The Jesuits, Their Pope, and the Plan to Fundamentally Change the Roman Catholic Institution

The Jesuit Plan to Change the RC Institution, PDF format

The Jesuit pope Francis I, and the Jesuit Order, are following a careful plan to radically change and reshape the “Church” of Rome: to modernise it and make it more acceptable to the world, even though this necessitates altering or re-interpreting various long-accepted Romish doctrines and practices.

  This is recognised and admitted by well-placed men within the Vatican hierarchy.  One of them is no less a person than Benedict XVI, the so-called “pope emeritus”.  This is why in 2019 he blasted the “temptation” to create a “new Church” as a devilish temptation, and said that the “Church” of Rome must remain faithful to what it has always held and taught.[1]

 Another who sees what the Jesuits are doing is the archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò.  In 2013 he told Francis that the Jesuit Order in the U.S. had played a key role in secularising influential Roman Catholic universities there, and had frequently been in the forefront of an effort to change Roman Catholic teaching.  He said that if Francis could rein in the Jesuit Order, reform it, and restore it to “orthodoxy”, this would be a great gift to the Roman Catholic institution in the U.S. and worldwide.[2]

  Of course Francis did no such thing and had no intention of doing it.  As a faithful Jesuit himself, he would not oppose the orders of his Jesuit general, the “black pope” who is the real power in the Vatican.  Francis supports the Jesuit plans to the hilt.

The Jesuit Plan Goes Back Centuries and is Now Bearing Fruit

  The Jesuits, while always professing obedience to the pope of the day, have always gone their own way, doing just as they pleased, obeying only their own general.  Their profession of obedience to the pope is merely for public consumption.  They are a law unto themselves.  And they have frequently changed both tactics and direction so as to advance their own vision of what the Roman Catholic institution should be.  What is happening today is merely another such change.  But it is a profound one, with far-reaching implications globally. 

  And this plan, which is now coming to fruition, was hatched centuries ago! 

  Very few realise this, but Viganò does.  In 2019 he said: “Certainly it is a project, if you will, that goes back centuries, in particular, to the creation in the middle of the 1700s of freemasonry.  But of course this project was very deceptive, and oriented, or even included in some way, the forces of some members of the Church.  So this process was able to infiltrate in some way into the Church…. But this process became strikingly evident in modern times.”[3]

  Viganò was correct in believing that the Jesuit plan goes back centuries, and that Freemasonry was involved.  However, what he apparently did not know was that Freemasonry itself was, and is, under Jesuit direction.  True, it infiltrated the “Church” of Rome; but in actual fact the Jesuits themselves brought Masonic notions into the “Church” because they manipulated Masonry.  It is an error to assume, as so many do, that Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism have always been implacable enemies.  It all depends on which Roman Catholics one refers to.  Although some Jesuits were and are under orders to openly fight against Freemasonry, others were and are secretly working with it.  The Jesuits promoted the internationalist/Communist doctrines of Masonry because they controlled them – and they have used these doctrines to great effect in their plans for the world.  Viganò, then, was incorrect in assuming that only “some members of the Church” were involved with Masonry – there were a great many of them, particularly Jesuits.  

  But he was correct in discerning that it was the Jesuit plan to fundamentally alter the teachings and direction of the Roman Catholic institution, and that this plan was centuries old.

The Jesuit Manipulation of the Second Vatican Council 1962 – 1965

  Some years before the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, the Jesuits began to embrace extreme liberal and Socialist/Communist policies and practices which in times past were anathema within Roman Catholicism.  

