THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

---

Dear fellow brother, Carlo Maria Viganò,

In your last message to the media in which you denounce Pope Francis and the Roman Curia, you urged me to tell the truth about the facts which you interpret as endemic corruption that has invaded the Church’s hierarchy even up to the highest levels.

With due pontifical permission, I offer here my personal testimony, as the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, regarding the events concerning the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, DC, Theodore McCarrick, and his presumed links with Pope Francis, which constitute the subject of your sensational public denunciation, as well as your demand that the Holy Father resign.

I write this testimony based on my personal contacts and on archival documents of the aforementioned Congregation, which are currently the subject of a study in order to shed light on this sad case.

First of all, allow me to say to you with complete sincerity, by virtue of the good collaborative relationship that existed between us when you were the Nuncio in Washington, that your current position appears incomprehensible and extremely deplorable to me, not only because of the confusion that it sows in the People of God, but also because your public accusations seriously damage the reputation of the Successors of the Apostles. [AMV: That's Ouellet's opinion which however does not respond to Vigano's observations about McCarrick.]

I remember the time in which I once enjoyed your esteem and confidence, but I realize that I stand to lose the dignity you recognized in me for the sole fact of having remained faithful to the guidelines of the Holy Father in the service that he entrusted to me in the Church.

Is not communion with the Successor of Peter the expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and who supports him by His grace? ][Communion and obedience even when that Successor is clearly, repeatedly violating and plundering the Deposit of Faith he is dutybound to preserve and uphold? Ouellet is just marginally worse in this respect than Cardinal Mueller who has urged Mons Vigano to return to 'full communion' with Rome, as if expressing himself, first as a bishop mindful of his apostolic duties, and then as a Catholic following Canon 212, were an act of self-excommunication!]

My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you criticize, is written out of this fidelity to the living tradition, of which Francis has given us an example through the recent modification of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the question of the death penalty. [And so Ouellet the renowned theologian and onetime papabile - whom I even favored, for God's sake - thinks there is nothing wrong with the pope singlehandedly modifying the Catechism of the Church (which is based on Revelation, Tradition and previously honored Magisterium) to impose his own personal opinion??? [AMV: The two last paragraphs are also opinions by Ouellet, in which he still is not facing the McCarrick question.]

Let us get down to the facts. [AMV: Yes, that would be better.] You say that you informed Pope Francis on 23 June 2013 on the McCarrick case during the audience he granted to you, along with the many other pontifical representatives whom he then met for the first time on that day. [But the meeting with Vigano was one on one, as one assumes it was with each of the other Nuncios, because remember, the pope decided not to attend a concert in his honor at that time - without informing the organizers beforehand - because he said he was occupied with meeting with the nuncios who had come to Rome to meet with him. There would have been no point in any group meetings with the nuncios because each represents a specific country with its own specific circumstances and problems.] [AMV: Ouellet can doubt all he wants but he forgets that it was the pope who asked Vigano about McCarrick, and did so pointblank without any apparent reason, which means that the McCarrick case interested him.]

I imagine the enormous quantity of verbal and written information that he would have gathered on that occasion about many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that McCarrick was of interest to him to the point that you believed him to be, since at the moment he was an 82-year-old Archbishop Emeritus who had been without an appointment for seven years. [Ouellet forgets obviously, or overlooks, that Vigano says it was the pope who brought up McCarrick's name, wanting to find out what Vigano thought about him, an opportunity Vigano took to tell him about McCarrick's record, in case the pope was not previously aware of it! Of course, Bergoglio's partisans will sumply say that everything Vigano claims in his Testimonies are lies.]

In addition, the written brief prepared for you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your service in 2011, said nothing about McCarrick other than what I told you in person about his situation as an emeritus Bishop who was supposed to obey certain conditions and restrictions due to the rumors surrounding his past behavior. [So Ouellet admits he did tell Vigano in person about the restrictions on McCarrick not just in person but also in the written brief prepared for him by Ouellet's Congregation.] [AMV: So Ouellet confirms it: there were 'conditions' and 'restrictions' imposed on McCarrick. Which is exactly what Vigano maintains.]

