Replies

Last night I was reading some info about former-Cardinal Ted McCarrick's background, and I connected some dots and thought --- whoa! Is this just too obvious? And why has nobody (to my knowledge) connected these dots before?

Ted McCarrick was too old to vote in the 2013 conclave, but he was all over Rome beforehand, openly participating in the pre-conclave get-togethers, dinners and even consultative meetings
he himself has advertised that he was a big Bergoglio supporter
he was LONG known for schmoozing around Rome distributing envelopes stuffed with cash of unknown provenance, to curia cardinals
Bergoglio was reputedly far down the list of papabile before the conclave, but
yet he won the election on only the 5th ballot
after his election, according to Viganò, Pope Francis lifted restrictions on McCarrick and in fact promoted him to fly hither and thither on important assignments as his trusted kingmaker and confidante.

Then there's this:

In the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, Pope John Paul II had ruled that, going forward, impermissible "politicking" (any kind of quid-pro-quo at all) would render a conclave invalid.

Hasn't anybody been talking about this? (Or maybe they have been and I just didn't run across it yet.)

Isn't this practically prima facie evidence that "Uncle Ted" McCarrick used untraceable cash to rig the election in Bergoglio's favor?

Making Bergoglio in fact an anti-pope?

I never would have taken it seriously, as I said, until last night reading about McCarrick's reputation as a phenomenal fundraiser and his longtime influence in Rome, and it all seemed, dare I say? almost a slam dunk.

Your thoughts?

I have read this before and much more.

While I agree with the premise that this should never have happened in the first place, none of the Canon Lawyers I've read have identified a resolution.

It would be easy to conclude, "this is God's mess to clean up".

As we read many times in the Old Testament, God brings chastisement when his people abandon Him. (and, as a whole, we certainly have)

Later when His people repented, God shows His Mercy.

Let the repentance begin!

Both the faithful and the guilty!

I’ve been saying this for five years on occasional blogs. No one seems interested except those who disagree. Since you now provide a nice opening, I will repeat a few short points.

The most important fact is that Wuerl and McCarrick got Bergoglio elected. They strategized and, at the conclave, rallied the Cardinals. The reason for several votes is the choice was moving to Ouellet. He interrupted and said essentially, “Brothers, I’m honored, but if you elect me I will decline.”. They then gave O’s block of votes to B. That is the only thing that pushed Bergoglio into electable range. Prior, he was not seen as papabile except by Wuerl and McCarrick and their group.

note - No money, no blackmail, no bribery, no graft, was involved in this papal election (these men are savvy and super smart; do you really think they need to stoop to such barbaric methods?)

Bergoglio was elected to move the Church in the “progressive” direction. The Cardinals who gradually moved to support Bergoglio were motivated by a shared vision. No need to document it, you’ve seen it play out for years.

Not only do they believe the Church needs to get with the times and update old ideas - another anticipated benefit is the Church regaining status and prominence! The Church has slipped in the worldly scheme of things. If a Cardinal telephones someone in govt, media, education, religion and says, “Jump!” no longer does the recipient say, “How high?!”

Don’t believe this is only about power, it’s about effecting the good goals and Christian aims of the Catholic faith.

More details on the factors that likely invalidated the conclave of 2013 which elected Jorge Bergoglio as, purportedly, "Pope Francis". From The Catholic Church is Breaking Apart" by Jonathan Last

"The pontificate of Francis can, perhaps, best be understood as a political project. His election at the conclave in 2013 was—unbeknownst to the world at the time—the result of a campaign planned out in advance by four radical cardinals who saw then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the perfect vehicle for the revolution they wanted to launch within the church. (The story of how Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels, and Karl Lehmann formed “Team Bergoglio” is detailed in Austen Ivereigh’s worshipful biography of Francis, and even though the cardinals subsequently denied the account, their protestations are supremely unconvincing.)
"As the Catholic News Agency reported at the time, this politicking wasn’t simply a matter of bad taste: The apostolic constitution, Universi Dominici gregis, expressly prohibits cardinals from forming pacts, agreements, promises, or commitments of any kind. Oh well.
"During his time on Peter’s throne, Francis has worked to dismantle many orthodox positions in an attempt to radically reorient the church toward -- by total coincidence -- the long-held preferences of those four radical cardinals. For instance..."

And on and on. You can read the rest at the Weekly Standard link above.

Here's what I can't figure out. There are men in positions of authority who know what we know. Abp Carlo Maria Viganò, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Gerhard Müller (wherever he is now): they know, and they know a great deal more.

Why do these, the best, hold their cards so close to the vest? What keeps them from saying what they know? Heck: what keeps Pope (possibly emeritus) Benedict from saying what *he* knows? Is Gänswein keeping him on Ambien and a short leash?

I can't help thinking I must be missing some fairly huge chunks of dispositive information here. I'd be willing to lay down in front of a Francis-freight train for any of the gentlemen mentioned above, if it would save their lives and help save the Church. Why don't they just spill all they know?

Or am I seriously in the wrong about what I think I "know"?