Wikileaks publishes crucial letter
on the Vatican's effective takeover
of the Sovereign Order of Malta
The December 2016 letter shows Pope Francis supported Cardinal Burke's view
against the distribution of contraceptives by the order's humanitarian arm -
but then he promptly reinstated the responsible official, though he had no right to do so
January 30, 2019
Wikileaks today published a confidential letter confirming that Pope Francis strongly opposed the Order of Malta distributing contraceptives as part of its humanitarian work and that he wished the issue be “completely resolved.”
In the letter, dated Dec. 1, 2016, and addressed to Cardinal Raymond Burke, the patron of the Order of Malta, the Holy Father stressed that the Order “must ensure that the methods and means it uses in its initiatives and healthcare works are not contrary to the moral law.”
He added that if, “in the past, there has been a problem of this nature, I hope that it can be completely resolved.”
The Pope was referring to the findings of an investigation by the Order, published in January 2016, which documented that Malteser International, the Knights’ large humanitarian aid agency, had distributed thousands of condoms and oral contraceptives, mainly to help prevent prostitutes in the Far East and Africa from contracting HIV/AIDS, but also as a program for family planning.
This had taken place while Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager was grand hospitaller (1989—2014) and ultimately responsible for the work of Malteser International. Boeselager had been made aware of the issue at least since 2013, according to the Order, but was accused of taking inadequate action — an accusation he disputed.
In his Dec. 1 letter, the Pope told Cardinal Burke he would be “very disappointed if — as you told me — some of the high Officers were aware of practices such as the distribution of any type of contraceptives and have not yet intervened to end such things.”
“I have no doubts,” the Pope continued, “that by following the principles of Paul and ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15), the matter can be discussed with these Officers and the necessary rectification obtained.”
The letter was written in response to an earlier, Nov. 10 private audience between the Pope and Cardinal Burke.
The Register learned at the time that Pope was “deeply disturbed” by what the cardinal told him about the contraceptive distribution. Francis had also made it clear during that meeting that he wanted Freemasonry “cleaned out” from the order, and demanded appropriate action.
Francis made an oblique reference to that in the Dec. 1 letter, writing that members of the Order “must avoid secular and frivolous behaviour, such as membership of associations, movements and organisations which are contrary to the Catholic faith or of a relativist nature.”
If any Knights are members of these groups, the Pope went on, they “should be asked to remove themselves from the Order, because their behaviour is incompatible” with the faith and membership of the Order.
Based on these strong words of the Pope, on Dec. 6, Cardinal Burke and then-Grand Master, Fra’ Matthew Festing, confronted Boeselager and ordered him to step down — an order he twice resisted, leading to him being forcibly dismissed for insubordination (unlawfully, according to Boeselager) using a disciplinary procedure.
About a week later, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, then expressed his disapproval of the dismissal, saying the Pope had asked for “dialogue” to be used and had never called for the expulsion of anyone.
Some alleged Cardinal Burke had told Boeselager that the Pope had instructed him to tell him to resign, but the cardinal firmly denied this.
In a separate confidential letter to Fra’ Matthew, dated Dec. 6, 2016, and also revealed today by Wikileaks, Cardinal Burke wrote that the Pope requested “necessary vigilance” over the works of the Order, “especially the purification of a mundane spirit and of the use of methods and means contrary to the moral law.”
He asked for the Grand Master’s “fullest cooperation lest the Holy Father find it necessary to address directly his concerns through a visitation of the Order.”
Following his dismissal as Grand Chancellor, Boeselager appealed to Pope Francis, leading to Cardinal Parolin forming a five-member commission of inquiry.
[To begin with, what right did Boeselager have to appeal an internal governing decision of the (then) Sovereign Order of Malta to the Vatican, and what right did the Vatican have to start its investigation? Up to that point, the Vatican and the Order of Malta had co-equal status as sovereign institutions recognized by the United Nations. The Church's supervision of the Order had to do only with whether the Order was upholding and carrying out the teachings of the faith - yet Boeselager, for all his initial denials, was in documented violation of the Church teaching against contraception; he later said he did authorize the distribution of contraceptions in his capacity as an 'adult Catholic', as if somehow that were separable from his persona as a high-ranking Knights of Malta official.]
Three of the members named by Parolin to his investigating committee were linked to a mysterious $118 million fund in Geneva (as was Boeselager), Fra’ Matthew said one of them was a known Freemason, according to a separate document published today by Wikileaks.
The leadership of the Order resisted the commission largely on the grounds that it interfered with the Order’s sovereignty, but on Jan. 23, 2016, the Pope summoned asked Fra’ Matthew to the Vatican and asked him to resign on the spot. All the earlier decrees dating back to Dec. 6 were annulled and Boeselager was reinstated as grand chancellor on Jan. 28. The Pope subsequently appointed Cardinal Angelo Becciu as special delegate to represent the Holy See to the Order, supplanting Cardinal Burke’s role.
Wikileaks’ publication of the Pope’s letter and other documents today has brought some clarity to the Pope’s approach at that time over the contraceptive issue — an approach that, on paper at least, was clearly allied to that of Cardinal Burke.
But many questions relating to this troubled chapter in the Order’s history remain unanswered, particularly why the Pope sided with Cardinal Parolin and Boeselager over Cardinal Burke and Fra’ Matthew, and the role the mysterious Swiss fund played in the affair.
If anything, all this illustrates for the nth time the blatant duplicity of which Bergoglio is capable and which he exercises as he pleases.
Like his blanket absolution of the Chinese Communist Party for all the millions they massacred to enforce Communism, Bergoglio's intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign power and his very public power grab that resulted in the emasculation of a once sovereign Order of Malta have not been sufficiently denounced and appear to have been quickly forgotten by even the most dedicated of Bergoglio's public critics.
Any single one of Bergoglio's lengthening string of hubristic acts would have long sunk any other pope or secular leader. But why and how does he continue to thrive - even if increasingly contested - despite all his acts of evil - because that is what they are???
More than ever, one recognizes the abiding truth of Edmund Burke's words: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
The dam has clearly broken wide open on any compunctions the reigning pope may have about asserting - nay, imposing - himself and his 'truths' on anyone willing to be imposed upon by an agent of Satan. Everyday, in some way, he manages to flood the media with the poisoned waters of his twisted but calculatedly apostate thinking. Just in assembling the few posts I have today, we find that he has
1) contradicted his pious declarations on paper telling Cardinal Burke in December 2016 that the Knights of Malta official responsible for authorizing the distribution of contraceptives in Asia ought to be removed and anyone with Masonic associations must be rooted out of that Order;
2) castigated Catholic media for various sins including 'the denouncing of 'heresy' as a lack of compassion;
3) implied a moral equivalence in the 'suffering' of Maduro and that of the Venezuelan people he has oppressed and victimized;
4) artfully dissimulated his intentions for eventually allowing married priests by saying there were only rare possibilities where that could be considered at all and going on to praise the book of a German priest who advocated a reduced priesthood for married men;
5) appeared to modulate his unconditional support for unrestricted mass migrations to Europe and the West by mouthing some pieties about 'first let's help these intending migrantx in their own homelands' (and of course, no one thought to ask him how exactly he proposed to do that to the Muslim nations of Africa which his beloved migrants are fleeing)
And here below, yet another assault on Catholic marriage, providing a new but fallacious ground for declaring matrimony invalid...
POPE FRANCIS’S ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN ROTA
Can every dissatisfied spouse now get an annulment
because she doesn’t satisfactorily experience
'spiritual riches and communication' from her spouse?
by Bai McFarlane
January 29, 2019
Zenit published the Vatican-provided text of Pope Francis’s annual address to the Roman Rota today.
https://zenit.org/articles/popes-address-to-the-tribunal-of-the-roman-rota-2/
When the Pope gives this annual address, it is understood to be the legislator’s instruction about canon law. The Roman Rota is a Tribunal of appeal available to any aggrieved party in a judicial canon law case.
Pope Francis discussed the duty of the Church to assist couples, and the obligation of bishops and priests.
There is a need for a triple preparation for marriage: remote, near and permanent. It is advisable for this latter to include in a serious and structural way the various phases of married life, through an accurate formation, intended to nurture in spouses the awareness of the values and commitments proper to their vocation.
In my work upholding marriage, it would be most welcome if Bishops and priests would exercise the pastoral care of teaching the faithful and point out that
-
no-fault divorce is often cruel marital abandonment which is a fracturing of the marriage contract to live in the same household.
- A dissatisfied spouse, alternatively, should commit oneself to cooperating with experts who have a good track-record of strengthening marriage.
Fracturing the contract to live together – by divorce – is condemned by the Catechism.
CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.
Of concern in the Pope’s address to the Roman Rota is his description of an essential element of marriage, unity.
So as to be validly contracted, marriage requires of each of the betrothed a full unity [italic in original] and harmony with the other, so that, through the mutual exchange of their respective human, moral and spiritual riches – almost by way of communicating vessels – the two spouses become a single entity.
If this is the language now used by judges of the Roman Rota to decide that a marriage is invalid, we are at a shocking turning point. According to the literal meaning of the text,
if one spouse feels she is not experiencing harmony and spiritual riches from the other, to her satisfaction, then she can argue her marriage is invalid because she doesn’t have the requirement for validity enunciated by the pope.
In 1987, Saint Pope John Paul II corrected those who erroneously spread
the error that valid marriage requires the parties to be successful communicating vessels who are a harmonious single entity.
For the canonist the principle must remain clear that only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage. Moreover, the breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties.
- They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or
- They may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order.
I’ve read many, many writings about grounds for annulment and most critical is a proper understanding of the vocabulary.
The most popular ground for invalidity used by U.S. tribunals is that the marriage consent is invalid because a party did not consent (with proper mental capacity c 1095.2) to the essential duties and properties of marriage, or one was not capable of fulfilling the essential duties/properties (c. 1095.3).
- If a party does not, in reality, consent to an essential property of marriage, or a party is incapable of upholding an essential property of marriage, then the party does not validly consent to marriage (c. 1095 & 1101). So, it is very important that we correctly understand the essential properties:
Canon 1056. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
If the Pope’s 2019 Address to the Roman Rota is attempting to require as an essential element of marriage the “harmony with the other, so that, through the exchange of their respective riches they become a single entity,” he is contradicting Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Roman Rota and Defender of the Bond at the Signatura; the late Cardinal Edward Egan, former Roman Rota judge, professor at Pontifical Gregorian University, and one of six editors of the 1893 Code of Canon law; and Saint Pope John Paul II himself.
The 2019 Address to the Roman Rota is mixing up poetic language about marriage with canonical vocabulary. For example, two spouses cannot become one entity; it is impossible. Though, we’d expect priests to use this poetic language in homilies or marriage preparation, it wreaks havoc when used to define requirements for validity.
In 2015, Ignatius Press published a book
“When Is Marriage Null? Guide to the Grounds of Matrimonial Nullity for Pastors, Counselors, and Lay Faithful” by Paolo Bianchi, with a forward by Cardinal Burke.
The word unity, as an essential property of marriage does not refer to harmony, spiritual riches, and becoming a single entity. It is really simple:
If one excludes unity, one intends to engage in sexual intercourse with other persons besides one’s spouse (See page 125, When is the Marriage Null. by Bianchi).
Cardinal Egan warned about the problem of hinging validity on the spouses’ harmony. See his paper in the Scholarly Journal of the Roman Rota, “The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Incapacity to Fulfill the Essential Obligations of Marriage”.
http://marysadvocates.org/incapacity-for-obligations-edward-egan/
Over the past several years, a new genre of Canon Law essay has come into being. The format has been repeated so often as virtually to constitute an art form, something on the order of the sonnet or the sonata. The author opens by announcing with evident pleasure that a wondrous, new discovery has recently been made regarding the nature of marriage. The discovery is this: Whereas theologians and canonists had for centuries held that Titius and Titia consent to conjugal acts on their wedding day, in our more enlightened times we have come to know that to which they actually consent is rather marriage itself.
The opening theme or premise having been exposed and developed, the author then moves on to drawing a series of conclusions from his and our discovery. And the conclusions, in a variety of formulations, come more or less to these :
(1) The «merely physical» , «carnal» , even «animal» view of marriage which so long stalked the unhappy path of Catholic theological and canonical thinking has at last been abandoned;
(2) In its place we are now to admit a more «spiritual» , «human» , and «personal» understanding of marriage in which the central issue is the relationship between the partners, their mutual fulfillment, «completion» , integration, and enrichment;
(3) Hence, we are finally in a position to acknowledge that a marriage in which such a relationship has not been achieved or at least could not have been achieved in appropriate measure is invalid and susceptible of being declared such by tribunals of the Roman Catholic Church.
Faced with commenting on this kind of thing, one hardly knows where to begin. For not only is the premise false, there does not even seem to be any reason why the conclusions might flow from it were it other than false. (page 10)
If a poet pens, something of this sort, we may be charmed, just as if a pastor preaches something of this sort, we may be inspired. For the acts to which married people bestow upon each other a right are so intimate, human, and personal, that we can almost think of marriage as though it entailed a gift of the married couple themselves, one to the other. «Almost » , that is, poetically or rhetorically as opposed to philosophically, juridically, precisely.
… Still, what is permitted the poet and the pastor is rightly denied – among others – the jurist, except, of course, when the jurist be a canonist who occasionally has the good sense to set aside his toga and ascend either Parnassus or the pulpit. (page 22)
- Egan on 'Essential Obligations of Marriage'
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 31/01/2019 07:15]