Locker Bottles… – Prensa Latina

Louis is married*

“Napoleon Le Petit” Select Victor Hugo. The other nephew of the Great Disaster.

Austria and Prussia sought a border arrangement that would mutually guarantee their German and non-German territories. Austria was drawing closer to France and England, and Prussia was courting Emperor Alexander of Russia.

In Asia and Bessarabia the borders of Russia and the Ottoman Empire were drawn. The committee was meeting in Bucharest to reorganize the Danube principalities. Moldavia and Wallachia hesitated between union or secession. The main stakeholders, the Romanians, wanted union. France and England too, Russia was not opposed, and Turkey and Austria preferred the status quo. The French and British armies were withdrawing from the Crimean peninsula, and the Russians from the Ottoman lands in Asia.

In the United States, incumbent President Franklin Pierce lost the Democratic nomination to James Buchanan, who was finally elected president in the face of two opponents: John C. Fremont, Republican, and Millard Fillmore, from the American Party.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked a real civil war. The Republicans were the “progressives,” the anti-slavery. Democrats claimed that the issue of slavery would be resolved through “popular sovereignty”. As you know, the problem was solved by the Civil War (1861-1865).

In Asia, the Second Opium War (1856-1860), waged by the French and British against China with the support of the United States and Russia, began. The West sought to impose a free import of opium, which was banned by the Qing Dynasty. Queen Victoria spoiled her pirates and smugglers.

Meanwhile, Chile was shaken by the matter of the legendary treasury.

In January 1856, the Dean of the Metropolitan Cathedral excommunicated a priest, accusing him of destroying the sacristy alcove and drinking holy wine with his companions.

The unbelievers should know that the prohibition is intended to mean something normal or impure to worship God. Now, it is sacrilege to use something sacred to worship God for worldly purposes. As you know: the consecrated unleavened bread is the body of Christ thanks to the miracle of transubstantiation. Consecrated offerings are not included in vegetarian diets and should not be used to spread the sauce.

The deceived priest appealed to the Ecclesiastical Court or Cabildo, which ruled in his favour. Outraged, the dean appealed to a higher court in the city of La Serena, which overturned the ruling. The priests who make up the Cabildo, neither short nor lazy, decide to take the case to the civil courts competent in this matter, since in 1856 there was no separation between State and Church.

The Supreme Court of Justice agreed with the clergy, demanding the return of the treasury. The Archbishop of Santiago ignored the Supreme Court’s decision, committed a crime of contempt and exposed himself to arrest and even exile. All this for two bottles.

The question of the treasury put then-President Manuel Montt, who already hated the Church, in an uncomfortable position. As a guarantor of the rule of law, he could not object to the execution of the sentence. But his execution would create a favorable situation for his opponents. Worse still, the archbishop, as cunning as a fox, resorted to him as “protector of the Church,” a prerogative of nineteenth-century republican presidents.

In these cases, there was nothing left but to “resort to the method”: the chief, through his minister Antonio Varas, asked the members of the cabildo and sacrastan to withdraw their complaint against the brigadier general. They agreed to the presidential request and thus avoided the archbishop’s arrest.

After that, some conservatives moved away from the government of Manuel Montt and established with the liberals the fusion of liberal-conservatives that won the presidential elections of 1861, electing José Joaquín Pérez.

And so, for a few bottles of red, the Tory Republic is over.

She left the church with blood in her eyes. For the stated purpose of “illustrating history,” he published in the following year (1857) a book entitled A Supporter’s Appeal:

“Authorized Narrative of the Expulsion of a Priest from the Metropolitan Church of Santiago de Chile, and the Recourse to Force Raised by the Archdeacon and Doctor in the Same”

His 293-page text, which I retain in citation, begins as follows:

“When it was weighed upon Elmo a little more than five months ago. My Lord Archbishop of Santiago issued an order of the coming banishment and confiscation of property, when terror and fear gripped the souls of the inhabitants of this densely populated city, when the chief inhabitants and noble abbess gathered round the persecuted pastor to give him the right. Testimonies The most candid and cordial of sincere commitment and tender sympathy…”

The archbishop’s martyrdom, persecution, and ordeal did not last long: he probably did not even lose sleep. What is worth detouring are the reasons cited by the church for publishing the book:

“…history has the right to be clarified by the collection of data which can be used to provide a fair and informed statement of facts; The periodical press has been a long way from filling this topic. A large part of it has been systematically dominated by the whims of the worst lineages, and has persistently distorted and obscured the truth. Enemy of all reasoned argument and unable to support it, it only seems that falsehood or vice was the obligatory object of her habitual and excessive desires.

