图片说明：示意图
图片来源：Public Domain（公有领域）
【中国观察2025年5月4讯】
——对梵中协议的公然违反
据亚洲新闻社（AsiaNews）报道（原文链接），4月28日，上海教区的教区神职人员选举吴建林神父为主教；4月29日，新乡教区也选举李建林神父为主教。这两项任命均出自中国的**“爱国教会”，这一教会与罗马公教处于分裂状态**。上述任命明显违反了梵蒂冈与北京政府于2018年签署并分别于2020年、2022年和2024年续签四年的秘密协议条款。
尽管该协议内容官方保密，但一些细节已被泄露。根据已知内容，该协议据称包括以下要点：
一方面，圣座承认中国天主教爱国会为天主教会的一部分，并承认中国共产党有权任命主教；
另一方面，协议也规定教宗应具有（至少在理论上）对这些任命行使否决权，并有权批准中共意图罢免的合法主教的撤职。
正是由于此类教义与教会法上的重大分歧，直到本笃十六世在任期间，圣座始终拒绝与中国签署此类协议，因为这些问题牵涉信仰本质，任何一位教宗都无权规避或修改其核心内容（原文链接）。
中国的“爱国教会”是一个处于分裂状态的国家实体，其所谓“主教”并未经教宗批准任命。只要中共政府继续干涉圣座的管辖权，自行任命“主教”，并罢黜教宗任命的合法主教，任何协议都是不可接受的。这正导致了对中国天主教徒——包括平信徒、神职人员以及主教的公开迫害。
对此，教宗们曾唯一能做出的回应，是通过公开谴责的言辞、国际外交施压，以及西方国家就中国人权问题实施的制裁来表达立场。
您是否希望我进一步整理维加诺声明的背景或该协议的宗教法律争议？
若尔格·马里奥·贝尔戈里奥（教宗方济各）的上任，彻底颠覆了教会七十年来对中共的坚定抵制，不仅欺骗了广大信友，更将地下教会的信徒与神职人员拱手交予他们的迫害者。自从该项秘密协议签署后，对中国天主教徒的逮捕、关入再教育营、身心折磨，以及针对平信徒、修会人员、神父与主教的各种歧视形式不降反升。
为了不冒犯习近平，梵蒂冈新闻网（VaticanNews）在2022年甚至使用“所谓的迫害”一词来描述枢机主教陈日君（Cardinal Joseph Zen）所揭露的现实。当时陈枢机正面临审判。梵蒂冈新闻网写道：“过去，陈枢机也曾因中国共产党据称迫害宗教团体而提出批评。”面对媒体质询，贝尔戈里奥没有为这位中国枢机说一句辩护的话——而这位枢机早在此前就曾被他耻辱性地拒绝在梵蒂冈接见。方济各只是敷衍表示：“我不觉得可以称中国是反民主的国家，因为那是一个复杂的国家……是的，确实有些事情在我们眼中看起来不太民主，这是真的。陈枢机将在接下来的几天中受审，我想。他表达他所感受到的情绪，也确实，那里的确存在一些限制”（原文链接）。他原话是：“我不觉得能称中国为反民主国家”（意大利语：“Qualificare la Cina come antidemocratica, io non me la sento.”）
我们还应记得，2006年，本笃十六世任命了教廷外交官伊万·迪亚斯枢机（Cardinal Ivan Dias）为传信部部长，他曾是支持“东方外交政策”（Ostpolitik）的卡萨罗利枢机的合作伙伴。尽管迪亚斯对中国态度较为温和，但本笃十六世为平衡这一点，同时任命了韩大辉（Savio Hon Tai-Fai）蒙席为该部秘书长。韩大辉与陈日君枢机关系密切，并与本笃一样对中共持强硬立场。他一直担任秘书至2017年，也就是秘密协议签署前夕——若该协议在当时签署，韩大辉及陈枢机断然不会支持。
当时陈日君原本希望韩大辉接任香港主教，但梵蒂冈却将韩调往希腊担任教廷驻希腊大使（宗座大使），而将亲中耶稣会士周守仁（Stephen Chow Sau-Yan）安排为香港主教——他于2021年晋牧，2023年擢升为枢机。在这件事上，贝尔戈里奥推行的清洗方向依旧一致，凡与北京路线不符者，悉数边缘化。
贝尔戈里奥教会对北京的屈从
西方国家对中国共产主义独裁体制的纵容早已广为人知。2018年，习近平自封为中华人民共和国“终身主席”，但这一举动并未引发任何一个自诩民主的国家作出谴责。而原本在2013年之前，罗马教会曾是唯一保持异议的声音，其地缘政治影响力举足轻重；但自贝尔戈里奥（即教宗方济各）上台后，罗马教会开始随主流叙事起舞，在宗教层面上为“被中国化”做好准备，就如同全球主义精英正在将欧洲在经济、社会与公共卫生领域“中国化”（详见原文链接）。
基于上述分析，可以说：北京方面对与圣座关系“正常化”的期待，正是在若尔格·马里奥·贝尔戈里奥当选教宗后得以完全实现，这已是无可否认的事实。至于梵蒂冈的配合是否源于一个早有准备的计划，至少可以说，提出这样的推测是合理的。
关于中国政府向梵蒂冈提供了何种形式的“补偿”，异议人士郭文贵曾公开表示：梵蒂冈每年都会收到、且至今仍在收取中共提供的16亿美元，作为其在宗教政策上保持沉默的“代价”。这些外国资金的流入，进一步印证了贝尔戈里奥教会对政府及跨国势力的财政依附，类似的情况也曾发生在美国国际开发署（USAID）和其他与“慈善家”乔治·索罗斯相关的非政府机构向天主教组织提供资助的案例中——这些组织藉由非法移民获利。
天主教的“中华化”
由政府任命的“主教”显然是以让天主教信徒同化唯物主义意识形态为目标，绝不是让中国共产党吸收天主教信仰。在北京政府的观念中，宗教始终只是政权工具（instrumentum regni），只有在教义与道德能够服从并适应共产党模式的情况下，宗教才被允许存在。因此，中国之所以愿意签署中梵协议，正是因为它认为这份协议与其意识形态相容；并且——与过去不同——它认为若尔格·马里奥·贝尔戈里奥（教宗方济各）是推动这一计划的盟友。
这一点从《信仰社》（Fides）社长詹尼·瓦伦特（Gianni Valente）在2024年9月22日的言论中可以得到印证。他说：
“过去的一段时期里，在中国体制内的官方媒体中，主教和梵蒂冈经常被描述为‘西方帝国主义的看门狗’。但如今，即使在中国与西方地缘政治体之间国际紧张局势加剧的背景下，在中国已无人再会将教宗和天主教会斥为敌对势力的代理人。”
然而，如果教宗和天主教会如今不再被视为敌对势力，那只是因为他们在原则上已经让步，选择了与中国站在同一战线。
2024年5月，在罗马宗座传信大学举行的“纪念中国教会会议一百周年：历史与当代国际会议”上，“上海主教”沈斌公开表示：
“愿中国教会的发展，与中华民族的伟大复兴相契合。”
值得回顾的是，教宗本笃十六世曾批准任命马达钦主教为上海辅理主教，而马主教在祝圣当天公开声明退出爱国会，随即被捕并软禁。《亚洲新闻》评论道（详见原文链接）：
“对于这样一记正面打击中国宗教政策的‘耳光’，当局的‘报复’是全方位的：神学院被关闭、女修会被监控、教区出版社被查封；慈悲禧年期间未获准开启圣门；大量教区资金不翼而飞；马主教被剥夺‘上海主教’头衔，遭受‘违反规章’的调查。”
而另一边，沈斌的待遇却截然不同。他是中共体系内的“党内主教”，虽在2023年7月由贝尔戈里奥正式任命为上海主教，但早在三个月前，他就已被“自封”的中国主教团单方面调任至该重要教区，而这个“主教团”并不被梵蒂冈官方承认（详见原文链接）。
沈斌背后的“庇护者”与教会的中华化
沈斌之所以在中国教会体系内一路绿灯，并非偶然。他背后拥有强大政治资源的支持，例如受到**由美国国际开发署（USAID）资助的圣艾智德团体（Community of Sant’Egidio）**的庇护。枢机主教陈日君曾公开指责这个团体：他们“于2011年9月11日至13日，在慕尼黑隆重组织一场跨宗教会议，并以极高规格邀请了一位中国主教出席。该主教此前于7月14日，参与了未经罗马批准、由北京政权强行主导的非法祝圣仪式，严重违抗教宗权威”（详见原文链接）。
在本笃十六世的时代，这种行为还被视为重大违抗，而到了贝尔戈里奥教宗治下，却成了司空见惯的“常规操作”。
沈斌主教在发言中进一步表示：
“尽管始终要努力适应新的政治体制，中国教会始终保持对天主教信仰的忠诚。”
“中国政府实施的宗教自由政策，并不打算改变天主教信仰，仅希望神职人员与信众捍卫中国人民的利益、摆脱外国势力的控制。”
不仅如此，沈斌还表达了与**教宗方济各提出的“亚马逊教会”方案相呼应的第二届大公会议思想：**即通过“本地文化的融合”（Inculturation）来重新构建宗教表达。他说：
“鼓励中国教会探索以中华传统文化来表达天主教信仰的方式；支持在教堂建筑、宗教艺术与音乐中采用传统中国风格，推动教会艺术的中华化，并将传统中国文化元素融入礼仪之中。所有这些，正是当今推动天主教中华化最重要的方法与工具，也是我们未来的方向。”
然而，一旦教会要维持其“catholic”（即“普世性”）的本质，它就与“国家化、中华化的教会”观念根本不相容。而这一“国家教会”模式，却与耶稣会一贯推动的全球文化融合策略高度契合。
早在2018年，《公教文明》（La Civiltà Cattolica）中，**耶稣会汉学家白之旻神父（Benoît Vermander）**就曾撰文指出：
“让宗教更‘中国化’，不仅意味着发展地方礼仪或教义视角，更首先意味着对习近平总书记在中共十九大报告中所提出的‘中国文化定义’的认同。”（详见原文链接）
中国与全球化
中国正试图在“新世界秩序”中为自己争取一个核心位置，而主导这个秩序的，不是传统意义上的国家联盟，而是一个技术—资本寡头联盟。自2019年“心理瘟疫骗局”（psychopandemic fraud）以来，这种寡头力量已经开始悄然确立规则并主导结构。
正如2023年6月在天津举行的**“新领军者年会”（Meeting of the New Champions）**所展示的那样，达沃斯论坛——一个代表超级国家权势游说集团的组织——对“独裁+2030议程”这种双重组合抱有极大热情。此次会议汇聚了来自全球的1500位“精英”，充分体现出他们对中国模式的推崇。
在全球主义者的规划中，中国是实现全球市场“中华化”的关键合作伙伴。这种“中华化”并不止于文化或宗教领域，它包括：
地球工程计划（geoengineering）；
农业与食品结构的干预（如合成肉、转基因食物）；
自然资源的私有化（包括水资源）；
社会信用制度的推广；
数字货币的强制使用；
以及对人类日常生活无所不在的监控。
简言之，全球精英们把中国视作一个“实验室”，在这个实验室里，共产主义的极权体制可以强行实现那些西方民主国家在不公然违宪的情况下难以推行的控制机制。
所以，在全球主义者的蓝图中，西方世界将不得不放弃民主与自由，转而成为由“权力股东”——也就是掌控财政的人——所管理的技术官僚独裁体制。而如今中国在宗教上的诸多限制措施，将可能在西方以“审查”“社交控制”之名逐步成为常态。
换句话说：
没有中国，就没有全球化、金融化、数位化。
没有中国，就不可能实现那个基于“有计划去工业化”和“伊斯兰化”战略所构建的“大重置”——一个彻底削弱（基督教）西方文明力量的方案。
最终目标，是将人类转化为一个编号的单位。
正如本笃十六世教宗在担任红衣主教时，于2000年在巴勒莫神学院向修士们所说的那样：
“我们所建造的机器，正强加一种法则——这种法则正是集中营所采用的法则。
在机器的逻辑中，在那些拥有机器的人眼中，‘人’必须被计算机解读，
而这一过程只能在‘人’被翻译为数字之后才可能。”
他接着说：
“那头兽就是数字，它想把我们每一个人都变成数字。
但天父上帝有名字——祂叫我们每一个人的名字。
祂是一个人格，当祂看向我们时，祂看到的是一个被爱的‘人’。”
正因如此，我们很难相信，一个曾如此清晰揭示全球主义技术独裁危险的人，在成为教宗后却会支持建立这一体制本身，例如推广基因疫苗、堕胎、安乐死、社会控制和LGBTQ议程。
本笃十六世教宗与全球议程的对立
本笃十六世的教宗任期遭遇了来自多个方向的激烈反对与干预，以至于约翰·波德斯塔（John Podesta）曾提出用一位“符合全球主义议程”的教宗替代本笃，由此推动包括“性别平权”、同性恋合法化、所谓“生殖健康权”、离婚正当化、死刑谴责、马尔萨斯式的环保主义，以及世界卫生组织主导的健康政策。
而这正是贝尔戈里奥（Jorge Bergoglio）成为教宗后迅速贯彻的议程。与此相对，本笃十六世坚决反对任何未承认罗马教廷对中国天主教徒与圣统制完全主权的中梵关系“正常化”尝试。也正因如此，本笃不可能成为计划摧毁欧洲社会与经济、并令中共政权得利的共谋者——即便在耶稣会与天主教极端进步派的双重压力之下。
秘密协议的缔造者们
约翰·波德斯塔不仅主导了所谓“天主教之春”的政治行动（Catholic Spring），他本人还多次公开支持与中国建立紧密的经贸关系。他所采取的立场，完全符合克林顿、奥巴马和拜登政府的外交路线，也间接揭示了中国政府在美国政府中安插亲中代理人的能力。这些代理人积极推动中国加入世界贸易组织（WTO）并维护中共的全球经济利益。
在这些政府以及圣座的支持下，枢机主教西奥多·麦卡里克（Theodore McCarrick）成为中梵外交接触的核心人物。他至少八次访问中国，并住在“中国爱国教会”的神学院。他在接受《环球时报》采访时曾声称：
“我看到正在发生很多事情，会真正打开许多大门——因为习近平主席和他的政府关心的问题，正是方济各教宗所关心的。”
他甚至说，“贝尔戈里奥与习近平的结合，是对世界的一份特殊馈赠。”
神秘的访问与背后交易
据《天主教新闻社》（Catholic News Agency）报道，2009年，麦卡里克通过时任美国众议院议长南希·佩洛西向中国友人传达信息。佩洛西把他的问候带给了上海的金鲁贤主教，这位曾是中国耶稣会重量级人物，当时却在“爱国教会”中担任不被教廷承认的“主教”。
记者玛丽亚·安托涅塔·卡拉布罗（Maria Antonietta Calabrò）披露：
“麦卡里克的中国之行包括会见国家宗教事务局局长王作安、以及中国天主教爱国会前主席傅铁山主教——这是一个不被梵蒂冈承认的机构。”
2014年，《华盛顿邮报》记者大卫·吉布森报道称，麦卡里克曾在2013年前往中国，参与所谓“有关宗教自由的秘密会谈”。
这与前教廷驻美大使维加诺（Viganò）大主教的证词相符：他说自己在2013年6月在梵蒂冈见到麦卡里克时，后者称：
“教宗昨天接见了我，明天我就要去中国了。”
维基解密公开的2006年美国国务院电报也披露：麦卡里克至少两次在中共控制下的北京神学院受招待。副院长陈树杰神父自称“是这所神学院的王”，并强调他“在其墙内可以为所欲为”。
美驻教廷使馆副馆长桑德罗利尼在报告中指出，陈神父淡化对“地下教会”的迫害，并称**“官方宗教人员不被允许传教。”**
但值得注意的是，麦卡里克在2006年至2013年之间似乎暂停了访华行程——即本笃十六世任教宗时期。尽管如此，他在中国仍保持着“影响力”。
《天主教新闻社》总结道：
“梵中外交文件的背后，不仅涉及教会主权问题，也穿插着有关性侵丑闻（麦卡里克案）与教廷内权力斗争（维加诺指控）——这一切有可能成为对教宗方济各的新一轮攻击，控诉他‘将主教任命权出卖给中共’。”
谈判者的可被勒索性
Darrick Taylor 于 2024年5月14日在《危机》杂志（Crisis Magazine）中写道：“然而，这并不意味着不存在某些合理的情境，外部利益方可能对梵蒂冈施加了影响。最明显的例子就是梵蒂冈与中国的协议，梵蒂冈出于莫名其妙的原因，竟派遣西奥多·麦卡里克（Theodore McCarrick）进行谈判。考虑到麦卡里克本身的道德污点，假设中共对他进行勒索并不牵强；若说这种操作是导致该灾难性协议的原因，也并非异想天开。关于教宗方济各（Francis）的最离奇的阴谋论，多与其当选有关，我倒可以被说服：某些感兴趣的国家政府确实可能试图影响教宗选举。最可能的两个候选者，一是前面提到的中共，另一个则是美国政府。维基解密所公开的邮件显示，希拉里·克林顿2016年总统竞选团队中的自由派民主党政治人物（包括受过洗的天主教徒约翰·波德斯塔）曾讨论过在天主教会内发动一次‘阿拉伯之春’的必要性。由此推想，自由派总统不仅仅停留于设想，甚至真的可能通过贿赂或其他利益手段操控教会高层，也并非毫无可能。”
方济各完全听命于他的主子——那些可追溯至颠覆性全球主义精英的势力——他回避解决任何具体问题，其唯一目的就是摧毁地下教会的一切内部抵抗，并以听命于政府的代理人取代忠于使徒圣统的主教。
在这一切背后，如我们所知，存在着与中国专制政权“国际关系正常化”的更广泛进程，而中国已成为全球主义者建立“新世界秩序”的不可或缺的合作伙伴。
本笃十六世（Benedict XVI）是中国扩张主义野心的障碍：必须加速其教宗任期的终结，才能让一位全球主义左翼的代表登上伯多禄之座。
这一点证实了自2020年以来我一直所揭露的“深层国家”与“深层教会”之间的联系：这两个来自同一颠覆性源头的力量，在全球主义政变中合流，其目的就是在世俗与宗教领域中篡夺权威，并摧毁他们非法主持的体制。
帕罗林与祖皮：中共在教会中的代理人
在梵中秘密协议的主角之一，还包括教廷国务卿皮耶特罗·帕罗林（Pietro Parolin）枢机主教，他曾出席2017年在达沃斯举行的第47届世界经济论坛、2018年比尔德伯格集团会议，以及2021年联合国关于气候变化的“适应峰会”。如今他受到北京共产专政政权及其所有代理人和资助者（无论世俗或教会身份）的大力支持，已毫不令人惊讶。
意大利主教团主席马泰奥·祖皮（Matteo Zuppi）也是秘密协议的支持者，他代表的是圣艾智德团体（Community of Sant’Egidio）及其创始人安德烈亚·里卡尔迪（Andrea Riccardi）所秉持的理念。
任何今日考虑将帕罗林或祖皮视为下任教宗候选人的人，都必须认真思考他们将如何回应中国政府的挑衅——即擅自任命两位“主教”而无宗座授权的事件。他们对北京的完全顺从，正是人们对未来教宗可能修复此协议所造成的严重教会分裂伤口最不抱希望的前提。
因此，在选举新教宗之前，帕罗林枢机必须公开梵中秘密协议的全文，这一点至关重要。
结语
这个故事，牵涉到数以百万计遭受迫害的中国天主教徒。“沉默的教会”正面对“教会的沉默”——面对一些冷酷腐败的神职人员的共谋与背叛，这些人一心只图支持全球主义精英与北京共产专政的计划。**贝尔格里奥的继承人们——首先是皮耶特罗·帕罗林与马泰奥·祖皮——试图赢得地上权贵的支持，因为“在政府控制下建立民族教会”的中共模式，恰好可以实现他们对教会的设想。**他们视这种“国家教会”为推行贝尔格里奥式“共议制”异端主张的最有效工具，而在这表面的“共议”背后，隐藏的正是与中共政权和全球主义精英同样的暴政本质。
第二次梵蒂冈大公会议的筹备纲要——即那些被革新派轻蔑抛弃的文献——本曾设想庄严谴责无神论的唯物主义。如今我们终于理解，那些曾在面对共产主义威胁时表现出怯懦与妥协的多位主教（其中包括若望二十三世与保禄六世），其行为所带来的灾难性后果。因为唯有独裁政权，才能将那种犯罪性质的反乌托邦计划彻底实现。
我不禁要问：1958年教宗选举秘密会议上的枢机们中，有多少人真正意识到了那即将临头的危险？他们的一票所带来的后果，和今天我们所见者并无不同——正是那一票，使隆卡利得以确立教会对共产政权采取绥靖路线的政策。历史经验本应成为我们当下行动的警钟。
我们唯有以最坚定的立场，谴责这一“罪恶联盟”——它联合了中国共产专政、达沃斯的科技金融寡头集团，以及篡夺天主教会权威的篡位者们。驱动这些人进行迫害的真正动机，是他们对中国天主教徒忠于教会与教宗的仇恨：他们所效忠的，既不是一个“爱国”的民族教会，也不是一个“人道主义”的非政府组织，更不是一个缺乏信条与道德、服务于反人类意识形态的空壳机构，而是那唯一、神圣、公教、使徒传承的罗马教会。这教会，既已建立在我们的主耶稣基督这块磐石之上，就永远是、也是唯一真正且不可避免的καθῆκον（责任），阻挡敌基督国度之建立（得后 2:6-7）。
——原驻美宗座大使
2025年5月2日
圣亚他那修主教暨教会圣师纪念日
Declaration of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the Secret Vatican Agreement with China
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.
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.
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
2 May 2025
S. Athanasii Episcopi et Ecclesiæ Doctoris