Log in



Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

Thursday, June 30th, 2011 by

WHY DO FOOLS PREFER LIES?

 

contact: becworks@gmail.com

READthe yellow highlighted sections posted below this message.
FACT:  Truth is inconvenient.  It causes individuals to become uncomfortable with what they know.

COMMENT: Per a question to me last Saturday, I am rerunning two Interrogatories for those who need-to-know.  According to the research in legal and academic circles, the Zionists are Jesuits who are under the control of the Vatican/King of England/The Crown (i.e., Jesuit Rothchild bankers).  They created the modern state of Israel, through the communist/Jesuit controlled United Nations . ..for the PURPOSE of using the Jews as a shield for their activities, which is creating the New World Order.  They have always used the Jewish people as a shield . .. because the Jewish religion makes the Jew convenient.  The Protestant and Catholic memberships are totally ignorant of this fact and will always defend the Jews; thereby, providing security for the military wing of the Vatican, who is undermining every nation on earth. The Jesuit General has his office in the US Pentagon . . .  His name is Adolfo Nicholas Pachon…
Disclaimer: Verification is left to the Reader . . . take it or leave it . . . you have been given Truth.

Reporting.
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part One

OBJECTIVE:If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE:“The reason why [deception cannot be forced on an Individual] is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others – then only can deception succeed.  Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: the first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.” –1985, Invisible Contracts, by  George Mercier.

1.  Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?
ANSWER:There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

2.  What were the names,  founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623-New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624-New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled:  “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

3.  Who owned the colonies?
ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]

4.  Did each colony have its own form of government?
ANSWER:Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies.  In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor.  In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution.  [SOURCE: WBE]

5.  Did the colonies have laws?
ANSWER:The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government.  Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders.  The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade.  [SOURCE:  WBE]

 

6.  Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
ANSWER:No.  Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7.  What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations.  They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules.  All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours.  Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8.  Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’  As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”

“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees.  In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9.  Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
ANSWER: No.  The definition found in Burke onConciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race.  The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

 

10.  Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
ANSWER:No.  The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213.  The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO:  The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown.  The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]

“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope.  He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11.  Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER:The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise.  The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.

12.  What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?
ANSWER:The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available.  It remains in power to this day.  It states:

QUOTE:The King’s Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope–“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring,not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him;binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.  Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.” [END QUOTE]
End of Part 1

Part Two
OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

13.  Who were the members of the British Board of Trade?

ANSWER: The Board included agents of the King of England, members of the Privy Council (i.e., legislative bodies), and the Archbishop of Canterbury who represented the Church of England. [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

14.  Were Jews allowed on the Board of trade?
ANSWER: No.  The Board refused to allow either the Lombards or the Jewish moneylenders onto their Board.  They were segregated because their religious rules made them useful for the Board.  The following quote is an excellent explanation.
QUOTE:  The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller (1952)
By Emanuel Josephson

“Since commerce and money are the livelihoods of nations and their peoples, the control of money is the obvious key to the control of nations and the world. …Rome’s successor the Holy Roman Empire dissimulated its interest in money and its power.  This was in accord with its professed tenets of Nazarene, theistic Communism.

“Under ecclesiastic Canon Law, even profits in business transactions were decreed to be the cardinal sin and capital offense of ‘usury’ As late as the sixteenth century, one hundred businessmen were burned at the stake in Geneva, as a penalty under Church law, for making profits in their business transactions.  Title to all wealth , as well as to the person and lives of all the earth, are claimed by the Church, on the ground that their ownership is divinely vested in the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

“Thus theistic, Nazarene Communism, and the ‘modern’ religion that goes by the name of Communism and is supposedly atheist, both are basically supercapitalist and both mask their grab for money and wealth.

“Title to all wealth was vested in the Church and in its champion ‘knights,’ who at the same time assumed the role of so-called ‘protectors,’ much like the present day labor leaders of their vassals whom they mercilessly enslaved and looted.

