who am I to judge?" Our problem is the Catholic Church and her silence. You may read many of his translated texts clicking on the label below.

He leaves wife and children.

Requiescat in pace

Dictatorship of "Tolerance" at Radio Maria: Professor de Mattei removed for article - "Father, you're deluded if you think whirlwind won't hit you."

Professor Roberto de Mattei wrote an article in his style, published on Feb. 12, with the title "Motus in fine velocior", the great Latin expression that explains both physical reality and historical events - that is, that speed of change increases with the end of a historical era. We reproduce the article at the end of this post.

For years, Prof. de Mattei had been presenting, without receiving anything in return, a special program at Italian Catholic radio network Radio Maria dedicated to an exploration of the Christian roots of Europe. Radio Maria's director, Fr. Livio Fanzaga, considered "Motus in fine velocior", an op-ed published elsewhere, a step too far - the letter telling de Mattei of his removal is available below. De Mattei responded on the same day, and his letter is also available below; in it, he warns Fr. Fanzaga that, with the increasing speed of critical events, also he and his radio station will be soon forced to take a stand.

Two writers who are also bewildered by the situation in the Church in the past year, Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro, had been fired by Radio Maria in October 2013 (we mentioned this shortly afterwards).

This is the new "Church of Tolerance and Mercy"!

We in Rorate have often posted op-eds by Prof. de Mattei. We do not always agree with every single opinion point he makes. But this does not mean his voice is to be silenced. Those who love most the Roman Church, her history and her prerogatives are those to whom no tolerance is to be granted right now. No mercy for them, despite their ceaseless loyalty to the Roman See. No "who am I to judge" for their heartfelt motivations. "Should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate." (Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops, 2009)

Documents below:
1. Letter of Removal from Director of Radio Maria to Prof. de Mattei.
2. Responding Letter from Prof. de Mattei to Radio Director.
3. Article "Motus in fine velocior", by Prof. de Mattei.

____________________________

1. Letter of Removal from the Director of Radio Maria to Prof. de Mattei.

Fr. Livio Fanzaga

February 13, 2014

Dear Prof. Roberto de Mattei,

I read your recent article "Motus in fine velocior", and I noticed the way you have been continuously increasing your critical position regarding the Pontificate of Pope Francis. I am very displeased with it, and I would have wished you put your great cultural competence at the service of the Successor of Peter.

You will understand, dear Professor, that your position is incompatible with the presence in Radio Maria, which calls for, in its guiding principles, adherence not only to the Magisterium of the Church, but also support to the pastoral action of the Supreme Pontiff.

Regretfully and bound by conscience, I must suspend your monthly broadcast, while thanking you, also in the name of listeners, for your deep effort, made as a voluntary, in the research of the Christian roots of Europe.

Dear Professor, if your approach regarding the current Pontificate should change and become more positive, there would be no difficulty for you to resume your broadcast.

Cordially,

Father Livio Fanzaga (Director) 

____________________________

2. Responding Letter from Prof. de Mattei to Radio Director.

February 13, 2014

Dear Father Livio,

With an e-mail message of February 13, you tell me that you have decided to suspend the program "Radici Cristiane" [Christian Roots] at Radio Maria, because I would "have been continuously increasing" my "critical position regarding the Pontificate of Pope Francis." "Your position" -- you write me -- "is incompatible with the presence in Radio Maria, which calls for, in its guiding principles, adherence not only to the Magisterium of the Church, but also support to the pastoral action of the Supreme Pontiff."

First of all, I thank you for the invitation you offered me four years ago to conduct the transmission “Radici Cristiane” on Radio Maria. Since then, until last January 15, every third Wednesday of the month, I tried to carry out to the best of my ability, the task that you had entrusted to me, by developing themes of a historical nature, apologetics and a spiritual and moral defense of the Church and Christian civilization. I thank you also for having publically defended me when, as a result of some of my transmissions, I was violently attacked by the secular press. All of my activity and apostolate has been and remains at the service of the Church and the Roman Pontiff, to whom I dedicated my latest book, Vicar of Christ: The Papacy - Normality and Exception Devotion to the Papacy is an essential part of my spiritual life.

Catholic doctrine teaches us however, that the Pope is infallible only in determined conditions and he can make mistakes, in the sphere of ecclesiastic politics for example, in strategic choices, in pastoral action and even in ordinary magisterium. In these cases it is not a sin, but a duty of conscience for a Catholic to criticize, provided that it is done with the maximum respect and love due to the Supreme Pontiff. The saints did so, and they have to be our models.

The Church allows Her children this freedom to criticize, and it is not a sin if one points out, with due respect, the faults of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Instead, the one who is silent because of cowardice or conformism, does sin. The drama in the Church today is precisely the fear in priests and bishops, who constitute the pars electa of the Church, in denouncing the terrible crisis which is occurring, identifying its causes and proposing solutions.

I re-read the article which represents the reason for my dismissal - and it seems to me that there is nothing disrespectful in it towards the reigning Pontiff, but simply some considerations of a historical nature more than theological, motivated by a pure love for the Truth. Besides, I did not express my concerns about the actual situation in the Church on my monthly Radio Maria transmission, but on my own information agency.

