BERTOMEU, INVESTIGADOR DE ABUSOS EN LA IGLESIA
Jordei Bertomeu nos informa de cómo fue la "conversión" de un Papa de 82 años en 2018 en Chile a raíz del caso Karadima, del fracaso del viaje a ese país y de cómo se enfrentan a la "cultura de abusos" radicada en el poder incontestable exhibido por la Iglesia en la sociedad que hacía del cura un intocable. Francisco, el primer Papa anticlerical que hemos conocido.
Un tema de la propaganda-doctrina favorito en el submundo: el anticlericalismo "bueno". El anticlericalismo malo era el de los comecuras de la guerra civil española y anteriores. Pero se entiende y explica, dado que el cura formaba parte del sistema de poder cuando Iglesia y Estado iban de la mano, el cura agente en la base del mantenimiento y justificación de las desigualdades e injusticias "por mandato divino". Y en España más que en muchos lugares, Iglesia católica y monarquía se sustentaban mutuamente, en misiones evangelizadoras por el mundo y en la sociedad ibérica.
Así que el cura Escrivá y sus chicos inventaron sobre el papel el "anticlericalismo bueno", que consistía en que según ellos "el laico no tenía que ser una longa manus de la jerarquía católica". Omitían la segunda parte de la frase: no de la jerarquía católica, sí de la jerarquía opusina, puesto que esa es la realidad, que cualquier laico escrivariano situado en puestos sociales relevantes o no, "barrerá para casa". Intentando atraer personas a su exclusivo rebaño por una parte y ventajas fiscales, financieras, legales o cualesquiera otras ventajas para su grupo.
Mirando el organigrama con detalle hemos averiguado una vez fuera que de anticlericalismo real nada de nada, solo mandan los curas y todos los demás orbitan en torno a esa casta curial.
Casta clerical que por otra parte, personificada en los 3 mandatarios principales exhibidos, se caracterizaba y caracteriza por exigir a sus ovejas cumplimiento de normas y cargas que ellos no tocan ni con un dedo.
Comentarios
It was written in English, hence my reaction in English.
It is quite difficult for me to understand why the author of an interesting blog such as “Espiritu y cuerpo” (I do not necessarily always share your views and opinions, but I always appreciate the profound and well thought way you present your cases), leaves so much room to superficial and uninformed contributors such as Cozumel Reefs and the Anonymous quoted above. They cause a serious impairment to the quality of your blog due to their manifest ignorance, inability and/or unwillingness to distinguish facts from opinions.
Yesterday’s Anonymous has at least the decency to doubt about some of the statements he makes: “…Hence my question - are there any more reliable sources that confirm/deny Bosak's story? ….” “…… Can't say if any of those names are real, when writing about Polish intelligence Bosak often changed names…”. This deserves him an answer.
Here are the facts. Henryk Bosak (RIP) was a Polish author and former colonel in the Polish intelligence service: a Polish spy during the communist regime. In this capacity, he was indeed stationed in - inter alia- Belgrade’s Polish embassy. Back in Poland (1982) he became responsible for the domestic counterintelligence unit fighting the opposers to the communist regime, most notably the union Solidarność. He retired just after the collapse of communism and went into politics. He wrote 7 books. None of these are memories. They are in fact historical novels with fictional stories set during the cold war. When the Anonymous speaks about Henryk Bosak's memoirs, he probably refers to his book "Wnuk Generała" (2006) (“ The General's grandson”). This is a novel about a young Polish spy in West Germany, where a lot of room is given to the Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies’ perspective to events such as the election of Pope John Paul II. Like in all historical fictions, this novel – as well as all his other books – mixes certain real events with fantasy; persons that really existed with fictional characters. While Bosak is generally not recognized as a major author in literary circles, he is totally disregarded in the academic world researching the cold war era.
Here is my comment: presenting such a book / author as a historical source when discussing historical events such as a Conclave, is the same as using Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci code” as serious material to investigate Opus Dei. One can rightly have reservations on this institution or on any other matter. However, it is ridiculous, amateurish and unprofessional to be opinionated on matters where one does not have the necessary knowledge and/or to opine based on fiction rather than facts
The fact that you, opus agent pretending to be critical, always get so nervous with this informations (there are loads of proofs) is also very clarifying.
Your instructions to control damage are to let pass minor critics but stop the most serious facts that leave you naked as the Mafia you are. That is what scares you the most.
Y también, efectivamente, una de las marcas de la Bestia: usar la adulación para hipnotizar y engañar y controlar como la serpiente que eres.