MATTHEW'S RE-PHRASED VERSION:

UPDATE (14/04) At Adelante la Fe we have asked this prominent lawyer to make an assessment of the various information, from both sides, which tries to downplay this news. They would claim that it was something merely "administrative".

This is his response:

After the release of this news [accord between Argentina and the SSPX], several communiques have been released -- by both parties -- which obscure rather than clarify.

"I reread the relevant parts of the Code of Canon Law and am even more convinced that there is no way to consider the SSPX part of the Church in Argentina, nor in the world. It violates any legal logic. (??? I think he means the opposite, if you read on.)

"Those who claim that this action was a purely administrative move -- in order to allow the SSPX to freely exercise the apostolic life in Argentina -- have no basis for this claim, because for decades they have been in our country with a seminary, churches, schools and other property. They were in the country legally, and were able to attain the status of a non-profit civil association. So what is gained by this recent "administrative" move? They can now evade Income Tax? They can now receive wages and subsidies from the government?

"It would be pretty serious if the SSPX received benefits in Argentina as "Romans" even though they were not in communion with Rome.

"The procedure took about fifteen business days, which is incredible for any bureaucratic procedure. To achieve this, a very careful application would have had to be made, making sure to navigate the red tape perfectly and making sure to cross all your T's and dot all your I's. There would have needed to be an "angel" in authority watching over things from above to make sure everything sailed through so smoothly. Moreover, the record includes a "slash fifteen (/ 15)" which means that it started this year. So it is NOT merely a note from Poli accompanying a process which started in 2011, as stated by the Agency DICI.

"Was all this accomplished without the agreement of Rome and Ecône? Impossible."


ORIGINAL VERSION:

UPDATE
___________________________________________________________________

UPDATE (14/04) At Adelante la Fe we have asked that this prominent lawyer make an assessment of the various information, from both sides, which tries to downplay this news indicating that it is something merely "administrative". This is his response:

"After the news of the recognition of the SSPX by the Argentine State, communiques have been released from both parties, that obscure rather than clarify.

"I reread the relevant parts of the Code of Canon Law and am even more convinced that there is no way to consider the SSPX part of the Church in Argentina and not in the rest of the world. It violates any legal logic.

"Regarding a purely administrative process -in order to freely exercise the apostolic life-, it has no basis because for decades they have been in our country with a seminary, churches, schools and other property that could have well acquired a non-profit civil association. What is the administrative improvement? Evade Income Tax? To obtain wages and subsidies?

"There would be a very serious situation if they are not be in communion with Rome but receive benefits in Argentina as "Romans".

"The procedure took about fifteen business days, unfit for any bureaucratic procedure, unless a very tedious application was made, without missing anything and was negotiated in advance with the authority. The record is slash fifteen (/ 15) which shows that it started this year and is not merely a note from Poli accompanying a process from 2011, as stated by the Agency DICI.


"It is impossible that this was reached without the agreement of Rome and Ecône."

This is the biggest news in the Church/SSPX/Resistance since the consecration of Bishop Faure.

I encourage everyone to read the translation in the OP -- it's well worth the 10 minutes. This is BIG, folks.

The SSPX is feverishly attempting damage control, but reality isn't cooperating (as usual). Listen to this Argentinian lawyer, who knows Argentina and its law/system.

He knows what he's talking about.

So what is gained by this recent "administrative" move? They can now evade Income Tax?

Oh you betcha!  Just like they do here.  And not just income tax, property tax, sales tax.  They (and all other churches, including mega churches like the the Joel Osteen's, etc.) have an "Unconditional exemption" which is nothing more than a subsidy from the US Government paid for by the taxpayer.  

So whether we like it or not, whether we attend their chapels or not we (and every other American) financially supports the SSPX (and other churches) by our taxes.  

*end of rant*

* Note:  DICI seems to be on a roll as far as making false statements.  Just this month there seems to have accuмulated a list of falsehoods.  Some of these include:  

1) Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure do not "recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner".

Everyone who reads what the bishops say knows that this is false, but here DICI says don't worry they really don't, and if they do it isn't really so.  I have no yet spoken with a single soul that believes this false allegation of DICI.

2)  Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society for because of his "violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities".

For years we have been told that it was for disobedience, namely his unsanctioned visit to Brazil and refusing to shut down the Eleison comments.  Now we are told a different story.  "Oh what a terrible web we weave when first we manage to deceive."  With falsehood after falsehood, the errors cannot contain themselves and they are revealed, even if several years later.

3)  And now finally, DICI is telling us that this appeal was made in 2011 and the process has just finally finished, but a prominent Argentinian lawyer, not affiliated with the resistance, has now publicly stated that DICI has again responded with another falsehood.  The process was started and ended very rapidly with a date of this year and Menzingen and Rome would both had to have been involved.  

Regardless, if this is a small detail that doesn't show much or if it lends support to the evidence of a unilateral recognition (which I am not claiming it does), it does indeed show that DICI is providing false information, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and cannot be considered anymore a reputable source of information.

Maybe some would be interested to know that if you peruse the site and are able to find the section where it speaks about authors, this is an accordist site that is a friend site of Rorate Caeli.  I am refereing to the original source which appears on the display under the article title on the link.  This time it is the accordistas who are saying this.  Someone has pointed out that Rorate did not give a translation of this because it proves Menzingen is lying.

However, the authors of this site, Adelante la fe, are mostly all priests, some even from the Society of St. Peter and others.

This news from the lawyer is big because now we have an official accordista site of priests that are claiming that Menzingen is lying.

It is a first.

What will prove to be scary, to cause even a few John Vennaris to crap their pants, is this about receiving benefits for being Romans and not being in communion with the conciliat church.  Then also being a diocesan right.

Goodbye seminary La Reja.  

Nobody is seeing this for what it is yet.

No big deal they say, immigration law is all, they say.

Wait till this blows up in their faces.

There were a few characters who were virulently demanding that the Argentinian lawyer reveal his identity, that he (a prominent Argentinian lawyer) knew nothing about Argentinian law etc etc.

What would you expect right?

People are loonies.

Here was his response to a few of those comments...

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/the-controversy-of-fsspx-in-argentina.html



Note from Adelante la Fe: The author of the legal analysis about the legal approval of the SSPX, who remains anonymous besides belonging to the Argentine judiciary system, brings us this text in response to many of the questions and issues that his article had raised, as much as from commentators as from numerous media where it has been reproduced.





Cardinal Poli: the SSPX “... is a juridical person within the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law ..."

This was written and signed by Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli in the presentation in File 9028/2015 of the Registry of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of Argentina.

At the request of the director of the page to make an analysis of the recognition -made by the Resolution 25/15 of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Argentina- of the SSPX as a part of the Catholic Church, first I made a quick, brief comment which was placed with more detail, then a detailed analysis of a technical nature (if the term is suitable) and then another analysis, also quick, regarding the impact of the media- which the editor placed as a new update.

I confirm the content of what I wrote about in the legal analysis.  And also the speculations in the extensions, but they do not have anything to do with the technical analysis, rather they are derived from the interpretation of the facts.

It is worth clarifying that, beforehand, I did not harbor any dislike for the SSPX, which I believe will be in the great history of the Catholic Church for preserving the great treasure of Tradition.  The SSPX is not established in the place where I live, but I went to the church on calle Venezuela [street] in Buenos Aires, where I also acquired several books that cannot be found elsewhere.

Given the virulence of some comments I must clarify some points, knowing that the law, generally, is controversial and even the wording of clear and explicit legal rules are debated.

Is the Catholic religion the official religion of Argentina?

The National Constitution in art.2 speaks of the support of the religion. After the 1994 reform, the catholicity of the President is no longer a requirement, and neither is the requirement of the native Indians to Catholicism – a completely anachronistic law-. There is no express provision to declare as such, except for a theocratic state (eg. Iran); I do not think we can find states with an official religion, if we use that requirement. The official site of the Argentine government would support whoever objects to the character of the official religion of Catholicism.

For decades, Dr. Germán Bidart Campos, the country's most prestigious constitutionalist, maintained the theory that Catholicism was the official religion and even considered it set in stone (i.e. unchangeable for a new Constitutional Convention). Today it is undoubtedly controversial. I repeat: the Catholic Church has a unique legal status in the Civil Code and remains in the new reformed code at any time to be enforced, which earned criticism from progressives.  But the laws of the civil code are not only a demonstration of this, but also the salaries of the Bishops, of the controversial tax exemptions -income tax, the existence of chaplaincies (with salaries of priests) in federal and provincial police, the Argentine Army, the Argentine Navy, the Air force, Prefecture, the Gendarmerie, the Federal Penitentiary Service, public hospitals, etc., with the construction of chapels on their land and religious images in their offices.  There are also religious images in judicial offices and other administrative entities. The President swears by a Christian formula and to the Holy Gospels.  All other religions have absolute freedom to preach, but none of them have been granted any official recognition of their activity [as has been the case with the Catholic religion].

On national holidays the official authorities of the Nation and the Provinces attend the Te Deum in the respective cathedrals, the most significant of these being the one held in the Metropolitan.
The issue is controversial, but it is official, "informal" or privileged, the Catholic religion has an absolutely different status from the rest of the thousands of religions recognized in the Nation. Simply enter the website of the Ministry of Religious Affairs to check.  Yes there is absolute freedom of religion, and this is a fact that will be of much use.

Is Resolution 25/15 a simple administrative procedure?

