Tag Archives: Cardinal Parolin

News

Cardina Zen replies to Dean of College of Cardinals’ circular letter

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On Feb. 26, Cardinal Giovanni Battisa Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals sent a circular letter to every member of the College in response to the letter of complaint about the Vatican-China accord which Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, had sent likewise to every member in October of 2019.

Cardinal Re’s letter was published here and commented upon, yesterday.  Today, Cardinal Zen published his response. Here is the text and my brief comments.

First the original Italian, which I copy here from Cardinal Zen’s personal Blog, then my English translation below:

A S.E. Rev. ma Sig Card. G.B. Re

Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio

Sig. Cardinale

Mi sia permesso di usare il mezzo di una lettera aperta per una comunicazione più tempestiva.

Per via indiretta ho preso visione della sua lettera del 26 Febbraio la quale (Prot. N. 1/2020) ha anche l’onore di aver così inaugurato il suo alto ufficio di Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

Ammiro il suo coraggio nell’avventurarsi in questioni che Ella pure riconosce essere “complesse”, mettendo a rischio il prestigio del suo appena inaugurato onorevole ufficio. Ma si sa che oggi c’è un vicepapa che riesce a mettere coraggio a tutti i servitori nella Santa Sede.

Veniamo alla lettera.

1. Per chiarire la visione di Giovanni Paolo II e di Benedetto XVI riguardo al comunismo mi basta ora rimandarLa a pag. 161-162 del libro “ultime conversazioni” (Papa Benedetto mi fece avere una copia con la dedica “in comunione di preghiera e di pensiero”).

La domanda del giornalista Peter Seewald:

“Ha condiviso e sostenuto attivamente la Ostpolitik del papa (Giov. Paolo II)?”

Benedetto rispose: “Ne parlavamo. Era chiaro che la politica di Casaroli, per quanto attuata con le migliori intenzioni, era fallita.

La nuova linea perseguita da Giov. Paolo II era frutto della sua esperienza personale, del contatto con quei poteri.

Naturalmente allora non si poteva sperare che quel regime crollasse presto, ma era evidente che, invece di essere concilianti e accettare compromessi, bisognava opporsi con forza.

Questa era la visione di fondo di Giov. Paolo II, che io condividevo.”

2. Per provare che l’accordo firmato era già stato approvato da Benedetto XVI basta mostrarmi il testo firmato, che fino ad oggi non mi è stato concesso di vedere, e l’evidenza dell’archivio, che Ella ha potuto verificare. Rimarrebbe solo ancora da spiegare perchè allora non è stato firmato.

3. Il cambiamento “epocale” del significato della parola “indipendenza” temo che esista solo nella testa dell’eminentissimo Segretario di Stato, indotto magari da una errata traduzione dal cinese fatta dal giovane minutante della Congregazione dell’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, ormai monoculus rex in regno caecorum, il quale fu corresponsabile anche degli almeno 10 errori nella traduzione della lettera di Papa Benedetto del 2007.

Data però l’intelligenza dell’Eminentissimo mi è difficile credere che sia stato ingannato, è più probabile che abbia voluto “lasciarsi ingannare”.

4. Non capisco l’ultima parte della sua lettera, quantomeno confusa. I fatti sono lì. Ho evidenza che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre, il quale mi manifesta sempre tanto affetto, ma non risponde alle mie domande. Davanti a delle prese di posizione della Santa Sede che non riesco a capire, a tutti i fratelli desolati che si rivolgono a me dico di non criticare chi segue quelle disposizioni. Siccome, però, nelle disposizioni si lascia ancora la libertà a chi ha una obiezione di coscienza, incoraggio questi a ritirarsi allo stato delle catacombe, senza opporsi a qualunque ingiustizia, altrimenti finirebbero per rimetterci di più.

In che ho sbagliato?

5. Sono al cento per cento d’accordo con l’invito a pregare.

Ricordo che recentemente la Santa Sede pure ha raccomandato l’invocazione alla Madonna “Sub tuum praesidium” e quella all’Arcangelo S. Michele.

Ovviamente c’è l “Oremus pro Pontifice” che conclude con “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus”.

Le auguro momenti più felici nel suo lungo servizio come Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

obblig, mo

Card. Zen

Now, my English translation, for those who do not read Italian:

To His Eminence, the Most Rev. Lord Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re

Dean of the College of Cardinals,

Lord Cardinal,

Permit me to use the means of an open letter as a quicker response.

Indirectly, I came to know of your letter of February 26 (Protocol number 1/2020), which also had the honor of having thus inaugurated your high office as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

I admire your courage to jump into question which You yourself recognize are “complex”, risking the prestige of your just inaugurated honorable office. But now everyone knows that there is a Vice-pope who is succeeds in encouraging all the servants of the Holy See.

Let us come to Your letter.

1. To clarify the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in regard to communism, it is sufficient for me to direct your to pages 161-162 of the book, “Recent Conversations” by Pope Benedict (a copy of which he gave me with the dedication, “in a communion of prayer and thought“).

To the question of the journalist, Peter Seewald:  “Did you share and sustain actively the Ostpolitik of the pope (John Paul II)?”

Benedict replied:  “We spoke of it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli, as much as it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed.

“The new direction pursued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.

“Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would quickly collapse, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force.

“This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”

2. To prove that the Accord as signed had been approved by Benedict XVI it would have been sufficient to show me the signed text, which even til today has not been permitted to me to see, and the evidence of the Archive (of the Secretary of State), which You were able to verify.  There would then only remain to be explained why it was not signed.

3. The “epochal” change of meaning for the word “independence”, I fear, exists only in the mind of his eminence the Secretary of State, caused perhaps by a faulty translation of the Chinese by a young clerk of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which already has become a monoculus rex in regno caaecorum (a one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind), who was co-responsible for at least 10 errors in the translation of the Letter of Pope Benedict in 2007.

Given, however, the intelligence of His Eminence, it is difficult for me to believe that he was deceived, and more probable that he wanted to deceive others.

4. I do not understand the last part of Your letter, as much as it is confusing.  The fact are this: I have evidence that Parolin manipulated the Holy Father, who always showed me great affection, but never responded to my questions. In regard to some of the positions taken by the Holy See, which I do not manage to understand: to all the desolate brothers who turn to me, I say do not criticize those who follow those directions. For just as, however, in the directions there is still left the liberty for the one with objections of conscience, I encourage these to withdraw to the state of the catacombs, without opposing any injustice, otherwise they would end up dealing worse with us.

In this, have I erred?

5. I am 100% in agreement with the invitation to pray.

I remember that recently the Holy See also recommended the invocation to Our Lady, “Sub tuum praesidium” and that to Michael the Archangel.

Obviously, there is the “Oremus pro Pontifice” (Collect for the Holy Father) which concludes “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius” (and do not hand him over to the desire of his enemies).

I wish for you happier moments in your long service as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

With respect,

Card. Zen

Read the letter again to see the subtle irony used by the Chinese Cardinal. The Dean will serve only 4 years as such, before he must retire, and his admiration for the courage of the Dean to enter into questions which are not his competence. He also refers to the fact that the Dean did not share with him his backstabbing circular letter. This is one mad Chinese Cardinal.

Cardinal Zen also called Cardinal Re’s bluff and demanded the evidence of the Papal Signature by Pope Benedict. He also pointed out that he has intelligence on how the document was prepared on the basis of intentionally faulty translations.

In short, Cardinal Zen just dropped the bomb on Parolin and Re, and exposed them both as clumsy liars. The real implication of his letter, then, in wishing a long career to Cardianl Re is to say that Re has just doomed himself in the eyes of the members of the College as not reliable nor trustworthy, which are the key requirements to remain Dean.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the header image of Cardinal Zen’s blog, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary, and with the text of the open letter, with the presumed permission of His Eminence.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Br. Bugnolo’s Open Letter to Parolin

5 Comments

Your Excellency,

Pax et bonum!

I know you must be frustrated and I can understand your position. Under Pope Benedict XVI you were the Papal Nuncio to Venezuela, a really troublesome appointment.

But under Bergoglio you are Secretary of State and a Cardinal. Or so you thought.

Now that your office has read most of my website, FromRome.Info, you know well that Benedict never resigned the papacy, and that means you are not a Cardinal nor the Secretary of State. So I can understand your disappointment.

Moreover, having consecrated at least 24 Bishops without a pontifical mandate, you have merited excommunication latae sententiae maybe 24 times, that is, on each occasion after you knew Pope Benedict’s Declaratio did not effect his separation from the Papal Office.

And since you are a graduate of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy I know you know your canon law, which is a real bummer, because you cannot plead ignorance of what you have done.

But, be assured that I have sympathy for you and want to accompany you in your pain. I feel for you. You did not participate in the Conclave of 2013, so its not canonically your fault that Bergoglio is a usurper and will go down in history as an Antipope. And I can understand fully your internal conflict that your name will go down in history as the faux Secretary of State of an Antipope.

But there is a way to fix this. And it is not by having your sostituto tell the police in the Piazza di San Pietro to attempt to charge me with everything in the book. That looks bad. And a reporter from the Associated Press saw it all. So did the AP camera crew. It even looks worse when the police who took me away did not know the definition of a Catholic priest or what clothing is worn by priests, or even that only priests represent the Church not Franciscan brothers or hermits.

But I can let you in to a big secret. The way around all your problems is being honest with Jesus Christ and with yourself. Just admit that all those around you made a mistake and in good faith you assumed your current duties. You are just as much a victim as the rest of us, who were deceived by a Tweet put out by Giovanni Chirri at 11:58 A.M. seven years and one day ago. And, besides, it is easy to blame everyone else, the doing of which in your case would — ironically — actually be a virtue!

So the way to recover the damage to your reputation is to work with Catholics like myself who want the juridical problem solved. If you want some suggestions, just drop me your contact information in a comment box, and we can meet somewhere in Italian territory.

Don’t be put off because I won’t enter Vatican Territory until I have a letter from you granting me permission. I just got a very bad impression that the Vatican is not concerned about their human rights record or their relations with citizen journalists by something that happened me yesterday, when I came to the Piazza to share my sorrow at Pope Benedict XVI being so badly treated by the Cardinals for 7 years.

So be assured of my prayers: you may not realize it yet, but I am your best friend in all of Rome.

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning still

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

______________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a collage of images of Cardinal Parolin from Google Image Search, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

 

2013 Conclave, News, Team Bergoglio

Vatican Radio seeks to kill story on “Team Bergoglio”

1 Comment

Note: For a more recent summary of the Allegations contained in Dr. Ivereigh’s Book, click here.

.

Rome, Dec. 4, 2014:  The remarkable and stunning revelations by Dr. Austen Ivereigh in his new book, The Great Reformer: the Making of a Radical Pope, have shown their importance in recent days by the sheer number of news articles which have appeared, framing the news of the book on the basis of the story regarding “Team Bergoglio”, the name Dr. Ivereigh gives to the group of 4-6 Cardinals of the Roman Church who, in the days prior to the opening of the Conclave on March 6, 2013, organized an electoral campaign to urge the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenas Aires, Argentina.

While the story did not get traction, outside of the UK, until it was covered by the noted Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti of La Stampa, in Italy, once he did, it broke in numerous news outlets the world over, both in Spain, Portugal, Brazil and the United States.  Soon Ivereigh was taking interview requests from as far away as Peru. And since it has, he has given numerous talks on his book.

However, what most do not know, is that within hours of Tosatti’s published comments, the Vatican was moving behind the scenes to quash the story.  For the Italian blog, il Sismografo, which published Fr. Frederico Lombardi’s carefully worded denial of the allegations, is, unbeknownst to many, run by Fr. Lombard’s colleagues at Radio Vaticana.

The nature of the denial issued by Il Sismografo indicates that great fear and trepidation is had in circles much higher up at the Vatican regarding the allegations.  This can be seen from the fact that the denial was not issued through an official source, that the publishers of the denial were colleagues of Lombardi hiding behind the anonymity of a blog, which is widely read by journalists.  Neither of which could be done without direct knowledge of Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State of the Vatican.

As is now, nearly universally known, it was John Bingham of the Telegraph, in the UK, who first broke the story and used the ascription “a discreet, but highly organised, campaign” to describe the work of “Team Bergoglio“. In his story, he quotes Dr. Ivereigh saying of the Team’s work that it was an “organised pre-conclave effort to get Bergoglio elected“. After the publication of his story in the Sunday, Nov. 23 edition of the Telegraph, Dr. Ivereigh was interviewed on Premier Christian Radio about his book and did not discount Bingham’s characterization of the story, but did show extreme unease as he dodged the question as to its nature.

As this blog, From Rome, has speculated, the reason for the great trepidation and swift denials of Dr. Ivereigh’s narrative of events, both by the spokeswoman for Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster, England, and now by Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Vatican Press Office, is most likely that the papal law for elections of the Roman Pontiff expressly forbids under pain of automatic excommunication, any type of campaigning which obliges in any manner the elector to vote or not vote for a specific candidate or candidates.

As of yesterday, however, the scrubbing of the story is underway: with Google Books removing from online viewing the pages regarding the electoral campaign.

This blog, From Rome has published 2 articles on the canvassing campaign and another on the history of reports about the stories on “Team Bergoglio”.  We have characterizing the lobbying effort from the beginning as canvassing, on the basis of the moral quality of the work done:  for to canvass for votes means, in English, ‘to urge to an elector the worthiness of a candidate and to ask or inquire by words or signs whether the elector can be counted upon to vote for the candidate who has been urged.’

Dr. Austen Ivereigh, himself, uses the word, “canvassing” in The Great Reformer, when he writes (on-line edition, not paginated):

The Spanish cardinal, Santos Abril y Castello, archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome and a former nuncio in Latin America was vigorous in canvassing on Bergoglio’s behalf among the Iberian bloc.

That the lobbying campaign was an effort at canvassing is confirmed by the words of one American Cardinal, who in the summer of 2013, in an expression of dismay about the course the pontificate of Cardinal Bergoglio was taking, quipped in public that, “We didn’t get the goods which we were sold!“.  While this phrase is not, as some have claimed on the Net, certainly indicative of a sale of votes, it is indicative of an organized effort to solicit votes.

Yet, such an asking or solicitation is expressly forbidden by paragraph 81 of Universi Dominici, which is as wide in the activities which it forbids as it is with the manner of obligation assumed.  While it seems incredible to some, very knowledgeable in the affairs of previous conclaves, that such is forbidden, the fact remains that in the conclave of 2013, if just 4 or 6 Cardinals were involved, the small marginal victory of Cardinal Bergoglio in the final vote of 78 in favor (+2 votes more than the 66% required) would be put in doubt on account of the terms of Canon 171, which nullifies all ecclesiastical elections wherein the votes accrued for victory are only obtained with the counting of votes of excommunicated electors.

That “Team Bergoglio” knew beforehand of the risks involved seems indicated by the fact that it was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Conner, who was not eligible to vote in the Conclave, who was their leader; because by participating in a canvassing campaign, if he were to run afoul of the papal law against such, the loss of his vote would not risk the effects of Canon 171 § 2, the invalidation of the election.  This seems further indicated by the fact that the denials issued by the Cardinals have regarded the consent of Cardinal Bergoglio (a most untoward allegation, as far as the ethics of the Sacred College go) and the participation of Cardinals, but not other persons: denials which seek to undermine an allegation regarding a conspiracy and the invalidity of the election, rather than the canvassing of votes per se.  Indeed, what apologists, who have appeared on the Net in favor of “Team Bergoglio”, have attempted to stress is only that what was done was no different than what was done in the conclaves in the past.

That the Cardinals named by Dr. Ivereigh did participate in a lobbying campaign seems confirmed by a report by the Wall Street Journal, by Stacy Meichtry and Alessandra Galloni, entitled, Fifteen Days in Rome: How the Pope Was Picked:The inside story: From the Red Room where Bergoglio’s name was first dropped to a faithful night on Rome’s Piazza Navona, which was published on Aug. 6, 2013.

Though, until today, no one has publicly commented on the novelty of Pope John Paul’s law, Universi Dominici Gregis, which puts such a harsh penalty on what seemingly would be the natural course of events in an election conducted by human prudence.  Indeed, the whole tenor of the current papal law on the election of the Roman Pontiff stresses that it should be conducted only in a religious manner, one free from all such political gamesmanship.  And this is the chief point which the allegations seem in trepidation aimed at affirming.

For a time-line of reports, including our own coverage, click here.