PopeWatch: Because I Would Not Bend to the Marriage!




Rorate Caeli explains the attacks on George Cardinal Pell emanating from leakers at the Vatican:

Let no one be fooled: the current incessant notes and gossip about Cardinal Pell’s brilliant job in reorganizing the finances of the Holy See/Vatican City State are not really about money… They are about his brave and unbending defense of the very words spoken by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself on marriage, divorce, and adultery. Even the Italian journalists make fun of the sudden “reappearance” of Vatileaks, once again involving the Secretariat of State, and now directed not against Benedict XVI (not a threat anymore since his resignation), or Cardinal Burke, duly demoted, but Pell, who must be forced out.  As Sir Thomas More and Cardinal John Fisher, Pell is in the way and must go.

Cardinal Pell spoke out publicly against the manipulation of the Synod.  Go here to read about it.  Whenever the Church is in jeopardy champions arise, who put aside their human fears in order to defend the Gospel.  Cardinal Pell is such a champion, and that is why he is currently under attack.

More to explorer


  1. The question raised by HVIII’s divorce was dealt with in a rather curious way by the Council of Trent in its XXIV Session.

    Canon III – “If any one says, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema.”

    The Council Fathers studiously refrained from specifying from which of the Levitical degrees the Church can dispense, for there was no consensus. Canon III and Canon IV (“If any one says, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema”) were aimed at the Reformers, w ho held that the only prohibited degrees were those in Leviticus and that these were indispensible.

    In Chapter 5 of their Decree on the Reformation of Marriage they laid down that “As regards marriages to be contracted, either no dispensation at all shall be granted, or rarely, and then for a cause, and gratuitously. A dispensation shall never be granted in the second degree, except between great princes, and for a public cause” but that is disciplinary, not doctrinal.

  2. “Perhaps praying asking for the assistance of St. Nicholas would be appropriate here.”

    Agreed! I can think of several people I would love to see punched in the face by an orthodox Bishop or Cardinal at the Synod!

  3. MPS,

    Henry Tudor was duly married to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of the most noble Queen to ever rule in Europe. Henry Tudor was a lecherous, cruel, disgusting, vile human being, voracious in his appetites for food, sex and power. Only a soul overcome with arrogance would think himself the head of a new “Christian” church.

    Tudor was a thief. He stole land and buildings from Catholic religious orders. He evicted Catholic priests from their native country. Tudor was a murderer and a bigamist. I wish Charles V had raised an army and crushed his fat, stinking rear end for what Tudor did to Charles’ Aunt Catherine and Tudor’s own daughter, Mary. He deserved no less.

    Certain traditionalist Catholic hold that the only legitimate states have a Catholic monarch and are Catholic confessional states. They are nuts.

  4. Henry VIII made his bed, so to speak. Henry VIII died of syphilis. The male sperm needs to mature two weeks to be potent. Abstinence might have produced a legitimate male heir to the throne…or Henry VIII might have changed the law to admit Mary to inherit the throne before Elizabeth I…or Henry VIII might have had a miraculous child in his old age…had he loved God as much as he loved Sir Loin.

  5. Mary de Voe wrote, “Henry VIII might have changed the law to admit Mary to inherit the throne before Elizabeth I”

    Which is precisely what he did do. The Succession to the Crown Act 1533/4 (35 Hen. VIII c.1) allowed Henry to appoint the Crown by will. His will (1547) settled the succession on Edward VI and the heirs of his body, whom failing, to Mary &c, whom failing to Elizabeth.

    Without the Act, on Edward’s death without issue in 1553, the Crown would have descended to his nearest collateral kinsman of the whole blood in the paternal line. As both Mary and Elizabeth were of the half-blood, the Crown would have descended to the issue of Henry’s sister Mary by her husband Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, namely her daughter Frances. Frances resigned her rights in favour of her eldest daughter, by Henry Grey, Marquess of Dorset, Lady Jane Grey and, in fact, an attempt was made to place her on the throne after Edward’s death. After nine days, she was deposed and executed.

  6. I’m not sure how much merit this article has..


    Danny Casey was responsible for the success of WYD in Sydney when Pope Benedict graced our shores. A fantastic numbers man who did a fine job in the Archdiocese of Sydney for a good number of years, under Cardinal Pell’s leadership.

    When Pell was under attack during the Royal Commission for Child Sex Abuse, it was Danny Casey who fronted the media along-side Pell, devoutly.

    Mr Casey was reluctant to take up the position and leave his university-aged children back in Sydney, and move to Rome with his wife- (being very close to his adopted children), as well as leave a a lovely home and a close extended family.

    Like most job offers, the pull to stay in Sydney may have been too great and perhaps Cardinal Pell needed the financial incentive to persuade Mr Casey to agree to take the position.

    Being the Cardinals right-hand-man, I’m not sure Cardinal Pell would have taken the position in Rome, himself, without Danny Casey beside him. I could be wrong- but something tells me Mr Casey is too important in Cardinal Pell’s opinion.

    The situation, therefore, might be more complex than a mere smear campaign. Not that there is any doubt that there are forces within the Vatican who have it in for the good Cardinal. This, as well as the fact that he isn’t an Italian in charge of the Vatican bank. He is giving Italian organised crime a run for their money, so to speak.

