ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI
See previous page for earlier entries today, January 19, 2019.
of Ecclesia Dei commission
by Christopher Altieri
January 19, 2019
Pope Francis folded the responsibilities and budget of the commission responsible for traditional Catholics into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Saturday. With the motu proprio
Da oltre (trent’anni) [for more than 30 years], the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, historically also tasked with leading negotiations with the canonically irregular Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X (SSPX), is suppressed, and its duties transferred to the CDF.
Pope St John Paul II established the Ecclesia Dei Commission in 1988 to support traditional Catholics who did not follow Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre after he illicitly ordained four bishops to continue the work of the fraternity he founded for the preservation of traditional Catholic worship in the wake of the II Vatican Council and the post-Conciliar reform of the liturgy.
Pope John Paul II ruled that the illicit ordination was a schismatic act, and confirmed that the SSPX leadership had incurred excommunication
latae sententiae resulting from their participation in the illicit episcopal consecration.
Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 lifted the excommunications on the four bishops illicitly ordained, though the canonically irregular situation of the SSPX persists to this day, despite significant strides toward reconciliation.
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI restored the right of priests to use the pre-Conciliar liturgical books, promulgated by Pope St John XXIII in 1962, for public worship with his motu proprio
Summorum pontificum. In 2009, he expanded Ecclesia Dei’s competences and made the Prefect of the CDF the ex officio head of the Commission, recognising at the time that the outstanding issues between Rome and the SSPX were prevalently doctrinal.
During the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis granted faculties to all SSPX priests to hear confessions. He later made that decision permanent in November 20616.
With this latest move, Pope Francis is giving the responsibilities of the now-suppressed Commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“The further step taken by Pope Francis with the suppression of the commission itself is part of this particular need to continue the dialogue on doctrinal issues, the competence of which is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” wrote Nicola Gori for
L’Osservatore Romano in a piece accompanying the motu proprio.
The preamble to the motu proprio further suggests the move has been in the works for some time.
Though the move could startle traditionalist Catholics, it has a discernible and unalarming logic to it.
“We are not dealing, therefore, with suppression
tout court,” wrote Gori, “but with a transfer of competences, since the main axis on which activity will be set has narrowed to the doctrinal sphere.” Gori also noted the significant advances in the ongoing dialogue thus far. “Progress has been made in communion,” he wrote, “and therefore the current motu proprio offers an implicit recognition to the Pontifical Commission which has carried out its tasks with its efforts and activity.”...
Marco Tosatti, reporting this on his blog today, comments:
"Doubts and questions raised about safeguarding the rights of those who ask for the Vetus Ordo Mass may be answered only after the special section of the CDF [that takes over Ecclesia Dei's functions] is constituted and acts accordingly. Only then shall we see if it will have the will and the authority to oblige refractory bishops to grant what seems to one of the most basic rights of the faithful: to worship God in the [accepted] way they wish to".
Summorum Pontificum makes it clear that a bishop's permission is no longer necessary as long as there is a priest in the diocese who can celebrate the Old Mass for any group requesting it. But what happens if Bergoglio's own 'Tucho' Fernandez decrees within his archdiocese (La Plata, in Argentina) that he prohibits celebration of the Old Mass altogether as he recently did? How would the Bergoglio CDF deal with that? 'Tucho' could well be the litmus test for the new dispensation!
Also most 'interesting' is the information Tosatti adds about Mons. Guido Pozzo, who was first named by Benedict XVI to head Ecclesia Dei in 2009: "Mons. Guido Pozzo will be tasked with helping restore order to the Cappella Musicale Pontificia [the Sistine Chapel Choir], directly under the Master of Liturgical Ceremonies, Mons. Guido Marini."
In September 2018, it had been disclosed that
"The Sistine Chapel Choir is facing serious charges of financial misconduct, including allegations of embezzlement and fraud, with Pope Francis and New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan connected to the moneymaking scheme.
Italian watchdog group Messa in Latino reported it had received documents relating to a choir money-making program involving elite "tourist packages."
Though stressing that entry into St. Peter's Basilica is free and that "most" concert seating is available on a "first-come, first-served basis," the documents reveal a pay-to-play fundraising mechanism aimed at the wealthy.
For example, purchasers of the 2017 "Sistine Chapel Title Package" — available for a minimum donation of $75,000 — were awarded specific perks, including being "special guests" at a Mass offered by the Holy Father...
Other benefits include space at a Mass offered by Cardinal Dolan, [also with special perks]...
This was one story I failed to post, much less to follow up - the rest of it can be read on Church Militant:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sistine-chapel-choir-beset-by-financial-irregularities
But today, January 19, 2019, four months later, the AP put out this very brief report: that
"Pope Francis has put a close aide in charge of the Sistine Chapel Choir following a funding scandal. [It will now be] under the responsibility of Monsignor Guido Marini, who assists Francis during church ceremonies. Francis named another monsignor, Guido Pozzo, to handle the choir's finances. The Vatican last year began a probe of alleged diversion of funds by choir directors, but Saturday's announcement didn't mention that investigation."