Since I became Prefect of this Congregation on 30 June 2010, I never brought up the McCarrick case in an audience with Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis until these last days, after his removal from the College of Cardinals. [AMV: Very bad, Eminence! Precisely because there was something - enough for you to have told Vigano about it - it was your duty to have brought it up in your audiences with both popes!]

The former Cardinal, who had retired in May 2006, had been strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, so as not to provoke additional rumors in his regard. [Note the passive construction of the sentence, which avoids identifying who exactly 'strongly advised' McCarrick to refrain from travel and public appearances at the time he retired.] It is false to present the measures taken in his regard as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and revoked by Pope Francis. [Fine, if they were not 'sanctions', then use whatever term you want to call them, but the fact is that such measures were 'advised'. Who could have been in a position to 'advise' McCarrick other than the reigning pope, Benedict XVI at the time, perhaps acting through the Congregation for Bishops? Ouellet's deliberate vagueness on this account is highly suspect.] [AMV: Viganò did not say that Francis 'annulled' the measures taken by Benedict XVI. What he said was that with Francis as pope, McCarrick travelled freely, spoke in public and demonstrated all around that he was a friend of the new pope.]

After re-examining the archives, I can ascertain that there are no corresponding documents signed by either Pope, neither is there a note of an audience with my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, giving Archbishop Emeritus McCarrick an obligatory mandate of silence and to retire to a private life, carrying canonical penalties. [This is exactly the sort of total whitewash formula we may expect to be used after the Bergoglio-ordered 'thorough study of the McCarrick matter'. [The reason being that at that time, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged guilt. [AMV: There may have been no proofs, but something was certainly suspected, otherwise Benedict XVI would never have taken any measures about McCarrick.]
[If there was not sufficient proof, it is because Ouellet's congregation did not lift a finger to investigate stories and complaints documented, as we know, at least as early as 2000.
- If Benedict XVI acted by seeking to restrict McCarrick's public ministry, he must have felt convinced enough of what did get through to him that McCarrick was seriously compromised.
- One imagines the most convincing evidence at the time was the fact that three New Jersey dioceses came to a settlement with McCarrick's victims. Why did Ouellet's dicastery not even look into this which are on record with the dioceses concerned?
- If Ouellet had thought that Benedict acted unfairly by doing so without benefit of a canonical investigation and trial, why does he not say so now?
- And why, as he says below, did he then reiterate to the US Nuncios to urge McCarrick to 'live a discreet lifestyle, etc'? Ouellet describes this as the position of his dicastery 'inspired by prudence'.
- What exactly was this position other than that decided by Benedict XVI? Because after all this, Ouellet cannot now claim that the 'position' originated with his dicastery.]

Hence, the position of the Congregation was inspired by prudence, and my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine, reiterated through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi, and then also through you, urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church. [AMV: Another confirmation from Ouellet that there had been some measures imposed on McCarrick as Vigano said.]

His case would have been the object of new disciplinary measures had the Nunciature in Washington, or whatever other source, provided us with recent and decisive information regarding his behavior. [Give me a break! Ouellet's dicastery had more than enough to investigate in the previous allegations against McCarrick, but it did not even bother to look into the known settlements with some of his victims! It is not the duty of the Nuncios to investigate charges against a bishop - it is not part of their duties and they are not equipped to do it. That is the duty the Congregation for Bishops.]

I hope like many others, out of respect for the victims and the need for justice, that the investigation underway in the United States and in the Roman Curia will finally offer us a critical, comprehensive view on the procedures and the circumstances of this painful case, so that such events are not repeated in the future. [Yeah, right! More meaningless platitudes.]
[AMV: That is precisely what Vigano has been asking. Why then take it out on him and hound him about it?]

How is it that this man of the Church, whose inconsistency is recognized today, was promoted on several occasions, even to the point of being invested with the highest function of Archbishop of Washington and Cardinal? I myself am extremely surprised by this and recognize the defects in the selection process undertaken in his case. [AMV: More confirmations. These are exactly the questions posed by Viganò.]

