At last, a bishop speaks!
WHEN Pope Francis was preparing to canonise Paul VI, the scandal denounced by Archbishop Viganò erupted on the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, August 22, 2018. Long before then, it had been foretold by Father de Nantes as the foreseeable consequences of the heresy, schism and scandal with which our Father had accused this same Pope Paul VI. “The heyday of the Council and your own accession,” he wrote to him in 1973, in his ‘Book of Accusation,’ “seem to have coincided with a general decline in morals. Permissiveness began to spread rapidly throughout the world. Why this coincidence? Perhaps people know you better than you imagine. They know that you are prepared to excuse any breaches of the moral law – out of pity for the poor unfortunates, no doubt – and that, however loudly you may speak against sin, you will never go so far as to take any canonical sanctions against the offenders or their accomplices.”
Today, Pope Francis is reaping the rotten fruits of this pontificate that fostered “ reform.” He asks “ forgiveness” from the “ victims,” yet he canonises the culprit!
Archbishop Viganò begins his damning “testimony” with an unambiguous profession of faith: “ I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself.”
Therefore, let us begin by admitting that Paul VI was not a saint! Then, let us seek the “ spiritual resources” where they are, i.e. in the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God wants His Vicar and all the bishops in communion with him to establish throughout world by recommending the reparatory Communion of the first Saturday of the month and consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Without this recourse, there is no salvation!
A NEW “ BOOK OF ACCUSATION”?
Archbishop Viganò gave two “ testimonies” that complement his initial one. They are dated September 29 and October 19, 2018. The first of these begins with an act of thanksgiving and of holy abandonment:
“ Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptised person to bear witness to the truth.
“ By the gift of the Spirit Who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “ Follow me!”, and I intend to follow Him with the help of His grace until the end of my days.”
Archbishop Viganò then quotes a psalm that expresses this resolution of perseverance:
“ As long as I have life, I will sing to Yahweh, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to Him; For I rejoice in Yahweh.” (Psalm 103:33-34)
Then, he recapitulates the content of his first testimony offered “ solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013” and regarding certain facts concerning the crimes committed by the archbishop of Washington and those who covered them up: “ The centre of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the Pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the Pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.”
The Pope’s only response was to decide: “ I will not say a word!” Then, comparing his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, he designated Viganò without naming him, as the “ great accuser,” in Greek diabolos : “ Satan,” who sows scandal and division in the Church.
Since it is impossible to say: “ Viganò lied,” Francis “ put in place a subtle slander” against him, “ slander being an offense that he has often compared to the gravity of murder,” Viganò observes.
Where are “ his calls for transparency and bridge building?”
Moreover, the McCarrick case is “ clearly not an isolated mistake.” Pope Francis has defended “ homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults.” Archbishop Viganò quotes names, then he makes a special appeal to his friend, Cardinal Ouellet, who criticised him in an open letter for having wrongly accused the Pope, even though throughout his career as a nuncio, Viganò had always worked with Ouellet in perfect harmony, “ I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec.
“ Later, however, when his work as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual ‘friends’ of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favour of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender.
“ Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups.
“ Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.”
Then, Archbishop Viganò turns to us, his “ brothers and sisters in Christ,” to encourage us “ never to be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Saviour, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, ‘Scio cui credidi, I know in Whom I have believed,’ which I chose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.”
He evokes the image of his episcopal ordination, taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm by Jesus. He is behind the Apostles, therefore they cannot see Him: “ The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.”
“ Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?
Vain attempt! The archbishop ends with this beautiful profession of faith:
“ May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!”
OUR LADY IN DEEP SORROW
In a third “ testimony” dated October 19, 2018, Archbishop Viganò writes:
“ I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis – more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the Cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).”
It remains for us to pray, in turn, for Archbishop Viganò, so that he may get to the root causes of clerical sodomy, i.e., conciliar apostasy.
“ I have been accused,” he writes, “ of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018 (the date of his first testimony,) perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.”
This attitude of the reigning Pope is the inevitable consequence of his unconditional allegiance to the Second Vatican Council.
