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

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.

Canon 171 can invalidate a Papal Election

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.

Sandro Magister speaks about the invalidity of the 2013 Conclave

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.

Unhooked from the object, minds go very bad

Church and Society have both gone mad.

by the Most Rev. Richard Williamson (original, January 3, 2015 A.D., source: here).

Pope Pius XII and his Apostolic Delegate Marcel Lefebvre.
Pope Pius XII and his Apostolic Delegate Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre.

For today’s Church authorities “there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving.” So said Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) in 1991 (see last week’s “Eleison Comments”). For at the end of his life the Archbishop saw more clearly than ever what he had been up against in his heroic defense of the Faith. Since then the liberals (unknown to themselves as such?) who took over his Society of St Pius X as soon as he was gone, have still not understood the gravity of the problem as identified by the Archbishop. Therefore let these “Comments” open the New Year by attempting once more to lay open the mortal wound of today’s Church and world.

Kant_fotoWhen Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) erected man’s refusal of God’s reality into a philosophical system, based on his utterly false proclamation that the human mind cannot know the object as it is in itself, then the philosophy department of universities all over the world began to spill craziness into the streets, because people wanted to make freedom their god and Kant offered them the supreme liberation, that of the mind from its object.

Now Catholics not yet contaminated by the Kantian fantasy know that God and his Heaven exist quite outside of, and independently of, their little minds, and so if they want to be happy for eternity their minds had better deal in objective reality and not in subjective fantasy. Therefore for a century and a half a God-given series of anti-liberal Popes stood up to the liberal world going constantly more crazy all around, and these protected the Church from the prestigious and popular subjectivism. But by the 1950’s the Church’s cardinals and bishops were not praying enough to maintain this protection of their minds and hearts from the madness, known within the Church as “modernism,” and so in the conclave of 1958 they elected one of their own, the supposedly “good” John XXIII, a liberal (unknown to himself as such? God knows), who duly launched in 1962 the disastrous Second Vatican Council.

Pope John XXIII and Archbishop of Lefebrve:  On On June 5, 1960, His Holiness appointed the Archbishop to the Preparatory Committe for Vatican II
Pope John XXIII and Archbishop of Lefebvre: On On June 5, 1960, His Holiness appointed the Archbishop to the Preparatory Committee for Vatican II

Why disastrous? Because the madness of subjectivism (the refusal of objective reality), instead of being still utterly condemned by the Church’s highest authorities, was now adopted by them and made (consciously or unconsciously? – God knows) into the official basis of Church doctrine and action. The problem could not be graver. The officials of God’s true Church, appointed to proclaim and defend God’s objective truths of salvation, were henceforth filtering these through their subjectivist minds. Imagine having nothing other than filthy bottles in which to store the best of wine. It can only be ruined. Today’s Conciliar Church officials can only ruin God’s truth.

Here is why the Archbishop said in 1991, “We are dealing with people (at the top of the Church) who have a different philosophy from ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them, there is no fixed truth, no fixed dogma. Everything is evolving. This is really the Masonic destruction of the Faith. Fortunately we (Traditionalists) have Tradition to lean on.”

But what has happened to Tradition without the Archbishop to guide it? Alas, the authorities at the top of his Society of St Pius X, which for some 40 years spearheaded the defense of the objective Faith, cannot have been praying seriously enough to protect their minds and hearts from being in turn infected by subjectivism. They too have lost the primacy of objective truth, and so they are being played by the Romans like a fish is played by a fisherman. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!

Kyrie eleison.

© Msgr. Richard Williamson, 2015.

____________________

The following essay was published to illustrate the continuity of the problem extending from the reign of Pope Pius XII unto the present. It’s author was consecrated a Bishop by Archbishop of Lefebvre in 1988.  While its author intends it as a critique of the Modernists in the Church and the current leadership of the Society of St. Pius X, many Catholics will find in it general norms for resisting the errors of Cardinal Kasper and his allies.

BONAVENTURE CHALLENGE

challengeThe Franciscan Archive has undertaken the apostolate of publishing in English translation the great Franciscan summa of theology, known as St. Bonaventure’s Commentaries on the Four Books of Master Peter Lombard.  Written from 1250-1252 A. D., at the University of Paris, this outstanding work of theology has been hailed by numerous Popes, Saints and theologians, for the brilliance of its insight and fidelity to the Catholic Faith.

