L'Eglise Aristotelicienne Romaine The Roman and Aristotelic Church

[Adonnis]

Kalixtus,

First of all, no, the letter from the Cardinal Vice-Dean did not imply that you are inactive.

The Eminent Vice-Dean was following a direct order from the Pope so that (i) the Cardinals considered inactive could present their own reasons, since the Committee met based on objective information only, without considering, because it would be impossible, the nuance behind each inactivity, and also that (ii) the Cardinal-Bishops clarify to the Pope (not to me, nor to Pamelita, nor to the Committee or the Sacred College), but to the Pope himself why they have not yet complied with his instructions.

I myself will have to present the clarifications and justifications regarding my own Congregation.

So please, you can be angry, you can be furious, you can even want to get the blood of every Cardinal of the Church gushing out through your own fingernails. It is your right to want it. Whether you can do it is another story.

But don't insinuate that the Committee did something wrong, because what was done was in compliance with the order given by the Pontiff.

And, by the way, the work of the Committee also included the work of the Congregations and the fulfillment of the instructions given by the Pope on October 12, 1469. Let me see... ah yes, that happened because this was the Pope's direct order to the Committee.

You think that's not true? He is here. Ask him. Do you think the Committee's work was invasive and absurd? Present your dissatisfaction to the Pope. Hopefully, he will listen to you and ask the Committee for this work again. I bet that none of the three members of the Committee will be unhappy about having to repeat this work and stop hearing the endless attacks that the three of us have heard, only because we carried out our order, as a result of our vow of obedience that, if I remember correctly, each one of us here also swore. Not least because I foresee how easy it will be to form a new committee in the future, since each Cardinal is already aware of the work that the Pope may again request in the future.

The Committee brought what information it was able to access here in Rome. No questions, no interviews. A totally objective evaluation. It is up to you and you alone to show if there was a mistake, if there was not, or to present the information that the Committee may not have obtained. Likewise, it is up to every Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor, including myself, as it is up to every Cardinal deemed inactive.

If you can do this while containing your own bile and trying not to intimidate anyone here - which I have made clear is not going to happen - I thank you.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Adonnis]

In the meantime, I think it's important to make a clarification here:

The Committee was ordered to: (i) evaluate the activity of each Cardinal and (ii) assess what, within the instructions given by the Pope on October 12, 1469, was fulfilled or not fulfilled.

The Committee did not contact any Cardinals, did not conduct interviews, did not send letters, did not open meetings, did not offer juice and cookies; because in the same way that, when the Committee analyzes the activity of Emeritus Cardinals, it is based solely on the objective information that it obtains through the accesses that each of us, as Cardinals, has, we also base the evaluation of active Cardinals and the work on the Congregations solely by the same objective information.

The Committee was not designed to interview every Cardinal, but only to provide an analytical and purely objective report.

It is up to each Cardinal-Bishop to provide personal, subjective and proper clarifications about his own Congregations and to each Cardinal considered inactive to present the information pertinent to his lack of activity or semi-activity. This was the Pope's orders.

Then, in compliance with the orders of the Pope, each Cardinal who has been contacted, by order of the Pope, can present the clarifications he deems pertinent, as well as ask the Pope directly about what he deems pertinent.

I hope that with this clarification, we will avoid turning the fulfillment of the Pontiff's orders into a long and interminable epic.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Kalixtus]

There is no reason to take my justified criticism personally.

I do not believe that an objective impression can be formed by superficial observation. Just as a voyeur of birds can only make limited informed conclusions about their behavior and interactions.

I believe a well-founded analysis necessarily requires interview and investigation.

That is why it is indeed necessary to distinguish between the superficial measurement of the activity of the cardinal - what the activity committee is supposed to do in my estimation - and, on the other hand, the measurement of the work performance of the congregations.

The latter necessarily requires a profound analysis of content and depth. Anything else does not seem to make sense and is therefore useless for the general public.

In the case of the evaluation of Tymothe even simply his own made statements appeared in the report - ridiculous at this point to still speak of objectivism that is grotesque.

