Should “Robin Hood” Cardinal Face Jail For His Criminal Activity?editor
Below, extracts from a report on the Rorate Caeli blog
On May 12th, Cardinal Konrad Krajevski, Pope Francis’s Almoner, reactivated the electricity in an illegally occupied building on Via Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, in the centre of Rome. In order to do this, he had to break the seals put there by the Public Electricity Corporation (ACEA) which had disconnected the electricity because of the occupants’ unpaid bills (more than 300.00 Euros) over the last five years, .
The responsibility of this non-payment, along with the illegal occupation of the building, belongs to the Action-Diritti in movimento association, a social centre, headed by an extreme-leftwing militant, Andrea Alzetta, known as “Tarzan”, repeatedly denounced for trespassing, building devastation and resisting a public official. Pope Bergoglio’s representative, committed an act graver than we might imagine. In Italy, Article 349 of the Penal Code, punishes whoever violates seals affixed by the authorities with a 6-month to 3-year prison sentence. Furthermore, the connection being illegal, the action of the Papal Almoner consists in the crime of stealing electric energy.
Cardinal Krajevski, then, has transgressed the law and boasts of it publically, declaring, in a challenging tone, that he is ready to take responsibility for it. But apart from the penal aspect, we find ourselves faced with the canonization of the idea whereby it is licit to violate the rule of law in one’s own interests or in that of social groups. In short, it is the idea of “proletariat expropriation”, practiced by the Tupamaros, the Red Brigade and the No-Global.
The certainty of the law and respect of it are the only barriers that protect civil society from anarchy and violence. But what Cardinal Krajevski (hailed by La Repubblica as a new Robin Hood) the former-Mayor of Riace, Mimmo Lucano (welcomed like a star at the La Sapienza University), or the leader of the “disobedients” Luca Casarini (recently under investigation for favoring illegal immigration) have in common, is disdain for State laws, in the name of a political ethic which has little or nothing to with the Christian ethic.
On Saturday May 18th the ninth edition of the March for Life will take place in Rome to renew the protest against law 194 of May 22nd 1978, which has claimed six million victims in forty years. This law negates a commandment of the Divine Law, which forbids killing the innocent. The response of the abortionists is that 194 is a law of the State, and as such, should be fully respected. If to save a baby from abortion even the slightest illegality is committed, there would be no justification whatsoever for the offender. For militant pro-lifers it is even forbidden to try to desist women from abortion, as is happening in Canada, where Mary Wagner has totaled five years of imprisonment simply because she tried to bring red roses, information and prayers into the abortion clinics.
To justify the illegal act of the Pope’s Almoner, Art. 54 of the Penal Code was invoked whereby “those who have committed an act having been constricted out of necessity to save themselves or others from actual danger of grave harm to the themselves or others are not punishable.”
No cardinal or bishop however, calls for disobedience against Law 194, which enforces State murder. Yet taking the life of innocent human beings is very much graver than disconnecting the electricity for a week to the residents of an illegally occupied building.
Yes, this cardinal should definitely face jail for his criminal acts.
Incredible as it is, priests and members of the hierarchy express disapproval of pro-life activity, such as showing graphic images of murdered babies, and all because murdering babies is legal in the eyes of the state, although a “sin crying to heaven for vengeance” in the eyes of God.
So, I’m not at all impressed with this “Robin Hood” cardinal and I think, yes, he should definitely be charged and face the consequences – which, personally, I hope would be the maximum jail sentence for that crime.
It’s interesting right enough that cardinals like him have not been seen at any pro-life event, let alone would he break the law to defend the unborn born, but he will give his support to people illegally occupying a building – obviously they are a politically correct group, so that makes it OK for them and a cardinal to break the law. It’s a scandal.
Perhaps the spelling of the Cardinal’s moniker should be changed a bit, to “Robbin’ Hood.”
Lawless in the Church, lawless in society. Just more anarchy from the New World Order and its useful idiots in the hierarchy. Yes, he should be in jail, along with the left-wing squatters inhabiting the building.
