“Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men. It is a man’s part to discern them as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.” –J. R. R. Tolkien
8-weeks-old aborted human
Founded in 1994, the Pontifical Academy for Life of the Roman Catholic Church is charged with promoting the Church’s consistent life ethic. Though considered an autonomous entity, the Academy is linked to the departments (“discasteries”) of the Roman Curia. The latter comprises the administrative institutions of the Holy See or the Vatican — the central body through which the affairs of the Catholic Church are conducted, which acts in the Pope’s name and with his authority.
In a statement in 2005, the first year of the pontiff of Benedict XVI, on the subject of the many vaccines that use cell lines derived from aborted babies, the Pontifical Academy for Life said that despite the potential benefits of using these vaccines, “there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically.” Parents are urged to ask their physicians to use vaccines not derived from the cell lines of the fetuses aborted in the 1960s if such vaccines exist and, if they don’t, to write to pharmaceutical companies urging the development of alternate vaccines.
The Academy’s position in 2005 was consistent with that of Catholic theologians, who maintain that the use of these morally tainted vaccines constitutes “remote material cooperation,” which could be justified only in compelling circumstances.
That position is consistent with philosopher Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative — that we should treat others as ends, not as means to our end(s). For Kant, treating another merely as a means to our own end or objective is immoral — and that is precisely why vaccines that are developed with cell lines from aborted human babies are immoral.
14 years later, the Pontifical Academy for Life of Pope Francis is singing a completely different tune.
In a statement released in July 2017 but only now made public by the Catholic News Service, the Pontifical Academy recognizes that many of the most common vaccines for measles, rubella and chickenpox are prepared from cell lines that originally were developed from a female fetus aborted in 1964 and a male fetus aborted in 1966. The Academy however says not only is it no longer “remote material cooperation” to use vaccines developed from cell lines of aborted children, it is the moral duty of Catholic parents to vaccinate their children for the good of their children and the community. And the parents can do so with a “clear conscience” that “the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation in voluntary abortion.”
Not coincidentally, the statement was issued shortly after Pope Francis completely revamped the Pontifical Academy for Life, replacing all of the group’s members and giving the office a new direction.
Although the Pontifical Academy for Life had changed its policy in 2017, it only sent Catholic News Service a working translation of the 2017 document on March 20, 2019, after U.S. news media reported on a Kentucky Catholic family suing the local health department for forcing chickenpox vaccination on their son against their Catholic beliefs.
The boy, Jerome Kunkel, 18, is a senior at Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, a Catholic K-12 school affiliated with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.
On February 5, the health department sent Assumption Academy parents a letter informing them of a chickenpox outbreak and urging them to make sure their children’s vaccinations were up to date. 32 students, 13% of the student body, had contracted the disease.
On March 15, the health department sent the parents another letter, threatening that “all students, grades K-12, without proof of vaccination or proof of immunity against varicella virus will not be allowed to attend school until 21 days after the onset of rash for the last ill student or staff member.”
A day ago, on March 14, the Kunkel family filed a lawsuit in the Boone County Circuit Court alleging that the health department violated Jerome’s First Amendment rights, and that they believed using the vaccine would be “immoral, illegal and sinful” according to their Catholic faith.
In filing the lawsuit, the Kunkel family is being consistent with the handbook of the Assumption Academy, posted on its website, which states:
Schools of the U.S. District of the Society of St. Pius X comply with vaccination policies of local health and education authorities while adhering to moral principles of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not oppose vaccinations in principle, but it does consider as morally illicit the development of vaccines from aborted fetal tissues. In 2005, the Vatican clarified the proper position of all Catholics on this matter, and the SSPX adheres to that declaration.
Of course, little did the Kunkels or Jerome’s Assumption Academy knew that Pope Francis had pulled the rug out from under them by reversing the Church’s policy on vaccines developed from cell lines of aborted babies.
Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 8, No. 1853 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.
Four days ago came news from the Vatican that in a letter Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI praised his successor, Pope Francis, as a “man of profound philosophical and theological formation,” and that there is an “inner continuity” between his pontificate and that of Pope Francis.
Benedict had written the letter in thanks for having received an advance copy of a series of books on the theology of Pope Francis, released on the eve of Francis’ 5-year anniversary as pope.
The Vatican, in the person of Msgr. Dario Edoardo Viganò, prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communication, released this photo (see below) of Benedict’s letter, next to the stacked series of 11 books on Francis’ theology. Note that only the first page of the letter is visible.
“I applaud this initiative that seeks to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would only be a practical man devoid of particular theological or philosophical formation, while I would have been only a theoretician of theology that understood little of the concrete life of a Christian today.
The little volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and they help therefore to see the internal continuity between the two pontificates, even with all the differences of style and temperament.”
Nicole Winfield reports for the Associated Press that on March 14, 2018, the Vatican admitted that it had altered the photo of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter about Pope Francis, which changed the meaning of the image in a way that violated photojournalist industry standards.
Most independent news media, including The Associated Press, follow strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos. The AP norms, considered to be the industry standard among news agencies, states that “No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph.”
The Vatican admitted it had blurred the two final lines of the first page of Pope Benedict’s letter where he begins to explain that he had not actually read the books in question, and therefore cannot contribute a theological assessment of Francis as requested by Msgr. Vigano because he has other projects to do.
According to the AP, Msgr. Vigano read only parts of Benedict’s letter during a press conference launching the series of 11 books on Francis’ theology, including the lines that were blurred out. But Vigano didn’t read the whole letter. The Vatican didn’t respond to a request to see the full text.
Remember the sin of omission?
