Vatican Persecution of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate: Diabolical Disorientation – With Bells On…

Image …In yet another hypocritical and unjust move, Cardinal João Braz de Aviz of the Congregation of Religious put the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate under Apostolic Visitation (investigation) as of May 19, 2014.  According to the Pray4TheFriars blogsite:

The general house located near Frattocchie (Rome area) is now ‘chaired’ by Sr. Fernanda Barbiero – Institute of Teaching Sisters of St. Dorothea. I don’t have exact infos on her stances, but at a first glance and for what I read from her, she seems moderately progressive-leaning. Whilst Sr. Fernanda has just a visiting tenure, it seems she’s been provided with vast power to rule the Order.

The Sisters’ crime? According to Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, who is currently busy destroying the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Sisters are guilty of a “distorted mentality.”

 Why? Undoubtedly due to the same complaint against the Friars: a “crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift” in the community. In other words, the Sisters are being investigated because they assist at the Traditional Mass and are suspected of adhering to the Traditional Faith. Thus, being Catholic is now apparently dangerous, subversive, and “crypto-lefebvrian” to the Congregation of Religious.

Fr. Volpi had already desired the investigation of the Sisters ever since they had the audacity to publicly refute his spurious accusations against them. Now, with this latest move of Cardinal Aviz, Fr. Volpi gets his wish.  Read more…  

Comment

What is going on? Are there so few dissident religious sisters around that the Apostolic Visitors need to keep busy by  placing a perfectly faithful Order of Sisters under what amounts to investigation?  Or is it a case of the hatred of the true Faith, which constitutes the diabolical disorientation raging in the Church right now, reaching a new low?  

Click here to check out the discussion we had way back in January when the Vatican persecution of the Franciscan friars began, and then share your thoughts about this growing persecution of what appears to be a model religious order.

40 responses

  1. What is going on is that the wicked apostates and internal enemies of the Church who elected this Pope are now exploiting the carte blanche they knew he would give them: complete freedom to destroy any remnants of Tradition in the Church under any pretext whatsoever. I hope these unjust, heinous actions soon become so oppressive as to encourage open and vociferous rebellion among these remnants.

    • Great Pretender,

      Correct. And compare this disgraceful Vatican treatment (with the Pope’s support) of the FI – priests and nuns – with the treatment of this homosexual activist priest by the Pope himself.

      “Shocking” is the new ” a tad surprising”… In other words, I’m running out of ways to describe the Catholic response to such appalling dereliction of papal duty.

    • I don’t know what’s more horrifying, the persecution of those good nuns or the Pope concelebrating Mass with a known homosexual activist priest and then kissing his hand!

      I find his comment about “not judging ‘gays'” to be of concern more and more.

      Reading the article about the Franciscan Sisters, it is obvious that Vatican II is being treated as a dogmatic council, and any criticism of it is being regarded as a heresy. It really is a disorientation from the devil.

  2. I’m surprised that the people who frequent this blog consider FSI to be adherents to the true faith, given the fact that you constantly deride the FSSP and ICKSP. I fail to see how the Franciscans of the Immaculate can possess the true faith whereas the two latter groups apparently do not.

    • Catholic Convert,

      Please quote anything from this blog “deriding” the FSSP and ICKSP.

      The only point which I, personally, and others have made is that traditional-leaning groups outside the SSPX must compromise in order to be allowed the TLM. And now we have the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who are “bi-ritual” (i.e. they have both the novus ordo and the TLM available in their Order) being persecuted for even THAT limited “traditionalism”.

      Is not that a fair point to make? Is THAT what you mean by “deriding”?

      You’re not quite on the same level as a certain troll who visits us, Catholic Convert, but there are times when I wonder where, precisely, your loyalties lie; and – pre-empting an erroneous interpretation – by that I don’t mean loyalty to this blog but whether or not you are more novus ordo leaning than traditional leaning. You do have me confused at times. Do I have good cause to be confused? Are you OK with the “compromise” brigade? Or do you think – like my unworthy self – that they’d all (FI included) be better singing from the same hymn sheet … in an SSPX chapel?

      Signed Curious, Glasgow.

