Watching the pontificate of Francis I (Jorge Cardinal Bergolio) is a little like watching an updated version of the Borgias; "Borgia 2.0" or "Borgias for the 21st century" or a television sit-com: "The Holy Father Knows Best" or a replay of "Ozzie and Harriet" only in this case, "Bennie and Frannie," sans the occasional tune from Rickie Nelson. One has to wonder if, indeed, this Pope is even remotely Roman Catholic, and it's not just me wondering, apparently a few cardinals and archbishops are as well.
And, if the following article which appeared on Breitbart is any indicator, they've taken steps to have the Trump Administration look into it (our thanks to Ms. K.B. and Mr. V.T. for sharing this story):
As one might imagine, this has my high octane speculation gears working in overdrive, and there are two factors I think lurking in the background here that are essential to what may be going on. The first is the ongoing pedophilia scandal that appears to be representative of a world-wide phenomenon and network of human trafficking, pedophilia, and perhaps even human sacrifice. Allegations of such - pedophilia and sacrifice - certainly surrounded the Franklin scandal of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and were the central feature to the late Fr. Malachi Martin's last novel, Windswept House, in which, like his earlier novel Vatican, presented some uncomfortable details in the form of fiction. Martin made no attempts to circumvent or soft-peddle the central issue that preoccupied all of his books - both fiction and non-fiction - namely, that there was a "rogue group" loose within the Roman Catholic Church involved in such activities. During the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, these rumors swirled in the air at the time of his resignation and many believed they formed a component of the pressure forcing him to resign. This article from Breitbart appears to corroborate at least some aspect of those speculations which were being discussed back then:
It is “no coincidence” that some Catholic groups “have asked President Trump to open a commission of inquiry to investigate whether the administration of Barack Obama exerted pressure on Benedict,” said Archbishop Luigi Negri in an interview Monday, citing other revelations by Wikileaks regarding efforts by the Democratic Party to sway the direction of the Catholic Church in the United States.
“It remains shrouded in mystery for now,” he said to news outlet Rimini 2.0, “but I am sure that those responsible will be found out.”
The archbishop was making reference to a letter written by a group of American Catholics to President Trump last January requesting that the administration conduct an investigation into a possible Soros-Obama-Clinton conspiracy behind the resignation of Pope Benedict.
The letter stated specifically that “we have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime change’ was engineered by the Obama administration.”
Of course, "regime change" is not a new phenomenon for the Vatican, for it has both orchestrated, and been the victim of, such events in its long history. The question here is why, and the article provides a disturbing potential connection:
Approximately a year after an e-mail conversation released by Wikileaks, the authors contended, “we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left.”In startling revelations last October, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was found to have created phony “Catholic” organizations in order to use Church leaders to push a liberal agenda in congress and to promote the agenda of the Democratic Party.
In the midst of the hundreds of John Podesta’s emails released by Wikileaks, one contained a report by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a faux Catholic association founded by Podesta to provoke a revolution in the Catholic Church.
All this raises a high octane speculation and question: Was it necessary to get rid of Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) because that Pope was known as the "conservatives' conservative", particularly in matters such as the Roman Church's steadfast opposition to abortion, a "right" with which the Democratic Party and the left in general has become identified? Or was it because, in dealing with the Church's own internal problems with the pedophilia problem, that Pope Benedict was gaining a clear picture of the way the networks - both within and without the Church - operated? Or was it some combination of both?
This brings us to the second factor that might be operative: the Vatican bank, the problems with which first surfaced in a major way under Benedict's (Ratzinger's) mentor, Pope John-Paul II. It will be recalled that John-Paul II (Karol Cardinal Wojtyla) took over from the short-lived Pope John-Paul I(Albino Cardinal Luciani, former Patriarch Archbishop of Venice). Luciani, in his turn, had been strongly rumored to be investigating the corruption at the Vatican Bank, and the inroads of Masonry into the Roman Curia by elements of the notorious Loge Propaganda Due, led by Italian Freemason and political wheeler-dealer and definitely Fascist-leaning Licio Gelli. Notably, when the Italian government shut down P-2, Gelli fled to (you guessed it) Argentina. John-Paul II became Pope, and his personal security chief, American Archbishop Paul Marcinkus took over the Vatican bank, and for all intentions and purposes, the bank returned to its "normal operations" which, as Vatican bank-watchers have often alleged, included money laundering and acting as a clearing house for all manner of transactions many wished to keep quiet. Francis enters the picture here because as I noted some time ago, he determined to clean out the bank and make it "compliant" with international banking standards (and we all know how high those are!) by appointing an accounting firm as auditor which is the same auditor of record for the Bank of International Settlements and Lloyd's of London, among others.
Throw in the Obama-Soros-Clinton ne'er-do-wells, and one has a very murky list indeed, one which, somehow, touches upon or includes:
1) pedophilia and human trafficking rings;
2) an attempt at a radicalization of the Roman Church via Marxist economic "thinking" in its "Catholic" manifestation (liberation theology, a hallmark of many in the Jesuit order, incidentally);
3) A Jesuit Pope from Argentina (which is the country Licio Gelli fled to), who replaced
4) A German Pope who was the "brain trust" of the previous Pope, and who was embroiled in the pedophilia scandal;
5) The Vatican Bank, over which an auditor has been appointed which was also auditor for the Bank of International Settlements with its own dirty past of dealings with - you guessed it - Nazis;
6) allegations of "regime change" being leveled at the Obama-Clinton-Soros networks; and last but not least,
7) suspicions about the current Pope's actual commitments to Roman Catholic orthodoxy.
So where's the high octane speculation in all this? I cannot help but think that the late Fr. Martin may have been correct about the existence of a rogue group within the Vatican, for the "factional infighting" between this group and those more committed to Roman Catholic orthodoxy appears to have been going on at least since John-Paul I, who was apparently trying to do something about the mess when he was found dead in his bedchamber under circumstances I personally still view as highly suspicious(and if you don't believe they're suspicious, investigate the actions of the then Cardinal Camerlengo, Jean Cardinal Villot, upon John-Paul I's death). And with that in mind, I cannot help but think that there is some connection between all the pedophilia scandals we've been hearing about lately, and the Vatican Bank. After all, how would one conduct the financing for such a global network without raising suspicions? One would have to chose an institution which, on the face of it, seemed above reproach, an institution moreover that had the ability to shuffle funds in and out of accounts.
And that brings me to my final high octane suspicion, namely, that in requesting an investigation of the American side of all this mess, that the Catholic hierarchs behind it may run up to, and include, Pope Benedict XVI himself, who, on other scores, has been amazingly quiet, particularly and unusually so, since many of Francis' suspicious doctrinal pronouncements fall precisely within Benedict's competence as former head of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (i.e., the "Holy Office", the modern name of the Roman Inquisition). All this places Benedict's curious resignation into a new light, for if the current Pope's orthodoxy or even manner of election should ever be called into question with enough evidence to invalidate either, that would leave a natural, and orthodox, successor in Benedict to head an opposition. But don't expect Francis to go quietly into the night. One might, in other words, be looking at a replay of the Middle Ages, when two popes essentially split the Roman Church, and that would serve the purposes of the radical left - the Clintons, Soroses, and Obamas of this world - quite well.
See you on the flip side...