Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of 'Mafia' Club Opposed to Benedict XVI
#21
(09-29-2015, 02:14 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(09-29-2015, 02:05 PM)Christus_Vincit Wrote: If what Cardinal Danneels is saying is true what kind of implications does this have?  People are making all sorts of wild claims.  Could there be any truth to the possibility that the conclave was compromised?  This is very troubling.

Why would it?


From John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution of 1996:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.”


Also, if Benedict resigned under duress, does this affect the validity of his resignation?
Reply
#22
I think #35 says they still get to participate and even be elected (that's passive participation). Previous versions of this provision, such as in the constitution of Pius XII, actually lists examples like excommunication, but JPII's just says "any reason" to cover all the bases.

35. No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext, with due regard for the provisions of No. 40 of this Constitution.

The logic behind this is for this very kind of thing.  These kinds of things can be done in secret, so if they could invalidate an election, that invalidity would also be secret.  None of us can keep tabs on all the Cardinals all the time.  All papal elections would be in doubt--are they secretly invalid? Who knows?  This is also why the legitimacy of the election must also be a dogmatic fact.  If not, all elections would be in doubt, since so much is done in secret.

In this case, who's to say their group had a commitment that made their votes obligatory--maybe they could do something else if they wanted, but they all just happened to be of the same mind.

As for Benedict XVI being under duress, he freely goes wherever he wants and does whatever he wants and he has publicly stated he did so under his own free will.  Again, maybe one might argue he secretly was under duress. Arguments were made that St. Celestine V was too--stronger arguments than in this case.  Again, this is another reason why the legitimacy of an election must be a dogmatic fact since all these facts could never be verified by every Catholic with absolute certainty--it would throw every papal election in doubt (just like in my previous post where Hunter describes concerning those that claimed the Chair has been vacant since the middle ages due to simoniacal elections). 
Reply
#23
(09-29-2015, 03:21 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I think #35 says they still get to participate and even be elected (that's passive participation). Previous versions of this provision, such as in the constitution of Pius XII, actually lists examples like excommunication, but JPII's just says "any reason" to cover all the bases.

35. No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext, with due regard for the provisions of No. 40 of this Constitution.

The logic behind this is for this very kind of thing.  These kinds of things can be done in secret, so if they could invalidate an election, that invalidity would also be secret.  None of us can keep tabs on all the Cardinals all the time.  All papal elections would be in doubt--are they secretly invalid? Who knows?  This is also why the legitimacy of the election must also be a dogmatic fact.  If not, all elections would be in doubt, since so much is done in secret.

In this case, who's to say their group had a commitment that made their votes obligatory--maybe they could do something else if they wanted, but they all just happened to be of the same mind.

As for Benedict XVI being under duress, he freely goes wherever he wants and does whatever he wants and he has publicly stated he did so under his own free will.  Again, maybe one might argue he secretly was under duress. Arguments were made that St. Celestine V was too--stronger arguments than in this case.  Again, this is another reason why the legitimacy of an election must be a dogmatic fact since all these facts could never be verified by every Catholic with absolute certainty--it would throw every papal election in doubt (just like in my previous post where Hunter describes concerning those that claimed the Chair has been vacant since the middle ages due to simoniacal elections).

Makes sense to me.  Thanks for the good explanations.
Reply
#24
For what it's worth, it looks like some clarifications were made by the biographers.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pe...y-authors/
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)