This is what Pope Benedict XVI, age 90, actually wrote in his letter, which is concealed by the Vatican (source: The Remnant):
“However, I don’t feel I can write a brief and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I should write and express myself only on books I had really read. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already assumed.
[Tuttavia non mi sento di scrivere su di essi una breve e densa pagina teologica perché in tutta la mia vita è sempre stato chiaro che avrei scritto e mi sarei espresso soltanto su libri che avevo anche veramente letto. Purtroppo, anche solo per ragioni fisiche, non sono in grado di leggere gli undici volumetti nel prossimo futuro, tanto più che mi attendono altri impegni che ho già assunti.]”
In other words, Pope Benedict XVI is saying:
He has not read the series of 11 slim volumes on Pope Francis’ theology.
Consequently, he cannot comment on Pope Francis’ theology, as Mgsr. Vigano requested.
Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI has no intention to read the series because he has other things to do.
That being said, Pope Benedict XVI did send mixed messages in his letter. As Christopher A. Ferrara of The Remnant points out:
The fact remains, however, that Benedict has lent his name and signature to the fraudulent claim that Bergoglio [Pope Francis’ real name] exhibits a profound philosophical and theological formation, even though he has spent the past five years engaged in shallow mockery of “the theologians,” whom he would consign to a desert island, while shamefully misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Thomas as supportive of his campaign to admit public adulterers to Holy Communion. […]
Despite its contrary signaling, therefore, Benedict’s letter to Vigano must be seen as cooperation in a scheme to rescue Bergoglio’s imploding papacy from itself, no matter what Benedict’s subjective intention may have been in going along with the ruse. The letter’s claim of an “internal continuity” between his pontificate and Bergoglio’s is a transparent evasion of the truth. “Internal continuity” is just another way of saying “apparent lack of continuity.” Nor can the apparent lack of continuity be reduced to “differences of style and temperament.” There is not an even arguable continuity between the two Popes regarding the dominant theme of Bergoglio’s pontificate: an absolutely unparalleled attack on the Sixth Commandment and even the natural law, far more dramatic than Bergoglio merely trudging along the path of “ecumenism,” “dialogue” and “liturgical renewal” established at Vatican II. […]
Benedict would have to know in particular that Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia reduces the Sixth Commandment, an exceptionless precept of the divine and natural law, to a mere “rule” and an “ideal” that does not bind strictly in certain “complex circumstances,” thereby smuggling into the life of the Church, under the guise of “authentic Magisterium,” precisely the evil of situation ethics that John Paul II condemned. […]
The unprecedented and untenable division of the Church into traditionalist, “conservative” and liberal branches, with Bergoglio now clumsily attempting to saw off the first two branches, signals an historical turning point at which it seems only divine intervention of the most dramatic sort will be able to restore the Church [….]
“The greatest charity one can do to another is to lead him to the truth.” ~St. Thomas Aquinas
In a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner on July 15, 2017, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI described the Catholic Church as a “boat” that “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”
Note: Cardinal Meisner was one of four Catholic clergymen who wrote a letter (dubia) to Pope Francis asking him to clarify his Amoris Laetitia apostolic exhortation that can be understood as giving permission to civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics (and therefore living in adultery, according to the Church) as well as unmarried cohabiting Catholics (i.e., living in fornication) to receive Holy Communion. Reportedly, Francis published the exhortation despite having received corrections from theologians. Months after Meisner et al. sent Francis their letter, the pope still has not responded.
If the Church is a “boat” that “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing,” then Pope Francis’ Vatican isalready submerged — in a cesspool of child porn, child rape, homosexual sex-and-drug orgy, and an in-your-face homoerotic church mural.
(1) Child Porn & Child Rape
Michael Stone reports for Patheos, Oct. 3, 2014, that police found more than 100,000 child porn videos and photos on the computer of former Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski in his office at the Holy See diplomatic compound in the Dominican Republic. Wesolowski was the Vatican’s papal nuncio or ambassador in Santo Domingo.
Under house arrest at the Vatican, Wesolowski is also accused of raping numerous children in the Dominican Republic and Poland, and is one of the highest-ranking church officials to be accused of sexually abusing children during the Catholic Church’s widespread and costly sexual abuse scandal. Wesolowski is also suspected of having sexually abused children while serving in other posts during his career — in South Africa, Costa Rica, Japan, Switzerland, India and Denmark.
After being publicly accused of procuring child prostitutes in 2013, Vatican officials secretly removed Wesolowski from his post as papal nuncio in Santo Domingo so as to avoid criminal prosecution. In September 2014, Weslowski was placed under house arrest at the Vatican in response to popular outrage after reports began to circulate that the accused child rapist was free to wander the streets of Rome. Authorities in both the Dominican Republic and Poland — Wesolowski’s country of origin where he has also been accused of sexually abusing children — want him extradicted to face criminal charges.
According to Vatican detectives, some of the horrors found on the former Archbishop’s computer included around 160 videos showing teenage boys forced to perform sexual acts on themselves and on adults, and more than 86,000 pornographic photos methodically archived in several category-based folders. At least another 45,000 pictures were deleted, while even more child pornography was found on a laptop Wesolowski used during his trips abroad.
Wesolowski was charged with sexually abusing minors and child porn possession; if convicted, he would face 12 years in jail. Scheduled for July 11, 2015, his trial was postponed because of an “unexpected illness”. On August 27, 2015, Wesołowski was found dead in his residence from a heart attack. (Wikipedia)
More recently, another high-ranking Vatican official was charged with sexual assault.