      • Dear Curious Glasgow,
        I reckon diabolic disorientation says it all. The worst thing perhaps is that those who are opposed to tradition, even they seem repelled by tradition, sad at it seems actually might believe they are following Our Lord authentically. They really imagine the NuChurch is the same Catholic Church led into new ways of expression by the Holy Spirit. Somehow they have a hybrid Catholicism that is also quite relativistic. It draws in some ways on a humility to be honest, admitting God is a mystery. It also draws on a Modernist instinct that God, who is the source of objective morality, would not permit the awful fate of eternal damnation to countless souls on account of the happenstance that they have not been introduced in any meaningful way to the faith.
        What I am saying is that much as I wish there had never been Vatican II, much as I blame Henry VIII and Cranmer and the bishops of the realm for wrecking the true faith in this land, the ones letting us down today actually seem to imagine they are authentically following Christ. I hope they will be judged by their good intentions even though I despair at the damage they cause to truth, and ultimately to souls.

        • Burt,

          I am a bit puzzled by your suggestion that all those who have damaged the Church should be “judged by their good intentions”.

          People in favour of euthanasia have good intentions and so do others who commit other grave sins. I don’t think “good intentions” is the main thing. If people are losing their souls because of the acts of those who damage the Church who should have known better, then surely they will be judged on their actions not their intentions.

          • Margaret Mary,

            I did describe it as my “hope” that these wrong headed apostates are judged by Our Lord by their good intentions.

            It is not to belittle the harm I think their their actions cause.
            It’s that plea Our Lord made from the cross that lies at the root of that hope, “Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.”

            Of course if there are infiltrators who are deliberately destroying the faith from within, purely because they hate the Church established by Our Lord, then maybe they do “know what they do”…no get out of hell card for them in that case for sure!

            It is my hope you see that many souls who are the collateral damage of all this, those so poorly catechised they have not got a clue about the faith, people I know and love, are going to be given every mercy by our Blessed Saviour according to that prayer He made on the cross.

            • Burt,

              I think the modernists know what they are doing all right and so did Pius X think that, judging by his strong condemnation in Pascendi http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

              I don’t think it’s intention but repentance that matters. If these people who are destroying the Church don’t repent of their pride in thinking they know better than 2000 centuries of tradition, then they can’t hope to be saved, IMHO.

              • Josephine,

                I totally accept your point about repentance being the ultimate arbiter when it comes to our eternal destiny.
                In fact I totally see what Margaret Mary was saying about how it is our actions more than our intentions than matter too.

                When I meditate on our Lord praying on behalf of His persecutors I sometimes can’t help myself asking Him….Serious?….How can any man who has just driven nails in an innocent man’s wrists and through his feet, continuing to mock him and deride him, how can any man do this and not know he is doing evil?.

                But when we discuss the errors of Vatican II, we are talking about diabolical disorientation. The Visionary Sr Lucy gave us the term as spoken to her by Our Blessed Mother. To me there is an implication in the term of people being led astray. There is a certain element of unwittingness that is implied in those words, or am I alone here in getting that drift.

                • Burt,

                  We have discussed this before, and certainly there can be no doubt that the people who will struggle very hard to explain themselves at their judgment, are those who are doing the leading astray. You are spot on with that observation.

                  And you are right in that the diabolical disorientation has brought a spiritual blindness which is somehow driving the pope and bishops – literally – towards perdition. That the grace of their office is undoubtedly available to them, prevents me from talking too much about the mercy of God in relation to them – God is both just and merciful – although I understand your impressive concern to be charitable.

                  It seems to me, however, that those popes who read the Third Secret of Fatima and decided not to act on it, are not remotely in the same position as the soldiers who drove the nails into Christ Crucified.

                  We’ve had access to the teaching of 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition and divine revelation to help us make sense of the world. Those pagan soldiers had no such benefit.

                  After all, it took me a mere few seconds to find the following dire warnings from popes about the importance of preserving the truths of the Faith. If I could find them in such a short space of time, then surely the modern churchmen who are destroying the Faith (and being canonised for their trouble!) could do as much to enlighten themselves about their roles and responsibilities:

                  1) … We are not, therefore, teachers of a doctrine drawn from human minds, but—–conscious of our charge—–we ought to embrace and follow that which Christ Our Lord taught and Whose teaching, by a solemn commandment, He committed to His Apostles and to their successors … Moreover, since We are very certain that this doctrine which we must safeguard in all its integrity is Divinely revealed, We repeat the words of the Apostle of the Nations: “But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach to you a Gospel besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1: 8). Pope Pius XII

                  2) We anathematize those who presume to teach or explain any other creed. Pope Vigilius

                  3) I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation. Pope St. Pius X

                  4) If anyone according to wicked heretics in any manner whatsoever, by any word whatsoever, at any time whatsoever, or in any place whatsoever illicitly removes the boundaries firmly established by the holy Fathers of the Catholic Church … in order to seek for novelties and expositions of another faith … and, briefly, if it is customary for the most impious heretics to do anything else, should anyone through diabolical operation crookedly and cunningly act contrary to the pious preachings of the orthodox teachers of the Catholic Church, that is, its papal and conciliar proclamations, to the destruction of sincere confession unto the Lord our God, and persist without repentance unto the end: let such a person be condemned forever, and let all the people say: So be it! So be it! Pope St. Martin I

                  5) The preaching of the faith has lost nothing of its relevance in our times. The Church has a sacred duty to proclaim it without any whittling-down, just as Christ revealed it, and no consideration of time or circumstance can lessen the strictness of this obligation. Pope Pius XII

                  And, for the record, here’s what two of the post-Vatican II popes had to say on the subject which suggests they were NOT in ignorance of their key papal responsibility to preserver the Faith:

                  Pope John XXIII
                  The sacred deposit of truth must be safeguarded. It is absolutely vital that the Church never for an instant lose sight of the holy patrimony of truth inherited from the Fathers … This is the certain and unchangeable doctrine to which the faithful owe obedience.

                  Pope Paul VI
                  Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation.

                  Well, Burt, would YOU like to be in the shoes of any of the post-Vatican II popes on Judgment Day? I know I’ll be quaking in my own shoes but the thought of what awaits them is just mind blowing. I say that because it would seem that the major weakness of the post-Vatican II popes is not their ignorance of the Faith and the papal duty to protect it, but their weakness of character to properly govern the Church, dealing firmly with heretics and other dissenters.

                  Perhaps though you are thinking more of lay people. Well, the same basic argument applies. We all have the duty to keep ourselves educated in the Faith, and especially at a time of crisis in the Church, we must keep ourselves informed. God, of course, does not punish the innocent, so the genuinely ignorant need not worry. Only if their ignorance if culpable – if they are to blame, themselves for their ignorance, need they take to quaking in their shoes! I don’t think, though, that anyone who is informed can take the “oh well, there’s this diabolical disorientation, so God can’t blame me…” in a spirit of “I’ll do what I want and fingers crossed.”

                  Written at top speed – hope this makes some kind of sense. If not, speak now or forever hold your peace 😀

  3. Fr Ray Blake has a good article contrasting the very different approaches being taken by the Vatican towards the LCWR and the FFI. A piece of it is below:

    The action against the LCWR has been one of ongoing dialogue, a clear statement of the problems, a firm but patient determination on the part of the Vatican to draw the American religious back into the life of the Church, even if the sisters flail around refusing to dialogue the Holy See still continues making its requests, gently increasing pressure on them, whilst at the same time leaving them, the Leadership Conference free to do what it wants, whilst the vast majority of American women religious are completely unaffected.

    The way in which the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being dealt with is in complete contrast, the Vatican Commissar has taken complete control over every aspect of the lives of individuals from novices to the founder. No one actually seems to know quite what the problem is, there are no clear complaints, except for ‘tendencies’ which frankly could mean anything. Their problems after all these months seem to be ‘thought crimes’. In contrast to Fr Volpi’s declining Capuchins or the LCWR the FFI’s were growing, were young, were faithful. Now the same terror is being applied to their female branch, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate.

    The LCWR have ‘moved beyond Jesus’, the FFI seem just be marginally a little too trad , yet the velvet Benedictine glove is applied to the former and the iron fist of Francis to the latter. The way in which the LCWR is being dealt with promotes growth and inclusion whereas the way Fr Volpi is dealing with the FFIs seems destructive and violent. Whilst Francis continues to grow in popularity in the secular media I detect growing fears amongst many that the hand on the tiller of the bark of Peter is just too firm, too South American, with too much determination for change for the sake of change. Far from a papacy that is small poor and humble Francis’ is as big as any of the past.

    http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/bavaria-and-buenos-aires.html

    • Thanks for that, Gabriel Syme. Fr Blake’s comment is, indeed, a very clear description of the difference in the indulgent way the Vatican treats dissident nuns and the scandalous way it persecutes orthodox, traditional-leaning nuns.

      I would only add to his closing words about Pope Francis that the “too firm” hand on the tiller is only “firm” (destructive, more like) when dealing with “traditionalists”, even those who are tolerant of the novus ordo and Vatican II. He’s anything but firm with dissenters. But then he’s a Modernist himself, so we can’t expect normal papal governance.

      When I read Fr Blake’s remark about Pope Francis having “too much determination for change for the sake of change” I thought immediately of the last great Pope canonised in our times (1954 to be precise), Pope Saint Pius X who wisely said: “Far, far from our priests be the love of novelty.”

      That saintly pontiff could not have dreamt that, within a few short years, one of his own successors in the papal office would be displaying a monumental love of novelty to an adoring secular world. I keep meaning to check out the exact words, but I often think of GK Chesterton’s observation that by a sort of instinct, the world knows its own.

      That’s one thought that should keep “Holy Father Francis” awake at night. With bells on.

  4. My goodness, CC, who ever said such a thing about the FSSP or the ICKSP? I certainly never read that on this blog and surely we all know that it cannot be thus? What I have repeatedly read is that such groups which are under the umbrella of the Ecclesia Dei commision are somewhat compromised in that they don’t usually speak openly of the crisis in the Church and, in return, they are allowed to offer the old Mass.

  5. You couldn’t be more wrong. On other pages they have been derided as modernists and quasi-traditionalists. Either they have the true faith or they don’t.

    • Catholic Convert,

      No, YOU couldn’t be more wrong. Please quote directly and link to the “other pages” where any of our bloggers, myself included, has described the other traditional Orders as “modernists” and “quasi-traditionalists.”

      Your remark: “either they have the true faith or they don’t” is a very typically modernist false dichotomy. I’ll explain what that means when you quote as requested. Please and thank you.

    • Catholic Convert,

      What other pages could you tell me? I must say that I have never seen any such remarks. Of course these people are proper Catholics although they do have to mind their P’s and Q’s if they want to continue to be tolerated. That’s why one doesn’t often hear about the problems in the Church from them.

    • I believe that the FI are ‘disorientated’. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise the action that has been taken against them. Praise where praise is due.

      If such punitive measures were taken against ICKSP or FSSP, I would criticise this. That doesn’t mean I can’t think they are ‘disorientated’ or wrong about certain things.

      That’s fallacious. You can’t be so rigid and dichotomous (I feel that is part of you temperament, you appear to take things very literally as well, but this is not a criticism of you, such as with my Sound of Music parody of Bishop Williamson)

      Generally, the matter that concerns us is not who is or who is not Catholic. That is very clear. That which requires subtlety of thought is the ‘diabolical disorientation’, which has confused even Traditional Catholics, i.e. the Ecclesia Dei communities. We are not accusing them of not having the true faith. Saying someone is disorientated is not the same as saying they are “modernists” and “quasi-traditionalists”.

      That’s also fallacious.

      I suspect, personally, that the reason they are being interfered with, is because they were becoming conscious of the ‘diabolical disorientation’ in the Church, and their own disorientation. This is what was meant by ‘crypto-Lefebvrianism’. Logically, to arrive at this opinion, they would have to have been disorientated in the first place, like myself, and most of us here were. That doesn’t mean I can’t commend them for the positive steps they are taking on their journey. I just hope they get there in the end.

      • There are different levels of disorientation.

        The pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ cannot be compared to the neo-Catholic who denounces the ‘culture of death’. Both are disorientated. Even though the neo-Catholic is generally ‘orthodox’, his odium towards Traditional Catholics is a sign of his ‘disorientation’.

        I know Catholics who believe in women’s ordination etc.. This is a result of the ‘diabolical disorientation’. I know Catholics who detest such dissent. But they themselves would denounce me as a schismatic, because they are also disorientated.

        It’s not black and white. That’s why it’s so dangerous. The diabolical disorientation is insidious.

        • Miles Immaculatae,

          Concisely put, absolutely spot on explanation of the hierarchy of disorientation in the Church at the present time. In a word – superb. You have just shot to the top of the pay scale from your five figure salary (£00,000 p.a.) to a six figure salary (£000,000 p.a.) plus a Christmas bonus of £0,000.

          😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

        • Dear Curious Glasgow,

          Seeing as you asked nicely, I looked on general discussion and found Petrus’s original comment which wound me up:

          “I think we should all be very grateful to Benedict for coming back to blog. He has done tremendous good in the short time he has been here. His posts are the perfect illustration of why Catholics should avoid attending Mass at the FSSP. They are happy to accept the scraps from the Bishops’ tables. These quasi Traditionalists, nice as they are (and Benedict is very likeable!) are part of the problem, not the solution”.

          Now, I apologise, it wasn’t everybody who derided the FSSP and ICKSP, it was Petrus. Of course people have their different views on what derisory comments are, but in my humble opinion, saying that someone is a ‘quasi-traditionalist’ and ‘part of the problem’, is derisory.

          Obviously the FSSP, ICKSP et al have to compromise in certain respects because if they don’t have a positive and constructive relationship with the Diocesan ordinary, then they will be restricted, thus limiting the access of the TLM to a large number of people. I fail too see how a Bishop knows what these FSSP and ICKSP Priest say in sermons unless they have modernist versions of Mgr Umberto Benigni knocking about as spies. Maybe they would be better off under the SSPX umbrella, but they would be forced out of their Churches and missions by the hierarchy, which will ruin lots of good work in renewing Catholicity in certain areas a the ICKSP did at the Shrine of Ss. Peter, Paul and Philomena in the Wirral. They can’t just occupy a Church building as the SSPX did in Paris.

          My loyalties do indeed lie with the traditionalist wing, as it were. Not just the SSPX, but the FSSP and ICKSP. I’m just pragmatic, more than anything, as I reluctantly realise that to bring the TLM and sacraments etc to otherwise ignorant people, you have to sometimes operate within the Church. If I was ordained, likely as not in the New Rite, I would certainly learn to say the TLM and revitalise many traditional devotions, such as the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross, which are neglected in the New Church. Likewise, I would use the teachings of the Popes, previous councils and the saints to preach my homilies. However, we are all victims of circumstance, and I doubt ordination is the road for me, as I can’t speak Latin and I struggle with foreign languages, like the Cure D’Ars.

          As for Miles’ comment about my personality, i.e rigidity and taking things literally on occasion, he’s right. I am very rigid, but then again so was Archbishop Lefebvre, and thank God for that!

          I hope this response has satisfied you, Curious Glasgow and assuaged your fears.

          • I knew you would bring that up.

            It’s out of context.

            Go and read what Benedict was saying.

            In reality Petrus was criticising Benedict. His comments about FSSP were provoked by Benedict’s previous comments. He was criticising the FSSP in as far as it is composed by people like Benedict.

            As for rigidity, I was talking about the understanding of the subtle points of language, and flexibility of thought process. This has nothing to do with not compromising in what you believe. In this respect, I too am rigid. But not in the other way, which is what I meant.

          • Also, to align yourself with Archbishop Lefebvre against me is silly. The FSSP was founded in reaction to the Econe consecrations, they are antagonistic to Lefebvre. You probably wouldn’t like what he thought of them.

  6. I’ve observed many SSPX priests reacting toward the FSSP priests. (One FSSP would occasionally come to our chapel). I’ve never seen any SSPX priest behave toward FSSP with anything other than brotherly love. In fact I once ask one, “So how do you regard Fr. X (FSSP) like a brother?”
    “Yes, yes with brotherly charity. ”
    And then on pilgrimage the SSPX priests would have us kneel to receive the blessing of Christ the King or St. Peter priests if we were to run in to any.
    I did detect that the SSPX priests were concerned for these priests. I thought that was pretty interesting since the FSSP would always start offering Mass only in the cities that already had Society Chapels. It was so obvious that they wanted to cause souls to quit the Society Masses and go to theirs! We basically were encouraged to love and respect them but not to follow them into compromise. I think that resistance is virtuous and that it’s good for these priests.

