00 11/08/2017 00:23


It didn't take long for no less than the Vatican's Deputy Secretary of State (that all-important and pivotal Sostituto, when even in the heyday of
Cardinal Sodano, his Sostituto, Cardinal Re, was quite a power player) to react to Antonio Socci's exposition of what the latter sees as steps taken
by Cardinal Parolin to correct or even expunge some recent diplomatic outrages on the part of the pope...

Which only proves that when the Bergoglio Vatican wishes to deny anything, it does so promptly, even if it carefully chooses what it can deny,
and chooses to ignore those that it cannot plausibly deny. (This is the case with all the outrageous statements attributed to to Bergoglio by Eugenio
Scalfari)... But let's look at the denial letter sent to Socci...


The Vatican writes me that Bergoglio and Parolin agree
about everything – though the facts say the contrary

Translated from

8/9/2017

Dear Mr. Socci,
Yet again, trusting in your sensibility as a believer, I invite you to be more objective in giving certain news, perhaps by looking for more reliable informants.

Your column of Sunday, August 6, I regret to say, is offensive towards the Pope and Cardinal Parolin himself.

Setting aside the canard about Enzo Bianchi as a putative cardinal, you should know that the policy of the Holy See about Maduro has proceeded through agreement between the Secretariat of State and the Holy Father, without any divergence whatsoever.

The same thing about the baby Charlie case, in which the Holy Father, once he had received a letter from his parents, agreed with the Secretariat of State on the initiatives to undertake in favor of the baby.

Cardinal Parolin did not inspire, nor did he correct, the pope, but expressed and approved of the availability of the Bambino Gesu hospital for the boy and his parents as needed.

I owe you this for the sake of objectivity of facts and respect for the role of the Holy Father.

With cordial greetings,
+ Angelo Becciu


Last Sunday, when my article was published about how Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin has lately tried to remedy or dispel recent colossal political damages caused by Papa Bergoglio, two kinds of response came to me from people in the Vatican: "You hit the mark" and "There will be hell to pay".

Indeed, this letter from Becciu – not at all customary - reached me promptly which means that I did touch on a very delicate sore that has explosive implications.

It must be understood that Archbishop Angelo Becciu is the Deputy Secretary of State (Sostituto) for general affairs, who, in the Vatican hierarchy, is the working arm of the pope and the secretary of state. So it was his task to tell me that the Pope and Cardinal Parolin have a perfect identity of vision, contrary to what perfidious Socci has written.

I had the occasion to personally meet Mons. Becciu in an analogous situation, as he refers to in the opening of his letter. It happened when he called me in autumn of 2012, which was followed by a face-to-face meeting. He had wanted to deny an article in which I sought to prove the enormous distance between the wise pastoral fatherliness of Benedict XVI and the command style of Cardinal Bertone (who was then Secretary of State) [And Becciu's boss at the time. In fact, it is very likely that Bertone recommended Becciu's promotion from Nuncio to Cuba to become his #2 man at State after Becciu had successful organized two visits by Bertone to Cuba (one private and informal in 2005, and a formal weeklong visit in 2010 when Bertone had a schedule worthy of no less than a pope's visit), as well as the eventual visit by Benedict XVI in 2012.]

Time has shown that I was right, even if at that time, I was the only one rash enough to attack a strong man like Bertone (who has since fallen into disgrace). [That's Socci ego-tripping! He forgets, or ignores, that many Vaticanistas, especially Sandro Magister, had been relentless since Bertone's appointment about how his management style and many of his actions as Secretary of State were a disservice to Benedict XVI. Early enough, as soon as Bertone tried to take over the Italian bishops' conference upon the election of Cardinal Bagnasco as its president, Magister criticized his ill-advised 'power grab' in an article which, if I recall, was entitled something like "The man who should be serving the pope but isn't". It is unfortunate that]

Time has also shown the strange spectacle of so many who, in the previous pontificate, praised and supported Bertone 100 percent, and then overnight, in March 2013, became paladins of the Bergoglian 'revolution' while decrying the time of Bertone. [Becciu would be among those, except that one must remember Bertone continued to head the Secretariat of State for about seven months until Bergoglio named Parolin to the position. So the paladins could not well have openly turned their coats overnight!]

Now, let me look at the merits of the letter.

I note right away that Becciu totally passes over the immigrant issue. I had recalled that Cardinal Parolin had come to be seen in the media, after a statement he made last month, to be on a collision course with Mons. Nunzio Galantino [secretary-general of the CEI and a Bergoglio surrogate, appointed precisely to ride herd over the Italian bishops] on this issue, and therefore, with the pope himself. But Becciu chose not to address the question, much less belie it. It is obviously a significant embarrassment to the Vatican.

Indeed, I had pointed out that Bergoglio's obsessive ideological hammering on the theme of welcoming all migrants – which is contrary to the Church's own social doctrine and Catechism [the Church in its Magisterium being always reasonable and realistic, unlike Bergoglio and his delusional utopian detachment from reality] – had had a deleterious influence on Italian governments since March 2013, and the Italian state has practically given in to a literal invasion of the country by illegal immigrants [whom it is forced to welcome, shelter and provide with the basic necessities].

But Becciu also - and especially - avoided replying to my point about the pope's stated 'fears' over alliances between Trump and Putin or Putin and Assad. The pope said that to Eugenio Scalfari ]in their latest conversation around the time of the G20 summit in Hamburg last month].

And since the implications of his words are very serious, I praised Cardinal Parolin for having clearly 'overturned' that judgment by Bergoglio, by reiterating that the traditional position of the Holy See as always been to promote dialog among the great powers as well as against the wall erected by Obama against Putin's Russia.

So let me underscore that Becciu had no comment at all about this.

But he did deny what I wrote about Venezuela, even if he has the misfortune that even as he was writing me, Maduro himself belied Becciu. In fact, the dictator, after the August 4 communique from the Vatican Secretariat of State, which was like a [minor] torpedo to his agenda, said this to Radio Argentina:

"One must distinguish between the actions of the pope as the defender of Christian peoples with his humility, and the other very different one from the Vatican Secretariat of State which is a bureaucrat. Unfortunately, Cardinal Parolin has fallen into the hends of the most extremist sectors of the Cahtolic Church hierarchy in Venezuela".

Exactly what I wrote on August 6. [Well, no. He did not write that Parolin has fallen into the hands of Venezuela's extremist bishops – and even Socci would not give such a false description - but that Parolin has come to share the position that the Venezuelan bishops have held all along of direct opposition to Maduro, even as Bergoglio had himself photographed blessing Maduro by making a sign of the Cross on his forehead!]

The fact is that Maduro has become an object of worldwide criticism for the deaths that his regime has caused among his opponents, for having reduced the Venezuelan people to hunger ]and one of the world's richest nations to destitution], and for trampling down on their human rights – and neither the Venezuelan people nor the Church in Venezuela can continue to accept that Maduro can capitalize on his closeness to Bergoglio (of which that October 2016 photograph provides visual evidence) to defy all his critics.

Therefore, Bergoglio had to yield in to the pressure from Parolin and the Venezuelan bishops, and he had to 'step back' from Maduro rather than have the dictator's international disgrace rebound on him – if only by agreeing that the Secretariat of State release the August 4 communique that was critical of Maduro.

Because there has not been the merest hint of Bergoglio directly censuring Maduro. [In fact, as far as I can tell, Bergoglio has not once spoken in public about the Venezuelan catastrophe in the past four years, not even a word of compassion and comfort for the suffering people of Venezuela. How unbelievable is that for a pope????]

Bergoglio appears to reserve his public condemnations only for Donald Trump, never for socialist/communist tyrants.

I would like to ask Becciu: Why has this pope – instead of unleashing his Spadaro-Figueroa attack dogs against 'pro-life' American presidents from Reagan to Trump - why does he not use them against Maduro, or against Raul Castro, or against the Communist Chinese tyrants? [This is a most glaring reality to which Bergoglio's incense-bearers appear to be completely blind!]

Becciu knows very well the friendly words and gestures that the 'populist pope' has had for the Cuban and Chinese dictators whose regimes continue to cause blood and tears to their people. [It is obvious that Bergoglio has been bending over backwards for the Chinese to the point of sacrificing the underground Church in China because he desperately wants to be the first pope ever to visit China. But what benefit does he expect to get at all from his sponsorship of Maduro and Raul Castro???]

And that is why I find it unacceptable that Becciu considers it 'offensive to the pope' that I wrote an article where I merely presented political facts and actions which are evident for all to see.

Is the pope offended by the truth? And is it not rather his indulgence for regimes that persecute Christians which is 'offensive to the Church'?

Bergoglio, acting like a political leader (and I think a very bad one), has been following the playbook of politicians – and that is why the left offer incense to him and why he is criticized by those who condemn all regimes that kill freedom.

Moreover, Mons. Becciu knows very well that one must always distinguish the office from the person. The greatest Catholic poet of all time, Dante, was devoted to Peter's Chair (i.e., the Petrine ministry), but he was ferocious with the persons who were popes in his time and whom he consigned to hell – and did so primarily because of their political actions.

On the unfortunate political decisions of Bergoglio, not only is dissent legitimate but also dutiful. Beyond my professional duty as a journalist to criticize him for these, it is also Christian charity. Unlike Dante, I do not consign anyone to hell – as a journalist, I limit myself to criticial analysis.

The abandonment of the Church's traditional social and political teaching by Papa Bergoglio seems evident to me. Which brings us to the case of baby Charlie Gard.

It is evident [if only because he has said so himself] that Bergoglio has shelved the traditional 'non-negotiable principles' of the Church, instead embracing the Obama-UN agenda on ecology, immigration, accommodating Islam, and 'building bridges' to the ideology of the sexual revolution.

The latest sad confirmation of this is the total reorientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the statements of the pope's surrogates there – even and especially regarding Charlie Gard.

Initially, Bergoglio had maintained an obstinate silence on the tragedy of baby Charlie. In order to wrest a reaction from him, Italian faithful had to jam the Vatican telephone lines to register their protest against that silence, even after the courts had ruled that life support for the child should be stopped. But even his first reaction was rather vague and indirect - made through the Vatican press spokesman. [Afterwards, of course, he was more directly involved and said all 'the right things', but still too little too late.]

Finally, about the pope's plan to make non-Catholic layman Enzo Bianchi a cardinal, the news was reported on Il Giornale on July 12, with the byline of a Bergoglian journalist, and thereupon picked up by other media and never denied by the Vatican. So I find it incredible that the Deputy Secretary of State would now deny this to my face.

Especially considering that for four years, despite insistent requests from many concerned Catholics, the Vatican has refused to deny the major heterodoxies that Eugenio Scalfari has been attributing to Bergoglio during their so-called 'interviews' or friendly conversations – which the pope continues to give him, on the pope's own initiative, thereby confirming implicitly what Scalfari attributes to him (and has published Scalfari's accounts in the compilation of papal interviews published serially by the Vatican publishing house).

And yet it is such statements – like 'There is no Catholic God' or 'Hell does not exist' or 'Don't worry about priestly celibacy, I have a solution for that' – that cast discredit on Peter's Chair and scandalize the faithful. [Quite an understatement for the unprecedented enormity of the implications and consequences of having an anti-Catholic pope!]