Category Archives: News

News, Team Bergoglio

“Team Bergoglio” is a heretical conspiracy to overthrow the Church of Christ

9 Comments

Rome, February 11, 2015:  The story of “Team Bergoglio” has been covered in detail by this blog from the beginning, but the story yet to be told, is that “Team Bergoglio” was and is a heretical plot to destroy the Church of Christ.   The proof is found in nothing less than the words and deeds of its members, before, during and after the Conclave of 2013.

Who’s who in “Team Bergoglio”?

o-POPE-ROLLING-STONE-570“Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh to the group of Cardinals whom he says, in this book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, conspired together to promote the candidacy of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by means of an organized vote-canvassing campaign.  The facts alleged we have studied here; the canonical consequences, here.

The 7 members of the conspiracy, named by Dr. Ivereigh’s in his hard cover book, are:  Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Cardinal Godfreid Danneels, Cardinal Karl Lehman, and  Cardinal Walter Kasper, Cardinal André Armand Vingt-Trois, Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.

Of these Cardinals, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal Danneels, have publicly confirmed that they supported Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy during the Conclave.

Two other Cardinals are named as facilitating the vote-canvassing:  these have been promoted to the Council of Cardinals, the so called “gang of eight”:  Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, USA, and Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, Congo.

Dr. Ivereigh alleges other Cardinals as promising votes, but does not name them: American Cardinals, Latin-American Cardinals and African Cardinals.  Some Cardinals from these 3 groups have taken on important roles since the election of Pope Francis:  such as Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Guatemala, Cardinal Reinhard Marx who was seen in the company of Cardinal Kasper immediately prior to the Conclave, and who is also a member of the Council of Cardinals.

We shall name the collaborators with the core 7 “Team Bergoglio” members as “players” to distinguish them.

A small Sample of the Heretical Statements & Actions of “Team Bergoglio”

Cardinal Walter Kasper, a core “Team Bergoglio” member, has been notorious for his personal heresies for more than a decade.  One needs only to read his lecture, given in 2003, “That all might be one”, where he sketches out the theological necessity, according to him, of abandoning everything distinctively Catholic in the Catholic Faith, so as to promote the union of all Christian “churches” into a one world religion, blasphemously asserting his opinion as the will of Jesus Christ. But that is not all:  Cardinal Kaspar is notorious also for 3 books, in which he publicly and formally denies the historicity of many of the miracles worked by Christ, calling the Gospel texts which recount them fanciful, post-Easter “legends” (See the recent study by Joe Sparks). Its obvious, therefore, that Cardinal Kasper is a formal public and pertinacious heretic, since he has held these beliefs for many years despite bitter criticism.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, a “Team Bergoglio” player was recently outed by this blog for his blasphemous and heretical denial of truth as a necessary means of salvation. In his interview, with the Jesuit magazine, America, he also indicated that Cardinal Bergoglio is of the same mind on this point, wanting a Church without truth, since “a church with truth is not useful for the people.” In the same interview, he clearly manifested his heretical hatred for the Catholic Faith by calling those catholics who want doctrinal clarity, “terrorists”, which is to use the very language of the enemies of Christ itself.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the obvious “Team Bergoglio” owner, has said numerous non-Catholic and anti-Catholic things since being elected Pope.  Here at the From Rome blog, we have have singled out his heretical denial of salvation by dogmatic faith for specific censure. For a fuller list, see Christopher Ferrara’s, The Remant’s Man of the Year.  According to Sandro Magister, one of the leading Vaticanistas of Italy, Cardinal Bergoglio actively promoted communion for those in irregular situations, in violation of the anathema of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon 11, which reads:

CANON XI.: If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

There is no need to add that Cardinal Baldiserri recently affirmed that Pope Francis was behind every scandalous happening at the recent extraordinary Synod for the Family, which pushed for communion for adulterers and sodomites.

Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, who has been infamous for more than a decade on account of his denial of the existence of a child-abuse scandal in the Church, has recently pronounced himself in heretical terms on two occasions: during a talk given at the University of Dallas, Texas, where he says the Church no longer is opposed to the heresy of all heresies, Modernism (his talk is critiqued here, introduced and linked to here), and recently at Santa Clara University where he proposes the heretical thesis of Kasper regarding Mercy, which is founded on the denial of the dogma of original sin and its effects (video: here, talk critiqued here). He has recently affirmed that Pope Francis wants to irreversibly change the Church and make Her radically different than She has ever been.

Cardinal Godfried Danneels is, in his own right, notorious for his scandalous handing of child abuse, which indicates a profound rejection of the morals taught by Jesus Christ. But then again so is Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley, who sold off about 1/4 of all the Catholic Churches in his diocese, in violation of the 12th canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the Second of Nicea, which forbids Bishops from selling churches.

Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, the Archipriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, the Basilica in Rome, where the relics of Christ’s crib from Bethlehem are kept, terminated the only Mass in the Ancient Roman rite regularly celebrated at the Basilica in the winter of 2014, within the very first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate despite the desperate pleas of the Catholic Faithful of Rome. This mass was the very first mass in the Ancient Roman rite which was established after Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, begun the very day of its publication. It was celebrated every month on the First Saturday, in honor of the Immaculate Heart of of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. The closure of the Mass was made without any reason or justification, out of pure hatred for the Mother of God and the Ancient Liturgy and the Catholics of Rome.

Several other members and players are notoriously friendly to sodomites, as can easily be verified from their pastoral actions and statements. Indeed, Edward Pentin on February 11th reported on NewsMax that the informed members of the Roman Clergy now realize that the Kasperian proposal about giving communion to adulterers, has nothing to do with marriage, its all about advancing the political agenda of Sodom, and the heresies which they propose: such as their abomination not being a sin which cries out to God for Divine Vengeance.

A Conspiracy of Heretics Heretical doth become…

That the conspiracy identified by Dr. Ivereigh is heretical follows from a simple co-linking of facts:  heretics of a feather flock together for but one purpose, their mutual heresy.  Since March 12, 2015, every move Pope Francis has made, every talk and every discourse and every appointment or promotion either directly promoted the common heresy of Modernism, or did not forestall it. He has specifically promoted all but a few members of “Team Bergoglio” to the Council of Cardinals.  He has allowed every “Team Bergoglio” member or player to say whatever heretical thing they want with impunity. Catholic Bishops have been summarily removed for fidelity to the Faith ( e. g. Paraguay); those who have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or promoting the right formation of seminarians or religious have been attacked and removed from power.  The animus is clear, present and malevolent, for one purpose.

For this reason Archbishop Langa on January 1st, 2015, lamented there is no longer any hearing in Rome against the agenda of Freemasonry.  For this reason Cardinal Burke announced his resistance, and was forced today to issue a clarification of his perfectly catholic statement, while Cardinals Marx and Rodrigues-Maradiaga are under no constraint against spouting heresies.

Let him who has eyes to see, see!

News

Archbishop Lenga: The Intention of the Freemasons is being implemented in the Church

6 Comments

Rome, February 10, 2015:  His Excellency Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, bishop emeritus of the Diocese of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, has issued a grave warning to all the Catholic Faithful.  We reprint his letter of January 1, 2015 A.D., from the version published in English at Rorate Caeli Blog, one of the premier news blogs for Catholics faithful to ecclesiastical tradition. Bishop Lenga resigned from his episcopal duties on February 5th.

_____________________

Reflections on some current problems of the crisis of the Catholic Church

Archbishop Lenga
Archbishop Lenga

I had the experience of living with priests who were in Stalinist prisons and camps and who nevertheless remained faithful to the Church. During the time of persecution they fulfilled with love their priestly duty in preaching Catholic doctrine thereby leading a dignified life in the imitation of Christ, their heavenly Master.

I completed my priestly studies in an underground Seminary in the Soviet Union. I was ordained a priest secretly during the night by a pious bishop who himself suffered for the sake of the faith. In the first year of my priesthood I had the experience of being expelled from Tadzhikistan by the KGB.

Subsequently, during my thirty-year stay in Kazakhstan, I served 10 years as priest, caring for faithful people in 81 localities. Then I served 20 years as bishop, initially as bishop of five states in Central Asia with a total area of around four million square kilometers.

In my ministry as a bishop I had contact with Pope Saint John Paul II, with many bishops, priests and faithful in different countries and under different circumstances. I was member of some assemblies of the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican which covered themes such as “Asia” and “The Eucharist”.

This experience as well as others give me the basis to express my opinion on the current crisis of the Catholic Church. These are my convictions and they are dictated by my love of the Church and by the desire for her authentic renewal in Christ. I am forced to resort to this public means of expression because I fear that any other method would be greeted by a brick wall of silence and disregard.

I am aware of possible reactions to my open letter. But at the same time the voice of my conscience will not allow me to remain silent, while the work of God is being slandered. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and showed us in word and deed how one should fulfill the will of God. The apostles to whom He bestowed authority in the Church, fulfilled with zeal the duty entrusted to them, suffering for the sake of the truth which had to be preached, since they “obeyed God rather than men”.

Unfortunately in our days it is increasingly evident that the Vatican through the Secretariat of State has taken the course of political correctness. Some Nuncios have become propagators of liberalism and modernism. They have acquired expertise in the principle “sub secreto Pontificio”, by which one manipulates and silences the mouths of the bishops. And that what the Nuncio tells them appears as it would be almost certainly the wish of the Pope. With such methods one separates the bishops from one another to the effect that the bishops of a country can no longer speak with one voice in the spirit of Christ and His Church in defending faith and morals. This means that, in order not to fall into disfavour with the Nuncio some bishops accept their recommendations, which are sometimes based on nothing other than on their own words. Instead of zealously spreading the faith, courageously preaching the doctrine of Christ, standing firm in the defense of truth and of morals, the meetings of the Bishops’ Conferences often deal with issues which are foreign to the nature of the duties of the successors of the apostles.

One can observe at all levels of the Church an obvious decrease of the “sacrum”. The “spirit of the world” feeds the shepherds. The sinners give the Church the instructions for how she has to serve them. In their embarrassment the Pastors are silent on the current problems and abandon the sheep while they are feeding themselves. The world is tempted by the devil and opposes the doctrine of Christ. Nevertheless the Pastors are obliged to teach the whole truth about God and men “in season and out”.

However, during the reign of the last holy Popes one could observe in the Church the greatest disorder concerning the purity of the doctrine and the sacredness of the liturgy, in which Jesus Christ is not paid the visible honour which he is due. In not a few Bishop’s Conferences the best bishops are “persona non grata”. Where are apologists of our days, who would announce to men in a clear and comprehensible manner the threat of the risk of loss of faith and salvation?

In our days the voice of the majority of the bishops rather resembles the silence of the lambs in the face of furious wolves, the faithful are left like defenseless sheep. Christ was recognized by men as one who spoke and worked, as one, who had power and this power He bestowed upon His apostles. In today’s world the bishops must liberate themselves from all worldly bonds and – after they have done penance – convert to Christ so that strengthened by the Holy Spirit they may announce Christ as the one and only Saviour. Ultimately one must give account to God for all that was done and for all what wasn’t done.

In my opinion the weak voice of many bishops is a consequence of the fact, that in the process of the appointment of new bishops the candidates are insufficiently examined with regard to their doubtless steadfastness and fearlessness in the defense of the faith, with regard to their fidelity to the centuries-old traditions of the Church and their personal piety. In the issue of the appointment of new bishops and even cardinals it is becoming increasingly apparent that sometimes preference is given to those who share a particular ideology or to some groupings which are alien to the Church and which have commissioned the appointment of a particular candidate. Furthermore it appears that sometimes consideration is given also to the favour of the mass media which usually makes a mockery of holy candidates painting a negative picture of them, whereas the candidates who in a lesser degree own the spirit of Christ are praised as open and modern. On the other side the candidates who excel in apostolic zeal, have courage in proclaiming the doctrine of Christ and show love for all that is holy and sacred, are deliberately eliminated.

A Nuncio once told me: “It’s a pity that the Pope [John Paul II] does not participate personally in the appointment of the bishops. The Pope tried to change something in the Roman Curia, however he has not succeeded. He becomes older and things resume their usual former course”.

At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I wrote a letter to him in which I begged him to appoint holy bishops. I reported to him the story of a German layman who in the face of the degradation of the Church in his country after the Second Vatican Council, remained faithful to Christ and gathered young people for adoration and prayer. This man had been close to death and when he learned about the election of the new Pope he said: “When Pope Benedict will use his pontificate solely for the purpose to appoint worthy, good and faithful bishops, he will have fulfilled his task”.

Unfortunately, it is obvious that, Pope Benedict XVI has often not succeeded in this issue. It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter. Pope Benedict XVI was the head of the Church, his entourage however has barely translated his teachings into life, bypassed them often in silence or has rather obstructed his initiatives for an authentic reform of the Church, of the liturgy, of the manner to administer Holy Communion. In view of a great secrecy in the Vatican for many bishops it was realistically impossible to help the Pope in his duty as head and governor of the whole Church.

It will not be superfluous to remind my brothers in the episcopacy of an affirmation made by an Italian masonic lodge from the year 1820: “Our work is a work of a hundred years. Let us leave the elder people and let us go to the youth. The seminarians will become priests with our liberal ideas. We shall not flatter ourselves with false hopes. We will not make the Pope a Freemason. However liberal bishops, who will work in the entourage of the Pope, will propose to him in the task of governing the Church such thoughts and ideas which are advantageous for us and the Pope will implement them into life”. This intention of the Freemasons is being implemented more and more openly, not only thanks to the declared enemies of the Church but with the connivance of false witnesses who occupy some high hierarchical office in the Church. It is not without reason that Blessed Paul VI said: “The spirit of Satan penetrated through a crack inside the Church”. I think that this crack has become in our days quite wide and the devil uses all forces in order to subvert the Church of Christ. To avoid this, it is necessary to return to the precise and clear proclamation of the Gospel on all levels of ecclesiastical ministry, for the Church possesses all power and grace which Christ gave to her: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore, and teach all nations. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and I am with you always unto the end of the world” (Mt 28, 18-20), “the truth will set you free” (John 8, 32) and “let your word be Yes, yes; No, no: for whatsoever is more than these comes of evil” (Mt 5, 37). The Church cannot adapt herself to the spirit of this world, but must transform the world to the spirit of Christ.

It is obvious that in the Vatican there is a tendency to give in more and more to the noise of the mass media. It is not infrequent that in the name of an incomprehensible quiet and calm the best sons and servants are sacrificed in order to appease the mass media. The enemies of the Church however don’t hand over their faithful servants even when their actions are evidently bad.

When we wish to remain faithful to Christ in word and deed, He Himself will find the means to transform the hearts and souls of men and the world as well will be changed at the appropriate time.

In times of the crisis of the Church God has often used for her true renewal the sacrifices, the tears and the prayers of those children and servants of the Church who in the eyes of the world and of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy were considered insignificant or were persecuted and marginalized because of their fidelity to Christ. I believe that in our difficult time this law of Christ is being realized and that the Church will renew herself thanks to the faithful inner renewal of each of us.

January 1st  2015, Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God   + Jan Pawel Lenga

+ + +

*** The Book, every Faithful Catholic Priest will treasure in this time of Crisis ***

bonav-I-banner

News

Cardinal Burke: if the Pope persists in this path, “I shall resist, I can do no other!”

7 Comments

Rome, February 8, 2015:  His Eminence Raymon Leo Cardinal Burke in an interview with France2 television, published on the web yesterday, has affirmed that he will keep the Catholic Faith even to the point of resisting Pope Francis, if need be.

First, the video feed from France TV Info, can be viewed through this link:

burke-660x330

Here is our English translation of the key sections of the interview, where Cardinal Burke responds to the interviewer’s summation of the apparent efforts of the Pope to allow communion for the divorced and the new acceptance of homosexuality characterized by the “who am I to judge” maxim.

France2:  If the pope persists in this direction, what will you do?

Cardinal Burke:  I shall resist, I can do no other.  There’s no doubt that we are in difficult times, this, is clear; it is clear.

France 2: Is this upsetting?

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

France 2: Is this worrisome?

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

France 2:  According to you, is the Church threatened as an institution?

Cardinal Burke:The Lord has assured us, as He has assured St. Peter in the Gospel, that the forces of Evil shall not prevail: Non praevalebunt, as we say in Latin.  They shall not have victory over the Church.

(English translation from the transcription verified by Maria Guarini of Chiesa e post Concilio Blog.)

Our Comments

With these few words Cardinal Burke has confirmed the entire Church in the Eternal Faith which comes from the lips of Christ.

With these few words, His Eminence has vindicated tens of thousands of clergy, religious and laymen and woman who have rejected the Kasperian thesis of allowing Eucharistic communion to those not morally in communion with Christ.

God bless Cardinal Burke!

Let us pray for him! and Let us offer all our prayers and sacrifices that other Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laymen and woman shall now join him in resisting the heretical proposals which have been indicated, promoted, pushed and advocated since March 13, 2013.

We join with Cardinal Burke, and say, “If the pope persists, we too shall resist!”

+ + +

*** The Book, every Faithful Catholic Priest will treasure in this time of Crisis  ***

bonav-I-banner

Ecclesiology, News, Team Bergoglio

Se il Collegio dei Cardinali non fa il suo dovere

1 Comment

Traduzione di Antonio Marcantonio dal testo inglese originale
con qualche modifica dell’Autore

Roman_RuinsRoma, 30 gennaio 2015: Due giorni dopo la presentazione, da parte del blog From Rome, di quelli che sembrano essere crimini canonici ad opera del “Team Bergoglio” – così il Dr. Austin Ivereigh, ex-portavoce del Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ha definito il gruppo di otto Cardinali che hanno cospirato per l’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio prima del Conclave del 2013 e durante il suo svolgimento – Padre Federico Lombardi, portavoce della Santa Sede, ha annunciato che Papa Francesco ha convocato un concistoro speciale di Cardinali nei giorni 14 e 15 febbraio, per nominare venti nuovi Cardinali: si tratta di un tentativo di alterare per sempre la fisionomia del Collegio, sostituendone una la cui maggioranza di membri era stata scelta da Papa Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI ad un’altra la cui maggioranza di membri sarà composta da Cardinali scelti da Papa Francesco o che sono stati coinvolti nello scandalo della richiesta di voti per la sua elezione*.

 

Il dovere del Sacro Collegio dei Cardinali

L’attendibilità delle accuse portate nel caso contro il “Team Bergoglio” è stata ampiamente dimostrata nel nostro articolo del 6 gennaio 2015: Da Ivereigh all’abdicazione, i passi canonici resi necessari dallo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”. E i fondamenti canonici che consentirebbero di sollevare la questione dell’invalidità dell’elezione del Papa durante il Concistoro di febbraio sono stati esplicati nel nostro articolo del 17 gennaio 2014, Qualsiasi Cardinale Elettore ha il diritto di richiedere che lo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” sia chiarito.

Vedi la nostra Cronologia completa sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”.

È ovvio che se i venti nuovi Cardinali nominati da Papa Francesco si aggiungono al Collegio dei Cardinali, tale corpo, de facto, non avrà più la capacità di indagare sulle accuse contro la validità dell’elezione di Papa Francesco che emergono tanto dalla narrazione degli eventi da parte del Dr. Austen Ivereigh come dall’indagine sulle irregolarità della procedura osservata durante il Conclave da parte di Antonio Socci, nel suo libro Non è Francesco che è attualmente un best-seller in Italia.

In questo caso, è valida la massima e la regola canonica:  Qui tacet videtur consentire (C. 43 in VI.5.12.).

Entrambe le fonti esprimono dei dubbi che sorgono da dichiarazioni fatte non dagli oppositori del Cardinal Bergoglio, bensì dai suoi stessi sostenitori, che sostengono di aver parlato con i Cardinali Elettori (nel caso di Ivereigh) o con lo stesso Cardinal Bergoglio (nel caso di Socci). Si tratta pertanto di testimoni estremamente attendibili.

Allo stesso tempo, nel momento in cui scriviamo, 354 Cattolici di tutto il mondo hanno inoltrato una petizione al Collegio dei Cardinali affinché esso indaghi sulle accuse di eterodossia contro il Cardinal Bergoglio e sul carattere eterodosso del suo comportamento personale prima e dopo la sua “elezione” papale, elementi sulla base dei quale essi credono che egli debba essere dichiarato invalidamente eletto e deposto come eretico. Non si sa quanti Cardinali conoscano l’esistenza di questa petizione, anche se le dovrebbe essere garantita con certezza una risposta pubblica.

I Cattolici di tutto il mondo, pertanto, dovrebbero farsi la seguente domanda:

Dopo il 15 febbraio, quando i nuovi Cardinali saranno insediati, che ne sarà della Chiesa?

Il Cardinal Bergoglio, già a partire dall’epoca del Conclave del 2013, ha mostrato in modo estremamente chiaro e costante, a tutti quelli che hanno occhi per vedere, di non essere in possesso della Fede Cattolica – anche se ogni volta che parla spontaneamente contro di essa e glielo si fa notare, egli si scusa adducendo il fatto di non aver avuto l’intenzione di negare nulla –; le ripetute espressioni del proprio credo individuale, la costante impunità e l’artificialità dei tentativi di mettere tutto a tacere dopo gli scandali che egli provoca, mostrano che egli sta semplicemente mantenendo salda la sua presa sull’ufficio che detiene, al fine di portare avanti il disegno esplicito e maligno di distruggere l’adesione e la lealtà della Chiesa al Magistero di Gesù Cristo, il Figlio Incarnato di Dio.

Persino i suoi sostenitori, come il Cardinal Baldissieri o il Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, affermano che egli si trovava dietro ogni azione scandalosa al recente Sinodo Straordinario sulla Famiglia e che la sua intenzione era quella di alterare irrimediabilmente e irrevocabilmente la natura stessa della Chiesa.  Pure, il Cardinal Marx afferma che Francesco rigetta la Chiesa come “una chiesa di verità”, perché come tale sarebbe “inutile per il popolo”.

Chiunque legga le notizie lo dovrebbe ormai sapere. Anche i Cardinali del Sacro Collegio.

Se essi non interverranno, risulterà evidente che fanno parte di un gruppo di complici de facto che condividono gli sforzi o le intenzioni del Cardinal Bergoglio di rovesciare la Chiesa Cattolica. In tal caso, essi diventeranno sospetti non solo di eresia, ma soprattutto di pertinacia in collusione sia attiva sia passiva col Cardinal Bergoglio. Essi perderebbero in tal modo ogni diritto di rappresentare il clero di Roma, in virtù del Canone 194, che recita in latino come segue:

Can. 194 — § 1. Ipso iure ab ecclesiastico amovetur:

1° qui statum clericalem amiserit;
2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit;
3° clericus qui matrimonium etiam civile tantum attentaverit.

2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet.

Che, nella nostra traduzione non ufficiale ma letterale in italiano, recita come segue:

Canone 194 — § 1. In base alla stessa legge sono rimossi dallo stato ecclesiastico:

  1. Chi ha perso lo stato clericale;
  2. Chi ha disertato pubblicamente la Fede Cattolica o la comunione con la Chiesa;
  3. Un chierico che abbia cercato di contrarre matrimonio, anche solo civile.

2. Si può procedere alla rimozione, nei casi di cui ai numeri 2 e 3, solo se il caso viene stabilito da una dichiarazione dell’autorità competente riguardo la stessa.

È infatti ovvio che chi cospira per la negazione dell’insegnamento di Gesù Cristo è un eretico e un nemico della Chiesa Cattolica. Non è legittimo considerarlo in comunione con Essa più di quanto un virus mortale possa essere considerato parte del corpo che infetta**.

Il paragrafo 2 stabilisce che in primo luogo le autorità competenti devono giudicare i fatti: solo allora è lecito rimuovere dal loro ufficio la persona o le persone coinvolte.

Il diritto divino e naturale del Clero di Roma

seminario romanoIl fatto che l’autorità competente in una materia così grave sia il Clero della Diocesi di Roma si deduce senza alcuna possibilità di obiezione dal suo diritto divino e naturale. Divino, per il fatto che il clero di ogni diocesi, in caso di eresia del proprio vescovo e dei suoi collaboratori, ha il diritto di espellerli dalla comunione della Chiesa; naturale, poiché in ogni società umana gli unici membri che hanno l’autorità di espellerne altri sono quelli che conservano fedelmente la natura e la forma di tale società.

Questo duplice diritto del Clero di Roma viene affermato dall’Enciclopedia Cattolica, pubblicata più di cento anni fa, nel suo articolo sull’Elezione di un Papa, in cui dice:

Come si è visto, la guida suprema della Chiesa è abbinata all’ufficio di Vescovo di Roma. Il Papa diventa pastore capo perché è il Vescovo di Roma; non diventa Vescovo di Roma perché è stato scelto come capo della Chiesa universale. Pertanto, è corretto dire che l’elezione al papato è innanzitutto un’elezione al vescovato locale. I membri della Chiesa Romana hanno sempre avuto il diritto di eleggere il proprio vescovo. Sono essi che hanno la facoltà di poter dare alla Chiesa universale il suo pastore supremo; non viene loro assegnato un vescovo in virtù della sua elezione da parte della Chiesa universale. Ciò non significa che l’elezione debba consistere in un voto popolare da parte dei romani. Per quanto riguarda gli affari ecclesiastici, spetta sempre alla gerarchia guidare le decisioni dei fedeli. La scelta di un vescovo spetta al clero e deve essere limitata ai suoi livelli più alti. Questo è valido per la Chiesa Romana attuale. I membri del collegio dei cardinali elettori esercitano il loro ufficio in quanto gerarchi del clero romano. Se mai il collegio dei cardinali cessasse di esistere, il compito di scegliere un pastore supremo non cadrebbe sui vescovi riuniti in un concilio, ma sui restanti membri del clero Romano. Fu Papa Pio IV, all’epoca del Concilio di Trento, che insistette su questo punto in un’allocuzione concistoriale, temendo che al momento della sua morte il concilio potesse rivendicare tale diritto.

Tutte queste cose devono essere osservate con proprietà, discrezione e coscienza.

Quindi, se il Sacro Collegio si astiene dal ripudiare queste intenzioni maligne e dallo sciogliere i dubbi a proposito dell’elezione, il clero della Diocesi di Roma ha il diritto di fare da giudice. In tale diritto sarebbe inclusa la facoltà di interrogare le parti, tanto il Cardinal Bergoglio come tutti gli altri membri o co-cospiratori del “Team Bergoglio”, o chiunque possa dare testimonianza sulla mancanza di Fede Cattolica in lui o nei suoi sostenitori.

È sufficiente giudicare gli elementi a disposizione per poter emettere una sentenza che stabilisca o – in virtù della legge papale UDG 4 – che il conclave del 2013 non ha svolto un’elezione canonicamente valida, ovvero che Papa Francesco, per sua propria eresia, manifesta l’intenzione maligna di allontanarsi dalla fedeltà a Cristo su qualche materia. Qualora venissero interrogati, i Cardinali non potrebbero avvalersi del fatto di essere vincolati al voto pronunciato al conclave, perché nei procedimenti giudiziari le testimonianze non violano in nessun modo un voto di segretezza e perché in situazioni di questo genere il bene della Chiesa è superiore ad ogni voto.

Il clero della Diocesi di Roma comprende non solo i sacerdoti e i diaconi incardinati, ma anche i Vescovi Ausiliari e gli Arcivescovi, i Vescovi, i sacerdoti e i monsignori che sono incardinati nel Vaticano, che pur essendo per la legge civile uno stato separato, rimane una parte della Diocesi di Roma per il diritto canonico. Avrebbero diritto di partecipare come giudici a un processo del genere anche i Cardinali che non hanno potuto partecipare al Conclave del 2013 o che non potranno partecipare al Concistoro del 2015 – ivi compreso il Papa Emerito, “Padre Benedetto”, come chiede ora di essere chiamato –, così come i vescovi ausiliari, i sacerdoti e i diaconi della Diocesi di Roma in pensione ma ancora incardinati nella Diocesi.

Sarà quindi Dio che riderà ultimo, perché con il mero fatto di nominare nuovi Cardinali Elettori un uomo eletto in modo non canonico non potrà mai imporre un fait accompli alla Chiesa di Roma.

__________________________

* 115 Cardinali hanno partecipato al Conclave del 2013. Il Dr. Ivereigh afferma che il “Team Bergoglio” era composto da otto Cardinali (sette dei quali partecipavano attivamente, mentre l’altro conteggiava le promesse di voto) e da due possibili cospiratori che hanno raccolto 25 promesse di voto per il primo scrutinio. Se essi hanno ottenuto quanto volevano alla prima votazione, si può presumere con un ragionevole margine di probabilità che – come dice il Dr. Ivereigh – abbiano continuato tale attività anche dopo di essa, e quindi che anche qualcuno dei 53 voti guadagnati successivamente sia stato promesso. Tutti i Cardinali che hanno richiesto e promesso voti sarebbero stati ipso facto scomunicati. La serietà di queste accuse è stata recentemente dimostrata: il 6 gennaio 2015 il Cardinal Danneels, tramite il suo portavoce, ha esplicitamente negato di aver chiesto voti per il Cardinal Bergoglio prima il Conclave. E a partire del 15 febbraio più la maggioranza del Sacro Collegio sarà tanto in favore di Bergoglio, che con ogni probabilità non vorrà sentire nemmeno un accenno all’invalidità della sua elezione né tanto meno emettere un giudizio equo su di essa.

** Bisogna qui distinguere con attenzione e riconoscere che una cosa è avere abbastanza elementi  per esigere un processo o un’indagine per stabilire se il Pontefice di Roma è un eretico o è stato eletto in modo non canonico; altra cosa è averne la certezza: la seconda ipotesi richiede infatti la certezza delle prove a livello dei giudizi privati, e anche un atto forense di giudizio da parte dell’autorità competente a livello dei giudizi pubblici. È questa la ragione per cui la necessità che vengano sciolti i dubbi sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” tramite un giudizio pubblico è di un’urgenza assoluta: perché la Chiesa rischia non solo che ai suoi fedeli venga negato il diritto di avere un legittimo successore di San Pietro, ma anche uno scisma tra i seguaci di un candidato che sembrerebbe essere falso e quanti insistono sulla necessità di averne uno legittimo.

Faith, News

Cardinal Marx affirms that Francis rejects the Church of Truth

3 Comments

Cardinal+Marx+2February 6, 2015:  In a stunning admission, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Germany, has publicly affirmed, during an interview with the Jesuit Magazine, America, that Pope Francis rejects the Church of truth.

No less scandalous, are his own words, by which he says, the Church of truth has no usefulness for humanity.  You can read his comments in the original, through this link.  The From Rome Blog will cite, here, only the relevant point:

What challenge accompanies this new time in the church?

It is best to read “The Joy of the Gospel.” Some people say, “We don’t know what the pope really wants.” I say, “Read the text.” It does not give magical answers to complex questions, but rather it conveys the path of the Spirit, the way of evangelization, being close to the people, close to the poor, close to those who have failed, close to the sinners, not a narcissistic church, not a church of fear. There is a new, free impulse to go out. Some worry about what will happen. Francis uses a strong image: “I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets,” rather than a church that is very clean and has the truth and everything necessary. The latter church does not help the people. The Gospel is not new, but Francis is expressing it in a new way and is inspiring many people all over the world, who are saying, “Yes, that is the church.” It is a great gift for us. It’s very important. We will see what he will do. He has been pope for only two years, which is not much time.

Our Critique

The words of Cardinal Marx (“The latter church does not help the people”) are without a doubt blasphemy against the Son of God and heresy.

They are blasphemy, because the Son of God became incarnate to offer THE ONLY SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR MANKIND, which salvation He conveys to mankind through the Catholic Church, which, as St. Paul infallibly teaches, is the “mainstay and bulwark of the truth”.  There can be no salvation without a church of truth, and that Church is the Catholic Church.

The words of the Cardinal are also heresy, because by saying the Church of truth does not help people, he denies that salvation is first by faith, that is by the dogmatic assent of the mind to revealed truth; and thus he denies that salvation in Christ must encompass the human mind, not only the heart, affections, or body. His words also deny that error harms the human person in his totality to such an extent that it is sufficient of itself to damn a man for all eternity.

The Catholic Church is “the Church of the Truth, Jesus Christ”, and “the Church of truth”, commissioned by Christ to teach the Gospel of salvation to all nations first by words (hence to the mind of believers), second by deeds (works of charity). To deny the usefulness of both aspects is to deny the Church as Christ gave Her to us.

That Cardinal Marx makes these statements is noteworthy, because he is not a nobody, but a close collaborator with the Pope and Cardinal Kasper — one of the alleged leaders of “Team Bergoglio” — and has been such from before the Conclave in 2013 as can bee seen even in photos.

Finally, to say that one prefers a Church which is not clean and does not have the truth to a Church which does, is to choose the former and reject the other, even if one uses language which disguises that rejection in other terms.  Thus, in the negation of the utility of “a church of truth”, Cardinal Marx authentically explains Pope Francis’ preference as a formal rejection of the Church as Christ, the Truth, gave Her to us.

But these remarks by Cardinal Marx should not surprise readers of the From Rome blog, who already know of Pope Francis’ formally heretical statement on the Solemnity of Christ the King, which we have publicly indicated as worthy of condemnation.  In that statement, Pope Francis rejected the objective character of Christ’s office as teacher to all mankind.

For a complete Chronology of reports on the Team Bergoglio scandal, from round the world, click here.

Ecclesiology, News

Qualsiasi Cardinale Elettore ha il diritto di richiedere che lo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” venga chiarito

1 Comment
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)
il Cardinale Jorge Mario Bergoglio emette il voto di segretezza alla apertura del Conclave, Marzo 12, 2014 (BBC, screenshot: From Rome blog, cropped)

L’UDG 5 e il Canone 1530

Traduzione italiana di Sig. Antonio Marcantonio: fonte inglese originale, qui.

Roma, 17 gennaio 2015: Dal momento in cui si sono diffuse le rivelazioni a proposito della campagna organizzata da otto Cardinali per favorire l’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio al Conclave del 2013 – in cui quest’ultimo è stato eletto come Papa Francesco – si è aperta una controversia pubblica accompagnata da seri dubbi circa la validità dell’elezione. Nella norma papale che regola l’elezione di un pontefice, la Costituzione Apostolica Universi Dominici Gregis, mancano infatti i termini specifici che avrebbero impedito che i fatti dovessero essere interpretati in base alle norme generali del Codice di Diritto Canonico, in modo particolare ai Canoni 171 e 1329.

Nel paragrafo 81 della Universi Dominici Gregis (che abbrevieremo con la sigla UDG), il reato della promessa di voti è sanzionato con la scomunica automatica, in modo tale che un Cardinale Elettore viene scomunicato nell’atto stesso di promettere un voto. In base al Canone 1329, la scomunica automatica si estende alla persona che richiede la promessa del voto, anche se si tratta di un Cardinale Elettore. In base ai termini del primo paragrafo del Canone 171, i voti degli elettori scomunicati, anche quando si tratta di Cardinali in un conclave, non possono essere contati come voti a favore del candidato che essi menzionano sulla scheda; inoltre, in base al secondo paragrafo dello stesso Canone, se i voti degli elettori scomunicati sono conteggiati tra quelli a favore del candidato, in modo tale da fargli raggiungere il numero di voti necessario per la vittoria, quest’ultima viene annullata a tutti gli effetti in conformità con le norme sull’elezione.

La facti species, ovvero l’apparenza dei fatti narrati nel libro del Dr. Ivereigh, Il Grande Riformatore: Francesco e la creazione di un Papa radicale (traduzione italiana del nostro sommario, qui), parla dunque a favore dell’invalidità dell’elezione di Papa Francesco, ossia del fatto che egli non abbia ottenuto il suo ufficio con mezzi leciti, legali o legittimi. Ciò implicherebbe che non solo i Cattolici si possono dissociare dalla comunione con lui, ma hanno anche l’obbligo morale di farlo se non vogliono incorrere nel peccato mortale.

Le accuse, attendibili, concernono quindi un autentico scandalo.

L’UDG 5 offre una semplice soluzione allo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”

Grazie a Dio, Papa Giovanni Paolo II ha provveduto, nella sua legge papale sul conclave, una facile soluzione di cui qualsiasi Cardinale si può servire: tale soluzione risiede nei termini sanciti dal quinto paragrafo della legge papale, l’UDG 5, il cui testo ufficiale in latino recita:

  1. Si quae autem dubia exoriantur de sensu praescriptionum, quae hac Nostra Constitutione continentur, aut circa rationem qua ad usum deduci eae debeant, edicimus ac decernimus penes Cardinalium Collegium esse potestatem de his ferendi sententiam; propterea, eidem Cardinalium Collegio facultatem tribuimus interpretandi locos dubios vel in controversiam vocatos, statuentes, ut, si de eiusmodi vel similibus quaestionibus deliberati oporteat, excepto ipso electionis actu, satis sit maiorem congregatorum Cardinalium partem in eandem sententiam convenire.

La nostra traduzione non ufficiale in italiano è la seguente:

  1. Inoltre, se dovesse sorgere uno di questi dubbi a proposito delle prescrizioni contenute in questa Nostra Costituzione, o a proposito del criterio secondo cui esse devono essere messe in pratica, Noi dichiariamo e giudichiamo che il potere di emettere un giudizio su di essi spetta al Collegio dei Cardinali; conferiamo inoltre al Collegio dei Cardinali la facoltà di interpretare i passi dubbi e/o contestati, in modo tale che quando esso emette sentenze su questioni di questo tipo e/o similari – eccetto il caso specifico dell’elezione – sia sufficiente che la maggioranza dei Cardinali riuniti si trovino d’accordo sulla stessa opinione.

In questo paragrafo, Papa Giovanni Paolo II chiarisce vari punti: in primo luogo, il Sacro Collegio ha autorità e giurisdizione su questioni riguardanti il significato dei singoli paragrafi e sul metodo da usarsi per applicarli; in secondo luogo, il Papa stabilisce che siano i Cardinali che devono deliberare in merito a ciò, che bisogna procedere a una votazione e che le decisioni devono essere prese dalla maggioranza dei Cardinali Elettori riuniti.

In altre parole, dunque, la legge papale stabilisce nell’UDG 5 che i Cardinali Elettori riuniti sono i giudici dei casi che possono sorgere a proposito della legge papale stessa. L’unica materia su cui non si possono pronunciare è l’atto stesso dell’elezione,: ossia, non possono giudicare se l’atto abbia avuto luogo o no, bensì possono solamente valutare se si è aderito debitamente ai termini della legge papale e se questi siano stati seguiti. Già nel paragrafo 4 l’UDG stabilisce che ogni inadempimento dei termini rende le elezioni nulle e non valide: non v’è quindi bisogno che i Cardinali giudichino la validità dell’atto stesso.

È pertanto sufficiente che i Cardinali si riuniscano, deliberino in merito al caso dello scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” e lo dirimano. Potranno dibattere sulla veridicità delle accuse e investigare sui fatti chiedendo ai testimoni oculari se l’UDG 81 sia stato violato tramite un accordo sui voti perpetrato dai sostenitori del Cardinal Bergoglio.

Il Canone 1530 garantisce il diritto di indagare sulle accuse

Il Canone 1530 garantisce il diritto di ogni Cardinale e ognuno con interesse, come ogni clerico o laico della Chiesa di Roma, a esigere che si indaghi in un concistoro sulle accuse relative allo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”. Garantisce infatti al giudice di ogni contenzioso il diritto e il dovere di indagare sui fatti relativi alle controversie e di dirimerle, su richiesta di una qualsiasi delle parti in causa. Il testo del Canone recita:

Can. 1530 — Iudex ad veritatem aptius eruendam partes interrogare semper potest, immo debet, ad instantiam partis vel ad probandum factum quod publice interest extra dubium poni.

La nostra traduzione non ufficiale in italiano è la seguente:

Canone 1530 — Il giudice può – e ancor più, deve – sempre interrogare le parti per scoprire la verità in modo più efficace, quando una delle parti lo solleciti e/o per provare un fatto di pubblico interesse e sciogliere ogni dubbio su di esso.

In questo caso sarebbe l’intero Collegio dei Cardinali Elettori a ricoprire il ruolo di giudice, mentre ogni singolo Cardinale Elettore – insieme a quelli accusati di accordare i voti – può ricoprire il ruolo di parte in causa. Ogni singolo Cardinale può quindi esigere che il Sacro Collegio indaghi sulle accuse. Ciò è possibile solo se si interroga ogni singolo Cardinale di fronte agli altri. Si può fare ogni tipo di domanda. Il Canone 1531 esige che la persona interrogata dica la verità. I Cardinali eserciterebbero in tal modo tutto ciò che è prescritto sui contenziosi nell’edizione del 1983 del Codice di Diritto Canonico (cfr. Canone 1501 e seguenti).

La soluzione è semplice. La questione del “Team Bergoglio” può essere risolta facilmente. Perché dunque non si apre alcun contenzioso? E perché i sostenitori del “Team Bergoglio” si scagliano così violentemente contro l’ipotesi di un’indagine?

News

The Catholic League for the Prayer of Reparation

Presentation by Mrs. Maria Guarini

Editor of the “Chiesa e post concilio” Blog at Rome

I am wholeheartedly joining the effort of Mr. Paolo Deotto and Dr. Alessandro Gnocchi, in their work to launch the following proposal, which is part of a sane response to the epic crisis of the Church in which we are living.

We have, ourselves, also spoken of this more times than words can suffice and Internet fora are not sufficient except as instruments of communication to accompany and encourage the authentic life of the Church which is lived in the heart and in the daily life of each of the faithful.

Furthermore, one cannot, not encourage such a proposal of Prayer for Reparation, for many reasons:

First of all, because among all the wonderful realities of grace from the Lord which He reveals and gives us there is Reparation. This too, is not spoken of so frequently today and risks being forgotten, with the consequence of losing the understanding of its efficacy for the good of souls and the greater, extrinsic glory of God. I say, “extrinsic”, because God is glorified in Himself, the same, whether we add to that in our own lives or not.

To this end, let us also consider arranging moments of encounter and formation or whatever else, which is practical and simple to promote this endeavor.

It is normal that every initiative begin with those who propose it: but, as suggested below, the appeal is being entrusted to the good will of each Catholic inasmuch as he is able to participate or assist.

We have been considering and pondering such a proposal for some time. And we hope to see fellow participants at Linarolo, Italy, on May 1st, for the first meeting of coordinators.

Obviously, there can be other kinds of reparation, but if they do not begin with prayer above all else, if they do not involve the clergy, they won’t make any headway.

Maria Guarini

Sia lodato Gesù Cristo

 

PROPOSAL by Mr. Paolo Deotto & Dr. Alessandro Gnocchi

We propose to Catholics of sound doctrine and good will to associate with us in an initiative, which we call, “the League for Reparation”, which has just been founded for the purpose of restoring the true face of the Church by means of an ascetical discipline which flows from the spirituality and devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

“And, so, what do we do?” — many brave Catholics ask us, now that they recognize the reality of the crisis in which the Church in our own days has fallen. “And you, what are you doing?” — say many others, mostly to provoke us, understanding implicitly that it is not enough merely to point out the problems and lamenting them.

Affectations are not sufficient. We cannot simply engage in lamentations in the face of the emptying out of the Faith, at the prospect of temerarious aggiornamentoes of theology, of philosophy, at the surrenders to immorality, at the liturgical abuses, at the devastation of the ascetical and devotional practices of millenia, at the rejection of Tradition.

Faced with such a spectacle, comprised under the foggy notion of “opening to the world”, a Catholic has the duty to react, and to react as a Catholic.

For this reason, by means of the Italian-Catholic Internet site, known as, “Riscossa Cristiana”, we intend to launch an initiative aimed at all those who, disconsolate, ask, “And, now, we are we to do?”

If the Church is falling to pieces, it is necessary to put a hand to the work of repairing Her. And to repair Her, while many, too many pastors are continuing the work of demolition. With patience and tenacity and supported by the supernatural virtue of Hope, we need to recover all of that which is good, venerable and holy which others are throwing away and of restoring it to its proper place. And we need to do this with the intention and purpose of restoring in the Spouse of Christ the features which She has maintained throughout the course of centuries, features which are now despised by many enemies, standing outside and many within.

One needs to undertake the repairs understanding that they can only be done with fruit and merit when taken without any extravagance. Theology, spirituality, asceticism and devotion: cast off and discarded for a time, now, as part of a faith which is out of fashion, furnish to Catholics of good will a simple and efficacious means: the practice of the prayer of reparation, which at the end of this proposal, we will explain how this might be applied to assist the Church in this dramatic era of turmoil in which She finds Herself.

Whoever wishes to adhere to this initiative, should do so conscious that one must break ground on one’s own without waiting for the masses to follow. They will be alone and few in numbers, indeed, individuals, who get this holy work off the ground. Then, as Divine Providence may desire, the fruits might become visible.

For this purpose, through Riscossa Cristiana, we propose to Catholics of sound doctrine and good will to associate themselves to the “Lega cattolica per la preghiera di riparazione” (The Catholic League for the Prayer of Reparation), which has just been founded with the purpose of restoring the true face of the Church of always by means of an ascetical practice which flows from the spirituality of and devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

As an organizational support, besides the website, Riscossa Cristiana, there is a small public association which arose 2 years ago in Lombardy and the Veneto, which is called, “Confraternita del Sacro Cuore di Gesù e del Cuore Immacolato di Maria” (Confraternity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary), which is also called, “Of the Sacred Hearts”, to whom the initiators of this proposal belong.

This is a small group of Catholics who understand that only by means of a complete return to the doctrinal and liturgical Tradition of the Church will there be any mark of an end to the crisis in the Church.

Among the ascetical practices of this Confraternity, aimed at restoring Tradition, are the offerings of sacrifices and prayers in reparation for the harm provoked in the Church on the part of the men in the Church, clerical and lay: this is the substance of what is being proposed on a larger scale by means of this new proposal, of a Catholic League for the Prayer of Reparation.

On the practical sin, there is nothing complicated.  Each one, alone or in a group with other Catholics can join this initiative by mans of an email addressed to:

legariparazione@email.it

In this manner, one can indicate his desire to become a member and to receive information on the eventual activities of the League or those which will be organized in his part of the world; in addition, one can indicate his willingness to serve as a point of reference for others in his country who wish to join. It will be the competency and duty of the organizers to contact you and keep in contact with those who sign up.

This work of keeping in touch is also important because it is important that the Catholics who decide to join don’t give up simply because they feel isolated as the last remnants of a shipwreck, or as the few mad in a world of self proclaimed “sane” madmen.

These Catholics, if they are in the midst of the shipwreck (if they wish to use this metaphor), are not alone: there are many more than we can possibly imagine. Moreover, it is not they who are insane: it is only that in a time of universal insanity, mental sanity seems to be the suff fit for an asylum.

To this end, for the purpose of fortifying the bonds which will promote the work of this initiative, all who sign up are invited to gather together on Friday, May 1, 2015 for the first meeting of the “Lega cattolica per la preghiera di riparazione”, being organized at Linarolo, in the province of Pavia, Italy.

At the home page of Riscossa Cristiana, there will be a link for further information about this initiative as well as formational handouts.

Signed:

 Paolo Deotto & Alessandro Gnocchi

 

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

Information about this appeal can also be found at the following sites:

– Corrispondenza Romana
– Corsia dei Servi
– Chiesa e postconcilio
– Gloria.TV
– Una Vox
– Vigiliae Alexandrinae
– La Grande Guerra
– Bosecuriose
– In Expectatione
– Adelante la Fe
– Quijote Siglo21

THE OFFICIAL PRAYER OF REPARATION

FOR THE CATHOLIC LEAGE FOR THE PRAYER OF REPARATION

ORIGINAL ITALIAN

Cuore Divino di Gesù, io ti offro per mezzo del Cuore Immacolato di Maria, in unione al Sacrificio Eucaristico, le preghiere, le azioni, le gioie e le sofferenze di questo giorno in riparazione dei peccati e per la salvezza di tutti gli uomini, a gloria del Divin Padre. Amen.

UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

O Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer Thee through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the prayers, actions, joys and sufferings of this day, in reparation for sin and for the salvation of all men, to the glory of Thy Divine Father. Amen.

 

Catechesis on this Prayer

«DEUS, qui nobis, in Corde Fílii tui, nostris vulneráto peccátis, infinítos dilectiónis thesáuros misericórditer largíri dignáris ; concéde, quaésumus, ut illi devótum pietátis nostrae praestántes obséquium, dignae quoque satisfactiónis exhibeámus offícium. Per eúmdem Dóminum».

O God, Who in Thy Mercy have deigned to bestow the infinite treasures of Thy Love in the Heart of Thy Son, pierced through by our sins, grant that, in rendering Him the devout homage of our piety, we might accomplish also the office of a worthy reparation.

With these words, the Liturgy of the Church prays in the Collect for the Feast of the Sacred Heart. Briefly summarizing the motives for and the effects of the Death of Our Lord on the Cross, She concludes by inviting every member of the faithful to unite himself to the Divine Redeemer by exercising an dignae satisfactionis officium (the duty of making worthy satisfaction). In this sense, the prayer appears to embody very faithfully what the Sacred Heart of Jesus had told St. Margaret Maria Alacoque, a Visitation nun, kneeling before the Most Blessed Sacrament, in June of 1675 A. D.:

“Behold the Heart which has so loved men, Which has spared no expense in exhausting Itself and in consuming Itself, to testify to them of Its Love; and in recompense I receive, for the most part, a great ingratitude on account of the irreverent and sacrileges and by reason of the coldness and disrespect which they have for Me in this Sacrament of love … This, He told me, is for Me more sorrowful than what I have suffered in My Passion. If these were to recompense Me with a small measure of My Love, I would esteem it a small thing that I suffered for them and I would, if possible, suffer even more. But these respond with naught but indifference and refusals at all My concerns for procuring them good. At least, you, give Me the pleasure of supplying for their ingratitude, as much as you will be able.”

Behold, how clearly expressed is the meritorious principle of reparation, by which in associating men to the infinite Expiation and Satisfaction which Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross, tends to compensate and pacify the outrages hurled at God’s glory by the sins of men. How numerous are the sins of men, lay and ecclesiastic! In a particular manner, what lack there is of adoration towards the revealed Truth, in every form: betrayals in the exposition of immutable doctrine; abuses in liturgical celebrations; irreverence; indifference towards the Royal Authority of Our Lord; sinful omissions of the apostolate; and much more. The Spouse of Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, finds Herself often to be disfigured in visible members exactly because of the sins of Her children. One cannot remain indifferent to all of this: our Holy Mother, the Church, is suffering and we have the duty to apply medicine to Her wounds, inasmuch as it is granted us to do so, by means of the offerings of sacrifices and prayers to hasten Her recovery.

If the God-man, Jesus Christ, came to repair man’s sin against God, which was worked by our first parents at the instigation of the Devil (a sin of infinite offense inasmuch as it was offered directly against the Divine Majesty of God’s Authority), man, as redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Son of God, in union with Christ Himself and with His Church, can also contribute himself to reparation for the sins which are perpetrated against His Divine Heart. Every baptized Catholic, participating in this limited manner with the Priesthood of Christ by means of the sacramental character (cf St. Thomas Summa. III pars q. 63 a. 3), is called and make suitable to offer to the Merciful Heart of Jesus, reparatory actions in strict union with the Passion of Christ.

Certainly, since grace supposes nature, it will be necessary for each one, according to the duties of his state, to go ahead on his own initiative, and perform those actions which are commensurate and adequate to the end of defending and promoting the social reign of Christ, against the “prince of this world”, who today, more than ever, “goes about like a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8). But in vain will every effort be without the unction of Grace. And though this be conferred efficaciously in the ordinary manner by means of the Sacraments, the sacrifices offered to Our Lord with devotion and upright intention, will obtain a new outpouring of sanctifying grace in the soul, which Grace confers a singular fruitfulness to every good action.

In sum: Let us make reparation. Let us hasten the triumph of Christ’s Church: may She return as soon as possible to the splendor of the Light of Her Lord in words and in the life of Her children, so that the world might believe!

Cor Iesu Sacratissimum, adveniat Regnum tuum!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy Kingdom come!

 

HOW TO PRACTICE THE PRAYER OF REPARATION

Every Friday (as possible), after having made the above Act of Offering, with the intention of making reparation for the sins against the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, recite the Holy Rosary and add the Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, with its collect. As much as possible, do this in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, or at least, make a 15 minute visit to Our Lord in adoration and expiation. In case of particular necessity, further forms of reparation and penance will be suggested by the League, according to the Ignatian principle: agere contra (“Do the opposite of what the Devil is promoting”).

 

Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Lord, have mercy on us.

Christ, have mercy on us.

Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us.

Christ, graciously hear us.

God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.

God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.

Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.

Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.

Heart of Jesus, formed by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mother’s womb,

Heart of Jesus, substantially united to the Word of God.

Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty.

Heart of Jesus, holy temple of God.

Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High.

Heart of Jesus, house of God and gate of heaven.

Heart of Jesus, glowing furnace of charity.

Heart of Jesus, vessel of justice and love.

Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love.

Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues.

Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise.

Heart of Jesus, King and center of all hearts.

Heart of Jesus, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Heart of Jesus, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.

Heart of Jesus, in whom the Father was well pleased.

Heart of Jesus, of whose fullness we have all received.

Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills.

Heart of Jesus, patient and rich in mercy.

Heart of Jesus, rich to all who call upon You.

Heart of Jesus, fount of life and holiness.

Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our offenses.

Heart of Jesus, overwhelmed with reproaches.

Heart of Jesus, bruised for our iniquities.

Heart of Jesus, obedient even unto death.

Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance.

Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation.

Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection.

Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation.

Heart of Jesus, victim for our sins.

Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in You.

Heart of Jesus, hope of those who die in You.

Heart of Jesus, delight of all saints.

 

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,

spare us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,

graciously hear us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,

have mercy on us.

Jesus, meek and humble of Heart,

Make our hearts like unto Thine.

 

Let us pray. Almighty and eternal God, look upon the Heart of Thy most beloved Son and upon the praises and satisfaction which He offers Thee in the name of sinners; and to those who implore Thy mercy, in Thy great goodness, grant forgiveness in the name of the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who livest and reignest with Thee forever and ever. Amen.

News

Da Ivereigh all’abdicazione

1 Comment

I passi canonici resi necessari dallo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”

Traduzione dell’originale inglese da Antonio Marcantonio

Life-sized 18th c Manger Scene, venerated for centuries at Acireale, Sicily (Photo by Br. Alexis Bugnolo)
Life-sized 18th c Manger Scene, venerated for centuries at Acireale, Sicily (Photo by Br. Alexis Bugnolo)

Roma — 6 gennaio 2015: In occasione della solennità dell’Epifania del Signore, la Chiesa Cattolica celebra il trionfo della luce sulle tenebre, il trionfo della Luce Eterna sulle tenebre che questo mondo ha ereditato dal peccato di Adamo, tenebre che sono la conseguenza del peccato e consistono nella separazione da Dio e nella perdita della Luce di Dio che – se non fosse stato per il peccato originale – avrebbe condotto la stirpe di Adamo a una splendida gloria, già a partire dalla sua prima progenie. Nella giornata di oggi la Chiesa celebra la rivelazione della Luce Eterna incarnata nel seno della Santissima Vergine, rivelata a tutti i Gentili che cercano Dio; non a tutti i Gentili, si badi bene, bensì solo a quanti di loro – come i Magi di un tempo – Lo cercano con sincerità e con zelo.

Questo grande Mistero che oggi celebriamo deve riecheggiare in tutte le scelte di vita che facciamo, deve riecheggiare nell’intera vita della Chiesa e in tutte le Sue scelte, e deve riecheggiare anche nel governo della Chiesa tramite le scelte che la Gerarchia Sacra fa.

Una Chiesa che non osservi le Sue stesse leggi, quindi, non può in nessun modo affermare di essere la Chiesa che proclama il Mistero dell’Epifania; per questa ragione, la corruzione all’interno della Chiesa è da considerarsi un’abominevole negazione della verità di tutto ciò che l’Epifania rappresenta.

È pertanto assolutamente opportuno affermare ancóra una volta che i fatti vincolati allo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” e le sue conseguenze legali richiedono in modo estremo e supremo lo scioglimento dei dubbi e delle questioni che hanno sollevato.

Per questa ragione, il blog From Rome procede ora alla stesura di un riepilogo della Causa Canonica contro il “Team Bergoglio” e a mostrare le ragioni per cui la validità dell’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio ne risulta palesemente invalidata, lasciando alla tesi contraria scarse probabilità di dimostrarsi certa. Un riassunto dei reportage sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” è disponibile – insieme ai post del blog From Rome che ad esso si riferiscono – nella nostra Cronologia dei reportage sul Team Bergoglio, che viene aggiornata regolarmente. Per maggior comodità del lettore, riassumiamo i fatti contenuti negli articoli elencati nella Cronologia stessa.

L’infrazione del paragrafo 81 della Universi Dominici Gregis

Nel nono capitolo della sua biografia di Papa Francesco, Il Grande Riformatore: Francesco e la creazione di un Papa radicale, il Dr. Austen Ivereigh, ex-portavoce del Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, afferma che otto Cardinali hanno conspirato con successo per l’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio, sollecitando la promessa di voti da parte di venticinque Cardinali elettori al primo scrutinio del Conclave del 12 marzo 2013. Dal testo di Ivereigh si deduce che due o tre tra i cospiratori non erano elettori. In base ai termini del paragrafo 81 della costituzione apostolica Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), gli elettori che partecipano a qualsiasi tipo di patto, accordo o promessa di voti stretta per mezzo di qualsiasi tipo di obbligazione – tanto di carattere leggero come di carattere forte – incorrono nella pena della scomunica. I termini utilizzati dall’UDG 81 indicano chiaramente che la scomunica deve essere intesa come una scomunica ipso facto che viene imposta nell’atto stesso della trasgressione. In una trasmissione della BBC del 12 marzo 2013, il Dr. Ivereigh ha ammesso di aver incontrato il presunto leader della campagna elettorale, il Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, riconoscendo anche – nella stessa apparizione sulla BBC – che ogni tipo di accordo relativo ai voti è proibito dalla norma papale. In un’intervista sul giornale, Catholic Herald, del 12 settembre 2013, il Cardinale ha ammesso di essere stato il leader di una campagna a favore di colui che sarebbe poi stato eletto come Papa Francesco e che quest’ultimo non solo era a conoscenza del fatto, ma gliene rese anche grazie il giorno successivo all’elezione; il Cardinale ha anche confermato nella stessa intervista che all’epoca del 12 marzo 2013 il Cardinal Bergoglio sapeva che sarebbe stato un candidato e che avrebbe ricevuto un gran numero di voti al primo scrutinio. Nessuno dei Cardinali di cui è stato fatto nome come persone implicate ha mai sostanzialmente o totalmente negato queste affermazioni dal momento in cui sono diventate per la prima volta di dominio pubblico, sei settimane fa, il 23 novembre 2014.*

Le pene stabilite dal Canone 1329 si applicano al Cardinal Bergoglio

In base al Canone 1329, tutti i Cardinali elettori che hanno partecipato a un accordo di questo tipo – dato che il reato non avrebbe potuto essere compiuto senza di loro – incorrono nello stesso tipo di scomunica. Tra questi rientra il Cardinal Bergoglio: se si considera che avrebbe potuto arrestare la campagna che si stava organizzando manifestando semplicemente la sua ripugnanza nei confronti della perpetrazione di un reato, si deve riconoscere, l’eventualità che egli non fosse a conoscenza della natura di quest’ultimo deve essere considerata virtualmente impossibile. In un video di un’intervista diffuso recentemente, il Dr. Ivereigh ammette che il Cardinal Bergoglio arrivò a Roma per partecipare al Conclave con l’intenzione di essere un candidato. L’insistenza con cui egli espresse il desiderio di acquistare biancheria intima il giorno dopo l’elezione può anche indicare che fosse cosciente del fatto che il modo in cui fu eletto avrebbe potuto incriminarlo qualora non si fosse mostrato libero di ogni intenzione di essere eletto. Sostenere che Bergoglio non fosse consapevole della natura della campagna significherebbe pretendere che non abbia mai parlato con nessuno dei suoi sostenitori prima delle sessioni chiuse del Conclave, che non abbia esercitato alcuna forma di controllo sulla sua elezione, che non abbia cercato di ottenere il papato e che non si aspettasse di essere eletto.

Il Cardinal Bergoglio fu eletto con 78 voti

Secondo le voci trapelate, il Cardinal Bergoglio avrebbe ottenuto 16 voti al primo scrutinio e avrebbe vinto poi le elezioni all’ultimo ballottaggio del 13 marzo 2013 con 78 voti, solo due in più rispetto alla maggioranza di due terzi richiesta per l’elezione (76). I Cardinali Elettori e quanti hanno loro prestato assistenza nella Cappella Sistina il 12 e 13 marzo 2013 sono le uniche persone che conoscono il numero esatto dei voti. Tuttavia, tutti sono vincolati dal giuramento a non rivelarlo senza il permesso esplicito del Papa. I numeri riportati provengono da presunte indiscrezioni di qualcuno di loro, sorte nel clima d’euforia nel momento che ha seguìto l’elezione di Papa Francesco.

Il Canone 171 invalida l’elezione in ragione della violazione dell’UDG 81

In base alla norma stabilita dal Canone 171 §1, i voti degli elettori scomunicati non possono essere inclusi nel conteggio; il Canone 171 §2 stabilisce che, nel caso in cui essi vengano conteggiati come parte dei voti necessari per raggiungere il numero richiesto per l’elezione, quest’ultima è nulla e non valida. Il comma 3 del primo paragrafo del Canone 171 fa menzione di persone scomunicate per sentenza giudiziale o per decreto; il Canone 20 specifica che tutte le leggi papali come la UDG sono decreti generali; il testo latino dell’UDG 81 usa lo stesso verbo di imposizione specificato come condizione per il Canone 171 §1, ° 3 (innodare). È quindi fuor di dubbio che il Canone 171 invalidi delle elezioni papali in cui il numero di voti necessari per raggiungere il quorum (la maggioranza di due terzi) è stato ottenuto includendo nel conteggio 16 voti di altrettanti elettori scomunicati, come sembra essere il caso dello scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”. Certo, è possibile che qualcuno dei 16 voti emessi al primo scrutinio non siano stati promessi, ma è virtualmente impossibile che meno di due lo siano stati.

Cosa si deve fare adesso

Dato che il caso ha raggiunto un livello sufficiente di attendibilità per quanto riguarda la sua facti species, ossia, in base all’apparenza dei fatti, esso deve essere giudicato dalle autorità competenti.

Inoltre, dato che il caso riguarda l’invalidità delle elezioni, è necessario assicurare la validità di un giudizio in merito in modo tale che – indipendentemente dalla sentenza emessa dal giudizio stesso – le sue conclusioni siano raggiunte in base a un metodo che tutte le parti considerino, di comune accordo, lecito, legittimo e valido.

Se il Cardinal Bergoglio è stato eletto validamente, la sua autorità come Papa sarebbe sufficiente a sbrogliare la materia. Ma nell’ipotesi in cui egli non sia stato eletto validamente, il compito di farlo spetta al Sacro Collegio dei Cardinali in virtù dell’autorità conferita loro dall’UDG 5.

Sembra quindi saggio proporre quanto segue per giudicare il caso dello scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”:

  1. Il Papa convochi un concistoro cui partecipino sia i Cardinali elettori all’epoca in cui è stato eletto tanto quelli che non erano elettori al conclave del 2013, insieme ai Cardinali creati sotto il pontificato di Papa Francesco, che tuttavia non avranno diritto di pronunciarsi e di voto, per loro propria libera decisione.
  2. Il Papa esprima in un concistoro, in tutta umiltà, la sua volontà di abdicare qualora si scoprisse che la sua elezione non era valida.
  3. Il Papa, nel concistoro, esima tutti i Cardinali riuniti dal loro voto di segretezza riguardo a tutte le informazioni concernenti il conclave, in modo che essi possano parlare liberamente.
  4. I Cardinali stabiliscano per voto unanime che il successore di Papa Francesco, nel caso in cui questi abdichi o la sua elezione sia invalidata, esima allo stesso modo tutti loro da tale voto.
  5. Il Decano del Collegio chiami i Cardinali a rispondere – presentando testimonianza individuale – se gli sia stato chiesto di promettere di votare per qualche Cardinale specifico.
  6. I Cardinali, in virtù dell’autorità loro conferita dall’UDG 5, determinino se le testimonianze date mettano in dubbio la validità dell’elezione del 2013, e decidano con giudizio unanime se tale dubbio sia da ritenersi ragionevolmente una minaccia per l’unità della Chiesa.
  7. Papa Francesco confermi qualsiasi cosa essi determinino.
  8. Papa Francesco, nel caso di un giudizio affermativo, abdichi al suo ufficio tramite decreto scritto, in presenza dell’intero Sacro collegio; nel caso di un giudizio negativo, pubblichi i risultati dell’indagine e garantisca ai Cardinali la libertà di parlare in pubblico dell’intero affare una volta che il concistoro sia terminato, al fine di confermare la sua autenticità e mettere a tacere ogni dubbio.

 

Essendo che il caso sembra tanto solido, se quanti sono a conoscenza della falsità o della verità di qualcuno dei fatti o delle interpretazioni canoniche di cui sopra tacciono in questo momento, peccano gravemente o per mancanza di amore per la verità e per la reputazione delle persone coinvolte, o come complici dei fatti. Se le autorità competenti non emetteranno un giudizio su un caso indiscusso, la Chiesa Stessa sarà gravemente danneggiata nella Sua reputazione e nella Sua adesione al Mistero dell’Epifania, quello della manifestazione della Luce, della Verità eterna, incarnata in mezzo a noi.

_____________________

*  Vedi l’articolo L’infondatezza delle recenti smentite del “Team Bergoglio”– in inglese; ma qualche ora dopo la pubblicazione di quest’articolo, il Nieuwsblad.be in Belgio, pubblica un articolo in quale il Cardinale Danneels, tramite il suo portavoce, smentisce il patteggiamento di voti fatto da lui prima il conclave.

News

For Cardinal Bergoglio, Lent is a time without sin or repentance

Pope-Francis1

Rome, January 27, 2015:  Following the seemingly innumerable occasions in which Pope Francis has spoken in public and given objective scandal by his remarks, which have diverged so much from the manner in which Catholics speak, that not a few Catholics, in books, letters, editorials and blogs, have publicly speculated that he is a heretic, there has been frequent occasions in which Catholics find themselves questioning whether Cardinal Bergoglio is Catholic or has the supernatural habit of faith.

One common criticism, which one finds on the Internet, is based on the observation that in his public discourses the word “faith” is either absent or is emptied of all dogmatic significance.  Even the pope’s own words support this interpretation because he rarely or ever refers to the necessity of the assent of the mind to revealed truth, or the importance of this assent of faith in the daily life of Christians.

Lent is an important occasion for the whole Church to be renewed in Her adhesion to the Lord in faith, hope and charity, by means of repentance, penitence, penance and conversion.  All Catholics know this from their earliest years.

For that reason, it is more than remarkable, that in Pope Francis’ Message for Lent in 2015, published today by the Vatican Press office, he makes no mention of dogmatic faith, sin, repentance, or conversion in the sense of turning from one’s personal sins.

You see, without dogmatic faith, man cannot recognize that his personal moral choices are offensive to or divergent from God’s Will, and thus, without dogmatic faith, there is, in the mind of the individual, no sin, no need for repentance, no need for moral conversion.  The words of the pope on important occasions continue to give the impression that such is his personal conception of the Catholic Religion.

Yet, if for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, faith has not the dogmatic content and significance and obligation which the Church has always taught, it is not a question of whether he is a heretic or not, he would not even be a Christian. Thus, the lack of evidence of dogmatic faith in his public discourses is a true public scandal, in which he is at fault, not bloggers for pointing this out.

But don’t take my word, read the official English translation (source), which has the same deficiencies as the original Italian:

«Make your hearts firm» (Jas 5:8)

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Lent is a time of renewal for the whole Church, for each communities and every believer. Above all it is a “time of grace” (2 Cor 6:2). God does not ask of us anything that he himself has not first given us. “We love because he first has loved us” (1 Jn 4:19). He is not aloof from us. Each one of us has a place in his heart. He knows us by name, he cares for us and he seeks us out whenever we turn away from him. He is interested in each of us; his love does not allow him to be indifferent to what happens to us. Usually, when we are healthy and comfortable, we forget about others (something God the Father never does): we are unconcerned with their problems, their sufferings and the injustices they endure… Our heart grows cold. As long as I am relatively healthy and comfortable, I don’t think about those less well off. Today, this selfish attitude of indifference has taken on global proportions, to the extent that we can speak of a globalization of indifference. It is a problem which we, as Christians, need to confront.

When the people of God are converted to his love, they find answers to the questions that history continually raises. One of the most urgent challenges which I would like to address in this Message is precisely the globalization of indifference.

Indifference to our neighbour and to God also represents a real temptation for us Christians. Each year during Lent we need to hear once more the voice of the prophets who cry out and trouble our conscience.

God is not indifferent to our world; he so loves it that he gave his Son for our salvation. In the Incarnation, in the earthly life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, the gate between God and man, between heaven and earth, opens once for all. The Church is like the hand holding open this gate, thanks to her proclamation of God’s word, her celebration of the sacraments and her witness of the faith which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). But the world tends to withdraw into itself and shut that door through which God comes into the world and the world comes to him. Hence the hand, which is the Church, must never be surprised if it is rejected, crushed and wounded.

God’s people, then, need this interior renewal, lest we become indifferent and withdraw into ourselves. To further this renewal, I would like to propose for our reflection three biblical texts.

1. “If one member suffers, all suffer together” (1 Cor 12:26) – The Church

The love of God breaks through that fatal withdrawal into ourselves which is indifference. The Church offers us this love of God by her teaching and especially by her witness. But we can only bear witness to what we ourselves have experienced. Christians are those who let God clothe them with goodness and mercy, with Christ, so as to become, like Christ, servants of God and others. This is clearly seen in the liturgy of Holy Thursday, with its rite of the washing of feet. Peter did not want Jesus to wash his feet, but he came to realize that Jesus does not wish to be just an example of how we should wash one another’s feet. Only those who have first allowed Jesus to wash their own feet can then offer this service to others. Only they have “a part” with him (Jn 13:8) and thus can serve others.

Lent is a favourable time for letting Christ serve us so that we in turn may become more like him. This happens whenever we hear the word of God and receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. There we become what we receive: the Body of Christ. In this body there is no room for the indifference which so often seems to possess our hearts. For whoever is of Christ, belongs to one body, and in him we cannot be indifferent to one another. “If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honoured, all the parts share its joy” (1 Cor 12:26).

The Church is the communio sanctorum not only because of her saints, but also because she is a communion in holy things: the love of God revealed to us in Christ and all his gifts. Among these gifts there is also the response of those who let themselves be touched by this love. In this communion of saints, in this sharing in holy things, no one possesses anything alone, but shares everything with others. And since we are united in God, we can do something for those who are far distant, those whom we could never reach on our own, because with them and for them, we ask God that all of us may be open to his plan of salvation.

2. “Where is your brother?” (Gen 4:9) – Parishes and Communities

All that we have been saying about the universal Church must now be applied to the life of our parishes and communities. Do these ecclesial structures enable us to experience being part of one body? A body which receives and shares what God wishes to give? A body which acknowledges and cares for its weakest, poorest and most insignificant members? Or do we take refuge in a universal love that would embrace the whole world, while failing to see the Lazarus sitting before our closed doors (Lk 16:19-31)?

In order to receive what God gives us and to make it bear abundant fruit, we need to press beyond the boundaries of the visible Church in two ways.

In the first place, by uniting ourselves in prayer with the Church in heaven. The prayers of the Church on earth establish a communion of mutual service and goodness which reaches up into the sight of God. Together with the saints who have found their fulfilment in God, we form part of that communion in which indifference is conquered by love. The Church in heaven is not triumphant because she has turned her back on the sufferings of the world and rejoices in splendid isolation. Rather, the saints already joyfully contemplate the fact that, through Jesus’ death and resurrection, they have triumphed once and for all over indifference, hardness of heart and hatred. Until this victory of love penetrates the whole world, the saints continue to accompany us on our pilgrim way. Saint Therese of Lisieux, a Doctor of the Church, expressed her conviction that the joy in heaven for the victory of crucified love remains incomplete as long as there is still a single man or woman on earth who suffers and cries out in pain: “I trust fully that I shall not remain idle in heaven; my desire is to continue to work for the Church and for souls” (Letter 254, July 14, 1897).

We share in the merits and joy of the saints, even as they share in our struggles and our longing for peace and reconciliation. Their joy in the victory of the Risen Christ gives us strength as we strive to overcome our indifference and hardness of heart.

In the second place, every Christian community is called to go out of itself and to be engaged in the life of the greater society of which it is a part, especially with the poor and those who are far away. The Church is missionary by her very nature; she is not self-enclosed but sent out to every nation and people.

Her mission is to bear patient witness to the One who desires to draw all creation and every man and woman to the Father. Her mission is to bring to all a love which cannot remain silent. The Church follows Jesus Christ along the paths that lead to every man and woman, to the very ends of the earth (cf. Acts 1:8). In each of our neighbours, then, we must see a brother or sister for whom Christ died and rose again. What we ourselves have received, we have received for them as well. Similarly, all that our brothers and sisters possess is a gift for the Church and for all humanity.

Dear brothers and sisters, how greatly I desire that all those places where the Church is present, especially our parishes and our communities, may become islands of mercy in the midst of the sea of indifference!

3. “Make your hearts firm!” (James 5:8) – Individual Christians

As individuals too, we have are tempted by indifference. Flooded with news reports and troubling images of human suffering, we often feel our complete inability to help. What can we do to avoid being caught up in this spiral of distress and powerlessness?

First, we can pray in communion with the Church on earth and in heaven. Let us not underestimate the power of so many voices united in prayer! The 24 Hours for the Lord initiative, which I hope will be observed on 13-14 March throughout the Church, also at the diocesan level, is meant to be a sign of this need for prayer.

Second, we can help by acts of charity, reaching out to both those near and far through the Church’s many charitable organizations. Lent is a favourable time for showing this concern for others by small yet concrete signs of our belonging to the one human family.

Third, the suffering of others is a call to conversion, since their need reminds me of the uncertainty of my own life and my dependence on God and my brothers and sisters. If we humbly implore God’s grace and accept our own limitations, we will trust in the infinite possibilities which God’s love holds out to us. We will also be able to resist the diabolical temptation of thinking that by our own efforts we can save the world and ourselves.

As a way of overcoming indifference and our pretensions to self-sufficiency, I would invite everyone to live this Lent as an opportunity for engaging in what Benedict XVI called a formation of the heart (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 31). A merciful heart does not mean a weak heart. Anyone who wishes to be merciful must have a strong and steadfast heart, closed to the tempter but open to God. A heart which lets itself be pierced by the Spirit so as to bring love along the roads that lead to our brothers and sisters. And, ultimately, a poor heart, one which realizes its own poverty and gives itself freely for others.

During this Lent, then, brothers and sisters, let us all ask the Lord: “Fac cor nostrum secundum cor tuum”: Make our hearts like yours (Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus). In this way we will receive a heart which is firm and merciful, attentive and generous, a heart which is not closed, indifferent or prey to the globalization of indifference.

It is my prayerful hope that this Lent will prove spiritually fruitful for each believer and every ecclesial community. I ask all of you to pray for me. May the Lord bless you and Our Lady keep you.

From the Vatican, 4 October 2014

Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi

FRANCISCUS PP.

News

Cardinal Baldisseri furthers confusion, says pro-family coalition

REPRINTED FROM THE VOICE OF THE FAMILY BLOG

Il testo italiano segue

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri receives the red hat from Pope Francis, Feb. 22, 20 14. A. D.
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri receives the red hat from Pope Francis, Feb. 22, 20 14. A. D.

ROME, 25 January 2015: Comments made by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri have further undermined Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage says Voice of the Family, an international coalition of pro-family groups.

An international conference, organised by the Pontifical Council for the Family from 22-24 January, was addressed by Cardinal Baldisseri, organiser of the upcoming Synod on the Family. The expressed purpose of the conference was to provide opportunity for 80 lay groups to assist the PCF provide input into the synod to be held in October 2015.

Baldisseri defended the right of Walter Cardinal Kasper to assert that divorced persons living in unions not recognised by the Church should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. Baldisseri, in response to a concerned pro-family advocate, told delegates that we should not be “shocked” by theologians contradicting Church teaching.  The Cardinal said that dogmas can evolve and that there would be no point holding a Synod if we were simply to repeat what had always been said. He also suggested that just because a particular understanding was held 2,000 years ago does not mean that it cannot be challenged.

Patrick Buckley, international envoy for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, commented: “The Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is founded on the words of Jesus Christ. These words may have been spoken 2,000 years ago but for Catholics they remain nothing other than the unchanging commands of God.”

Maria Madise, Director of Voice of the Family, said: “Cardinal Baldisseri publicly corrected a delegate who protested about attacks on Catholic teaching. It was noticeable that he refused to do the same when the Church’s teaching on contraception was denied a few moments later by a different delegate. The impression given is that the only sin today is to uphold what the Church has always taught.”

Madise continued: “Everything seemed up for discussion at this conference, including questions already clearly resolved by the magisterium of the Church. Such discussion distracts from the task of finding real solutions to the problems faced by real families. Grave evils such as abortion, euthanasia and attacks on parental rights scarcely featured in discussions. These are some of the key issues also omitted from the final report of the 2014 synod. Suffering families are not assisted by the sophistry of professional dissenters, whether clerical or lay.”

Voice of the Family urges everyone to join us in prayer for a clear reaffirmation of Catholic teaching on marriage and family in any outcome document to be produced by the Pontifical Council following this conference.

In Italian:

ROMA, 25 Gennaio 2015: I commenti del Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri hanno ulteriormente minato l’insegnamento della Chiesa riguardo all’indissolubilità del matrimonio, ad affermarlo è Voice of the Family, una coalizione internazionale di gruppi pro-famiglia.

Alla conferenza internazionale, organizzata dal Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia, dal’22 al 24 Gennaio è intervenuto il Cardinal Baldisseri, organizzatore del prossimo Sinodo sulla Famiglia. La conferenza mirava espressamente a fornire l’opportunità a 80 gruppi laici di assistere il Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia nel fornire suggerimenti per il Sinodo in programma a ottobre 2015.

Il Cardinal Baldisseri ha difeso il diritto del Cardinale Walter Kasper di asserire che i divorziati ricongiuntisi in unioni non riconosciute dalla Chiesa dovrebbero avere il permesso di ricevere la Santa Comunione. Baldisseri, in risposta a un sostenitore pro-famiglia preoccupato, ha comunicato ai delegati che non dovremmo essere “scioccati” dai teologi che contraddicono l’insegnamento della Chiesa. Il Cardinale ha affermato che i dogmi possono evolvere e che sarebbe inutile tenere un Sinodo semplicemente per ripetere quello che è sempre stato sostenuto; ha inoltre suggerito che, per il semplice fatto di esser stato posto 2.000 anni fa, non significa che un paradigma non possa esser messo in discussione.

Patrick Buckley, inviato internazionale della Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Società per la Protezione dei Bambini Non Nati) ha commentato: “L’insegnamento della Chiesa riguardo all’indissolubilità del matrimonio è fondato sulle parole di Gesù Cristo. Queste parole possono esser state proferite 2.000 anni fa ma per i Cattolici non son null’altro che immutabili comandamenti di Dio”.

Maria Madise, Direttrice del Voice of the Family ha affermato: “Il Cardinale Baldisseri ha pubblicamente corretto un delegato che protestava in merito agli attacchi all’insegnamento Cattolico. È risultato evidente che si sia rifiutato di fare altrettanto quando, pochi istanti dopo, l’insegnamento della Chiesa sulla contraccezione è stato negato da un diverso delegato. L’impressione che si ha avuto è che il solo peccato oggi sia difendere quel che la Chiesa ha sempre insegnato”.

Madise ha proseguito: “Sembrava che a questa conferenza si potesse discutere di tutto, comprese le questioni già chiaramente risolte dal Magisterium della Chiesa. Una simile discussione distrae dal compito di trovare soluzioni reali ai problemi affrontati dalle famiglie reali. I mali gravi come l’aborto, l’eutanasia e gli attacchi ai diritti genitoriali sono stati a malapena sfiorati nelle discussioni. Queste sono alcune delle questioni chiave inoltre omesse dalla relazione finale sul Sinodo 2014. Le famiglie sofferenti non vengono assistite dalla sofisticheria dei dissidenti professionisti, ecclesiastici o laici che siano”.

Voice of the Family esorta tutti a unirsi a noi in preghiera per una chiara riaffermazione dell’insegnamento Cattolico in materia di famiglia e matrimonio in qualsiasi documento che il Pontificio Consiglio produrrà a seguito della conferenza.

News

Gagliarducci: There’s a rumor that Francis is considering calling Vatican III

Rome, January 19, 2015:  Andrea Gagliarducci, a Roman journalist, who gathers his stories from the bars and restaurants around the Vatican, where the curial officials go after hours, writes in his Monday at the Vatican blog, yesterday:

This concern for the peripheries is the reason behind the rumor of papal trip to Erbil, Iraq: to meet Christian refugees. The upcoming encyclical on ecology – which the Pope made clear he will strive to complete in March – will certainly be filled with references to a missionary Church. Meanwhile it is also rumored that a first draft for the announcement of a Third Vatican Council is circulating, but no source has confirmed the report. However, other sources acknowledge the possibility of a papal document that would increase the limit of Cardinals voting in a conclave (i.e., Cardinals under the age of 80) from 120 to 140, thus increasing by 20 the limit that Paul VI established.

Father Z, a popular internet-blogging Catholic priest, very knowledgeable about all things in the Church, responded publicly on his blog to this “news”, thus:

It’s a rumor … but… God help us all.

From the Rome blog asks:  “Why the rush? What about first resolving the scandal of Team Bergoglio? which impinges upon the very validity in law of Cardinal Bergoglio’s papacy.”

Ecclesiology, News, Team Bergoglio

Every Single Cardinal-Elector has right to demand resolution of “Team Bergoglio” scandal

3 Comments

UDG 5 and Canon 1530

The College of Cardinal-Electors convenes for the 2014 Conclave
The College of Cardinal-Electors convenes for the 2014 Conclave

Rome, January 17, 2015:  Ever since the revelation of an organized campaign by 8 Cardinals to promote the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave, which elected him as Pope Francis, there has been a grave public controversy and doubt as to the validity of his election.  This is because the current papal law on elections, the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, lacked the specific term which would have exempted it from being interpreted according to the general norms of Canon Law: specifically from canons 171 and 1329.

In paragraph 81 of Universi Dominic Gregis (here after UDG), the crime of vote-promising is penalized with automatic excommunication, such that in the very act of promising a vote, a Cardinal elector is excommunicated.  On account of canon 1329, that automatic excommunication is extended to the one asking for the vote promise, even if the one asking is also a Cardinal elector.  On account of the terms of canon 171 §1, the votes of excommunicated electors, even Cardinals in a conclave, cannot be counted in favor of the candidate they name; and on account of canon 171 §2, if they are counted among the number in favor of the candidate in such wise that they cause that number to be sufficient for victory, according to the norms of the election, the election is nullified in all its effects.

Thus the fattispecies, or appearance of facts, in the narrative of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, argue for the invalidity of the election of Pope Francis, that is, that Pope Francis did not obtain his office by a legal, lawful, or legitimate means.  That would mean that Catholics not only could legitimately break off communion with him, but would be morally obliged to do so, under pain of mortal sin.

Thus, the probity of the allegations regard a true scandal.

UDG 5 gives a simple solution to the “Team Bergoglio” scandal

Thankfully, Pope John Paul II provided in his papal law on conclaves an easy solution, which any single Cardinal can take advantage of: the terms stated in the 5th paragraph of that law, UDG 5, the official Latin text of which is:

5. Si quae autem dubia exoriantur de sensu praescriptionum, quae hac Nostra Constitutione continentur, aut circa rationem qua ad usum deduci eae debeant, edicimus ac decernimus penes Cardinalium Collegium esse potestatem de his ferendi sententiam; propterea, eidem Cardinalium Collegio facultatem tribuimus interpretandi locos dubios vel in controversiam vocatos, statuentes, ut, si de eiusmodi vel similibus quaestionibus deliberati oporteat, excepto ipso electionis actu, satis sit maiorem congregatorum Cardinalium partem in eandem sententiam convenire.

Our unofficial English translation of which is:

5. Moreover, if which doubts rise up concerning the sense of the prescriptions, which are contained in this Our Constitution, or about the reckoning by which they should be put into practice, We decree and judge that the power to make judgement concerning these is within the College of Cardinals; moreover, We grant to the College of Cardinals the faculty of interpreting doubtful passages and/or those called into controversy, so that, if having deliberated concerning questions of this kind and/or the similar, excepting the very act of the election itself, it be sufficient that the greater part of the Cardinals gathered together agree upon the same sentence.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshot by From Rome blog, cropped)

In this paragraph, Pope John Paul II establishes several specific things.  The first of which is the authority and jurisdiction of the Sacred College over questions regarding the meaning of the individual paragraphs and about the method to be used to put them into practice; second, about the interpretation of doubtful paragraphs and those about which a dispute arises.  Third, he establishes that the Cardinals are to deliberate about these, and that a vote is to be taken, and that the decisions are to be arrived at by a majority of the assembled Cardinal electors.

In other words, then, the papal law in UDG 5 establishes the Cardinal Electors, gathered together, to be the judge of cases which arise regarding the papal law itself. The only matter excluded, is that they cannot judge the very act of the election, that is, they cannot judge whether the act took place or not, only if the terms of the papal law were properly adhered to or followed.  The papal law, in UDG 4 already establishes that any non-compliance with it terms renders the election null and void, so, thus, there is no need for the Cardinals to decide upon the validity of the act itself.

Thus, it is sufficient that the Cardinals gather together, deliberate the matter of the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, and decide the case.  They would discuss whether the allegations are true and investigate them by asking the eye-witnesses, one another, whether UDG 81 was violated by vote-canvassing conducted by the supporters of Cardinal Bergoglio.

Canon 1530 guarantees the right to investigate charges

Canon 1530 guarantees the right of every Cardinal to have the allegations regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal investigated in Consistory.  This is because it grants to the judge of every contentious trial, the right and duty to investigate the facts of the controversy and rule upon them, at the request of any party to the case.  The text of that canon reads:

Can. 1530 — Iudex ad veritatem aptius eruendam partes interrogare semper potest, immo debet, ad instantiam partis vel ad probandum factum quod publice interest extra dubium poni.

Our unofficial English translation of which is:

Canon 1530 — The judge can always interrogate the parties to draw the truth out more aptly, nay he ought, at the insistence of a party and/or to prove a fact which is of public interest, to put it outside of doubt.

The judge in this case would be the entire College of Cardinal Electors, the parties in the case would be any single and all the Cardinal Electors and those accused of canvassing votes.  Thus any single Cardinal could demand the Sacred College to investigate the charges.  This would be done by interrogating collectively each individual Cardinal.  The kind of questions, that could be asked, are any whatsoever.  Canon 1531 requires that all questioned answer truthfully. The Cardinals could do whatever is proscribed for contentious trials in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (cf. canons 1501 ff.).

The solution is simple. The matter of “Team Bergoglio” can easily be resolved.  Why then is there any controversy at all? or Why do the supporters of “Team Bergoglio” argue so angrily against an investigation?

2013 Conclave, News, Team Bergoglio

Francis became Pope thanks to Belgian Cardinal Danneels

2 Comments

Cardinal Godfried Danneels was a part of Team Bergoglio, a group of cardinals that got the Argentine elected as pope in 2013 :  a new biography about pope Francis claims. — “If that is true, the election might be invalid,” says Vatican expert Tom Zwaenepoel.

by Michaël Temmerman of Nieuwsblad.be —  (English transl.; original Flemish article: source)*

Godfried Cardinal Danneels, retired Archbishop of Brussels, Belgium & Cardinal-Priest of Sant'Anastasia al Palatino
Godfried Cardinal Danneels, retired Archbishop of Brussels, Belgium & Cardinal-Priest of Sant’Anastasia al Palatino

“If it’s a short conclave, Bergoglio will be elected pope. You can be sure of that.” Those words were whispered by the British cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor just before the start of the 2013 conclave. He was talking to Austin Ivereigh, his spokesman at that time. Those words are now repeated in The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, a recently published biography about pope Francis written by that same Austin Ivereigh. The author of the book claims that those words prove the existence of Team Bergoglio, a group of five cardinals who would have canvassed for votes in favor of the Argentine. “And the Belgian cardinal Danneels was among those five cardinals,” says Vatican expert Tom Zwaenepoel. “He is mentioned seven times in the book.”

Conspiracy theory

According to the book, the team not only lobbied for Bergoglio in 2013 but also in 2005. “I suppose some of it is true. But how much?” says Zwaenepoel. “Propagandizing and recruiting votes for a specific candidate are illegal and would make the election invalid.  But there’s a big difference between lobbying for someone and expressing sympathy for a certain candidate in an informal talk. According to the book Bergoglio knew about the lobbying in 2013 and would even have given his permission for it. But those statements are being retracted from the newer versions of the biography. Because they aren’t true or because the Vatican pressured the author to do so? We will probably never know for sure.”

Less than two days after the book hit the shops, the Vatican already stated that the accusations were all lies. Toon Osaer, spokesman of cardinal Danneels, also doesn’t believe in a conspiracy theory. “If you see how glad Danneels was after the conclave, you can be sure that Francis was his favorite candidate. But that doesn’t mean there was some sort of a master-plan to help the Argentine to the papal seat. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the cardinal didn’t canvass for votes for Bergoglio in the days and weeks before the conclave.”

_________________________

The Flemish original was published on Jan. 6, 2015, p.  10, by Nieuwsblad, a Belgian newspaper in Antwerp. — Note that Belgian copyright law extends to this English translation (done for the From Rome blog), neither of which can be reproduced for commercial ends. — Michaël Temmerman is a staff reporter for the Nieuwsblad.

News, Team Bergoglio

Cardinal Napier says there is no evidence for “Team Bergoglio” scandal

1 Comment

Rome, January 15, 2015.  His Eminence Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban South Africa, spoke today regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, affirming that there is no verifiable evidence and that it is not on the agenda for the upcoming Consistory of Cardinals to be held in February.  His comments were made during a Twitter dialogue with the editor of the From Rome blog, which began after the Cardinal insisted on the recognition of the hierarchy of rights. A hierarchy which the author of the From Rome blog zealously recognizes.

Here is a transcript of that conversation.  Note that the tweets of each participant are repeated to authenticate the thread of tweets.

 

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555655157162442753

(Ed. note: Here the Cardinal is referring to the importunity of being Twittered on the “Team Bergoglio” scandal in the past, by the editor of this blog).

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555712244554940416

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555716301818437632

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555716513714696192

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555716792451358721

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555717082403590144

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555717275299627010

https://twitter.com/BrAlexisBugnolo/status/555717546176159744

This is no joke. To ignore the scandal, would be to mock the Catholic Faith.

The Verifiable evidence

Here we must recognize a fundamental, threefold distinction in every forensic consideration regarding the probity of evidence.

  1. the probity of evidence necessary to impute a crime to an individual or group,
  2. the probity of evidence necessary to investigate a crime,
  3. the probity of evidence necessary to prove the crime imputed,

What is had via the published text of Dr. Austen Ivereigh’s book, regards the first; the analysis of that evidence along with published statements, documents, interviews, etc., regarding the implicated individuals, regards the second; the findings which the Sacred College would obtain by an inquiry in Consistory, regard the third.

Regarding the first 2 kinds of probity, we have the verifiable evidence, published thus far, which can be found as reported in the following 3 articles by the From Rome blog: the testimony of Dr. Austen Ivereigh, regarding the activities of “Team Bergoglio”, in our analysis of the text of the 9th chapter his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, and his recent reaffirmation of that narrative’s veracity, in Ivereigh: I am confident of the veracity of my account; the canonical implications of what Dr. Ivereigh recounts are summarized in, From Ivereigh to Abdication, the Canonical steps implied by the “Team Bergoglio” scandal.

And all reports, by news agencies around the world, including our own posts, can be found in our Chronology of Reports regarding “Team Bergoglio”, which is updated regularly.

Ivereigh’s claims appear to be verified by the endorsement of his book by Cardinal Dolan of New York City, an elector during the 2013 conclave, by the 2 Cardinals whom Ivereigh on Jan. 6th, 2015 claimed were sources for his information, and by 3 of the 7 accused Cardinals who have not denied that they canvassed for votes, though they deny asking Cardinal Bergoglio for his consent to do so; not to mention by the other 4 Cardinals who are named by Ivereigh, but who have denied nothing since the book was published on Nov. 25, 2014.

All this leads to a great probity which merits the investigation of the allegations.  But this can only be done by the Cardinals in Consistory, behind closed doors, since they cannot violate the vow of the conclave, and since they alone are first hand witnesses.  Canon 1530 and 1531 demand this.

For the record, we note, here, only that Dr. Austen Ivereigh in his book says “Team Bergoglio” targeted the Cardinals from Africa for vote promises. If any of them, such as Cardinal Napier, gave such promises, it would have been a violation of the papal law on conclaves, punishable by automatic excommunication (cf. Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 81).

2013 Conclave, News, Team Bergoglio

Who tallied votes for “Team Bergoglio”?

1 Comment
German cardinals Walter Kasper, Reinhard Marx and Italian Severino Poletto arrive at the Paul VI hall for the opening of the Cardinals' Congregations on March 4, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. (Photo by Franco Origlia | Getty Images Europe — Cropped Screen Shot)
German cardinals Walter Kasper, Reinhard Marx and Italian Severino Poletto arrive at the Paul VI hall for the opening of the Cardinals’ Congregations on March 4, 2013 at the Vatican. (Photo by Franco Origlia, Getty Images Europe — Cropped Screen Shot, not for commercial use)

Rome, January 11, 2015:  Dr. Austen Ivereigh, the author of The Great Reformer:  Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope recently reminded the world that the Conclave of 2013 contains many secrets of which the world has yet to know.  One of the more intriguing mysteries to which he refers to in the ninth chapter of his book, where he describes in detail the organized effort to solicit and obtain the promises of votes for Cardinal Bergoglio — which this blog has shown is a formal violation of the papal law on Conclaves, punished by automatic excommunication for those Cardinal electors promising them, and by the Code of Canon Law, c. 1329 for those soliciting them — is the identity, as yet not revealed, of the aged Italian Cardinal who kept a tally of the votes.

Who this is, is unknown. And one can only make inferences on published facts, inferences which have not much probity.

Since Cardinals attended the open sessions of the Conclave in 2013 at the same time in which from Dr. Ivereigh’s account it appears “Team Bergoglio” was actively soliciting support for Cardinal Bergoglio, it can be presupposed that their closest collaborators were those who were the men most frequently in their company, and in whose company they feared not to be photographed. This conjectural probability is valid in anthropology or sociology, but not in forensics.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the one aged Italian Cardinal, in whose company one of the leading alleged members of “Team Bergoglio” was seen in that period — according to the photo record — was Cardinal Severino Poletti, retired Archbishop of Turino, Italy, and Cardinal-Priest of San Giuseppe in via Trionfale.

Seen also in the photograph above is Cardinal Marx, one of the more prominent supporters of the theological and pastoral proposals of Cardinal Kasper, rejected by the majority of Bishops at the recent Extra-ordinary Synod on the Family, in October.

For a complete Chronology of reports on the “Team Bergoglio” allegations, from around the world, including our own, see our Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”.

Ecclesiology, News

“Team Bergoglio” and the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro

2 Comments
Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro
Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro

Rome, January 10, 2015:  It has been a little over 111 years ago, since another controversial Conclave met and elected a now famous Pope.  That was the Conclave of August 1903, and the Cardinal elected was St. Giuseppe Sarto, who took the name Pius X.

Several historians, basing themselves on the testimony of none other than Cardinal Merry Del Val and Cardinal Matthieu in the last hundred years have sustained that that Conclave was marked by a remarkable occurrence, the veto by the Austrian Emperor, Franz Josef I, against one of the leading contenders, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, the Secretary of State of Pope Leo XIII.  The motivation of this intervention has been attributed by Msgr. Jouin and Craig Heimbichner (the latter in his book, Blood and Altar) to the association of Cardinal Rampolla with French Freemasonry. [Editor’s Note Sept 4, 2023: This veto is mentioned in the newspaper, The Sun (Christchurch, New Zealand), Volume VI, Issue 1838, 5 January 1920, Page 8.]

The curious Conclave of 1903 had a curious consequence: that during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, the followers of Cardinal Rampolla who were raised to the dignity of the episcopate, where ordained by the Pope, and those of the Pope by Cardinal Rampolla.  In the first case, the co-consecrators were either both or at least in one individual, themselves bishops ordained by Cardinal Rampolla.

Does this indicate a sort of compromise in the Conclave itself, by which the Catholic Cardinals and the Cardinals who were Freemasons came to some agreement, not to contest the validity of the election of Pope St Pius X?

Cardinal Rampolla passed away suddenly on Dec. 16, 1913, exactly 23 years before the birthday of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, born Dec. 17, 1936.

In any event, it is noticeable that the members of “Team Bergoglio” can trace their episcopal lineage back to Cardinal Rampolla and Pope St. Pius X in such wise as to both seemingly confirm the existence of such a compromise and to mark “Team Bergoglio” as the ecclesiastical heirs of the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro.

But don’t take my word on it, go to catholic-hierarchy.org and check for yourself.  Here I will summarize what I have found there among the lists of the episcopal lineages of the alleged members of  “Team Bergoglio”.

An episcopal lineage is the list of names of the principal consecrators of each bishop in the line extending from the bishop ordained back to the Apostles.  Episcopal lineages have been traced in the Roman Rite back to the 15th century.  When reading a lineage, the first named is the one consecrated, the next his principal consecrator, the next the principal consecrator of the principal consecrator.  When ordained a bishop, every bishop is ordained by 3 bishops, the principal and 2 co-consecrators, which are normally chosen by the individual to be ordained.  This can, thus, give some indication of the allegiance of the one to be ordained to existing factions withing the Sacred Hierarchy.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

His direct episcopal lineage can be traced thus:  Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained a bishop on June 27, 1992, by

Thus, Cardinal Bergoglio is a direct episcopal “descendant” and “heir” of the Rampolla legacy.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor

Next, the alleged ring-leader of “Team Bergoglio”, who was consecrated a bishop on Dec. 21, 1977, by

Cardinal Giambattista della Chiesa was the personal secretary and close ally of Cardinal Rampolla, from the time that the latter was Apostolic Nuncio to Spain. Cardinal della Chiesa was ordained a bishop, however, by Pope St. Pius X.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Next, one of the members of “Team Bergoglio”, whom Dr. Ivereigh names in his book, but whom is not one of the 4 who have made public denials, is the Cardinal of Vienna, who was consecrated a bishop on Sept. 29, 1991 by

Thus, Cardinal Schönborn is a direct episcopal “descendant” and “heir” of the Cardinal Rampolla legacy.

Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló

Next, one of the members of “Team Bergoglio”, whom Dr. Ivereigh names in his book, but whom is not one of the 4 who have made public denials, is the Cardinal-Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, who was consecrated a bishop on June 16, 1985 by

Cardinal Giambattista della Chiesa was the personal secretary and close ally of Cardinal Rampolla, from the time that the latter was Apostolic Nuncio to Spain. Cardinal della Chiesa was ordained a bishop, however, by Pope St. Pius X.

Other alleged members of the Team trace back to Cardinal Gasparri

Other alleged members of “Team Bergoglio” are Cardinals Godfreid Danneels, Karl Lehman and Walter Kasper all descend from Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, whose episcopal lineage does not cross Cardinal Rampolla. Similarly, Cardinal André Armand Vingt-Trois of Paris, another named member, who has made no public denials, traces his lineage back to Cardinal François-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne, who was the principal consecrator of Cardinal Gasparri.

However, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri himself has been accused of being a collaborator with Cardinal Rampolla in opposing the reforms of Pope St. Pius X, in particular, the effort to extirpate the heresy of Modernism among the upper clergy.

Other implicated Cardinals

The text of Ivereigh also implicates Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, and the African Cardinals, such as Cardinal Napier of Durban.  Both of these Cardinals have lineages tracing back to Cardinal Gaetano De Lai, both of whose co-consecrators were themselves consecrated principally by Cardinal Rampolla.

News, Team Bergoglio

Ivereigh: I am confident of the veracity of my account

2 Comments

and have heard nothing that contradicts it.

Dr. Ivereigh presents his book to Pope Francis: Friday Nov 21, 2014.
Dr. Ivereigh presents his book to Pope Francis: Friday Nov 21, 2014. Screen shot of a Twitter Page viewing his Twitter Feed Time-Line.

Rome, January 9, 2015:  Following the publication of the summary of the case against “Team Bergoglio”, Dr. Austen Ivereigh has confirmed the veracity of his account given in the ninth chapter of his, now famous book, The Great Reformer, in his January 7, 2015 response to Fr. Brennan, S. J., entitled, Setting the Record Straight on Pope Francis, a reply to Frank Brennan.  Fr. Brennan is a professor of law at the Australian Catholic University; he had attempted in his review of Ivereigh’s book to discount the probity of Ivereigh’s testimony.

In  response, Dr. Austen Ivereigh, the former spokesman to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor speaks directly of the charges Fr. Brennan makes against the accuracy of his report about the activities of “Team Bergoglio”, saying thus:

Regarding the conclave, Father Brennan is right to highlight the discrepancy between my account and the statement of Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, and I am grateful for this opportunity for further clarification.

While I did interview my old boss, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, for the book, I relied on a number of different accounts, some of which were off the record, as well as stitching together anecdotes from different places, which is standard practice for journalistic reconstructions of papal elections. The quotes I use from Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor are ones he has given in different interviews.

I made two mistakes in the phrasing of my account. One was to give the impression that the group of cardinals seeking Bergoglio’s election in some way secured his agreement before the conclave, which they never did; I meant only that they believed that this time he would not refuse. Immediately after that sentence, I wrote: “Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the church no cardinal could refuse if asked.” In fact, that exchange did not take place before the conclave, but during it.(1)

The reason this matters is that conclave rules forbid the drawing up of pacts or agreements between cardinals. (2) But they do not prevent cardinals urging each other to vote for particular candidates – that is how popes get made. When the four cardinals I cited said, through Father Lombardi, that there was no “campaign” to get Bergoglio elected, I assume they mean that there was no such agreement between them and him, and I have been happy to confirm that I never meant to suggest that there was. The issue has been dealt with well by John L. Allen, Jr, at Crux.

Father Brennan asks: “Why will the book still report that ‘Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned Bergoglio to “be careful,” that it was his turn now, and was told: capisco, “I understand”‘?” Because that is what the cardinal said to Bergoglio before the conclave, and there was nothing wrong with it: such light-hearted yet pointed exchanges are normal in the pre-conclave discussions.

These clarifications notwithstanding, I am confident of the veracity of my account, and have heard nothing that contradicts it – although, as I say in the book, there is still much we are still to learn about that conclave.

with Footnotes & boldfacing added to text by the From Rome Blog

Our Commentary

It is noteworthy that Dr. Ivereigh does not deny explicitly that there was an effort to seek vote-promises, each of which are of themselves violations of UDG 81, and are penalized by excommunication both for the individual soliciting and the individual promising. Nor does he deny that the individuals he mentions played no role at all. What he says in his book, therefore, remains untouched, in our opinion, as regards the intention, nature, and end of the culpable acts. (3)

It is also important to note, that he understands Fr. Lombard’s Dec. 1, 2014 denial as a denial of an agreement between the 4 Cardinals (Murphy-O’Conner, Danneels, Lehman & Kasper) and Cardinal Bergoglio, but not that there was no agreement at all. This was our interpretation from the beginning.

It is also important to note the indirect statements Dr. Ivereigh makes, “I am happy to report that…”, “The issue has been dealt with”.  This final citation to John L. Allen’s report, in which Ivereigh speculates about the non-meaning of the word “campaign”, reflects the conflict which arose between him and the alleged members of “Team Bergoglio” regarding what he wrote in the ninth chapter of his book. Ivereigh stands by what he wrote, even if he is willing to bend to the vocabulary insisted upon by the Cardinals involved, in their public denials, so as not to give the impression of the imputation of any violation of the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis.

Their denials and Ivereigh’s explanations demonstrate that the text of the ninth chapter, as written in the original print edition, was of itself, objectively speaking, sufficient to give rise to the imputation of at least some violation of the papal law.  And this has been the position of the From Rome blog from the beginning.

One alleged member of “Team Bergoglio” is Cardinal Walter Kasper, who publicly denied the racially tinged comments he made in the presence of Edward Pentin during the recent Synod on the Family, until Pentin produced a recording of his comments. That public attempt, by a Cardinal of the Roman Church, to gravely damage the reputation of a leading Vaticanista was received with indignation and horror throughout the Catholic world. The case shows how far even Cardinals can be tempted to go to suppress the truth of what they said or did.

Finally, this recent explanation given by Dr. Ivereigh is important for confirming that his source for his information was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and another Cardinal, as yet unidentified, and that, given the published reports regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal and the various interpretations given to his text by Tweeters and Bloggers and other commentators, he states, “and I have heard nothing that contradicts” what he claims in his narrative. (4)

Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that yesterday, January 8, 2015, Pope Francis received in audience one of the accused members, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris, and that this morning, he received in audience another member, Cardinal Godfried Danneels.

The Cardinals named in the ninth chapter of Ivereigh’s book are:  Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster, Godfried Danneels of Belgium, Walter Kasper, the Cardinal-Priest of Ognissanti, Rome, Karl Lehmann of Mainz, Germany, Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, André Armand Vingt-Trois of Paris and Santos Abril y Castello, Cardinal-Archpriest of St. Mary Major, Rome.

____________________________

FOOTNOTES

(1) Here Dr. Ivereigh apparently errs, because Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor in his Sept. 12, 2013 interview, ascribes the mentioned exchange as occurring prior to the call,  Extra-omnes, when the Conclave’s secret sessions began.

(2) Here Dr. Ivereigh errs inasmuch as the papal law, UDG 81, does not limit the penalized activities to only written contracts, but those of any kind of obligation. He also omits that it penalizes even “promises”, not just “pacts” and “agreements”.  These omissions point to the crux of the matter.

(3)  As we have noted in examining the text of the American edition of his book, wherein in ch. 9, we note what he had written and what it seems to signify in canonical terms:

“… Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot.  An ancient Italian cardinal kept the tally of how many votes they could rely on before the conclave started.” — This statement which has never been denied or repudiated on point, confirms the charge of a violation of UDG 81, without any wiggle-room, because you cannot tally votes, unless votes have been promised, and if they are promised, then the ones asking have sought them, and both parties have entered into some kind of obligation or pact or agreement to vote for a particular candidate in the first ballot, while not voting for all other candidates.

(4)  This, however, by no means indicates that Ivereigh is in favor of a canonical punishment of the alleged members. He wrote freely, what he wrote in his book, without any intention of alleging anything, imputing any crime to anyone, nor does he believe that the substance of what he wrote has this signification, which makes his testimony, thus, all the more reliable as an objective narration of the facts and persons.

————-

Updated on Jan. 10, 2015.

Ecclesiology, News, Team Bergoglio

From Ivereigh to Abdication, the Canonical steps implied by the “Team Bergoglio” scandal

6 Comments
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screen shot by From Rome blog, cropped)

Rome — January 6, 2015:  On the Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord, the Catholic Church celebrates the triumph of light over darkness, of the Eternal Light over the darkness merited by this world by the sin of Adam, the darkness which is the demerit of sin, the alienation of God, the loss of God’s Light which would have led Adam’s race from its first progeny to a most splendid glory. For on this day, the Church celebrates the revelation of the Eternal Light incarnate in the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin, revealed now to the Gentiles who seek Him out; and not all gentiles, but only those who like the Magi of old, seek Him with sincerity and zeal.

This great Mystery which we celebrate today must be echoed in all the choices of life which we make, must be echoed in the entire life of the Church in all the choices She makes, must even be echoed in the governance of the Church by all the choices which the Sacred Hierarchy makes.

A Church which does not observe Her own laws, thus, can never be the Church which proclaims the Mystery of the Epiphany; and for this reason, corruption in the Church is an abominable denial of the truth of all that the Epiphany represents.

Hence, it is most appropriate, once again to affirm that the facts which surround the “Team Bergoglio” scandal and its consequences in law merit in the most extreme and supreme manner the resolution of the doubts and questions raised.

For this reason, the From Rome blog will now summarize the Canonical Case against “Team Bergoglio” and show why the validity of the election of Cardinal Bergoglio is ostensibly invalidated thereby, and this with a high probability that the contrary is not true.  A summary of reports on the “Team Bergoglio” scandal as well as those blog posts from the From Rome blog can be found in our Chronology of Reports on Team Bergoglio, which is updated regularly. The facts contained in the articles listed in this Chronology, will now be summarized for the facility of the reader:

The crime against UDG 81

Dr. Austen Ivereigh, the former spokesman for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, in the ninth chapter of his biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, says that 8 Cardinals conspired to and did succeed in promote the election of Cardinal Bergoglio by means of seeking vote-promises from 25 Cardinal electors to be cast in the first balloting of the Conclave on March 12, 2013.  From the text of Ivereigh, it can be supposed that of the 8 conspirators, 2-3 were not electors.  In accord with the terms of the papal law, Universi Dominic Gregis (UDG) paragraph 81, all pacts, agreements or promises forged under any kind of obligation, however light or strong, merit for the participants who are electors the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae.  The terms of UDG 81 indicate clearly that the excommunication is ipso facto, that is imposed in the very act of the transgression. Dr. Ivereigh, on March 12, 2013 in a BBC broadcast admitted to have met the alleged ring-leader of the campaign, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor; Ivereigh further confesses in the same BBC appearance that all agreements regarding voting are forbidden by the papal law.  The Cardinal in a newspaper interview on Sept. 12, 2013 admitted to being the head of the campaign and that Pope Francis knew this and thanked him for it on the day after the election; the Cardinal also confirmed that as of March 12, 2013 Cardinal Bergoglio knew he was going to be a candidate, and that he would make a strong showing on the first ballot. As regards these claims, none of the Cardinals implicated by name have substantially or totally denied them, since they first came to public knowledge, six weeks ago, on Nov. 23, 2014. (cf. The improbity of Team Bergoglio’s Recent Denials).

The penalties in virtue of Canon 1329 expand to Cardinal Bergoglio

In accord with canon 1329, all Cardinal electors who assisted in suchwise, as the crime could not have not be accomplished without them, are also punished with the same kind of excommunication.  This includes Cardinal Bergoglio, since it is morally impossible that he did not know of the nature of the campaign, when he could have stopped it by merely communicating his abhorrence for the perpetration of a crime.  Dr. Ivereigh in a recent video interview admits that Cardinal Bergoglio came to Rome for the Conclave with the desire to be a candidate. His insistence to purchase undergarments the day after election, may also argue that he was aware that the manner of his election would incriminate him unless he showed himself free of any intention to be elected.  To hold that Bergoglio was unaware of the nature of the campaign would be to hold that he never talked to any of his supporters prior to the closed sessions of the Conclave; that he did not take control of his own election, that he did not seek to obtain the papacy, that he did not expect to be elected.

The election of Cardinal Bergoglio had by 78 votes

According to reports, Cardinal Bergoglio obtained 16 votes in the first round of voting, and won the election on the last ballot of March 13, 2013 with 78 votes, that is only 2 votes more than the necessary 2/3 majority to win (76). The actual numbers are known to the Cardinal Electors and those who assisted them in the Sistine Chapel on March 12-13, 2013, all of whom, however, are bound by oath not to reveal the information, without explicit permission of the Pope. The numbers reported come from apparent indiscretions, made by individuals, following the euphoria of Pope Francis’ election.

Canon 171 invalidates the election by reason of the violation of UDG 81

According to the norm of canon 171 §1, the votes of excommunicated electors cannot be tallied; and if they are tallied as part of the required number for victory, then in accord with canon 171 §2, the election is null and void.  This canon in §1, °3 cites those excommunicated by judicial sentence or decree; canon 20 specifies that all papal laws such as UDG are general decrees; the Latin text of UDG 81 uses the same verb of imposition specified as a condition for canon 171 §1, ° 3 (innodare).  Thus there is no doubt that canon 171 invalidates papal elections in which the number of votes necessary for election (2/3 majority) is obtained by counting 16 votes from excommunicated electors, as appears to be the case in the “Team Bergoglio” scandal.  While it is possible that some of the original 16 votes cast in the first round were not promised, it is morally improbable that less than 2 were.

What must now be done

The case having attained a sufficient level of probity according to its facti species, that is, according to the appearance of the facts, it must be judged by the competent authority.

Since the case regards the invalidity of the election, the validity of such a judgement must itself be secured in such wise that no matter the outcome of the judgement, the result will be obtained by a method in which all parties agree is lawful, legitimate, licit and valid.

If Cardinal Bergoglio was validly elected, then as Pope his authority would be necessary to resolve the matter.  If he was not validly elected, the Sacred College of Cardinals in virtue of the authority granted to them in UDG 5 can resolve the matter.

Hence, to judge the case of the scandal of “Team Bergoglio” it seems wise to propose the following:

  1. That the Pope convoke to consistory all  the Cardinals, both those who were electors and those who were non-electors in the conclave of 2013, with the Cardinals created since the election of Pope Francis in attendance but remaining silent and not voting, by their own free decision.
  2. That the Pope in consistory express, in humility, his willingness to abdicate if it should be found that his election was invalid.
  3. That the Pope in consistory grant to all the Cardinals assembled, release from their vow of secrecy regarding all affairs of the Conclave, so that they might speak freely.
  4. That the Cardinals agree by unanimous vote, that the successor to Pope Francis, in the eventuality of his abdication or invalidation, grant to all Cardinals the same release from their vow.
  5. That the Cardinals be called by the Dean of the College to give individual testimony as to whether they were asked to promise their vote for any specific Cardinal.
  6. That the Cardinals in virtue of the authority granted to them in UDG 5 determine whether the testimony puts in doubt the validity of the election of 2013, and by unanimous decision judge whether the doubt is sufficient to harm the unity of the Church.
  7. That Pope Francis confirm whatsoever they determine.
  8. That Pope Francis, in the case of a positive determination, abdicate his office by written decree in the presence of the entire Sacred College; in the case of a negative determination, publish the findings of the investigation and grant the Cardinals freedom to speak about the entire affair in public, after the consistory is concluded, so as to confirm its authenticity and put all doubts to rest.

If those who know that any of the above facts or canonical interpretations are false or true, now remain silent, they will sin gravely either in regard to a lack of charity for the truth and reputation of those involved, or as accomplices after the fact.  If the competent authority does not judge the undisputed case, the Church Herself will be gravely injured in Her reputation and adhesion to the Mystery of the Epiphany, of the manifestation of the Eternal Light and Truth, incarnate among us.

News

Canon 171 can invalidate a Papal Election

3 Comments

So Says noted Canonist, Jesús Miñambres

Rome — January 5, 2015:  In previous reports made by the From Rome blog, we have speculated (here & here) that the actions alleged by Dr. Austen Ivereigh as done by the group of Cardinals who promoted the candidacy of Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave might well fall under those penalized by the papal law on elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 81 (hereafter UDG 81, cf. canon 1329 which expands its penalties for accomplices), and thus render the election invalid on account of the stipulations of canon 171 §1 & §2.

Now, we can report that the noted canonist, Fr. Jesús Miñambres, JCD — currently an Professor in Canon Law at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, in Rome; and consultor for the Congregation for the Clergy — in his published commentary on the papal law, entitled, “Commento alla Costituzione Apostolica Universi dominici gregis”, supports this canonical possibility.  We cite his commentary as cited in the Italian text of Geraldina Boni, herself a canonist, presented by Sandro Magister at Espresso Online:

«N. 68 La prescrizione di questo numero è più esigente della norma generale applicabile ad ogni elezione canonica (cf. can. 173 § 3 CIC e can. 955 § 3 CCEO), per quanto il numero delle schede potrebbe non corrispondere a quello degli elettori sia per eccesso che per difetto. Pare escludersi in questo modo la possibilità dell’astensione […]. La norma del numero seguente prevede, però, un caso nel quale, dopo un primo conteggio che sembra regolare, il ritrovamento di una quantità maggiore di schede riguardo a quella degli elettori al momento dello spoglio non annulla la votazione.

«N. 69. La nullità di uno o più voti non rende invalida l’elezione, giacché al momento dello spoglio non è più in gioco la validità della votazione ma soltanto quella dei singoli voti; il caso delle due schede piegate in modo strano non è che un’esemplificazione. Infatti, in mancanza di regolamentazione più precisa è applicabile anche all’elezione del romano pontefice il principio generale per le elezioni canoniche stabilito dal CIC: i requisiti di validità del voto vengono elencati nel can. 172 CIC, mentre quelli riguardanti la validità dell’elezione sono ripresi nei cann. 166 § 3, 169 e 170. Il can. 171 § 2 stabilisce l’unica fattispecie in cui la nullità di un voto fa invalidare l’elezione, quando uno dei votanti fosse inabile a norma del § 1 dello stesso canone e, tolto quel voto, l’eletto non avesse riportato il numero di preferenze richiesto» (7).

Our unofficial English translation of which is as follows:

N. 68.  The prescription of UDG 68 is more exacting than the general norm applicable to every canonical election (cf. canon 173 § 3 of the Codex Iuris Canonicis of 1983 and canon 955 § 3 of the Codex for the Oriental Churches), inasmuch as the number of ballots might not correspond to that of the electors whether by excess or deficiency.  In this manner, it seems to exclude the possibility that an elector might abstain from voting … The norm of this number provides, however, for the case in which after a first count which appears regular, that the finding of a greater quantity of ballots than the number of electors, at the moment of the emptying of the box, does not invalidate the votation.

N. 69.  The nullity of one or more vote-ballots does not render the election invalid, since at the moment of the emptying of the ballot box the validity of the election is not put in question, but only that of the individual votes; the case of two vote-ballots folded in a strange manner is not an exception.  In fact, in absence of a more precise regulation there is applicable even to the election of the Roman Pontiff the general principle for canonical elections established by the Codex Iuris Canonicis of 1983:  the requirements for validity for a vote are listed in canon 172, while those regarding the validity of the election are cited in canons 166 §3, 169 and 170.  Canon 171 §2 establishes the unique fatispecie under which the nullity of a vote causes the invalidity of the election, when one of the voters might be incapable according to the norm of §1 of the same canon, and with his vote removed, the elected would not have obtained the number required for election (7).

The footnote (7) in Geraldina Boni’s text reads as follows:

(7) Jesús Miñambres, “Commento alla Costituzione Apostolica ‘Universi dominici gregis'”, in Legislazione sull’organizzazione centrale della Chiesa, a cura di Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Javier Canosa, Jesús Miñambres, Giuffrè, Milano, 1997, pp. 79-81; nello stesso senso Mario Francesco Pompedda, “Commento alla ‘Constitutio Apostolica'”, cit., p. 354.

It is precisely this possibility which the From Rome blog has averred to from the start, which establishes the validity of our analysis from the beginning.

News

Sandro Magister speaks about the invalidity of the 2013 Conclave

2 Comments

La traduzione italiana segue

First, an excerpt from our Chronology of reports regarding “Team Bergoglio”…

January 5, 2015:  Espresso Online, publishes Sandro Magister’s, He is Pope. Elected by All the rules, which contains as an addendum citations from an study by a canonist Geraldina Boni, in which the thesis of Antonio Socci is rebutted, incompletely (full text of Boni in Italian is published simultaneously here); since, Socci says rightly that no more than 4 ballots can be made in 1 day, but Boni states that if 1 ballot was nullified on account of there being 1 extra blank vote-ballot (UDG 68), then no violation of the rules (UDG 63) took place, which is to merely counter’s Socci’s assertion with an assertion.  The article also makes passing comment regarding “Team Bergoglio” but ignores any substantive consideration of UDG 81.  That Sandro Magister considers the arguments regarding the invalidity of Cardinal Bergoglio’s election worthy of rebuttal is astounding of itself.

Our Critique

As for Sandro Magister’s argument, set forth in his article at Espresso Online, it is worth no more than Boni’s argument.

But, Geraldina Boni’s argument fails in this, that she builds her argument upon the assertion that the re-do of the votation on account of an extra-ballot is of itself not a violation of UDG 63, which specifies that 4 ballots a-day are alone permitted.  She fails to recognize that in the fulfillment of every section of UDG, no violation of UDG 63 can be made or excused.  It is preposterous to assert what she asserts, because on account of what is said in the text of UDG’s Promulgation, at its very end, there is declared null and void anything and everything done contrary to the terms set forth in the papal law.

The authentic dispute regards the meanding of the Latin text in UDG 68, in which the Latin text reads:

… Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

Our unofficial English translation is as follows:

Wherefore, if the number of vote-ballots does not correspond to the number of electors, all are to be completely burnt, and one is to proceed to take, again, that is, another time, the ballots; but if the number of vote-ballots corresponds with the number of electors, there follows the publication of the count, which is to be done in this manner:

Because in Latin, the phrase means that there follows another vote, which is not made on the basis of the first one being considered as if it was never done, as Boni holds (tamquam non esset), but as the second of two, for in Latin “another” can be signified in 2 manners: with the word, alia, and then one means another without relation to the first; and altera, which is always said in relation to the first, in the sense of something to be counted as a second.  The Latin text, lacking the specification that Boni would have it contain (the “tamquam non esset”, i. e., as if the first never took place), must be read in the strict sense of a redo, and thus another scrutiny.

That Socci’s argument is more probable can be seen from the text of UGD 63, 64, and 65, where a scrutiny is defined precisely as the entire process of voting (suffragia ferenda), sorting, counting, publishing.  That there are only 4 of these suffragia, means that when it says in UDG 68 that one is to proceed to taking the suffragium again, that the suffragium is to be counted as one of the 4 allowed.  This argument of Socci is more probable; that of Boni appears based on the meaning of the Italian word, “altra”, which does not have the precision of the Latin, “altera”.

However, that the contrary of Socci’s argument seems probable, is from the plural used in the same phrase, ad suffragia ferenda (one proceeds take the ballots, suffragia), because the Latin could have said, ad alterum sive alium suffragium ferendum, that is, “to take a second or another ballot”, but it uses the plural, which at least in Cardinal Napier’s mind (see his Twitter feed), means the taking of the votes (suffragia), not an entire scrutiny (scrutinium).

The papal law itself, should, in our opinion, be corrected to read:  and within the same scrutiny, one is to proceed to another taking of the ballots, as if the erroneous balloting never was (et iterum infra idem scrutinium ad suffragia ferenda procedatur tanquam prima mendosa non illata sint).

===================================

La traduzione italiana, a cura di Antonio Marcantonio

===================================

Sandro Magister si esprime sulla nullità del conclave del 2013

Cominciamo con un estratto dalla nostra Cronologia dei reportage sul “Team Bergoglio”.

5 gennaio 2015: Espresso Online pubblica l’articolo di Sandro Magister È lui il Papa. Eletto in piena regola, che contiene in appendice la citazione di uno studio della canonista Geraldina Boni, in cui la tesi di Antonio Socci viene contestata in modo insoddisfacente (il testo completo della Boni in italiano è stato pubblicato contemporaneamente qui), dato che l’affermazione di Socci secondo la quale non si possono fare più di quattro scrutini al giorno è corretta. In realtà, affermando che – qualora uno scrutinio fosse stato annullato per via della presenza di una scheda bianca in sovrannumero (UDG 68) non si sarebbe verificata alcuna violazione delle regole (UDG 63) – la Boni non fa altro che contestare l’asserzione di Socci con un’altra asserzione. L’articolo fa anche dei vaghi riferimenti al “Team Bergoglio”, senza tuttavia dedicare una consistente attenzione al paragrafo 81 della UDG. Il fatto che Sandro Magister consideri degni di oppugnazione gli argomenti che sostengono la nullità dell’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio è comunque in se stesso sorprendente.

La nostra critica

L’argomentazione espressa da Sandro Magister nel suo articolo su Espresso Online non è di maggior valore di quella della Boni.

L’argomentazione di Geraldina Boni non è valida perché si fonda sull’affermazione secondo la quale la ripetizione dello scrutinio dovuta a una scheda addizionale non sia in se stessa una violazione del paragrafo 63 della UDG, in cui si specifica che sono consentiti solo quattro scrutini al giorno. La canonista non ammette – come dovrebbe – che affinché si compia l’osservanza completa di tutte le sezioni della UDG, nessuna violazione della UDG 63 può essere fatta o giustificata. La sua affermazione non ha senso: in ragione di quanto è espresso nel testo della Promulgazione della UDG (nella parte finale del documento), si dichiara del tutto privo di valore tutto ciò che venga attentato contro i termini stabiliti dalla costituzione papale.

Il vero nucleo della disputa risiede nell’interpretazione del testo latino del paragrafo 68 della UDG, in cui si legge:

… Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

La nostra traduzione non ufficiale è la seguente:

Pertanto, se il numero di schede non corrisponde al numero degli elettori, esse devono essere tutte bruciate, e bisogna procedere di nuovo, vale a dire, un’altra volta, alla raccolta dei voti: ma se il numero delle schede corrisponde al numero degli elettori, si procede alla pubblicazione del conteggio, che deve essere fatto in questa maniera.

Il significato della frase latina lascia ben intendere che la votazione che segue è una nuova votazione e non – come vorrebbe la Boni – una votazione fatta come se la precedente non fosse mai avvenuta (tamquam non esset). È evidente che si tratta della seconda di due votazioni, poiché in latino l’espressione “un’altra” si può esprimere in due modi: con il termine alia – che significa “un’altra” che non ha relazione con “la precedente” – o con altera, termine la cui accezione implica sempre una relazione con “la precedente” e che esprime l’idea di qualcosa che deve essere contato come secondo rispetto all’anteriore. Dato che nel testo latino manca la specificazione erroneamente menzionata dalla Boni (quel “tamquam non esset” che significherebbe “come se la prima non avesse avuto luogo”), esso deve essere letto nel suo significato corretto di una ripetizione, e pertanto di un’altra votazione.

Il fatto che l’argomentazione di Socci sia più cogente è dimostrato proprio dal testo dei paragrafi 63, 64 e 65 della UDG, in cui uno scrutinio viene definito con precisione come l’intero processo costituito da: voto (suffragia ferenda), mescolamento e conteggio delle schede, spoglio dei voti. Dato che solo quattro di questi suffragia sono consentiti, il dettame del paragrafo 68 della UDG secondo il quale bisogna procedere a una ripetizione del suffragium implica che il suffragium che viene ripetuto deve essere contato come uno dei quatto permessi. L’argomentazione di Socci è più attendibile; quella della Boni sembra basarsi sul significato della parola italiana “altra”, che non ha la stessa precisa accezione del latino “altera”.

L’apparente attendibilità della confutazione della tesi di Socci deriva dal plurale utilizzato nella stessa frase, ad suffragia ferenda (si procede alla raccolta dei voti, suffragia): il testo latino, infatti, avrebbe anche potuto dire ad alterum sive alium suffragium ferendum, vale a dire “fare una seconda o un’altra votazione”, ed usa invece il plurale, il che – per lo meno secondo l’interpretazione del Cardinal Napier (vedi il feed del suo profilo Twitter) – significherebbe solamente la raccolta dei voti (suffragia), non l’intero processo di scrutinio (scrutinium).

La norma papale in sé, a nostro avviso, dovrebbe essere corretta come segue: “e all’interno dello stesso scrutinio, si deve procedere a un’altra votazione, come se la votazione errata non si fosse mai svolta” (et iterum infra idem scrutinium ad suffragia ferenda procedatur tanquam prima mendosa non illata sint).[1]

____________

 [1] Con le ultime due frasi l’autore, da me consultato in proposito, non vuole di certo ritrattare quanto detto prima, bensì specificare che – qualora si vogliano in futuro evitare ulteriori dubbi sull’interpretazione – il testo in latino andrebbe a suo avviso formulato con più chiarezza. Eventuali perplessità in merito nascono dalla differenza tra la schiettezza dello stile discorsivo anglosassone e la ridondanza di quello italiano. – N.d.T.

 

==========================

In seguito, un’ anonima (Anna) ha pubblicato come commento al Blog, Chiesa e post Concilio, quest’analisi seguente

—————

La Boni scrive “Essendosi quindi applicato del tutto legittimamente il n. 68, tale quarta votazione dal punto di vista giuridico è incontestabilmente “tamquam non esset”, non andava quindi inclusa e computata fra quelle effettive, cioè giuridicamente valide e complete”.

Oltre alla obiezione fondata sul dato letterale del testo, che costituisce il primo criterio di interpretazione della norma (“..altera, termine la cui accezione implica sempre una relazione con “la precedente”….), potrebbe anche farsi riferimento alla ratio legis, cioè allo scopo che la norma intende raggiungere, l’interesse che tutela.

Se lo scopo del limite massimo di quattro votazioni al giorno è, come dice Socci (e non contestato dalla Boni), evitare un’elezione avventata, viziata da stress e stanchezza dei cardinali elettori, allora il numero da conteggiare per determinare il limite massimo giornaliero dovrebbe essere riferito alle votazioni, quali che siano, e non alle sole votazioni valide.

Le votazioni annullate, infatti, stressano allo stesso modo delle votazioni valide. La formula “tamquam non esset” certamente non è idonea a cancellare, con effetto retroattivo, la stanchezza degli elettori ed il tempo trascorso (cioè la votazione come fatto storico avvenuto), riferendosi piuttosto essa solo agli effetti giuridici e che un atto invalido è inidoneo a determinare.

Tra l’altro l’interpretazione proposta dalla Boni comporterebbe la improponibile conseguenza di consentire non solo cinque ma un numero indeterminato di votazioni nello stesso giorno, nel caso di ripetute violazioni delle norme elettorali, e dunque di ripetute votazioni” tamquam non esset”.

Va poi considerato che l’art. 63 prescrive un numero massimo di votazioni e non già di votazioni valide, quindi andrebbe ritenuta irrilevante la validità o meno della votazione al fine del conteggio del numero massimo di votazioni effettuabili in un giorno ( “Ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit).

Non mi pare convincente nemmeno la ritenuta applicabilità del n. 68 – che prevede che se durante il conteggio delle schede lo scrutatore incaricato verifica, prendendole in maniera visibile una ad una dall’urna, che il numero delle schede non corrisponde al numero degli elettori, bisogna bruciarle e procedere ad una seconda votazione – invece che il n. 69 – che sancisce che se nello spoglio dei voti gli scrutatori trovassero due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un solo elettore, se esse portano lo stesso nome vanno conteggiate per un solo voto, se invece portano due nomi diversi, nessuno dei due voti sarà valido, ma in nessuno dei due casi viene annullato lo scrutinio – al caso in questione, in cui “durante l’estrazione delle schede dall’urna per la conta, lo scrutatore che prende una scheda alla volta e la mostra a tutti, prima di deporla nell’altra urna si è accorto che una di queste ne conteneva un’altra, per errore un porporato aveva deposto due foglietti nell’urna, uno con il nome del suo prescelto e uno in bianco, che era rimasto attaccato al primo”. La Boni fonda infatti le sue conclusioni unicamente sul fatto che tale scheda doppia sarebbe stata rinvenuta nella fase di conteggio (disciplinata dall’art. 68) e non in quella dello spoglio (disciplinato dall’art. 69) e, benché il caso (due schede piegate) fosse identico a quello previsto in modo specifico dall’art. 69 quest’ultimo non sarebbe applicabile perché le norme andrebbero applicate come suonano e non interpretate.

Non convince perché quella che viene proposta come applicazione della norma è in realtà una interpretazione di essa, al pari di quella di Socci.

Il caso in questione infatti è anomalo e non risulta disciplinato da nessuna delle due norme.

L’art. 68 disciplina il caso in cui il numero delle schede al momento del conteggio siano di numero diverso dal numero degli elettori, cioè, poiché , le schede sono introdotte nell’urna ripiegate e non vengono aperte al momento del conteggio, riguarda il numero dei “pieghi” introdotti nell’urna , mentre la seconda norma riguarda l’ipotesi di “pieghi” di numero uguale agli elettori (e infatti solo in questo caso si procede allo spoglio), che, una volta aperti, in uno o più casi, presentino “due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un soloelettore” .

Nel caso in questione un piego invece che essere conteggiato come tale è stato aperto e conteggiato due volte perché contenete due schede attaccate. Si tratta dunque di una ipotesi a cavallo tra le due norme, le quali vanno pertanto interpretate per stabilire quale delle due applicare ed in particolare se sia prevalente l’elemento della fase (conteggio invece che spoglio) o l’elemento dell’oggetto (non già numero di pieghi diverso dal numero degli elettori bensì due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un solo elettore.

La Boni ritiene di che non ci sia nulla da interpretare e dunque non spiega per quale ragione prevarrebbe il dato della fase rispetto a quello dell’oggetto. Socci invece argomenta, prevedendo peraltro l’obiezione mossagli, e tali argomentazioni non sembrano infondate.

In sostanza Socci ritiene che gli artt. 68 e 69 assumano come criterio di giudizio non il “quando” si è trovata la scheda in più ma il “come”. Diversamente i due articoli darebbero due soluzioni opposte al medesimo problema (una scheda in più) e sarebbero in totale contraddizione.

Inoltre le due norme intenderebbero al contempo impedire che un elettore possa votare due volte e salvaguardare il più possibile la validità della votazione, impedendo eventuali azioni di sabotaggio.

L’annullamento della votazione in caso di pieghi in più sarebbe necessario perché non potrebbe risalirsi alla coppia di schede gemelle cioè al singolo cardinale che avrebbe votato due volte, mentre tale soluzione drastica non occorrerebbe ove si trovassero le due schede fossero trovate piegate insieme, nel modo anzidetto. In questo caso l’art. 69 prevede infatti che se il voto è identico si conteggia una sola volta mentre se è diverso si annulla il voto, ma mai si annulla la votazione.