This work, heretofore, has never been translated in its entirety in any modern language.

To publish the entire 4 volume work, which comprises nearly 3900 pages, The Franciscan Archive is being assisted by Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a Massachusetts IRS recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, which just recently published the first volume (click here for more information), which is being distributed to raise the funds necessary to repay the debt for its publication.

The First Tome contained the Seraphic Doctor’s treatise on the Most Holy Trinity. Br. Alexis Bugnolo, editor of the Franciscan Archive, is the sole translator working on this project.

To publicize the publication of the First Tome, SOSM Inc. mailed a sample copy to 278 Faculties of Theology and Religious Studies at Catholic Universities throughout the world.

To publish the Second Volume, which will expound St. Bonaventure’s theology on Creation, Save Old St. Mary’s Inc. is issuing this challenge to the lovers of Saints Francis and Bonaventure throughout the world, to raise the estimated $40000 USD necessary.

This Second Volume will be as a brilliant light in darkness, seeing that it contains the exposition of the Catholic Faith regarding the Creation of the World in 6 days, the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men; topics which are nearly never taught in Catholic Seminaries and Universities in modern times.

For the address and Paypal Link to which to send your donation, click here.

New Year’s Eve 2015: Let us thank God, chanting the Te Deum!

On New Year’s eve, it is a Catholic custom to thank God for all the blessings of the previous year, by singing the Te Deum. An English translation can be found here.

“Te Deum laudamus:
te Dominum confitemur.
Te aeternum patrem,
omnis terra veneratur.

Tibi omnes angeli,
tibi caeli et universae potestates:
tibi cherubim et seraphim,
incessabili voce proclamant:

“Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus
Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
Pleni sunt caeli et terra
majestatis gloriae tuae.”

Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus,
te prophetarum laudabilis numerus,
te martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus.

Te per orbem terrarum
sancta confitetur Ecclesia,
Patrem immensae maiestatis;
venerandum tuum verum et unicum Filium;
Sanctum quoque Paraclitum Spiritum.

Tu rex gloriae, Christe.
Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius.
Tu, ad liberandum suscepturus hominem,
non horruisti Virginis uterum.
Tu, devicto mortis aculeo,
aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum.
Tu ad dexteram Dei sedes,
in gloria Patris.

Iudex crederis esse venturus.

Te ergo quaesumus, tuis famulis subveni,
quos pretioso sanguine redemisti.
Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis in gloria numerari.
Salvum fac populum tuum, Domine,
et benedic hereditati tuae.
Et rege eos, et extolle illos usque in aeternum.

Per singulos dies benedicimus te;
et laudamus nomen tuum in saeculum,
et in saeculum saeculi.

Dignare, Domine, die isto
sine peccato nos custodire.
Miserere nostri, Domine,
miserere nostri.

Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos,
quem ad modum speravimus in te.
In te, Domine, speravi:
non confundar in aeternum.”

Read about the History of the Te Deum in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

How “Team Bergoglio” managed the news on “Team Bergoglio”

Pope Francis thanks and recognizes Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, alleged leader of Team Bergoglio (Catholic Herald, Sept 12, 2014: Online edition - Screen Shot by From Rome blog)
Pope Francis thanks and recognizes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, alleged leader of Team Bergoglio (Catholic Herald, Sept 12, 2013: Online edition – Screen Shot by From Rome blog)

A CASE IN POINT OF ORWELL’S 1984 SCENARIO:  WHERE TRUTH IS NO LONGER A STATEMENT ON REALITY, BUT A STATEMENT GIVEN BY SPOKESMEN, NEWS-OUTLETS

Rome — Dec. 28, 2014:  Since the news broke about the “Team Bergoglio” Scandal, the From Rome Blog has maintained a Chronology of the News Reports on the scandal for the utility of its readers and of journalists covering the story.  A study of that Chronology demonstrates one of the key aspects of a thought-controlled society, depicted in George Orwell’s novel, 1984:  namely, how the general public has accepted a new norm of truth.

In a normal human society, truth is a statement which correctly regards and justly describes the reality spoken of.  But in 1984, truth is the present content of what spokesmen of the government controlled media say about the news.

These are 2 radically opposed notions of truth.  Yet, while many scoff at the idea that the fictitious society posed by Orwell in his book, might, in fact, be coming into existence in our own present age, none can deny from the study of the news regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal that several elements of the George Orwell scenario are central to the news reports and media reaction on that story.

First, because as the From Rome Blog has demonstrated, the content of Dr. Ivereigh’s allegations made in his book is much more extensive than the denials and reports given in the press. This shows that the journalists covering the story have not even bothered to read Ivereigh’s book, which should have been their first object of investigation.

Second, because as our Chronology demonstrates, the chief news reports on the scandal have focused on what “Team Bergoglio”‘s spokesmen have said about the allegations, without any investigation to corroborate these claims by the press.

Third, because the news reports or essays which have been most widely disseminated are in fact those written by individuals who are mentioned as endorsing Ivereigh’s book on the jacket of the American edition.

Fourth, as can be seen by a Google Search, Catholic sites have been content simply to republish their essays or articles aimed at discouraging the layman’s interest in the story of the scandal.

Fifth, one of the most influential “news” sites funded by George Soros has added its voice to that of “Team Bergoglio” by reprinting the story run by one of the “Team Bergoglio” defenders, so as to markedly indicate that those who are interested further in this story should be excluded from polite society.

Nevertheless, the questions remain, and journalists have not done their job.  It seems sufficient for those journalists accredited by the Vatican Press Office, that Il Sismografo has spoken and further questions one should not even dare to ask:  thus their silence since December 2, when Tosatti and Zenit were the last to mention the story, while other notables have in private communication with the editor of the From Rome blog censured further investigation as “absurd” or “ridiculous”.

The communists, socialists, environmentalists, homosexuals, progressives and Freemasons are quite satisfied with the Papacy of Cardinal Bergoglio: seeing that they have a dominant control of the mass media in the modern world, there is simply no self-serving political reason to give the “Team Bergoglio” story further attention.

And that is newsworthy of itself, for those who still have any interest in objective truth, transparency or justice in government.

No need to mention, therefore, for those familiar with how Google censors the results of searches,* that from the moment Fr. Lombardi spoke about the “Team Bergoglio” allegations, links from Google’s search engine to the From Rome blog about “Team Bergoglio” have faded or disappeared entirely (you can normally only find them by going to the end of your search results and clicking “repeat the search with omitted results included“).  Nor, that Fox News, whose former employee, Greg Burke° works as Senior Communications officer for the Vatican Secretary of State, did 2 news pieces praising Ivereigh’s book and defending “Team Bergoglio” from charges of impropriety.

_________________

*  In recent years, George Soros has been an important share holder in Google Corporation. Soros is the founder of the Open Society Institute, which promotes liberal progressive democracies; he has also been implicated in voter intimidation and influencing in the USA 2008 election which gave the US Presidency to Barack Obama, a self-declared native of Kenya and son of a Kenyan Commonwealth citizen. Evidently for Soros, manipulating elections is a legitimate means to arrive at an “open society”.

° Burke, a curious fellow, almost never replies to tweets, but on his Twitter timeline he has, in the past, made a point by retweeting a Tweet in which a Google story on the awarding of a certain notable transvestite-singer with a European prize, was lauded with a single word: “progress”!

The “Team Bergoglio” Scandal

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

The From Rome blog wishes A blessed and Holy Christmas to all its readers!

Christmas remains the Primordial Feast which established the Catholic Church
as a holy and just family:
For this reason, there is no greater sacrilege to the Church than a scandal which touches Her unity
and adhesion to the visible point of Her unity, the Roman Papacy.
Hence, the scandal of “Team Bergoglio” is something every Catholic in the world, this day,
should learn more about, and demand answers from the Hierarchy.

Rome — Dec. 25, 2014: Since the scandal regarding Team Bergoglio broke, the From Rome blog has assiduously followed the news and studied what the consequences have been.  On that account more than 25,000 visitors from more than 120 countries have visited this blog to find the news that was not being summarized or published elsewhere.

“Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, former spokesman to His Eminence, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ex-Archbishop of Westminster, England, to the group of Cardinals who campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave.

The Scandalous consequences of the revelations of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, can be summed up thus: Dr. Ivereigh has written a book alleging as many as 30 cardinals did that which is apparently a violation of the papal law on conclaves, on which account they would be ipso facto excommunicated, Cardinal Bergoglio included, and the election of the latter by 2013 Conclave be null and void and of no effect. — As of this date, no substantial denial has been made by anyone of the accused, and Dr. Ivereigh has not substantially withdrawn, changed, or altered what he wrote.

To continue to assist Catholics and journalists world-wide who wish to know more about this scandal, we present here a summary and links through which readers can grasp the basic and detailed facts of the case which has arisen.

First, our article, The Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”, contains the master-list of all the news reports of note and blog posts, videos, audios, tweets, etc. which regard crucial information or analysis of the story: this list is in Chronological order according to the date the information was published or presented.

But since the Chronology has already grown to 8 pages in length, for those wishing to grasp the facts, we suggest the following articles:

  1. The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of Radical Pope, which explains just what Dr. Austen Ivereigh has written in his new book, of the same title, about who did what before and during the Conclave of 2013.
  2. The Improbity of the denials by “Team Bergoglio”, which explains just what some of the Cardinals, alleged by Ivereigh to have engaged in vote-canvassing, have and have not denied. An analysis which shows the probability that Cardinal Bergoglio consented to and/or organized the effort.
  3. The Monstrosity of Allegations against “Team Bergoglio” = Cardinal Bergoglio is not the pope, which explains the canonical consequences of the violation of the Papal law on conclaves, which Ivereigh’s text apparently convicts Cardinal Bergoglio of.
  4. 4 Ways the “Team Bergoglio” revelations undo Francis’ Papacy, which is an editorial explaining the grave implications for the Church stemming from the scandal, be it true or not.
  5. No, your Eminence, the Church is not a tyranny!, which rebuts the gross indifference of 1 Cardinal of the Roman Church to the scandal and pointedly indicates the grave Crisis into which the Catholic Church has been placed by the undenied allegations.

The other articles which reports facts of lesser interest, though important of themselves, can be found in the Chronology article link above.

Antonio Socci speaks on “Team Bergoglio” scandal

Antonio Socci
Antonio Socci

Rome — Dec. 21, 2014:  Antonio Socci, noted Italian journalist and author of the book, Non è Francesco (a best-seller in Italy, which details the events and facts which he believes invalidate the renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio), spoke about the “Team Bergoglio” scandal in an editorial published today in the Italian newspaper, Libero (republished on his FaceBook page; reprinted on his blog, Lo Straniero, i. e. The Outsider).

Here is our unofficial English translation of the first part of that blog-post, entitled, Abbattere tutti i muri? Va bene, Papa Bergoglio, cominciamo a spazzar via il “Muro di Silenzio” della Sistina, facendo emergere la verità sul Conclave….  A full translation in the German Language is available from Kirche & Realitat!

_ _ _

Tearing down walls? Ok, Pope Bergoglio: let’s begin to do away with the “Wall of Silence” in the Sistine Chapel, to reveal the truth of the Conclave

Dec. 21:  It was Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, thirty years ago, who proposed the abolition of the secrecy of the Conclave, by which the Cardinal-princes are obliged under oath regarding the election which takes place in the Sistine Chapel.  He proposed this because that norm — far from standing guard over the sacred — risked (and risks) becoming a cover for profane things (the Cardinal adjoined, then, in the ’80’s, that one should pray very much for the Conclaves of the future so that no external influence of any sect might intervene therein).

It is paradoxical that a proposal so innovative and democratic would be advanced by a prelate who was considered to be the leader of the “Conservatives”.  And that in the 30 years since no prelate, considered to be “progressive”, has taken it up and made it his own.

TRANSPARENCY

Today, if Pope Bergoglio were to take it up, that is, abolish the secrecy, he’d have the ability to demonstrate with deeds how much he is truly desirous of transparency and openness in the life of the Church, by liberating Her from obsolete prohibitions.

Will the Pope who has come to be hailed as “revolutionary”, be less an innovator than a “conservative” Cardinal? Will he wish to bolster the “wall of the Sistine Chapel”, after having asked the entire world to tear down all walls (in Cuba and elsewhere)?

Besides, Pope Bergoglio is sounding out every day against those modern “scribes and pharisees” who want to mummify all the old rules and old laws and prohibitions, by opposing change, transparency and openness to the world.

Let’s see if his words are followed with deeds, at least in regard to these norms which are entirely capable of modification, because they are ecclesiastical laws (while not even a Pope could modify the matters discussed in the recent Synod, because they pertain to the Word of God; though they were put into discussion by the Modernist faction).

One feels particularly the necessity of knocking down this “Sistine wall” — and this with urgency — above all in regard to the Conclave of 2013, concerning which rumors and questions grow daily instead of passing away.

THE MYSTERY OF 2013

As the case, which has broken out in England, shows — and from there it has leaped to America and Italy — in regard to the revelations of Austen Ivereigh in his book, “The Great Reformer”.

The book, a biography about Bergoglio, in an entirely positive light as regards the Argentine pope, contains some lines which skin him alive.  One has to remember that Ivereigh is not the last man to arrive at the party, he was the spokesman for Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and has held positions of trust in Catholic Media in England.

He, thus, speaks of the existence of a “Team Bergoglio”, made up, precisely, of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor, Kasper, Danneels and Lehmann to promote the Argentine prelate to the papacy.  The work, which is to have begun after the renunciation of Benedict XVI, would have had the consent of Bergoglio himself.  A canonical case arises from this, because there are those who have sustained that all of this might put into doubt the validity of the election on March 13th.  There have followed polemics, precisions and denials which have co-involved even Fr. Lombardi, the Pope’s spokesman.

In my opinion, the facts cited in the book by the Englishman do not put into discussion, per se, the legitimacy of the election.

Nevertheless, they cause to be revealed that there is something of a battle which was engaged in behind the 5 ballots in the 2013 Conclave (from the renunciation of Benedict to the election of Bergoglio) and who were the protagonists of that.

But it makes one recall a similar controversy which broke out.  Perhaps this is only the tip of an iceberg? Are there any other secrets? Among the various rumors and speculations, for example, remains the as-of-yet unexplained delay of Pope Bergoglio’s salute from the Loggia of St. Peter’s.

———————–

In the other half of the essay (not translated here), Socci speaks of other anomalies in the 2013 Conclave and the non-reaction to his book.

Socci’s entire piece was republished by Libero’s blog, on Dec. 22, 2014.

For a complete Chronology of reports and videos regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, see click here. That the allegations of Ivereigh are substantial and have grave canonical consequences has been explained here, here and here and here.

2 American Prelates endorse Narrative in “Team Bergoglio” scandal

Rome — Dec. 21, 2014:  Two American prelates, Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan and Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap, have endorsed Dr. Austen Ivereigh’s new book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.

Cardinal Dolan
Cardinal Dolan

The endorsements are found on the rear of the jacket to the American edition of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, and read in part:

“… The many fascinating events and challenges recounted in the Great Reformer demonstrate that the key to understanding Pope Francis and his vision for the Church begins above all by recognizing his unfailing faith …”

Timothy Michale Cardinal Donal
Archbishop of New York

_ _ _

Cardinal Chaput
Cardinal Chaput

The next, towards the bottom of the jacket:

“… In a growing list of books on the first Latin American pope, Ivereigh’s is uniquely well informed …”

Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap.
Archbishop of Philadelphia

Two other notables also endorse the narrative in the book, in the same place:  John L. Allen, Jr., associate editor of the website, Crux, and journalist for the Boston Globe; George Weigel; Fr. Thomas Reese, S. J.; Fr. Thomas Roscica, C. S. B.; and David Gibson, reporter for Religion News Service (RNS).

Presumably all of these read the book before endorsing it.  Cardinal Dolan was an Elector in the Conclave of 2013, and knew intimately what went on during the general congregations and final closed door sessions. Dolan is implicated by Dr. Ivereigh in the “Team Bergoglio” scandal to the extent that he says that the American Cardinals were specifically targeted for vote-promises. Allen and Gibson have both done reports on the web defending Ivereigh’s credibility.

Unfortunately, as of today, the From Rome blog has noticed that the American edition is no longer being offered by sale by Amazon.com, though that site notes that it is still available from other vendors.

No, your Eminence, the Church is not a tyranny!

peter

And She has not been such, since that December in Bethlehem!

AN EDITORIAL ON THE TEAM BERGOGLIO SCANDAL

I had the unique privilege and honor, today, to exchange some tweets with a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.  Our “conversation” arose in regard to the scandalous allegations and incomplete denials of the account given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, the former personal secretary to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the making of a Radical Pope.

His eminence is taking the news of the scandal very lightly, indeed.  He appears to be of the opinion that the problem is not so much in what Dr. Ivereigh has alleged, but in the way simple Catholics the world-over are reacting to those allegations and their very impartial denials.

I tried my best, to appeal to the simple logic and delicate reason of my interlocutor, thus:

If Mr. Q is accused of doing X, Y and Z; and in response, he says, “I want no misunderstandings to arise: I did not do Z”, that he has admitted, thereby, that he has done X and Y.

In response, his Eminence replied:

Have the feeling we won’t agree on this one…what you need to do is to support the Pope in carrying his heavy burden.

As you may know (if you don’t, then click the 2 previous links in this article), Dr. Ivereigh has alleged that as many as 30 Cardinals in the days before the Conclave of 2013, conspired to fix the election procedure by making the first vote in the Conclave give precedence to the candidacy of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

In response, the spokeswoman for Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and the spokesman for the Holy Father, Pope Francis, have not denied the substance or extent of the allegations only 2 minor details.

The resulting agreement of the 4 Cardinals and Dr. Ivereigh regarding all the other details is giving rise in the minds of many Catholics to a valid doubt regarding the legitimacy of Cardinal Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.

Thus, I confess myself, not a little shocked at the Cardinal’s reply regarding Mr. Q.  And thus, wish to publicly state, for the record, my own opinion regarding the affair, and say:

No, your Eminence: the Church is not a tyranny!

The unity of the Church, being founded by Christ in the person of St. Peter and His successors, cannot NOT be injured greatly by the allegations of a violation of paragraph 81 of the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, regarding Papal elections.

This is because, the Sacred College of Cardinals, in its right by positive and customary law to elect the Roman Pontiff, is the crucial link binding the person elected as Pope with the entire Church, in Her duty to recognize the validity of his election.  And, that Sacred College, as stated in the papal law, must elect the Roman Pontiff in according within the terms of that law.  Moreover Canon Law itself, which the papal Law does not abrogate, specifies that excommunicated persons cannot validly vote (canon 171 §1)  or be elected to any office (canon 1331).  Thus, if the Sacred College gives the impression that the allegations of Dr. Ivereigh and their implicit confirmation by 4 Cardinals, are of no import, they will err very gravely and put the Church in a serious crisis.

This is because the Church Herself is not required to accept whomsoever the Sacred College chooses.  And this is confirmed by the papal law itself, which states that the election, if it proceed in any manner which violates the terms established, is null and void.  Furthermore, the Church is not required to hold communion with those who have merited excommunication (canon 1331, §2), nor with a candidate who was promoted to victory by means of illegal vote-canvassing (cf. UDG 81 & canon 171 §2).

This fundamental right of the Church is derived from the liberty of the sons of God, given to each member of the Church in Baptism, which constitutes the Church as a holy and perfect society of laws, not a tyranny of ipso facto acts.

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

To bring an end to this kind of tyranny of sin, Our Lord was born from the Virgin Mary, at Bethlehem, 2014 years ago! Let us not forget His lovingly gentle call to dispossess ourselves of the idols of mendacity and greed and power, so as to do the will of Our Father, Who is in Heaven.

For this reason, just as the Church which would accept the unlawful election of a successor to St. Peter, would Herself lose the credibility necessary to preach the Gospel, and just as the Church’s essential mission is to preach the Gospel of Bethlehem, which is also the Gospel of the Holy Family; it would result that such a tacit acceptance of a doubtful Pope would contravene the authentic conscience of the Church Herself, and dissolve Her obligation of allegiance to such a candidate.

This is not a novel thesis, but one affirmed by notable theologians regarding the doubts had by Catholics during the Great Schism of the 14th-15th centuries. It is taught by no less than a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, who said, “A doubtful pope is no pope”; hence, it follows that the Sacred College, in justice now, on account of the incomplete denials by the 4 Cardinals and the absence of all denial by the other 25+ accused Cardinals, address this controversy in Consistory and publicly resolve it for the sake of the unity of the Church.

Dr. Ivereigh’s allegations were made public on Nov. 23, 2014.  The special Consistory called by Pope Francis will meet on February 14-15, 2015.

The silence of the College to such grave accusations, therefore, after that date would be tantamount to the assertion of a tyranny: that the Sacred College was above the papal law, above Canon law, above all law: a tyranny the Catholic Church and the Bishops of the Catholic Church are not obliged to accept.

In all this, the fault is not that of simple Catholics who are stupefied by the scandalous accusations regarding “Team Bergoglio”, the fault is that of a very grave omission of the duty of our sacred Pastors to defend the good name of the Church.  Besides, if the allegations of Dr. Ivereigh are false, there is nothing lost, but only gain to be had by putting the scandal to rest. On the other hand, if they are true, then the Church will be greatly strengthened in Her reputation for transparency and justice in Her own most internal affairs, if Cardinal Bergoglio renounces his claim to the papacy and the Sacred College proceeds to a canonical election.

______________________

For a Chronology of Reports concerning the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, click here.

Cardinal Napier speaks about the “Team Bergoglio” scandal

Per una traduzione del articolo in italiano, qui

Dec. 17, 2014:  Many have wondered why, as of yet, the Sacred College of Cardinals has not responded to allegations made by Dr. Austen Ivereigh regarding the activities of “Team Bergoglio”, to whom he attributes the activities of as many as 7 Cardinals in the organized campaign to give Cardinal Bergoglio a strong showing in the first ballot of the 2013 Conclave for pope.

Recently, however, a noted Catholic writer from the United Kingdom, Paul Priest, has pestered his Eminence Cardinal Napier of South Africa on Twitter, to a sufficient degree, as to obtain some response.

Here below are those tweets, faithfully reproduced from the Twitter feeds of Cardinal Napier and Paul Priest (OTSOTA) as well as other tweeters:

Dialoguing with a Cardinal

 

NOTE:  UDG stands for the papal law on conclaves, Universi Dominic Gregis, which in paragraph n. 5, grants to the Sacred College of Cardinals the sole and exclusive right to resolve any questions and controversies arising regarding the interpretation of the rules.

Games which Modernists play at

Editorial

St. Michael the Archangel, the first Saint, on account of his declaration of war against Lucifer
St. Michael the Archangel, the first Saint, on account of his declaration of war against Lucifer

The persecution of Catholics by Modernists has advanced from the days of the Second Vatican Council by means of tricks, games, and deceits which were more sophisticated than the average Bishop, priest, layman or religious could understand, and so most or nearly all Catholics were fooled.

The Modernists have used these tricks to separate good Catholics who recognize the errors which Modernists promote and oppose these errors, from those Catholics who have not yet recognized them or who accept them.

The From Rome blog has spoken of this in particular, as regards centers of formation for priests and religious, previously. But now, it seems needful to address the laity in general.

4 Games Played by Modernists

What does Our Lord Jesus Christ expect of us during a doctrinal crisis in the Church, where heretics control some or a majority of the ecclesiastical structures? Does He want from us blind obedience?

In Creation and the Divine Order of things, a comprehensive theological explanation was given, to explain what true obedience and false obedience are, and there it was demonstrated that it is blind obedience which is the chief tool which Modernists use to turn good Catholics against other Catholics.

But false obedience takes many forms, and these are the tricks and games which Modernists play at.

Let us leave aside, for a moment, the lies and misinformation which are regularly given out by Modernists, since these regards words not appeals to obedience.

The first game is the “Approval Game”:  “You don’t have my approval for that!”, the Modernist says, and the Catholic who does not know his faith, not realizing or recognizing what is Catholic and what is not in practice, takes such a disapproval as the norm or rule for recognizing what is Catholic or not.  —  “Father does not approve of that, therefore it must not be Catholic!” is the mantra which the Modernists most want to hear from the pews.

The second game is the “Normal Game”:  “That is not normally done, the norm is to do such and such!” says the Modernist.  A prime example of this was given today by Michael Voris on Church Militant TV (link to video here).  The Modernist for whom the Faith is the enemy, obviously, will always call normal what is abnormal or not-Catholic, but he uses an authoritative seeming declaration to use obedience to bait-and-switch a Catholic from what is catholic to what is heretical.

The third game is the “Mercy & Rigor Game”:  “You can’t expect people now-a-days to do such things, and by doing them you show yourself to be a rigorist, addicted to paradisaical practices.”  This is a very commonly-played game in liberal parishes or in some liberal countries, such as in Argentina, where in the name of mercy, one sells out the faith lock-stock-and-barrel.

The fourth game is the “Guilt and Re-education Game”:  Modernists, it must be remembered, are experts at emotional or psychological manipulation, since most of them are sexual perverts or moral misfits: they honed this skill in bucking the discipline their parents should have taught them.  They know how to make the good feel guilty for being good, and how to propose the proper re-education of emotions or thoughts necessary to make a good Catholic think and act like a Modernist: they say, “Love is what the Lord want’s from us more than anything else; if it harms charity or sows division, then it is not of God!”  They don’t want you to consider for a moment that love of evil is not charity, or that division from the devil is a work of holiness. Or that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church are unanimous in condemning every novelty as well as the norms and mores of the contemporary age (modernus in Latin means “contemporary”). Whereas, Modernists want the Catholic Church conformed to every aspect of contemporary culture and values, or at least accommodated to them in such wise that one can claim the name of “Catholic” without assenting to the Catholic faith or recognizing any objective moral obligation, as taught in Scripture, Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.

The Church will go down to destruction until Catholics stop playing with Modernists

The first requirement of every Good Catholic, is, as St. John the Apostle exhorts us in his letters, never to commune with heretics, never to seek their company, and not to share in their polluted affairs.

If Catholics continue to play these 4 games with Modernists, they will only succeed in destroying their own virtue, losing God’s grace, and being led to Hell.

They will also dis-empower themselves, because they will end up letting Modernists isolate them from good Catholics, from the saints of our age who recognize what Modernism is and who fight it openly.

Christ Jesus, Who by His august Sacrifice on the Cross, completely conquered this world, gave us the means to conquer every error and deceit in all future ages and to do His Will on Earth:  this victory is chiefly in the Faith, the one true Faith without which no many can be saved, for without faith it is impossible to please God or even to want to please Him.

But for Our Lord, “faith” is always understood in conjunction with the love of God and hope in God which put faith into practice.

And one puts faith into practice chiefly by rejecting every practice which is not approved by Faith, Scripture or Tradition.

Thus, the next time you are doing something which is perfectly Catholic, and a Modernist proposes otherwise, remember that you only remain faithful to Christ by ignoring him, disobeying him, resisting him, and encouraging others to do the same.

In the meantime, for your re-inspiration, a beautiful video about what the Catholic Church was, before the Modernists, should now be without them, and will always be, once good Catholics like yourself rise up against them.

Twitter persecutes prolife Catholics in a most devious manner

 

Editor’s Comment: Let us raise our voices against the evil climate inside Twitter corporation! which persecutes Catholics for expressing their faith.  Twitter does not only do this against pro-life Catholics, but also against Catholics who express their Faith on other non-politically correct issues.  Gangs of political activists lurk on Twitter to falsely accuse Catholics of violating rules, thus precipitating a shut down of one kind or another. Twitter support has been informed numerous times during the last 2 years of how they are discriminating against Catholics by heeding these false accusations, and have done nothing.  If Twitter does not change its policies, it might very well be involved in a class action lawsuit for the violation of the free speech rights of their users.

News and Commentary on the Catholic Church

%d bloggers like this: