Rorate Caeli

Ongoing Vatican wars
Rino Fisichella, saboteur

On the matter of the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, in Brazil, and his brave defense of Church doctrine and Canon law, as well as the pathetic and repulsively lukewarm article written by the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop "Rino" Fisichella, there is nothing else to add to the combative words of the great Spanish blogger Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña.

The late intervention of Fisichella happened after Cardinal Re had already assured the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife of the support of the Holy See. But the careerists and showmen in the Vatican always have to appear when they are not being noticed.
Something is not working at the Vatican

The contradictions, the denials, saying something today when something else was said yesterday: it is all too much. With evident delight of all the enemies of the Church. Nothing of the sort has ever been seen. Some want the Church of certainties to become the Church of doubts. Where everything goes. Both black and white.

Morals a la carte, renouncement to principles, the [notion that] everything goes according to what is convenient is being imposed de facto. Or at least this is what some intend. The result is that the walls of the fortress are being breached. And some are delighted. The truth is not in the Church anymore. Some say one thing, and others say the opposite. If all kingdom divided shall fall, there are some who are already popping the champagne.

The news of the excommunication of those who participated in an abortion was not really [news], even though some wished to exploit the repugnant circumstances of the fact to attack the Church. Human life was sacred until the day before yesterday, from its conception to its end. Now, it seems it varies. It is [sacred] in some cases, and less so in others.

The Church chose the excommunication of the qualified authors of abortion confronted with the astounding crime multiplied by millions. She could not have done so, and it would still be a crime and a sin. But she did it. I suppose that by weighing the pros and the cons. The terrorist attacks in which hundreds are killed, the cases of abuse of children of very young age, ... multiple rapes, the bombing of defenseless populations... [sic] Their perpetrators, guilty of most grievous sin, are not excommunicated latae sententiae. But those who perform an abortion are. Or at least they were until yesterday. It is unknown today.

Because it seems that there are good abortions. Such as the one of Brazil. Quite a box has been opened! Let us now see how it will be closed.

... Whoever participated directly and effectively in the abortion of the Brazilian girl is excommunicated. With the declaration of the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife or without it. The Brazilian prelate might not have declared what already had taken place. And, considering what happened, perhaps that would have been more prudent. But he did not do other than expressing what the Church affirmed until yesterday. And I would like to suppose that she still affirms it.

I criticized the fact that a French bishop meddled in the Brazilian affair, and with words which almost justified that abortion. I believe that the Frenchmen are four at least by now. And they are now strengthened by an Italian who is none other than the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. And the encomium mortis of the one who should in theory be the defender of life deserved the pages of L'Osservatore Romano. It is all absurd.

You will now see the attempts, difficult if not impossible, to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The general interpretation, and it is enough to read the world media, is that the Church legitimizes an abortion. That there are good abortions. That the Church has at last given in. And that she has recognized her error.

I am convinced that once again nothing will happen. ... I personally believe that Salvatore Fisichella, Rino to his friends, should resign today. Or be dismissed. And also the director of L'Osservatore.

15 comments:

C. said...

Bravo! Thank you for having the courage to stand up for all human life, even when extremely inconvenient.

Michael said...

Benedict XVI is too dangerous to ignore and play the shadows game. The legs of the poisonous octopus are busy, while the enemies within are alarmingly ready to spring their poison pens as well.

In addition, the spirit of the age exhibits its power to confuse and twist this good Pope's direction for the renewal of the sacred. The malevolent viper's aroma is palpable. St. Michael defend us in battle.

Pray for the Pope to bring back the prayers at the end of Mass.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg FL

Anonymous said...

Fisichella is a not Catholic. His position is viciously evil and directly opposed to the teaching of the Church. The end cannot justify the means. You cannot commit a direct murder to prevent the unintended death of another; one can never make the death of an innocent the direct object of a positive act of the will, regardless of consequences. The Church needs to clarify this and remove this miscreant from the Vatican pronto. What he needs is a good kick in the face.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

Michael Hallman,

I extend a genuine request for you to explain why this article is so inimical to the pro-life cause?

I have to say from my limited vantage point, the reported remarks of the Archbishop do indeed lead to at least a perception that the Church admits of both black and white in this matter. That can only be ultimately profoundly damaging for any sustained pro-life message.

The general point of apparent confusion at HQ also seems valid.

Peter

Hebdomadary said...

Yet more evidence of Vatican II's relativist fruit, the smoke of Satan wafting through the halls of the Vatican. How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need?

God Save Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories, intercede for him.

Anonymous said...

"Hebdomadary said...
Yet more evidence of Vatican II's relativist fruit, the smoke of Satan wafting through the halls of the Vatican. How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need?

God Save Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories, intercede for him."


Hebdom, Why don't you start helping the Pope with interpriting Vactican II in continuity and changing your retoric to attack Reletivisim, not a Holy Council of the Church properly interprited? Instead of realisitcally helping the cause of Traditio, this language seems to hinder it.

Anonymous said...

So Michael Hallman says that undermining the bastions of Faith = standing strong. What a lot of trash. Murderers went out of their way to kill 2 innocent lives and you say that these scoundrels in the Vatican were standing strong. I see nothing Christ like in trashing Church doctrine and supporting baby murder.

Hebdomadary said...

Don't try that dodge. We know where the source of the problem lies. The tail has been wagging the dog long enough, as the results of your so-called "holy council of the church" sink further and further into madness. By their fruits you will know them. We know them. We pay their salaries with our collections. Let them now be anathema. How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much more proof do you need? How much proof do you need? How much proof do you need? How much more proof do you need?

God save Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories intercede for him.

C. said...

What these people did was objectively evil. The mother is just as excommunicated as anyone who denies the faith under threat of torture. COMPASSION is calling her to repent, to turn to the Lord with tears, to say "I'm sorry, Lord, for killing your babies, please give me your strength to fight again." Compassion is not sweeping it under the rug or having a pro forma confession without repentance (which is a sacrilege).

For all you know, Michael Hallman, the bishop or his representatives did meet with the woman and her doctors in advance of the act and warned them of the excommunication which would follow, and they committed the act anyway with great deliberation and in public causing great scandal, and perhaps they informed the bishop that they wouldn't obey the latae sententiae excommunication, which necessitated the public pronouncement of sentence.

Defending sin is formal cooperation in it, and that goes for clergy and combox popes alike.

Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin:

1. By Counsel
2. By Command
3. By Consent
4. By Concealment
5. By Defense of Evil Done
6. By Partaking
7. By Provocation
8. By Praise
9. By Silence

C. said...

Fr. A. R. and his anonymous friend, Double effect does not apply because:

1. They did not remove the uterus. They aborted the babies directly.

2. Death of the mother was by no means certain, nor even likely. See List of youngest birth mothers.

Peter said...

Thank you Michael Hallman for your response. I appreciate it.

I would make this observation, those involved did not turn to the Church in their time of need before they carried through their tragic actions.

Yes, even then mercy can be offered, but would the doctors in particular have responded to such an invitation. But from my knowledge of the medical profession, those who carry out abortions are unlikely to respond - they have nailed their colours to the mast long ago.

And the facts of the case so far as I can ascertain them indicate that for the mother of the girl and the doctors involved their was what I would call malice of forethought rather than 'under duress'. The Church was in fact taking action to try to forestall this tragedy but was unsuccessful in its attempts.

see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030601.html

As to suggestions that the young girl was excommunicated, the Bishop made it clear that she WAS NOT subject to this penalty.

Perhaps we should all resort to what the Bishop actually said, not what a Church-hating media dishes up. It is almost always more than 50% wrong.

Andrea said...

Anonymous re: principle of double effect.

Yes, perhaps the principle of double effect could have come in to play if the child's life had been in imminent danger, in the same way it does in the case of ectopic pregnancy. However, it has been reported that the doctors at the first hospital the mother took her daughter to did not think her life was in danger and refused to perform the abortion. The mother then took her to a doctor who would perform the abortion.

See: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030601.html

It seems to me the action of someone who wants a particular outcome.

Paul Haley said...

Abortion is the taking of an innocent life, no? Yes or no. Please no equivocations - Yes or no. Excommunication is a penalty designed to bring the offender back into the sacramental life of the church through penance and seeking forgiveness through confession. It is not a permanent banishment and remains in effect only by the recalcitrance of the offender. Yes or No? It's hard to believe that some seem to think that the penalty for the crime is worse than the crime itself but that is the state of the Church today. All the more reason to call in the cavalry - Ooops, I mean, the SSPX!

Anonymous said...

I hope people paid attention the Gospel of the 3rd Sunday in Lent which reads " Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall" Such discord and undermining.

New Catholic said...

1. The life of the little mother was not in danger, despite what was said after the criminal act. There was no "principle of double effect" in action (and those who are mentioning it here obviously have no idea what they are talking about - the simple elimination of life is NEVER acceptable, not even to save the life of the mother; trying to save all lives involved is what is acceptable, even if one of the lives involved is incidentally extinguished; this is NOT what happened in the case).

2. The local bishop did not merely act after the fact; he warned all parties involved of the canonical consequences, but he was not heard. Rino Fisichella did not even mention this preventive action of the bishop, but simply dismissed his actions as not compassionate. The local bishop could have been more circumspect, but he did not commit any error.

"Extreme cases" such as this one are being used and searched by Feminist organizations throughout Latin America as part of the push to convince local populations that abotion is not necessarily bad, and may often be a positive good. It is shameful that a bishop lets himself be used like this. Did he at least speak to the local bishop to know the extent of the full story? Doubtful...

3. This is not a liturgical blog. This is a Catholic blog which deals with various matters. If you do not like it, please do not visit it again. Lukewarm Catholics who fudge Church doctrine or write opinions which may be considered confusing by non-Catholic guests are not welcome here.

4. Comments considered offensive or thoughtless are deleted according to the opinion of the moderators.