There certainly is no question that I've been particularly critical of the Pope's resignation, as are many other traditional Catholics. In this, I'm in good company. It is also no secret that I, as a former seminarian, know about and am not afraid to speak about the infiltration of the modern Catholic Church by individuals who actively promote cultural Marxism and homosexuality. In this, I'm in good company as well. I will not apologize or retract anything in this regard.
However, it may have appeared, due to only linking to the La Repubblica article that scooped a "gay lobby" working in the Vatican, and blackmailing certain officials close to the former Holy Father, and not providing links to other sources that contested the La Repubblica article, that I have endorsed this article, and even by my silence, endorsed other claims made by the same Italian journal regarding the "hidden reasons" for the resignation in follow-up articles.
This is not the case. While I did provide a link to a secondary source that translated said article, I have never linked to any other articles or translations of articles from La Repubblica that spread uncharitable and unsubstantiated rumors about Pope Benedict XVI. In this regard, Ars Orandi did nothing more than any other Catholic media or information outlet. In fact, I wasn't even aware that La Repubblica had published any such follow-up articles to the original article until this afternoon. I do not read Italian magazines, and certainly not Leftist publications like La Repubblica, unless the content comes to my attention as news worthy or of interest to traditional Catholics.
__________________________________________________
The "hidden reasons" for the resignation of Benedict XVI
The press is speculating on the "real" reasons for the resignation of Benedict XVI. An article in the February 21 issue of La Repubblica, a leftist Italian daily newspaper, signed by Concita de Gregorio, former chief editor of L’Unita (the Communist daily), implies that the present pope resigned following the discovery of a homosexual pressure group inside the Vatican. The February 22 issue of Le Figaro rejects this hypothesis, which is based on the contents of the internal report written by three cardinals following the Vatileaks affair. This report, writes Jean-Marie Guenois, contains the results of an investigation that Benedict XVI himself ordered three trusted cardinals on April 25, 2012, to carry out after secret Vatican documents were leaked to the press. At that time no one suspected the valet, who was arrested on May 25. He was put on trial, but the cardinals’ investigation continued, because the pope wanted to understand how those leaks could have happened and what disorders they revealed. The three cardinals submitted their report to the pope on December 17, 2012.
And even if this report mentions this subject - which is one of the many problems in the operations of the Vatican - it cannot be the decisive element in a papal decision to resign, because it was submitted eight months after Benedict XVI had made his decision to resign.
It was upon his return from his trip to Mexico and Cuba (March 23-29, 2012) that Benedict XVI, literally exhausted, made this decision to announce his resignation. In April 2012 therefore.
It was kept secret for a long time, fewer than five people knew about it; he waited until he had honored all his commitments [in 2012 and early 2013] before making it public.
This analysis is corroborated by the testimony of the German journalist Peter Seewald, in the magazine Focus dated February 18. Wishing to write a new biography of the pope, he met several times with the Holy Father. In August at Castel Gandolfo, during a one-and-a-half-hour interview, Benedict XVI confided to him that he had not fallen into any sort of disarray over the Vatileaks affair, but that that affair was quite simply incomprehensible to him. Peter Seewald adds that he had never seen the pope so tired, at the limit of his strength, using his last remaining energy to finish his book on Jesus. "This is my final book," he then declared. To the journalist’s question about what was still to be expected of his pontificate, Benedict XVI replied, "Not very much. I am an old man, my strength is spent. I think too that what I have done may suffice."
In a press release dated February 23, the Secretary of State of the Holy See vehemently condemned the articles that had appeared in the Italian press on February 21, linking the resignation of Benedict XVI to the existence of a homosexual pressure group:
On February 25, Benedict XVI received in audience the authors of the investigatory report on the Vatileaks affair, Cardinals Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko andSalvatore De Giorgi, and he announced that "the acts [i.e., the contents of that report], which are known to him alone, will be made available to his successor," according to an official Vatican communique.
