Is Don Bergolione Ordering Coccopalmiero to “Whack” Vigano?

Rotate states its sources are confirming sanctions being planned against Abp. Vigano…

De Mattei: Archbishop Viganò – punished for telling the truth?

Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
September 5, 2018

Risultati immagini per archbishop Vigano images
Will Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who brought to light the existence of corruption in the Vatican, singling out those guilty, beginning with the highest ecclesiastical authorities, be punished for telling the truth? Pope Francis is examining this possibility – if it is true, as several sources confirm –  that he has consulted Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmiero, and some other canon-lawyer, to study the possibility of canonical sanctions to inflict on the Archbishop, commencing with sospensione a divinis. If this news is confirmed it would be of extreme gravity, and somewhat surreal, seeing as the “expert” summoned to sanction Monsignor Viganò would be precisely Cardinal Coccopalmiero, who is being accused by the former-Nuncio of the United States, of being part of the “homosexual lobby” lording over the Vatican. It cannot be forgotten in any case, that the Cardinal’s Secretary, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, is involved in a case of  homosexual orgy, in which the position of his superior has still to be clarified.

But the underlying problem is another. The Catholic Church, inasmuch as it is a visible community, is endowed with a penal law, which is the law It possesses, to sanction the faithful who have committed violations of the law. It is necessary to distinguish, with regard to this, between sin and crime. Sin concerns a violation of the moral order; a crime concerns the transgression of the Church’s Canon Law, which is of course different from the laws of States. All crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes.
There are crimes common to civil legislation and that of Canon Law, like the crime of pedophilia, but other offences are such only for Canon Law and not the penal Laws of States. Homosexuality and cohabitation, for example, are not considered crimes for most contemporary States, but remain grave crimes for the clergy that fall into them and as such are sanctioned by Canon Law. A crime, in fact is not every exterior action that violates a law, but only the kind of violation where a sanction is foreseen for non-compliance, according to the principle of  nullum crimen, nulla pena sine lege.
The Code of Canon Law, as Padre Giovanni Scalese recently stated in his blog Antiquo Robore, considers not only the abuse of minors a crime, but also other sins against the Sixth Commandment: cohabitation and its scandalous situation, which includes homosexuality (Canon 395 of the New Code). These distinctions don’t appear clear to Pope Francis, who proclaims “zero tolerance” against civil offences, like pedophilia, but invokes “forgiveness” and mercy for the “sins of youth”, such as homosexuality, forgetting the presence of this crime in the laws of the Church.
But then, here is the contradiction: the laws of the Church are being invoked to strike, not immoral clergy, but the one who is denouncing the immorality of the clergy – Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, who in his Testimony did nothing other than follow the lines of the Church reformers, from St. Peter Damian to St. Bernardino of Siena, the great scourgers of sodomy.
What is the reason for the canonical punishment that would be applied to the courageous Archbishop? Pope Francis might respond, as in the fable of Phaedrus: I am not required to give reasons, I punish Quia nominor leo, because I’m the strongest. But when authority is not exercised in the service of truth, it becomes abuse of power and the victim of the abuse of power acquires a force that nobody can take away from them: the force of the Truth. In this tragic time for the Church, the first thing that, not only Catholics, but the public opinion of the entire world are asking the men of the Church is “to live without falsehood” to use a famous expression by Solzhenitsyn. The time for social dictatorships is over – the truth is destined to impose itself.  
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/09/05/is-don-bergolione-ordering-coccopalmiero-to-whack-vigano/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

10 comments on “Is Don Bergolione Ordering Coccopalmiero to “Whack” Vigano?

  1. Nothin’ personal. Strictly business.

  2. Vigano testimony violates ‘pontifical secret’

    Catholic World News – 9/5/18

    Father Raymond de Souza points out that whether the testimony of Archbishop Vigano is ultimately confirmed or refuted, “it is indisputable that he spectacularly violated the pontifical secret he swore an oath to keep.” His bold move—and the investigation that it will likely prompt—could endanger the secrecy of Vatican communications.

    More at Catholic Herald

    • I read that article in Catholic Herald, and went to www.convivium.ca/writers/bio/rjdesouza# to check out Fr. de Souza.
      /
      All you have to do is read the introductory blurbs to the list of articles he’s written to know that he’s just another Novus Ordo dead soul.
      /
      As for his fear-mongering about how the Pontifical Secret is going to be destroyed…BOSH.
      Salus animarum suprema lex.
      When the Gay Mafia is USING the Pontifical Secret to cloak their Judas plans, and when they are going to keep on destroying innocents, and the Church, because of it, and when you have information that can stop them, it would obviously be a major mortal sin to let some stupid peccadillo stop you.
      Only a legal positivist with no common sense could fail to see the need to expose the rot.
      /
      AFTER the rot is cut out and burned, and we get a Catholic pope, the Secret will resume operating as before. Why? Because no one will NEED to violate it.

    • Some reactions to Fr. de Souza’s essay

      Ed Peters
      In the Light of the Law: A Canon Lawyer’s Blog
      September 5, 2018

      Apologies for a long post; I don’t have time to write a short one.

      I don’t mean to single out Fr. Raymond de Souza, whom I have read with profit many times, but his essay over at National Catholic Register, “It’s time to turn down the temperature”, touches on several issues related to the clergy sexual abuse crisis and its recent, very grave Roman ramifications that need airing. So, first some canonical matters, then some rhetorical ones.

      Resignation in general.

      Canon law provides for resignation from ecclesiastical office. 1983 CIC 187-189. The threshold for any resignation is pretty low (namely, “a just cause”) so resignation from office for a good cause would be more than acceptable. Indeed it would be preferable, I think, to an unfit (or worse) occupant continuing to hold a Church office.

      Canon law encourages, and frankly pressures, a pastor to resign from office when his ministry becomes “ineffective … even through no grave personal negligence”. 1983 CIC 1740, etc. That norm and others imply that pastors who have acted in ways that actually render themselves unfit to stay in office should resign.

      Finally, canon law, albeit in more nuanced terms (given the ecclesiological issues involved), encourages a bishop to resign his see when he “become[s] less able to fulfill his office because of … some other grave cause…” 1983 CIC 401 § 2. The allegations swirling around several bishops and cardinals in various countries and in Rome itself would, if true, surely suffice as “grave cause” for such prelates to tender their resignations immediately. The world must await evidence of wrong-doing before making demands in this area but prelates who know the truth of their own situations should act accordingly. Now.

      By the way, resignation from Church office motivated by one’s own, or the community’s, awareness of malfeasance in no way renders a resignation invalid (see Canon 188) or prevents ecclesiastical authority from later prosecuting and punishing said resignee for those misdeeds. One who resigns Church office under such circumstances has not ‘picked his own punishment’, rather, he has performed a good act by ending one aspect of his scandal. After that, let justice take its normal course.

      Papal resignation, Francis.

      De Souza writes: “It was a mistake for Archbishop Viganò to call for the resignation of Pope Francis.” Oh?

      Of what was said above concerning resignation from Church office in general, what would not apply to a pope, of all office holders, if he, as alleged by Viganò, from the first months of his papacy knowingly protected and favored a cardinal who was [pick a disgusting verb]-ing seminarians? By what possible stretch of the imagination would such an occupant be suited for the Chair of Peter? Does the historical fact that some pretty bad popes held on to office despite committing various offenses justify other popes acting badly in shirking even the minimal gesture of resigning?

      Viganò is unquestionably in a position to know, and claims to know, whether his central allegation that Francis’ was covering for McCarrick, big time, for years, is correct. Believing, as he does, that his claims are correct, Viganò, in calling for Francis’ resignation, has done nothing more or less than exercise his right under canon law “to manifest to the sacred pastors [his] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make [his] opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…” 1983 CIC 212 § 3.

      I have not called for Francis’ resignation because I do not know (with the degree of certitude that a lawyer seeks) whether Viganò’s key allegations against Francis are substantially true; most assuredly, however, if I reach the conclusion that they are true, I would say, without hesitation, that Francis should resign. Such a resignation would, I think, result in the very opposite of what De Souza fears when he worries that a papal resignation “under a cloud would be a catastrophe for Catholic credibility and unity.” Balderdash. If Viganò’s allegations are proven, I think a papal refusal to resign would be a catastrophe for Catholic credibility and unity.

      Papal resignation, Benedict.

      De Souza writes: “The mistake that Benedict XVI made by abdicating in 2013 need not be compounded by people — especially high-ranking prelates — treating the papal office as something worldly that can be relinquished under adverse circumstances.” Others, such as Raymond Arroyo, have expressed ‘squeamishness’ over the prospect of a Francis resignation, lest ‘there be three popes’ sitting in Rome. Nonsense. A Francis resignation would no more result in three popes than Benedict’s resignation resulted in two.

      Time does not permit me the luxury of squeamishness so let me say a few things directly.

      In my view, first, Pope John Paul II should have resigned at least five years before his death; he was effectively ignored by the corrupt elements in his curia for at least that long and the Church has suffered sorely for it. Second, and despite my professional misgiving about how Ratzinger/Benedict understood and used canon law, I think it was a grave error for him to have resigned, and, if his resignation gave the impression that the papacy was essentially “something worldly that can be relinquished under adverse circumstances”, well, that’s on Benedict, no one else. Third, Benedict’s unjustified resignation and its disastrous aftermath does nothing to answer whether Francis should, upon his own knowledge and/or in the face of public proof of malfeasance, resign. That is an entirely separate question to be answered on its own merits.

      What really gets me irked.

      Most of De Souza’s essay urging disputants “to turn down the temperature” savors of that rhetorical style, now wearing very thin, wherein paternalistic, above-the-fray advice comes down from a supposedly calm and objective observer to squabbling children who are letting emotions get in the way of problem solving, a la, ‘Now, now boys and girls, play nicely.” For crying out loud.

      If, even today, a priest still does not see that the last thing in the world that lay faithful—who represent 99% of the victims of clergy sexual abuse and who make up 98% of the voices demanding accounting, cleansing, and deep ecclesiastical reform—need to hear is yet another cleric telling them to quiet down about clergy sexual abuse and/or weighty allegations that abuse was being covered up at the highest levels of the Church, well, I don’t know what to say in the face of such chronic cluelessness.

      It certainly does not suffice to excuse the proffering of such advice by pointing to the obvious fact that some laity (among the millions wounded directly or indirectly by decades of clerical indifference in this area) are hot heads forsaking love for fury. We all know that! Such persons are, in fact, a bonus for the devil, for he gets these sad souls to violate charity in their desire for justice! Good priests who want to lend a special hand in repairing the damages wrought by some of their evil brothers and superiors could well reach out in a special way to such persons, to these victims in their own way of clergy sexual abuse and cover-up.

      Moreover, this ‘everybody-calm-down’ advice supposedly aimed at ‘both sides’ of this matter is frankly insulting to that one side which, beyond any question, has been severely betrayed by the other. Even the idea that ‘both sides’ are engaged in roughly equal exchanges is groundless. Francis, for example, sees himself as choosing the high road of silence and, after taking some digs at “people lacking good will, … people who only seek scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction, even within the family”, seems intent on saying nothing more. Sure, a few mouth-pieces such as the papolatrous Fr. Rosica, and few prelates who, it seems, owe their current offices in some measure to the great influence that Francis is alleged to have accorded the disgraceful and disgraced McCarrick, have spoken out intemperately, but for the most part these voices are very, very few.

      No, the shouting in this mess is coming overwhelmingly from one side, the side that has been wronged! To call on ‘both sides’, then, “to turn down the temperature” is, therefore, effectively aimed at squelching one side here, the victims!

      Deep breath time…

      As for some other points in De Souza’s essay, such as his minimizing the personal attacks on Viganò as a “tactical mistake” that “muddied the waters for a few days”, or his concession that “it would [be] very damaging to the Holy Father personally and to the Church generally if Archbishop Viganò’s charges are true” (just “very damaging”?), or his generous interpretation of Francis’ “dramatic and heartfelt admission of error and expression of contrition” in the Chilean debacle—well, to borrow a phrase, who am I to judge? Maybe it was “heartfelt”. I hope it was. But that being granted, may I ask, who is De Souza to judge the pope’s heart? I pray the pope’s conversion was as De Souza sees it, heartfelt. I only know it was the right thing to do, and got done it did, regardless of whether the pope’s motives were heartfelt, self-serving, both, or neither. Fine.

      Let me close with this observation: De Souza and I are on the same side of this crisis; I have not the slightest doubt that he detests what has happened to the victims of clergy sexual abuse and is in palpable pain over the very prospect that cover for such abuse was extended even by those in the highest ranks of Church authority. We each, in our respective spheres, have dealt with the aftermath of problems for which neither of us are to blame. We both want the truth to come out. And we each wince when others equally appalled at what has happened purport to speak for all of us with hatred, exploitation, or vengeance in their voices. What can I say, that’s not me and it’s not Fr. De Souza.

      But that said, sometimes even allies offer advice that is ill-conceived, and in the respects outlined above, I think that applies to some of what Fr. De Souza wrote for the Register. And I have no doubt, of course, that others might disagree with my disagreements. That’s fine, too.

      As I have said from the outset, the cleansing of the Church from the defilements she has suffered of late will come and true reforms will be put into place, but it’s not going to be a smooth process and it’s not going to be a pretty one.

      It’s just going to be.





  3. Dean Wormer: I thought we put Bishop Vigano on Double Secret Probation at the beginning of last semester.



    Eric Stratton: Point of parliamentary procedure.



    Dean Wormer: Put a sock on it, son! We can’t have some upstart Italian bishop exposing a century of work getting homo pervert cabals in place for the Illuminati and the Alta Vendita! That will blow the whole modernist operation.



    Douglas C. Niedermeyer: Oh, that’s right.



    Greg Marmalard: What punishment would you recommend, Dean Wormer?



    Dean Wormer: He’s finished, I tell you. Vigano’s days as an ultraconservative anti-Bergoglio whistleblower are over.

  4. [“Ditto” from en.news]

    Francis Consults With Pro-Gay Coccopalmerio About Sanctioning Whistle-Blower Vigano

    Pope Francis is said to have consulted canon lawyers including pro-gay Cardinal Coccopalmerio about inflicting canonical sanctions on whistle-blower Archbishop Viganò, according to Roberto De Mattei.

    Writing on CorrispondenzaRomana.it (September 5), the reliable Italian historian De Mattei is referring to “several sources”.

    In 2017, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, the personal secretary of pro-gay Cardinal Coccopalmerio, whose gay problems where known even by Pope Francis, was caught in a Vatican drug and gay party.

  5. Bishop Barber wants priests released from the Papal Secret

    Oakland Bishop Michael Barber says priests who worked in the Roman Curia and U.S. diocesan offices should be allowed to testify in sex-abuse inquiries

    SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 BY CAL CATHOLIC DAILY

    In an Aug. 16 statement, Bishop Michael C. Barber, SJ, wrote: “We must never violate the trust placed in us. As Bishop of Oakland, I promise there will be consequences for those who do.”

    The following is by Most Rev. Michael C. Barber, SJ:

    Many Catholics have had their faith shaken by the recent revelations in Pennsylvania, the scandalous behavior of an American cardinal and the recent letter from the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.

    I’ve been in the Navy Reserve for 27 years. Every year about 50 admirals, generals and commanding officers of ships and bases are removed for misbehavior, ethical violations, criminal activity or “loss of confidence in ability to command.”

    Yet we do not dismiss all commanders as criminal. One of my duties as chaplain is to visit the brig: the “jail” on a ship or Navy base.

    Many of the prisoners are serving sentences for child abuse in their own families. Yet we do not say all sailors and Marines are abusers. We don’t say the Navy and Marine Corps is evil.

    So too in the Church. The majority of our priests serve you faithfully every day in every parish in our dioceses.

    The difference between the military and the church is that the military has a good accountability system. The Church does not. And we need to fix that now.

    I endorse the call of Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the US bishops, to the Holy Father to establish an independent, lay-led review board that will address complaints against bishops.

    In regards to the scandal of Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick and the revelations of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, we need such a board or commission to find the truth.

    Perhaps this could be the existing National Review Board. Whatever group is set up, it needs to find out “who knew what, and when did they know it?”

    They need access to all the relevant documents, most of which are protected as “Papal Secrets.” They need to interview priests who worked in the Roman Curia and U.S. diocesan offices, who also would be released from the “Papal Secret” and allowed to testify.

    We need to find out the truth. Only the truth will set us free. And only the pope can authorize the steps that need to be taken to find the truth.

    But there is action I can take as bishop of our diocese.

    In Oakland, I am calling for an independent outside audit of our Diocesan Review Board policies, to ensure we are faithfully following the precepts of the Dallas Charter, the procedures to investigate sexual abuse by clergy. I also am going to review the membership of the current Diocesan Review Board to make sure it has the number of lay experts we need in the fields of law enforcement, the judiciary, parents, and clinical professional specializing in treatment of childhood trauma and survivors.

    In addition to these actions, I am inviting all priests, religious and lay faithful of the diocese to join me in a Novena to St. Joseph, patron of the Universal Church, from Sept. 6-14. We will distribute a Novena prayer to be read at all Masses every day.

    On Sept. 14, the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross, I call all of us in the diocese to a Day of Prayer, Penance and Reparation for the sins members of the Church have committed against innocent children.

    I ask our priests to hold a Holy Hour with Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in each parish at a convenient time, to pray in reparation, for healing for the victims, and for the cleansing and reform of the Church and her ministers.

    I invite us all to do penance that day, especially my brother priests: to fast and make other personal sacrifices in reparation for the pain suffered by the innocent. As Pope Francis said in his “Letter to the People of God”: “The penitential dimension of fasting and prayer will help us as God’s People to come before the Lord and our wounded brothers and sisters as sinners imploring forgiveness and the grace of shame and conversion.”

    In addition, I have been receiving many letters and emails asking me to stand up for the truth and not be afraid to speak out in front of all the bishops on the need for reform. May I also ask you to pray for this intention in the novena and day of reparation?

    Full story at The Catholic Voice.

  6. Full credits where amply due to both canonist Ed Peters and Bp. Barber!
    /
    We appear to be watching the opening artillery exchanges in an ecclesiastical reenactment of the First Battle of Bull Run, rather aptly named I daresay. This time around, let us hope that when the bluebellies turn and run, as they surely must, they are hotly pursued right back to their capital city and the contest ended, for good, in a single day.

Leave a Reply