The Illicit Political Campaign Behind the ‘Election’ of Pope Francis

David Martin | The Daily Knight

Pope Francis with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who remains beloved by mainstream media due to his LGBT left-wing activism

A closer look at the events leading into the election of Pope Francis lends credence to growing allegations that the 2013 conclave was illegitimate and conferred no right on Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio who was named “Pope Francis.”  

In a taped interview in 2015, radical-left Cardinal Danneels said that he and several cardinals were part of a "Sankt Gallen Mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. He said that the group was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it "much more modern," and that the plan was to oust Pope Benedict and have Cardinal Bergoglio head it. The infamous clique comprised the members of the Vatican deep state (gay lobby) that had clamored for Benedict's resignation, the same that had almost prevented his election in 2005.   

Illicit Meetings Held

As the 2013 conclave neared, clique members held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker. The purpose of the meetings was to elicit promises from cardinal electors to give their vote to Bergoglio at the conclave. This garnering of pledges at secret meetings contravened Church law and incurred ipso facto excommunication on all those involved, as we will point out shortly.

Julia Meloni's book, The St. Gallen Mafia: Exposing the Secret Reformist Group Within the Church, provides an inside look at what took place at these secret congregations. San Gallen Mafia member Cardinal Murphy O’Connor played a key role in this vote canvassing campaign. The following excerpt is particularly revealing. 

“At the conclave,” Murphy-O’Connor continued, “you have the official meetings of all the cardinals. But then outside, you meet secretly with the cardinals, at dinners, behind closed doors, and discuss the candidates. So, by the time you actually go into conclave, there’s already a number of votes for a particular person.” (Murphy-O’Connor, From the Vision of Pope John. See 3:22.)

By March 5, Murphy-O’Connor was promoting Bergoglio at a dinner at the Pontifical North American College’s Red Room….

By March 7, Murphy-O’Connor was co-hosting a private gathering of cardinals with the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the Holy See. “More than one of [the cardinals] brought up Bergoglio’s name,” says vaticanista Gerard O’Connell. [Note: Gerard O’Connell is pro-LGBT and works with Fr. James Martin of America Magazine.]

By March 10, Bergoglio was telling a Canadian priest, “Pray for me.” Asked if he was nervous, Bergoglio replied, “A little bit … I don’t know what my fellow cardinals are cooking up for me.” [Editor's Note: it appears Bergoglio wasn't truly nervous but was simply concealing his collusion with the electors. Any faithful cardinal would have said to the other cardinals: "You shouldn't be cooking things up for me or for anyone."]

By the end of the General Congregations, Murphy-O’Connor was making a final push for Bergoglio. As he put it, “I remember saying [in the past] … Because by this time I had my eye on Bergoglio. And I said, ‘Age doesn’t matter now, because Pope Benedict has given us an example. And so, if the new pope is elderly and he can’t carry on because of health, why then he’ll be able to resign.’ … And I said, ‘We might look in another continent.’”  

According to O’Connell, Murphy-O’Connor [previously] spoke specifically of crossing to the Americas—and “many understood he was referring to Bergoglio.”  

Later that day, the conclave’s eve, Murphy-O’Connor made his way to the Vatican apartment of an Italian cardinal. There, a meeting of fifteen or more Bergoglio supporters, including Kasper, took place. As each cardinal affirmed his support and named other likely backers, Martini’s former private secretary kept a tally. He counted at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. [Note: Cardinal Martini was an initiated Freemason] 

On March 12, a storm gripped Rome. Hail rained down. As the cardinals dispersed following the Mass before the conclave, Murphy-O’Connor fell into step beside Bergoglio. 

“Watch out, now it’s your turn,” Murphy-O’Connor said.

“I understand,” Bergoglio replied.

He was calm, said Murphy-O’Connor, and “was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in.”

The Eve of the Conclave

On the eve of the conclave, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga was busily on the phone with cardinal electors from the Honduran embassy in Rome. His phone effort was the tail end of this intense lobbying campaign to secure votes for the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as pope.

That same day, Maradiaga attended a private meeting of Bergoglio supporters, which included key players in the “St. Gallen Mafia,” and together they garnered pledges for up to twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. Not surprisingly, Bergoglio opened with twenty-six votes on the first day of the conclave, though that number would rise to 77 on the second day indicating that this campaign effort had gained ground. Three days later the newly elected Pope Francis asked Maradiaga to head his powerful new Council of Cardinals, known as the “Council of Nine.”

On August 27, 2018, Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin tweeted concerning this political campaign.

“Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.”

Rules and Regulations Violated

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, governing papal elections. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden and incurs automatic excommunication. Consider the following from his Constitution:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.” (81)

This prohibition applies not only to the election itself but to that time just before the election when preparations are underway, since it is during this time that illicit political activity would exerts its greatest influence on the vote. “Any form of pact” obliging electors “to give or deny their vote to a person” would likely be secured just before the election.

The pope says in his Constitution:

“Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.” (79)

A clique of cardinals did “make plans” behind Pope Benedict’s back to campaign for “the election of his successor,” with up to 25 cardinals “promising votes” the day before the election, this having come about through “private gatherings,” thus revealing the illicit conduct of these cardinal electors.

Under the pain of excommunication latae sententiae, Pope John Paul forbids “each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election” to allow “all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” (80)

Unfortunately, secular and political interference played the key part in Francis’ election. According to John Paul II, such interference renders the papal election null and void.

Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. (76) 

Hence it appears that the 2013 conclave conferred “no right on the one elected” since the election took place “in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution.”

It should come as no surprise then that two ominous shafts of lightning struck the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica just hours after Benedict XVI announced his resignation since it was already known to God that this would open the way for an apostate be raised to the Pontificate.

Timely Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together his friars and warned of a destroyer pope of the future who would mislead the Church into error. The following is taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham. The source of this prophecy is the Opuscola or Writings of St. Francis (1623) by Fr. Luke Wadding, recognized as history’s foremost scholar and historian on St. Francis of Assisi.

"At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error.... Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer."

We should note that as of Pope Benedict’s election in 2005, this prophecy had not been fulfilled. Whether or not Pope Francis fulfills it cannot be absolutely ascertained, but what is certain is that Francis is “not a true pastor, but a destroyer” who has “drawn many into error” and who was "not canonically elected."