Francis From Innocent To Guilty. Bad News From His Argentina
*
Tough times for the new squad of the pope’s press agents. The first public statement that Alessandro Gisotti, the new director of the press office of the Holy See, released after embarking on his role concerns the case of an Argentine bishop (in the photo) who is in danger of smashing to smithereens the strategy that Francis has adopted for addressing the question of sexual abuse committed by sacred ministers.
It is the strategy that also inspires the letter that the pope sent at the new year to the bishops of the United States gathered for spiritual exercises in view of the summit that will bring to Rome from February 21 to 24 the presidents of all the episcopal conferences of the world.
In this letter as well, in fact, as he had previously done with the bishops of Chile, Francis places himself on the side of the powerless and the victims of power, meaning the innocent “people of God,” against the clerical caste that indeed abuses sex, but in his judgment abuses more than anything else and first of all nothing other than “power.”
It doesn’t matter that in the case of Chile Francis himself was the one who, to the very end and against all the evidence, defended the innocence of bishops whom he finally had to acknowledge as being guilty. Nor does it matter that in the case of the United States he stands accused of having given cover and honors to a cardinal, Theodore McCarrick, in spite of knowing about his reprehensible homosexual activity. In both cases Francis absolved himself either by blaming those who had advised him badly or by refusing to respond to those who – like former nuncio in the United States Carlo Maria Viganò – personally called him to account. And also at the summit at the end of February he was getting ready to reproduce this typically populist dynamic, with himself in the guise of purifier of a clerical caste soiled by power.
But now that the case of Argentine bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta has exploded, all of that becomes more difficult for the pope.
*
The case was brought up on Christmas Day by the Argentine newspaper “El Tribuno,” breaking the news that three priests of the diocese of Orán had reported their bishop, Zanchetta, to the apostolic nuncio for sexual abuse against a dozen seminarians, and also that for this reason, on August 1 of 2017, the pope had removed the bishop from the diocese.
In replying on January 4 to this news and to the resulting questions from journalists, Vatican press office director Gisotti stated that Zanchetta “was not removed,” but that “it was he who resigned”; that the accusations of sexual abuse “go back to this autumn” and not before; that the results of the investigation underway in Argentina “have yet to arrive at the congregation for bishops”; and that in any case “during the preliminary investigation Bishop Zanchetta will abstain from the work” that he currently performs at the Vatican, as assessor for the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See.
Meanwhile, this suspension from work imposed on Zanchetta already leads one to think that at the Vatican the accusations of sexual abuse are viewed as serious. But even leaving aside the date on which these accusations are said to have been forwarded to the competent ecclesiastical authorities – in autumn of 2018 according to the Vatican press office, in 2015 according to what was reconfirmed by “El Tribuno” – it is the entire affair of this bishop that puts the behavior of Pope Francis in a bad light.
When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected successor of Peter, Zanchetta was an ordinary priest. Who was however well known to him, in that for years he had been executive undersecretary of the Argentine episcopal conference headed by Bergoglio himself. Known and also appreciated, to the point that Zanchetta was one of the very first Argentines whom the new pope promoted as bishop, on his own initiative, bypassing all canonical procedure, on July 23, 2013, at the head of the diocese of Orán, in the north of the country.
But Zanchetta didn’t last long as bishop of Orán. Because of “very strained relations with the priests of the diocese,” which earned him “accusations of authoritarianism” and made manifest his “inability to govern,” the Holy See now recognizes, according to the statements from Gisotti.
The fact is that on July 29, 2017, Zanchetta suddenly disappeared. Without any farewell Mass and without any goodbye to his priests and faithful. He only made it known, from an unspecified location, that he had health problems that needed urgent care elsewhere and that he had just returned to Rome, where he had placed his mandate back in the hands of Pope Francis. Who very promptly, on August 1, accepted his resignation.
Zanchetta was for a brief time the guest of the bishop of the diocese of Corrientes, 500 miles to the south, Andrés Stanovnik, the same one who had ordained him. Only to reappear in Spain, in Madrid, apparently in good health.
Curiously, the capital of Spain is the destination to which Francis had directed two years before, in 2015, the Chilean bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid – before promoting him as bishop of Osorno against the opinion of the higher-ups of the Chilean Church and of the nunciature – for a month of spiritual exercises preached by the famous Spanish Jesuit Germán Arana, one of the pope’s most influential advisors in many episcopal appointments, and in this case a tenacious defender of the innocence of Baros, who had already been hit with very weighty accusations of sexual abuse.
The fact is that Zanchetta’s trip to Madrid was also the prelude to his promotion by Bergoglio, who on December 19, 2017 called him to the Vatican to do nothing less than manage the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, APSA, in the new and tailor-made role of “assessor.”
The APSA is the true mainstay of the Vatican administration. In addition to possessing substantial liquid and illiquid assets, it plays a role that is comparable to that of a central bank, so much so that the financial reorganization of the Holy See that Francis entrusted at the beginning of his pontificate to Australian cardinal George Pell had none other than the APSA at the heart of the reform. But then Pell was forced to abandon the undertaking, his reform did not come into port and the APSA became the landing place for characters devoid of administrative competence, who failed in their previous roles, but whom Bergoglio wanted to keep close by, his friends and proteges. The latest case is that of Archbishop Nunzio Galantino, formerly the controversial secretary general of the Italian episcopal conference and now the president of the APSA.
When Zanchetta left Orán, the Argentine media described the financial disorder in which he had left the diocese. But that did not disturb in the least his promotion to the ASPSA “in consideration of his administrative managerial capacity,” as pontifical spokesman Gisotti made a point of saying in his statement of last January 4, before asserting that in any case “no accusation of sexual abuse had emerged at the time of [his] appointment as assessor.”
Whether it is true or not that the accusations instead date back to 2015, as reiterated by the Argentine press in reporting the words of the authors of the charge, the fact remains that the treatment reserved by Pope Francis for Zanchetta is astonishing, on account of the incredible lack of “discernment” in evaluating the person, repeatedly promoted to prominent positions in spite of his evident unreliability.
Not an isolated case. But one that suffices on its own to contradict the postulate of the unfamiliarity and innocence of Pope Francis in the face of the abuses of power, rather than of sex as he puts it, by the clerical caste.
The risk is that the summit scheduled at the Vatican from February 21-24 – in terms of how it will reverberate in public opinion – may find Bergoglio not in the role of unspotted guide, but himself as well in the dock of those guilty of having tolerated and covered up abuse.Condivi
The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.
As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.
This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned“, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.
As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.
Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).
Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.
Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.
Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.
Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.
Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.
[Barnhardt.biz] Our Advocate in Exposing the Bergoglian Antipapacy: St. Vincent Ferrer – the Saint Who Backed an Antipope (for a time)
x
RSS Feed via IFTTT <action@ifttt.com>
9:53 AM (11 hours ago)
Thanks to one and all for the kind words and encouragement as we make strides in this effort to expose the Bergoglian Antipapacy and defend Holy Mother Church, the Divinely Instituted Petrine Office, the one and only Living Pope, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, and to hopefully keep others in the Church Militant from falling into despair, sedevacantism or even being misled or browbeaten into embracing the Antichurch and its wretched mascot, Antipope Jorge Bergoglio.I want to encourage one and all to enjoin a saint in this battle who, I think, is probably more solicitous to this cause than perhaps any other – St. Vincent Ferrer. I often pair St. Vincent Ferrer with St. Catherine of Siena because they were contemporaries who were backing two different men as Pope for a time. As it turned out, St. Catherine was right and St. Vincent was wrong, and it is precisely because St. Vincent was wrong that we should seek his intercession.The confusion about the identity of the true pope in St. Vincent’s day was a political question. St. Vincent never backed a raging heretic, nor would he have. Let that be said and well understood. However, St. Vincent was lied to and misled, and thus, for a time, called an antipope “Pope” and commemorated an Antipope at the Te Igitur every day as he celebrated Mass. St. Vincent was such a holy man that he continued to perform spectacular miracles even while he was mistakenly commemorating an Antipope.When the truth was fully exposed, and the controversy surrounding the identity of the Pope resolved, St. Vincent corrected his error immediately. But, can you imagine how St. Vincent felt knowing that he had commemorated an antipope hundreds of times in the Mass? Even though St. Vincent’s mistake was a completely honest one, and others had deceived him, being such a holy man, he must have felt awful. No one sane is ever happy to have made a mistake, even an honest one.Given this, can you imagine how solicitous St. Vincent is for ALL OF US in these days? Can you imagine how keenly he wants to intercede for the correction of the people who are wrong, and how much he wants to intercede in assistance to and support of those who are right? And because St. Vincent has the Beatific Vision, he has all information and knows EXACTLY what the truth is.Please join me in asking for St. Vincent Ferrer’s intercession as we fight for Holy Mother Church, the Petrine Office, the Pope, and for our fellow man.St. Vincent Ferrer, Giovanni Bellini, ARSH 1465, Church of Sts. John and Paul, VeniceDon’t forget the Matthew 17:20 Initiative as well: full fasting twice per week and daily prayer that:-the Bergoglian Antipapacy be publicly acknowledged, that Antipope Bergoglio be removed and the entire Antipapacy be publicly nullified.-Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger be publicly acknowledged as having been the one and only living Pope since April ARSH 2005.-Jorge Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, eventually die in a state of grace and someday achieve the Beatific Vision.-Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger repent, eventually die in a state of grace and someday achieve the Beatific Vision.St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us!Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!
Don Nicola Bux: “Pope Francis has an aversion to the Church”
Don Nicola Bux: “the pope can not spread his private ideas instead of the eternally valid Catholic truth.” Pope Francis at the General Audience of 2 January 2019. (Rome) The well-known liturgist Don Nicola Bux is contradicting statements made by Pope Francis at the General Audience on 2 January. In an interview with the daily Quotidiano di Foggia, the theologian esteemed by Benedict XVI said: “The Pope can not spread his private ideas instead of the eternally valid Catholic truth. The Gospel is not revolutionary”.Don Nicola Bux was one of the advisers who were especially appreciated by Pope Benedict XVI. This is especially true for the liturgical area. Don Bux supported the liturgical renewal, which the German Pope wanted to promote through the recovery of the sacred and the promotion of the traditional Rite.Under Pope Francis, this changed. Like all the other consultors for the liturgical celebrations of the Pope, Don Bux was no longer confirmed in office. In an interview that Bruno Volpe conducted with him, he commented on Pope Francis’ controversial statement on January 4, who two days earlier had stated during the first General Audience of 2019 that the Gospel was “revolutionary.”What was evidently meant to be a tribute to the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution was supposed to be taken seriously as a statement from the ruling Pope’s mouth, however. The statement of the theologian and liturgical expert Don Nicola Bux took it seriously and contradicted it energetically. Here is the full interview:QF: Don Nicola, is the gospel, as claimed by the pope, revolutionary?Don Nicola Bux: No. This is a thesis that came into fashion in the 1970s after the publication of a few books, permitting the ideas of ’68 and Marxism to shine through. It was intended to make the figure of Jesus more attractive, but has no theological foundation.QF: Why?Don Nicola Bux: The Gospel tells us that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to complete it. A revolution, on the other hand, spares neither the past nor the present. Jesus is one of them, as St. Paul says so beautifully. He unites everything in himself. It is true that it is written in the Secret Revelation that He makes everything new, but this verse is to be read in the sense that He brings everything to perfection.QF: Better atheists than Christians who hate?Don Nicola Bux: I think that the problem is that the Pope deviates from the text prepared for him and directs his eyes to the audience. My impression is that certain statements come from a certain complacency, but above all from his aversion to the Church. Pope Francis prefers, instead of a people in the true sense of the word, a vision of the Church as a blurred, undefined people. He does not realize that he is sliding into a contradictory and Peronist perspective, a form of schizophrenia that even clashes with the idea of mercy so much hailed.QF: Why?Don Nicola Bux: When I say that someone who hates, that is objectively in a state of sin, does well to stay away from the Church, but at the same time asks divorced men who are remarried by marriage, who are objectively also sinners, in to come to the Church and give them Communion, which is impossible, I find myself this is a contradiction. Both are in a state of sin. But why be strict with those who hate, but merciful with the remarried divorced? Let us return to Peronism. At present, paradoxically, one wants to let in those who are outside but wants to push out those who are inside. Certain statements are dangerous when they fall on weak or less conscious circles, and have devastating consequences. We risk emptying the churches even more.Q: That means?Don Nicola Bux: It’s a matter of principle. Can the Pope spread his private opinions instead of the everlasting Catholic truth? No. He is not a private doctor, and it is inconceivable to change her at will or to provide versions of her that contradict the Catholic doctrine and beliefs that are not even found in a museum. And there’s something else to say about that, too.QQ: What do you mean?Don Nicola Bux: If the museums were useless, nobody would visit them. Do you not agree? The Pastors of the Church must always express their faithfulness to the sound and everlasting doctrine and truth without any contamination, and have to preserve it carefully. Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Quotidiano di Foggia / Vatican.va (Screenshots) Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.comAMDG
Ayear that began with the Holy Father performing a quick wedding on a plane in Chile ended with the Bride of Christ making an honest man out of longtime Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli.
Pope Francis appointed Tornielli “editorial director” for the Dicastery for Communication on December 18, from which post he will give editorial guidance to all of the Holy See’s media efforts. Under Francis’s pontificate, Tornielli has been less of a Vatican analyst and more of a spokesman. Greg Burke was the director of the Holy See Press Office, but Tornielli was the portavoce of the Casa Santa Marta. And what would the official spokesman do when the Holy Father’s confidant was charged with providing “editorial direction” to all Vatican communication?
Head for the exit, that’s what. In dramatic fashion, on New Year’s Eve, both Burke and press office vice-director Paloma Garcia Ovejero announced their resignations, effective New Year’s Day. In a tweet, Burke said both of them had been praying about departing for months, but the sudden joint resignation clearly indicates something had become urgently untenable.
When I was in Rome to cover the synod last October, I was surprised at how factional the thinking in the synod office—and in the Vatican communications offices—had become. They spoke openly not about critics on this or that issue, but about “enemies of the pope.” Entire networks and newspapers and news agencies, filled with professional, competent, and devoutly Catholic journalists, were denounced as lacking fidelity to the Church. That there will be tension between the principal figures of a pontificate and the media that covers it is to be expected; to encounter a mindset reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list or the Trump administration was startling.
Now Francis has installed a staunch loyalist to ensure that the official line is followed, well, religiously. The independent journalistic credentials of Burke and Garcia, praised when they were appointed in 2016, evidently were not a good fit. By their own account they were not pushed out, but the abrupt and dramatic departure was clearly intended to signal that things are headed in a troublesome direction.
Tornielli’s views will now guide the entire Vatican media operation. No doubt it is thought that installing a reliable ally in a senior post will serve the Holy Father’s interests. Perhaps. But on the communications front, 2018 demonstrated amply that it is not the supposed “enemies” of the pope who cause the Holy Father the most problems. It is his most enthusiastic friends.
In early 2017, Father Antonio Spadaro, the papal amanuensis and consigliere plenipotentiary, tweeted: “Theology is not mathematics. In theology 2 + 2 can equal 5. Because it has to do with God and real life of people….”
His intent was to defend Amoris Laetitia. But it had the opposite effect, as the pope’s inner circle gave off a creepy authoritarian vibe. Ever since George Orwell’s 1984, insisting that 2+2 can equal 5, or whatever the party line is, has become shorthand for totalitarianism. Indeed, in 1980s Poland a frequent anti-communist slogan was that, “For Poland to be Poland, 2+2 must always equal 4.”
While Spadaro’s tweet is likely the worst example of Francis being wounded by friendly fire, in 2018 the problem became more frequent. And if Tornielli’s appointment means doubling down on reliable “friends” in the face of supposed “enemies,” it is quite possible that 2019 will be worse still.
Consider the following examples from 2018, which show that Pope Francis has less to worry about from “enemies” than he does from his “friends.”
Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the pontifical academies. Bishop Sanchez just celebrated his fiftieth anniversary of priestly ordination, and it is unlikely that in all those years he has ever had the prominence he gained last year. As part of the Holy See efforts to prepare the way for the agreement with China, Sanchez went on his first trip there and returned gushing with praise: “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.”
Bishop Sanchez’s obvious instructions were to talk up China so that Catholics would not reject the upcoming deal as capitulation to communist persecution. But he embraced his brief with too much zeal and too little sense, and instead made the Holy See appear easily duped. When the deal was actually made in September, followed by a ratcheting up of religious persecution, Sanchez’s friendly fire made it more difficult for other officials to offer any sustained defense of what strikes many as an utter capitulation, if not betrayal. Sanchez undermined one of the Holy Father’s signature diplomatic initiatives.
Monsignor Dario Viganò, former prefect of the Dicastery for Communication. For the Holy Father’s fifth anniversary in March 2018, Msgr. Viganò brought out a series of booklets on the theology of Pope Francis. He asked Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to write a page or two praising the series and, by extension, Francis’s theology. Benedict declined, and noted that he refused because some of those praising Francis were long-time dissenters from Catholic orthodoxy. It was all very embarrassing, but would have remained unknown if Msgr. Viganò had not thought to lie about it, telling journalists that Benedict had written an endorsement letter after all. Viganò produced an altered photograph of the letter, and only released the part of the letter which appeared to support his project.
The whole matter quickly unraveled, and the chief of Vatican communications was revealed to have deliberately deceived the press and falsified documents from the pope emeritus. A project meant to flatter Francis revealed instead an entourage insecure about his theological sophistication. Justice was swift but not so terrible: Msgr. Viganò resigned as prefect, only to be restored the same day to something akin to deputy prefect. He will be supervising Tornielli in his new post.
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago sent a most unusual missive to all his parishes in September. In an interview with Chicago’s NBC station, Cardinal Cupich had said that the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (no relation to Msgr. Viganò) was not really worthy of a papal response: “The pope has a bigger agenda. He’s got to get on with other things of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
Elsewhere in the “rabbit hole” interview Cupich said that “there is a small group of insurgents, who have not liked Pope Francis from the very beginning … And, quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino and that he is bringing Latino culture into the life of the Church.”
The “rabbit hole” interview achieved the exact opposite of what was intended. It made Pope Francis’s inner circle look dismissive and out-of-touch. The accusation that the Holy Father’s critics don’t like Latinos—or at least Italians from Argentina—was race-baiting of the worst Chicago kind. So Cardinal Cupich put out a press release correcting his remarks and accusing NBC of false editing, and ordered all his priests to read a damage control letter from the pulpit on Sunday. The remedy for the friendly fire was more of the same, as the inner circle that was dismissive now also came off as thin-skinned and self-referential, commandeering Sunday Mass to correct the media mishaps of the cardinal.
Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh was on the ground in Chile for the Holy Father’s disastrous visit there in January. Ivereigh was all-in on the plan to discredit those opposed to the appointment of Bishop Juan Barros, including the unsatisfied victims of Chile’s most notorious priest predator Father Fernando Karadima, Barros’s mentor. Ivereigh argued that the critics of the Holy Father were illustrating the “scapegoat mechanism of René Girard.” Support like that from friends might have explained why the Holy Father kept accusing his critics of being both stupid and guilty of the sin of calumny—until he did a complete reversal and agreed with them. He may have even found a scapegoat or two in having the entire Chilean episcopate resign.
Father Thomas Rosica, former English-language attaché to the Holy See Press Office and founder of Salt and Light TV in Canada. His network does tremendous service in Catholic broadcasting, and Rosica is an enthusiastic evangelist. This enthusiasm got the better of him in a St. Ignatius day encomium to the Holy Father.
“Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is ‘free from disordered attachments,’” wrote Father Rosica. “Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
That appeared on the Salt and Light blog and was reposted on Zenit. When it was observed that no pope can put himself as an individual above the authority of Scripture and tradition, Zenit axed the offending paragraph. It’s still there at Salt and Light. To all those who had been defending the Holy Father against the charge that he was breaking with Scripture and tradition, Father Rosica aimed this friendly fire: It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Catholics, including Catholics who have criticisms of this or that decision of Pope Francis, ought not delight in the Holy Father’s difficulties. But as his inner circle is tightened to include Tornielli and exclude Burke, it is likely that his problems will increase. “Enemies” do not do nearly as much damage as his friends do.
Raymond J. de Souza is a priest in the archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario.
The World Cup of Bad Cardinals – nominations requestedPosted: 07 Jan 2019 04:07 PM PST I don’t know, I turn on the phone each morning to see what spiritual nourishment the world has to offer me, and every day there’s another cardinal disgracing himself. If it isn’t Dolan cosying up to Joe Biden, or Napier praising Occasional-Cortex, the pro-abortion dancer with the part-time brain cells, it’s Rhino Marx bleating about a change in sexual morality. The forgotten Marx brother.So, after hitting my head against the wall seven times (Biblical), I decided that the only way for us saved laymen to express our disgust was to run a World Cup of Bad Cardinals. Now, the World Cup of Bad Hymns was a great success, except that Marty Haugen still hasn’t got in touch to thank me for his silver medal. We won’t have 64 entrants this time, just a maximum of 32, so we should get through the tournament more quickly. Remember that 1 in 12 of the Disciples was unsaved, and my estimate is that we’ll find a similar proportion of the 200+ cardinals in the same position. Obviously, I’m excluding Pope Francis, out of respect for the office he bears, and let’s leave McCarrick to rot in his beach house – he resigned from the College of Cardinals, anyway – but there are plenty more to choose from. Living ones only, though. “I think we’ve got this one sewn up!”In alphabetical order, I’ve got the following list of utter disgraces to the Catholic Church [updated]: Baldisseri, Becciu, Braz de Aviz, Coccopalmerio, Cupich, Danneels, De Kesel, Dew, Dolan, Farrell, Kasper, Mahony, Maradiaga, Marx, Napier, Nichols, Ouellet, Parolin, Ravasi, Schönborn, Sodano, Tagle, Tobin, Wuerl. So nominations are invited, either by comments to this blog post, or by replying to the Tweet. Closing date January 14th, after which we get started. Please, just give names, not biographies. Yes, yes, I know, this is a highly offensive ad hominem attack on the Princes of the Church, but, in the words of Terry-Thomas: “You’re an absolute shower!”
With the partial shutdown of the federal government having entered its third week, some members of Congress have grown increasingly anxious to find a compromise solution to end the current stalemate over a funding request for border security and border wall construction.
Unfortunately, negotiations have stalled as neither side has shown any indication it will waver, with President Donald Trump continuing to demand roughly $5.7 billion to fulfill his primary campaign promise while Democrats insist they will refuse to provide even a single dime of taxpayer money to construct any sort of physical border barrier.
However, there may be an acceptable solution already on the table that would provide funding for border wall construction without the use of taxpayer money — while also fulfilling Trump’s promise that “Mexico will pay for the wall.” And that potential solution just received a huge boost of support from famed actor, author, and martial arts expert Chuck Norris, in a commentary piece for WND.
Advertisement – story continues below
Norris drew attention to a piece of legislation that was just re-introduced into the Senate by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would use the seized funds of convicted drug cartel overlords for border security and border wall construction.
Cruz cleverly named his bill the “Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act — or EL CHAPO Act — named for the arrested kingpin of the Mexico-based Sinaloa drug cartel, Joaquin Archivaldo “El Chapo” Guzman Lorea, from whom roughly $14 billion has been seized and would be forfeited if El Chapo is convicted.
In a recent media release, Cruz noted that Congress had a mandate to secure the border and build a wall, and said, “Ensuring the safety and security of Texans is one of my top priorities. Indeed, I have long called for building a wall as a necessary step in defending our border.
“Fourteen billion dollars will go a long way to secure our southern border, and hinder the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and individuals.
Advertisement – story continues below
“By leveraging any criminally forfeited assets of El Chapo and other murderous drug lords, we can offset the cost of securing our border and make meaningful progress toward delivering on the promises made to the American people,” Cruz added.
In his column supporting Cruz’s idea, Norris wrote:
Would you support using the seized funds of convicted drug lords for border wall construction?
Yes No
“If you didn’t know, El Chapo is almost entirely responsible for the majority of drugs that come up through the U.S. southern border. As the co-founder and head of the Sinaloa Cartel, he is the #1 supplier of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the U.S. If you or your loved ones have ever tried or been addicted to illegal drugs, odds are they originated from the Sinaloa Cartel.”
Norris proceeded to cite several examples of how widely the Sinaloa’s drug trafficking network operated inside the U.S., as well as the vast accumulation of wealth the cartel has received in illicit drug money, and how the estimated $14 billion that would be forfeited upon El Chapo’s conviction would be more than enough to cover the construction of a border wall where necessary.
“Is Sen. Cruz’s EL CHAPO Act not a brilliant idea to fund the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico? And guess what? A Mexican pays for it after all — one evil hombre who has repeatedly raped America’s communities and the souls of precious millions through narcotics and other criminalities for the past three decades,” wrote Norris.
