Many Catholics have been waiting for it for more than a year: the time when Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would publicly admit that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI may be invalid, or that the Conclave of 2013 may be invalid.
Marco Tosatti: Don’t you think that in the end the Report that everyone is waiting for will be published?
Abp. Viganò: If it is possible to shed light on this affair, this will happen despite the Vatican: the interests at stake are enormous and directly affect the very top of the Church, and not only for questions of a doctrinal, moral, or canonical nature, but also for political and diplomatic aspects that have seen the Holy See become the object of a coup d’état with the complicity of those who should have defended it in its sovereignty and independence. What did not succeed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was brought to fruition after his resignation. How can we hope that the one who is indebted for his own election to McCarrick – who was one of the main proponents of the secret agreement with China – will be able to clarify a series of events that involve him personally, demonstrating the connivances with the Chinese dictatorship against Catholics faithful to the Holy See and perhaps also the responsibility of that regime for the resignation of Pope Benedict? How can we imagine that the murky events of Saint Gallen will become clear, when it was there that the conspirators organized the election of Bergoglio? And how can we believe that the Church will purify herself of the corruption and vice of her clerics and prelates, when they are the ones who have taken power and who are promoted to the highest levels in a web of complicity between heretics, perverts, and traitors?
The one who ought to investigate the scandals is heavily involved in the appointment, promotion, and protection of those who are guilty: Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.
Let’s not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally – not only for its destabilizing value in the social body, but also because sodomy is the principal instrument with which the Enemy intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God.
For this reason, at least as far as what seems possible, the entire truth about McCarrick will never officially come to light.
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae we offer you a reflection on the situation that has arisen after the death of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta. With the death of Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, which occurred shortly after midnight on April 29, a not exactly reassuring scenario opens up for the Order of Malta. The disappearance of a leader – who, in this case, is both ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ – is always in itself something which quakes the system, but even more so – we believe – it will be for the Order of St. John who has already been experiencing a deep institutional crisis for at least four years.
Suffice it to say that already in the afternoon hours preceding the official announcement of the departure, there were discordant news (which sources tell us were sent by an imprudent letter signed by Prince Erich von Lobkowicz, powerful president of the German Association of the Knights of Malta) on the Grand Master’s state of health, who was declared dead prematurely, with a very quick update of the Wikipedia page, later corrected, following an official communiqué of the Order and the letter “signed” by the Grand Commander (the Order of Malta’s second office and responsible for religious life), the 80-year-old Portuguese, Fra’ Ruy Gonçalo do Valle Peixoto de Villas Boas.
Such a thing would never have happened in other times, not least because it is presumed that news concerning the health of the head of a religious Order who is also – a unicum in the current legal panorama – Head of State must necessarily be filtered through the entourage of close and, hopefully, trusted collaborators.
The late Grand Master had personally announced – in an unusual letter dated 24 February last – that he had health problems linked to a diagnosed throat cancer that would have taken him away from many institutional commitments because of the treatment he would have had to undergo; in that same letter, in a truly anomalous way, Dalla Torre had, among other things, written “The important decisions will remain in my hands”, as if to reassure that no one would take advantage of them. But why write it, we wonder?
All these creaks give the impression of a very frail institution in itself, which seems to forget its almost a thousand years of history of battles and victories for the defense of Christianity.
A very weak government, that of Brother Giacomo Dalla Torre, chosen for his well known bonhomie, for his integrity but also for the undisputed closeness of his noble family to the Vatican world: his grandfather Giuseppe was director of L’Osservatore Romano, while his brother, Giuseppe himself, was for decades (until a few months ago) the influential president of the Vatican Tribunal.
A government that has also shown its flaws and its pockets of incapacity since the lieutenancy that Dalla Torre assumed as a “buffer” to the wound inflicted on the sovereignty of the Order with the expulsion of the former Grand Master Fra’ Matthew Festing by the now untrusted Teutonic-Vatican maneuver devised by the first hunted and then reinstated Grand Chancellor Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager, who also asked for the head of Card. Raymond Leo Burke, freezing him the office (which still formally exists today) of “Cardinalis Patronus”.