  The world changed rapidly in the post-World War Two years, politically, socially and morally.  The Jesuit Order discerned that the modern world would pass the Papal system by unless that system changed with the times and embraced what the world had now embraced.  This is how the Papacy had always held on to its members, and how it has always sought to gain more members.  Roman Catholic journalist Robert Moynihan wrote: “While the Jesuits of prior centuries, beginning with their founder, St. Ignatius, had won eternal glory for their affirmation that the life of men is finally in the transcendent realm, in that Kingdom of God which is beyond our sight… many Jesuits of our time… increasingly concluded that they needed to engage the injustices of this life, this world, and to bring to humans the physical bread made of wheat, not the metaphysical bread consecrated and mystically transformed into the life-giving body of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[4]

  To this end, the Jesuits manipulated the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II as it is known, in the 1960s.  This Council brought about a revolution of thinking and theology within the Roman Catholic system.  The pope at the time was John XXIII, a pro-Communist pope, which suited the Jesuits well.  They were behind many of the Council’s radical documents.  They were ushering in a new order.

 Viganò said: “At the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, in 1962, a maneuver was able to nullify the decision taken by the general assembly of the bishops in St. Peter’s Basilica.  The bishops had rejected a proposal to put aside the schemas which had been prepared by the various offices of the Roman Curia, in order to draft new schema.

  “The maneuver to nullify the decision came especially through the offices of one very prominent member of the Society of Jesus [the Jesuits], Cardinal Augustin Bea.  He and others were able to convince Pope John XXIII to set aside the prepared schemas and replace them with other schemas prepared by theologians especially from northern Europe, Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, and others.  This was the beginning of an opening, the first break in the wall of the procedure that had been established, in the process of creating a new Church.”[5]

  Hans Küng was a Swiss Roman Catholic priest and theologian – but a liberal in theology, an advocate of interfaith dialogue and more, who rejected papal infallibility and was forbidden to teach theology.  Although not officially a Jesuit, he studied at a university operated by the Jesuits and is on record as having said, “No doubt that’s the reason it is so often said I am a Jesuit.  I’m quite flattered, of course.”[6]  Whether a Jesuit or not, he was a most useful tool in their hands.

  Karl Rahner was a German Jesuit priest and theologian, a liberal who was very influential at the Second Vatican Council, despite having been previously forbidden from publishing or lecturing without advance permission from Rome because of his views on the Roman Catholic eucharist and on Mariology.

  It is evident, therefore, that Jesuit behind-the-scenes intrigue gave certain liberal and Socialist Jesuit and Jesuit-oriented priests great influence and authority over the Second Vatican Council, which resulted in a huge shift in the approach of the Vatican to the world, to other religious institutions, and to Papist doctrine itself.  As Viganò said, they were literally “creating a new Church”.

After Vatican II

  The Roman Catholicism of the post-conciliar world was radically different in many respects from that of the pre-conciliar world, in Rome’s approach to the world: to politics, economics, social issues, etc.  This was the Jesuits’ plan all along.

  At first, and for a couple of decades after Vatican II, there was massive disruption, even disarray, within the ranks of the Jesuits, and in other religious orders.  Vatican II turned Roman Catholicism on its head, and many Jesuits and others were simply unprepared for the rapid changes which were taking place.  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote: “Almost overnight the pope’s light infantry [the Jesuits] became a battalion in which every man decided for himself which war he was fighting.  The result was an institutional nightmare: confusion and cowardice at the top; despair, rage, and disillusionment in the ranks.  American Jesuits went from 8,400 members in 1965 to 3,500 today [in 2012].”[7]  Although top Jesuits had manipulated and hugely influenced Vatican II, the Jesuit rank and file were not prepared for the massive upheaval it caused in their own ranks, not to mention throughout the Roman Catholic world.  For some years there was huge confusion and disillusionment.  Large numbers even left the priesthood.  The world they knew – the pre-Vatican II world – had been turned upside-down.  Only a comparative few were privy to the sinister reasons for these changes.

  In time, however, the long-term purpose of the Jesuits began to manifest itself, and things stabilised.  But Roman Catholicism now looked very different from what it had before Vatican II.  And things were going to change even more in the decades to come.  A seismic shift had occurred.  The aftershocks would be huge.

  After Vatican II the Jesuits continued to develop and expand their pro-Communist and doctrinally liberal agenda.  Moynihan wrote: “attracted by the task of conforming the [Roman Catholic] faith to the assertions of modern science, influenced by the speculations of Jesuits like Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and Fr. Karl Rahner, many tended increasingly to regard these Popes [i.e. Paul VI, John Paul I and II, and Benedict XVI], and their curias, as attached (regrettably) to a set of myths about Christ and his ‘Good News’ which (regrettably) prevented the Catholic Church, and the Jesuit order as the vanguard movement in the Church, from leading humanity into an era of social and political justice that would be endlessly postponed if the shackles of mysticism were not broken.”[8]

  This is why the Roman Catholicism of today is in many respects so different from that of the 1950s and earlier.  On paper, most of the old, traditional Roman Catholic beliefs are still there – but they are no longer given paramount place in Roman Catholic teaching.  The Jesuits have seen to it that the modern “Church” of Rome focuses primarily on issues of liberal/Socialist/Marxist politics, economics, and social justice.  The emphasis is now on this world, the making of a supposedly better world in the here and now, rather than on teaching about a world to come.  Spiritual theology is out; political liberation theology and social justice issues are in.

  Viganò said: “Essentially, the Jesuits came to believe that they had a different mission than their predecessors, a mission to struggle for justice in society, and not primarily to convert and save souls….  They came to believe that fighting for social justice should become their chief mission, not preaching Christ crucified.  So, almost imperceptibly at first, they turned away from the Gospel, replacing Christ with an ideal of social and economic justice.  That ideal, expressed in theological terms as Liberation Theology, was heavily influenced by Marxism, and that led to further deviations and departures from our tradition.  In this way, the greatest order in the Church was seduced.”[9]

  Again, Viganò was right about what had influenced the Jesuits in modern times.  But he was also wrong – and not just about the fact that the Jesuits ever preached the Gospel (for of course neither they, nor any other priests of Rome, ever have).  Yes, the Jesuits came to believe that in the world today they must “struggle for justice”, using Marxism disguised as “Christianity” in the form of the diabolical teachings of Liberation Theology.  And yes, they knew that this would be a different mission from that of their predecessors – but different only because changed times required them to follow new tactics!  It was a different mission as regards its approach and its tactics, but the same mission the Jesuits have always had: to conquer the world for the Papacy by any means.  Their belief is that by engaging in modern “social justice” causes, they will “convert souls” (to Romanism, not to true Christianity of course).

  That this mission of the Jesuits in modern society was and is an integral part of the Jesuit plan for world conquest is shown by the following words, spoken by the Jesuit general Pedro Arrupe in an address to the Jesuit Order in 1975: “The problem lies precisely in this, that that equilibrium and integration must be kept; thus it happens that activities that seem most distant from the priesthood, because they seem more secular or material, are assumed, integrated, directed and vivified by the very priestly character of the apostolic man.”[10]

   “Activities that seem most distant from the priesthood, because they seem more secular or material, are assumed, integrated, directed and vivified” by Jesuit priests!  But the important thing to understand is that this is not something new with the Jesuit Order: this is how they have always operated.

  Arrupe went on: “Therefore, that sacerdotal character that leads us to total identification with Christ and deeper union with Him automatically leads us to evangelize just as Christ Himself did, that is, by means of the cross; and in that evangelization to promote and accomplish properly the work of justice.”  Arrupe was saying that Marxist “social justice” causes were now a part of the Roman Catholic “gospel” and that therefore the Jesuits should be up to their dog-collared necks in them.  And he added this:

 “Is our General Congregation ready to take up this responsibility and carry it out to its ultimate consequences?  Is it ready to enter upon the more severe way of the cross, which surely will mean for us a lack of understanding on the part of civil and ecclesiastical authority and of our best friends?”

  Read that last part again!  The Jesuit general was saying to his shock troops that even those within the Roman Catholic hierarchy would not understand their “mission”, but that they must press ahead anyway.  And is not this precisely what Francis I has done, in obedience to his orders?

The Francis Pontificate: the Jesuit Plan Forges Ahead

  The Jesuits suffered setbacks under the pontificate of John Paul II, and they had major issues with Benedict XVI’s pontificate, but they were determined to have their own way in the end.  They continued to influence the entire Roman Catholic institution in a Communist direction, just as they had from the 1960s onwards.  And their plans culminated with the election of one of their own, the Jesuit cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio, in 2013.

  Viganò stated in 2019 that the Francis pontificate represented the achievement of a Jesuit plan dating back 60 years, i.e. to the beginning of the 1960s and the radical change which occurred with the pontificate of the Communist pope, John XXIII, and the Second Vatican Council.  Ponder the words of this knowledgeable archbishop of the Roman Catholic institution:

 “Let’s consider the history of the Jesuits…. What we are now seeing is the triumph of a 60-year-old plan, the successful execution of a well-thought out plan to bring a new sort of thinking into the heart of the Church, a thinking rooted in elements of Liberation Theology containing strands of Marxism, little interested in traditional Catholic liturgy or morality or theology, but rather focused on ‘praxis’ in the field of social justice.  And now this plan has achieved one of its supreme goals, with a Jesuit on the See of Peter”.[11]

  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote: “The German theologian Karl Rahner was able to exhort his fellow Jesuits: ‘You must remain loyal to the papacy in theology and in practice, because that is part of your heritage to a special degree, but because the actual form of the papacy remains subject, in the future too, to an historical process of change, your theology and ecclesiastical law has above all to serve the papacy as it will be in the future.’  See the move?  Our current Jesuits are all loyal to the papacy, but to the future papacy – that of Pope Chelsea XII, perhaps – and their support for contraception, gay sex, and divorce proceeds from humble obedience to this conveniently protean pontiff.”[12]

  This quote is very revealing.  It shows that the Jesuits have a long-term objective: to change the Papacy into an extreme Socialist/Communist institution.  They were, as the priest quoted above states, loyal to the Papacy – but to the Papacy they envisaged for the future!  They were loyal to their vision of what the Roman Papacy should be.  With typical Jesuit casuistry, they often worked in direct disobedience to previous popes of the modern era, yet were able to justify this by arguing that they were obeying what those popes should have been telling them to do! 

  And the Papacy they envisage for the future is a very different one from what it has been in past centuries.  They envisage a Papacy that is in step with modern society, and therefore permits priestesses; supports sodomy and sodomite priests; downplays divorce; is comfortable with contraceptives; and a whole host of other “progressive” positions.  That is why they manipulated things in 2013 so that one of their own members was elected as the first-ever openly Jesuit pope.  A man who rapidly, but with great care and subtlety for the most part (the occasional slips notwithstanding), began the process of radically altering the very nature of the Papacy.

  In this article brief mention will be made of just three major changes which the Jesuits are instituting:  changes to the definition of the family; the acceptance of “other roads” to God; and the acceptance of radical environmentalism.  This is because the western world has now radically changed with regard to all three.  But more could be added: the embracing of violent Marxism; planned changes to the priesthood; the alliance with the UN; etc.

The Jesuits Changing the Papal System: Accepting a Fundamental Change to the Definition of the Family

  Francis has come out in subtle but definite attacks on the institution of the family. 

  The powerful secretary of state in the Vatican, the cardinal Pietro Parolin, admitted that Francis is changing the very definition of, and approach to, the family – and that it was being resisted by many Roman Catholics – when he said: “After all, the document Amoris laetitia arose from a new paradigm that Pope Francis is pursuing with wisdom, prudence and even patience.  Probably, the difficulties that have arisen and still exist in the Church, beyond some aspects of the [document’s] content, are due precisely to this change in attitude that the Pope asks of us.  A paradigm shift, inherent in the very text itself, which is asked of us: this new spirit, this new approach!”[13]

  Divorce is an assault on the family.  On divorce, Francis has relaxed the strong prohibitions of traditional Roman Catholicism.  It clearly reveals the new direction in which the Jesuits are taking the “Church” of Rome.

  Abortion is another assault upon the family.  It has also always been an issue on which the Roman Catholic leadership has spoken out forthrightly.  Often hypocritically, but forthrightly.  Yet Francis, at the very time in history when abortion is becoming even more widely accepted throughout the world, has not taken the strong, unequivocal position against abortion which his predecessors did.  A definite “softening up” process is under way.

  Sodomy is yet another assault on the family.  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote, “In 1999 the American Jesuits decided to give priority to the recruitment of gays (under the rubric of ‘men comfortable with their sexuality’), and the majority of American formatores, Jesuits in charge of training, are homosexuals as well.”[14]  Francis has definitely begun to broaden the concept of the “family” itself, to open the way for possible acceptance of sodomite “marriage” in the future, among other things. 

  The reason for this shifting of the entire Papal system towards the acceptance, and even embracing, of sodomy is because this is what the world itself has done now; and to remain relevant in this world, Rome (as she has always done) will change with the times. 

The Jesuits Changing the Papal System: Accepting Other “Roads” to God

  Adam Littlestone-Luria, historian at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in September 2017: “With his new political and theological approach, Pope Francis is doing something truly revolutionary – he is reshaping the fundamental identity of Catholicism in the 21st century…. the pope’s open-minded acceptance of the legitimacy of other roads to God represents more than grudging acceptance of an increasingly diverse and secular reality.  It heralds a fundamental shift in the church’s aspirations.”[15]

  Other popes before him, since Vatican II, embraced the interfaith movement – but none so radically or wholeheartedly as Francis.  He has taken the interfaith movement to an entirely new level.

The Jesuits Changing the Papal System: Accepting Radical Environmentalism and a “Pagan Papal Pantheism”

  As the Vatican’s 2019 Amazon Synod drew near, conservative Roman Catholic theologians increasingly viewed it with deepening alarm.  Viganò said, “Where is the Christian [i.e. Roman Catholic] message here?”  And: “In fact, the figure of Christ is absent.  The Synod working document testifies to the emergence of as post-Christian Catholic theology, now, in this moment.  And this is very troubling.”[16]

  A German cardinal, Walter Brandmüller, a leading Roman Catholic historian, wrote the following in June 2019 in strong criticism of the preparatory working document for the Amazon Synod to be held in October 2019: “In principle, we must ask why a synod of bishops should deal with topics which, at best… relate only marginally to the Gospels and the Church.  Clearly, there is an encroaching interference here by a synod of bishops into the purely secular affairs of the Brazilian state and society.  What do ecology, economy, and politics have to do with the mandate and mission of the Church?  More importantly: what professional expertise authorizes an ecclesial synod of bishops to express itself on such topics?…

  “Furthermore, throughout the Instrumentum Laboris one finds a very positive assessment of natural religions, including indigenous healing practices, etc., even mythic-religious practices and cult forms.  In the context of the call for harmony with nature, for example, there is even talk about ‘dialogue with the spirits’….

  “It has to be emphatically stated that the Instrumentum Laboris (for the upcoming October 6-27 Synod on the Amazon Region) contradicts the binding teachings of the Church on decisive points, and is therefore to be qualified as heretical.  Inasmuch as the fact of Divine Revelation is here even being questioned or misunderstood, one must also speak of apostasy.”[17]

  That a leading cardinal-historian of the Roman Catholic institution dared to come out openly and speak of heresy and apostasy on this matter of the Amazon Synod indicated the depth of feeling which the Jesuit pope was stirring up in those leading Papists who held to the traditional teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic institution, and opposed what the Jesuits were seeking to do to their “Church”.

Is the Roman Catholic Institution Going to Split?

  Incredibly, the following words have been attributed to Francis I:

  “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

  The words are attributed to Francis by journalist Walter Mayr, writing in 2016. Francis was said to have spoken them to members of his inner circle, and they were later repeated to Mayr.  The Vatican neither confirmed nor denied the remark.[18]

  Whether or not Francis said those words, he definitely said the following on September 10, 2019, while on the papal plane during a press conference on board – and they show that it is entirely possible he really did say what is attributed to him above: “I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health.  Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian…. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine.  It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it…. And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them.”[19]

  What is going on? 

  A Roman Catholic commentator using the pseudonym “Luxsit”, on the website Lifesitenews, hit the nail on the head.  Obviously a conservative Papist, this commentator wrote: “I think it is likely we [i.e. conservative Roman Catholics] are being set up to be labeled the scapegoat ‘schismatics’ when the Vatican officially becomes apostate (and the real schismatics), though the groundwork was laid decades ago.  In the eyes of the world, that will support the Vatican’s claims that anything orthodox is ‘outside the Church.’”

  Responding to this comment, another likeminded Papist, under the pseudonym “Borghesius”, wrote: “I believe you are spot on here.  The liberals could have split off from the Church at any time in the previous 4 pontificates: they have been in a de facto schism ever since the (dissenting) response to Humanae Vitae.  But Francis gives them the opportunity, and they want it to appear, that THEY are Church and the Catholics are splitting off from them.  That way they get the money, power, property, and can claim to be the Catholic church when by belief they are nothing of the sort.”[20]

  Remembering these comments were written by Papists and that according to Scripture, both sides – conservative and liberal Papists – are heretical, and that Rome is not becoming apostate but never has been Christian in any sense, they are still correct in that conservative, traditional Papists are being set up to be labelled as the “schismatics”; that as liberal, Jesuit-manipulated Papists increasingly come to dominate and control all aspects of the life of the “Church”, traditional, conservative Papists will be rejected as being schismatics, heretics and unorthodox.

  So is a split actually possible?

  According to well-informed Vatican journalist, Robert Moynihan, it is.  He wrote: “In fact, several indications suggest that a break – a schism – between conservative Catholics and Pope Francis (and his top advisors) may be imminent.”[21]  And if it occurs, it will be precisely because of the direction the Roman pope has been taking the “Church” ever since he was chosen as pope.

  It would appear that for Roman Catholics who have themselves imbibed the liberal/Socialist spirit of the age, Francis is doing a very good job, and they are content with the way he is leading the “Church”.  But voices are being raised in criticism of him and the direction he is going.  At this stage these voices are confined mostly to a small number of conservative Roman Catholic websites, most of which are based in the United States, although others are to be found in Italy, Spain, England, Poland, etc.  But in addition to these, opposition to Francis has been building up even within the Vatican itself, and there is a small group of cardinals and bishops who increasingly speak out against him.

  Only time will tell.  But these are momentous times for the Papacy, and for the entire Roman Catholic world.

March 2020

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

Contending for the Faith Ministries
695 Kentons Run Ave
Henderson, NV 89052
United States of America


[1]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”

[2]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”

[3]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”

[4]. The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”

[5]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”

[6]. Claude-Francois Jullien, Commonweal, April 9, 1971.  Article:  “An Interview with Hans Küng.”

[7]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”

[8]. The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”

[9]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 26, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part 1.”

[10]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 26, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part 1.”

[11]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, 31 July 2019.  Article: “Jonah.”

[12]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”

[13]. Pietro Parolin, in an interview with Vatican News, January 11, 2018.

[14]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”

[15]. Adam Littlestone-Luria, The Washington Post, September 24, 2017.

[16]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, 31 July 2019.  Article: “Jonah.”

[17]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”

[18]. Walter Mayr, Der Spiegel, December 23, 2016.

[19]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”

[20]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”

[21].  Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”