There was a literary symbiosis between G.K. Chesterton and Henri Ghéon somewhat like the musical one between Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky. Ghéon’s biography of Saint John Vianney, The Secret of the Curé d’Ars, is enhanced by the brief commentary that Chesterton added to it. Chesterton mentions a mayor of some French town who not only commissioned a statue of the rationalist Emile Zola but, intent on further provocation, ordered that the bronze for it be forged from the bells of a church. This rings a bell, if you will, when thinking of how an ecstatic Governor Andrew Cuomo chose to sign into law our nation’s most gruesome abortion bill on January 22, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, to raucous applause and cheering in the state capitol. In a fallen world, dancing on graves requires no instructors. Then Cuomo ordered that the One World Trade Center in Manhattan, and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany be illuminated in pink lights. The ancient Caesars dressed in red as the token of victory. Cuomo chose pink.
Mark the ironies: the Freedom Tower is at the site of the memorial to the dead of 9/11, and listed on that somber shrine are eleven “unborn babies” killed with their mothers. As for Al Smith’s building, that chivalric Catholic personality would have resigned rather than endorse infanticide.
In Orwellian “Newspeak,” just as a concentration camp is called a “Joycamp,” the killing of innocent unborn infants is sanctioned by a “Reproductive Health Act.” This macabre euphemism declares that it is legal to destroy a fully formed baby seconds before birth and, should it survive a botched attempt to cut it up, attendants are allowed to let it die. The abortionist does not even have to be a medical doctor. Under certain conditions an ambiguously defined “authorized practitioner” might qualify.
The legislation was deferred over years by politicians who, if not paragons of empathy, were appalled by its excess. It has only passed because the Democrats now control both houses of the New York state legislature. Politics aside, the governor teased a religious question. Not only does he mention that he once was an altar boy, he concluded the signing celebration by praying for the legislators: “God bless you.” It was an echo of the time that Barack Obama invoked God’s blessings over a national gathering of Planned Parenthood. A popular singer, Charlie Daniels, was so taken aback by this that he Tweeted: “The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens. Satan is smiling.” Theologians may differ as to whether the Prince of Darkness can laugh, but he certainly can smile as a way of showing that, in a Miltonian sense, evil is his good. Meanwhile the bleak visage of Governor Cuomo should be shielded from children allowed to live, for it resembles with each declining day a grotesque icon of the Giver of Life in reverse.
From his rambling rhetoric, untutored diction, and scant intellectual formation, we may assume that Governor Cuomo has escaped the brush of Lord Acton’s aphorism that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cuomo’s power is not absolute, although it has now proven deadly, but even power that is not absolute has a blithe courtship with vice. His official website now displays the cook with whom he shares a home in a relationship that would have exercised John the Baptist. This has barred him from Holy Communion as a disciplinary norm, if not a canonical penalty, and in recent times he has observed that. But, as a pre-eminent canon lawyer, Dr. Edward Peters, has indicated, Cuomo’s communicant status is further impeded by Canon 915 because of his promotion of the “Reproductive Health Act.” Dr. Peters says: “Penal jurisdiction in this matter rests with the bishop of Albany (as the place where some or all of the canonically criminal conduct was committed, per Canon 1412), and/or with the archbishop of New York (as the place where Cuomo apparently has canonical domicile, per Canon 1408).” Canonical discipline should not be caricatured as a “weapon” since it is properly punitive to promote justice and prevent scandal, and medicinal to reform and safeguard the spiritual state of the offender.
These matters are beyond the ken or jurisdiction of a parish priest, but it is clear that it is not sufficient for churchmen blithely to suppose that an adequate response to the massacre of innocents by the inversion of reason is nothing more than an expression of “profound sadness.” The faithful are entitled to the expectation that their bishops will qualify as vertebrates in more than a technical anthropological sense. Our Lord did not chase the moneychangers out of his Father’s House with a faint whimper of melancholy.
Although our Founding Fathers rejected an hereditary form of government, it roams like a ghost through various corridors of state. One is hard pressed to convince others that Andrew Cuomo would be presiding in Albany had his father not formerly occupied his seat. Just as Andrew engages a reverie of his days as an altar boy, so Mario invoked his membership in the Legion of Mary. Mario also rightly resented any imputation of a family connection to the Mafia. He is to be credited for his familial piety. This writer also was a good friend of Mario Cuomo’s predecessor, Governor Hugh Carey, and I can attest that Carey much regretted not having blocked an abortion bill during his tenure. But when Carey was out of office, and devoted himself to Pro-Life witness, he was hounded and threatened by his successor Mario in a way redolent of The Godfather.
Perhaps Andrew Cuomo is succumbing to the temptation that some of the senators of classical Rome detected as evidence of decadence: the apotheosis, or divinizing, of emperors in an Imperial Cult complimentary to the traditional deities. Ignoring the objections of more than 100,000 petitioners, Andrew named the Tappan Zee replacement bridge over the Hudson River in honor of his father. The Romans also developed the custom of Damnatio Memoriae which erased the memory of disfavored predecessors. This fate was dealt to 26 of the emperors before Constantine. The Egyptians did something like that when they erased the memorials of the pharaohs Hatshepsut and Akhenaten. Andrew Cuomo eliminated the name of former Governor Malcolm Wilson from the old bridge which was blown up last month.
In dark ages, there was a superstition that a bridge could only be safe if sacrificial victims, preferably children, were buried in its foundations. Peter Ackroyd mentions this in his history of London, and it was more than a legend, since a child’s body was found in the foundation of the Bridge Gate at Bremen. It was a ritualized practice in Japan, called Hitobashira. If Andrew Cuomo persists in ignoring the petitions of the people of Rockland and Westchester counties, and keeps the name of his father for the construction, there will be enough sacrificed bones to ensure the soundness of the Mario Cuomo Bridge, and all of them the remains of innocents. Herod Antipas could not have been prouder of his father who did not enjoy a good reputation in Bethlehem.
One theory is that some Church leaders have been reluctant to annoy Governor Andrew Cuomo in the midst of civil investigations of the Church, given the recriminatory personality of the man. But accommodation is a weak strategy. After the Munich agreement, Winston Churchill said, “And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Corroborating that warning, Andrew Cuomo has on January 25, just three days after his “Reproductive Health Act,” “celebrated” the “Defend Child Act” aimed at Catholic institutions.
While contemplating the Crucified Christ, Doctors of the Church have seen his flesh as paper, his blood as ink, and the nails as pens. So the Word of God is blotted out by the words of the morally illiterate. After Governor Cuomo signed the “Health” act, he handed his pen, like a nail in Christ, to a grinning and grandmotherly women whose ample lap could have held several children. She had none.
Editor’s note: New York State governor Andrew Cuomo speaks on stage at a rally on the “Reproductive Health Act” at Barnard College on January 7, 2019. (Photo credit: Shutterstock)
Fr. George W. Rutler is pastor of St. Michael’s church in New York City. He is the author of many books including Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press) and Hints of Heaven (Sophia Institute Press). His latest books are He Spoke To Us (Ignatius, 2016); The Stories of Hymns (EWTN Publishing, 2017); and Calm in Chaos (Ignatius, 2018).
Can every dissatisfied spouse now get an annulment because she doesn’t experience, to her satisfaction, spiritual riches and communication from her spouse?
Zenit published the Vatican-provided text of Pope Francis’ address to the Roman Rota. When the Pope gives his annual address to the Roman Rota, it is understood to be the legislator’s instruction about canon law. The Roman Rota is a Tribunal of appeal available to any aggrieved party in a judicial canon law case.
Pope Francis discussed the duty of the Church to assist couples, and the obligation of bishops and priests.There is a need for a triple preparation for marriage: remote, near and permanent. It is advisable for this latter to include in a serious and structural way the various phases of married life, through an accurate formation, intended to nurture in spouses the awareness of the values and commitments proper to their vocation.
In my work upholding marriage, it would be most welcome if Bishops and priests would exercise the pastoral care of teaching the faithful and point out that no-fault divorce is often cruel marital abandonment which is a fracturing of the marriage contract to live in the same household. A dissatisfied spouse, alternatively, should commit oneself to cooperating with experts who have a good track-record of strengthening marriage. Fracturing the contract to live together – by divorce – is condemned by the Catechism.CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.
Of concern in the Pope’s address to the Roman Rota is his description of an essential element of marriage, unity.(Pope’s 2019 Address) So as to be validly contracted, marriage requires of each of the betrothed a full unity and harmony with the other, so that, through the mutual exchange of their respective human, moral and spiritual riches – almost by way of communicating vessels – the two spouses become a single entity. (italic in original)
If this is the language now used by judges of the Roman Rota to decide that a marriage is invalid, we are at a shocking turning point. According to the literal meaning of the text, if one spouse feels she is not experiencing harmony and spiritual riches from the other, to her satisfaction, then she can argue her marriage is invalid because she doesn’t have the requirement for validity in the 2019 Papal Address to the Roman Rota.
Saint Pope John Paul II corrected those who spread error by claiming that valid marriage requires the parties to be successful communicating vessels who are a harmonious single entity.(JPII 1987 Address) For the canonist the principle must remain clear that only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage. Moreover, the breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties. They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or they may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order.
I’ve read many, many writings about grounds for annulment and most critical is a proper understanding of the vocabulary. The most popular ground for invalidity used by U.S. tribunals is that the marriage consent is invalid because a party did not consent (with proper mental capacity c 1095.2) to the essential duties and properties of marriage, or one was not capable of fulfilling the essential duties/properties (c. 1095.3). If a party does not, in reality, consent to an essential property of marriage, or a party is incapable of upholding an essential property of marriage, then the party does not validly consent to marriage (c. 1095 & 1101). So, it is very important that we correctly understand the essential properties:Canon 1056. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
If the Pope’s 2019 Address to the Roman Rota is attempting to require as an essential element of marriage the “harmony with the other, so that, through the exchange of their respective riches they become a single entity,” he is contradicting Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Roman Rota and Defender of the Bond at the Signatura; the late Cardinal Edward Egan, former Roman Rota judge, professor at Pontifical Gregorian University, and one of six editors of the 1893 Code of Canon law; and Saint Pope John Paul II.
The 2019 Address to the Roman Rota is mixing up poetic language about marriage with canonical vocabulary. For example, two spouses cannot become one entity; it is impossible. Though, we’d expect priests to use this poetic language in homilies or marriage preparation, it wreaks havoc when used to define requirements for validity.
In 2015, Ignatius Press published a book “When Is Marriage Null? Guide to the Grounds of Matrimonial Nullity for Pastors, Counselors, and Lay Faithful” by Paolo Bianchi, with a forward by Cardinal Raymond Burke. The word unity, as an essential property of marriage (per. canon 1056) does not refer to harmony, spiritual riches, and becoming a single entity. It is really simple: If one excludes unity, one intends to engage in sexual intercourse with other persons besides one’s spouse(See page 125, When is the Marriage Null. by Bianchi).
Cardinal Egan warned about the problem of hinging validity on the spouses’ harmony. See his paper in the Scholarly Journal of the Roman Rota, “The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Incapacity to Fulfill the Essential Obligations of Marriage”(Egan on Essential Obligations) Over the past several years, a new genre of Canon Law essay has come into being. The format has been repeated so often as virtually to constitute an art form, something on the order of the sonnet or the sonata. The author opens by announcing with evident pleasure that a wondrous, new discovery has recently been made regarding the nature of marriage. The discovery is this: Whereas theologians and canonists had for centuries held that Titius and Titia consent to conjugal acts on their wedding day, in our more enlightened times we have come to know that to which they actually consent is rather marriage itself.
The opening theme or premise having been exposed and developed, the author then moves on to drawing a series of conclusions from his and our discovery. And the conclusions, in a variety of formulations, come more or less to these : (1) The «merely physical» , «carnal» , even «animal» view of marriage which so long stalked the unhappy path of Catholic theological and canonical thinking has at last been abandoned; (2) In its place we are now to admit a more «spiritual» , «human» , and «personal» understanding of marriage in which the central issue is the relationship between the partners, their mutual fulfillment, «completion» , integration, and enrichment; (3) Hence, we are finally in a position to acknowledge that a marriage in which such a relationship has not been achieved or at least could not have been achieved in appropriate measure is invalid and susceptible of being declared such by tribunals of the Roman Catholic Church.
Faced with commenting on this kind of thing, one hardly knows where to begin. For not only is the premise false, there does not even seem to be any reason why the conclusions might flow from it were it other than false. (page 10)
If a poet pens, something of this sort, we may be charmed, just as if a pastor preaches something of this sort, we may be inspired. For the acts to which married people bestow upon each other a right are so intimate, human, and personal, that we can almost think of marriage as though it entailed a gift of the married couple themselves, one to the other. «Almost » , that is, poetically or rhetorically as opposed to philosophically, juridically, precisely. … Still, what is permitted the poet and the pastor is rightly denied – among others – the jurist, except, of course, when the jurist be a canonist who occasionally has the good sense to set aside his toga and ascend either Parnassus or the pulpit. (page 22)
See further writings on the canonical vocabulary on Mary’s Advocates HERE.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Faced with commenting on this kind of thing, one hardly knows where to begin. For not only is the premise false, there does not even seem to be any reason why the conclusions might flow from it were it other than false.
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 sententiaepenalty 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 sees that Benedict resigned the munus, not the ministerium, and that Canon 322 §2 requires the resignation munus, they become indisputably culpable of the usurpation of Bergoglio, and as such, merit punishment under canons 1329 §2 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 alatae sententiaeexcommunication; 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.
TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.
If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.
Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
This is so because:1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.
Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “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.”
His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal.
In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.
Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume Un ami des Papes
The Roman Catholic bishop of Corpus Christi, Tex., has excommunicated a woman from the church because she runs a health clinic that performs abortions.
In what appears to be only the second abortion-related sanction against a citizen activist nationwide, Bishop Rene H. Gracida sent Rachel Vargas two warning letters and then a decree forbidding her to receive sacraments in any Catholic church or receive a Roman Catholic burial.
Vargas, 32, director of Reproductive Services Inc., said in a telephone interview that she would continue to attend Mass but would not take part in communion or other sacraments. “To be severed like this causes me and my family great pain,” said Vargas, a lifelong Catholic. “But I know in my heart that being Catholic and pro-choice will not earn me a place in hell.”
Gracida’s decree said Vargas had broken church canon that forbids a person from assisting in abortions. “Your cooperation in procuring abortions is a sin against God and humanity and against the laws of the Roman Catholic Church,” the decree said. “The value of human life must always be protected in the Christian community and society at large.”
In 1986, a vicar of the church, acting for the bishop of Rhode Island, excommunicated Mary Ann Sorrentino, director of Planned Parenthood for Rhode Island, because her organization performed abortions.
Vargas said her clinic performs about 200 abortions a month, and 40 percent of the women are Catholic. She said the clinic, which is part of a chain in Texas and Oklahoma, also acts as an adoption agency. “We give women a choice,” she said.
For more than a year, Catholic bishops have been engaged in a highly visible anti-abortion campaign. New York’s Cardinal John O’Connor, chairman of the bishops’ Pro-Life Activities Committee, drew cries of outrage recently when he said in an archdiocesan newspaper that Catholic politicians who advocate abortion or fail to oppose it risk excommunication. At a later news conference O’Connor backpedaled, saying his remarks were not intended as a warning to be carried out.
By declaring Vargas excommunicated, Gracida went farther than his colleagues in the U.S. Roman Catholic hierarchy, and abortion rights groups were quick to jump on that point yesterday.
“Clearly the church has decided to go full tilt ahead intimidating not only politicians but ordinary citizens,” said Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League and a former Catholic. “They are only a short step away from harassing all women who choose abortion.”
The Rev. James Provost, a canon lawyer at Catholic University, said church canon is ambiguous on what constitutes assistance in abortions. The key phrase, he said, is “if {the abortion} would not have been committed without their efforts.”
Vargas said yesterday she does not help perform abortions. She said she has been working at the clinic for 6 1/2 years, mostly as a counselor advising pregnant women on their options.
She said she believes the bishop decided to move against her after reading a newspaper article last December that quoted her as saying she was Catholic.
Abortion has been a hot topic in Corpus Christi, a largely Hispanic city of 326,000. Last November, a group began staging demonstrations in front of Reproductive Services Inc. and other health clinics, Vargas said. Some citizens aided by the Catholic church have also been lobbying the city council for legislation to ban abortions.
Vargas said another Catholic woman in Corpus Christi who works for another health clinic has received two warning letters from Gracida, but has not yet been excommunicated.0 Comments
This is a question twenty-first-century Americans must continually ask themselves. Since the officially hidden abuses of Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick were made manifest last summer, it has become an especially acute question for American Catholics. Their—and as a confirmed Catholic layman, I can also say “our”—leaders have once again covered themselves in disgrace.
The story is by now famous. While waiting last Friday afternoon for their bus home after the March for Life, roughly thirty students from the all-male Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky, found themselves in an incident—altercation is far too strong a term—with American Indian Movement activists in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Saturday morning, less than twelve hours after a 60-second video of the event was posted anonymously on Twitter, the Diocese of Covington and the administration of Covington Catholic High School released a joint statement condemning their own children, their parishioners, their flock. The statement barely offered justification for the censure, pointing vaguely toward untold violations of the “dignity and respect of the human person.” Later that morning the Archdiocese of Cincinnati lamented the boys’ “unfortunate & regrettable” behavior while anticipating “an important teachable moment” for them. Saturday afternoon Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville personally piled on, citing the Covington boys’ “shameful act of disrespect” and expressing total confidence in the Bishop of Covington to do the right thing. As late as Sunday morning, the Archdiocese of Baltimore felt the need to join the fray against Covington Catholic High School by condemning “disrespect” and insisting on “dignity.”
In the heat of the Twitter moment, it seems none of these Catholic leaders gave a thought to whether their own children might deserve respect and dignity. Why not? Cravenness can certainly explain a good deal of what American Catholics have witnessed from their leaders this past week. Yet there is more here to be unpacked. Catholic school principals, bishops, and archbishops are not only Catholic leaders. They are members of the American elite, its professional-managerial class that commands the heights of the country’s political, economic, social, and cultural institutions. Simply because they are Catholic does not mean they do not swim in the sea of class doctrines and dogmas. Neither does Catholic belief separate them from conforming to the cultural and moral ideals of that elite.
Today those ideals are realized in the character of the therapeutic manager. The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre defines a “character” as the internalization and embodiment of the values of a social order. Characters—by which MacIntyre evokes both the ethical and the theatrical meaning of the word—are “the moral representatives of their culture.” In the fusion of personality and role, the character “morally legitimates a mode of social existence.”
The therapeutic manager is the moral representative of our society, embodying the ideals of self-realization and social control so dear to the hearts of our elites. The therapeutic manager is the woke CEO who believes the purpose of his firm is to “promot[e] positive, attainable, inclusive and healthy versions of what it means to be a man” (Gillette), to “facilitate a conversation between [employees] and customers” about American race relations (Starbucks), and to inform the country that “love is love” (Walgreens). Therapeutic managers believe they are charged (by History?) with a mission to harmonize diversity with excellence, reconcile elitism with egalitarianism, and ensure both individual freedom and intimate community flourish without contradiction. Through therapeutic practices of listening, controlling negative emotions, developing empathy and cooperation skills, teamwork, mindfulness practices, and communication workshops, they believe they can do it.
Who but a bigot could oppose such a project and such a society? Thus the therapeutic manager is always scanning the horizon for dangerous acts of “hate”: cultural appropriation, sexism, racism, heteronormativity, transphobia. These are the emotional sources of disorder upsetting the harmonious whole, which is the therapeutic manager’s raison d’être. What Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff call “safetyism” is written into the therapeutic manager’s DNA. To eradicate social conflict through psychological control is the very foundation of his claim to effectiveness and legitimacy.
The line between a therapeutic CEO and a therapeutic bishop is vanishingly thin. By Tuesday, January 22, Catholic leaders began backtracking their earlier condemnations. Bishop Roger Joseph Foys of Covington spoke less as a shepherd than as a therapeutic manager when he said, “We pray that we may come to the truth and that this unfortunate situation may be resolved peacefully and amicably.” He announced the beginning of an “independent, third-party investigation” into the matter, and declared there would be “no further statements until the investigation is complete.” Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of neighboring Louisville could only echo the managerial cant, lamenting “the regrettable polarization in our Church and in our society” while offering vaguely to “reach out and respond to those who were impacted by these events and media reports.”
This is even worse than cravenness. Many have suggested that Principal Rowe, Bishop Foys, and Archbishop Kurtz simply lacked moral courage. Yet these men also lived out our elite’s moral ideal by condemning their own children in the interest of self-realization and social order. Perhaps they rushed to judgment not so much out of fear as out of fidelity to an ideal of character—an ideal foreign to Catholic Christianity but quite at home in a rival church.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IN THE RUSH TO JUDGEMENT TO CONDEMN THE COVINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BOYS TOO MANY BISHOPS INSTINCTIVELY ECHOED THE HOSTILITY OF THE LEFT TOWARD THE Catholic Church, HENCE THE SCANDAL OF BISHOPS “THROWING THE CATHOLIC BOYS UNDER THE BUS OF LIBERAL HATRED OF THE CHURCH”
Following passage of the Child Victims Act yesterday, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s enthusiastic embrace of it, there is a full-page ad in today’s New York Post by Jeffrey Anderson that proves what the Catholic League has been saying all along. It’s all about us.
The ad shows a picture of a man dressed in priestly garb and a white collar (his face is blacked out), with the inscription, “ABUSED by CLERGY in NEW YORK?”, inscribed at the top. At the bottom is Anderson’s New York City number, 718-473-0264. His ad is consistent with his pledge, namely, to “sue the s*** out of the Catholic Church.”
Anderson is a reformed alcoholic whose first case involved his defense of a man who had been arrested for indecent exposure in a church basement. He went on to make over $100 million suing the Catholic Church, always having his many cases suing the Vatican thrown out. The liberal Minneapolis/St. Paul publication, Citypages, once referred to him as a “wisecracking ambulance chaser with a reputation for hunting priests and an advanced degree in self-promotion.”
The Child Victims Act allows alleged victims of sexual abuse a one-year opportunity to file a claim for offenses that took place at any time in the past. Unlike most previous versions of this bill, it applies equally to the public sector.
In other words, Anderson could have run an ad saying he is willing to represent those who were victimized by anyone—priest, rabbi, minister, public school teacher, guidance counselor, camp counselor—but he chose to focus exclusively on those abused by Catholic priests. That’s what he does.
On a more positive note, I fielded a phone call from Ibrahim Khan, the chief of staff to New York Attorney General Letitia James. He called in reference to the news release I issued yesterday, “NYS To Pass Child Victims Act,” wherein I complained that on the website of the Attorney General there was a “Catholic Clergy Abuse” hotline. I asked why Catholics were being singled out; his email contact information was given and that is why he called.
Khan made it clear that his team has been in place for just a few weeks (James was elected Attorney General in November and didn’t start work until a few weeks ago), and that the hotline was set up by James’ predecessor, Barbara Underwood. Fair enough.
I spoke to him again, telling him about the Anderson ad, asking if they would now change the hotline to reflect every New Yorker, and he said they would.
Then I received a call from Attorney General James. She was cordial and very professional, acknowledging that it is wrong to single out Catholic victims of abuse. She said she would make the hotline change and let me know if there will be a new phone number.
In stark contrast to Attorney General Letitia James is Gov. Andrew Cuomo. His office got bombarded with emails yesterday as well, but no one from his office is reaching out to me.
Cuomo has made up his mind—he doesn’t care what Catholics think about his lust for abortion (which now includes infanticide) or his previous attempts to go after the Catholic schools while giving the public schools a pass.
Cuomo and James may be from the same party (I am an independent having previously been a Democrat and a Republican), but they are hardly cut from the same cloth. James must be given a chance to prove herself. Cuomo already has.
Michelle Marie RomaniJanuary 28 at 5:42 PM NPR isn’t the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. To cite the reporter is tantamount to making a “non” citation. Did you not read the article by Avery Cardinal Dulles? Cardinal Dulles was able to set aside his own personal opinion to report truthfully on the matter. Again, canonically, no one has ever incurred automatic excommunication for supporting the death penalty. Abortion supporters and providers, on the other hand, have. You and I are old enough to remember when we were a part of the Diocese of Corpus Christi and Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida formally excommunicated an abortion “rights” supporter. Bishop Paprocki excomunicated Sen. Dick Durbin last year for the same reason. Citing NPR, an organization with zero competency in interpreting Church teaching is akin to citing the quasi-heretical rag, National “Catholic” Reporter. Neither of them work.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ANOTHER CATHOLIC SAYS “EXCOMMUNICATE THEM”
Cuomo Demonizes Catholic Church January 28, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attacks on the Catholic Church made by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo:
Celebrating the imminent passage of the Child Victims Act, Gov. Andrew Cuomo lashed out at the Catholic Church again today.
Cuomo lamented the repeated failure of the bill to get past the New York Senate, until today. He said, “we were foiled by the conservatives in the Senate.” Then he took it back. “I don’t even believe it was the moderates in the Senate. I believe it was the conservatives in the Senate who were threatened by the Catholic Church. And this went on for years.”
Threatened? Which members of the Catholic Church threatened which members of the Senate? We need names. What was the content of the threat? This is serious business. Cuomo did not say that some politicians “felt” they were threatened by Catholics—he said categorically that they “were threatened by the Catholic Church.” (My italic.)
Has Gov. Cuomo ever blamed Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, or union leaders for threatening politicians when they lobby for or against a bill? This is more than religious profiling—Cuomo is demonizing the Catholic Church.
“To the Catholic Church, I am, I am sorry about the situation. I’m not sorry about my position. I’m sorry they [the Catholic Church] have taken the position they’ve taken.”
Not sure what is worse—Cuomo’s dishonesty or his demonization. It was Cuomo, up until this month, who repeatedly endorsed legislation that discriminated against Catholics. Almost all previous bills that allowed for the suspension of the statute of limitations for crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors—providing a one-year “lookback” provision for old offenses—did not apply to the public schools.
Cuomo supported those bills but never, until now, has he supported any bill that would have treated Catholic and public schools equally (alleged victims of public school employees had only 90 days to file a claim but for Catholic students there was no time limit).
Perversely, Cuomo is now blaming Catholics who objected to being discriminated against on the basis of their religion for “threatening” politicians whom they contacted.
Cuomo then exploited the pope, misrepresented his position, and lied about the bishops. He said that “I’m with the pope” and that “the bishops may have a different position than the pope.”
Cuomo is not “with the pope” on marriage or on the rights of the unborn, or on a host of other key teachings. Indeed his lust for abortion rights now extends to infanticide: a child born of a botched abortion—and there will be more of them now that he is allowing chiropractors to perform them—is allowed to die on a clinic table, unattended by staff.
Is Cuomo saying the pope is “with him” on this?
Moreover, the pope has never said it is acceptable to discriminate against the Catholic Church. He has never said, nor would he support, holding the Church to one standard and the public sector to another. Only bigots do that.
It is the bishops who stand with the pope—not Cuomo.
If Cuomo is going to stick his middle finger in the face of Catholics, can he at least stop trotting out his alleged Catholic credentials (he did so again today)? My Jewish pro-life friends, who also oppose religious discrimination, are more Catholic than this man has ever been.Contact Melissa DeRosa, secretary to the governor: melissa.derosa@exec.ny.gov
I dislike writing about failure and sin, and dearly wish that the leaders of my Church would give me less occasion to do so.
Everyone by now has heard about what happened to boys from Covington Catholic High School. They were at the Lincoln Memorial, waiting for the bus home to Kentucky. They were in Washington, of course, to protest the murder of unborn children. In other words, unlike almost everybody else who goes to Washington to protest, they were there not to campaign, not to condemn a political party, and not to demand something for themselves, but to protect human lives that are now vulnerable to destruction. Some of them were wearing a Make America Great Again cap.
Then they were harassed, in the vilest terms, by members of what appears to be a lunatic group, the “African Israelites.” They did not respond in kind. They began to chant school chants, to drown out the insults. At that point another protest group came into the picture. They yelled at the boys too, telling them to go back to Europe. This one was led by an American Indian (I too am native; I was born in the United States), beating a drum, within inches of the face of a boy he had apparently targeted. The boy, nonplussed, held his ground and smiled a frozen smile.
Let us enumerate the sins that followed. The Diocese of Covington, along with many another organization and person, leapt to condemn the boy in harsh terms. They did so without knowing what happened. After all, they were not there.
This is called PREJUDICE, or RASH JUDGMENT. You have the tree and the noose ready, and you say so publicly, before you know a thing. What prompts the sin of PREJUDICE? A variety of things, in this case. One was race hatred: many people leapt to judgment because the accused were white. One was our endemic contempt for boys. One was political faction: people who do not believe as I believe about X – fill in the blank – are not simply mistaken, short-sighted, ignorant, or simply possessed of a different judgment about what is possible or advisable for the common good. They are wicked.
That was shortly followed by VINDICTIVENESS. People called for the boy to be expelled, and they were glad to subject him, his family, and his school to national disgrace. The glee of vengeance causes people to lose all sense of proportion, and to forget their sins.
Unless I am much mistaken, this is not a land of saints. To be rude to an old man is bad, even when the old man is behaving in a disgraceful way. Place the worst construction upon the boy’s action. Each of us has done plenty of things that are a hundred times more wicked, vile, and destructive than is that sin in question. If the boy deserved expulsion for that, we should all deserve, for our worst sins, protracted torments followed by slow hanging. The very call for a wildly disproportionate and ruthless punishment was such a sin.
A lot of people began to have second thoughts. Others roamed over the Internet to find something, anything, that would cast the school in a bad light. Some said that the boy did not himself write his sometimes ungrammatical apologia, explaining what happened. They had, of course, no evidence for their accusation.
This was the sin of CALUMNY. By this time, people knew quite well that the boys had not sought out any confrontation, and that they had been already abused by grown men aplenty.
To abuse the weak – children, women, youths – is at least a sin of COWARDICE, and to call them “faggots” and “incest kids” compounded the abuse with the sin of OBSCENITY. To withhold the truth about the context of the incident, truth that would mitigate any guilt, or exonerate entirely, is to commit the sin of DETRACTION.
The Indian with the drum and his group showed up at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception the next evening, attempting to disrupt the Mass. This was a sin of SACRILEGE, against the holy place and the worship of innocent people; in the context of what they had already done, it was the sin of CONTUMACY, and of SOWING DISCORD.
The school had to remain closed the following Monday, and the boy and his family have received plenty of threats of violence and death. I have seen some of these. Incitement to a felony crime is nothing for police to take lightly. These are, at the least, sins of MALICE, not of intemperance; sins committed not in the heat of a situation that has come upon you suddenly, but in the cold; deliberate, calculated, intentional.
At the worst, they are sins of VIOLENCE, and of vicarious participation in the evil that is wished, if someone should be so mad or so wicked as to burn or kill.
I am not calling for the prejudicial, the contumacious, the cowardly, the deceitful, the vindictive, the factious, the malicious, and the violent to be strung up. The point is that, surrounding these boys and taking their words and actions in the worst way they can reasonably be taken, are crowds of people committing the sins I have named, sins that are many orders of magnitude more miserable.
That people can commit them and not be aware of the trap they have set for their own feet is simply astonishing to me. I do not understand it. I’m not a saint. I daresay they are not saints, either. But they think they are.
They must think they are, because nobody, knowing that he is steeped in moral sewage from head to toe, would rave and rage at the filth on his neighbor’s shoe. It would be worse than nonsensical. It would be like begging for the vengeance of God to come down upon you.
“Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them (abuses), one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise; the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music.”- St. Pius X, PopeHome
Lopes removes Ordinariate Priest for being, well, Catholic
“We were told that Fr. Treco was visited by Bp. Lopes, who essentially provided Fr Treco with the option of renouncing what he had said in the sermon (which Fr. Treco declined), or that he be removed as pastor, wherein he would have to take… wait for it…. further education classes so that he could better understand the post-conciliar church. We were also told, though, that Fr. Treco is free to continue as priest for St. Bede, even presiding over mass, just as long as he (a) does not deliver sermons or (b) has his sermons reviewed and signed off by the local diocesan priest prior to any such delivery.|http://stumblingblock.org/?p=13313
Please, Friends, pray for Father Treco. I wrote to him with a word of support. I do not think he didn’t care for it. 12:50 am, January 22, 2019
BillyHW said…
So now instead of just a few hundred people hearing the sermon, a few hundred thousand will hear it. And then all those people are going to google the bishop’s name, find his picture, and confirm exactly what they were thinking about him all along: that he’s a flaming faggot.1:14 am, January 22, 2019
Of course. I know of a priest in my parish that is being silenced and persecuted for mentioning Catholic teaching. Happening all the time. The “church” hates the Catholic faith and is becoming one of the primary persecutors of the faith. Francis is supposed to help the destruction.4:09 am, January 22, 2019
I should mention that the young priests “crime” was mentioning that homosexuality was still considered a sin during a homily addressing the current crisis.
So naturally they MUST find a way to destroy him and “discover” that this priest didn’t REALLY have a vocation. Not to worry though, cause “womyn deaconessas” will soon be coming. Of course “deaconess” may be too patriarchal of a term, so we will have to wait for the Francis to enlighten us.
Reminder. Be generous when you give to the bishop’s annual appeal so that your dollars will help spread this new and improved gospel.5:34 am, January 22, 2019
This follows the utter betrayal of the Chinese Catholics which has resulted in communists re-writing scripture (& sermons?) according to Mao Tse Tung. I hope to read a response from his congregation. These red tyrants crumble when confronted – even PF would if anyone in the Vatican had the b..ls to do so – they are all vacuous sodomites when their ecclesiastical garments are removed. 6:26 am, January 22, 2019
MattM said…
Wow! Almost certainly the best sermon I have ever heard from a priest whose jurisdiction is derived from the VII hierarchy (rather than simply “Supplied” by the urgent needs in this crisis).
Such well documented, carefully crafted, congruently delivered truth… I’m still stunned. God Bless this man. May his martyrdom be the example that other priests need to follow the Truth rather than the relative comfort and security of their positions. And, may the support made available to Fr. Treco from the laity provide the assurance needed to other priests that teaching the Truth is the right thing to do – the only thing to do.
Each Rosary I pray includes, among other intentions, that all priests may receive and accept the graces that He offers them, reflecting them everywhere for the salvation of souls. Certainly, Fr. Treco is one such. 9:23 am, January 22, 2019
This is simply a case of a modernist liberal removing a modernist conservative. Trads should avoid getting emotionally invested in the plight of these modernist conservatives simply because they share some same values. Ask this modernist conservative where he stands on ecumenism and religious liberty and you will quickly hear a non Catholic response.12:19 pm, January 22, 2019
A “church” that hates the Catholic Faith is not the Catholic Church. Nor are priests of a “church” that hates the Catholic Faith, Catholic priests. 12:23 pm, January 22, 2019
I’d wager that if he weren’t an married Anglican convert/priest, and somewhat of a ‘sacred cow’ (no offense to the good Padre), he would have been gotten rid of completely and without hesitation. But it would be somewhat embarrassing for them to treat him that way. Many Protestant converts can see what is wrong with the Conciliar Church. It differs so little from the false church they were fleeing and resembles so little the traditional Catholic Church they are dreaming of in their hearts.3:05 pm, January 22, 2019
Anonymous said…
Hey Tom, The NO Mass I attend on Sunday is not a “fake Mass”; what you wrote is heresy!4:05 pm, January 22, 2019
anonymous 4.04 what about blasphemous? When Christ is on the altar all the presumptuous peace givers turn their back on the altar where the resurrected Christ is displayed in all His glory. At least 95% of you do. Many not in a state of grace presume you can give peace, from where the Prince of peace is not.4:39 pm, January 22, 2019
Dear Anonymous @4:05 pm, The NO priest is invalid, the NO bishop who ordained him is invalid, the “mass” he says is invalid and the NO cookie you eat is not the body of Christ. Your intention is good and you receive actual grace for that, but there is no Sacramental grace, because there is no sacrament. I am sure you attend with the very best of intentions, but the hard, sad truth is that you are giving support and recognition to the false judeo-modernist “church.” Millions of good, poor, mislead souls are in the same boat. If you would like to go into the Sacramental theology to substantiate what I am saying, we can.12:58 pm, January 23, 2019
Hello, I would like to offer some correction and clarification on the facts as presented here.
I am a parishioner of the Church of St. Bede the Venerable and was serving the Mass at which the announcement and letter from the Bishop was read. I know the original writer of the email personally. I also have spoken with Fr. Treco to get clarification and he even asked me to make these corrections.
The linked article and the portion shared here have a few factual errors.
– Bishop Lopes did not visit Fr. Treco. Fr. Treco was called to the chancery in Houston (he had to travel from MN to Houston in 1 day.) There was further communication via phone, email, and letter. -The priest replacing Fr. Treco and now appointed as Parochial Administrator pro tempore is not a diocesan priest. He is succeeded by Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary Emeritus of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter who is here in MN teaching as a professor at St. Paul Seminary and is now our “pastor.” -Fr. Treco was never technically pastor, though he functioned spiritually as such. Fr. Treco has always been parochial administrator since St. Bede’s has not been canonically erected as a parish but is, for now, what is canonically called a “community in formation.” -While we were told in a meeting after Mass during our usual “coffee hour” that Fr. Treco could still preach homilies if they were reviewed by ecclesiastical authorities, that is actually not correct. His faculties for both hearing confessions and preaching homilies have been withdrawn. If he is celebrating a Mass as a supply priest that requires a homily (such as a Sunday Mass or Holy Day of Obligation) he is to either have the deacon (if present) preach the homily or, if there is no deacon, what he is to read which is taken from the breviary as his homily.
That is all I would like to add at this point. As far as I am aware, these are the only factual errors present. I would like to of course point out this is not the fault of Vox Cantoris or Mr. Walker, but simply errors in the information received initially.
Please pray for Fr. Treco as well as his family (he is married as many former Anglican priests who have become Catholic are.) He is the best priest and probably the best man I have ever known.6:17 pm, January 23, 2019
Church of the Transfiguration (SSPX) at 8:00 Toronto Oratory Church of the Holy Family at 8:30 St. Lawrence the Martyr Catholic Par…
St. Pius X
“…the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. […] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Eccles is savedFatman and Martin the Boy Wonder -*Theme music: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, Fatman! (arr. Marty Haugen). [image: Dolan]The Caped CrusaderOver to Dolan Manor, just behind St Patrick’s …5 hours ago
Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment“Philip” – Recently, the spouse of our Head of State was involved in a minor traffic accident. Neither he nor anybody else was seriously hurt. He is 97 years old. One…8 hours ago
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.