FRANCIS WILL EVICT +BURKE, STOP HIS PAY

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

A cannula for intravenous treatment on the pope’s right hand is visible as he gives the Angelus blessing November 26

The tyrant Pope Francis is authoritatively reported as saying he will evict US Cardinal Raymond Burke from his Vatican apartment because he is a source of "disunity" in the Church. The same sources say the pope will stop +Burke's salary because he is using these privileges against the Church. There is no doubt about his making these statements but as of this morning +Burke had not been officially alerted to his disciplining. 

Unfortunately it's only God Almighty Who has the power to evict Pope Francis from Santa Marta and stop his papal pay - and his breath. Is it sinful for faithful Catholics to importune Him for this great favour? Some say He may do that quite soon. Respected Catholic commentator Kennedy Hall, for example, tweeted this morning that he thinks the pope will die soon. https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-health-november-2023-nfbgpzk5

It's a night of long knives in the Church. First 'America's Bishop' +Joseph Strickland was fired, in defiance of canon law and violating the guarantee of due process. Now it's +Burke's turn and logically next in line for a tune-up would be Bishop Athanasius Schneider. It's abundantly clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will brook no criticism of his demolition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It just goes to show how traditional, faithful heads are rolling in the Catholic Church: +Raymond Burke, +Gerhard Mueller - it could have been either or both that Bergoglio evicted from his apartment. Of course it was Cardinal Burke but somehow in the mind of this writer their names, as prelates prepared to speak up in defence of the Deposit of Faith, had become interchangeable and a gremlin in the works allowed +Mueller to be reported as kicked out instead of +Burke. Is it only a matter of time? Watch this space ...

Cardinal Raymond Burke

See new posts

Conversation

Edward Pentin

@EdwardPentin

“I was asked to meet with the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, and in that meeting I was read a list of the reasons I was being removed.  I would make these reasons available to you if possible; however, I was not given a copy of this list at that time, and I have not been able as of yet to obtain a copy despite my requests” - Bishop Joseph Strickland in a Nov. 27th letter to the faithful.

According to both Scripture and Tradition ... and according to the Second Vatican Council, the bishop has a native jurisdiction that cannot be taken away by the Pope, except in a case where the bishop has committed a grave crime and must be punished by the universal visible head of the Church. The difference with other ecclesiastical offices is that by the very nature of the bishop’s office he cannot be removed unjustly because he is free to use his native jurisdictional power to oppose an arbitrary and openly tyrannical act of the pope. ...

...The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to (bishops) completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them ... Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church (27). ... 

A fortiori, the pope, even if in some sense he is above canon law as the one who promulgates it, has no right to act against the principles of natural and divine law that the Code embodies and particularizes. When he acts against the provisions set forth in the Code, he demonstrates his unwillingness to be bound by the deeper and immutable law that canon law exists to serve. He demonstrates, in short, contempt for rights and duties, which is the definition of an unjust ruler or, in the ancient title, a tyrant.

For all these reasons, the universal power of jurisdiction possessed by the pope cannot annul and destroy the native power of the local bishop, as would be the case if the pope could whimsically remove any bishop without due process, stated grave cause, and the opportunity for defense, as Francis has now done with many successors of the Apostles. It is tragic that these men have not exercised their God-given rights and duties by resisting the false and injurious exercise of the primacy of Peter. ...

Bishops have to withstand the current arbitrary use of power by the Roman See, because this resistance is required by the need to preserve divine Revelation, as the case of Bishop Strickland has made exceedingly clear. This means that no bishop should comply with a “dismissal” that is not the result of a canonical procedure in which a grave crime committed by the bishop himself (not any of his inferiors) has been fully proved.

 

self-explanatory

 

Jesus Christ Himself is calling the faithful bishops to be brave and to withstand this most subtle attack against the divine constitution of the Church. What is at stake here is not just the “guarantee of due process.” This attack is directed against the structure that He Himself established. It is an attack that is perhaps fulfilling the ancient prophecy by Leo XIII:

"Most cunning enemies have filled with bitterness and drenched with gall the Church, the Spouse of the Lamb without spot, and have lifted impious hands against all that is most sacred in it. Even in the holy place where the See of Blessed Peter and the chair of truth was set up to enlighten the world, they have raised the abominable throne of their impiety…"The Pope Cannot Depose Bishops Without Grave Cause - OnePeterFive

 

St Saturninus of Carthage (Nov 29)



St Saturninus, please pray for the Church

Please scroll down, down, down, for comments. X (Twitter) plays havoc with the software.

 

 

 

See new posts

Conversation

ARRESTED FOR CALLING PRO-HAMAS EVIL

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

"You're under arrest"

 

Yes, this is New Zealand. You know, the "free land" that our national anthem asks God to defend. But in this free land, with a new government committed to free speech, a woman was arrested by police on Saturday afternoon in Queen Street for holding an A4 sheet of paper.

On the sheet of paper she'd written in marker pen, SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION OF GENOCIDE IS EVIL. Whoah! That's an offence? Yes apparently , if there's a protest going by pro-Hamas leftards who selectively condemn Israel for genocide and you call that evil.  

One can only hope and pray the fuzz don't get away with this. And as the woman they arrested is criminal defence lawyer Lucy Rogers AND she's got the Free Speech Union minding her back, they're not likely to.

“They [police] just wanted to get me out of sight and shut me up for the duration of the protest,” Rogers claimed, calling the arrest a “misuse of power”.

In a video of the arrest supplied to the Herald, a police officer can be heard telling Rogers the pro-Palestine protesters were “going to get upset [with the sign] and then it’s going to start a riot”.

Oh well, there you are then. We can't have pro-Hamas protestors getting upset, can we?  

Acting Superintendent Jacqui Whittaker, the relieving Auckland City District Commander, told the Herald officers “were required to engage with a female whose behaviour gave rise for concern”.

NZ Herald

But wait on. Wot about the riot at the Posie Parker event? Why are the police nervous about a sole anti-Hamas protestor and just fine with the holus-bolus riot against the anti-trans, pro-women's rights speaker Posie Parker? 

Not only was a lone woman arrested, but also a guy whose offence consisted in simply being there on Saturday, who was not only arrested but also charged and will appear in court on Thursday.  

One can only hope and pray that the fuzz don't get away with this. And as the woman they arrested is criminal defence lawyer Lucy Rogers AND she's got the Free Speech Union minding her back, they're not likely to. 

Rogers writes:

 

Yesterday at about 5pm I was arrested on Queen Street for peacefully protesting a pro-Palestine rally.

I had popped out to grab coffee after being in a work meeting and saw the protest  on Queen Street. I walked into a shop, purchased an A2 piece of paper and wrote “SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION OF GENOCIDE IS EVIL” on it with a marker pen. I then stood on the pavement on Queen Street as the protesters walked past and held the sign above my head. I was silent and peaceful, and several metres away from them.

Immediately I was accosted by a group of nearby police officers who grabbed my sign off me and tore it up. They physically manhandled me and attempted to push me away from where I was standing. I refused to move and demanded my sign back. At this point I started recording them on my phone.

They refused to give my sign back and threatened to arrest me for breach of the peace and failing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer if I didn't move on.

As a criminal defence lawyer I was unfazed by this. I knew I wasn't breaking any law. The cops cannot tell you to do just anything: they could not for example order me to perform a handstand. I continued to refuse, asked them where in the law it said that they had the right to dictate where I stood in a public place when there was no obstruction to foot traffic, and finally attempted to walk around them to silently observe the protest without my sign. 

I was not carrying an Israeli flag or any other indication of being pro-Israel. There was no indication at this point what my views were. I was just another person on the street.

It was then that the cops grabbed me from behind, handcuffed me and arrested me. All of this is on video. They then locked me in a police van. Now, the next day, I still have a sore shoulder from my arms being wrenched behind my back without warning. I experienced sleeplessness last night.

What disturbed me was, the cops were completely unfazed at my recording their police ID numbers or arresting me, even when they knew I could identify them. They let me go as soon as I undertook not to return to the protest. So they didn't care whether they had any chance of successfully prosecuting me. They even offered to give me information on how to lay a complaint.

What this suggests in my view is that they have misused laws against breach of the peace, resisting police and perhaps other such laws again and again and again.

Section 39 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 reads as follows:

Any constable, and all persons whom he calls to his assistance, may arrest and take into custody without a warrant any person whom he has good cause to suspect of having committed an offence against any of the provisions of this Act except sections 17 to 20, 25, and 32 to 38.

I suspect that the police, who in ordinary circumstances are the ones who decide whether to prosecute someone (I have no reason to believe there is a different body which takes criminal complaints against police officers), have taken a very liberal approach to what constitutes “good cause to suspect” a crime, and that has been used as a way for police to avoid consequences for the misuse of power without the matter ever reaching the courts. The cops (I suspect) protect their own. They just wanted to shut me up for the duration of the protest, release me with or without charge and then get away with it.

I suspect too that these powers have been misused in cases more marginal than mine. Because I was in a very tense situation I did raise my voice, but I did not assault the cops, swear at them, drag my feet on the ground when they grabbed me or jerk my body around. I commented to the cops that I was a law-abiding person and one of them said he could tell. I'm sure the cops have arrested plenty of people who were less polite, and hence where there was less sympathy for them. However, being unfriendly to cops is not a crime.

