Top 5 Roma Locuta Posts of 2018by Steven O’ReillyDecember 30, 2018 (Steven O’Reilly) – So…2018 is almost a wrap. The Roma Locuta Estsite’s second year (actually, its first full year of existence) is coming to close and it is about to start its third in 2019. Thanks to all our readers. May you have a blessed and Happy New Year in 2019!I saw OnePeterFive is closing out the year with its top ten list of 1P5 posts in 2018 (see 1P5’s Top Ten Posts of 2018). That seemed to me to be a good idea to cap off the end of another ‘blog year.’ So, in the spirit of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, and if 1P5 does not mind that I shamelessly borrow the idea; I here post Roma Locuta Est’stop 5 posts of 2018.The rankings below were determined by total views.#5. The Errors of Mr. Walford’s ‘Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce’Readers may be familiar with the name of Stephen Walford, who is pianist turned lay apologist for Pope Francis. Roma Locuta Est‘s rebuttals of his various articles are compiled in the Summa Contra Stephen Walford. Mr. Walford recently penned a book entitled Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce which was published in August. This book is a defense of Mr. Walford’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. I say Mr. Walford’s interpretation, but to be fair…given the pope’s seeming of this book, the number of cardinals who assisted the author in one way or another on the project, and the fact a separate essay based on the book was published recently in the L’Osservatore Romano (see What You Gotta Believe…if you believe Mr. Walford); it is clear enough Mr. Walford’s interpretation is endorsed by Pope Francis. This #5 posting is the first of a three part series which rebuts the central arguments of Mr. Walford’s book (Parts 2 and 3 of my rebuttal are Part II: The Development of Mr. Walford’s Errors and Part III: Mr. Walford and the Magisterium). #4. The Historicity of Miracles: The case of Julian the Apostate and a lesson for our timeThis article considers the case of the Roman emperor known as Julian the Apostate, who in his time was thought by some to be a candidate for the Anti-Christ. When Julian became emperor, he came upon the idea to rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Julian appeared to have had several motives for this great project. Above all these reasons, he intended to discredit the Christian religion by this undertaking. Julian sought to disprove Christianity once and for all time in one bold move. Knowing of the Lord’s prophecy regarding the temple in Jerusalem of there “not one stone being left upon the other” (cf Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6), Julian thought he could disprove the Lord’s words and thus the Christian faith by rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem which had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. In studying this case, this post suggests there is message of hope and a reminder in dark times such as ours that God is the Lord of history. He will not forget his promises and his words will not be falsified. #3. Hey, ‘Red Hat’ Investigators: How about starting with this former Red Hat…Cardinal Bergoglio?This article discusses the news that a group of former law enforcement and intelligence officers will create reports on all cardinals (see ‘Red Hat Report’: Should Laypeople Investigate Cardinals?”). According to the National Register article by Judy Roberts, this ‘Red Hat’ group has the following goal:“Using the services of academic researchers, lawyers, editors and investigators who are former FBI and CIA agents, the group hopes to create dossiers on cardinals by examining their priorities and records of handling sexual-abuse incidents and financial and legal matters.”The posts makes a couple suggestions for this group such as other topics they might look into, i.e., Cardinal Bergoglio and the Conclave of 2013. #2. Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?This blog post is an update and expansion of an article first written in August of 2017, and then updated a couple times in 2018. The idea for the article originated within Jesuit circles in the year following the election of Jorge Bergoglio S.J. The issue, in a nutshell, was this: Jesuits profess a number of vows. A couple of these vows certainly appear to be obstacles or at least serve as a speed bumps for a Jesuit who might become a pope – unless the obligations of these vows were dispensed by the proper religious authority.I was intrigued by the thought there were doubts whether Jorge Bergoglio S.J. had been properly dispensed from his vows. I was also puzzled by the Jesuit writers I’ve come across – and who idolize Francis, but who are at the same time rather clumsy and weak in their attempts to explain the issue of the vow away. It seemed to me there might be an exposed raw nerve here. The relevant Jesuit vow is given here (emphasis added):“I also promise that I will never strive for or ambition any prelacy or dignity outside the Society; and I will to the best of my ability never consent to my electionunless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin.” (see here)If – hypothetically – Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., was still subject to his vows going into the conclave of 2013, he should not have accepted his election–and indeed, it seems, he could not accept it. While his election might have been valid in form and procedure, would his acceptance of the papacy have been null and void because he was not free – per his vows to God – to give it [e.g., “the Lord thy God will require it” (see Deuteronomy 23:21)]? Therefore, looking at the election of Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., to the papacy in the 2013 conclave and wondering who forced him to accept (i.e., to ‘consent to his election‘) the papacy by obedience, the post asks a simple question: who dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?#1. Of McCarrick and Past and Future ConclavesThis post briefly reviews some of the arguments in circulation regarding the 2013 Conclave which would suggest Francis is not a valid pope. It also takes a look at the disgraced former Cardinal McCarrick’s role in the pre-conclave deliberations in 2013. The post concludes with some thoughts on the next conclave.
Church Militant has learned from extremely reliable sources that the Vatican investigation into disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick appears to have gone into cover-up mode.
In an unbelievable turn of events, Church investigators are now presenting the accusations against McCarrick from a former altar boy as not credible. But what is proving to be astonishing is the rationale.
The case as laid out to Church Militant is that the then-16-year-old boy went to St. Patrick’s Cathedral to seek out McCarrick and serve midnight Mass in 1972 where McCarrick groped and fondled him in the sacristy.
Even though the boy did not go to St. Patrick’s with any sexual intentions in mind, investigators for the Vatican are spinning the details in such a way as to say that McCarrick is at least partially exonerated, if not totally, because the boy presented himself to McCarrick and McCarrick did not pursue him.
Additionally, they say that since the boy was 16, a question now arises regarding the age of consent and if this could still be viewed as sexual abuse of a minor.The investigators now appear to be scuttling both parts of the accusations — was it actual ‘abuse’ and was the boy an actual minor?Tweet
The investigators now appear to be scuttling both parts of the accusations — was it actual “abuse” and was the boy an actual minor?
Those with intimate knowledge of the investigation are saying it’s part of a “cover-up,” claiming the Vatican is trying to recast the molestation as somehow consensual sex — a theme actually brought forward by Chicago Cdl. Blase Cupich at the bishops’ November meeting in Baltimore — that consensual homosexual sex involving a priest is a different matter.
The fallout from this latest news has sent shock waves through the ecclesiastical world, especially the archdiocese of New York, which publicly announced the McCarrick news back on June 20.
New York Cdl. Timothy Dolan’s entire charge of credible evidence against McCarrick was now severely jeopardized by the way the Vatican was spinning the case.
And this is why: James Grein, longtime victim of McCarrick, was interviewed at length by New York archdiocese Vicar General Richard Welch last week about details surrounding his abuse at the hands of McCarrick.
With Dolan’s original case against McCarrick apparently blown out of the water by Vatican investigators, Dolan needed to put together another case and do it fast. This one would have to be airtight, and in the case of James Grein, he found it.
In his speech at the rally, Grein gave details of the decade-plus homosexual abuse endured by him from McCarrick. He also gave further details on a YouTube video with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
Between the New York Times article, his speech at the rally, his interview with Taylor Marshall and an additional interview he gave Church Militant following his testimony against McCarrick given in New York last week, it appears Dolan may have his airtight case.Rome and Pope Francis are the problem here — Rome, Pope Francis and the homosexual clerical culture dominating the Church.Tweet
But what is extremely telling — as well as disturbing — according to insiders, is that the knee-jerk response from the Vatican seems to be to want to cover up, or in the very least discredit and downplay, the charges against McCarrick, and that, faithful Catholics tell Church Militant, is a big red flag that the Vatican is more concerned with cover-up than the truth.
At the moment, U.S. bishops are huddled at Mundelein Seminary in Chicago for a week-long retreat about sex abuse ordered by Pope Francis, and in just six weeks time, the sex abuse summit gets underway in Rome.
Given these latest developments and leaks, many are thinking that all of this is just one huge smokescreen, that Rome has no real concern about this issue, too easily adopts a “blame the victim” approach and is content to treat this entire scandal as just an “American thing” that will be forgotten soon enough.
Conclusion: Rome and Pope Francis are the problem here — Rome, Pope Francis and the homosexual clerical culture dominating the Church.
Stay close to Church Militant for further news as developments warrant.
New York Times’ Astonishing Series On Abortion January 3, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a New York Times series on abortion:
On December 28, an editorial in the New York Times broached an eight-part series on abortion rights that is positively astonishing. It is clearly the most rabid defense of abortion ever published by the mainstream media. The first installment was published on December 30; it will end on January 20. The entire series is now available online.
Why is the Times running this series? The best explanation is found in the first paragraph of the 8th installment. “Now that the Supreme Court has a conservative majority that appears inclined to overhaul Roe v. Wade, it is likely only a matter of time before women’s reproductive rights are ratcheted back.” Its central fear is a ruling declaring the unborn child worthy of “personhood” rights.
The thesis of the series is that any attempt to recognize the humanity of the unborn baby threatens women’s rights. According to the Times, laws that restrict abortion rights are ultimately about controlling women’s sexuality, and no group is more preyed upon than brown and black women. Peppered with anecdotes, the series pays almost no attention to data: highly debatable assertions are routinely made without any supporting evidence.
Many defenders of abortion rights will at least acknowledge the competing right to life of children in utero. But not the authors of this series. Nascent human life is referred to as nothing more than “clusters of cells,” as if these human biological properties were mere stuff.
It is this mental block—the refusal to admit the obvious—that allows the Times to object to prosecuting a woman for murder after her attempted suicide resulted in killing her eight-month-old baby. Similarly, it cannot understand why a jury convicted a pregnant woman driver of killing three persons after she drove her car over a double-yellow lined road on Long Island, crashing into another car: the driver of the other car, his wife, and the woman’s eight-month-old baby were killed (the reckless driver was under the influence of drugs and alcohol). The jury said she needlessly caused the death of her daughter (who died five days after the accident) because she was not wearing a seatbelt.
Those two babies would have lived had their mothers not acted irresponsibly, but that gets lost in the fog of abortion rights run amuck.
The contortions that the Times goes through trying to deny reality is remarkable. For example, it offers the account of a “visibly pregnant woman” seeking an abortion in another state having to deal with airport security officers. They wished her “a happy Mother’s Day.” One of them “cheerily” asked, “Is this your first?” The Times branded her experience “a surreal journey.” What is truly surreal is the paper’s interpretation.
What is really gnawing at the Times is the recent emergence of laws protecting the personhood of unborn babies. It calls them “an extreme legal argument with little precedence in American law before the 1970s.” However, the common law in Western civilization typically held that a pregnant woman convicted of a capital offense could not be executed, thus paying homage to the existence of an innocent human being. No matter, the newspaper is right to say that personhood legislation is of recent vintage.
There is a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with what the Times says: it attributes this to a move by Republicans in the 1970s to criminalize abortion. In point of fact it was technology, not politics, that proved to be the key to protecting the personhood status of unborn children. To be exact, ultrasound made the difference. Invented in the 1950s, it was not used with any regularity in U.S. hospitals until the 1970s.
How did ultrasound change the debate? Consider what Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the nation’s leading abortion-rights advocates in the 1960s and 1970s, said about the subject. [Note: This Jewish atheist later became a pro-life champion and converted to Catholicism.]
“By 1984, however, I had begun to ask myself more questions about abortion: what actually goes on in an abortion? I had done many, but abortion is a blind procedure. The doctor does not see what he is doing. He puts an instrument into a uterus and he turns on a motor, and the suction machine goes on and something is vacuumed out; it ends up as a little pile of meat in a gauze bag. I wanted to know what happened, so in 1984 I said to a friend of mine, who was doing 15 or maybe 20 abortions a day, ‘Look, do me a favor, Jay. Next Saturday, when you are doing all these abortions, put an ultrasound device on the mother and tape it for me.’
“He did, and when he looked at the tapes with me in an editing studio, he was so affected that he never did another abortion. I, though I had not done an abortion in five years, was shaken to the very roots of my soul by what I saw.”
The precision of sonograms (the actual picture of an ultrasound) is much more advanced today. It would be instructive to learn what the editors of the New York Times might think of such images. Would they see “clusters of cells,” or small human beings?
The most controversial part of the series is found in the 4th and 5th installments, especially the 4th. It would be hard to find a more unpersuasive, and disturbing, attempt to discredit the damage done to unborn babies by their drug-ridden mothers. Moreover, this section of the series, while condemning racism, actually promotes it.
Part 4 condemns what it says is the “myth of the ‘crack baby.'” It criticizes the mainstream media (it includes the Times) for over- dramatizing the physical and psychological damage done to babies by their cocaine-using mothers. Reading this part of the series makes one wonder just how far radical pro-abortion reporters will go in their defense of the indefensible.
The idea of “crack babies,” the newspaper says, is a combination of “bad science and racist stereotypes.” These twin evils, we are told, were “debunked by the turn of the 2000s.” Really?
Somehow I must have missed this story. So I looked forward to reading why the “bad science” was wrong. But there was nothing there.
“The Legacy of the Myth” is the title of a section of Part 4 that led the reader to believe that the evidence would be forthcoming. It begins by saying, “Researchers debunked the ‘damage generation’ theory numerous times, finding no indication that children exposed to crack in the womb faced long-term debilitation and that the effects once tied to exposure were attributable to other drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or to factors associated with poverty, including homelessness and domestic violence.”
Let’s break down that sentence. Which researchers? Who are they? Why didn’t the article tell us? And even if other drugs can cause similar problems—which is nowhere proven—why is this proof that the “damage generation” theory of crack-using pregnant mothers has been debunked?
The underscored words are a link to a book, one which supposedly offers the evidence the Times says exists. I accessed a copy of it and nowhere does it offer any such evidence. The book, Somebody’s Children: The Politics of Transracial and Transactional Adoption, by Laura Briggs, is more sociological than physiological. This makes sense: The author is not a professor of the natural sciences—she is a professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies.
The relevant chapter in this book, “‘Crack Babies,’ Race and Adoption Reform, 1975-2000,” does not attempt to debunk the “bad science.” Just as important, the fact that it covers “race and adoption reform” in the last century does nothing to show why babies born today of crack-using mothers are not seriously impaired.