    Lots of motives and reasons to this story.

  7. Ezabelle: “I could be wrong- but something tells me Mr Casey is too important in Cardinal Pell’s opinion.”
    In my opinion you are wrong, Ezabellle. If you have ever heard Cardinal Pell speak in interview and in debate with atheists, the good Cardinal is enlightened by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not hang around with people who do not want Him. This I know you know.

  8. http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pope-francis-pulls-in-george-pell-over-700k-office-set-up/story-e6frg6nf-1227242234165.
    Is it proper to omit “george cardinal pell’s” position or does this just expose the newspaper’s prejudice against the cardinal?
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: Thank you for the facts. Timing is very important. In my opinion, when Henry VIII’s excuse ran out (that he wanted an male heir to the throne) he had to do something to save face.

  9. Mary de Voe wrote, “when Henry VIII’s excuse ran out (that he wanted an male heir to the throne) he had to do something to save face.”

    Henry had not abandoned hope of further issue. He had married Catherine Parr in 1543 (she was 31) and, in his will, his issue by Catherine were placed after Edward and his issue and before Mary.

    The Succession Act was inspired by Parliament’s fear that Edward, a sickly boy, would die without issue, as in fact happened. There were still old people alive who remembered the Wars of the Roses, which had ended 58 years earlier and many more who had heard of them from their parents. The fear of a disputed succession was a real one.

  10. “Is it proper to omit “george cardinal pell’s” position or does this just expose the newspaper’s prejudice against the cardinal?”

    Well, it’s clear the newspaper is fishing for anything…but what I can’t shake off is the numbers (if it ends up that they are correct- which I hope is a fabrication).

    “last year spent half a million euros ($720,000) in six months setting up his new office…an under-sink storage unit that cost €4600… hired his “personal bursar’’, fellow Australian Danny Casey, on a tax-free monthly salary of €15,000…“He even rented an apartment for €2900 per month in Via dei Coronari and has paid for quality furnishings for the office and the residence.’’

    The bill, according to the ­report, included €33,000 for minor renovations, €7292 for ­“tapezzeria’’ (wallpaper or upholstery), and nearly €47,000 for furniture and wardrobes.”…,It says that in comparison, another Vatican office with five times more staff members spent €95,000 in the same period.

    The article claims that Cardinal Pell regularly flies business class and spent $US1103 ($1585) on a flight from Rome to London last year.

    “His travelling companion, the Australian priest Mark Withoos, paid only €274 for a seat on the same flight,’’ it says.”

    I guess the good Cardinal’s job is made more difficult if these figures are correct. It contradicts Pope Francis frugal ethos.

  11. Michael Paterson-Seymour” Well what was Henry VIII’s Purpose in killing St. Thomas More?
    Ezabelle: If one looks very carefully at the blog site you posted, one notices that George Cardinal Pell is referred to as george pell, not Cardinal. How can one reasonably trust such discrimination?

  12. Mary I think its unanimous here that the MSM is anti-Catholic.

    Not calling someone by their title does not refute the numbers.

  13. Mary de Voe asks, “Well what was Henry VIII’s Purpose in killing St. Thomas More?”
    That was under the First Succession Act 1534 (25 Hen 8 c 22). At that time, Henry had just married Anne Boleyn, from whom he was hoping for a male heir. The act excluded Mary and settled the Crown on the issue of Henry by Anne. The Act required all subjects, if required, to take an oath re3cognizing the act, as well as the king’s supremacy.
    Nine years later, in 1543, the situation was very different. Edward, the son of Henry and Jane Seymour had been born in 1537 and he was Henry’s undoubted heir, for Catherine of Aragon had died in 1536 and Anne Boleyn had been beheaded in the same year. However, he was a sickly child and the Third Succession Act of 1543/4 (35 Hen 8 c 1) was designed to secure the succession if he died without issue, as in fact happened. The Act empowered the king to appoint the Crown by letters patent or by will and Henry’s will of 1547 laid down the order of succession that was actually followed, Edward and the heirs of his body, whom failing, the issue of Henry and Catherine Parr (there were none), then Mary and on a failure of her issue, Elizabeth.
    In the event, Edward died in 1553 without issue; Mary succeeded and died without issue in 1558, and was succeeded by Elizabeth I.

  14. Only for killing a man can a man be put to death. A traitor may be put to death for treason during wartime and carrying blood guilt. Henry VIII was a murderer, whose posterity died of shame and embarrassment.
    Yes, and the woman taken in adultery had not killed any other person.

  15. Ezabelle: Two of my daughters are accountants. (They never let me get away with a $.05 discrepancy) . Money is fungible. Justice is predicated on intent.
    Did Cardinal Pell need a medical doctor to accompany him? Maybe, like myself, the good cardinal may have chemical sensitivity, a diagnosis for which I may not travel by any public conveyance, not bus, nor train, nor plane, and sitting in church with perfume or after shave or another’s wool coat can be hazardous to me, altogether. You and I do not know and MSM cannot be trusted.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: