... quotes an unnamed Vatican Cardinal as describing PF thus: an ice-cold, sly machiavellian and a liar.
A jolly interesting summary from someone with experience, I thought. His Eminence seems to know what he's talking about. But my wife suggests that a true Machiavellian would not need to tell lies.
I would have to concede that telling lies does expose the liar to perils. Take, for example, PF's lie to the effect that he knew nothing about the Dubia until he read about them in the Media. Easily falsified by those who took care to have the Dubia delivered personally to PF, and then waited some weeks before going public. Nasty, too, because in the course of his lie, PF effectively called the Dubia Cardinals liars.
But my own view would be that the essence of Machiavellianism is the subordination of all ethical considerations to realpolitik.
Quid Domini sentitis?
7 January 2019
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
What is this?
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Answer: dissocial personality disorder, International classification of diseases (ICD 10)
Kind regards from a shrink in Paris
A low-rent, inexpert Machiavellian?
Your reading of Machiavelli accords with my own. It is very discomforting for a Catholic to know that PF lies so shamelessly.
Spiegel is a habitually anti-catholic magazine. The full text of the article is behind paywall. But as a commenter on gloria.tv writes, no names of cardinals are given, thus it could be a pure invention as well, or Spiegel (a 'broken watch') could have accidentally gotten it right. Use with caution.
Certainly, reported speech from anonymous sources should always to be treated with caution. On the other hand there's the acid test: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..."
It has been suggested to me that the anonymous Cardinal might be a certain German nonagenerian who is known for having (and having expressed) certain doubts about the recent teaching of His Holiness...
I don't understand. Why would a true Machiavellian not need to lie? Isn't deceit meant toward utilitarian ends said to be the hallmark of good statecraft? Especially in this positivistic Orwellian age?
Wasn't that the journal which gave a certain Herr Relotius employment, a gent with a habit of making things up? I suspect a good many who saw Francis as a supporter of their causes of open borders and undermining Christian family life, now see a liability. I cannot see how Der Spiegel would have ethical issues about making up another article with at best a core of a adapted few thoughts from quite understandably disgruntled Curial employees. Obviously post Relotius, fake news has to be put together in a way that doesn't make too obviously fake. They want to keep some sort of reputation, so Herr Relotius is just seen as a slip-up, a minor mistake. I don't trust it one bit. There have been a few wholly made things about Pope Francis, or at best semi-fictional. De Spiegel has form on semi-fiction these days.
I believe Francis lies when useful, and sometimes even when it is not but just for fun; and other times by mere force of habit. Further, he sometimes tells the truth. Even the experienced liar often tells the truth at times and in part.
As an example of a prominent and significant lie, I recall past Eastertide. There, I do believe he was lying when he denied the existence of Hell. It's a page out of his (possible) master's playbook. As GK often pointed out, the devil's neatest trick is to convince a man he doesn't exist.
Consider Fatima and the apostasy in the Church, predicted by Our Lady there, beginning at the highest levels, as reliably reported by many men of repute who had reason to know, i.e., they had seen or heard read in their presence the Third Secret.
How all the more easily to lead his followers there, should Francis be the false pope referred to by Our Lady of Fatima, at least according to the mysterious partially verified text--authenticated as to the handwriting being that of Sr. Lucia--as recounted in the 2017 book by Zavala.
LMHC completely concurs with shrink!
Post a Comment