Without entering here into the details, it needs to be understood that the decisions taken by the Supreme Pontiff are based on information available at a precise moment, which constitute the object of a careful judgement which is not infallible. It seems unjust to me to conclude that the persons in charge of the prior discernment are corrupt even though, in this concrete case, some suspicions provided by witnesses should have been further examined. [What does Cardinal Re have to say about this, who was Prefect of Bishops at the time McCarrick was made Archbishop of Washington? Ouellet is palming off on Re what he himself failed to do when it was his turn to investigate allegations against McCarrick. Moreover, Re did not have the information about the settlements.] The prelate in question knew how to defend himself very skillfully regarding the doubts that were raised about him. [Ouellet is thereby admitting that he and his dicastery simply took McCarrick's defense at face value without bothering to do an independent investigation of the charges agaist him.]

On the other hand, the fact that there may be persons in the Vatican who practice and support behavior contrary to Gospel values regarding sexuality, does not authorize us to generalize and declare this or that person as unworthy and as accomplices, even including the Holy Father himself. [AMV: Vigano can be accused of everything but certainly not of generalizing. He gives full names, links them to circumstances and events, he cites documents and wants responses. Which to this time - even with this letter - have not been answered.]

Should not the ministers of truth be the first to avoid calumny and defamation themselves? [Then prove that anything in what Vigano claims is nothing but calumny and defamation! He did not spin his testimony out of thin air and colored soapbubbles the way the Bergoglio Vatican confects its own tales!] [AMV: The ministers of truth ask that light be shed on facts and circumstances cited. This has nothing to do with calumny.]

[From here on, the letter is pure ideological idol worship from the mouth and pen of a raving Bergogliac:]

Dear Pontifical Representative Emeritus, I tell you frankly that I believe it is incredible and unlikely from many points of view to accuse Pope Francis of having covered up after having full knowledge of the facts of this presumed sexual predator, and therefore of being an accomplice in the corruption rampant in the Church, to the point of considering him unfit to continue his reforms as the first Shepherd of the Church.
I cannot understand how you could have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous accusation which has no standing.
[AMV: Again, personal opinions of Ouellet. Quite respectable, but still personal opinions only. Even as Ouellet continues not to answer.]

Francis had nothing to do with the promotion of McCarrick to New York, Metuchen, Newark or Washington. [Vigano did not claim that!] He divested him from the dignity of Cardinal when a credible accusation of the abuse of a minor became evident.

I have never heard Pope Francis allude to this self-styled advisor during his pontificate regarding nominations in America, though he does not hide the trust that he has in some of the Bishops [REALLY? sounds like a blatant lie to me! What would Ouellet do - perjure himself if he had to be summoned to a canonical trial to testify who were the bishops recommended by Nuncio Vigano to become Archbishops of Chicago and Newark and whether Cupich or Tobin were among those names; likewise in the nomination of Kevin Farrell to head a Vatican dicastery.]

I presume that they are not preferred by you or by those friends who support your interpretation of the facts. I therefore consider it to be aberrant that you should profit by the horrible scandal of the sexual abuse of minors in the United States to inflict such an unprecedented and unmerited blow on the moral authority of your Superior, the Supreme Pontiff. [AMV: Again, more of Ouellet's personal opinions which we should take for what they are.]

I have the privilege of meeting at length each week with Pope Francis, in order to deal with the nominations of Bishops and the problems that affect their office. [Yeah, right! Except that everyone at the Vatican knows the pope really runs your dicastery through his two loyal plants - your Secretary General and the pope's own private secretary!]

I know very well how he handles persons and problems: very charitably, mercifully, attentively and seriously, as you yourself have experienced. Reading how you concluded your last message, apparently very spiritual, mocking and casting doubt on his faith, seemed to me to be really too sarcastic, even blasphemous! Such a thing cannot come from God’s Spirit. [And can you, world-renowned theologian Ouellet, justify the blasphemies committed by your Luciferian idol in freely editing, by ommission and omission, Jesus's own words to support his anti-Catholic agenda? Of course, you can't, because no one can justify such Luciferian hubris.] [AMV: To be truthful, Vigano's statements were not sarcastic - they were terribly tragic. In any case, we are still within Ouellet's personal opinion field. Who, after so many words, still has not really replied to Vigano, but did confirm some of the points stated by Vigano in his Testimony.]

Dear fellow brother, I truly want to help you retrieve communion with him who is the visible guarantor of the Catholic Church’s communion. I understand that bitterness and delusions have been a part of your journey in service to the Holy See, but you cannot conclude your priestly life in this way, in open and scandalous rebellion, which is inflicting a very painful wound on the Bride of Christ, whom you claim to serve better, thus aggravating the division and confusion in the People of God! [As if Bergoglio were not the main source and perpetrator of all this division and confusion.]
[AMV: This is really a low blow, but one that is to be expected. Ouellet is seeking to discredit Viganò as someone who is out to avenge the fact that he has 'failed' his career goals. Ouellet's words can be judged by themselves.]

In what other way can I respond to your request other than to say: come out of hiding, repent from this revolt and retrieve better feelings toward the Holy Father, instead of exacerbating hostility against him. How can you celebrate the Holy Eucharist and pronounce his name in the Canon of the Mass? How can you pray the Holy Rosary, the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel, and to the Mother of God, condemning him whom She protects and accompanies every single day in his heavy and courageous ministry?
[AMV: Here, Ouellet seeks to introduce pathos, but succeeds only in sounding increasingly arrogant. And yet, he is supposed to belong to the school of the merciful who do not judge others!]

If the Pope were not a man of prayer, if he were attached to money, if he were one who favors the rich to the detriment of the poor, if he did not demonstrate an untiring energy in welcoming all who are poor, giving them the generous comfort of his word and his actions, were he not multiplying all the means possible to proclaim and communicate the joy of the Gospel to everyone in the Church and even beyond its visible frontiers, if he were not extending a hand to families, to the elderly who are abandoned, to the sick in spirit and in body and above all to the young in search of happiness....[AMV:But what does all this have to do with Vigano's questions about McCarrick?]

...then someone else could perhaps be preferable, according to you, with different diplomatic and political attitudes, but I, who have been able to know him well, cannot put into question his personal integrity, his consecration to mission, and above all the charisma and peace that dwell in him by God’s grace and the power of the Risen One. [AMV: Fine, we are all happy to hear that!]

Responding to your unjust and unjustified attack, dear Viganò, I therefore conclude that the accusation is a political maneuver...
[AMV: Political? How so? And what proof does Ouellet have for this?] ...without any real foundation to be able to incriminate the Pope, and I repeat that it is deeply wounding the Church’s communion. It would please God that this injustice be quickly repaired and that Pope Francis might continue to be recognized for who he is: an eminent pastor, a compassionate and firm father, a prophetic charism for the Church and for the world. May he continue his missionary reform joyfully and in full confidence, comforted by the prayer of the People of God and by the renewed solidarity of the entire Church together with Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary. [AMV: Once more- Ouellet is way off course. What he is saying has nothing to do with the questions raised by Vigano. Above all, however, he continues not to answer the key questions.]


MARC CARDINAL OUELLET
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary
October 7th 2018

---

October 7, 2018


Some observations: Cardinal Ouellet was received by the pope right after Mons. Vigano’s second letter was published calling on Ouellet to tell the truth. One can reasonably think that Ouellet’s response reflects the thinking of the pope. [Ouellet specifically says at the start of his letter, “With due potifical permission…”, but the evasive and in many ways faulty ripostes by Ouellet to many of Vigano’s points tend to show that the letter was actually prepared for him by Spadaro and company, because this is how they think. They make faulty ripostes because they are not telling the truth.]

There are two important points: The conversation with the Pope on June 23, 2013, when Vigano says he told the pope all about McCarrick’s record of misconduct, and whether McCarrick was in fact sanctioned or restricted in any form from exercising public ministry by Benedict XVI.

Ouellet does not deny Vigano’s audience with the pope in 2013 nor that McCarrick was discussed at this audience. What he says is this:

---

I imagine the enormous quantity of verbal and written information that he would have gathered on that occasion about many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that McCarrick was of interest to him to the point that you believed him to be, since at the moment he was an 82-year-old Archbishop Emeritus who had been without an appointment for seven years.

---

[This is one of the statements in Ouellet’s letter that made me squirm the most because I cannot imagine a man of his intellect making such an absurd statement to try to cast doubt on whether McCarrick was discussed at all. Let alone that Bergoglio wahad no interest in an 82-year-old retired cardinal who became one of his first emissaries to Beijing in his campaign to woo the /chiense. Sent him off to China, in fact, not long after his June 23, 2013 conversation with Vignao.]

Ouellet’s statement could be reasonable and plausible except for one fact. It was the pope who asked Vigano about McCarrick – a sign that of course, he was interested in McCarrick. And what Vigano told him in response was of such gravity and occasion for serious concern that it could simply have slid off the pope’s memory like water off the back of a duck! This is clearly an attempt to minimize the importance of the event, but it does not serve to do this. Rather, it indirectly confirms the correctness of Vigano’s account.

About those ‘sanctions’: Ouellet indicates he met with Vigano before he left to take up his post as Nuncio in Washington. Now he writes:

---

"In addition, the written brief prepared for you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your service in 2011, said nothing about McCarrick other than what I told you in person about his situation as an emeritus Bishop who was supposed to obey certain conditions and restrictions due to the rumors surrounding his past behavior. The former Cardinal, who had retired in May 2006, had been strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, so as not to provoke additional rumors in his regardIt is false to present the measures taken in his regard as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and revoked by Pope Francis”.

---

Therefore Ouellet admits – and this is the first official confirmation about this – That McCarrick was subjected to some restrictions by Benedict VXI. You may call these what you want – sanctions, restrictions, conditions, unwritten but verbal – but that does not change the fact. As Ouellet confirms, McCarrick was not supposed to be travelling nor making any pulic appearances. And Ouellet also writes that

---

“my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine, reiterated through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi, and then also through you, urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church.”

---

Yet the first thing that McCarrick told Vigano, meeting him by chance at Casa Santa Marta in July 2013 [meaning, after Vigano had already informed Bergoglio about McCarrick’s record of misconduct], was to boast that he had just seen the pope who was sending him to China as am emissary. And of course, news reports over the next five years showed that McCarrick conducted himself as if there had been no ‘sanctions’ at all against him. Which means Bergoglio ‘changed’ the conditions set by Benedict XVI.

Ouellet writes that “It is false to present the measures taken in his regard as “sanctions” revoked by Pope Francis”. What is more false: to call these ‘exhortations’ to McCarrick sanctions, or try to show that Bergoglio had a different attitude towards McCarrick than Benedict had?

There are many other observations I can make but I am writing this up for La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana for tomorrow’s issue.

In conclusion, it seems like apart from the [sanctimonious] reprimands of Vigano, the exaggerated eulogies for the pope, and the exhortation to Vigano to ‘repent and return to the flock’, Ouellet’s letter simply confirms what Vigano wrote about McCarrick.

A follower of Tosatti’s Twitter account said it very well:

---

Replying to @MarcoTosatti
Ouellet letter is a factual confirmation written in form of a total denial. Very cunning text. But evasive and very weak from a careful reading. No serious person is going to buy it.

---

Shows you how low Ouellet has debased himself championing Bergoglio for all his lying and in his most grievous errors (AL, the death penalty)!

The comment from Douglas McClarey at AMERICAN CATHOLIC:

---

PopeWatch assumes that lying remains a sin, although one would not know that from reading the letter of Cardinal Quellet. PopeWatch assumes that the Cardinal is simply unaware of the large amount of evidence that had been amassed at the Vatican about McCarrick long before Pope Francis was elected, and that he must also somehow be unaware of how Pope Francis took McCarrick from retirement and made him one of his right hand Cardinals, especially in regard to his monstrous China policy. This letter is an insult to the intelligence of every sentient Catholic.

---

And from Christopher Altieri on CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT:

---

...the idea that the moral turpitude of clerics high or low is no concern of high Curial officials, unless there is significant evidence of crime, is frankly disturbing. The specific language Cardinal Ouellet entertains also constitutes admission that the presence of a so-called “lavender mafia” might not be so far-fetched, after all.