The New York Post reports that on June 22, 2017, Australian police charged Cardinal George Pell — Pope Francis’ chief financial adviser and Australia’s most senior Catholic — with multiple counts of “historical sexual assault offenses,” meaning offenses that generally occurred some time ago. Police gave no other details.
Pell, the highest-ranking Vatican official to ever be charged in the church’s long-running sexual abuse scandal, had also been accused of mishandling cases of clergy abuse when he was archbishop of Melbourne and, later, Sydney. He has denied all abuse allegations.
Update: On December 11, 2018 in Australia, Cardinal Pell was convicted by a unanimous jury on all charges he sexually abused two choir boys there in the late ’90s. Pell is the Vatican’s third most powerful official as its finance chief, and is the highest Vatican official to ever go on trial for sex abuse.
Meanwhile, the AP reports that, ignoring advice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope’s own advisers question.”
At least one case has come back to bite Francis:
“An Italian priest who received the pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him”.
(2) Homosexual Cocaine Orgy
In late June, 2017, Vatican police raided a cocaine-fueled gay-sex party at the apartment of Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, 49.
Capozzi is the secretary of one of Pope Francis’ key advisers and president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio.
Ironically, the apartment is in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica, which belongs to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith — the arm charged with tackling clerical sex abuse. As such, the building enjoys the extraterritorial rights of the Vatican, unchecked by the Italian State.
After neighbors complained repeatedly about constant comings and goings of visitors to the building during all hours of the night, Vatican police raided the apartment and found multiple men engaged in rampant drug use and homosexual activity. Police arrested Capozzi, whom Italian media called an “ardent supporter of Pope Francis,” after taking him to a clinic to detox from the cocaine he’d ingested. Capozzi is now on a spiritual retreat in an undisclosed convent in Italy. Despite his arrest, he is still listed as an active staff member on the website of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts.
Capozzi, who on his LinkedIn page calls himself an “expert in canon law and dogmatic theology,” managed to evade suspicion from Italian police by using a BMW luxury car with license plates of the Holy See, which made him practically immune to stops and searches. This privilege, usually reserved for high-ranking prelates, allowed the monsignor to transport cocaine for his frequent homosexual orgies without being stopped by the Italian police.
In response to the news of the police raid, Pope Francis decided to “accelerate” the retirement of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. At age 79, Coccopalmerio is way beyond the age of retirement of 75, but was kept on by Francis. Incredibly, Coccopalmerio had recommended Capozzi for a promotion to bishop, despite Capozzi’s previous alleged drug overdoses.
Coccopalmerio, as President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, is the Vatican’s top canonical official and one of Pope Francis’ closest collaborators and ardent supporters. Earlier this year, the Vatican’s publishing house released with much fanfare a book by Coccopalmeiro that defended Francis’s Amoris Laetitia, even though it contradicted perennial Catholic teaching.
In a 2014 interview with Rossoporpora, Coccopalmerio said that while homosexual relationships are deemed “illicit” by the Church, Catholic leaders, such as himself, must “emphasize” the “positive realities” that he said are present in homosexual relationships:
“But if I see that the two persons truly love each other, do acts of charity to those in need, for example … then I can also say that, although the relationship remains illicit, positive elements also emerge in the two persons. Instead of closing our eyes to such positive realities, I emphasize them.”
Michael Hichborn, president of the U.S.-based Lepanto Institute, said he highly suspects Coccopalmerio knew of his secretary’s homosexual cocaine orgies:
“Given the monitoring and whispering that goes on in the Vatican, it is unlikely to the point of absurdity that Cardinal Coccopalmerio was unaware of Msgr. Capozzi’s disgusting activities. In fact, when we consider the 300-page document on the homosexual lobby that was handed to Pope Benedict XVI just before he resigned, the probability is that many who work in the Vatican were fully aware of what Capozzi was doing, and that such activities are taking place among other clergy as well.”
Hichborn said that the homosexual orgy happening right next to St. Peter’s is indicative that the Vatican is “ground zero for a mass apostasy that is happening right now within the Catholic Church.”Hichborn said that the Church’s enemies are now trying to destroy her from within:
“We know for a fact that Communists and homosexuals were specifically recruited as far back as the 1920’s to infiltrate seminaries. It was a concerted effort to destroy the Church from within.What we are seeing is the culmination of nearly 100 years worth of this effort playing itself out.”
Update (Nov. 8, 2018): A highly-placed Vatican source with direct knowledge, who must remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, tells LifeSite that Pope Francis knows of Coccopalmerio’s presence at the party.
(3) Homoerotic Church Mural
In March 2017, reports surfaced that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, in 2007 when he was a diocesan bishop, had commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a gigantic blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia in Umbria, central Italy.
The mural that covers the opposite side of the facade of the church portrays Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with writhing naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers. The image of the archbishop himself is depicted among those in the nets.
Archbishop Paglia defended the muraldeemed by Catholic critics to be “blasphemous” and “disgusting,” as well as “demonic,” saying it was part of a commitment to evangelizing. Regarding his inclusion in the mass of nude bodies shown in the mural, he said, “I too am included in the mural as one who needs redemption no less than anyone else.”
Not coincidentally, Paglia also defended Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia on allowing adulterers and others living in mortal sin receive the Eucharist, which reinforces the suspicion of many that the real intent of Amoris Laetitia ultimately is to legitimate homosexuality.
Commenting on the cesspool in the Vatican, Riposte Catholiqueobserves:
“One thinks one is dreaming: in the most deplorable of ways, the Rome of today seems to have fallen lower than the Rome of the Borgias.”
In a talkgiven in Washington D.C. last October, the orthodox Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan points out that where there is heresy, there is also sexual immorality because “heresy” always goes hand-in-hand with an “unchaste life”.
No wonder some Catholics call Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis is his job title) an anti-Pope.
No wonder U.S. Catholic congregations are aging and dying off. At least 60% of most congregations today are over 65 years of age. (Catholic Journal)
To call this confusing is an understatement.
In a recent speech, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XXVI, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, said that Benedict and his successor, Pope Francis, are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative member.”
Pope Benedict XVI’s real name is Joseph Ratzinger; Pope Francis’ is Jorge Bergoglio.
In Latin, Petrine Office is munus petrinum. The word “Petrine” is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as:
Relating to St. Peter, the first pope who was appointed by Christ, or his writings or teachings.
Relating to the authority of the Pope over the Church, in his role as the successor of St. Peter.
In other words, in this context, “Petrine” means papal, which means that according to Archbishop Gänswein, although Benedict had resigned in 2013, nevertheless he and Francis are an “expanded” papal ministry, whatever that means. Edward Pentin reports for the RCRegister that on May 20, 2016, speaking at the presentation of a new book on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Archbishop Georg Gänswein said that Pope Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
The new book, Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI (Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI), is by Roberto Regoli.
Archbishop Gänswein, prefect of the Pontifical Household and the personal secretary of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, said: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.” Archbishop Gänswein also confirmed the existence of a group who had fought against Ratzinger’s election in 2005, but stressed that that had “little or nothing” to do with the latter’s resignation in 2013.
Gänswein said the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be Pope “was certainly the outcome of a battle,” referring to Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Papal Conclave between a pro-Ratzinger group called the Salt of the Earth Party comprised of Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medin, and a liberal, pro-Bergoglio group called the St. Gallen group that included Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor — a group Cardinal Danneels jokingly referred to as “a kind of mafia-club”. Godfried Danneels is a pro-homosexual Belgian cardinal and former archbishop of Brussels who calls same-sex marriage a “positive development“– which means he approves of homosexuality and homosexual sex that both the Bible and the Catholic Church’s Catechism abjure. Danneelscalls on the Catholic Church to recognize a “sort of marriage” for homosexuals. Despite his heretical advocacy for homosexuality and his cover-up in 2010 of a sex-abuse case involving a fellow bishop — Danneels’ uncle, Roger Vangheluwe, Bishop of Bruges — Pope Francis gave Danneels a place of honor at the all-important Synod on the Family last October.
In an interview with the RCRegister last November and EWTN Germany, German journalist Paul Badde confirmed the existence of the St. Gallen faction, and named German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as members.
But Archbishop Gänswein insists that Pope Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable,” being “aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”
Others, however, say Benedict had been pressured to resign. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: “Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”
Despite his resignation, Pope Benedict XVI continues to view his task as “participation in . . . a ‘Petrine ministry’.” Gänswein said: “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry” — something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ Instead, Benedict “has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry” as “cooperatores veritatis“, which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”
This is why Benedict XVI has not given up the papal white cassock or his papal name of Benedict — unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone. Nor has Benedict, according to Archbishop Gänswein, “retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy,” enriching the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
In 1996, then Pope John Paul II (now St. John Paul II) promulgated papal constitution Universi Dominici Gregis forbidding the canvassing or lobbying for votes by the cardinal electors in the selection of pope. Violators would be automatically excommunicated, i.e. immediately imposed, without necessity of declaration. (The Latin expression for “automatic” is latae sententiae, which means “incurred as soon as the offence is committed”.) The result of the election would be “null and void.”
St. John Paul II
Universi Dominici Gregis, which means “the Lord’s whole flock” in English, is an Apostolic Constitution of the Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II on February 22, 1996. It supersedes all previous apostolic constitutions and orders on the subject of the election of the Roman Pontiff. Universi Dominici Gregis begins:
The Shepherd of the Lord’s whole flock is the Bishop of the Church of Rome, where the Blessed Apostle Peter, by sovereign disposition of divine Providence, offered to Christ the supreme witness of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. It is therefore understandable that the lawful apostolic succession in this See . . . has always been the object of particular attention.
Precisely for this reason, down the centuries the Supreme Pontiffs have deemed it their special duty, as well as their specific right, to establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor . . . .
While it is indeed a doctrine of faith that the power of the Supreme Pontiff derives directly from Christ, whose earthly Vicar he is,8 it is also certain that this supreme power in the Church is granted to him “by means of lawful election accepted by him, together with episcopal consecration”.9 A most serious duty is thus incumbent upon the body responsible for this election. Consequently the norms which regulate its activity need to be very precise and clear, so that the election itself will take place in a most worthy manner . . . .
[T]he College of electors of the Supreme Pontiff is composed solely of the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church . . . whose members come from every continent.
Universi Dominici Gregis then specifies, among other laws, that:
The cardinal electors are to vote by secret ballot (Universi Dominici Gregis II:10).
Anyone who commits the crime of simony — the buying and selling of church offices and votes — will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:78).
Cardinal electors who attempt to influence (lobby) or are influenced (lobbied) in the election of the pope will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:80-83).
Here are Universi Dominici Gregis laws 80-83:
80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope. 81.The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election. 82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void. 83. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.
Bro. Alexis Bugnolo of the blog, From Rome, writes:
Note that since the Papal law is wide in what it forbids, not only is it a crime to promise a vote, it is a crime to join in a conspiracy to canvass for such votes, since this is tantamount to promising to vote for one candidate and not vote for other candidates. However, note that the papal law only penalizes voting Cardinals. Cardinals too old to vote, are not thus penalized, though they are collaborating in the solicitation of votes.
