Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
THE VIOLATION OF THE SINO-VATICAN AGREEMENT
AsiaNews Agency has reported (here) that on April 28 the diocesan clergy of Shanghai elected Father Wu Jianlin as their bishop. The same thing happened on April 29, with the election of Father Li Jianlin as bishop of the Diocese of Xinxiang. Both appointments, coming from the schismatic “patriotic church,” were made in clear violation of the terms of the secret Agreement that the Vatican signed with the Beijing government in 2018 and renewed in 2020, 2022, and 2024 for four years.
The clauses of this Agreement – which is officially secret, although some details have leaked out – are said to provide on the one hand that the Holy See recognizes the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association as part of the Catholic Church and that the Chinese Communist Party has the authority to appoint its Bishops; and on the other hand that the Pope should be recognized to have – at least in theory – the right to veto such appointments and to ratify the removal of legitimate bishops that the Communist Party intends to replace with other bishops of its own nomination.
THE PRAXIS OF THE HOLY SEE CONTRADICTED BY JORGE BERGOGLIO
If the Holy See, up to and including the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, did not agree to sign agreements with China, it is because the differences concern doctrinal and canonical aspects that no pope can elude or modify in their substance (here).
The Chinese “patriotic church” is a schismatic state entity, whose “bishops” are not appointed with papal approval. As long as the Chinese Communist Government insists on continuing to interfere in the jurisdiction of the Holy See by nominating its own “bishops” and deposing those nominated by the pope, no agreement is possible. This led to an open persecution of Catholics – lay people, clergy, and bishops – to which the only possible response was public words of condemnation by the popes, the pressure of international diplomacy, and the application of sanctions by Western nations against China for human rights violations.
The arrival of Jorge Mario Bergoglio completely disrupted seventy years of firm opposition from the Church, deceiving Catholics and handing over the faithful and the clergy of the clandestine Church to their persecutors. Arrests, re-education camps, physical and psychological torture, and all possible forms of discrimination against lay people, religious, priests, and Catholic bishops have increased precisely after the signing of the secret Agreement.
In order not to offend Xi Jinping, in 2022 VaticanNews (here) went so far as to speak of “alleged persecutions” of Chinese faithful, referring to the facts that Cardinal Joseph Zen, then undergoing a trial, had denounced. VaticanNews wrote: “In the past, Cardinal Zen has also criticized the Chinese Communist Party for allegedly persecuting religious communities.” When questioned by journalists, Bergoglio did not offer even one word in defense of the Chinese cardinal – whom he had already shamefully refused to meet at the Vatican – limiting himself to stating: “I don’t feel like calling China anti-democratic, because it is such a complex country . . . yes, it is true that there are things that to us do not seem democratic, that is true. Cardinal Zen will be on trial in the next few days, I believe. And he says what he feels, and it is clear that there are limitations there” (here). Bergoglio said literally: “I don’t feel like calling China anti-democratic” – “Qualificare la Cina come antidemocratica, io non me la sento.”
It should also be remembered that in 2006 Benedict XVI had appointed Cardinal Ivan Dias, a Vatican diplomat and former collaborator of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, a supporter of Ostpolitik, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. His pro-Chinese action was balanced by Pope Benedict with the appointment of Monsignor Savio Hon Tai-Fai as Secretary of the same Congregation. Tai-Fai was very close to Cardinal Zen and like Benedict XVI had a firm attitude towards China. He remained in office until 2017, on the eve of the signing of the Secret Agreement that the Chinese Archbishop would never have supported. Zen hoped that Savio Hon Tai-Fai would succeed him in Hong Kong, but instead Tai-Fai was sent to Greece as Nuncio and the pro-Chinese Jesuit Stephen Chow Sau-Yan was placed in Hong Kong (made Bishop in 2021 and Cardinal in 2023). In this case as well, Bergoglian purges always went in the same direction.
THE SUBSERVIENCE OF THE BERGOGLIAN CHURCH TO BEIJING
The indulgence of Western nations towards the Chinese communist dictatorship is well known. In 2018, Xi Jinping proclaimed himself “president for life” of the People’s Republic of China, without this provoking the condemnation of countries where democracy claims to reign. The Church of Rome, which until 2013 had been the only dissonant voice and whose geopolitical weight is essential, with the advent of Bergoglio aligned itself with the mainstream narrative and was preparing to face its own “Chinesization” on the religious front, just as the globalist elite was “Chinesizing” Europe on the economic, social, and health fronts (here).
In light of these considerations, it can be said that Beijing’s wishes on the normalization of relations with the Holy See were perfectly realized thanks to the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio: this is an indisputable fact. That this cooperation of the Vatican with Chinese intentions is the result of a plan that was prepared for some time is at least legitimate to suppose.
The question of what kind of compensation the Chinese government has provided to the Vatican has been the subject of statements by dissident Guo Wengui, according to whom the Holy See has received and continues to receive 1.6 billion dollars every year in exchange for its silence on Beijing’s religious policies. These foreign funds confirm a financial dependence of the Bergoglian church on governments and supranational entities, as also occurred with the funds of USAID and other non-governmental agencies linked to the “philanthropist” George Soros for Catholic organizations that have profited from illegal immigration.
THE SINICIZATION OF CATHOLICISM
The government-appointed “bishops” obviously have as their objective the assimilation of materialist ideology by the Catholic faithful, and certainly not the assimilation of the Catholic Faith by the Chinese communists. In the mind of the Beijing government, religion is and remains instrumentum regni, and can be admitted only to the extent that it adapts its doctrine and morality to the communist model. Therefore, if China has been interested in ratifying the Sino-Vatican Agreement, it is because it considers it compatible with its own ideological approach, and because – unlike what happened in the past – it has seen Jorge Mario Bergoglio as an ally in achieving this project.
This is confirmed by Gianni Valente, director of the Fides Agency, who declared on September 22, 2024: “There have been seasons in which in the official media of the Chinese apparatus bishops and the Vatican were normally defined as ‘watchdogs’ of Western imperialism. Now, even in the phase of growing international tension between the People’s Republic of China and Western geopolitical subjects, in China no one would think of insulting the pope and the Catholic Church as agents of hostile forces.” But if the pope and the Catholic Church are no longer considered as agents of hostile forces, it is because both have yielded on principles and aligned themselves with China.
During the International Conference One Hundred Years Since the Concilium Sinense: Between History and Present, held at the Urbaniana University of Rome in May 2024, Shen Bin, the “bishop” of Shanghai, declared: “May the development of the Church in China be in line with the great rebirth of the Chinese nation.” It should be remembered that Benedict XVI had authorized the appointment of Msgr. Thaddeus Ma Daqin as Coadjutor to the Shanghai See, who, after having disavowed his membership in the Patriotic Association on the day of his episcopal consecration, was immediately arrested and placed under house arrest. AsiaNews comments (here): “The ‘revenge’ of the authorities for such a slap in the face to China’s religious policy was total: seminary closed, female religious orders monitored, diocesan publishing house blocked; no opening of the Holy Door during the Jubilee of Mercy; large sums disappeared from the diocesan accounts. Bishop Ma was stripped of his title of ‘bishop’ of Shanghai and subjected to ‘an investigation for violating the rules.’”
A completely different treatment was given to “bishop” Shen Bin, an organic figure in the Party: although he was appointed to Shanghai by Bergoglio last July, in reality he had already been transferred to that prestigious see three months earlier by unilateral decision of the Council of Chinese Bishops, an organization that the Holy See does not officially recognize (here).
It is no coincidence that Shen Bin is supported by the powerful Community of Sant’Egidio (which is also financed by USAID), which “Cardinal Zen accuses of having invited with full honors to the interreligious meeting in Munich – organized with great pomp by this community from 11 to 13 September 2011 – a Chinese bishop in grave disobedience to the Pope for having participated on the previous 14 July in the illicit ordination of a new bishop not approved by Rome but imposed by the authorities in Beijing” (here). What under Benedict XVI was considered grave disobedience, with Bergoglio became usual practice.
The “bishop” of Shanghai Shen Bin specified: “The Church in China has always remained faithful to its Catholic faith, despite the great effort to constantly adapt to the new political system”; “the policy of religious freedom implemented by the Chinese government has no interest in changing the Catholic faith, but only hopes that the clergy and Catholic faithful defend the interests of the Chinese people and free themselves from the control of foreign powers.” Not only that: the conciliar idea of inculturation – which Bergoglio re-proposed with his Amazonian church – is shared by the communist “bishop” Shen Bin: “Encourage the Church in China to explore the use of traditional Chinese culture in the expression of the Catholic faith; support the adoption of traditional Chinese styles in church architecture, church art, and music, and promote the sinicization of the art of the Church, integrate elements of traditional Chinese culture into the liturgy of the Church. All these are the most important methods and tools to promote the sinicization of Catholicism today, and they are also the orientation of our future commitments.”
If the Church in China wanted to be “catholic” – in the sense of “universal” – it would ipso facto become incompatible with the idea of a sinicized national church. Which fits perfectly into the Jesuits’ grand plan. In fact, in 2018, in La Civiltà Cattolica, sinologist Father Benoît Vermander wrote: “Making religions more Chinese does not simply mean developing a local ritual and a doctrinal perspective, but first and foremost adhering to the definition of Chinese culture proposed by President Xi’s report to the 19th Congress” (here).
CHINA AND GLOBALIZATION
China aims to carve out a central role for itself in the New World Order, and it is the techno-capitalist oligarchy that intends to dictate its structure and rules, as has already happened with the psychopandemic fraud since 2019. The Davos Forum – the expression of a very powerful supranational lobby – is so enthusiastic about the binomial dictatorship-Agenda2030 that it held its Meeting of the New Champions, the annual summer meeting of 1500 global leaders, in Tianjin in June 2023.
China is indispensable for its collaboration in the process of the sinicization of the global market, which implies the use of geoengineering, interventions in the agri-food sector (synthetic meat, GMO foods), the privatization of resources (including water), the imposition of social credits, digital currency, and the capillary monitoring of every human activity. The globalist elite, in short, considers China as a laboratory in which the communist totalitarian regime makes possible, by force, what Western democracies cannot achieve without systematically violating Constitutions and laws.
It is therefore the Western world that – in the plans of the globalists – will have to give up democracy and freedom in order to transform itself into a dictatorial technocracy managed by the “shareholders” of power, that is, by those who manage it financially. The limitations that the Chinese government imposes in the religious sphere are therefore destined to become the norm in Western countries too, thanks to forms of censorship and social control.
Without China there is no globalization, no financialization, no digitalization. Without China it is not possible to achieve that Great Reset based on the dismantling of the power of the (Christian) West through programmed deindustrialization and Islamization.
The goal is the transformation of man into a number. As then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 2000, addressing the seminarians of Palermo (here): “The machines that have been built impose this same law, this same law that was adopted in the concentration camps. According to the logic of the machine, according to the owners of the machine, man must be interpreted by a computer, and this is only possible if man is translated into numbers.”
He continued: “The Beast is a number, and transforms us into numbers. God our Father instead has a name, and calls each of us by name. He is a person, and when he looks at each of us he sees a person, a person who is loved.” It is hard to believe that someone who was so clear about the danger posed by globalist technocratic dystopia would have ever supported as pope the establishment of that regime by propagating gene serums, abortion, and euthanasia, social control, and the LGBTQ agenda.
The pontificate of Benedict XVI was fiercely opposed and impeded on several fronts, to the point that John Podesta theorized Benedict’s replacement with a pope aligned with the globalist agenda who would introduce gender equality, the decriminalization of sodomy, so-called “reproductive health,” the legitimization of divorce, the condemnation of the death penalty, Malthusian environmentalism, and the health policies of the WHO.
This is exactly the agenda Jorge Bergoglio imposed, as soon as he was appointed Pope, while Benedict XVI was completely against any normalization of relations with China that did not include the recognition of the full prerogatives of the Apostolic See over Catholics and the Catholic Hierarchy in China. The plan for the social and economic destruction of Europe to the full advantage of the Chinese dictatorship would never have found an accomplice in Pope Benedict XVI, despite the pressure from the Jesuits and ultra-progressive “Catholics”.
THE CREATORS OF THE SECRET AGREEMENT
John Podesta, in addition to organizing a “Catholic Spring” in the Vatican, appeared several times as an enthusiastic supporter of trade relations with China. His interventions – which followed the line dictated by the Clinton, Obama and Biden Administrations – provide confirmation of Beijing’s ability to have its own agents within the government of the United States of America who supported China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (here and here).
On behalf of all these Administrations and the Holy See, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick carried out intense diplomatic activity with China, a nation he visited at least eight times, staying at the seminary of the “patriotic church” (here). It was he who declared, in an interview with The Global Times: “I see a lot of things happening that would really open a lot of doors because President Xi and his government are concerned about the things that Pope Francis is concerned about” (here), and that Bergoglio and Xi could together be “a special gift to the world.”
The Catholic News Agency reports that “in 2009, the Archbishop had a message delivered to a friend in China through Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi passed McCarrick’s greetings to Bishop Aloysius Jin of Shanghai, formerly one of China’s leading Jesuits.” Jin was at the time a “bishop” of the schismatic “patriotic church.”
The journalist Maria Antonietta Calabrò wrote in this regard: “The former cardinal’s visits included meetings with Wang Zuo’an, head of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, and the late Bishop Fu Tieshan, former president of the bishops, that is, the Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC), an organization not recognized by the Holy See. In June 2014, David Gibson reported in the Washington Post that McCarrick had traveled to China ‘last year’ for ‘confidential meetings on religious freedom.’ This detail confirms the testimony of former Apostolic Nncio Viganò who said he met McCarrick in June 2013 in the Vatican, who told him, ‘The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I will go to China.’ McCarrick was hosted by the Beijing seminary during at least two trips to China, according to a 2006 State Department cable published by Wikileaks. The vice-rector of a seminary under the control of the Communist state, Father Shu-Jie Chen, is in fact described twice as McCarrick’s guest in the diplomatic account of Christopher Sandrolini, Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See. Chen described himself as ‘the king’ of the seminary, saying he could do whatever he wanted within its walls. The diplomat also noted in his account that the vice-rector ‘downplayed the persecution of the underground Church,’ and that ‘evangelization was not an option for official religious personnel.’ However, there appears to have been – CNA reports – an interruption in McCarrick’s travels to China between 2006 and 2013, (i.e. during the papacy of Benedict XVI) even though his influence in China was still active. So, as you can see, the China dossier for the Vatican intersects with that of pedophilia and the Viganò case. And this could unleash new attacks against Francis, with the accusation of having ‘sold out’ the appointment of bishops to the Communist Party” (here).
THE BLACKMAILABILITY OF THE NEGOTIATORS
Darrick Taylor wrote in Crisis Magazine (here) on 14 May 2024: “However, that doesn’t mean that there might not be some plausible scenarios in which interested outside parties could have influenced the Vatican. The most obvious is the Vatican agreement with China, which the Vatican, for inexplicable reasons, sent Theodore McCarrick to negotiate. It is no great stretch to suppose that the CCP blackmailed such a compromised figure, and it is not crazy to think something of that nature could be the reason for the disastrous agreement. The most fanciful conspiracies regarding Francis have to do with his election, and I could be persuaded that interested governments would be willing to exert influence on a papal election. The most likely candidates would be the aforementioned CCP but also the United States government. The WikiLeaks emails revealed liberal Democratic politicians (here) in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign (including John Podesta, a baptized Catholic) discussing the need for an “Arab Spring” in the Catholic Church. It is not lunacy to imagine a liberal Democratic president crossing the line from speculating to actually manipulating Church officials via bribes or other inducements.”
Bergoglio has clearly obeyed his masters – traceable to the subversive globalist elite – evading the resolution of all concrete problems with the sole purpose of destroying any internal resistance by the clandestine Church and replacing the Bishops faithful to the Apostolic See with government emissaries. Behind all this, as we know, there is the broader process of the normalization of international relations with the Chinese dictatorship, an indispensable partner of the globalists in establishing the New World Order.
Benedict XVI was an obstacle to China’s expansionist aims: it was necessary to hasten the end of his pontificate and have an emissary of the globalist left on the Throne of Peter.
This confirms the link between the deep state and the deep church that I have denounced since 2020, which sees two forces of the same subversive matrix united in the globalist coup of the New World Order, whose objective is the usurpation of authority in the civil and religious spheres to demolish the institutions over which they illegitimately preside.
PAROLIN AND ZUPPI AS EMISSARIES OF COMMUNIST CHINA
Among the protagonists of the Sino-Vatican Secret Agreement is also the Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, who spoke at the 47th World Economic Forum in Davos in 2017, at the Bilderberg Group meeting in 2018, and at the United Nations “Adaptation Summit” on climate change in 2021. It is not surprising that Parolin now enjoys the maximum support of the communist dictatorship of Beijing and all its emissaries and sponsors, both lay and ecclesiastical.
The President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI), Matteo Zuppi, is also a supporter of the Secret Agreement, as an expression of the Community of Sant’Egidio and its founder Andrea Riccardi.
Whoever today is considering Parolin or Zuppi as papabili will have to consider what their response would be to the provocation of the Chinese Government represented by the appointment of the two “bishops” without apostolic mandate. Their completely complacent attitude towards Beijing is the worst premise for any hope that, going forward, the papacy will attempt to heal the very serious wound to the unity of the Catholic Church constituted by the Sino-Vatican Secret Agreement (here).
For this reason, it is essential that Cardinal Parolin make public the full text of the secret Agreement before proceeding to the election of the new Pope.
CONCLUSION
This story involves millions of persecuted Chinese Catholics. The Church of silence is confronted with the silence of the Church, with the complicity and betrayal of cynical and corrupt clergymen who are interested in supporting the plans of the globalist elite and the communist dictatorship of Beijing. Bergoglio’s heirs – Pietro Parolin and Matteo Zuppi first of all – want to ensure the support of the powerful of the earth because the communist model of a national church under government control allows the realization of their idea of the church. They consider this state church as the most effective instrument to impose the heretical vision of Bergoglian synodality, behind which hides the same tyrannical nature of the Chinese regime and the globalist elite.
The preparatory schema of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II – documents that the maneuvers of the Innovators disdainfully cancelled – envisaged the solemn condemnation of atheistic materialism. Today we now understand the disastrous consequences of the cowardice and complicity of many Prelates – including John XXIII and Paul VI – in the face of the threat of Communism and above all the realization of the criminal dystopian project that only a dictatorship is able to realize. I wonder how many of the Cardinals present at the Conclave of 1958 realized the impending danger and the consequences – not different from the current ones – of their vote, thanks to which Roncalli was able to dictate to the Church the line of détente with regard to Communist regimes. Past experience should be a warning to guide present action.
We can only express our firmest condemnation of the pactum sceleris that unites the Chinese communist dictatorship, the techno-financial oligarchs of Davos, and the usurpers of authority in the Catholic Church. What motivates the persecutory action of these people is their hatred for the loyalty of Chinese Catholics to the Church and the Papacy: not to a patriotic and national church, not to a humanitarian NGO, not to an entity without either dogma or morality serving anti-human ideologies, but to that One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church which is and remains – because founded on Our Lord Jesus Christ, the cornerstone – the only true and inescapable καθῆκον (2 Thess 2:6-7) against the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist.
-Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
2 May 2025
S. Athanasii Episcopi et Ecclesiæ Doctoris
The post Declaration of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the Secret Sino-Vatican Agreement appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
