Knights of Malta, RIP: But why should we care?

Knights of Malta, RIP: But why should we care?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 2, 2017

Well, Fra’ Matthew Festing’s courageous act of legitimate resistance to a preposterously unjust command notwithstanding, the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta have effectively been crushed at the election in which Festing participated on April 29. For, precisely as the Vatican had demanded, the Order elected only a temporary lieutenant to serve for a period of one year instead of a new Grand Master to serve for life as provided by the Order’s ancient constitution.

This temporary leadership opens the way to the Order’s “reform” over the next year under the veritable dictatorship of Archbishop Becciu, Pope Bergoglio’s “delegate” to the Order who destroyed its sovereignty by placing it under a virtual receivership in Bergoglio’s name.

This “reform” will undoubtedly abolish the constitutional provision that only Knights who have taken vows of poverty and obedience and can demonstrate both patrilineal and matrilineal descent from nobility — some 55 Knights in all — constitute the Sovereign Order’s voting class. The “democratization” of the knightly order, making all or most members eligible to vote and hold office, now appears to be inevitable.

But why should we care? The answer lies in an internal document of the Order leaked to the press, which reveals that the Order’s own investigation had shown that the Grand Chancellor, Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager — forcibly reinstated by order of Pope Bergoglio — had indeed knowingly permitted the Order’s medical charity arm, Malteser International, to distribute contraceptives, including those with abortifacient effects, in Myanmar (formerly Burma). Moreover, von Boeselager defended his actions, protesting: “We have to give contraceptives to these poor women, or they will die.” Thus, on this ground alone, von Boeselager’s removal from office by Festing was justified as a matter of internal governance of the once Sovereign Order, now merely a Bergoglian puppet on a string.

Is it a coincidence that during one of his rambling, off-the-cuff airborne press conferences, Pope Bergoglio himself made the same sophistical “hard case” argument as von Boeselager in favor of intrinsically immoral contraceptive use, arguing the intrinsically immoral use of contraceptives could be justified to prevent transmission of the Zika virus? This blatant deviation from Catholic doctrine, the Vatican Press Office later confirmed, was exactly what Bergoglio had meant to say: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”

That word again: “discernment.” The same Pope who has made it clear that public adulterers in “second marriages” can, in “certain cases,” “discern” that they are free of mortal sin and receive Holy Communion without ceasing their intrinsically immoral adulterous relations, also believes that in “particular cases of emergency and gravity” one can “discern” that the intrinsically immoral practice of contraception is morally permissible.

Pope Bergoglio bases his novelty concerning the divorced and “remarried” on what he claims is the teaching of John Paul II on pastoral “discernment” in Familiaris consortio, n. 84 — which says nothing of the kind, but rather reaffirms the bimillennial prohibition on Holy Communion for people living in adultery. Thus, the novelty is based on nothing but a falsehood.

Likewise, Pope Bergoglio based his view of the permissibility of contraception in “particular cases of emergency and gravity” on the claim that Paul VI once authorized nuns in the Belgian Congo to use the Pill protectively in case they were raped — a total myth that falsely attributes to Pope Paul the theories of Modernist opponents of the Church’s true teaching as expressed in Humanae Vitae. Another novelty based on another falsehood. Then again, Bergoglio has also hailed the “moral theology” of Bernard Häring, infamous for his role in leading the opposition to Humanae Vitae.

So, why should we care about the routing of the Knights of Malta and their imminent democratization? Because it seems that the Knights are in the process of becoming yet another vehicle for the errant notions of Pope Bergoglio, concerning whom even a commentator as “mainstream” as Philip Lawler is constrained to declare publicly: “the current Pope’s leadership has become a danger to the faith…”

May Our Lady of Fatima deliver us from this calamity.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/05/04/knights-of-malta-rip-but-why-should-we-care/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

One comment on “Knights of Malta, RIP: But why should we care?

  1. Pope Bergoglio bases his novelty concerning the divorced and “remarried” on what he claims is the teaching of John Paul II on pastoral “discernment” in Familiaris consortio, n. 84 — which says nothing of the kind, but rather reaffirms the bimillennial prohibition on Holy Communion for people living in adultery. Thus, the novelty is based on nothing but a falsehood.

    Yes and no. It’s not the doctrine of FC, but the very fact that Wojtyla moved beyond the traditional norm by admitting “celibate” adulterers. The crafty Jesuit Sparado lays this out succinctly:
    angelqueen.org/2016/04/12/francis-and-antonio-a-couple-in-excellent-society/

    If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.
    …So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple – who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence – and the Eucharist.


    And the Good God was so pleased with Wojtyla’s epieikeia that He raised him to the altars.
    And I’m the King of Norway.

    I digress. So, yes, Chris is correct that AL can’t cite FC for doctrine, but it can follow the method of FC in creating a crack in the dike.

Leave a Reply