“Robbin Hood” – Love it! LOL!
Without a shadow of a doubt, this man should be in jail.
RCA Victor is right on the button – “lawless in the Church, lawless in society”. This is what it’s come to, not enough that we have clergy being imprisoned for abusing children, but now they are vandalising property and stealing from the taxpayer as well.
He looks smug in the photo so it would be good to wipe the smugness off his face and I think an arrest warrant just might do the trick.
I wouldn’t only lock him up, I’d throw the key away.
Agreed! Except maybe hide the key where nobody can find it, LOL!
Me, too, LOL!
This is beyond a joke. This “Cardinal” should indeed be prosecuted with the full force of the law.
No, I don’t believe in robbing anyone, whether they be rich or poor. The Commandment states, “Thou shalt not steal”.
Neither do I approve of occupying private property illegally. This is also a form of theft.
I’m all for helping the poor, but there are legitimate ways to help the poor. The Cardinal could have lobbied on their behalf, found them accomodation at a refuge centre, provided food, blankets etc.
Sir we all know on here that The Catholics do more for the poor of the World than any other organisation outside of the UN who seem to want to impose Abortion Laws and Homosexual Laws plus Global Warming Etc before they part with the cash . As for [Pope Francis] and his Merry Men it seems we as actual Catholics who want the Catholic Faith to be correctly taught are not in the Merry Men’s curriculum. Am sure it’s actually only a Matter of time before ( Just Call Me Jorge) tries to have Che Guevara made a Saint along with Fidel Castro. As for my comments [Pope Francis] long ago for me ceased to be Pope . We now know for sure that Pope Benedict was forcefully removed from office and although he so called resigned as Pope he has stayed in in the Vatican.
We all remember his talking about asking for our Prayers that he not be devoured by the Wolves. Also when asked why he still Dresses as Pope he said that he could not find a Black Cassock in Rome to fit him . I do not believe in The Empty Chair and as far as am concerned Theologically Benedict still occupies it .
I don’t know from where you’re getting your information, but it’s wacky to say the least.
Pope Francis may have “ceased to be Pope for you” but that doesn’t mean he’s not pope. Just means you’ve lost your moorings. Before you know it, you’ll be self-identifying (!) as a Lutheran.
As for “couldn’t find a black cassock to fit Pope Benedict” – baloney. I’m sure the one he wore as Cardinal Ratzinger would still fit.
Nobody “forced” Pope Benedict out of office. That’s nonsense. At least not overtly. He just refused to stick it out when the heat got too hot, if you get my drift.
Now, FOOF, you must know by now that our House Rules state clearly that there is no debating the daft sedevacantist theory here. If you want to take that position, I urge you to find another forum. Here we refer to “Pope Francis” and “Pope Benedict”, as we refer to “Pope Pius XII” and “Pope Leo XIII”. No difference, except the last two are deceased and the first one, will, hopefully, answer God’s call to eternity in the not too far distant future. As for Benedict, I’m entirely indifferent. Those who think he made and would make again, a better pope than Francis, just prove that they haven’t got a clue. Benedict was terrible. Really terrible. And said some stuff every bit as shocking as Francis – but folks forget that. One day, as I say, he will answer God’s call to him to enter eternity. Until then, he is Pope Francis. Dreadful pope, but pope just the same.
In conclusion, then, FOOF, be assured, I’m not just being difficult…
I think a lot of people forget that Pope Benedict was a terrible pope.
Spot on. They have totally forgotten his shocking book length interviews (four in all, I think) with Peter Seewald in which he is quoted as saying some outrageous things. For example, asked about the consecration of Russia, he apparently told Peter Seewald that, as an intellectual, he thought the idea of a short prayer of consecration “too simple” – that is, his (imaginary) great intellect is far superior to Our Lady’s.
Then there was his opinion that the use of condoms could be allowed or justified … for prostitutes! God help us all.
And let’s not forget the warning he gave at the start of his book on Jesus – that he (the Pope!) might have gotten things wrong… about Christ!
