Ferrara Contra Ferrara

From Christopher Ferrara, writing of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, February 2005, as published on The Remnant website:

Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.” The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground. (Christopher A. Ferrara, "Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop," The Remnant, February, 2005)

Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop

That is amazing insight into the methods of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI--that he tears down even as he creates the appearance of building up. What has changed since 2005 when Christopher Ferrara wrote those words and now? Ratzinger's phony conservatism? Certainly not.

But something has changed in Ferrara's thinking. Witness the amazing transmutation--as Ferrara is transformed from the prosecuting lawyer in 2005 to the defense lawyer in 2008, watch how the image of the same Joseph Ratzinger is transformed accordingly. Compare the above with Ferrara's commentary on the new Good Friday prayer for the Jews delivered by the Vatican at the request of the Chief Rabbinate of "Israel" at the following link:

A Papal Masterstroke

Who is served by such double-mindedness? Is traditional Catholicism served, or harmed by such lawyerly shysterism? Is the argument that Abe Foxman says it's bad so it must be good something to be considered by thinking people, or fools?

Judging by the fact that this guy has a following, there must be a lot of "trad" fools.