This week I put up a Facebook post that had 440 shares. In it, I suspected that Pope Benedict XVI was being controlled and that he would not come back to the Vatican. When I was proved wrong on the latter of those two, I was asked to publicly apologize for my whole post.
No, I’m not going to apologize for noticing that Pope Benedict XVI is back in the Vatican. Why? Because I still insist that something nefarious is afoot. The onus of proof is now on my opposing interlocutors to explain not only a few but all of the following questions if they still insist upon a peaceful narrative in the Vatican:
1. Why did Pope Benedict resign after extreme pressure on him for having blown the whistle on the Vatican bank scandal in 2012 if he wasn’t even controlled by nefarious agents back then?
2. Why isn’t Pope Benedict XVI allowed to see his closest friends? I have tried to see him in the Vatican since his “retirement” in my trips to Italy, even with important connections there. It seems only a few people are year are allowed to see him. Key word: “allowed.”
3. Why did Cardinal Daneels and his friends admit to Dutch radio (not a traditionalist website, but Dutch radio!) about five years ago that they frightened Pope Benedict XVI off the throne and even lobbied at the 2013 Conclave?
4. Why did Pope Benedict say that if he planned on retiring from the papacy he would move to southern Germany? Or rather, why is he in the Vatican if he was public that he wanted his retirement to be in Germany? How is that not a sign that he is controlled?
5. Why is Pope Benedict in white, wearing the ring, signing papers of ordination congratulations as “Supreme Pontiff” if not a current and reigning Pope while puppetted by a puppetmaster? Really. Somebody answer this who has studied Church history.
6. Why is he in white living in the Vatican while someone else occupying the Holy See is living in Casa Santa Martha? What is the point of keeping one Pope there and the other Pope in another location if both are not necessary to a set-up? Even Protestants know you can’t have “two Popes.”
7. Why is Archbishop Ganswein the liaison between the two who is always answering for Pope Benedict? Why did AB Ganswein have to go with him to his last trip to visit his brother if he’s not being controlled?
8. Why are new Cardinals brought to Pope Benedict XVI for approbation while the other in white repeatedly says he himself is the “bishop of Rome”? How is this not a set up of control?
9. Why did Pope Benedict allegedly write to the “bishop of Rome” exactly four years ago this week, verbatim from the Vatican website: “The Vatican Gardens, even for all their beauty, are not my true home: my true home is your goodness”? That ridiculous line is from the Vatican website but it doesn’t sound like anything Cardinal Ratzinger has written in any of his 40 years of prolific writing.
10. Why was it publicized by the Vatican three years ago that one Pope endorsed a book from the other Pope but the former came out weeks later saying it was a lie? Why would this be the case if words were not being put in his mouth?
11. Why earlier this year did Pope Benedict first agree that he wrote a book for priestly celibacy with Cardinal Sarah against the current thrust of the Vatican…and then come out and deny it within two weeks? How is that not a sign that PB16 is either senile or dishonest or under extreme duress? (Cdl. Sarah proved to the world that his former papal friend was not speaking with senility after the incident.)
12. Why does Pope Benedict look beat up in numerous pictures and is never allowed to speak for himself?
Any single of the above can be easily poo-pooed. But all 12 together can not be easily dismissed. So, I’m not going to apologize for asking these questions even if it makes people uncomfortable in swallowing the obvious corruption. Dan Brown could not have written a novel with this much Vatican intrigue and clergy manipulation and still be considered a digestible fictional author.