Tag Archives: effects

Constitutionality and Right: The 2014 Decision of the Corte Constituzionale

LA CONSTITUZIONALITA’ E IL DIRITTO NELLA SENTENZA DELLA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE DI GENNAIO 213

VERSIONE ITALIANA

The English Version follows here below

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Giustizia e diritto sono il base del Tuo trono (Salmo 88:14-15)

Recentemente il generale Antonio Pappalardo ha chiesto una rivoluzione arancione in Italia per ristabilire la giustizia per il popolo italiano. Parte della sua argomentazione si basa sulla decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014. Pertanto, è nostro dovere capire quale sia stata quella decisione e quali siano stati i suoi effetti.

Preambolo

Uno Stato può essere considerato sotto diversi aspetti: come entità geografica, come entità politica, come entità giuridica e come entità demografica o economica.

È un’entità geografica in quanto controlla un territorio geografico che rivendica di diritto.

È un’entità politica, in quanto rappresenta se stessa come titolare di diritti nei rapporti con gli altri Stati e con coloro che vivono all’interno del suo territorio geografico.

È un’entità demografica, in quanto costituita da esseri umani.

È un’entità economica, in quanto svolge attività economica attraverso coloro che vivono nel suo territorio geografico.

Ma è un’entità giuridica, in quanto esiste in virtù della giustizia e del diritto. Perché senza giustizia e diritto, uno Stato non è uno Stato. Infatti, la parola “stato” si riferisce a una stabilità di ordine. E non c’è ordine nel senso proprio dove non c’è giustizia o non c’è diritto.

Ecco perché, per esempio, è corretto dire che l’ISIS non era uno Stato, perché non aveva alcuna pretesa onesta di essere un ordine di giustizia o di diritto in una specifica regione geografica.

Questi principi, essendo evidenti, sono validi anche nei confronti della Repubblica Italiana.

Essere ed effetti

Una delle considerazioni preliminari e necessarie in ogni discussione sulla giustizia e sul diritto è quella che riguarda i principi fondamentali della metafisica, cioè che per ogni cosa che è, si deve distinguere tra ciò che è e quali sono i suoi effetti o le sue azioni.

Così, un uomo è un essere umano, ma le sue azioni sono le sue opere, le sue parole o i suoi pensieri. Le sue opere, le sue parole e il suo pensiero non sono il suo essere, né lui stesso, ma gli appartengono e fluiscono dal suo essere.

Questa distinzione è chiamata dagli Scolastici la distinzione tra il primo atto dell’essere (primum esse) e il secondo atto dell’essere (secundum esse).

Giustizia e diritto

Questo principio della metafisica governa in materia di giustizia e di diritto, come in tutte le questioni che riguardano la considerazione dell’essere e degli effetti.

Così, se una cosa è giusta, i suoi effetti sono giusti. E se una cosa è fatta in accordo con il diritto, i suoi effetti sono in accordo con il diritto.

Così, se una legge è giusta, è giusto anche ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto. E se una legge è ingiusta, ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto è ingiusto.

Allo stesso modo, se ciò che ha fatto nascere una legge è ingiusto, allora l’applicazione della legge è ingiusta, e ciò che è fatto in accordo con la legge ingiusta sarà fatto ingiustamente.

Tutto questo è vero, indipendentemente dal fatto che le azioni specificate dalla legge siano giuste di per sé.

Per esempio, se un tiranno ti ordina di lavarti i denti, anche se lavarti i denti è una cosa buona per sé, non è solo che ti ordina di farlo, e se obbedisci al suo ingiusto comando, anche se lo spazzolamento è buono, il tuo diritto alla libertà è stato comunque violato anche se hai acconsentito e obbedito.

La sentenza 2014 della Corte costituzionale italiana

La prima decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014 è l’oggetto del presente saggio. È possibile leggere la decisione in originale sul sito web del tribunale:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2014&numero=1

La sentenza della Corte è stata precisa e concisa: sono state dichiarate incostituzionali le modalità di assegnazione dei seggi al Parlamento italiano previste dalle leggi del 1957 per l’elezione della Camera dei deputati e dalla legge del 1993 per l’elezione del Senato, e dalla legge del 1993 che toglieva all’elettore il diritto di scegliere un individuo, piuttosto che un partito.

Questa, ovviamente, è una decisione epocale nella storia della Repubblica italiana. Perché se tutte le elezioni della Camera bassa dal 1957 e tutte le elezioni del Senato dal 1993, e tutte le elezioni del 1993 per i partiti piuttosto che per i candidati sono state incostituzionali, allora tutte le azioni del Parlamento italiano sono state private della giustizia e del diritto per gli ultimi 71 anni.

Non intendo qui contestare la decisione dei giudici del Corte in questa materia. Essi hanno basato la loro sentenza sulla considerazione dei termini della Costituzione italiana che ogni elettore ha diritto a una rappresentanza uguale per tutti gli elettori, e che quindi la rappresentanza proporzionale, se ostacolata dall’assegnazione di più seggi a qualsiasi partito, di quella parte ottenuta in proporzione ai voti ottenuti è stata una violazione di quel diritto costituzionale. E quando un cittadino era tenuto a votare per un partito e non per un individuo, gli veniva negato il diritto di acconsentire a chi lo rappresentava.

Ma ciò che è del tutto degno di discussione è la follia della posizione assunta dalla Corte nel modo in cui ha affrontato gli effetti della sua decisione. Essa ha stabilito che, poiché riguarda il bene comune di tutto lo Stato italiano che rimane in esistenza, ciò che è stato fatto deve essere considerato come un fatto compiuto e, quindi, solo in futuro, tali leggi devono essere modificate. Ma ha lasciato a un Parlamento eletto in modo incostituzionale il compito di approvare le leggi per correggere le leggi sulle elezioni.

La decisione di sanificare gli effetti di leggi incostituzionali, viola molti principi di logica e di diritto.

Prima di tutto, se una cosa è ingiusta, lo sono anche i suoi effetti. Non si può quindi essere razionale e dire che se una cosa è ingiusta, dobbiamo considerare giusti i suoi effetti. Ciò significherebbe affermare che gli effetti che possono venire solo da A e mai da B devono essere considerati come venuti da B solo perché lo diciamo noi.

In secondo luogo, se la Corte ha deciso che tutte le elezioni sono state incostituzionali, e poiché la Corte stessa è costituita dal Consiglio di Stato, i cui membri includono il Presidente della Repubblica, eletto dal Parlamento, così, dichiarando che le elezioni del Parlamento per 71 anni sono state incostituzionali, hanno dichiarato in effetti illegittima la loro pretesa di essere legittimi giudici della Corte costituzionale.

E se la loro pretesa di essere giudici della Corte era illegittima, anche se la loro decisione di dichiarare l’incostituzionalità delle leggi precedenti era oggettivamente vera, la loro autorità di sanare gli effetti ingiusti di tali leggi era inesistente.

In terzo luogo, il loro approccio fondamentale al concetto di continuità dello Stato italiano confonde le nozioni di Stato come entità politica con quelle di Stato come entità giuridica. Lo Stato italiano come entità politica esiste sia che sia giusto o meno, perché sotto questa considerazione lo Stato italiano è l’essere nell’ordine politico, prima di ogni considerazione di giustizia. Ma lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica è l’entità che esiste in virtù della costituzione italiana, e se tale entità è illegittima, allora non solo non ha il diritto di esistere, ma non è mai esistita, perché “essere illegale” è in diretta contraddizione con il suo stesso principio di essere persona giuridica.

Pertanto, il ricorso della Corte alla necessità di continuità dello Stato è un inganno. Si rivendica l’entità giuridica che ha un fondamento solo nei confronti dell’entità politica.

Cosa avrebbe dovuto fare la Corte nel 2014

La decisione della Corte costituzionale italiana del 2014 può avere un solo effetto ragionevole e giusto, cioè che lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica deve essere interamente ricostituito, perché non è più costituzionale dal 1957. Tutte le leggi e le modifiche della Costituzione dal 1957 sono illegittime, illegali, illegittime, ingiuste e inesistenti. La Repubblica italiana deve essere ricostituita nello Stato che era nel 1957 con nuove elezioni del Parlamento. Questo è ciò che la Corte avrebbe dovuto ordinare nel 2014.

Qual è l’effetto della decisione irrazionale della Corte?

Quello che la Corte ha fatto non è solo ultra vires, che è al di là della sua autorità, ma manca di ogni legittimità giuridica. Perché viola il principio che dice che gli effetti di ciò che è giusto sono giusti, e di ciò che è ingiusto sono ingiusti. In agire così, la Corte ha tentato di intervenire come un Leviatano o un Dio e di fare ciò che è ingiusto, giusto, ciò che è malvagio, il bene.

Così facendo la Corte ha attaccato l’ordine costituzionale. Ha commesso una grave frode nella dichiarazione della sua sentenza. Ha messo in atto un colpo di Stato, o più precisamente ha dichiarato che se i politici violano la Costituzione, sono immuni da un crimine. L’unico ricorso, secondo la Corte, è che i reati cessino dopo aver preso una decisione, ma ciò che si ottiene con il reato prima che la sua decisione sia legittimamente ottenuta.

Così la decisione della Corte ha aperto la porta alla tirannia. Ha proclamato che i politici possono abusare dei diritti dei cittadini e violare impunemente la Costituzione. Lo ha dichiarato perché, dicendo che non c’è rimedio alle ingiustizie del passato, ha dato il permesso per tutte le ingiustizie e ha dichiarato che i politici che fanno queste cose sono immuni.

Conclusione

La sentenza della Corte Costituzionale della Repubblica Italiana del 2014 dimostra che non esiste un ordine costituzionale in Italia. La Costituzione non è mai stata osservata per 71 anni, e anche la forma in cui esiste oggi è incostituzionale, essendo stata modificata da parlamenti illegittimi nel corso di 7 decenni.

Quindi parlare oggi della necessità di procedere in modo costituzionale per remediare la situazione è semplicemente assurdo, a meno che non significhi tornare allo status quo del 1957 e indire nuove elezioni.

E per questo credo che Giuseppe Conte, che è avvocato, sappia che i suoi decreti incostituzionali non sono stati un grande crimine e non avrebbero mai portato ad alcuna sanzione per sé o per il suo governo. Sa che non c’è una costituzione, e che il popolo italiano è stato ingannato per 7 decenni. Cosa c’è di sbagliato nella tirannia aperta?

RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 136 DELLA COSTITUZIONE

Si potrebbe sostenere che, in virtù dell’articolo 136, la Corte aveva il diritto di sanificare gli effetti delle leggi inconstituzionali e delle elezioni illegittime del passato. Ma quell’articolo dice solo che le norme delle leggi dichiarate incostituzionali cessano di avere effetto il giorno dopo la pronuncia della sentenza. Non dice nulla sul potere della Corte di fare giusto ciò che è avvenuto prima della sentenza. Il significato dell’articolo riguarda solo l’applicazione futura della legge. Così dal silenzio dell’articolo 136 non si può dedurre che la Corte abbia il potere di fare giusto ciò che è stato ingiusto. Né c’è nulla nella Costituzione che conferisca tale autorità allo Stato.

RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 1 DELLA COSTITUZIONE

Si potrebbe sostenere che la sovranità del popolo, essendo limitata alla sua espressione nella Costituzione in Articolo 1, rende illegittimo il ricorso a qualsiasi appello a nozioni di diritto o di giustizia provenienti da fonti esterne alla Costituzione. A questo, dico, che interpretare questo articolo in modo così restrittivo viola i principi della giurisprudenza, secondo i quali le norme restrittive devono avere il minor effetto possibile, cioè interpretate nel senso che violano il meno possibile i diritti altrui. Pertanto, questo articolo deve essere inteso semplicemente per affermare che la Costituzione è l’esercizio della sovranità del popolo quando viene osservata. E così, quando non viene osservata, l’Articolo 1 non solo non ostacola l’azione del popolo per cercare la giustizia, ma la garantisce e le conferisce il suo fondamento assoluto nel suo diritto all’ordine costituzionale.

RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 137 DELLA COSTITUZIONE

Si potrebbe sostenere che, poiché non è possibile ricorrere alle sentenze della Corte costituzionale secondo Articolo 137 della Costituzione, nessuno può contestare la sua decisione nel 2014 e quindi è al di là del diritto di chiunque di opporsi ad essa. A questa argomentazione, dico, che la decisione della Corte non solo contradice il principio che la giustizia degli effetti scaturisce dalla giustizia della causa, ma invalida anche la stessa pretesa della Corte di emettere una sentenza insindacabile, perché la Corte stessa ha dichiarato che gli stessi poteri che la costituivano sono stati illegittimamente eletti e nominati. Non si può quindi ragionevolmente fare ricorso all’articolo 137, perché si riferisce ad un tribunale costituito costituzionalmente e non ad un tribunale che ammette di essere stato composto in modo incostituzionale.

Frà Alexis Bugnolo, in quanto cittadino italiano, ha la voglia di fondare un partito politico cattolico per guarantire e avvanzare i diritti dei Cattolici in Italia. Se ha interesse in aiutare, lascia un commento qui sotto con il suo recapito. — Grazie!

___________

POSTCRIPTUM: Per una discussione più ampia sull’irragionevolezza della sentenza del Corte vedi: Antonello lo Calzo, La convalida delle elezione e gli effetti della sentenza del Corte Costituzionale n.1 del 2014.

ENGLISH VERSION

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Justice and right are the foundation of Thy throne (Psalm 88:15 in the Vulgate)

Recently, General Antonio Pappalardo has called for an orange revolution in Italy as a way of restoring justice for the Italian People. Part of his argument is based on the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what that decision was and what its effects were.

Preamble

A state can be considered under several aspects: as a geographical entity, as a political entity, as a legal entity, and as a demographic or economic entity.

It is a geographical entity inasmuch as it controls a geographical territory which it claims by right.

It is a political entity, inasmuch as represents itself as a holder of rights in relations with other states and with those who live within its geographical territory.

It is a demographic entity, inasmuch as it is constituted by human beings.

It is an economic entity, inasmuch as it conducts economic activity through those who live in its geographical territory.

But it is a legal entity, inasmuch as it exist in virtue of justice and right. Because without justice and right, a state is not a state. For, the word “state” refers to a stability of order. And there is no order in the proper sense where there is no justice or no right.

This is why for example it is correct to say that ISIS was not a state, because it had no honest claim to be an order of justice or right in a specific geographical region.

These principles, being self-evident, are valid also in regard to the Republic of Italy.

Being and Effects

One of the preliminary and necessary considerations in every discussion of justice and right is that which regards the fundamental principles of metaphysics, namely, that for every thing which is, one must distinguish between what it is and what its effects or actions are.

Thus, a man is a human being, but his actions are his works, words, or thoughts. His works, words and thought are not his being, nor himself, but belong to him and flow from his being.

This distinction is called by the Scholastics the distinction between the first act of being (primum esse ) and the second act of being (secundum esse).

Justice and Right

This principle of metaphysics governs in matters of justice and right, as in all affairs which regard the consideration of being and effects.

Thus, if a thing is just, its effects are just. And if a thing is done in accord with right, its effects are in accord with right.

Thus, if a law is just, that which the law causes to be done is also just. And if a law is unjust, that which the law causes to be done is unjust.

Likewise, if that which brought a law into being was unjust, then the application of the law is unjust, and that which is done in accord with the unjust law will be unjustly done.

All this is true, regardless of whether the actions specified by the law are just in themselves.

For example, if a tyrant order you to brush your teeth, even though brushing your teeth is something which is good of itself, it is not just that he order you to do it, and if you obey his unjust command, though the brushing be good, your right to liberty was still violated even if you consented and obeyed.

The 2014 Sentence of the Italian Constitutional Court

The first decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014 is the subject of the present essay. You can read the decision in the original at the website of the court:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2014&numero=1

The decision of the court as precise and concise: the manner of awarding seats in the Italian parliament as specified in the laws of 1957 for the election of the House of Deputies (the lower house in the Italian Parliament) and in the 1993 law for the election of the Senate, and in the 1993 law which took away from the voter the right to chose an individual, rather than a party, were declared unconstitutional.

This, obviously, is a momentous decision in the history of the Italian Republic. Because if all the elections of the lower house since 1957 and all the elections of the Senate since 1993, and all the elections since 1993 for parties rather than candidates were unconstitutional, then all the actions of the Italian Parliament were deprived of justice and right for the last 71 years.

I will not contest here the decision of the court in this matter. They based their sentence on the consideration of the terms of the Italian constitution that each voter be allowed equal representation, and that therefore proportional representation, when obstructed by awarding more seats to any party, than that part obtained in proportion to the votes it garnered was a violation of that constitutional right. And when a citizen was required to vote for a party and not an individual, he was denied the right to consent to whom represented him.

But what is entirely worthy of discussion is the insanity of the position taken by the Court in how it dealt with the effects of its decision. It ruled that, because it pertains to the common good of all the Italian State remain in existence, that what was done is must be regarded as a fait accompli, and hence forth in the future only, such laws must be changed. But it left to a Parliament elected in an unconstitutional manner to pass the laws to correct the laws on elections.

The decision to sanitize the effects of unconstitutional laws, violates a lot of principles of logic and right.

First of all, if a thing is unjust, then its effects are also unjust. Thus, one cannot be rational and say that if a thing is unjust, we must regard its effects as just. That would be to assert that the effects which only can come from A and never from B must be regarded to have come from B just because we say so.

Second, if the court has decided that all the elections were unconstitutional, and since the Court itself is constituted by the Consiglio di Stato, whose members include the President of the Republic, elected by the Parliament, thus, in declaring that the elections of parliament for 71 years were unconstitutional, they declared in effect that their own claim to be legitimate justices of the Constitutional Court were illegitimate.

And if their claim to be judges of the court was illegitimate, even if their decision that the previous laws were unconstitutional was objectively true, their authority to sanitize the unjust effects of those laws was non-existent.

Third, their fundamental approach to the concept of the continuity of the Italian State confounds the notions of the state as a political entity with the state as a legal entity. The Italian state as a political entity exists whether it be just or not, because under this consideration the Italian state is the being in the political order, prior to all considerations of justice. But the Italian state as a legal entity is the entity which exists in virtue of the Italian constitution, and if that entity is illegitimate, then not only does not have the right to exist, it has never existed, because “to be illegal” directly contradicts its very principle of being as a legal entity.

Hence, the Court’s appeal to the necessity of continuity of the State is deceptive. They are making a claim about the legal entity which only has a basis in regard to the political entity.

What the Court should have done in 2014

The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court of 2014 can only have one reasonable and just effect, namely, that the Italian State as a legal entity must be entirely reconstituted, because it has not been constitutional since 1957. All the laws and modifications of the Constitution since 1957 are illegitimate, illegal, unlawful, unjust and non existent. The Italian Republic must be reconstituted again in the state it was in 1957 with new elections for parliament. That is what the Court should have ordered in 2014.

What is the effect of the irrational decision of the Court?

What the court has done is not only ultra vires, that is beyond its authority, but lacks all legitimacy in legal right. Because it violates the principle which says that the effects of what is just are just, and of what is unjust are unjust. The Court has attempted to intervene like a Leviathon or God and make what is unjust, just, what is evil, good.

In doing so the Court has attacked the Constitutional Order. It has committed grave fraud in the declaration of its sentence. It has enacted a Coup d’etat, or more precisely, has declared that if politicians violate the Constitution, they are immune from a crime. The only recourse, according to the Court, is that the crimes cease after it makes a decision, but what is obtained by the crime before its decision is legitimately obtained.

Thus the decision of the court has opened the door to tyranny. It has proclaimed that politicians can abuse the rights of the Citizens and violate the Constitution with impunity. It has declared this, because, in saying that there is no remedy to past injustices, it has given permission for all injustice and declared that the politicians who do such things are immune.

Conclusion

The sentence of the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic in 2014 demonstrates that there is no constitutional order in Italy. The Constitution was never observed for 71 years, and even the form in which it exists today is unconstitutional, being changed by illegitimate parliaments over the course of 7 decades.

Thus to speak to day of the necessity to proceed in a constitutional manner is simply absurd, unless it means returning to the status quo of 1957 and calling new elections.

And for this reason, I think that Giuseppe Conte, who is a lawyer, knows that his unconstitutional decrees were no great crime and would never result in any penalty to himself or his government. He knows that there is no constitution, and that the Italian People have been deceived for 7 decades. So what is wrong with open tyranny?

REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It might be argued that on account of Article 136, the Court had the right to sanitize the effects of past illegitimate laws and elections. But that Article says only that the norms of the laws which are declared unconstitutional cease to have effect the day after the sentence is handed down. It saying nothing about the power of the court to make just what took place before its sentence. What the Article means only regards future application of the law. Thus from the silence of Article 136 one cannot infer that the Court has the authority to make just what was unjust. Nor is there anything in the Constitution which grants such authority to the State.

REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It might be argued that the sovereignty of the people, being limited to its expression in the Constitution, makes recourse to any appeal to notions of right or justice from sources outside the constitution illegitimate. To this, I say, that to interpret this article in such a restrictive manner violates the principles of jurisprudence, which hold that restrictive norms must be have the lest effect possible, that is, interpreted in the sense which violates the rights of others in the least way. Thus, this article must simply be understood to affirm that the Constitution is the exercise of the sovereignty of the people when observed. And thus, when it is not observed, not only does Article 1 not impede the action of the people to seek justice, it guarantees it and grants it its absolute fundament in their right to a constitutional order.

REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It might be argued that since no recourse is possible to judgements of the Constitutional Court, no one can dispute its decision in 2014 and thus it is beyond the right of anyone to object to it. To this, I say, that not only does the decision of the court invalidate the principle that the justice of the effects flows from the justice of the cause, it also invalidates the Court’s own claim to hand down an unquestionable sentence, because the Court itself has declared that the very powers which constituted it were illegitimately elected and appointed. Thus no appeal to Article 137 can reasonably be made, because it refers to a Court which is constituted constitutionally and not to a Court which itself admits was composed in an unconstitutional manner.

+ + +

 

 

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

 

Benedict’s End Game is to save the Church from Freemasonry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Or, what Sherlock Holmes would say about the case of the Incongruous Renunciation

I have always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes, the fictional private detective in late Victorian England, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to popularize the new method of forensic investigation among the public police forces of his day.

As Sir Arthur writes in his Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important”.

This maxim is actually something the great Scholastic Theologians of the Catholic Church would readily agree too, because they held that every individual effect is marked by its causes.  Thus, every small detail about everything, says something about the causes of that detail. We have only to study the details to find the clues.

Here at the From Rome blog I have applied this method to the controversies over the vote rigging at the Conclave of 2013, which I have extensively examined. (You can see all the articles at The Chronology of Reports about “Team Bergoglio”), and to those about Benedict’s Renunciation (See the topical Index to Benedict’s Renunciation).

In this post, I want to share a lingering doubt I have about Benedict’s renunciation which I cannot shake, because it is seemingly confirmed by a host of details which have been overlooked by everyone, but which all point to the same conclusion, namely Benedict’s disgust with the College of Cardinals, not just as men, but as an institution.

Anomalies, Anomalies

As as translator of not a few Papal Bulls and Latin texts, when I examined the Latin of the Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, the first thing which struck me was the the phrase ab his quibus competit. This phrase stuck me, because in Latin, which is a Language which is eminently laconic, it is a lot easier to write ab Cardinalibus electoribus. Why say, that the new supreme pontiff is to be elected by those who are competent to do so, and not by the Cardinal electors?

This question grows with a sense of significance, when you realize that Pope Benedict, according to the testimony of Archbishop Gänswein, wrote the text himself. And even more so, when you consider he wrote this text to be read out in the presence of the Cardinals themselves! In the refined halls of power, such a statement is much more than a faux paux, it is a positive insult and reproof. It is as if he is saying that the Cardinal Electors are not competent to elect a supreme pontiff. It is even more like saying, that his successor will not be elected by Cardinals at all!

This one small detail is something over which Sherlock Holmes would have had a panic attack of brain storming, because it is so incongruous of a statement to make in such a situation as a papal resignation, that it has to have causes which are not yet so obvious but which are crucial to understanding what happened and why it happened and what it all means.

I get a lot of guff and criticism for my speculations at this blog, mostly from those who do not appreciate the forensic method or the power of observation. As a trained anthropologist I understand why they do not understand and I understand why they are wrong in being oblivious to small facts. I know from the history of Archeology that entire theories of explanation of ancient, long lost cultures, were over turned by the finding of a single artifact, or a common artifact in a bizarre position or location. So I know professionally, that the methodology of Sherlock Holmes is not a fictional fantasy, but a real life powerful method of investigation and discovery.

If you find one anomaly, look for others

A single anomaly is hard to interpret, because as the Scholastics say, the individual which is the sole member of its species cannot be understood in itself. This means that when you find one anomaly, you need to look for more evidence and try to seek its causes. Other anomalies are the most important things to find, because then they establish a network of causes which can reveal the true meaning behind each anomaly. This is because it is harder to hide something in everything, than in a single thing.

The second anomaly which I noticed as translator of the Declaratio is that the Vatican had falsified all the vernacular translations. I reported this in the Article, The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s Renunciation was invalid as written, and here is the proof. A brief summary translation of which, can be found in Italian at ChiesaRomana.info.

The obvious inference is that those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence. But the less obvious inference is that Benedict wrote a renunciation which was obviously invalid and they were trying to hide the obviousness of it. And from that we can safely infer that there was a conflict between Benedict and whom he knew or suspected would come into power after his resignation. This final inference supports an understanding of the first anomaly, that Benedict was calling the Cardinal electors incompetent to elect a supreme pontiff.

This leads to an understanding which like a key can be used to decode the Declaratio.  Now it is clear why Benedict calls himself the Successor of Saint Peter, but calls the one to be elected the new Supreme Pontiff. “Supreme” smacks of dictatorship and thus points to a Peronist. We can be certain that Benedict knew that Bergoglio was going to be elected because Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the previous conclave, and because Benedict was elected in opposition to Bergoglio. That opposition having crumbled in the College of Cardinals, it was obvious who would prevail. Benedict also as Pope had the resources of the Vatican spy network so he probably always knew what Bergoglio was up to prior to the conclave to suborn others and expand his power networks.  The recent history of the European Bishops’ Conference, written by the the Bishop of St Gallen, shows that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger knew well of the existence of the St Gallen Group even before 1992. So we can be sure that Ratzinger maintained a dossier on them and kept his eye on them.  We know now, that as Pope, most of his Pontificate was in preaching against the very errors, heresies and deviations which Bergoglio is now promoting. We know this by comparing what he was teaching with what Bergoglio is teaching, and it is a direct contradiction of it.

From all this, then, we can say decisively and with great certitude that the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender. I explained my theory about this in the Article entitled, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”.

And because this was its primary motivation, for it to be successful Benedict had to decide from the beginning to be extremely discrete and divulge his intention with no one, not even Gänswein. I have long thought that this inference was improbable, but I recently obtained proof that Pope Benedict does not tell his private secretary everything, in the video prepared by Bavarian State TV, entitled, Ein Besuch bei Papst Benedikt XVI. em. Klein Bayern im Vatikan, which aired on January 3 in Germany. For in that video, Benedict reveals that there are things in his office of which he never told the Archbishop. And the Archbishop expresses both surprise and dismay.

The Crown of all Anomalies

It was only, however, when I took it upon myself to examine the Latin text with the eye of a Latin teacher correcting the homework of a student, that I found the crown of all anomalies. Yes, I found more than 40 grammatical, syntactical and stylistic errors. So many that it seemed to me impossible a pope could write such a thing. Either he was handed it to be signed, or he wrote it in haste, or he intentionally made it sloppy Latin to conceal something from obvious view.  For, if you have ever watched British TV, and were a fan of Doctor Who, then you know, that the best place to hide a key is on a wall designed to hang dozens of keys, for there you can not only hide it in plain view, but hide it in such a way that it cannot be found or stolen.

And thus I was led to infer that Benedict was hiding something in the text, something more than just an invalid resignation of ministerium instead of munus. So I re-read the text and looked for anomalies, and now I wish to speak openly of what I found, of which I did not speak openly before in my Articles entitled, Clamorous Errors in the Latin Text of the Renunciation and A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says.

And Benedict hid this anomaly right up front, in the place you would least expect to hide anything. I refer to the very first sentence of the Declaratio:

Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem.

As I said before, I have always thought it significant that Pope Benedict was promoting the study of Saint Bonaventure’s Scholastic Theology more and more during the later years of his Pontificate. That Doctor of the Church is an expert on the interpretation of textual statements. But that Doctor of the Church has his own way of using Latin. So being the translator of his Commentarii in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, I just happened to have a great familiarity with the Latin of Bonaventure. And that made me see something of which I think no other has taken notice.

It is the word decisionem.

Latinists were focusing on the word immediately prior to this, vobis, because the Latin verb communicem takes an object with the preposition cum and thus requires vobiscum not vobis.

They then proceeded to simply fault Benedict for his poor choice of words, in writing decisionem instead of consilium. And in my critique I reported their opinions of this matter.

But what I did not report is my shock at the seeing the word decisionem, because in the writings of Bonaventure this word always means a “cutting off”, and has the sense of an amputation or pruning, as is done to a vine. Recall that in Scripture, Our Lord Himself says that He has to occasionally prune His people to take away dead branches and promote regrowth and fruitfulness. If you know anything about Joseph Ratzinger, then you know that as a theologian he likes to weave discourses around the meanings of Biblical images and words. Thus, one is led to the conclusion that he chose decisionem for reasons more significant than apparent.

If you combine that meaning with vobis and ignore the presumption that the latter was intended as vobiscum, the entire meaning of the sentence changes to something so radically unexpected, that only one having unraveled the chain of inferences and made a study of the anomalies in the text could possibly be prepared to accept that Benedict might indeed have meant that which the Latin actually says. Which is as follows:

Not only for the sake of three acts of canonizations, have I called you to this Consistory, but also for the sake of the life of the Church to communicate something of great importance: your being cut off.

As I just said, this reading seems incredible, but it explains all the anomalies which I have heretofore found in the text and in the history of the Renunciation. The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution.

We know now, seven years on, that the College of Cardinals has shown perfect compliance with the Freemasonic regime of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and even its most conservative Cardinals have pledged unswerving loyalty to that regime. We also know that it has been a century long project of Freemasonry to infiltrate the College so as to take over the Catholic Church from the top down. We also know that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI were well informed by Saints and private revelations of the coming battle with the Anti-Church and False Prophet. Finally, we know that both collaborated decisively to renew the canonical penalties of excommunication against Freemasons in the Church (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Nov. 26 1983.) in forma specifica, that is, in the most solemn and authoritative manner of an express Papal approbation of a notice given the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

It makes sense, then, if you know a key fort containing the greatest treasure of your kingdom is going to fall to the enemy, because of a complete treachery and rebellion of the military commanders holding it for you, the wisest council is to allow it to fall, without advising those commanders, while secretly removing the treasure, so that they are deceived in thinking they have triumphed and so that your removal of the treasure can be conducted in safety and during the confusion of their gleeful and exuberant seizing of the fort.

And this is what it seems Benedict did and intended to do. It also explains why Benedict acts the way he does and refuses to clarify his situation. Why he does not even take the Archbishop into his confidence. It also explains a lot of other things, which did not seem entirely anomalous before. For example, in his final year of pontificate, he made both Muller and Ganswein Archbishops, but not Cardinals, as if for his closest of friends he somehow did not want them to be members of that College.

If all these observations and inferences are correct, then one can with great probity conclude that it is the intention of Pope Benedict that after his earthly demise, that the Church of Rome, and not the College of Cardinals, who are held fast in a solidarity of dissent with Bergoglio, elect his successor: a thing about which I speculated about in my Article, Whether with all the Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope? And a thing of which even Pope John Paul II alludes in a most cryptic manner in the papal law on conclaves in his introduction, where he says, that it is a well established fact that a conclave of Cardinals is not necessary for a valid election of a Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, Introduction, paragraph 9).

Indeed, a study of the history of papal renunciations and the canons of the Church shows, that it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical possibility of an invalid renunciation in the case of a pope who renounced something other than the petrine munus! A very small alteration, but one which not only prevented the office from being shared, according to the loony and heretical speculations of German theologians, but allowed a Roman Pontiff to give the appearance of a valid resignation, so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church.

Now all this seems absurdly immoral, but in truth it is neither illegal nor illicit. For since the man who is the pope has the canonical right to renounce the petrine munus, it follows ex maiore that he has the moral right to renounce anything less than the munus. In cases of grave threat, he also has the moral right to dissimulate. Thus by renouncing the ministerium, not the munus, Pope Benedict posited an act which power hungry men without respect for the law or for the truth or for the person of the pope, would overlook during their rush to convene an invalid conclave. And thus their own fault and sin and haste would result in their canonical separation from the Church through an act of schism and usurpation. Yet, by renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, as required by Canon Law, Pope Benedict left sufficient evidence for all the Catholic faithful in the world to discover the truth, a thing of which he was confident they could do, because the quasi soul of the true Church is the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Inspirer of all truth, Who guides His faithful always to and in the truth.

In this way, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have acted with great foresight and angelic prudence over the last 4 decades to enable that the Office of Saint Peter pass, not through the hands of men who have betrayed Christ en masse, but through the hands of the faithful of the Church of Rome, who precisely on account of their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of law, recognize what he has done and why he has done it.

 + + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00