Bergoglio was repeatedly warned by Hong Kong Cardinal Zen that the CCP could not be trusted to uphold their end of the secret pact. Zen begged the Vatican not to enter into an agreement with the Chinese Communists. Zen predicted, “it would be a suicide pact.” Indeed, it is.
Instead of listening to Cardinal Zen, the brave, honest and beloved Chinese prelate, Bergoglio chose to listen to a serial sexual predator, Cardinal Ted McCarrick.
Instead of listening to Cardinal Zen, the brave, honest and beloved Chinese prelate, Bergoglio chose to listen to a serial sexual predator, Cardinal Ted McCarrick. This is a familiar pattern and troubling idiosyncrasy of Bergoglio; he defers to and protects sexual predators. Accordingly, Bergoglio dispatched Ted McCarrick to China in June of 2013 to restart the negotiations. Predictably, wherever Ted McCarrick goes, tragedy follows.
Bergoglio and his Vatican negotiators masterfully silenced opposition to the deal by invoking Pope Benedict as the author of the deal, who had allegedly given his imprimatur to the 2018 Bergoglio version. However, Cardinal Zen vociferously repudiated this notion as untrue. Zen disavowed the deal and denied that it was some ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ of Benedict’s negotiations with the CCP, as Bergoglio intimated.
The Bergoglio Vatican cabal piled on Zen, isolating him and ignoring his pleas.
Vatican News reported that Parolin reiterated a statement by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, in February that Benedict XVI had approved the draft agreement on bishops' appointments "which could only be signed in 2018.”
Bergoglio and his China team successfully touted the secret deal as a continuation and formalization of the Benedict/CCP negotiations. What is the truth? Did Benedict actually approve the Bergoglio deal? Was Bergoglio’s China deal a mirror version the Benedict deal? Was Benedict on the verge of a deal with China as the Bergoglio implies? Curiously, Emeritus Pope Benedict never commented on the Bergoglio China deal.
Fortunately, definitive documentary evidence exists and it tells a far different story than the one peddled by Jorge Bergoglio.
What is the truth about Pope Benedict and his relationship with China? What really happened during the Benedict/China negotiations?
Fortunately, definitive documentary evidence exists and it tells a far different story than the one peddled by Jorge Bergoglio.
The Receipts-Diplomatic Cables Support Cardinal Zen
The official diplomatic position of the Benedict papacy on China is clearly articulated in two very detailed cables from the U.S. Vatican Embassy to the U.S. Department of State released in 2010 and published by Wikileaks.
Both cable messages unequivocally affirm Cardinal Zen’s version of Pope Benedict’s reticence over the CCP. The 2007 cable is entitled, “China-Holy See: No Agreement on Catholic Bishop Ordinations.” The subsequent 2009 U.S. Diplomatic cable from the U.S. Vatican Embassy entitled, “Vatican Pessimistic on China Relations” further underscored the endemic dangers of relations with China.
Both cables delineate a very grim and problematic relationship, fraught with distrust and little common ground between the parties. Significantly, in negotiations about bishop nominations, Pope Benedict did not trust the Chinese and, ultimately, walked away from the negotiation table without an agreement. The diplomatic cables irrefutably support Cardinal Zen, who correctly and accurately portrayed Benedict’s position on China. There was no hermeneutic of continuity between Benedict’s stance and Bergoglio’s toward the Chinese. None at all.
Far from it.
The title of the cable is, “China-Holy See: No Agreement on Catholic Bishop Ordinations.” The December 2007 diplomatic cable describes U.S. Vatican Ambassador Francis Rooney’s conversation with the Vatican’s China negotiator, Msgr. Rota-Graziosi about the 2007 Vatican China talks. Rota-Graziosi’s assessment of diplomatic relations between the Benedict Vatican and China does not reflect the cozy and trusting one now portrayed by Cardinals Re and Parolin. Clearly, no deal with China was imminent in the Benedict pontificate. In fact, Pope Benedict abandoned the negotiations with the CCP, disgusted with the brutal CCP treatment of Catholic clergy and laity.
The talks were dead in the water in the Benedict pontificate. Benedict refused to cede power to the Chinese Communists on episcopal appointments. What changed? Did Ted McCarrick whisper in the ear of his CCP friends and assure them that the new pontiff, Bergoglio would relinquish power to the CCP?
U.S. Ambassador Francis Rooney’s cable describes his conversation with the Holy See’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Country Director for China, Msgr. Rota-Graziosi:
“The Holy See and the Government of China did not reach an agreement on episcopal ordinations, nor on the normalization of relations, during their November 2007 talks in Beijing. Rota-Graziosi is pessimistic about the chances for such an agreement in the near or mid-term and suggested that any rumors about the existence of such an agreement can probably be traced to the GoC (Government of China) disinformation.”
The Rooney cable reveals Msgr. Rota Graziosi’s insight and role into the negotiations with China on bishops and other Catholic issues. Rooney described the tense and intractable tenor of the negotiations and the main obstacles to an agreement:
“Monsignor Gianfranco Rota-Graziosi told us on December 17 that the Holy See and the Government of China had not reached an agreement or even an informal understanding on the issue of episcopal ordinations during the recently held Holy See/China talks in Beijing. Rota-Graziosi, who accompanied Deputy Foreign Minister equivalent Msgr. Pietro Parolin to the talks at the GoC MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), said that GoC had not changed its long-standing demand that the Holy See agree to refrain from exercising dominion over episcopal ordinations.”
Not surprisingly, Benedict refused to agree to CCP dominion over selection of Bishop nominations. Interestingly, Cardinal Parolin was a party to these failed negotiations. The talks were dead in the water in the Benedict pontificate. Benedict refused to cede power to the Chinese Communists on episcopal appointments.
What changed? Did Ted McCarrick whisper in the ear of his CCP friends and assure them that the new pontiff, Bergoglio would relinquish power to the CCP?
Did Bergoglio capitulate to the CCP demand? Is that why the pact is still secret?
Did Bergoglio agree to terms which were previously non-negotiable in the Benedict papacy?
According to the cable, Msgr. Rota-Graziosi, along with the present Secretary of State Parolin both saw no hope for normalization of relations between China and Vatican. Rota-Gaziosi paints a very dismal assessment of relations for Ambassador Rooney:
“I see no hope for a breakthrough on the issue of episcopal ordinations or on the normalization of relations between the GoC and the Holy See in the near or mid-term, ” adding “that any reports indicating otherwise are probably disinformation from the GoC designed to create goodwill for the regime in the lead-up to the 2008 Summer Olympics and to encourage the underground church to come out in the open where it can be better controlled by the Catholic Patriotic Association.”
The overall tense and intractable nature of the negotiations and the position of the Government of China was described by the Benedict Vatican official as:
“The regime has remained concisely rigid on the issue of Holy See Authority over Catholic Church matters in China, he had observed increased flexibility in the GoC’s approach on certain other matters. For example, “the GoC would never have allowed us to publish the obituaries of Chinese priests and bishops, or the names of recently ordained bishops and priests, in the “Osservatore Romano’ (the Vatican newspaper) without risking a strong reaction. Nowadays, we can do such things without fear of retaliation.”
Ambassador Rooney provided the State Department with a final summary of the relationship between the Vatican and China:
“We believe Rota-Graziosi’s assertion that there is no agreement in principle or otherwise between the Holy See and the GoC on episcopal nominations or on the normalization of relations.
The Benedict Vatican’s diplomats provided a first hand account of the China negotiations to Amb. Rooney. It is clearly evident and obvious that Benedict refused to surrender ecclesial power for the appointment of Bishops to the Communist Chinese. That usurpation of ecclesial power and long standing demand by the Chinese was a non-starter for Pope Benedict XVI.
Did Bergoglio agree to secret terms to remain silent in the face of ongoing genocide and human rights and religious freedom violations by the CCP?
This 2007 diplomatic cable delineates the strong and unflappable position of Pope Benedict on China. He refused to relinquish papal power to the Communist Chinese to appoint Catholic Bishops. He insisted that the Catholic Church would not delegate its episcopal authority to a communist government.
The 2009 Cable — Nothing Changed. Vatican Pessimistic on China
Two years later, a 2009 Cable entitled, “Vatican Pessimistic on China Relations” little changed in the Benedict Vatican toward China. The cable underscores the continuing and disintegrating relationship between Benedict’s Vatican and China. This section in the cable delineates one of a long list of serious troubles faced by the Church in China, including the arrest and detention of Catholic bishops:
“The Vatican's point person for relations with China sees no change in the PRC's hard line towards the Catholic Church. Chinese Catholics loyal to the Pope risk detention, while clergy in the government-approved Patriotic Association are "treated like children" and strictly controlled. The Vatican has no news on Bishop Jia, who was arrested before Easter, and appreciates the U.S. and others asking the PRC about his fate. With no incentives for Chinese authorities to loosen control on the Church, the Vatican does not foresee PRC-Holy See diplomatic relations any time soon.”
Two years later in 2009, Pope Benedict XVI refused to capitulate to the Communist Chinese. He understood that they were not negotiating in good faith while the CCP imprisoned Bishops and persecuted Chinese Catholics. Benedict’s tough stance may have been his ultimate undoing. The optimistic relationship between Benedict and the CCP peddled by the Bergolians is a complete and total myth.
These communiqués raise troubling questions about China and Bergoglio and their secret pact.
Did Bergoglio agree to terms which were previously non-negotiable in the Benedict papacy?
To what extent did Bergoglio concede power and authority of Bishop appointments to the Chinese Communist Party?
Did Bergoglio agree to secret terms to remain silent in the face of ongoing genocide and human rights and religious freedom violations by the CCP?
After 5 long years of unrelenting and caustic attacks by the Vatican, Cardinal Zen is vindicated and deserves an apology from Jorge Bergoglio.
What did the Bergoglio Vatican receive in return for its concessions with the Chinese?
Was the alleged $2 billion a year Chinese grant hush money payment for an executed agreement and subsequent renewal?
Did the CCP play a role in the abdication of Pope Benedict for his refusal to accommodate their demands?
Even more troubling, did the CCP play a role in the elevation of Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy?
The Bergoglio Vatican continues to argue that the 2018 China pact was really the Benedict deal. Recently, Bergoglio’s foreign minister, Ambassador Archbishop Paul Gallagher (in his Harry Potter glasses), stated that the Bergoglio 2018 secret agreement was simply a matter of “dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s of the Benedict proposal.”
The truth is that Benedict ceased negotiations, fed up with the lies and bad faith of the CCP. He refused to capitulate to the CCP’s outrageous demands and merciless persecution of Catholic bishops and laity. As Zen forcefully argues: “there is no continuity between Benedict who said ‘No’ to Ostpolitik and Francis who said ‘yes’ to Ostpolitik.
After 5 long years of unrelenting and caustic attacks by the Vatican, Cardinal Zen is vindicated and deserves an apology from Jorge Bergoglio.
Bergoglio is solely responsible for the tragedy and catastrophe of his secret and pernicious deal with the devil.
– Elizabeth Yore is an international child advocate attorney. She is a panel member of the LifeSiteNews podcast, Faith and Reason. Liz is also a regular contributor on Steve Bannon’s War Room. She is a member of Save the Persecuted Christians Coalition. Her website is Yorechildren.com.
Latest from RTV — Trump Indicted, Francis Hospitalized, Christians Driven Out of Bethlehem