“Both Churchmen and lay knights used the despised Jews for the conduct of their usurious financial operations, in order to avoid ‘sinning’ and the death penalty that it involved.  The Jews proved very useful and handy for that purpose. Their use was justified by their ‘CHRISTIAN’ masters in a manner that they were taught by their faith was incontrovertible.  Jews were damned and doomed by their faith and their failure to accept the divinity of Jesus and the perversion of His teachings by the Jewish merchant, Saul of Tarsus, alias St. Paul, opined the Churchmen; and therefore, it was ‘good work’ to hasten them to damnation.

“This they did by forcing their Jewish serfs to engage, as their pawns, in the ‘sin’ and ‘crime’ of ‘usury’ by which was meant the charging of interest as well as loan sharking and engaging in profitable commerce, for their Christian, ecclesiastical bosses.

“Often the Churchmen barred the Jews, by their orders and laws, from engaging in any other vocation than those to which the stigma of usury was attached, especially loan-sharking, as their agents.  This was a particular advantageous set up for the Churchmen.  For if the Jew was merciful and failed to extract from the victims everything that they possessed (i.e., the last drop of blood), he was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic.’

“On the other hand, if the Jew mercilessly followed orders of his priestly boss, was honest with his boss and amassed a fortune for him and for himself, there was nothing to bar his Christian master from exercising his cupidity and robbing his faithful loan-shark by charging him with the ‘sin’ of usury, confiscating the fortune he had made in his service, and with great hypocritic show of ‘piety,’ burn him at the stake—‘to ensure his salvation.’

“The victorious Lombard invaders of the Holy Roman Empire changed the financial situation in much the same manner as have the latter day Maffia extortioners and blackmailers.  Seizing control of the Church, they gave themselves ‘dispensation’ to disregard the Canon Law on usury.  They openly engaged in it from the very steps of the Vatican.

“Dispensation from the Canon on Usury was subsequently granted by the Vatican, in the 15th century, to the German Fuggers, the Rockefellers of that era.  Their profits from commerce, usury and the sale of papal dispensations, as agents of the Vatican, grew rapidly, as did their ‘payoff’ to the church.  They were heaped with Papal honors.  Both their grasping greed and merciless loan-sharking earned for them distrust and terror.  When one of their number was elevated to the rank of Cardinal, the Churchmen feared that the Fuggers would reach out and steal the Vatican itself.  They then decided that their Jewish pawn were more completely at their mercy, more amenable and safer.

“Trusteeship of the fortune of one of the wealthiest Christian rulers of Europe, whose confidence had been earned by honest and trustworthy dealings during the Napoleonic wars, is the source of the wealth and influence that the Rothechilds acquired in the first decades of the 19th century.

“Subsequently, after making a large loan to the hard pressed Vatican, that no Christian would consider making, they became the fiscal agents of the Vatican, received Papal decorations and preferments, and enforced the policies dictated by the Church.  It was largely in this sense that they were ‘international bankers.’  And the policies dictated by them were in effect the policies dictated by the Church.  They enforced those policies through their establishments in many lands.

“An amusing story is told of the earliest relations of the Rothschilds with the Vatican.  The Vatican found itself short of ready cash after almost half a century of war waged on it for the Jesuit Order by one of its unordained members, Adam Weishaupt, to avenge its abolition, in 1773, as ‘immoral and a menace to the Church and the Faith’ by short lived Pope Clement XIV in his Papal breve Dominus Ac Redemptor.

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; by the revolt against the Church led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having napoleon throw Pope Pius Vii in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order.  This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona. . .

“The Rothschilds sought to extend their financial and political dominion to the United States, for themselves primarily to serve their Vatican masters.  The Vatican’s interest in the U.S. Republic was clearly revealed in the Treaty of Verona, in which the Jesuit Order pledged itself, as the price of reestablishment, to destroy ‘the works of Satan’ that it had accomplished in setting up, by revolts, representative governments such as republics and so called ‘democracies.’

“Senator Robert Owen pointed out, in the Senate, that the prime target to which the Vatican and the ‘Holy Alliance’ directed the subversive and destructive activities of the Society of Jesus is the United States, [See Congressional Record, April 25, 1916], as well as other republics in the Western Hemisphere.  This plot, he related, was the target at which the Monroe Doctrine was directed.

“The Rothschild-Vatican cabal unsuccessfully attempted to gain control over the power of the purse in the U.S. through the First and Second Bank of the United States.  They were established under the emergency powers granted the President by the Constitution, as temporary institutions to tide the country through the periods of financial stress occasioned by the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars.” [END QUOTE]

15.  Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?
ANSWER:Yes.

QUOTE: “Encyclopedia of American History – “in 1697 the British Board of Trade, under the Navigation Act, established vice-admiralty courts in all the colonies.  These courts had jurisdiction over Trade, ordinary maritime cases as well as prize.  It even granted jurisdiction by the Act of 1722 over infringements concerning timber.  These Admiralty courts, set up under the Townshend Acts, centered final control in America.” [Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 4]

16.  What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?
ANSWER: Admiralty and maritime.

QUOTE:“Admiralty, by Benedict, 1850:
“Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”

“Section 105–The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant–The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law.  The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several states , the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

“Section 123 – The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it.”

17.  What is the legal meaning of the word:  “federal”?

ANSWER:The word “federal” simply put means “contract.” 
QUOTES:From The American College Dictionary, 1947:
 “Federal – 1.  Of or pertaining to a compact or a league, esp. a league between nations or states.”
“Compact–an agreement between parties; a covenant; a contract.”

NOTE:The more modern dictionaries are missing the original definitions as the university professors began to reshape society by gradually changing the definitions of words our students learn and use.

18.  Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTEfrom Section 065, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word ‘covenant’ is an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger contract. . .”

19.  Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?

ANSWER:Yes.
QUOTEfrom Section 387, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING’S COMMERCE of the High Seas . .. But as for that slice of Commerce going out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment.  At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.”

20.  Do Admiralty courts still exist today?
ANSWER:Yes, it is the United States Federal Court system.
QUOTE:
“This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument into a contract [i.e., federal] court of the Law-Merchant in their civil law.  As Benedict states at Section 5,” . .. The civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.”  All maritime revenue cases, whether State or United States, deals in contract. …
[Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 5.]

QUOTEfrom Section 049,  “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier.
“In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not Judicially as an Article III Court acting like neutral and disinterested referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal.  In Northern Pipeline vs Marathon Pipe Line ]458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.].  Participating in that closed private domain of King’s [government] Commerce is very much accepting and benefitting from a privilege created by Congress.

QUOTE:
“A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.”
American Ins. Co. V Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).

QUOTE: “We don’t use the word constitution in this court,” said the Aiken Federal Judge during a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act violation in the City of Aiken.  This author was the Plaintiff, and was awarded damages for the failure of the city to give information per the FOIA, but no discussion about the constitutional merits of the case were allowed to be discussed..

21.  The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . .. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.  So, why is there also paper money if it is not constitutional?

ANSWER: It all began in 1751 with the English Parliament.
QUOTEfrom  Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 7:
“In March of 1751, the British Board of Trade presented Parliament with a Restraining Act, which barred the Colonies, by law, from issuing paper money and letters of Credit. This gave the King’s orders the validity of formal law.  The Colonies didn’t buy it, for it destroyed their control of the trade.  You see, there was no gold or silver being mined in America.  They had to rely on gold and silver from other countries.  England had most of the gold.

“On July 10, 1754, the Confederacy was born because of this, so they could issue paper money, only on their joint order.  Ben Franklin had long advocated this.

“In March of 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King of Governor.  The Board of Trade tried another ploy and said that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value, and therefore, should be used by the Colonies.  Because of ‘them’ issuing ‘paper money’ it ‘ruins the Colonies,’ so said the Tories.

“Now get this people, Franklin replied to the contrary saying that paper money served as a medium of exchange and credit had made possible the growth of the Colonies and their trade.  He told the Board of Trade that the Tories argued that the paper money issued by the colonies was a dilution of their control of wealth.

“This explains why the federal government is denied the power to issue currency other than coin or to set up or charter banks.  But they do it under ‘emergency power.’  This is why the present day private Federal Reserve System, counterpart of the British Board of Trade, runs this country today.

“Now you know why the Crown initiated the coin only clause in the Constitution, so the private bankers could control the paper credit.  Paper is NOT money.”

QUOTEfrom Section 390, “Invisible Contracts,’ by George Mercier:
“However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: the beneficial use and reticulation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King [government] an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.”

End of Part 2.  To be continued …

Disclaimer:These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

+++++++++++
ADDENDUM – Adolpho Nicholas Pachon

http://www.jesuitswisprov.org/news.php?content=news&view=52

Fr. Adolfo Nicholas chosen Jesuit Leader

 

Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, SJ is the new world-wide leader of the Society of Jesus succeeding Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, 79, who had asked to resign because of his age.

Fr. Nicolas was elected Superior General Jan. 19 at General Congregation 35, which has gathered Jesuits from around the globe to elect a new superior and discern and discuss the work and procedures of the Society in the future. Spanish-born Fr. Nicolas, 71, was the moderator of the Jesuit Conference of East Asia and Oceania. He was ordained to the priesthood in Tokyo and is the former Jesuit provincial of Japan. He also had served as director of the East Asian Pastoral Institute in Manila.

"About the future there is little I can say," Fr. Nicolas said in his first meeting with the media. "The reason is simple: I have just begun. When in the Congregation meeting they speak of Father General, I always think they mean Fr. Kolvenbach; I do not yet realize that it is me. My current attitude is to listen, listen and obey. As you know, the General Congregation has authority over Fr. General. During the General Congregation I am subject to the Congregation. If the Congregation tells me what needs to be done, what direction to take in the future, I should obey, that is my mission. Therefore what is important to me now is to know what the General Congregation wishes; as well as how to respond to the challenges that the Holy Father has sent us, about which we are reflecting very seriously, so as to give a response that can help the Church, not ourselves. I hope to meet with the Holy Father soon whenever he calls me to have an initial meeting. After all this, when the Congregation Fathers have gone, I will begin to work, to see how to respond and make all of this into reality."

 

The election by the 217 Jesuits came after four days of prayer, silence and quiet one-on-one conversations among the voting delegates, who were chosen to represent the more than 19,000 Jesuits around the world.

Fr. Thomas H. Smolich, SJ president of the Jesuit Conference of the United States, told Catholic News Service that Fr. Nicolas "is a great man. He is inspirational, he is holy and he represents a great bridge among the various cultures in the church."

The resignation of Fr. Kolvenbach and the election of Fr. Nicolas was just the beginning of the General Congregation's work; as it will focus on questions of Jesuit identity and governance, vocations, mission and collaboration with the laity.

Born April 29, 1936, in Palencia, Spain, Father Nicolas entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1953. After earning a degree in philosophy in Spain, he was sent to Japan to study theology. He was ordained a priest in Tokyo in 1967. After earning a master's degree in theology from the Jesuit-run Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he returned to Japan and taught systematic theology at Sophia University in Tokyo.

In 1978-84 he was director of the East Asian Pastoral Institute in Manila. In 1991-1993 he was rector of the program for Jesuit scholastics in Japan, and in 1993 he was appointed provincial for Japan. Before being named moderator of the Jesuit Conference of East Asia and Oceania in 2004, he spent three years working in a poor immigrant parish in Tokyo, living with and ministering to Filipino and other Asian immigrants.

Father Nicolas speaks Spanish, Japanese, English, French and Italian.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

NOW YOU KNOW WHY I NAMED THIS SITE A NATION BEGUILED

 

 

Comments are closed.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor