Tag Archives: Giuseppe Pelligrino

Antonio Socci: Bergoglio wants to gag Pope Benedict XVI

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

After seven years, Bergoglio’s “dismissal” of Archbishop Gänswein has made even the newspapers finally realize that there are two popes in the Catholic Church. Maybe it will take seven more to explain what it means.

On Sun., Feb. 9, Corriere Della Sera ran a headline on an article by Massimo Franco that read: “So Ends The Era Of The Two Popes.” The article gives Bergoglio’s spin on the latest events (just as was already done in the other newspapers). In it, the Argentinian “court” that speaks for Bergoglio tells us that Archbishop Gänswein was relieved of his post as Prefect of the Papal Household because as secretary to Benedict XVI he did not prevent the pope emeritus from being “slyly presented” as the co-author with Card. Sarah of the book defending priestly celibacy [From the Depths of Our Hearts].

And so the Bergoglians want to convey three ideas: 1) Benedict XVI let himself be used, implying that he is incapable of looking after himself and thus he must be isolated and silenced; 2) Card. Sarah has instrumentalized the pope emeritus for his personal agenda; 3) Archbishop Gänswein failed to be vigilant in preventing it.

In reality, the situation is just the opposite. Benedict XVI is perfectly lucid and aware, as everyone knows (he is still the best mind in the Catholic Church), and he intended to intervene in defense of priestly celibacy, which has been placed in discussion by the Amazon Synod.

In mid-January, when Le Figaro printed a preview of the book with Card. Sarah, Bergoglio had an outburst with Archbishop Gänswein and ordered him to “blow up” the editorial operation. Archbishop Gänswein attempted to question the presentation of the cover of the book with the double signature so that the Bergoglian drum could keep banging the news that Benedict XVI has withdrawn his signature and disassociated himself from the operation.

But this was not true. In fact, Card. Sarah revealed the letters exchanged between the two authors and Benedict XVI received him, confirming his writing and his approval. Beyond the question of the names on the cover, it is clear to everyone that the book was written by mutual agreement: Benedict XVI was not gagged.

The new book makes it clear to the Christian people that it has not been abandoned by Benedict XVI and that his paternity continues to watch over the path of the Church. His pronouncement carries with it the enormous strength of the entire Catholic tradition. His voice – quite clearly – is the voice of the Church of all time.

This is why the book had a disruptive effect. The argument made by the Bergoglian court now appears laughable: “It gave the impression,” writes Franco, “of a doctrinal contradiction between the ‘two Popes’ that irritated Pope Francis, who was accused of favoring the abolition of celibacy: although his advisors assure us that this is not so, as will be seen from his conclusions on the Synod on the Amazon.”

It’s quite easy to see how absurd this version of events is. If in fact Benedict XVI and Card. Sarah wrote things identical to what Bergoglio professes, then why was he so infuriated that he “threw” Archbishop Gänswein “out of office” over the book? In reality Bergoglio wanted to give a pick-axe blow to celibacy by permitting the ordination of “viri probati,” and for this reason he had requested that this innovation be placed into the concluding document of the Synod.

But now, after the authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI, Bergoglio probably will not have the courage to do so (according to what his “advisers” told Massimo Franco and what is being reported by Avvenire). Bergoglio has made Archbishop Gänswein pay for this, since he has an angry and vindictive character.  Yet even if Bergoglio does not strike a direct blow at celibacy in the post-synodal exhortation to be released in the coming hours, he can still do it through his intermediaries by means of the “revolutionary” synod of German bishops.

Bergoglio’s disappointment comes from his recognizing that everyone continues to hear the voice of Benedict XVI as the authoritative voice of the pope, while his own voice is seen as divisive and perceived as the voice of a partisan politician who does not behave like a pope.

Franco also notes the way Bergoglio and his court were annoyed by the April 2019 publication of Benedict’s essay on clergy sexual abuse, and “the enormous echo that it made.” Franco writes: “Benedict XVI’s essay proved to be a source of embarrassment for the papal circle. It was noted with disappointment how the analysis of the pope emeritus still carried so much weight and how it was used instrumentally by Bergoglio’s adversaries.”

In reality it is Bergoglio and his circle who have tried for the last seven years to exploit Benedict XVI in order to legitimize the Bergoglian ruptures (as various sensational incidents have demonstrated). But Papa Ratzinger has never allowed himself to be used by anyone. With his meekness and his wisdom he continues to exercise his ministry.

In a memorable conference given at the Gregorian University [in May 2016], Archbishop Gänswein himself explained: “Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he not at all abandoned this ministry….He has not abandoned the office of Peter – something that would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Thus Benedict XVI’s closest collaborator explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “entirely impossible.”

Whoever has ears, let him understand.

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

Archbishop Viganò: The hour has come to clarify the role of Gänswein

by Archbishop Carolo Maria Viganò

LAVERITA.INFO

FULL TEXT

Authorized translation of the Italian original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear Editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Msgr. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of Vatileaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Msgr. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Msgr. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

 

ORIGINAL: https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

 

 

 

Marco Tosatti: Who is Gänswein Really? What Role Has He Played And Is He Playing?

By Marco Tosatti

15 January 2020

Authorized English translation of Italian Original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers, we have received a message from an elderly high-ranking prelate of the Curia; he is retired, but because he has over forty years of experience working inside the Vatican walls, from time to time he is still given delicate assignments. What “Monsignor X” writes to us is extremely interesting, because it helps us to piece together some of the problematic aspects of  the events of the last 72 hours. We are speaking, naturally, of the saga of the book; and we must say that it is difficult to not consider someone to be the co-author of a book that they have written more than forty pages of, as well as collaborating in writing the introduction and conclusion. Difficult…and a bit ridiculous.

But, remaining focused on the theme of the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus, we advise you to read La Verità on Thursday morning [January 16], which will contain another testimony of great value from an archbishop who has held many important roles in the Curia and also outside the Vatican and who has been in contact with Msgr. Gänswein for a long time. Trust my advice…

 

Monsignor X to Tosatti: 

I ask you to print what I write here, with the intention of making a contribution in order to help ensure that there will not be muddling of either the figure of Benedict nor that of Sarah, who is more in danger in this whole affair.

What has been reported raises several questions:

  1. Why would a man like Sarah ever have done something so absurd and easily disproven? (It is unthinkable that this was a private and free initiative of Gänswein – he does not have the authority even to think about doing it, and it would be far too dangerous to actually do it).
  2. Who therefore asked Gänswein to give orders to Cardinal Sarah? Was it Benedict or Bergoglio? (These are Gänswein’s two superiors)

I think it is clear that it could not have been Benedict, who speaks with Sarah frequently and loves him as a brother.

But who is Gänswein? Georg Gänswein is a very intelligent man; he was the most faithful personal secretary for Benedict from the moment of his election as pope, replacing Msgr. Clemens, the former personal secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who remained the pope’s confidant, stirring up Gänswein’s jealousy, to the point of ending up literally getting punched for it!

My understanding is that during the period of the pontificate, Gänswein functioned as the loyal protector of the Pope and even operated as a sort of “alternative” Secretary of State, in opposition to Cardinal Bertone, with whom Benedict had bad relations.

After the resignation he was not, as people called him, “the caregiver” of Benedict XVI.

I fear that he was rather “the guardian.”

Having been a most faithful and most loyal secretary, something happened that caused a profound transformation in him.

Therefore it is not surprising that it is supposed and said that Gänswein had not been told by Benedict about this book with Sarah. Is it possible that Gänswein no longer enjoys the confidence of the Pope Emeritus?

It could also be the case, after the mysterious and never-clarified arrest of the papal butler Paolo Gabriele, accused of having photocopied private documents of Pope Benedict taken straight off of Gänswein’s desk and giving them to journalists, without “anyone” knowing…

These documents accused Cardinal Bertone, with whom Gänswein, previously, had bad relations; but which curiously improved afterwards…

But above all it is curious that Pope Bergoglio confirmed him not only as personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus but also as Prefect of the Papal Household, which is not an honorary position.

The abrupt order given [on Monday] to Cardinal Sarah to remove Ratzinger’s signature from the book – which was not given explicitly in Benedict’s name, as should have been done – may reignite various suspicions and doubts about the figure and loyalty of Gänswein.

Here is a description of the duties of the Prefect of the Papal Household, taken from the Vatican website:

It is the task of the Prefecture of the Papal Household to coordinate the services of the Antechamber and to organize the official audiences granted by His Holiness to Heads of State, Heads of Government, Governmental Ministers and other dignitaries, as well as to Ambassadors who come to the Vatican to present their Letters of Credence.

The Prefecture takes care of the preparations for all audiences – private, special and general – and visits from those who are formally received by the Holy Father. It is also responsible for arranging Pontifical ceremonies – except liturgical celebrations – as well as the Spiritual Retreat of the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia.

In addition, the Prefecture oversees the appropriate arrangements required each time the Holy Father leaves the Apostolic Palace to visit the city of Rome or travel within Italy.

(For the Italian Original, click the link below)

CHI È GAENSWEIN REALMENTE? QUALE RUOLO HA GIOCATO E GIOCA?

Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy

By Marco Tosatti

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian

Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.

Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.

The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.

George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.

The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.

Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.

The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.

The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know.  Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.

Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.

In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.

Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.

Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!

(For the Italian original click the link below)

IL LIBRO DI BENEDETTO XVI E SARAH. ECCO I RETROSCENA DEL GIALLO.

 

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”