Rome, February 25, 2015: Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, on October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, in the United States, confessed that he was lobbied to support Cardinal Bergoglio. Start watching from 18:20…
The Cardinal very smoothly avoids saying that he heeded the advice given, and that he spoke to favor Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy, but his words and admissions betray him.
The events recounted by the Cardinal took place, according to him, while he was in Rome at the beginning of the General Congregations for the 2013 Conclave. The lobbying effort was significantly exposed by Dr. Austen Ivereigh in November, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.
[HT to our friend from Chicago, for this tip]
7 thoughts on “Cardinal McCarrick confesses that he was lobbied to support Cardinal Bergoglio”
The dead give-away that Cardinal McCarrick is spinning a phony yarn about the “spontaneity” of the election of Bergoglio are the moments surrounding minute 19, when he tees up that there is a brilliant man (who must remain secret) who says (suddenly) “what about Bergoglio, does he have a chance?” and McCarrick says “no one is mentioning his name.” Both claims are utterly preposterous, in light of the fact that others have already reported that in the previous conclave (electing Benedict XVI, who McCarrick opposed) Cardinal Bergoglio was the runner-up in that papal election.
In other words, the listeners are to believe that (a) a man who was a prime candidate at the previous conclave had no chance at this one; and (b) no one was talking about that man at the next conclave only a few years later.
So McCarrick sees value in convincing people to believe that this papal election somehow came out of thin air.
The chilling statement is this: “In 5 years he can make the Church over again?”
Marxist, anti-tradition ideology – all change in terms of “5-year plans.”
Indeed, the words “Push Gergoglio” are extremely significant. Regarding Catholic marriage, wouldn’t “pushing” by one’s companions make a marriage “null”? Does “push[ing]” meet the definition of “coercion” and the exertion of “external fear”? Pushing by an outside party removes one’s freedom to consent. This is basic contract law, isn’t it? A contract is not binding if one is “push[ed]” into consent. Canon Law should be followed, and the recent Conclave should be reviewed.
Maybe the SotF II should be discussing a Conclave Annulment instead of marriage annulments?
So much for the Holy Spirit…
I would like to bring to your attention a significant addition to your work on “Team Bergoglio” up to this point. If you so agree, this writer would prefer that this post be added to your blog as a new blog post instead of an addition to the comment section of this post. The writer would like it posted under the anonymous title, Pseudonym 12.
As far as this writer is aware, the From Rome blog and others have focused on paragraph 81 of Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) as being the main basis for a null and void conclave. The evidence that paragraph 81 of UDG was violated is supplied in Austin Ivereigh’s book entitled The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope. From that book, many have concluded that a few Catholic prelates formed a team or (using the words fro UDG) a “pact, agreement, promise or other commitment” which “oblige[d] them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.” At the same time, the paragraph notes that “It is not my [St. John Paul II] intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.” If “Team Bergoglio” existed, it could be argued that they were simply like-minded individuals exchanging views, without a “pact, agreement, promise” etc.
Cardinal McCarrick (in the video posted on the From Rome blog, February 25 2015), however, seems to subtly admit that he himself violated paragraph 80 of UDG, thus making the conclave null and void. Here is the bulk of the paragraph 80:
I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.
To simplify, “all possible forms of interference…and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree…might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope” are prohibited. Paragraph 76 details the status of a conclave in which a Cardinal proposes “even under the guise of a simple desire” a secular authority’s influence on the election of the Pope:
Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
As From Rome blog noted, paragraph 5 of UDG makes it the duty of the college of Cardinals to investigate such a case, although the previous paragraph mentions no declaration is needed on the matter.
Now for the evidence that a Cardinal appears to have acknowledges his violating of paragraph 80 of UDG. In the “Who is Pope Francis” video uploaded on the From Rome blog on February 25 2015, henceforth “Cardinal McCarrick video”), Cardinal McCarrick states that prior to the election, he was a friend of Cardinal Bergoglio. He then states (beginning at 18:20):
About, maybe, just before we went into the General Conversations…a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to ask if he could come to see me, so I said sure. He came to see me at the seminary, the American College where I was staying. We sat down this is a very brilliant man, very influential man in Rome ah, and he, we talked about a number of things; he had a favor to ask me from back…in the United States, but then he said, “what about Bergoglio?” And I was surprised at the question, I said, “what about him?” He said, “Does he have a chance?” I said, “I don’t think so because…no one has mentioned his name, he hasn’t been in anyone’s mind…I don’t think its on anybody’s mind to vote for him. He said, “He could do it, you know.” I said, “What could he do?” He said, “He could reform the Church. If you gave him 5 years, he could put us back on target. He’s 76, [unintelligible] if he had 5 years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in 5 years could make the Church over again.” I said, “That’s interesting thing.” He said, “I know you’re his friend.” I said, “I hope I am.” He said, “Talk him up.” [unintelligible] said “Well, we’ll see what happens…this is God’s work.”
Here a summary is needed: a “very influential Italian gentleman” knew that Cardinal McCarrick was Cardinal Bergoglio’s friend. This “very influential Italian gentleman” met with Cardinal McCarrick prior to the General Congregations, which are the speeches given before the actual conclave voting begins. This “very influential Italian gentlemen” told Cardinal McCarrick to “talk up” Cardinal Bergoglio (later, at 23:09, Cardinal McCarrick describes this same act as “push[ing] Bergoglio”). So, an external individual (the “very influential Italian gentleman”) interfered with the election of the Supreme Pontiff by suggesting that Cardinal McCarrick “talk up” and “push” Cardinal Bergoglio (all of this in violation of paragraph 80 of UDG).
Now, did Cardinal McCarrick actually follow through with the “very influential” Italian gentleman’s suggested influence on the election of the Pope? It seems that Cardinal McCarrick very subtly admits that he accepted the task of the “very influential Italian gentleman”, and Cardinal McCarrick subtly influences the voters mind towards Cardinal Bergoglio. Cardinal McCarrick states in the video (beginning at 19:49):
Then, ah, we had the General Congregations…I spoke, for 5 minutes and 15 seconds, as the guy who, as Cardinal [unintelligible] said…I said 3 things. I said, number 1…getting away from the poor and to a certain extent I’m afraid in some areas of the world, we were getting away from the poor. And that’s very dangerous. I said, I hope that the new, that the one who is elected Pope, will be someone who, if he is not himself a Latin American, would at least have a very strong interest in Latin America, cause, half the Church is there. So that you really have to begin to think of that’s where the people are. I forget what the third thing I said was, probably wasn’t any good anyway.
It does not take a brain surgeon to recognize where Cardinal McCarrick clearly follows through on the task suggested by the external “very influential Italian.” Cardinal McCarrick says, “I hope that the new, that the one who is elected Pope, will be someone who, if he is not himself a Latin American, would at least have a very strong interest in Latin America”. Under the guise of a simple desire, Cardinal McCarrick follows through with the suggested task of the external influence, and proposed that the Pope be someone from Latin America. That statement seems to be clear evidence of a violation of paragraph 80 of UDG, which prohibits “all possible forms of interference…and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree…might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” If so, Cardinal McCarrick’s actions would seem to have made the conclave null and void. (Here too, if any interested Cardinals are reading, they should try to remember the third thing that Cardinal McCarrick spoke about; did he mention any more hints, subtle re-direction of the voters’ minds, towards Cardinal Bergoglio?)
I agree that interpretation of UDG is of utmost importance, and it seems that UDG itself says that if any question of interpretation of UDG be raised, the College of Cardinals is responsible for interpretation. It also seems to be a question that a Canon Lawyer could answer.
Even so, another pertinent piece of evidence has surfaced, in case anyone is following this matter closely or would like to investigate. In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hdaJ4wEE recorded on February 13, 2013) Cardinal McCarrick explains his thoughts on the next pope; the pertinent quotes begin at the 5:50 mark. It is an edited video, so it could possibly leave out other relevant quotes. However, in discussing the next pope, Cardinal McCarrick’s desires are focused on the youth, secularism, a man with administrative ability, the gift of choosing people, Cardinal Wuerl, and holiness. It is notable that in that video he does not propose that the next pope be from Latin America or a pope who focuses on the poor.
Cutting to the chase: somewhere between February 13, 2013 and the General Congregations (which began on March 4, 2013?), Cardinal McCarrick appears to have changed his tune on his desires for the next pope. The video of February 13, 2013 discusses his thinking that the next pope needs to focus on the youth, the gift of choosing people, etc., whereas he later says that during the General Congregations he spoke of his desire for a pope who focuses on the poor as well as being from Latin America.
What happened between February 13, 2013 and the General Congregations? Cardinal McCarrick met with the external influential Italian gentleman who suggested he “push Bergoglio.” The change from focusing on the youth, etc. to re-directing the Cardinal electors’ minds to Latin America seemed to have occurred as a result of the external influence of the Italian gentleman.
A final note to this comment is that no. 80 of UDG refers to “all other persons taking
part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election…both before the election begins and during the election”, and no. 11 notes that “The General Congregations preceding the beginning of the election, which are therefore called ‘preparatory’….” Therefore, if the Cardinals’ speeches given at the General Congregations were influenced by an external, secular authority, it could be said that the external, secular authority influenced a non-elector, who in turn influenced the Cardinal Electors with his speech during preparations for the election, violating no. 80. Thus, the election of the Supreme Pontiff appears to have been interfered with by an external influence, with suggestions under the disguise of desires.
I do not completely understand that response, but it seems that an investigation of these recent revelations is warranted. Universi Dominici Gregis makes very clear that the election of the Supreme Pontiff is a sacred act, and allowing external influence into the election would be an act of profanation. External, secular authorities very obviously know the power that the pope has over the minds of the entire world and would hope for or push for a pope that would further their beliefs (the lavender/purple agenda, liberation theology agenda, anti-capitalism agenda, “global warming” agenda, etc.). A “very influential Italian gentleman” would likely know the Pope’s ability to alter peoples’ minds according to his desires, and it would not be necessary for that Italian gentleman to have even met with the person he desired to be the future pope.
I must repeat that it seems that no. 80 of UDG, in stating “I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope” means precisely what is written – that “all possible forms of interference” (which would include indirect, subtle interference, like simply re-directing electors’ minds to a potential pope from Latin America) are prohibited. If the events prior to the conclave occurred the way Cardinal McCarrick publicly described them, and if an external, secular authority influenced the conclave, then there would not be a need to even investigate “Team Bergoglio” – even though such an investigation might provide more confirming evidence. Even the slightest bit of external influence (“all possible forms of interference”) would violate no. 80 of UDG. Then, it seems, that no. 76 would be applicable: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
There is chaos in both the Church and the world right now. There are agendas being pushed that are very damaging to the Faith. Only the College of Cardinals has the authority to investigate such a claim, it seems, and one would hope that the College will step up to the plate. Many souls might depend on such an investigation.
Comments are closed.