Fr. Blake on That Book – “The Dictator Pope”

A couple people in my email have referred to the pseudo-anonymous offering Il Papa Dittatore – The Dictator Pope as “The Book”.  My post HERE

No… The Book™ remains  Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church – US HERE – UK HERE

However, Il Papa Dittatore – which describes the machinations of the Synod during which copies of Remaining were stolen from the participants – could be described as “That Book”.

In any event, my friend Fr. Ray Blake has posted his view on That Book™.

Among other things, he says:

It gives an insight into the contemporary Church, certainly into the psychology of many of its leading clergy and perhaps into the heresy of Mercy. In the abuse crisis so many of our leaders like Cardinal Daneels, who comes in for much criticism, not only defended abusers, telling their victim they needed to repent but they simply pretended there was no problem. Maybe they were not as bad as Cardinal Maradiaga who chairs Francis’ Council of Nine, he dismissed the whole matter as a construction of the ‘Jewish media’.

A false, heretical understanding of Mercy reduces God to being tolerant of everything, to the point where sin disappears and black becomes white, the foolish are regarded as wise, the corrupt become virtuous. A tolerant God means mankind has no need of Redemption or Salvation, the whole Christological drama becomes unnecessary and humanity has no need of a moral compass, because whatever is done, so long as it doesn’t undermine the Enlightenment virtues, is fine.


What I find so shocking in this book, which hardly reveals any new secrets, just adds a few details, is that such corruption as it reveals causes dis-ease in so few. Indeed, those who do raise concerns are hussled to the margins and vilified. Colonna gives us insight into a court that seems to be hotbed of neurotic revenge, nepotism, financial corruption, homosexual practice and where surveillance and gossip are rife and where image is all. A quote from the book, a priest said, “It is not who or what you know, it is now about what you know about who you know”, he was talking about a culture of blackmail.
Why is it tolerated? Why is it so easily accepted? Why do so few denounce it?


As I wrote before…

REMEMBER: Most of you do not have to read this stuff.  Some of us do.  Most do not.  Be wary, in yourself, of the vice of curiositas.  Yes, there is a kind of “curiosity” which leads to sin.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Francis, Mail from priests, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Pingback: FRIDAY CATHOLICA EXTRA – Big Pulpit

  2. JMody says:

    Wow – I just finished reading (for the first time — where have I been?) “A Canticle for Liebowitz“, and was struck by how similar these comments are to a scene in that novel. A second nuclear war is pending, and a horribly burned young mother is taking her toddler and herself to be euthanized, and the abbot is trying to dissuade her:
    [quote]”No! I’m not asking you. As a priest of Christ I am commanding you by the authority of Almighty God not to lay hands on your child, [b]not to offer her life in sacrifice to a false god of expedient mercy[/b]. I do not advise you, I adjure and command you in the name of Christ the King. Is that clear?”[/quote]


  3. Unwilling says:

    St Thomas’ distinction between curiositas and studiositas is nicely explained in his Letter to Brother John. I found it quite helpful when I was reading for my PhD.

  4. RichR says:

    This strange theology of mercy we are seeing is something I have grown to label as “The despairing of true repentance.” IOW, people do not believe the truth can lead people to repent of their ways, so we invent a false mercy that is declaratory, not transformative.

  5. gracie says:

    Speaking of “mercy” – Lisbon Cardinal Manuel Clemente has claimed that “in the greatest number of cases” the marriage of those Catholics who have divorced and entered into a second illegitimate union was null. Clemente has urged his priests to take a “fundamental attitude of welcoming, accompaniment and discernment” of adulterers. Also that said adulterers can “in some cases return to the sacramental life”.

    I realize this is eye-glazing stuff at this point. It’s said over and over by different “cardinals!” “bishops!” “priests!” until the mind becomes numb and people respond with a shrug – which is the stated goal of the drip, drip, drip of heresy coming from the mouthpieces of this heretical agenda.

    If a secular divorce can make a Catholic marriage null and void then the annulment tribunals may as well pack up and go home.

  6. richiedel says:

    I am making my way quickly through Il Papa Dittatore. My biggest take-away from the book is that it has value as bringing so much information about the subject it concerns from an veritable plethora of sources and presents it all in one place.

    My biggest problem with the book so far concerns the subtle-yet-not-so-subtle implication that Pope Francis may be eligible for excommunication under Universi Dominici Gregis given what may have been his tacit approval of Team Bergoglio’s campaigning for him at the papal election, which point leads the author to the to-the-nose, in-case-your-not-reading-this-closely-enough assertion “And an excommunicated pope is no pope” (page whatever depending on your Kindle’s settings). Such consideration unsafely verges on running up against the First Vatican Council:

    “Therefore, if anyone says that
    – it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
    the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
    let him be anathema.” (Pastor Aeternus, Part II, Section 5).

  7. Pharisee says:

    I am hoping that the current personnel at the top are there so we can all see, even the dumbest of us, the true fruits of ‘modernism’, in the wider sense (a frantic chasing after fashion in the belief that:

    1. New is better than old;
    2. Change is better than stability;
    3. Indulgence is better than restraint.
    4. Holiness it too hard attain for those poor, dull pew-warmers. But becoming a liturgical expert can be done in your spare time.)

    I also see hints of Madison Avenue in the current ‘praxis’:

    – Cater to their sensual appetites and make it easy for them. Boom! You got a sale, buddy!

    [Oh wait, the church is now full of oldies.]

    Never mind, do it bigger, louder, more frantically …!

    [Didn’t work. Oh. Ummm …]

    – CURSE those traditionalists with the vocations and young families, and … and … their suspect piety!

    It’ll probably get more stupid before it gets better. Or it could become very, very bad. Sack of Rome bad.

    But, your personal walk up Calvary remains, carrying your cross(es).
    There will be priests available to those people(s) who deserve them.


  8. Adaquano says:

    After downloading the sample, I’ve decided not to read it. It seems that it isn’t really putting forth a thesis that many followers of the Vatican don’t already know. [Not quite. There is a lot that most people don’t know. Also, there is analysis and evidence which a great many people don’t want even to entertain.] During this season of Advent, my free time seems like it could be better spent doing something for the needy, doing more spiritual reading or other works of mercy. I’ve got a young son, my energy seems better spent introducing him to our Lord.

  9. ChrisP says:

    I have read the book and spoken of it with friends, colleagues – many are not Catholic. It has come as a surprise to them that, i. it is possible for Cardinals – even the Pope – to be considered as candidates for eternal pain and ii. Catholics possessing neurons are aware of this. This leads to discussions about the importance of the Sacraments, care for one’s own soul and the gradation of import in doing so, depending on ones station in life. Prayers and action for conversion of sinners and reparation of sins are obligatory.

    One then blows their mind with the concept that the laity can also do something radical and remain faithful to those in charge – great men such as Burke, Muller, Sarah. But most importantly your LOCAL priest and religious. Give your money to them and financially starve the miscreants.

    One non-Catholic friend responded by jokingly asking “Can you sue the Pope for not being Catholic”? He kinda had a point imo.

  10. Kent Wendler says:

    Some time back I seem to have acquired an unsolicited hard copy subscription (1/yr) to a magazine called The Traditionalist. In the summer 2016 issue there was an article describing Pope Francis. The author does this by characterizing him as a true Argentine. Now (the author says) about 20% of Argentines are straightforward, honest, easy to deal with people. The other 80% might be characterized as having conniving almost as a second nature.

    I originally thought the article was simply a hatchet job on the pope, but now I’m not so sure.

    But never mind. With the aid of the utterly transcendently subtle Holy Spirit, the Church survived the likes of Rodrigo Borgia. It will survive now.

  11. Imrahil says:

    Dear richiedel,

    one thing: no, that does not run up against the First Vatican Council. To say or imply that someone were not the Pope (= Roman Pontiff), however wrong it may be in other manner, is no denial of the statement “the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter”. It was this point of “theoretical” (as it were) dogmatic faith that the First Vatican Council insisted on.

    For another thing: Nevertheless, this particular statement was indeed rash, seditious in intention and, what is more important, quite erroneous. I might also guess “dangerous to human souls”, alas.

    Excommunication is a penalty of the Church, and it is simply not true that an excommunicated Pope were no Pope. Insert expletive, even outside the special situation of a Pope the Church law is quite clear that excommunicated people can validly have Church offices, and, while (in general) forbidden to exercise them, can do so validly if their excommunication has not been officially declared by the competent tribunal.

    There was once an opinion around about whether a heretic (to add, or an apostate) Pope would be Pope (an opinion – there are in fact quite good arguments there that, yes, even such a one would); but, again, it is simply not true that an simple “normal” excommunication for a canonical crime, and a non-declared one at that, would make a Pope a non-Pope.

    In a nutshell: an excommunicated Pope is very much a Pope.

    On a slightly connected aside, I have, also, heard from quite traditionalist sources (and not heard a contradiction of it anywhere) that if any Papal election should be invalid, he is Pope whom the Church of Rome recognizes as Pope.

Comments are closed.