I mean, honestly, the idea that anyone with half a brain would insist that, because Francis is so bad, Benedict is still pope – as if that would be an improvement – is risible.
I agree absolutely this cardinal should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
So, nobody here approves of “robbing the rich to help the poor”?
All the cardinal did was switch the electricity back on – it surely isn’t the end of the world, and maybe saved lives, for all we know.
Surely the authorities should have evicted them instead of leaving them without the means to heat and cook?
I agree with Petrus on this. It cannot be right for any of us to steal but for a cardinal to do so very publicly, is a clear scandal. You say about eviction but I’m quite sure the authorities will have tried to do just that. These are brass necks who are living illegally in a building and expecting someone else to pay their bills.
When Jesus was asked about giving to Caesar, i.e. the government – and an interloper, oppressive government it was – he didn’t say “go and fight them”, but he said to give them legitimately was is theirs to claim. It is definitely not right for political activists to take over property that doesn’t belong to them and live there without paying. For a cardinal to then support them, is a real scandal.
Maid Marion calling…
I’m surprised at thee, Friar Tuck! Petrus and Michaela are right to take thee to task.
The Cardinal should be put before the courts, as any of us would be, for such illegal activity.
Goodness, Cardinal Pell is doing 6 years for, more likely than not, doing nothing of the kind of which he has been convicted. This character is boasting about his illegal activity. Yes, lock him up and throw away the key – whatever, don’t put it in the nearest plant pot – that’s too obvious 😀
Cardinal Pell as you have said Ed has done nothing wrong. He was convicted in a Witchhunt which Even Our so called Pontiffs wouldn’t give him support. I know not if Pope Benedict tried to Help Cardinal Pell . What I most certainly do know is that Pope Francis didn’t.
Next time you write “Jorge Bergoglio” I promise I won’t go in and change it to “Pope Francis”. I’ll simply delete your entire comment because I’ve no more time to devote to this nonsense.
Try going on to another blog and ignoring the House Rules and the countless reminders from the administrator/editor. You’d have been blacklisted long ago. I’m out of patience. Have the good grace to comply with our basic House Rules. If you don’t want a pope, go and find a Protestant or sede site in which to express your views. Such views are NOT welcome here.
I think that you have missed a ‘0’ somewhere. The sum owed is by all accounts closer to three hundred thousand Euros than to three hundred, corresponding to close on two hundred and sixty three thousand pounds at today’s prices.
I think that through this post you have highlighted the hypocrisy of many of the clergy who are intent on a wholly social apostolate which happily forgets the world to come and how to get there, and is wholly selective about what it is and is not willing to fight for. Abortion is a case in point. Give electricity to the poor and you will be applauded by the mainstream mass media, especially when the government of the hour is deemed by the bien pensants of the hour to be ‘populist’ or ‘of the right’, and therefore beyond the pale. Question the morality of abortion and you will be, at the very least, deemed to be ‘medieval’, for so the BBC, in all its state-funded omniscience, has decreed. (I for one would prefer to be deemed medieval than to go around with a brillo pad attached to my skull because I cannot face up to being bald, but that is quite another matter.) I wonder if the same bien pensants would consider the good Cardinal in the quite the same light if they owned property in the vicinity of a similar squat. Somehow, me thinks not.
Activism in the clergy is very often a sign of vocational restlessness, although I suspect that in this it is basically grandstanding for which, if so, he has already received his reward. I am informed by sources in Rome that the Cardinal in question has not got very much going on upstairs, as it were. Poor thing! He is to be mightily pitied. But I do wonder who put him up to it.
I’ve just checked the Rorate Caeli report, from where I copied the above extracts, and they have missed out that very important “o” as you suggest. So, thank you for that alert.
As for the rest of your comment – spot on. The focus of the clergy today (or most of them, it appears) on “a wholly social apostolate which happily forgets the world to come” perfectly sums up the situation. Sadly.
Here’s an update on Robbin’ Hood: https://gloria.tv/article/f3j6vX9TCPkA1F2sGTrvNKfGV
Thanks for that update. Brilliant!