A singular coincidence of dates: Dalla Torre was elected Lieutenant precisely on April 29, 2017 – under the supervision of Msgr. Angelo Becciu (now Cardinal, Prefect of the Congregation of Saints), at the time the most powerful Substitute to the Vatican Secretariat of State and very faithful to Pope Bergoglio, appointed “Special Delegate” of the Pontiff to the Order – and the Lord calls him to himself on the same day, three years later.
Both as Lieutenant and even more so as Grand Master, on May 2, 2018 behind the clear placet of the Transtevere, alongside the undisputed moral and religious qualities of great value, Dalla Torre was never able to show the institutional attitude that contingencies demanded, very often allowing a form of heterodox management of the Order over which he had been placed in charge. It allowed all three Italian Grand Priories (which would be the territorial government bodies which run clinics, welfare facilities, charitable works, and to which the Order of Malta’s Italian Relief Corps [CISOM] is linked) to be managed by “procurators” and not by religious (a form of indirect commissioning). It allowed the Pope’s Special Delegate to block the novitiate for the new “professed” (i.e. those knights who take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience and become the “first class” of the Order), thus immobilising the Order’s religious life, now reduced to a mere decorative aspect, which, if not reactivated, will be destined to be quickly wiped out. Don’t forget, among others, also the big slip-up of the prohibition in the ceremonies of the Order of the Mass in ancient rite (see here our comment at the time): an act certainly imprudent, probably the result of internal institutional blackmail, but which was also an inappropriate form of plagiarism against a presumed “apostolic” will, almost as if to demonstrate that in the Order of Malta – already badly seen in itself because it would embody (at least in principle) a certain elitist and excessively aristocratic approach to Catholicism – no voice is given to the “traditionalist” seditious people; it was also an indirect attack on the sensibility of the predecessor Festing, notoriously a lover of Tridentine spirituality; in short, it was a testimony to an alignment which probably was not necessary. It seems at least suggestive to consider that Dalla Torre died at the first light of day when the Church, in the calendar of the traditional mass, commemorates the Universal Patronage of Saint Joseph, who is also the patron saint of good death.
Beyond this – which in any case constitutes a “political” consideration of the style of government but is certainly not a moral judgement (which would appear ungenerous, even before being reckless) on the person – now with the death of Dalla Torre there are very problematic scenarios for the life of the Order.
First of all, it should be noted that the death of a Head of State, which occurs in a circumstance such as the one we are experiencing due to the planetary blockade of the pandemic, certainly suffers ceremonial repercussions, starting with the uncertainty about the funeral: Certainly, the Order of Malta is a subject of international law that enjoys, therefore, sovereignty, independence and also extraterritoriality, for which the grotesque measures containing the Italian legislation on the subject would certainly not be applicable; however, objectively, we do not believe that a rite proportionate to the dignity of a “Most Eminent Highness” is conceivable. Probably there will only be a ceremony restricted to members of the Sovereign Council and professed knights; perhaps one could hope for the consolidated practice for which, in the trigesimo of the disappearance, state funerals will be officiated in the presence of heads of state and the diplomatic corps. We shall see; of course it is a pity that the head of a religious order, who is in any case a very pious and devout man, cannot have a worthy moment of extreme greeting with the honours he is due.
But beyond the pitiless protocol problems – although in this world form is substance – the institutional scenario that opens with his death is much more significant.
The Grand Magistry’s communiqué, issued last night around 1.00 a.m., informed that “According to Article 17 of the Constitution of the Sovereign Order of Malta, the Grand Commander … has assumed the functions of Interim Lieutenant and will remain head of the Sovereign Order of Malta until the election of the new Grand Master”.
Now the problem is really big. Already from his Lieutenancy and then, in his Magisterium, Dalla Torre was to conduct and conclude the Order’s constitutional reform. Commissions were organised (in which, however, the professed religious knights were largely marginalised), there were exchanges of documents (all internal acts, nothing public, of course), and then everything fell into oblivion, in a form of acquiescence to the status quo: very imprudent for those who cannot count fifty years of government experience among them.
Everything is now in the hands of the Grand Commander.
Yes, of course, formally that is the case, but it is clear that an 80-year-old Portuguese gentleman (and not exactly sprightly at what one sees and knows), who has remained confined to Portugal, will not be able to manage a complex situation like this on his own, and will therefore need help. There is no doubt that the obscure Grand Chancellor Boeselager will pull the strings… but the first obstacle is the incomplete reform, which is therefore also useless. Because, on closer inspection, the Order is in the same stalemate that led to the election of Dalla Torre.