The surprise that this third letter contains is found in its first lines: “ To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. I, however, am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him Who can cast body and soul into Hell.” This word: Hell, is absent from the Index of the Acts of the Second Vatican Council, yet it is quite present at Fatima, not only on the lips of Our Lady, but Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta gazed at it on July 13, 1917: “ You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go...”
Here is the remedy: “ When you recite the Rosary,” a word that is also absent from the Second Vatican Council, “ say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins! Save us from the fires of Hell! Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have the greatest need of it.” By prescribing the ancient prayer, Sub tuum presidium, the Pope proscribes the present-day prayer taught by Our Lady of Fatima.
Archbishop Viganò continues: “ I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives.”
This has indeed been the case.
“ Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own.”
Here are the facts. They would merit a book. A fourth Book of Accusation?
“In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behaviour with seminarians and priests.
“In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behaviour with yet another priest.
“In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response.
“In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response.
“In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
“In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
“On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticising the U.S. episcopacy.
“On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, ‘il cardinale McCarrick, com’è (Cardinal McCarrick – what do you make of him)?’ – which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.
“Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
“McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favour with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.”
Here is the capital charge:
“Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.
“I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and levelling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.
“Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
“Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
“Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
“Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.
“What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?
“Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. This, however, was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.
“Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. This, however, was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confirm this again.
“Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of ‘audience memos’ imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. This, however, was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS. mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
“Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as ‘sanctions’ decreed by Pope Benedict and cancelled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions.’ To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.
“In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I do not make and never have made.
“There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of ‘rumours,’ which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so.
“Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Father Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumours? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.”
Thus the injunction of the Angel of Fatima in the autumn of 1916 attains its full import: “ Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men [...]”
“In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the Gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how Church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperilled of their eternal salvation.”
Archbishop Viganò speaks like Father de Nantes: “Most Holy Father, have pity on your own soul Yes, Most Holy Father, I who am a miserable sinner among sinners, dare to tell you that I suffer greatly on your behalf at the thought of God’s Judgement – so close, so inexorable – and I must entreat you to have pity on your own soul.”(Liber accusationis I in Paulum Sextum, 1973.)
“As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality.
“It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.
“Unquestionably there exists a philandering clergy guilty of homosexual relationships, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. These violations of priestly celibacy, however, are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds – whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming. It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.”
Yet, this is what Pope Francis claims!
POPE FRANCIS’ ANTICLERICALISM
Cardinal Müller, the emeritus Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, refuted him unambiguously in the homily he delivered in Rome, on September 15, 2018, during the Ordination Mass of Michael Sulzenbacher, from the Congregation of the Servants of Jesus and Mary, founded in Germany and recognised as a Congregation of Papal Right in 1994. We are going through a “deep crisis of credibility caused by men,” the Cardinal affirmed. He did not hesitate to compare it to the “split” (Spaltung) of Christianity in the 16th century or the secularisation of the spiritual life in the wake of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution.
“It is not clericalism, whatever this might mean, but, rather, the turning away from the truth and moral license are the roots of the evil.” In fact, “the corruption of doctrine always brings about the corruption of morality and manifests itself in it [...]. The severe sin against the holiness of the Church, without any remorse, is the consequence of a relativisation of the dogmatic foundation of the Church.”
Cardinal Müller continues: “This is the real reason for the shake-up and the disappointment of millions of faithful Catholics,” a disappointment that can be expressed: “they are changing our religion on us.” Quoting Father Hubert Jedin (1900-1980), a historian of religions, he takes from his book The Council Of Trent, this remark: “The word reform concealed the heresy and schism that resulted from it.” (Vol. I, p. 151 of the original German edition) Then Müller continues: “Just as then, today there is also talk about reform,” a “propaganda formula” as it is now being widely used in the media – “reform of the Curia and reform of the whole Church [...] The true reform is not the secularisation of the Church,” which Paul VI established by transforming the One and Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church into a Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy, masdu, “but the sanctification of man for God.”
With an indirect reference to pastoral changes as they have been wanted by Pope Francis, Cardinal Müller considers that “it is a heresy to think one could preserve the teaching of the Church, but invent a new pastoral approach for the sake of the weakness of man which would soften the truth of the Word of God and Christian morality.” For the Cardinal, this approach occasions a “new Christological heresy” which consists of “putting Jesus the ‘Teacher of Divine Truth’ and Jesus the ‘Good Shepherd’ in opposition to one another.”
Let us return to Archbishop Viganò: “Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis – more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the Cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).
“In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
“On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, ‘the truth will set you free.’ I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice – on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge – you will not regret having made.”
“Carlo Maria Viganò, Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana, Nunzio Apostolico,
“19 Ottobre 2018, Feast of the North American Martyrs.”
To all those who are deeply appalled by these atrocious revelations, we need to recall the words that the Child Jesus addressed to Sister Lucy in the presence of His Divine Mother at Pontevedra: “ Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, without anyone making an act of reparation to remove them.” These words incite us to reflect on the sufferings that these abominable crimes committed in the Holy Place inflict on the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They greatly exceed our sadness, our fear or our disgust. The first fruit of this mystery of iniquity is to make us understand, to experience, despite our mediocrity, that the first remedy to these horrors is to desire, however little it may be, in the minuscule kingdom of our heart, to console the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of us all.
Only then will come to pass what our venerable Father announced: “Through the fervour of a minority, the Heart of Jesus and the. Immaculate Heart of Mary will allow themselves to be touched.” (CCR n° 127, December 1980, p. 21)
“First and foremost, however, there will need to be a lassitude on the part of God, compassion on the part of the Immaculate Conception, a grace of the Holy Spirit of creative love, in answer to the prayer of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the holy Dove of peace.
“Therefore, to the question: ‘God will finally have pity on whom?’ the true answer is this: ‘On the Immaculate Conception, and because of Her, He will save the world.’
“How? As a good Catholic, He will save the world through the Pope, His Vicar, His son.” (CCR n° 245, January 1992, p. 6) Yet, what is the Pope doing presently? He is prostituting himself.
“ You were renowned among the nations for your beauty, perfect as it was, because of My splendour that I had bestowed on you, says the Lord Yahweh.
“ But you were captivated by your own beauty, you used your renown to make yourself a harlot, and you lavished your harlotry on every passer-by.” (Ez 16:14-15)
The agreement concluded between the Vatican and the Chinese government aims at uniting the official “ patriotic” Church, controlled by the persecuting atheist government and the Church that had to become clandestine or go “ underground” in order to remain faithfully Catholic. Although very persecuted, it is still powerful.
The Pope lifted the excommunication that sanctioned seven bishops of the patriotic Church, two of whom are concubinarians.
What will become of the bishops of the clandestine Church? One of them, Bishop Shao Zhumin of the diocese of Wenzhou, disappeared less than fifteen days after the signing of the agreement on September 23 between the Vatican and Beijing. It is frequent in China that the bishops who are faithful to Rome are subjected to detention periods of ten to fifteen days. Bishop Zhumin is recurrently victim of these arbitrary arrests, five times in two years, but the Chinese Catholics were hoping that these practices of intimidation would cease after the signing of the agreement.
According to AsiaNews, four priests from Hebei Province (which numbers more than one million faithful Catholics,) reputed for their commitment to the needy, are in detention for over a month, subjected to intense psychological pressures to coerce them to join the “ patriotic” Church, submitted to brainwashing and forced concelebrations with the official bishops intended to compromise them in the esteem of their faithful.
The AsiaNews Agency reports that the destruction of churches by the Chinese authorities has increased since the signing of the agreement. Thus, two Marian sanctuaries have been destroyed in the regions of Shanxi and Guizhou.
All of this was foreseeable, envisaged by Cardinal Zen who, today, does not hesitate to accuse Cardinal Parolin: “ Parolin knows the reality of the situation of Chinese Catholics, but he does not tell the whole truth to the Pope. He does not have the faith! He is only pursuing a political goal. He wants a diplomatic agreement with China. The Chinese government is interested in a diplomatic agreement with the Holy See for its international prestige. It demands that the Vatican break its diplomatic relations with Taiwan and recognise the Popular Republic of China.”
Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary
He is risen ! n° 193, december 2018