A Citizen's Arrest is there to bring someone before trial even if policemen do not arrest him. Not to substitute itself for a trial.
From a site close to Kevin D. Annett:
The truth is that a convicted criminal has no authority any more, under the law: including monarchs, popes and prime ministers. We just need to press that point home now.
St Peter was convicted in Jerusalem and in Rome. He did not loose Papal authority due to that. Even a father does not - in real godly law, divine and traditional human law - loose all authority over his children because he is a convicted criminal.
Unless his crime is precisely abuse of authority - like abusing paternal authority to commit incest. And even then he does not loose authority in matters where the children are safe from incest even while obeying him.
Besides, taking back the wealth stolen from us all is justice in action. These churches have never paid a dime of taxes. Now we're taxing them, by reclaiming them with a sort of direct peoples' levy.
Protestant error. The very echo of Gustav Wasa promising Swedish nobility to get back what their ancestors had donated to the Church.
Kevin Annett himself:
During my second speaking tour in Rome, in the spring of 2010, I met with several senior Italian senators and officials of the parliamentary Radical Party. They all said the same thing about why Joseph Ratzinger had been made pope, and what awaited him. To quote one of those politicians,
“Nobody becomes pope without a sordid past, because only with such liabilities can he be controlled by the Curia. It’s the same in any big company. Well, Ratzinger made many indiscretions as a Cardinal and made many enemies. His signing letters ordering criminal concealment was just one sin. He was to be the scapegoat for all of the trash that the church knew would surface”
Problem one: St Pius X had no sordid past, and the past of Eugenio Pacelli was only tainted with bad advice about the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici to the then Pope Benedict XV. Like decriminalising usury. And being a librarian (with a preference for clear water among drinks and for mountaineering among sports) like his predecessor Pius XI is hardly sordid.
Problem two: Kevin Annett is quoting politicians of a very anticlerical party, as if they were reliable experts on the Vatican. Their animosity against it is clear, and their assumptions may reflect more of their own experiences of their affairs than of Vatican affairs.
Third: people taking justice in its own hands is a measure of ultimate need. It should not be extended beyond need. Kevin Annett may have a case against Canadian authorities or even against Catholic clergy in Canada, because of what was done by indigenous children in secret. He does not have one against the Church of Christ. If one can argue that children were "deliberately exposed" to smallpox (and ensuing death) by being kept together in schools, one can equally argue that children all over the Western world are deliberately exposed to murder and suicidal temptations by being kept in school, especially after puberty and boys and girls together. Something to tackle before getting into the Vatican's possible involvement in Canadian clergy's possible illdeeds?
Actually, if a Pope is at same time criminal, no Catholic is obliged to observe his secret and criminal orders, no Catholic is obliged to believe the Pope infallible in particular matters, only in what he legislates for all of the Church - openly. There is no such thing as secret legislation. So, attacking the papacy is not a cure for people like Alexander VI. Get at underlings, in such cases./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire