FR MICHAEL MARY WIPES THE FLOOR WITH +GIELEN

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

Forbidden for now - simply because Bishop Gielen says so

Christchurch Bishop Michael Gielen's diktat removing the 'priestly faculties' of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (FSSR) appears to be mistaken, misleading and against canon law. And so it seems is Monsignor Brendan Daly, canon lawyer for Christchurch Diocese, when he states on the diocesan website that "any Masses the priests celebrate with members of the public are illicit – outside the law of the Church”. 

Acting for the Sons in their case against +Gielen, Father Michael Mary FSSR states unequivocally that "the claim made by Christchurch Diocese that the ‘Vatican upholds removal of priests' faculties’, and ‘a petition to have the removal of priestly faculties overturned was denied’ , is simply and inexcusably false." 

Frightening faithful Catholics away from Holy Mass for fear of the Vatican is an affront to Almighty God. This unjust, unfortunate vendetta against the Sons (initiated by a couple of disaffected Catholic, ex-Newshub journalists) illustrates the culture of effeminacy so well established in the Catholic Church, not just in New Zealand but globally. 

Is the Bishop Catholic?

And not only in the Church but in the world, in politics. Russia's president Vladimir Putin opined today that Australia, Japan and New Zealand are like puppy dogs on a US leash. The FSSR debacle in Christchurch, where +Gielen ran to Rome for a ruling merely on a media beat-up, would indicate that he has no confidence as guardian of his diocese - and indeed, of the canonical status in his diocese of the FSSR. He has to hide behind the pitbulls at the Vatican.

It would seem that the world having forgotten God (as another Russian, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, observed back in the '60s), and the post-conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal Francis church having swapped the Second Commandment for the First, humanity has now no father figure, no role model.

Hence, no discipline. Hence the 91 year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen, Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, has warned Catholics that the Synod of Antipope Francis aims "to overthrow" the Church’s hierarchy for a "democratic system".

Francis meets 'transgender, intersex, LGBTQ friends - for 90 minutes

But we digress. To revert to Christchurch, the following was written by a canon lawyer:

 

CONCERNING THE CELEBRATION OF MASS BY CERTAIN PRIESTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ‘SONS OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER’.

 

Mons Brendan Daly, who unsurprisingly backs more laity in Church governance

On 10 July 2024, Bishop Michael Gielen, Bishop of Christchurch, issued various decrees. Among them were decrees removing the ‘priestly faculties’ of the four members of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer who were present in the diocese at that time – Fr Michael Mary FSSR, Fr Anthony Mary FSSR, Fr Magdala Maria FSSR and Fr Yousef Marie FSSR.

The canon lawyer representing the Sons lodged an appeal against all Bishop Gielen’s decrees to the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome, asking the Dicastery to set them aside. The Dicastery accepted the appeal, with the case to be decided at a later date. The canon lawyer also asked that the decrees be suspended whilst awaiting this decision (something like an injunction in the civil courts).

The Dicastery agreed to suspend some of the decrees of Bishop Gielen but did not agree to suspend the decrees removing priestly faculties. The claim made by the Diocese of Christchurch on its website that the ‘Vatican upholds removal of priests' faculties’, and ‘a petition to have the removal of priestly faculties overturned was denied’ is simply and inexcusably, false. Their words suggest that the Dicastery has made a final judgment on the matter. It has not, it has merely declined to grant a suspension of those four decrees. The Dicastery may still decide to overturn the four decrees removing priestly faculties.

In that same notice on its website, the canon lawyer for the Diocese, Monsignor Brendan Daly gives his opinion that “any Masses the priests celebrate with members of the public are illicit – outside the law of the Church”. +Daly confuses the decrees of Bishop Gielen with the law of the Catholic Church. His statement is a misrepresentation of canon law, not an explanation of it.

In the first place, Mons Daly seems to believe that the Dicastery has refused the appeal and upheld Bishop Gielen’s decree removing faculties. If this is the basis for his statement, then +Daly is clearly mistaken.

The law of the Church when it comes to the public celebration of Mass is not so simple as, “if the bishop forbids it then it is against canon law”. A bishop is given power under canon law and can only act according to canon law. The sole reason given by Bishop Gielen to the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer for removing their faculty to celebrate Mass is that the Sons no longer have a role in the Latin Mass Chaplaincy, and so their priestly ministry is no longer needed. 

None of the decrees, indeed none of his communications with them or their canon lawyer, provides any other reason. The public celebration of Mass is so important to the priesthood that the law of the Church only permits this faculty to be removed as an extreme measure, and for certain defined reasons.

 

Canon 900 §2 states, ‘Any priest who is not debarred by canon law may lawfully celebrate the Eucharist…’ Being ‘debarred by canon law’ is much more serious than no longer being the chaplain of a group of Catholics, in general it means that a priest has been found guilty of a serious canonical crime and his faculty to celebrate Mass in public was removed as a penalty. This is simply not the case here.

A bishop may suspend or revoke the faculty to celebrate the Eucharist for a limited time if it is not a matter of a canonical crime; but such an administrative measure must be in due proportion to the alleged conduct. Bishop Gielen’s decrees allege nothing, but only state that the priests are no longer needed to minister in the Diocese.

 

His administrative act (removing faculties) is a grossly disproportionate response to a situation he himself created (taking the Latin Mass chaplaincy away from the Sons).

A classic case of circular argument ...  

The Apostolic Signatura, which is something like the Supreme Court for the entire Catholic Church, has made it clear that it is contrary to the law of the Church for a bishop to impose what is effectively a serious penalty using administrative, non-penal, means.

 

When speaking about celebrating the Eucharist, the law assumes that it is a public celebration – it is in the very nature of the Mass that access by the faithful is not restricted. To exclude the faithful is a significant deprivation that once again cannot be imposed as an ordinary measure. It is most certainly not against the law for the faithful to attend the Masses in question; even Msgr. Daly implicitly admits as much.

 

It cannot be forgotten that the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have had a canonically established presence in the Diocese of Christchurch since 2014, which continues to this day. Mount St Joseph’s Kakahu and the Oratory of Our Mother of Perpetual Succour in St Albans have a canonical status that the Bishop of Christchurch has no power to remove or interfere with in the manner he has attempted, indeed he has a duty to safeguard it (cf. can 586).

 

This canonical status includes allowing the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer to undertake ministry according to their Constitutions (cf. can. 611). Removing the faculties of the priests contradicts their rights as individual priests, but also their rights as religious living in a formally and stably established religious house under canon law. Bishop Gielen has attempted to exercise his authority under canon law, but the outcome contradicts canon law.

 

A sustained and false representation of the facts about the Vatican’s position remains on the website of the Diocese of Christchurch.

 

Bishop Gielen’s canon lawyer has made a pronouncement about the relevant canon law which cannot be reconciled with the canons. Who, then, is acting ‘outside the law of the Church’? +

 

This document is not confidential. It is written to be a freely available clarification. Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer 145 Rutland Street St Albans, 8052 Christchurch, N.Z.

 As Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has noted more than once, the cancer of Modernism has metastatized. Just as Bishop Michael Gielen has confidence in the Vatican's backing in ridding his diocese of the FSSR and their Traditional Latin Mass, so do the liberals at the Synod on Synodality believe they have its support in substituting the hierarchical structure of the Church with a democracy.

 

Cardinal Joseph Zen

Cardinal Joseph Zen, 92, the emeritus archbishop of Hong Kong, has just made one an important and startling contribution to the debate over the present Synod on Synodality, which is ending in Rome next week.

    Because of his age (92 years), Zen has little reason to mince words. He evidently now feels he has little to lose by speaking his mind boldly.

    What Zen says, essentially, is that there a grave danger to the doctrinal integrity of the Church's teaching may be emerging from the present synodal process.

    British journalist Michael Haynes has a useful summary of what Cardinal Zen had to say in a text originally published in Chinese yesterday, October 17.

    Haynes's piece is below...

    Cardinal Zen warns Synod aims "to overthrow" the Church’s hierarchy for a "democratic system".

    "Obviously, the purpose of this conference [synod] was to overthrow the hierarchical class of the Church and implement a democratic system," wrote Cardinal Joseph Zen about the Synod on Synodality (Robert Moynihan, the Moynihan Letters).

 

     

   

 

 Cardinal Zen has issued a strong warning about the Synod on Synodality and the persistent division resulting from Fiducia Supplicans, saying the “future of the Church” is “uncertain” unless issues are resolved.

    “I feel most anxious about how this so-called ‘synodality’ of the Synod of Bishops can be concluded smoothly,” began Zen, the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong.

The cardinal’s latest essay, published October 17, renews his prior concern and criticism about the Synod on Synodality, but also ties in to the controversial 2023 declaration Fiducia Supplicans which approved same-sex “blessings.”

Synod of Synodality, Banality of Banalities

    Synodality to ‘overthrow’ the Church’s hierarchy     Zen presented a traditional understanding of a synod, explaining that “there is a church document that explains the Synod (meeting), an important historical fact of the Church, that the Synod is a structure in history through which the hierarchy leads the Church.”     The Synod on Synodality comprises lay and clerical voters, in a seismic change which has prompted much criticism that it is no longer a Synod of Bishops. Synod leaders have persistently posited the “common dignity of Baptism” as the rationale behind lay and clerical voters present at the Synod.

    But Zen warned that while all the Church should engage in “the mission of evangelization,” only “the hierarchy can ensure the direction of the Church’s journey and safeguard the content of the faith handed down from the apostles. Jesus entrusted the Church to the ‘apostolic college headed by Peter,’ and the successors of the apostles are the bishops.”     (...)     Zen joined Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Bishop Athanasius Schneider in critiquing the involvement of lay voters, making the striking statement that “[o]bviously, the purpose of this conference was to overthrow the hierarchical class of the Church and implement a democratic system.”     “The Pope had the right to convene any advisory meeting, but the Synod of Bishops pioneered by Pope Paul VI was specifically designed to enable the Pope to hear the opinions of his brother bishops,” he added. “With ‘non-bishops voting together, it was no longer a Synod of Bishops.”     Outlining a way for the meeting to be true to the identity of a synod, Zen opined that “it should return to the way it was when the Synod was first established, which worked well for many years: that is, to let the bishops lead, discuss and vote, and present their recommendations to the Pope for his consideration as fellow bishops.”     He urged his fellow bishops to “fight for more power, and at least prevent non-bishops from voting with them.”     Same-sex blessings     Zen levied particular criticism at Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J. – Relator General of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops; Cardinal Mario Grech – Secretary General of the General Secretariat of the Synod; and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández – prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith:     From the beginning of this synod, the two cardinals leading the assembly and the Pope’s appointed head of the doctrinal office did not emphasize preserving the faith, but emphasized making changes changes to, in particular, the operational structure of the Church and its ethical teachings; and the ethical justification of “sex,” especially regarding homosexual relationships.     Zen made reference to the famous Dubia he issued with four other cardinals last year which pertained, among other things, to the subject of same-sex “blessings.” The Pope’s lengthy reply, approving same-sex “blessings” in some cases, came just one day later – which prompted Zen last year to suggest it had been pre-written by the synod leaders.     This charge he repeated in his new essay: “The answer could not have been written by the Pope himself that day. It was obviously prepared by the person in charge of the conference to support their arguments for changing the Church’s doctrine.”     Confusion must be resolved for future of the Church     Zen has been a leading critic of Fiducia Supplicans, calling on its author, Cardinal Fernández, to resign while warning that it is “a heresy when you call a sin as something good.”     (...)     Zen urged his brother bishops to persuade the Pope not to implement Fiducia Supplicans, and warned that if the issue “is not resolved at the meeting [Synod 2024] the future of the Church will be very uncertain”:     I would have thought that at least the question of blessing same-sex partnerships should be spared endless debate. I hope the bishops will persuade the Pope to decide to postpone the implementation of that statement sine die (indefinitely). Jesus told Peter, “Tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos” [“thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren,” not] After you have thoroughly considered it, confirm your brothers.     If this issue is not resolved at the meeting, the future of the Church will be very uncertain, because some friends of the patriarch and the pope who insist on changing Church traditions continue to vigorously promote their plans.     He decried the LGBT lobby which he described as “actively promoting their plans outside the assembly hall while the assembly is in session,” as evidenced by recent events hosted by Father James Martin and New Ways Ministry.     “What is worrying is that even those so-called ‘new pastoral ministers’ who advocate gender change have been warmly received by the Pope in recent days,” continued Zen, making a direct reference to to New Ways Ministry’s papal audience last weekend.     Synod to split the Church?     Members of the synod are currently discussing whether to afford local bishops’ conferences increased autonomy, including on whether to be able to decide doctrine on a local level. The question has reportedly received pushback in the synod hall, but it remains to be seen what the final document will recommend to the Pope.     Warning about this focus and synodality itself, Zen said that “this is tantamount to discussing whether lay people should have more rights to ‘share’ the responsibilities of hierarchical ‘pastors.’”     “If those advocating this change cannot win over the whole Church, will they fight for diversity among local churches?,” he questioned.     Will individual Bishops’ Conferences have an independent position on matters of faith? This is a frightening prospect. If this idea succeeds, we will no longer be Catholic (the Anglican Church in London has approved same-sex marriage, and their followers have become a minority of less than 20% of the global Anglican Church. Can we not be vigilant?)     The cardinal closed by recommending his readers not to be anxious but to turn to prayer and penance in the timeless custom of the Church:     It is useless for us to be anxious about these problems. Fasting, praying (especially the rosary)! We must never despair.

 

Tribute to Caesar (Paul Juvenel the Elder)

  Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's

- Gospel, Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost

    [