And this is the pontificate that brags about 'total transparency' on financial matters. I hope Tosatti or some other Vaticanista gives us the full story soon on the alleged moneymaking scheme by those who were in charge of the Sistine Chapel Choir.
A second post today on the continuing saga of old-but-ever-new outrages in this pontificate. It's a very biased piece, obviously, but it rests on facts:
Why is the Vatican supporting/defending
Venezuela’s illegitimate president?
by Monica Showalter
January 18, 2019
In the wake of Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro swearing himself into office after a fraudulent election, the global consensus is that the regime ruling in Caracas is illegitimate. It's so bad that the news accounts call the Maduro regime "isolated."
Brazil, led by President Jair Bolsonaro, not only refused to recognize the regime, but openly recognized the constitutionally mandated succession of the Venezuelan National Assembly's leader, Juan Guaidó. That's who's president, as far as Brazil is concerned.
- Other nations, such as Paraguay, cut ties to the regime and pulled their envoys.
- The United States and Canada have come close to recognizing Guaidó as Venezuela's president, too, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton (and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) openly calling the regime "illegitimate."
- All eyes are now on whether President Trump will make recognition of Guaidó official, which I think he will.
At his Jan. 10 inaugural, Maduro was indeed isolated, with just the pitiful support of socialist hellholes Nicaragua, Cuba, and Bolivia. Nobody else could stomach it. Well, with one sorry exception: the Vatican.
According to an Agencia EFE report published in the Argentine newspaper
Clarín, the Vatican literally showed its flag for Maduro, giving him that patina of legitimacy as everyone else decent stayed away and now are getting flak for it.
Here's the link to the account, which is Spanish-only, in a Google Translate passage with some tweaks and clarifications. I haven't seen this published anywhere else:
After the [local bishops from the] church of Venezuela lambasted Nicolás Maduro by calling him "illegitimate and immoral" on the eve of his inauguration, the Vatican sent a representative to the Venezuelan president's [swearing in] on Thursday, in a clear sign of support for the Chavista leader, leaving more than one of them surprised.
This Monday, the Holy See came out to give explanations. And it justified the presence of the [Vatican] envoy [by] saying that the institution "aims to promote the common good, protect peace and ensure respect for human dignity."
The new (interim) spokesman of the Vatican, Alessandro Gisotti, explained in a note that
"the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with the Venezuelan State, its diplomatic activity is aimed at promoting the common good, protecting peace and guaranteeing respect for human dignity."
Therefore, the statement adds, "the Holy See has decided to be represented at the inauguration ceremony of the Presidency, by the head of business ad interim of the Apostolic Nunciature of Caracas (George Koovakod)."
[One must sympathize with poor Gisotti, who started his stint as Vatican spokesman with having to whitewash Mons. Zanchetta's high-profile Vatican appointment by Pope Francis. Greg Burke and Paloma Ovejero must be lighting candles at daily Mass to thank the Lord they're out of that literal hellhole!... But where is editorial director Tornielli - shouldn't he be writing the official detailed justification for Bergoglio's all-out support for Maduro??? Check out the new OR - maybe he already has!]
This, at this point, is pure Mr. Magoo, and some miserable spin control.
That culpable blindness has pretty well been how the Vatican has done business with Venezuela since Pope Francis took the reins in 2013.
- Under his leadership, the Vatican tried and failed to negotiate a "peace settlement" with the Maduro regime about three years ago. - It was junk diplomacy, then, because it came after Venezuela's opposition had tried to do the same thing in good faith for at least ten years. By then, the protests had grown massive and uncontrollable.
- Coming in after all that and pretending to be the peacemaker as if nothing had ever happened led to exactly the failure Venezuela's democrats said would happen. This was a totalitarian regime, and it was determined to hold power no matter what.
It was around this time that people were starting to murmur about getting a Pinochet of their own, given the regime's implacability, which the Vatican seemed to think it could march into and turn around. Of course, it failed.
Now the revolution has reached a different stage, and there seems to be a pincer move from both the U.S. and Brazil to oust Maduro by recognizing a new president. It's a delicate, dangerous operation, as the recent arbitrary arrest of Guaidó by Cuban agents a couple days ago demonstrated. This, after all, is a revolution, and it's been on "simmer" for about 20 years, but recent events suggest it's begun to move to "boil."
Yet there the Vatican was, standing up and showing the flag for the Chavista status quo, which seems to be a hallmark of Pope Francis's papacy, in defiance of the warnings of the country's own bishops, who have joined the country's democrats.
Look at it this way:
Can you imagine Pope John Paul II sending in his diplomats to legitimize the military dictatorship of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski while it was in its showdown with Solidarity?
Pope John Paul was with the democrats all along, and as they won freedom with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Velvet Revolution, the Vatican in the end played a pivotal role for freedom. Poland, as a matter of fact, is one of the few countries in Europe where Catholicism is still significantly practiced.
No such luck in Venezuela.
The battle lines have been drawn, and the first Latin pope and his Vatican bureaucrats have picked the bad guy, the ruling dictatorship, over the suffering people, all in the phony name of preserving peace, something whose potential came and went years ago.
Coming right on the heels of a recent scandal of a Vatican news site "congratulating" the Cuban Castro regime for 60 years of oppression, including oppression of the Catholic Church, one wonders what its real alliances are.
Venezuela is a hellhole regime at war with its own people, and it's eventually going to fall.
It's amazing that the Vatican is choosing to try to prop it up instead of supporting the people – and in defiance of the international community. Siding with Venezuela's democrats ought to be a slam-dunk for them, particularly with the diplomatic cover. All an outsider can ask in the wake of the Holy See's decision is, what do they stand for? At a historic critical juncture, they made their choice, and they chose poorly.
Entry #3 in this thread's 1/19/19 chronicle of the Bergoglian saga:
Sexual abuse and the end of
'deferring to the pope'
A recent visit by some Chilean bishops to the pope may be proof of
a newfound willingness to push back publicly against obvious misdeeds
by Father Raymond J. de Souza, SJ
January 19, 2019
As depicted in the television series 'The Crown', a member of the House of Lords publicly criticizes the Queen’s old-fashioned and “priggish” ways as out of keeping with a “new” Britain. In a bit of creative license, the Queen meets secretly with Lord Altrincham to seek his counsel. What is it that has changed? What is part of the old Britain that no longer holds?
“The age of deference, Ma’am,” Lord Altrincham replies, speaking in 1957.
That may well describe what is going on now in regard to the Supreme Pontiff and bishops, driven by the handling of sexual-abuse scandals by Pope Francis. The extraordinary visit of the leadership of the Chilean episcopate to Rome this week indicated that.
The visit marked the anniversary of the disastrous visit of Pope Francis to Chile in January 2018, the aftermath of which led to the Holy Father sending an investigator to Chile. In April he wrote a letter to the Chilean bishops,
castigating them for their negligence and malfeasance and blaming them for “misinforming” Rome, holding them responsible for the Holy Father’s serious mistakes regarding Chile. In May the entire Chilean episcopate was summoned to Rome to be chastised in person. That meeting ended with all the bishops submitting their resignations (seven of which have been accepted).
The Chileans took it all meekly, even though it was already publicly known that their leadership had quite well-informed Pope Francis on the critical matter of Bishop Juan Barros and begged him not to transfer him to a new diocese — the spark that led to the conflagration of the Chilean Church. Deference to the Holy Father won the day.
Not so this week. The Vatican News report of the meeting noted that the papal visit last year was “largely overshadowed by abuse scandals and accusations of mishandling of cases by some of the country’s bishops.”
Actually, it was the Pope’s decisions that overshadowed the visit, but a certain latitude with the truth is expected from official public-relations bureaus. What followed was not expected.
Vatican News this week went on to quote the secretary-general of the Chilean Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Luis Fernando Ramos Pérez, characterizing their conversation with Pope Francis as “frank and fruitful.”
“Frank” discussions is the near-universal code that press officials use to characterize highly contentious diplomatic meetings. That the Vatican itself would use the term to characterize a papal meeting with bishops is striking.
Lest there be any doubt about what the Chileans meant by “frank,”
Bishop Ramos characterized the meetings in an interview with Crux as a move toward rebuilding trust between the Holy Father and the Chilean bishops, implying that Pope Francis has lost their trust.
“It’s a long process,” Bishop Ramos said, indicating the degree of offense taken in Chile by the Holy Father making the bishops a scapegoat for his transfer of Bishop Barros.
It was in Chile last year that the age of deference by bishops toward the Holy Father took a decisive turn. After Pope Francis made comments accusing his critics of making false charges, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, directly rebuked the Pope’s statement.
For a senior cardinal to publicly dress down the Pope was unprecedented. That the Holy Father found himself compelled to accept the reprimand was the true earthquake; he no longer could insist upon the deference that he was not being given. This is new territory, and the consequences are only slowly being seen — for good and for ill.
At the American bishops’ meeting in November, the decision of the Holy Father to postpone votes on American reform proposals was publicly criticized by the bishops present, including their president, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston.
The most astonishing statement came from Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, who argued that
when it comes to telling the truth, the “Holy Father should be given the benefit of the doubt.” That’s not deference; it’s damning with faint praise.
The castigation model preferred by the Holy Father — whether speaking to the Roman Curia or writing to the U.S. bishops earlier this month on retreat — depends upon the bishops accepting it without protest. That can no longer be assumed, a new dynamic to be taken into account ahead of the sex-abuse summit in Rome next month.
The age of deference has been winding down for several generations. The days when officials would kneel during brief meetings with the Holy Father and he would take all his meals alone have long ended. In the early years of St. John Paul II, it was quite common for theological dissenters and religious orders in turmoil to make heated public criticisms of the pope.
But bishops generally held their tongues. Even when bishops were summoned for (private) castigation, such as the Dutch bishops in 1981 or the Australian bishops in 1998, public deference was maintained. That is no longer the case.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/01/2019 18:57]