by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Guido Ferro Canale is a civil attorney from Genoa, who has studied Italian civil jurisprudence. He intervened in the past regarding the claims of impropriety in the election of Bergoglio, arguing that vote canvassing did not make it invalid.

As a preamble, to my refutation of his above critique, I will say that he has not understood that when one considers the case whether any electorate loses the right to act, one can speak of a loss of right either in law or in ministry. As I have said elsewhere, but evidently he had not the time to read it, a ministerial right is not exclusive. If a mother fails to feed her children, anyone can do so. She has in that meal lost her privilege and right, but not in law, only the act of ministering. Just so with the Cardinals who in canon 349 have a duty to provide for the selection of bishop to be the people’s shepherd. Failing to do that, they do not lose their right in law, if one even assumed they have a right, since they are in open schism from Christ for having elected an antipope.

But also, since UDG requires that they elect a pope after the death of a pope, they cannot claim the right to elect an antipope after the death of a pope or of an antipope. This has to do with the Apostolic Succession, where only true popes succeed true popes. The Cardinals in insisting on electing a pope after the death of Bergoglio are involved in a heinous confection of a novel ecclesiology, fit only for the Church of the Antichrist.

So yes, if they were still in communion with the Church — which they are not — and if they still wanted to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor — which they do not, because they claim to have done that already — then yes, you could say that they have not lost or renounced their right or privilege. But that is not the juridical case at present. So Canale is arguing about a non existent hypothetical.

Now to address this jurists infantile criticisms….

First, he has no understanding of ecclesiology. The Apostolic See has always regarded the suburbican dioceses as integral parts by tradition of the Roman Church, of which the Pontiff is the Pope. It is an error to say the Pope is the Bishop of only the Diocese of Rome, but has no immediate authority over these others which are only administrative creations, not separated from Her. This is also proven by the fact that Cardinal non electors and Cardinal Electors are appointed to preside in these Churches. In fact, the Dean of the College of Cardinals has been from the 4th century, the Bishop of Ostia. So if the Church of Ostia is another Church and not part of the Roman Church, the Roman Church has been confused for 16 centuries, but this lawyer from Genoa is going to set her right (sarcasm). But if Canale is right, then we have to discuss how the Church could claim apostolic succession if all the popes for 16 centuries were elected by an invalid electorate.

This shows that this eminent civil attorney is completely outside of his realm.

Second, he plays the same shell game as many others, who are calling the Faithful of Rome laypersons. The assembly today has invited all and excluded none who are not capable by law in participating. If any one catholic cleric does not come that does not mean the election is invalid. This is because the apostolic right to elect the Pope pertains to the Roman Church, not to the clergy of the Roman Church alone. Since it pertains to the whole Church, all the members of the Church are capable electors. If any one of them does not come to the election, the Church does not cease to be the Church nor does the electorate become invalid. But I can see how he cannot understand this, because it is a notion of right founded in theology not civil law.

The same conclusion returns when we consider the intent of the legislator, St. Peter, in wanting that the Faithful of Rome have a pastor. When do they have the greatest need but when they have no pastors? So that just as Christ created bishops and priests not for the sake of bishops or priests, but for the laypeople who need the Sacraments of salvation, it would be pointless to ordain that the Roman Church could elect the pope only when they had clergy, and not when all clergy are in apostasy, heresy, or juridically absent. To think otherwise, is to make St. Peter a clericalist.

Third, he has never read canon 38, which says that any administrative act which is done contrary to the law has no effect. He evidently thinks that in the Church there is only valid and invalid acts, but there are also illegal and legal acts, and ritually correct and incorrect acts. Here this jurist completely fails to comprehend that whereas in UDG there is a condition for invalidity, any violation of the law, makes the act illegal and hence in virtue of canon 38 without effect. This can be seen from the fact that in canon 349 the Cardinals are given a ministerial duty to select a man to be the pope. And that is an administrative duty, specified by a canon and thus subject to canon 38.

So again, this jurist shows himself completely outside of his realm of expertise.

Finally, the clause of n. 76, though it must be interpreted strictly, in this case extends the invalidity to the entire act of electing, because in that n. it refers to both the whole Constitution and the prescriptions of that chapter. Those who want it to apply only to that chapter imposed a forced reading. But the argument, here, that validity is only restricted to the manner of election, and thus the Cardinals do not lose their right, confounds notions of validity and nullity, and the right according to jus and ministerium, as I have explained above.

In consequence, however, in vain does Guido Ferro Canale argue, because we are not talking about a College of Cardinals which is ever intending to elect a successor to B16, but one which insists it already has. And since error in facts and laws does not make the error valid, there is absolutely no question of a case in which the Cardinals intend to ever exercise their right. And thus juridically we are in the same case as if there are no Cardinals.

Guido Ferro Canale should stick to civil law, but I thank him for affirming that in the juridical case in which there are no Cardinals the faithful of Rome can elect the pope.

As for my readers, the cherry on the cake with Attorney Canale, is that he is published by a site run by Sedevacantists. If sedes do not think anyone is the pope, how will there ever be a pope, except by apostolic right. If they were sincere, they would be lauding what will be done today as the solution to the problem they claim occurred in the conclave of 1958.