Fear, Power & Money: Alleged McCarrick Abuse Victim Shares Shocking Insights into Abuser’s Reign
Abuse. Conspiracy. Hush money. Bribes. Power players. Politics. Global agendas. The threat of violence. These are some of the themes that James Grein, the alleged longtime abuse victim of former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, discussed with Dr. Taylor Marshall in a new podcast interview. Grein, who claims to have been abused by McCarrick for 18 years, beginning at age eleven, explained the close family connection he had with McCarrick – a connection that began even before he was born.
“He had been part of the family,” says Grein, “since 1950. Probably ’48, when he met my uncle – my mother’s younger brother – at Fordham University. And they did everything together. And my grandfather adopted him, basically, because he had no father. And so he became the very fabric of the family.”
Grein says his grandfather took a liking to McCarrick immediately and offered to help pay his way through school.
He then revealed something interesting: “My grandfather was from Sankt Gallen, Switzerland.” Grein says McCarrick first traveled to Sankt Gallen to meet his grandfather’s friends. “Sankt Gallen is not a very large city. And my grandfather knew everybody. And so he introduced McCarrick to everybody. And in fact, he went there on a regular basis – on a yearly basis – probably for 20 years.”
Grein says McCarrick went to visit a language school in Sankt Gallen in 1951 and came back a different man – someone who wanted to be no longer a parish priest, but a power player within the hierarchy of the Church. When McCarrick came back, says Grein, his grandfather – a wealthy and influential man – introduced him to powerful members of the American episcopacy like Cardinals Spellman and Cooke.
Marshall brought up the Sankt Gallen “Mafia” – the group that conspired against Pope Benedict and sought to replace him with Jorge Bergoglio.
“This is really key … that it begins in Sankt Gallen,” says Marshall. “This [conspiracy] really goes into the ’90s. But before that, there’s this connection with McCarrick and Sankt Gallen. Do you see that there’s an organic connection between McCarrick’s work in the ’50s and then later on with the conspiracy, they say, to remove Benedict XVI?”
“Yes,” responds Grein. “I’ve known this, and I’ve felt this for a long time.”
“This is where it all starts.”
Although he does not substantiate or elaborate on the claim, Grein says he believes that Pope Benedict was forced out of office.
“I now believe he was a predatory man for all his life.”
Grein makes clear that McCarrick had a “pretty good ego” and “needed to be in power … needed to be the number-one person in the room” at any given time.
And his means to obtaining power was not just his facility for building relationships through charisma and strategy, but his focus on fundraising.
“It’s all surrounded by that wonderful little word called money,” Grein says.
Grein discusses McCarrick’s facility for getting large donations from wealthy families like the hotel magnates the Hilton family. The fundraising was often done, alleges Grein, under a pretense (emphasis added):
He [McCarrick] was traveling on the guise that ‘I’m raising money for the poor.’ And that, he was, he needed money for the poor. Well…I won’t say that. I don’t think they gave a lot of money to the poor. I think they gave a lot of money to themselves. And they used the guise of, uh, of the poor always. It’s always how we’re going into South America, we’re going into Africa, and how these small, uh, communities need money because they have nothing…it’s an amazing game that he played. So he played everybody in the room to give him money, and he played his superiors by giving them the money so that they would leave him alone, and he was there in the middle, and he got to do anything he wanted to do, and what he wanted to do was prey on young people so that he could enjoy, have his own ideas and his own little world where he was the king of the world and he could just prey on and take anyone that he wanted to. And that nobody could possibly, possibly grow better than he. And as it progresses, he’s introduced to some of the most powerful people in the world, and some of the most powerful people in the world believe him. They don’t know what’s behind the mask. And those of us who knew what was behind the mask – the Viganòs, the James Greins, and the other people in the world – were too afraid to come out because he would kill us. Literally.
The implicit threat of violence, reiterated by Grein – who says in the interview that he now has a security detail – underscores the reason Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò went into hiding in fear of his life following his own revelations of the extensive ecclesial cover-up of the McCarrick abuse, going all the way to the pope.
Grein discusses how McCarrick would use blackmail, threats, and coercion to force him to stay with him and to keep quiet about the abuse. He would also tell Grein that he should go to confession “only to him.”
“In essence, I lost faith in the Church,” says Grein, “and gained only faith in him.”
Grein relates a story in which he threatened McCarrick in turn:
The last time I saw him in 2012, at my mother’s funeral … I told him if he didn’t come and say my mother’s funeral Mass, I was gonna open my mouth. Well, he was under sanctions, now that I know that. But he came, and he said to me at the end of the luncheon, “Don’t you know how powerful I am? I am the most powerful man in the United States. Nobody can touch me, and if you say anything at all, you’re going to go down. You’re going to be the bad guy. It is impossible for me to go down.”
Grein says that because of threats like this, he was hugely relieved when another story of McCarrick’s abuse broke in New York in the summer of 2018. It detailed accusations against McCarrick by another boy, who was also a minor at the time the abuse was alleged to have taken place decades ago.
“I hit my knees immediately and thanked God. And it took me two days to get off my knees to go talk to somebody. And finally I was able to tell my brothers and sisters, who I tried once before, and they, they didn’t want to believe me. They didn’t want to hear it. I don’t blame them. And that I was finally going to be free. It was my turn. It was my turn. That’s just how huge it is.”
“It’s amazing,” says Grein, “that, uh, you hide all this stuff, because if you tell somebody else, who else is gonna do this to me? You know, uh, you hear all about the trafficking now, thank goodness I didn’t tell anybody, because I could have been trafficked everywhere. [Like] those poor kids that were in Pennsylvania. And it’s all over Syracuse, New York now, too.”
Grein also claimed that he was not the only one subject to McCarrick’s abuse. He was aware of others. “There were four of us” who would always go to a fishing camp with McCarrick, he says.
“Did you get the impression that there were other priests, bishops, anyone in the hierarchy that was aware that he had this double life?” Marshall asked.
“Every one of his secretaries had to know.” Grein says. “In Metuchen, in Newark, even when he was with Cooke in New York. Had to know. And I know that there are some prominent politicians who know also. ‘Cause I was introduced to them as somebody of interest. I know that Cardinal Wuerl knows. And, uh, that’s…that was just, uh, the day that I met Wuerl at the Hilton in Washington, D.C. right after he was made the archbishop of Washington, D.C. was a very hard day for me to take. I’m gonna stay right there because it’s in my case that’s…needs to be quieted right now.”
The Money, the Knowledge, and Viganò
Pivoting to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s accusations, Marshall asked Grein: “Viganò says that Francis knew. Benedict knew. The apostolic nuncios knew. That Meyers in Newark knew. Metuchen knew. He names a lot of names. Were you surprised by that, or did you know that they all knew?”
“I knew that they all knew,” answers Grein. “I knew that John Paul II knew.”
“How does that make you feel about John Paul II and Benedict? That they knew?” asks Marshall.
“I’ll take John Paul II first. John Paul II changed his needs. He needed money. He needed his, uh, his papacy to be raised up. He had a lot of projects that he wanted to do. And the only way he was getting any kind of money donated to the Church was through McCarrick. And he didn’t want to shut that off. And so he…while he knew he needed McCarrick as his tool to get as much money into the papacy as possible…”
“How much money are we talking here?”
“Five hundred million, maybe? Two hundred ten, we know for a fact. Two hundred ten, we know for a fact, but I know there was much more coming from the Hiltons, from the, uh…and from the left-wing agenda in the United States. And so that, uh, it was a, it was a faucet. And, uh, John Paul did not want to turn off that faucet. Because he needed that money to, uh, in all of the aura of feeding the poor, it was no longer really feeding the poor, it was making him, uh, his legacy much stronger, and where he can be, uh, he can expand into more countries.”
“Benedict didn’t like that. Wanted to tie up all the loose ends. Because he saw through what John Paul was doing, and he needed to say, ‘Well, this has got to stop. We are part of a church. We are not part of a money-gaining…we’re not looking for power here through money.’ So Benedict really wanted to tie things together. And he got the best guy to do it. Viganò. He tied up all the loose moneys that were in the United States, across the world, he got ’em all together.”
“Vatican bank?” Marshall interjects.
“Vatican bank, you got it. And he pulled it all together. And a lot of the 45 million, or the 55 million that was pulled out of the United States and brought to the Vatican bank…there’s always, I talked to A.G.s [attorneys general] about that, I’ve wanted to talk to some stronger men in the United States, um, about a RICO investigation on that, because it’s definitely laundering. But that’s another story.”
Grein says later on that while John Paul II was part of the agenda for the Sankt Gallen group, he didn’t change things fast enough for them.
The Impact of McCarrick on the Larger Church
Grein claims that Cardinal Cupich of Chicago is now becoming “the new McCarrick” in terms of his connection to Rome and influence within the American clergy. “There’s no doubt, because Francis needs an ally in America, and McCarrick is too dirty.”
Grein admits that he remains frustrated with how much of the corruption is still going on. “Every morning I come downstairs and I read, you know, OnePeterFive or Complicit Clergy,” he says, “and I read this stuff, and I just, sometimes I have to just go for a long run because I’m so angry. Why are these people doing these things, they’re still doing it? But finally they’re being exposed.”
“If we go back and look at the influence of Sankt Gallen being the the epicenter of the antichrist. And how they have finally forced people into doing things that they don’t really want to do. Things are happening faster today out of Sankt Gallen because they are becoming impatient. They’ve been waiting a hundred years for their turn to step forward. It’s not happening as fast as they want it. So Benedict was cleaning up, and they said, ‘No, no, we can’t clean up, because if you clean up, we’re toast. Sorry. We’re done. And so we need to have somebody who can come in and help us. And so that we can carry out everything that we need to do.’ And if you go back and listen to what McCarrick said, about, he was approached by some very significant people that he knew, and that needed him to bring up Francis, and let’s politicize this.”
In this, Grein was referencing a talk given by McCarrick at Villanova University in 2013, shortly after Bergoglio was elected to the papacy. In it, McCarrick says that before the conclave, “nobody thought there was a chance for Bergoglio.” Then he related how he was visited by a “very interesting and influential Italian gentleman” not long before the conclave was to take place. This man had a proposition: he wanted McCarrick to use his influence to “talk up” Bergoglio. “If we had five years,” the mystery man is said to have speculated to McCarrick, “the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.”
McCarrick claims to have gone on to do just that, telling his fellow cardinals that they should “elect someone from Latin America who could identify with the poor.”
On the question of that “prominent Italian gentlemen,” Grein does not claim specific knowledge, but he has a theory: “I don’t think it was Italian. I think it’s Swiss. He just covered it so that they couldn’t connect the dots. Or, if it was an Italian gentleman, then it was definitely a politician. But he says, oh, an influential man. Did he know him? He may have passed a note: ‘If you don’t do this, you’re out.’ These people are very, very powerful.”
On the endgame for Sankt Gallen, Grein talks about the opening of borders and the socializing of everything, and he speculates that “the idea is that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, and if they can get the United States to do that, then they can come forward and take over the entire world with the communistic agenda and be in power. That’s what I believe that they have had in mind for themselves, and that’s what they want to go forward with. But they haven’t been able to do it because, what Bella Dodd said, is that, because of the patriotism, and because of the belief in Jesus Christ. And we need today to rise up and have ourselves believe in Jesus Christ more than we ever have in our lives. And we need to rise up right now.”
TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.
If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.
Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
This is so because:1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.
Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”
His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal.
In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.
Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes