"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?
Here are the list of the 53 Cardinals who met in Rome for the Conclave in Rome in October 1958.
Dr. Chojnowski: This telegraph from Ambassador Zellerbach (US ambassador to Italy) and the Secretary of State of the United States under the Eisenhower administration, John Foster Dulles is a clear path mark indicating to us what we should be looking for as regards the happenings in the 1958 papal conclave that met from October 25-28, exactly 2 weeks after this telegram to the US Secretary of State was written and sent.
What do we read in this telegram and why does it matter in our investigation into the fate of Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima? We do not, as of yet, have a smoking gun telegram, but this one is clearly a picture of a double-barrel shot gun loaded, locked, safety off, aimed, and finger on the trigger communication. The US government seems an imminent "threat" and it is ready to act --- notice in the far right corner of the telegram there is a mark, probably put on at the State Department indicating that this copy of the telegram is the "Action Copy." Something clearly needs to be done by the Secretary of State or the President of the United States or there will be grave misfortune for the United States and its interests in the Cold War world. What is such a threat? The threat consists in those cardinals that don't have an "unrealistic approach to the problems which the world faces today." "Unrealistic approach"? Cardinals Siri, Ruffini, and Ottaviani? Why isn't the alarm bells going off for "pro-communist" cardinals who might become tools of the Soviet government or concern about cardinals from neutral countries that might not be in accord with the ideology and policies of the Republican administration in 1958? Nope, they treat as cardinals whose election must be vetoed those three men who adhere to an "unrealistic approach" to world affairs in Cold War 1958. How could the most militant anti-Communists amongst the cardinals --- notice Cardinal Mindszenty --- is not in attendance because he is in secured within a US embassy --- hold an "unrealistic approach" that would conflict with the ostensibly anti-Communist US government's foreign policy? What? UNLESS, traditional Catholic doctrine in matters of religious doctrine, morality, social teachings, and the political teachings of the Catholic Church were antithetical to the "free world" that the United States was trying to create in the world post-WWII? These three cardinals would only possibly be a grave threat to US interests requiring direct government intervention in the conclave IF traditional Catholic doctrine were a grave threat to the very ideology of the United States and the New World that it was trying to create in order to establish "peace." Notice, there is not the slightest concern mentioned by the US ambassador, in his emergency telegram to the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, about any concern that the Soviet government was involved in the conclave. In the middle of the Cold War, we would not be surprised if we found this in the communication. It is absolutely no where. Summary, the threat to the United States are the orthodox Catholic cardinals who will probably act in such a way that they apply the traditional teachings of the Church to their governance of the Church. The US government clearly sees this as BAD, or euphemistically, "unrealistic."
So what does Zellerbach advocate top level US government officials do? Make sure that the "American cardinals," and there are only 3 that make it to Rome, how do we say this --- "veto" the election of any of these "unrealistic" (i.e., Catholic) candidates and get elected someone that has a "realistic" approach to the affairs of today. That is, one that bases his actions on the "Spirit of '76" rather than the Spirit of God. MOVE AHEAD TO OCTOBER 28TH --- and exactly THAT HAPPENS! Of course there are still many puzzle pieces missing. The meeting discussed in my last post, clearly shows that Eisenhower/Dulles clearly got a man who was very "realistic" about world affairs and very supportive of US government policy. They also got one that would speak to Ike as if the entire American Experiment was identical to the intent and mission of the Catholic Church, with the New Catholics clearly striving to be like the Chosen People that the Americans already were. Or am I reading this wrong?
Interesting side note that can be read about on the linked Wikipedia article, there were 3 American cardinals that arrived in Rome to attend the conclave: Cardinal Spellman of New York, Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles, and Cardinal Mooney of Detroit. Of those three only TWO actually entered the conclave, because one of the three cardinals that the US government was counting on to stop the nomination of Cardinals Siri, Ruffini, or Ottaviani, DIED THREE HOURS BEFORE THE CONCLAVE BEGAN. Just sayin'. It could have been perfectly innocent and natural, but what are the odds of a cardinal who: 1) Felt in good enough health to decide to go all the way to Rome by plane when he was in Detroit; 2) Actually made the plane trip to Rome in October of 1958, without medical emergency; 3) Got through, if he was invited, the "pre-conclave meeting" which probably happened in the same way as Zellerbach heard happened in the Conclave of 1939; and then, 4) Up and has a stroke or heart attack THREE HOURS BEFORE THE CONCLAVE BEGINS --- with no prior health situation indicated. Did he not agree, in the "pre-conclave meetings" to back with the two other American cardinals, the coup or election manipulation that was going to happen THAT VERY DAY? Did poor Cardinal Mooney think about all of this as he died on the exciting day of entering a conclave to elect a new pope? This is one of the untold events in our very narrowed (i.e., allowed) view of history and, especially, the history of our Holy Mother Church.
Question: Can we stop debating whether Francis/Bergoglio is a heretic or not and, instead, can I get some help HERE, where the dirty deed was first done. THIS is the scene of the original crime, whether we are speaking about the taking out of the Catholic Church or the taking out of Sister Lucy dos Santos. Can any one help us here? Not with speculation, but with real concrete documentation.