Tag Archives: 11 Feb 2013

News

Pope Benedict’s forced Abdication

6 Comments

HOW IT WENT DOWN

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.

Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.

History is Context

Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.

Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia“ (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).

These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.

Rules of Power

The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.

So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.

But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.

The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.

This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.

Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope.  Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.

Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.

What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?

With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.

  1. On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests.  This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
  2. From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
  3. Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
  4. Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
  5. May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
  6. Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
  7. July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
  8. October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
  9. October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
  10. January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
  11. February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
  12. Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
  13. Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
  14. Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.

In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.

Further information on what was going on in the Vatican Bank is neatly summarized by the Blog, Informatii si mesaje, in their post of Dec. 18, 2018, entitled, “Cardinals’ Mafia — plot against Benedict XVI“, which excerpts reports by Edward Pentin, Marco Tosatti (Rorate Caeli translation), Maike Hickson and Louie Verrechio from 2015.

An Examination and Discussion

The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.

We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a  Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.

Conclusions

I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.

I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.

In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.

Editorials, News

Meet Giovanna Chirri, mother of the notion that Benedict resigned the papacy

6 Comments

giovannachirri_904617

This is our English translation of the article published by ChiesaRomana.info yesterday.

How did it happen that the entire world
thinks that Pope Benedict XVI
renounced the papacy?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Behind every great man, there is a woman;
and behind every great act of a man, the insistence of a woman.

Today, nearly the entire world believes that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013.

And perhaps, dear readers, you think so too.

But the truth of what really happened that day has been obscured by the psychological presumption induced by the announcement made moments after the renunciation, by Mrs. Chirri. I am not kidding you!

Did you know that? The entire world thinks that way because of a single tweet, from a pool reporter for ANSA, known as Mrs. Giovanna Chirri. and here is that tweet:

https://twitter.com/GiovannaChirri/status/300921810071982080

In English, that reads:

B16 has resigned. He leaves the pontificate as of February 28.

This tweet is in fact the first announcement of the renunciation. It caused Giovanna Chirri to become immediately the most famous journalist in the world, for that moment. For the sake of posterity she subsequently gave several interviews so that we all might understand better the series of events which took place on that day.  Here is her testimony, given to the magazine, Familiga Cristiana, on the third anniversary of the Renunciation (Italian original here), the English translation of which is our own:

Though the Consistory should have concluded at that moment, the Pope remained seated, and began to read, again in Latin, from a white sheet which he held in his hand.  He said two things first of all: that he had not convoked the Cardinals solely to hear his approval of two decrees for the canonization of saints, but that he had to say something “important for the life of the Church”, and that he was growing old: his precise words were ingravescente aetate.  At these words I felt as if a hand was placed upon my throat and a ball was being inflated in my head: because Ingravescentem aetatem is the document whereby Pope Paul VI took from the Cardinals the right to elect a pope, after they obtained their eightieth year of age: they were words which signified retirement.  Benedict XVI continued to speak in a Latin, which fortunately was much more comprehensible than that of Cardinal Amato; he spoke for some time, saying that he no longer had the strength to govern the Barque of Peter in a world which is increasingly face paced.  He explained that in conscience he had decided to leave, that the Cardinals will have to hold a Conclave to elect a successor and that he was establishing the beginning of the sede vacante at 8 pm on February 28.

I heard what he said but as one who had not heard; I was breathless and my legs trembled as I sat. I could not hold my left hand steady, even when I tried with my right hand.  I began to make telephone calls seeking help and confirmations.  At the Vatican, where obviously, everyone had something else on their mind, no one picked up the phone.  I was prey to a sensation of terror which I had never experienced in my life.  At this point, Pope Ratzinger had finished speaking. Some of the faces of those present grew pale; Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sitting next to him, seem to have turned to stone; different Cardinals had fixed stares and the muscles of their faces were frozen.  In an unreal silence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, said in Italian: “This news strikes us as a bolt of lighting out of the blue”.

As you continue to read her testimony in Italian, you see immediately that after three years, she has understood in part the error she made that day, for she no longer speaks of a renunciation of the papacy, but expressly now speaks only of a renunciation of ministry.

Hence, if on February 11, 2013, Mrs. Chirri announced to the world one thing, and three years after in 2016, she explains that Benedict had renounced something else, perhaps we can shake off our presumption that what she said first was correct? One thinks so.

Compare what she said in 2014 on the first anniversary of the renunciation, when she was interviewed by Antonio Sanfrancesco, likewise of Famiglia Cristiana, in an article entitled, La Giornalista che diede la notizia, Non rispiravo, ero terrorizato (qui). A title – which in English, means: The journalist who broke the story, I could not breathe, I was terrorized – which does not give the reader any confidence that she had a clear mind at the moment of her tweet.

This history and the alteration of the narrative is important for all of us because, according to the norm of Canon Law, there is no canon which regards a renunciation of ministry!  This is because in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, ministry is never associated with power or office, but only with action or the execution of a duty.  Moreover, in canon 1331 §2 °4, ministry is not even listed among those things which an excommunicated person is forbidden to acquire.  Hence, in the Code, an excommunicate can exercise a ministry.

Obviously, if the thing, according to its genus, which Pope Benedict renounced on Feb. 11, 2013 is something which someone not in communion with the Church or with the pope, can exercise, how can it be possible that in renouncing it Pope Benedict separated himself from the papal office? That does not make sense. It’s not even rational to contemplate.

Hence, it appears that in changing her story, Mrs. Chirri no longer agrees with what she wrote on that day:

https://twitter.com/GiovannaChirri/status/300921810071982080

Indeed, let us read that tweet with precision: it contains the words, dimesso, lascia and pontificato, which in English are resigned, leave and pontifcate.  But no where in the Latin text of the renunciation does Pope Benedict use any Latin words which mean these things!

Hence, if we are to speak properly and with precision, her tweet is not a report of news, but an interpretation of the event, an interpretation which arises out of the state of her mind in that moment in which she rushed to get the scoop on the news before any other journalist.

Now, at last, perhaps the time has come for the Church to recognize that none of us is obligated to understand that act of renunciation according to the state of mind of Mrs. Chirri, the Mother of the Papal Resignation. I call her, “the Mother of the Papal Resignation”, because in the understanding of the world, it was she who gave everyone to understand the act as an act of renunciation of the papacy, not merely of the ministry, an understanding and interpretation which all who study Canon Law are forcing themselves to find in the Code of Canon Law, but fail to do so, because it ain’t there.

ORIGINAL CREDITS: Testo di Famiglia Cristiana citato dall’articolo citato qui sopra. L’immagine in evidenza, della Sig.ra Chirri trovato sulla pagina di Famiglia Cristiana nel articolo di 11 Febbraio 2014, citato qui sopra, ma senza attribuzione di proprietà intellettuale. Si presume fair use per tutti due. Il tweet di Chirri è replicata dal suo conto su Twitter che è ancora in rete.

News

Come e perché la rinuncia di Papa Benedetto XVI non è valida secondo il Diritto canonico

3 Comments

Trascritto dal sito di Veri Catholici.

Offriamo qui di seguito un calmo e ragionato argomento sul tema circa la invalidità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI, a beneficio dei Cattolici che desiderano conoscere la verità.

Perché un cattolico dovrebbe difendere la validità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI?

Siamo obbligati a farlo secondo la legge canonica? – No,

Si commette peccato in non farlo quando sussiste l’evidenza di invalidità ?- No

Sussiste presupposto di legge circa la validità? – No.

Sussiste l’evidenza circa la non validità? -Si.

Perché le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI non sono valide?

Per capire il perché richiamiamo il testo originale delle dimissioni e del Diritto Canonico;

Trascriviamo qui di seguito il testo della rinuncia nel testo originale in Latino:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

Quali sono i requisiti di validità per le dimissioni del Papa? –  Questi si trovano nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, Canone 332 §2;

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Qual’é quindi la prima condizione o requisito di validità , secondo il canone 332 §2 per la validità delle dimissioni del Papa? – Il requisito e’ che il Romano Pontefice rinunzi il suo munus (muneri suo renuntiet).

Ha il testo delle dimissioni rinunziato al munus? – No, dice chiaramente: declaro me ministerio…renuntiare.

Se la rinunzia non riguarda il munus, trova il canone 332 §2 applicazione? – Si e No. Si perché dal momento in cui non assolve alle condizioni per dimissioni entro I termini (in questo caso il munus) del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. E No, in quanto essendo un atto giuridico che e’ posto al di fuori dei termini del Canone 332 §2 non riguarda le dimissioni del Papa, ma meramente le dimissioni dal servizio attivo.

Possono le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI essere interpretate come valide?

Alcuni dicono, apparentemente a ragione, che il Papa può rinunziare al munus nel rinunziare al ministerium. E’ questo un argomento valido? – No, non lo e’, perché non è materia di mera affermazione, la Legge stessa deve dichiararlo. Si ricorda che non vi può essere innovazione nella Legge della Chiesa in assenza di atto positivo di un superiore competente.

Ma non è un atto di rinunzia un atto giuridico che stabilisce  un nuovo modo di rinunzia? – No. Gli atti giuridici non sono atti tirannici, non possono auto-giustificarsi, ma devono trovarsi in accordo con la Legge della Chiesa. Ciò perché, come dichiarato dal Concilio Vaticano I, persino il Papa non ha autorità per inventare novità.

Ma se si dovesse sostenere che il ministerium si possa supporre o possa essere compreso quale munus, come si dovrebbe provare? – Come enunciato nel Canone 17, quando sia in dubbio il significato della Legge, si deve fare ricorso ad altre parti della Legge, e se non vi si trova chiarezza, si deve fare ricorso al legislatore.

Il Codice di Diritto Canonico autorizza a supporre il “ministerium” quale munus o il “munus” quale ministerium? – No, in nessuna parte del Codice si dice che il ministerium é munus o il munus é ministerium. Infatti, secondo il Canone 17, le definizioni dei termini contenuti nel Codice medesimo, devono essere accettate quale AUTENTICA espressione della mente del legislatore (Papa Giovanni Paolo II) nel promulgare il Codice di Diritto Canonico. Il Canone 145 §1 definisce ogni ufficio ecclesiastico (officium) quale munus, non ministerium.

E la tradizione canonica, richiede rinuncia di munus quale  valide dimissioni dall’uffcio papale? – Si, cio’é chiaro. perché in tutte le dimissioni precedenti non solo c’è rinunzia del munus (o sinonimi: onus, honor, dignitas, o nomi proprii: papatus, episcopatus) ma non c’e’ neppure menzione di ministerium. Neppure esiste tradizione canonica ove si possano supporre termini che non significano munus, quali munus secondo tradizione canonica. Il papa non crea o inventa lingue o forme di significati linguistici, altrimenti nulla sarebbe certo o oggettivo nella Chiesa. Anzi, come dice il canone 38, se un Papa agisce in qualsiasi modo contrario ai termini del Canone 332 § 2, il suo atto è valido solo se menziona esplicitamente la sua intenzione di agire con una deroga ai suoi termini.

Se entrambi il testo del Codice di Diritto Canonico e la tradizione canonica richiedono la menzione del munus in una rinunzia al papato, allora in virtù del Canone 17, coloro I quali sostengono che la rinunzia di Benedetto XVI sia valida, hanno valide ragioni? – No, nessuna.

Pertanto, devono tutti i cattolici riconoscere che in virtù proprio secondo il diritto, la rinunzia non è valida? – Si.

Significa qualcosa che tutti I Cardinali agiscano come se fosse valida? – No, perché secondo il Canone 332 §2 anche se il tutto il mondo sostenesse che la rinunzia è valida, se non incontra le condizioni del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. Non c’e’ la minima possibilità di distorsione.

Ma il fatto che si sia  tenuto un Conclave per eleggere un nuovo Papa, nel Marzo del 2013 non rende valide le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI? Il suo consenso tacito, non le rende valide? – No a tutte e due le domande. Prima di tutto perché nulla rende le dimissioni valide eccetto la conformità al Canone 332 § 2. Secondo perché per istituzione Divina il Munus Petrinum non può essere condiviso con altri, Per cui se Benedetto non lo ha rinunziato, lo detiene. Se lo detiene, eleggere un altro Papa è contrario alla legge divina fintantoché egli è in vita. E nel suo atto di rinunzia, egli non ha ordinato espressamente, che venisse convocato un Conclave in vita sua. Che egli abbia acconsentito a tale cosa, potrebbe essere dovuto a timore o ad errore nella sostanza riguardo a quanto necessario per rinunziare al suo Ufficio. Se dovuto a timore, ciò non lo rende valido. Se egli è in errore sostanziale, secondo il Canone 188, il suo atto è espressamente non valido iure ipso, cio’è proprio secondo il diritto.