Dear Father Livio, you have every right to dismiss me from your radio, but it would have been better if you had done it without motivations, rather than advance such weak reasons, which are, if I may say so, unfounded. This incident does not bode well for you and I am truly sorry about it. The motion of events has accelerated at an increasingly faster pace and sooner or later the whirlwind will involve you and Radio Maria, constraining you to assume, in one way or the other, positions, which you are deluded in thinking can be avoided. The time will come, however, when one has to take sides. [Emphasis added] As far as I am concerned, I shall continue to exercise my Christian freedom, to defend the faith that I have received with my baptism and is the thing I hold dearest.

May the Holy Spirit help me never to succumb to any pressure or flattery, and never cease to state the truth, and to state it as loud as the silence of those who should be giving voice to it.

With deepest respect,

Roberto de Mattei

____________________________

3. Article "Motus in fine velocior", by Prof. de Mattei.

Motus in fine velocior

by Roberto de Mattei [Feb. 12. 2014]

February 11, 2013, is a date which has entered history. It was on that day that Benedict XVI communicated to an assembly of astonished cardinals his decision to renounce the pontificate. The announcement was received “like lightning in a serene sky,” according to the words addressed to the Pope by the cardinal deacon Angelo Sodano, and the image of lightning which, that very day, had struck the Basilica of St. Peter, spread throughout the world.

The advance of abortion, homosexual "marriage", and all perverted ideas? / Our Problem is the Catholic Church and her silence: where is the indignation? / "Who am I to judge": the tombstone of any pro-family legal battle

The Smoke of Satan in the Church

a letter by Mario Palmaro

What follows is a little unusual, but as it is a central topic in the life of the Church and of our work, we offer it to you knowing well that it requires a considerable effort by those who want understand things thoroughly. Mario Palmaro, a well- known writer to the readers of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiano, wrote me a very long letter to express publically his indignation about the direction the Church is taking, above all regarding the homosexual aggression which is of interest to the whole world. My reply follows this letter, and with it, I do not want to close the discussion, but open it to other input. Palmaro with his friend and colleague, Alessandro Gnocchi, were at the centre of polemics in the past months because of a series of articles in Il Foglio, when they harshly criticized Pope Francis. The Pope himself, then called Palmaro, after discovering that he had a grave illness. Hence, I would like to take the opportunity to ask all our readers to pray for him.

Riccardo Cascioli, 

Director of La Nuova Bussola Quotidana

[Catholic online daily]

January 8, 2014
Dear Director,

I read your editorial of January 3 [2014] – “Renzi - if this is progress!” , and I can only agree with your analysis on the new Secretary of the [Socialist] Democratic Party - his cunning self-confidence, his transformism, the inevitable contradiction between saying he is Catholic and his promotion of things that conflict not only with the Catechism, but with the natural law. I would like to add my appreciation for all that you have been doing for some time now with the Bussola in the face of the homosexual assault, and don’t want to reproach you in any way.

However, I feel the need to write to you and your readers. In all honesty: is our problem really Matteo Renzi? Did we really expect that one who becomes Secretary of the Democratic Party, would then set about defending the natural family, the unborn, combating artificial insemination, abortion, and opposing euthanasia? Forgive me, are you actually familiar with the PD electorate which include Catholics on pastoral committees, nuns and parish priests? In your opinion, what does that electorate want from Renzi? It is obvious: “homosexual marriage” and “lesbian-democratic” adoptions. Have you ever listened to the average worker who votes for the left? In your opinion, do they want the defense of natural marriage or do they want council houses for our brother-homosexuals so horribly discriminated against? Let’s stop believing that the problem is Niki Vendola* or the ugly, bad, communist extremists and that it is important to be moderate; the points of reference for the average man are Fabio Fazio* and Luciana Littizzetto*, the Coop, Gino Strada*, Enzo Bianchi* and Eugenio Scalfari*. Renzi puts all these ingredients into his blender, mixes them with doses of homoeopathy from Don Ciotti* and Don Gallo*, and the result is the perfect brew which holds the “little democratic parish” and the Arcigay together. To expect something different from him would be stupid.

The scandal, forgive me, is another. Compared to Renzi - the Secretary of the PD who winks at the homosexuals, the scandal is in listening to the exponents of the New Centre Right who are saying: “Civil unions are not a priority for the government”. Do you get it? It is not that the NCD jumps up like a spring and declares: we shall never vote for these unions – ever! No: he says that they are not a priority. Someone meets Hitler who is talking about wanting to construct gas chambers. Does he reply like this: “Look, Adolf, this is not a priority.” We will do that, we will do that too, all in good time”?

I watched government minister, Hon. Lupi – a Catholic, who explained the situation on a Rai News program. With a very embarrassed face and the terrified eyes of one who is thinking (but I could be mistaken) : “Damn it! Now I have to talk about the non-negotiable principles and homosexuals, and I’ll end up like Pietro Barilla. I’ll have to leave my strategic and important ministry, where I can do so much good for my country and my movement. And then Lupi takes refuge in that well-known theme called ”priorities”, like all of the other lion-hearts in Angiolino and Roccella’s party: no, civil unions are not a priority.

Obviously there’s worse: on the same News programme, there was Scelta Civica (Civic Choice) saying: we have to defend the rights of homosexual people. Scelta Civica, I believe, is that same party created in a rage by Todi 1* and Todi 2*, which the Italian bishops had erected as a new bulwark for the non-negotiable values under the ‘very Catholic’ leadership of Mario Monti. Then we have the worst of the worst. In the same News, there was a ‘lady’ belonging to Forza Italia who triumphantly announced that they would have put their proposals for homosexual rights together with those of Renzi. I heard a distant roll of drums against civil unions from Salvini’s Lega and even more feebly from the Fratelli d’ Italia. The end.

No, dear Director, my problem is not Matteo Renzi.

My problem is the Catholic Church. The problem is that on the subject of the worldwide outbreak of the homosexual lobby, the Church has fallen silent. We have silence from the Pope to the humblest priest in the peripheries. And if the Pope speaks, the day after Padre Lombardi has to rectify, specify, clarify and differentiate. Please abstain from dusting off letters and declarations made by Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio ten years ago. If I find out today that my son takes drugs, what should I say to him: “go and re-read the joint declaration made by me and your mother six years ago when we told you not to take drugs”? Or would I face him and try to shake him immediately as best I can?

Dear Director, where are the Episcopal Conference and the bishops in this battle? A deafening silence has fallen upon them. Actually, no: Monsignor Domenico Mogavero, Bishop of Mazara del Vallo, ex-under-secretary to the CEI and canonist – no less – spoke – oh, and how he spoke:

“The law cannot ignore hundreds and thousands of people cohabitating. It is right that cohabitating couples be recognized also in Italy without putting them on equal terms with families.” For Mogavero, “The State can and must protect the pact that two cohabitants have made between themselves. In contrast to Christian mercy and universal rights – note well - two cohabitants don’t exist for the law. Today, if one of the two is taken to hospital, the other is even denied in the lending care or receiving medical information, as if they were an outsider.” The Bishop concludes: “I think it is legitimate to recognize rights such as the reversibility of pensions or the transfer of rent in virtue of the person’s importance. It is unsustainable – Mogavero underlines – that the cohabiter is a Mr. Nobody for the law.” And as regards the Church, for which Pope Francis has invited reflection on this theme, in view of the extraordinary Synod on the Family, “without equating them to married couples, there are no obstacles to common-law unions.” Amen.

Do you get it, dear Director? Shortly they’ll take my son of seven and at school they’ll make him play with condoms and his genitals, and what does the Church talks about with me? About boatloads which sink near Lampedusa, about Jesus who was a refugee, about an obscure Jesuit of the 17th century just beatified!

No, my problem is not Matteo Renzi.

Dear Director, where is the Archbishop of Milan, Angelo Scola in this battle?

Shortly they will stop us from saying and writing that homosexuality is against nature, and Scola talks to me about half-castes and of the need to understand and value the Roma culture. And again, it was the Archbishop of Milan some weeks ago who invited the Archbishop of Vienna, Schönborn, to our Cathedral: as the Church is disappearing in Austria, they asked him to come and explain to the priests of our diocese how to obtain such results - what their secret was. Just like this: a coach has brought his team to fall down on the league, and so we’ll give him the teaching post at Coverciano! [The central training ground and technical headquarters of the Italian National Football Team.]

And would you look at the coincidence, among other things: Schönborn – who wears the habit of St. Dominic and Thomas Aquinas – came to explain to the Ambrosian priests that he had personally intervened in protecting the nomination of two homosexuals for a parish council. Schönborn says he met them and: “I saw two pure young men, even if their cohabitation is not what the order of creation has foreseen.” There you have it, dear Director, this is purity according to a prince of the Church at the dawn of the year 2014.

And my problem should be Matteo Renzi and the PD?

They are going to take my seven-year-old son and brainwash him into thinking that homosexuality is normal and in the meantime, my Archbishop invites a bishop to the Cathedral to teach me that two homosexuals living together are examples of purity?

And so to finish. The Matteo Renzi who promotes civil unions is a physiological byproduct of a Pope who, in his travels is interviewed by journalists on the plane and declares: “Who am I to judge” etc, etc. Obviously, I know too that these two are not of the same nature, that the Pope is against these things and certainly suffers regarding them, and that he is motivated by good intentions. However, facts are facts. Confronted with that little sentence – epochal from the mouth of a Pope “Who am I to judge”–,  loads of corrective and reparatory articles can be written, which tireless troops of “normalists” have been doing now for months, in order to say, don’t worry all is well – everything is just fine.

But we both know well, and anyone else who knows the mechanisms of communications does as well, that, that “Who am I to judge” is a tombstone on any political and legal battle regarding the recognition of homosexual rights. If we were in rugby, I would tell you that that little sentence gained in a few seconds more meters in favour of the homosexual lobby, than decades of work by the world’s homosexual movement. I’ll tell you too, that bishops like Mogavero, in the shade of that little sentence “who am I to judge” can build castles of dissolution without impunity, and the only thing left for us to do is to keep our mouths shut.