The story does not say whether El Mercurio sued the Metropolitan Church, but one appreciates the description that seems written yesterday to the press of the present day.

If one indicates the merits of the cause, it has nothing to do with the damage to the alcove of the treasury, nor even to the bottles of sacred wine, which the treasury (or rather his son according to the file) tore, but with respect to the rights of every individual, and especially the rights of a wage-worker.

It is true that the Sakarstani, on finding himself dismissed – unfairly in his eyes – rebuked the chief Sakarstan, a kind of ‘little master’ or foreman, calling him a ‘hypocritical and nasty Christian man’ among other small pious epithets. But the sacristan was right: it was not the chief sacristan who had the power to administer the ‘servants’, but the treasurer. However, the treasurer cannot and should not dispose of the “servants” without the consent of the cabildo. Hence the latter claimed:

“…the question boils down to whether the Treasurer and the Mayor of the Sacristan had a duposte (sic) and higher position to dismiss the servants at will, without the cabildo being able to get their hands on it no matter how insolent their decisions, but be a simple spectator of what they did. This is exactly what the mayor of Sacristan intends today, and what the treasurer conspires against…”

As we can see, by defending the treasury, the ecclesiastical court also intended to defend its prerogatives, a vestige of religious democracy before the Council of Nicaea (325) where the voice of the people was the voice of God.

To aid its questionable authority, the Metropolitan Church did not hesitate to turn to heavy artillery: the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

“The Holy Council of Trent in Chapter X on Reform Session 24 commands, when it comes to correcting customs, that they act in such manner as their wisdom suggests to bishops, and that their judgments not be suspended by any appeal or source…”

With this argument the Metropolitan Church attempted to get rid of civil jurisdiction, in a bold interpretation of Christ’s words:

“What is Caesar’s is Caesar’s, and what is God’s is God’s” (Matthew 21:22).

The final nature of the “bishops’ rulings”, which have nothing to do with any form of appeal, is not without interest. In the years of the Council of Trent, the so-called Middle Ages, if the Inquisition condemned you, they would boil you or hang you or burn you alive or dismember you in less time than it takes you to say a peep.

Therefore the Metropolitan Church, confident of her good right to do as she wills, through the pen of the archbishop abounds in tyranny:

“Indeed, it is inconceivable how it can be governed if it is necessary to remove a bad minister, to take over the powers, to set up operations, and lately to have the power itself appear as an adversary to defend each of its judgments before the courts… Such a sad state of affairs will not weaken the power of labour. Not only government, but it will also deprive authority of the respect it needs to do good.

One would think he is reading the head of the Chinese Communist Party, Augusto Pinochet (if he knows how to write), or any of our leading businessmen.

As it usually happens when I get excited about a story, you might be wondering why there is such a long connection between an event that took place exactly 167 years ago. And it so happens that I periodically receive a leaflet from a Christian organization called “Option for the Poor”.

These patriots stand up for a democratic Church, for the transparency of accounts of each diocese and the Vatican, for the defense of victims of pedophilia, and for a return to Christianity in which, it has been said, the people voted. It is the voice of God. We can measure their deviation when we read that, in his opinion, the Pope’s visit in 2018 “was a visit behind the backs of the sects and the poor.”

A slave – as you know – is not a believer. However, I believe that one should not put up with those who kneel, but those who kneel. By raising the question of the treasury, I only seek to show that we have not invented anything. Evil comes from far away.

A reading of the book of the Metropolitan Church to which I am referring explains many things, including the existence and continuation of the Labor Code in the Dictatorship, which is still in force. Its editor, William Thayer Arteaga, a Christian, must not have dreamed that the Democrats in the CDA-NLP, let alone below, would guard their ugliness so carefully.

It’s time for another locker to smash another alcove.

Servants volunteer to share sacred bottles of wine.

rmh/lc

*Chilean journalist based in France, professor, editor, engineer and information technology expert

(taken from selected companies)