Legally it is an act of Public Administration, but not a mere formality, since it is declaratory of an existing reality and not constitutive of a new reality.  If I create a banking company and would like to start operating as a bank, I should establish the juridical person, it would be authorized by the General Inspectorate of Justice and the Central Bank, and then it would just begin to exist, at the opening of the doors of my financial institution.

Resolution 25/15 recognizes a preexisting reality, based on the Concordat between Argentina and the Holy See, approved by Law 17.032, plus the rules cited in the resolution (Law 24483 and its regulatory decree). The International Treaty between Argentina and the Vatican over its regulatory laws are clear: Argentina only allows itself to recognize an existing juridical person within the Catholic Church.

Consider art.3 paragraph f of Regulatory Decree 491/1995 (cited as the basis of Resolution 25/2015). They may enroll in the REGISTER OF INSTITUTE OF CONSECRATED LIFE: f) Other juridical persons recognized as such by the competent ecclesiastical authority and by its likeness and analogy with the above are admitted in the Register by reasoned decision of the authority of the application (emphasis mine).

Our country asks for input from a series of docuмents authenticated by official bodies of the Church itself and the endorsement of the local bishop, in this case Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli, who flat out said in his presentation (transcribed in the fundamentals of Resolution 25/15) that said Society is accredited the character of a public, juristic person within the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law.

I reiterate: Archbishop Poli, successor of the Apostles and member of the College of Cardinals, said in his presentation to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, that the SSPX is a public, juridical person within the Church and in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law. Ergo, it has a regular canonical status as a public entity within the Church, and it is of a public character, -and not a mere association of faithful- which is consistent with the statement of the official website of the SSXP South America: “The Society of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 and its statutes were approved on November 1st of that year by Bishop Charriere, Bishop of Fribourg (Switzerland). Like any other congregation, the Society of St. Pius X was erected as a congregation of diocesan right. Its foundation does not date from 1988 and it is not linked to any suspicion of being illegality".
Consequently, the resolution of the Argentine State is not only important because of what it says, but because it proves indirectly that for Archbishop Poli the SSPX is a juridical person and in good standing in conformity with the rules of Canon Law, whose scope is universal.

Again I say that the resolution has canonical consequences, despite the communiqués that state the contrary, unless these things, against any Logic, can exist and not exist at the same time.

Was this recognition necessary for the operation of the SSPX, which it qualifies as a purely administrative procedure?

From the statements of the DICI agency linked to the SSPX, it is worth noting that in Argentina there is freedom of religion and that the operation of schools, hospitals, or any other work intended for the common good may well be conducted as a civil partnership.

At best in this regard, we have the example of the case of the Universidad Austral that is a civil association without a legal link with Opus Dei, nor the Catholic Church, despite several of its members expressly acknowledging that they belong to the Prelature. This civil association had no impediments to achieve important public and private grants, and sustains a premier University with a prestigious University Hospital.

A substantial difference -which the Resolution 25/15 expressly refers to- is the exemption from income tax, but ultimately a completely material and worldly type of question order which did not justify such a turnabout in the relationship between Church and SSPX. Can we assume that this administrative act had a merely material purpose? No way is this possible knowing the difficulties endured for years by the SSPX for being outside the Catholic Church. (note from translator: the SSPX was never outside the Church, remember that this article is translated from an Ecclesia Dei source)

Was it a routine administrative procedure?

Definitely not, but this is supposing that it was illegal. Yes it was an extremely rapid process, where in less than a month the case was initiated and approved, despite requiring extensive docuмentation, having to be certified and translated into the national language, besides the normal time evaluation of the administrative body to resolve accordingly.

If you enter the website of the Ministry of Religions it will be noted, by way of example, that the "Dominican Sisters of the Immaculate Conception" began the record in 2000 (no. 22277/00) and obtained a favorable resolution in 2005 (No. 1475/00, dated 06/27/05).  On the same date, the Redemptorist Missionary Sisters were enabled, whose record dated from the previous year (no. 25213/04).  In this regard, you can consult the Official Gazette where bothresolutions were published.

If you are interested in knowing the list of all the Institutes of Consecrated Life and administrative procedures, you can enter this website.  This list is also proof of the dissimilar treatment that is given to the Catholic Church.

By way of conclusion

The importance of this resolution is shown in that, officially, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires recognizes the SSXP as a juridical person under public law within the Catholic Church, with a regular canonical condition.

Furthermore, as happened many times in questions dealing with common law (mainly in sensitive and controversial issues), it is a matter of an important precedent (leading case) of great value, that in some way may go unnoticed in the Universal Church.

I know nothing of the scenes of the case.  Whoever wants to know more can enter Panorama International Catholic, a site that I highly regard.  Sure, I can speculate on serious grounds, from the analysis of the legal act, about the docuмentary records that are invoked, about the formalities of other Institutes of Consecrated Life and tight deadlines, that it is a matter of something previously agreed and arranged in its presentation, impossible without the consent of Rome and Ecône.


H. T. (Argentine Attorney)