Readers will remember the prickly character drawn by Don Dario Eduardo Viganò in the spring of 2018, when he only partially published the famous letter written by Benedict XVI on the occasion of the eleven-volume series on the theology of Pope Francis. Fortunately, this was the point where the Pope Emeritus refused any cooperation, indicating in his own way that he did not have enough time to read these publications.
This omission affected the entire second page of the letterWhile the last two lines of the first—a new paragraph that Ratzinger began with “However, I don’t feel like writing about it”—seemed deliberately blurry and illegible. Then there was a scandal, and rightly so: Viganò had to resign, and Pope Francis found him a home, established Dedicated Office of the Communications Department Advisor.
But that was a minor manipulation compared to the manipulation orchestrated by someone from the Doctrine of Faith Department.. Croatian website Figueira and Gilain purpose Written by Snježana Majdansžić-Gladić, it reveals disturbing details, which readers can then verify for themselves. in the answers To some questions from Msgr. José Negri, last November 3, the Pope’s signature and the signature of Cardinal Fernández himself are incorrect. “Just download the PDF file to your computer and click on the signature at the end, and you will see that it is a poorly cropped scanned image, simply pasted over the text written in Word, and not a scanned document that the Pope actually signed,” explains Majdanšić Gladić. For its authenticity. It is also possible to check whether it is a scan copy and paste by enlarging the signature: you will easily notice how grainy the image pasted there is.
Interesting “supervision” by Fernandez“, who, apparently, not only writes with complete independence what he wants, but now also inscribes “do it yourself” on the Pope’s signatures. It is not clear why he did it or who did it for him, and the Croatian journalist continues, “He and he did not “It is yet to be known whether the Pope’s signature was included on something else he approved that day, or whether the response was entirely forged, perhaps without the Pope’s knowledge.”
This does not mean that there is any doubt that the Pope fundamentally agrees With what Fernandez wrote, it is, at the very least, a matter of etiquette, and has undeniable legal implications. Is forging a signature in a public document also a crime in the Vatican? This document, among other things, also loses its official value as well as the fact that the content, as we wrote, is more than questionable.
Is Fernandez a trained forger? That he not only tampered with the texts mentioned in the documents he wrote, distorting the meaning and cutting out paragraphs (see here and here), but now he also begins to forge signatures? However, he remains an apprentice, because the various manipulations are not too subtle to be noticed.
Is it an exaggeration to demand official clarification on this issue? There are many questions that await an adequate and public answer: From what other document dated October 31, 2023 was the signature of the Pope and Fernández scanned? This is another version of the responses to Msgr. Negri or a completely different document? For what reason was this operation performed? Who ordered it and who knew about it?
Due to the ease of forgery in the department’s environments starting July 1Why not cancel the class? NB Dated December 21, 2018, which the governor referred to when opening the aforementioned document as evidence of the continuity of this statement with what the Civil Defense Forces would have declared in the past? Why not also publish the original questions submitted by the Bishop of Santo Amaro, as happened with Doubtful Of the five cardinals?
But the points to be made do not end here. Since “Tucho” was placed on top of the DDF, documents written and translated into different languages never appear on the department’s website, as usual, but only PDF versions of previous Word files. For any reason? Cutting staff?
Majdansži-Gladić also points out That “as of July 1, 2023, the documents of the department no longer bear the official coat of arms at their head, and, moreover, have neither a header, nor an order number, nor any other usual official references, but are regularly texts that do not differ from any other texts. A private message, with the exception of the final signature of the Pope and the Prefect.” And again since the beginning of the Fernández administration, as we have had occasion to point out, other important characteristics have disappeared: the reference to a possible ordinary or general session of the Chamber with the date in question has disappeared, as has the joint signature of the Court. and secretary, elements that lead to suspicion that Tocho acted almost alone; there is no wording indicating that the Pope approved the document and ordered its publication, nor is there the usual final wording “given in Rome, by the headquarters of the Department for the Doctrine of the Faith, on day/month/year Anniversary/Eid/Eid n. Is it possible to know the reasons for these repeated omissions now?
To understand how low the Ratzinger circle isthen look at the errors in the reply to Cardinal Duca: “Young Paul II” in note 4 and “Benedict XVI” in the next note; Amoris Laetitia in italics, while Mitis iudex in Roman; Non-uniform note standards; Quotation marks that open but do not close. Of course we can all make mistakes, but when it comes to official documents, further revisions of the text are necessary. Further evidence that this review clearly did not take place and that Fernandes was placed in the team to work alone. The problem is that he is not Maradona.
“Coffee fan. Tv specialist. Social media aficionado. Zombie geek. Evil analyst. Web expert.”