By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Sandro Magister has at last spilled the beans — as we say in English — that is, he has told us what really happened during the recent Book Flap over the defense of the Priestly Celibacy by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, the only Cardinal in any position in the Roman Curia, who was appointed to his office by Pope Benedict XVI.
The Main Stream Media has run with the story that it was Bergoglio who fired Archbishop Georg Gänswein for not preventing that Book from going to press and obstructing its publication as a work of the the Cardinal and the Pope.
But Magister, apologist extraordinaire for the Argentine Regime at the Vatican, in a report on his official Blog at L’Espresso, says what really happened. In a post entitled, Il silenzio di Francesco, le lacrime di Ratzinger e quella sua dichiarazione mai pubblicata – in which he speaks in a noticeable intent to humiliate the reigning Pontiff by calling him by his civil name — he says that it was Benedict who first detected Gänswein’s treachery and took decisive action to circumvent his interference.
Magister, writing in Italian says:
Ebbene, la mattina di mercoledì 15 gennaio, mentre papa Francesco stava tenendo la sua udienza generale settimanale e Gänswein sedeva come di regola al suo fianco nell’aula Paolo VI, lontano quindi dal monastero Mater Ecclesiae che è la residenza del papa emerito di cui egli è segretario, Benedetto XVI alzò di persona il telefono e chiamò Sarah prima a casa, dove non lo trovò, e poi in ufficio, dove il cardinale rispose.
Benedetto XVI espresse, accorato, a Sarah la sua solidarietà. Gli confidò di non riuscire a comprendere le ragioni di un’aggressione così violenta e ingiusta. E pianse. Anche Sarah pianse. La telefonata si chiuse con entrambi in lacrime.
My English translation:
Well, the morning of Wednesday, January 15th, while pope Francis was holding his weekly general audience and Gänswein was sitting, according to the rule, at his side in the Paul VI Hall, far indeed from the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae which is the residence of the Pope Emeritus, of whom he is the secretary, Benedict XVI personally picked up the phone and called Sara first at his home, where he did not find him, and then in his office, where the Cardinal picked up.
Benedict XVI expressed, in a heartfelt manner, his solidarity with Sarah. He confided in him that he had not understood the reasons for such a violent and unjust aggression. And he wept. Sarah also wept. The phone call ended with both of them in tears.
Magister also reports that Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict then wrote up a joint Statement and had Gänswein bring it over to the sostituto of the Secretary of State, Edgar Peña Parra — the very man whom the Italian State Police say they speak with when they are asked by Italian citizens why they are being treated so bruskly by them on Vatican soil or in Vatican extra-territorial zones here at Rome.
I know this, because in October, while I attended the Proud to be Italian rally organized by Matteo Salvini and the heads of all the opposition Parties in Italy, I was accosted by the Italian State police for the “crime” of having attached a banner in support of Pope Benedict to a Fence demarking the beginning of Vatican Extraterritorial zone at the Scala Santa. Here is an image of one of the banners.
They told me to take it down because it violated Italian Law. I said it cannot be violating Italian law because it is on Vatican Territory. Fluxed, they called the Secretary of State at the Vatican, and then returned and put me on the phone with the sostituto, whose name I did not catch at the moment. This evidently was Edgar. He told me I should not display such a banner at the Rally, because the Rally had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. I told him that I do an apostolate in public among persons of all kinds. He told me to take it down or else. I asked his name and he refused to give it to me. He insisted.
I understood I would be arrested. So I had my volunteers, all supporters of Pope Benedict, take it down and we mounted upon tall poles provided to us by Forza Italia, the party of Burlesconi. That way even more persons saw them! One of the men who was there the day I was told to take the banners down was in the Piazza S. Pietro on Tuesday morning, when I was led away by the police. Strange coincidence, no?
Thus it is not surprising in the least that the communication written by the Pope and Cardinal never saw the light of day. But Magister says, that the Italian Version of the Book, was defended by the Publisher a few days later, with a public statement crafted by Cardinal Parolin himself, word for word, praising the book.
The news about Edgar Peña Parra does not surprise me. It was reported at ChiesaRomana.Info in December, that a local priest said in public that Edgar authorizes excommunications over the telephone — a thing which he has no authority to do in any law. That the Archbishop brought the message to him and not to Parolin is already significant, since as Head of the Pontifical Household he should not suffer to speak with anyone but the Secretary of State.
But the real news is this. Pope Benedict XVI is as fiesty as ever. He had no illusions about the Archbishop which would have made him hesitant to break faith with him and make his own phone call behind the Archbishop’s back. He then began direct relations with Cardinal Sarah and was devastated to hear how his former personal secretary had betrayed him in the public press.
The second important fact is that it appears that Parolin is willing to take Benedict’s side, because it is really beneath a Secretary of State’s duties to write a communique for a private publisher of a pope emeritus’ books, but not so, if the author is the Successor of Saint Peter in truth.
The events related by Magister point to a significant moment in history. That was when Pope Benedict XVI unplugged Gänswein. The Italians call it, defenistrazione, which is a colorful word deriving from Late Latin, meaning to throw someone out of their office through the window, rather than letting them resign with dignity by leaving the office through the door after a resignation.
That is really why the Archbishop disappeared. Bergoglio could not fire him. Only the Pope can do that.
+ + +
Let us continue to pray for Pope Benedict, by joining the League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI, that his strength and resolve grow more and more daily and that he take up the reigns of the Petrine Munus which he still retains to this day.
CREDITS: The Featured Image is an excerpt of a video feed showing Pope Benedict leaving the Vatican on Feb. 28, 2013, as Pope. It is used here for editorial commentary, in that Benedict’s gesture of leaving the Vatican as Pope and not as Cardinal Ratzinger was a prophetic sign that he had not given up the fight, but that victory in the end would be his.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The information related by Mr. Zmirak here in this video raises serious questions about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, as regards coercion prior to the act
Chinese Intelligence Involvement?
I say this not only on account of what Mr. Zimrak says, but on account of what I know that he does not know. Because, I have it from one of the business men who dined one evening in Shanghai with Cardinal Papalardo, of Palermo (may he rest in peace), heard from his own mouth that the Cardinal was convinced the health of Pope Benedict was so poor that he would die within a year. The news of this comment spread, and the MSM put out stories on Feb. 12, 2012, that there was a plot to assassinate Pope Benedict if he refused to resign within a year.
My question is, now that we know from Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, that the Vatican Accord signed by Parolin was substantially the agreement of capitulation which Peking demanded Pope Benedict XVI to sign, though he refused: should we not consider it possible that Peking subborned Vatican representatives or connived with McCarrick to bribe Vatican officials (maybe even Gänswein?) to make the resignation happen?
After all, when the Italian businessmen joined the Cardinal in Shanghai for dinner in 2011, they were surprised to find him in China, and he said he was on official Vatican Business.
I find that hard to believe, because one of my sources who was the personal secretary of not a few Bishops in Italy, told me that Pope Benedict XVI sacked Cardinal Papalardo from the Congregation of Bishops because he was selling episcopal nominations for 100 thousand euros a pop! Once sacked, he bore a strong animus against Benedict til his dying days, it is said. And that means it might not have been an unintentional rumor, it might have been a carefully crafty psyop against Benedict by Chinese Intelligence, who somehow got Papalardo to cooperate.
So I think there is more than solid reasons to consider it possible that Pope Benedict XVI was not only urged out of power by the Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, but also with the urging and perhaps financing of the Marxist government of China.
Is the Vatican still laundering money for the CIA?
Key to the Renunciation is the discrepancy of why Cardinal Bertone called Mr. Gotti to his offices on Feb. 7, 2013 to promise his reinstatement in his duties as financial officer at the Vatican — he was dismissed without Pope Benedict’s knowledge, said Bertone, and Benedict only learned of it while watching TV! — and just 4 days later Benedict decides to resign?
According to Gänswein, Benedict prepared for his resignation over many months. Yet the Latin text has more than 40 errors in the Latin and several canonical errors! And Vatican TV was not even notified to turn their cameras on to catch it all?
It does not add up.
I think another line of investigation regards what Gotti might have possibly discovered if reinstated. And I think it has to do with slush funds in the Vatican Bank used by foreign Intelligence Agencies to bribe foreign officials, including Vatican officials.
I base this observation on a very detailed report published in the USA on how Pope John Paul II cooperated with the CIA to fund the Solidarity Movement in Poland, which brought down the Communist Government there. The report said that the money was laundered through the Vatican Bank. Did accounts like this remain operative after 1988? And if so, for what purposes?
The internecine battle in September between the Vatican Financial Oversight authority and the Secretary of State’s foreign investments in London, through a Swiss Bank and a financier in Luxembourg may have to do with the same slush funds, because almost immediately the Italian press published information showing that the current Prime Minster of Italy was paid money, ostensibly as a salary, about the time he was chosen as Prime Minister, out of a life of political obscurity. Since that time, Conte has run Italy strictly for the political agendas of France and Germany. While at the same time the Bergoglian Regime has forcefully defended the antics of one ship in the Mediterranean Sea which imports illegals, which the European Press has unmasked as financed by Cardinal Marx and perhaps even German Intelligence.
+ + +
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.
Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.
Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:
- Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
- Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
- Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
- Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
- Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
- Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
- Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
- Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
- Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
- Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
- Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
- Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
- Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
- Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
- Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
- Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?
These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.
+ + +
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:
- 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).
- 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)
Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
BREAKING — Rome, January 16, 2020 A. D.: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in a front page leading article in today’s edition of La Verità, one of the leading conservative Italian Daily Newspapers, blasts Archbishop Gänswein as someone who has habitually put himself between Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia, blocking and filtering things which he personally did not want Pope Benedict to see or respond to.
The revelations are personal and stunning. in a short article, written by Viganò himself, which follows on p. 2 of today’s edition. While I cannot legally give a translation of the whole article, I can summarize its contents:
- He characterizes Gänswein’s activity as the personal secretary of the Pope as “a control abusively and systematically exercised … from the beginning of his pontificate”.
- Viganò says that on April 4, 2011, when he personally met with Pope Benedict, he asked if he has received through Gänswein his complaints about the abuse and corruption of the Pontifical Household (which was not under Gänswein’s authority at that time). But Pope Benedict said that the information never arrived in his hands.
- On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, Viganò sought an audience with Pope Benedict, but was told by the Prefect of the Pontifical Household, Mons. Harvey, that Gänswein had told him “Monsigno Viganò is the last person to approach Benedict!”
For the full article, see La Verità at https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html
For Marco Tosatti’s Discussion of this news, in Italian, see https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/16/ganswein-benedetto-sarah-un-intervento-di-mons-vigano/
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)
Or, how it happened that the Archbishop called me on the phone
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The world has seen two of the most outrageous usurpations of office in the history of humanity, and in the short space of six years, from 2007 to 2013. I speak of the unconstitutional election of a self-proclaimed Kenyan citizen to the Presidency of the United States of America, in violation of the natural born citizen clause (Article II, section 1, clause 5) and of the uncanonical election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff on March 13, 2013 in violation of canon 359 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Pope John Paul II’s law on papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, which both forbid the election of a Roman Pontiff when a legal sede vacante has not occurred. (A sede vacante occures with the natural death of the Pope, or his resignation of munus in accord with Canon 332 §2). — For all my reports on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict and why that act did not cause him to lose the Papal Office, see my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict.
It was a poignant moment, then, for the triumph of criminality over law, when Barrack Obama came to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Bergoglio on Marcy 27, 2014. And in the midst was Father George, Gänswein, at Obama’s right hand (Photo care of the White House).
But the plans of men cannot be hidden from God, nor can they be hidden for long from God’s faithful, moved as they are by the Spirit of Truth who reveals hidden secrets.
Inspired by this Spirit many a faithful Catholic has voiced concerns, criticisms, objections and warnings over the strange happenings of February 2013, when Benedict issued a declaration in the Consistory of Feb. 11th, of that year — called to canonize the Martyrs of Otranto, slaughtered en masse by the forces of the Turks in the 16th century — which was publicized as a renunciation of the papacy, though it was nothing of the kind.
Present on that day, was also George Gänswein, now titular Archbishop of Urbs Salvia.
Mons. Gänswein has been seen as the faithful and devoted personal secretary to Joseph Ratzinger for more than 35 years. Ratzinger spotted him taking coffee at the German Collegium in the Vatican back in the 80’s and asked if he would like to be his secretary, since he needed someone fluent in German and Italian. Mons. Gänswein holds a doctorate in Canon Law.
For these reasons I have long confided in Gänswein to speak the truth, even if, after his talk at the Gregorian University in 2016, when he clearly said that Benedict XVI still occupied the petrine office and still shared the petrine munus and ministry, I shook my head, because it seems a totally insane thing to say, since at the time, I still operated under the fake news put out that day, that Benedict had resigned the papacy.
