Bergoglio in Argentina and the Desire for Power. José Arturo Quarracino.
30 Gennaio 2024
Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, to complement the article published yesterday by Jose Arturo Quarracino, we offer for your attention this interview published in 2022 by Gloria.TV. Happy reading and circulation.
“Bergoglio is not a Peronist” – Gloria.tv-Interview with José Arturo Quarracino*, Buenos Aires
*José Arturo Quarracino, born in Buenos Aires in 1953, is a relative of Buenos Aires Cardinal Antonio Quarracino (+1998). José Arturo is a philosophy graduate (University of Buenos Aires, Faculty of Philosophy and Literature), teacher and freelance translator. He is involved in Argentinean political life and the pro-life movement, interested in history, religion, theology, and politics, and participates through articles and political activities in the resistance against what Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó calls the global health coup d’état. He is married and had three children. His son died at the age of 28, one child before birth.
You were related to Buenos Aires Cardinal Antonio Quarracino who made Father Jorge Mario Bergoglio an auxiliary bishop?
I am the first of five nephews and nieces of the Cardinal. My father was his younger brother, 5 years younger. The Cardinal was also my godfather.
Did this create a special bond?
Yes, we appreciated each other very much, as is usual in families with Italian roots like ours. Except for the period when he was Secretary General of the Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM) and lived in Bogotá (Colombia) – the headquarters of the organisation – there were frequent contacts and meetings with our family. He was a good uncle to all his nephews and nieces and visited us whenever he could.
What kind of archbishop was he?
He was kind-hearted and had an open ear for the needs of others, for he felt the needs of others as his own. He was very cheerful, joyful, and loving. In 1962, at the age of 39, he was appointed Bishop of 9 de Julio, a town in the interior of the province of Buenos Aires, the youngest bishop in Argentina. Later he was Bishop of Avellaneda, Archbishop of La Plata (capital of Buenos Aires Province) and finally Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. In these offices, he was always shepherd of the flock and father of the priests for whom he was responsible. He treated everyone equally, never flaunted his office and titles, and knew how to be simple and affable with the priests and with all the faithful. When he had to exercise authority, he did it with firmness and mercy.
What kind of legacy did he leave behind?
His funeral showed what kind of priest he was. There was a three-day wake in the cathedral with Masses celebrated from early in the morning until 7pm, one every hour, with an endless procession of people from all walks of life passing in front of his coffin to pay their respects. During his life he was a true priest (alter Christus) who served our Saviour and His Church with total renunciation, without seeking his own advantage. He greatly venerated Our Lady of Luján, the patron saint of our beloved Republic of Argentina. As a bishop, he was a good father and adviser to many priests in the four dioceses for which he was responsible.
Bergoglio was far away from Buenos Aires when Cardinal Quarracino made him auxiliary bishop…
That is correct. In 1992, Bergoglio was “banished” to Córdoba by the Jesuits to keep him away from Buenos Aires, where he had served as Provincial for several years. The end of his term was marked by great internal divisions between his friends and opponents.
Why did your uncle choose Bergoglio?
My uncle had met him in 1973 or 1974 when he was Provincial. The person who spoke to him to “rescue him from his exile” was one of Begoglio’s teachers in the Society of Jesus, Fr Ismael Quiles SJ, a saintly Jesuit. Bergoglio was very badly off spiritually and psychologically at the time. That’s why my uncle asked the Holy See for him to be an auxiliary bishop – even though there were already others. Austen Ivereigh’s book The Great Reformer details how hard my uncle had to work to get the Holy See to appoint Bergoglio as bishop.
Does this mean that Bergoglio was made a bishop out of pity?
My uncle knew Father Ismael Quiles, who approached him about Bergoglio, quite well and appreciated Quiles as an excellent priest and exemplary Jesuit. Apart from the internal conflicts with the Jesuits, Bergoglio conveyed the image of a pious, very Ignatian man with a very austere way of life who developed a lot of sympathy for those who “liked him”. This appointment also solved Bergoglio’s big problem, namely the enormous conflict he had with many Jesuits who had been his friends and from whom he had distanced himself.
Who was Father Quiles?
He was one of the most respected Jesuits in Argentina, a great intellectual and a true Jesuit. He translated more than half of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica into Spanish, a translation inspired by another great Jesuit priest, Father Leonardo Castellani. Quiles was one of Bergoglio’s spiritual teachers when he joined the Jesuits.
Do you know why Bergoglio, as provincial, caused divisions?
I don’t know the details, but from a distance I think it was his personality that brought him into conflict with his confreres, because he always aspired to power. He lived out this desire by leaning on younger priests and novices, not so much on the experienced and older confreres. After his term as Provincial ended, he behaved as if he were still in office, which weakened the authority of the new superiors, both in the Jesuit leadership and in the Faculty of Theology at San Miguel, the historic seat of the Society of Jesus, where the Jesuits were educated. Much has been written about Bergoglio’s confrontation with the Jesuits after his time as provincial ended. What few say, perhaps for reasons of discretion, is that those who confronted him most were his collaborators or companions in running the Order. Some of them were very close friends of his who respected and appreciated him. They were serious people, with personalities of their own, who could not be manipulated or blackmailed.
What kind of impression did Bergoglio leave as an auxiliary bishop?
Auxiliary Bishop Bergoglio knew how to win the esteem of a large part of the young clergy with his simplicity, piety, caring and psychological guidance, which he exercised like no other – often for the better, in some cases for the worse. Towards those who fell out of favour with him, he was often harsh, even cruel. He subtly side-lined the older clergy to promote his friends and young protégés.
Was Auxiliary Bishop Bergoglio different from Provincial Bergoglio?
In general, he did not appear as much and did not have as many leadership tasks as when he was provincial. However, he sometimes showed conspicuous behaviour. For example, he could suddenly break off all contacts without the disgraced person knowing what he had done wrong.
Did Cardinal Quarracino get on well with his auxiliary bishop?
I would say very well. My uncle liked Bergoglio very much. In his position, Bergoglio was a great help to him, especially in pastoral care when my uncle was suffering from illnesses that limited his mobility. For two years he could not walk and had to use a wheelchair. But one day, miraculously, he regained the mobility of his legs.
Were there no other auxiliary bishops?
In recent decades, the archdiocese has always had several auxiliary bishops. Although the diocesan territory is small, about three million people live there. There are 251 parishes, 54 men’s and 121 women’s congregations, areas with precarious housing conditions, etc. The archdiocese was then divided into four vicariates with their respective auxiliary bishops. For the care of the archdiocese, 4 or 5 auxiliary bishops were indispensable. Bergoglio knew how to stand out from the other auxiliary bishops until he was appointed Vicar General. In the last years of my uncle’s life, he became coadjutor bishop with the right of succession. As a result, he immediately became archbishop after my uncle’s death.
After Vatican II, the conformists split from the Catholics in many countries. Was that also the case in Argentina?
The post-conciliar phase in Argentina was characterised by the great majority remaining faithful to Catholic teaching. There were those who turned to liberation theology, which in many cases led to a political commitment to Marxism and in some cases to armed struggle. But most of the laity remained faithful to the teachings of the Church, especially in the interior, where devotion to Our Lady and the saints who are patron saints of the various Argentine provinces is strong and alive.
In recent years, the spiritual and cultural influence of the hierarchy has greatly diminished. Following the example of Rome, the bishops have adapted to the spirit of the world. With a few honourable exceptions, they have left the people of God like sheep without a shepherd. Today, the voice of the bishops is hardly heard or carries any weight in Argentina and in the lives of the faithful. In Buenos Aires Archdiocese and in some surrounding dioceses there are the so-called “curas villeros”, priests who work in very poor neighbourhoods with extreme poverty, very meritorious in their social work and neighbourhood help, but generally with a poor theological education.
How did you perceive Bergoglio as an auxiliary bishop?
From 1995 to 2002, I worked in Bergoglio’s environment. He was chancellor of the Universidad del Salvador, where I worked. At that time, he maintained a very Jesuit profile, very pious, very pastoral, although the sharp confrontation with the Jesuits continued. It went so far that when Bergoglio became Auxiliary Bishop, the Order had to appoint a Colombian Jesuit, Father Álvaro Restrepo, as Provincial because no Argentine Jesuit could get along with Bergoglio. It was a confrontation “to the death”, as we say in Argentina.
Was Bergoglio a “conservative”?
Dogmatically, Bergoglio cultivated an orthodox profile with many Jesuit accents. In pastoral care, he emphasised social problems, the care of children and families, service to the poor, with much liberality and laxity in liturgical and sacramental matters.
Did Bergoglio change when he became archbishop?
His approach changed completely. First, he got rid of my uncle’s most important collaborators, like Monsignor José Erro, the rector of the Buenos Aires Cathedral, a saintly priest, whom he told by phone to resign and retire – without consideration, without thanks. I think he did this to show the clergy of Buenos Aires that the leadership of the Archdiocese was going to change radically. He swept away everything that suggested continuity with the preceding period, even if he was careful to preserve something of my uncle’s legacy.
The friendly auxiliary bishop suddenly became an evil archbishop?
Many were shocked that Bergoglio as Archbishop almost always put on a sullen, bitter, sad face, a “vinegar face”, as he calls it now when speaking about others. It was very impressive to see this face during liturgical celebrations. No one could explain the reason for this manner of appearance, which was hurtful to some. On the other hand, it was noticeable that after his election as Pope, he began to show a cheerful and jovial face, which was hardly ever seen before, so that some wondered whether his unfulfilled ambition to become Pope motivated him during his time in Buenos Aires. It was common for the faithful to comment on the sour face Bergoglio showed in all public activities. A parish priest he trusted half-jokingly half-seriously asked him not to make any more pastoral visits if he intended to appear with a “vinegar face”.
How did Bergoglio govern in Buenos Aires?
He began by distancing himself from everyone he did not know and who did not belong to his circle of friends, and was known for the fact that no one knew what he really thought, as he always told every interlocutor what he wanted to hear….
When did it become visible that the orthodox Bergoglio had become heterodox?
Not in the first years. But as time went on, he began to show signs of a certain “slackness”, not so much in what he said, but in what he did. He did not become truly heterodox until a year and a half after he took office as Archbishop in February 1998. That was a week before the official opening of the Jubilee Year 2000, at Christmas 1999. On that day, 18 December of that year, Bergoglio called on the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to celebrate a “Mass of the Millennium” (not the Jubilee) in anticipation of the papal initiative, which had nothing to do with the celebration of the universal Church.
I believe he did this to show the “world of the powerful” that he was independent enough to act independently of the universal Church, while respecting the form.
How did Bergoglio address the social problems?
On a social level, he gave increasing importance to relief work in the urban slums, which he later called the “Church on the move”, but with the recommendation – or requirement – that the focus should not be on spreading the faith or pastoral care of the sacraments.
How was his political impact?
Politically, he maintained relations with practically the entire spectrum, without committing himself to any particular sector. In this sense, the confrontation he had with the then President Néstor Kirchner was remarkable, probably because both were very similar personalities who wanted to keep all the power in their hands as much as possible.
How did the Buenos Aires seminary develop under Bergoglio?
From what I know from seminarians who were forced to transfer to other dioceses, the seminary – at that time one of the most important in the country in terms of academic formation – began to lower the level of theological formation and to accentuate “pastoral formation” – whatever that means. The result was that the new priests became more and more social workers, with one or two exceptions, but with a reduced theological and intellectual formation. Bergoglio forbade seminarians to wear the cassock, both inside and outside the seminary. He did the same in Rome, as Bishop of Rome.
Is it true that Bergoglio is said to have “covered up” homosexual abuses?
Unfortunately, yes, because this often concerned people who were close to him. The case of a priest whom he trusted very much and who was known for his homosexual tendencies was much talked about. Bergoglio “helped” him by sending him to Rome a few years before he became Pope, among other things because this allowed him to learn a lot of confidential information from the Holy See. One must not forget that these kinds of personalities tend to gather information of all kinds, information in which Bergoglio was interested.
Do you have first-hand information on such cases?
In April 2001, a few months after his elevation to Cardinal, an employee of the Universidad del Salvador, of which he was Grand Chancellor, informed him that a person very close to Bergoglio, who not only worked in this house of studies but was also a civil servant, had distributed pornographic photos to members of the university for fun. This person was able to continue working for several years without any problems, while the person who had brought this to Bergoglio’s attention was dismissed without cause a few months later.
In 2004, Bergoglio consecrated the famous Bishop of San Rafaél, Eduardo Taussig? Do you know him?
In the 1990s, I met Reverend Taussig, whom my uncle appointed pastor of San Lucas Church, a university parish for the entire archdiocese. Taussig came from a very distinguished family in the Catholic field. His father was an exemplary man. Taussig held on to sound doctrine and was a very good priest. After 2002 I had no more contact with him. Of course, I was surprised at the mismanagement of the seminary of his diocese, one of the best, if not the best in the country. It is obvious that he preferred to submit to the “boss” in the conflict between Bergoglio and his flock. In doing so, he showed a side that had never come to light before.
In connection with Bergoglio, everyone speaks of Peronism….
That Bergoglio is a Peronist is often said, but it is not true. It is true that after his election as Jesuit Provincial he was close to a Peronist group – the Guardia de Hierro. This went so far that he relinquished the direction and administration of the Universidad del Salvador and, in consultation with Father Pedro Arrupe, the Superior General of the Jesuits, handed it over to laymen, although he retained ultimate control. This experience did not end well a few years later, as it was impossible for two organisations – one political, the other religious – to co-exist in the same academic university environment. This experience gave rise to the myth that Bergoglio had been a member of this Peronist group. When Bergoglio encountered the Guardia de Hierro, he was already provincial, with a corresponding ecclesiastical position, so it would have been impossible for him to be involved in a political grouping.
What is the status of Peronism in the Argentine church?
Peronism had and still has a very bad reputation in the Argentine Church. Mainly because of serious mistakes on the part of Peronism and the Church, which led to a brutal confrontation in 1955, skilfully planned and manipulated by Britain. Why? To prevent the success of a political process that clearly identified itself with Catholic teaching in theory and practice: the introduction of Catholic religious education in public schools, the building of seminaries in several dioceses, the recognition of the missionary work of Catholic Spain in America, the holding of Eucharistic Congresses, the consecration of Argentina to Our Lady of Luján, etc. Eva Duarte de Perón, the wife of President Perón, was received with great solemnity by Pius XII when she travelled through Europe, in recognition of the work that the Argentine government was doing at that time.
Do you agree with this negative assessment of Peronism?
No. Peronism was the realisation and implementation of the Church’s social doctrine, from which its founder drew the inspiration for his political action and which he always publicly referred to as the basis of his politics. It is enough to read the posthumous text by Juan Domingo Perón that constitutes his political legacy – Argentine Model for the National Project -, the prayer he said in honour of Our Lady of Luján in the Plaza de Mayo on 15 November 1953, or the speeches of his second wife Eva Perón in Spain in 1947, in which Christianity is presented as the source and foundation not only of all social organisation, but also as the creator of culture and civilisation.
Was that piety or political tactics?
In both cases it was true piety. Even before he became president, Perón was a tertiary of the Mercedarian Order. He never hid this, so much so that the Mercedarian coat of arms was displayed at the entrance to his house in exile in Madrid. Eva Perón was a tertiary of the Franciscans. Until her death in July 1952, her confessor was Father Hernán Benítez, a former Jesuit. After her death, he never tired of talking about the deep Christian faith Eva Perón professed.
What do you personally think of Peronism?
I will tell you a personal experience. Perón died on Monday, 1 July 1974. A few days later I visited my uncle, who at that time was Bishop of Avellaneda, a diocese adjacent to the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. He told me that he celebrated Mass in the cathedral that day and the church was full of the faithful as if it had been a Sunday. A parishioner friend wrote down some of what my uncle said in the homily and gave it to me to read. The Gospel was from Matthew, where Christ says: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink”. My uncle said: “Today we can be sure that General Perón’s soul is resting in heaven, because he obviously fulfilled these words of the Gospel”. If Peronism had not existed, Argentina would almost certainly have become a satellite of the Soviet Union, like Cuba.
Was your uncle a Peronist?
My uncle had no sympathy for Perón. He was very suspicious of him. At that moment I asked him if he could give me a copy of the text, but he refused. That day he had spoken as a priest celebrating the mystery of the Eucharist, not as a bishop. While he greatly appreciated the theoretical aspects of Peronism with its deep Christian Catholic roots, he was never a Peronist.
Why was he suspicious?
I asked him a few times, but he never gave me a clear answer. It is true that Perón often acted with a cunning that was difficult to counter. He also made some mistakes like the conflict with the Church, even if that was a conflict with some bishops, never with the faith of the Argentine people, which was deeply Christian and Marian.
How can one characterise Peronism?
Beyond the person of Perón, his political movement represented and still represents the strongest and most concrete possibility of a political practice inspired by a doctrine that is profoundly Christian and humanist. Peronism was and is the Argentine way of creating a social and political system in which personal fulfilment goes hand in hand with the realisation of the country’s historical destiny, which is nothing other than the institutionalisation of an organised community in which everyone collaborates in the realisation of the common good, not just for a minority, but for everyone. Culturally, Peronism is the expression of a profound cultural nationalism that is not chauvinistic, but strives to gather the best of the world of spirit, ideas and senses of Western cultural history to combine with the peculiarities of the Argentine people, who have indigenous, Hispanic and Creole roots.
Why is Peronism controversial?
On the one hand, because of the aforementioned bloody confrontation in 1955, when there were Catholics who opposed Peronism at gunpoint and formed guerrilla organisations similar to those that followed in the 1960s. Militants who carried out a bomb attack on the government building in Buenos Aires identified themselves with the sign “Christ Is Victorious.”
On the other hand, serious mistakes were made on the side of Peronism, such as the conflict with the Church, which had to end badly for both sides, to the delight of international money imperialism, which has no ideology but is liberal, atheist, Marxist or progressive, depending on its opportunism. For 18 years, this power ruled the country, ousting both Peronism and the Church.
Today, the problem is that Peronism is taken for what we have seen since 1983, the year of the “restoration of democracy”, until today. But this is nothing but a caricature of this political movement, a bland, despicable progressivism, with the honourable exceptions that always exist. This decline can be compared to the present decline of the Church, administered by people who stand at the antipodes of the true Church of Christ.
Does Peronism consist in telling everyone what they want to hear?
You mention the caricature of Peronism here. Many believe that Perón spoke to everyone after his fall in 1955 and until his return to Argentina in 1973 because he was looking for them. In reality, he received those who wanted to talk to him. He never sought anyone, but everyone sought him, especially when the attempts to govern the country without Perón and Peronism had failed. Perón returned to his country without seeking revenge or retribution.
Did you personally have anything to do with Peronism?
Yes. When Perón returned to Argentina, I was 19 years old and had begun to join the circles that Bergoglio addressed. One of Perón’s sentences that particularly impressed me at the time was: “To make a revolution, you need either blood or time; if you want to save blood, you have to use time, and to save time, you have to be prepared to shed blood”. Since his return, Perón has never propagated the way of blood. But it is true that some have resorted to means in his name that he always rejected.
What was Cardinal Bergoglio’s relationship with the government?
Bergoglio flirted with the Peronist world, but he also flirted with the liberal and progressive world, always insofar as it was to his advantage. He always got on well with the governments of Buenos Aires, badly with President Kirchner, very well with his successor, Cristina Kirchner, to the point of getting her to meet with George Soros.
Recently Henry Sire (“The Dictator of Popes”) gave a long interview to Gloria.tv. What do you think of his book?
When the book came out, I was able to read some excerpts. I never held the whole book in my hands. I was surprised by the author’s knowledge and precision and impressed by the courage he showed in publishing it.
And his Gloria.tv interview?
I had the privilege of reading the interview in advance, thanks to the kindness of Gloria.tv, and I agree entirely with what Henry Sire said in both cases, less with what he says about Peronism. To understand Bergoglio, one has to take into account his links to the House of Rothschild via the Council for Integrative Capitalism. What Sire and others attribute to Bergoglio’s “Peronism” actually comes from Baroness Lynn Forester, the third wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild: the concept of inclusion, the cry of the poor and the cry of Mother Earth, etc., concepts familiar to the oligarchic world that this lady represents.
What is Bergoglio’s function in this Council?
Baroness Lynn Forester has said in an interview that her Council for Integrative Capitalism is the prose for which Bergoglio’s presence has made the music. Thus, Bergoglio is the buffoon of a plutocratic group that wants to give capitalism a “human face” because they are aware that they have become hyper-billionaires while 90% of the world’s population has received some crumbs from the wealth, we all produce. Bergoglio plays the political actor, more than the Vicar of Christ – a title he renounced in the 2020 edition of the Pontifical Yearbook. This is done based on Jesuitism, which retains the forms but gives away the contents. Bergoglio himself has said that in his decisions he relies “on his instinct and the Holy Spirit” and disregards Holy Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.
