“To clarify”. With this slogan the “Viganò dossier” has been thought and presented, so as to mask its real goal: induce the hated Pope Francis to resign. There is a problem: the testimony, prepared badly and in a rush, contains falsehoods above-all in its key passages, which compromise its credibility. But beside damaging above-all Benedict XVI and John Paul II, it proved to be a boomerang against Carlo Maria Viganò himself. We addressed him eight (rhetorical) questions he had better not answer, because, beside casting shadows of complicity on him, they make his accusations against Pope Francis (and against Benedict XVI) definitely collapse.

“The light eventually wins over the darkness”, said Viganò the day before yesterday to who has been discovered to be one of his proofreaders, Aldo Maria Valli. However, the “darkness” of the ex Nuncio’s past effectively compromised his dossier. We do not talk about his court cases, mentioned by us in other articles to highlight the difficulty these matters pose when Viganò asks us to trust his report devoid of proofs. Charges of misappropriation of the family inheritance arrived from his brother Lorenzo, but Viganò himself denied them by publishing a notice by other brothers of his’. Let us acknowledge that, although it still has to be explained why he had to pay 180 thousand Swiss Francs to his sister Rosanna, after she denounced him for appropriating 900 million lire coming from his father’s inheritance (not to talk about Viganò’s bad habit of creating false dossiers against his enemies, at least according to the revelations by Luigi Bisignani). But that is not the point, as has already been said.

Taking his dossier seriously and carrying out some investigations, we see that Viganò turns from accuser to accused: it was personally he to disregard the alleged order issued by Benedict XVI to Card. McCarrick to withdraw to private life – chief argument of the “Viganò dossier” –; it was he to be first the silent accomplice of the public life of the American Cardinal, although he knew about the accusations against him and about the (alleged) measures imposed on him. Viganò publically praised McCarrick, he declared to feel “affection” for him, celebrated the Eucharist side to side with the Cardinal he knew to be an abuser. And Viganò lied; he did many times, repeatedly. This “light won over the darkness” thanks to his very dossier; for this reason, the eight questions we pose him are a request of clarification towards his ambiguous position dooming him not to be a credible witness at all (and he did not answer these questions in the interview by Valli, who, being his minion, did not pose them to him). Let us always consider that, in any cases, his charges against Francis are unsubstantiated, (or, in the worst case, remarkably scaled down), as already proved by us in a precedent article.

1) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY, AS APOSTOLIC NUNCIO AND REPRESENTATIVE OF BENEDICT XVI, DID YOU NOT ENSURE THE RESPECT OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE POPE TOWARDS McCARRICK?
In the interview he released to Aldo Maria Valli, Msgr. Viganò denied having been the leaker (in Italian “crow”) of Vatileaks: «At that time, I had long been in Washington and I had certainly other things to think about». He is perfectly right: at that time Viganò was none less than the Apostolic Nuncio in the USA, that is the representative of Benedict XVI in Washington. If we assume as true what Viganò writes, that is that Benedict XVI, aware of the abuses, forbade McCarrick from Eucharistic celebrations, public presences, and journeys, why did Msgr. Viganò not ensure the respect of this order to the Cardinal, and why did he not publicly protest when he himself had the role of representative of the Pope? In the video here below some clips dated 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the presence of McCarrick in the Vatican during the Pontificate of Benedict XVI have been collected, which shows the Cardinal was leading an untroubled public life (in New York and in Rome) long before the election of Francis (an exhaustive report was realised yesterday by Michael J. O’Loughlin).

Catholic sociologist Massimo Introvigne pointed it out: «About “secret measures” by Benedict XVI against McCarrick nobody has ever known anything except Viganò, and against other illustrious clergymen charged with harassment Pope Ratzinger took public and clamorous measures. If then the orders of the German Pope were ignored, it would have been Viganò, as Apostolic Nuncio and therefore as representative of the Pontiff in Washington, to have to resign». Indeed, as we have shown, also in the period in which Archbishop Viganò was Nuncio in the USA, McCarrick celebrated Mass, travelled, released interviews, and above-all attended the Vatican together with a group of American Cardinals. Viganò was Nuncio in Washington from 2011 to 2016, and precisely in those years the Cardinal was a familiar face on the US television, was received in audience by Benedict XVI, concelebrated Mass by Saint Peter’s tomb, and celebrated Ratzinger’s birthday at the Vatican.

If today Viganò accuses Francis of having disregarded that order by “rehabilitating” McCarrick into the Vatican, why did Msgr. Viganò – long before Francis – not do anything to ensure the respect of Ratzinger’s measure, but acted as an accomplice in its transgression by the Cardinal, who hung about even in the Vatican in the presence of Benedict XVI? Why did he not resign, after realising he was not fulfilling his duties? «If Viganò had been coherent, he should have resigned in the years in which he was responsible for the pontifical delegations» –  wrote Francesco Lepore: «as he himself had learnt about the reports sent by the Nuncios Sambi and Montalvo». With what courage, Msgr. Viganò, do you dare to criticise Francis whilst you were the first to do nothing to make the order to McCarrick effective, which you claim had been issued by Benedict XVI? If you speak the truth, then you are the first guilty person and accomplice, and, before accusing Francis, you should accuse yourself and Benedict XVI; if you speak falsely, then such order has never existed, and thus your charge against Francis (and, consequently, against Benedict XVI) collapses.

2) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY IN 2013 DID YOU CELEBRATE MASS WITH THE ABUSER McCARRICK?
According to a revelation by Msgr. Viganò, in 2009 or 2010 Benedict XVI, informed about the past abuses by McCarrick, intervened to order him withdraw to a private life, thereby forbidding him to do celebrate Mass. Nevertheless, on May 2013, before a charity supper at the Hilton Washington, former Nuncio Viganò concelebrated a solemn Mass even side to side with Card. McCarrick. In the picture here below, Viganò is immortalised in front of the altar and sitting near the Cardinal charged with abuse.

Five years after that day, Msgr. Viganò accused Pope Francis of a «grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct» for having “covered” McCarrick and disregarded Benedict XVI’s (alleged) prohibition towards him. What comment does Msgr. Viganò want to make on his “grave, disconcerting and sinful” conduct for having been complicit in the disobedience of the Pope Emeritus’s order, and for having even celebrated the Eucharist together with a Cardinal leading an immoral life, which Viganò himself admitted he had known long before that date?

3) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY IN 2012 DID YOU PUBLICLY SAY THAT “CARD. McCARRICK IS VERY MUCH LOVED BY US ALL”, WHILE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF BENEDICT XVI?
During a gala dinner, sponsored by the Pontifical Missions Societies in New York on May 2012, then Nuncio Viganò publicly congratulated, with friendship and cordiality, with Card. McCarrick for the appointment of the latter as “Pontifical Ambassador for Mission”. He was given a medal with the keys of Saint Peter, which are the symbol of the Pope. Viganò got on the stage and – as reported by the chronicles of that time – spoke on behalf of Benedict XVI and without any restraint: «Distinguished guests, bishops here present, and guests being honored this evening as “Pontifical Ambassadors for Missions”, which is a nice title. First of all, His Eminence Cardinal Theodore McCarrick – “he is an ambassador” for quite some time already, as a priest, a bishop, as archbishop and cardinal and very much loved by us all». We have found the video and show it here below:

Viganò himself, who today accuses Francis of having “covered” McCarrick, of having disregarded Benedict XVI’s alleged order to the Cardinal to withdraw to a private life of prayer, participated in 2012 in a public event in which he proudly praises McCarrick as “ambassador” and states, in front of everyone, that he is a Cardinal loved by him. Exactly that Cardinal known by Viganò to have led an immoral sexual life. The picture and the video demonstrate, first and foremost, that McCarrick disobeyed that alleged Ratzingerian order already during Ratzinger’s Pontificate (which makes Viganò’s charges against Francis collapse, as we have explained), but Viganò was complicit in all this.

Why did Viganò not protest? Why did he not go away, publicly reminded the guests and the organisers that it was not opportune to award McCarrick, both because of his immoral conduct and because of the order of the Pope in charge? Why did he participate therein and publicly congratulated with McCarrick, by going so far as to talk about affection for him? Why did he get on the stage and so justify, on behalf of the Pope himself, the award ceremony for a Cardinal who he knew was an abuser? Diplomacy? However, Viganò showed not to care much about diplomacy and went so far as to lie even to Benedict XVI in order to object to his transfer to the USA. And then, was his love for the Church, for justice, and for moral righteousness, about which he often talks in his dossier, replaced with good manners relationships? He might have limited himself to participate in soberer a way without making exaggerated “loving” compliments to the Cardinal. «Being a long-standing and cautious diplomat, he could have invented whatever excuse like a sudden commitment or an equally unexpected cold, and thus avoid travelling from Washington to New York to pay homage to the cardinal abuser» – it has been rightly observed. Father Andrew Small, director of the Pontifical Missions Societies, anyway reported publicly that Viganò never tried to dissuade him publicly honouring the Cardinal.

4) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY DID YOU AND YOUR FELLOWS LIE SAYING THAT BENEDICT XVI HAD CONFIRMED YOUR DOSSIER?
The Viganò dossier was prepared and made publishable by three notorious haters of Francis: Marco Tosatti (the main proofreader), Timothy Busch, and Aldo Maria Valli. Busch, owner of the TV network EWTN (including the National Catholic Register), told the New York Times that those in charge of the publication of the dossier had personally assured that Benedict XVI had conformed Msgr Viganò’s account. One does not understand to whom he is alluding, since he was one of those in charge of the publication: is he perhaps placing the blame on Tosatti? Or is he blaming Viganò himself? Certainly, the ex Nuncio is in close touch with them and did not distance himself from Busch’s statements (he could have done so during the interview released to Valli). However, Ratzinger immediately denied it (here the original version) through his personal secretary Georg Gänswein (already used in the past to manifest his full support of Francis’s pontificate): «Pope Benedict has not commented on the ‘memorandum’ of Archbishop [Carlo] Viganò and will not do so», thereby labelling the words of Viganò’s fellow as “falsehoods”. And he repeated it with indignation to La Stampa: «I strongly state it: this is a fake-news, a lie!», so as to let all the disdain of the Pope Emeritus for the “Viganò operation”. Thus, the ex Nuncio and his proofreaders lied another time by involving the Pope Emeritus, too, in their dirty work. Why, Msgr. Viganò, did one one your collaborators have to invent – with your approval, since you have not exposed him – a confirmation of your account by Ratzinger?

5) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY DID YOU LIE SAYING THAT IN 2001 JOHN PAUL II “WAS ALREADY VERY ILL?”
In his testimony, Msgr. Viganò remembers when McCarrick was nominated Cardinal by John Paul II in 2001. The former Nuncio thus decides to involve the Polish Pope in this matter. Let us quote him: «The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal» – writes Viganò. «Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this».

Msgr. Viganò states that in 2001 John Paul II would have been “very ill”, but this is the (umpteenth) lie. As has been pointed out out and everyone can verify, «in 2001 John Paul II had a perfectly lucid mind (he would die in 2005). And thus was he ill also when he appointed McCarrick Bishop and Archbishop? When he appointed him as Bishop in Metuchen (1981), then in Newark (1986) and eventually in Washington (2001)?». The ex Nuncio first involves the Polish Pope and then tries to take any liability away from him by falsely defining him as “ill” and therefore incapable of perform his role, so as to invalidate all Wojtyla’s acts after 2001. This is a serious accusation by an Archbishop and a former Apostolic Nuncio, and we are dealing with another lie of the Italian Archbishop which makes his credibility always more precarious.

6) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY DID YOU LIE SAYING THAT FRANCIS WOULD HAVE ASSAILED YOU IN THE 2013 MEETING?
Always taking Msgr. Viganò’s dossier seriously, we read that the former Nuncio remembers a meeting he had on the 21st June 2013 with Pope Francis at the end of the audience. Here are Viganò’s words: «When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!”  Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me».

Despite this, the facts are, once again, different. As discovered by Cindy Wooden, the Vatican Television Center’s video of the meeting shows that the Pope welcomes Viganò in a benevolent way, with kindness, and – as comments Tornielli – as soon as Viganò introduces himself, the Pope does not assail him «immediately with a tone of reproach», but rather thanks him lovingly for his work. Then, with a more serious expression, the Pope communicates something to the Nuncio, but the video stops: the Vatican TV never divulges the private words. A detail? Yes, in this case, it is. But the little lie of Msgr. Viganò (or his having misremembered) adds to the evidence (already shown by the case of Card. Cupich, who corrected the false information, or the false memories, of Viganò) that the Prelate is driven by a personal hatred against Francis which pushes him to lie (or misremember) in order to show the Pontiff in a bad light with malignant gossip, as happened in this case (and this may occur and has occurred in many other parts of the dossier). «It’s as if the Borgias and the Medicis had Twitter accounts» – commented Christopher Bellitto, Professor of Church History. Francis is right not to answer the dossier: «Vigano’s playing a game, it’s a game that’s 2,000 years old, and Francis is saying, ‘I’m not playing games, I have other things to do’».

7) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY DO YOU NOT PROVE THE ALLEGED ADMONISHMENT OF McCARRICK BY BENEDICT XVI?
The core of Viganò’s dossier, as we have understood, is the order given by Benedict XVI to Card. McCarrick to lead an isolated life, as a result of knowing the information/dossier on his past homosexual behaviour with adults. The charge against Francis is to have disregarded this order and to have rehabilitated McCarrick, by allowing him to frequent the Vatican and the Catholic life in New York. Viganò does not quote any document, but asks us to trust his account: «But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance. I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay».

Nobody has ever heard about this sanction on the part of Ratzinger; there is no record thereof. If Viganò tells the truth, it must have been a secret order. But this would be an anomaly, as a Canon Lawyer declared: «It’s an anomaly not to publish a sanction that has public consequences, such as forbidding the cardinal to celebrate Mass publicly or make public appearances». Sister Sharon Euart, Canon Lawyer and Director Resource Center for Religious Institutes, explained that there is always a written notification in these cases, and whoever has jurisdiction over the offender would normally be notified of the penalty so that the offender could be monitored, which is why it is almost impossible and not explicable that this order remained secret. Instead of fleeing to a safe house (as if he were Julian Assange) and changing his telephone number to make himself unreachable, why does Viganò not prove objectively what he states? The burden of proof is on him. Even so, not much would change, since we have demonstrated how McCarrick freely untroubledly frequented the Vatican long before Francis, but at least one would stop doubting that Viganò lied on this key passage, too. The request is also addressed to Card. Giovanni Battista Re, who certainly is aware of everything: why do they not confirm it? Is it a lie? Or are there other reasons?

8) MSGR. VIGANÒ, WHY DO THE VICTIMS OF PAEDOPHILIA SAY THAT YOU ARE EXPLOITING THEM FOR YOUR IDEOLOGICAL BATTLE?
Reading Viganò’s dossier, one perceives how the ex Nuncio justifies his coming into play to eliminate the corruption inside the Church and acting as the defender of the victims of priestly abuses who need justice and no other cover-ups. For this, he denounces «the conduct of Pope Francis and the conspiracy of silence of many pastors» as «grave, disconcerting and sinful».

However, if we listen to the combative associations of victims, not even they believe Msgr. Viganò’s moral intention. The supervisors of BishopAccountability, the largest database concerning the sexual abuses by the clergy, rejected the request addressed to Pope Francis to resign. The group of victims called Ending Clergy Abuse defined, instead, Viganò’s letter as part of the «infighting between curia factions that are exploiting the abuse crisis and victims of clergy sexual abuse as leverage in the struggle for church power».

The impression of a merely political attack masked by the excuse of the fight against paedophilia is the one many – almost all – had (see, for example, the editorial of La Nazione or the letter to Viganò from a country priest). Besides, the tone of the slapdash dossier exactly follows the traditionalist rhetoric of the blogs of the haters of Pope Francis, two of whom are even the redactors of the Viganò dossier (already renamed “Tosatti-Viganò papyrus”). It is the most successful frontal attack by the mixture composed of right-wing conservatives, anti-conciliarists, sedevacantists, and traditionalists, who have united in the last years because, as  written by Massimo Faggioli, «the Pontificate of John Paul II (with Cardinal Ratzinger at the ex Holy Office) served as a shelter with respect to those fringes which, only some years before, had chosen the way of Marcel Lefebvre’s formal schism». The doyen of the US Vaticanists, John L. Allen, commented indeed: «The same holds true with the people who advised Viganò, and the media outlets that first published his document: They all have strong conservative credentials, and none are recognized experts or leaders of reform efforts on the sexual abuse scandals».

What emerges is well summarised by the words of Damiano Serpi: «Accepting the Pope’s challenge, one will be indeed able to read those endless words of ex Nuncio Viganò for what they really are, that is the last clumsy attempt in order of time to delegitimise the Pope’s work. Now this is being done by heavily and dangerously exploiting an issue, that of paedophilia inside the Church, which is anguishing all of us faithful. The time, the ways, and the contents of what Viganò has written cannot be all only coincidences. It would be too foolish to think so, let alone believe it. Why diffuse – precisely after the apostolic visitation of Ireland – certain pieces of information dating, if truthful, back to 5 years ago? Why do it with the tones of who considers himself a victim without, though, repenting for having been himself the first not to have done anything and to have kept silent, if the charges are true? Why use the media notoriously contrary to the Pontificate of Francis to release this letter to the great public instead of accepting the confrontation? What one reads throughout that text is the unease of a man for having been put aside and the terrible and oppressing need to remedy it somehow. That text was written, composed, elaborated, and diffused with the only goal of sowing doubt, causing a sensation, and fomenting that suspicion corroding any certainty, even the solidest one. In sum, rather than justice, that text aimed to create and provoke clamour, scandal, uncertainties, doubts, and gossip. Passing Pope Francis off as one of the many priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who covered their own subordinates or brothers is the lowest attempt to put in place strategies already used in the past with the posters affixed in the night around Rome, with the public diffusion of a false report on the Orlandi case and with the false accusations of heresy. All the episodes in which established truths and fanciful hypotheses with the only goal of scaring the reader and making the seed of doubt and of the most atrocious suspicion sproud inside his mind».

Our questions are over. Msgr. Viganò is the first to have to give clarifications because he appears to be a totally unreliable witness who is himself complicit in the coverage he denounces. The here proved unsustainability of his charge against Pope Francis (in addition to our precedent article) must not, though, dismiss many circumstances which the Nuncio reveals and which may correspond to reality (the gay lobby, the cover-up, etc.). For this reason, a serious investigation is what everyone expects, and, as has been written, the perplexities «refer to a period preceeding the election of Pope Francis: amongst them, how it was possible that a prelate whose sexual appetites to the detriment of seminarians and young priests were known by many Theodore McCarrick, became Bishop, then Cardinal of Washington – the capital of the USA –, and for years one of the figures of reference for the American Catholic establishment. The Pope is clearly under attack for reasons which are not the emergency of the issue of sexual abuses and which have to be looked for in the rejection of the theology and vision of the Church of the Argentinian and Jesuit Pope by the Catholic North American conservatism. Francis’s worry is evidently to defend not himself, but the Church. In this sense, the choice not to answer on the airplane the questions on the “report” by the former Nuncio of the US reveals in Francis a cautiousness and a sense of responsibility which many lack in the Church today».

The Viganò dossier is another missed opportunity: it could have been helpful to the Church, but succumbed to the traditionalist pressures (guided by the proofreaders, for example) to exploit all this for a petty objective: hitting Francis. Viganò cooperated or was really its author by giving the world a miserable show. What does the infighting of the Prelates and their scribblers fed with ideological and political interests have to do with the Church?

The Editorial Staff

The human embryo the responsible for his own development. It is an important discovery because one of the main excuses to support abortion is that the embryo would not be a human person, it would not have intrinsic capacities and its development would be totally dependent on the mother carrying him in her womb. Some call it a “clump of cells”: in this case abortion would not be a morally reprehensible act.

An important study contradicts that: it is published on Nature Cell Biology and is called Self-organization of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues. Its authors, led by Marta N. Shahbazi from Cambridge University, showed that a fertilized egg (also called “zygote”), is an autonomous human being. They recognized «significant self-organizing properties of human embryos»: so, in fact, embryos have a life independent of that of their mother and autonomously direct their own development from the earliest moments of life.

The young embryos (“zygotes”), used in this experiment, were not manipulated or artificially forced to develop, but they grew up – on their own initiative – also in the absence of their mother’s womb. Dr. Ana Maria Dumitru explained that this means that «embryos know what they’re supposed to do to live, and they try to live». This is also the reason why «most “contraceptive” drugs and devices actually work as abortifacients. Rather than preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg, they prevent the embryo from properly implanting. Without the nutrients normally provided by implantation, the embryo will die. But, as Shahbazi and her colleagues have demonstrated, if you supplement the embryo with nutrients, it will continue to fight for life».

We already know that the embryo communicates with his mother’s through signals and the exchange of nutrients in the blood, but now we find out that he is also “programmed” since conception for survival. The embryo, independently of his mother, has everything he needs to guide his growth and – also without the mother’s womb – he is directly responsibile for his own development and survival. This study, therefore, «eliminates the possibility of saying that the early embryo is not an organism or is not autonomous».

Philosophers Robert P. George, Professor at Princeton University, and Christopher Tollefsen, from the University of South Carolina (and others, like John Finnis and Patrick Lee), explained extremely well that an organism having all the capacities to become a recognisable (and extra-uterine) person is already a person because these capacities already exist in the first moments of the life of the embryo, even though they are not fully developed.

In fact, personhood is determined, not to immediately exercisable capacity, but to intrisic capacity. So, a human embryo, a newborn baby or a young teenager – although they are still developing – they have the same intrinsic capacity as an adult and fully developed human being. They are all human persons, despite the disapproval by the Secular Bioetchal Association, led by Maurizio Mori (cfr. R.P. George & C. Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, The Witherspoon Institute 2011).

Human beings do not acquire their personhood at a certain stage of development; they already have it since the moment of conception. This piece of research has therefore contributed to destroy the femnist slogan “my body, my decision”: it is wrong; the zygote in the woman’s womb is not a part of his mother’s body, but he is an autonomous and independent human being. He is a human person since first moment.

The Editorial Staff

Pope Francis did not want to comment the indictment former Nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò published against him; instead, the Pope asked the journalists to judge it for themselves. Thus, in few hours, the Editorial Staff of UCCR took seriously the memorandum by Viganò and his exhortation by the Pope and found out overwhelming evidence belying the key passage of the testimony of the already controversial ex Nuncio, so as to dismiss (or, at least, to scale down considerably) the charges.

However, before we go on, four clarifications are necessary (who is impatient can look onwards).
1) What Viganò’s accusation is: the ex nuncio did not accuse the Pope of having covered an act of paedophilia performed by Card. McCarrick; he accused him of not having listened to him when in 2013 he would have told him about the various reports/rumours on the Cardinal concerning sexual relationships with adults (seminarists) dating back to fifty years before; Viganò also says to have made Pope Francis aware of the fact that, for this reason, Benedict XVI would have «ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance». Viganò writes: although Pope Francis «learnt from me at least on June 23, 2013» about the «crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests»; the Pope would have «covered him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own» and allowed the Cardinal to disobey Ratzinger’s order. We are not dealing with paedophilia, nor does he accuse him of having covered a paedophile, also because the charge of child abuse emerged only in 2018. As soon as the Archdiocese of New York received and deemed “credible” this charge of child abuse towards McCarrick (dated 1977), Francis immediately intervened removing him from the public ministry.

2) Mediatic operation. Beside the contents of the charge, the “Viganò operation” is not the tesimony of the conscience of a “courageous bishop”, as is passed off by the representatives of the traditionalist resistance. It is simply a qualitative leap in their war of hatred against the Pope, after they failed with the anonymous posters and the ridiculous accusation of heresy contained in the “Correctio filialis”. For days, in the blogs of the haters of Francis there were rumours of a “surprise” for the World Meeting of Families, as they had not been able either to silence or to overshadow it mediatically through a parallel meeting (whose honorary guest was Card. Burke), which turned out to be a flop (widely publicised in Italy by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, and Corrispondenza Romana). The 11 pages of accusation by Archbishop Viganò were meanwhile published on the resistance’s blog, starting from LifeSite News (whose founder, John-Henry Westen, had organised the unsuccessful parallel event in Dublin), and few minutes after its publication conservative Bishop Joseph Strickland from Tyler (Texas) distributed copies of the dossier at all Masses. All this shows there is a plan behind it. In Italy the “Papal resignation” operation was entrusted to Marco Tosatti and to Maurizio Belpietro (director of La Verità), which says a lot about the little professionality of this put-on.

3) Viganò and his dark biography. Somebody has criticised us for having reminded the murky past of Msgr. Vuganò (called by us “dark”), and we have been told that this is an argumentum ad personam. As a matter of fact, we highlighted the validity of the charges by the ex Nuncio as they were detailed with dates, names, and meetings, but we also pointed out the absence of proofs and documents to substantiate them. Viganò therefore asks us to trust him, his reconstruction of the facts, his suppositions, his memories, and his version. For this reason, it is important to show that he is not a reliable person at all, and the scandals having involved him prove it (as we shall see at the following point), as was also observed, amongst many others, by the main US Vaticanist, John L. Allen: «Viagnò himself acknowledges that his comments are based on no more than supposition and/or connecting the dots. When anyone hurls around accusations quite so lightly, it’s difficult to know how seriously any one ought to be taken».

4) Viganò destroyed the evidence for the coverage of abuses. The story of Msgr. Viganò is as murky as the petty operation he put in place. In these hours the Vaticanist of Rai1, Aldo Maria Valli, member of the resistance and chosen by Viganò as the depositary of his report, is portraying the ex Nuncio as a “good and holy grandpa”, keen on the truth and with a burning love for his Church, so much so as to make his testimony public in honour of God. Valli keeps, though, silent on the involvement of the holy man Viganò in fraudolent public procurements and false invoicing, on the fact that the ex Nuncio had to pay 180 thousand Swiss Francs to his sister Rosanna, who denounced him for misappropriation of money, on the fact that his brother, Msgr. Lorenzo Viganò, publically stated: «My brother stole from me; he took advantage of my illness to cut me off from the administration of our – I stress our – patrimony». It is omitted the fact that Benedict XVI sent him away to the USA and that he (Viganò) objected to this decision by shamelessly lying to him. In these hours Luigi Bisignani revealed other stains on the life of Msgr. Viganò, including the habit of creating false dossiers to sully his enemies. We did not write what we have only recently learnt: thanks to his role of Apostolic Nuncio in the USA, he intervened to stifle a sex abuse enquiry and to destroy the evidence for the coverage of sexual abuses concerning his conservative friend John Nienstedt, ex Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis (who confirmed the coverage in 2014).

THE LIE OF MSGR. VIGANÒ: THE CHARGE AGAINST FRANCIS COLLAPSES
Taking seriously the testimony of Carlo Maria Viganò, we deduce that the charge against Pope Francis – as we have already said – is to have disregarded the alleged order of Benedict XVI to card. McCarrick to lead a life of silence and prayer because of his immoral conduct when he was a priest. Viganò does not bring evidence for the intervention of the Pope Emeritus; he only says: «I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred». However, he accuses the Pope of having let the prelate lead a public life, celebrate Masses, go to the Vatican, and give advice on nominations. Here Viganò’s words: «It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews […] he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the UnitedStates, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration». The Pope – here is the accusation by Viganò (underlined in bold in his testimony) – «must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests. In any cases, the Pope learned it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga».

In spite of this, Viganò is lying. Widening the very good job by Michael J. O’Loughlin, we have indeed discovered that McCarrick was leading a blissful and untroubled public life well before the Pontificate of Francis (March 2013). On the 29th of March 2011, indeed, McCarrick witnessed in front of the Senate of the United States even «on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops», with the objective of protecting «the civil rights of Muslim Americans». On June 2011, McCarrick celebrated the Mass for the important ordination of some priests, and on October of the same year he concelebrated with the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, even in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, that is the main Catholic place of worship in New York. On December 2011 the Cardinal participated in Meet the press, a very popular TV programme of the NBC, where he accepted two prizes.

On the 16th of January 2012 McCarrick was in the Vatican, where he was received in audience by Benedict XVI as member of a selection of US Bishops, and on the same occasion he concelebrated Mass with Card. Wuerl and other Bishops from the US by the tomb of Saint Peter. On April 2012, Card. McCarrick was again in the Vatican, as member of the Papal Foundation to celebrate the 83rd birthday of Pope Benedict. On the 28th of February 2013 McCarrick was even present at the meeting with Benedict XVI on the historic day of his resignation: in this picture the Pope Emeritus greets him and shakes hands with him, as he did with all the Cardinals. Ironically, on May 2013 (two months after the election of Pope Francis) Archbishop Viganò himself blissfully concelebrated – without any problem or protest on his part – a Mass together with none less than Cardinal McCarrick, before the yearly supper of the Cardinals of the Catholic University of America.

Thus, it is clear that Msgr. Viganò blatantly lied precisely in his main accusation against Francis. Card. McCarrick, contrary to what the former Nuncio states in his testimony, led a public life until the end of the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, by being even present at the Vatican and before the eyes of the Pope Emeritus himself, and he did not start all this only at the moment of the election of Francis.

The solutions are two:
1) Benedict XVI did not intervene to order the American Cardinal to lead an isolated life of prayer, and consequently Viganò is a liar. The accusation against Francis of having disregarded such inexistent order collapses. Viganò lies when he writes he had reminded Francis of the false intervention of the Pope Emeritus, or he lied to Bergoglio, too (since there was no intervention by Ratzinger against McCarrick).
2) Benedict XVI intervened against McCarrick but – as shown by us – allowed the Cardinal, accused of a sexual immoral life, not to obey the authority of the Pope and therefore to celebrate Mass, participate in the life of the US Church and in the life of the Vatican, even on his birthday. Thus the charge against Francis would be scaled down, as it was his predecessor the first to disregard his own order. Viganò remains a liar because he claimed that the Cardinal had disobeyed Ratzinger’s imposition of a private life only when Francis was elected.

The “resignation operation” set up by the traditionalist resistance against Francis risks becoming a boomerang. In any cases, Viganò lies, because Card. McCarrick led a public life throughout the whole Pontificate of Benedict XVI and did not start only with Francis. Viganò might tell, instead, the truth about Ratzinger’s measure towards towards the Cardinal – as unhesitatingly held by the self-styled Ratzingerians –, but then the position of Benedict XVI himself gets more complicated, since he is consequently accused of having let Cardinal McCarrick disobey his very order and – as already said – freely attend the Archdiocese of New York and the Vatican, while he himself was present. For this reason, the comment of Massimo Faggioli is appropriate: «The fact that the traditionalist side accepts the risks of damaging Benedict XVI and John Paul II says a lot about their despair».

UPDATE AT 18:00
The Associated Press revealed the name of the director of the “Viganò operation”: he is called (as we had already suspected) Marco Tosatti and is one of the main haters of Pope Francis in Italy, the same hater who a few months ago utterly invented that Francis had created a secret Vatican commission to modify the encyclical Humanae Vitae. According to the reconstruction and his own statements, it is the journalist Tosatti to have chosen the time and to have put pressure on the former Nuncio in order that he diffuse his testimony.

UPDATE AT 19:00
Catholic sociologist Massimo Introvigne made a decisive reflection of which we were not aware. We quote it entirely: «About “secret measures” by Benedict XVI against McCarrick nobody has ever known anything except Viganò, and against other illustrious clergymen charged with harassment Pope Ratzinger took public and clamorous measures. If then the orders of the German Pope were ignored, it would have been Viganò, as Apostolic Nuncio and therefore as representative of the Pontiff in Washington, to have to resign». In other words: if Msgr. Viganò tells the truth about this alleged order by the Pope Emeritus towards McCarrick to withdraw to a private life, then Viganò himself is liable for the fact that McCarrick disobeyed that order (as we have demonstrated in this article) during the Pontificate of Benedict XVI by freely attending the Vatican. Indeed, Msgr. Viganò was at that time the Apostolic Nuncio in the USA, that is to say the one who had the task of representing and enforcing the (alleged) order given by the German Pope.

The Editorial Staff

Some “experts” in 10 different fields of human activities nominated 10 women each who, according to them, would have had the greatest impact of world history. The initiative was taken by the review BBC History. The first woman was Marie Curie, famous scientist who discovered – amongst the other things – radioactivity, crucial to cure cancer. At the twelfth place, surprisingly, another Mary. The mother of Christ.

A bitter surprise, not so much because Mary of Nazareth was not ranked first, but because she should have been the last. Indeed, her place was out of the ranking. In fact, no comparison is possible between the Virgin and Marie Curie, or any scientist, politician, princess, philosopher. Mary did not invent anything, but no woman has ever introduced into the world what happened through her. With her yes (“fiat”) she allowed the divine to meet the human, the infinite to reach the finite, thereby opening to men a horizon of sense and eternal life. What is the point of perfect bodily health – thanks to medical innovations – if life is then full of an absence? What is the point of recovering from a disease if reality and all what we have built or is dearest to us – sooner or later – fades into nothing, shatters in the ephemeral, as if it had never existed?

Of course, if there had been dozens of Marie Curie, the world would be undoubtedly better. The point is that we are dealing with radically different levels, and such comparison should be totally avoided. No recovery from cancer would give man one millimeter of freedom in the face of the eternal Nothing; life will not be saved if it saved from the disease. The physical recovery does not deliver us from the condemnation of space and time and does not add any eternal value to that life which dramatically remains a breath, between the parentheses of “I was not” and of “I shall not be”.

«Without her “yes”, without her mediation, if the Virgin had not been there, we would not be saved. Therefore, we are full of gratitude and call her “Mother”, rightly; for what would be the good of our mother having given birth to us, if another mother had not ensured us the right, good, and happy destiny?» (Luigi Giussani, Maria: fede e fedeltà, 7 maggio 1989). With respect to infinity, our life is but an instant, the blink of an eye. All things are nothing. Unless Someone saves them and make them eternal. Unless the Eternal reveals and does not enter history. This is Christianity.

And it is precisely here that what was allowed by that young maiden of Nazareth. «My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden. For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed» – says the Magnificat, the canticle of Mary after the announcement that she would become the mother of God Most High. It is not pride, but realism: there is no name of woman which is greater than hers. Indeed, the whole world, the whole history has been divided – also as for the number of years – by a child who had to be born of her. In other words, the mediatrix between the misery of man and the power of the Mystery, Jesus.

What we have just said is a Christian reflection which may be legitimately not shared by who is not Christian. But, a fortiori, from his point view, the Virgin should be simply a deluded woman, mother of the greatest deceiver of history, the one who claimed to be “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Thus, also from the viewpoint of a non-believer, we do not understand how Mary of Nazareth might be included in this ranking of worthy women, placed, though, on a somewhat less worthy step of the podium compared to many others.

In the same way, concerning the innumerable anticlericals who never get tired of quoting and admiring Jesus Christ, we reflected: all fine, for Haven’s sake. This is very welcome! But how can one be fascinated and amazed by Jesus without believing in his divinity, without taking into consideration what he claimed to be? Someone who describes himself as the Son of God is either the greatest impostor in history or says the truth. «In the problem concerning Jesus, we find ourselves between two hypotheses: either he is really a divine man or a madman. In the “Jesus” problem we arrive to a point at which we have to decide: between zero and infinity» (J. Guitton, Ogni giorno che Dio manda in terra Mondadori 1997, pag.159).

Here it is: for Mary, it is the same. Either she is the humble mother of God or she was an impostress. Either she is outside the BBC History ranking as a result of the immense disproportion compared to the contribution of any other man or woman, or she is outside the ranking because she gave birth to the greatest lie in history (cf. Nietzsche). Christianity, indeed. Either zero or infinity; the twelfth place is not admissible.

The Editorial staff

Whilst determinist biologist E.O. Wilson believes that – sooner or later – will discover the physical basis of consciousness, others seem more realistic and admit that «there are things that cannot be proved». We refer to the famous mathematician Roger Penrose, Emeritus Professor at the Oxford University and winner of the Wolf-Prize together with his friend and collaborator Stephen Hawking.

Recently, on occasion of a conference in Milan titled Intelligenza Artificiale vs Intelligenza Naturale [“Artificial Intelligence vs Natural Intelligence”] Penrose explained in simple words why an Artificial Intelligence will never be able to exist: «The term is not exact, because none of these devices understand what it is doing. The will requires understanding, and understanding requires consciousness, that is the consciousness machines do not have». Intelligence needs consciousness.

The expression AI (Artificial Intelligence) is often used to define advanced computers or programmes playing chess. For example, it is known that a certain chess position causes problems to computers: «it is a famous position of draw known to any player mastering the rudiments of the game of chess; instead, Fritz, the main chess programme, set on the Grandmaster level, completely misunderstands the position and, after a certain number of moves, it makes a stupid mistake and loses the game. I am not a good player at all» – explained Penrose: «but I have a certain understanding of what pieces can do and cannot do. Fritz, instead, does not understand anything, not even what the pieces of chess can do. Simply, it follows in an unconcious way some specific algorithms, without understanding what it is doing».

Penrose’s attack is directed at determinism and materialism, still dominating the scientific environment and, in particular, neurosciences and believing to be able to reproduce human thought in a computer: «I have my reasons not to believe in this. Some actions of the human thought may be certainly be simulated computationally. For example, the sum of two numbers or even more complex arithmetic and algebraic operations. But human thought goes beyond these things when it becomes important to understand the meaning of that in which we are involved».

On another occasion, again Penrose said: «Whatever my conscious mind does, it is not something that can be put into a computer: it acts differently from the computational one». The stumbling block of determinism has always been awareness, and not even quantum theory «as we understand it today can explain it». Paul Dirac himself, one of the fathers of quantum physics, «admitted it: quantum mechanics is not the last word. There is something else, which eludes us». Any computer or robot is programmed by a human mind and will be able to do calculations, but without being aware of doing them: «in order for them to work, there must be earlier on the conscious comprehension by the programmers who design them».

The famous physicist of Oxford understood that it is not possible to reduce man to a purely physical object. It is true: the substratum is chemical and biological, including the brain’s, but «I say we need go beyond that». In 2004 Penrose proposed a vision of the universe composed of three independently existing worlds: mathematics, the material world, and human consciousness. For him, it was a total enigma how these interacted between themselves beyond the capacity of any scientific model: how can atoms and physical molecules, for example, create something that exists in a separate domain that has no physical existence, like human consciousness? The latter is not physically measurable, but still mysteriously guides the actions of our physical bodies. As written by biologist Fiorenzo Facchini, Emeritus Professor of the University of Bologna, «the cognitive capacities of man are characterised by abstractive intelligence and by freedom and are rooted in the biological basis, but they go beyond, in the sense that they develop in a different sphere, an extrabiological one, which may be more correctly defined as spiritual» (F. Facchini, Evoluzione. Cinque questioni nel dibattito attuale, Jaca Book 2012, p. 11).

Admitting not being able to reconcile his scientific materialism with the existence of a non-physical world like human consciousness, the famous atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett went so far as to deny even the existence of consciousness. In 2012, instead, philosopher Thomas Nagel denied, instead, his own materialism by recognising the “irreducible” and scientifically inexplicable nature of human consciousness: «We should completely foresake scientific materialism, incapable of offering a complete basis to understand the world of human existence» (T. Nagel, Mente e cosmo. Perché la concezione neodarwiniana della natura è quasi certamente falsa, Cortina Editore 2015).

Thus, consciousness remains a mystery or, to quote secular philosopher Colin McGinn, is a “miracle”. «We do not know how consciousness may have arisen from the natural processes of the previously existing material things. We are tempted, even though with reluctance, to bring up divine assistance: only some kind of miracle could have drawn this from that. A supernatural magician would be needed to draw consciousness from matter. Consciousness seems to introduce a clear break in the natural order and is the point at which scientific naturalism fails» (C. McGinn, The Problem of Consciousness, Basil Blackwell 1991, p. 45).

The Editorial staff

The Gospels report that the disciples, disappointed and dismayed after the crucifixion and death of their mentor, had visions of Jesus Himself, who showed them the resurrection from the dead. This fact upset and convinced them, so much as to be ready for martyrdom rather than deny what they had seen. But what is true about this? Critics explain that the Evangelical reports would have been written late with respect to the facts, that the disciples would be lying, or that the they had hallucinations. But these conclusions do not come up even if we analyse the studies of the most sceptical, agnostic, and atheist scholars.

First of all, let us debunk the myth of the Gospels having been written late: already one or two years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, indeed, the little community of the Christians in Jerusalem, proclaimed and announced the earliest Christian creed: the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is demonstrated by the First Letter to the Corinthians, redacted by Saint Paul in 50-55 A.D., using, though, pieces of information learnt from the disciples in 35 A.D., which, besides, had been known since some years. Almost the totality of the experts claims the very ancient origin of the Pauline letter (written before the Gospels), and amongst them there are not only Christian scholars, hastily and erroneously deemed by someone as “biased”, as if they did not have the moral duty to demonstrate their theses in an objective way, just like Jewish, agnostic, and Muslim scholars (are they all biased?). Even innumerable notoriously sceptical historians are convinced that the first and complete source on the historical Jesus dates back to the years immediately subsequent to Jesus. We have quoted them in this recent article.

It is not an irrelevant data: if Christians had announced falsehoods or inventions to their fellow citizens about a Jew being so famous – at least for a short time –, they would have been immediately exposed by the Jews, by the members of the Synedrion, and by the Romans. In case of lies or inventions, the little Christian sect would have been easily crushed and ridiculed by the other eyewitnesses of the events, unfavourable to them. However, nobody accused the Christians of lying, but even historian Flavius Josephus confirmed the content of the Gospels.

Another interesting element: there has never been any historical information about someone who would have demonstrated that in the tomb where that Man was buried there was a corpse or that the Nazarene had been buried in another place: also in this case, Jews and Romans would have easily silenced the false narratives of the followers of Christ. Hence, we infer that the tomb was really found empty, but, probably, this did not upset the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, also because the concept of resurrection was inconceivable for the Jews of that time. As written by great sceptic Robert W. Funk, the non-believing founder of  the Jesus Seminar: «The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead was already rooted when Paul converted around 33 AD. Since Jesus died around 30 AD, the time for its development was then of two or at most three years» (quoted in RW Hoover, Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, Polebridge Press 1998, p. 466).

If we directly address the appearance of Jesus to the disciples, after His death, it is interesting and curious to notice – in the studies of the main scholars of the historical Jesus, especially those most sceptical about His Divinity – the historical belief that the disciples effectively saw something  and really thought of having seen Jesus resurrected, and they were ready for martyrdom rather than deny their strong conviction. None of these scholars hypothesise collective hallcination, which  has been discarded since years. But let us leave the floor to eminent EP Sanders, a “liberal and secularised Protestant”, as he defines himself: «That the followers of Jesus (and, later, also Paul) had experiences of resurrection is, in my opinion, a historical fact. I do not consider deliberate frauds as a useful explanation. Many of these people spent the rest of their life by proclaiming to have seen the Lord resurrected, and many of them would die because of this. After His death, His followers experienced what they described as “resurrection”; the aspect of a living but transfigured aspect. They believed it, lived it, and died because of it» (EP Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books 1993, pp. 279-280).

Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman, from the North Carolina University, wrote: «Historians, naturally, have no difficulties in talking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, because this is an issue of public domain […]. Why, then, did some disciples state to have seen Jesus alive after his death? I have no doubt that some disciples claimed so. We have none of their written witnesses, but Paul, writing around twenty-five years after, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I do not think he is inventing it. Indeed, he had met some of them just three years after the event (Galatians 1,18-19)» (B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press 2004, p. 282). German and atheist theologian Gerd Lüdemann surprisingly commented, in his turn: «It may be considered historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after the death of Jesus, in which Jesus appeared to them as the resurrected Christ» (G. Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, Westminster John Knox Press 1995, p. 80).

Paula F. Fredriksen, liberal scholar of the historical Jesus (whom she considers an apocalyptic preacher) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, finally observed: «I know their words; what they saw was the risen Jesus. This is what they say, and all the historical evidence we have attests their belief in what they saw. I am not saying that they really saw Jesus resurrected. I was not there. I do not know what they saw. But, as a historian, I know that they must have seen something. The conviction of the disciples to have seen the resurrected Christ, their move to Jerusalem, the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles. All these are historical foundations, known and undoubtable facts of the first community after the death of Jesus» (P.F. Frederickson , Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews, Vintage 2000).

That is how the erroneous popular convictions collapse, after years of bad instruction. The Evangelical narratives did not emerge decades or even centuries after the facts they narrate; no historian thinks so: already 1-3 years after the facts, the Christian creed was fixed and announced by men and women so convinced – after their disappointment at the moment of Jesus’s arrest –, as to defy anti-Christian persecutions and to prove so convincing as to create a people having existed until our days. Moreover, the most sceptical historians reject the false idea of the Apostles lying and of collective hallucination: the question, therefore, remains about what happened to deny their extreme conviction. «They must have seen something; it is undoubtable»: beyond this point, the purely “lay” historical analysis – we may see – cannot go. But it is already enough.

The Editorial staff

On June 2016, at least 50 persons lost their lives inside the gay club Pulse in Orlando. Although the “homophobic” defensors of the family – among whom Pope Francis – were immediately indicated as the moral instigators, in the following horse it emerged that the terrorist, Omar Mateen, was a renowned gay and a regular at the Pulse, angry at how he «felt used» in that club.

Following the tragedy, one of the homosexual survivors, Angel Colón, announced a radical life change, by going back to attending the parish where he used to sing in the choir.

A short time ago, another survivor of the Orlando shooting made an even more shocking announcement. He has matured the conviction that God drew a greater good from the evil of that night, a repentance overwhelming his life as he had lived it until then. In an interview, Luis Javier Ruiz recounted, indeed, his leaving homosexuality, after 30 years of Lgbt life.

He had come out during his high school, on his mother’s birthday. They were listening to a radio programme in which a preacher lashing out against gays by saying that they are an “abomination” and “doomed to hell”. It was so bad an experience for Luis Javier, who, by reaction, found the courage to look at his mother and say: “You know what? Your son is gay”.

He broke relations with his parents and moved to Florida by immerging himself in the gay lifestyile: drugs, compulsive sexual behaviour, excesses, and parties. This kind of lifestyle emerged in Italy, too, on occasion of the murder of Luca Varani. Until the 11th of June 2016, when, on the birthday of a friend of his’, they went to the Pulse. The very night of the shooting that killed many lives. He was wounded, whilst many friends of his’ died.

Like the other survivors, he underwent the AIDS test, and it was positive. That was the last straw, which almost led him to suicide, but he stopped in time to reflect on how he was leading his life. «I was sick, depressed and hurting» – he recounted. Prayer to God arose naturally, a request for deliverance. For this reason, he offered everything, including his homosexuality: «I’m gay, God» – he said praying. «This is how you’re taking me. Take me as I am». Today he remembers: «I gave Him my gayness. I gave him my pornography addictions, everything». With this renewed awareness of being a child of God, his life was slowly reborn.

Today, after two years, Ruiz is a member of the Freedom Marches community, composed of people like him, who left lesbianism, homosexuality, and transgenderism and are committed to witness this possible change by travelling through America. Yes we can, he repeats, quoting Barack Obama’s motto. «Yes, you can come out of homosexuality. You can be free from porn addiction. From anything» – he said announcing a way out, a happier one. Free from sin: «God calls us to purity» – states Ruiz.

«I should have been the 50th person killed» – he concluded: «But God had something else for me. And I’m thankful because now I’m able to share my story of hope, my story to the world, to let them know that there is God who changes and can transform».

The Editorial staff

What did not happen in Italy on the 22th May 1978 e in Ireland on the 25th May 2018, happened yesterday in Argentina. The legalisation of abortion has been historically rejected by 38 deputees against 31, by preferring to save “both lives” – according to the Argentinian pro-life slogans – the mother’s and the child’s. The militancy for the “no” side by the Episcopal conference, guided by Bishops close to Argentinian Pope Bergoglio and personally chosen by him, was pretty influential.

It was a defeat for the powerful mediatic apparatus which literally censored thousands of pro-life demonstrators characterised by the colour “light blue”: on the newspaper’s page there are only and exclusively pictures of “green” flags, the pro-abortion ones (and also in these first minutes after the vote, the foreign newspapers – in Italy almost nobody has reported this news yet – choose pictures of “green” sad and disconsolate demonstrators while ignoring the exulting “light blue sea”). An example amongst all the other ones: although a survey had reported that the majority of the Argentinian women was sided against abortion, but Italian newspaper La Stampa was giving information about the event by recounting the women’s battle for legal abortion and by giving visibility only to the “green sea”.

It is a victory for those who do not believe that history is irreversible. The fact that Ireland surrendered does not mean that the battle for the right to life is compromised. El Salvador has recently rejected the bill on the interruption of pregnancy, thereby frustrating the pressures by the New York Times e Amnesty International –, and the same was done by Argentina.

Day before yesterday we were reporting how much the Church put herself out till the end, as was reminded by Clarin, the main newspaper of Buenos Aires. Even l’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News followed the debate in these months and highlighted the mobilisation in defence of life and “in favour of the discarded”. Bergoglian language, clearly, as the Pope was, though, a protagonist. Firstly, because the Bishops organised marches and celebrations, asked for the intercession of the Virgin of Luján – patron of the Argentinian people –, animated Catholics, Protestants, and non-Catholics with many quotes of Pope Francis on abortion as tragedy and «not as a right» (according to the words of Bishop Oscar Ojea). Secondly, because the most active pastors were Víctor Manuel Fernández, Archbishop of La Plata and personal collaborator of Pope Bergoglio, and card. Mario Poli, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who kept the anti-abortion deputees united, Poli was chosen by Francis as his successor in the Archdiocesis of the Argentinian Capital, where he celebrated a Mass “for life”.

The Episcopal Conference managed to mobilise many votes of the the left wing and of the feminists. The intervention that will be remembered the longest will be the one of deputee Luis Gustavo Contigiani, member of the Frente Progresista Cívico y Social, who, aware of the incidence of his words, announced – with passion and emotion – his support to life. As a convinced socialist, he stated that «there is no more revolutionary act than to defend life and social justice for the homeland. I cannot dissociate my fight for social justice, for the development of our country, for the weaker, for the equality of opportunities from the one for the right to life of who is in his mother’s womb and has the same right to live as his mother. We do justice in the economic field; I am the first to defend work, to defend the poor, but in the field of life we are privatists: we surrender to the market; there is no more public interest, nobody that defends anyone. I desire to be coherent, Mr. President!». And there was coherence.

The Editorial staff

Martin Luther’s homeland is today more Catholic than Lutheran. Catholics outnumbering Protestants, in Germany, happened in 2009. According to a recent survey, the crisis of the Protestants is increasing whilst the number of Catholics has been stable since 1950.

The crisis of Protestantism, therefore, hits Germany as well. A short time ago, we were observing the same phenomenon in the USA: collapse of the Reformed Christians and stability of the number of Catholics. 20,7 million German Protestants left Lutheranism in 1950, whilst the Catholic Church counted 23,2 million faithful in 1950 and today likewise 23,3 millions. The absolute number is kept.

Neither does the Catholic denomination enjoy good health, though: in a year, as reported by the Episcopal Conference of Germany, 270.000 faithful abandoned the Church, and only 9.332 entered or came back into it. The German Bishops have already closed 515 churches in the last ten years. One of the main reasons for this defection, unique in the whole world, is the compulsory religious tax (8-9% of the income tax) that believers are to pay to the Church. Many of those who “unenroll” remain, however, believers and Christians; simply, they do not want to pay an additional tax.

Even though some attribute the decline of Lutheranism in the first place to the demographic pyramid, certainly we may say the Protestants’ plan to conform with the secular to look more attractive has failed. Married priests, female bishops, the approval of divorce, contraception, and the gay agenda. It was useless: always more Lutherans have kept far the churches, maybe also because of this.

The interview released by Roger Scruton, eminent Anglican philosopher, Professor at the Oxford University, is very interesting: «Catholic institutions» – explained the most important exponent of contemporary conservatorism: «are the only institutions that would openly offer cover and support to somebody as conservative as me, and without agreeing with me or anything like that». He did not follow the example of Newman, the passage to Catholicism, for two reasons: «One is that it requires a bigger leap of faith than I’ve been able to achieve. And the other is that, because I’m divorced, I couldn’t possibly get married a second time in the Catholic Church». However, he concluded, «I’ve always been drawn to the Catholic Church because of its respect for tradition, for the apostolic continuity it represents and for its attempts to imbue ordinary life with sacraments».

Such is then the appeal of the authoritativeness of the Apostolic continuity and the authority of Tradition, that is the fixed point in history that tells the truth on Christ and prevents us succumbing to the confusion and liquidity of modernity, as well as to all the other fleeting human interpretations. In Scruton’s words, it is possible to notice the main cause – at least in our opinion – of the crisis of the Reformed denominations.

The Editorial staff

How is it possible that a minuscule “sect of Judaism”, as is sociologically defined, could conquer the Roman Empire and dominate the Western world? We talk about Christianity and about its unbelievable demographic expansion. The new and interesting book by Barth D. Ehrman deals this historical question, thereby giving us remarkable surprises.

The most banal explanation for the rapid diffusion of the Christian religion, the explanation that would be given by Voltaire, Gibbon and Burckhardt would bring into play the political support given by Emperor Constantine. «It was not Constantine to convert to Christianity, but it was Christianity to turn into an imperial religion», writes the Italian anticlerical Corrado Augias, in Disputa su Dio e dintorni [Dispute on God and sorroundings] (Mondadori 2010). That is, the Emperor’s would not have been a true religious conversion, but a political move to use Christianity as an “instrument of power”. On the other hand, the Christian religion would have benefitted from the imperial support to spread like wildfire.

Agnostic B.D. Ehrman, expert of primitive Christianity and Professor at the North Carolina University, has a completely different opinion. He is an interesting scholar, to whom we pay much attention, not only because of the importance of his academic profile, but also because of his frequent intellectual honesty. As a non-believer, he set himself the goal to defy two extremisms: the atheist-mythicistic one, which does not believe in the existence of Jesus, and the Protestant-literalistic one, according to which the Bible is a historico-scientific work, immune from any mistake or invention.

In The Triumph of Christianity. How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World (Simon & Schuster 2018), Ehrman has dealt with “the triumph of Christianity”, that explanation for its numerical explosion in the first centuries. He could not clearly overlook the role of Emperor Constantine and his Christian conversion, since he is even holy in many Eastern churches. The American biblist comes to the surprising conclusion that Constantine really had a dream or a vision (or, at least, he interpreted it so) that convinced him to abandon Paganism to turn to the Christian God.

Was it a sincere conversion or a political manoeuvre? Ehrman has no doubts: his conversion was authentic, so much that he quite easily refutes the thesis that claims the opposite. Constantine put an end to the persecution of Christians, bestowed benefits and made donations to the Christian clergy, financed the building of many churches, commissioned twenty expensive copies of the Bible, intervened personally to solve the controversies with Donatists and Arians. This attests his personal and spiritual interest, and Pagans were quite sure that he had become Christian. The idea that he was not sincere, concluded Ehrman, is simply untenable.

Answering the crucial question of the demographic explosion of Christianity in only four centuries (it shifted from 3,5-4 millions in 312 AD to 25-35 millions at the end of the fourth Century), the American scholar decisively denied that this was due to Constantine’s conversion. First of all, because it would not have been the right political move at all: at the moment of his conversion, indeed, Christians represented a little percentage of the population. Ehrman opts for estimates slightly inferior to Adolf von Harnack’s and Rodney Stark’s, thereby coming to consider that the Christian population was the 6-7% of the total one, strongly satirised. Thus, the idea that Constantine would have adopted Christianity for political reasons is clearly devoid of sense. He did not get anything out of it from the political viewpoint. Even if Constantine had not converted, added Ehrman, Christianity would have anyway grown exponentially and demographically. The reason would have been the exclusivity of the faith in only one God, as opposed to the Pagan polytheism, and the accounts of the miracles worked by him and by his first disciples. The explanation of the scholar, in this case, does not seem so clear and substantiated, and it has indeed received criticism from writer Tom Holland and historian Larry Hurtado.

Much more documented is, instead, the explanation given by sociologist Rodney Stark in his Ascesa e affermazione del cristianesimo [The Rise of Christianity] (Lindau 2007). Firstly, the evangelisation of the Jews had an enduring success; secondly, Paganism (direct “rival” of Christianity) – unlike Christianity – showed its incapacity of addressing spiritually and humanely the two disastrous plagues (165 AD, the first, and 260 AD, the second) which afflicted the Empire. «The assistance and solidarity of Christians were by themselves a great opportunity to form new bonds», above-all when they cured members of other religions who, often, converted. The third reason given by Stark is the numerical prevalence of women, thanks to the better social condition they found in Christianity, in addition to the prohibition of infanticide and abortion.

Coming back to the recent work by B.D. Ehrman, his denial of another possible explanation for the Christian demographic growth is worth noticing: the forced conversion of Pagans. Quoting Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote: «I do not consider it a good practice to compel people instead of persuading them» – the scholar of primitive Christianity comes to the same conclusion as the majority of historians: Christianity did not “win” because of violence and coercion. Except for some more confused parts, the famous agnostic scholar published another noteworthy book. In the hope that it will soon arrive in Italy, too.

The Editorial staff