20 Settembre 2021 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum curiae, we receive and gladly publish this letter that we received, which gives us news of an inexplicable measure – if not in terms of preconceived hostility – by Cardinal Braz De Aviz towards the Heralds of the Gospel. Happy reading.

§§§

THE HERALDS OF THE GOSPEL:

AMID STALIN, PONTIUS PILATE AND CAUCHON.

PRO VERITATE

 Il Manifesto, a communist newspaper, recently published a rather inaccurate news piece about the unjustified “decision” of Cardinal Braz de Aviz to expel minors staying in the houses of the Heralds of the Gospel. The jubilant conclusion reached by the innocuous comrades is a death wish: “the next step would be the suppression of the Heralds.” In other words, first the minors are sent home, and then the Association is closed down.

However, the facts do not support the claims of the left-wing media; nor do they corroborate the alleged “communications” that have seemingly reached the desk of Cardinal Aviz, and which would be the basis for a truly regrettable and ruthless decision in every respect.

As you, dear Tosatti, are an honest journalist, I take advantage of your desire to make the truth known to the people, and to provide Italian readers with some clarifications regarding the unexpected and unjust measure of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life with respect to the minors staying in the houses of the Heralds of the Gospel. The minors in question reside there with the permission and enthusiastic consent of their parents, as will be seen.

Some time ago I expressed my concern to the esteemed readers of Stilum Curiae regarding the “Apostolic Visitation” and the “commissionerate” that had been inflicted on the Heralds, without any of proof to corroborate the suspicions raised against them. In fact, the Vatican News website, and Archbishop Carballo himself in a recorded interview, made it clear that in the case of the Association, a commissionerate was not a punishment. Here are the Archbishop’s precise words: “It’s not a punishment, it’s not a sentence. It’s simply a concrete aid the Church, our Mother, offers them” (cfr. Rome Reports 12/5/2019). Now where there is no punishment there is no crime, so why the commissionerate? Such merciful measures, now so common, in these times of fraternity, love, liberty and welcoming…

But to return to our case, concerning minors expelled against their will and against their parents’ will from our houses, I must say that as a canonist I have been in contact with the Commissioner (Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis) and his assistants, and even all of them have repeatedly expressed their perplexity about certain authoritarian attitudes of His Eminence Aviz, in clear contrast with the constant teaching of the Pontiff, recently reiterated in Bratislava on the adventure of freedom, to avoid the need for everyone to think the same way and blindly obey.

Moreover, in the long wake of this strange manner of conducting the persecution against the Heralds of the Gospel, the recent “Decision” of His Eminence Aviz, with regard to minors, includes brazen and innumerable formal, canonical, common law, natural law and even Divine Law errors, capable of stupefying even Law School students, as well as prominent jurists, as I will show below.

Nevertheless, we should ask before all else: what does the decree say?

The decree is truly unique, because in primis it obliges the commissioner to act against the Association and against the families without first having heard his opinion. In a certain sense, the commissioner has become subject to a commissionerate, perhaps because he has been considered ineffective, or even useless. This is the first abuse of authority by the Most Eminent Aviz.

The reasons for the disciplinary measure were supposedly manifold and based on “numerous communications” (the term “accusations” or “denunciations” is intentionally not used, perhaps to avoid the duty to grant the accused the right of defence) which reached the Congregation from presumed parents of children and young people living with the Heralds of the Gospel. These “communications” allegedly contained the following complaints: 1. The families have been excluded from the life of their children, and the contact between parents and children had been insufficient; 2. An excessively rigid discipline had been imposed on minors; 3. The need to prevent possible abuses of conscience and “plagio” [harassment] against minors (thus acknowledging that, from the beginning to the present day, there has been no such thing!)

And the concrete measure to be taken would be: “at the end of the present school year, the minors residing in the houses, schools and boarding schools of the Association must return to live with their families and be entrusted to their respective parents.”

With these presuppositions we can now analyse the “monument” of jurisprudence and ecclesial “motherhood” presented by the Congregation of Religious.

First of all, one wonders why the secrecy regarding the evidence. Knowing the Most Eminent Aviz well, one can assume that if there was anything scandalous he would have already had it leaked to his favourite newspapers, i.e. those of a Marxist bent, as has happened on other occasions, even if the unfounded accusations were always subsequently debunked by the Heralds.

What, then, would such “communications” consist of? Who sent them? What is their real content? How many are they exactly? Nothing can be known, as it is a cardinal’s secret, only the Most Eminent Aviz has the right to know. And so, unfortunately, others have to suffer sanctions under the force of his secret, without being able to defend themselves. The authoritarian imposition of the Prefect is reminiscent of the saying of the lion in the fable of Phaedrus: I am right, he says, “nominor quia Leo”, because I am the Lion…

What juridical experts we have in this illustrious Congregation, have we not? It is a pity that they have forgotten the adage “ut audiatur et altera pars,” an elementary principle of law, even invoked by Nicodemus before the Sanhedrin who wanted to condemn Jesus: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (Jn 7:51)

In fact, anyone with common sense might ask: do the accused, the Heralds, not have the right to defend themselves? Of course they don’t! Not a chance! They are conservatives, for them a suspicion is already a condemnation. Are we thus in the face of a new anachronistic and grotesque episode of the “Law of Suspects” of the infamous French Revolution? The floor is yours, Your Eminence…

To refute the astonishing accusations against the formation given by the Heralds to the minors entrusted to them, it behoves the true families of the children who stay in our houses, because in reality, among the “numerous communications” received by the Most Eminent Aviz, which ones truly come from a family with a minor staying in the houses of the Heralds of the Gospel? Could you name at least one family? The floor is yours, Your Eminence…

In fact, the parents who have children lodged by the Heralds have resolutely and enthusiastically gathered signatures (already totalling 2,583) on a petition addressed to the Most Eminent Aviz in which they respectfully and firmly ask for the suspension of the above-mentioned Decree, which they consider null and void for lacking any foundation, and for the fact that it infringes upon their rights, that is, the inalienable responsibility of parents to educate their children (can. 226); and the natural law, also protected by canon law, of the right of these children over 14 years of age to choose their state in life (c. 219) and their spiritual path (c. 214).

The “Avizian” Decree, just to give it a name so that it may go down in history within the “Legal Spectrum”, presumes that the Heralds have virtually kidnapped the children since they should return them to the hands of their parents… This is a very serious accusation which, if not proven, would constitute criminal slander against both the Heralds and the actual parents themselves, considered by the Cardinal as irresponsible and incompetent. But which of the true parents of these children staying in our houses have actually asked for the restitution of their children? The floor is yours, Your Eminence…

Moreover, if the “numerous communications” were inconsistent, the Most Eminent could be accused of the crime of falsehood according to can. 1390, which punishes calumny as prejudicial to the good reputation of others.

The Commissioner himself, Cardinal Damasceno, upon receiving the letter from Cardinal Braz de Aviz, declared at first that he could not implement the decisions of Rome because they did not correspond to the reality of the Heralds. In fact, there is c. 41 which orders any executor of an administrative act to suspend its application on the grounds of inappropriateness, nullity and other serious causes. However, in the end, the will of the Prefect prevailed: “Hoc volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas  – I will it, I insist on it. Let my will stand rather than reason.” (Juvenal).

Cardinal Damasceno, then, decided to obey the “diktat” by promulgating a type of decree implementing the “Avizian” Decree, in short, as you can see, a truly mind-boggling juridical masterpiece. Moreover, if at times the Cardinal Commissioner had shown himself to be quite sensible, this time, however, his pusillanimity has made him a little like the Roman praetor Pontius Pilate: “I find no crime in this man” (Lk 23:4), but… So our Commissioner, although aware of the Heralds’ innocence, has washed his hands of it, because the Most Eminent Aviz has decided otherwise! So we must disobey God in order to obey the man, and what a man!

Apart from all this, we ask: how can the Most Eminent Prefect state, in his decree, that there is a danger of “abuse of conscience and ‘plagio’” and, at the same time, order that precautionary measures be taken “at the end of the school year”? If these minors were really at risk, why should they be left there for another six months with the threat of “abuse of conscience and ‘plagio’[harassment]”? Moreover, and let us also say this in passing, Italian jurists know that the crime of “plagio”, similar to abuse of conscience, introduced by Mussolini into the Penal Code, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 1981. But none of this seems to worry the Most Eminent because, one more unconstitutionality, or one less, what difference does it make…

The “Avizian” Decree was therefore communicated to the parents of the children staying in the houses of the Heralds. And they, as already explained, decided to respond in defence of their legitimate rights, against the revisionist Cardinal of the anti-constitutional rules. The French say, “ce bette est très méchant, quand on l’attaque il se defend” – which we might take the liberty to translate as: “these very perverse parents, when attacked, they defend themselves!”

