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?