Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Democrat Fingers in the Vatican Pie: Did Obama Force Benedict’s Abdication?

On May 17, I published an article in the Italian newspaper La Verità about pope Benedict’s abdication. A few days before, in a renowned Italian geopolitical magazine called Limes, Professor Germano Dottori had argued that Joseph Ratzinger’s 2013 abdication, and the former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s resignation in 2011, after a financial storm sold to public opinion as a “public debt” crisis, were the result of pressures on the part of Obama administration in the United States.

According to Dottori, Obama was eager to dethrone Benedict XVI for two reasons. On the one hand, his presidency was close to fundamentalist Islam (de facto fostered by regime change in Libya and Egypt and civil war in Syria, provoked by U.S. former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy design), whereas Ratzinger, ever since his famous Regensburg lecture, had been identified internationally as a strong opponent of Islamism. On the other hand, Obama was worried about the Church’s reconciliatory efforts toward Moscow’s Orthodox patriarch, within the scope – Dottori wrote – “of a geopolitical project aimed at European-Russian integration, actively supported by Germany and Italy.”

The Obama administration may have resorted to two instruments: fostering scandals within the Church and the Italian government and threatening to drain away Italian and Vatican financial resources. Italy was at risk of being excluded from international financial markets. The menace against the Vatican was to bar the IOR (Istituto per le Opere di Religione, the Vatican bank) from the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network. Taking as an excuse the fact that the IOR did not abide by international rules of transparency, Deutsche Bank (which runs point-of-sale payment systems in the Vatican and was suspected by Bankitalia of hosting an IOR account where all money earned within the Vatican converged) had been induced to block all ATMs in Vatican City, a service curiously reactivated, Dottori noticed, right after Pope Benedict’s abdication.

With regard to this story, it is useful to spend a few more words on an important figure: former president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. Chosen by Pope Benedict in 2009 to reform the IOR and bring it back to international standards of transparency, in 2010, Tedeschi was the subject of a money-laundering investigation.

Notice how suspicious the events look: two years after the beginning of the inquiry, in 2012, Tedeschi was fired from his office; in 2014, after Pope Benedict’s resignation, Rome’s judge dismissed the inquiry and all allegations against Tedeschi; in 2015, in an interview with The Catholic Herald, Tedeschi declared that he had been kicked out by the IOR’s board of directors because of his intention to make radical reforms. And in a 2012 interview released to the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, Tedeschi had already revealed that in those months, he was so scared of being assassinated that he had written down a secret report on the IOR. (According to my sources, he had written his will as well.) The secret report had been entrusted to two of Tedeschi’s close friends as a sort of insurance policy on his own life. Tedeschi stated that he had discovered “something scary” and had engaged a struggle against the Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who was resolutely opposing any disclosure of the IOR’s secret archives to Italian authorities.

If you connect Tedeschi’s story to Dottori’s claim regarding financial blackmail enacted against the Vatican Bank in order to pressure Pope Benedict, you might suspect that Tedeschi was well aware that obscure forces, from within and without the Vatican, were swarming, and that his opposition to those influences was probably the cause of his misfortunes.

Dottori’s considerations should be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, his interpretation of Berlusconi’s government crisis in 2011 is slightly in contrast with the prevailing reading, which assigns responsibility to German chancellor Angela Merkel and French former president Nicolas Sarkozy. Moreover, it has to be noticed that the Obama administration’s main concern was unlikely to be Ratzinger’s ideological opposition to radical Islam. It is probably more useful to focus on the Russian question.

On the one hand, the perspective of a tighter political integration between Europe and Russia, supported by the Catholic Church for the sake of the construction of a sort of religious “conservative front,” was a cause of anxiety for Obama and Clinton. The role of the pope could be that of a trait d’union (literally, a hyphen) between Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin – as a German, and as a moral leader, Benedict XVI could mediate to ease friction between two politicians joined by a love-hate relationship, but whose intentions, beyond all, were to deepen the ties between their countries. That the United States backed Ukraine’s revolt against the pro-Russian government there and supported civil war in Donbas region (the Obama administration’s involvement was denounced by Foreign Affairs in 2014), and that they sabotaged the project for the South Stream pipeline (with the help of Senator John McCain, who literally threatened Bulgaria’s prime minister and obtained his withdrawal from the project), is proof that Democrats were willing to do anything they could to prevent a closer political and economic partnership between Europe and Russia. In this sense, Berlusconi, Putin’s (and Libyan dictator Gaddafi’s) personal friend, was a troublesome individual.

On the other hand, the Obama administration was likely to be frightened by Pope Benedict’s conservative stance on the liturgy, morals, and politics. A conservative pope, in a moment when the Church’s aid was no more required to fight communism in the Soviet Union – and Russia was becoming a conservative nation – could mean an undesired, and politically dangerous, rightist breakthrough for American Catholics and an unseen convergence between religious conservatives in the U.S. and Russia.

That Obama’s fear was well informed is apparent, since Donald Trump won the Catholic vote in the 2016 election in spite of a progressive pope who almost openly endorsed Hillary Clinton, and despite Catholics’ leftward turn in the two previous elections of 2008 and 2012.

In this light, one may also interpret the recent article in La Civiltà Cattolica (a journal whose content has to be supervised by the papacy for publication) that attacked the allegiance between Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States. The message from the Vatican is clear: according to Pope Francis, good American Catholics should vote for Democrats again. Why is the new papacy so worried that conservative Catholics and Protestants might join forces in politics when it favors “inter-religious dialogue” whenever it amounts to unconditional veneration of Lutheranism?

That the Catholic vote was at stake in the Obama administration’s conspiracy against Benedict XVI is also proved by WikiLeaks’ revelations on Hillary Clinton’s right-hand man, John Podesta. His leaked emails showed that he was planning to foster a “Catholic spring,” a revolution intended to supplant conservative sections of the Church and make progressives take over.

Now, try to read against this background the new papacy’s stances on moral and political issues. The Church is almost silent on abortion, the redefinition of marriage, and euthanasia. And it is astonishing that on the question of migrants, Pope Francis is embracing George Soros’s agenda. Do not forget that Soros is one of Clinton’s most generous financiers, with a $11-million donation for her electoral campaign and a $6-million donation from the Soros Foundation to the Clinton Foundation. Soros came up nearly 60 times in John Podesta’s leaked emails. One may admit that such a triangulation among a leftist presidential candidate, a liberal billionaire accused of several political conspiracies in different nations, undesired by the government of his country, and by Israel as well in spite of his Jewish birth, and the Catholic Church’s pope is, to put it lightly, bizarre.

Now, even if Italian journalist Sandro Magister, on August 3, published for L’Espresso an article where he declares that in fact, Pope Francis is still pursuing friendly relations with Russian Orthodoxy – thereby upsetting Catholics in Poland and Ukraine, who would rather look to NATO countries, especially now that the U.S. is governed by Trump – there seems to be a substantial difference between the Russian policies of Popes Benedict and Francis. The former could at least have been a moral mediator between Europe and Russia for political and economic integration, and he was keen to converge with Russian conservatives as regards religion in society and other moral priorities. Francis, for his part, seems to be moved by concerns for the condition of Christians in Syria, where only Russia has a clear long-term strategy. But apart from formal appreciation from liberal anti-Trump leaders like Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau, or complete outsiders like Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, Pope Francis is internationally isolated, especially after his ill advised support of Hillary Clinton.

Other commentators have thrown shadows over the Church’s ambiguous connections with American Democrats. On July 4, Piero Laporta published in La Verità an article about Libero Milone, a 67-year-old manager who had been appointed by pope Francis as supervisor of the Vatican’s finances in 2015. His mandate was supposed to last for five years, but in June 2017, he decided to resign after complaining of having his office violated and his computer hacked. However, the true story behind this unexpected resignation might be different. According to Laporta, Milone was nosing around in the ambiguous maneuvers alleged to have brought about an approximately $1-million donation to Hillary Clinton’s electoral campaign, taken from Peter’s Pence. Rumors about it were already circulating in February 2016, when Laporta gathered leaks by a secret source, ironically called “Pretino” (“Little Priest”), who declared that the Vatican was providing Clinton with financial aid but that Trump would win the election thanks to an FBI investigation against Clinton. According to Laporta, it is not by chance that at the same time as Milone resigned, Cardinal George Pell was being investigated on allegations of sexual abuse for events that had occurred forty years ago. Someone was trying to divert attention from the Peter’s Pence story, and at the same time was indirectly reassuring all subjects potentially involved in the scandal that silence would be maintained.

Now, while Laporta claims to be “90% sure” of this report, it is much harder to ascertain whether, or to what degree, Pope Francis was aware of a financial and political operation that, nonetheless, was likely to have been buttressed by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State, and to have required the American Apostolic Nunciature’s mediation. Laporta hypothesizes that during his visit to Rome, in June 2017, President Donald Trump might have had an animated discussion with Pope Francis, as he asked for elucidations on the Church’s aid to Clinton. According to him, the pope’s waxen and scrawny expression in the photographs taken next to the American president was due precisely to their quarrel and to Francis’s embarrassment.

Elucidations are precisely what we need. In the spirit of the letter addressed by The Remnant to Donald Trump, American Catholics should ask their new president to investigate the Obama administration’s involvement in the events that led to Pope Benedict’s abdication. Clarifications would be welcome also on the ambiguous maneuvers between the Holy See and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. These seem to be much more urgent questions than Russophobic hysteria over Trump’s alleged plot with Vladimir Putin.

Anyway, in this troubled time, we should also be confident that the Church has a certain strength its enemies lack: it is bound to survive in spite of herself.

This article has been updated.

131 thoughts on “Democrat Fingers in the Vatican Pie: Did Obama Force Benedict’s Abdication?”

  1. Suspicions are raised about the circumstances behind BXVI’s resignation by the events which have followed it. Specifically, this absolutely bizarre, vicious papacy in which faithful Catholics are vilified and demonized on an almost daily basis and the constant odor of heresy wafting from Casa Santa Marta combined with the purge of orthodox Catholic prelates from various Vatican congregations and the continual “lavender” shtick promoting the homosexual lifestyle. If Benedict had been replaced by another JP II or similarly solid pastor who was clearly Catholic and Benedict’s tradition-friendly ministry had been continued, I would have no trouble taking BXVI’s resignation at face value and dismissing the conspiracy theorists as kooks.

    However, in the absolutely extraordinary circumstances in which we now find ourselves, Benedict’s abrupt departure stinks to high heaven. Bergoglio’s antics and his frantic attack on tradition scream louder than any words of Benedict that this was a planned decapitation for the purposes of installing El Lider Maximo on the throne. The ecclesial version of Venezuela or Cuba, if you will. In typical banana republic style, a South American socialist dictator surrounded by the usual ridiculous “cult of personality” has staged a coup d’ etat and is now lauding it over the Catholic Church. In equally typical South American style, El Lider Maximo tolerates no dissent and any questioning of his rule is met with ruthless reprisals. Francis the Merciful is watching over you…..unless you try to question his behavior… which case “the Merciful One” whacks you with an iron fist.

    I’d like to go to Rome armed with a pitchfork and a tanker load of Clorox to disinfect the heretical Vatican bath house!

  2. Something we all have to realize about the U.S. is that it was always a Protestant country in its DNA, on the one hand, and on the other, that it was a godless country from the enactment of its 1787 Constitution. Catholic weren’t trusted. The Maryland colony, founded for Catholics, was soon taken over by Protestants. I visited a Dominican friend in Springfield, KY, at his parish, which I believe was the oldest west of the Appalachians: it was founded by Maryland refugees!

    When the national government was set up, it specifically excluded God. Someone asked Alexander Hamilton (the only member of the New York delegation to the Constitutional Convention who didn’t walk out (IIRC, one of them, at any rate), but someone asked him why the Constitution didn’t mention. Hamilton laughed and said mockingly, “I declare, we forgot!”

    Christopher A. Ferrara and (Patrick McKinley Brennan) discuss all this at length in their Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. Huge book, basically a narrational compendium of some excellent historians and anecdotes you don’t normally ever hear of.

    But the sad thing is, though we Papists were tolerated, we were closely watched. There were “red lines” we could not cross. Now, I don’t know if this is true, but remember the (onetime Jesuit) Father Leonard J. Feeney, who was defrocked or suspended or whatever it was for a strict teaching of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus back in the early ’50s, before Vat 2. I met a priest who was (basically) hiding out in one of the Orthodox rites who are in Communion with Rome. He knew or was a student of Feeney’s, and he told me the actual story was that Feeney was having phenomenal success in converting the sons and daughters of the WASP elites there in Boston, and the “powers that be” began to put the squeeze on Feeney, who, being Irish and stubborn, pushed back until they “cleaned his clock”. (That’s not to say he might well have made himself an easy target with extra Ecclesiam, etc., sure, but that wasn’t the full story, not remotely.)

    The point is, true or not, this version of Feeney’s tale is quite believable to any Catholic who has studied American history in depth, esp in relation to the Catholic Church. In the same vein, I can quite believe that that wretch Obama would be more than happy to try to bring down Josef Ratzinger if asked. I pray all this comes out, and soon. We don’t have time for the “later” of “sooner or later”.


    • I see I left out “God” from what Hamilton was asked. They asked him why the new Constitution didn’t mention GOD at all, and he mocked, saying, “I declare, we forgot!” Mea culpa. The heat of composition, and so on.

      • The U.S. Constitution is NOT a “blueprint for our society,” as some have called it. It does not describe a society at all. Its purpose is to create, and delegate certain powers to, a federal government. It leaves untouched the human person, matrimony and the family, all religious institutions and dogmas, and most of the pre-existing powers of the pre-existing states..

        If American society has been generally Protestant, and generally anti-Catholic, there isn’t one syllable in the U.S. Constitution that is at fault.

        The U.S. Supreme Court? The state legislatures and courts? That’s another story!

        • ArthurMcGowan writes: “If American society has been generally Protestant, and generally anti-Catholic, there isn’t one syllable in the U.S. Constitution that is at fault.”

          Thanks for writing and giving me an opportunity to discuss this common misconception. I was certainly trained in U.S. public school (well, I wasn’t taught much, and asking questions was verboten) that the Constitution granted religious freedom, so religion could profit. Unfortunately, the Devils is (always) in the details. In fact, the OPPOSITE was true: the Constitution absolutely defanged and humiliated religion: it took away any power of the various Protestant Churches that existed in the colonies at that time – a mere handful of denominations, you know – from influencing government decisions.

          This is SO true, and played out SO horribly in history, that it amazes me SO many don’t see it. The Churches no longer had ANY real say in state affairs (federal government affairs, and the state govs that had established church laws soon followed suit because it freed the states of all religious interference – for the simple truth is politicians, FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE Constantine the Great, it was a case of “Free at last, free at last, thank the Devil we’re free at last!). And this is true: ALL governments in ALL of human history had some sort of state religion, which influenced them in fundamental ways, good or bad. That’s why (usual) in history, the Catholic Church sought to convert the local rulers, who then got their people to convert (St Patrick going to the High King is an example, but such abound in Church history). Converts were always made of any social class, of course, slave or free. But everyone just understood that religion, cult, belief, was central for a state to not only rule, but simply to survive.

          The U.S. tossed all that.

          You have to understand how this works to understand American history – the insanely bloody U.S. Civil War, for example, or the miserable treatment of the Indians – and world history too, because our system spread throughout the world.

          Slavery is a good example: In Latin American countries that had slavery (Brazil, or the French Louisiana territory at the time Jefferson bought it) slaves had rights guaranteed by Holy Church. They weren’t much, you might say: the right to be baptized, marry sacramentally, etc., and their children could not be sold until a certain age: families were intact. But once Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory, the FIRST THING HE DID was CANCEL those rights the slaves had. Slavery in “the land of the free and home of the brave” was “chattel” slavery. Chattel is furniture, or any movable, disposable property.

          An American slave owner could sell nursing mothers away from their infants if he so desired (wet nurses were always available). And the Churches had NO SAY WHATEVER about what individuals did. Mary Chestnut, a diarist, wrote about “the common evil” of kids around a plantation house resembling the Master (in various colors). What plantation master wanted a preacher harassing him for that? Still less would they tolerate some formal state-connected religious interference. Now, there WERE Southern Protestant ministers who were outraged at slavery, to be sure, (southern Catholics – and a lot of northern ones too – generally supported slavery) and preached their throats raw roaring against it, and prophesying doom because of it. They were call the “Southern Jeremiads.” Ever hear of them? No? Because they had no influence. They had no power to influence, nothing but “moral persuasion” and that worked THEN no better than it does NOW (see: Kennedy, Ted; Pelosi, Nancy, or whomever you want.

          Meanwhile, and this is important for everyone to understand, because religion was powerless, a wholly private enterprise, one’s personal business, so overnight HUNDREDS of Protestant denominations sprang up. Then thousands! Where in the world did you think they all came from? The U.S. 1787 Constitution. When a Trad Catholic today thinks of Protestantism, they think of 20,000 different denominations. But that ONLY began to appear once religion was totally disconnected for the state.

          Raghn C

        • On the contrary, there were so many different sects already throughout the different colonies, they couldn’t have had any unity or preference and preserved the union. As the late great Cardinal James Gibbons wrote, Maryland (alone) originally had Catholic settlers and that the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment echoed from an act of the Maryland Assembly in 1649. It was certainly nothing as odious as the modern atheists imagine as to prohibit all public religious expression even in government, simply one that allowed no preference to any one sect. This was after Puritan and Anglican abuses against others, particularly the original Catholics of Maryland.

          This concept has allowed Catholics to flourish in the United States despite the heretical roots from the pilgrims, Anglicans, etc

  3. So, if we are seeing more and more articles such as these, I am certain so have cardinals, like Cardinal Burke and a few others, why not call Francis out and issue a formal correction? What is there to lose, especially if story such as this is true, which i do not deny very well could be.

    What is there to be gained by this information?

    • Not easy at all. Satanic agents are everywhere and in control the world and Vatican now. Just keep exposing them and praying hard to the Lord Jesus Christ who would come to fix His Church.

    • I’ve been wondering about those things for a couple of years. You are absolutely right, the Cardinals have nothing to lose by putting Bergoglio against the wall and forcing him to account for his heresies. He may discipline them with harsh punishments, but they would be badges of honor in Heaven.

    • I don’t know. I think the formal correction will come and I think Benedict XVI will play a big part in it. I’m sure all the cardinals are being secretly bugged and monitored. Heck, things are so wretched there may even be assassins involved simply waiting on their orders, especially with all this money floating around. We should pray the Rosary and St. Michaels chaplet daily. Ask God for the grace to endure, forgive and evangelize

  4. In a 2010 book, Benedict wrote discussed the U.S Constitution and the manner of its operation in glowing terms. He noted that such Constitutions can only function when the people it governs are a moral united people and the problems arise when you have competing views. The Constitution follows the natural law norms of that time with the Constitution following the laws of man. The nexus of the Constitution to God comes from the fact that it was written to govern a people organized into a nation around a common commitment to “rights endowed by the creator” as expressed in Declaration of Independence. The Holy Spirit is named as witness in the formal instruments signed by the Continental Congress and the British ending the Revolutionary War. When reading legal documents and government documents through the Civil War, reference to God and the Trinity and bible references in ever present. The issue was the purposeful break between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence around the turn of the last century that broke that recognized relationship. It is in the same period that natural law was abandoned.

      • Yes, and from memory I recall Pope Benedict quoted the founders with some degree of awareness and in a positive manner. As an Irish Catholic, I can cull up stories from my family history on abuse and for being Catholic. My father lived at a time when NINA (No Irish Need Apply) was still being posted and when it was still the unspoken rule at the corporate level. Having said that, it is also true that the Irish enjoyed more opportunity here than at any time in Ireland – including post independence. I don’t intend here to minimize the history, but this country has been a land of opportunity for most of its history and has been on the right side of history for much of it. Even with all the the difficulties, this country allowed for the formation of an education system for Catholic children and the formation of world class universities. The issue, as this article attests, is the corruption of the institutional Church by cultural Marxists that Bella Dodd could explain in the 1950’s that Alinksy’s open alliance with the Archdiocese of Chicago in the 1970’s attests. (The interfaith movement in America was founded by Alinsky and too this day is still headquartered in the Industrial Areas Foundation – the IAF – founded by Alinsky.) At some point the sensus fidelium has to look at the Church leaders over the past 70 years and come to the brutal recognition that “we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.” For all its warts and it Protestantisms, this country has historically been a Christian nation where Catholics, for all the cultural friction, thrived at a level vastly in excess of what they could have ever hoped for from where they came from. I have a great concern for the nascent narratives that pit Catholic identity in opposition to Constitutional principles that allowed the Church to grow. Remember! Before Vatican II, the most popular show on TV was Bishop Fulton Sheen’s program – and dressed all Catoliced up no less – where the Church was growing in America and in the plus column in conversions.

  5. However, Benedictus XVI is still the true Pope of the Catholic Church, because he, on 11 february 2013, has only announced his resignation for the 28th of february 2013, but then he has not resigned on 28 february 2013 (for which he is still the true Pope). This is described very well in this italian book: Pace C. M., Il vero Papa è ancora Benedetto XVI, Youcanprint 2017 ( )

    • Nonsense. He announced the day and the hour at which the See would become vacant. When the See of Rome is vacant, there is no Pope.

      • As all recognize, Benedictus XVI was the legimate Pope after the 11th of february 2013 until to the 28th of february 2013. Now a legitimate Pope cannot become an ex-Pope automatically, that is without his resignation from the Papate: therefore, Benedictus XVI is still the true Pope, because he has not resigned on the 28 february 2013!

  6. Just to say – so the excellent analysis here does not become assigned to rabbit holes, and such: the notion (concept, meme) of ‘conspiracy theory’ was an invented (deliberately crafted) term to keep the chessboard ‘narrative’ (what the spectators see) under the fingers and on the tongues of the chess players. Or, if your prefer, what goes down on the wrestling mat

    We should be alert to how easily the notion rolls off our own tongues. The only game worth playing is one where facts and intelligence (and common sense) are pieces on the board.

    The notion of conspiracy theory overlays much truth, and very little actual sin.

    • Whenever I hear “conspiracy theory,” I know I am talking to someone who is determined to remain in the dark.

      Recently I pointed out (on FreeRepublic) that the Grenfell Tower in London never fell down. (Needless to say, as bald and uncomplicated a fact it would be hard to imagine.)

      I was instantly labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist!!!” One sarcastic poster said, “Right! The Mossad did it!”

      (BTW, if my pointing out that the Grenfell Tower never fell down had come to the attention of the owner of FR, I am sure I would have been banned for at least a couple of weeks.)

    • It implies quite a bit. Which of those implications is most troubling or downright frightening, I know not:
      1. That the US democratic party is actively trying to control or subvert an organization which to most people, outside those few of us who believe that She will not be surrendered at the Gates of Hell, is nearly insignificant culturally. (And let’s not get into the Catholic vote because that vote doesn’t exhibit a thing about Catholic culture which, if actually Catholic, would be ferociously pro-life, pro-religious liberty, etc.)
      2. That the Vatican is so tied up in secular affairs Her soul is sold to the US democratic party. Perhaps the smaller, poorer Church which Benedict discussed was because he was not going to surrender to leftists and was instead going to strengthen tradition and didn’t care about the financial impact. Francis, obviously, is quite concerned with image. And finances. After all, he needs the people whom the Church’s internal leftists have allowed to become their surrogates to continue to support them.
      3. That this story is not going to be in the Register or on EWTN or on Fox not to even mention any other secular or “Catholic” media sites.

      Again the question that lingers is why? What or WHO would drive the dems to continue to try to undermine and destroy the Church. Truly, the Church is a culturally spent force in the west. Attacking the Church is tantamount to attacking the British monarchy, which is now just a bunch of reality stars living on the public dime….very few care. Clearly the dems are entirely anti-Catholic yet even still about 50% of so-called Catholics identify and vote for them….

      You can’t spell demon without dem…..

    • It would lead to the shocking conclusion that Obama is a man of boundless arrogance, malevolence, wickedness, and egomania.

  7. “…alleged to have brought about an approximately $1-million donation to Hillary Clinton’s electoral campaign, taken from Peter’s Pence.”

    Fleece the faithful for feed the enemies of the Faith.

    Vomit, vomit, vomit

  8. I thought I had followed this pretty closely, but a million-dollar “donation” from Peter’s Pence to the Clinton campaign??? If there is evidence of that, I want to see it yesterday, so to speak. It is an understatement to characterize this as an explosive allegation.
    Has anyone collated and presented actual evidence?

      • Not to endorse (or dismiss) the theory, but funds from Peter’s Pence could have been laundered through a friendly American diocese with ties to a secular outfit whose name on disclosure statements would not have raised suspicion.

        • I wouldn’t doubt this either because how does someone who puts $$$ in the basket for the 2nd collection to it (either via envelope or loose change) actually know it really goes to the destination? The parish collections in the dioceses serve as the third party agent for Peter’s Pence (and other 2nd national collections that leave the diocese).

          • That is exactly why my family (extended) never contribute to these 2nd collections. Never. After the diocesan skim, they wind up who knows where. We donate directly to causes near and dear, such as the local St. Vincent de Paul society. I was privy, years ago, to the salacious gloating of a now deceased, very liberal, diocesan bishop over “the haul” (his words) for the Campaign for Human Development and he waxed on and on about all the heretical groups who would partake. Of course he didn’t see them as heretical. Oh goodness no! They were all moving with the Spirit of Vatican II. St.Joseph, Pray for Us.

      • It also violates the faithful who gave their hard-earned dollars to Peter’s Pence which is supposed to be used for the charitable works of the Church (e.g. missions). Sorry, but giving $$$ to a political campaign is NOT a charitable work of the Church. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not listed under either the corporal or spiritual works of mercy (sarc this last sentence).

        • So much is wrong with doing what the article suggests may have happened. Our Church giving money to a candidate that openly supports abortion??? The writing is on the wall..many of the prelates simply don’t believe in the coming Judgement and if they do, then they are simply active disciples of The Fallen One

          • How much would you want to get that they don’t preach on the four last things? (Btw, PF occasionally mentions the four last things.)

          • Don’t you understand the philosophy of Pope Francis in regard to abortion. It is his belief that abortion is an act of the poor because of their exploitation by the capitalist structure.

          • If that is the philosophy of Pope Francis it’s very much not so shaped by Catholic Theology and not by Scripture, starting with Genesis. Divine moral truths are not relative to time but are time eternal. God forbid any philosophy that teaches abortion is just or necessary as the children in the womb (starting at conception) are willed into existence by God while He has allowed us to have a participative role in this with Him as the progenitor. This is why Eve named Seth the name she named him, because she knew it was God that gave Him as He gives all children. Those who are poor need education, food, shelter and most importantly the Christian witness of the Apostles willing and ready to evangelize who did not just bring material necessities to the poor but the spiritual truths too…the do’s and do nots. And this is why 11 of them are martyrs…

          • That is his belief. You are among the “salt of the Earth”. The preachings of PF are very suspect in regard to Scripture and Tradition. That is why he believes in neither.

          • At this point you just may be correct..very sad and painful to say as I never thought I’d see this from a Pontiff. And if this the time God willed us to exist, in the midst of this great apostasy, may we be soldiers for the cause which is true and just in His name.

  9. Regarding this article: I would (respectfully, I hope) suggest that 1P5 should steer clear of politics, even in cases where there may be a real and important link to the ecclesial situation. Stay focused on the events unfolding within the Church itself. Don’t give opponents of this site an opening to exploit (“They’re just a conservative/Trump/alt-right site masquerading as a Catholic site; they oppose Francis because he’s progressive/left-leaning; the doctrinal complaints about Amoris are a smokescreen”). Continue to focus like a laser on the core issue, which is doctrinal error coming from the Pope and allied bishops.

    • “Where there may be a real and important link to the ecclesial situation,” you wrote, reportage should ignore ‘politics’ in order to avoid giving the wrong impression to opponents of this site.
      In the past I have given money to Peter’s Pence. This is my business, therefore, and the business of every Catholic who contributes financially to the Church.
      The opponents of this site can think, write, say and do as they wish.
      I sincerely hope that 1P5 and any ethical journalists/investigators who can dig further into this article’s allegations will ignore your very misguided advice.

        • Time for me to contribute again, then!
          And I would like to know who does have the resources, because I’ll be happy to increase their resources.

          • We always appreciate your support, but we’d need a full-time Rome correspondent to dig into a lot of this stuff. I think we’re a ways off from that.

            If his editors would let him touch it, Edward Pentin would be a good choice. But there’s not a little danger in looking into things like this.

          • Since his editors have seemingly shelved him he should be available. As an NCRegister print edition subscriber, it bothers me that we get very little from Mr. Pentin: generally his article appears on the second page of the Vatican portion of the publication, which is itself the second insert following the main portion and then the Culture of Life insert.

            He’s a great talent whose being used sparingly….

          • You’re correct about both the danger, and NCR’s management. I would prefer to see a group of honest prelates (protection in numbers) level with the faithful, though exposure of Vatican finances/political gamesmanship would rock the world. But a Catholic Assange- or several- may be what’s needed.
            We can’t do evil to bring about good. This is difficult to strategize, considering the scope of the task and the courage which will be required to face the consequences.

          • A ‘Catholic Assange’ would do it possibly. But the difficulty to strategize cannot be underestimated, nor the danger. Cardinal Pell was in the midst of ‘reorganizing’ finances and look where HE is at the moment.

          • Where he is at the moment is exactly where God wants him at the moment – the Cross. He will suffer for all those who are guilty of abuse, of protecting abusers, of inaction and complicity precisely because the place of the Christian is the Cross.

            He won’t be the only one hanging there. The nail that pierces him pierced the Lord’s first and going through the Lord’s wounds to his hands in feet in turn. The spittle that sprays him, sprayed the Lord first.

            And the Lord says : Blessed are you…..

          • “But there’s not a little danger in looking into things like this”………..hazard pay at the very least would be called for and even with that some would be a tad hesitant.

    • It’s all connected:

      And if the Church is funding or working with global progressive forces — and we already know the pope has personally given the thumbs up to the UN Sustainable Development goals and is working with population control leaders Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Ehrlich — the faithful should know.

      When it comes to the global anti-Catholic agenda, politics is a means to the end.

          • I looked at the story. Sure it’s bad, and maybe it happened, but let’s not go nuts. This sort of thing could just as easily happened in a Jesuit parish in America under JPII or even Benedict. Every news agency has its bias, Breitbart is routine over the top. As for the UN Sustainable Development goals read them here: They are not anti-Catholic. In fact, there is plenty of room for Catholic charities to collaborate. Francis has made a mess but don’t act like everything he does ushers in an apocalypse.

          • You’ll have to forgive me for not being particularly sympathetic to ad hominem dismissals of publications, regardless of what is contained in the actual report. It’s a favored tactic of those who seek to discredit us here, and as I always tell them: “Read first, then object substantively to what you disagree with.”

            Few take me up on it.

            As for the SDGs, there’s been enough written about the problems with them from a Catholic standpoint that I’m not going to google them for you. Do your own research.

    • Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

      It’s quite difficult to rebuild something while excavators continue to dig out the very ground upon which one wants to rebuild. It’s very difficult to restore tradition when the very people with the power to uphold and honor that tradition are working actively to destroy or deny it.

      One doesn’t begin treating a brain tumor by first insisting on clearing up the patient’s acne….

    • I agree. The Church has been headed in this direction for many years, i.e. funding and working with global progressive forces. The organizers have now come out of the shadows, but what they were up to has not exactly been a secret for the past 40+ years. The answer will not be found in politics, it will be found or realized after people turn back to God and heed Our Lady of Fatima’s message, wear the scapular and pray the Rosary. “Pray, hope and don’t worry” Padre Pio

    • Any cleric who supports a pro-abortion politician is an apostate. And if a cleric is an apostate, that’s something “going on inside the Church.”

    • Saint Catherine of Siena would have disagreed vehemently with the quietism you recommend here and so do I. She said, “We’ve had enough exhortations to be silent. Cry out with a thousand tongues – I see the world is rotten because of silence.” The opponents of this site don’t really need “an opening.” They are the kind that, lacking any solid grounds for criticism, simply make things up to suit their purpose. We have a duty to denounce their lies publicly whether they be political or theological in nature.

  10. It was many months ago I read a few articles on the Remnant that pretty much said the same thing. It does indeed look a little ‘odd’ with all the circumstantial evidence piling up. One piece of information that I don’t remember reading in past articles was the Vatican actually contributing to Clinton’s campaign to the tune of one mil. (no surprise there, Francis was a Clinton supporter, and pretty much a ‘Never Trumper’). I did read John Podesta’s emails where he discussed at length about establishing a new ‘Catholic Springtime’ in the Church, which they wanted to move on quickly, and were already ‘in the process’, as he put it. You do start to connect the dots with all the One World Order Cabal singing the same tune, and the Soros boys that are so firmly entrenched in the Vatican. That has been widely reported on, and Vatican officials are not a bit concerned about hiding it. Pretty much as plain as the nose on your face that they are all on the same team.

    • Satan, his minions and NWO have achieved a great success by infiltrating into Catholic Church and the biggest one is pope Francis. No doubt at all Roman Catholic Church is Satan’s most hatred enemy, get to be eliminated. Created beings never be able to win over Creator. Please God intervene.

  11. I wish this were a surprise. Instead, it has confirmed many of my thoughts from over the past months (years?).
    I think, rather than freeze my harvest this year, as I’ve done over the past (many) years, I will go back to canning so that, if power is one of the things we suddenly are without, I will still be able to feed my family. It’s not always pleasant being right.

  12. I always took it as a given that a Catholic voter, an authentically Catholic voter, had no choice but to support Donald Trump in November 2016. The loathsome, abortion-loving fraud from Chappaqua was just so clearly anti-Catholic in every sense. Even with his many imperfections, the Donald was clearly her moral superior in almost every category. Now that I see that Pope Francis favored her even more than was apparent a few months ago, I KNOW my political instincts were correct. In fact, a man can pretty much assume these days that, whenever he opposes the political positions of Jorge Bergoglio, he is on the side of the angels. Whatever one thinks of his theology –and I don’t think much of it — it’s undeniable that Francis politics give off an unbearable leftist stench. (And I rejoice to know my instincts also told me not to contribute so much as a dime to Peter’s Pence. Never will be tempted to do so again.)

  13. Do not worry about destroying Catholic Church perfidy. The insanity of allowing Muslims to to be imported, and indeed subsidized, to take over that which they were unable to win in battle over almost 1500 years will fix things quickly enough. The unfortunate part is that this will/and is going to continue to utterly destroy Europe. It will be burnt to the core. The pope should be forced t see a picture of Hagia Sophia every night before his communist dumb-#ss goes to bed every night. It would not make one whit of difference but perhaps the shame might deepen his shallow character a bit.

    • Please remember that despite his flaws, he is still a priest. When you wish to criticize – and we all understand that desire – try to reach for charity instead, and pray doubly hard for his conversion. Chaotic as pope or not, priesthood demands respect as they are Christ’s chosen.

  14. I have spent a lifetime in politics and journalism. The near complete absence of criosity or reportage in the world’s media on this astounding “resignation” was, in itself, astounding. Something earthshaking happened here, obviously. Obviously.

    • When you think of the way that Francis attacked Trump and gave Clinton a free ride or as it seems a nice little helping hand along the way . It’s no wonder that Catholics ( not Lutheran Francis Catholics) are now really seeing dare I say it The Light .

  15. This article is another further confirmation that Benedict XVI’s renunciation was forced under huge pressures (pressioni enormi) acording tô the declaration of his friend Mgr Negri. Those who advocate that he never ceased saying that he resigned through his free will feign to ignore that the huge pressures remain even though after his abdication. He is obliged to say so.
    Benedict in the Vatican looks like his predecessor Pius VII in the hands of Napoleon: A prisoner in a golden cage. But like him he remains the true Pope.
    Therefore, Francis is….

  16. Obviously, many are thinking alike regarding the issue of the validity of the renunciation.
    Too hot issue to be discussed except in private talks.
    The excommunication of Galat works beyond all hopes.

  17. Hmmm, indeed. ????. I have long suspected that the “lavender” group played a substantial part in the Pope Emeritus’ resignation. This article provides a portrait of many possible confluences. Worthy of consideration, but certainly of prayer. And a reminder that Our Lord promised the gates of hell would not prevail, ultimately.

  18. Ok so maybe Obama brought down PB, so what? PB was always a progressive anyway. Perhaps he started to finally see the destructive path he and his hierarchy were forcing on the Church but it was too little too late. He’s gone and now we have PF. It’s what we deserve anyway so better get on your knees and pray… really flippin’ hard!!!

      • Aaah what a load of tosh…its all politics, been happening throughout history, just because an American President gets involved we all have to get starry eyed about it. PB was never going to see it out, he’s safe in PF’s holiness so alls well… meanwhile we’re still waiting for a Pope to actually stand up for Christ’s teachings. Mother Mary help us, Christ forgive us!

          • Prove that Pope Benedict XVI was “never going to see it out” and that he’s “safe in PF’s holiness”.

            As for the rest, I trust in God and his words: he told us to watch for serpents, Christ rebuked the Apostles he asked to keep guard at Gethsemane. You go ahead and doze off at night watching the idyllic sheep while some of us keep our eyes on the perimeter, watching for wolves and serpents.

            And we’ll sound the alarm, write our congressmen, tell people we know in order to hopefully prevent or mitigate this kind of behavior. So you can sit idle in your real or imagined cloister or monastery.

          • Benedict was a progressive, but I applaud his views and work regarding the liturgy and freeing up of the TLM for millions of us, but basically he was a VII man, similar to Muller. He said himself it was his age and lack of strength that caused him to retire, fair enough, cos I don’t think he expected to be Pope anyway and maybe even wanted to retire after JPII died. But PB was no Traditionalist who fought back the onslaught of Liberal Francis.

  19. “John Podesta. His leaked emails showed that he was planning to foster a “Catholic spring,” a revolution intended to supplant conservative sections of the Church and make progressives take over.”

    Johny is about 60 years late. Did someone tell this man about VII?

  20. Whatever will be will be. They’re all pawns for the devil, the consecration has not yet been made, when it is finally made, their power will instantly turn to dust.

  21. The issue I have with this theory is Pope Benedict is not a weak man.
    If this were a mere human office, say POTUS, it would be believable that a man could be forced down from the position. However, this is not an office of human invention this is the Papacy. I would like to ask the question of commenters here – what would it take for Benedict to step down under pressure and leave not only the divinely instituted office of Pope but also abandon the faithful and leave them in the hands of one(s) wishing them harm?

    My personal opinion is that no consequence on earth could induce it. Furthermore, he is still alive and active and he has never come out with any sort of statement or evidence regarding this issue. Even if he had a weak moment à la St. Peter denying Christ he has had time a plenty to come back from that wretched moment just as the original Peter did (and no doubt would have experienced the remorse akin to Peter’s driving him to do just that). If this is true then the fact that Benedict has never intimated anything like this would make him complicit in the affair.
    It would also compel him to speak out on any doctrinal errors of this new Pope.

    Any thoughts?

  22. My goodness. I am glad you posted this. Now I know what a bunch of lunatics many of you are. You make a bunch of claims, with no links whatsoever. It’s all pure conjecture. 1P5 used to be one of the better blogs but with articles like this it will attract all the nutjobs. Good riddance.

  23. This article contains a bombshell: that Hillary’s campaign received a million dollars from Peter’s Pence.

    I have been spreading this news and this link as much as possible. This news must get out!

  24. There is definitely and without a doubt something to this. I have added information in regard to then Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis. He was definitely forced out by leftist Catholic Democratic pro abortion politicians who put pressure on Benedict. I have conclusive evidence from the Chancery. There have been allusions before of a concordat between the Democratic Party and the social justice wing of the Catholic Church.—-Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turk who shot Pope John Paul, said that he had help within the Vatican. All this is shaping up in a very nasty and exact way parallel to the writings of Malachi Martin.

  25. After Obama’s (let it all out=evil) second term where he pushed homoseuality, transgenederism, same sex marriage, but taking out a sitting Pope, and replacing him with a globalist new world order Pope is mindblowing. I am not Catholic but I respect the institution, and I believe that Pope Francis witl be the anti-pope with his recent April 2017, “Joy of love” has brought rebuke by 62 Catholic (Main-line-conservative) theologians.
    Out of this schism (good Pope/bad Pope) will arise a separate America Catholic Church that will replace the now defunct Globalist Roman Catholic Church. I hope that more light will be eposed on this ciime that Obama and HRClinton instigated to oust Pope Benedict XVI.
    America is under God’s protection a renewed America Catholic Church along with a renewed Protestant movement, America will save the world with a renewed faith in Jesus Christ through our Judeo/Christian (Old & New testatment) hertiage.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...