The Vatican News portal reports on July 31, 2026, that the “Archbishop” of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, responded to the Australian Labor Party’s vote to remove federal barriers for “telehealth” euthanasia consultations — effectively enabling “teledeath” — by urging the conciliar church to offer “positive alternatives” like palliative care and to lobby for “opt-out” protections for its healthcare institutions. The article details the rapid nationwide legalization of Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) since 2017, noting over 7,000 deaths, and frames the hierarchy’s reaction as a pragmatic defense of “human dignity” within the secular legislative framework. This capitulation exposes the complete abandonment of the Social Kingship of Christ by the conciliar hierarchy, which reduces the Church’s divine mission to an NGO lobbying for conscience clauses in a Masonic state that claims the right to kill the innocent.
The Naturalistic Language of Surrender: “Teledeath” and “Positive Alternatives”
The cited article reveals the thoroughly naturalistic vocabulary of the conciliar “clergy.” “Archbishop” Fisher adopts the secular category “telehealth,” merely branding it “teledeath” as a rhetorical flourish, yet he operates entirely within the enemy’s paradigm. He speaks of “offer[ing] people positive alternatives,” “palliative care,” “lobbying for having the right to opt out,” and “conscience vote.” This is the language of a special interest group negotiating terms of surrender with a totalitarian regime, not the voice of the Ecclesia Militans proclaiming the Regnum Christi.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, thundered: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed, because the main reason why some have the right to command and others have the duty to obey was removed.” Fisher does not declare the Australian Parliament’s laws “null and void” because they are “absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church” (Pius IX, Allocution Multis gravibusque). Instead, he begs for “protections for Catholic healthcare institutions” — a tacit admission that the secular state holds the potestas to grant or deny the Church’s right to exist. This is the condemned error of the Syllabus: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church” (Error 19). By lobbying for exemptions, Fisher acknowledges the State as the source of rights, denying Christ’s Kingship over civil society.
The Theological Bankruptcy of “Conscience Votes” and Incrementalism
The article notes the Labor Party amended its constitution to allow MPs a “conscience vote” on VAD. Fisher’s response? “There are very many things in the Labor Party’s platform that the party has never moved to bring into law… the Prime Minister has said publicly that he does not support it.” This is political analysis, not pastoral theology. It treats the slaughter of the innocent as a matter of party platform management.
The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns the proposition: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them” (Error 63) — but it equally condemns the inverse: that princes may legitimately command evil. Error 39 condemns: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.” Error 42: “In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.” By accepting the “conscience vote” mechanism — where a Catholic MP may vote for murder if his “conscience” dictates — the conciliar hierarchy validates the Protestant/Modernist principle of private judgment in public morality, denying the Church’s potestas indirecta in temporalibus to bind consciences to the Divine Law.
Fisher laments: “How quickly we went in this country from having no euthanasia legal at all to now more than 14,000 people have applied for it, more than 7,000 have died from it.” He identifies the “slippery slope” — “very quickly, there are pushes then to remove all the so-called safeguards one by one.” This pragmatic observation replaces the doctrinal certainty that a law permitting the killing of the innocent is lex injusta, nulla lege, and binds no one in conscience; rather, it obliges resistance (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, q. 96, a. 4). The conciliar “bishop” functions as a manager of decline, documenting the dismantling of the lex naturalis while refusing to wield the gladius spiritualis of anathema against the legislators.
Reduction of the Church to a Palliative Care Provider
The most damning admission in the article is Fisher’s ecclesiology: “We are by far the biggest providers of alternatives to euthanasia, of palliative care for people towards the end of life, of good pastoral care, respite care for the families who are caring for the dying and the elderly.” Here is the Church of the New Advent laid bare: a social service agency, a branch of the welfare state. The munus docendi, sanctificandi, regendi is reduced to “providing alternatives.”
Quas Primas teaches that Christ’s Kingdom “encompasses all men… not only Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians” (Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, cited in Quas Primas). The State has the duty to “publicly honor Christ and obey Him” and to order “all relations in the state be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments and Christian principles, both in the issuing of laws and in the administration of justice, as well as in the education and formation of youth.” Fisher does not demand the repeal of the VAD laws in the name of Christ the King. He does not warn the “Prime Minister” or “Parliament” of the judicium Dei awaiting those who “cast out [Christ] from the state” (Quas Primas). He offers “respite care.”
This is the fruit of the conciliar heresy of Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes: the Church no longer claims the jus publicum to shape the temporal order but begs for libertas ecclesiae as a private enclave. It is the realization of the Syllabus Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” The conciliar hierarchy has internalized the separation, functioning as a chaplaincy to the Culture of Death.
The Symptomatic Level: A “Church” Without Authority, A “Bishop” Without Jurisdiction
The article cites the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (CCC 2324) — the modernist catechism of the antipope John Paul II — as the doctrinal reference: “gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.” While the sentiment is true, the authority cited is null. The “Archbishop” Fisher derives his “mandate” from the usurper antipope Leo XIV (Prevost), in the line of the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches (De Romano Pontifice, cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file): “A Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head… a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code confirms: “Every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration… if the cleric: 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
Therefore, Fisher holds no jurisdiction. He is a layman in purple, an functionary of the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican. His “interview” with Vatican News — the propaganda organ of the abomination of desolation — is not an act of the Magisterium but a press release from a false church. The “Bishop” of Darwin, Charles Gauci, cited calling VAD “Pandora’s box,” similarly possesses no authority to bind or loose. They are blind guides leading the blind into the pit (Mt 15:14).
Conclusion: No King But Caesar
The Vatican News article inadvertently documents the total victory of the Civitas Terrena over the Civitas Dei in Australia. The conciliar hierarchy, stripped of the sensus catholicus and the potestas iurisdictionis, has nothing left but humanitarian rhetoric and legal lobbying. They have forgotten the words of Pius XI: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” By refusing to demand this obedience, by refusing to declare the VAD laws irritae et inanes, by begging for “opt-out” clauses, the conciliar “bishops” have cried out with the chief priests of old: “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). The 7,000 dead are the price of their apostasy.
Source:
Sydney Archbishop stresses Church must ‘offer positive alternatives' to euthanasia (vaticannews.va)
Date: 31.07.2026