Advertisement – story continues below
“Think of the impact passing the EL CHAPO Act could have,” he continued. “First, El Chapo’s drug monies could fully fund the completion of the entire U.S. southern border wall without a single dime more from the federal government or American taxpayers.
“Second, simultaneously the majority of El Chapo’s own drug trafficking into our country would be greatly diminished using his own monies.”
“Third, president Trump could fulfill his primary campaign promise. Fourth, the Democrats would be able to open their government the same day the EL CHAPO Act passed,” Norris explained.
He added, “Let it be clear: Passing that single bill could be the compromise they all are looking for, and it is the best win-win-win-win solution the Congress and president could ever enact!”
Advertisement – story continues below
Norris is absolutely right in that this could very well be the best solution to end the current impasse between congressional Democrats and the Trump White House, as it allows both sides of the debate to emerge “victorious” without having backed down from the face-off.
Trump would obviously be the winner as he would achieve his oft-promised border wall — and at the expense of Mexican criminals\, to boot — while Democrats could claim victory in that they held fast on preventing American taxpayer money from going toward Trump’s wall.
Meanwhile, the American citizens would “win” by virtue of a more secure border with fewer illegal immigrants and drug smugglers successfully crossing, making our nation safer and more prosperous.
And in the end, shouldn’t that be the most important victory of all?
Ben MarquisContributor, CommentarySummary More Info Recent PostsWriter and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.Facebook
Until Jesus Christ, celibacy was virtually unknown. Our Lord’s celibacy revealed the essence of his mission, and manifested him as the Bridegroom of the Church
Over the past six months the Church has suffered horrid revelations of clergy sexual abuse, homosexual activity, and attendant cover-up. These scandals have understandably prompted some to call for an end to celibacy in the Catholic Church. It would seem that the discipline no longer serves us well, and indeed might be the source of our woes. Of course, we should not quickly jettison a practice so deep in the Church’s history and so strongly recommended by our Lord and his Apostles (see Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:25-40; Revelation 14:4). Perhaps in this season, in the light of Christ’s Epiphany, we can reflect upon this sacred discipline, which the Church has always referred to as a treasure, not a burden.
The Feast of the Epiphany is about God’s sudden self-manifestation or, from another perspective, our sudden perception about him. To borrow from the Christmas Preface, with Christ’s birth “a new light of [his] glory has shown upon the eyes of our minds.” The Word made flesh is revealed as a light to the nations, present in the Magi: “On entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage” (Matthew 2:11).
Celibacy and the Epiphany
Celibacy itself is something of an epiphany – that is, a sudden manifestation or revelation. Until Jesus Christ, it was virtually unknown. Some, but few, of the prophets appear to have been celibate (and Hosea might have desired to be). These men are significant not so much as exceptions that prove the rule but as types of the One to come. The chaste, celibate Christ is a new way of God manifesting himself. The Child in the manger will be celibate, not as an accidental feature of His life but to reveal something essential about Himself and His mission; to manifest Himself as the Bridegroom of the Church.
Our Lord’s birth is also the epiphany of spiritual generation in the world. Prior to his coming, abstaining from marriage and therefore from procreation made no sense because the Messiah was to be born of Jewish blood. Thus, every man desired to have descendants. In Bethlehem, something new appears. The new light of Christ has revealed a new kind of birth, that of the “children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). Of greater importance now is not physical generation but spiritual. The essential thing is to be born anew, or “from above” (John 3:3).
Priestly celibacy is ordered to participation in this spiritual generation, to becoming a spiritual father. Presbyterorum Ordinis, Vatican II’s decree on the life and ministry of priests, calls celibacy “a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.” By way of it, a priest foregoes marriage and children precisely so that he can become a spiritual father. In so doing, he witnesses to the truth and superiority of spiritual generation. As Saint Paul became father to the Corinthians through his ministry (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16), so priests father children in Christ by their ministry, their preaching and administration of the sacraments. Without this purpose of celibacy firmly in mind, we will inevitably lose sight of its significance. Indeed, the scandals witness to this truth: one of the horrors of the current crisis is precisely that spiritual fathers – not just anyone, but spiritual fathers – have abused the children entrusted to them.
Of course, the Feast of Epiphany is best known for the mysterious gifts of the Magi: “Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11). These gifts help to flesh out or reveal the content of this epiphany of celibacy. The Church has always understood these gifts as more than just material goods. They are important not so much in themselves but in what they reveal about Christ, their recipient. Traditionally they are taken to proclaim him as king, God and man. In that same spirit, we can discern in the gifts of the Magi certain essentials of celibacy.
That they are gifts reminds us immediately that celibacy is itself a gift – a “treasure” as the Church describes it. Discussions on this topic inevitably include the insistence that celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline (as if a discipline in the Church is something to be treated lightly). That is true, as far as it goes. But that kind of positivism fails to grasp celibacy’s deeper reality, to which both Scripture and Tradition so constantly witness. Indeed, the Church speaks of celibacy as not just a discipline but a charism. It is a gift given to some for the benefit of all; it is given to some members for the upbuilding of the entire Body. By way of the charism of celibacy, a certain number in the Church make themselves available for that undivided attention to the Lord and service of the Kingdom spoken of in Scripture. By way of it priests “dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his Kingdom” (PO 16).
The Gift of Gold
Of course, a gift must be received as it is given. We are ungrateful recipients if we only receive a gift on our own terms. To receive celibacy as the gift it is, we must appreciate the qualities of the charism – qualities nicely symbolized by the gifts of the Magi. The first of which is gold, something of lasting value. So also, celibacy is of enduring worth. Despite painfully conspicuous failures and perennial calls for its elimination, it remains valuable. In fact, like gold in a bad economy, its value only increases in a sex-saturated culture. As people chase after fulfillment in the flesh, celibacy points them to a higher, more authentically human happiness. It witnesses to the truth that man is created for something beyond the material – for true joy, not mere pleasure.
Gold’s enduring value was of course the philosophy behind the erstwhile gold standard. A currency tied to that standard in effect participated in the value of gold. Even without the literal “gold standard,” we still use that phrase to indicate something that serves as the basis for evaluating everything else.
In that sense, we should view our Lord’s celibacy as the gold standard. All the motives or arguments for celibacy ultimately come down to this one: Jesus Christ was celibate. Any celibacy prior to him points to his, and all celibacy after him imitates it. He sanctifies this state of life and gives it meaning. He was celibate for a reason and thus reveals the purpose of priestly celibacy: to love the church and give himself up for her; to sanctify her; to cleanse her by the washing of water with the word; to present the church in splendor, that she might be holy and without blemish (cf. Ephesians 5:25-27). Christ’s celibacy is the gold standard. A priest’s celibacy has value only as he imitates and participates in the Lord’s, only to the degree that he lives it in sacrificial love for the Church.
In this regard, another helpful image is the celibate man who frames the Christmas season: John the Baptist, the “Friend of the Bridegroom” (John 3:29). Advent begins with the Baptist’s cry and Christmas concludes with his baptizing our Lord. John anticipated the evangelical celibacy of the New Testament – that is, the celibacy lived for “the sake of the kingdom of heaven” and for “undivided devotion to the Lord” (Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:35). He embraced celibacy so that he could more freely fulfill his mission to prepare the way of the Lord and to make him know when at last he came.
More to the point, John’s celibacy was a sign and type of the Bridegroom’s. It derived its value only in relation to him. Naturally, then, the friend sent to announce the Bridegroom grew to resemble the Bridegroom Himself. So much so, in fact, that he needed to clarify, “I am not the Christ” (John 1:20). His celibacy pointed to the Other. Hence, he had nothing to say about himself: he was not the Christ, not the prophet, but just a voice. So also, the celibate priest – sent to announce the Bridegroom – introduces people to Christ not by assuming his place but by imitating him, by growing to resemble him, by pointing others to him.
The Baptist’s example helps to identify one kind of failure in priestly celibacy. The priest, while striving to imitate and even resemble the Bridegroom, can never assume his place. To do so would be a violation of celibacy, a taking of the bride from the Bridegroom. The most obvious form of priestly unchastity comes from lust and disordered sexual desires; that, unfortunately, needs no explanation. But this other form of priestly unchastity comes from vanity: when a priest wants himself to be known more than Christ, loved more than Christ, and praised more than Christ. It is the celebrity priest who makes his homilies and his Mass more about him than about Christ. Who indeed comes to see the homily and the Mass as his.
This priestly vanity is the taproot of clericalism. It uses the freedom of celibacy for oneself, not for sacrificial service. Clericalism is in effect a form of unchastity – the assuming of the Bridegroom’s place. And this privileged (rather than sacrificial) view of the priesthood paves the way for other forms of unchastity. Disconnected from the gold standard of Christ’s celibacy, a priest’s celibacy not only loses value but also causes harm.
It is worth noting that Christ’s celibacy sets the standard for all vocations, because his love is the only perfect love. His complete gift of self, lived out in celibacy, serves as the paradigm for the self-giving that should characterize the love between husband and wife. His celibacy speaks to single people and engaged couples. It teaches them how to cultivate the maturity and self-possession to live in a chaste celibate manner. Someone incapable of living a chaste celibate life lacks also the self-possession necessary to give oneself in marriage. In that sense, chaste celibacy is the necessary precursor to all other vocations.
The Gift of Frankincense
Next the Magi give frankincense, which we rightly associate with worship. The Psalmist sings, “Let my prayer arise before you like incense” (Ps 141:2). Revelation speaks of incense as “the prayers of the holy ones” (Rev 5:8). The early Christians ran afoul of the pagan world precisely because they would not offer incense – worship – to idols. So also, celibacy is intended for worship. This charism is bestowed upon the priest precisely so that he can pray, and most especially so that he can stand at the altar, with “undivided devotion” (1 Corinthians 7:35). Of course, celibacy is not an absolute requirement for the offering of Mass. But we should not for that reason skip over the deep relation between the two – a relation found in Scripture and Tradition. What makes priestly celibacy distinct is its orientation to standing at the altar and offering the Mass. indeed, both celibacy and the Mass are about sacrificing and offering the body so that others can have life.
In Scripture we find the admonition to those who approach the living God – that they ought to detach from both creation and procreation (another indication of the link between poverty and chastity). Approaching supernatural life calls for detachment from natural life. At Mount Sinai, in preparation for the epiphany of the Lord, the Israelites were commanded, “Be ready on the third day; do not go near a woman” (Ex 19:15). The priests on service in the Temple were to refrain from marital relations. And Saint Paul exhorts married couples to periodic continence – in effect, a temporary celibacy – that they may devote themselves to prayer (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5).
The ancient Church reasoned that since those in lesser offices were obligated to continence for a time (the Israelites, the Levites, married couples), those who minister daily at the altar should observe perpetual continence — which ultimately became celibacy. The conviction was that such detachment enabled ministers (not just priests, but deacons and subdeacons) to pray with an undivided heart that, as the Council of Carthage put it, “they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God.” It is therefore fitting that the priest, who approaches the altar and offers the life-giving sacrifice, observe perpetual continence. The man who exercises a spiritual fatherhood in a unique manner at the altar should draw back from natural fatherhood. The man who speaks the words of the Bridegroom — This is my body — should not speak those same nuptial words to a woman.
Incense also indicates mystery. That is part of the reason we use it at Mass: to make mysterious what we might be tempted to treat as mundane and ordinary. It serves as a veil reminding us (because we are always in danger of forgetting) of the holiness – the otherness – of the One who comes so humbly in the Eucharist. Celibacy serves a similar purpose in the world. It is a kind of veil that calls attention (the priest’s own, first of all) to the otherness of the priest, to the holiness of what he is and does.
Not infrequently after Sunday Mass, a child approaches the priest and asks him about some aspect of the liturgy: Why? The child’s question means that the liturgy has done its work. It has provoked a wonder and awe that can then be turned to greater understanding and devotion. The priest then has a welcome opportunity for mystagogia, to explain the sacred mysteries. A similar thing happens with celibacy. Few things in the Church provoke more questions, wonder and interest. Even those who know little else about the Church have at least heard of this mysterious kind of man that foregoes not only what is evil but even what is profoundly good. They wonder, Why?
As a witness to something more, celibacy is meant to be mysterious and cause wonder. The world’s children’s questions about it means that celibacy has done part of its work. Their wonder provides us with the opportunity to speak of Christ’s own celibate chastity, of sacrifice, and of the world to come. The question provides an opportunity to speak of the One who transcends all other loves and of the Kingdom that lays claim to our hearts.
The Gift of Myrrh
Lastly, the Magi bring myrrh — an ointment used in the ancient world to prepare a body for burial. Its use was practical in a rather depressing way: it covered the stench of a decaying corpse. Although it brought a pleasing odor to something otherwise horrifying and ghastly, myrrh still served as a reminder of death and the passing nature of this world. At the same time, its use also indicated a certain reverence for the body. It conveyed to mourners that their loved one’s body was not just a carcass to be discarded. The body still retained a human significance that needed to be respected and indeed anointed.
As an eschatological sign, celibacy serves a similar purpose: it reminds us of death and the passing nature of this world. Those who embrace celibacy choose to live here and now what everyone will live in the world to come. Marriage exists in this world only. It speaks of the not yet dimension of the faith; the definitive marriage, the one to which all others must yield, has not yet arrived. Celibacy speaks of the already dimension of the faith; the Bridegroom has already initiated the nuptials with His Bride and the world as we know it is passing away. It speaks of the end of this world and the coming of the next.
The fallen world forever presents itself to us as our final destination. It bids us remain, set down roots and cut short our pilgrimage. Likewise, the body — the flesh — bids us to find fulfillment in it alone. People go from pleasure to pleasure, chasing after what the flesh always promises but can never deliver. Even marriage suffers this reality. Many mistakenly think that marriage will bring them fulfillment — when, in fact, it never can and was never supposed to. Marriage is designed to lead spouses to fulfillment; not to fulfill them here and now. These things — the world, the body and marriage — are goods. But for them to remain good, they must remain in their proper place and not claim a throne that is not theirs.
Like myrrh, celibacy witnesses to death, to the passing nature of all things — including the world, the body and marriage. As such, celibacy relativizes them all. It sets the world in proper relation to eternity, the body to its resurrection, and marriage to the wedding feast of the Lamb. Note that celibacy does not condemn them. It in fact serves them by identifying their limits and thus bringing out their true meaning. It orders them toward that true human fulfillment that is beatitude.
Like myrrh, celibacy also witnesses to the dignity of the human body. If the body were of no value, there would be no point to anointing it after death and, indeed, no purpose to its burial at all. Likewise, if the body were of no value – if sexuality were bad – then there would be no significance to its offering in celibacy. As it is, the celibate lives as a sign that the human body is not just an object but a sacred vessel; it has dignity and is capable of being sanctified. Celibacy is a sacrifice precisely because the body and sexuality are goods.
Still and all, myrrh is meant for the dead. A pious tradition has it that our Lord’s body was anointed with the same oil presented to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. Whatever its historicity, this tradition expresses the truth that the myrrh of the Magi points to the sacrifice of Christ. Which reminds us that celibacy is also a sacrifice, the putting to death of something. It requires a death-to-self, an offering that costs something, that digs into us priests. And it is supposed to. It requires the sacrifice of marriage and all its benefits – not once for all, but at all times and at different moments in a priest’s life and ministry.
This death-to-self has been overlooked in recent years. Perhaps the desire to emphasize its Christological, nuptial, and eschatological dimensions prompted formators to skip over the reality that, for all its beautiful theology, celibacy is still a sacrifice. It is an ascetical discipline that theology can elevate and dignify, but cannot take away. It is a way of living the Apostle’s description of Christ’s ministers: “always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested” (2 Corinthians 4:10).
The neglect of celibacy’s ascetical dimension has deprived many priests of the traditional means for living it: prayer, self-denial, penance, physical mortification, etc. The most important of these means is, of course, prayer. The Church exhorts her priests to “humbly and fervently pray for” this gift of the Spirit (PO, 16). It should be clear that living celibacy in a healthy manner requires a priest to ask daily for the grace to do so. Only a beggar can live this charism authentically. Neglecting prayer indicates either a casual attitude toward celibacy’s importance or a delusional sense of one’s own strength.
But prayer is essential for celibacy for another reason: because it is one of the purposes of celibacy. A priest receives this charism not so much that he can be free from marriage and family, or even just free for work, but so that he can be free for prayer. He chooses to be alone so that he may be more present to the Lord; so that he can more freely intercede for his people and contemplate truths to hand on to them. The more a priest lives according to this purpose of celibacy, the more he integrates the charism into his life. The greater the devotion to prayer, the more celibacy fits his life. But for the priest who does not strive to grow in prayer, the more awkward celibacy will become, the more it will feel like a suit that doesn’t quite fit.
Similarly, celibate chastity only grows and bears fruit in the soil of mortification. It only makes sense when lived in union with the other evangelical counsels: poverty and obedience. It is only one part of the threefold renunciation of wealth, marriage and independence. Indeed, this became painfully clear as the reports surrounding former-Cardinal McCarrick revealed not just unchastity but also a lavish lifestyle and abuse of power. As an asceticism, celibacy is out of place and ultimately unsustainable when not united with sacrifice in these other areas. To a man of wealth and independence, celibacy appears absurd. Unless poverty and obedience are more deeply lived, priestly celibacy will always appear as an oddity in clerical life.
Friendship and Celibacy
We know that the Magi made the journey to Bethlehem together. Were they friends beforehand? Did they discern the star together? Or did the star bring them together? Whatever the case, it was together that they traveled, worshipped and returned home “by another way” (Matthew 2:12). This reminds us of the importance of friendship for celibacy. Indeed, one of the depressing revelations of the past six months is the apparent dearth of friendship within the clergy. Or, rather, the lack of that kind of friendship by which men strive together in sacrificial service, by which one man confronts and corrects another, and by which men aspire together for greater things – even holiness.
It is interesting that the Catechism’s only paragraph on friendship is in the section on chastity. Point is, friendship enables a man to have deep relationships that are not sexual – and only that kind of man can truly live celibacy. Of course, friendship is not a “solution” to celibacy. There is no practice or secret to making celibacy easy, because it is supposed to involve a death. Nevertheless, friendship does bring support. First, because it provides friends — indeed, even brothers — with whom the priest shares a mission and purpose. Second, and perhaps more practically, because it provides those who can hold us accountable and provide correction.
One final thought about the gifts of the magi: they were not given to the Christ Child. They were meant for him, of course, but they were entrusted to Mary and Joseph. Which is a good reminder to us priests of their necessary intercession for our living out of celibacy. This gift of gold, frankincense, and myrrh has been given to us priests. It will only remain an authentic gift – a charism – when we entrust it into the virginal hands of Mary and Joseph.
Father Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FATHER PAUL SCALIA WRITES A BEAUTIFUL REFLECTION ON CELEBACY AND THE EPIPHANY
“La Religieuse” (“The Nun”) opens today in New York City for two weeks at the Film Forum. It is based on a novel by the 18th-century French writer, Denis Diderot. The New York Times provided almost a half-page review, complete with a large picture of a nun in habit standing behind a jail-like facade.
The French movie, like the book, bashes the Catholic Church. It is reviewed by J. Hoberman, who quotes what the paper’s movie critic, Vincent Canby, said about it when it debuted in 1971. “It’s with pleasure that I report its arrival,” he said.
Hoberman explains why the Times is attracted to the movie. Commenting on the central character, Suzanne, he writes, “At her first convent, Suzanne is subject to torture, interrogation and ostracism.” At her second convent, she meets the “flighty libertine abbess” who runs the joint, “experienc[ing] another sort of torment.” Hey, what’s not to like?
There is more to the script than what Hoberman allows.
After Suzanne is forced into the convent by her lousy parents, she is beaten and harassed by evil nuns. When she is transferred to the second convent, she meets a Mother Superior who is—you guessed it—a lesbian. But Suzie wants nothing to do with her advances, and this drives her predator boss insane, followed by death.
Now who would concoct such trash? Why the Enlightenment genius, Diderot, author of the famous Encyclopedia, a 35-volume exaltation of reason and knowledge. Like so many of the French intellectuals at the time, he was an atheist, something unappreciated by his parents (they wanted him to become a priest) and his Jesuit teachers.
What would possess Diderot to paint such a dark picture of nuns? Anger. Anger at the Catholic Church’s sexual ethics: He was a womanizer and a libertine, a man whose conception of sexual freedom included a rejection of the taboo against incest. That’s right, the same man who condemned fidelity in marriage and the Church’s embrace of it, found objections to sexual relations between mothers and their sons to be outdated.
Why is it that so many intellectuals who hate the Church’s teachings on sexuality turn out to be either predators or perverts? Maybe someone at the New York Times can answer that.
In November, Pope Francis instructed the Catholic bishops of the US to table their plans for new responses to the sex-abuse scandal. Now, in his letter to the American bishops who are on retreat at Mundelein seminary this week, the Pontiff exhorts them to take action—but not, apparently, the sort of action they had in mind.
To be sure it is no simple matter to discern what action the Pope wants the American bishops to take; his lengthy letter offers them no clear directions. But he writes at length about how they should approach their problems, and in doing so he conveys a strong message about the path he prefers and, more important, the path he wants the American hierarchy to abandon.
First, the Pope tells the American bishops that this is their problem. “In recent years,” he writes, “the Church in the United States has been shaken by various scandals that have gravely affected its credibility.” [emphasis added] He describes their retreat this week as “a necessary step toward responding in the spirit of the Gospel to the crisis of credibility that you are experiencing as a Church.” [emphasis added] Nowhere does he acknowledge that the scandal has shaken the entire universal Church, and that especially this past year, the most serious questions about credibility have been aimed directly at the Vatican.
Second, the Pope repeatedly exhorts the American hierarchy to preserve unity, to avoid divisions, to act as a fraternal body. His dogged insistence on this message—which occasionally escalates into blunt criticism, as when he urges them to “break the vicious cycle of recrimination, undercutting, and discrediting”—strongly suggests that there has been a great deal of public quarreling among the American bishops. But that is not the case! To a remarkable degree, the American Catholic hierarchy has preserved its public unity, under trying circumstances.
In fact, more than a few American Catholics would argue that the pointed reluctance of bishops to criticize each other has been a gross failing: an important factor contributing to the scandal. Amy Wellborn, arguing that the Pope has sent the wrong message, speaks for many concerned Catholics:
Is the culture of church leadership in desperate need of encouragement to be more gently tolerant of all points of view and less critical of each other? Seems to me it’s pretty much the opposite.
Where is the evidence of this disunity, which worries Pope Francis so much? The American bishops have not been criticizing each other; far from it. They have been criticizing the Vatican. They have, in fact, been—gently, respectfully, but insistently—criticizing the Pope himself.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is not mentioned in the papal letter, but his testimony casts a long shadow across its pages. The Pope and his allies have denounced the former Vatican diplomat as a threat to Church unity, and it is that sort of division that Pope Francis wants the Americans to avoid.
Too late! Dozens of American bishops are already on record, calling for a thorough investigation of Archbishop Vigano’s charges. By his adamant silence—which is conspicuously maintained in this letter—Pope Francis has indicated that he will not approve any investigation. So now, he tells the American bishops, they should resolve to move on, maintaining unity, without probing further into potentially painful subjects such as the influence of a corrupt homosexual network within the hierarchy and within the Vatican. That topic, the Pope signals, will remain off limits.
In his letter the Pope also offers the very useful and valid reminder that a solution to this scandal cannot be built solely on procedural foundations. It will require a new attitude toward sexual abuse in particular and Church leadership in general. He rightly cautions the American bishops against “reducing everything to an organizational problem.”
Andrea Tornielli, recently hired as editorial director of the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications—and thus as a leading official interpreter of the Pope’s messages—focused on the need for “a change in our mind-set” in his own commentary on the Pope’s letter. He concluded with a revealing prescription for rebuilding the credibility of the hierarchy:
Credibility is not rebuilt with marketing strategies. It must be the fruit of a Church that knows how to overcome divisions and internal conflicts…
It’s certainly true that marketing campaigns do not restore a damaged institution’s credibility. But neither does the preservation of a united front. Once again the first order of business, from the Pope’s perspective, is to avoid division and conflict. But the only effective way to restore credibility is to tell the truth.
The papal letter encourages the American bishops to find ways to protect against sexual abuse in the future, but not to look too deeply into how the problem arose in the past: not to investigate the corruption that gave rise to a culture of secrecy and cover-ups, of protecting the guilty at the expense of the innocent. If the same attitude prevails when the Vatican hosts the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences in February—and we have little reason to expect otherwise—that meeting will result in further frustration, greater cynicism about Church leadership, more damage to the evangelical mission of the Church.
I say that there is little reason for hope about the February meeting. But not none. Because this week the US bishops are praying over their response to the crisis, and to the papal letter. We should all be praying, too, that their response will be marked by both prudence and fortitude.
Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
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
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.