    • 3LittleShepherds,

      The same is true here in the UK – I’ve known the Society priests to help priests who are interested in learning the TLM and always speak of them with respect. It’s sad that they are on the receiving end of so much criticism and hostility.

    • Would the SSPX instruct a New Rite ordained Priest in learning how to say the TLM, and revitalising the Faith in a Diocesan Parish? Do all SSPX PPs recognise new rite ordinations? Lastly, could a Diocesan Priest ‘jump ship’ to the SSPX?

      • Hi CC,

        Other may correct me, but as far as I know the answers to your questions are:

        Yes, SSPX priests would be help Diocesan priests learn the TLM and give advice on how to conduct parish life. I think Bishop Fellay previously issued a statement encouraging such charitable co-operation (?) perhaps around the time of Summorum Pontificum.

        I think such links occur largely on the quiet though, to avoid Diocesan priests being dug-up by the Bishop over it. One Glasgow priest I know was trained in England by the LMS – but surprised me when he referred to the Glasgow SSPX priests by name, which suggested there was (or had been) contact between them.

        I think the SSPX does recognise the new ordination rite, but regard it as deficient in comparison to the old. I doubt +Fellay would conduct talks with Ecclesia Dei officials, if he did not regard them as legitimate Catholic priests. Individual SSPX priests are not at liberty to hold views contrary to the those of the SSPX organisation, as his would undermine the Society’s position – this is certainly true with regard to sedevacantism, for example.

        And yes, Diocesan priests can and do “jump ship”. See this link, which describes a group of 30 Italian Diocesan priests contacting the SSPX for a meeting with +Fellay in 2010, and (further down) deals specifically with the case of Fr Massimo Sbicego, an Italian Diocesan priest who transferred to the SSPX in 2011.

        The link has copies of the letters Fr Sbicego wrote to his parishioners and Diocesan administrator, to explain his decision:

        http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/priests-we-are-looking-doctrine-4042

        • So how did Fr Sbicego manage to get admitted into the Society- would he have to participate in a course of some kind?

          • I am not sure of precise details, but I would expect the Society would want to “validate” (if you will) in-comers somehow, (perhaps through a course and/or interviews), to ensure everyone is on the same page.

  7. The only people I have ever heard criticising FSSP priests are members of their own congregation. I’ve known a visiting, non SSPX, traditional priest turn up at our chapel to wait on our priest because he was going to show him the sights of the city.

  8. I remember one Sunday as a boy serving on the altar when our very strict parish priest demanded that the congregation raise their hands as a sign of solidarity with Cardinal Mindzsenty when he was arrested by the communists.

    I never thought I would ever see the day when the Church would treat its own in a similar way.

    At least the communists had the decency to hold a “trial” of sorts against what they looked upon as the enemy.

    I wonder if the Pope and bishops, if they ever get round to consecrating Russia, will manage to do it with a straight face and without blushing.

    • Frankier,

      “At least the communists had the decency to hold a “trial” of sorts”

      Well said. Spot on. Exactly. So true. WOW…

      Seriously – well said!

    • Can you explain what you mean about

      ” I never thought I would ever see the day when the Church would treat its own in a similar way.”

      Thanks.

      • Olaf,

        I think Frankier means that he didn’t expect to see the CHURCH persecuting nuns, we’d expect that from Communists, not from the Church.

        Have you read the report at the top of the thread? The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have been put under investigation by the Vatican. They are known to be orthodox and even “traditional-leaning”.

        This contrasts with the treatment of American nuns who are public dissenters (I think the phrase “beyond Jesus” was used by or about them at one point) – the Vatican is “dialoguing” and “negotiating” with them.

        Hence the point made by Frankier, that we could expect such persecution from Communists, but not from the Vatican. He writes a lot about “the old days”…

    • That document from the Franciscans of the Immaculate is an excellent summary and explanation of what is going on. It’s even worse than I thought.

      It’s inconceivable that the Congregation for Religious are getting the Pope’s support to destroy the FI while at the same time they are tolerating other religious orders which are dying out, but trying to close down the FI which is flourishing. It’s just incredible.

%d bloggers like this: