(AUTOMATIC READING)
Monsignor, how are you ?
Thank God very good, with great serenity and peace of conscience: it is the prize of truth. Light always wins over darkness, it cannot be suppressed, especially for those who have faith. Therefore I have a lot of trust and hope for the Church.
How do you rate the reactions to the publication of your memoir??
As you know, the reactions are contrasting. There are those who no longer know where to draw the poison to destroy my credibility. Someone even wrote that I was hospitalized twice with compulsory treatment (TSO) for drug use; there are those who imagine conspiracies, political conspiracies, plots of all kinds, etc., but there are also many articles of appreciation and I have had the opportunity to see messages from priests and faithful thanking me, because my testimony was for them a glimmer of new hope for the Church.
What is your response to those who object in these hours that you have reasons for personal resentment towards the Pope and for this reason you decided to write and disseminate the memorial?
Maybe because I'm naive and tend to always think of the best for people, but above all I recognize that it is a gift that the Lord has given me, I have never had feelings of revenge or resentment in all these years in which I have been put to the test by so many slanders and falsehoods about myself.
As I wrote at the beginning of my testimony, I had always believed that the hierarchy of the Church would find within itself the resources to heal so much corruption. I also wrote it in my letter to the three cardinals appointed by Pope Benedict to investigate the Vatileaks case, letter that accompanied the report I gave them: “Many of you – I wrote – you knew, but you remained silent. At least now that you have had this assignment from Benedict, have the courage to faithfully report what has been revealed to you about many situations of corruption”.
Because he decided to have his testimony published and disseminated?
I spoke because corruption has now reached the top of the Church hierarchy. I address the journalists: because they don't ask what happened to the crate of documents, we've all seen it, it was delivered to Castelgandolfo by Pope Benedict to Pope Francis? Everything was useless? It would have been sufficient to follow my report and the minutes that were made at my deposition before the three cardinals in charge of the investigations into the Vatileaks case (Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi) to start doing a little’ of cleaning in the Curia. But you know what Cardinal Herranz replied to me when I called him from Washington, given that a long time had passed since this Commission was appointed by Pope Benedict without ever having been contacted? So we were on first name terms and I told him: “Don't you think that I also have something to say on the question of my letters, published without my knowledge?”. He answered me: “Ah, if you really want”.
What do you say to those who say that you are the “corvo”, or one of the “crows”, at the origin of the Vatileaks case?
I'm the crow? As you have seen with my testimony, I usually do things openly! I had been in Washington for some time at the time and certainly had other things to think about. On the other hand, it has always been my habit to immerse myself completely in my new mission. So I did when I was sent to Nigeria: I didn't even read Italian news anymore. As much as when, after six years, I was called back to the Secretariat of State by Saint John Paul II. It took me a few months to realize where I had landed again., despite having already been in the Secretariat of State for eleven years since 1978 al 1989.
What do you say to those who claim that you have been removed from the Governorate and that for this reason you harbor feelings of resentment and a desire for revenge?
As I already said, resentment and revenge are feelings that don't belong to me. My resistance to leaving my task to the Governorate was motivated by a profound sense of injustice for a decision that I knew did not correspond to the will that Pope Benedict himself had expressed to me. In order to remove me, Cardinal Bertone had committed a series of serious abuses of authority: had dissolved a first commission of three cardinals that Pope Benedict had appointed to investigate the serious accusations made by me as general secretary and by the deputy general secretary Monsignor Giorgio Corbellini on the abuses committed by Monsignor Paolo Nicolini; in place of the said commission of cardinals he had created a disciplinary commission, altering in its composition the institutional one of the Governorate; even before creating that commission he had summoned me to inform me that the Holy Father had appointed me nuncio to Washington; given that despite everything the said Disciplinary Commission had decided on 16 July 2011 the dismissal of Monsignor Paolo Nicolini had illegally annulled that decision, preventing it from being published. By doing so he had prevented me from continuing the work of cleaning up corruption in the management of the Governorate.
What does he reply to those who talk about his “fixed nail” to become cardinal and claims that he is now attacking the pope also because he has not received the purple?
I can state with all sincerity before God that I have effectively renounced being a cardinal. After my first letter to Cardinal Bertone, which I sent to the Pope so that he could do with it what he thought most appropriate, Pope Benedict called me and received me in audience on 4 April 2011 and he immediately said these words to me: “I believe that the position in which you could best serve the Holy See is as president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs in place of Cardinal Velasio De Paolis. I thanked the Pope for the trust he showed me and added: “Holy Father, why don't you wait six months or a year? Why, if you promote me now, the team that trusted me to resolve the situation in the Governorate will be immediately dispersed and persecuted (as in fact happened). I also added another topic. Given that Cardinal De Paolis had recently been charged with resolving the delicate situation of the Legionaries of Christ (Cardinal De Paolis had consulted me before accepting this assignment), I told the Pope that it was better for him to continue to have an institutional role that gave greater authority to his person and his action with the Legionaries.
At the end of the audience the pope told me again: “However, I remain of the opinion that the place in which you can best serve the Holy See is as president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs”. Cardinal Re can confirm this news. So I then renounced the cardinalate for the good of the Church.
What does he say to someone who involves his family by talking about “saga” in the name of huge economic interests?
Il 20 March 2013 my brothers had prepared a press release, whose publication I then opposed to avoid involving the whole family. Since now the accusation of my brother Don Lorenzo continues to be repeated, namely that I lied to Pope Benedict by writing about my concern about having to leave because I had to take care of my sick brother, I have decided to make the statement public now. From reading it, it is clear that I felt the serious moral responsibility of taking care of and protecting my brother.
Note from BastaBugie: Riccardo Cascioli in the following article entitled “Unstoppable gay lobby, the file you don't want to open” reflects on how important the gay lobby is in the Vatican. This is demonstrated by an apparently secondary episode: the cancellation of the word psychiatry pronounced by the Pope in relation to homosexuality. This episode goes to the heart of the problem of the Viganò dossier: an unstoppable homosexual power network at very high levels in the Church. The former nuncio said a small piece of a vast phenomenon that cannot be limited only to this pontificate, but that you don't want to fight: from the homoheretic German bishops to the scandal of the Jesuit Martin up to the clearances of Avvenire and an impressive series of suspicious appointments, gestures and decisions that now show how far this process has come.
Here is the complete article published in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana on 29 August 2018:
How important the LGBT lobby is in the Vatican is demonstrated by the small episode which saw the Vatican Press Office as protagonist upon the Pope's return from Dublin. Responding to a journalist's question who asked him what he would say to a family who discovers they have a homosexual son, On the plane that took him back to Rome, Pope Francis responded among other things that it also depends on what age "at which this restlessness manifests itself."; «If it manifests itself as children, there are many things to do with psychiatry, to see. Another is if it manifests itself after the age of twenty". But in the official statement reporting the text of the press conference, the reference to psychiatry was deleted.
The reason is obvious: Woe betide you if you connect homosexuality with the idea of ​​a pathology, a point on which the LGBT lobby does not compromise. In fact, the Pope's entire sentence, from a scientific and anthropological point of view, it would need a lot of clarification, but here it is clear that the only reason for the censorship is to avoid irritating the well-known lobby.
Which is confirmed by the subsequent justification (but it would be more correct to talk about climbing on mirrors) of the number 2 from the Vatican Press Office Paloma Garcia Ovejero according to which the Pope "did not mean to say that it is a psychiatric illness". «When the pope refers to “psychiatry” it's clear that he wants to give an example of the different things that can be done". In short, according to Mrs. Garcia Ovejero the Pope uses words at random or with a meaning that only he knows: It's not exactly a good service he does to Pope Francis. In any case, if in the Press Room they are really convinced that this is the case, from an ethical point of view, instead of censoring, it would be much more correct to place explanatory notes in the margin.
Anyway, This long premise takes us to the heart of the problem that the Viganò dossier has explosively brought to the attention of the entire Church, that is, the network of power created over time by homosexual priests and bishops, with the complicity of corrupt or weak or blackmailable prelates, has now reached the point of impacting the doctrine of the Church. Sin should not scandalize us so much, however great and widespread it is, even in hierarchies: after all, it is in the weakness of man that the power of God manifests itself, as Saint Paul also reminds us. But when sin becomes institutionalized and claims to become doctrine – what is happening now – the conversation then changes, e di molto.
The fact that Monsignor Viganò, at the end of his long memoir, went so far as to even ask for the Pope's resignation caused the whole debate (so to speak) next focused on Pope Francis. To tell the truth, it wouldn't have been much different if he hadn't written that sentence, because now the topic of the conservative and traditionalist conspiracy against Pope Francis is a refrain that recedes every time even just one question is asked about this pontificate. The unleashing of the troops of Pasdaran journalists in defense of the revolution was therefore more than predictable.
But the question posed by Monsignor Viganò is much more serious and profound and goes far beyond Pope Francis, so much so that he brings up the people with whom he had direct contact, in Rome and in the United States, also in previous pontificates. And it draws a picture consistent with what we have been writing and documenting for years on this phenomenon of the gay lobby and homoheresy. E, unlike many who choose to speak or not speak depending on what suits their side “politics”, we at Bussola can claim the fact of having forcefully denounced the phenomenon of homosexuality in the clergy and homoheresy since our inception, therefore before the pontificate of Francis, and to have always supported – data in hand – that child abuse in over 80% of cases is a phenomenon of homosexuality and not pedophilia. And until this problem is addressed at the root – which is also the final warning of Msgr. Viganò – the wounds of the Church can never be healed.
What Monsignor Viganò represents is only one piece, what he had direct experience of, but we should add many other pieces to this: the orientations of certain European episcopates, for example, the president of the German bishops Reinhard Marx proposed the blessing of same-sex couples in church; the forward escapes of individual priests, also in Italy, who already do it; the coup at the latest Synods on the family, what happened on the occasion of the World Family Meeting, of which Father James Martin's report is only the most striking aspect. And the Italian case deserves a separate discussion, where it is even the bishops' newspaper, Future, to have fully embraced a pro-gay agenda: it is a public fact that the newspaper's editorial line depends directly on it, for some years, by the general secretary of the CEI, Monsignor Nunzio Galantino. But it would be a mistake to think that the cathogay control over Avvenire began with this management, now he has just found fertile ground to express himself openly.
So, as Monsignor Viganò heartfeltly says, «to restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, tremendously disfigured by so many abominable crimes, if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which it has fallen, we must have the courage to break down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden".
Just to look at the McCarrick case, it is right that clarification is made on how he was able to move from diocese to archdiocese until he became cardinal during the pontificate of John Paul II, what role the then Secretary of State Cardinal Sodano had and how many others with him. And then again, what happened in the years of Benedict XVI, with those sanctions that were not respected; and then again, the increased importance during this pontificate. And the examples can be multiplied.
It is therefore not a problem limited to this pontificate, nor a phenomenon that is magically resolved with the Pope's resignation; However, we cannot fail to recognize that never before has the gay lobby increased its influence enormously in recent years. Both for the positions of power held, especially in the Roman Curia (and now even the news takes it upon itself to report several close collaborators of Pope Francis among those who are at the center of cases of sexual abuse or linked to homosexual behavior) and for the green light for the circulation of homoheretical theses on which no one in Rome seems to have the intention of intervening.
The beginning was the appointment of Monsignor Battista Ricca as prelate of the IOR, despite the serious homosexual scandal of which he had been the protagonist in the nunciature in Uruguay, and it was precisely in answering a question about his case that the Pope came out with: «Who am I to judge?" That, regardless of intentions, it had a devastating effect by encouraging the spread of homosexualist ideology. But there were many nominations, the gestures, the decisions that favored the rooting of homosexualist culture in the Church. Until the last episodes: he appointed her as consultant to the Secretariat for Communication of the now famous Father James Martin, then rose to maximum visibility due to the space assigned to it at the World Meeting of Families. Encounter, keep case, led by Cardinal Kevin Farrell, “creature” of Cardinal McCarrick and a great admirer of Father Martin, a cui ha scritto la prefazione del suo libro su Chiesa e gay. And again, the introduction of LGBT terminology in the Instrumentum Laboris of the next Youth Synod.
There is more than enough to ask for clarity, both on the abuse cover-up network and on the attempt to subvert the doctrine of the Church by the gay lobby which the then Cardinal Ratzinger already denounced in 1986. But as he has already demonstrated in the case of the Dubia, Pope Francis is not inclined to clarify, he is much more interested – as he has said many times – to start processes. And here, Unfortunately, it is clear where this process is leading.