Are there any examples of this?
In 2014, he pushed for a meeting between then-President Cristina Kirchner with George Soros, which happened a few months later. But he never took an interest in an Argentine doctor who was convicted in 2018 by a provincial court (Rio Negro) for not performing an abortion – which was illegal but “allowed” by a ministerial order. This doctor saved two lives, that of a young mother who was about to have an abortion and was about to die, and the life of her son. Bergoglio also never encouraged pro-life movements that fought against the legalisation of abortion. In contrast, he sent encouraging words to left-leaning politicians facing criminal and civil cases, even if they were enemies of the Church.
Cardinal Bergoglio is said to have had secretaries who attended mass at Pius X. Bergoglio also seemed to defend the Society of Saint Pius X. How does this fit into the picture?
It has always been typical of him to play with opposites and to fall from one extreme to the other. One day he is orthodox, condemning abortion in front of a group of Catholic doctors and calling it a contract killing. The next day he receives Emma Bonino, or the Argentinean abortion president. This has always been Bergoglio’s cunning game. This way allows him not to be pigeonholed, even if this tactic is short-lived. Pure Jesuitism.
Jesuitism means duplicity…
Note that Bergoglio began his pontificate by calling spiritual secularisation and secularised spirituality the Church’s greatest problem, only to end up making the Church a secularised organisation: St. Peter’s Basilica as a museum, homosexual doctrine, attacks against the Church’s Tradition, Pachamana cult, etc. This is Jesuitism, which preserves the form of the “Jesuit” but without the content. The “Society of Jesus” has mutated into a “Society of Iscariot”.
Was Bergoglio’s tendency towards homosexualism already visible in Argentina?
As far as I know, no. That would have made it impossible for him to be elected Pope. There are known cases of priests who displayed such behaviour and could always rely on Bergoglio’s discreet protection. He only started doing this openly when he got to the Chair of Peter, for example, when he gave refuge and political and ecclesiastical protection to someone like Bishop Zanchetta.
Can you confirm that Francis selects extortionate and controllable collaborators?
Unfortunately, yes, and at all levels, apart from the fact that he has always surrounded himself with mediocre, submissive, and servile personalities. Bergoglio’s leadership style is that of a despot who allows neither contradiction nor independent judgement.
A personal question: You had three children, two of whom died. What do you say to parents who suffer such a terrible fate?
Through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the priest becomes “another Christ”, while through the Sacrament of Matrimony, we married people become God’s co-workers in the procreation of life. Psalm 127 says that God’s blessing and inheritance in life is given through children.
Losing a son at the age of 28, an extraordinary person full of goodness, as our son Juan José was, was for my wife and me the heaviest blow we had to take. Thanks to the faith we knew to increase throughout our lives, my wife was able to cling to the Blessed Mother and share in her pain at the foot of the cross from which the lifeless body of her divine Son was taken down.
I could feel a pain like that which God felt as a Father when He saw His Son on the way to death. He did not prevent this because He knew that this was how we humans would attain salvation after Christ’s resurrection. Immersing myself in this pain enabled me to cope with the heavy blow of finding my son dead on my doorstep, by his own choice, because he had given up hope of being able to cope with an illness he could not master.
Just as I suffered the great pain of his departure at that moment, God gave me the grace of consolation that I was allowed to share the divine pain of his son’s departure into death by allowing me to look with the eyes of faith into that world into which we go when we leave this world. In that world our Son lives surrounded by the saints who are with him for eternity. As I learned from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the secret of the Christian life is to transform an evil that we suffer into a good that bears fruit for others, because ultimately everything that happens to us in life is grace, if we live the faith fully as the Lord asks of us, with dignity and without comfort.
The departure of our son meant for me to show him every day the love and kindness he showed to everyone around him, in the hope that we can meet in heaven and merge in an eternal embrace after I have fulfilled on earth the mission to which God has called me for his greater honour and glory.
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
Condividi i miei articoli: