In 2006 with the book "The Fourth Secret of Fatima" position on an issue that attracted me insults, invectives and curses (by clergymen and outbuildings). Four years passed, and May 13, 2010, in Fatima, Pope Benedict XVI himself confirmed the most important points of my hypotheses, denying even his Secretary of State.

In September 2011, on "Free" Benedict XVI said the news that he would resign after his 85th birthday. Even that time filled me with nastiness and vulgarity. Then, in February 2013 (ie, two months before the age of 86 years) Benedict XVI made his renunciation.

This time, without even having read my book "It's not Francis," which comes out tomorrow, I was covered with bilious vulgarity. I do not want him. The courage and intellectual freedom not everyone can afford them and - in the words of Mario Hrvat - "Envy is the awareness of one's own mediocrity."

Advance excerpts below from the premise of the book and after the first three pages of the chapter in my book about the Conclave of 2013 (The Papocchia), where I report the facts lead to the hypothesis that the nullity of the election of Pope Francis.


I admit to being one of many who have welcomed Bergoglio - March 13, 2013 - with open arms, as was the right thing to do considering the legitimately elected Pope. And also for a number of common friends (very dear to me), which led me to feed benevolent hopes in the new Pontiff. Even informed him (and convincingly) that - among many others - could also count on the prayers of myself and my family, and the offer of our crosses for the fulfillment of its high mission.

I liked that her style discharged. The newspapers represented him as the bishop who turned to Buenos Aires by public transport, who lived in a modest apartment rather than in the bishop's palace, who attended the poor neighborhoods of the suburbs as a good father, eager to bring the more unhappy the caress of the Nazarene .

All this could be a tremendous breath of fresh air for the Vatican and for the entire Church. Pope Francesco I argued as I could for months, as a journalist, in the press. I felt like an apostle of the confessional, devoted to Our Lady. I defended against criticism from some traditionalists hasty and still keep finding absurd controversy as a pretext to those who take the statements of Pope Francis to actually attack the Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger and John Paul II, (...) that have no responsibility in the choices of Bergoglio. From this point of view are very happy to be among those who Roberto De Mattei considers "the fiercest defenders of Vatican II."

I am convinced, with Pope Benedict XVI (with John Paul II and Paul VI), which the Council is a very valuable event. But the real Second, what is in the documents and forms part of the Church's Magisterium. Another thing (opposite) is "virtual" built by the mass media, for instance, what is theorized by historians progressive. (...)

Support today that the statements of Bergoglio Scalfari (for example) in the end they are in continuity with Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI, namely that Bergoglio "embodies the essence of Vatican II" (De Mattei), is absurd. (...).

Unfortunately, today I am one of the many disappointed (a sentiment that is spreading more and more among Catholics, although not reported in the newspapers). (...).

Several cardinals had voted Bergoglio with the hope that he would continue the work of renewal and purification undertaken by Pope Benedict XVI, who raided the Vatican Curia and (metaphorically) overthrew the inside out, as if by fire, of John the Baptist. Instead we must sadly admit that little or nothing has been done (only some removal, in some cases, even unjust).

okay to live in the residence of 'Santa Marta', may also be a positive sign, even if it is just a poor monastic cell. I, in my book I had even dreamed of a Pope who was going to live in a parish in the township. In any case, I appreciate the message.

But then the problem is the government of that complex thing that is the Vatican and - for example - IOR, someone has also proposed to close, it is not clear its usefulness for the Church, but that Bergoglio has not closed at all. In contrast, observers say more informed, Bergoglio has multiplied committees, bureaucracies and expenses. (...)

We expect a wave of moral rigor against the "filth" (also the ecclesiastical) denounced and fought by the great Joseph Ratzinger. But how should we interpret the signal given to the world of laxity and surrender to the new sexual mores of society and the breakdown of moral principles and their families?

How to interpret the refusal of Pope Bergoglio to object to the ethical issues, as they did heroically his predecessors, or even just "judge", that is to counter the cultural revolution of affective relationships that destroys any serious relationship and left all alone and more unhappy slaves of instinct? St. Paul said, "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:15) and not "who am I to judge?".

And why not oppose the culture of death that no longer recognizes no sanctity to human beings or to quell 'wave of anti-Christian and anti-humanism that, under different flags, now pervades the world? (...).

There were to refute those who, in the Church, throw to the winds the line with Catholic doctrine and that - as well as powerful chairs - demolish the heart of the faith, however we have seen "beat" good Catholics, Orthodox ones who really lived poverty , chastity, prayer and charity.

Indeed, Pope Bergoglio lashes just on those who use "a language completely orthodox" because it does not correspond to the Gospel (Gaudium Evangelii n. 41). Something never seen and never heard in the history of the Church.

Not to mention when the same Bergoglio ventures in its puzzling statements such as "if one does not sin is not a man," a thesis that not even aware of it so surprising to deny that the humanity of Jesus and Mary, who were free from sin, and for this model are the supreme ideal of man and woman.

Or when he wrongly attributed to St. Paul the phrase "I am proud of my sins" (Homily of Santa Marta 4 September 2014), a huge amount upon which the Vatican website even considered making the title "Why boast of sins. " Evidently, the Vatican, and in particular to Santa Marta, do not know what St. Thomas Aquinas says: "It's a mortal sin when one boasts of things that offend the glory of God."

It was really hoping that you attend to the most defenseless victims and helpless in the suburbs most remote in the world, though - I remember with pain - Pope Bergoglio has stubbornly declined to raise his voice, in the summer of 2014, in aid of the Christians slaughtered in the Islamic Caliphate Northern Iraq, merely a few statements without never utter a vibrated invective (such as those who made ​​arguments about politically correct) or a vigorous appeal to the international community to intervene to disarm the perpetrators and protect the defenseless slaughtered.

never turned towards the Islamic world in general humiliates every minority, never a lash against Islamist terrorism, never explicitly asked that '' humanitarian intervention '(designed especially by John Paul II) who disarm, even by force, the executioners and prevented massacres as well as begging the bishops of Iraq. The patriarchs as they shouted loudly that their communities were defended by force, from the impending massacre and waged an explicit criticism of the reluctance of the Pope asking him to "use his influence more daring in the cause of Iraqi Christians."

But Bergoglio was cautious and reticent, getting by without exposing themselves. We are confident that, given the tragedy of the Christians (and other minorities) in Iraq could not take a more decisive stance as that of his predecessors or his other issues? (...).

sight is not even a work of true awareness of the whole Church, which mobilize the prayers of all, that sollecitasse vigils, novenas, fasting (these are the weapons of the Christians) and a great humanitarian. That there were no contraindications for this? You do not see really.

was needed to give comfort and practical help to many Christians persecuted, humiliated, imprisoned, killed, Pope Bergoglio but instead continued to rely on a dialogue without conditions and without precautions, exposing themselves to painful accidents such as 8 June 2014, when he called to pray at the Vatican, among others, an imam, there on the ground bathed in the blood of many Christian martyrs, never mind the speeches agreed, invoked Allah to help the Muslims to crush the infidels ( "give us victory over the unbelievers.") (...).

was needed to say at least one word in defense of young mothers - as Meriam or Asia Bibi - sentenced to death in Islamic regimes for their Christian faith, or at least you could ask to pray for them, but Pope Francis It never has, does not even responded to the appeal sent to him by Asia Bibi, while personally wrote a long message of greetings to Muslims who fast for Ramadan in the hope that it will bring them "abundant spiritual fruits." (...).

It has come to find out, however, that at the time of Benedict XVI's Regensburg speech (the one that went down in history for having angered the Muslims), the spokesman of the then Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, publicly criticized Pope Ratzinger. Newsweek published his words under the title "The Archdiocese of Buenos Aires against Benedict XVI."

spokesman after some time he was relieved of his duties, but many have wondered if and when there has been a public repudiation by the bishop Bergoglio and his open support to the speech given by Ratzinger in Regensburg. (...).

Given these facts it explains the current attitude of Francis Pope towards Islam and the Iraqi Islamist Caliphate (persecutors of Christians and other minorities).

Bergoglio, always so critical with Catholics, is not opposed to never even secularist lobby on issues of life, of gender, of the non-negotiable principles that Pope Benedict identified as pillars of the "dictatorship of relativism." (...).

There was (and is) a need to turn on a light for a generation that has been thrown into the darkness of nihilism, which can no longer even distinguish good from evil because they taught that do not exist and that everyone can do what they like. Unfortunately pope Bergoglio likely to satisfy this very tragic drift also saying that "everyone has his own idea of good and evil" and "we have to make you move towards what he thinks is good."

There was and c ' you need to proclaim Christ, our hope and true happiness in life, to a generation that does not even know who Jesus is and most do not know what to make of his youth and existence. It may be misleading to hear from Pope Bergoglio that "proselytizing is a solemn nonsense" and that he has "no intention" to convert its stakeholders.

course, is right when he points out that Christianity is communicated 'by attraction, " but the missionary zeal us was witnessed by the saints and "proselytizing" is the commandment of Jesus to his apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you "(Mt 28,19-20).

We can not forget that the Gospel precept, which indicates the true, great task of life, to have the approval of the rich and powerful living snob and anti-Catholic of the Republic. Where are all now rejoice feeling to finally have a Pope "scalfariano."

There is a great need to bring the caress of the Nazarene who is alone, sick, suffering or desperate and it is very painful to see "jump" at the last minute visit Pope's Gemelli hospital with sick people waiting under the sun (their, whose wounds are the wounds of Christ), while they are easily hours to devote to Scalfari, or is the time to call or Maradona Marco Pannella and go in person to Caserta just to meet the Protestant pastor friend. (...)

Bergoglio - according to his biggest fans - it would be a revolutionary who aims to subvert the Catholic Church, eliminating the dogmas of faith and throwing away centuries of teaching.

What would it mean and what would all this? If true, the Church would be on the verge of a dramatic explosion. Is that so? He'll want to avert it, father Bergoglio? Want to go back on the road where one day, a young man (he once told me he moved), he met the eyes of Jesus? He'll want to look for that look and find him in all of us?

THE Papocchia

That afternoon of March 13, 2013, in Rome it was raining. Not many expected a puff of white smoke from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel for the conclave was only the second day. Instead it was announced l '"Habemus Papam."

He was elected Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. At the fifth vote, she told herself. But after some time it became known that he was in fact elected in the sixth, that she should not be done in the afternoon.

What had happened?

Elisabetta Piqué is a good Argentine journalist, working for the newspaper "La Nación" of Buenos Aires dealing with the Vatican (and Italy) and is a collaborator of CNN in Spanish and Deutsche Welle.

It is a very good friend for years of Bergoglio, it is even his biographer. Indeed, to read the book " Francis. Life and Revolution " will notice a decidedly apologetic tone. In the pages dedicated to the fatal hour of the Conclave, the Piqué describes the evolution of votes, nominations, reactions, and on pages 39 and 40 - among other things - relates in a few lines a curious anecdote on just the fifth vote:
" After the vote and before the reading of the sheets, the cardinal scrutineer, which first mixes the papers placed in the urn, realizes that there is one more: they are 116 and not 115 as they should being. It seems that, by mistake, a cardinal has deposed two ballot sheets: one with the name of his chosen and one in white, that had remained attached to the first. Stuff happens. Nothing to do, this vote is immediately canceled, the package will be burned later without having been seen, and there shall be a sixth vote. "
It is precisely from this sixth vote that elected Bergoglio released. The anecdote is a mere curiosity, at first glance seems to be part dell'aneddotica.

A friend of the Vatican-Argentine journalist and very close, too, to Pope Bergoglio, whose rooms have access, Andrea Tornielli, on 'Vatican Insider', November 16, 2013, at the exit of the book of Piqué signed an advance which illustrates all the attributes of volume and shows, among other things (like a small scoop) the new episode revealed by the author.

The book has a "release" in the Vatican media fanfare, almost official biography. In fact, 19 November 2013 the Piqué being interviewed by Vatican Radio, 3 directed by Father Federico Lombardi. While November 16 already, "L'Osservatore Romano" had exalted the volume suggesting that the same Bergoglio he were the prime source:
"It's a Bergoglio told first-hand, direct and true, what coming out from the pages of Elizabeth Piqué in the book Francisco, vida y Revolución (in bookstores in Italy from November 21 editions Lindau under the title Francis. Life and Revolution ). Seven months of inquiry 'old-fashioned', seeking confirmations and crossing sources in 373 pages full of new details on the Conclave and the lives of Jorge Bergoglio. Pages to understand Francis, the Pope calls, writes and speaks clearly. "
It's a bit 'peculiar praise of the new details on the Conclave made by' "Observer" (since it would be in force and the pontifical secret grave sin, even excommunication, to disclose the outside of the Sistine Chapel), but if you really like lets imagine in the preceding lines, to reveal them was just Bergoglio there is no violation because he, as Pope, he did not need permission to talk about it.

In any case, no one has had anything bad to say about those details of the Conclave, which indeed have all been accredited by these indisputable sources.

There is only one - so to speak - "small" problem that nobody seems to have noticed so far: according to the facts reported by Piqué - and so authoritatively confirmed - the election of Bergoglio is nothing.

In fact, article 69 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis , which regulates the Conclave reads:
'Where in vote counting the Scrutineers should discover two ballots folded to look like completed by one elector, if they bear the same name they are counted by a single vote, but if you bring two different names, neither the vote will be valid; However, in none of the two cases will cancel the vote. "
The first violation of the rules that you can catch a glimpse of it then having canceled a vote that had to be considered valid and scrutinized. But as if that was not enough you can recognize a second violation, because we proceeded with a new vote - the fifth of that day (the one that has elected Bergoglio) - where the same Apostolic Constitution, however, requires that we should make four votes per day two in the morning and two in the afternoon (Article 63).

Because it would be violations that involve the nullity of the election? Because Article 76 of the Universi Dominici Gregis says:
"If the election had taken place otherwise than as prescribed in this Constitution or were not observed the conditions set forth herein, the election is for that reason nothing and void, without the intervention of any statement in purpose and, therefore, it does not confer any right to person elected. "
Nor is it possible that the Conclave has been able to change the "Running" those rules because John Paul II, in the Apostolic Constitution, remember several times that the Conclave has absolutely no power to change the rules. Not even by voting unanimously.

So - if that is the facts are - I think we can conclude that the election to the papacy of Bergoglio simply never existed. Nor is it a problem remedied a posteriori because you can not heal what has never existed.

That the regularity of canonical election is "conditio sine qua non" of its validity, the rest of the formula says the same ritual of '' acceptance and proclamation "of the elect. Indeed, Article 87 of the Universi Dominici Gregis reads:
"Happened canonically [ sic ] the election, the last of the Cardinals Deacon summons into the election, the Secretary of the Board Cardinals and the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations; therefore, the Cardinal Dean, or the first of Cardinals Order and seniority, on behalf of the entire college of electors calls the consent of the one with the following words: accept your election canon [ sic ] as Supreme Pontiff? And just received consensus, asks: How do you want to be called ? Then the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, with the function of notary and having two witnesses who will be called Masters of Ceremonies at that time, draw up a document about the acceptance of new Pontiff and the name taken by him. "
If there is no regularity rectory there was no election.

As I have already stated, the invalidity of the procedures followed in the Conclave and the subsequent election does not imply any fault on the part of Bergoglio. And the invalidity of the election is in no way a value judgment on the person.

By Antonio Socci, "It is not Francis" (Knopf)