Art. 13 of the Constitutional Charter of the Order, in force today, prescribes that “The Grand Master is elected for life … from among the Professed Knights, with at least ten years of Perpetual Vows, if they are less than fifty years old; for the Professed Knights of higher age, who have been members of the Order for at least ten years, three years of Perpetual Vows are sufficient”. (paragraph 1), and then continues: “The Grand Master and the Lieutenant of the Grand Master must meet the noble requirements prescribed for the category of Knights of Honour and Devotion.” (paragraph 2). What does this mean?
For non-experts, the Grand Master of the Order of Malta cannot but be an aristocrat (which also seems logical to us for an Order that qualifies as “noble”); and the Constitution provides that the Head of the Order is chosen not “from among the knights of honour and devotion” (who may have been included in this category also with a “motu proprio”, also for particular merits, without having the right to do so heraldically) but that he “has the requisites required to be admitted among the knights of honour and devotion”: 4/4 (= both father’s and mother’s side) of nobility for 200 years, or: 250 years of nobility for the paternal line in addition to 200 years of the other 2/4 in addition to the amnesty for an grandfather, or: 300 years paternal line in addition to 200 years of the other 2/4 in addition to the amnesty for an grandfather, or: 350 years, paternal line in addition to 200 years of another quarter, or: 450 years paternal line.
This was one of the rules that the reform was supposed to modify, at least allowing for the possibility to range among the professed members (called “first class”), perhaps extending (this was the hypothesis) eligibility also to knights of grace and devotion (which would be the step immediately below honour and devotion), but this was not the case. And therefore the rule in force is the one mentioned above.
Given this, who could be elected Grand Master given these rules? Well, the game is complex because, on closer inspection, there is not a wide selection from which to chose. Some are candidates “only on paper”, such as Friar Luigi Naselli of Gela (born in 1930, former Grand Prior of Naples and Sicily, resigned for health reasons) and Friar Gherardo Hercolani Fava Simonetti (born in 1941, also a former Grand Commander, but very ill health); finally there would be Friar Pierre de Bizemont (born in 1944, the only French professed with eligibility requirements). Naturally, the former Grand Master Festing, born in 1949, must be added to these few eligible candidates, and perhaps put before him, for whom technically the great return is not excluded, considering the controversial resignation that followed.
The same Grand Commander could not be elected, coming from the ranks of the knights of grace and devotion, as well as the Italians fra’ Carlo d’Ippolito di Sant’Ippolito (an energetic Calabrian gentleman born in 1933, former Grand Commander) and fra’ Marco Luzzago (born in 1950, “commendatore di giustizia”, in charge of the castle of Magione), also admitted as knights of grace and devotion. To be excluded, of course, all the other professed from the other ranks.
There would then be hypotheses that would benefit a hypothetical Italian reconquest of Via Condotti, because there could also be another professed knight with the noble requisites provided for in art. 13, paragraph 2, but who is lacking those provided for in paragraph 1, such as the forty-four year old Friulan Fra’ Nicolò Custoza de Cattani (who took the solemn vows in 2016, but would have to wait until 2026 to be eligible). And then there is another Italian, who, however, today is on the verge of achieving the requirements of solemn profession: he is Friar Alessandro de Franciscis from Campania, born in 1955, the current director of the Bureau Médical of Lourdes, who would complete his three years of profession next December. Therefore, in a hypothetical procrastination linked to the contingencies of covid-19, the hypothesis of his election could also materialize. However, de Franciscis is not only a highly esteemed doctor who plays a role of clear prestige in one of the most important Marian shrines in Christendom, but also has a political past among the ranks of the centre-left area (former DC, then Margherita, UDEUR, Democratic Party) which led him to hold the position of president of the province of Caserta in 2005 and to be unpleasantly involved in legal problems inherent in that position, which were then resolved positively for him. Certainly since 2009 he has not been in politics, but it is known that in certain circles certain things never cease to be considered, especially when it comes to electing what, though sui generis, is still a Head of State.
Of course, the whole issue will be played out over time, which will certainly not be lacking given the circumstances surrounding the pandemic. It has to be said, however, that the Code which regulates the life of the Order and in art. 145 sets the time for the convocation of the Council of State (the elective body of the Grand Master, which constitutes a sort of “parliament” of the Order, in which the Grand Priories and national associations are also represented) at a maximum of three months, and therefore the time for hypothetical alliances is not so long; unless an exception to this rule is made, but even this is only a ‘school’ hypothesis.
It is clear, however, that, net of this, the influence of the German management of the Order, orchestrated by the ineffable Boeselager, will not delay in making itself felt. He certainly has almost all the national associations in his grip – a little more recalcitrant than the others – the Italian one, led by the Sicilian Riccardo Paternò di Montecupo, to which, although it has more members than the others, was arbitrarily prevented from expressing preference in the last elections in 2018 on the grounds that Italy was already represented by the three Grand Priories (two of which were already commissariats at the time) – and clearly can count on a sprawling system of control based on the management and distribution of economic funds and diplomatic privileges (just think of the choice of all the Order’s diplomats – among whom we recall the son of the very powerful former commander of the Vatican Gendarmerie Domenico Giani, now torpedoed by Pope Bergoglio). The professed (not only those “born noble”), on the other hand, are numerically few and above all appear very disorganized and demoralized; theirs is a stalemate, which seems to have neither breath nor room for action.
It is not excluded, however, that in all this the Holy See, through the special delegate Becciu, can once again extend its paw towards the Order, exercising a leading role in the election procedures, perhaps leading to the choice of a Lieutenant to temporarily hold the Order and ferry it towards the much sought after reform. But also the Lieutenant must have the requisites foreseen for the Grand Master (as we saw before quoting art. 13 par. 2 of the Constitutional Charter), and therefore the problem of the choice is also proposed, but in this case, it would be limited to only one year of government, in order to be able, at the moment of electing the new Grand Master, to range over several candidates. On the other hand, however, if this were to happen, the fracture linked to the consideration of the, albeit peculiar, sovereignty of the Order, which would be in some way vitiated by a form of external interference, would open up again.
In addition, however things go, the question of the “Cardinalis Patronus” comes up again, a position from which Raymond Burke has never been formally removed; the American Cardinal, who certainly does not need captions, elegantly never claimed any role after his ousting, which in fact created a “freeze” of his function, but considering that the rules of the Order assign to his office some tasks related to these phases, an honest definition of the problem would be desirable.
Naturally, these are political hypotheses. But the situation may not be as tragic as one thinks, and on the contrary, trusting in the strengthening of a “resistant” group, the pars sanior of the Order could take advantage of the moment for a change of course towards a more responsible autonomy and a better awareness of its past.
Let us watch.
§ § §
We were told that in our above essay of yesterday there are inaccuracies and incompleteness. We correct them here:
First of all, to the Italians should be added Fra Roggero Caccia Dominioni, Grand Prior Emeritus of Lombardy and Venice, who, however, is over ninety years old and does not enjoy excellent health … ; then it should be noted that both Fra’ Carlo d’Ippolito di Sant’Ippolito and Fra’ Marco Luzzago (who is Commendatore di Giustizia but does not reside at the Castello di Magione but at Villa Ciccolini, in Macerata) were received into the Order as Knights of Grace and Devotion and then integrated the evidence of nobility and have (as they say in technical jargon) “healed the missing quarters”, thus proving to have those requirements to be admitted among the Knights of Honour and Devotion. This practice – which at the time also followed the late Grand Master Fra’ Giacomo – is consolidated within the Order, since genealogical research can often be perfected over time, thus enabling the Order to integrate its process of nobility with new suitable and appropriate evidence.
To the eligible professed already indicated must then be added:
Brother Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein, Austrian, born in 1937, former Grand Commander who was interim lieutenant in the transition phase immediately following Festing’s resignation;
Brother Karel Paar, born 1934, Grand Prior Emeritus of Bohemia;
Fra’ Elie de Comminges, French, born in 1935, who had been missing from the Order’s public life for several years;
Brother Ludwig von Call, Tyrolean, born 1934, professor of chemistry in Innsbruck.
Finally, they point out that although it is true that Friar Alexander de Franciscis will theoretically reach the proportion between years of age and years of profession required by Art. 13 of the Constitutional Charter next December, he lacks another requirement that the same article provides for in a not inconsiderable aside, namely that of being a member of the Order “for at least ten years”, having been received only in 2012.
The circle, therefore, between the old and the wretched, closes on de Bizemont, Luzzago, Paar, von Call… and Festing.
There are also twists and turns… If we were English, we could also place a bet on it.
Meanwhile, a ramshackle obituary informs us that the funeral of the late Grand Master will be held (it is not known when) “in a restricted manner” in the Church of Villa Malta on the Aventine (extraterritorial), announcing the celebration of “a solemn Requiem Mass on a date to be defined”. No mention of State funerals. Boh.
Dear Stilumcuriali, today we offer you an interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Which touches on all the main themes of the moment we are living in Italy and in the Church. We think we should thank the Archbishop for the frankness and courage with which he expressed opinions that many people share, and fears that many live.
The interview comes out on 29 April, in memory of Saint Catherine of Siena. Enjoy reading.
§ § §
Your Excellency, the last Decree of President Giuseppe Conte dashed the hopes of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) and prolonged the lock-down of Masses throughout Italy. Some canonists and experts in concordat law have expressed many reservations about the behavior of the Government. What are your thoughts on the matter?
The Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian State recognizes, as Her native right, the Church’s full freedom and autonomy in carrying out Her own Ministry, which sees the celebration of Holy Mass and the administration of the Sacraments as Her social and public expression, in which no authority can interfere, not even with the consent of the ecclesiastical authority itself, which is not the mistress but the administrator of the Grace conveyed by the Sacraments.
Jurisdiction over places of worship therefore belongs in its entirety and exclusively to the Ordinary of the place, who decides in full autonomy — for the good of the souls entrusted to his care as Shepherd — the functions that are celebrated there and by whom they are to be celebrated. It is not for the Prime Minister to authorize access to the churches, nor to legislate on what the faithful or the Minister of worship can or cannot do.
In addition to this, the pronouncements of eminent jurists and magistrates – including those of the Supreme Court – are very authoritative and they question the legitimacy of legislating through Prime-Ministerial Decrees, which violate the superior and prevailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Italian Republic. Even if we are not talking about the Catholic Religion, particularly protected by its special status, the suspension of the right to freedom of worship implied by the Prime Minister’s Decrees is clearly illegitimate, and I trust that there will be those who wish to declare it officially, putting an end to this indecorous delusion of omnipotence of civil authority not only before God and His Church, but also before the faithful and citizens.
Many faithful and priests have felt abandoned and little protected by the Episcopal Conference and the Bishops.
It must be made clear, for the avoidance of misunderstandings, that the Episcopal Conference has no authority over the Bishops, who have full jurisdiction in their own Diocese, in union with the Apostolic See. And this is even more important at a time when we have understood how much the CEI is all too condescending, indeed succumbing, towards the Italian government.
Bishops do not have to wait for a body without any jurisdiction to tell them what to do: it is up to them to decide how to behave, with prudence and wisdom, to guarantee the Sacraments and the celebration of Mass to the faithful. And they can do so without having to ask either the CEI or the State, whose authority ends in front of the churchyard of our churches, and there it must stop.
It is unheard of that the Italian Episcopal Conference continues to tolerate such an abuse, which violates the divine right of the Church, violates a law of the State and creates a very serious precedent. And I believe that the communiqué issued on Sunday evening is also proof of the consent of the leaders of the Episcopate not only to the means, but also to the ends that this government proposes.
The supine silence of the CEI, and of almost all the Ordinaries, makes clear a situation of subordination to the State that has no precedent, and that was rightly perceived by the faithful and priests as a sort of abandonment of themselves: the scandalous raids of the public force in the church, even during the celebration of Mass, with sacrilegious arrogance that should have provoked an immediate and very firm protest by the Secretariat of State, are emblematic of this. The Ambassador of Italy to the Holy See should have been summoned, been presented a harsh Note of Protest for the very serious violation of the Concordat by the Government, and reserving the right to recall the Apostolic Nuncio to Italy if the illegitimate measure had not been withdrawn.
Cardinal Parolin, as sponsor of the President Conte, is in great embarrassment and in conflict of interest. It is clear that, instead of protecting the sovereignty and freedom of the Church in fidelity to its high institutional function as Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin has shamefully chosen to side with his lawyer friend. Not even the economic interests of so-called Catholic volunteerism could justify such an option.
What interests are you referring to?
I am referring to the scandalous distribution of public funds intended for the hospitality of illegal immigrants, of which Pope Bergoglio and the CEI are largely beneficiaries and, at the same time, strenuous promoters. Another conflict of interest, this one, which places the Church in a position of gratitude towards the State, making it not entirely illegitimate the suspicion that the multiple silences of the CEI, including the one we have witnessed in recent months on the occasion of the alleged pandemic, are motivated by the fear of seeing the lucrative proceeds from the reception fade away. Let us not forget that the funds deriving from the 8×1000 are decreasing more and more, confirming the estrangement of the Italian faithful from a Church that seems to have no other purpose than that of favoring the ethnic substitution strongly desired by the globalist elite. I fear that this trend will be confirmed in the coming months, in response to the silence of the Bishops.
In all this, the position of Pope Francis seems contradictory: at first he ordered the Cardinal Vicar to close the churches of Rome before Conte issued the Decree; then he embarrassed him, publicly denying it and having them reopened. He encouraged the Masses in streaming and then spoke of a Gnostic attitude, encouraging the CEI to take a stand against the Government; but just yesterday he recommended to the faithful obedience to the provisions of the Decrees…
Bergoglio is no stranger to this kind of sudden change. As everyone well remembers, before the scandal broke out within the Order of Malta concerning the distribution of condoms in its hospitals, Francis had written a letter to the Cardinal Protector, Burke, in which he gave him very clear instructions about his duty to watch over the Order so that Catholic morals would be scrupulously followed. But when the news became public he did not hesitate to disavow His Eminence, commissioning the Order, demanding the Grand Master’s resignation and reinstating the Councillor who had been expelled precisely because he was responsible for that deplorable violation of morals.
In the case you mentioned, the Cardinal Vicar tried to defend his correctness, explaining that the order to close the churches had been given to him by His Holiness. In the most recent case of the CEI, the Communiqué issued on Sunday evening clearly had the approval of President Cardinal Bassetti, who in turn must have consulted with Francis. He disconcerted that, in the space of a few hours, St. Martha’s pulpit contradited the CEI and invited the faithful and priests to obey the government’s instructions, which is not only undue, but also a violation of conscience, harmful to the health of souls.
No one intends to expose the faithful to possible contagion, admitted and not granted that it is such a formidable eventuality; but the size of our churches and unfortunately the very small number of the faithful who normally attend them, allow safe distances to be respected both for individual prayer and for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice or other ceremonies. Evidently the diligent legislators have not been going to church for a long time…
Let us not forget that the faithful have the right, as well as the duty, to attend Mass, to confess, to receive the Sacraments: this is a right that comes to them from being living members of the Mystical Body by virtue of Baptism. Pastors, therefore, have the sacred duty – even at the risk of their health and life itself, when required – to comply with this right of the faithful, and for this they must answer to God, not to the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference nor to the President of the Council.
In recent days, H.E. Mons. Giovanni d’Ercole has launched a stern warning to Count and the “scientific committee” in which he intimated: “You must give us the right to worship, or else we will take it back”. Strong and courageous words that seem to suggest a certain awakening in the consciences of the Pastors.
Monsignor D’Ercole spoke as a true Bishop does, with the authority that comes from Christ. Like him, I am sure, there are many other Pastors and priests who feel the responsibility towards the souls entrusted to them. But many remain silent, more so as not to uplift souls than out of fear. Precisely at this Easter time the Gospel parable of the Good Shepherd resounds in the liturgy; Jesus also mentions the mercenaries who do not care about the salvation of the sheep: let us not render in vain the divine warning and the example of the Savior, who gives his life for the sheep!
I take the liberty of addressing my confreres in the Episcopate: do you believe that, when in Mexico or Spain they closed the churches, banned processions, prohibited the use of the religious habit in public, things began differently? Do not allow the freedom of the Church to be restricted under the pretext of an alleged epidemic! Do not allow it either by the State or by the CEI! The Lord will ask you for an account of the souls who died without the Sacraments, of sinners who could not be reconciled with Him, of having allowed the faithful, for the first time in history since Constantine’s Edict, to celebrate Holy Easter with dignity. Your priests are not fearful, but heroic witnesses, and they suffer for the arbitrary orders you give them. Your faithful implore you: do not remain deaf to their cry!