I am sorry if I give the impression that I am criticizing the work of the committee, I am also criticizing His Holiness' order to commission the committee with this superficial examination, which has NO added value. Moreover, neither the college nor the pope have been given or presented an evaluation analysis or a paradigm on the basis of which such an analysis, whether superficial or in-depth, will be seriously carried out. Due to this lack of basic conditions, not only the impression of arbitrariness is created, but also a lack of feedback, since the persons and congregations in question cannot even gauge at what point they can or must become more effective in order to be able to withstand the given evaluations and investigations. My words are therefore by no means to be ignored, since they are profound and correct in content. It does not help, if one means to transfigure my words as a personal attack or as an emotional outburst in order to dilute the intention. Either we go honestly with ourselves into the court thus also with this report or we omit it completely. No half measures!

In all due clarity, I expect in principle that if one has the audacity to judge me and my work, I should also be consulted about it or that my name should not be dragged in the mud as it has unfortunately happened in this report.

And since His Holiness wants to have all these things explained in the College, I have to assume that it is NOT a matter of giving testimony to the Pope, but of communicating this subject widely in the form of a public revelation in the College.

And indeed, Adonnis - the Pope can hear my criticism here, but just because I find clear words, one does not have to put them in the corner of poison and bile or speculatively and baselessly accuse me of intimidating any cardinals. This is not the case.

I speak here exclusively for myself and for my congregation and my co-workers who work their asses off every day so that the business runs and I defend these co-workers just as intensively as I defend my views and if I feel something like that, then this is, whether intended or not, a fact.

And by the way - i am not angry - please stop interpreting my feelings. Nobody knows my feelings cause i don't run around and spread them.

I also care very little about what specific tasks the committee did or did not have to perform - I judge the outcome of this investigation on the gradient of my own evaluation and handling of this report.

So far, I am not thrilled. And yes i have the right for my own opinion - thank you.

_________________

[Ulli]

I'm regularly present here, but I don't participate in every discussion, especially if it doesn't necessarily concern my area of ​​knowledge.

As far as the assessment is concerned, I find it cheeky, to say the least, to claim that I don't do anything beyond the normal. But that can only be said by brothers who do not know in which areas how much work is involved.

[Fenice]

I too think the method of evaluation is wrong and leaves too much room for arbitrary conclusions.
What one sees represents only a small part of the work of a cardinal or congregation, and to judge without an interview is incorrect.
This topic should be seriously discussed and considered very differently.
For the rest, I will make the requested report and add a few more personal remarks.
_________________

[Adonnis]

Kalixtus:

I'm so happy that you have decided to use a more urbane tone of voice. I know that when you want it, you get it.

I didn't take your criticism personally, I don't do that. On the contrary, I am always open to criticism and suggestions for my own work, and you yourself have made numerous suggestions to me.

On the other hand, I cannot see you arriving at the Sacred College, like Zeus stirring up a storm, accusing the Committee of having done work that was not requested, and simply saying nothing. Not even because to say nothing means to assent that this is true.

As I said, there were two orders given by the Pope: the activity of each active cardinal and the progress of the congregations regarding the instructions he gave previously.

As for the criterion of a cardinal's activity, Canon Law lays out specific rules:



Citation:

........ De Sanctae Sedis summa administratione Papal Bull « The Supreme Government of the Holy See ». Sixtus Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei, Ad perpetuam rei memoriam Book 5: The Higher Institutions of the Church (...) Part II: Charges and statutes within the Higher Institutions of the Church (...) Article 2.8: Cardinals who have been absent for more than one month, without warning of their absence, may be dismissed and, where appropriate, appointed Emeritus. e.g. : Absence means: - Not participating in the works of the Sacred College; - Not participating in the works of his Congregation for a Cardinal-Bishop; - Not participating in the works of his Consistory for a Cardinal-Priest or a Cardinal-Deacon; - The occasional presence without effective participation in the work under its jurisdiction; - Absence, disappearance, retirement or retrenchment In Gratebus. (...) Canoncial text on « The Supreme Government of the Holy See », Given in Rome, on the venerated grave of St. Titus, on the thirtieth day of January, the Wednesday, of the Year of Our Lord MCDLXVII, the first of Our Pontificate. Translation by H.E. Hull de Northshire.



These, as you well know, having been a member of the Committee countless other times, are the rules imposed on the Committee for the evaluation of the Cardinals' activity.

These rules, nor the internal rules of procedure of the Sacred College, include sending letters, personal interviews, or invitations to informal and warm meetings. They are impositive rules in which the Committee has two options for responses: "Participated" or "Did not participate".

As far as I can remember, these rules have never been questioned, nor have any changes been suggested, or changed.

So, unless the Sacred College creates paradigms and rules or the Pope himself does, the Committee has only one paradigm to use in its evaluation: The current Canon Law.

