Cardinal Bertone Under Investigation…editor
Vatican prosecutors have opened an investigation into allegations that former Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone embezzled 15 million euros from Vatican accounts, German daily Bild reported Tuesday citing unofficial Holy See sources.
The newspaper said the money went to an unidentified television producer friend of Cardinal Bertone’s. It said it was moved in a transfer in December 2012 despite resistance from the Vatican Bank. Bild reported that Renè Bruelhart, the head of the Vatican’s Financial Information Authority (AIF), said that he could “neither confirm nor deny” the reports that Bertone is being probed.
Bertone was appointed Vatican Secretary of State by Benedict XVi in 2006 and served in the position until last year, when Pope Francis replaced him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin. His time in the role was hit by the so-called VatiLeaks scandal, which saw confidential Church documents leaked to the media by the Benedict’s butler in 2012.
The leaked documents included letters a prelate sent to Benedict and Bertone on alleged corruption and mismanagement in the administration of the Vatican City. The prelate, Carlo Maria Vigano’, was subsequently switched from his position as secretary-general of the governatorate of Vatican City State to a new post as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.
Last month Bertone strongly denied Italian media reports claiming that the prelate had a luxurious 700-square-meter flat renovated for himself while Pope Francis makes do with humbler lodgings at a Vatican guest house. Source
Cardinal Bertone has been a leading light in the drive to prevent publication of the Third Secret. Very keen to bury Fatima, he has been accused of lying about the Third Secret by a top Italian journalist – read all about it here. So, really, if the probe into his financial dealings throws up any cause for concern, would it really matter? Isn’t suppressing a key part of a message from Heaven much more serious? Seriously?
* On May 12, Antonio Socci issued a forceful response originally titled “Dear Cardinal Bertone: Who — Between You and I — is the one Who’s Lying and Knowing It? And Please Don’t Mention Masonry.” The article appeared in the May 12 Libero as “Socci Destroys Bertone”.* Source
The article linked in the Comment piece above shows that Cardinal Bertone is not slow to lie. Anyone who would lie, IMHO, is not to be trusted with anything, including money.
It puzzled me at the time when Pope Benedict appointed Bertone to be secretary of State knowing that he was anti-Fatima.
There really is a lot of corruption in the Vatican and the fact that the Church survives all this is proof (if proof were needed) that She is of Divine origin.
I would agree that suppressing any part of the Fatima message is a very serious matter indeed especially as it directly disobeys Our Lady’s wishes. Why did he do it, I wonder? Do these people really lead double lives? A few , just a few years ago I wouldn’t have believed that ANY priest, bishop, cardinal or pope would ever lie. It reminds me of the surprise I got when I first saw a nun coming out of a toilet cubicle! She was highly amused at the look on my face as somehow I never considered nuns to have bodily functions!! I was 15 years old.
I remember going to Lourdes and was embarrassed when one of the monsignors on the pilgrimage finished up standing beside me in the urinals.
That’s what convent education did for you.
Mind you, I was only young at the time too. I think I was only about 45.
That book that Fr Gruner was distributing, Russian Sunrise (a proposed scenario for the Consecration of Russia), strongly implied that Bertone was a homosexual. If that is true, then financial corruption wouldn’t be very surprising, neither as a corollary to his sexual corruption, nor as a corollary to his spiritual corruption in attempting to suppress the message of Fatima.
I have had trouble posting lately, so fingers crossed that this post goes up. I do not trust Bertone for one minute. He lied about the fullness of the Third Secret being revealed, and twisted words that Sr. Lucia told him regarding the Secret, i.e that it had been revealed fully in the year 2000. If he can’t be trusted with something so integral to the Catholic faith, if he doesn’t want to protect the Church from apostasy, then why are his alleged financial indiscretions so surprising. I’m not surprised. I wouldn’t have him in my garden. I wonder why Pope Benedict didn’t dismiss him? There are many prelates who could have done a much better job as secretary of state, such as Cardinal Bagnasco or Cardinal Caffara. Two conservative prelates, who would have complimented Benedict XVI very well. I wonder why he was retained? Maybe it’s the same reason why President Johnson kept J. Edgar Hoover on as the FBI Director after the 1964 Presidential election. Johnson reportedly said to an aide: ‘listen, son…you know what to do when there’s a skunk around. I’d rather have him [Hoover] in our tent peeing out, than outside peeing in’.
I’m not convinced that Cardinal Bertone ever saw the text of the second part of the Third Secret. I’ve never seen any absolute proof that the Vatican knows where it is. Pope John XXIII read it but then who after that had access to both the Bishop in White
vision and the letter with the words of Our Lady? Perhaps the later Popes only read the vision. And perhaps Cardinal Bertone doesn’t have the second text.
If Cardinal Bertone did not read the Third Secret, why did he take so much trouble to undermine it? Why write a book arguing that it has been fully revealed? How would he know if he hadn’t read it? Why did he fail to record in any way his three meetings with Sr Lucia? If you’ve missed it, I urge you to scroll up to the “Comment” paragraph at the end of the report about Cardinal Bertone’s possible financial probe, where you will find a link to an article about his Fatima book and his exchanges with the journalist Socci.
As for who had access to it after Pope John XXIII, well, the Vatican’s own website records that after Pope John XXIII, Paul VI read it, and John Paul II read it. We know that Pope Benedict read it in his “I’m Cardinal Ratzinger” days because he told us so at the Vatican press conference in 2000.
As for, “where is it now”, below is a snippet taken from the article I mentioned which you will find linked at the top of this thread in the Comment paragraph:
“…the evidence from Paris Match magazine, from Sister Pasqualina, the confidential assistant of Pope Pius XII; and from Msgr. Capovilla, personal secretary to Pope John XXIII who said the Secret was held in a desk in the Pope’s apartment, which conflicts with the 2000 commentary that claims it was stored at the Holy Office..”
I repeat my exhortation to you to read the entire Socci article if you really wish to begin to understand the role of Cardinal Bertone in killing off Fatima. My own gut feeling is that the extent to which he has gone to rubbish it (which includes blatant lying) and the fact that he mocks the very idea that the Third Secret reveals an apostasy in the Church, suggests that he’s read it all right. Big time.
Here are two quotes:
Cardinal Ottaviani said,
“Then he (Pope John XXIII) placed the Secret himself in another envelope, sealed it and placed it into one of these archives which are like a deep, dark, dark well, to the bottom of which papers fall, and nobody ever sees any more of them. So, it is difficult to say where the Secret of Fatima is now.”
When the Cardinal said these last words, he leaned down to the ground as if looking down a deep well.
On July 7, 1977, Cardinal Ottaviani declared: “The true text of the “Secret” written by the seer Lucy and sent to Pope John XXIII has truly remained a “secret”, because the Sovereign Pontiff has revealed nothing of this affair. We are even totally ignorant of where he placed the text sent to him.”
I think there’s a possibility that the text of Our Lady’s words was separated from the text of the vision (as Neues Europa implied in a follow up article that they published in the early 1960’s). I don’t think the secret was kept in the Pope’s apartment after Pope Pius XII.
November 1, 1963, Neues Europa:
“In the last edition of Neues Europa, we stated formally that the text we published there of the third message of Fatima constituted only an extract of it which is known in diplomatic circles. The most important part, the quintessence of the revelations of the Mother of God was unavailable to us. In this case it concerns words of the Holy Virgin predicting events that will take place at Rome and that will happen to the Vatican and the papacy at the dawn of judgment day, when humanity will be delivered to the divine chastisement.The passage related to it, and which forms the basis and conclusion of the third prediction of Fatima, was integrally detached from it and remains a state secret of the Vatican, until a new order is given.We know, however, what is said in the passage in question. It is related to the future of the Holy See and all the institutions attached to it. All the Vatican circles which were solicited to reveal the authentic text of this passage have categorically refused to make any kind of pronouncement on this subject.This intransigent attitude of Vatican diplomacy is the result of formal instructions emanating from Pope Paul VI who decided that neither the wording of the third message of Fatima nor its principal part would be made accessible, for the moment, to public knowledge. Such a papal prohibition can only increase in a very considerable proportion the interest attributed, up to the present, to the affair of Fatima.At what period will the Pope judge it opportune to lift this prohibition? Nobody knows.Theoretically this restriction can cease tomorrow, but it could equally well remain in force for a more or less long period of time. The political situation at the world level will decide, according to its favorable or unfavorable evolution. But here and now it is certain that the third message of Fatima will be communicated in full and without any omission to the entire world, when the needs and the seriousness of the hour demand it.”
Well, why did Cardinal Bertone lie? Write his book etc. Why not just say “nobody knows where the Third Secret is?” If true, it would be much easier to cover up without being accused of a cover up, if you get my drift. The questions I posed in my original response to you remain unanswered and the claim that nobody knows where the TS is, just doesn’t make sense.
On May 12, 1982, Sr. Lucy (or someone pretending to be) wrote In a letter to Pope John Paul II “The third part of the secret, that you are so anxious to know, is a symbolic revelation, referring to this part of the Message, conditioned by whether we accept or not…etc.”
Why did she write “that you are so anxious to know” if the Pope had the original Third Secret text?
That was definitely not Sister Lucy. Anything allegedly written by her as late as 1982 is a forgery.
Have you read the books written by the Fatima scholars such as Christopher Ferrara – this one is excellent
There is no question that the contents of the Third Secret are well known to lots of people in the Vatican and that it is being deliberately suppressed.
I think if you read the Chronology of a Cover-Up, it is clear that Sr Lucy did write a letter in 1982 but it was not addressed to the Pope, as the Vatican claimed. In fact, in another article on the Fatima website, we read that in that same letter, Sr Lucy states that the Third Secret had not yet been fulfilled, even though the Vatican would later claim that the Secret referred only to the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in 1981 — a whole year before the letter. See Chronology of a Cover-Up, Suppression of the Third Secret.
However, you are correct in sounding a warning note about the untrustworthiness of some printed material purporting to come from Sister Lucia. One of Sister Lucy’s cousins had said that Sr Lucy had stated that the Consecration had not been done according to Our Lady’s wishes; the above Chronology reports what happened thereafter:
“…in the summer of 1989, Sr. Lucia received a surprising instruction from an anonymous official at the Vatican. The instruction directed that Sr. Lucia and her fellow religious at the convent must now say that the consecration performed in March of 1984 satisfied the request of Our Lady of Fatima. This extraordinary order to flatly contradict herself was revealed by Father Messias Coelho, a longtime friend and occasional visitor of Sr. Lucia. In evident obedience to the same instruction, Sr. Lucia’s cousin Maria do Fetal suddenly reversed herself, and quoted Sr. Lucia as saying the consecration had been done…
Shortly thereafter, various typewritten notes and letters supposedly signed by Sr. Lucia began to appear and circulate privately in pious journals outside of Portugal. All contained statements flatly contradicting everything Sr. Lucia had said about the consecration over the previous 60 years. The fact that the documents were not handwritten and contained some obvious factual errors and strange phrases made their authentic origin with Sr. Lucia highly dubious…”
It’s worth reading through the entire Chronology of a Cover-Up, packed as it is with documentary evidence to show that there has, indeed, been a cover-up – and right at the heart of it, we find Cardinal Bertone.
The following extract from Chronology of a Cover-Up published on the Fatima website, refers to the letter you cite:
“On May 12, Sr. Lucia wrote a letter which was made public 18 years later by the Vatican in connection with the alleged revelation of the Third Secret in June of 2000. The Vatican said the letter, dated May 12, 1982, was addressed to the Holy Father, but this cannot be the case, because it refers to the Third Secret as something “you are so anxious to know.” This would make no sense if the recipient were the Pope, since he already knew the contents of the Third Secret at that time. Significantly, the Vatican’s own translations of the original Portuguese into other languages omitted this phrase, indicating that the officials who published these documents knew the letter was not addressed to the Pope, and were trying to hide that fact. The telltale phrase could not be omitted from the handwritten original, because it was published as a photocopy. Read the rest of the article here
And in case you haven’t read the article I mentioned previously, you can check it out here.
The reason why the phrase was deleted is debatable. It could just as easily have been deleted because it pointed to a missing text and by that time the Third Secret was supposed to consist only of the Bishop in White vision.
It had only been five years before this letter that Cardinal Ottaviani said that they didn’t know where the Secret was
Homosexuals, especially in high places, are very open to blackmail. God help us all when we have such degenerate clergy. I wouldn’t give them a penny. Imagine, up and down the land, these people are being financially supported by their dioceses (read Joe Soap) even when they are suspended!
Comment removed because of use of a term which I removed from Helen’s post, which is unacceptable. I think the answer is that Helen does not know that Cardinal Bertone is as she hinted. Let’s stick to the facts, please, folks. No rumour-mongering here, please and thank you.
Sorry, Ed for using that term. It is unacceptable hence why I put it in inverted commas.
I don’t think sodomites are as open to blackmail as they used to be. Not since it has become the ambition for most school-leavers to be one.
You are more open to blackmail now if you are seen nipping in to a TLM.
By the way, did you really meet president Kennedy?
Of course, Frankier, of course I knew him……..:)
Cardinal Sodano is also responsible for perpetuating the ‘party line’ concerning the Third Secret in ‘The Message of Fatima’, and according to Fr Kramer, he was one of it principle architects. It is all very well blaming the Cardinals, but under whose papacy was this document promulgated?
Agreed. The buck always stops with the pope.
If anyone has actually looked at the source of this, it is the original non-story. A sensational German tabloid ran a brief story. There was an equally brief attempt to play up an initial ‘no comment’ neither-confirm-nor-deny response. Then the explicit denial. There is no investigation, no real story: ‘dichiaro che non vi è in corso alcuna indagine di carattere penale da parte della magistratura vaticana a carico del cardinale Tarcisio’. (http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2014/05/20/news/bild_indagini_sul_cardinal_bertone_avrebbe_sottratto_15_milioni_al_vaticano-86656468/).
So we have 20 comments, not a one of which gets to grips with fact there is no actual investigation of alleged financial misconduct. Why blow up this non-event? Does the Fatima Fringe simply dislike the man enough to take up any feeble pretext for an attempt to smear him? Any stick will do?
Back to basics: a Catholic can believe as much (or as little) of any private message as they like. The minimum level of credence is zero, zilch, pas do too. So, in having been quite as tolerant and generous with his time as he has, Dr Bertone may have stretched credence to his personal limit (St John Paul the Great and the present senior bishop of Rome were clearly inclined to be less critical in this respect).
The whole of this thread so far is a transparent attempt to defame a man, not actually for alleged financial irregularity but out of pure spite because he has given fairly obvious hints that he has long since ceased to be persuaded by the nth revelation of the nth little seer from wherever it was. The more one reads of supposed revelation, putative secret drawers in Vatican desks, alleged impersonation, reputed forgery and the inevitable masonic conspiracies, the more it seems we need only introduce UFOs to complete the whole lunatic set. All the intellectual power of a less than bright lady with fair hair.
As the Fatimaniacs are taken gently away, they can perhaps bleat ‘non vi è in corso alcuna indagine di carattere penale’ as they go.
If, as I suspect, the “less than bright lady” to whom you refer in your closing remarks is my unworthy self, then you will ignore my “unintellectual” (by your standards) response, but here goes anyway…
You are not a Catholic so your failure to understand that Fatima is not (as Pope Benedict affirmed) a “private revelation” but a public prophetic revelation is understandable. Fatima was removed from the category of “private revelation” following the miracle of the sun witnessed by over 70,000 people, most of them in one place, with the very men who had attended to mock and report for their news outlets the next day, converting to Catholicism on the spot – and one of those famous converts was the Communist mayor who had done everything in his power to sabotage the event.
Pope Benedict stated publicly that “Fatima places an obligation on the whole Church” but, hey, you may have a point when you say “it seems we need only introduce UFOs to complete the whole lunatic set.” Pope Francis is with you there, he being more than ready to believe in the wee green men from outer space, and even saying he’s willing to baptise them. Crackers.
2. Cardinal Bertone & Alleged Probe…
As for your remark about not one of the comments here “getting to grip” with the fact that there is no actual investigation… etc It is made very clear in the introductory article that the probe into Bertone’s financial dealings is a Vatican probe, not a criminal investigation, so there’s nothing with which to “get to grips”.
However, despite your unsubstantiated claims that there’s nothing to probe, even in the report to which you linked, Rene Bruelhart, who heads the financial watchdog agency, has refused to confirm or deny the reports and in the same report we read that the Church has lost 20 million euros as a result of Bertone’s short selling on property deals. The report you linked makes clear that there are definitely financial irregularities and Bertone appears to be in the frame. Signed: Miss MacMarple.
The only outright denial has come from Bertone himself (surprise, surprise) while the spokesman for the Vatican bank declined to comment on the report at all. The report to which you linked emphasises that there were irregularities and highlights Bertone’s short selling of property to a friend. Joining up the dots time, Dowden.
Of course, the man is innocent until proven guilty. The jury’s not even been called yet. But please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that we cannot discuss the facts, as they are presented to us by independent sources. I never cease to be amazed at the way we are constantly told that we live in a free country (countries)and can say whatever we like – until we try to say something the PC brigade don’t like.
There is a question mark over Cardinal Bertone’s integrity as a result of the falsehoods he’s peddled about Fatima – irrespective of whether you believe in Fatima or not, there are facts which he has denied and falsehoods which he had written about the subject. So, for Integrity, he gets “must improve” on his report card. As far as his financial dealings are concerned, “cause for concern”. At the very least.
So, Dowden, who is “the less than bright lady with the fair hair” in your description: “All the intellectual power of a less than bright lady with fair hair.”
Me? Moi? 😯
Editor (dear lady!)
Sadly no number of years of living with a member (or, worse, members) of the opposite species seems to equip a mere man to say the right thing where women are concerned. But no, while I tend not to agree with you in matters of divinity and history, it goes without saying that I respect your contributions. And (if it is not too personal a comment) I do much admire the ability to survive in a hostile television environment without coming over as deranged or strident – not easy when people are having to argue against the flow of the times.
All I wanted to do was refer to a comment made up the thread under an avatar of a lady who fitted the description given. Since I happen to be working at the moment in eastern Europe where there are endless bad (Essex Girl) jokes about the блондинкою, I lapsed into circumlocution to avoid the b…..-word which is terribly not PC in my environment.
I don’t know if I have made things clearer (my style often tends not to) but no offence was meant!
Thank you for your kind comments about my TV appearances. Autographs will be signed on request, for a small fee!
Ah, so it’s the wicked Helen to whom you refer? She’s a case and a half, I have to agree, but she’s covering up her intellectual side, believe me. Or, as we say here in Glasgow, she’s no as daft as she looks!
Well, it looks like I will have “to come out” as they say (who says?). I’m a graduate in philosophy and theology but I just like to have a fun sometimes. Sorry, Dr. Dowden if I offended you.
This scurrilous thread, which is a non-story with no factual basis, should be removed. Or is this to be yet another demonstration of “Catholic Truth” being indifferent to the truth?
It seems this is a developing story – but its not about Bertone, it is about why a woman appointed to a Vatican commission by Pope Francis has been spreading rumours about Cardinals, (and other things), leading to erroneous newspaper articles claiming corruption.
See the links I posted below.
Your post is yet another demonstration of our enemies lurking in the shadows waiting for the faintest excuse to attack us, without giving any evidence for their (your) scurrilous falsehood(s).
This “non-story” has been widely reported across the internet and if it has “no factual basis” then please explain why Rene Brulhart, director of the Vatican Financial Intelligence Authority refuses to say so. On the contrary, he has said there have definitely been irregularities and the focus is on Cardinal Bertone.
We’ve made NO accusations/allegations but we have reported what is already out there in cyberspace in the context of the known falsehoods which Cardinal Bertone perpetrated in his book on Fatima (and on Italian TV, incidentally, where he was caught blatantly telling porky pies. Check it out).
No Daniel, it’s YOU who is indifferent to the truth. Worse, you are, in fact, hostile to the truth. Maybe you don’t realise that it is a very grave sin against the Holy Spirit to deny the manifest truth. Did you know that?
Now, next time you choose to come on here and insult us, have sufficient common sense, if not legal acumen, to provide a wee bit of something akin to evidence. Please and thank you 😀
PS have you contacted the editors of all the publications reporting this “non-story” to express your objections? Thought not.
The Catholic Herald reports the Vatican says Cardinal Bertone is not under investigation for any matter.
It seems that Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui – a Pope Francis appointee, to help with his financial reforms – is the source of rumours against Bertone:
“She is a 27-year-old public relations consultant who works for Ernst and Young, she described the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as corrupt and claimed that he was involved in dubious business deals with an unnamed company from the Veneto region”
Her remarks about Bertone are highlighted in the linked article, which is mainly about the 18,000 Euros she spent organising an exclusive “canonisation buffet” for invited guests recently. (Apparently Francis was outraged when he heard about the event.)
The reports about Cardinal Bertone that I’ve read have not said he was under criminal investigation. I’ve understood the reports as claiming there is a Vatican probe into his property dealings. I presume any criminal investigation thought necessary would follow from the initial investigation. If I’m wrong, please correct me, but that’s how I’ve understood the situation to date. However, one has to emphasise yet again that one is a simple gal…
Comments are closed.