If anybody would try to cure a cancer by applying a cataplasm to it, such a person would be considered a dreamer, at best; but most people would take him as a madman – and rightly so.

            Nevertheless, what nobody would do for treating bodily illnesses is the very thing being done, all too frequently, when it comes to much more important and serious matters. Curiously enough, nobody seems to notice such a colossal incongruence, in spite of its being something that happens every day, all around, as I have said.

            A few days ago, the Pope appointed a new Bishop to a certain Spanish Diocese, which by the way, is quite problematic. We must stress the term problematic because there is barely any semblance of Catholicism left in it: the majority of its clergy, in logical consequence, lost sight long ago of what their priestly character means

            Apropos this appointment, almost all the diocesan priests have publicly made an official and harsh protest, which, for all intent and purposes, is tantamount to their refusing to accept the new Bishop. The reasons adduced by the protesters boil down to this: the appointed person does not have, according to them, the required qualifications to continue with the same pastoral orientation which has been practiced until now in that Diocese. The qualities required in this case which would please these protesters, given their personal characteristics, are not difficult to guess. They can be summarized as follows: to not be proud of one’s Faith –rather, to ignore it—; and, which is not less important, to display a politically leftist and extremely progressive trend; all of it marinated with a great deal of nationalism and independence – in other words, an overt and blatant rebellion against the Pope.

            As was perfectly predictable, there also came the immediate reactions against these rebels – although it is true that they were not too plentiful or forceful at all, let us admit it. The arguments of these champions of legality are also easy to guess: this is a rebellion against the Pope, an obliteration of the true priestly character and of the due obedience to the Hierarchy –including the promise of obedience to one’s own Bishop and his successor made at the time of priestly ordination; etc., etc. All these arguments are, of course, well founded and true. Also anticipated were the pertinent answers which accompanied the arguments explaining what was to be done about the problem: the Pope must remain firm; the Conference of Bishops must express its support for the new Bishop who, in turn, must be courageous and firm; the truly Christian faithful of the Diocese (probably this refers to the few that are left) must show their fidelity to the Hierarchy and its regulations; etc., etc. Once again, all of these solutions are well founded and well reasoned.

            But all this will be absolutely useless. Truly speaking, one can say here that attempting to cure a cancer with a cataplasm is tantamount to shouting to the winds.

            In the first place, we must point out that this event, far from being something new, has antecedents within the New Church. Some time ago, His Excellency Marcello González Martín was appointed Archbishop of Barcelona, Spain. After having suffered terribly at the hands of the progressive diocesan clergy, he was practically expelled from his See, so that he had to be appointed to another Diocese. This affair did not have any consequences; no disciplinary actions were even taken at all. The same thing happened, not long ago, when the Pope appointed a new bishop to a certain Diocese of a European country: the bishop was flatly rejected by the Conference of Catholic Bishops of that country. The Pope accepted that negative response of the Bishops, and nothing happened; only this time there were not any kinds of declarations or explanations.

            These situations of rebellion against the Bishop and, ultimately, against the Pope and the Church is nothing more than one of the many ways through which the underlying tension within the Church manifests itself; a tension that is bringing about the present heartbreaking situation of crisis and corruption which the Church is suffering.

            The Bishop appointed by the Pope to the Spanish Diocese will or will not take possession of his office, despite the protesters: the result will be the same. Even if he does take possession, should he not be daring enough to confront the situation in his Diocese –and he will need a lot of courage—, a catastrophe will inevitably ensue. Hence the unanimous forecasting from most of the observers: he will either not be able or not dare to do anything. One way or the other, one will discover soon enough that the answers given by the well-meaning are nothing but poultices; and poultices, or cataplasms, solve very little or nothing.

            The case that occupies us must be treated as one does a grave illness: an in-depth treatment must be applied (like a risky chirurgical operation) lest the patient die. The present situation of the Church, no matter what anyone may say, is extremely delicate; yet it goes unnoticed by the great majority of people because it would be very difficult for them, not to say impossible, to be conscious of it, or because they have become too comfortable with the present situation to bring any unnecessary troubles into their lives.

            We must take into account that, since the Council’s aftermath, the principle of authority has been too often put aside –the Church has not been established to condemn anybody, but to understand and to offer an open hand, people say—; everybody is allowed to say or to act according to his own will, without obeying any norms or any authority; countless numbers of heretical theologians and members of the Hierarchy have been permitted to continue teaching, writing, or freely speaking. The Magisterium of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council has been brought into question, which also extensively weakens the post-Counciliar Magisterium. By using Pressure Groups as a tool, since they are the ones who really control the Conferences of Bishops, the authority of the Bishops has been reduced to a minimum; and this has been allowed everywhere. The statues of Buddha and of other idols and abominations have been placed and worshiped on the very sacrosanct altars of the Seraphim of Assisi. Functions and powers have been granted to the laity which do not belong to them at all, seriously damaging, by so doing, the priestly status; at the same time, it contravenes the structure of the Divine constitution of the Church, which distinguishes perfectly between Hierarchy and mere Faithful. The meaning and content of most of the dogmas have been distorted. The meaning and content of the sacraments have been eviscerated; consequently, the Christian People have ceased in their interest for a practice which is now presented to them as something inane and unnecessary...Do we need to continue? Can anybody in his sound judgment believe that the above-mentioned problem of the rebellious priests is going to be solved by giving them light taps on their backsides or with recriminatory, though moderate, warnings?

As we can see, this problem is so important that it will be continued in the next editorial.