Wessex: Is that why diplomacy has come down to finding an urgent place within the pantheon and avoiding inconvenient truths? Does Bp. Fellay really think he can change hearts and minds in the new citadel of sanctified immorality? And does he want to?
An alternative to all this is withdrawing from such an odious prospect and not engaging with the world except to repeat that it is doomed! I am drowning in negative comments cataloguing the immense corruption in all aspects of life without any clear intentions to disrupt the pattern of our lives and incur discomfort. The survival of the Church may as you say depend on a reawakening of Christian themes as we try and assert our national identities away from the politically planned amorphous one. But I am at pains to discover what the American version would look like! The curse of unfettered migration though is intended to thwart any return to old religious and national values.
It think, basically, that I follow Wessex's reasoning above in the first short paragraph. No, indeed. I don't think that +F is really persuaded that he can change hearts and minds in the "citadel of sanctified immoraility." (I think he means Rome :furtive:) +F has fallen victim, I feel, to the ʝʊdɛօ/masons in the Vatican and within his own organzation. They may know things about him that we don't. In other words, he may have been severely compromised by the Romans, even, perhaps, blackmailed. But enough of that. Such is mere speculation.
It's Wessex's following paragraph which thoroughly escapes me. Is this meant to be intelligible prose? Perhaps it's a kind of T. S. Eliotish blank verse. Whatever it is, I do not dare ask Wessex what he means. He might come back at me with the words of J. Alfred Prufrock:
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.”