The fact remains, however, that Archbishop Viganò named lots of men in his letter, and leveled many allegations of many different kinds. Too many allegations, in fact, and with an intemperance and evident animus that will likely expose Viganò to the charge of slander. [If that were so, there ought to have been a flurry of suits, or at least threatened suits, against Vigano by the people he 'slandered'. (Remember Fr. Rosica's threatened suit against the Canadian blogger who writes as VOX CANTORIS? Nothing came of it after Vox exposed the threat.) I assume Altieri is not a lawyer, because no lawyer, blogger or otherwise, has so far come up with any analysis that says what Vigano wrote amounts to slander of the individuals mentioned. All he said was that they knew, at some point, about McCarrick's sexual misconduct and did nothing about it. That's a statement of fact. None of those named - not even Ouellet - has denied Vigano's allegation about themselves, much less refuted him in any way. I don't think they can suddenly claim 'slander' now more than a month after their names were made public.]

Rather than let this sordid epistolary soap opera play out any further, a pastor who was also a statesman and a leader would summon Archbishop Viganò to answer for his crimes, on pain of sanction — very real, and very public — should he fail to appear. The time for star chambers is past.

My suggestion: let Archbishop Viganò be tried for his crimes, publicly. [Altieri is assuming Viganò committed any crimes at all! And why is it that now it is the whistleblower who has to be publicly tried, not the men he names as complicit in the toleration, cover-up and indeed toadying to McCarrick despite his record? I realize ALtieri is making a sort of 'Hail Mary' pass to end the impasse, so to speak. But to turn the table on Viganò this way?]

Then, he would have counsel and recourse to witnesses. He would have rights of discovery and access to compulsory process. Let the work of justice be done in the light of day, before a candid world.

The longer the Holy See delays such a measure, the more readily credible will be the surmise that the Holy See is afraid of doing so, precisely because it would allow Archbishop Viganò to make his case.

Nor will appeals avail to discretion and care for the reputations of men at any rate protected: for one thing, that ship has sailed — the allegations are published. For another, they are misplaced: the current, secret system can only do further harm to good men falsely accused, even as they further the cause of wicked men intent on concealing their crimes.

Instead, we are promised more secret commissions to study the matter.

---

As a not entirely irrelevant sidebar, here's some information from Fr. Z about what traditional papal intentions are:

---

A synopsis of the Pontiff’s intentions is found in Prümmer’s manual (vol. III, no. 556). Prümmer says that “Intentions of the Holy Father” for which we pray in the course of obtaining an indulgence, are a five-fold set which tradition (and the former Congregations) fixed as such, namely:

1. Exaltatio S. Matris Ecclesiæ (The triumph/growth of holy mother the Church)
2. Extirpatio hæresum (Rooting out heresy)
3. Propagatio fidei (The propagation of the Faith)
4. Conversio peccatorum (The conversion of sinners)
5. Pax inter principes christianos (Peace among Christian rulers).

A Catholic today can use this classic and traditional set of intentions for the purpose of gaining indulgences.

---

Let's look at those intentions one by one:
1 - Bergoglio can't be praying for that because he is working for the triumph/growth of the church of Bergoglio, not of 'Holy Mother Church' whatever lip service he may be giving to Mater Ecclesiae.
2 - He can't very well root out his own heresies, can he?
3 - Propagation of the faith? What faith? And how? He condemns 'proselytism' and has virtually given up the mission of the Church mandated by Christ to "Go forth and baptize all nations..." with his attitude that all religions are equivalent, therefore there is no need to convert anyone to Christianity?
4 . In the Bergoglian church which is gradually doing away with the very idea of sin - many mortal sins are now not even considered sins at all - and of Hell, there will soon be no sinners at all, and hence, no one to convert. Anyway, if there is sin at all and punishment for sin by God, then Bergoglip's God is so merciful that you can go on doing as you please provided that just before you die, you can ask his mercy and still be saved. In Bergoglio's world, everyone is guaranteed a happy death and does not have to live his life trying to earn it.
5 - How many Christian rulers are left in the world to be peaceful with each other?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/10/2018 03:37]