In fact, the parents, united in an Association, immediately organised a signature petition which, within a few days, had obtained a great response, as previously mentioned, in defence of their freedom of education and that of their children. This petition was presented to the Congregation of Religious without any response forthcoming. Once again, the floor is yours, Your Eminence…

Furthermore, prominent Brazilian jurists, such as the famous Ives Gandra da Silva Martins and Dircêo Torrecillas Ramos, have prepared, “sponte propria”, a legal opinion showing some of the serious illegalities contained in the now famous “Avizian” Decree. This opinion is being disseminated not only in Brazil but also in the countries where the Heralds collaborate with families for the Christian formation of young people. It has been delivered to diplomatic representatives, to state offices for the protection of minors, to Roman congregations, and sent by the authors to the Most Eminent Aviz.

An important point to be made is that the same calumnies accepted by the Most Eminent Aviz as true – and promoted by the same group hostile to the Heralds – were presented as formal complaints in six Brazilian courts. And, after judicial procedures, all six cases were dismissed, due to lack of evidence and credibility. How pitiful it is to verify that in the civil sphere the rule of law still exists, while in the Church, our Mother, there is a type of implacable Stalinism.

I ask you, dear readers, to pray for this situation, but especially for the most defenceless victims: the boys and girls who reside in our houses. How many of them will be left in situations of grim poverty, their integrity at risk and without the guarantee of a proper education! It is impossible to describe the sadness on the faces of these enthusiastic young people in seeing the dark and threatening clouds hovering over their future. However, is not this type of treatment unjustly rigid? The floor is yours, Your Eminence…

Pilate did not want to recognize the Truth and condemned the Just One without proof. Subsequently, many others throughout history have followed in his footsteps, such as Bishop Cauchon and Cardinal Beaufort who sent the innocent Pucelle, Joan of Arc, to the stake. Nevertheless, when God so wills, contrary to the “diktats” of Pilate, Cauchon, Beaufort, Stalin and others: “deposuit potentes de sede et exaltavit humiles.” We place our trust in God, our strength, and in our Mother, Mary. We lift up our eyes to Her and pray, full of hope: “Gaude Maria virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo”.

Pro veritate!

José Manuel Jiménez Aleixandre, EP

Below we offer the text that accompanies the signatures of the parents of the boys and girls housed in the residences of the Heralds:

Al Eminentísimo Cardenal Don Raymundo Damasceno Assis,

Comisario Pontificio junto a la Asociación Privada Internacional de Fieles de Derecho Pontificio Heraldos del Evangelio.

Nosotros, padres y responsables legales de los estudiantes menores de edad que están alojados en las casas de los Heraldos del Evangelio, conscientes de la Decisión del Cardenal Braz de Aviz, la cual determina «que todos los menores de edad», «al final del año escolar en curso deben volver a vivir con sus familias y ser confiados a sus respectivos padres», manifestamos a V. Em.ª lo que sigue:

1 – El Cardenal Braz de Aviz, en la mencionada Decisión, afirma: «Considerando las numerosas comunicaciones aquí enviadas por los padres de niños y jóvenes que están dentro de la órbita de la Asociación Heraldos del Evangelio, en las cuales se lamentan de que las familias de origen son, en la mayoría de las veces, excluidas de la vida de sus hijos, y que el contacto con los padres no es suficientemente garantizado». Sin embargo, esas «comunicaciones» NO FUERON enviadas por NINGUNO de nosotros, los abajo firmantes, padres de los menores de edad que están alojados en las casas de los Heraldos del Evangelio, por deseo de nuestros hijos y con nuestro consentimiento, que somos los responsables legales; además, nosotros no nos sentimos excluidos de la vida de nuestros hijos, ni impedidos de tener contacto con ellos.

2 – También afirma que se practica una «disciplina excesivamente rígida» «en las comunidades de los Heraldos del Evangelio». Pero quien debe definir si le gusta o no esa disciplina – la cual, por cierto, no es excesivamente rígida – somos nosotros y nuestros hijos, según nuestros criterios y expectativas. En ningún momento nuestros hijos se han quejado con nosotros de esa disciplina, y ninguno de nosotros, padres de familia, ha dirigido al señor Cardenal reclamación alguna referente a la disciplina que se practica en los Heraldos del Evangelio.

3 – Más aún, la Decisión afirma que su finalidad es la de «permitir a los más jóvenes la indispensable relación con las familias», y que tiene «el objetivo de prevenir cualquier situación que pueda favorecer posibles abusos de conciencia y retención de menores de edad». Reiteramos que mantenemos con nuestros hijos unas excelentes relaciones, ellos no están abandonados, ni mucho menos carentes de cuidados osujetos a abusos. Tenemos un conocimiento total de la formación que los Heraldos del Evangelio dan a nuestros hijos.

Por lo expuesto anteriormente, preguntamos: si esas «comunicaciones» no partieron de nosotros, padres de los menores de edad que están alojados en las casas de los Heraldos del Evangelio, ¿tendría el Cardenal Braz de Aviz una preocupación verdadera por la educación y por el futuro de nuestros hijos, una vez que pretende decidir el destino de ellos, atropellando su voluntad igual que la de sus padres?

4 – Nos ampara el derecho natural, expresado en el Concilio Vaticano II: «Es preciso que los padres, cuya primera e intransferible obligación y derecho es el de educar a los hijos, tengan absoluta libertad en la elección […], según su propia conciencia, [de] las escuelas para sus hijos».[1] También nos apoya el Papa San Juan Pablo II, en el sentido de los documentos conciliares: «El derecho-deber educativo de los padres se califica como esencial […]; como original y primario […]; como insustituible e inalienable y que, por consiguiente, no puede ser totalmente delegado o usurpado por otros».[2]

De este modo, cuando la autoridad excede los límites de la competencia que le es propia y, sobre todo, cuando sus determinaciones son contrarias a la recta conciencia, «a los derechos fundamentales de las personas»,[3] es un deber no seguir esas prescripciones, pues «hay que obedecer a Dios antes que a los hombres» (Hch 5, 29).

5 – Puesto que la legislación canónica[4] también garantiza estos derechos y que la Iglesia Católica enseña que los padres «deben ser reconocidos como los primeros y principales educadores de sus hijos»[5] pues, «en virtud del ministerio de la educación los padres, mediante el testimonio de su vida, son los primeros mensajeros del Evangelio ante los hijos»,[6] no deja de escandalizar semejante actitud proveniente de autoridades eclesiásticas.

6 – Así, amparados también por la legislación civil, que garantiza el ejercicio de la patria potestad familiar, y respetando la voluntad y los anhelos de nuestros hijos, nos resguardamos el derecho de NO ACEPTAR ESTA INJUSTA IMPOSICIÓN. Y, caso sea necesario, apelaremos a la justicia civil para hacer valer nuestros derechos de padres y también el derecho de nuestros hijos.

Nosotros somos los padres y los responsables legales por la educación de nuestros hijos. APROBAMOS y deseamos que ellos continúen estudiando y recibiendo la formación de los Heraldos del Evangelio.

RESPETUOSAMENTE, FUNDAMENTADOS EN LA ARGUMENTACIÓN EXPUESTA, RECHAZAMOS Y NO PERMITIMOS QUE V. EM.A SE APODERE INDEBIDA E ILEGALMENTE DE NUESTROS DERECHOS.

Dado y firmado el 15 de agosto del 2021, Solemnidad de la Asunción de la Bienaventurada Virgen María.

[1] CONCILIO VATICANO II. Declaración «Gravissimum Educationis» sobre la educación cristiana, n.º 6. Ver también CCE 2229.

[2] SAN JUAN PABLO II. Exhortación Apostólica «Familiaris Consortio», n.º 36. Ver también CCE 2221.

[3] CCE 2242.

[4] Cf. CIC c. 226 § 2; c. 793 § 1. Ver también c. 1136.

[5] PONTIFICIO CONSEJO PARA LA FAMILIA. Carta de los derechos de la Familia, art. 5.

[6] SAN JUAN PABLO II. Exhortación Apostólica «Familiaris Consortio», n.º 39.

§§§

Condividi i miei articoli:

Tag: braz, carballo, heralds

Categoria: Generale