No wonder the Times likes this book. The author trashes people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Charles Krauthammer—all of whom have expressed concerns about low-income black families (almost all headed by a single woman) and the evils of drug addiction. Such politics may make for a good read in the academy, but it does nothing to shine light on why any of them were wrong.
In 2016, the National Institute on Drug Abuse concluded that besides the damage done to the women who use crack, “Babies born to mothers who use cocaine during pregnancy are often prematurely delivered, have low birth weights and smaller head circumferences, and are shorter in length than babies born to mothers who do not use cocaine.”
It added that “scientists are now finding that exposure to cocaine during fetal development may lead to subtle, yet significant, later deficits in children. They include behavior problems (e.g., difficulties with self-regulation) and deficits in some aspects of cognitive performance, information processing, and sustained attention to tasks—abilities that are important for the realization of the child’s full potential.”
Other studies describe learning disabilities that result from a damaged central nervous system and congenital heart diseases. Such children tend to do poorly in school, have social problems, and a host of other developmental disabilities.
Forget about the science for a moment. What responsible professor in a medical school would instruct students that crack-addicted mothers have little to worry about? What responsible professor in a medical school would engage students in a social analysis of racism, instead of warning about the damage being done to the physical and psychological well being of babies conceived by cocaine-using mothers?
The Times is right to note that racism has affected this issue, but it is looking in the wrong direction: It should look in the mirror. We would expect white supremacists to downplay the effects of crack on unborn black babies, not the alleged opponents of racism. The newspaper is so totally obsessed with abortion rights—it has reached a state of delirium—that it is willing to slight the harm being done to black children by their cocaine-addicted moms, all because of the necessity of denying them personhood.
It may take some time before the idea of granting personhood status to unborn babies catches on nationwide, but the vector of change is moving that way. This is why the New York Times sees this as such a frightening prospect.
Ann,SuperNerd’s comment about how to evangelize really spoke to me and I’ve been meaning to write you about something.
I am a TLM attending protestant, technically Methodist, who has been thinking of converting. Actually, I’ve already made my decision, but my spouse is vigorously opposed, so if you can pray for us that might help! (We and Tiny Princess are on it! -AB) I’m not in the Church at present. I’ve followed you since the Rush Limbaugh on air reading (BTW, I have a suspicion Rush is still following you, too).
I was attending Mass over Christmas and one of the things that is always on my mind was bothering me on this particular night, as well. How in the world am I going to raise my family, if I can ever get them in the Church, in the Traditional Latin Mass? It took me months to figure out what was going on with the Missal, etc. Now I’m pretty comfortable, but I’ve been going to Mass alone so I’ve not had to explain this to my kids (6,4, and 2) and I simply could not imagine how “hard” it’s going to be to raise them in the TLM. We’re used to the ease of protestant church. My spouse thinks I’m nuts.
So, I’m sitting there at Mass and a family comes in. They have enough kids to take up two pews, so they deal with way more hassle than I do with three kids. In one of the pews are their teenage kids who end up sitting behind me. For the entire Mass this 15-16 year old girl sits behind me and sings every prayer, every response, every thing she is supposed to during the entire Mass (in Latin!). She is not a trained singer, but she hits the notes with the choir perfectly and I could not help but think an angel was sitting behind me, helping me along. She has NO IDEA of the evangelization/ministry/answering of prayer she is doing in that moment. None. She is simply “doing what she is supposed to be doing.” I wept. I figure if this kid can sing all the prayers, my kids can, too.
When we were walking out of the Church I leaned over and said, “Thank you for your good singing.” This girl was so happy you’d think I was giving her a Grammy award. She literally beamed.“Doing what you are supposed to do” is ministry. It is evangelization. Everyone thinks they are supposed to be “famous” as in the next Scott Hahn or something.Seriously, just go to Mass, live a holy life, and you will be sharing your faith. SuperNerd’s witness is incredible. Yours is too. You guys aren’t “famous” in the earthly sense, but you are doing more good than you realize, but even sitting in your pew and singing is “doing something.” Yours in Christ, X
September 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the German magazine Der Spiegel, one of the most influential political magazines in Europe, published a report on the failures of the papacy of Francis. LifeSiteNews already summed up the parts of this report about the involvement of Pope Francis in a cover-up of abuse cases in Argentina. But the Spiegel authors also make a report from their conversations with unnamed prelates in the Vatican who spoke quite critically about Pope Francis.
According to the magazine, one cardinal not only called the Pope effectively a liar, but he also said: “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” The Spiegel’s own comments on this papacy, as we shall see, are no less strong.
One of the high-ranking interlocutors told the journalistic team that, in the Vatican there reigns “a climate of fear and of uncertainty.” “Francis is very good at getting things in motion,” a German prelate is quoted as saying, “but when, in the end, there is only wavering, that for sure does not help.” Examples of such waverings are to be found, as the Spiegel says, in Pope Francis’ handling of the debate about Communion for Protestant spouses of Catholics. One German cardinal tells the magazine about lies, intrigues, “and a Holy Father who, unlike anyone before him, puts into doubt the truth of the Faith.”
Marie Collins, herself a prominent abuse victim and advocate for victims, speaks about the Pope’s and the Vatican’s handling of abuse cases thus: “beautiful words in the public and [then] opposite actions behind closed doors.”
The Spiegel comments that the Pope might very well ignore the “indications of crimes within his own inner circle” because “he is interested, for reasons of power politics, in keeping one or another cardinal or bishop in his office.” So, in the German magazine’s eyes, “Francis [thereby] makes himself vulnerable.” He fights for years “against global capitalism, but took – like his predecessors – sums of millions from the now-rejected Cardinal McCarrick which he himself had received from donors.” Additionally, “the Pope praises the value of the traditional family, but then surrounds himself with counselors and collaborators who live the opposite – in a more or less obvious concubinage with representatives of either sex.”
“Is the Pope still master of the situation?” asks the Spiegel. It points out that “criticism [of this papacy] meanwhile comes from a circle much larger than that of globally connected arch-conservatives.” One of the problems of this Pope, according to the magazine, is that “he is silent in delicate matters” such as the dubia of the four cardinals concerning his post-apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also concerning the petition of 30,000 women who have recently requested that he answer the questions arising from the Viganò report. He does not answer these women, he is mute, and “he, rather, leaves the accusation unchallenged that he has known, since June 2013, about the doings of the child-abuser McCarrick.”
When speaking about one of the Pope’s close collaborators, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, and his own Archdiocese of Munich, the Spiegel points to the crisis of Faith in Bavaria. “A part of the problem in the Archdiocese, however, is homemade,” it explains. The credibility of the Church there, it adds, is being undermined by the facts that “a high-ranking clergyman of Munich shamelessly places his concubine right in the first pew, and that also in this city, there is indignation about openly homosexual pastors and about an unpredictable Pope.”
“From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” These are the trenchant words of a cardinal within the walls of the Vatican: “He preaches mercy, but is in truth an icecold, sly Machiavellian, and, what is worse – he lies.”
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
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrats wasted no time asserting their priorities upon taking over the U.S. House of Representatives this week, proposing legislation to fund the federal government which would at the same time reverse one of President Donald Trump’s earliest pro-life accomplishments.
The federal government has been partially shut down since Trump, facing pressure from conservatives, decided at the last minute in December to reject a government funding bill that didn’t include $5 billion to begin constructing the southern border wall he campaigned on. While the media is filled with distress over the shutdown and uncertainty over whether Democrats or Republicans will blink first, most of the government was already funded and remains in operation.
Following her return to the office of House Speaker Thursday, Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi announced that her party would be “offering the Senate Republican Appropriations [Committee] legislation to reopen the government later today,” Fox Newsreports. The proposal would fund the Department of Homeland Security until February 8 and other federal departments until the end of September.
The bill has been a political non-starter because it lacks wall funding, however, and pro-lifers are warning that it would also repeal the Mexico City Policy (now called Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) that Trump reinstated shortly after taking office and later expanded. That would make foreign entities that commit or promote abortions once again eligible for foreign aid.
The plan would also give $37.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund, from which Trump withdrew in 2017 over its participation in China’s forced abortion regime.
“This move shows the House Democrats are so radically pro-abortion that they are more concerned with pushing their abortion agenda on the American people than finding common ground to end the government shutdown,” Live Action president Lila Rose responded. While Trump and Senate Republicans “failed last session to pass a law preventing the American taxpayer from funding Planned Parenthood,” they “now have a duty to stand firm and block such outrageous attempts to have the American taxpayer fund and promote abortion programs across the globe.”
“News that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide is a tragedy of international proportions, but asking U.S. taxpayers to pay for it is an offensive misuse of scarce resources,” Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said. “Taxpayers have had enough of the abortion industry’s vision of abortion as the United States’ number one export. As a bipartisan matter, we should help women and children at home and abroad, without making ending life the goal of U.S. policy.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already rejected the proposal as a “political sideshow,” declaring that the Senate “will not waste its time considering a Democratic bill which cannot pass this chamber and which the president will not sign.”
How the shutdown standoff will end remains unclear. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who was one of Trump’s earliest and most passionate supporters, predicted this week the president “will fold in the end,” though others argue he can satisfy supporters by funding the wall through other revenue sources not reliant on Congress.
In July 2017, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) suggested the federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood be directed to the border wall instead.
As for abortion policy under the new Congress, pro-lifers are largely resigned to two more years without direct legislation to defund Planned Parenthood or otherwise restrict abortion, though they remain optimistic that Trump will continue to find incremental steps for life via executive action, and hope Republicans’ expanded Senate majority will enable the confirmation of judges with clear pro-life credentials.D
Pelosi is a self-declared “Catholic” with a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, who has said that promoting “diversity” among Capitol Hill staff will be one of her priorities in the new Congress. On multiple occasions, however, she has also displayed the political acumen to deemphasize left-wing causes like abortion for the sake of winning over Americans on economic or healthcare grounds.
After the November midterms, the New York Timesrevealed that Pelosi helped Democrats return to power in part by counseling “restraint” against fighting over things like Planned Parenthood in favor of a focused message on more mainstream concerns. “Those things are in our DNA, but they are not in our talking points,” she reportedly said on multiple occasions.
In April, she defended her support of “pro-life” Democrats like Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski on the grounds that his election would count toward a “pro-choice gavel when we win the Congress,” and during the campaign downplayed Democrat calls to impeach President Donald Trump. Conservatives suspect such assurances were merely meant to hide Democrats’ true intentions so as not to provoke GOP voter turnout.
The Hillreports that 15 House Democrats, most of whom were just elected, opposed Pelosi’s re-election as speaker, though they didn’t agree on a single alternative and their ranks were far short of the “dozens” who had previously distanced themselves from her.
“On day one of the new Congress, Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are already trying to foist a radical pro-abortion agenda on the nation,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. “The House’s spending bill would…[make] taxpayers complicit in the exportation of abortion and destruction of countless unborn children around the world. This is unconscionable and we oppose the bill in the strongest terms.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on DEMOCRATS SHOW THEIR TRUE ABORTION COLORS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEW SESSION OF CONGRESS
Mexican President Announces 2,000-Mile ‘Zone’ To Help Stop Illegals from entering the United States
Mexican Pres. Bows To Trump. Announces 2,000-mile ‘Zone’ To Help Stop Illegals In a rather surprising move, the new left-wing populist president of Mexico — Andrés Manuel López Obrador — just announced a dramatic new plan for the border region his nation shares with the United States that actually supports and coincides with President Donald Trump’s overall agenda on border security and immigration.
JANUARY 3, 2019 AT 6:48AM
In a rather surprising move, the new left-wing populist president of Mexico — Andrés Manuel López Obrador — just announced a dramatic new plan for the border region his nation shares with the United States that actually supports and coincides with President Donald Trump’s overall agenda on border security and immigration.
No, the Mexican president didn’t sign a check to fund construction of the proposed border wall or deploy the military and minefields to discourage cross-border excursions to the north, but rather announced an economic “free zone” along the border that would attract investment and create new jobs and provide an economic incentive for migrants to remain in Mexico instead of illegally crossing into the U.S. for economic reasons.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on Obrador’s announced Tax Incentive Decree for the Northern Border Region of Mexico.
That decree will create a “free zone” roughly 15.5 miles wide along the 2,000-mile long border, from the Pacific coast to the Gulf of Mexico, that will feature dramatically reduced taxes, a doubled minimum wage and certain commodities priced similar to that found across the border in the U.S.
The income tax rate in the “free zone” would be reduced by one-third, from 30 percent to 20 percent, while the Value Added Tax for imported goods would be cut by half from 16 to 8 percent. That’s aimed at spurring business growth, which would increase employment.T
Meanwhile, Mexico’s minimum wage would be doubled in the zone to 176 pesos — or about $8.80 — per day, while gasoline would be priced the same as it is in the United States.
“It’s going to be the biggest free zone in the world,” Obrador said, according to the Union-Tribune. “It is a very important project for winning investment, creating jobs and taking advantage of the economic strength of the United States.”
“Migration should be a choice, not forced,” he added, in reference to how the plan will improve economic conditions and provide an incentive for Mexicans and other migrants to remain working in Mexico, which would result in fewer migrants attempting to enter the U.S. illegally for economic purposes.
It’s important to point out that virtually all of the steps Mexico’s president is proposing — job creation, lower taxes — are in line with the Trump economic policies that have rejuvenated the American economy. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
While it is quite likely that this plan by Obrador will indeed lead to economic improvements in Mexico’s northern border region and a reduction in illegal immigration northward, it also comes with some risks too, as the Mexican government could see a reduction in overall tax revenues and some businesses may experience trouble in hiring enough employees due to the dramatic increase to the minimum wage.
The director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C., Duncan Wood, told the Union-Tribune the goal of cutting the VAT by half is to make Mexican businesses more competitive with their U.S. counterparts: “Maybe you’ll get a lot more American tourists coming across to buy things.”
He warned, however, “But one of the great fears is that a lot of Mexican companies will move their headquarters there (within the free zone) so they don’t have to pay 16 percent value added tax on their products.”
Advertisement – story continues below
While that would be good for the free zone, it would likely result in less tax revenue collected overall by the Mexican treasury. Wood added, “If a lot of companies relocated to the border, then the Mexican government loses a fortune.”
There is a similar benefit/risk equation to figure out with the doubled minimum wage as well, in that the higher wages would certainly be beneficial for workers with jobs in the border region, though the higher cost of labor could also cause business owners to hire fewer workers, limiting the overall benefit of the higher wages. (That, of course, is the chronic problem with the minimum wage hikes in the U.S. that liberals love so much.)R
To be sure, this economic plan put forward by Obrador is not the be all and end all of addressing the illegal immigration situation at the border, but it is an incredible step in the right direction and should have a positive effect by eventually reducing the number of economic migrants illegally entering the U.S.
This plan will undoubtedly take some time to roll out and its impact most likely won’t be felt immediately — and there are certainly other things Mexico could do to improve the immigration situation as well — but it addresses the primary motivation behind illegal immigration into the U.S. and amazingly shoulders the economic risks that come with it, such as the potential for reduced tax revenues and increased labor costs issues.
When the leftist populist president was elected in Mexico, there was some fear that he would implement absurd socialist economic policies that would prove harmful to the U.S. and result in an increase to illegal immigration.
Incredibly, however, he has instead announced an economic policy that will be beneficial to both Mexico and the U.S., both in terms of economic growth and illegal immigration, and that is definitely something worth acknowledging.
Two young Scandinavian women who were hiking in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco were found dead in mid-December in their tent. ISIS terrorists later posted a video of themselves decapitating one of the victims.
The mother of one of the women told reporters, “Her priority was safety. The girls had taken all precautionary measures before embarking on this trip.”
“Except,” as Robert Spencer commented in JihadWatch, “that it no doubt didn’t even occur to them that what they thought they knew about Morocco’s religion and culture might be inaccurate and designed to whitewash Islam, leaving them ill-informed about a threat that they actually did end up facing.”
If one depended on European media and European schools for one’s knowledge of Islam, one would indeed come away with a misleading picture of Islam. But the same could be said of Catholics who rely on Church pronouncements about Islam. Ever since the Second Vatican Council, Church leaders have presented a smiley-faced version of Islam which emphasizes the commonalities with Catholicism and leaves out the scary parts.
Over the last six years, the chief proponent of this bowdlerized view of Islam has been Pope Francis. He has reassured Christians that Islam is opposed to violence, advised Muslim migrants to find comfort in the Koran, and has portrayed terrorists as betrayers of true Islam.
More significantly, he has become perhaps the world’s foremost spokesman for an open-borders, let-everyone-in policy toward immigration. Seemingly indifferent to the increasingly dangerous situation created by jihad-minded Muslims in Europe, Francis has encouraged a welcoming attitude toward all while scolding opponents of mass migration as fearful and xenophobic.
In short, Pope Francis has acted as an advocate for Islam. He has portrayed it as a religion of peace, the moral equivalent of Catholicism, and a force for good. A number of people, however, now feel that the pope has seriously misled Christians about the nature and goals of Islam and Islamic immigration. Like the teachers and other cultural elites who left the two Scandinavian women “ill-informed about a threat that they actually did end up facing,” Pope Francis, by whitewashing Islam, has left millions of Christians unprepared for the escalating threat that is now facing them.
The analogy between the misinformed Scandinavian friends and misinformed Europeans does break down in one respect, though. No one forced the young women to travel to Morocco. They went there of their own accord. It’s one thing to invite yourself into the high mountains of Morocco and take your chances. It’s another thing altogether to invite Morocco into Europe and let ordinary Europeans bear the consequences. That is what European elites, with much encouragement from Francis, have done.
The combination of high Muslim birth rates, mass Muslim migration, and European concessions to Islam’s blasphemy laws has set Europe on a course toward Islamization. Islamization, in turn, will spell dhimmitude for Christians. As the Islamic influence grows, Christians will be subject to increasing restrictions on the practice of their faith, perhaps even to persecution. It’s possible that Christianity in Europe will be exterminated.
Is Francis Naïve About Islam? The pope has done much to promote the cause of Islam—so much so that he has been praised by Islamic leaders for his defense of their faith. The questions that then arise are these: Is Francis aware of the possibility that Islam will become dominant in Europe? Is he aware that this may spell the end of European Christianity? And if he is aware, does he care?
For a long time, I thought that Francis was simply naïve about Islam. His counterfactual statements about Islam and his Pollyannaish view of mass Muslim migration must, I thought, be the result either of blissful ignorance or of bad advice from “experts,” or a combination of both.
Now, however, I have my doubts. The catalyst for these doubts is Francis’s approach to the current sex-abuse crisis. I originally supposed that he was naïve about that also: perhaps he didn’t realize the full extent of the problem or the full extent of the cover-ups; perhaps he wasn’t aware of the numerous lavender networks in seminaries, in dioceses, and in the Vatican itself. But in light of recent revelations, it no longer seems possible to give him the benefit of the doubt. In several cases, he not only knew of the crimes and cover-ups, he took steps to protect and/or promote those involved. Francis seems determined to push through a revolution in doctrine and morals—what he calls “a radical paradigm shift”—and it doesn’t seem to matter that the men he has chosen to help him achieve his goals are the ones most deeply implicated in the scandals. By all accounts, Pope Francis is a “hands-on” pope who knows exactly what he wants, carefully calculates his moves, and leaves little to chance.
Why, then, should we suppose Francis is completely naïve about the extent of the threat from Islam and from Islamic immigration? It’s difficult to imagine that he isn’t fully aware of the widespread persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. And it’s just as difficult to think that he’s ignorant of the Islamic crime wave on his own doorstep—the escalating incidence of rape, riots, and terrorist attacks in Europe. Does he really believe that such things have nothing to do with Islam?
Unless one assumes that Francis is ignorant of past history and out of touch with current events, one has to entertain the possibility that—to repeat a favorite slogan of his—he wants to “make a mess” in Europe.
But why? Why risk the damage to the Church that would surely follow on the Islamization of Europe? Doesn’t Francis care about the Church? Increasingly, it seems that he doesn’t care. That’s to say that he doesn’t have much use for the “old” Church—the one that was handed down by the apostles, and has now become too narrow and tradition-bound to suit his liberal tastes.
The Fluid Church of the Future What he does care about is the new Church of the future—a Church of openness, inclusiveness, and fluidity. Led by the Spirit and free of bothersome dogma, this liberated Church would be able to adjust to the changing needs of the times. If one reads between the lines, that is what Francis and those around him seem to desire.
Indeed, one needn’t bother to read between the lines. Here’s Fr. Thomas Rosica, a media advisor to the Vatican: “Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is free of disordered attachments.” Moreover, “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.”
The observation that many churches, which until a few years ago were necessary, are now no longer thus, due to a lack of faithful and clergy … should be welcomed in the Church not with anxiety, but as a sign of the times that invites us to reflection and requires us to adapt.
Translation: Francis is not particularly concerned about church closings. Perhaps he even thinks of them as a blessing: a necessary end to the old order of things that will clear the way for the construction of the new order.
What’s the new order? In many respects, it resembles the new world order envisioned by politicians and academics on the left. Like them, Francis has a dim view of national borders and national sovereignty, and like them, he has an almost unquestioning belief in the benefits of international institutions. One gets the impression that Francis would be quite content to let the UN run the world, despite the fact that the UN is increasingly run by leftists and Islamists. For example, Francis has praised the UN’s Global Compactfor Migration because he believes that immigration must be governed globally rather than by individual nations.
What does this have to do with Christianity and Islam? Just as Francis seems to favor a one-world government, he also seems to be drawn by the vision of a one-world religion. He hasn’t said so in so many words, but he has given several indications that he envisions an eventual blending of religions. This would not be the “one flock, one shepherd” Church that Christ spoke of but something a bit more diverse.
One way to achieve this unity in diversity is by deemphasizing doctrine. Doctrinal differences are, after all, the main dividing line between different faiths. Thus, by downplaying the importance of doctrine—something he has done fairly consistently throughout his papacy—it’s probable that Francis hopes to smooth the path to interreligious harmony. Just as Francis disapproves of borders between nations, it’s likely that he looks upon borders between religions as artificial and unnecessarily divisive.
Indifferentism This is speculation, of course, but it’s not sheer speculation. As George Neumayr points out in The Political Pope, Francis frequently shows signs of indifferentism—the belief that all religions are of equal value. For example, when speaking of the murder of Fr. Jacques Hamel by two jihadists, he drew a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity, saying “If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.”
Other signs of his indifferentism are not difficult to find. In 2014, he told a group of Protestants, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community.” One another occasion, he criticized Pope Benedict’s “ordinate” for Anglicans interested in becoming Catholics by saying that they should stay “as Anglicans.” On still other occasions, he has waxed enthusiastic over Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
Ironically, several examples of his indifferentism can be found in Evangelii Gaudium—ostensibly an exhortation to evangelize. Although the document urges us to spread the joy of the Gospel, it provides a number of reasons why we shouldn’t bother. The main reason is that we already share so many ethical and spiritual values with other faiths that there’s no point in converting non-Catholics.
Thus, Evangelii Gaudium leaves the impression that Jews shouldn’t be evangelized (an impression that was later explicitly confirmed by the Vatican). Moreover, Francis also seems to exempt Muslims from any need to convert. As I wrote previously in Crisis:
After reading Evangelii Gaudium’s positive assessment of Islam, one could be forgiven for concluding that the conversion of Muslims is not an urgent matter. And, indeed, there is no suggestion in the document that Muslims should be evangelized. At the most, Christians should dialogue with Muslims about their “shared beliefs.”
Rather than converting others, Francis seems more interested in learning from them. In Evangelii Gaudium and in numerous talks, he frequently extols the “richness” and “wisdom” of other cultures. Whereas Christ commanded his apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…,” Francis’s message is more along the lines of “Go therefore and learn the wisdom of other cultures.” Francis’s attitude toward evangelization seems to be summed up in something he said to atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense.”
If that’s so, then Pope Francis probably has no desire to convert the Muslims streaming into Europe. After all, like Evangelicals, Muslims also can “find Jesus in their community.” It’s not the same Jesus, but perhaps the resemblance is close enough for someone with scant interest in doctrinal differences. Exactly what, then, does he have in mind by encouraging mass migration into Europe? One possibility, as I suggested earlier, is that he envisions a multicultural-type blending of religions. But in order for that to happen, it would be necessary for the respective faiths to dilute their doctrinal positions. Pope Francis seems quite willing to do this on the Catholic side. He has already made substantial concessions to the Chinese communist government on the appointment of bishops. He seems willing to alter Church teachings in order to build bridges with the LGBT “community” and other sexual revolutionaries. And, in general, he prefers to be guided by the prompting of the Spirit rather than by the teachings of the Church.
Moreover, he seems more concerned with political and humanitarian goals than with the goal of getting to heaven. As George Neumayr has noted in The Political Pope, when awarded the Charlemagne Prize, Francis “used his acceptance speech not to call for the restoration of Christianity, but for the spread of a ‘new European humanism.’” And, as Francis sees it, the main obstacle to achieving these humanitarian goals are fundamentalist Christians who refuse to integrate with Muslim migrants and, in general, fail to adapt to changing times. Perhaps he thinks that a flood of migrants will force fundamentalists to encounter the “other” and come to terms with their “otherness.”
But what about fundamentalist Muslims? A harmonious world religion dedicated to humanitarian ends would require not only a watering-down of Christianity, but also a considerable moderation of Islam. Both in terms of percentages and in absolute numbers, there are far more fundamentalist Muslims in the world than fundamentalist Christians. Francis has acknowledged the existence of fundamentalist Muslims, but he claims that they do not represent “authentic” Islam, and he seems to believe, contrary to much polling data, that they are only a small minority. “All religions have these little groups,” he once said.
A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? Whether or not he actually believes that fundamentalists are a small minority, he does seem to have a rough strategy for facilitating the emergence of a more moderate Islam. And that strategy is to claim that Islam is already and always has been a moderate and peaceful faith. Most notably, he asserted in Evangelii Gaudium that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” For his considerable efforts in defending Islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion, he has won much praise from important Muslim leaders.
The strategy Francis seems to be employing is referred to by sociologists as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea is that if you express high expectations for others, they will endeavor to live up to the expectations and thus fulfill your “prophecy.” But, according to Robert K. Merton, the sociologist who coined the term, “the self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation.” But the false definition or assumption can evoke “a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true.”
Sometimes self-fulfilling prophecies work and sometimes they don’t. A lot depend on the awareness of the subject. Young children are more susceptible to such influence, while adults who understand what is being attempted are less so. I recall reading an article on a radical Islamic website which accused Pope Francis of using just such a strategy. I don’t remember if the author actually used the term “self-fulfilling prophecy,” but he did complain that the pope was deliberately painting a false but pleasing picture of Islam in order to win over Muslims to a moderate view.
In any event, the self-fulfilling prophecy strategy seems an awfully slender reed upon which to stake the future of the world. For decades now, global leaders have been assuring us that Islam means peace, that violence has nothing to do with Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate. Yet most of the evidence suggests that the Western “prophecy” about Islam’s pacific nature is not working. With some notable exceptions, moderates have been losing ground, while fundamentalists are in the ascendancy.
Just as he has little anxiety about the wave of church closings, Francis seems to have little anxiety about the Islamization of Europe. Indeed, as evidenced by his encouragement of mass migration, he seems to have no objection to Islamization.
Either because he really believes the false narrative that Islam is a religion of peace, or because he believes that the self-fulfilling prophecy strategy will create a more moderate Islam, Francis seems to be at peace with the fact that Islam is spreading rapidly.
Whatever he has in mind, it seems that Pope Francis is betting against the odds. A few weeks ago, those two young Scandinavian women mentioned earlier took a similar gamble when they embarked on a camping trip in Morocco. They were betting their lives on the assumption that the whitewashed narrative about Islam that they had no doubt learned in schools and universities was the correct one. They lost that “bet.” They had, to borrow a line from Casablanca, been “misinformed” about the situation in Morocco.
Whether Francis has been misinformed about Islam or whether he has adopted a strategy of misinformation, he is taking a huge gamble—not only with his own life, but with the lives of millions. When the religion of Muhammad meets the religion of indifferentism, which seems most likely to prevail?
Editor’s note: This picture above taken on December 21, 2018 shows a combo photo of murdered Danish student Louisa Vesterager Jespersen (L) and Nowegian Maren Ueland placed on top of flowers and between the flags of Morocco and Norway as Moroccans, many associated with the tourism industry, pay tribute to the Scandinavian victims. (Photo credit: FADEL SENNA/AFP/Getty Images)
William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily,and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com
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
Cardinal Muller Speaks of a Duty to Disobey with Regards to Intercommunion
DECEMBER 29, 2018
Cardinal Gerhard Müller.
The German episcopate is divided on the question of granting Protestants access to Eucharistic Communion, and the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reminds priests that they are not obliged to obey their bishops when they order them to commit acts that go against the doctrine and practice of the Church.
Priests are “not bound by Divine Law to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic, and in any case,they certainly cannot be bound by any episcopal order,” declared Cardinal Gerhard Müller on December 11, 2018, in an interview with the information website LifeSite.
This statement from the former prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith comes one month after the bishop of Münster, Bishop Felix Genn, declared on the contrary that no priest has the right to refuse Communion to a Protestant.
Ever since Pope Francis’ visit to the Lutheran church in Rome (November 15, 2015), when in answer to a Protestant woman’s question on the matter, he evasively responded, “I would never dare to give permission for this because it is not in my authority. Speak with the Lord and move forward,” many bishops have rushed headlong into what they believe to be a carte blanche for intercommunion.
Cardinal Müller recalls that there are cases in which a priest has to resist his bishop “just as St. Paul resisted St. Peter,” quoting the passage from the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11). We might add that St. Paul was not only a priest, but also a bishop, and even an apostle, and that he took the liberty of publicly rebuking the first pope “because he was not walking uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did exactly the same thing.
The Austrian newspaper Salzburger Nachrichten’s interview with Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on December 15, 2018, echoes this position, recalling that it is “inconceivable that the Church was mistaken for two millennia and that she found the truth about these questions only during the years of the Council, between 1962 and 1965.”
September 13, 2018 (Steven O’Reilly) – It has now been over a couple weeks since the publication of Archbishop Viganó’s testimony. This testimony accused Pope Francis of lifting sanctions placed upon former-Cardinal McCarrick by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. Whatever the precise nature of these penalties, Viganó’s second accusation against Pope Francis, in my opinion, is the more troubling. Viganó claims he informed Pope Francis in June 2013 of McCarrick’s history of having corrupted generations of seminarians. Thus, even if Francis had been previously ignorant of either McCarrick’s past or the penalties placed upon him by Benedict, Francis can’t claim ignorance after this date. The implication is: the Pope, ignoring Viganó’s report, knowingly and willfully availed himself of a corrupt McCarrick’s advice and counsel regarding episcopal appointments in the U.S., and likely other matters related to the care and government of the Church.
Yes, all of this assumes the truth of Viganó’s account. But, the efforts to discredit him have failed miserably; Viganó’s account is very credible. In the face of these allegations, the Pope has chosen to remain silent. For those with common sense not corrupted by the cult of personality which surrounds this Pope, this silence certainly betokens – if indeed it does not confirm – the truth of the accusations.Aside from knowledge of guilt, there is simply no credible explanation for the Pope’s silence. And, if the Pope did as Viganó’s accusation alleges, he should abdicate/resign as Viganó and many others have suggested. Roma Locuta Est agrees that the Pope should voluntarily step down if the allegations are true, but believes it is not in his nature to do so (see here).
The 2013 Conclave
Given the current controversy and calls for a papal resignation, the conclave of 2013 which gave us Francis as pope is likely to attract even more attention than it already has – which has been considerable. This past conclave is likely to be one of the most scrutinized by historians. Focus on the conclave over the last five years has already yielded various “Francis just can’t be a real pope, can he?” theories which fall into three broad categories – though there are some others:
Conclave and election of Francis invalid because Benedict is still pope
There are those who argue Benedict XVI did not resign of his own free will, and was perhaps forced out by a plot instigated by the St. Gallen mafia. If true, they argue, Benedict’s resignation under duress would be null. While I don’t discount there was a plot of some kind, I do believe it is quite clear Benedict XVI resigned of his own free will (see Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots).
The other Benedict-centered theory is that his resignation was invalid due to a substantial error on his part. Personally, I think it is the weakest of the “Francis can’t be pope” theories for reasons I have previously discussed (see Benedict is NOT pope and Benedict is STILL not Pope).
Conclave valid but election of Francis invalid due to violations of Universi Dominici Gregis
The Italian journalist Antonio Socci had put forth in his book, Non e’ Francesco (“He is not Francis”), the theory a procedural violation of rules in Universi Dominici Gregis (the papal legislation established by John Paul II which governs conclaves) involving the balloting had invalidated the election which gave us Pope Francis. My understanding is Socci has since abandoned the theory.
Then there is the theory – in its most recent elaboration by Bishop Gracida (see here) – regarding violations of Universi Dominici Gregis both in and in the lead up to the 2013 conclave. Specifically, as stated by Bishop Gracida, the “notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated” with the St. Gallen mafia. I find this an interesting theory that points to some smoke, but which has yet to find the fire.
Conclave and election of Francis valid, but his acceptance of papacy was ‘invalid’
While I find all the “Francis just can’t be a real pope” theories improbable (this one included), I must say this is the one theory which intrigues me most. It was suggested to me from within Pope Francis’ own Jesuit order – while other Jesuit efforts to defuse it have appeared clumsy and weak. This theory is unique in that while it concedes the election of Jorge Bergoglio was valid, his acceptance of it was not (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?).
While the theories above are improbable, that is not to say there is not much more we can learn about what happened both before and in the conclave. There have been suggestions that the NSA monitored the 2013 conclave as alleged by the blog The Eye-Witness in an October 2013 article (“A Compromised Conclave“). The apparent close ties between the Democratic Party and this Vatican in the years following the conclave led the Remnant Newspaper to publish an open letter [see A Vatican-Democratic Party Alliance (Catholics ask Trump Administration to Investigate)] to the Trump administration in January of 2017 asking a number of interesting questions. In the letter, the signatories ask, for example, what role US intelligence agencies might have played in both the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Francis. It is curious to note that Cardinal Bergoglio was a long shot to win, at least according to the odds makers; but he won the papacy on only the 5th ballot of the Conclave.
The questions are interesting, if for no other reason than that the Francis papacy has been a Democratic Party dream come true as it de-emphasized cultural war issues (e.g., abortion, homosexual “marriage”) and emphasized ‘social justice’ issues (e.g., immigration, the environment). The icing on the cake has been a series of US episcopal appointments (e.g., Cupich, Tobin, McElroy) who willingly follow the new Francis political and social agenda. Another indication of how close the Vatican ties to the Democratic Party have become appears in Henry Sire’s book on Pope Francis, The Dictator Pope. In it, Sire reports that reliable sources state Pope Francis gave funds to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign from Peter’s Pence (NB: I hope U.S. bishops ask the Pope if this report is true – and if it is, they should ask him to stop using the laity’s contributions for political donations. Otherwise, many Catholics will stop giving to Peter’s Pence). Sire writes:
“If indeed, money from Peter’s Pence was diverted to fund Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, at Pope Francis’s request, as has been repeatedly rumored from reliable sources, it could be the unraveling of an enormous scandal.” (The Dictator Pope, p. 193)
Sire suggests that Francis did such a thing to avert a Trump presidency in favor of “a liberal president willing to abase himself (or herself) to Latin American claims.” It is difficult to imagine the Obama Administration using any derogatory intelligence gathered during or before the Conclave to publicly embarrass a liberal like Francis – a seeming ally of so many Democratic Party issues. However, President Trump is perhaps another story. Henry Sire in his book on the Francis papacy, The Dictator Pope, writes:
“It is known that the CIA was monitoring the Conclave of 2013, and the thought that the American government might make use of its knowledge is said to be causing sleepless nights in the Curia.” (The Dictator Pope, p. 193)
If the report in the book of “sleepless nights” is to be credited, the fears in the Curia appear to be centered on what Trump might do with the information gathered back in 2013. If so, what revelations are feared in the Curia? Might the fears relate to the activities of the St. Gallen mafia – or perhaps others – to influence the election?
This brings us back to McCarrick whose role in the 2013 conclave is a curious one. Ineligible to vote in the conclave due to his advanced age, he was able to participate in the pre-conclave discussions. In a talk at Villanova University in October of 2013 (see here) McCarrick relates how he was visited by an “influential Italian gentleman” who asked McCarrick to ‘talk up Bergoglio‘. Who was this “influential Italian” and with what organizations was he affiliated? Did others affiliated with this Italian lobby other cardinals in the days before the conclave? What special interests led him to lobby McCarrick for a Bergoglio papacy? Why did this “influential Italian” think McCarrick had any special influence with other cardinals which might aid a Bergoglio candidacy?
These and other questions, I believe, will one day have answers. Who can say for sure, at the moment, why this “influential Italian” thought McCarrick had any unique influence with other cardinals. But, with such a question in mind, it is interesting to read a news report, as I did the other day, which suggested former-Cardinal McCarrick was in the habit of handing out envelopes of cash to bishops and cardinals of the Roman curia whenever he visited Rome. In a CNA article (“What Pope Francis can clarify about the Vigano testimony- and what he can’t“, September 11, 2018), Ed Condon wrote (emphasis added):
Viganò’s testimonial asserted that Sodano played a key role in defending Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ who was later revealed to be a serial sexual abuser. The archbishop speculated that “if Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence decisions.”
No evidence, or even firsthand knowledge is presented by Viganò for this supposition, though McCarrick’s abilities as a prolific fundraiser were well-known.
While McCarrick was able to produce sizable donations for everything from the Papal Foundation to individual projects in dioceses around the world, the financial support he offered could also be quite personal.
“When he would visit Rome, Cardinal McCarrick was well-known for handing out envelopes of money to different bishops and cardinals around the curia to thank them for their work,” a curial cardinal recently told CNA. “Where these ‘honoraria’ came from or what they were for, exactly, was never clear – but many accepted them anyway.”
The world now knowing the true sort of man McCarrick is by the evil he has done, it is difficult to accept these ‘honoraria’ were awarded by McCarrick out of pure motives without any strings attached – implicitly or explicitly – or without any expectation that the favor would be eventually returned. If the reports of these gifts are accurate, then as with the tale of McCarrick’s “influential Italian,” various questions arise. Who or what was the source of the funds disbursed to the bishops and cardinals in the Curia? Did the funds come from any of the charities with which McCarrick was associated? If so, were the expenditures properly accounted for and reported? Who received the gifts and what were the dollar amounts? Were the gifts limited only to curial cardinals?
I am not a lawyer, but I do wonder if there are any legal issues involving these gifts. For example, the gifts were apparently given to officials of the Holy See, a sovereign country. Therefore, did the gifts possibly run afoul of any provision of the The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Whether the gifts meet the strict legal definition of bribes under the FCPA is up to federal officials to decide and enforce, but – looking at them as a Catholic – these gifts, at a minimum, had the potential to corrupt the individuals to whom they were given and who might be reasonably expected to one day repay McCarrick’s ‘kindness’ in some way. Presumably, some of these curial cardinal voted in the 2013 conclave. One cannot help but wonder if the alleged gifts (reported by CNA) to curial cardinals over the years improved McCarrick’s “powers of persuasion” with these same prelates as he “talked up Bergoglio” and inclined them more favorably to Bergoglio than they might otherwise have been. Who knows? But, it seems to me, aside from any interviews McCarrick faces with state attorneys over any potential abuse cases, it seems to me he should not be surprised if he were visited by officials from the IRS or FBI over some of the financial questions posed above.
The Next Conclave
I am not an infallible prognosticator. But, I do sense that there will be some interesting revelations to come forth about the last conclave in the wake of Viganó’s accusations and the McCarrick scandal. Regardless, the Viganó allegations will definitely impact the next conclave in ways that are not yet clear. That said, at this moment, I expect that the stock of the papabili mentioned in Viganó’s testimony (e.g., Cardinals Parolin, Maradiaga, Ouellet, etc) has plummeted as a result. Furthermore, more episcopal “earthquakes” are in the offing as there is no telling yet how the current round of abuse cases and seminary scandals in the U.S., and now in Germany (see here) will shake up the College of Cardinals. Yes, Pope Francis does get to fill the vacancies. However, we are not even close to seeing the worse of this crisis, either in the U.S. or elsewhere around the Catholic world. Therefore, I suspect. as is increasingly the case in the U.S., the voices of the Catholic laity around the world – seeing the breadth and depth of the homosexual infestation of the priesthood and episcopate – will rise up in indignation and demand their voices be heard. Let us pray the Pope and the bishops listen – and that the Lord gives us good bishops and cardinals for the future.
“The enemies of the Church, both within and without it, wish for Hell to prevail over it, and are striving for this end – and appear to have little effective opposition. Thus, at such a time, the memory of Julian the Apostate’s failed efforts to falsify the Lord’s words in his day, might serve as a reminder to the faithful at this moment. The Lord is in control of history. He is true to his infallible words. They will not be falsified – ever. How the Lord will save the Church in our time remains to be seen. Whether by tempest, whirlwind, earthquake or by flame, or the rising up of one or more great saints, it might not be for us to yet know – but, that the Church will in the end triumph, there is no doubt. So, keep the faith, ‘always pray and never give up’ (cf Luke 18: 1) – especially in dark times, and do not worry – because it is the Lord who has promised the Church “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Victory is assured.”
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is married to Margaret O’Reilly. He lives near Atlanta with his family. He has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA).
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
__________________________________________
Adhuc multiplicabuntur in senecta uberi et bene patientes erunt Ut adnuntient quoniam rectus Dominus Deus noster et non est iniquitas in eo Seelsorge Oswiecim Wuppertal Allegemeinschaftlich Locupletare I invite you to subscribe to my blog:http://www.Abyssum.org
I USE LARGE TYPE AND CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE I SUFFER FROM MACULAR DEGENERATION
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.