If Tymothe's words were wrong, it is up to you to explain to the Pope why. He is the one who wants to know the activity of the Cardinals, and when he asked the Committee to suggest what to do, the Committee had only one answer: "Let each one give his reasons.

Or else, we will have to consider the assumption that, up to now, every time the Committee has declared a Cardinal inactive, not only at this moment, but also in other formations of the Committee, where you yourself have been present, the Committee has done nothing more than a "bird' voyeur".

I am sure that you, intelligent and sagacious as you are, will be able to suggest an amendment to Canon Law or the formation of additional rules for the work of the Committee, such as sending letters and asking for questioning. But until the Pope or the Sacred College issue an official decision, the Committee cannot go beyond its remit.

You speak very calmly about "judging". I disagree, I see the committee's work as "analysis" and "information". That's all. The Committee is not a Court and, if I remember correctly, I never heard you say that you considered that your job, when you were a member of the Committee before, was to be a Judge and pass judgment.

So yes, I agree with you: to present criticisms and suggestions to the Pope is licit. It is also licit to present proposals on how to improve this work and, no different, it is also very licit to point out that the work of the Committee can be better accomplished through additional procedures that must be approved by the only two entities that have the competence to turn suggestions into rules: The Pope or the Sacred College.

What is not lawful is for you to thunder that the Committee did a job you were not assigned to do, or to blame the Committee for doing its job, either because you are angry with Tymothe or because the report was not 100% favorable to you. I myself have clarifications to give to the Pope and the Curia, from my own Congregation, since the Committee does not have access to details that only I can explain. I am not blaming anyone for this.

However, if you want to share the templates of the letters you sent to the cardinals when you were a member of the Committee, feel free.

And don't worry, at no point did I ask or question if you cared or if you didn't care about the work tasked to the Committee. That to me is irrelevant, and as far as I can remember, I never asked for your blessing or that of any other Cardinal to carry out a job I was tasked to do. Rest assured.

I look forward to your proposal to amend Canon Law or to implement additional rules. Your ideas are always very welcome.

To Ulli and to Fenice:

As I just said, Canon Law has a single list of quesitons to be considered to inform the Curia or the Pope whether a Cardinal is considered active or inactive:

- Not participating in the works of the Sacred College;
- Not participating in the works of his Congregation for a Cardinal-Bishop;
- Not participating in the works of his Consistory for a Cardinal-Priest or a Cardinal-Deacon;
- The occasional presence without effective participation in the work under its jurisdiction;
- Absence, disappearance, retirement or retrenchment In Gratebus.

There is no order in this rule for the Committee to conduct interviews and due diligence. If the Committee were to do this, it would be conducting inquiries that it has no attribution, power or competence to do.

Precisely because of this, the Pope's order, considering the Committee's suggestion, was: That each cardinal named as Inactive or each cardinal in charge of a congregation presents his own version to the Pope on the issues of a subjective nature that were not considered by the Committee, either because the Committee does not have access to other information, or because the Committee has an exhaustive and basic list of what it must consider in its report.

Likewise, I am sure that the Sacred College and the Pope will welcome proposals to change Canon Law or to implement additional rules with great enthusiasm.

For now, this short discussion will be separated from the original topic so as not to cause confusion and not to cause the Pope's questioning to be lost among so many other manifestations.



Code:

[size=7]Sorry for the translation. I used an automatic translator. A lot of text and little time.[/size]

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Kalixtus]

Your words may be wisely chosen Adonnis, and I have known you long enough to know that they are. Nevertheless, your words possess a crucial flaw in which I now place my fingers.

You speak of the Sacred College being the body that makes proposals for amending the CIC, and produces regulations and guidance. This is conditionally correct. The College merely approves these things. Proposals can be made by any member all by himself.

From a formal point of view, it is a bit too easy, not to say too bold, to delegate the responsibility of the Committee to find a workable approach to implement the Pope's demands to the Sacred College or to the individual Cardinal.

It would have been more productive if, in the course of the papal order, it had been determined that adequate paradigms did not exist or were inadequate, then the committee could have agreed on a workable proposal, which could then be presented to the Curia, which could then discuss and vote on it. Following this, the report would have increased significantly in quantity and quality.

This would have been the royal road, because in the end the committee has to work with it and not the individual cardinal. Otherwise we would not need this committee at all.

This didn't happen now. So what to do?

So I would like the members of the committee to come up with a proposal that is workable for them on how to make the assessment efficient, accurate and meaningful as well as useful for all involved, so that these superficial and unhelpful assessments go quite quickly in the hoard of oblivion. I have already given my keywords under the heading - Investigation and Interview. You said yourself that you would take a lot from my words, dear Adonnis, and that honors me, after all, I tend to say many clever things as well.

It may be nice that the individual cardinal can tell the Pope why and why something is the way it is, - but for that, there is no need for a committee to have such a discussion. For such a debate, the pope himself can also take an afternoon off and summon cardinals to his study for an extensive report.

Furthermore, I find it irritating that I have to explain errors of analysis or whatever Tymothe may have written in order to conceal his incompetence to the pope. I cannot interpret this other than as a cranky judgment that was formulated out of pure malice and baseness and, on top of that, does not reflect the actual aspect of the work in his congregation and is thus neither relevant nor useful.

Qualitatively, this ranks on the level of a tabloid notice in a shoddy puffer paper. I had hoped that with cardinals of higher quality, such as yourself, such blossoms would not grow up, as it would diminish your surely meaningful and strenuous work in its quality. It need not be so, and it should not be so.

I would like to see a committee that can work efficiently, profoundly, qualitatively and, above all, goal-oriented. This requires tools that are far more extensive than mere observation.

_________________

[Adonnis]

I will take your first assertion as a compliment. I hope it is. If, on the other hand, it's not... patience.

But you leave me confused. You say: "You speak of the Sacred College being the body that makes proposals for amending the CIC, and produces regulations and guidance. This is conditionally correct. The College merely approves these things. Proposals can be made by any member all by himself."

I did not say that the Sacred College PROPOSES. I said that you, Cardinal Kalixtus, a member of this Sacred College, can propose so that the Pope or the Sacred College can turn your proposal into a decision. See:



Adonnis a écrit:

I am sure that you, intelligent and sagacious as you are, will be able to suggest an amendment to Canon Law or the formation of additional rules for the work of the Committee, such as sending letters and asking for questioning. But until the Pope or the Sacred College issue an official decision, the Committee cannot go beyond its remit.





Adonnis a écrit:

So, unless the Sacred College creates paradigms and rules or the Pope himself does...





Adonnis a écrit:

...additional procedures that must be approved by the only two entities that have the competence to turn suggestions into rules: The Pope or the Sacred College.



Well... you say: "It would have been more productive if, in the course of the papal order, it had been determined that adequate paradigms did not exist or were inadequate, then the committee could have agreed on a workable proposal, which could then be presented to the Curia, which could then discuss and vote on it. Following this, the report would have increased significantly in quantity and quality."

But why didn't you make this suggestion? The Pope issued his order to the Committee on October 24, 1470, and the report was submitted on March 15, 1471. An interregnum of 142 days in which neither you nor anyone else offered any proposal for a paradigm to be followed, other than the paradigm that already exists - Canon Law - which for many years remained untouched and, as far as I know, without any proposal from anyone who thought it should be changed. You yourself, I repeat, as a member of the Committee, have used these paradigms countless times and there has never been any proposal for change.

But, okay. I just repeat what I said before: "I look forward to your proposal to amend Canon Law or to implement additional rules."

You say that the Committee has to come up with a workable proposal. But the irresignation did not come from the Committee. Shouldn't it be you or another Cardinal who believes that the methods should be improved, who should actually come up with a proposal? I can't propose changes to something that I don't understand how it needs to be changed.

As for your theory that "For such a debate, the pope himself can also take an afternoon off and summon cardinals to his study for an extensive report.". Yes, probably. But he wanted it another way. And again I say: He is here. You can say what, in his method and orders, you don't agree with. I am curious to hear.

Once again, you attribute Tymothe's words in the report as a way to attack you. Have you not noticed that this much mentioned text is among the comments that the Committee attributed to Tymothe himself as part of his activities? Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, absurd or coherent, this report he issued was part of the course of his work. The Committee merely mentioned it as part of his work.

You, in turn, not only can, but must clarify what you think should be clarified. The Pope's request was exactly this.

I will say it again: The Committee was given a order. The Committee used the parameters that Canon Law establishes (which I suppose have been the same for decades?).

Now everyone, including myself, must present, if they wish, their version and clarification.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Kalixtus]

I hear your words like the coiling of a snake from the jungle Adonnis.

But I am willing to once again hold up the weaknesses of your very mature speech.

1. the committee was charged with assessing activity something NEW was brought to the committee, which otherwise dealt only with the status of Emeritus Cardinals.

When something is new, it is necessary to check whether the new thing is workable with the instruments, as the mandate is supposed to be. This is obviously not the case. Quite a few cardinals are complaining about this issue, - a myriad have not even commented yet.

So, we have to take note of that. So we can see that the result of this committee is not convincing and in many cases shows extreme weaknesses in craftsmanship, which are due to the insufficient paradigm.

This was ignored by the committee, it was not addressed, and even now the committee is trying to get out of it by shifting the responsibility to the critics.

But here comes the news, - the critics are just as challenged in the entitlement as the criticized.

That you now want to offload the work of change onto the critics reveals to me two basic options.

1,. you feel the report is outstanding and expressive and fulfilled in the sense of your assignment. Therefore, any criticism is pointless.

2,. you may not feel the report is outstanding, but you don't want to change the paradigms either.

Both options are not constructive but destructive and therefore unsuitable for a future evaluation matrix and therefore to be rejected.

Accordingly, it is very nice that you show me my rights, I know them very well. I show you the rights that you have, but that you seem to use just as little.

I consider membership on a committee to be central to dealing with such things as assessment standards, changes to CIC, crafting and implementation, and the creation of necessary instruments.

To delegate these, in my view, central steps of the committee's work to the rest of the CIC is, in my view, improper and demonstrates a certain form of refusal to work that I find very absurd.

It would be a bit like leaving my decisions within my Congregation to the Sacred College, because the Sacred College can change the CIC by vote, and therefore my scope of work.

This does not happen in practice. So why dear Adonnis, are you now asking the SC to define the work and the instruments of the committee from the outside, instead of accepting the criticism and sitting down with your members of the committee, reflecting on it and bringing a workable proposal in the SC that covers the needs of the working methods of the committee, and the public criticism of the cardinals in the SC,.

Because access to the committee and its views has ONLY the committee - so for a qualitative analysis of the ways of working, the SC is not extensively enough in the picture and therefore cannot make a workable proposal at all. It must come from the Institute itself, analogous to changes to statutes or laws of congregations or other ecclesiastical institutions.

That's why it is necessary that you stop squirming like a snake and delegate the necessary work to the committee.

As for the legendary writing of Tymothe, it is precisely the central motive of denunciation that is unacceptable, and I am convinced His Holiness has been allowed to become extensively aware of it, since I am not at all tired of branding and singling out this bungling, since it is indeed a tremendous lack of level.

Oh, and why we have not voiced any criticism beforehand in the 142 days is probably because we by no means expected to be presented with a report in this way and at least I assumed that a useful proposal about an appropriate paradigm choice of an evaluation matrix or something similar would still be introduced here. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and therefore this criticism is also made in its comprehensiveness and clarity.

I would also try in your place not to label the pope as deaf or me as blind. I see that the Pope is sitting there in front on the throne listening to the debate, and I am sure he can hear me very well, because I am by no means a small, quiet little mouse Adonnis.

Moreover, I have already said very clearly what the problems were in this order, and this criticism has been heard by His Holiness, I don't have to lecture him about procedural errors that led to a bad report from his administration - the Actitivity Committee. This accountability is owed by the committee to the SC and His Holiness, but all I hear so far is prevarication and no constructiveness. This is an unfortunate spectacle.

So if I am to do the activities committee's job in addition to my very extensive one, I would have signed up for that job, right? But now you are asking me to do exactly that. Somehow I find that a little irritating, not to say childish.

So if the committee publishes denunciation unverified, as a part in an official report, then, unfortunately, these are simply errors that cannot be explained objectively or subjectively. These are serious falsifications of the report and put an unnecessary bloom.

Also slips like - "Gropius: The cardinal is one of the best people Rome has ever had."

Is that also covered by the CIC - I didn't even know the CIC had a rating code on how to be the best people of Rome, even best that has ever been here.

Want to know who was the best man of Rome - besides Christos, who lived and taught here for a while, it was probably Titus, - his tomb is not quite as small as you might think, - it just has the largest church in the world on it, and it happens to bear his name. St. Titus.

Such blossoms in a report make me sad. I know what such sentimentality is there for, but this is ALL far, far away from objectivity and professionalism.

So please, stop defending something that is simply indefensible and stop passing the buck to the SC. The SC and the Pope have charged the Activities Committee with a task. As a SC member, I expect that task to be done in the very best way and with the very best care and integrity.

If that is not possible for whatever reason, then I expect the committee to raise these issues HERE or with the Pope and not to then deliver this highly controversial, criticizable work that is in its substance - distorted and emotionally transfigured as well as only conditionally informative.

If the committee cannot do this, nor wants to, then the pope or the SC would have to think about dissolving the committee.

_________________

[Fenice]

I propose three reflections:
1. what is the purpose of a cardinal's activity? Is it to make oneself visible here so as to be judged active?
2. If I send a hundred missives in a week, and I do not think about filing them in my office, does that mean that I am inactive because these missives are not visible?
3. If I vote regularly in every Curia vote, but I choose not to raise my hand and say 'I voted', is it right that I am judged inactive?

These are very common situations. In all three cases, although I am regularly active, since I leave no obvious traces of my activity, I will be labelled as inactive with a reconnaissance based solely on what is found, without in-depth investigations and questions.
_________________

[pamelita]

When a Cardinal is elected, he bears both burdens and honours, it is obvious that honours are preferable to burdens, but he who receives this office also has a duty, before his colleagues, to be active in his work, whether visible or not.
If it has become necessary to set up a committee to judge the activities of those who sit in the Sacred College, it means that not everyone is doing their job properly. But those who are judged should not feel that they are on trial, rather they should take it as a spur to do their job even better (if possible).
I am the first to question myself and I do not take offence if I am criticised, but I try to improve my work.

_________________

[Kalixtus]

I don't even question that Pam - I lack the pradigm for judging appropriate and meaningful activity. The MC is not clear enough, I would like to see a clear push from the committee at this point as I wrote.

Then also a cardinal can find himself in this coordinate system, improve and the committee has an appropriate path of action.

We need the same and much more clearly for the Congregations.

_________________

[Adonnis]

Kalixtus, you have stopped debating ideas and using logic and have definitely decided to only work with demagoguery. I literally have no will, no time and no patience to debate with you, as your discourse has turned into purely demagogic words.

1. The Commission had the function of evaluating the Cardinals Emeritus.

2. The commission always used a single paradigm: the paradigm that exists in Canon Law now and that also existed long before the Pontificate of Sixtus. That same paradigm that was used by the Sacred College when deciding whether a Cardinal should be appointed as Cardinal Emeritus. I think I remember well that you made use of those same paradigms, showing complete agreement with them, when you asked the Sacred College to dismiss Attanasio as Chancellor of the CDF so that you could take over the command of the CDF. Do you remember?

If I remember correctly, at the time you said things like:


"today I have come to inform the Curia that the Chancellor of the CDF, His Eminence Attanasio Borgia, has been absent from the Congregation for more than a month and is no longer expressing himself on the essential and important decisions of the Congregation"

"We aren't talking about the way of leadership - we are talking about your mess of communication and of course about your absent for over one month without any information and till now - no regret and no way of showing the CDF respect and the curia - you are on a defence and just only for your own benefit. I can't accept this from a chancellor nor a cardinal - you are only interested in yourself and in less work."

"Activity must be supported and inactivity punished. Because inactivity is the scourge of our time and clerics must stand more than others in the ideals of the apostles, who have not been lost in inactivity and have disappeared from the scene for months and have simply not done their job."


At the time, these rules seemed appropriate for you. Today they don't seem to be.

3. You say that the "paradigms need to be improved," but you expect me to initiate this discussion. I start a debate when I think something should be debated. If you, you and only you understand that the Sacred College needs to debate a change in Canon Law to improve it, it is up to you and not me to present solutions. I cannot present solutions for what I do not understand that should change. So, for the last time: Do you have proposals for change? Open a debate.

The Committee has used the same paradigm for years. And within a considerable length of time between the Pope's order and the presentation of the report, you have not presented any proposals for paradigms of your own to consider. And I am willing to bet that you would see no need for any change, if the report presented the text "Cardinal Kalixtus is perfect", something you often see in yourself and try to impress upon the world, as being an improved version of Caligula or Narcissus.

Unfortunately, I and the other two members of the Committee are being criticized because we have fulfilled our vow of obedience and obeyed the Pope. It is easier to put us on stone crosses than to point out the criticisms to the Pope himself or to suggest changes. These changes that, by the way, I have been insisting for days that you propose, since you insist that things must change.

And please, "leave your congregation's decisions to the Sacred College"? Really? Before you used to debate with logic, but now you simply use demagoguery. We are not talking about an administrative decision of a Congregation, we are talking about the Canon Law of the Church and what, in your view, should be changed. I know that you don't really believe that you are going to convince anyone with this purely demagogic speech. So I really feel that the debate of ideas is over, because you don't really have any ideas to present.

So I am fully aware that the Committee has accomplished its mission. And unfortunately you are just demonstrating a bruised ego because you find it unacceptable that someone doesn't claim that Cardinal Kalixtus is as magnificent as a daffodil flower.

As for Christos, I am glad to see that you recognize the great importance that the Prophet had and still has. Not long ago, you tried to diminish the importance of the Second Prophet in your debate at the Legists Committee, didn't you?

So, for the ultimate time:

1. The Committee has a single working paradigm: The CIC.
2. The Committee received an order from the Pope.
3. The Committee carried out the Pope's order according to the only existing paradigm: the CIC.
4. If any Cardinal thinks that this work should have extended rules or that the Canon Law should be modified, he should follow the only two possible and foreseen ways to do it: propose a debate and wait for the vote to be favorable to him, or else appeal to the Pope himself to promote these changes.

As I have seen you have no more ideas to discuss and really try to use demagoguery to insist on your irresignation. If you don't decide to debate like an adult, without manipulation, I will have no way to continue debating with you.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Tymothé de Nivellus]

I am present. In general I warn you when I am going to be absent, mainly the Holy Father, but I warn you except for a problem inherent in my will and which I do not have the opportunity to share with you.

I don't answer everything for the simple reason that I've passed the stage where I no longer want any interaction with certain people. I saturate and I do my little business, I'm convinced that when he leaves, I'll come back more active... I'll then find the desire, the energy and the time to come here.

You must understand that this is no longer possible and for three years I have been calling for action to channel hate speech, slurs, insults and baseless accusations. You must understand that I am tired and that I am not watertight.

Kalixte the arrogant, maybe try to listen and read between the lines rather than constantly playing the victim, if I say that you did not want to collaborate it is that at the time it was the case . You never wanted to answer my request, on the one hand you tell me that I don't speak German well (which is true, I don't know this language) and that my text is incomprehensible and else you do not want to translate documents when it is within your competence. Yes, I wanted to explain what was hindering my mission at the time. Since the report and today there have been changes, not from you but from Ully who did a job that allowed me to move forward.

So what I wrote at the time is no longer relevant, it is obvious that the comments that can be made a year ago are perhaps no longer the same today. Since we work and move forward.

Maybe today I will write a different report and without naming names. But the responsibility for my inability to advance rested with one person. And there is a moment when we saturate and when we prefer to say things directly where we can say them to hope for an evolution. Evolution there has not been, quite the contrary...
_________________

Père Tymothé de Nivellus | Cardinal-Evêque de Saint Trufaldini à la Porte Latine | Camerlingue de Rome et Chancelier de la Chambre Apostolique | Archevêque SC d'Avignon et Archevêque d'Embrun
"La puissance de Dieu donne toute sa mesure dans la faiblesse"
Cabinet du Cardinal

[Kalixtus]

I see that you Cardinal de Sagres have decided to take my words personally. Your style of discussion is, unfortunately, extremely shameful, because it gets lost in speculation, the tearing apart of fragments and personal attacks on me.

Do you know what we call this in Germany? A hit dog barks.

In your case, you bark very, very loudly and do not bring any new insight. On the contrary, you obscure the truth and believe that attacking me personally will earn you the sympathy of the Pope or the SC. Be sure, old friend, it is not so.

Also, I have already made it clear several times that this is NOT about my evaluation. I don't care what a committee formulates to me personally, I am in daily contact with Sixtus, I don't need advocates or cardinals to tell me how to do my job. I have one person to do that, and that is the Pope himself.

Therefore, it lacks any logic that you think I am an egoist or even a narcissist, - which is a psychological disorder. Do you really want to claim that I am mentally ill, as my enemies like to propagate. Just like you seem to think I have dementia because you keep asking if I remember things. Do you really think your humble youth would give you any advantage in a discussion with me. Don't make a fool of yourself Cardinal. You succumb to me semantically and intellectually in terms of content because you attack me personally instead of making full-fledged arguments. Shameful.

Yes, I remember what I said about the deposition of Attanasio, - but you know, the question of deposition is not about activity alone. It was about internal and external balance.

I also have nothing against canon law. I have something against the procedure of the committee, how it comes to its investigation results, and unfortunately you Cardinal have completely misunderstood that, or you want to misunderstand it. You can take your choice, it remains unacceptable, unfortunately, either way. You also do not listen to me, you get lost in speculative interpretation of my words, that is ridiculous, and you start an analysis about my motivation, that is pointless. You know my motivation, - it is called: IMPROVEMENT.

Use this word for your next analysis about my state of mind.

I notice, you refuse to change the decision paradigm, of the activity committee, which is NEW in this function and is not at all compatible with old ways of acting, which has dealt with EMERITUS.

I note, you consider your failed behavior appropriate and believe to have served the Pope faithfully and imperiously, instead of advising him, the Pope and informing him that a sound analysis would be more useful than a superficial consideration.

Your blind obedience ensures that we have a bad report and a useless analysis and this debate.

Cause oh yes, I already have this debate, I don't even need to open it, we are in the middle of the hot forge of CHANGE,. You may dislike that Cardinal, but that's the way it is.

So don't come at me with blind obedience and equate this with fulfilling your oath. These things are as fundamentally different semantically and substantively as night and day.

Whether you want to discuss with me or not does not matter to me Cardinal, because the problem will not be solved by you crawling into your shell, insisting on your miserable point of view.

I don't want to change canon law, I want to have an action sheet on how the committee has to work and an evaluation matrix that is useful for evaluation.

You obviously don't want that, since you seem to be satisfied with blind loyalism, an absurd clericalism and a miserable superficial work, and you have reached your maximum of activity that you can or want to outweigh in this matter.

If this is how you see it, then, yes, indeed, I will probably have to take this step of work independently.

After all, Sister Fenice is in a position to cooperate constructively. Go quietly into your snail shell Dean Adonnis. Perhaps the shadow of enlightenment will catch you there.

Oh, and for the debate itself - I was in no way proposing to diminish the Second Prophet's position, but to place his work in a new theological context.

Your dogmatics are out of date, Cardinal. Possibly a more serious problem if you continue to spread fairy tales about me and my views or my work - I will not tolerate you engaging in the dirty work of defamation, feeding like washerwomen the world of rumors, speculation, half-knowledge and lies.

Do not make this mistake Dean. You can play these games with other cardinals, I am superior to that.


..................


Cardinal Tymothe on the one hand you criticize hate speech, attacks, insults, and in the next sentence you use them freely and unabashedly. Is it then that you criticize exclusively when others do it to you, and you want to absolve yourself to yourself.

This seems to be exactly the case, to say the least. I don't mind in principle if you insult me, it doesn't bother me because that seems to be your nature. What bothers me is that you actually believe that your own constraints and maxims do not apply to yourself. A serious positional error.

Almost as hard as admitting here now that you are thus using an outdated report as the basis for a current report, a current assessment. What baser reason can there be than to spread hatred, discord and half-truths.

The statements, as I have pointed out several times, are not true and reflect a half-truth, and you refuse to acknowledge it. That is your right Cardinal, but you should not assume that I will allow you to let this half-truth stand without comment. No, I will always oppose bullshit that dares to tumble from your lips.

Your inability to speak the German language is not my problem,
Your request for a private translation into German was not rejected, it was just not given a priority. Since the translation service pushes private translations to the back of the line. Dogma and CIC always have priority. Or would you think that your words would be more important than those of Dogma? I doubt it.
That's why it would have made more sense to consult one of the other 1700 Germans to correct you on your own pitiful attempts to write in German.

Instead of doing that, you preferred to style yourself as a victim of the villain Kalixtus, who unfortunately did not come down like a Good Fairy and fulfill Tymothe's wishes. I'm almost sorry.

But while you already recorded this fairy tale of the evil Kali and the translation service in your original report, you have the audacity to include this "outdated" bullshit in a new report and defend this crap as well.
Only to claim NOW that yes, it is an old report that would look completely different today, since Cardinal Ulli has the goodness to cooperate with you.

Correct and that is exactly what this new report should have said and nothing else. But it didn't. THAT is my criticism. It is nice that another cardinal recognizes that in this report, unfortunately for God, there are such blossoms that are problematic, wrong and deceitful.

_________________