But in the Last 18 months, with intense research and investigation, I have come to agree with Gänswein on those same points, because the effect of renouncing the petrine ministry alone, is that Benedict retains the petrine munus and office, and hence, in virtue of these, also the petrine ministry and power of governance, whether he thinks he has or not, and whether anyone else thinks he has, or not.
My Two Letters to Archbishop Gänswein
So, in November, filled with this sense of trust and confidence in the Archbishop, whose personal motto is Testimonium perhibere veritati — To bear witness to the truth — I wrote him a personal letter, in Italian, on the 25th, the English translation of which, I will post here:
I am writing you to request a personal meeting with you so as to put to rest a common doubt, which many Catholics have, who love His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.
This doubt regards whether He, in saying minstero in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, had the intention to say muneri.
This doubt lingers because, as much as I know, His Holiness has never been asked in public if he had this intention or not.
Many are of the opinion, that in renouncing the ministry, Pope Benedict’s intention was to retain the munus, because He thinks the munus is the grace and the vocation which he received for always.
Others are of the opinion that in renouncing the ministery, His intention was to renounce the papacy, but not having understood that the ministerium is not the munus on account of the error in the German translation of the Code of Canon Law, in canon 145 §1, He made a substantial error in the renunciation (cf. Canons 126 and 188), because Canon 332 §2 constrains the man who is the pope, in renouncing, to renounce the petrine munus. Since as Pope He did not concede to himself as Ratzinger a derogation by reason of canon 38, the renunciation remains vitiated. This is what they think.
For these reasons, and because I have written extensively on this topic at fromrome.wordpress.com and ChiesaRomana.info, I think a meeting with your Excellency will help all understand better what has happened.
I am not a journalist I am a consecrated person observing the Rule of Saint Francis, which obliges me in its second precept to uphold the Papacy.
Desiring only to know the truth, and dwelling at Rome, only 10 minutes from the Vatican, I am free at any moment to meet you wherever you like,
Having received no response, I posted another letter to the Archbishop on January 9, at the Vatican Post Office. That letter got a phone response. Here is my English translation of that letter, the original of which was also in Italian:
I wish you best wishes on the Seventh Anniversary of your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of Pope Benedict! And I thank you for all that you do for the Holy Father!
I am writing for several reasons:
First, to remind you of my request for a personal meeting with your Excellency to understand better if the Holy Father had intended to renounce the petrine munus or whether he has ever said that he wanted to renounce the petrine munus, as I requested of you in my letter of Nov. 25th.
I make this request for the good of the Church, because I understand that the true pastoral care of the faithful, which save souls, is that which is established on the truth, not on hearsay.
I am also writing you to inform you, that on Dec. 19, I founded The League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI. Catholics all over the world are already signed up, by means of 7 blogs which are spreading the invitation. For an Italian explanation see
For an English version see:
Where you can find all the blogs listed who are participating in the English, Italian, Spanish and French speaking worlds.
I founded this League for the reasons described in the announcements and to share with other the grace the Lord gave me the day Pope John Paul II was shot in the Piazza S. Petro years ago, to pray daily for the Holy Father.
Lastly, having had the care of my own mother in her last years of life (she passed away on Nov. 2, 2018, from cortical dementia, her name is Doris) I learned well that the elderly need proper nutrition. I recommend a diet which is rich in protein. In the Bavarian State TV documentary the images of the Holy Father seem to show that he has lost a lot of weight recently, and so I am worried for his health. Also, seeing that my maternal grandfather was a barber, I cannot omit to say that if the Holy Father needs the services of a barber, I am willing to make a donation to pay the barber’s salary.
Sincerely in Saint Francis,
In both letters, at the end, I included contact information. My email and phone number. Little did I think I would ever get a response to my second letter. But I did, and it came by telephone at 10:43 A.M. on the morning of Saturday, January 11, 2020.
Archbishop Gänswein drops me a call
Though I missed the call, the Archbishop was kind enough to leave a message on my voice mail. Since my report here at The From Rome Blog, which is hosted on a website in the USA, is nevertheless readable in the European Union, I cannot share with you the recording of the call, nor give you a transcription of its contents, because that is prevented by privacy laws. However, I can describe in my own words, what I understood by the message left, so that everyone, especially the Cardinals and Bishops, understand how wrong it is to trust in anyone who claims to represent Pope Benedict, and how they need now to go to him in person and ask the most important questions.
I was trained in music as a youth, and so I have a keen ear to musical tones. Everyone’s voice has its own tone, and whether they speak in public or in private, on the phone or before an audience, it is the same tone. For that reason I can say the voice is that of the Archbishop. The voice also identifies itself as such.
My Italian contacts tell me it is clearly the voice of a German, but one which has spoken Italian for quite some time. I think the voice is suffering a little of the influenza that is hitting everyone at Rome right now. So I urge all to pray for the Archbishop’s health of body and soul.
However, sadly, the first thing the voice does is to attempt to gaslight me.
Gaslighting is a trick of mental persuasion usually used by tyrants or manipulators or even pedophiles, whereby the one in the position of power dictates to the one who is a subject how they should view reality. It is usually accompanied by insults or deprecatives which make the person inclined to doubt their own grasp on reality. If the Archbishop knew anything about me, he would know that that trick only works with weak minds who are seeking affirmation from power, which is not me in the least. The comment made also tried to characterize the entirely of my letter in such a light, which is really hard to justify even if you think Benedict is still the pope, because my letter was about much more than that.
To me, the gaslighting was totally uncalled for, and even cruel. I remain shocked that the voice of an Archbishop would be so uncharitable.
The second thing the voice does is to denounce my work of investigating the Renunciation. It says I am wrong and mistaken. This is a remarkable comment, since anyone who viewed the URLs in my letters would know that I am very thorough and back up everything I say with facts. I do not interpret facts, I let them speak for themselves. It then demands that I stop my work investigating the Renunciation.
Since I fear God alone, I can assure you that such a demand will have the opposite effect.
The third thing the voice does, as far as I understand it, is to demand that I and everyone in the League stop praying for Pope Benedict. The voice demands that I pray for Pope Francis. It seems to deny that Benedict is a pope or the pope.
And what is most remarkable, is what is not said by the voice. The voice does not say that it is acting at the bequest of Pope Benedict.
The voice is clearly of a man who is acting out of terror, rashness, imprudence. You can hear the anger and terror. There is even one grammatical mistake in the Italian used. From the logs at my blog, I can safely say that the Archbishop looked at, at least, 5 posts before the phone call came in. He was surfing to my blog using a VPN masking itself as being in the EU not the Vatican. (This is a standard practice at the Vatican now, after the computer raids made by the Vatican Gendarmerie in September). There were no background noises. A slam down of a phone handle can be heard terminating the call.
I could say a thousand things about this phone call. But I will conclude by saying, that in my own judgement, it is a lot easier to answer 2 questions than to threaten someone over the phone. I won’t get into the fact that the voice used a burner phone to make the call, that is, a phone which leaves no trace as to which number was used to make the call. What on earth is an Archbishop doing with such a phone? Such things are used by drug dealers and mafiosi!
In the future, I recommend that if you want to write Pope Benedict, do not send your mail to the Archbishop. I myself now consider that Benedict is clearly imprisoned., and that the Archbishop should be considered a prison warden, more than a personal secretary. The purpose of the imprisonment is this: His captors do not want him to meet with the public or with Cardinals in private, where he is free to express himself, PRECISELY because they do not want him to be asked those 2 questions.
I know why. And I think you can guess too. Others, better than I, have already guessed it too:
And that means, that Benedict is still the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, because the essential act required by canon 332 §2, is a renunciation of the petrine munus.
Please share this article with all Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops. I think it presents sufficient evidence that they should be concerned about the integrity of information regarding what he did and what it meant, on Feb. 11, 2013.
I will conclude this report by sharing a Video of the Archbishop, June 14, 2017, in which he says clearly the opposite of what he said on the phone to me: I am here principally to share with everyone the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI. (0:17 in the video, in Italian)
POST SCRIPT: Journalists who are in Rome or who come in person to Rome are welcome to hear the recording of the phone call, in my presence. Just leave your contact information in a comment below. — I have transmitted a copy of the phone call to my private attorney in the USA, so in case anything happens to me, there is legal evidence of the fact.
* In this Article, I have used the English word, “question”, in the sense of a problem which is asked to be responded to, because, as you can see there are no question marks in my letters to the Archbishop.
THIS POST HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ITALIAN at ChiesaRomana.info: