Might the post Vatican II and Francis Crisis be a State of Emergency comparable to the Arian Cisis of St. Athanasius?
"St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus) is caught mid-mosaic about to slap [punch] Arius in the chops for his 'wicked theology'.'" He "sided with... Saint Athanasius and they condemned Arius as a heretic." [https://uncyclopedia.ca/wiki/Arianism and https://taylormarshall.com/2011/12/saint-nicholas-allegedly-punched-this.html]
Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius":
He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius and like St. Eusebius of Samosata, he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity. A state of emergency, urgency, or necessity occurs in the Church when its continuation, order, or activity are threatened or harmed in an important way, and the emergency cannot be overcome by observing the normal positive laws. The emergency would relate principally to teaching, the liturgy, and ecclesiastical discipline. An interesting reference to such a situation occurs in a study of the Church's divine constitution by Dom Adrien Grea, OSB, in his examination of the extraordinary powers of the episcopate:
"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them." [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]
Wikipedia explains that Archbishop Lefebvre's "Operation Survival" was "due to necessity":
Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations "opération survie" ("Operation Survival"), citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first of which says that "a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls" is not subject to penalty for violating a law or precept, while the other says "the perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed ... by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X]
Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon show how St. Thomas Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":
In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:
He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.
Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]
Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to the present Francis crisis?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano says Vatican II brought the Francis Vatican idol "Pachmama... Adored," but it also brought liberal and "conservative" bishops such as Francis and even popes who apparently covered up for sex abusing predators like ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
Pope Benedict XVI Vatican insider Archbishop Vigano who is
living "in hiding due to his revelations concerning the McCarrick case
gave a commentary on a recent analysis written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider."
In this commentary, he explains that Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae brought into the Church the heresy of "pachamama could be adored in a church." He wrote:
"If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to [Vatican II's] Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms."
Moreover, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae apparently brought into the Church sex abusing predators such as liberal ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and liberal as well as "conservative" bishops and possibly even popes who covered up for the predators:
It appears that Francis is the media's new Harvey Weinstein whom the media protected for years.
Francis's media enablers unveiled their red herring to distract from the fact that Francis, the new Weinstein, covered-up for sex abuse predator Theodore McCarrick.
On December 06, 2019, the Associated Press headline showed who they expect to be the red herring to distract from the fact that Francis covered-up for McCarrick:
"Lawsuit: McCarrick victim told pope [John Paul II] of sex abuse in 1988"
Why is the media covering-up for Francis as they did for Weinstein and how is the conservative Catholic "post-Vatican II settlement" involved in the Francis and other cover-ups?
October 6, 2017, The New York Times article "Harvey Weinstein's Media Enablers" explains why the media protected and covered-up for predator Weinstein and attacked abused women who were whistleblowers.
But, more importantly, it explains why they, The New York Times, Reuter, Associated Press and others attacked whistleblower Archbishop Vigano as well as are protecting Francis who covered-up for a series of sex abusers and those who covered-up for them, the most famous examples being the Chile predator cover-up fiasco and now according to Vigano the ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick case.
The Times piece explains exactly why the media enables predators and those who cover-up for them as well as why it is now protecting Francis and attacking Vigano who blew the whistle on Francis's predator cover-up:
"Harvey Weinstein... was 'the worst-kept secret' in Hollywood and New York."
"The real story didn't surface until now because too many people in the intertwined news and entertainment industries had too much to gain from Mr. Weinstein. Across a run of more than 30 years."
"... But... trouble finally found Mr. Weinstein because he was no longer the rainmaker and hitmaker he had once been."
"... 'The industry is passionate about [liberal] causes, 'but when it comes down to doing business, they're definitely capable of holding their noses.'"
Francis will stop having his media enablers protect him when they realize that like Weinstein that he can no longer be the "hitmaker" for their liberal "causes" such as immigration and global warming.
The only difference between the media's cover-up of liberal Weinstein and their cover-up of liberal Francis and liberal McCarrick is that the ex-Cardinal and Francis pose to be holy men of the Church.
Unfortunately, it wasn't just the liberals such as Francis that enabled "men like McCarrick," but Vatican II conservatives who enabled "men like McCarrick." The ultimate "new springtime" of Vatican II conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, 2018 in the Catholic Herald explained:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."
The Amoris Laetitia-like liberal Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."
Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.
Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:
"That depends. In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate. Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics. Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc. Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith. It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order. The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society. And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state could in principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good)."
(edwardfeser.blogspot, "Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016)
One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:
"The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish":
"There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.
Apparently, Chaput teaches that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error or a culture of lies has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth." The Archbishop wrote:
"Error has no rights, but persons do have rights - even when they choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most important right any human being has." (First Things, "Of Human Dignity," March 18, 2015)
So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if "persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]... choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth... freedom of conscience"?
In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his "'longtime friend' Cardinal McCarrick" who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: "McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver." ("The Neo-Catholics," pages 154, 159)
What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?
Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?
Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]... choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth... freedom of conscience"?
On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops" reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he "expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered'" which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, "September 20, 2017)
It appears that the "conservative" Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth."Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth":
"In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, 'See you later.'”
"With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015."
“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. 'Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.'”
This is the end result of the "post-Vatican II settlement."
Sadly, almost all conservatives such as John Paul II and Chaput appeared to think that Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching that was a central document governing the Church after Vatican II which brought about the "post-Vatican II settlement."
As Schmitz said:"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick [and those whom Fr. Kunz attempted to expose] to flourish... we must sweep it away."
The media enablers of Weinstein and Francis as well as the "post-Vatican II settlement" Catholic conservative enablers of the homosexual bishops network in the Church appear to still be ensnared in this culture of lies.