Posted on 01/06/2023 10:02:51 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
On the eve of Pope Benedict XVI’s burial, Piero Laporta, a retired Italian brigadier general, published a stunning piece on his own blog.
This Catholic author, who previously lobbied to have Benedict participate (and influence) the controversial Synod on the Family some eight years ago, is now revealing that in the first weeks after the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papal throne in 2005, an official of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) “was bragging about the resignation to which H.H. Benedict XVI of revered memory would soon be forced.”
If this story is true, however, “soon” would have to mean almost eight years, as that is the time it actually took for Benedict to resign.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
If true, this is really evil. And US taxpayers are financing it.
If he isn’t brave enough to give names, dates or other details, then shame on him.
It becomes merely locker-room gossip which creates directionless disquiet and strife, with no outlet or direction.
When the CIA does it, they call it “disruption and disinformation.”
Slightly off topic, but there is a scene in a John Wick film where Wick shows up in Rome.
He is recognized as a top talent. In his interaction with the organization of assassins, he sits with an Italian gentleman who has a very professional demeanor and very seriously, and very quietly, and very cautiously asks, “Are you here for ... the pope?” And Wick, very respectfully shakes his head and says, “No”.
The Italian gentleman brightens right away and becomes much more open. The assassin John Wick can come to Rome and kill anyone on his list, but it is a very great relief to know that it won’t be the Pope.
But I guess the US government is more ruthless than John Wick.
I agree. He should be naming names. By letting the individual stay in the shadows allows this to continue, assuming its true.
The SWIFT thing happened in early 2013. Benedict had already made his decision in the summer of 2012. He told Ganswein in September of 2012. We know from the Seewald interviews that he was waiting for the resolution of the Vatileak trial, which ended in the October/November timeframe. He possibly waited for the famous dossier to be delivered to him, which he received in mid-December 2012. So...with that...out of the way, he was ready to resign as he had already decided. SWIFT had nothing to do with it.
With regard to the supposed NSA official, the story is odd. Why did the Italian general wait to report this? The sourcing sounds odd to...he’s an NSA official involved in finances in Italy? Further, since the official apparently spoke openly, why doesn’t the general give us his name — especially given the stakes. Also, his “bragging” said BXVI would resign “soon”...he didn’t resign till 7-8 years later.
I think more answers are needed before this account is accepted as credible.
Previous reporting made clear that it was Obama who was behind the closing of the Vatican's access to SWIFT.
The SWIFT issue is a matter of public record. Sourcing about “why” it happened is speculation. It is yet further speculation to say Benedict resigned over it. It makes no sense that he would resign because of this. He wouldn’t capitulate, to surrender the Church for a money issue. Even as a theory it doesn’t make any good sense.
As I noted. He had decided in the summer 0f 2012 to resign. He told Ganswein in September. SWIFT had nothing to do with it.
“Mind reader of the year” award goes to......!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.