The whole thing has been an eye-opener for me. If there isn't already I think there needs to be a body independent of the police set up to review complaints against police and determine whether to prosecute them.

Something calling itself the Independent Police Conduct Authority claims to be that body. It claims to be completely independent. https://www.ipca.govt.nz/  

(Their actions constitute assault, false arrest, theft, wilful damage to personal property, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.)

It's not clear whether Rogers is referring to the officers who arrested her, or police generally. 

I would be interested to know how many criminal complaints against these police officers have been made and never upheld.

I am also concerned that being threatened by police with arrest for things like failing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer would be intimidating to people less familiar with the law about what the police can and cannot tell you to do. I suspect the police deliberately exploit people's ignorance of the law. 

I add that I do not consider myself to be a pro-Israel protester. I was very deliberately not carrying an Israeli flag even though flags were available from the same shop where I bought my sheet of paper. Although until recently I was a lifelong supporter of Israel, the complete blockade of food and water to all civilians in Gaza absolutely appalled me.

Palestinian children take part in a human chain protest against the blockade

 The blockade was lifted only following American pressure and even then it was lifted only partially. Collective punishment is a war crime and I am not unsympathetic to sending home the Israeli ambassador.

I am not a pro-Israel protester. I am an anti-hypocrisy, anti-bias and anti-racism protester. I cannot understand how anyone in good conscience could exclusively protest Israel when Israel is responding to genocide, hostage taking and mass rape so brutal it broke women's pelvic bones.

By all means protest Israel's actions. My question is why they aren't also protesting Hamas? For many years now Hamas have fired missiles at civilian targets. Israel have responded with missile strikes on military targets while going to huge lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and everyone has sided with the Palestinians. For those with eyes to see the bias was already apparent, but these appalling post-October 7 pro-Palestine protests have exposed once and for all what truly motivates these people: anti-Semitism. 

Selective condemnation of genocide is not just evil but hypocritical, biased and racist.

Not always racist, surely? 

It's appalling that NZ police arrested someone for peacefully holding up a sign on the basis that it might upset the protesters. This shows our right to freedom of expression remains under threat by the establishment. It is also difficult not to conclude that if roles of counter-protester and protest cause had been reversed, the Police would have never ever acted the way they did.

The encounter was mainly captured on video and is embedded below.

https://youtu.be/mKQptrjMcdU

Over to Jonathan Ayling of the Free Speech Union:  

 Our team is working hard on this case. Here’s what we’re doing today:

1. Lodging a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority;

2. Challenging the Auckland District Commander for an explanation;

3. Contacting the Police Commissioner re yet another example of police failing to respect basic civil liberties; 

4. Meeting with lawyers to assess whether criminal or civil proceedings are the best path to ensure justice. 

It is exactly for moments like this that the Free Speech Union exists. We cannot let disregard for speech rights become the norm. 

When Lucy came to us, she knew that we would have her back. And she was right.

I writing to ask if you would please have ours.

Cases like this are important, but time-consuming, and expensive. Would you contribute to our fight today?

Lucy responded exactly in the right way when she heard speech she disagreed with - she used counter-speech. And for that, she was arrested. Is this New Zealand now?

I hope you’ll help us make sure the message is clear - there will be accountability for police who fail to respect these basic rights. 

Samira Zaiton, co-convenor of the "Justice for Palestine" movement, at an earlier pro-Palestine protest.

We've had another protestor from Saturday contact us to say that he was also arrested. He wasn’t just detained - he has been charged. He will be in court on Thursday. 

The Free Speech Union will be there to provide pro bono. From the information we have received, we see no reason to think his actions were beyond what is protected by all New Zealanders’ right to free speech.  

There appears to be a pattern emerging of police disregard for the right for all Kiwis to protest.

From what we can see, the protestor, Daniel, went to central Auckland prior to the protest on Saturday, and asked police if he was permitted to hold an Israeli flag there. He was advised against it but informed that it was allowed.  

When he later brought his flag along he was told to leave, and warned that if he returned with the flag he would be arrested. He returned without the flag and was arrested and charged with obstruction. 

New Zealander's basic rights are to be protected by police, not defied. There must be accountability for police who fail to respect these fundamental freedoms.

Frivolous charges such as 'disruption of the peace' and 'obstruction' have become commonplace in other countries such as the United Kingdom as ways to constrain and suppress legitimate speech rights. We must not allow that to become the case here. 

 If you’re interested in the media coverage, I’ve listed some here.

- NZ Herald article;

- Stuff article;

- Newstalk ZB article;

- Kiwiblog article (which first broke the story)

I’m putting my money where my mouth is and offering to represent Daniel pro bono. May I ask you stand with us and chip into supporting the costs to our team for these fights? 

Thank you for standing with us, 

Jonathan Ayling