Tag Archives: John Paul II
Why I think Paul VI and John Paul II are more likely damned, than Saints
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI struck down one of the biggest lies and frauds of the post-conciliar era. A lie which stood for nearly 33 years, unopposed by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.*
That lie was perpetrated by the Congregation for Divine Worship, on October 28, 1974, when it declared that the new Missal of Paul VI obrogated — that is legally replaced — the former Missale Romanum in force since the time of Saint Pius V in the 16th century.
And that lie, was no small lie.
It was used to persecuted millions of Catholics for 33 years, without one word or peep from the Vatican.
And that was not only a lie, it was a lie in written form to sustain a fraud, namely, that Paul VI had used papal power, and not nude force, to alter the worship of the Roman Church.
And that fraud was not only a fraud in itself, but a sacrilege against Holy Mother Church and the Faithful of Christ. Because that fraud was used to deprive them of the immemorial Mass and undermine the faith, devotion, spirituality and personal religious traditions and practices and sentiments and prayer life of 100s of millions of Catholics.
In sum, this lie, was no small sin, but one of cosmic, Satanic proportions.
And for that reason, those who knew of it, had a duty to strike it down, regardless of their political agenda.
But neither Paul VI nor John Paul II, both of whom had long enough pontificates to do this, did this.
And to tolerate injustice, when with a single word you could bring injustice to an end, is the most knavish and disgraceful behavior in any human person, more so in a man, who has the natural vocation to be a father, and even more so in a man of God who receives a solemn and divine obligation to shepherd the flock of Christ entrusted to him.
There can be no excuse for such negligence. And though we cannot judge the person of the pope, who has an office which places him above the judgement of all men, we can judge the acts of popes, when the deviate from the moral norm.
This being the case, such a negligence it totally incompatible with Sainthood, as every sane Catholic can see. Because if it is a mortal sin to rob $20 from another man, who is poor, as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori teaches, how much more is it a sin to rob the Roman Mass from the Faithful of the Roman Catholic Church throughout all the word, and this for 33 years!
The battle against Benedict XVI, according to many commentators, began in earnest with the publication of Summorum Pontificum. Since February 2013, those who benefited most from that decree are the most glaringly ungrateful for the Holy Father’s justice. They even go so far as to condemn him, who restored their rights.
But I believe the justice of God on the last day will totally vindicate Pope Benedict XVI for this great act of rectification. For God is Truth and all the servants of Truth find merit before His throne.
Contrariwise, what are we to think of Paul VI and John Paul II for this sin of omission which cried out to heaven for 33 years.
I believe it is not improbable to conclude, that having never rectified it, and having had the time to do so, they could not possibly have died as friends of the God of Truth and Justice, Who is the Good Shepherd, Who gave His life for His sheep.
This consideration becomes more probable, when we reflect on the truth that the Mass comes from Christ, through the Hands of the Apostles and is protected and enriched through the working of the Holy Ghost and the Saints. Therefore, the magnitude of pride and presumption and disdain that you have to muster in your heart to attack it and replace it with the mealy and distorted handiwork of a committee is extraordinary and monstrous, and cannot be reconciled with all that the Faith teaches us about how God regards those who attack His handiworks.
The above consideration is not invalidated by acts of canonization by someone who has no claim to the papacy himself.* Indeed, when the godless canonize anyone, we cannot be sure that they do it for honest motives, they may be merely revering the acts of other godless men.
+ + +
CREDITS: The Featured Image shows Pope Paul VI place the Cardinal’s hat upon Karol Wotyla.
FOOTNOTES:
* Paul VI and John Paul II were “canonized” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who claims to be Pope Francis, despite having no canonical argument that the renunciation of Benedict XVI was valid. (see more here)
The Death of Pope John Paul I
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Remember, that Pope John Paul I had been the Patriarch of Venice, and he was elected primarly because the Church Bank which served the priests and religious of his region of Italy had been brought to bankrupcy by the Vatican Bank. He promised as Pope to clean up the Vatican Bank, and if he went ahead he would have surely discovered who had accounts in that bank. If those accounts belonged to the CIA or its operations, his elimination would become a political necessity. So let us examine what happened to Pope John Paul I, widely seen as the liberal successor to Paul VI.
First let us review the official Vatican line of what happened and why. Please listen to the entire Rome Reports, which can always be counted on to give you the approved narrative on any topic.
Who is John Magee mentioned in this short video? the papal a secretary who met with Pope John Paul I when, it is said, he felt a strong chest pain? His biography sheds some light on this. He was befriended by Pope Paul VI, who leading Italian historians say was a flagarant sodomite. And once a bishop, Magee was accused of not taking proper legal action to about priests in his diocese who raped boys. Magee also seems to have been close to the IRA, in the person of Bobby Sands.
Why may this been important? Because the IRA seems to have been one of the stay-behind organizations run and supported by the CIA, which in popular literature is called operation Gladio, though that was the code name only for the operations in Italy.
Thus, there is strong motive to believe that John Magee was a CIA operative. And if so, the heart-attack of Pope John Paul I may have not been an accident. Indeed, as Corbett reports, the death of John Paul I was orchestrated by a CIA asset, at the direction of Dulles’ deep state intelligence network. Dulles’ nephew was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II, whose election was made possible by the death of John Paul I, and who himself went one to collaborate with the CIA to wash funds to the Solidarity movement in Poland, to bring down the communist government.
As far as we are concerned about current events in the Vatican, involving the St. Gallen Mafia, I have previously observed that John Paul II promoted all the key members of that group to the dignity of the Cardinalate, from the leader Cardinal Daneels to Cardinal Bergoglio. This may explain why Bergoglio was so willing to canonize John Paul II, and may also explain why the entire political establishment of the West and Trad inc. continues to refuse any investigation into how Bergoglio came to power.
Please note, that I am not saying that the CIA has been controlling the Vatican for decades, but I think the question needs to be kept on the table.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Bishop Gracida and the Magisterium of the Church on Patients’ rights to food and hydration
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Many Catholics in the Church, right now, are extremely worried and upset at the ongoing apostasy and silence of nearly the entire Catholic Hierarchy. Many believe that we have entered the Great Apostasy, foretold by Saint John the Apostle in the Book of the Apocalypse.
But there is one Bishop who gives the faithful hope, by his words and example: the Most Rev. René Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi. This is because, since February 2013, he has been an outspoken critique of the Resignation of Pope Benedict, the election of Jorge Bergoglio and the consistent heretical and erratic behavior of that man. You can read his writings and musings at his blog, Abyssum.org.
Narrative controlled Catholic Media have concealed from nearly the entire Church the strong Catholic stance of Bishop Gracida, who has not only written many Cardinals and Bishops urging a canonical investigation into the election irregularities perpetrated before and during the Conclave of 2013, but has publicly supported calls for an Imperfect Synod, publicly condemned Bergoglio for his idolatry in the Vatican Gardens, and holds that Bergoglio should be tried for heresy.
FromRome.Info as a truly Catholic Media Outlet praises Bishop Gracida for acting as all Bishops and Cardinals should act, and urges all Cardinals and Bishops to do the same! We should constantly encourage and reprove Bishops who are not doing their duty in this most urgent crisis in the Church, in which the Catholic party should prove itself by at least doing what Bishop Gracida has done.
But since Bishop Gracida is not so well known, let me first relate a little of his personal history, and then explain how the teaching of the Church on Patients’ Rights, as regards nutrition and hydration, was formulated thanks to Bishop Gracida’s defense of the Deposit of the Faith on the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue: Thou shalt not kill.
It all began in Louisiana
René Henry Gracida was born on June 9, 1923, nearly a 100 years ago, in New Orleans. His father was an engineer and architect of Mexican descent, and his mother a 5th generation Cajun lass. His great uncle was a vicar general of a diocese in Mexico and rather well know for his strictness in matters of religion.
In 1942, he went to college at Rice University, in Houston, and signed up with the U.S. Army Corp Air Reserve, to anticipate being drafted. He was called to active duty in the Summer of 1943.
The future Bishop became a tail gunner in the 303 Hell’s Angels Air Expeditionary Bomber Group, the most active Bomber Group in the US Military during the war. It became active in February 1942, and flew more than 75 combat missions.
If you know anything about Areal Warfare during the Second World War, then you know how horrific, harrowing, and down right terrifying it was for men to fly Bomber missions through enemy territory and relatively undefended from German Fighter plans and Flak attacks. Each mission was a possible no return.
After the War, he studied at the University of Fribourg, in Switzerland, and the University of Houston, where he earned a degree in Architecture.
Under the Rule of Saint Benedict of Nursia . . .
Then the grace of God hit him. — Having read the lives of the Jesuit Martyrs as a youth, and familiarized himself with the life of Saint Benedict of Nursia, he decided to become a monk and dedicate himself to the divine service of God. — So you can imagine how his father, who disliked his own uncle for that reason, reacted when his son revealed he wanted to follow Saint Benedict and become a Monk!
He entered the Benedictine Order in 1951, and went on to study at St. Vincent’s College and St Vincent Seminary, in Latrobe, PA, where he earned a Masters in Divinity. He took solemn vows in 1956 and became a Deacon in 1958.
He was ordained a Priest on May 23, 1959, at the age of 36, just before the Second Vatican Council opened.
Following reprisals for a sincere critique of his Abbots plan for a new Monastery, he separated from the Benedictine Order and was accepted as a priest in the Diocese of Miami, which had need of an Architect. He was incardinated there in 1961, and on account of his faithful service to the Church was nominated by Pope Paul VI, on Dec. 6, 1971, as Auxiliary of the Diocese.
In the footsteps of the Apostles . . .
He was consecrated Bishop, on January 25, 1972. — That means, in just 2 days, he will celebrate the 48th anniversary of his episcopal consecration!
On account of his being consecrated by Archbishop Dearden, he traces his episcopal lineage back to Saint Pius X, and then to Popes Clement XIII, Benedict XIV and Benedict XIII.
He was so highly respected as an administrator of God’s House that Pope Paul VI promoted him to the Bishopric of Pensacola-Talahasse in 1975. Pope John Paul II, in 1983, then promoted him again to the Bishopric of Corpus Christi, Texas, where he served until his retirement for reasons of health at nearly 74 years of age, in 1997.
As Bishop of Corpus Christi he was known for his refusal of communion to public sinners. He also published a pastoral letter rebuking all the other Bishops of Texas for their official public statement on Patient’s Rights, in which they taught that food and water could in some circumstances be denied patients.
In response, Bishop Gracida, in full fidelity to his duty as a Successor of the Apostles, published a public Letter correcting the errors of his brother Bishops, on May 25, 1990.
The doctrine he handed down would be taken up by Pope John Paul II in 2004 and affirmed as the official position of the Catholic Church on the right of patients to food and hydration.
For your edification, I share here, with the permission of His Excellency, the text of his Pastoral Letter of 1990.
A Dissent From the ‘Interim Pastoral Statement on Artificial Nutrition and Hydration’
Authored By: Bishop Gracida
INTERIM PASTORAL STATEMENT ON ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
Bishop Rene H. Gracida
A Dissent From The “Interim Pastoral Statement On Artificial Nutrition And Hydration” Issued By The Texas Conference Of Catholic Health Facilities And Some Of The Bishops Of Texas
Recently the Texas Catholic Conference in Austin released the final text of the document approved by the Texas Catholic Conference of Health Facilities and sixteen of the twenty-one Bishops of Texas. I had declined to sign the document because I consider it to be seriously flawed.
It seems to me that the document gives a higher priority to efforts to relieve the burden caused by a serious illness rather than efforts to protect the sick person’s right to life. The document deals with the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from a seriously ill patient.
This whole matter is one which is being debated by the legal and medical professions as well as by theologians and ethicists. The Holy See has this whole controversial area of morality under review and will undoubtedly issue a major declaration on the subject sometime in the next year or two.
In the meantime, I would have preferred to see my fellow Bishops of Texas issue a document which would have made a stronger statement in support of the sick person’s right to receive food and drink as the basic necessities of life.
My specific objections to the text of the statement which was recently made public, are:
1. In the title and throughout the text, the phrase “artificial nutrition and hydration” is used. This is inaccurate: the food and water used are not artificial. It is medically appropriate to speak of “artificially assisted nutrition and hydration.” It is the mode of assistance that is artificial.
2. Under “Basic Moral Principles” the Declaration on Euthanasia is used selectively. As the title of that document indicates, one must begin with a rejection of euthanasia—defined by the Declaration as “an action or an order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.”
Only “after” one has established that an omission of care or treatment is not directly intended to bring about death should one turn to the complex task of assessing benefits and burdens. The question of intention is central here: If the removal of a life-sustaining procedure is intended to avoid an unreasonable burden of the procedure, so that a quicker death is only an unintended side-effect of the decision, it is not a case of euthanasia.
3. Also not treated here is the question whether artificially assisted feeding may be classified as “normal care” rather than “treatment.” The “Declaration” says normal care must be provided even when one has removed “forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life” for an imminently dying patient.
Whether tube feeding may constitute “normal care” is not currently resolved by the magisterium; three non-magisterial bodies (Pontifical Council Cor Unum, editorial board of La Civilta Cattolica, and a working group of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have issued statements answering the question in the affirmative. If tube feeding has some aspects of “normal care,” this would strengthen the presumption in favor of providing it in most cases.
4. The inclusion of burdens on “others—family, care provider, or community”—is more broadly stated than in existing Church documents. The Declaration on Euthanasia speaks of the “patient himself” validly making a self-sacrificing decision not to burden other: when those “others” are the agents making the decision, other factors (including the Golden Rule) come into play.
“All” long-term care for seriously impaired patients is a “burden” on the community, but it may be a burden that has to be willingly shouldered: “The respect, the dedication, the time and means required for the care of handicapped persons, even of those whose mental faculties are gravely affected, is the price that a society should generously pay in order to remain truly human” (Document of the Holy See for the International Year of Disabled Persons, 1981.)
5. The phrase about “investment in medical technology and personnel disproportionate to the expected results” is taken from a paragraph in the Declaration on Euthanasia that concerns “the most advanced medical techniques,” especially those “at the experimental stage.” This document applies the phrases to life-supporting means generally.
6. I know of no Church document that says treatment is disproportionate when it involves “inequitable resource allocation.” This could be a broad loophole for communities saying that severely impaired persons are not worth the money. The phrase should be clarified or deleted.
7. The restrictive statement that “maintenance of life” is a benefit only when it involves reasonable hop of recovery” could ground discriminatory withholding of life preserving means from people with incurable disabilities.
It vitiates the principle that everyone has the same basic “right to life” regardless of age or condition, which in Catholic social teaching means that every person has the same basic right to the necessities that sustain life. Life is “always a good.” How can it be a good without being a benefit?
8. The equation between “foregoing” and “withdrawing” is an oversimplification. What of cases where initiation of tube feeding entails the transient risks and burdens of minor surgery under general or local anesthesia, but its maintenance does not involve these burdens? Must this change in the burden/benefit calculus be ignored?
9. The claim that the NCCB Pro-Life Committee came to the “same conclusion” is overstated. The Committee’s chief message was rejection of any efforts at “intentionally hastening the deaths of vulnerable patients by starvation or dehydration”; as was said in point #2 above, the text under consideration does not have this focus.
Also, the Pro-Life Committee document clearly supports tube feeding that can “effectively preserve ‘life’ without involving too grave a burden”; the present draft, as noted above, judges effectiveness in terms of preserving “life with reasonable hope of recovery,” which is a different standard.
10. The question of “cause of death” is a major open question in the current debate. This text overstates the importance of that question, because traditional moral teaching puts great weight on “intention.”
It also understates the causal role of an omission of nutrition and hydration in hastening death, in cases where a patient could have survived in a medically stable condition for years with continued feeding. The phrase “proximate physical means” is obscure, and should have been replaced by “proximate physical cause of death.” One can recognize that the omission is the proximate cause leading to death, while reaffirming that the hastening of death is “praeter intentionem” in some cases.
11. The claim that all these decisions are made “by the patients themselves and by no one else” is not supported in the Church documents. The Declaration says “account will have to be taken of the ‘reasonable’ wishes of the wishes of the patient ‘and the patient’s family,’ as also of ‘the advice of the doctors’ who are specially competent in the matter.”
In cases of doubt “it pertains to the conscience either of the sick person, ‘or’ of the doctors, to decide, in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case.” In the Declaration a major “moral obligation” binding on “all” decision makers is the rejection of euthanasia by action or omission. Theses qualifications are all absent from (even explicitly rejected by) the document.
12. To say the “morally appropriate” withdrawal of tubal feeding is not “abandoning the person” is a truism. It is equally true to say: “The morally inappropriate withdrawal of tube feeding ‘is’ abandonment of the person.”
This leaves us nowhere, because the text gives no guidelines on when the burdens of artificially assisted feeding are grave enough to render this means optional (except for the overboard standard cited above that whatever the patient says is right).
13. The statement that the patient should not be impeded from “taking the final step” has an ominous sound to it; it might give the impression that hastening death can be directly intended. A phrase like “accepting the inevitability of death ” would have been better.
14. The phrase “threat ‘of’ life” on page 5, line 19 is, I hope, a misprint for “threat ‘to’ life.” The presumption seems to be that death from a life-threatening condition is the “normal consequence” that should occur, and one needs a special reason to “impede” this “normal” state of affairs.
The burden of proof should go the other way: We have a “prima facie” obligation to save someone’s life unless there is a special reason (e.g., ineffectiveness, grave burdensomeness) not to do so. One senses here a very passive model for human action in the world in cases of preventable death—one that does not comport well with the stated “presumption” in favor of averting death.
15. The document as a whole should have distinguished more clearly between two classes of patients: Those who are dying soon no matter what we do for them (e.g., terminal cancer patient), and those who are medically stable and are “not” dying if provided with continued nutrients and fluids.
A much more permissive standard is possible for the former class of patients, for whom continued feeding may become strictly useless in prolonging life. A strong presumption could be established in favor of life-sustaining feeding for the latter class, rebuttable in cases of excessive burden.
A strong presumption here is especially important because, in some celebrated cases, tube feeding has apparently been withdrawn from the latter class of patients precisely because they are “not” dying and someone wants death to occur (see ACLU brief in the Hector Rodas case, cautionary statements by ethicist Daniel Callahan, and concurring opinion by Judge Lynn Compton in the Elizabeth Bouvia case).
This statement was published in the May 25, 1990 edition of the Corpus Christi “Diocesan Press.”
Here follows the teaching of Pope John Paul II, on the same issue:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
ON “LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE:
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS”
Saturday, 20 March 2004
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
1. I cordially greet all of you who took part in the International Congress: “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas”. I wish to extend a special greeting to Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vice-President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and to Prof. Gian Luigi Gigli, President of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and selfless champion of the fundamental value of life, who has kindly expressed your shared feelings.
This important Congress, organized jointly by the Pontifical Academy for Life and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, is dealing with a very significant issue: the clinical condition called the “vegetative state”. The complex scientific, ethical, social and pastoral implications of such a condition require in-depth reflections and a fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue, as evidenced by the intense and carefully structured programme of your work sessions.
2. With deep esteem and sincere hope, the Church encourages the efforts of men and women of science who, sometimes at great sacrifice, daily dedicate their task of study and research to the improvement of the diagnostic, therapeutic, prognostic and rehabilitative possibilities confronting those patients who rely completely on those who care for and assist them. The person in a vegetative state, in fact, shows no evident sign of self-awareness or of awareness of the environment, and seems unable to interact with others or to react to specific stimuli.
Scientists and researchers realize that one must, first of all, arrive at a correct diagnosis, which usually requires prolonged and careful observation in specialized centres, given also the high number of diagnostic errors reported in the literature. Moreover, not a few of these persons, with appropriate treatment and with specific rehabilitation programmes, have been able to emerge from a vegetative state. On the contrary, many others unfortunately remain prisoners of their condition even for long stretches of time and without needing technological support.
In particular, the term permanent vegetative state has been coined to indicate the condition of those patients whose “vegetative state” continues for over a year. Actually, there is no different diagnosis that corresponds to such a definition, but only a conventional prognostic judgment, relative to the fact that the recovery of patients, statistically speaking, is ever more difficult as the condition of vegetative state is prolonged in time.
However, we must neither forget nor underestimate that there are well-documented cases of at least partial recovery even after many years; we can thus state that medical science, up until now, is still unable to predict with certainty who among patients in this condition will recover and who will not.
3. Faced with patients in similar clinical conditions, there are some who cast doubt on the persistence of the “human quality” itself, almost as if the adjective “vegetative” (whose use is now solidly established), which symbolically describes a clinical state, could or should be instead applied to the sick as such, actually demeaning their value and personal dignity. In this sense, it must be noted that this term, even when confined to the clinical context, is certainly not the most felicitous when applied to human beings.
In opposition to such trends of thought, I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a “vegetable” or an “animal”.
Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a “vegetative state” retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of help.
4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.
The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
The obligation to provide the “normal care due to the sick in such cases” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that “by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain”; such an act is always “a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person” (n. 65).
Besides, the moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person’s death.
5. Considerations about the “quality of life”, often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles.
First of all, no evaluation of costs can outweigh the value of the fundamental good which we are trying to protect, that of human life. Moreover, to admit that decisions regarding man’s life can be based on the external acknowledgment of its quality, is the same as acknowledging that increasing and decreasing levels of quality of life, and therefore of human dignity, can be attributed from an external perspective to any subject, thus introducing into social relations a discriminatory and eugenic principle.
Moreover, it is not possible to rule out a priori that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, as reported by authoritative studies, is the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures. Modern clinical neurophysiology and neuro-imaging techniques, in fact, seem to point to the lasting quality in these patients of elementary forms of communication and analysis of stimuli.
6. However, it is not enough to reaffirm the general principle according to which the value of a man’s life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men; it is necessary to promote the taking of positive actions as a stand against pressures to withdraw hydration and nutrition as a way to put an end to the lives of these patients.
It is necessary, above all, to support those families who have had one of their loved ones struck down by this terrible clinical condition. They cannot be left alone with their heavy human, psychological and financial burden. Although the care for these patients is not, in general, particularly costly, society must allot sufficient resources for the care of this sort of frailty, by way of bringing about appropriate, concrete initiatives such as, for example, the creation of a network of awakening centres with specialized treatment and rehabilitation programmes; financial support and home assistance for families when patients are moved back home at the end of intensive rehabilitation programmes; the establishment of facilities which can accommodate those cases in which there is no family able to deal with the problem or to provide “breaks” for those families who are at risk of psychological and moral burn-out.
Proper care for these patients and their families should, moreover, include the presence and the witness of a medical doctor and an entire team, who are asked to help the family understand that they are there as allies who are in this struggle with them. The participation of volunteers represents a basic support to enable the family to break out of its isolation and to help it to realize that it is a precious and not a forsaken part of the social fabric.
In these situations, then, spiritual counselling and pastoral aid are particularly important as help for recovering the deepest meaning of an apparently desperate condition.
7. Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, in conclusion I exhort you, as men and women of science responsible for the dignity of the medical profession, to guard jealously the principle according to which the true task of medicine is “to cure if possible, always to care”.
As a pledge and support of this, your authentic humanitarian mission to give comfort and support to your suffering brothers and sisters, I remind you of the words of Jesus: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt 25: 40).
In this light, I invoke upon you the assistance of him, whom a meaningful saying of the Church Fathers describes as Christus medicus, and in entrusting your work to the protection of Mary, Consoler of the sick and Comforter of the dying, I lovingly bestow on all of you a special Apostolic Blessing.
Thus, Pope John Paul II.
I think that what Bishop Gracida did for the weak and suffering and elderly has the blessing of God. For in the Old Testament, the care of the elderly has a blessing: Honor thy father and thy mother, and thou shalt have a long life on the land. Bishop Gracida is nearly 97 years of age, and is still a staunch defender of the Holy Catholic Faith. We owe him our support.
_________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is of Bishop Gracida and Pope John Paul II during a meeting in Poland. The text of John Paul II’s Address is from the Vatican Website. The Text of the Bishops Pastoral Letter can today be found on the website of EWTN. The Image of the Bomber Group Logo is in the public domain.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
How usurpation of the Papacy leads to the excommunication of the participating Cardinal Electors and Bishops
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Canon 359 expressly withdraws authority from the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope, when the Papal Office is still retained by another: there being no sede vacante. To call a conclave when there is still a true Pope, thus, is illicit. To elect another is to participate actively and immediately in the crime of the usurpation of the Papal Office.
Usurpation is the crime whereby someone without a legitimate claim, lays hold upon or claims an office which is not his. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Usurpation is discussed under several canons, usurpation of office in canon 1381.
Though the crime of usurping the papacy is not named in the code expressly — since it has not occurred for centuries, those participating in such a crime can still be excommunicated latae sententiae out of the consequences of such an act, and this in two ways: 1) by the Anti-Pope ordaining bishops and collaborating with him in that, 2) by the crime of schism.
The first regards the crime of usurpation itself in the act of ordaining Bishops.
The worse crime of usurpation mentioned explicitly in the code is in canon 1382:
Can. 1382 — A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Pope John Paul II cited this canon to declare that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was excommunicate on account of his ordination of their 4 Bishops. Bergoglio cited this same canon to “excommunicate” Bishop Williamson, after he was reconciled by Pope Benedict XVI, who undid John Paul II’s excommunication.
This applies to Anti-Popes, inasmuch as not being the legitimate successors of Saint Peter, their ordaining of Bishops is without true pontifical mandate. It also applies to Bishops who ordain those nominated by Bergoglio, since they too have no true pontifical mandate to act.
Accomplices of both are also punished by the same punishment, as is clear from canon 1329.
Can. 1329 — §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.
§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.
Since the excommunication leveled in canon 1382 takes place immediately without the necessity of any public declaration by any authority, in accord with Canon 1329 §2 all the Cardinals involved in the uncanonical election of an Anti-Pope are also ipso facto excommunicated, since they participate intimately and immediately in his claim to exercise the pontifical mandate.
While it can be argued that those in substantial error as to the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation ought not be excommunicated, because they had good will, they must confront canon 15, which says in § 2: Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed. Thus, as soon as any Cardinal Elector sees that Benedict resigned the ministerium, not the munus, and that Canon 322 §2 requires the resignation munus — all the while refusing to repudiate the validity of that resignation — he becomes indisputably culpable of the usurpation of the Papal office by way of consent to uphold Bergoglio’s claim to exercise the pontifical mandate, and as such, merits punishment under canons 1382 and 1329 §2.
The second way to excommunication latae sententiae, is through the crime of schism.
Cardinals and Bishops participating in supporting an Anti-Pope are also involved in the crime of schism, since they formally separate themselves from communion to the true Pope. Thus they are also subject to excommunication from canon
Can. 1364 — §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Thus, the controversy over the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation becomes one of the greatest import for Catholics, to know who is truly their pastors and who are truly schismatics and excommunicates. This is not a joking matter, and any Cardinal or Bishop who treats it as such, should be sternly reminded of such.
Presumption and Silence
Finally, it needs to be pointed out, that whereas there is a presumption of validity of every Conclave, in the event of the death of the Roman Pontiff, however, in the case of a papal resignation, there is no such presumption, and since it is the grave duty of the Cardinals to act in accord with Canon Law in the election of the Roman Pontiff, they had the grave and solemn duty to verify that the resignation of Pope Benedict was in conformity with Canon 332 §2. If they did verify that, why have they never admitted to having verified it? And if they did not, they ostensibly become culpable of usurpation out of negligence in so grave a duty.
Indeed, the Vatican is full of Doctors of Canon Law, but to my knowledge neither in February of 2013 nor in the following six years, as any Canon Lawyer from the Vatican published any study showing that Non solum propter effects a valid resignation in conformity to canon 322 §2. Nor does it seem that anyone in the Diplomatic Corps asked the Vatican for such a verification.* Nor does it seem that the Italian Government, bound by the Lateran Treaty to uphold only constitutional governments in the Vatican, ever asked for such a verification or explanation. — If this be true, its of the gravest indications that the resignation was never put to any kind of rational scrutiny, but was presumed to be valid by a bunch of giddy men who wanted Benedict out of the way.
For my Scholastic Disputation on the Papal Act of February 11, 2013, see here in English, and here in Spanish translation. For a summary of the Canonical Argument against validity, see Veri Catholici, here in English, and here in Italian translation.
___________
Image Credits: Getty Images, Conclave of March 2013.
* For example, Eduard Hapsburg, the Ambassador of Hungary to the Vatican, recently insulted Catholics who question the validity of the resignation. But when asked for a verification of the resignation, remained utterly silent.
If Ivereigh is to be believed, was Bergoglio’s election invalid?
London, Nov. 25, 2014 — A remarkable letter to the editor, if ever there was one. A denial, which draws more attention, than the matter would otherwise merit. In today’s Daily Telegraph Letter’s Page, print edition, Maggie Doherty, the press-secretary to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, denies a key fact in the reporting by Austen Ivereigh, a British journalist who just published a book exposing a concerted effort among Cardinals of the Roman Church to canvass for votes on behalf of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in the days prior to the Conclave of March 2013, which elected the latter as successor to Pope Benedict XVI. The on-line edition of the Telegraph has a short story about this, by John Bingham, which opens thus:
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the former leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, helped to orchestrate a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign which led to the election of Pope Francis, a new biography claims.
The Election of Pope Francis has seen a great deal more publicity than any in modern times, especially concerning the remarkable novelty of revelations coming from Cardinals themselves — remarkable, since according to papal law, to make such revelations is punished by automatic excommunication!
The papal law is Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the Feats of the Chair of St. Peter, February 22, 1996 A.D.. The key paragraphs regarding this excommunication are as follows:
- Those who, in accordance with the prescriptions of No. 46 of the present Constitution, carry out any functions associated with the election, and who directly or indirectly could in any way violate secrecy — whether by words or writing, by signs or in any other way — are absolutely obliged to avoid this, lest they incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
- In particular, the Cardinal electors are forbidden to reveal to any other person, directly or indirectly, information about the voting and about matters discussed or decided concerning the election of the Pope in the meetings of Cardinals, both before and during the time of the election. This obligation of secrecy also applies to the Cardinals who are not electors but who take part in the General Congregations in accordance with No. 7 of the present Constitution.
However, today’s denial regards another requirement of the papal law, regarding Conclaves: the express prohibition of canvassing for votes prior to the commencement of the Conclave. John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution of 1996 makes that a high-crime, punishable by automatic excommunication.
- The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
- I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
- With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.
The Reason for the Press-Secretary’s Denial is now manifest
If Maggie Doherty had not gone to the lengths of issuing a denial in such language, I would never have taken notice. But now that she has, having consulted the papal law on Conclaves, it appears manifest why she has. If Austen Ivereigh’s book contains verifiable evidence that any of the Cardinals who voted for Jorge Mario Bergoglio canvassed for votes in the manner forbidden, especially if he tacitly consented to this, then by that very fact (ipso facto) they fell under the penalty of excommunication in the same moment they agreed to do such and/or did such. And, if Bergoglio tacitly agreed (that is, had knowledge, and consented without opposing what they were doing), then he, too, would have been excommunicated prior to the Conclave.
Does this mean that the Papal election was invalid?
But if what Austen Ivereigh alleges, did happen, would the election of Pope Francis be null and void? The grounds for this are entirely different from those alleged in Antonio Socci’s best-selling book in Italy, Non è Francesco, (He is not Francis: i.e. he should not be called Pope Francis), which is based on the fact that on March 13, 2013, Bergoglio was elected by 5 votes, when the papal law only allows 4. Or the challenge now being brought in the Petition to the College of Cardinals, which regards 3 canonical questions which arise from the violations of the penalties imposed by the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Trent, and Pope Paul IV.
Let us take a look at the papal law, again. It is very important to note, what Pope John Paul II says in the previous paragraph, n. 78:
78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.(23)
Paragraph 78, regards the buying or selling of votes; which does not seem what Ivereigh has alleged; for when votes are bought and sold, then the validity of the election which would otherwise be worthy of doubt or challenge, is, according to Pope John Paul II’s law, free from ever being so challenged (which he does with the words: “I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision”). Simony is the crime of buying or selling spiritual things, in this case, of votes, with the promise of monies paid in advance.
However, as regards, however, the excommunications leveled for canvassing, Pope John Paul II does not remove the nullity or invalidity of the election.
This leaves the question, whether the election of Pope Francis could be challenged now?
It seems at least possible, since it is not a question of the invalidity of an election on the basis of the fact that Cardinals were excommunicated on account of vote canvassing, but on account of a certain sort of coercion of the process to elect the Pope, which process must guarantee the liberty of the Cardinals to chose a Pope in a manner free from the deceits and maneuvers of worldly politics.
This doubt of the validity of the election is what seems to be implied by the Press-Secretary’s denial. Because, if it were only a question of a Cardinal’s excommunication for violating secrecy or canvasing votes, he could easily appeal to Pope Francis to be pardoned and the excommunication lifted. Indeed, what victorious candidate, now Pope, would not pardon the Cardinals who helped him get elected, if they did canvass for votes? Thus, it certainly seems to the thoughtful reader, that there may be some more urgent reason for the denial. … Cui prodest?
Addendum of Nov. 26, 3PM GT
I had a look at the general norms in the 1983 Code of Canon law regarding canonical elections and found some confirmatory information. There in Canon 171, there are these stunning requirements for a valid election:
Can. 171 §1. The following are effected to vote:
1/ a person incapable of a human act;
2/ a person who lacks active voice;
3/ a person under a penalty of excommunication whether through a judicial sentence or through a decree by which a penalty is imposed or declared;
4/ a person who has defected notoriously from the communion of the Church.§2. If one of the above is admitted, the person’s vote is null, but the election is valid unless it is evident that, with that vote subtracted, the one elected did not receive the required number of votes.
The importance of this Canon, I opine, is thus: if what Ivereigh alleges in his book, is true, and the manner of canvassing votes is that penalized with automatic excommunication, then the Cardinals who did this, and Cardinal Bergoglio — if he expressly consented, as Ivereigh’s print edition says he did — would be excommunicated prior to the begining of the Conclave; and the election would be null and void, on the grounds that the 32 votes Bergolio received in the first round of voting (as reports allege, which votes are presumably nearly or mostly those who participated in the vote canvassing) would be null and void, coming as they did from excommunicated electors. That would make the 78 votes which Cardinal Bergoglio got in the final 5th vote, to be insufficient to elect him. (I am no canonist, so this is my opinion, though I have studied the tract on Canonical Censures at a Pontifical Instititute at Rome).
Postscript
Having carefully read the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, of Pope John Paul II, and that modification of Pope Benedict XVI, Normas nonnullas, I find it very curious that neither specifies explicitly who is eligible to be elected Pope. Even the 1983 code is silent. This is a serious deficiency, since the Bull of Pope Paul IV does specify this, and thus, if this matter is not included specifically in modern legislation, the terms of Pope Paul IV’s, Cum ex apostolatus officio, seem to remain in force. (If any canonists know, please leave a comment below, Thanks!).
FOLLOW UP REPORTS:
Nov. 27, 2014: Ivereigh + UDG 81 = A Radical Problem for Pope Francis