Pell Case: The Church Has Submitted Itself to the World - Interview With Roberto de Mattei
What do you make of the condemnation of Cardinal George Pell?
When there are accusations involving churchmen the Church cannot simply say, "Let’s wait for the results of the investigation carried out by the secular tribunals," because the Church has its own Canon Law, its own tribunals, and is capable of carrying out investigations.
Should we not trust the secular courts?
I find such manifestation of trust in the secular tribunals troubling.
Why?
Those in the Vatican are in shock over the Pell affair because they know that he is innocent. They are embarrassed because the Pope had appointed him Prefect to the Secretariat for the Economy. But once the decision has been made to rely on the secular tribunals, one has to bear the consequences…
Should the Church investigate abusive priests?
The Church has its own penal law and tribunals. It needs to have the courage to challenge the judgment of the world’s tribunals, having the conviction that it's not the world that judges the Church but the Church that judges the world. The Church should reclaim Her sovereignty.
How do you mean?
I find it extremely problematic that the Church has renounced Her sovereignty. The Church is a sovereign society, like the State, even if Her purpose, unlike the purpose of the State, is supernatural.
Therefore?
If the Church is a sovereign society, it has all the instruments to achieve its own ends of justice. It is not only a merely ethical organism, which has stripped itself of its judicial dimension, allowing the State to decide. This renunciation of sovereignty is a dangerous development.
Why?
This way the secular tribunals can even get at Pope Francis…
How?
When the Church renounces sovereignty, it becomes a kind of "business enterprise in the field of morals." This turns the Church into something like a business company and, starting from the top, renders the entire Church responsible for the acts of its subordinates. This cannot happen if the Church is considered a sovereign society.
So the Church should act as a State?
Precisely. If an Italian citizen commits a crime, the Prime Minster is not held responsible for this. But if this tendency continues in the Church, there will be a persecution.
A persecution of the Church?
I’m afraid so. By renouncing sovereignty, the Church loses its freedom. It is forced to submit to the State or to be persecuted. Today we are under a regime of submission. If before the State was the secular arm of the Church, now the Church is becoming the secular arm of the powers that be, the politicians and the media.
How?
In the sense that the Church is obeying indications coming from national and international organizations which hold a vision that is antithetical to the vision of the Christian.
But this is not yet persecution, is it?
If the Church decides to evade this mechanism, there will be a clash with the political powers. At the moment, the Church doesn’t dare do this. But if forced to do so, it will find itself in great difficulty, as it has given up on its main line of defense i.e. on the exercise of its freedom and judicial independence.
Somebody observed that the accusations against Cardinal Pell came after the Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy had discovered a million Euros deposited in secret accounts…
It’s possible that the two things are connected. Further there are rumors that the source of the accusations that put Cardinal Pell in the dock was not in Australia, but in the Vatican…
In what sense is the Church lacking reference to the supernatural?
The Church is renouncing its mission - which has as its end the salvation of souls - by changing into a ‘business company’ for the material well-being of people. The Church’s very nature is being perverted…
Its nature is being perverted?
The Church is abdicating the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ, the Founder. Thus, it will become a revolutionary organism…
Meaning?
When the relationship with God fades, the Church becomes a political society. This is the principal characteristic of the present Papacy, which is a political Papacy, as opposed to a religious Papacy.
Francis’ Papacy is political?
Yes, it is. And Francis' leitmotif is immigration. On February 14, when meeting representatives of indigenous populations at the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Francis called for a "cultural miscegenation" among the "so-called civilized populations". Which signifies the elimination of the Christian roots which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had both insisted upon.
What is "miscegenation"?
Miscegenation is for Francis not only cultural, but ethnic. It seems that he plans an ethnic replacement of the European population which is in stark demographic decline, with new waves of African migrants…
But why all this?
Francis has an ideological vision that originates from his education.
What would that be?
That of a man who has absorbed progressive theology through the mediation of Liberation Theology. This is an utopia of the "brave new world". Except that he is reintroducing it 30-40 years after it has failed...
How would you define Francis' policy?
Calculated ambiguity is the sum of Francis' personality. This is also the cause of his problems. At this point though, let me ask a question.
Go ahead...
Benedict XVI, who was also opposed in his homeland, made three trips to Germany. John Paul II made nine visits to Poland. How come, that in the six years of his Papacy, Francis has been everywhere, even in the United Arab Emirates, but never to his own Argentina?
Why?
The question itself is already an answer…