The Papal election of 2005 that selected Pope Benedict XVI was the first papal election to be held under John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. Benedict XVI made three changes to Universi Dominici Gregis:
Reinstating the traditional two-thirds vote required to elect a new Pope regardless of the number of ballots it takes;
Allowing the College of Cardinals the possibility to bring forward the start of the conclave once all cardinals are present, or push the beginning of the election back by a few days should there be serious reasons;
Automatic excommunication of any non-cardinal who broke the absolute oath of secrecy of the College of Cardinals during the proceedings to select the new leader of the Catholic Church.
In other words, Pope Benedict XVI kept intact Universi Dominici Gregis‘s papal laws 80-83, including law 81 that explicitly forbids the cardinal electors from lobbying each other on behalf of a candidate. But the cardinal electors who voted Argentinian cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as pope did exactly that — they lobbied fellow cardinals and were influenced by the lobbying, in violation of Papal Law 81.
What follows are three pieces of evidence in support of this assertion. To begin, in an article for The Wall Street Journal, titled “Fifteen Days in Rome: How the Pope was Picked,” Aug. 6, 2013, Stacy Meichtry and Alessandra Galloni wrote that although Bergoglio had some support in 2005, he was “definitely a dark-horse candidate” in 2013:
Veteran cardinals who had cast ballots for Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005 saw a chance to float his candidacy again. His earliest supporters—a coalition of cardinals from Latin America, as well as Africa and Europe—viewed him as a consummate outsider. […] The challenge was getting Cardinal Bergoglio the 77 votes he needed, representing two-thirds of the conclave, to become pope.
Exhibit #1: Testimony of Cardinal Elector Theordore McCarrick
Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, D.C., was one of the cardinals in the Papal Conclave that elected Bergoglio. On October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, McCarrick said that he was lobbied to support Bergoglio whom he (McCarrick) and other cardinals had not even considered before.
Beginning at the 18:20 mark in the video below, Cardinal McCarrick said that before the cardinal electors “went into the general conversations, he was approached by “a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman.” The man then came to the seminary where McCarrick was staying in Rome. Then, this “very brilliant man, very influential man in Rome” said, “What about Bergoglio? Does he have a chance?” McCarrick said he was surprised at the question, and replied, “I don’t think so because no one’s mentioned his name.” The man said, referring to Bergoglio, “He could do it, you know, reform the church,” and spoke about how Bergoglio had reformed the church in Argentina in just five years. McCarrick confessed, “That was the first time I’d heard there were people who thought Bergoglio was a possibility in this election.”
At the general congregation of the cardinal electors, McCarrick spoke for five minutes, in which he told his fellow electors that he hoped that whoever was elected pope would be someone who, if not himself a Latin American, would “have a very strong interest in Latin America because half the Church is there . . . that’s where the people are.”
Exhibit #2: Testimony of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor
As reported by the Catholic Herald on Sept. 12, 2013, former Cardinal of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who was not an elector but is rumored to be the leader of “Team Bergoglio,” admitted that Bergoglio knew that he was being put forth as a candidate prior to the initiation of the Papal Conclave, and that Murphy-O’Connor was his lobbyist:
Murphy-O’Connor said: “All the cardinals had a meeting with him [Pope Francis] in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’ […]
The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said: “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: ‘Si – capisco’ – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.”
Exhibit #3: What The Great Reformer book says
In the recently-published book The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, author Dr. Austen Ivereigh writes (the following quotes from Chapter 9, pp. 349-367, of The Great Reformer are from Bro. Bugnolo’s blog post):
Page 355: “They had learned their lesson from 2005” – referring to Team Bergoglio learning from their failed attempt to get Bergoglio elected pope in 2005.
P. 355: “They first secured his [Bergoglio’s] assent.Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked.” Bro. Bugnolo maintains that “such a statement is morally equivalent to a sign of will giving consent, and in the context of a proposal to launch a campaign, it is also morally equivalent to a pact. This is an excommunicatable offense given the context of the offer of a campaign. A conscientious man, observant of the law of the conclave, would have added a sign that he repudiated an organized campaign, if only out of charity for the campaigners, who would thereby fall foul of the papal law.”
P. 355: “Then they got to work touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man…” P. 355:“… Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot. An ancient Italian cardinal kept the tally of how many votes they could rely on before the conclave started.”Bro. Bugnolo writes that this is a violation of Universi Domenici Gregis law #81 “without any wiggle-room, because you cannot tally votes, unless votes have been promised, and if they are promised, then the ones asking have sought them, and both parties have entered into some kind of obligation or pact or agreement to vote for a particular candidate in the first ballot, while not voting for all other candidates.”
P. 355: “The Spanish cardinal Santos Abril y Castello, archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome and a former nuncio in Latin America, was vigorous in canvassing on Bergoglio’s behalf among the Iberian Iberian bloc.”
Ivereigh then names other cardinal collaborators in the conspiracy: Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris, Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, and U.S. Cardinal Sean O’Malley.
Pp. 356-357: “For this reason, and because the organizers of his campaign stayed carefully below the radar, the Bergoglio bandwagon that began to roll during the week of the congregations went undetected by the media, and to this day most vaticanisti believe there was no organized pre-conclave effort to get Bergoglio elected.”
In footnote 10, Dr. Ivereigh delivers the final confirmation of a conspiracy to elect Jorge Bergoglio to be Pope Francis:
In his Francis: Pope of a New Word (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013), ch. 3, the leading Vatican commentator Andrea Tornielli says that there were no “campaigns organized in advance” of the conclave for Bergoglio. There was one.
Assuming that the above three accounts (Exhibits 1-3) are true, then Pope Francis is an illegitimate pope, which means he and his co-conspirators should be automatically excommunicated and all his acts as pope “null and void.”
To sign an international petition asking the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals to investigate whether the election of Jorge Bergoglio as pope was in violation of Papal Law No. 81,click here.
Update (July 13, 2018):
Bishop Gracida, bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX, also believes that the canvassing during the papal conclave that elected Bergoglio as Pope is canonically illegal, which renders the validity of the papal election in doubt. (PCM)
Pope Benedict 16th called it the Dictatorship of Relativism. He wrote: In his futuristic novel Brave New World, the British author Aldous Huxley had predicted in 1932 that falsification would be the decisive element of modernity. In a false reality with its false truth – or the absence of truth altogether – nothing, in the final analysis, is important any more. There is no truth, there is no standpoint. Today, in fact, truth is regarded as far too subjective a concept for us to find therein a universally valid standard. The distinction between genuine and fake seems to have been abolished. Everything is to some extent negotiable.
A sub-division of that dictatorship is the Tyranny of Diversity. Judicial Watch reportsApril 3, 2013, that “In a staggering case of affirmative action gone wild,” the city government of Phoenix,capitol of Arizona and America’s 6th largest city, is recruiting minorities to be lifeguards at public pools even if they’re not good swimmers. It’s all in the name of diversity.
On its official website. the city proudly declares that “diversity” is among Phoenix’s “vision and values”:
We Value and Respect Diversity
Understanding diversity helps us to work together and serve our community. Diversity is more than gender and race; it encompasses our uniqueness and individuality. By embracing our differences, we find many paths to success. We put this belief into action to provide effective services to our diverse community.
Evidently officials are willing to compromise those “effective services” at 29 public swimming pools spread throughout the city. To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.” Kelly Martinez, a Phoenix official, explains that the pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that. The kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”
To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.
One of the recruits is high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn’t grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding. If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.
Judicial Watch points out Phoenix’s recruitment of minority lifeguards is part of a national trend to boost the minority workforce at whatever cost. Under Obama we have seen a lot of this at the federal level through a variety of specially-designed government programs that give ethnic minorities special treatment at all federal agencies as well as medical and agricultural fields, among others.
Earlier this year the administration made history by hiring the government’s first “Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity” to mastermind a multi-million-dollar effort that boosts the number of minorities in biomedical research and slashes discrimination in the federal grant process. The effort was initially launched last year after a government-sanctioned study uncovered a “disturbing and disheartening” lack of racial diversity in the field.
Before that the administration created a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies and Obama appointed a “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help advance the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs. Who could forget the race and gender employment quotas required at private financial institutions under Obama’s financial reform measure (known as the Dodd-Frank bill) to overhaul Wall Street? It’s all in the name of diversity.
And of course, it’s the taxpayer who gets screwed because we are paying for all these “diversity” programs. ~Eowyn
WASHINGTON, DC – Sources close to the White House have learned that Barack Obama is planning to run for the office of Pope when the College of Cardinals convenes to elect a successor to ailing Benedict XVI at the end of this month. Calling on the promise of Equality for All, Obama is said to firmly believe that the time has come for a non-Catholic to occupy the Vatican‘s highest office. Foreseeing a looming citizenship issue he states that he has discovered an Italian birth certificate that proves he was born in Rome before he was born in Kenya. “That Hawaiian birth certificate never has been worth what I paid for it anyway,” he noted. Continuing, he concluded, “And there’s no way that a handful of cardinals could be more expensive to buy than 10 million voters in Michigan.” Further questions should be directed to Obama’s Papal Campaign Manager, Abdul Azeem Khan.
News came this morning that Pope Benedict 16th is resigning. Nine namesare said to be papabili (potential popes), frontrunners to succeed Benedict 16th. Among them is an ominous name — Peter Turkson of Ghana, Africa.
It is not just that his name “Peter” is evocative of St. Malachy’s (1094-1148) prophesy that the last pope would be one “Peter the Roman,” Peter Turkson was the person who, in 2011, had called for a “supranational world political Authority,” i.e., a one-world government.
I am therefore re-publishing this post, originally titled “About the Vatican’s Call for a World Political Authority,” which I had first published on October 26, 2011. ~Eowyn (Feb. 11, 2013)
Two days ago, on October 24, 2011, the Vatican issued a curious document calling for the creation of a “supranational global political Authority” and a central world bank to manage and cure the ills of the world’s economies.
The proposal, “Note on the reform of the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority” (henceforth, “The Note”), was not authored by the Pope but by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP). Nevertheless, the PCJP is a part of the Roman Curia or the Holy See, the leaders of the PCJP are appointed by the Pope, and The Note liberally references and quotes past and present popes. Given all this, one can only conclude that The Note has Pope Benedict XVI‘s approval.
To read a translation of The Note, click here.
The Note begins by declaring:
“The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence. […] as Benedict XVI teaches, the crisis ‘obliges us to re-plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future. In this spirit, with confidence rather than resignation, it is appropriate to address the difficulties of the present time.'”
The author(s) of the Note attributes the global economic crisis to mainly two factors:
Economic liberalism, i.e., the free market;
Problems of personal and national ethics — of greed and unbridled “materialism.”
All of which, The Note maintains, has led to great inequalities, between/among nations and peoples, and a seemingly intractable global economic crisis.
The Note’s proposed remedy is contained in Section 3, titled “An Authority over Globalization.”
The Section begins by referring to Pope John XXIII’s teaching, in what The Note calls “the prophetic” Encyclical Pacem in Terris of 1963. In the encyclical, John XXIII observed that the world was heading towards ever greater unification, that a correspondence was lacking in the human community between the political organization “on a world level and the objective needs of the universal common good,” and expressed the hope that one day “a true world political authority” would be created.
The Note then urged that John XXIII’s teachingbe implemented today “in view of the unification of the world engendered by…globalization, and of the importance of guaranteeing…a free, stable world economic and financial system.” Moreover, The Note insists, the present Pope Benedict XVI himself had “expressed the need to create a world political authority,” given the ever longer ” agenda of questions” that must “be dealt with globally” — questions of “peace and security; disarmament and arms control; promotion and protection of fundamental human rights; management of the economy and development policies; management of the migratory flows and food security, and protection of the environment.”
The Note then asserts that the answers to all these questions in an “increasingly interconnected and interdependent” world “are not just sectorial and isolated, but systematic and integrated,” and should be “geared to the universal common good.” To do otherwise is to consign ourselves to a world characterized not by “the common good” but dominated by only “the strongest nations.”
The Note then proposes that a “supranational world political Authority” be “set up gradually” to deal with all these problems. The Note recognizes that such a world political Authority (WPA) “cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence, but should be the outcome of a free and shared agreement” and “a sincere dialogue”. Such an agreement can only come “from a process of progressive maturation of consciences and freedoms as well as the awareness of growing responsibilities.”
The Note then goes on to say that the WPA must recognize and respect the differences of the world’s many disparate cultures and civilizations. This WPA would be “subsidiary” to the world’s many governments: “Governments should not serve the world Authority unconditionally. Instead, it is the world Authority that should put itself at the service of the various member countries.”
Such a WPA would:
Make decisions “with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.” [Who decides what “the global common good” is?]
Create “the socio-economic, political and legal conditions” essential for “efficient and efficacious” markets that “are not over-protected by paternalistic national policies.” [Excuse me, but didn’t The Note just say that it was “economic liberalism” (i.e., the free market) that had caused global inequities and the global economic crisis, in the first place?]
At the same time, those “efficient and efficacious” markets must be well-financed, instead of being “weakened by systematic deficits in public finances and of the gross national products.” [“well-financed” by whom?]
At the same time as the WPA ensures there be “free and stable markets,” there would also be “a fair distribution of world wealth.” [No contradiction there!]
The Note then proposes it is “logical” that the creation of such a GPA should “proceed with the United Nations as its reference.”
To that, I can only ask: “And how well is that working?”
So the Vatican is proposing that we should begin the process toward creating this global welfare state of a World Political Authority by using the UN as our “reference” — whatever that means.
Is this the same United Nations, whose IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) — the world’s chief “climate change” institution — again and again has been caught issuing unsubstantiated and downright fraudulent claims about global warming? The same United Nations that is overrun with New Age occult mumbo-jumbo? (See my 4-part series on the UN here)
God help us.
So what is this Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) that issued The Note? Wikipedia says the PCJP, founded in 1967 as part of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, is dedicated to “action-oriented studies” for the international promotion of justice, peace, and human rights from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council’s objectives and mandate are the promotion of “justice and peace in the world, in the light of the Gospel and of the social teaching of the Church.”
The PCJP’s president is 63-year-old native of Ghana, Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, who was appointed by none other than Pope Benedict XVI himself in 2009.
“In response to the global economic crisis started in 2008, Cardinal Turkson together with bishop Mario Toso elaborated a proposal to reform the International Financial System by creating a Global Public Authority and a Global Bank that consider the interest of all developing countries. The document of 40 pages was officially presented in October 2011….”
If The Note sounds familiar to some, that is not surprising. It is merely that neo-Marxist Liberation Theology in a new and global garb — the same liberation theology repudiated by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1984 and 1986.
In a speech, “Protecting Human Life and Dignity: Promoting a Just Economy,” which Turkson delivered at the Social Ministry Gathering in Washington, D.C., February 13-16, 2011, the cardinal said the following:
“The first step is surely to face the difficulties of the present time, not with ready-made answers or simplistic(/simplifying) ideologies, but with a realistic attitude and with discernment. […] In order to confront the problems of our world we must first study them, we must learn to SEE them clearly and recognize what constitutes injustice at every level. ‘Seeing’ demands more than a glance based on presumptions of ideology or prejudice (even political affiliation: Republican or Democrat). Rather, using the available scientific tools, we must conduct a rigorous analysis of social conditions, their causes and interconnections, their effects, especially on the poor and marginalized, and the contemporary experiences of the People of God who struggle. Beside an empirical analysis, we make use of biblical insight, the tradition of our Church’s social teaching, theological reflection to ‘judge’ the situation described. And out of this effort – which sometimes entails solitary research but which often is a collaborative task – emerges a way forward and proposals of what to do and how to ‘act’.”
I humbly suggest that the good Cardinal Peter Turkson should take his own admonishments to heart and refrain from prescribing to the world the “simplistic/simplifying ideology” and “presumptions” of Marxism.
I will now end this post with this last little nugget:
St. Malachy (1094-1148), the first Irish saint in the Catholic Church, prophesied that the last pope would be one “Peter the Roman”:
“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.”
UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2011):
10 days after The Note was issued, the Vatican’s Secretariat of State convened a special meeting in which the Roman Catholic Church’s Secretary of the State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone effectively denounced The Note. For details, go to my post. ~Eowyn
Pope Benedict XVI is to resign at the end of this month after nearly eight years as the head of the Catholic Church, saying he is too old to continue at the age of 85.
The unexpected development – the first papal resignation in nearly 600 years – surprised governments, Vatican-watchers and even his closest aides.
The Vatican says it expects a new Pope to be elected before Easter.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope in 2005 after John Paul II’s death.
The BBC’s David Willey in Rome says the move has come as a shock, but in theory, there has never been anything stopping Pope Benedict or any of his predecessors from stepping aside.
Under Canon Law, the only conditions for the validity of such a resignation are that it be made freely and be properly published.
A Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said that even the Pope’s closest aides did not know what he was planning to do and were left “incredulous”. He added that the decision showed “great courage” and “determination”.
Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti is quoted as saying he was “greatly shaken by this unexpected news”.
The brother of the German-born Pope said the pontiff had been advised by his doctor not to take any more transatlantic trips and had been considering stepping down for months.
Talking from his home in Regensburg in Germany, Georg Ratzinger said his brother was having increasing difficulty walking and that his resignation was part of a “natural process”.
He added: “His age is weighing on him. At this age my brother wants more rest.” ‘Incapacity’At 78, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was one of the oldest new popes in history when elected.
He took the helm as one of the fiercest storms the Catholic Church has faced in decades – the scandal of child sex abuse by priests – was breaking.e took the helm as one of the fiercest storms the Catholic Church has faced in decades – the scandal of child sex abuse by priests – was breaking.
n a statement, the pontiff said: “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.
“I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.
“However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to steer the boat of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.
“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”
A German government spokesman said he was “moved and touched” by the surprise resignation of the pontiff.
“The German government has the highest respect for the Holy Father, for what he has done, for his contributions over the course of his life to the Catholic Church.
“He has left a very personal signature as a thinker at the head of the Church, and also as a shepherd.”
POPE BENEDICT XVI
At 78, one of the oldest new popes in history when elected in 2005
Born in Germany in 1927, joined Hitler Youth during WWII and was conscripted as an anti-aircraft gunner but deserted
As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spent 24 years in charge of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – once known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition
A theological conservative, with uncompromising views on homosexuality and women priests
We are now a mere 8 days from the much-ballyhooed Dec. 21, 2012 End of the World supposedly prophesied by the ancient Mayans. Reportedly, a panic is spreading among children and suicidal teeangers. As many as 1-in-10 people believe in the Mayan prophesy.
Please take a deep breath.
The world won’t end in 8 days.
How can I say that? Because we have Mayan priests’ own words about 2012 debunking this stupid prophesy.
Here are their words, helpfully provided by blogger George Washington for ZeroHedge, who emphasizes that Mayan elders say something very different from what we might have heard. The elders insist that the 2012 end-of-the-world notion is strictly a western misconception.
Here are what Mayan elders say:
Wakatel Utiw – leader of the National Council of Elders Mayas, Xinca and Garifuna, Day Keeper of the Mayan Calendar, and 13th generation Quiche Mayan Spiritual Leader – says that the end of the Maya calendar has nothing to do with the end of the world. He also explains that December 21, 2012 might not even be the end of this cycle of the calendar: “Contrary to popular belief the living elders of the Maya do not agree that December 21, 2012 is the end of their calendar. A new ‘Sun’ represents the beginning of a new Long Count cycle in the calendar system of approximately 5,200 years, which they say may not happen for many years.”
Tz’utujil Mayan elder Tata Pedro Cruz says that the world will not end in 2012, quotingMayan elder and priest Carlos Barrios(who has extensively studied the Mayan calendars): “Anthropologists visit the temple sites and read the inscriptions and make up stories about the Maya, but they do not read the signs correctly. It’s just their imagination. Other people write about prophecy in the name of the Maya. They say that the world will end in December 2012. The Mayan elders are angry with this. The world will not end. It will be transformed.”
Leonzo Barreno – a Guatemalan native who was trained by Mayan elders to read the ancient calendars – says the ‘apocalypse’ concept is a false interpretation of the Long Count calendar, that the Mayan elders taught him that December 21 this year simply marks the start of a new calendar: ‘There are two sides to the story,’ he told CBC. ‘The one that we know is this apocalyptic meaning that has been given to the Long Count. ‘The other side of the story is the Mayan side, which you rarely see on media articles, because they never interview my own people.’ ‘For them it’s a joyous event, not an apocalyptic event. What is coming is the end of a calendar and the beginning of a new one.
Ricardo Cajas – president of the Collective of Native Organizations of Colectivo de Organizaciones Indígenas de Guatemala – says the date did not represent an end of humanity or fulfillment of the catastrophic prophecies, but that the new cycle “supposes changes in human consciousness.” (Translation).
Pedro Celestino Yac Noj – a Mayan sage living in Cuba – says “The 21st is for giving thanks and gratitude and the 22nd welcomes the new cycle, a new dawn.”
Mayan priest Jose Manrique Esquivebelieves that 2012 may bring a transition to a better time for humankind.
The AP reports in 2009, “Apolinario Chile Pixtun is tired of being bombarded with frantic questions about the Mayan calendar supposedly “running out” on Dec. 21, 2012. After all, it’s not the end of the world.” “Definitely not, the Mayan Indian elder insists.” “Chile Pixtun, a Guatemalan, says the doomsday theories spring from Western, not Mayan ideas.”
And if you don’t believe what the current Mayan leaders say, please remember that archaeologists recently found a cache of ancient Mayan calendars which goes thousands of years past 2012.
Lastly, none other than Pope Benedict 16th recently declared that – due to a miscalculation – we are currently in AD 2016, not 2012. So if the world indeed ends on Dec. 21, 2012, then we must have missed it four years ago!
Read Washington’s entire article here. ~Eowyn