'The Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dur can make them do so. He can, maybe, by his will choose what things shall be seen by weaker minds, or cause them to mistake the meaning of what they see.' --J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King, The Last Debate
You know how the tainted "ties" with the liberation theology people and the inherent marxism politics that goes with such people has most likely been the thing that was blocking the cause for the canonization of Romero moving forward? That even though these "ties" were not "ties", but were only the inevitable associations that came from doing his work in that particular world, being pure and clean of all that himself, explicitly condemning these things himself? Yes?
What if Cardinal Bergoglio had to wade in the same, liturgically and otherwise, and that he is well aware of the rupture, the ugliness, the degradation of the Mass, and that he is pure and clean of all that, and because of his experience with all of that he is the most qualified to hold a candle to it?
And the people at Rorate Caeli, all what they do is say, "Look, he was there at the puppet mass! He's tainted! That's why he didn't step out onto the balcony wearing the Papal stole! And untrustworthy sinners he shepherded are saying untrustworthy things about him! Let's "report" it! It's not playing the tool of the enemy! No!"
I have no problems with people using pseudonyms on the internet, but when people get into the calumnious sort of business, as in the above, they lose credibility and they start making me ask, "Well, who the hell is this person anyways who doesn't use his real name? These people who keep pumping out this untrustworthy crap calumniating the Pope while hiding behind a pseudonym?"
You want to use a pseudonym, great. But when you use a pseudonym and calumniate the Pope while claiming the mantle of tradition, you do not gain the ear of this reader; you only make me say, "Why do you use a pseudonym and not your real name?"
In other words, I do not trust you.