___________________________________________________
The press is speculating on the "real" reasons for the resignation of Benedict XVI. An article in the February 21 issue of La Repubblica, a leftist Italian daily newspaper, signed by Concita de Gregorio, former chief editor of L’Unita (the Communist daily), implies that the present pope resigned following the discovery of a homosexual pressure group inside the Vatican. The February 22 issue of Le Figaro rejects this hypothesis, which is based on the contents of the internal report written by three cardinals following the Vatileaks affair. This report, writes Jean-Marie Guenois, contains the results of an investigation that Benedict XVI himself ordered three trusted cardinals on April 25, 2012, to carry out after secret Vatican documents were leaked to the press. At that time no one suspected the valet, who was arrested on May 25. He was put on trial, but the cardinals’ investigation continued, because the pope wanted to understand how those leaks could have happened and what disorders they revealed. The three cardinals submitted their report to the pope on December 17, 2012.
Contrary to what La Repubblica would have its readers believe, no one has read this report which allegedly contains the famous revelation about the gay lobby. The journalist repeated a news note published in the magazine Panorama, which was in fact able to interview, not one of the three cardinal investigators, but one of the many Vatican employees who had been questioned by those cardinals. That anonymous employee allegedly declared that he had spoken about that gay lobby. Hence the journalist’s deduction - which was not verified, since no one has access to the document - that this report spoke about a gay lobby.
And even if this report mentions this subject - which is one of the many problems in the operations of the Vatican - it cannot be the decisive element in a papal decision to resign, because it was submitted eight months after Benedict XVI had made his decision to resign.
It was upon his return from his trip to Mexico and Cuba (March 23-29, 2012) that Benedict XVI, literally exhausted, made this decision to announce his resignation. In April 2012 therefore.
It was kept secret for a long time, fewer than five people knew about it; he waited until he had honored all his commitments [in 2012 and early 2013] before making it public.
This analysis is corroborated by the testimony of the German journalist Peter Seewald, in the magazine Focus dated February 18. Wishing to write a new biography of the pope, he met several times with the Holy Father. In August at Castel Gandolfo, during a one-and-a-half-hour interview, Benedict XVI confided to him that he had not fallen into any sort of disarray over the Vatileaks affair, but that that affair was quite simply incomprehensible to him. Peter Seewald adds that he had never seen the pope so tired, at the limit of his strength, using his last remaining energy to finish his book on Jesus. "This is my final book," he then declared. To the journalist’s question about what was still to be expected of his pontificate, Benedict XVI replied, "Not very much. I am an old man, my strength is spent. I think too that what I have done may suffice."
In a press release dated February 23, the Secretary of State of the Holy See vehemently condemned the articles that had appeared in the Italian press on February 21, linking the resignation of Benedict XVI to the existence of a homosexual pressure group:
Over the course of the centuries, Cardinals have had to face many forms of pressures, exerted upon individual electors or upon the College of Cardinals itself, that sought to influence their decisions, following a political or worldly logic. If in the past the so-called powers, i.e., States, sought to influence the election of the Pope, today there is an attempt to do this through public opinion, which is often based on judgments that do not capture the typically spiritual aspect of this moment that the Church is living. It is deplorable that, as we draw closer to the moment that the Conclave will begin and the Cardinal electors will be held - in conscience and before God - to freely express their choice, there is a widespread distribution of often unverified, unverifiable, or even completely false news stories that cause serious damage to persons and institutions….
On February 25, Benedict XVI received in audience the authors of the investigatory report on the Vatileaks affair, Cardinals Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko andSalvatore De Giorgi, and he announced that "the acts [i.e., the contents of that report], which are known to him alone, will be made available to his successor," according to an official Vatican communique.
___________________________________________________
As clearly stated in the Ars Orandi Q & A page: "This blog is not affiliated with any ecclesiastical organization, and any opinions present here are solely those of the blog authors."
I don't know.
ReplyDeleteCertainly it is prudent to take anything from the Church's avowed tormentors on the Left with a grain of salt. But that some sort of "old boys club" does exist in higher circles cannot be dismissed out of hand. What else could explain wretches like Bernardin, Hubbard, Weakland, Wuerl and the hundreds of others who may not have been poofs themselves but certainly were timid in doing anything about it? I'm afraid something of this awful nature must exist. It is the only thing that explains why these episcopal creeps were protected and promoted and never disciplined.
It is not right to say the whole Roman landscape is corrupt. But something nasty is going on somewhere in ecclesiastical circles. Simple human logic makes it more than a mere suspicion.