These words seem to invite disobedience to ecclesiastical authority even before civil authority.
Obedience is ordered to Truth and Good, otherwise it is servility. We have arrived at such a dulling of consciences that we no longer realize what it means to “bear witness to the Truth”: do you believe that Our Lord will judge us for having been obedient to Caesar, when that means disobeying God? Is not the Christian bound to conscientious objection, even at work, when what is required of him violates divine law? If our Faith were based only on obedience, the Martyrs would not even have to face the torments to which civil law condemned them: it would have been enough to obey and burn a grain of incense to the statue of the Emperor.
We are not yet, at least in Italy, faced with the crucial choice between life and death; but we are asked to choose between the duty to honor God and worship Him, and obedience to the diktats of self-styled experts, a thousand times contradicted by the evidence of the facts.
I find it paradoxical that in this deception, which is now being revealed even to the most moderate observers of what is happening around us, the thankless task of having to bear witness to one’s own Faith before the wolves is imposed on the People of God, without being able to have their Shepherds at their side. That is why I exhort my Brothers to proudly resume their role as leaders, without camping as a pretext the observance of illegitimate and unreasonable norms. I make mine the words of Monsignor D’Ercole: “We do not need favors from you: we have a right to claim and this right must be recognized”!
Some might think that his words are “divisive” at a time when it is easy to exasperate the already proven souls of the citizens.
Unity in Faith and Charity is based on the salvation of souls, not to their detriment: neither the “interventions” of the CEI nor the smiling papal meetings with the Prime Minister, who has been granted an indulgent collaboration, which reveals connivance and collaboration. Proclaiming the truth is necessarily “divisive”, because truth is opposed to error, just as light is opposed to darkness. So said the Lord: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51
Admitted and not allowed that the coronavirus is so virulent and so deadly that it justifies the segregation of an entire people, indeed the whole world, well: at this very moment the sacraments and Mass are denied when they are most needed for eternal salvation?
From what you have said, Your Excellency, I seem to understand some of your perplexities about the nature of the Coronavirus: is it my impression or do you believe – as many doctors say – that someone wanted to take advantage of the pandemic for other purposes?
This is not the place to express my reservations about the so-called “pandemic”: I believe that authoritative scientists have been able to demonstrate what really happens, and what the masses believe, through a air-tight control of information that does not hesitate to resort to censorship to silence voices of dissent. It seems clear to me, however, that Covid-19 has provided an excellent opportunity, whether desired or not — we shall soon know — to impose on the population a restriction of freedom that is neither democratic nor good.
These are technical proofs of dictatorship, in which people are even being programmed to track people under the pretext of health and a hypothetical future resurgence of the virus. They think they can impose a tyrannical regime in which people who are not elected by anyone claim to determine what is lawful and what is not, what treatment to impose and what punishment to inflict on those who want to evade it. What is even more serious, all this happens with the support of part of the Hierarchy: if they had told us about it a few years ago, we would not have believed them.
A word of hope in conclusion?
There’s always a reason for hope, if you have a supernatural look. First of all, this epidemic has brought down many masks: those of the real powers, of the international lobbies that patent a virus and are also preparing to patent the vaccine, and at the same time push for it to be imposed on everyone, in a clamorous conflict of interest. At least now we know who they are and what they look like.
The masks of those who lend themselves to this farce have also fallen, sounding unjustified alarms and spreading panic among the people, creating a crisis not only in terms of health, but also in terms of economics and world politics. Here, too, we know who they are and what their plan is.
Finally, the mask of the anonymity of so many good people has fallen. We realized how much generosity, how much self-sacrifice, how much goodness is still around, despite everything. Doctors, nurses, priests and volunteers, certainly; but also many faceless and nameless people who help their neighbors, who bring comfort to those who suffer, who wake up from the torpor and begin to understand what is happening around them. An awakening of the good, of which the Lord is undoubtedly the author. He governs the destiny of the Church and the world, and He will not allow Evil to prevail.
Let us not forget that – as I recalled recently – Our Lady of Fatima promised Sister Lucy that before the end of time a Pope would consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, and that this gesture of obedience would be followed by a period of peace. Let us therefore entrust ourselves, our families and our dear Italy under the mantle of the Most Blessed Virgin, trusting in Her words.