The most recent story that the Bergoglio Lobby, strongly active already in the 2005 conclave, was running a very smooth “convincing” operation in the period preceding the 2013 Conclave shows just how the mainstream media partiality regarding the current pontificate has prevented them from engaging in what they do best, because they have the personnel and resources to do so: investigative journalism.
Yes, it is true and well known that, as Dr. Austen Ivereigh implies in his new book, “Team Bergoglio” was in full motion before the Conclave, led by several people strongly related to the desires of the late Cardinal Martini, who had put Bergoglio forward as the liberal flag-bearer in 2005.
Hours ago (source: Il Sismografo), Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said that the Cardinals mentioned (or at least four of them, Murphy-O’Connor, Lehmann, Danneels, and Kasper – the latter not exactly the king of truth) denied the facts revealed by Ivereigh. Which is pretty astounding because what Ivereigh said has been known in Rome from day one following the 2013 conclave (or even before…), and they even had been leaders of the Martini-inspired 2005 Team Bergoglio… But there still is a very important missing link in all this.
What we have is a kind of Watergate in which there is a resignation … but there is no trail of what led to it. It is as if Nixon had suddenly resigned, and all he said was it was due to old age or tiredness, but nobody knew exactly why. (The obvious differences in character between both individuals and events are irrelevant to our point.) Isn’t it, to say the least, very curious?
We cannot provide details (it is up to serious and confident and daring investigative journalists who wish to truly go deep into what took place between 2011-12 and the March 2013 conclave), but, inspired by the example of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ when He needed to express absolutely true yet difficult messages, we can provide the following parable. It should be of great help to those willing to at last investigate all details carefully. The work is ready for those willing to dig deeper.
A successful executive has reached the age of optional retirement in a very good job at a major global corporation. He does not have to retire just yet, but he is convinced by people, among whom a few (one? a couple?) of his closest friends and aides, who assure him, before he actually decides to retire, that someone he trusts and groomed for his position will replace him, prompting his early retirement. He retires, confident that his good work will now be kept. But actually the people who convinced him were acting on behalf of an old adversary of his, who is then picked for his former position. Now, his retirement is perfectly valid and legal, and the selection of his adversary (even if made with wily procedures) is as well, it’s just that some of his friends were not really such. Life goes on in global corporations, as they say.