AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

NOTICE TO ALL READERS OF ABYSSUM
The letter posted immediately below is so vitally important for the resolution of the present Crisis in the Church that for awhile I will not be posting new posts independently  of this blog  BUT WILL INSTEAD ADD THEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS LETTER.  New Posts will be added daily as an addition to this letter.  To read the new posts simply press the “page down” button on your computer keyboard and scroll down to the new daily posts.
Until further notice it will not be possible to accept comments on Abyssum. 
Blessings,
+Rene Henry Gracida
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AN OPEN LETTER

TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL

IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.

Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. 
So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.  If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.  
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead.  This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.]
This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.  Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
 This is so because:
 
1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;
2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,
3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:
each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”
Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]   
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.
Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony:   “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  His Holiness made an exception for simony.  Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.

While it is not necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis in order to construe or to interpret its plain meaning, the first source to which one would look is the immediately prior constitution which Universi Dominici Gregis abrogated or replaced.  Pope John Paul II replaced entirely what Pope Paul VI had legislated in the immediately previous Constitution on conclaves, Romano Pontfici Eligendo, but in so doing, Pope John Paul II used Romano Pontfici Eligendo as the format or pattern for His new constitution on conclaves.  Making obvious changes, nonetheless, Pope John Paul II utilized the content and structure of his predecessor’s constitution to organize and outline Universi Dominici Gregis.  Therefore, while it is not legally necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis, the primary reference to an extraneous source of construction would entail an examination of Romano Pontfici Eligendo, and that exercise (bolsterd by the use of the key word “scienter” in the Promulgation Clause) would reinforce the broad principle of invalidity.

Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:
Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:
Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]

       

Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.  Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error.

        It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013.
Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different than Orthodox Christians.
In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum.
This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its
Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”]  the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”.
So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely.
In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.)
In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.  
       
May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Signed:  Nom de plume
               Friend of the Popes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE CATHOLIC THING

Rome Failed on McCarrick – and Needs to Change

Representatives of the American bishops have now met with Pope Francis to discuss the much-needed investigation of the McCarrick Affair. This is understandable since any process involving the ex-cardinal and other prelates requires papal permission. It’s one thing to ask the pope’s support for an investigation, however, and quite another to trust Vatican officials to run it, given what we now know.

Because we now know – from former Metuchen Bishop P.G. Bootkoski and from Cardinal Leonardo Sandri – that the Vatican Secretariat of State received credible allegations against McCarrick over a decade ago. Yet the Vatican did not deprive him of access to seminarians and priests. Therefore, an investigation focused on McCarrick and the American bishops risks ignoring the pivotal role of higher-ranking officials in Rome.

Bootkoski recently acknowledged that in December 2005 he informed then U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, of three complaints against McCarrick. The accusations involved inappropriate physical contact with a priest as well as sexually touching seminarians. Two of these allegations resulted in financial settlements.

An October 2006 letter has come to light in which Sandri, who worked directly under the Cardinal Secretary of State, referred to “serious matters” involving seminarians at Seton Hall, which had been reported to Montalvo by Fr. Boniface Ramsey in 2000. Ramsey has repeatedly claimed he informed the nuncio of allegations that McCarrick harassed seminarians and shared a bed with them at his beach house.

The Secretariat of State, therefore, received credible allegations in 2000 and 2005 that McCarrick harassed and “groomed” priests and seminarians, sexually exploiting the latter. If Rome investigated, they should now share the results and save us the trouble of repeating their work. If they didn’t investigate, they need to account for their failure to protect seminarians and priests.

Even if Rome did investigate, another crucial question arises: were dioceses notified of the allegations and the possibility their seminarians and priests had been exploited? That would include any diocese that used seminaries frequented by McCarrick, especially the seminaries where he resided after 2005. Minors might have been at risk since incoming college seminarians can be under 18.

*

Cardinal Wuerl insists that neither he nor the Archdiocese of Washington knew of the allegations. This would mean Rome said nothing. To confirm Rome’s silence, Catholics and journalists should ask Cardinal Dolan whether he or the Archdiocese of New York were notified.

Note that Bootkoski’s statement and Sandri’s letter were not written to support the recent testimony of Archbishop Viganò. In fact, he accused both of cover-ups. Unlike Viganò, their testimonies to Rome’s knowledge of the allegations were not meant to suggest Vatican complicity in the McCarrick Affair.

Whatever the original intention, however, Sandri’s letter now constitutes documentary evidence that Ramsey spoke to Montalvo in 2000. The letter also implies that the Secretariat of State deemed those concerns credible no later than 2006.

Furthermore, Bootkoski’s statement proves that allegations were judged credible since payments were made based on them. Unfortunately, his statement provides only a summary of the memo he sent to the nuncio in 2005, which was presumably forwarded to the Secretariat of State.

The reason offered for presenting a summary is that “the claimants have not given the diocese permission” to publish the detailed allegations. Perhaps the diocese or journalists could ask the claimants to allow the memo to be published, redacting any portions the claimants wished to keep confidential. That way, the public could see documentary evidence of Bootkoski’s report to the Vatican.

Unless Sandri had been protecting McCarrick, he would have promptly notified the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of the allegations forwarded by the nuncio from Ramsey and Bootkoski. By the time Sandri wrote the 2006 letter, he would have informed the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

We don’t have evidence that the allegations in 2000 or 2005 reached St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or – prior to recent revelations – Francis. Yet if the popes were not informed, Vatican officials obviously cannot be now relied on to oversee the upcoming investigation.

The Secretariat’s failure to investigate the matter or to report the allegations to affected dioceses as part of an investigation would demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of priests and seminarians, including minors.

A bishop exploiting seminarians and priests for his own gratification is an outrage that cries to heaven. How could the Secretariat of State have turned away? And did no other Vatican offices receive reports? Were there legitimate reasons an investigation was not initiated or proved inconclusive?  After decades of abuse scandals, how could officials not have recognized the gravity of the accusations? Or were some officials willing to tolerate these monstrous evils?

Answers and accountability are vital for Catholics everywhere, not only in America. In Chile, cries of Catholics were repeatedly ignored or denounced by Rome. Eventually, Chile’s bishops offered to resign, but no Vatican officials followed their example. That scenario must not be repeated.

These circumstances make it impossible for the Vatican to act as a credible guarantor of the forthcoming review of the McCarrick Affair. The pope’s approval and cooperation are necessary, but since American bishops and Vatican officials are under scrutiny now, the investigative process must be independent of both. For the investigation to be effective the pope will need to cooperate by freeing Church officials from the Pontifical Secret and directing them to answer legitimate questions from investigators.

The review should be transparent and overseen by a board comprised of laity, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops. That way the entire Church would be represented in assessing and remedying the problems. That should involve exonerating the innocent, punishing the guilty, repairing the harm, and changing administrative structures and policies. A board like this could become a model for dealing with other failures by bishops and the Vatican.

 

*Image: The Penitent Saint Jerome by Lorenzo Lotto, c. 1514 [National Museum of Art, Bucharest]

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently the administrator of St. Mary’s in the city of West. His studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

“Quaerere Deum.” Twelve Years Ago On the Dot, the September 12 of the Church of Benedict

Dreher
*

That “The Benedict Option” is truly “the most important religious book of the decade” – as David Brooks predicted in the “New York Times” – is now beyond a doubt, seeing how the discussion it has generated has come to involve even the highest levels of the Catholic Church.

In presenting this book last week in the chamber of deputies of the Italian republic, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Joseph Ratzinger’s secretary before and after his resignation from the papacy, in fact did not hesitate to bring to the field the two most recent popes, because – he said – “even Benedict XVI from the moment of his resignation conceived of himself as an elderly monk who feels it his duty to dedicate himself above all to prayer for Mother Church, for his successor Francis and for the Petrine ministry instituted by Christ himself.”

Of course, the Benedict of the “option” – in the book by the American former Catholic and now Orthodox Rod Dreher – is not pope Ratzinger, but Saint Benedict of Norcia, the great monk of the fifth and sixth centuries who gave rise to a formidable rebirth of Christian faith and culture in the chaos that followed the collapse of the Roman empire. But the other Benedict, the pope, evoked precisely that rebirth in his memorable address – absolutely worth rereading – of September 12, 2008 in Paris, at the Collège des Bernardins, essentially proposing that the Catholics of today take up and bring to life again the lesson of that great Benedictine monasticism, at the present juncture of civilization:

> “Quaerere Deum”

About Pope Francis, however, it cannot be said that he finds himself in harmony with this vision, according to at least two indications.

The first is the direct attack that “La Civiltà Cattolica” carried out last January on the book by Dreher, dismissing its “option” as the heresy of a Christianity made up only of the “pure”:

> Saint Benedict in the 21st Century. But “La Civiltà Cattolica” Condemns Him to the Stake

It must be kept in mind that “La Civiltà Cattolica,” directed by the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, is not just any magazine, but is printed after every one of its articles has been inspected at the Vatican, and has with the current pope a relationship of the closest symbiosis.

But then there is that other indication, which is the cold shower with which Francis has doused monasticism, with the apostolic constitution “Vultum Dei quaerere” of 2016 and with the subsequent applicational instruction “Cor orans” of 2018, undermining the material and spiritual autonomy of the monasteries and requiring them to federate under the bureaucratic command of authorities outside of themselves.

The two documents concern female monasticism, but they are the expression of a more general lack of appreciation that Francis has repeatedly shown for the contemplative life with respect to the active life, going so far as to say for example, in the exhortation “Gaudete et exsultate” on the call to holiness in the contemporary world:

“It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service… We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action.”

The heavy-handedness of this attack on the contemplative life has been noted with great concern in many monasteries, to which expression has been given by the vaticanista Aldo Maria Valli in this three-part analysis, published in a few days ago:

> Qualcuno vuole liquidare il monachesimo?
> Se nel nome del rinnovamento si distrugge la vita contemplativa
> Con lo sguardo rivolto al mondo, non a Dio. Ovvero come snaturare la vita contemplativa

Naturally, all is not sunny in modern-day Benedictine monasticism, especially in the men’s communities, which are marked here and there by lapses and degeneracies that are in some cases quite serious. But Dreher’s proposal, and even more authoritatively that of Benedict XVI in the address at the Collège des Bernardins, wager everything on that “quaerere Deum,” that “seeking God” which is uniquely at the origin of the monastic life in addition to being a wellspring of civilization, and today must be revived in its creative authenticity.

It is no coincidence that the latest book by Cardinal Robert Sarah – who shares this vision and is well known to be at the polar opposite of Pope Francis’s approach – bears the characteristically monastic title “Against the Dictatorship of Noise,” includes an illuminating conversation with the prior of the Grande Chartreuse, and opens with a preface by Joseph Ratzinger:

> Cardinal Sarah Has the Pope On His Side. But His Name Is Benedict

Dreher’s “option” leaves itself open to not a few criticisms, especially on account of its insistence on an “escape” from the world in order to rebuild Christian existence in small, self-contained communities, as in “an ark before the flood comes,” as Reggio Emilia bishop Massimo Camisasca objected. In discussing the book in the author’s presence in Rome, this criticism was aimed at Dreher by both the director of “L’Osservatore Romano,” Giovanni Maria Vian, and the founder of the newspaper “Il Foglio,” Giuliano Ferrara, a great secular admirer of Ratzinger.

Dreher’s response is that in any case “we ordinary Christians must work to make our faith more monastic.”

But that’s just the point. The great monasticism founded by Benedict did not separate itself from the world. On the contrary, it made a decisive contribution to building modern European civilization, founded on the concepts of the person and of freedom.

If today the “dictatorship of relativism” unmasked by Benedict XVI reigns supreme, it is inevitable that the two linchpins of the person and of freedom will also fall apart. But this is one more reason why Christians as a “creative minority” should not withdraw in private or into works of charity – as the world desires and applauds – but should continue to work in the public sphere, in the light of “quaerere Deum.” Doing precisely what Pope Benedict always preached with consistency, not only in the address at the Collège des Bernardins that marked the pinnacle of his pontificate.

Since that address of September 12, 2008 precisely ten years have gone by. If it is true that the Catholic Church as well has had “its September 11” – as Monsignor Gänswein said in commenting on Dreher’s book, referring to the catastrophe of sexual abuse – why not also mark on the calendar of history that September 12, as the start of a journey of rebirth for Christianity and civilization?

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

———-

POSTCRIPT – Rod Dreher’s comment on this post:

> Benedict Option & The Church of The Future

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brother of Woman Accusing Kavanaugh of Harassment Worked for Planned Parenthood “Dirty Tricks” Group

NATIONAL   CHERYL SULLENGER   SEP 18, 2018   |   1:20PM    WASHINGTON, DC

More suspicious connections have surfaced that raise additional questions about the motivation behind the recent allegations of high school sexual misconduct leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford.

According to blog sites PacificPundit.com and TruePundit.com, Ford’s brother, Ralph Blasey III, once worked for the law firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP, but left that firm in 2004.

The Daily Caller reported that Baker & Hostetler paid a company called Fusion GPS seven payments totaling more than a half million dollars in 2016.

Fusion GPS is better known as the producer of the fake Russian dossier on then-candidate Donald J. Trump.

Fusion GPS was also the shadowy Democrat “dirty tricks” group hired by Planned Parenthood to produce the fake forensic analysis that supposedly “debunked” the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos. The series of CMP videos released in 2015 showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the best price for aborted baby body parts.

In much the same way Fusion GPS’s fake Trump dossier served as the basis to support FISA warrants seeking to spy on Carter Page, their fake forensic analysis was used by the National Abortion Federation to serve as the basis for a request for a federal gag order on the release of future CMP baby parts videos that was granted by Judge William Orrick.

Obviously, Ralph Blasey III ended his tenure with Baker & Hostetler long before the payments to Fusion GPS were recorded, but the connection is disturbingly coincidental.

Does Blasey sill have contacts inside Baker & Hostetler? Was Fusion GPS involved in some way with bringing forth Ford’s scandalous allegations against Kavanaugh?

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

We believe that this should be fully investigated to determine the extent of Blasey’s involvement, if any.

In another suspicious connection, Ford’s attorney Deborah Katz also serves as vice president on the board of the group Project On Government Oversight (POGO), according to FrontPageMag.com. POGO is funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, according to Forbes.com.

Katz is also a heavy donor to Democrat causes, including Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

How was it that this politically connected attorney just happened to become Ford’s attorney at a time when she said she had no plans to go public with her allegations against Kavanaugh?

There are just too many coincidental connections between Ford and high-profile Democratic operatives. Consider that with Ford’s own left-leaning political activism, and it starts to appear unlikely that all that could be coincidental. There’s just too much smoke for there to be no fire.

Are the Ford allegations just another page from the Democrat play-book to smear and defame those who pose a threat to abortion, their sacred cow? Are the attacks an attempt to drive Kavanaugh from power and thereby protect the unfettered right to abortion?

We call for a full investigation of those involved in putting forth Ford’s allegations, including her attorney Deborah Katz and Sen. Diane Feinstein. We also call for an investigation into her brother to determine whether he was also involved, especially with Fusion GPS.

The American people deserve to know the truth.

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Featured Image
John-Henry WestenJohn-Henry WestenFollow John-Henry

NEWS

Cardinal raises question: Is Pope Francis part of Church’s ‘final trial’?

UTRECHT, Netherlands, May 7, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Dutch cardinal has said that Pope Francis’ failure to uphold the Church’s authentic faith makes him think of the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s prophecy of a “final trial” for the Church before the second coming of Christ.

Cardinal Willem Eijk, 64, the Archbishop of Utrecht, made the startling comment in an article published today at the National Catholic Register.

Eijk, who was created a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, got his medical degree before ordination to the priesthood and went on to complete three PhDs in medicine, philosophy and theology.

In the article, the Cardinal laments Pope Francis’ failure to bring clarity on the question of intercommunion with Protestants during last week’s meeting at the Vatican with German bishops. The Pope told the German bishops to obtain unanimous approval on the issue, but, says Cardinal Eijk, he should have simply reminded them of the Church’s clear doctrine and practice.

“By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful and the unity of the Church is endangered,” he said.

“Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” he wrote.

That article of the Catechism, which he quoted in full, warns of a trial that will “shake the faith of many believers.” It prophesies a persecution that will “unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

Cardinal Eijk warned publicly last year that by failing to clarify Church teaching over divorce and remarriage, Pope Francis was “fracturing” the Church.

He is not the first Cardinal to recognize the confusion in the Church caused by Pope Francis as a sign of the end times. At the Rome Life Forum last year, the late Cardinal Carlo Caffarra spoke of the confusion in the Church around marriage and the family as the fulfillment of a prophecy he received.

In a letter Cardinal Caffarra received from Sr. Lucia, the Fatima visionary wrote that the “final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Do not be afraid, (she added), because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue.”

That final battle, he said at the Rome Life Forum, “is being fulfilled today.”

Cardinal Burke too has identified the confusion and error in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis with the end times. “One may have the feeling that the Church gives the appearance of being unwilling to obey the mandates of Our Lord,” Cardinal Burke said in an interview with the Catholic Herald in November. “Then perhaps we have arrived at the End Times.”

RELATED: Cardinal says Pope’s response to German intercommunion proposal is ‘incomprehensible’

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands.
Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands. (YouTube)
BLOGS |  MAY. 7, 2018
Cardinal Eijk: Pope Francis Needed to Give Clarity on Intercommunion
COMMENTARY: Failure to give German bishops proper directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church, points to a drift towards apostasy from the truth.

The German bishops’ conference voted by a large majority in favor of directives which entail that a Protestant married to a Catholic may receive the Eucharist after meeting a number of conditions: he must have carried out an examination of conscience with a priest or with another person with pastoral responsibilities; he must have affirmed the faith of the Catholic Church, as well as having wished to put an end to “serious spiritual distress” and to have a “desire to satisfy a longing for the Eucharist.”

Seven members of the German bishops’ conference voted against these directives and sought the opinion of some dicasteries of the Roman Curia. The consequence was that a delegation from the German bishops’ conference spoke in Rome with a delegation from the Roman Curia, including the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The response of the Holy Father, given through the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the delegation of the German Conference, that the Conference should discuss the drafts again and try to achieve a unanimous result, if possible, is completely incomprehensible. The Church’s doctrine and practice regarding the administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Protestants is perfectly clear. The Code of Canon Law says about this:

“If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.” C.I.C./1983, can. 844 § 4 (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) no. 1400).

This therefore applies only to emergencies, especially where there is a risk of death.

Intercommunion is, in principle, only possible with Orthodox Christians, because the Eastern Churches, although not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have true sacraments and above all, by virtue of their apostolic succession, a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist (CCC no 1400, C.I.C./1983 can. 844, § 3). Their faith in the priesthood, in the Eucharist and also in the Sacrament of Penance is equal to that of the Catholic Church.

However, Protestants do not share faith in the priesthood and the Eucharist. Most German Protestants are Lutheran. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which implies the conviction that, in addition to the Body or Blood of Christ, bread and wine are also present when someone receives them. If someone receives the bread and wine without believing this, the Body and Blood of Christ are not really present. Outside this moment of receiving them, there remains only the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are not present.

Obviously, the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation differs essentially from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which implies the faith that what is received under the figures of bread and wine, even if administered to someone who does not believe in transubstantiation and even outside the moment of administration, remains the Body or Blood of Christ and that it is no longer the substances of bread and wine.

Because of these essential differences, communion should not be administered to a Protestant, even if married to a Catholic, because the Protestant does not live in full communion with the Catholic Church and, therefore, does not explicitly share faith in her Eucharist. The differences between faith in consubstantiation and that of transubstantiation are so great that one must really demand that someone who wishes to receive Communion explicitly and formally enters into full communion with the Catholic Church (except in case of danger of death) and in this way explicitly confirms his acceptance of the faith of the Catholic Church, including the Eucharist. A private examination of conscience with a priest or with another person with pastoral responsibilities does not give sufficient guarantees that the person involved really accepts the faith of the Church. By accepting it [the Eucharist], the person can, however, do only one thing: enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.

The draft directives of the German bishops’ conference suggest there are only a few cases of Protestants, married to Catholics, who would like to receive Communion by making use of these directives. However, experience shows that in practice these numbers will generally increase. Protestants who are married to Catholics and see other Protestants married to Catholics receiving Communion will think they can do the same. And in the end even Protestants unmarried to Catholics will want to receive it. The general experience with this type of adjustment is that the criteria are quickly extended.

Now the Holy Father has informed the delegation of the German episcopal conference that it must discuss again the draft proposals for a pastoral document on, among other things, administering Communion, and try to find unanimity. Unanimity about what? Assuming that all members of the German bishops’ conference, after having discussed them again, unanimously decide that Communion can be administered to Protestants married to a Catholic (something that will not happen), will this — while being contrary to what the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church say in this regard — become the new practice in the Catholic Church in Germany? The practice of the Catholic Church, based on her faith, is not determined and does not change statistically when a majority of an episcopal conference votes in favor of it, not even if unanimously.

What the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church say should have been the reaction of the Holy Father, who is, as the Successor of Saint Peter “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium no. 23). The Holy Father should have given the delegation of the German episcopal conference clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church. He should have also responded on this basis to the Lutheran woman who asked him on November 15, 2015 if she could receive Communion with her Catholic spouse, saying that this is not acceptable instead of suggesting she could receive Communion on the basis of her being baptized, and in accordance with her conscience. By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful and the unity of the Church is endangered. This is also the case with cardinals who publicly propose to bless homosexual relationships, something which is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of the Church, founded on Sacred Scripture, that marriage, according to the order of creation, exists only between a man and a woman.

Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church’s ultimate trial

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

+Willem Jacobus Cardinal Eijk

Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands

Utrecht, 5 May 2018

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Catholic Church Is Breaking Apart. Here’s Why.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl bishop Catholic priest abuse scandal

Cardinal Donald Wuerl walks between rows of Catholic clergy as he leaves the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on February 20, 2016.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Pope Francis, Cardinal Wuerl, Theodore McCarrick, and the crisis of a church divided.

Consider what we know, and what has been alleged, about Pope Francis, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and disgraced former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

For several decades, Father, Bishop, Archbishop, and eventually Cardinal McCarrick preyed sexually on the priests and seminarians serving under his authority. There are credible allegations he abused boys as young as 11. To the extent that this behavior was a secret within the American church, it was very badly kept. Between 2005 and 2007, three dioceses in New Jersey paid out large cash settlements to keep allegations of abuse by McCarrick quiet. As Bishop Steven Lopes said in a homily first reported by First Things, “I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew.”

McCarrick ended his career as cardinal of the Washington, D.C., archdiocese and was succeeded by Archbishop Donald Wuerl, who arrived having just served as bishop of Pittsburgh. Wuerl’s former diocese has been in the news recently after the release of a grand jury report by the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office outlining decades of abuse by priests in the state.

As Wuerl arrived in Washington in 2006, McCarrick retired to the Redemptoris Mater seminary and was later ejected and sent to the Institute of the Incarnate Word seminary, both of which lay within Wuerl’s jurisdiction. In or about 2009, Pope Benedict XVI placed McCarrick under some sort of sanction. (The exact nature of the sanction is still unknown, but it seems to have been something like house arrest. It is also unclear when, exactly, Benedict first learned about McCarrick or how much time passed before he acted.) Yet somehow Wuerl insists that he knew nothing about any of this until June 2018, when the McCarrick firestorm exploded into public view.

Wuerl’s defense is that he is not an evil man who looked the other way about the behavior of a known sexual predator, but merely an incompetent dolt. And Wuerl seems to think that being guilty of gross incompetence should entitle him to keep his job. A responsible leader of good character would have walked away in disgrace the moment he learned of these scandals. Wuerl’s first public comment on the McCarrick story was to say, “I don’t think this is some massive, massive crisis.” On literally the same day that the Pennsylvania grand jury report was released, Wuerl’s diocese launched a barrage of defensive propaganda in the form of a new website, “The Wuerl Record.” It was quickly taken down when it became clear that it was hurting the cardinal’s reputation rather than helping it. Then Wuerl called for “a season of healing” with special Masses in his archdiocese. The best that can be said of Wuerl is that his crisis PR handling has bolstered the incompetence defense.

It was only after a month of trying to cling to his job that Wuerl said he plans to fly to Rome to discuss his future with Pope Francis. Francis has yet to say or do anything about Wuerl despite the fact that, as do all cardinals over the age of 75, Wuerl had a letter of resignation on file with the Vatican. Francis could have disposed of him in an afternoon without having to do anything more complicated than accept a pre-existing letter.

Those are the facts we know. None of them are in dispute.

Then there are the allegations: On August 25, 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganòpublished a letter in which he claimed that he had been party to several attempts to make the Vatican aware of McCarrick’s abuses over the years; that he had personally discussed them with Wuerl; and that Pope Francis—knowing full well all of the above—rescinded the house-arrest order of his predecessor, made McCarrick his “trusted counselor,” and, at McCarrick’s behest, began elevating certain bishops—such as Blase Cupich and Joseph William Tobin—to positions of power in the American church.

If true, this would mean that we have one cardinal who was a sanctioned sexual predator, (at least) one cardinal who turned a blind eye to this man’s crimes as they were happening within his jurisdiction, and a pope who didn’t just look the other way but took affirmative steps to help both the criminal and his enabler.

And if all of that is true, well, then what? The potential answers to this question aren’t very nice. They include: schism, the destruction of the papacy, and a long war for the soul of the Catholic church. Because the story of Theodore McCarrick isn’t just a story about sexual abuse. It’s about institutions and power.

The abuse itself is terrible, of course. We should say that out loud, because while the details are unspeakable they must be spoken of. Without the release of the Pennsylvania grand jury report, we would know much less about the evil inside the church. (It is also instructive to note that authorities within the church opposed the release of this report.) But individual priest-abusers aren’t catastrophic to the church in any structural way. Predators will always be among us. It is a human pathology from which not even priests are immune. But the remedy for predation is straightforward: Whenever and wherever such men are discovered, they should be rooted out and punished.

The institutional damage is done not by the abusers but by the structures that cover for them, excuse them, and advance them. Viewed in that way, the damage done to the Catholic church by Cardinal Wuerl—and every other bishop who knew about McCarrick and stayed silent—is several orders of magnitude greater than that done by McCarrick himself.

By way of analogy, consider the dirty cop. About once a week we see evidence of police officers behaving in ways that range from the imprudent to the illegal. It has no doubt been this way since Hammurabi deputized the first lawman. But while individuals might be harmed by rogue cops, the system of law enforcement isn’t jeopardized by police misbehavior. The damage to the system comes when the other mechanisms of law enforcement protect, rather than prosecute, bad cops. If that happens often enough, citizens can eventually decide that the system is broken and take to the ballot box to reform it. The laity have no such recourse with the church.

WELL.v24-03.2018-09-24.Last-1.Jonathan-Newton_WashingtonPost_Getty.jpg

Pope Francis gives Theodore McCarrick a hug following a service in Washington, D.C., in September 2015.
Jonathan Newton / Washington Post / Getty

The Catholic church is unlike any other earthly institution. It is strictly hierarchical, with its ultimate power derived from the son of God. The head of the church—the successor of Peter—is elected to a lifetime appointment by his peers, and his authority over them is total. He can allow them to carry on sexual affairs in broad daylight, as Francis did with Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a priest who worked for years in the Vatican curia while living openly with his gay lover. Or he can drive them from the church, as Francis did with Father Charamsa after the priest made his situation public in the Italian media in 2015. He can make either of these choices—or any choice in between—for any reason he likes. Or none at all. Such is the supreme power of the vicar of Christ.

Yet the pope’s immediate subordinates—the cardinals and bishops—function like feudal lords in their own right. The bishop can preach in contravention of the teachings of the church, as Cardinal Walter Kasper does on the subject of marriage and infidelity. He can forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist, as Bishops John Richard Keating and Paul Loverde once did in Northern Virginia. He can punish and reward priests under his care either because of merit or caprice—because the deacons and priests all swear a vow of obedience to the bishop (or cardinal) himself.

All of which is the long way of saying that there is no mechanism for a man such as Donald Wuerl to be dealt with by his peers. The bishop of Madison can fulminate against Wuerl all he wants to, as Bishop Robert Morlino did in late August. His fellow bishops have no power over him. The only man Wuerl is accountable to is the pope. And the structure of the church has no remedy when a pope is foolish or wicked.

In the weeks after the Viganò letter was published, Francis preached a homily in which he declared, “with people lacking good will, with people who only seek scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction” the best response is “silence” and “prayer.” If this sounds like Francis believes the real villains in this mess are Archbishop Viganò and people who want to know what the bishops knew, and when they knew it, well, yes.

In another homily on September 11, Francis went further, saying that not only was Viganò the real villain, but the bishops were the real victims: They were being persecuted by the devil: “In these times, it seems like the Great Accuser has been unchained and is attacking bishops,” Francis preached. And Satan “tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people.” (The Father of Lies—as he is referred to in the Bible—has not traditionally been regarded as the revealer of sins in Catholic thought, but this pope has never been known for having a supple mind.) Francis then offered counsel for his poor, suffering brother bishops: “The Great Accuser, as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, ‘roams the earth looking for someone to accuse.’ A bishop’s strength against the Great Accuser is prayer.”

Other parts of the church hierarchy also seem to view themselves as victims. In late August, Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig decided to try to get to the bottom of the Viganò story by asking McCarrick himself. She went to the church-owned property where the former cardinal now resides and knocked on the door. Whatever representative of the church—God’s vessel for Truth and Light—lives there declined to answer. Instead, he called the Post to complain about her.

So what is to be done if the vicar of Christ is a fool who sides with bishops who enabled or hid abusers? Or is a wicked man who sides with the actual abusers themselves? That’s an excellent question and we’ll get to it.

The more immediate question is: Why would he do that? And the answer is simple: power.

The pontificate of Francis can, perhaps, best be understood as a political project. His election at the conclave in 2013 was—unbeknownst to the world at the time—the result of a campaign planned out in advance by four radical cardinals who saw then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the perfect vehicle for the revolution they wanted to launch within the church. (The story of how Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels, and Karl Lehmann formed “Team Bergoglio” is detailed in Austen Ivereigh’s worshipful biography of Francis, and even though the cardinals subsequently denied the account, their protestations are supremely unconvincing.) As the Catholic News Agency reported at the time, this politicking wasn’t simply a matter of bad taste: The apostolic constitution, Universi Dominici gregis, expressly prohibits cardinals from forming pacts, agreements, promises, or commitments of any kind. Oh well.

During his time on Peter’s throne, Francis has worked to dismantle many orthodox positions in an attempt to radically reorient the church toward—by total coincidence—the long-held preferences of those four radical cardinals. For instance: He has criticizedCatholics for being “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage, and contraception. He has derided Catholic women for having too many children and behaving “like rabbits.” He sent a papal blessing to the lesbian author of the Italian version of Heather Has Two Mommies—a tract for children extolling the virtues of same-sex parenting.

All of this is in addition to his bizarre insistence that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake” and that the benefits of free-market growth have “never been confirmed by the facts.” (In case people didn’t get the message, Francis posed for pictures with a crucifix made of a hammer and a sickle.) Yet as bad as free market capitalism is, the pope insists “the most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.” Which is a . . . curious view of our fallen world.

The most outré of the pope’s initiatives, however, have been his efforts to dismantle the restrictions on admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics to communion. For this, Francis convened a synod, attempted to ram through a change to Catholic teaching, and, when that failed, proclaimed via an apostolic exhortation that priests were free to use their discretion on the matter.

To non-Catholics, this may not sound like a big deal, but it is: Communion for the divorced and remarried is the first theological step to doing away with the concept of adultery. If such a change is accomplished, the Catholic church would eventually be forced to change all of its teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family: Divorce, pre-, and -extra-marital sex would all then be sanctioned by the church.

And so would—crucially—homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Now maybe you like these things and maybe you don’t. Some Christian denominations embrace them. But the Catholic church has never sanctioned any of them and the entire revolutionary project of changing the church’s teaching on family and sexuality necessarily begins with communion for the divorced and remarried.

This project and the pope’s apostolic exhortation were serious enough that several cardinals sent the Holy Father a formal document, known as a dubia, asking if he truly intended to change Catholic teaching in a heretical manner, or if he had just made an honest mistake. Francis simply ignored them.

Which is his way. In his only conversation with reporters about the Viganò testimony, Francis declined to address the charge that he had known about McCarrick. Viganò’s letter, Francis said, “speaks for itself.” When it wasn’t clear what the Holy Father meant by this—Was Viganò’s account true? Was Viganò a mountebank?—Francis continued, saying, “It’s an act of trust. I won’t say a word about it.”

The pope’s favorite American cardinal is Blase Cupich, who heads the archdiocese of Chicago and has been the most persistent cheerleader for the Francis project in America. He has said quite a few words. Asked about the Viganò letter by a reporter, Cupich said it was a “rabbit hole” and “[T]he pope has a bigger agenda. . . . he’s got to get on with other things” such as “talking about the environment and protecting migrants.”

This was not a gaffe. A few days later, Cupich met with a group of seminarians who very much wanted to talk about the priest-abuse problem, the Holy Father, and this dark night of the church. Cupich told the group, “I feel very much at peace at this moment. I am sleeping okay.” Then came this, per the account in the Chicago Sun-Times:

The source said Cupich also told the group that, while the church’s “agenda” certainly involves protecting kids from harm, “we have a bigger agenda than to be distracted by all of this,” including helping the homeless and sick.

Which brings us, finally, to the question of what this “agenda” actually is.

It is difficult to disentangle the hundreds of cases of abuse in the church from the subject of homosexuality. No one wants to say, or even to insinuate, that homosexuality and abusiveness are one and the same, or that all, or most, or even a large proportion of gay men are abusers. Those statements are objectively false.

At the same time, the math is pitiless: According to our best data, a mammoth CDC study done in 2013, 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay. Yet 80 percent of the abuse cases involve priests abusing other males. You can include all the caveats you like—maybe there’s selection bias, maybe the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood is many times higher than 1.6 percent, maybe not all male-on-male abuse is perpetrated by men who would identify as gay. But the correlation is still high enough that it is impossible to ignore.

And despite the fact that everyone wants to insist that abuse by priests has nothing to do with homosexuality, it’s strange that the people who most want to open the church sacramentally to homosexuality are the ones strenuously ignoring the abuse. Priests such as Cardinal Cupich are certainly acting like they think there’s a linkage and that if the church were to crack down on abuse and the bishops who enabled it, it would somehow endanger their project.

WELL.v24-03.2018-09-24.Last-4.GiulioOriglia_Getty.jpg

Archbishop of Chicago Blase Cupich
Giulio Origlia / Getty

And it’s not confined to the United States. In Chile, too, Catholic bishops have presided over a sickening culture of abuse and coverup. Confronted with charges of abuse, Francis stood by the Chilean bishop Juan Barros Madrid, saying of the allegations, “The day someone brings me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk. But there is not one single piece of evidence. It is all slander. Is that clear?” This, despite the fact that Francis had been warned about Barros and there was a mountain of evidence against him. Barros was on Team Francis, which is what counted most.

In July, a group of 50 seminarians in Honduras presented Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga with a letter and corroborating evidence alleging a ring of homosexual abuse at the country’s largest seminary. Maradiaga’s response, per the reporting of Edward Pentin, was to accuse the seminarians of being “gossipers.” You can think of Maradiaga as the Donald Wuerl of Tegucigalpa. He is also one of Francis’s closest advisers.

Whether or not it’s coincidence, the American bishops in the most jeopardy now—McCarrick, Wuerl, Cupich, Tobin—are also the ones closest to Francis and most supportive of his desire to revolutionize the church.

There was a general sense among Catholics following the pontificate of John Paul II that the church had been jolted by an influx of orthodox young priests. In time, the thinking went, these men would climb and, eventually, they would stock the positions of power throughout the church. Thus the church would remain, at least for the medium-term, an orthodox institution.

But the election of Francis changed all of that. Even though the radical elements within the church were a small and aging minority, the progressives realized that the only person who really matters is the pope. That’s why they organized to get Francis elected. Since then they have understood that if Francis and his faction can find just a few score of like-minded priests to elevate, they can ensure that the current pope’s successor will share his ideological preferences.

The College of Cardinals is supposed to have 120 voting members; currently there are 124 members eligible to participate in the next conclave. That’s more than the cap should allow. Why? Because 75 of them—including Cupich and Tobin—have been appointed by Francis. Unlike his predecessor, Francis understands power. And because there are so few high-level progressives in the church, Francis understands that losing any of these men could endanger his succession, which could endanger his larger project. His confederates, in turn, understand that losing Francis himself at this moment could sink it entirely.

The chances of the church’s losing Francis, however, are slim. You cannot impeach a pope. And barring an unexpected return to our Heavenly Father, Francis will remain pope for the foreseeable future. Which leaves four possible pathways, none of which is attractive.

Some conservative Catholics, such as Princeton’s Robert P. George, have suggested that Francis ought to resign—especially if the Viganò letter is corroborated. This is an attractive idea and would align with the cause of justice. Anyone in the church hierarchy who knew, or should have known, about specific abusers in their midst should, at the least, be removed from any position of responsibility. They simply cannot be trusted. If you were to extend this view all the way to the bishop of Rome, there is a certain cleanliness to its logic—a sense that maybe the church could make a clean break and begin to make things right anew.

But it might be a cure worse than the disease.

In the last 600 years, only one pope has abdicated: Benedict XVI, the man who immediately preceded Francis. Two abdications in a millennium are an aberration. But two abdications in a row would have the practical effect of breaking the modern papacy. From here forward, all popes would be expected to resign their office rather than die in harness.

This expectation of resignation would, in turn, create incentives for the pope’s theological adversaries to fight and wound him, in the not-unreasonable hope that if they could make him unpopular, he could be shuffled out of the palace and they could try their luck with a new pontiff. Before you know it, you’d have polling data and opposition research and the papacy would become an expressly political office. No Catholic should yearn for this outcome.

The second option is capitulation. Catholics could shrug and give up. They could let Cardinal Wuerl live his best life and then slink off to a graceful retirement; they could make peace with Cardinal Cupich’s view that the church exists, first and foremost, to deal with global warming, or the minimum wage, or whatever else is trending on Vox.com. They could toe the dirt and accept sacramental same-sex marriages, even if it destroys the theology of the body. After all, times change. Religions change. And if you really trust in the Lord, then no change could come to His church without its being the will of the Father.

The third option is schism. There has been loose talk about schism since the early days of Francis’s pontificate. The conversation became less whimsical at the time of the synod and the dubia. It will become deadly serious if Viganò’s accusations are corroborated and Francis shelters in place. Even so, it remains one of those low-probability, extinction-level events that every Catholic should pray does not come to pass.

The fourth option is resistance. We are only at the current moment because the forces that conspired to elevate Francis refused, for decades, to leave the church, even though their desires were at odds with its teachings.

Despite the fact that the Catholic church rejected their preferences as false, the South American liberation theologists, the German cardinals who wanted to redefine marriage, and the American progressives who never met a social justice cause they didn’t like all hung on. Eventually they organized. And after a generation of orthodox papacy, during which time most American Catholics forgot that there even was a radical side of the faith, they worked together to elect Francis. Organization works, if you’re willing to play the long game and play for keeps.

So Catholics could starve bishops such as Wuerl, Cupich, and Tobin of funds. Not a dime for any church in any diocese headed by a bishop who refuses to root out abusers and their enablers.

The bishops who do care about these things could start organizing for the next conclave now, identifying potential candidates and laying the groundwork for the election of the next pope.

Then, when the pendulum eventually swings back—be it next year or 40 years from now—orthodox Catholics could take from these years a very sobering lesson about power. And with neither malice nor mercy drive men such as Cupich, Tobin, and Wuerl into the sea and purge the church of anyone who believes that climate change is a more pressing matter than the abuse of Catholics by the clergy.

None of these pathways is attractive; each leads to a church that is at best impoverished and at worst crippled.

Then again, the church survived Caligula, the bubonic plague, the Third Reich, the Gather hymnal, and the autoharp. It will survive McCarrick, Wuerl, and Francis, too.

But crucibles are rarely pleasant experiences for those inside them and a great many souls may be lost in the transition.

Those men will have much to answer for.

Correction, September 14, 2018, 3:05 p.m.: The article originally stated that a bishop “can forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist, as Bishop Michael Burbidge does in Northern Virginia.” Bishop Burbidge does allow both species of the Eucharist, it was his predecessors, Bishops John Richard Keating and Paul Loverde, who forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist. According to a statement from the Arlington Diocese: “Reverend Thomas Ferguson, Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia with the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, [says that] Bishop Paul Loverde changed the policy to allow both species of the Eucharist to be allowed at Mass. The policy changed sometime between 1999 and 2004.”

Also, the article originally stated that Bishop Steven Lopes said “I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew.” in the an interview with First Things. He made those remarks in a homily that was first reported by First Things.

We regret the errors.

Get the current issue of
The Weekly StandardSUBSCRIBE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rod Dreher

Benedict XVI & The Benedict Option

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, left, assists Pope Benedict XVI on a 2010 trip to England (Philip Chidell/Shutterstock)

Hello from Rome, where there was something of an earthquake this morning.

The De Gasperi Foundation held an invitation-only conference in Rome’s House of Deputies this morning, to discuss The Benedict Option. I gave a talk, and then gave the floor to Archbishop Georg Gänswein. He is the prefect of the papal household, but more importantly, is the longtime personal secretary to Benedict XVI. I was extremely curious to know what he would have to say about my book, as I have not hidden the fact that Benedict XVI is “the second Benedict of The Benedict Option.”

What Monsignor Gänswein said was nothing short of astounding. An Italian journalist just texted me to say

I assure you that a lot of people in Rome and all over the Catholic world are stunned by those remarks. Exactly because it clearly means approval [of The Benedict Option] by BXVI …

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I will post an official translation of the entire text when it becomes available in English. Here are highlights from the Italian original, translated with Google and with the help of Italian-speaking friends:

1. It is “an act of Divine Providence” that we are having this conference today, on September 11, because the sex abuse scandal is the Catholic Church’s own 9/11.

2. No churches have been destroyed (so far) by terrorists, but symbolically, US churches (“all the churches of Pennsylvania, along with the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington”) have “collapsed” because of the “mortal wounds” delivered to souls by “priests of the Catholic Church.”  [The basilica cite might be a reference to Cardinal Wuerl]

3. “I remember as if it were yesterday when on April 16, 2008, accompanying Pope Benedict XVI right in that National Shrine of the Catholic Church in the United States of America, he touchingly tried to shake the bishops convened from all the United States: he spoke bent over the ‘profound shame’ caused by ‘the sexual abuse of minors by priests’ and ‘the immense sorrow your communities have suffered when men of the Church have betrayed their priestly duties and duties with such grossly unethical behavior.’ But evidently in vain, as we see today. The lament of the Holy Father was not able to contain the evil, nor the formal assurances and the commitments in words of a large part of the hierarchy.”

4. Mons. Gänswein said that reading The Benedict Option, he thought a lot about the following words that Benedict XVI said on the flight back to Rome from Fatima on May 11, 2010:

“The Lord told us that the Church would always be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world. […] As for the news that we can discover today (in this third secret of the Fatima message), there is also the fact that not only are the Pope and the Church attacked from outside, but the sufferings of the Church come from interior of the Church, from the sin that exists in the Church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a truly terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from outside enemies, but arises from sin in the Church. “

5. Talking about the collapse of churchgoing in his home country, Germany, Mons. Gänswein contrasted that to the picture BXVI gave in these 2005 remarks to a meeting in Bari.  The pope talked about the arrest in the year 304 of a group of Christians as they prayed in church. The Emperor Diocletian had forbidden them from gathering on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist, and to build churches. In the North African town of Abitene, 49 Christians were arrested during Sunday worship. They told their captors that they could not live without the Eucharist — and they were all martyred for their faith. Today, though, very few Catholics in Germany can bother to get out of bed on Sunday to go to mass.

6. Speaking in a frankly apocalyptic vein, BXVI’s secretary — think of that! — said these days make him think of the Bible’s warnings that in the Last Days, believers will see “the abomination of desolation in the holy place.” He said that he wonders, along with Cardinal Eijk of the Netherlands, if the Church is facing its final trial before the Second Coming.

7. Mons. Gänswein praised my coverage of the Catholic abuse scandal, saying that I am “a man who completely corresponds to the desires and tastes of Pope Francis, because no one else in Rome knows better than he that the crisis of the Church, in its core, is a crisis of the clergy. And so the time has come for the strong and determined laymen, especially in the new independent Catholic media, as embodied by Rod Dreher.”

8. He said that since his retirement, BXVI has considered himself to be an “old monk” spending all his time praying for the Church and the world. Mons. Gänswein offers as BXVI’s response the Pope Emeritus’s 2008 lecture to the Collège des Bernardins in Paris. The entire point of the Benedicine mission, the pope said, was “quarere Deum” — to search for God. Everything else followed from that.

Along those lines, the archbishop highlights The Benedict Option‘s claim that this general crisis of disbelief roiling the Christian world — not just the Catholic one — may actually save our souls by forcing us to draw nearer to God. Mons. Gänswein said, of the book:

…it does not contain a ready answer. In it you will not find an infallible recipe or a master key to reopen all those doors that until now were accessible to us but that are now slamming shut again. Between the first and the last cover you will find, however, an authentic example of what Pope Benedict said ten years ago about the Benedictine spirit of the beginnings. It is a real “Quaerere Deum”. It is that search for the true God of Isaac and of Jacob who, in Jesus Christ, has shown his human face.

9. Many people are saying today that the Church is finished, that she cannot recover, said Gänswein. However:

And this is the hour when Rod Dreher from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, presents his book near the tombs of the Apostles; and, in the midst of the eclipse of God who is terrifying all over the world, he comes among us and says: “The Church is not dead, but only sleeps and rests”.

And not only this: the Church “is young” also seems to tell us, and with that joy and freedom with which Benedict XVI said it in the Mass for the beginning of the Petrine ministry on April 24, 2005. Recalling once again the suffering and the death of Saint John Paul II of which he had been a collaborator for so many years, addressing each one of us in St Peter’s Square, said:
“It was precisely in the sad days of the Pope’s illness and death that this manifested itself in a marvelous way in our eyes: that the Church is alive. And the Church is young. It carries within itself the future of the world and therefore also shows each of us the path to the future. The Church is alive and we see it: we experience the joy that the Risen One has promised to his own. The Church is alive – she is alive, because Christ is alive, because he has truly risen. In pain, present on the face of the Holy Father on Easter days, we contemplated the mystery of the passion of Christ and together touched his wounds. But in all these days we have also been able, in a profound sense, to touch the Risen One. We have been given the opportunity to experience the joy that he promised, after a short period of darkness, as the fruit of his resurrection “.

10. His concluding lines:

Therefore I have to confess sincerely that I perceive this time of great crisis, one that is evident to everyone, mostly as a time of grace. In the end, we will be “set free” not by a specific effort, but by the “truth”, as the Lord assured us. Within this hope, I look at the recent accounts made by Rod Dreher for the “purification of the memory” requested by John Paul II; and hence, with gratitude, I read his “Benedict Option”, as a marvelous source of inspiration. In these last few weeks, nothing else has provided me as much consolation.

 

The end.

Here is a man at the pinnacle of the Catholic Church, a man who loyally served Pope Benedict XVI (and who now serves Pope Francis as head of his household), speaking in apocalyptic terms about the sex abuse scandal and the general loss of faith across the West. He praised my work on the Catholic scandal, and the work of independent Catholic journalists. He said that The Benedict Option is a prophetic work, “a marvelous source of inspiration,” and the source of the greatest consolation to him as he grapples with the meaning of the scandals.

Note well: my book is not a counsel of despair, but of hope, real hope! So says the longtime top aide to Benedict XVI. Now will you people who have set opinions about The Benedict Option without having read it actually open the thing?

My gratitude to Monsignor Gänswein — one of Joseph Ratzinger’s closest friends and colleagues — for his words about my book cannot be measured. The monsignor said in his talk that in reading the book, he got the sense that much of it was written in constant dialogue with Benedict XVI. Well, he’s right about that — but then, most of what I think and write is in some real sense a dialogue with that old monk living in the Mater Ecclesiae in the Vatican.

UPDATE: Here is a translation of the entire speech, courtesy of Catholic News Agency:

The “Nine-Eleven” of the Catholic Church

(Archbishop Dr. Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household)

Thank you very much for the invitation to this esteemed House, which I accepted gladly, to present this book by the American author Rod Dreher, of which I had already heard a lot. The great monk from Norcia, who gave the book its programmatic title, made it very appealing for me to come here. But I was also touched and moved by the date on which we are meeting with this daring author here in Rome.

For it is September 11th, which in America – since the Fall of 2001 – has only been referred to as “9/11” in reference to that apocalyptic disaster in which members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda attacked the United States of America as the whole world watched, in New York and Washington – using fully occupied passenger planes, which they had captured in-flight, as missiles.

The more time I spent reading the book of Rod Dreher during the hurricane of news over these past few weeks, the more I grew to understand our meeting tonight as purely an act of providence, following the publication of the report of the grand jury of Pennsylvania, on which now the Catholic Church too must cast a horrified glance at what constitutes its own “Nine-Eleven”, even if this catastrophe unfortunately is not only occurred on a single day, but over many days and years, and affecting countless victims.

Please do not make the mistake of misconstruing my remarks. I am neither comparing the victims nor the numbers of abuse cases in the Catholic Church with those 2,996 innocent people who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 9, 2001.

No one has (to this date) attacked the Church of Christ by passenger plane.  St. Peter’s is still standing, as are the cathedrals of France, Germany or Italy, which are still the landmarks of many cities in the western world, from Florence to Chartres, from Cologne to Munich.
And yet, the recent news from America, where so many souls have been permanently and mortally injured by priests of the Catholic Church, is worse than any news could be of Pennsylvania’s churches suddenly collapsing, along with the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

And yet I remember, as though it were just yesterday, how I accompanied Pope Benedict XVI on 16 April 2008 to this National Shrine of the Catholic Church in the United States of America, where he so touchingly tried to rouse the bishops of that country by describing to them the “deep shame” caused by the “sexual abuse of minors by priests”, and “the enormous pain that your congregations have suffered as clergy have betrayed their priestly duties and responsibilities through such gravely immoral behavior.”

It was probably in vain, as we see today. The lament of the Holy Father could not stop the evil and not even the lip service of a large part of the hierarchy.

And now Rod Dreher is here, among us, who begins his book with the words: “No one saw the Great Flood coming”. In the Acknowledgements, he dedicates his book, in a certain way, to Pope Benedict XVI. And it seems to me that in large parts he wrote it in a sort of quiet dialogue with the silent Papa emerito, referring to his analytical and prophetic power, when he writes: “in 2012, the then-pontiff said that the spiritual crisis overtaking the West is the most serious since the fall of the Roman Empire near the end of the fifth century. The light of Christianity is flickering out all over the West.”

I would therefore, if I may, like to complement the presentation of the “Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher with a few memorable words from the mouth of Benedict XVI during his ministry; words that I was reminded of when I read the book, for instance those of May 11, 2010, when he entrusted the following to the journalists accompanying him on the flight to Fatima:
“The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world. … As for the new things which we can find in this message [the third secret of Fatima, ed.] today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church.”

At that time, he had already been pope for five years. More than five years earlier – on 25 March 2005 – Cardinal Ratzinger had already found the following words at the 9th Station of the Way of the Cross on Good Friday at the Colosseum, before the dying John Paul II:
“Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us.”

We had learned earlier, from St. John Paul II, that in our historical hour the true and perfect ecumenism was the ecumenism of the martyrs, allowing us to call, in our need, upon St. Edith Stein next to Dietrich Bonhoeffer as intercessors in heaven. But as we now know, there is also an ecumenism of need and secularization, and an ecumenism of unbelief and common flight from God and the Church across all denominations. And an ecumenism of the eclipse of God in general. We are only now witnessing the watershed of an epochal change that Dreher had already prophesied in the US a year ago. He saw the Great Flood coming!

But he also notes that the eclipse of God does not mean that God no longer exists. Rather, it means that many no longer recognize God, because shadows have been cast before the Lord. Today it is the shadows of sins and of transgressions and crimes from within the Church that for many darken His brilliant presence.

In the process of this darkening, the phenomenon of what in German is called the Volkskirche – a “popular church” to which everyone belonged, something which we were still born into, but that never existed in America as it did in Europe — has long since died. Does that sound too dramatic to you?

The number of people turning their back on the Church is dramatic. Even more dramatic, however, is another statistic:  According to the most recent surveys, of the Catholics who have not yet left the Church in Germany, only 9.8 percent still meet on Sunday in their places of worship to celebrate the Blessed Eucharist together.

This brings to mind Pope Benedict’s very first journey after his election. On May 29, 2005, on the banks of the Adriatic Sea, he reminded the predominantly youthful audience that Sunday is a “weekly celebration of Easter”, thereby expressing the identity of the Christian community and the center of its life and mission. However, the theme of the Eucharistic Congress (“We cannot live without Sunday”) goes back to the year 304, when Emperor Diocletian forbade Christians under death penalty to possess Holy Scripture, to meet on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist, and to construct rooms for their meetings.

“In Abitene, a small village in present-day Tunisia, 49 Christians were taken by surprise one Sunday while they were celebrating the Eucharist, gathered in the house of Octavius Felix, thereby defying the imperial prohibitions. They were arrested and taken to Carthage to be interrogated by the Proconsul Anulinus.

Significant among other things is the answer a certain Emeritus gave to the Proconsul who asked him why on earth they had disobeyed the Emperor’s severe orders. He replied: “Sine dominico non possumus”: that is, we cannot live without joining together on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. We would lack the strength to face our daily problems and not to succumb.
After atrocious tortures, these 49 martyrs of Abitene were killed. Thus, they confirmed their faith with bloodshed. They died, but they were victorious: today we remember them in the glory of the Risen Christ.”
In other words, what we, as children of the so-called “popular church”, have come to know as the “Sunday obligation” is, in fact, the precious, unique characteristic of Christians. And it is much older than any Volkskirche. Therefore, it is truly an eschatological crisis that the Catholic Church has been in for a long time now, just as my mother and father reckoned they could perceive it in their day – with “horrors of devastation in holy places” – something perhaps every generation in church history recognized from a distance on its own horizon.

Finally, however, some days I felt myself transported back to the days of my childhood – back to my father’s smithy in the Black Forest, where the hammer struck the anvil without ceasing, but did not do so without my father, whose safe hands I trusted like I trust the hands of God.

Obviously, I am not alone in this. In May, the Archbishop of Utrecht in Holland, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, confessed that the present crisis reminded him of the “final trial” of the Church, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it in paragraph 675, which the Church must undergo before the return of Christ, as a trial that ” will shake the faith of many believers”.  The Catechism continues: “The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity.’”

Like an exorcist, Rod Dreher is also familiar with this “mysterium iniquitatis”, as he has proven with his reports over the last few months, in which he also promoted the enlightenment of the scandalous history of the former archbishop of Newark and Washington like perhaps no other journalist. Yet he is not an investigative reporter. Neither is he a fantasist, but a sober analyst who has been following the state of the Church and the world alertly and critically for a long time whilst nonetheless retaining an almost childlike, loving view of the world.

That is why Dreher does not present an apocalyptic novel like the famous “Lord of the World”, with which the British clergyman Robert Hugh Benson shook the Anglo-Saxon world in 1906. Rather, Dreher’s book resembles a practicable guide to building an ark, because he knows that there is no dam to stop the Great Flood that has been flooding the old Christian Occident since long before yesterday, and to which America belongs for him as a matter of course.

This also makes for a threefold difference between Dreher and Benson: As a typical American, Dreher is firstly more practical than the somewhat eccentric Briton from Cambridge in the period before the First World War. Secondly, Dreher, as a citizen of Louisiana, has experience with hurricanes.  And thirdly, he is not at all a clergyman, but a layman who does not speak on behalf of others, but out of his own will and zeal for the Kingdom of God, which Jesus Christ proclaimed for us. In this sense, he is a man who is entirely after the flavor and taste of Pope Francis, who knows like no one else in Rome does that the crisis of the Church is at its core a crisis of the clergy. And that now the hour of the sovereign laity has struck, especially in the new and independent Catholic media, as almost embodied by Rod Dreher.

The ease of his portrayal probably has to do with the noble narrative traditions of the southern states of America, which Mark Twain once helped achieve global recognition. And when I said earlier that I last saw myself again and again as a child in the forge before my father’s hammer blows on the anvil, I must confess that the uncomplicated reading of this weighty book took me again and again into the adventure world of my childhood, where I daydreamed about Tom Sawyer and his friend Huck’ Finn.

Rod Dreher, on the other hand, is not about dreams, but about facts and analyses, which he condenses into sentences like these: “Psychological Man won decisively and now owns the culture—including most churches—as surely as the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and other conquering peoples owned the remains of the Western Roman Empire.”

Or this one: “Our scientists, our judges, our princes, our scholars, and our scribes—they are at work demolishing the faith, the family, gender, even what it means to be human. Our barbarians have exchanged the animal pelts and spears of the past for designer suits and smartphones.”

Chapter 3 of his book begins with the words: “You can’t go back to the past, but you can go to Norcia.” Shortly thereafter he continues – prophetically on topic, but in no way gloatingly – as follows: “Legend has it that in an argument with a cardinal, Napoleon pointed out that he had the power to destroy the church.

“Your majesty,” the cardinal replied, “we, the clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”
Four years after sending the Benedictines away from their home of nearly a millennium, Napoleon’s empire was in ruins, and he was in exile. Today, the sound of Gregorian chants can once again be heard in the saint’s hometown…”

In the same Norcia, however, more recently was heard the roar from the depths of that great earthquake that shook the city in August 2016 and ruined the Basilica of St. Benedict in just a few seconds, right down to the front façade. At about the same time, cloudbursts also flooded the hometown of Rod Dreher on the upper reaches of the Mississippi. These two dramatic key scenes now stand at the beginning and end of his book, as though based on a divine script – and as if to illustrate a thesis Dreher formulated in Chapter 1: “The reality of our situation is indeed alarming, but we do not have the luxury of doom-and-gloom hysteria. There is a hidden blessing in this crisis, if we will open our eyes to it… The coming storm may be the means through which God delivers us.

In recent days, the term earthquake was often used to describe the collapse within the Church, and of which I am now saying the Catholic Church has also experienced its “Nine-Eleven.”
Rod Dreher describes the response of the monks of Norcia to the catastrophe that destroyed their abbey in the birthplace of Saint Benedict, in but few words that I must read to you because they are so eloquent:

“The Benedictine monks of Norcia have become a sign to the world in ways I did not anticipate when I began writing this book. In August 2016, a devastating earthquake shook their region. When the quake hit in the middle of the night, the monks were awake to pray matins, and they fled the monastery for the safety of the open-air piazza.

Father Cassian later reflected that the earthquake symbolized the crumbling of the West’s Christian culture, but that there was a second, hopeful symbol that night. ‘The second symbol is the gathering of the people around the statue of Saint Benedict in the piazza in order to pray,’ he wrote to supporters. ‘That is the only way to rebuild.’”

Given Father Cassian’s testimony, I would like to tell you that Benedict XVI, since his resignation, has understood himself as an old monk who, after February 28, 2013, is committed above all to prayer for Mother Church and his successor, Pope Francis, and for the Petrine ministry founded by Christ himself.

From the monastery Mater Ecclesiae behind the Basilica of St. Peter, the old monk would therefore, considering Dreher’s work, likely point to a speech he gave as acting Pope on 12 September 2008 in the Collège des Bernardins in Paris, in front of the spiritual elite of France.

That was exactly ten years ago tomorrow, and I would therefore like to briefly present excerpts of this speech to you once again:

In the great cultural upheaval of the migration period of the Völkerwanderung and the emergence of new structures of state, the monasteries were the place where the treasures of the old culture survived and at the same time a new culture was slowly formed by them, said Benedict XVI at the time and asked:
“But how did it happen?  What motivated men to come together to these places?  What did they want?  How did they live?

First and foremost, it must be frankly admitted straight away that it was not their intention to create a culture nor even to preserve a culture from the past.  Their motivation was much more basic.  Their goal was: Quaerere Deum.  Amid the confusion of the times, in which nothing seemed permanent, they wanted to do the essential – to make an effort to find what was perennially valid and lasting, life itself.  They were searching for God.  They wanted to go from the inessential to the essential, to the only truly important and reliable thing there is…they were seeking the definitive behind the provisional…

Quaerere Deum – to seek God and to let oneself be found by him, that is today no less necessary than in former times.  A purely positivistic culture which tried to drive the question concerning God into the subjective realm, as being unscientific, would be the capitulation of reason, the renunciation of its highest possibilities, and hence a disaster for humanity, with very grave consequences.  What gave Europe’s culture its foundation – the search for God and the readiness to listen to him – remains today the basis of any genuine culture.”

These were the words of Pope Benedict XVI on September 12, 2008 about the true “option” of Saint Benedict of Nursia.  – After that, all that remains for me to say about Dreher’s book is this: It does not contain a finished answer. There is no panacea, no skeleton key for all the gates that were open to us for so long and have now been thrown shut again. Between these two books covers, however, there is an authentic example of what Pope Benedict said ten years ago about the Benedictine spirit of the beginning. It is a true “Quaerere Deum”. It is that search for the true God of Isaac and Jacob, who showed his human face in Jesus of Nazareth.

For this reason, a sentence from chapter 4,21 of the Rule of Saint Benedict comes to my mind, which also pervades and animates the entire book of Dreher as Cantus Firmus. This is the legendary “Nihil amori Christi praeponere”. That means translated: the love of Christ must come before all else. It is the key to the whole miracle of occidental monasticism.

Benedict of Nursia was a lighthouse during the migration of peoples, when he saved the Church through the turmoil of time and thus in a certain sense re-founded European civilization.
But now, not only in Europe, but all over the world, we are experiencing for decades a migration of peoples that will never come to an end again, as Pope Francis has clearly recognized and urgently speaks about to our consciences. That is why not everything is different this time, as compared to how it was then.

If the Church does not know how to renew itself again this time with God’s help, then the whole project of our civilization is at stake again. For many it looks as if the Church of Jesus Christ will never be able to recover from the catastrophe of its sin – it almost seems about to be devoured by it.

And this is precisely the hour in which Rod Dreher from Baton-Rouge in Louisiana is presenting his book today near the tombs of the apostles. And during the eclipse of God, which is frightening us all over the world, he steps before us and says: “The Church is not dead, it only sleeps and rests”.

And not only that. The Church is “young”, he seems to say, and he says it so joyfully and freely, as Benedict XVI said when he took over the Petrine ministry on April 24, 2005, when he recalled the suffering and death of Saint John Paul, whose collaborator he had been for so many years. He called out to all of us in St Peter’s Square:
“During those sad days of the Pope’s illness and death, it became wonderfully evident to us that the Church is alive. And the Church is young. She holds within herself the future of the world and therefore shows each of us the way towards the future. The Church is alive, and we are seeing it: we are experiencing the joy that the Risen Lord promised his followers. The Church is alive – she is alive because Christ is alive, because he is truly risen. In the suffering that we saw on the Holy Father’s face in those days of Easter, we contemplated the mystery of Christ’s Passion and we touched his wounds. But throughout these days we have also been able, in a profound sense, to touch the Risen One. We have been able to experience the joy that he promised, after a brief period of darkness, as the fruit of his resurrection.”

Even the satanic “Nine-Eleven” of the Universal Catholic Church can not weaken or destroy this truth, the origin of its foundation by the Risen Lord and Victor.

I must therefore honestly confess that I perceive this time of great crisis, which today is no longer hidden from anyone, above all as a time of Grace, because in the end it will not be any special effort that will free us, but only “the Truth”, as the Lord has assured us. It is in this hope that I look at Rod Dreher’s recent reports on the “purification of memory” which John Paul II entrusted to us, and so I also gratefully read his “Benedict option” as a wonderful inspiration in many respects. In recent weeks, few things have given me so much comfort.

Thank you for your attention.

Translated by Anian Christoph Wimmer

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Un ami des Papes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column

September 16, 2018
On the ninth of October in 1845, Blessed John Henry Newman was received into the Catholic Church by the Passionist priest Blessed Dominica Barberi. On the 150th Anniversary of that meeting of saints, to the very hour, I had the privilege of offering Mass in the little room where it took place.

Newman’s decision was hard, as he had devoted his life to many souls whom he would have to leave. On September 25, 1843, he preached his sermon of farewell—“The Parting of Friends”—in the church he had built. This means that next week will be its 175th anniversary. His sermon ended with lines that belong to literature as well as to piety:

   And, O my brethren, O kind and affectionate hearts, O loving friends, should you know any one whose lot it has been, by writing or by word of mouth, in some degree to help you thus to act; if he has ever told you what you knew about yourselves, or what you did not know; has read to you your wants or feelings, and comforted you by the very reading; has made you feel that there was a higher life than this daily one, and a brighter world than that you see; or encouraged you, or sobered you, or opened a way to the inquiring, or soothed the perplexed; if what he has said or done has ever made you take interest in him and feel well inclined towards him; remember such a one in time to come, though you hear him not, and pray for him, that in all things he may know God’s will, and at all times he may be ready to fulfil it.

Some years before, Newman had traveled to Italy where he entered unfamiliar churches: “I neither understood nor tried to understand the Mass service—and I did not know, or did not observe, the tabernacle Lamp—but now after tasting of the awful delight of worshipping God in His Temple, how unspeakably cold is the idea of a Temple without that Divine Presence! One is tempted to say what is the meaning, what is the use of it?”

Newman would later realize the effect of the Blessed Sacrament reserved for adoration, and what he said could describe our situation on 34th Street: “It is really most wonderful to see this Divine Presence looking out almost into the open streets from the various Churches . . . I never knew what worship was, as an objective fact, till I entered the Catholic Church.”

Ours is a restless city, and no more serene these days is this earthly part of the Holy Catholic Church. Visitors stop by hourly to look at our building, and whether known or not, the axle on which our world turns, often shakily, is that Presence with the candle burning by it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roof Collapses on  St. Joseph
of the Carpenters in Rome

Marian T. Horvat
church roof collapses in rome

 

At three o’clock in the afternoon on August 30, 2018, Romans and tourists in the Forum heard a loud ‘boom!’ and saw dust clouds rising from the roof of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami (St. Joseph of the Carpenters). The church, on Capitoline Hill in central Rome, stands above the much older Mamertine Prison where St. Peter and St. Paul were held before their executions.

What happened? About three quarters of the roof of the San Giuseppe suddenly and unexpectedly caved in. No one was in the church although there were five tourists in the Mamertine Prison below it, who were escorted out unharmed.

The story received little press coverage, especially in the United States, where attention has been turned primarily to sex scandals that have been rocking the Church. I mention below a few more notable instances:

    • In July, Card. Theodore McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals in wake of charges of sexual abuse, raising accountability issues for high ecclesiastics who enabled his predatory career.
    • In mid August 2017, a scathing Pennsylvania grand jury report was released revealing decades of child abuse allegations against more than 300 accused predator priests. The report was hard to stomach, abominable stories of the rape of about 1,000 children and a culture of secrecy and cover-up in the clergy – high and low – that enabled abuse.

philadelphia sex abuse protestDemonstrations by Catholics in Philadelphia against the massive cover-up of sexual abuse by clergy

  • Then, in late August retired Archbishop Vigano published a strong testimonyaccusing Francis of having knowledge of allegations regarding McCarrick’s many homosexual crimes and implicating high Prelates, including Cards. Tarcisio Bertone, Angelo Sodano, Donald Wuerl, of participating in the cover-up. The report also raised questions about the transparency of Cards. Kevin Farrell and Sean O’Malley. Viganó affirmed that the appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago, Joseph Tobin to Newark and Robert McElroy to San Diego, all part of this ugly secret network, were orchestrated by McCarrick and Wuerl.In short, the document reveals a whole homosexual network of corruption in dioceses, seminaries and religious orders. In that document Arch. Vigano called for Francis to resign, a demand that has been taken up by many shocked conservative organs.
  • These stories of clergy sex abuse show no promise to abate. Already; headlines are proclaiming that the attorneys general of at least seven States are now launching their own investigations similar to the one in Pennsylvania.

Since we at TIA have not been fooled by the “zero tolerance” policy set in place in 2002 and have been reporting the continuing sexual abuses and cover-ups that have continued to emerge (here and here), we are saddened by these daily reports, but not surprised or shocked.

Since publishing his book Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia showing the New Morals the Council introduced in the Church, Atila Guimarães has been calling on the Church to administer due punishment to both those guilty of these heinous crimes and those who cover for them, rather than the “hand slaps” or scoldings some few receive. By the way, this list should include not just Francis, but Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI, as we have demonstrated more than once on our website.

Coincidence? I think not

What caught my attention was the short story about the sudden collapse of the roof of the Church that stands over the Mamertine Prison, where, according to Catholic tradition, both St Peter and St. Paul were incarcerated prior to their executions. In the Mamertine, a small damp room, there is a small altar bearing the inverted cross, a symbol of St. Peter’s crucifixion, and a spring that rose up miraculously to allow the Saint to baptize his fellow prisoners.

 

mamertine prisonThe small altar and well in the Mamertine Prison, below St. Joseph the Carpenter Church

Thus, this Church on Capitoline Hill has a special significance to the See of Peter and has long been an important pilgrimage site.

Also, I believe it is not without significance that the titular cardinal of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami is Card. Francesco Coccopalmerio, who, according to the Vigano document, “belongs to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.”

There have been other signs of Heaven’s displeasure with what is happening in the post-Conciliar Church: We saw for example, the lightning that struck on the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica on the day Benedict resigned from the Papacy, and the second strike on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, bolts warning the Catholic faithful that the Vatican was leading them astray.

In 2016, the year the Prime Minister signed a law recognizing homosexual marriages, a series of earthquakes hit in central Italy. Churches were particularly hard-hit by the quakes, which where felt all the way to Rome, where the Basilica of St. Paul Outside-the-Walls, a center of ecumenism, was shaken and cracked. Let us not forget that the quakes continue all over Italy to this day.

The collapse of the roof of St. Joseph – protector of the Universal Church – has a symbolic meaning for those with eyes to see. It appears as a forewarning from Heaven of a coming chastisement of unfaithful Rome.

For those who have read the deciphered Third Secret of Fatima published on this site, proved scientifically to the be the handwriting of Sister Lucy, such a punishment is more than a fanciful reverie.

That message reads:“Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church. Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.”

Further, Our Lady repeats that if “Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.”

Could the collapse of St. Joseph of the Carpenters, a highly symbolic Church standing above the last place on earth St. Peter stayed before his death, be a sign that the predicted punishment of a rotten Rome is on its way?

Should we be surprised, then, that God made the roof collapse in the Church of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami? Should we not perhaps be expecting that soon His Hand will strike against the Basilica of St. Peter itself?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Italian Daily Claims Possession of “Top Secret” Vatican Report on “Moral and Financial Corruption of Vatican Clergy”

On September 4, Francesca Fagnano of the Italian Daily Il Fatto Quotidiano (IFQ)published a report discussing a “new bomb” in the Vatican. Her article, excerpts of which were published here, indicated that there is a dossier, similar to that of the disgraced former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick on his former Vicar General, Auxiliary, and housemate Cardinal Kevin Farrell. The report also hinted at the possibility of a release of a 300-page investigatory report commissioned by Pope Benedict XVI — a report that was given to Pope Francis, but which has never seen the light of day. Many believe this report to contain key information on the so-called Lavender Mafia in and around the Vatican.

In a followup report on September 5, Fagnano offered additional insights into these two important stories, noting that officials at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refused to comment on the Farrell story — which Fagnani notes is not a denial — and also that there is a “concrete possibility that there will be a leak of the documents pertaining to the investigation of cardinals Julián Herranz, Jozef Tomko e Salvatore De Giorgi, which they gave to Pope Benedict XVI prior to his resignation.” Fagnani notes that the report “contains a detailed and disturbing account of the moral and financial corruption of Vatican clergy, with specific names and circumstances” and that IFQ has “succeeded in seeing a copy of the document with the papal seal on the heading,” from which they published excerpts in their September 5 report. The full text of the translation of the IFQ article is available below.

We should note that multiple sources with access to the Vatican rumor mill have informed 1P5 that there is a concern that this report, if it is ever fully revealed, may be less significant than is widely-hoped. The question remains why, if the report is not the “bomb” that will “rock the papacy” that some believe it to be, the Vatican has worked so hard to keep it a secret. Time will tell what the reasons for this effort may be. For her part, Fagnani states that “If the public became aware of the content of the report, it would be a disaster for the image of the Church, already devastated throughout the world by sexual scandals.” She continues, “But that is exactly what could happen in this phase of the battle, since the squawking of “crows” is a secular practice which takes place in the Vatican every time there is an escalation in which the civil war gets fiercer.”

The word “crow”, in Italian, has an idiomatic meaning. A crow is like a whistleblower, someone who “squawks” the way a crow does about what he has seen. And it recalls to mind the words of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who claimed, following his testimony about abuse coverup at the highest echelons of the Church, “I Am Not the Crow. I Want Only the Truth.” In that same interview, Viganò offered the following as his reason for choosing to speak up now:

I spoke because now more than ever, corruption has spread to the highest levels of the hierarchy of the Church. I ask the journalists: why are they not asking what happened to the cache of documents that, as we all saw, were delivered at Castel Gandolfo to Pope Francis from Pope Benedict? Was that all useless? It would have been enough to read my report and the transcript that was made of my deposition before the three cardinals charged with the investigation of the Vatileaks case (Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi) in order to begin some cleaning up in the Curia. [emphasis added]

So it seems that Francesca Fagnani and IFQ have taken up the challenge of Viganò, in not just asking what happened to the cache of documents in question, but in offering a peek at what is inside. This peek offers the suggestion of a power shift in Vatican politics, one which has isolated the once-popular Pope Francis from his curia and left him open to unexpected attacks. It also carries with it the ghost of a threat: begin breaking your silence, Pope Francis, on these matters which demand moral clarity, or we will expose you.

With that said, we should stress that this peek offers precious few details, but if the media in Italy has it, we hope that more will come to light very soon.


The list with the names of the gay lobby: The Vatican trembles

Il Fatto Quotidiano

5 Sep 2018

FRANCESCA FAGNANI

Behind the tenacious silence of the highest levels of the Vatican regarding the accusations made in the now-famous document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò may be the fear of being smeared by new facts and developments which may come to light in the explosion of the “nuclear war” which is said to be occurring – for several days now – within the Holy See.

Yesterday we told you about the “Farrell case” which alleged that a dossier had been given to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the handling of cases of sexual and other moral crimes, concerning Kevin Joseph Farrell, one-time auxiliary bishop of Washington, which if proven true would fall like a boulder on top of the Pope. Farrell, directly nominated by Bergoglio as head of the Dicastery for the Family, lived together with Theodore McCarrick, former cardinal and archbishop of Washington, who was involved in numerous cases of sexual abuse against seminarians.

Upon contacting the Congregation for a comment, or perhaps a denial, the response was: “There will be no comment.” The Vatican thus is not denying the report of Il Fatto Quotidiano, but like McCarrick chooses the strategy of silence. Also because the concerns of the Holy See do not end here.

The new clouds on the horizon are the concrete possibility that there will be a leak of the documents pertaining to the investigation of cardinals Julián Herranz, Jozef Tomko e Salvatore De Giorgi, which they gave to Pope Benedict XVI prior to his resignation. The report contains a detailed and disturbing account of the moral and financial corruption of Vatican clergy, with specific names and circumstances. We have succeeded in seeing a copy of the document with the papal seal on the heading, and from which we will publish excerpts here: a list of both prelates and lay people who belong to the so-called gay lobby, who by means of blackmail and secrets are able to influence, or have influenced, the positions and careers of both themselves and others.

We will not reveal the specific names given in the list, but we are able to confirm that among the names there are persons removed by the Pope, others who had their offices changed, others who still hold important strategic positions in the internal workings of the Vatican, such as in the Propaganda Fide and the Secretariate of State.

The investigation of the three cardinals Herranz- Tomko- De Giorgi has as yet remained “top secret.” However, a small and yet not-so-small circle of persons had the opportunity to read it, and this before the Conclave of 2013, in order to give a hand to the Holy Spirit who would carry Bergoglio across the threshold of the papacy. In order to make the report, dozens of priests and high prelates were interrogated, and all sorts of documents were gathered together. If the public became aware of the content of the report, it would be a disaster for the image of the Church, already devastated throughout the world by sexual scandals. But that is exactly what could happen in this phase of the battle, since the squawking of “crows” is a secular practice which takes place in the Vatican every time there is an escalation in which the civil war gets fiercer.

And this time the war is against the Pope himself. This time Bergoglio can no longer count on the protection of the Curia, given that he has such a complicated relationship with it both personally and doctrinally (one need only think of the questions of the dubia raised by the four cardinals to the Pope concerning the encyclical Amoris Laetitia, in which Bergoglio opened up communion to the divorced and remarried).

Nor can Francis count on some of his powerful friends and allies, overwhelmed as they are by their own sex scandals or by having covered up for others: McCarrick and Farrell, Cardinals Roger Mahony and Godfried Danneels, on the Chilean bishops, on the very powerful number 3 in the Vatican Cardinal George Pell, currently on trial in Australia for multiple sex crimes. Pell wanted to resign as the Vatican Minister of Finance, but the Pope preferred a simple leave of absence. Moreover, when he was named as Number 3 at the Vatican Bergoglio himself could not possibly not have known about Pell’s abuses.

We ask by means of our newspaper to Pope Bergoglio and to Secretary of State Parolin: bring clarity to matters of McCarrick, Farrell and the commission of the three cardinals, to the moral questions which cannot be hidden away under a veil of silence. The reform of the church will take place by means of the truth.

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To:
Daniel Cardinal DiNardo
President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
1700 San Jacinto St.
Houston, Texas 77002-8216

Archbishop Christophe Pierre Apostolic Nuncio to the United States 3330 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20008-3610

Your Eminence and Your Excellency,

For years now, we young people have been told repeated clichés about us being the future and having the ability to effectuate change. Please accept this letter as one of our tangible actions towards not only effectuating change, but more importantly, defeating the works of Satan and fighting to build the Kingdom of God.

As young adults in the greater Houston area – some of whom belong to the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and some of whom belong to the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter – we can no longer restrict our response to the evil sex scandal to simply prayer. We worship in the United States. We contribute to the betterment of our society through the sanctification of our professional work. We strive daily to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. We donate financially to our local parishes and to their dioceses. We are young parents raising children in the Catholic faith. We are single persons living out our vocations daily, trying to be God’s sign to help others to heaven with Him. We work to foster community among other Catholic young adults in the greater Houston area. We are the faithful of your flock.

The sexual, ecclesial, moral, and financial corruption and intrinsic evil in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church must end.

As is our right and our duty under Canon Law (Canon 2121), we implore you to take the following action:

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Hire investigators totally independent of the Catholic Church to complete a full

investigation of the allegations brought forward by Archbishop Carlo Maria

Viganò. You did indeed call for an investigation into Archbishop Viganò’s allegations,

but your statement on August 27, 2018 implicitly exempts Pope Francis from that

investigation.

Viganò

It reads as if you had not read the part of Archbishop ’s statement that accuses the Pope of having had knowledge of Cardinal McCarrick’s grave sins since at least 2013. These allegations merit investigation, and that investigation cannot come through the Pope, to whom you still appear to look for aid. If Pope Francis is innocent of

the accusations leveled against him, let that be shown: but if he is not, let that be shown also.

We faithful do not trust the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with good reason

based in fact, and we cannot rely on an internal investigation because of self-serving bias,

corruption, and other opportunities for self-preserving subjectivity to enter into a process

that absolutely requires objectivity.

During your next audience with Pope Francis, communicate directly to him that his open

and blatant public refusal to respond to Archbishop Viganò’s letter is repugnant. His lack of response communicates to the faithful a tacit admission that everything Archbishop Viganò says is true.

• Speak personally with any cardinal, bishop, priest, or deacon who has raped, molested, attacked, sodomized, assaulted, or abused in any way a young boy, a young girl, a teenager, a young adult, or an adult and demand they resign and turn themselves in to law enforcement.

Publish the details of all money settlements paid out to victims of these crimes and to

their attorneys, including the details of all personal release from liability of the bishops

themselves, and whether or not they paid any of this money from their personal wealth.

This can be done while still respecting the identity of the thousands of victims. So far it is

publicly known that billions of dollars of the faithful’s hard-earned money has been paid

out to these victims of the clergy’s crimes. Canon Law and civil law require that every

penny of this be returned to the faithful. The faithful were never informed that money

they were giving for church purposes was used instead to pay off personal claims by the

victims of the bishops and the priests.

Complete a full investigation, again conducted by someone independent of the Catholic

Church, of the St. Mary Seminary in Houston to uncover past and present evil as it relates to homosexual predators and its public and well-known homosexual culture. As Houstonians, that is where our peers go for formation, and this is in our own backyard.

• Speak no less than once a month publicly the truths the Catholic Church teaches about the God-ordained rightness of the complementarity of the sexes, the unequivocal truth that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, and the intrinsic evil and disorder of homosexual acts (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357 2). Approximately three-fourths of the victims named in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report were male victims of active homosexual predators, and this overwhelming homosexual abuse is not specific to Pennsylvania. As you are well aware, one report stated that across America eighty percent of the crimes reported were homosexual rapes and sodomitical assaults by priests and bishops.

You may think that these actions are extreme and harsh. It was divinely harsh when Jesus went into His temple and whipped those desecrating it. The grave intrinsic evil that has been allowed to exist has been enabled and covered up by the bishops and pastors. Bishops, pastors, priests, and those who assaulted others have damaged the souls and lives of countless victims. You do

not respond to Satan by simply slapping him on the hand or shuttling him off to another diocese. You defeat him by every possible means.

Do not be terrified of speaking truth. Do not be terrified for your safety. Now is not the time to wait out this storm. Now is the time for swift and strong action.

We are writing to you, as the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, because we have been led to believe by credible allegations that this decades-long program of evil is a nation-wide effort organized by the bishops.

By bravely providing his testimony of corruption in the Catholic hierarchy, Archbishop Viganò(seeking no personal gain for himself) has given credibility to what was whispered in Catholic circles for years. But the true tipping point of bringing the evil to light was the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. This extensive report was 1,356 pages long. With the many demands on your schedule, and the horrendous nature of the details contained within, we understand that you may not have yet read through all of it.

Allow us to capture some of the evil and list the sins here. Dramatic and damning, you ask? Without question. These victims deserve to have every single breathing Catholic know the extent of the heinous crimes committed against them.
“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed on the housetops.” Luke 12:2-3

§

In one case, a boy was forced to stand naked, posing like Christ on the cross while

priests took pictures and added them to a collection of child pornography that they

produced and distributed on the campus of the church.

These priests would mark boys who were being groomed for abuse by

giving them gold crosses to wear. This is priestly pimping of pure boys.

In another case, a priest raped a little girl while he was visiting her in the hospital.

In another case, a priest raped a young girl and arranged for her to get an abortion.

His bishop heard about the situation and wrote a letter of condolence — to the priest.

  • In another case, a priest forced a boy to give him oral sex and then washed the boy’smouth with holy water.
  • In another case, a priest molested a boy over the course of two years, admitted tochurch officials that he’d been engaged in naked “horseplay” with the child, and yet was allowed to continue in ministry for seven more years.

In keeping with how this scandal has been dealt with for almost thirty years, we do not want the typical ecclesial effeminate response. If you choose to be silent and do not respond, Jesus spits you out of his mouth. If you are a shepherd truly acting in persona Christi, you will not get in line with those who have been silent for decades but instead you will put on the armor of God and go to war against the world rulers and the mitered rulers of this present darkness.

It is through the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother, the God-bearer, that we implore you to be our shepherd.

Relying on Our Lord,

Elizabeth McClung, 32
Marketing Executive
Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham Richmond, TX

Juliana Baird, 29
Dietitian
Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsignham Houston, TX

Trey Blanton, 30
Soldier, Deputy
Our Lady of the Cedars Maronite Catholic Church Houston, TX

Julian Flores, 30
Oil Field Technician
Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Rosenberg, TX

Carol Glaser, 30
Elementary Teacher
St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church Houston, TX

James Hahn II, 38 Entrepreneur
Holy Rosary Catholic Church Houston, TX

Perryl Libardo, 30
System Applications Engineer
St. John Vianney Catholic Church Brookshire, TX

John L. Lucci, 50
User Services Specialist II St. Anne Catholic Church Houston, TX

Joseph T. Nguyen, 25
Retail Receiver
St. John Vianney Catholic Church Houston, TX

Mark Ori, 30
Chemical Engineer Annunciation Catholic Church Houston, TX

Sarah Ori, 34
Masters of Sacred Music Student, University of St. Thomas Annunciation Catholic Church
Houston, TX

Cindy Elena Rodriguez, 36
Corporate Event Planner
St. Anne Catholic Church, Former Jr. High Youth Coordinator, Young Adult Membership Director
Houston, TX

Jason Rowe, 35
Attorney-at-law
St. Anne Catholic Church, Young Adult Spiritual Director Houston, TX

Sean Rugg, 26
Veteran, Student
St. John Vianney Catholic Church Katy, TX

Elizabeth Sanchez, 37 Teacher’s Aide
Holy Rosary Catholic Church Houston, TX

Frederick Sanchez, 39
Sales Engineer
Holy Rosary Catholic Church Houston, TX

Steve Sherman, 26
Development
Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham Houston, TX

Elizabeth Sladecek, 34
Subsea Engineer
Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham Houston, TX

Jessica Smith, 32
NICU Registered Nurse
St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church Houston, TX

Cindy Tran, 28
Wife and mother Vietnamese Martyr Church Houston, TX

Duy Tran, 35
Technical Analyst Vietnamese Martyr Church Houston, TX

Logan Tran, almost 1 year old Vietnamese Martyr Church Houston, TX

Philip Trevino, 32
Software Engineer Annunciation Catholic Church Houston, TX

__________________________

1 Canon 212
§1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

2 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eccles and Bosco is saved


The World Cup of Bad Hymns – nominations requested

Posted: 14 Sep 2018 09:35 AM PDT

As a distraction from all the other problems in the world, we have something a little different.On Monday 24th September the 2018 World Cup of Bad Hymns will begin. This will be organised by a sequence of Twitter polls, one per day, on a knock-out basis, with as many rounds as are needed.

Badness may be defined any way you wish, either by stupid lyrics, bad theology (since people of all Christian denominations may take part, we won’t get agreement here), or even by an appalling tune. Nominations for the competition close on September 23rd.

These are the entrants so far. You may nominate more bad hymns, either by commenting on this blog, or by replying to the tweet that announces the World Cup.

hymn board

Anything that makes you shudder…


Alleluia Ch-Ch (Paul Inwood)

Autumn days when the grass is jewelled (Estelle White)

Bind us together, Lord (Bob Gillman)

Christ be our light (Bernadette Farrell)

Colours of day (Sue McClellan)

Deep within my heart, I feel voices whispering to me (Fr Frank Andersen) 

Enemy of apathy (John L. Bell and Graham Maule)

Follow me (Michael Cocket)

Go, the Mass is ended (Sister Marie Lydia Pereira)

God's Spirit is in my heart (Alan Dale)

I saw the grass, I saw the trees (Estelle White)

I, the Lord of sea and sky (Daniel Schutte)  

I watch the sunrise (Glynn)

If I were a butterfly (Brian Howard)

Jesus Christ the apple tree (R.H.) 

Journeys ended, journeys begun (Gregory Norbet)

Kumbayah (anon)

Lord of the Dance (Sidney Carter)

Moses, I know you're the man (Estelle White)
   
On eagle's wings (Michael Joncas)  

Our God reigns (Leonard E. Smith)  

Shine, Jesus, Shine (Kendrick)

Walk in the Light (Damian Lundy)

hand waving in church“The next hymn is … so put your hand up if you want to leave.”

Addendum: We’d better stick to English language hymns (and Christian ones) to avoid strange songs from people worshipping Klingon gods.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the Vortex

Play Video

CUPICH NEEDS TO GO NEXT

But he shouldn’t be the last.

September 14, 2018

 

TRANSCRIPT

So as soon as Donald Wuerl has been dispatched, the next one who needs to “resign” is Blase Cupich of Chicago. Consider his track record in the short time he has been archbishop of Chicago.

First, the lies. He says he had no knowledge of former cardinal homosexual predator Theodore McCarrick lobbying Pope Francis for him to take over Chicago — right.

The gay kingmaker cardinal of America is personally lobbying for you with the Pope to take over one of the most powerful posts in the Church in America, and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever? Complete and utter surprise? And then, after the fact, you still had no idea — sure.

And then there’s the whopper: “I had no idea. I knew nothing about McCarrick.” As someone intimately tied into the whole dominant pro-gay world of the Church, not one person ever mentioned a single word to you about the notorious beach house? Seriously?

Seminarians from other dioceses knew about it 30 years ago. Donald Wuerl waterboy Bill Donahue knew about it. Your homosexualist pal Fr. James Martin had heard about it. John Allen from Crux knew about it. Your close buddy, San Diego Bp. Robert McElroy, knew about it.

The entire malevolent clerical world knew about it. Multiple bishops that you run with knew about it. How could you possibly and credibly have not known about it? No one is buying your “I knew nothing” whopper.

Then there is your ridiculous claim that what’s going on in the Church has nothing to do with homosexuality in the clergy. You claim it’s just clericalism. Then, a few days after that stupid claim, two of your Chicagoland priests get caught “clericalizing” each other in a car in broad daylight on a street in Miami — a few yards away from a school, no less.

They were so actively engaged in “clerical matters” that the cop who arrested them said they didn’t even notice him banging on the window to them. And then, it turns out one of them is not just any old priest in Chicago, but a pastor who is also on the marriage tribunal.

Good thing this whole crisis isn’t a gay thing, right? Because just imagine how bad it would be if it was. The coup de grace, not just once, but twice, you insist Church leaders can’t spend a lot of time on this crisis because we have very pressing matters to talk about, like the environment.

The first of your stupid comments you said to a Chicago TV station, and then you accused them of unfairly editing the interview, a claim which has been proven to be complete balderdash because they then posted the entire interview and publicly rebuked you, saying and showing that’s exactly what you said and in context.

However, not content to let sleeping dogs remain snoring, you actually double down with your own seminarians just a few days ago and were once again destroyed and mocked on social media and Chicago secular media, telling the young men not to concentrate on this whole evil mess because, well, you know, there are plastic straws in the ocean.

In fact, your arrogance and stupidity has spread so far and wide at this point that the most notable accomplishment you have achieved is to have your name added to Urban Dictionary in what most would agree is a rather apropos definition.

Here, see for yourself. It says: Cupich — as in “that’s a real Cupich”: a remark unparallelled in its combined stupidity, arrogance and insensitivity. Did you really just say climate change was a bigger issue than sex abuse in the Church? You just pulled a Cupich!”

So here we have a situation where one of the most notable archdioceses in the country is headed by a cardinal who:

  1. Either lies and repeats the lies or is over the top ignorant of all sorts of stuff that everyone else in the western hemisphere has known for decades.
  2. Has lost the respect of his own seminarians who told the secular media they were flabbergasted by his statement to them to ignore the sex abuse crisis.
  3. Continues to insist, in the face of reams of data to the contrary, and now his very own clergy, that the crisis is all about clericalism — not homosexual predation on males.
  4. Thinks getting to the bottom of thousands of cases of sexual assault is going down “a rabbit hole.”
  5. Accuses a network TV affiliate of distorting his words and then gets roundly smacked down in public by them.
  6. As a result of the public humiliation, orders his priests to read a statement at Mass defending him, many of whom simply don’t.
  7. Stood in front of a crowd of liberals in Cambridge, England earlier this year and declared that a “revolution” in the Church had begun, which you support and are part of.
  8. And has managed to get his very own entry in Urban Dictionary mocking and degrading his stupidity and arrogance.

Yep, exactly the type of man you want to be a cardinal in the Church. There are reports already that brother bishops and cardinals have smartly backed away from him at various meetings and are isolating him. They want nothing to do with him.

They don’t want to take even the chance of appearing in a photo with him — talk about a career ender.

And to show the depth of either his ignorance or gall or deceit — you choose — he made a comment that when the Illinois attorney general gets around to examine the files of the Chicago archdiocese like was done in Pennsylvania, she’s not gonna find much. Is that supposed to be a punchline to a bad joke? Hey Cupich, we’re talking about Chicago, here — Chicago: home to homosexualist Cardinal Bernardin’s gay reign of terror over the U.S. Church; home to a clerical population that your own predecessor, Cdl. Francis George admitted in private was over one-third gay, at least.

Sure, Attorney General Lisa Madigan won’t find anything — sure, unless you’ve ordered all the files shredded, she’s going to turn up a whole lot of stuff on multiple priests sexually assaulting lots of boys and men — er, sorry, I mean “clericalizing” boys and men.

You should have the decency to resign. You and Wuerl and McCarrick can then go away somewhere and continue to plot your revolution.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archbishop Viganò has sparked a revolution no one can control

THE CATHOLIC HERALD, UK

A man who rose quietly through the Curia has become the most incendiary figure in the Church

Anybody considering a career in the Roman Curia is well advised to avoid public controversy and be noticed only by the right people and in the right way. Last month, one man who had observed that code for most of his life abandoned it to make astonishing accusations against the reigning Pope, going so far as to call upon him to resign.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has accused Pope Francis of reversing disciplinary action taken by his predecessor against the alleged sexual predator Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, and allowing McCarrick a privileged role in influencing US episcopal appointments. The media storm Viganò unleashed has led him to go to ground, reportedly fearing for his life.

So who is the author of this unprecedented attack on the head of the earthly Church? He is a man whose seemingly effortless progression towards the highest ranks of papal service was abruptly halted, before this extraordinary postscript was added some two years after his retirement.

Carlo Maria Viganò was born on January 16, 1941 to wealthy parents in the Lombard city of Varese in northern Italy. Ordained priest in 1968, he went on to gain a doctorate utriusque legis, “of both laws”. The bearers of this distinction are often marked out for advancement, so it was no surprise that the young priest entered the Roman Curia in 1973.

For more than 30 years, Viganò succeeded in being noticed only by the right people in the right way. He held junior positions at the papal delegations in London and Baghdad before returning to Rome, as is typical, to man a desk at the Secretariat of State.

His administrative talents and unblemished service led to him being singled out for preferment. In 1989 he became special envoy and permanent observer of the Holy See to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In 1992 he was named nuncio to Nigeria, ordained to the episcopacy by St John Paul II, receiving the rank of titular archbishop.

Returning to Rome in 1998, Viganò became delegate for Pontifical Representations – personnel chief for the entire Curia and Vatican diplomacy. In 2009, Benedict XVI appointed him secretary general of the Vatican City Governorate. The Governorate is the body to which the Pope delegates executive authority for the Vatican City State. The cardinal president, who leads it, is often more of a figurehead and the secretary general, as second in command, oversees the business of administration. So Viganò was able to deploy his skills and natural authority as never before. It turned out to be the high water mark of his career.

In many ways, Viganò’s tenure was a stunning success. To the notoriously opaque field of Vatican finance, he brought a reforming zeal. By scrutinising procurement, insisting on tight budgeting and ruthlessly pursuing waste, he had by 2011 turned a $10 million deficit into a surplus of more than $40 million, earning him public thanks from Pope Benedict.

But there were mutterings about a harsh and intransigent management style. Viganò was also accused of nepotism in advancing the career of his nephew, an official in the Secretariat of State. (He has insisted that he acted transparently while at the Governorate.)

Viganò now seemed to be attracting the wrong sort of attention. In August 2011 he was appointed nuncio to the United States, despite resisting the move. Although Benedict maintained that he needed a man of proven worth in Washington, it looked like a demotion.

Had Viganò’s once irresistible rise hit the buffers? It seemed so in 2012, when he became a key figure in the VatiLeaks scandal. For the first time his name was cited beyond the rarefied circle of Vatican watchers. Letters from Viganò to Benedict and Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone were published. In them, he presented himself as a whistleblower punished by corrupt forces in the Vatican.

Viganò’s five-year tenure in Washington DC turned out to be his last posting. His resignation, on reaching 75 in January 2016, was swiftly accepted. By then Francis had succeeded Benedict, and Viganò’s episcopal recommendations – generally feisty conservative prelates – were not calculated to endear him to the new regime.

Last month’s bombshell put an end to Viganò’s relatively quiet retirement. There are growing rumours in Rome of forthcoming canonical sanctions, but so far the Pope’s preferred response has been silence – though his daily homilies have made references to those who “only seek scandal”. The Vatican is reportedly preparing to offer “necessary clarifications”.

But some of Viganò’s critics have taken a less high-minded approach, alleging that his letter is the revenge of a disappointed careerist, who had thought himself guaranteed a red hat but was thwarted by his own character defects. Viganò, they suggest, was furious at being forced to relinquish a luxurious Vatican apartment, and blamed Francis. (The archbishop denies the claims.)

Others have speculated that ideological motivations lay behind the purported revelations, and that Viganò has made himself the tool of right-wing US Catholics determined to destabilise or even end the current papacy. (His adhesion to the camp of the “culture warriors” is comparatively recent. When he was at the Secretariat of State, he was accused of sharing that dicastery’s reputed lack of enthusiasm for militant orthodoxy.)

Detractors have adduced aspects of Viganò career which appear to undermine his credibility: a family feud with an estranged brother, also a priest, over an inheritance; and a case where Viganò himself is accused of having covered up for an abuser bishop. The ex-nuncio has responded from his hiding place to deny these claims.

What is the ordinary Catholic to make of this unedifying public spat? One of its saddest aspects is the rush to take sides along predictably ideological lines. The truth or falsehood of Viganò’s claims are surely not related to our opinion of Pope Francis and his reforms.

Even in the much reviled Roman Curia, many serve the Church with self-denying sincerity. Generally, they are saddened and worried. Noting that Viganò’s letter violated the “pontifical secret”, one official told me: “I can’t believe he took the same oath as I did.” The “pontifical secret”, which is enshrined in canon law, is designed to protect the papacy from outside interference. The consequences of breaking it, even if that seems necessary in the face of grave corruption, are unforeseeable.

Opening up the Vatican to secular scrutiny may seem salutary, but it might allow things other than light to enter. The Vatican could find itself besieged by demands from prosecutors around the world – and their motives may not always be pure. Viganò and his most outspoken supporters may, ironically, be unleashing a revolution they neither want nor can control.

Complete transparency and full disclosure of all the documentation therefore carries a risk. But it still might be a better response than silence.


Fr Mark Drew holds a doctorate in ecumenical theology from the Institut Catholique. He is the parish priest of Hedon and Withernsea in Middlesbrough diocese

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the Pope and Abuse, Who Are the Real ‘Falsifiers of the Word’?

“Pope Francis will meet with all of the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences at the Vatican next February 21-24, ‘to speak about the prevention of the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults.’” So reported Vatican News, using the words of the assistant director of the Vatican Press Office, Paloma Garcia Ovejero, at the briefing held this week at the end of the meeting of the C9, the Council of Cardinals for the reform of the Curia.

Then we read an editorial in Avvenire, where Stefania Falasca recommended that we “must not become disoriented by the falsifiers of the word who are besieging the church at this time” and called us “to follow the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter. The pope is not a celebrity. In his ordinary preaching he does not speak about himself.” Falasca affirmed that “symptoms are multiplying of an evil that seems to be spreading like a collective hysteria, in which everything becomes a matter of denigration and receives a sinister interpretation to the point where it is considered normal and licit to call for the resignation of the pope as if he were the head of a company or a political party.”

“Falsifiers of the word.” While we were reading that phrase, we were thinking of McCarrick; of Tegucigalpa; of Boston and its seminary; and of the many other cases in Germany, Chile, the USA, and also here in Italy, even if for now the denunciations here are only subdued and anonymous. It is a crisis that, as has been affirmed by many, is one of “pervasive homosexuality” of priests and bishops, but about which the institutional Church says nothing. Nothing is said about it in the announcement of the meeting of the Bishops’ Conferences next February (February! That is five months from now…), nor did the pope mention it in his letter to the Chilean bishops, and in other official communications no mention of it is made. Why? What is it that they don’t want to say? Are we wrong for thinking there are those who “falsify the word” by intentional omission? In order to cover up whom and what?

Falasca is correct to advise us to follow the ordinary Magisterium. But, ahem, the pope is also a person, who just like everybody else has greater or lesser credibility according to the correspondence between what he says and what he does. And it is precisely for this reason that is so important, for me and for millions of others, to know the truth about whether Archbishop Viganò spoke to the pope on June 23, 2013 about who Theodore McCarrick was, what he had done, and what he was still doing. Because if it is true, and Pope Bergoglio not only did nothing, but also rehabilitated McCarrick and followed his advice in naming bishops and cardinals in the USA, favoring friends and protégés of McCarrick, the pope’s credibility when he presides over the umpteenth Vatican conference next February will not be the same as it would be if Viganò has lied or is perhaps mistaken.

This is why those who, instead of trying to find out whether this – a fact, not an opinion – is true or not, blabber on about conspiracies and attacks on the pope and all the rest are “falsifiers of the word” by default. In democracies, where there is free speech, people can ask those in authority about the truth of whether something happened or not. Under regimes, no: a request for transparency and truth is immediately labeled as an assault on the charismatic leader, on the “Little Father” or the “Great Helmsman” and so forth. And the “falsifiers of the word” who react immediately attempt to discredit those who ask the questions, normally by accusing them of having numerous ignoble motives. This also is what we have seen happening.

Leaving aside the question of his resignation, it is the personal and human credibility of the pope that is now at stake. This creates a great drama for many Catholics and perhaps also for some who are not Catholic. Because of this, the “falsifiers of the word,” in their long dissertations and analyses, avoid any mention of this point – a point to which silence, however it may be adorned and embellished, does not constitute an adequate response. A monkey dressed in silk remains a monkey. In a vague manner, the C9 has referred to the possibility that the Holy See may formulate “any necessary clarifications” in response to “what has happened in recent weeks.”

Meanwhile, even the most vocal detractors of Archbishop Viganò now admit that “it is evident that the former nuncio to the United States has cited dates and documents in his possession (or which he has seen) about which there is no reason to doubt.”

An important admission.

And perhaps this means he also was not mistaken about his audience with Pope Bergoglio on June 23, 2013?

The “clarifications” about this event will be key, perhaps above everything else.

Editor’s note: This article is translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino. The original ran in Italian at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday, September 14, 2018

U.S. Daily News

Ad

A Message from the Editor

Matthew Hoffman’s exceptionally well-researched article on Pope Francis’ ruthless suppression of clergy sex abuse victims when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires is beginning to receive mainstream media attention. No one else has done a report like this one.

Today, Lisa Bourne carefully and methodically walks readers through many of the implications of the Pope’s Feb. sex abuse prevention summit. In her article, Lisa reveals why the summit will very likely not address critically needed protection of seminarians, young priests and other young adults from the predations of a current, large network of homosexual older priests, bishops and cardinals. This is a must read.

Pope Francis lashed out yet again today against critics of himself and those he has placed around him in high positions. He returned to the theme of Satan as the “Great Accuser” for the third time this week. Those critics, of course, include Archbishop Viganò and a growing number of bishops, priests and notable Catholic laity who have deemed the Viganò letter to be credible and worthy of serious attention. Rumors are currently building that more bombshell revelations are forthcoming regarding Vatican cardinals.

There has been no more prolific “accuser” than Francis himself over the past 5 years as can be seen by the huge number of Francis quotes in the Pope Francis Book of insults, many of which have been reported in LifeSite stories.

Cardinal Maradiaga, who has very serious troubles of his own related to clerical sex abuse in his native Honduras, is joining Francis in rebuking the critics with a ridiculous characterization of Cardinal McCarrick’s horrific abuses and Pope Francis’ cover up of them as being only a matter of “a private order.”

And then we have the travesty of the leaked report of the German bishops’ severe negligence regarding sexual abuses of minors by German clergy that the bishops attempted to suppress and manipulate.

Be sure to read Doug Mainwaring’s major, personal, highly informative, and in the end spiritually inspiring article today, Christ’s cross has power to purge Church of homosexual corruption,
These are all big stories that seem to be beyond belief except that there is far too much evidence to support them. We hope and pray that all of this reporting will lead to greatly needed, long overdue major reform of the Catholic Church. There are still many wonderful and holy Catholic clergy who join us daily in that hope. 

God bless,

Steve Jalsevac

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pope Francis on Silence

 456  44  529

Silence is not enough. The wounds of the Church cannot begin to heal until Pope Francis honestly responds to Archbishop Viganò’s allegations. He has a responsibility to do so.

Pope Francis has remained notably silent in response to the allegations by Archbishop Viganò that he had been made aware of Cardinal McCarrick’s predatory behavior in regard to seminarians. When initially asked about these charges on the plane home from Ireland, the Holy Father invited journalists to reach their own conclusions, but said “I will not speak one word on this.”

This silence is puzzling to many people, and the pope somewhat indirectly addressed the puzzle the following Sunday in his homily. As reported by the Catholic Herald, Pope Francis said: “‘With people lacking good will, with people who seek only scandal, with those who look only for division, who want only destruction,’ the best response is ‘silence. And prayer.’” Expanding on this in the context of the Gospel reading, the pope pointed to Jesus’s response to those who were challenging him and eventually sought to drive him away, while Jesus “passed through the midst of them and went away.” Thus, indicated the pope, “the truth is meek. The truth is silent. The truth is not noisy.”

This seems to be an empirical claim, and one that is not always verified. Sometimes the truth is best served by silence, but sometimes it is not. Silence can be ally of dishonesty: as Matthew Schmitz has noted, the now-disgraced Marcial Maciel chose the road of silence, in an attempt to appear like Jesus. But his silence was no more than an appearance. It was, in fact, a form of lying. By suggesting that his silence was like Jesus’s silence, he falsely asserted his own innocence. In his case, silence was an enemy to the truth.

On the other hand, there are cases where silence is the friend of truth. In at least some of those cases, silence brings the contradictions and inconsistencies in a false account to light. By remaining silent in the face of false and absurd charges, one might give the false accuser “enough rope” that he is shown for the liar he is. But this certainly does not always happen, and it does not seem that Viganò’s “testimony” obviously collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. That the pope should have rehabilitated McCarrick while knowing of his past offenses is shocking, but not impossible; there are tensions in Viganò’s account, and facts that do not fit all of his narrative, but it is simply not the case that it is self-evidently false in its entirety or essentials.

Justice and Mercy

I suspect there is a further thought in mind in the pope’s decision to remain silent, one in keeping with a primary theme of his pontificate. When a person is falsely accused of wrongdoing, it is eminently clear that such a person has a right to defend himself, a right that is a matter of justice. Lies against another person that defame him, take away his good name, and make false charges of immoral or irresponsible behavior do that person a wrong, and the person wronged is owed something: a clearing of his name, and a return, so far as possible, of what he lost as a result of being defamed. Accordingly, the first step demanded by justice in a case of defamation is an assertion of the truth: the charges must be denied, and a retraction sought.

But Pope Francis has made mercy a theme of his pontificate, and mercy can require something more than justice. Consider, for example, Germain Grisez’s treatment of mercy and rights. Grisez notes that rights may be claimed for three reasons. The first is “to claim them precisely because they are one’s own.” This, Grisez holds, is always inappropriate for any one: this manifests a bias toward oneself that “leads one to act out of love of self rather than love of justice.” Others assert rights out of a concern for justice, and Grisez writes that since this is founded on “an impartial love of justice, this approach conforms to the common requirements of moral responsibility.”

But, Grisez argues, Christians are called to a different response, one that emulates Jesus, and subordinates their own interests to those of others. Thus, “transforming justice into mercy, they should voluntarily forgo their rights and more than fulfill their duties.” This seems to me the truth in the pope’s approach: it is his right to defend himself, but mercy requires Christians in many cases to forgo the assertion of their rights in order to give witness to the specific task that Jesus has placed on his followers, to love one another as He loved them.

But Grisez notes an important qualification to this principle. Christians “ought not to be concerned about their rights but about the responsibilities entailed by their personal vocations.” So “Christians should seek to vindicate their rights when this is required to fulfill their responsibilities, but not otherwise” (my emphasis).

So the question is this: is it more called for by the pope’s responsibilities that he keep silent in the face of Viganò’s charges, or that he answer honestly and completely?

A Pope’s Responsibility to His Church

No doubt, there are cases where silence is the best policy. Any pope is the subject of harangues, defamations, and false accusations on probably a daily, if not hourly basis. No pope would serve the Church well by taking every personal slight as an opportunity for public correction.

But the facts in this case are different. The accusation comes from a fellow bishop, a servant of the Church. The accusations are taken seriously, likewise, by many other bishops, and by many Catholic laypeople. Some people, zealous to defend the pope, have argued or asserted that virtually all who take the charges seriously are aligned in a quasi-conspiracy to overthrow the pope, oppose his reforms, and remake the Church.

There are two possibilities: first, perhaps these defenders are correct regarding those who are concerned by the allegations; perhaps the majority of those expressing concern, and asking for greater transparency from the pope, are in fact seeking primarily to bring him down—they have “pounced,” in the uncongenial description given by the New York Times.

But if so, surely the effective response by the pope, and hence the response required by his responsibilities, is not silence, but the silencing that comes when false accusations are met with truth and knowledge. No doubt these enemies will not be fully placated by mere “denials” (though they are hardly placated by silence at all). But denials backed by the presenting of evidence would “shine a torch” on their mendacity and malevolence. This would be for the good of the Church—the good the pope is pledged to protect. So, a renunciation of justice in this case seems ill-advised.

On the other hand, the zealous defenders of the pope might be mistaken. Perhaps, rather than malicious plotters, many Catholics who take the accusations seriously include laypeople, priests, and bishops of good will. Perhaps these people wish, for the good of the Church, to know the truth of the matter, believing that the truth is the only source of hope for the reform of corrupt institutional structures.

Such Catholics of good will need not be thought overly credulous in finding the accusations of Viganò credible. Their trust in their leaders has, after all, been deeply shaken in the past two months, first by the revelations concerning McCarrick, surely one of the most influential, yet also most depraved, clerics of recent decades, and by the evidence of extensive cover-ups by Church hierarchs in Pennsylvania over a span of several decades. Given what we have learned about the Catholic hierarchy in that short span (to say nothing of the history of the Church more broadly), the idea of corruption that goes all the way to the top hardly requires an act of faith.

Such Catholics have genuine concern for the good of the Church; their worry that some or all of Viganò’s accusations might be true is neither groundless nor irresponsible; their great state of demoralization and distrust is a wound in the entire Church. What are this, or any, pope’s vocational responsibilities in such a situation?

Silence is Not Enough

The answer seems clear to me: silence is an inadequate way to meet those responsibilities. It gives the appearance that the pope himself has more to gain by remaining silent than by speaking the truth. But respect for the pope runs deep among these Catholics. If the pope says directly, letting his yes be yes and his no be no, that there are no grounds for the accusation as it bears upon him, and if he then orders a complete and transparent investigation into the allegations insofar as they bear upon numerous other high-ranking Catholic officials, even those personally close to him, then surely this will go a long way toward showing the faithful that the shepherd truly is one with the flock, that he smells like the sheep.

Right now, American Catholics know that for many years, their leaders included wolves. No good pope would knowingly solicit and heed the advice of such a wolf, but Pope Francis very clearly did solicit and heed the advice of McCarrick. The wound of the Church cannot begin to heal until he can, and does, honestly assert or deny that he did so knowingly.

Christopher O. Tollefsen is College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nuclear Bombshell Argentinian Whistleblower Interview: “Bergoglio Allows the “c”atholic Elite in Rome to Have Access to Gustavo Vera’s Child Sex Slaves

FOR AGGRESSIVE REPRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION IN ORDER TO THWART/ENDRUN ANY POTENTIAL CENSORSHIP OR CYBER ATTACKS. PLEASE.

[Once again, this whistleblower isn’t anyone’s ideal.  But what do you expect?  And, let me be the first to point out, this guy, along with Natacha Jaitt is literally risking his life in talking about this stuff. Bergoglio, Vera, et. al. are satanic murderers.  More to come in this space. Please lift up the Argentine translator/sleuths providing this content in English in prayer. -AB]

Natacha Interviews Artem #1 Summary

  • Artem Reshetnyak (Ukrainian) introduces himself. He’s lives in Argentina and is engaged to a known escort named Lucilla, who is originally from Uruguay. They’ve been together for 3 years.
  • He ran a blog from Summer 2013 – Fall 2017 where he publicly denounced the pedophilic and sex trafficking network led by Gustavo Vera. He conducted his own investigation for these posts
  • He says an official came to his home (where he lived with Lucilla) and gave a warning: his girlfriend had to stop promoting herself (as a prostitute) – Gustavo’s orders – and if he didn’t stop talking about Gustavo online they would kill him. He doesn’t share the name of this officer.
  • He wrote an article about how the media gives a false impression on the nature of human trafficking, focusing on the adult female victims and not mentioning the children and male victims. Says homosexual and pedophilic sex slavery is more common.
  • He agrees with Jaitt when she says that La Alameda promises to help victims working in poor conditions in illegal sweatshops, but instead takes advantage of them. He was contacted by an informant (who he wants to keep confidential) who divulged information on the criminal activities of the organization: sex trafficking, pedophilia, blackmail.
  • He started working with Martes Rojos, a Latino organization dedicated to ending sex trafficking in the most vulnerable neighborhoods.
  • Natacha says everything he’s reporting confirms what she’s been working on – La Alameda subjugates the very people they’re claiming to liberate. Artem agrees and says that Gustavo Vera manages this network, he’s directly involved in its operation. The video cuts off as he is talking about sharing data against Vera.

Natacha Interviews Artem #2 Summary:

  • Sources of income that fund Gustavo Vera: Bergoglio and also extorting sweatshops using illegal hiring practices (Gustavo’s mafia gets paid to not alert authorities to the crimes of these businesses)
  • Another source of funds is selling drugs. Uses the organization to gain an advantage over local gangs, just like La Alameda is used to shut down brothel competition. They selectively target areas and then install their own network. This network is not like the local gang culture, which abides by a traditional code of conduct, e.g. the La Alameda mafia sells drugs to school children, because once they are hooked on drugs they are easier for La Alameda manipulate.
  • Lucia Perez, the victim of abuse and ultimately murder at the hand of Gustavo’s mafia.
  • Children are kidnapped (one group that does the kidnapping – the Stolen Childhood Network, which claims to be a group to help children) from the poorer neighborhoods and are victims of the pedophile network which also brings in a lot of income.
  • Natasha repeats the idea that these children are targeted because they have no resources, no power, the judicial system is not concerned with maintaining their safety or upholding the law in their case. She equates it to the prostitution and pedophilia networks run in the soccer leagues. Artem agrees with everything she’s saying.
  • The headquarters of the human trafficking operation is the in the Northern part of the country but the network has an international reach: Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Spain, Italy, including Rome. There’s a big demand for blonde European children.
  • There are many other important people involved in addition to Gustavo Vera – Juan Carr (runs The Solidarity Network) whose organization pretends to look for missing children but actually kidnaps children. They give false hope to families who have missing children, when they find the child they keep the child as a sex slave.
  • Bergoglio provides funding and protection for La Alameda and allows the Catholic elite in Rome to have access to the children. Creating centers for disadvantaged children makes the children dependent on them, because they have no resources other than the Church.


Additional Supporting Documentation/Links

Artem’s claims reinforced Jaitt’s points, but I wanted to find a few more sources to show that he isn’t the only one to be suspicious about Gustavo Vera, La Alameda, Bergoglio, and other bad priests. He’s very direct and to the point in his interview so these links should provide more context and help support the idea that there is something corrupt going on.

    • Periodico Tribuna (Spanish, 2017): Gustavo Vera fue expulsado del Vaticano
      • Says that Gustavo’s organization was a sham, claimed to fight against slavery and human trafficking but instead profited from these very things. Specifically mentions blackmailing sweatshop owners, echoing what Artem says in the video.
      • Believes Gustavo being banned from the Vatican is because the Pope only recently found out about this (eyeroll). Also claims “The Vatican has eyes and ears everywhere in the world, and much more in the Nation from which the Pontiff of the day originates.”
      • Also hints at drug trafficking, says more information coming in a later article.
    • The Nation (September 2015): How Pope Francis Is Reviving Radical Catholic Economics
      • This is a pro-Bergoglio article praising how he’s changing the Church in a leftward direction. Quotes:
        • “The same mind-set which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.” – Bergoglio
        • ““He’s a person who comes from walking through the poor neighborhoods, from walking with those who are in very bad conditions, from being with the unions and all that,” says Néstor Escudero, a member of the Argentine NGO La Alameda, which opposes human trafficking and organizes cooperatives among victims. Bergoglio lent his presence and protection to La Alameda, along with other groups that faced danger because of their work.”
        • “He came of age in the heyday of Peronism in Argentina, and he learned from the Peróns how to walk a kind of both-and line between a Marxist’s identification with the masses and a conservative’s savvy among the powers that be.”
    • La Stampa (2016)
      • “The Pope denied allegations that Gustavo Vera, a professor, politician and social activist and Francis’ longtime friend and collaborator, acts as his spokesperson.”
      • Relevant because so many articles across the internet, in English and Spanish, have Vera speaking about the Pope as if he were the spokesman. For years Vera does this while seeing the Pope every other month and chatting on the phone weekly. Surely Bergoglio would have told him to stop if he didn’t like it? Another instance of his words not lining up with his actions.
    • Explanation on the Lucia Perez case
      • 16 year old girl murdered on October 8 2016 by Matías Farías (23) and Juan Pablo Offidani (41). Alejandro Maciel (61) charged with aggravated cover up. Drugged, suffocated, raped, beaten, and murdered. Then they cleaned her up, changed her clothes, and took her dead body to a health centre to make it look like she overdosed. (Source)
    • Washington Post (2013): Pope Francis was often quiet on Argentine sex abuse cases as archbishop
      • Talks about Grassi case, confirming everything shared in the other doc
      • “But during most of the 14 years that Bergoglio served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, rights advocates say, he did not take decisive action to protect children or act swiftly when molestation charges surfaced; nor did he extend apologies to the victims of abusive priests after their misconduct came to light.”
      • He has been totally silent,” said Ernesto Moreau, a member of Argentina’s U.N.-affiliated Permanent Assembly for Human Rights and a lawyer who has represented victims in a clergy sexual-abuse case. Victims asked to meet with Bergoglio but were turned down, Moreau said. “In that regard, Bergoglio was no different from most of the other bishops in Argentina, or the Vatican itself.”

 

  • Another Argentinian abuser: Father Mario Napoleon Sasso assigned to work with children even though he was a known abuser
  • Father Mario Napoleon Sasso

 

    • Washington Post (2013)
      • “After local parishioners accused Father Mario Napoleon Sasso of molesting children in a poor, rural province of eastern Argentina in the early 1990s, he was sent to a private rehabilitation center for wayward clergy, La Domus Mariae (the House of Mary), north of Buenos Aires. He lived for two years at the center and was then reassigned to work in a soup kitchen for poor children in a town outside the capital. There, he went on to sexually abuse girls as young as 3.”
      • “Moreau said that in 2003 he accompanied two nuns and a priest who had denounced Sasso, along with the victims’ families, to a meeting with the Vatican emissary in Buenos Aires. He said the families were told to be “patient” and were offered gifts of rosaries “blessed by the pope.” “They just wanted to cover it up,” Moreau said.
      • “Three years later, as the evidence against Sasso mounted, the families asked to see Bergoglio, Moreau said, but they never received a response.”
    • Bishop Accountability Report with 17 additional sources linked on his abuse
  • Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli (Argentina)
    • NCR (2014): Francis’ cardinal replacement in Buenos Aires has similar pastoral approach
      • Cardinal Mario is one of the 19 cardinals Jorge promoted January 2014. He was born in 1947 ordained in 1978.
      • Described as quiet, low profile, not political, conciliatory, promotes inter faith dialogue, concerned for the poor.
      • “He’s a person permanently consulting with the pope. … It’s no surprise to anyone that he has been speculated about (for) this possible appointment,”
      • “In Buenos Aires, Pope Francis was a towering figure. He left a legacy of living austerely, walking the streets of the slums, taking the metro and declining social events. He also provided attention to the poor and spoke out on political matters”
    • Catholic News Agency (2014): Cardinal-elect Poli, Buenos Aires’ successor to Bergoglio
      • Lists good things he has done as Archbishop, stresses his lack of political involvement.
      • “The Argentine publication was told by a source that “Bergoglio designated as bishops those most close to his thought. We will not see more bishops with ‘princely’ or ‘stately’ styles.””
      • “Another source indicated that Archbishop Poli “never took an interest in politics, nor does he participate in the ‘threat’, or meet with leaders early in the morning as did Bergoglio,” adding that he “fosters Catholic schools, and takes care that ‘the sheep are well.’”
    • The Guardian (2015): Archbishop of Westminster is made a cardinal by Pope Francis
      • Only relevant quote: “It had been considered almost inevitable that the pope’s successor as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Mario Aurelio Poli, would be named.”
    • Infovaticana.com (Spanish): ¿Quién es Mario Aurelio Poli?
      • Speaks extremely highly of Bergoglio. Praises his style, his ideas, his approach as “Pope”. Supports the idea of “new evangelization”, “lowering the Church to the level of the people” to better “connect” and facilitate their “encounter” with the Spirit, etc. etc.
    • Perfil.com (Spanish, May 2018): Crece la movilización en la calle y la Iglesia apoya sus reclamos
    • La Arena (Spanish, 2012): Obispo Poli, vinculado a “red de silencio”
      • Sebastián Quattromo (13) was abused by Fernando Enrique Picciochi at the Marianista de Caballito School’s annual camping trip in the early 90s. Years later he reported this to the school and the Church, who only tried to keep him silent.
      • “Quattromo gave an interview to Página 12 that was published in their Sunday edition, revealing that in early 2000, he, together with a peer who suffered the same abuses, were put through a process of mediation, and the institution, in order to avoid a civil case, compensated them $40,000, but not before they signed a confidentiality clause.”
      • “Although Quattromo accepted the terms, he ultimately took this imposition of silence to the Legal Council of the City of Buenos Aires, who determined that he was in the right.”
      • “I then went to the Archbishop, where I was attended by a secretary of Monsignor Jorge Bergoglio, a man who identified himself as Martín García Aguirre,” said Quattromo
      • “I laid out my case to him, along with the measures that the Catholic institution took to silence my ex-classmate and me.” He sent me to the District Vicarage of Flores, where I had two interviews with the man in charge, Father Mario Poli. I once again laid out my case and the measures taken. But I never heard back.”
    • La Alameda Blog: Misa por las víctimas de trata, la esclavitud y la exclusión
      • Celebrated mass to end human trafficking in the Constitutional Plaza in partnership with La Alameda. Gustavo Vera attended and spoke.
      • Also present: La Campora, Equipo de Sacerdotes para las Villas de Emergencia, las Hermanas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor, las Hermanas Adoratrices Españolas, la Red KAWSAY, y el Movimiento de Trabajadores Excluidos.
  • Pino Solanas (this is more of a character sketch to show the types of people involved in La Alameda)
  • Movie producer and revolutionary connected with La Alameda (see photo of him and Vera)
  • “Solanas was at the forefront of the Grupo Cine Liberación that shook Argentine cinema in the 1970s, developing its social conscience and political voice. He was active in the campaign to support Perón”
  • Ran for president in 2007 in the Authentic Socialist Party, in 2009 he became the National Deputy for Buenos Aires, in 2013 election National Senator for Buenos Aires.
  • Started his own political party: Proyecto Sur “The party’s progressive platform centers on environmentalism, social democracy and eco-socialism, and the nationalization of energy, petroleum, rail, and shipping concerns”
  • Pro abortion and wanted to legalize it in Argentina
  • Vera, Pino, Bergoglio on the same team: http://www.lavoz.com.ar/politica/gustavo-vera-y-fernando-pino-solanas-somos-la-opcion-macri-y-massa
    • Spanish interview where Vera and Pino talk about their shared mission and support of the Pope, opposition to Macri, and love of Laudato Si.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VATICAN ROCKED BY LEAK OF 300-PAGE DOSSIER

NEWS: WORLD NEWS

 

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  September 13, 2018

Supposed file on Cdl. Kevin Farrell implicates Pope Francis

ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) – The Vatican is reeling from news that the 300-page dossier containing names of members of the gay lobby — a dossier some believe led to Pope Benedict’s resignation in 2013 — has been leaked to the media.

Il Fatto Quotidiano, an Italian journal read by Vatican officials, is confirming it has seen the 300-page dossier. “The report contains a detailed and disturbing picture of the moral and material corruption of the clergy, with names, surnames and circumstances,” writes Francesca Fagnani.

We are … able to view a document on papal letterhead included in the investigation, and here we publish an excerpt: It is a list of prelates and laymen who belong to the so-called gay lobby, which through blackmail and secrets could affect, or have conditioned, positions and careers (theirs, like those of others).

We will not reveal the names shown in the list, but we can confirm that among the names there are people removed by the Pope, others moved from office, others who still hold important positions in strategic organs for the Vatican, such as Propaganda Fide and even the Secretariat of State.

Among those implicated in the dossier is none other than Cdl. Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, who has repeatedly claimed he knew nothing of former housemate Abp. Theodore McCarrick’s homosexual predation, although they lived together on the same floor of the same house for six years in Washington, D.C.

The report contains a detailed and disturbing picture of the moral and material corruption of the clergy, with names, surnames and circumstances.Tweet

“Farrell was appointed auxiliary bishop of Washington precisely because it was McCarrick who wanted him as a deputy,” Fagnani reports in a September 4 article focusing on a “Farrell dossier.” “The two were part of the ‘magic circle’ of Pope Francis.”

[A case] on the auxiliary bishop of Washington, Kevin Joseph Farrell, is said to have been filed at the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith in the Vatican, at the Dicastery that is responsible for investigating sexual and other crimes against good morals, which, if not rebutted, would fall squarely on the Pope like a boulder. Farrell [was] appointed directly by Bergoglio to head the Dicastery of the Family.

In response to Il Fatto Quotidiano‘s queries with regard to the existence of a file on Farrell, the Vatican is refusing to confirm or deny.

“There will be no communication,” was the response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “The Vatican therefore does not deny Il Fatto Quotidiano, but chooses the strategy of silence as for McCarrick,” Fagani writes.

Pope Benedict’s sudden resignation in 2013 is allegedly linked to the 300-page dossier; some media reported that Benedict chose to resign the same day he received the dossier, the result of findings of an investigation commissioned by the Holy Father into clerical corruption and malfeasance.

The investigation, itself, led by Cardinals Julián Herranz, Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi, is said to have uncovered sins involving sex and financial corruption. “Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments,” according to La Repubblica in February 2013.

“The investigation of the three cardinals Herranz-Tomko-De Giorgi has so far remained top secret,” Fagnani writes in her report. “However, a small but not small circle of people has had the opportunity to read it, and this already before the Conclave, to give a hand to the Holy Spirit who would then take Bergoglio to the papal throne. To draw up the dossier, tens of priests and high priests were questioned, and documents of all kinds were collected.”

“If the public were aware of the content of the final report it would be a disaster for the image of the Church, already devastated in the whole world by sexual scandals,” she added.

If the public were aware of the content of the final report it would be a disaster for the image of the Church, already devastated in the whole world by sexual scandals.Tweet

The hope after Benedict’s resignation was that a younger, stronger pope would be elected to help clean up the Church; thus Francis was chosen with the understanding he’d be a man of reform. But under his papacy, some senior clergy believe conditions have worsened, not improved.

Vaticanista Ed Pentin reported in 2017 that, according to a senior member of the curia, “the extent of homosexual practice in the Vatican has ‘never been worse,’ despite efforts begun by Benedict XVI to root out sexual deviancy from the curia … .”

Alarm at the homosexual crisis in the Church has reached fever pitch, with the outing of Abp. Theodore McCarrick — the very face of the response to the 2002 sex abuse crisis — as a homosexual predator, followed by the bombshell Pennsylvania grand jury report revealing 301 predator priests in only six U.S. dioceses, compounded further by the shock of Abp. Carlo Maria Vigano’s testimony revealing an entrenched “homosexual current” in the Church in the highest ranks, reaching even up to Pope Francis himself.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Liturgy as a Temple: God-Made or Man-Made?

Toward the end of His life on Earth, Our Lord Jesus Christ was walking one day through the temple in Jerusalem – a vast structure of noble design, made by human hands, fashioned by Hebrews who dared to dream that this was “God’s house” the way that Herod’s palace was Herod’s house. The fact that the first temple built under Solomon had been razed to the ground by the Babylonian army does not seem to have convinced the Hebrews that their dream was doomed to failure.

And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him: “Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” And Jesus answering, said to him: “Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mk. 13:1-2)

The temple was only ever meant to be a temporary sign of God’s indwelling in Israel, a union destined to be fulfilled in the Word made flesh, the temple not made by human hands, where God and man are one, indissolubly and forever. The body of Christ is the tabernacle of the Most High, the place where His glory dwelleth. Hence, in the plan of Divine Providence, the Romans in 70 A.D. destroyed the temple made by human hands, clearing the way for the worldwide temple of the Mystical Body of Christ.

This is not to say that the Christian religion is disembodied, as a certain spiritualistic strain in Christianity, with a strong tendency towards iconoclasm, has been tempted to believe, especially in the 8th, 16th, and 20th centuries. On the contrary, we have a new and better temple, the Body of Christ, which – or rather Who – is really, truly, substantially present in every tabernacle of the world.

Each Catholic church is a place in which “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9), making even the humblest chapel greater, worthier, more glorious than the first temple of Solomon or the second temple of Herod. What Our Lord says about the lilies of the field could be applied to Catholic churches: “I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these” (Mt. 6:29) – for “behold, a greater than Solomon is here” (Mt. 12:42).

It is fitting, then – indeed, more than fitting, required by the moral virtue of religion – that our churches be designed and decorated in such a way that they point unambiguously to and boldly proclaim the temple that is Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, and the temple of His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. In this way, a church imitates and continues the mission of the forerunner who cried out: “Behold the Lamb of God! Behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world.”

The sacred liturgy, too, should point to Christ and proclaim Him; as the opus Dei or work of God, as an action primarily from God and for Him, it should already share in His own attributes, as He has revealed them to us in the history of salvation, and present them to us for our internalization. It should appear to be what He Himself is: ancient of days, stable, indestructible, permanent, strong, holy, transcendent, mysterious, at times bewildering. Above all, it must not seem to be “made by human hands” – that is, made at a merely human, temporal, this-worldly, secular level – for we would rightly hold it in contempt, and it would have to suffer the same fate as the Solomonic and Herodian temples. Rather, we could place on the lips of the liturgy, as a living reality fashioned by a divine hand in the womb of the Church, the words of the psalmist:

Thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. … My frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Ps. 138:13, 15-16)

How different, shockingly so, is the Novus Ordo (Seclorum, one is tempted to add), where the liturgy is, and displays itself as, the work of human hands, revamped according to modern ideas, subject to human manipulation, in a cacophony of vulgar tongues, forming ever new cultural compounds like an unstable element?

And some saying of the temple that it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, He said: “These things which you see, the days will come in which there shall not be left a stone upon a stone that shall not be thrown down.” (Lk. 21:5-6)

In reading these haunting words, how can we not be reminded of the reformed liturgical rites, which were built up by committees of men, experts with flowing phylacteries of scholarship, who were adorning (as they saw it) the liturgy with “goodly stones and gifts” specially conceived for Modern Man? These “great buildings,” all of them, will be thrown down, for they are not the temple formed over the ages by the Holy Ghost in the womb of Holy Mother Church, where the traditional liturgical rites in all their wonderful extravagance were knit together, intricately wrought, fashioned in secret.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mt. 12:25). The new liturgy is a house divided against itself: it is no longer the traditional Roman rite as organically developed over many centuries, but a new fabrication made up of bits and pieces of antiquity and modernity. It is like the vision interpreted by the Prophet Daniel:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold there was as it were a great statue: this statue, which was great and high, tall of stature, stood before thee, and the look thereof was terrible. The head of this statue was of fine gold, but the breast and the arms [were] of silver, and the belly and the thighs of brass: and the legs of iron, the feet part of iron and part of clay. (Dan. 2:31-33)

Even so is the new liturgy, an imposing work of human hands that is fatally flawed by its lack of unity, integrity, consistency, and cohesion. It is not the one Roman rite of the ages, but a voluntaristic product of hundreds of “experts” working in tandem on little committees, murdering to dissect. The only “unity” their product enjoys is the positivistic approval of Paul VI, which is incapable of fusing the statue into one substance and breathing into it the breath of life. This is why some refer to it as the “Frankenmass.”

We read in The Lives of the Desert Fathers of John the Hermit:

His only food was the Communion which the priest brought him on Sundays. His rule of life permitted nothing else. Now one day Satan assumed the form of the priest and went to him earlier than usual, pretending that he wanted to give him Communion. The blessed John, realizing who it was, said to him: “O father of all subtlety and all mischief, enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to deceive the souls of Christians, but you dare to attack the Mysteries themselves?” [1]

This, on a massive scale, is what the father of all subtlety and all mischief, enemy of all righteousness, has dared to do in our times: he has attacked, at their root and in all their branches, the Mysteries of our salvation. He has done so by inducing men to corrupt the liturgical rites of all the sacraments and sacramentals, and of the Divine Office, and then to cling to these as if they were better than the visible image of the invisible God we had received from our forefathers. He has sown doubts, errors, and confusion in dogma and morals, finding many willing accomplices among those who proudly boast of the superiority of modern times, of modern ways of thinking and acting.

We know what happened to the great statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream:

Thus thou sawest, till a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the statue upon the feet thereof that were of iron and of clay, and broke them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of a summer’s thrashingfloor, and they were carried away by the wind: and there was no place found for them: but the stone that struck the statue, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. (Dan. 2:34-35)

Like all symbolic visions, this one admits of multiple fulfillments and applications. Daniel interpreted it in regard to a succession of kingdoms, culminating in a kingdom that shall never be destroyed. Can it say something further to us today?

The stone that strikes the great fabrication of human ingenuity is “cut out of a mountain without hands.” The giant and terrifying monolith towering over us, a product of feverish squadrons of laborers, is shattered by a little stone that owes its existence to a supernatural sculptor. This stone grows to become a great mountain that fills the whole Earth.

Does this not sound like the Catholic traditionalist movement? It began small, but it is growing, and its growth, being of the Holy Ghost, cannot be thwarted. It loves and defends and promotes not the “banal on-the-spot fabrication” of committees, but the accumulated and inherited treasury of the ages, the worthy vessel of the Incarnate Word, the singing and silent witness of the glory of God. This movement will become a great mountain that fills the whole Earth, as the experiment in monumental pottery falls to pieces, decade after decade.

To adapt an ancient liturgical text, we could cry out: “O happy fault, that preserved for us so great a liturgy!” The radicalized Liturgical Movement in the middle of the twentieth century was hell-bent on tinkering with the Roman liturgy, slowly denaturing and disintegrating it, especially from 1948 onward. Should we not, as counterintuitive as it sounds, be grateful that the proponents of change went as far as they did? The outrageous magnitude of the liturgical revolution was permitted by Divine Providence in order to make it possible eventually to return to the tradition in full, because faithful clergy and laity over time would come to see the corruption and would repudiate all of it – including the antiquarian simplifications and disfigurations introduced during the 1950s under Pius XII, who was Paul VI in super-slow motion. The traditional movement worldwide is awakening at last to the full magnitude of the harm that was wrought and is seeing, ever more clearly, the only way forward: total adherence to the Roman rite in its Tridentine form, prior to the arrogant meddling of myopic experts.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its potent purity, and the traditional liturgy in general, exorcises the spirit of modernism out of the Church. Nothing is more urgently needed than this exorcism – and it is already happening, wherever tradition has established a beachhead on the enemy’s territory.


[1] Trans. Norman Russell (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1981), 93.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BRAVO BISHOP EDWARD SCHARFENBERGER

Bishop Scharfenberger’s Letter Calling Priests to Recommitment

BISHOP SCHARFENBERGER’S LETTER CALLING PRIESTS TO RECOMMITMENT

August 31, 2018

Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger sent the following letter on Friday afternoon to members of the clergy (vicars, priests, deacons) as well as Parish Life Directors and Parish Life Coordinators.

My dear brothers in Christ,

First of all, I want you to know that I stand by you and with you as we face together what will be a long and challenging crisis of faith, leadership and identity. Who we are and who God and our people need and expect us to be must be one and the same. I know you are hurting. Among our family of faith, many are angry and dismayed at revelations of ongoing duplicity and unchastity among priests and bishops. They want swift justice for the victims of sexual abuse by clergy and accountability for those who perpetrated and enabled it for so long.

Most of our people, however, are also remarkably compassionate and forgiving. While they understand the need for justice and transparency, they also love Jesus and his Church and will not abandon us, if they can only have the assurance we will shepherd them, hear their voice and share their journey of faith.

We must now pledge ourselves, our love, our support and our whole lives, to our people – God’s people – as their spiritual fathers and as the shepherds we were called to be on the day of our ordination. The Holy Spirit, as always, unites us around the abiding presence of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to stand with us like pillars at each end of this barque of Peter as we navigate troubled waters. We rely on this same Holy Spirit today to rekindle in us the fire of God’s love and the seven gifts we received at our Confirmation.

Over the past five Sundays we have read, prayed and preached on Chapter 6 of the Gospel of St. John, containing the Bread of Life discourse. Jesus offers us himself as the living bread come down from heaven, his body broken and his blood outpoured on the Cross for the salvation of the world. On September 22, on the occasion of our Hearts Aflame Eucharistic Congress, clergy, religious and laity of the Diocese will convene at the Shrine of Our Lady of Martyrs in Auriesville, united with their Bishop, to rejoice in the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian life. I write to ask you to be present there, with me.

Corruption of the holiness of the priesthood is essentially an attack on the Eucharist, on Jesus himself, who is the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. Our priestly ordination calls and commissions us from among God’s people to lead valiantly, standing boldly and courageously with them at the foot of the Cross. When we are weakened and demeaned by the ravages of sin, we betray our people’s trust and God’s commission. The “Signs of the Times” now demand a renewal of our commitment that is united, bold and compelling. Our people deserve nothing less.

Following the example of Jesus, we stand now before our people, in fact, the world, humbled and called to an uncompromising holiness, poured out like a libation in love for all, especially the most wounded and vulnerable. This is what we pledged at our ordination, this is what our people expect from us and this is what they need us to be. I firmly believe it is what God have given us the grace and courage to be.  As men of honor we must live by our word.

Yes, we are humbled, humiliated by our own sins and those of our brothers and spiritual fathers, often imputed to us as well for reasons we are reminded of every day. Jesus himself, though without sin, suffered the scourge and consequences of all our sins. Led like a lamb to the slaughter, he did not complain. Dare we?

We are called to holiness, no less than all the baptized, but more publicly through the daily sacramental ordination of our lives, which embraces our every thought, word and deed. The Church is holy in its witness to the whole truth of the love it is called to proclaim. So also our preaching, teaching and personal conduct must be one, and beyond compromise or reproach. Sound doctrine and moral praxis, as handed down through the magisterium, must inform us, lived each moment in authentic love. We encounter Christ in each and every relationship with our brothers and sisters, our spiritual sons and daughters, made in God’s image and likeness, and we must honor them as we honor Christ. There can be no hidden corners. Our commitment to the Truth and our moral integrity, by the grace of God in the sacramental life of the Church, must be as real as the presence among us of the Lord whose name we proclaim.

As a libation, our lives must be open and poured out sacrificially, even heroically, towards Jesus our Lord who lives in all whom we encounter. The hands that offer up the pure and unblemished body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must not be soiled by sinful indulgences, the misappropriation of temporal goods or the abuse of any power to despoil the freedom or the innocence of every person God’s providence sends our way.

As a public witness, to God’s people and the world, of our wholehearted and undivided commitment in the priesthood to which we were called and ordained, I request and require your presence at the Shrine of Our Lady of Martyrs in Auriesville to concelebrate Mass with me at 10:30 Saturday morning in the Coliseum.

May I ask that you arrive in sufficient time to vest and assemble, bringing your own alb, white stole and chasuble. At Mass we will renew the promises we made at our ordination along with a public restatement of commitment to all that we have been ordained to preach, teach and live by.

I want to reiterate that the presence of each and every member of the presbyterate is essential and mandatory, so I ask you to make this sacrifice, notwithstanding any difficulties foreseen in accommodating for Masses or weddings previously scheduled, for which our deacons and non-diocesan clergy will stand ready to assist you.

As human beings, and men who really want to serve our Lord and our people as good and holy priests, even while faced with our own brokenness and, in some cases, unjust oppression and even victimhood at the hands of others, the onslaught of these repelling revelations threatens at moments to overwhelm us. We wonder whether we will be able to bear even the burdens of the good days.

We may be confident that God will use our pain and suffering to bring about much good, perhaps a great renewal of our Church and a new energy to our own faith life. Our diocese is consecrated to the Divine Mercy and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We will not be deprived of any grace we need – if we put our lives 100 percent on the table before the Lord and accept the transforming power of his love.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve alongside you in the Lord’s vineyard these past four years. I look forward to many fruitful years ahead. And I am confident that this witness of solidarity and support to our faithful and to one another will open the doors of heaven for an outpouring of all the blessings we will need for the journey ahead. We may even be incredibly surprised by what our Lord can do miraculously if we let him. There are precedents.

With fraternal love and deep gratitude,

 

+Edward B. Scharfenberger
Bishop of Albany

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Featured Image
Matthew Cullinan HoffmanMatthew Cullinan HoffmanFollow Matthew

NEWS

Pope Francis attacked and stonewalled sex abuse victims while archbishop of Buenos Aires

September 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The world is currently focused on Pope Francis’ involvement in the affair of clerical sex abuser Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. However, the recent claims made by former apostolic nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò against Pope Francis in the matter are only the beginning of a long record of sex abuse cover-ups by Pope Francis and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio that stretches back decades.

Although Francis famously claimed in his 2010 book On Heaven and Earth that sex abuse by clergy “has never occurred in my diocese” and “in the diocese it never happened to me,” the evidence to date indicates that Pope Francis is involved in multiple cover-ups of clerical sexual predators in South America, including his own archdiocese. His involvement in at least two of these cases has continued during his papacy.

In a 2017 documentary by the French news program Cash Investigation, six different individuals claiming to be sex abuse victims in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires told reporters that they had been sexually abused by clergy there, and that they had written to Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to inform him, but that he had never answered their complaints (see video below).

To this day Pope Francis has only expressed regret for one of these cover-ups, the Barros affair, following a massive public outcry in Chile over his strong-arm tactics against victims. The other cases continue to be hushed-up, ignored, and stonewalled.

The pope recently told sex abuse survivors in Ireland that those who cover up sexual abuse are “caca” (feces) and recently said that such priests should be removed and their accusers should be accompanied in the civil courts. However, Francis has done exactly the opposite, and continues to refuse to meet with victims he not only refused to accompany, but whom he sought for years to discredit with judges.

LifeSite is including links to its sources in the Spanish-speaking and French media regarding these cases so that the public can verify their veracity and to facilitate the reporting by other journalists on this topic.

The case of Julio César Grassi, convicted child sex abuser defended by Bergoglio

Perhaps the most egregious case of obstruction, stonewalling, and negligence regarding a clerical child sex abuser on the part of Jorge Bergoglio was that of Julio César Grassi, a priest famous throughout Argentina for his work with poor and orphan children, and who became the subject of numerous accusations by teen residents of his facilities, which led to his conviction for sex abuse of a minor in 2013 as well as other charges and a sentence of more than 15 years in prison.

While refusing to speak to Grassi’s victims, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio engineered a campaign to discredit the victims and to influence the judges in the case, which may have resulted in some of the charges being dismissed. Despite these efforts, Grassi was convicted in the case of one victim who was able to identify hidden marks and other characteristics of Grassi’s body, and his conviction has been upheld by multiple appeals courts, including a final ruling by the Supreme Court of Argentina in March of 2016. Nonetheless, Pope Francis continues to allow Grassi to function as a priest. Despite ongoing requests, Francis has not yet met with victims nor apologized to them.

Fr. Julio Cesar Grassi is a priest of the Diocese of Morón, which was under Bergoglio’s metropolitan authority as Archbishop of Buenos Aires. There Grassi personally oversaw a residential facility housing approximately 400 children. The priest’s efforts to raise money for his “Happy Children Foundation” (Fundación Felices los Niños), which managed seventeen facilities throughout the country for over six thousand children, made him a national celebrity and generated the equivalent of millions of dollars in donations annually.

Grassi’s image as a crusader for a humanitarian cause made him a subject of national pride and gave him immense public credibility, as he forged close relationships with some of the wealthiest and most powerful figures in Argentinean society. By the late 1990s he had become a priest celebrity who seemed untouchable.

However, Grassi’s charitable empire began to collapse in 2002 when a series of investigative reports in the Argentinean media revealed a total of five accusations against him of sexual abuse from former residents of his care facilities, some of which had been on file with the police for two years. The alleged victims said that Grassi had made attempts to sexually seduce them and had performed perverse sexual acts on them. The television program Telenoche Investiga, which first reported the case, reported that Grassi also had been accused of sexual predation against seminarians as vice rector of a seminary in 1997. The country was riveted by the claims and Argentineans were divided over the likelihood of their veracity.

As a result of the media investigations, Grassi was soon prosecuted for over a dozen charges of sexual abuse of three of the purported victims. What followed was a 15-year saga in the courts of Argentina, in which Grassi and his team of over twenty high-power attorneys repeatedly attempted to intimidate and discredit Grassi’s accusers.

“Gabriel,” the victim whose testimony resulted in Grassi’s conviction, says that the harassment against him and attempts to steal evidence from him became so strong that he had to be enrolled in a witness protection program. His story is corroboratedby his psychiatrist and advocate, Enrique Stola, who has stated repeatedly to the press that he himself was threatened and that his house had been entered multiple times by people who had beaten him over his involvement in the case.

One of Grassi’s attorneys, Miguel Angel Pierri, was jailed twice after having falsely portrayed himself as a lawyer for one of the purported victims for the purpose of taking the victim to a court and pressuring him to retract his testimony. The “retraction” was later thrown out by the court when the deception was discovered.

To this show of force by the powerful Grassi was added the clout of the four-member Executive Committee of the Argentine Episcopal Conference, including Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the conference’s Second Vice President, which sought to portray Grassi’s prosecution as an anti-Catholic conspiracy, a line similar to the one taken by Grassi’s legal team.

In a thinly-veiled reference to the Grassi case, the episcopal conference’s executive committee claimed it was “astounded by the persistence of attacks which, in our day, seek to smear the image of the Church.” While admitting that priests are capable of sinning and expressing a desire to reach the truth, the committee added, “It may be that the hidden side of this campaign is the desire for the Church to lose its trust that society places in it, or for it to cease to expound upon the moral and social consequences of its principles.”

It was this conspiracy-theory approach to the case that Cardinal Bergoglio would maintain after being elected President of the Argentinean Episcopal Conference in 2005, despite the mounting evidence and repeated convictions of Grassi as the years wore on.

Bergoglio’s stealth campaign against Grassi’s victims

Bergoglio was not satisfied, however, with vague accusations of ulterior motives behind the prosecution. While it appears that neither Bergoglio nor the Bishop of Morón undertook a canonical investigation of Grassi, and Bergoglio ignored requests by the victims to discuss their accusations with him, the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires began a stealth campaign to discredit the victims with the judges in the case and secure a verdict of innocence.

Bergoglio’s effort to prevent the conviction of Grassi went so far as to include the commission of a series of four books devoted to casting doubt on the purported victims’ testimonies and attacking the victims themselves. The books were produced for Bergoglio and the Argentinean Episcopal Conference by the eminent jurist Marcelo Sancinetti. The series was entitled, “Studies on the ‘Grassi case,’” and filled more than 2,600 pages.

The books seek to discredit Grassi’s purported victims, openly calling them “false accusers” and even implying that they are projecting their own homosexual desires onto Grassi. Echoing Grassi’s arguments and those of the Argentine Episcopal Conference, they theorize that the prosecution of Grassi has arisen out of a conspiracy against his “Happy Children Foundation” by several media outlets who were seeking to destroy the organization. In an epilogue Sancinetti goes so far as to compare Grassi to the prophet Daniel placed in a den of lions.

Image

The books were published in secret and never revealed to the public, and they contained no editorial imprint. However, the final of the four volumes, published in 2013, had the following text on the first page dated July, 2013: “With this [volume], these ‘Studies on the Grassi case’ are concluded, and the labor assigned by the Argentinean Episcopal Conference, in particular by Cardinal Bergoglio, then its president and today His Holiness Francis.”

Defenders of the project have claimed that the books were meant only for the bishops of the Argentinean Episcopal Conference, but the evidence indicates that they were meant to influence the judges in the case. The Argentinean news service Infobae reported in 2016 that its sources within the nation’s Supreme Court had confirmed that the books were given to the members of the court. The lawyer of two of Grassi’s accusers, “Luis” and “Ezequiel,” Juan Pablo Gallego, also confirmed the claim in an interview with Infobae.

“The books arrived to the judges of the [Supreme] Court, presumably delivered by supposed emissaries of Francis,” Gallego told Infobae. “What is certain is that we determined that they were received by every judge that had to decide on the Grassi case. They weren’t only delivered to the Supreme Court, where they are held, for example, by Ricardo Lorenzetti; they were also delivered to the judges of the provincial appeals court.”

“I am certain that the judges of the Supreme Court have these books and that they came to them in the name of the Church,” concluded Gallego. Infobae says that representatives of the Supreme Court denied the claim when asked for comment.

The claim that judges were given copies of the book has been confirmed publicly by at least one judge, Carlos Mahiques, who told the French television news magazine Cash Investigation in 2017 that he personally received the books (see program transcript in English here).

“You received this counter-inquiry?” asked the Cash Investigation reporter. “Yes, I did,” responded Mahiques.

“Did it influence your judgment?” the reporter asked. “Absolutely not,” responded Mahiques. “The study is a bit like a detective novel. I think it’s partial in some areas, and extremely partial in others. It’s clearly in favor of Father Grassi. They were trying to exert a subtle form of pressure on the judges.”

Today, Sancinetti refuses to discuss his authorship of the books with the Argentinean press. He repeatedly failed to respond to interview requests from Infobae in 2016, but a colleague told the media outlet, “Doctor [Sancinetti] doesn’t want to give any interview over the topic of Grassi.”

Asked for his opinion about the series of books, Grassi’s “main victim” (presumably “Gabriel,” whose testimony led to Grassi’s conviction) told Cash Investigation (see transcript), “I’ll never forget what Father Grassi kept repeating at his trial: ‘Bergoglio never let go off my hand.’ Now, Bergoglio is Pope Francis, but he has never gone against Grassi’s words. So I’m certain that he never did let go of Grassi’s hand!”

Infobae reports that Grassi used the same phrase when speaking to that news agency in 2009.

“[Bergoglio] never let go of my hand. He is at my side as always,” Grassi reportedly said.

Grassi’s victims stonewalled by Bergoglio for over a decade

Juan Pablo Gallego also told Infobae that he attempted repeatedly to talk to Bergoglio in 2003, when witnesses were repeatedly threatened and intimidated by attorneys and partisans of Grassi, to ask him to dissuade Grassi and his team from such tactics. However, he never received a response. Ultimately Gallego was received by the then bishop of Morón, Justo Laguna, and Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner, “who received the request favorably.”

The psychiatrist Enrique Stola, who treated two of those accusing Grassi of sexual abuse, told a government news agency that the purported victims “Luis” and “Ezequiel” had tried to contact Bergoglio as well, and confirmed that neither of them received a response. His statement is confirmed by the head of Argentina’s Committee for Monitoring the Rights of the Child, Nora Schulman, who told the Argentinean publication Clarin that Francis “never received the victims of Fr. Julio César Grassi.” She added that, following the Supreme Court’s ratification of the sentence against Grassi, she expected the victims to approach the Vatican to request Pope Francis’ intervention and to ask that Grassi be removed from the priesthood.

Miriam Lewin, the journalist who originally broke the story on Grassi in 2002, recently told El Pais that she had approached the pope personally to ask him to meet with Grassi’s victims.

“In November of 2015, I went to the Vatican and I spoke for some minutes with the Pope to ask him to make a gesture to victims,” Lewin said. “He listened to me and I thought that he would do it, but he never called them. His rhetoric against pedophilia is very tough, but it should be reflected in concrete acts in this case. The victims need reparation, an apology. It is not understood how Grassi can continue to be a priest.”

Francis’ Vatican continues to protect Grassi in prison, and continues to ignore victims

After a nine-month trial that included over 130 witnesses, Grassi was convicted in 2009 of molesting one of the three children, given the name “Gabriel” in the media.  Three different appeals courts upheld Grassi’s conviction, including Argentina’s Supreme Court. He began to serve his fifteen-year sentence in 2013. He has also been convicted for misuse of public funds in the operation of his foundation, adding two more years to his prison time.

Investigative journalists revealed in 2015 that Grassi has the enjoyment of his own room in the prison with his own office, private bathroom, cable TV, a 21-inch color television, a computer with internet access, a heater, and a minibar. He is accused of paying for these amenities by diverting whole truckloads of food donations from his “Happy Children Foundation” to prison officials. He is now being prosecuted a third time for such abuses.

Despite his repeatedly upheld convictions in Argentina’s secular courts, it appears that Grassi has never been tried in any ecclesiastical court. Moreover, he has never been stripped of his priesthood, although he is prohibited from the public celebration of the sacraments. He continues to wear his collar in prison. As late as August of 2017 he was listed among diocesan clergy, which means that the Diocese of Morón was continuing to extend priestly faculties to him, allowing him to hear confessions and perform other sacraments that would be otherwise invalidated. The current list of diocesan clergy does not include his name.

Regarding Grassi’s continuing status as a Catholic priest, the Diocese of Morón has stated publicly that the case is in the hands of the Vatican, that is, in the hands of Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis.

In March of 2017, following the Supreme Court’s unanimous ratification of the conviction of Grassi, the Diocese of Morón issued a press release revealing that “The Holy See has opportunely ordered a preliminary investigation regarding the accusations about the conduct of this priest,” and that this had resulted in “a report that was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” and added that the diocese “will act in accordance with the prevailing canonical processes determined by the Holy See.” However, the Holy See has yet to act, leaving Grassi with his priestly faculties intact.

According to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, a source close to Pope Francis admitsthat Francis has given confessions to Grassi but claims Grassi is exaggerating their relationship. The source also claimed that responsibility in the case lies not with Pope Francis but with the Diocese of Morón, contradicting the diocese’s claim that the pope has responsibility. Nonetheless, the same source tried to defend Grassi as the victim of an elaborate conspiracy and raised doubts about Grassi’s guilt.

“[Bergoglio] didn’t support Grassi,” a source close to Bergoglio told El Pais. “He didn’t go to visit him in jail, but he didn’t speak [about it] because he wasn’t his bishop, and because there was much doubt about his guilt.”

“Behind this scandal [of the Grassi prosecution] there was an economic operation by the rivals of Grassi in important businesses. It wasn’t clear if it was an intelligence operation,” El Pais was told.

According to the Vatican’s press secretariat, also speaking to El Pais, Pope Francis isn’t intervening because the case was handled by a secular court. The secretariat also claimed that Francis is in favor of “absolute support” for sex abuse victims.

“The response of the Pope is always clear: maximum respect for civil justice, zero tolerance of the guilty and absolute support for the victims,” Francis’ press agency stated. “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is just now in these days giving the required indications and finishing an examination of the situation for the purpose of adopting a definitive resolution.”

The statement was made to El País no later than April of 2017, when the article was published. No decision by Pope Francis or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been announced since that time.

In March of the same year, after months of futile attempts to question Pope Francis about the Grassi case, the French journalist Élise Lucet of the television news magazine Cash Investigation confronted Pope Francis in person over his involvement in the Grassi case (see video here; see full documentary in English here).

When asked by Lucet if he had attempted to influence the judiciary in the Grassi case, Francis turned to her with a scowl on his face and waved his arms. “Not at all!” he said. After beginning to walk away, he turned back and repeated the statement insistently, “Not at all!” His scowl then became a smile, he waved, and walked away.

The Holy See Press Office did not respond to our request for comment by press time. However, LifeSite did receive an accidental response to our email that was meant for some other recipient, and we therefore can confirm that they received our request.

Image

Contact the author here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted at American Greatness by Dinesh D’Souza.

Let’s face it. Our ass is in a crack. We’re gonna have to let this nigger bill pass. —Lyndon Johnson to Sen. John Stennis, 1957

The transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of racism and segregation to the party of civil rights is, according to historian Eric Rauchway, the central political arc of the 20th century. Rauchway is a left-wing historian, and what he means is that it is the central theme of progressive history about the twentieth century. Yet progressive history has become conventional wisdom, and it is that conventional wisdom I challenge in this article, excerpted from my new book Death of a Nation.

The progressive narrative begins by crediting President Lyndon Johnson almost single-handedly for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This focus on LBJ is critical because progressives don’t want to admit that proportionately, more Republicans in Congress voted for those laws than Democrats. The main opposition to the civil rights movement didn’t come from the Republican Party; it came from the Democratic Party. These inconvenient truths are skipped through a singular focus on LBJ.

Progressives know that LBJ, in his early career, was a bigot and a segregationist. He was part of the most racist wing of the Democratic Party. Yet progressives like Rauchway and his sidekick Kevin Kruse have turned LBJ into one of their great icons. In some respects, this is understandable. The Left, in recent decades, has distanced itself from Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, who respectively were the founder of the Democratic Party and the first progressive Democratic president. The progressives need LBJ, just as they need FDR, if they are to have any heroes at all.

And, boy, has LBJ become a progressive cult hero! Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists wouldn’t dream of yanking down LBJ statues. That’s because the progressive narrative for LBJ is even more positive than it is for FDR, at least as far as race is concerned. LBJ was the “flawed giant,” in the title of a biography by historian Robert Dallek. Marshall Frady in the New York Review of Books affectionately calls him “the big guy”and revels in his “brawling, uncontainable aliveness,” his “galumphing conviviality.”

The story that Rauchway, Kruse, Dallek and other progressives tell about LBJ is a triumphant account of how a redneck white country boy underwent a moral transformation. To paraphrase Obama, the arc of his life bent toward justice. When he got the power, he used it for good.

According to the left-wing journalist Bill Moyers, LBJ once told him that as a consequence of supporting civil rights laws, “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” This seems so altruistic on the part of a famously cynical man as to almost inspire wonder. And as progressives tell it, the political transformation of the Democratic Party was no less altruistic and wondrous.

That’s because in miniature the progressive narrative about LBJ mirrors the progressive narrative of the Democratic Party. As the narrative goes, civil rights was no less of a political risk for a party previously wedded to white supremacy than it was for LBJ. Yet the Democrats were up to the challenge, and came out better for it. For LBJ as for the Democrats, a faulty start led to a happy ending. The party of bad guys became the party of good guys.

This account of LBJ is unbelievable and fantastic, by which I mean it cannot be believed and is the product of fantasy. Is it really plausible that a man obsessed with politics, whom historian Doris Kearns Goodwin termed “the greatest political bargainer of them all,” a man who once said he thinks about the subject of politics for 18 hours a day, would bargain away his party’s interests without recompense to the other side “for a long time to come”?

If such strange behavior was indeed the result of a wrenching transformation there is no plausible evidence for it, not from Dallek, not from Goodwin, not even from biographer Robert Caro, who seems to have followed LBJ’s life virtually day by day for decades and is working on the fifth massive volume of his LBJ biography. LBJ told no one of his great conversion, he never wrote about it or made a speech about it, so if it happened he kept it entirely to himself.

Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files. Progressive media—even progressive historians—largely have ignored it, trying to pretend it does not exist. Branigan cites a source with direct knowledge, even though he does not name his source. As one blogger notes, no one with even a cursory knowledge of LBJ’s background could regard his involvement with the KKK as a shock or a surprise.

So how does a Klansman change his spots and become a moral idealist without telling anyone? Moreover, it seems difficult to credit moral idealism to a manifestly dishonest man. Here my exhibit is LBJ’s 1965 address at Howard University, which progressives celebrate because in it LBJ makes a bold defense of affirmative action. “You do not take a man who, for years, has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying ‘You are free to compete with all the others’ and still believe you have been fair . . . We seek not just freedom but opportunity; not just legal equity but human ability; not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and result.”

Impressive stuff, as far as it goes. But how far does it really go? The merits of LBJ’s argument have been debated ever since by the Left and the Right. But what typically goes unnoticed is that LBJ’s telling silence on why blacks were for so long hobbled by chains and also on who it was that hobbled them. Let’s recall that here we have a longtime Southern segregationist giving an account of the sins of segregation in the third person as if he were a mere observer, not a participant.

Even so, Dallek’s only comment about LBJ’s Howard address is that, in retrospect, it seems “excessively hopeful,” as if LBJ’s only problem is an excess of moral idealism. The progressive historian Ira Katznelson, one of the few to notice LBJ’s complete omission of his own role in the events he is describing, nevertheless downplays its significance by noting of LBJ, “His personal record and sense of pride were at odds with the quality of his history.” In short, he lied.

Katznelson adds that LBJ “missed the chance to come to terms with the most dismal, even exploitative, aspects of the New Deal.” This, he frets, must have been “particularly agonizing” for him. I don’t know whether to regard this as naïve or sneaky on Katznelson’s part. Surely Katznelson is smart enough to know LBJ had not the slightest intention of fessing up that he was a member of the racist group that hobbled blacks. If he had, his audience immediately would have recognized that the very man who poisoned the waters was now hypocritically pretending to show up as the water commissioner.

Third, by every account, LBJ was a nasty, bullying, crude, selfish, mean-spirited, and abusive individual. These are not qualities that we associate with a moral exemplar undergoing a crisis of conscience. There was the time he gave dictation to a female secretary while urinating in a corner washbasin. In the account of a Senate aide, on another occasion, while sitting next to a woman in his car with his wife Lady Bird on the other side, “Johnson made a point of placing one of his hands under the woman’s skirt and was having a big time, right there in front of Lady Bird.”

There is much, much more in this vein in Caro’s biography. I don’t need to go into LBJ’s serial infidelities, even in the Oval Office, his chronic boasting about the women he had conquered, the name that he gave to his penis, his boasting about its size, and so on. Suffice to say that Johnson would not survive five minutes of scrutiny by the #MeToo movement. LBJ, like JFK and Bill Clinton, reflects the priapic aggression of the prototypical plantation boss.

Yet even more than the other two, he liked to lord it over people, not just women but everyone. As Caro shows on page after page, he derived pleasure from degrading and humiliating others. He was known to converse with aides in his office bathroom while emptying his bowels, which Marshall Frady interprets as a sign of his “Rabelasian earthiness” but which less charitably reveals an ugly demonstration of his power over subordinates.

LBJ was a pervert in every sense of the word; if I can pursue the excremental theme, he was into this shit. As LBJ himself put it, he wanted the type of person working for him “who will kiss my ass in the Macy’s window and stand up and say, ‘Boy, wasn’t that sweet!’” Surely many Democratic plantation bosses of the 19th century could have said pretty much the same thing.

A Lifelong Bigot

These traits do not describe the “old” LBJ, prior to some moral transformation. This is who LBJ was the whole time. And the same is true of LBJ’s racism. We can see this in LBJ’s use of the term “nigger” or “uppity nigger.” LBJ didn’t just use these terms in the early days, when under the tutelage of his segregationist mentor Richard Russell he upheld segregation, upheld the poll tax, and fought to undermine anti-lynching laws. No, LBJ showed a special fondness for them when he was Senate leader, vice president and president—in other words, the very time when, supposedly, he was undergoing his moral transformation.

In the mid-1960s, LBJ nominated African-American lawyer Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. When an aide suggested to LBJ that there were other qualified black jurists he could have chosen, suggesting as an alternative possibility Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, LBJ responded, “The only two people who ever heard of Judge Higginbotham are you and his momma. When I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

This was in 1965, one year after LBJ helped secure the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The man he called a “nigger” was the nation’s most prominent African-American attorney who had argued the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. Yet progressive historian Robert Dallek, who recounts this episode, interprets it in a way to minimize LBJ’s culpability. “Johnson’s pejorative language was partly his way of intimidating a new staff member or of showing how tough and demanding he was.”

Yet for LBJ this kind of talk was a consistent pattern. The same year, LBJ told his aide Joseph Califano that the black riots in the Watts area of Los Angeles showed how blacks could not control their emotions. Pretty soon, Johnson warned, “Negroes will end up pissing in the aisles of the Senate and making fools of themselves, the way . . . they had after the Civil War and during Reconstruction.” The very fact that LBJ continued to embrace this view of Reconstruction—once promoted by the progressive racists of the Dunning School and popularized by Thomas Dixon in The Clansman and Birth of a Nation—suggests that contrary to progressive rumor, LBJ’s racism was never rehabilitated.

Robert Caro describes an incident involving Robert Parker, LBJ’s chauffeur. Parker recalled the occasion when Senator Johnson asked him whether he would prefer to be called “boy,” “nigger,” or “chief.” Parker asked to be called by his name. Johnson erupted, “As long as you’re black, and you’re going to be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, in an otherwise positive biography Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, cites LBJ telling Senator Richard Russell during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1957, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

This admission is telling not merely because of its use of the insulting reference to the “uppityness” of blacks, but also because it shows that LBJ’s support for civil rights legislation wasn’t the result of some moral awakening on his part; rather, it was part of a strategy. This notion is confirmed by what LBJ allegedly told two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

Some progressives—notably the “fact checking” site Snopes—have questioned this quotation, which appears in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House but not in any other source. Kessler attributes it to Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan, who claims to have heard LBJ say this. And as we can see the quotation is consistent with several others whose veracity is undoubted. My conclusion is that LBJ remained the vile bigoted Democrat he always was, and the notion that he underwent some sort of enlightened conversion is pure humbug.

How Declining Racism Became a Problem

It is time to reinterpret LBJ’s “conversion,” and to do this, we must try to imagine the political landscape that LBJ saw before him, a landscape very different from the one that FDR encountered a generation earlier. Two big things were changing and fast. First, white racism was declining precipitously all over the country, but especially in the South. Second, blacks were getting up and moving out of the rural South, and many of them were voting for the first time. Both these things were a big problem for the Democratic Party.

Let’s take them in sequence. As innumerable surveys confirm, white racism—at least white racism of the old sort, which is to say old-fashioned hatred of blacks, holding them to be inferior beings, and sanctioning violence and degrading treatment of them—this type of racism plummeted through the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. So sweeping was the change that many survey questions routinely asked prior to World War II—are blacks entitled to the same legal rights as whites? Would you consider voting for a black candidate for political office?—Are no longer even asked because white support for these things is nearly universal.

Political leaders across the spectrum noticed the change, some earlier than others. Harry Truman saw it even in the late 1940s, and this—not some moral evolution to a higher state of being—is the sea change in American public opinion that pressured him to desegregate the military. LBJ also knew this because he could see it, even in the Texas backcountry.

Now it is tempting to believe that racism declined in America because of the moral suasion of the civil rights movement, but to believe this is to put the cart before the horse, as most progressive accounts predictably do. The reason they do this is so that they can credit LBJ and progressive activism with the civil rights laws, and then credit those laws not only with creating legal equality but also with combating racism. In reality, however, the steep decline in racism preceded the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement didn’t facilitate it; it facilitated the civil rights movement.

Think about why Martin Luther King, Jr., encountered so little intellectual resistance to his challenges to segregation. Fifty years earlier, he would have. This is not to deny that local officials, like Birmingham Sheriff Bull Connor, unleashed dogs and hoses on civil rights protesters. King himself served time as a political prisoner in the Birmingham jail, an experience that strikes a chord with me. But by this time the intellectual fight had been won. The local segregationist establishment, not King, was on the defensive. That’s because popular opinion in America had shifted dramatically between the time FDR died in 1945 and the 1960s.

So what caused the shift? The obvious answer is: Adolf Hitler. In the end, the horrific crimes of Hitler overthrew the doctrine of white supremacy. Once American troops entered the concentration camps, once people saw those ghostly emaciated figures emerge out of the camps, they could not longer subscribe to theories of Nordic superiority they might once have held. Those doctrines were now permanently discredited.

The progressive historian George Fredrickson points out in Racism: A Short History that the very word “racism” came into common use only in the 1930s “when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews.” This shows how closely linked racism and Nazism were in the popular mind, and helps confirm that it was the Nazis who, against their intentions of course, finally put white supremacy into the grave.

We can imagine that LBJ watched with horror the decline of racism in America, not simply because he was a nasty bigot himself—and bigotry loves company—but also because white supremacy had been the central political doctrine of the Democratic Party for at least a century. Once the Republicans ended slavery the Democrats turned swiftly to white supremacy which became the glue, both in the North and the South, holding the party together.

With racism dwindling fast, LBJ knew his party would lose voters whose allegiance to the Democrats had been based on the party’s support for racist policies. This was a serious problem. From the Democrats’ point of view, it meant that if racism could not be revived—and there was no way after Nazism to revive it—then the party would need new voters, and lots of them, in order to compensate for the losses in white racist voters who were regrettably losing their prejudices.

Where to look? There was only one place: black voters. And blacks in the 1950s and 1960s were voting in greater numbers than ever before. For the first half of the twentieth century, the Democrats had through racial intimidation and other means largely suppressed the black vote in the South, where the vast majority of blacks lived. But starting around World War I, a great migration occurred in which blacks over the next several decades literally got up and moved.

As Isabel Wilkerson writes in The Warmth of Other Suns, some 6 million blacks—nearly half of the entire black population of the rural South—left the farms, plantations and cotton fields of that region and moved to cities like New York, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia. Some moved to smaller cities like Milwaukee and Oakland. The great migration was, as Wilkerson puts it, “an unrecognized immigration within this country.”

In the cities, blacks could vote and did vote, so for the first time in American politics, the black vote became significant by the late 1940s and 1950s. The black vote was especially important in swing states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. Fully aware of this, Republicans offered the most sweeping and forceful endorsement of civil rights for blacks to appear in any party platform since the nineteenth century. The party of Lincoln was making a bid for these new black voters.

Again, this was as major problem for LBJ and the Democrats. LBJ knew that in order to make up for the racist vote the Democrats must win not just some black votes, not just a majority of black votes, but virtually all the black votes. The Democrats needed blacks to be just as uniformly loyal to the Democratic Party as white racists previously had been. LBJ had to figure a way for blacks to vote for Democratic candidates automatically, habitually, regardless of the qualities or qualifications of the Democrat on the ticket.

Plantation Confessions

But how to achieve this? After all, Democrats had been segregating, degrading and abusing blacks for a long time. LBJ knew this as well as anyone because he had been one of the abusers. How then to convince blacks, who were now voting, to vote en masse for a party that had enslaved them, had formulated a “positive good” doctrine of black enslavement, had invented segregation and Jim Crow, racial terrorism and the Ku Klux Klan, and was still the party of bigotry in the 1960s?

LBJ realized that the Democrats could no longer whip the blacks into submission, as in the past. The Democrats needed a new relationship with blacks and on different terms than before. However reluctant LBJ may have been to admit it—we see that reluctance in his statements to fellow Democratic bigots in the Senate—he was also a realist. If he wanted virtually unanimous black support for the Democrats, he knew he couldn’t just beat it out of them; he would for the first time in the party’s history have to woo them.

But how? This is a difficult topic to talk about, and I am about to go into controversial territory. I have to tread carefully. I don’t know a better way, however, than to illustrate the state of mind of a sizable segment of African Americans in the aftermath of slavery—a state of mind that became critical to LBJ as he attempted to solve his political conundrum.

I turn to Eugene Genovese’s great study of slavery, Roll, Jordan, Roll, widely considered to be the best work on the subject. Genovese relays the testimonies of several slaves who were interviewed after they became free. We might expect them vividly to describe the horrors of enslavement, and they did. But they also confessed to something else. I quote verbatim from these accounts.

Here’s Andrew Goodman, interviewed at the age of 97: “I was born in slavery and I think them days was better for the niggers than the days we see now. One thing was, I never was cold and hungry when my old master lived, and I has been plenty hungry and cold a lot of times since he is gone. But sometimes I think Marse Goodman was the bestest man God made in a long time. The slaves cried when told we were free ‘cause they don’t know where to go, and they’s always ‘pend on old Marse to look after them.”

Here’s Henri Necaise of Mississippi: “To tell de truth, de fact of de business is, my marster took care of me better’n I can take care of myself now. When us was slaves Marster tell us what to do. He say, ‘Henri, do dis, do dat. And us done it. Den us didn’t have to think where de next meal comin’ from, or de next pair of shoes or pants. De grub and clothes give us was better’n I ever gets now.”

Here’s Ezra Adams: “De slaves on our plantation didn’t stop workin’ for old marster even when dey was told dat dey was free. Us didn’t want no more freedom than us was gittin’ on our planation already. Us knowed too well dat us was well took care of, wid plenty of vittles to eat and tight log and board houses to live in. De slaves, where I lived, knowed after de war dat they had abundance of dat something called freedom, what they could not eat, wear and sleep in. Yes, sir, they soon found out dat freedom ain’t nothin’ ‘less you got somethin’ to live on and a place to call home. Dis living’ on liberty is lak young folks livin’ on love after they gits married. It just don’t work.”

As an immigrant who came to America with $500 in my pocket and no family here, no connections, nothing to fall back on, I know at least a little what it’s like to be flung into freedom. I am hardly comparing my experience to that of former slaves but in India I did see the people known as Dalits or “untouchables.” Those people have historically been treated worse than slaves; they are so reviled that traditional Hindus would not allow their shadow to cross over them. The untouchables, too, fell into a kind of collective stupor in which they could hardly imagine a route of escape from their degraded lot.

Based on that experience, I have nothing but sympathy for these poor slaves who had been turned into complete dependents during slavery and were then hurled into freedom in a society where, to put it mildly, they were not welcome. Thus I am not criticizing their longing for the security of the old plantation; I am merely recognizing it as a natural and powerful response to their dire situation.

LBJ would have recognized it just as I do. The difference is that I get it from books, reinforced by my own, admittedly quite different, experience. But LBJ grew up in the Texas Hill Country. He was a redneck from the rural backwoods. He knew people like Andrew Goodman, Henri Necaise, and Ezra Adams. He understood their insecurity; he understood their fear, in part because he was helping to create it. And now, years and even decades later, LBJ saw a way to exploit that insecurity and fear to offer blacks a new arrangement. This deal became the essence of LBJ’s Great Society.

A Corrupt Bargain

Here’s the bargain that LBJ offered African Americans. We Democrats are going to create a new plantation for you, this time in the towns and cities. On these new plantations, unlike on the old ones, you don’t have to work. In fact, we would prefer if you didn’t work. We are going to support you through an array of so-called poverty programs and race-based programs. Essentially we will provide you with lifetime support, just as in the days of slavery. Your job is simply to keep voting us in power so that we can continue to be your caretakers and providers.

Here’s the part LBJ did not say. We are offering you a living, but it’s going to be a pretty meager living. Basically you get public housing, food stamps, retirement checks every month, and medical care for the poor. If you have children we will subsidize them, provided they are illegitimate. More than this we cannot offer you, because we have to make sure that you stay on the plantation. This means that we need you to remain dependent on us so that you keep voting for us. Your dependency is our insurance policy to make sure that this an exchange, not a giveaway.

In sum, LBJ modified the progressive plantation so that blacks, for the first time, would be treated as constituents, much as the Irish were in the Tammany days. No longer would Democrats directly rip off the blacks by stealing their labor. Now blacks would become partners with Democrats in a scheme to steal from other Americans. Through a variety of taxes, regulations and mandates, those would be the guys paying for the Democratic plantation.

What made the scheme beautiful, from the Democrats’ point of view, is that through the state the Democrats could force even Republicans to pay for their new urban plantation. In fact, the very sufferings that Democrats historically had imposed on blacks would now supply the moral capital for demanding that “America” make blacks whole. Future arguments for reparations and affirmative action would emphasize not what the Democrats did but what “America” did. Now the American taxpayer would be on the hook for correcting the wrongs perpetrated by the Democrats.

LBJ knew, of course, that not all blacks live in inner cities. Less than half of African Americans today do, and that was also the case in the mid-’60s. It was never LBJ’s intention for all blacks actually to inhabit the urban plantation. Rather, he wanted about half to live there, dependent on the government, and for the other half to work for the government, serving the urban plantation. These blacks could now be considered overseers of the Democratic plantation.

LBJ knew that if the government were to employ blacks on a large scale it would draw blacks out of fields like teaching, preaching, and small business. Teachers, pastors and entrepreneurs would now become administrators, service providers, and social workers. In sum, they would lose their skills for succeeding in the private sector and learn only how to administer the agencies of government. They too would become captives of a sort, fatally dependent on the Democratic plantation. They too would have no way to leave.

From the perspective of LBJ’s deal, African Americans could now look to the federal government as a new type of Big House. LBJ himself would be Massa, although he could be considered a good master as long as blacks lived up to their end of the deal. And LBJ probably genuinely believed it was a good deal for blacks. After all, who else gets a living from cradle to grave without having to work! Even so, shrewd artificer that he was, LBJ must have known that he was making blacks complicit in their own captivity, a captivity no less real for being voluntary. Few would actually have a chance to escape from the Democrats’ urban plantation. Some might even learn to love the plantation.

Blacks took the deal for the following reasons. First, having come out of the haunting experience of slavery and sharecropping, many of them were terrified of what African-American writer Shelby Steele terms the “shock of freedom.” Much as we would all feel in a similar situation, to them a meager security seemed preferable to the risk of not being able to survive. Second, some blacks had come to believe—as some do now—that because of past oppression, America owes them a living.

Republicans of course know there is some truth to this, which is why during Reconstruction Republicans attempted to give blacks a fair start but were thwarted in these efforts by racist Democrats. Today’s Democrats, however, are all too eager to affirm that blacks require the lifetime support of the U.S. government because this then provides the pathway to political dependency on the Democratic Party.

One consequence of LBJ’s deal is that race, which black leaders from Frederick Douglass to Booker T. Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. had been trying to eradicate from public life now took on a new significance. Now blacks wanted to be known as black, and black even became “beautiful.” No was one surprised when progressive pundit Cornel West published a book called Race Matters. As Shelby Steele wryly noted, race never mattered to such people when there was no profit in it for them.

Also as a consequence of LBJ’s deal, Democrats became the new champions of blacks voting. From LBJ on, Democrats wouldn’t merely advocate that blacks vote; they would in many cases supply the buses to take them to the polls. In her book on the great migration, Isabel Wilkerson writes, without irony, “Suddenly the very party and the very apparatus that was ready to kill them if they tried to vote in the South was searching them out and all but carrying them to the polls.” If LBJ were around to read this, I’m sure he would have found it hilarious.

That’s why LBJ “converted” from a racist Democrat who sought to keep blacks down on the old sharecropping plantation to a racist Democrat who sought to create a new type of plantation where blacks would now willingly vote for their Democratic providers. That’s why LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society. That’s why progressives lionize LBJ even though they know what a vile scumbag he was. He’s their guy; he is the creator of their urban plantation in its most modern and most recognizable form. And that’s why blacks have become, as a group, the lifetime servile dependents of the Democratic Party.

Read more at American Greatness.

 

Lincoln united his party and saved America from the Democrats for the first time. Can Trump—and we—come together and save America for the second time?

Death of a Nation is in theaters nationwide now! Click here to get tickets now.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archbishop Viganò has sparked a revolution no one can control

A man who rose quietly through the Curia has become the most incendiary figure in the Church

Anybody considering a career in the Roman Curia is well advised to avoid public controversy and be noticed only by the right people and in the right way. Last month, one man who had observed that code for most of his life abandoned it to make astonishing accusations against the reigning Pope, going so far as to call upon him to resign.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has accused Pope Francis of reversing disciplinary action taken by his predecessor against the alleged sexual predator Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, and allowing McCarrick a privileged role in influencing US episcopal appointments. The media storm Viganò unleashed has led him to go to ground, reportedly fearing for his life.

So who is the author of this unprecedented attack on the head of the earthly Church? He is a man whose seemingly effortless progression towards the highest ranks of papal service was abruptly halted, before this extraordinary postscript was added some two years after his retirement.

Carlo Maria Viganò was born on January 16, 1941 to wealthy parents in the Lombard city of Varese in northern Italy. Ordained priest in 1968, he went on to gain a doctorate utriusque legis, “of both laws”. The bearers of this distinction are often marked out for advancement, so it was no surprise that the young priest entered the Roman Curia in 1973.

For more than 30 years, Viganò succeeded in being noticed only by the right people in the right way. He held junior positions at the papal delegations in London and Baghdad before returning to Rome, as is typical, to man a desk at the Secretariat of State.

His administrative talents and unblemished service led to him being singled out for preferment. In 1989 he became special envoy and permanent observer of the Holy See to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In 1992 he was named nuncio to Nigeria, ordained to the episcopacy by St John Paul II, receiving the rank of titular archbishop.

Returning to Rome in 1998, Viganò became delegate for Pontifical Representations – personnel chief for the entire Curia and Vatican diplomacy. In 2009, Benedict XVI appointed him secretary general of the Vatican City Governorate. The Governorate is the body to which the Pope delegates executive authority for the Vatican City State. The cardinal president, who leads it, is often more of a figurehead and the secretary general, as second in command, oversees the business of administration. So Viganò was able to deploy his skills and natural authority as never before. It turned out to be the high water mark of his career.

In many ways, Viganò’s tenure was a stunning success. To the notoriously opaque field of Vatican finance, he brought a reforming zeal. By scrutinising procurement, insisting on tight budgeting and ruthlessly pursuing waste, he had by 2011 turned a $10 million deficit into a surplus of more than $40 million, earning him public thanks from Pope Benedict.

But there were mutterings about a harsh and intransigent management style. Viganò was also accused of nepotism in advancing the career of his nephew, an official in the Secretariat of State. (He has insisted that he acted transparently while at the Governorate.)

Viganò now seemed to be attracting the wrong sort of attention. In August 2011 he was appointed nuncio to the United States, despite resisting the move. Although Benedict maintained that he needed a man of proven worth in Washington, it looked like a demotion.

Had Viganò’s once irresistible rise hit the buffers? It seemed so in 2012, when he became a key figure in the VatiLeaks scandal. For the first time his name was cited beyond the rarefied circle of Vatican watchers. Letters from Viganò to Benedict and Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone were published. In them, he presented himself as a whistleblower punished by corrupt forces in the Vatican.

Viganò’s five-year tenure in Washington DC turned out to be his last posting. His resignation, on reaching 75 in January 2016, was swiftly accepted. By then Francis had succeeded Benedict, and Viganò’s episcopal recommendations – generally feisty conservative prelates – were not calculated to endear him to the new regime.

Last month’s bombshell put an end to Viganò’s relatively quiet retirement. There are growing rumours in Rome of forthcoming canonical sanctions, but so far the Pope’s preferred response has been silence – though his daily homilies have made references to those who “only seek scandal”. The Vatican is reportedly preparing to offer “necessary clarifications”.

But some of Viganò’s critics have taken a less high-minded approach, alleging that his letter is the revenge of a disappointed careerist, who had thought himself guaranteed a red hat but was thwarted by his own character defects. Viganò, they suggest, was furious at being forced to relinquish a luxurious Vatican apartment, and blamed Francis. (The archbishop denies the claims.)

Others have speculated that ideological motivations lay behind the purported revelations, and that Viganò has made himself the tool of right-wing US Catholics determined to destabilise or even end the current papacy. (His adhesion to the camp of the “culture warriors” is comparatively recent. When he was at the Secretariat of State, he was accused of sharing that dicastery’s reputed lack of enthusiasm for militant orthodoxy.)

Detractors have adduced aspects of Viganò career which appear to undermine his credibility: a family feud with an estranged brother, also a priest, over an inheritance; and a case where Viganò himself is accused of having covered up for an abuser bishop. The ex-nuncio has responded from his hiding place to deny these claims.

What is the ordinary Catholic to make of this unedifying public spat? One of its saddest aspects is the rush to take sides along predictably ideological lines. The truth or falsehood of Viganò’s claims are surely not related to our opinion of Pope Francis and his reforms.

Even in the much reviled Roman Curia, many serve the Church with self-denying sincerity. Generally, they are saddened and worried. Noting that Viganò’s letter violated the “pontifical secret”, one official told me: “I can’t believe he took the same oath as I did.” The “pontifical secret”, which is enshrined in canon law, is designed to protect the papacy from outside interference. The consequences of breaking it, even if that seems necessary in the face of grave corruption, are unforeseeable.

Opening up the Vatican to secular scrutiny may seem salutary, but it might allow things other than light to enter. The Vatican could find itself besieged by demands from prosecutors around the world – and their motives may not always be pure. Viganò and his most outspoken supporters may, ironically, be unleashing a revolution they neither want nor can control.

Complete transparency and full disclosure of all the documentation therefore carries a risk. But it still might be a better response than silence.


Fr Mark Drew holds a doctorate in ecumenical theology from the Institut Catholique. He is the parish priest of Hedon and Withernsea in Middlesbrough diocese

This article first appeared in the September 14 2018 issue of the Catholic Herald. To read the magazine in full, from anywhere in the world, go here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MAIKE HICKSON

Featured Image

Pope Benedict’s top aide broaches abuse crisis, quotes cardinal’s apocalyptic critique of Francis

September 11, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Emeritus Benedict’s personal secretary and the head of the papal household has commented on the abuse crisis that is rocking the Catholic Church, stating that if the Church does not achieve renewal in its wake, civilization is “at stake.”

“If the Church this time does not achieve a renewing of herself with God’s help, the whole project of our civilization is again at stake. For many, it already seems as if the Church of Jesus Christ could never recover from the catastrophe of her sin which right now seems nearly to swallow her,” Archbishop Georg Gänswein said at a gathering in Rome today for a book presentation of The Benedict Option by American author Rod Dreher.

Gänswein spoke about the “satanic” abuse crisis in the Church. At one point, he referred to Cardinal Willem Eijk’s statement last May in which he referred to the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s prophecy of a “final trial” for the Church before the second coming of Christ. Importantly, in that same statement, Eijk had publicly called upon Pope Francis to make clarifications with regard to the intercommunion debate in Germany.

Kath.net, the Austrian Catholic news website, published the full speech of Gänswein which he delivered today at the Italian Parliament in Rome.

Last month Archbishop Viganò accused Pope Francis in a detailed 11 page document of covering-up for now ex-Cardinal McCarrick despite being made aware of his sexual abuse of seminarians and priests. The Archbishop called on the Pope to resign. A day after news of the letter broke, Pope Francis told reporters that he was “not going to say a word” about the allegations. One bishop called the Pope’s response a “non-denial.”

Now, numerous priests, bishops, a cardinal, tens of thousands of lay Catholic men and women, as well as respected international mainstream news outlets (herehere and here) are calling for Viganò’s claims to be thoroughly investigated.

Archbishop Gänswein made it clear that the Church finds herself in an intensely turbulent situation.

In this, he said, “I am obviously not alone.”

He continued: “In May, also the archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, admitted that the current crisis reminds him of ‘the final trial in the Church,’ as the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 675 describes it with the following words.” These words of the Catechism then refer to the trial which will “shake the faith of many but which the Church has to endure before the return of Christ.” Gänswein further explained that “in the same Catechism, it further says: ‘The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity.’”

Even though Archbishop Gänswein would of course make no mention whatsoever of criticism of Pope Franics, it is very significant that he would even reference the text written by Cardinal Eijk.  Cardinal Eijk’s text is the most earnest and the most prominent call coming from a cardinal and addressed to the Pope, asking him to resolve the doctrinal confusion in the Church, highlighting that this confusion caused by the Pope has an apocalyptic character.

The German prelate also made reference to Pope Benedict’s own 2010 remarks on the airplane flight to Fatima in which he spoke about the meaning of the Third Secret of Fatima and mentioning that attacks on the Church would come from “within.”

The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world. […]  As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church.

Gänswein also noted that “the Church who had been rooted among the people [Volkskirche] into which we have been born – and which never existed as such in America as it existed in Europe – has long died in this process of the darkening.” He then asks: “Does this sound too dramatic for you?”

Throughout his speech, Gänswein made repeated references to the public statements of Pope Benedict, for example when speaking about the papal trip to the U.S. in 2008. The archbishop said that Benedict in a speech delivered in the U.S. at the time “tried to shake up” the U.S. bishops. He commented: “It seems to have been in vain, as we see today.”

“The lamentation of the Holy Father (Benedict) was not capable of stopping the evil, nor the lip services of a large part of the [U.S.] hierarchy,” he said.

Gänswein also referred back to Pope Benedict’s 2012 warning that the spiritual crisis which takes place in the West is the gravest crisis since the decline of the Roman Empire at the end of the fifth century. “The light of the Christian civilization is being extinguished everywhere in the West,” were the words of Pope Benedict.

While speaking of the grave abuse crisis which is now raging in the U.S. and other parts of the world, Gänswein made a comparison with the terrorist event of 11 September 2001 in the U.S. – without wishing, thereby, to diminish the suffering of the victims on that day – saying that the “Catholic Church, filled with disdain, looks upon her own September 11, also when this catastrophe, unfortunately, does not refer to only one single date, but to many days and years, and upon innumerable victims.” He later comes back to this topic, speaking about the “satanic ‘9/11’ of the Universal Catholic Church.”

The Archbishop ended his talk with some hopeful remarks. “Even the satanic ‘9/11’ of the Universal Catholic Church can neither weaken nor destroy the truth about the origin of her foundation by the Risen Lord and Conqueror.” “That is why I honestly have to admit that I perceive this time of a great crisis – which is not anymore hidden to anyone – also as a time of grace” because “the truth will make us free, as Our Lord has assured us.”

Editor’s note: Pete Baklinski contributed to this report.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

Francis, a Pope Who Says One Thing and the Opposite

Francesco

 

*

As the days go by, the controversy ignited by the indictment of former nuncio to the United States Carlo Maria Viganò against Pope Francis on account of the scandal of ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick is becoming ever more lively. And it has seen a further flare-up with the explosion of the case of Kim Davis, the Christian county official in Kentucky who was imprisoned for a week in the summer of 2015 for having refused – for reasons of freedom of conscience and of religion – to grant a marriage license to homosexual couples, and was received by Francis on September 24 of that same year at the Vatican nunciature in Washington.

On the Kim Davis case there are at least two more elements to be brought into focus, until now overlooked by the commentators. And both of them shed light on the “mystery” of Francis’s personality.

*

The first is the answer the pope gave to Terry Moran of ABC News, on the flight back from the United States to Rome, when as yet the meeting he had had with Kim Davis a few days before had not become public knowledge.

The journalist does not mention Davis by name. But he alludes to her unmistakably. Such that Francis has her in mind when he replies.

Here is the official transcript of the question-and-answer between the journalist and the pope:

Q: Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?

A: I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chanson de Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

Q: Would that include government officials as well?

A: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

News of the meeting between Francis and Kim Davis did not come out until after the pope’s return to Rome.

“The pope spoke in English,” Davis recounted afterward. “There was no interpreter. ‘Thank you for your courage,’ Pope Francis said to me. I said, ‘Thank you, Holy Father.’… It was an extraordinary moment. ‘Stay strong,’ he said to me… I broke into tears. I was deeply moved.”

A few days later, however, on October 2, 2015, as the controversy raged, then-director of the Vatican press office Federico Lombardi released a statement in which it was maintained:

– that the meeting with Kim Davis was only one among the “several dozen” courtesy greetings that the pope had given that same day to a great number of persons;

– that the meeting “must not be considered as support for her position in all its particular and complex implications”;

– that “the only ‘audience’ granted by the pope at the nunciature [of Washington] was to one of his old students, with his family.”

Apart from the fact that this “family” received in audience was made up of one of Bergoglio’s old Argentine friends, Yayo Grassi, and his Indonesian partner, Iwan Bagus, what is most striking about this statement – which was certainly approved by the pope – is that it contradicts or in any case downplays what Francis himself said on the plane in defense of Kim Davis and her right to conscientious objection.

But there’s more. Last August 28, three years later, the “New York Times” reported on a conversation between Francis and Juan Carlos Cruz, the best-known victim of sexual abuse in Chile, according to whom the pope said about the meeting with Kim Davis:

“I did not know who the woman was and he [Msgr. Viganò] snuck her in to say hello to me – and of course they made a whole publicity out of it. And I was horrified and I fired that nuncio.”

Viganò replied to these words attributed to the pope on August 30, with a detailed reconstruction of the lead-up to that meeting, to show that Francis “knew very well who Davis was” and that “he and his close associates had approved the audience.”

In his memorandum, Viganò does not cite the words that Francis said on the plane, presented above. But these would be enough to demonstrate the extent to which the pope was fully apprised of the question, so much so as to reiterate, in his response to the journalist from ABC News, some of the passages of the written report that Viganò had delivered to him just before the meeting with Davis and that he has now made public.

Viganò however, at the end of his memorandum, goes so far as to present an aut-aut: “One of the two is lying: Cruz, or the pope?”

But it is plausible that things are not so cut and dried. And it is here that there emerges the second element to be brought into focus, which concerns more closely the personality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

*

He is a pope, Bergoglio, who personifies contradictions. Of which the Kim Davis case is an example, but not the only one.

The contradiction between what Francis said on the plane on September 28, 2015 and what he had Fr. Lombardi say the following October 2 has already been covered here.

But then there is the contradiction – according to Viganò’s memorandum – between the alarming words of secretary of state Pietro Parolin in urgently calling the then-nuncio to the United States back to Rome: “You must come to Rome immediately, because the pope is infuriated with you,” and the “affectionate and fatherly” manner, full of “constant praise” with which Francis instead spoke to Viganò upon receiving him in audience on October 9.

And then again the contradiction with what Francis had reported to Juan Carlos Cruz: of having seen himself tricked by Viganò and abruptly firing him as a result.

Last September 2 Fr. Lombardi gave a feeble counter-reply – together with Fr. Thomas Rosica, at the time the English-language spokesman for the Vatican press office – to Viganò’s memorandum, in an attempt to defend the statement of three years before.

But the simplest and most likely explanation is that Pope Francis serenely acted on his own all the parts of the drama, no matter if one was in contrast with the other: the words on the plane, the statement of October 2, the anti-Viganò tantrum with Cardinal Parolin, the subsequent kindly audience with Viganò himself, the new anti-Viganò tantrum with the Chilean Cruz…

This is the way Bergoglio is. To each his own. Or better, to each that which the pope maintains it is opportune to give and say in that given moment, according to his personal calculations.

The pope behaves like this very often, above all on the most controversial questions. Another glaring example of this is what happened last winter concerning China. While on the one hand, receiving in audience Cardinal Joseph Zen Zekiun and the secretary “De Propaganda Fide” at the time, Savio Hon Taifai, he said to both of them, expressing surprise, that he had not been informed about what the Vatican diplomates were doing on behalf of the Chinese regime and to the detriment of the “clandestine” Church, and had promised to act in support of their protests, a few days later an official Vatican statement confirmed instead that there was no “disparity of thought and action between the Holy Father and his colleagues in the Roman curia with regard to Chinese issues,” that the secretariat of state kept the pope constantly informed “in a faithful and detailed manner,” and that the statements to the contrary by Cardinal Zen elicited “surprise and regret.”

Or again, look at how Francis behaved with Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the congregation for divine worship. On July 11, 2016, an official Vatican statement attacked the cardinal in a humiliating way, contesting his recommendations in favor of a reorientation of liturgical prayer toward the east and his stated interest in proceeding with a “reform of the reform,” meaning a correction of the deviations of the postconciliar liturgical innovations.

Except that Francis had received Sarah in audience two days earlier. Thanking him and praising him for what he was doing, without the slightest reference to the backstabbing he was about to get. And the previous month of April, during another audience, Francis had urged Sarah to proceed with precisely that “reform of the reform” which he would publicly disown just a little while later.

But the most sensational example of the contradictions personified by Francis is his response to the Lutheran woman who asked him if she could receive communion together with her Catholic husband. Not in separate audiences and speaking to different persons, but in a single statement of a few minutes with the same person, Bergoglio concentrated everything and the contrary of everything. He told her first yes, then no, then I don’t know, and finally do as you believe. The video of that question-and-answer (in Italian, with a transcription in English) is an extraordinary “summa” for penetrating the personality of the current pope:

> “Mi chiamo Anke de Bernardini…”

A personality that was forged by going through not a few dark “passages,” as he himself recalled recently, which led him to entrust himself for a few months to a psychoanalyst and which in any case have left in him a still-unresolved interior disquiet.

To overcome which he himself has confessed, for example, that he chose Santa Marta as his residence “for psychiatric reasons” and refuses to read the online writings of his opponents, to safeguard his “mental health.”

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

facebook_1536708300890.jpg

Wuerl to meet with Pope Francis to discuss resignation

In a letter to priests, the cardinal said he wanted to discuss his resignation ‘in the very near future’

The Archbishop of Washington told priests Tuesday that he intends to meet with Pope Francis soon to discuss his resignation from office.

In a letter sent to priests of the Archdiocese of Washington Sept. 11, Cardinal Donald Wuerl wrote that a decision about his future role in the archdiocese is “an essential aspect so that this archdiocesan Church we all love can move forward.

“I intend, in the very near future, to go to Rome to meet with our Holy Father about the resignation I presented nearly three years ago, November 12, 2015.”

Wuerl presented his resignation to the pope in 2015 upon turning 75, the age at which diocesan bishops are requested to submit letters of resignation to the pope.

Calls for Pope Francis to accept Wuerl’s resignation have been frequent in recent months. In June, Wuerl’s predecessor in Washington, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, was publicly accused of serially sexually abusing a teenage boy in the 1970s. As further accusations were made that McCarrick sexually coerced and assaulted seminarians for decades, questions were raised about whether Wuerl knew about McCarrick’s apparent sexual misconduct.

After the Aug. 14 release of a report from a grand jury in Pennsylvania, calls for Wuerl to be replaced intensified. That report suggested that Wuerl had been negligent in the supervision of priests accused of sexually abusing minors while he was Bishop of Pittsburgh, in one case permitting a priest accused of sexual abuse to transfer from ministry in one diocese to another, and signing off on the priest’s suitability for ministry.

An Aug. 25 letter from a former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Vigano, raised further questions about Wuerl’s knowledge of McCarrick’s misconduct, and a report that Wuerl permitted McCarrick to have seminarian assistants while under investigation for sexual abuse led to additional criticism.

Wuerl’s Sept. 11 letter noted that he had gathered with priests on Sept. 3, praying with them while trying to “discern the best course of action for me to pursue as we face new revelations of the extent of the horror of clergy abuse of children and the failures in episcopal oversight.”

“At issue is how to begin effectively to bring a new level of healing to survivors who have personally suffered so much and to the faithful entrusted to our care who have also been wounded by the shame of these terrible actions and have questions about their bishop’s ability to provide the necessary leadership,” Wuerl added.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington, Ed McFadden, told CNA that Wuerl’s letter is “evidence of a serious and constructive discernment process that Cardinal Wuerl went through, and his appreciation to the priests for their support and engagement in the discernment process, to help him work through it.”

“He understands the need for healing, and that he certainly wants to be a part of that and not bring damage or harm to the Church that he clearly loves,” McFadden said.

Wuerl plans to celebrate a Sept. 14 Mass for Healing in Washington. McFadden told CNA that Wuerl sent his letter before that Mass because the cardinal did not want his status to become a distraction to that event.

Wuerl, McFadden said, “wants the focus to be on the survivors and the start of the healing process” during that Mass.

The Archdiocese of Washington would not confirm when Wuerl will meet with Pope Francis.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires: Some More Unanswered Questions

When I wrote The Dictator Pope, I pointed out the failure of the cardinals in 2013 to inform themselves about Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio’s record as archbishop of Buenos Aires, for if they had known about it even superficially, they would not have voted for him. The more that is known about that record, the truer this appears. It is becoming increasingly clear that Cardinal Bergoglio was not merely below the standard usually expected in a papal candidate; he represented, in his close contacts if not in his own personal conduct, a link to some of the most corrupt features of the South American Church. Several examples of this need to be described.

  1. The swindle against the Sociedad Militar Seguro de Vida

In my book, I touched on a financial scandal in Buenos Aires that erupted shortly before Bergoglio became archbishop. The revelations made since then about the figure who was at the center of it, Monsignor Roberto Toledo, give it an even more sinister aspect than appeared at the time.

The story is as follows: in 1997, Jorge Bergoglio had been for five years an auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires, and he had been granted the right of succession to Cardinal Quarracino, who was ailing and who died the following year. Quarracino had links with a bank, the Banco de Crédito Provincial, owned by the Trusso family, who were regarded as pillars of the Church and were close friends of the cardinal. Quarracino had been instrumental in securing for the BCP the large account of the Argentine military pension fund, the Sociedad Militar Seguro de Vida, and in 1997, the latter was asked to make a loan to the archdiocese of Buenos Aires of ten million dollars, underwritten by the BCP. The meeting to arrange this contract was held at the offices of the archdiocese, but Cardinal Quarracino was too ill to attend; he was represented by his general secretary, Monsignor Roberto Toledo. When the moment came to sign the contract, Monsignor Toledo took the document out of the room on the pretext of taking it to the cardinal, and he shortly brought it back with a signature, which, as later appeared, had in fact been forged by Toledo himself.

Monsignor Toledo was an egregious example of the corrupt clergy whose prominence in the Church is being highlighted ever more by the pontificate of Pope Francis. He was a homosexual and was known to have a male lover, a gym instructor, who served as a channel of the Trussos’ financial influence with the archdiocese. Within a few weeks of the conclusion of the loan, but for unrelated reasons, the BCP went into bankruptcy; it was revealed to have large debts that it could not pay, and the Sociedad Militar’s money, deposited with the bank, was lost. When the Sociedad tried to recover its loan of ten million dollars from the archdiocese, Cardinal Quarracino denied having ever signed the contract.

The cardinal died shortly afterward, and Archbishop Bergoglio took over as his successor. In his biography The Great Reformer, Austen Ivereigh represents Bergoglio as the man who brought financial probity to the finances of the archdiocese of Buenos Aires [1], but he omits a number of details crucial to the case. The first is the way Archbishop Bergoglio handled the Sociedad Militar’s claim for the restitution of its ten million dollars. He appointed as the archdiocese’s lawyer to manage the case one of the shadiest figures in the Argentine legal system, Roberto Dromi, a man who has been prosecuted for numerous offenses of corruption [2]. The mere employment of such a man by Archbishop Bergoglio should be a major cause of scandal. Dromi harassed the Sociedad to such an extent over its claim that in the end, the Sociedad was obliged to drop it.

The Trusso family were ruined by the collapse of their bank, and some of them claimed that they had suffered injustice. In 2002, the journalist Olga Wornat interviewed Francisco Trusso and asked him why he did not speak to Bergoglio about the forged signature. He replied: “I have asked for an audience, my wife has asked for an audience. My son. My brother. He won’t receive us[.] … He escapes, he doesn’t want to hear. It must be because his tail is not too clean. He must have signed something” [3].

Even more significant is Archbishop Bergoglio’s kid-glove handling of Monsignor Toledo. He was first sent back to his hometown without any sanctions. In 2005, he was tried for fraud, but no sentence was ever passed. This treatment falls into the pattern of Bergoglio’s habitual inaction in cases of misdemeanor, but there is a special detail to it: as secretary to Cardinal Quarracino back in 1991, Monsignor Toledo was the man responsible for rescuing Father Bergoglio from the internal exile to which the Jesuits had consigned him and getting him appointed auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires. Ever since, Bergoglio has been interested in preventing the reputation of either Cardinal Quarracino or Monsignor Toledo from being tarnished by the scandals that gathered round them [4].

A macabre postscript to this story emerged in January 2017, when Monsignor Toledo, who had been officiating for eighteen years as a parish priest in his hometown, still unpunished, was accused of murdering a longtime friend of his and forging his will [5]. We are given a glimpse here into the consequences of Bergoglio’s famous clemency, and we begin to get a sense of the personalities to whom he owed his rise in the Church and with whom he consorted while in office.

  1. The Catholic University of Argentina and the IOR

Another incident mentioned in my book relates to the Catholic University of Argentina, of which Bergoglio was chancellor ex officio as archbishop of Buenos Aires. His agent here was Pablo Garrido, who was financial manager of the archdiocese and whom Bergoglio also appointed financial manager of the university (a post from which he was removed in 2017). The university, which had a rich endowment of 200 million dollars, provided Archbishop Bergoglio with the financial sinews he needed in his attempts to gain influence in the Vatican, whose finances had been left in a disastrous state by the illegal activities of Monsignor Marcinkus and his successor, Monsignor de Bonis.

Between 2005 and 2011, some 40 million dollars were transferred from the Catholic University of Argentina to the Istituto per le Opere di Religione (the Vatican Bank), in a transaction that was supposed to be a deposit but which the IOR has hitherto treated as a donation. (Just this year, the reports are that this misappropriation has begun to be remedied, but only partially.) Pablo Garrido was responsible for this transfer, against the protests of members of the university who pointed out that the university, as an educational foundation, could not make a donation to a foreign bank. Together with the case of the Sociedad Militar Seguro de Vida, this is one of the obscure financial episodes in Archbishop Bergoglio’s administration that deserve to be studied in depth by a qualified researcher.

  1. The episcopal cronies of Bergoglio

Equally revealing is a look at Cardinal Bergoglio’s close associates in the Buenos Aires episcopate. The first to consider is Juan Carlos Maccarone, whom Bergoglio made an auxiliary bishop at the beginning of his tenure, in 1999. In 2005, Maccarone was dismissed from the episcopate by Pope Benedict after he was filmed having sexual relations with a homosexual prostitute in the sacristy of his cathedral. Yet Cardinal Bergoglio publicly defended him, asserting that the filming was a setup to bring the bishop down because of his left-wing political commitment. Maccarone, it is worth noting, declared that everyone was aware of his homosexual activities and he had been appointed bishop regardless of them.

Another friend and protégé of Cardinal Bergoglio was Joaquín Mariano Sucunza, whom he consecrated auxiliary bishop in 2000 although he knew that Sucunza had been cited in a divorce case as the lover of a married woman, whose husband accused him of having destroyed their marriage [6]. Bishop Sucunza has continued ever since as auxiliary and was indeed appointed by Pope Francis as temporary administrator of the archdiocese in 2013 after Bergoglio’s own elevation to the papacy.

  1. Protection of sexual abusers

No offense has been more damaging to bishops in recent years than the accusation of not having acted with diligence against priests suspected of sexually abusing children. Several bishops have had their careers destroyed over this issue, not always in cases of obvious culpability. Pope Francis himself proclaimed a “zero tolerance” policy in this area and supposedly introduced a new reign of transparency. Yet if we look into it, we find that his own past career is studded with episodes deserving fully as much scrutiny as those that have brought other prelates down.

The first case to be noticed is that of the priest Rubén Pardo, who was reported to an auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires in 2002 for having invited a fifteen-year-old boy to his house and sexually abused him in bed. The mother of the boy had great difficulty in getting the ecclesiastical authorities to admit the case; she considered that Cardinal Bergoglio was protecting the guilty priest and was indignant at his giving him lodging in a diocesan residence. She complained that when she tried to speak to the cardinal at the archiepiscopal residence, she was ejected by the security staff. The priest died of AIDS in 2005; in 2013, a Buenos Aires court obliged the Catholic Church to pay the family compensation for the harm they had suffered. The mother’s opinion on the handling of the case was: “Bergoglio’s commitment is just talk.” (Ese es el compromiso de Bergoglio: de la boca para fuera) [7].

Another instructive case is that of Father Julio Grassi, who was convicted in 2009 of sexually abusing a teenage boy [8]. What surprises in this case is the exceptional efforts the Argentine Bishops’ Conference, under the chairmanship of Cardinal Bergoglio, devoted to getting Father Grassi cleared, commissioning a document of 2,600 pages for the purpose. It was submitted to the judges after Grassi’s conviction but before they had given sentence and was described by the attorney Juan Pablo Gallego as “a scandalous instance of lobbying and exerting pressure on the Court.”

Let us not deny the importance of defending innocent people against false accusations, but we are not left with the impression of a prelate with a “zero tolerance” record against sexual abuse. Perhaps more significant is a remark by Cardinal Bergoglio to Rabbi Abraham Skorka, published in 2010, a year after Father Grassi’s conviction, that cases of clerical sexual abuse “had never arisen” in his diocese [9]. It is an example of the characteristic habit of Jorge Bergoglio of disposing of inconvenient facts by denying their existence.

Another example of this foible is provided by the father of a pupil at the Jesuit school in Buenos Aires where Bergoglio had taught as a young man in the 1960s. Forty years later, when Bergoglio was cardinal-archbishop, that father was told by his son that the chaplain of the school had indecently propositioned him in the confessional. He reported the case to the cardinal and was shocked to find that he took no action, the response of Bergoglio that we find time and again in the face of misconduct of all kinds. Shortly afterward, the father was astonished to hear Cardinal Bergoglio, replying to a question in a meeting of parents of the school, declare that the problem of sexual abuse and of homosexual clergy was virtually nonexistent in his diocese.

In the light of these facts, the recent revelations about Pope Francis’s complicity in the cover-ups of sexual abuse in the United States fall easily into place. It is entirely in the character of a man who throughout his career had shown complete indifference to accusations of clerical corruption when they came to his notice. When we consider his promotions of Bishop Maccarone and Bishop Sucunza, it comes as no surprise that he was a friend of Cardinal McCarrick, who, in the years before Bergoglio’s election as pope, had already been disciplined by Pope Benedict for his widespread molestation of boys and young men but who was nevertheless able to play an influential role in Bergoglio’s election. It is also completely in character that, on becoming pope, he should have taken as his leading allies prelates such as Cardinal Danneels, who was known to have covered up child abuse in Belgium, and Cardinal Wuerl, whose role in the United States proves to have been equally murky.

We come back to the fact that, if the cardinals had had any inkling of the background of Cardinal Bergoglio’s Church in Buenos Aires, they would never have voted for him. They might not have foreseen Bergoglio’s cavalier attitude to Catholic doctrine, but what they were looking for was a man who would tackle the knotty problems, which had defeated Benedict XVI, of financial and moral reform in the Vatican and of the widespread plague of clerical sexual abuse. If they had been aware of the lack of moral integrity of the clergy with whom Bergoglio had surrounded himself in Buenos Aires, of the financial scandals in his diocese, of his habitual inaction in cases of wrongdoing, of his repeated turning away of people who came to him with complaints, and of his head-in-the-sand attitude toward criticism, it would have been clear to them that this was the last candidate to fit the profile of a reformer.


[1] Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer, 2014, p. 244.

[2] See the articles “Acusan a Dromi de cobrar sobornos. Guillermo Laura dice que el exministro recibió US$ 7 millones de firmas viales” (“Dromi accused of taking bribes. Guillermo Laura says ex-minister received US$ 7 million from road construction firms”) in La Nación, 9 September 1999; and “La Justicia pidió un embargo millonario contra Menem y Dromi. Presunta venta irregular de un terreno de 241 ha. a Radio Nacional” (“Court demands embargo of millions against Menem and Dromi. Alleged irregular sale of 241 ha. plot to Radio Nacional”) in La Gaceta  (Tucumán), 23 April 2008.

[3] Olga Wornat, Nuestra Santa Madre, Buenos Aires, 2002.

[4] See Urgente24 (an Argentine online newspaper), 23 March 2013: “Una causa judicial que todavía le importa al papa” (“A court case that still matters to the pope”). In this article, published just after Bergoglio was elected pope, the author also reports the story related by Bishop Justo Laguna of Morón, that at the time of the 2005 Conclave the Argentine Cardinal Leonardo Sandri remarked to him, referring to Bergoglio: “You’d better pray to St Joseph that this man doesn’t become pope.”

[5] See https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2017/01/29/una-muerte-dudosa-una-herencia-millonaria-y-un-cura-bajo-sospecha/ (“A suspicious death, a millionaire inheritance and a priest under suspicion”).

[6] See the article by Marcelo González in Panorama Católico Internacional, 20 September 2010: “Obispo Adúltero: Nombre y Pruebas” (“Adulterer Bishop: Name and Proofs).”

[7] See the article in Público, 3 May 2013, “El Papa encubrió al cura que abusó de mi hijo” (“The Pope covered up for the priest who abused my son”).

[8] See BBC News, 24 September 2013, “Argentine priest Julio Grassi jailed over sexual abuse.”

[9] Sobre el cielo y la tierra, a book of conversations between Cardinal Bergoglio and Rabbi Abraham Skorka, published in Buenos Aires in 2010.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Sunday, September 9, 2018
Day #16

 

Today is the 16th day since the publication of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano‘s “Testimony.” (The full text is here; it was made public on the evening of August 25.)

 

And today comes almost incredible news — and perhaps not credible, since it is not yet officially confirmed. So it might be best to call it “rumor,” not news.

 

But, in the nature of things, we are unlikely to get any confirmation of this type of news, because it involves covert operations. The only way “news” about such things, never announced officially, is ever made public is through leaks, whispers, indiscretions from unnamed “sources.” And that seems to be the case regarding this “rumor.”

 

The “rumor” is that the Vatican leadership has given orders to its “internal and external security services” to use its “intelligence resources” to locate the physical whereabouts of Archbishop Viganòwith the end goal of charging Vigano with crimes against Vatican rules against revealing state secrets.

 

In other words, Vatican security officers have been instructed to find Vigano, wherever he is.

 

To do so, of course, they will use every channel available to them, including asking for help from police and intelligence agencies outside of the Vatican, agencies with whom the Vatican has working agreements.

 

If this is true, a global search on to find Vigano is now on.

 

Vigano has not appeared publicly since his “Testimony” was published.

 

A friend writes to me: “If this report is accurate, then the Holy Father is essentially acknowledging the veracity of Vigano’s accusations. Unless Vigano’s letter were substantively accurate, there would be no material basis for these criminal charges. Leaving aside, of course, the horrible optics of the only accountability here being for the person who brought these horrible deeds to light…”

 

I add: this action is not necessarily taken by the Pope himself; it may be that it is being taken (if it is being taken) without the Pope’s knowledge or approval. So my friend may not be correct when he writes “if this report is accurate, then the Holy Father is essentially acknowledging…” The bureaucratic machinery of the Holy See is now in motion, and it is not clear what is being done by Vatican officials acting under the Pope’s direct instructions, and what is being done by these advisers and officials without the Pope’s full knowledge and approval.

 

One other note.

 

I received a call from Rome yesterday, asking me for insight about why Pope Francis has not yet agreed to an August 29 request from Cardinal Daniel Di Nardo, archbishop of Houston, Texas, and President of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference, to have a personal meeting with Francis to discuss the entire situation. (link) On this matter, I have no special knowledge, but also in this case it seems possible that the Pope may not have been informed, or fully informed, of Di Nardo’s request for the meeting, or of why it is urgent.

 

============================

 

The hunt for Vigano?

 

This report was published two days ago, on September 7, by ChurchMilitant.com, the web site run by Michael Voris, a Catholic journalist and ex-seminarian of the Archdiocese of New York.

 

The report was also picked up in Italy by Vaticanist Marco Tosatti, a colleague (link). Tosatti knows Vigano personally — he met with Vigano on August 22 and for three hours helped him do the final editing on his “Testimony.” (For that matter, I also know Vigano personally, and have met with him privately on many occasions over the past few years.)

——————————–

 

THE HUNT FOR VIGANÒ: VATICAN SPIES TRACKING WHISTLEBLOWER (link)
by Church Militant • ChurchMilitant.com

 

September 7, 2018

 

By Rev. Michael X., JCL

 

Vatican officials are on the hunt for Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò.

 

According to sources within the Vatican, the Secretariat of State of the Holy See — under the direction of Pietro Cardinal Parolin — has communicated an instruction to its internal and external security services to use its “intelligence resources” to locate the physical whereabouts of Abp. Viganò.

 

This request has been communicated not only in order to prevent more unpredictable damage to the image of Pope Francis and the Holy See on the world stage, but also to “prepare the terrain” for the former apostolic nuncio-turned-whistleblower to be prosecuted for alleged multiple crimes against Vatican and Church law.

 

The urgency with which the location of Abp. Viganò is being sought is all the more palpable since, according to canon 1507 of the Code of Canon Law and other procedural and penal norms of the Holy See and Vatican City State, Abp. Viganò cannot be prosecuted or even punished unless he first be given the opportunity to be officially notified in writing of the specific canonical and Vatican crimes he is alleged to have committed and be given the opportunity to defend himself against them.
As first reported by the very well-informed Baron Roberto de Mattei (Corrispondenza Romana, September 5), criminal counts are said to be in the process of being researched and drafted in a libellus accusatorius (canonical criminal complaint) for Viganò having allegedly committed perjury for his having breached pontifical and other forms of state secrecy in violation of, among other norms, the Instruction Secreta continere on the Pontifical Secret issued on February 4, 1974 by John Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State of the Vatican.

 

The specific Norms of Secreta being researched for applicability and evidence in support of potential prosecution include:

 

1. Art. I-4 for Abp. Viganò’s alleged divulgation of extrajudicial denunciations received by him during his service of the Holy See regarding crimes against faith and morals and the Sacrament of Penance, and the process and decision pertaining to the handling of these denunciations regarding Theodore Cardinal McCarrick and other clerics referenced by Viganò in his testimony and in the articles of journalists to whom the archbishop is alleged to have disseminated such classified information;

 

2. Art. I-7 for his alleged dissemination of Vatican secrets gained by reason of office pertaining to appointments of bishops, specifically regarding the appointment of Cdl. Blase Cupich as archbishop of Chicago, Illinois;

 

3. Art. I-9 for his alleged divulgation of the electronically encrypted order transmitted by the Secretariat of State to Abp. Viganò regarding the appointment of Bp. Robert McElroy to the see of San Diego, California;

 

4. Art. I-10 for his breaching of “business or matters which are so grave in nature that they are placed under the Pontifical Secret by the Supreme Pontiff or a Cardinal of the relevant Dicastery.”

 

News of the Vatican deploying its vast international resources to track down and prosecute Abp. Viganò are consistent with his assertions made to [veteran Italian Catholic Vaticanist] Aldo Maria Valli on their final encounter: that Viganò had “purchased a plane ticket,” that he was “traveling abroad,” that he “could not tell [Valli] where,” that Valli “should not try to find him,” that “his old cellular number will no longer be functioning,” and that they “saluted each other one last time.”

 

Viganò, in saying goodbye to Valli, appears to have known exactly what the worst elements of the Vatican and its agents are capable of.

 

Let us hope he has taken every necessary precaution from falling into the hands of those who would wish him ill.

 

=================

 

Three readers’ comments

 

A reader named “JCS” on the Churchmilitant.com website commented on this article:

 

“It appears that the Pope and the Vatican are hell bent on prosecuting Cardinal Vigano’ for his letter regarding the predator homosexual priest and the cover up, yet not one word about what the Pope is going to do about it.

 

“Is he investigating it, or is he just ignoring it???

 

“The Pope is sending a message to the good priests, that is, you speak out, or make known the amount of homosexuality within the Roman Catholic Church, you will be attacked and vilified.

 

“Looks nothing but a cover up and a prosecution of the informer will ever come out of it.

 

“Once again, it is going to be up to the laity to force the issue.

 

“The Pope can’t prosecute us.”

 

And a reader named “Jaaye” wrote:

 

Jaaye • 5 hours ago
“Vigano is being attacked not for what he knows, but for what he revealed… and his stated reason for doing so was he felt it was necessary to do before he stands before God.

 

“Vigano is being attacked to stem the flow of information from others who may have similarly burdened consciences and wish to clear them before THEY stand before God.

 

“The Vatican may be able to destroy documents or ‘lose’ them in the archives, but they cannot erase the memories and recollections from the minds of the witnesses.

 

“And few things happen in the Vatican in a vacuum… there are always (many) witnesses.

 

“This is NOT behavior the Vatican wants repeated — let that sink in for a moment — calling for an investigation of the facts so the truth can become known is deemed not in the Vatican’s best interests — as it will disrupt the ‘alliances’ they’ve made in the world.

 

“A ‘partner’ in crime with loose-lips is a soon-to-be ex-partner (…)”

 

And a reader named “DHopp” wrote:

 

DHopp • 5 hours ago

 

“Viganò attacked because of not obeying procedural protocol?

 

“What of morality?

 

“Where is the 300 page dossier from Pope Bendict?
“Where are the documents from the nunciature disproving
McCarrick as not being canonically restricted by Benedict?

“Where are documents contradicting the witnesses regarding such actions being directly voiced to McCarrick?

 

“Sin has infested the Vatican and it’s credibility.
“The Church is supposed to be a moral light to the world.
“All that is seen presently is selfish darkness and calculation.”

 

====================

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Saturday, September 08, 2018

If Reuters’ Canon Law Expert is Right then Pope Benedict is Probably or Surely still Pope not to Mention the Bishop Gracida Evidence that the Francis Conclave was Invalid

Reuters is saying that if pressure is put on “Pope Francis to resign [it] could make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so, Church experts say.”:

“’The pope has the right to freely resign. That’s what the canon says. The doubt is whether the situation Francis is in now really allows for a free choice because there is a political faction in the Church trying to force it,’ said Nicholas Cafardi, former dean of Duquesne University School of Law.”

“’I don’t see how (the pope can resign freely) when you have people campaigning for it,’ said Cafardi, who is also a former member of the Board of Governors of the Canon Law Society of America.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1LN1IL#ampshare=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abuse-law/can-the-popes-accusers-force-him-to-resign-idUSKCN1LN1IL]

If Reuters and Canon Law expert Cafardi are right that it is “difficult, if not impossible” for a pope to resign “if a political faction in the Church if trying to force it” then Pope Benedict XVI probably, if not for sure, is still Pope which would mean Francis is not a valid or real pope.

On August 27, author and philosopher Dr. Taylor Marshall reported that force or pressure from financial blackmail apparently lead to Benedict’s resignation. He said:

“Sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity. This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”

Marshall on YouTube in “Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity” summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and Pope Francis’s papacy:

If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict’s resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has “reinstated and promoted” all those who brought about the forced and pressured resignation.Marshall stated:

“First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering.”

“Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal.”

“Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals.”

“Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity.”

“This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”

There is more evidence that Benedict was forced or pressured to resign.

Akacatholic.com reported that evidence points to financial blackmail being involved in the Benedict abdication who appeared to be attempting to uncover “financial improprieties.”:

“An article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet is making the rounds alleging that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2012.”

“According to Blondet:

There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church…”

“…It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank.”

“I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards.”

“This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place.”

“Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received.”

“In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal.”

“Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive.”

“It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him.”

“Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate.”

“Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns.” [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]

Moreover, besides the apparent likely probability that Francis is not pope, if Reuters’ Canon Law expert is right, because Benedict was pressured or forced to resign there, also, appears to be strong evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid.

Onepeterfive’s Steve Skojec on May 7 apparently rejected Bishop René Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”
(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

-“I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid].”
(Introductory perambulary)

-“Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

I have great respect for both Skojec and Peters, but unless Gracida’s Open Letter is squarely responded to my respect for them will greatly diminish for they will be neglecting their responsibility to God and His Church.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

Skojec and Peters need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:

1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic thus deposing him or

2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act.

You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think.

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.

Gracida is calling the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.

Bishop Gracida in a email to me and through the Catholic Monitor to all faithful Catholics said:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Sunday, September 2, 2018
“‘Do not let yourself be contaminated by this world’ does not mean isolating oneself and closing oneself to reality. No. Here too it should not be an external but interior attitude, of substance: it means to be vigilant because our way of thinking and acting is not polluted by the worldly mentality, that is, by vanity, greed, pride. In reality, a man or woman who lives in vanity, avarice, pride and at the same time believes and makes himself seen as religious and even condemns others, is a hypocrite.” —Pope Francis, today in Rome at the Sunday noon Angelus in St. Peter’s Square, commenting on the Gospel reading for today. Some observers saw this as an oblique reference to Archbishop Vigano, interpreting it as the Pope criticizing Vigano for his alleged “vanity, avarice, pride” and “hypocrisy”…

 

====================

 

Day #9

 

Today is the 9th day since the publication of Archbishop Vigano’s “Testimony”

 

Attacks against Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano‘s testimony, against his credibility and character, are intensifying.

 

Let’s set what is happening in context.

 

Vigano’s August 25 “Testimony” came out in a specific, dramatic context: after a summer of revelations about the cover-up of sexual abuse by members of the hierarchy. It is essential to remember this.

 

What was that context?

 

First, the revelations about the abusive actions of former Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, 88 years old. Those revelations, despite years and even decades of rumors, only came out in June, from the Archdiocese of New York, and led to McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals.

 

June 20 was the date.

 

Here is a report by Catholic News Agency on June 20:

 

“The Archdiocese of New York announced Wednesday that an investigation it conducted into an allegation of sexual abuse against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who oversaw multiple U.S. dioceses, has found the accusation to be ‘credible and substantiated.’

 

“In the June 20 statement, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, said the alleged abuse happened nearly 50 years ago while McCarrick was a priest of the New York archdiocese. It is the only such accusation against McCarrick that the archdiocese is aware of, Dolan said.

 

“Once the archdiocese received the allegation, they turned it over to local law enforcement, and it was ‘thoroughly investigated’ by an independent forensics team, Dolan said, noting that McCarrick has maintained his innocence, but is cooperating in the investigation.

 

“The Vatican has been informed of the accusation, and as a result, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, by order of Pope Francis, has prohibited McCarrick from public ministry. No official statement from the Vatican has been released.” (end of CNA story)

 

The weeks began to pass by, and questions began to be raised about how the Vatican would deal with this revelation.

 

On July 21, a month later, the Associated Press reported these questions in a widely reprinted story (link):

 

Could ‘culture of cover-up’ force Pope Francis to defrock McCarrick?
Updated July 21, 2018 at 10:29 AM; Posted July 21, 2018 at 9:58 AM
By The Associated Press
Revelations that one of the most respected U.S. cardinals allegedly sexually abused both boys and adult seminarians have raised questions about who in the Catholic Church hierarchy knew — and what Pope Francis is going to do about it.

 

If the accusations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick bear out — including a new case reported Friday involving an 11-year-old boy — will Francis revoke his title as cardinal? Sanction him to a lifetime of penance and prayer? Or even defrock him, the expected sanction if McCarrick were a mere priest?
And will Francis, who has already denounced a “culture of cover-up” in the church, take the investigation all the way to the top, where it will inevitably lead? McCarrick’s alleged sexual misdeeds with adults were reportedly brought to the Vatican’s attention years ago.

 

The matter is now on the desk of the pope, who has already spent the better part of 2018 dealing with a spiraling child sex abuse, adult gay priest sex and cover-up scandal in Chile that was so vast the entire bishops’ conference offered to resign in May….

 

The McCarrick scandal poses the same questions. It was apparently an open secret in some U.S. church circles that “Uncle Ted” invited seminarians to his beach house, and into his bed…

 

Fraternal solidarity is common among clerics, but some observers point to it as possible evidence of the so-called “gay lobby” or “lavender mafia” at work. These euphemisms — frequently denounced as politically incorrect displays of homophobia in the church — are used by some to describe a perceived protection and promotion network of gay Catholic clergy.

 

“There is going to be so much clamor for the Holy Father to remove the red hat, to formally un-cardinalize him,” said the Rev. Thomas Berg, vice rector and director of admissions at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, the seminary of the archdiocese of New York.

 

Berg said the church needs to ensure that men with deep-seated same-sex attraction simply don’t enter seminaries — a position recently reinforced by the Vatican at large and by Francis in comments to Chilean and Italian bishops. (end of Associated Press story)

 

A few days later, on July 27, McCarrick resigned from being a cardinal, and the next day, July 28, Pope removed him from the list of cardinals — something that has not happened in centuries.

 

(link) VATICAN CITY (AP) Saturday, July 28, 2018 — Pope Francis has accepted U.S. prelate Theodore McCarrick‘s offer to resign from the College of Cardinals following allegations of sexual abuse, including one involving an 11-year-old boy, and ordered him to conduct a “life of prayer and penance” in a home to be designated by the pontiff until a church trial is held, the Vatican said Saturday.

 

Francis acted swiftly after receiving McCarrick’s letter of resignation Friday evening [July 27] after recent weeks have brought a spate of allegations that the 88-year-old prelate in the course of his distinguished clerical career had sexually abused both boys and adult seminarians. The revelations posed a test to the pontiff’s recently declared resolve to battle what he called a “culture of cover-up” of similar abuse in the Catholic’s church’s hierarchy. (end AP story)

 

So, for the first half of the summer, there were weeks and weeks of reports about the need for Pope Francis to “battle a culture of cover-up” — and it was Francis himself who was calling it “a culture of cover-up.”

 

And then came the second major news event of the “pre-Vigano” summer:

 

2) the report of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, which came out August 14 (link).

 

(Note: there are a number of serious questions that may be raisedabout this report, but they will have to wait for another time; for the moment, it is sufficient to place this report in this timeline.)

 

The August 14 exploded like a bomb on the Catholic world.

 

The  report found that more than 300 Catholic priests had been guilty of sexually molesting or abusing more than 1,000 children over many decades, and that the Church hierarchy had consistently “covered up” for these guilty priests.

 

Here is the essence of it (link):

 

“More than 300 Catholic priests across Pennsylvania sexually abused children over seven decades, protected by a hierarchy of church leaders who covered it up, according to a sweeping grand jury report released Tuesday [August 14],” the Washington Postreported.

 

“The investigation, one of the broadest inquiries into church sex abuse in U.S. history, identified 1,000 children who were victims, but reported that there probably are thousands more.

 

“‘Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades,’ the grand jury wrote in its report.”

 

This sentence bears repeating; the impact of the Vigano text cannot be understood without this context: “Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all.”

 

This is a citation from a Grand Jury report. It has authority. It is devastating.

 

And that is the third element of the “pre-Vigano” context: the propagation of this news.

 

3) From August 14 to 24, for a full 11 days, the news of these two scandals was reported everywhere throughout the US and the world.

 

Catholics everywhere were shocked.

 

They had imagined that, given human weakness and propensity to sin, there might have been “some cases” of priestly abuse of children.

 

But they were taken by surprise at the number — 300 priests over 70 years in just a part of one state, Pennsylvania.

 

And they were horrified at the number of children who were victims: “more than 1,000” with the assertion that “there probably are thousands more.”

 

But most of all, they were horrified by the idea that no one had acted effectively to end this abuse.

 

They were horrified by the thought that the hierarchy, led in the final analysis by the Pope himself, had failed.

 

Around family dinner tables, across the country, Catholics and non-Catholics alike made the calculation: if there were likely “thousands” who had been abused in one part of Pennsylvania alone, then, in all 50 states, there may have been a thousand in each state, so, several times 50,000 across the country (150,000? 300,000?) — if the Grand Jury report was at all accurate…

 

And the shock was extreme.

 

It was a psychological karate chop to the souls of Catholics everywhere.

 

And, there was no effective and credible response to this report from Church officials.

 

Thus 11 days passed by.

 

And then, on August 25, Archbishop Vigano published his “Testimony.”

 

For the record, again, here is a link to the entire text (link).

 

====================

 

An archbishop who had held high posts in the Vatican and in the US as a representative of the Vatican released a signed written statement saying, essentially, that the entire hierarchy of the Church had a responsibility in these matters, that the culture of the Church had become a culture of deceit and cover-up (here his words echoed those of Pope Francis himself) and that this was not the Church that Jesus Christ desired.

 

And he continued by saying that, despite various efforts by Pope Francis during his papacy to end this culture of deceit, the efforts had failed, and the culture had not been changed, but was burrowing its way even deeper into the fabric of ecclesial life.

 

And that, for this reason, Pope Francis himself should take responsibility, and resign.

 

And pandemonium ensued.

 

=======================

 

So now we are on the 9th day since Vigano’s revelations.

 

The Pope has not said a word about the revelations.

 

And the attacks on Vigano himself, his credibility, his honesty, are increasing.

 

======================

 

Vigano a “hypocrite”?

 

The following piece appeared this morning on the website of Il Sismografo (“The Seismograph,” an instrument to register tremors in the earth which may become earthquakes, so, to register reports in the press which may have an earth-shattering effect on the Church).

 

It is an important website based in Rome which follows press reports on Church affairs from all over the world and in many languages.

 

It was founded at the beginning of this pontificate, or just before, by a very good man, Luis Badilla, a Chilean Catholic, a man with leftist sympathies because he has heart for the poor people of his country and in all of Latin America — a man sympathetic to, or really, enthusiastic about, the efforts of Pope Francis to emphasize the need for all Christians to love and care for the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable because this is what disciples of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, should do.

 

But Badilla — though he hates the thought that children, the weakest and most innocent, have been abused — has become increasingly critical of Vigano.

 

He thinks Vigano is being “used” to “bring down” Francis, and that this will be a disaster for the poor…. that the poor will lose their greatest defender, and that the Church will slip back into the grip of some person or group without the same heart for the weak and poor that he believes Francis has demonstrated… that the poor will lose their greatest defender… and that the world will sink ever more deeply into a pit of cruel exploitation and domination of the poor by the rich and powerful…

 

This morning, this is what Badilla wrote:

 

When I heard today how much Pope Francis said at the Angelus I thought of that infamous Viganò (link)
(by the editors of “The seismograph”)
(LB = Luis Badilla) I do not know why, but today, listening to and then reading what was said by Pope Francis before the recital of the Angelus, I thought of Carlo Maria Viganò, the “Savonarola from Varese.” Here is what the Holy Father said:
‘Do not let yourself be contaminated by this world’ does not mean isolating oneself and closing oneself to reality. No. Here too it should not be an external but interior attitude, of substance: it means to be vigilant because our way of thinking and acting is not polluted by the worldly mentality, that is, by vanity, greed, pride. In reality, a man or woman who lives in vanity, avarice, pride and at the same time believes and makes himself seen as religious and even condemns others, is a hypocrite.”

 

=========================

 

But what about the substance of Vigano’s claims?

 

What about Vigano’s revelation, and condemnation, of a self-protecting network, going back for decades, that has prevented any serious Church effort to end the “culture of cover-up”?

 

Isn’t this precisely the type of “cleansing” and “reform” that Francis himself has been, gropingly, asking for during the five and a half years of his papacy?

 

===========================

 

One of the most perceptive comments about the entire affair has come from the pen of a British Catholic layman, Dr. Joseph Shaw, a professor at Oxford.

 

Alexander Joseph Ranald Shaw(born 1971, so now 47) is a British academic and the current chairman of the Latin Mass Society. (Note: Yes, this means that he is a proponent of the old, traditional Latin Mass, which Pope Benedict repeatedly insisted was “never abrogated”).

 

Shaw is the son of the late Thomas Shaw, 3rd Baron Craigmyle (1923-1998) and Anthea Craigmyle (née Rich) (1933-2016). He was educated at Ampleforth College and the University of Oxford.

 

He is currently a Fellow of Philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford. His main areas of interest are ethics, the philosophy of religion and medieval philosophy. In 2015, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

 

Here is his analysis:

.

Vigano: Attacking the whistleblower: the abuse-enabling culture is alive and well in the Vatican (link)

 

September 1, 2018

 

By Dr. Joseph Shaw

 

In the current phase of the Church’s crisis, we are focusing as much or more on the enablers of abuse, than on the abusers themselves.

 

It is time we thought about them, because it removes the comforting impression that a “few bad apples” could be ejected from the priesthood and all would be well.

 

As is sometimes pointed out, perhaps 4% of priests were sex abusers.

 

The problem is the general ethos and culture which enabled them to carry on their abuse, and the superiors systematically protected the abusers.

 

Never mind the 4% of priests: it is the 60% or 80% or more of bishops and religious superiors who harboured sexual predators and provided them with fresh opportunities for abuse.

 

It may be that most of the priest-abusers have died or been laicised by now, but their hierarchical enablers, few of whom had to face up to their crimes when the clerical abuse became a big story in 2002, have continued to flourish.

 

This is an indication that, even if stricter reporting procedures have had a restraining effect on sexual predation by priests since 2002, the ethos and culture which made the abuse possible is still largely intact.

 

What is this culture? I have in previous texts tried to go beyond a superficial understanding of it with the help of two perspectives: first, the classic account of how conformism can distort an individual’s behaviour, and how it can take over an organisation; and second, the way that the rejection of the Church’s teaching on sexuality has destroyed the hierarchy’s ability to respond appropriately to cases of abuse.

 

In this post I want to consider things from a third perspective, which is connected with conformism: the pattern of abuse-enabling.
Eleven months ago I was defending the “Filial Correction,” and wrote this about some of its critics:
Something profoundly worrying about criticisms of the signatories of the Correction specifically for speaking out about problems which every informed Catholic already knows about, is the mindset it reveals, one focused not on the truth, but on appearances.

 

It is strongly reminiscent of the mindset at work in abusive families, where children are taught to pretend things are all right, when they are not: certain topics are not to be broached, certain facts are not to be referred to.

 

This attitude can be enforced not by the abusive parent directly, but by other family members who are trying to keep up appearances and hold the family together. It is nevertheless profoundly unhealthy, and indeed is linked to psychological disorders in the children.

 

We should fear any such attitude, however well-intentioned, invading the Church. If there are problems, we should talk about them, and not pretend they do not exist.
It is natural to ask whether, since Cardinal McCarrick was himself a sexual predator, those who defend him, and often had such long associations with him, are or have been sexual predators as well.

 

It is after all very possible.

 

But even if some are, I expect most are not.

 

They stand in relation to McCarrick as many family members stand in relation to an abusive parent.

 

They desperately try to protect him, not because they approve of what he does, but because they are terrified of the consequences of it all coming out.

 

They are frightened that the exposure of the abuser will destroy the family.

 

That specific fear is not, of course, entirely irrational, but the behaviour of these family members is not to be understood in simple, rational terms.

 

They are, after all, victims of the abuse, whether sexual or psychological, and this has shaped their behaviour in non-rational ways.

 

To put it in crude terms, they have for years and perhaps decades been bullied and brainwashed by the abuser, and the complex and self-contradictory message the abuser has sought to impress upon them includes the following: the abuser does no wrong; they are at fault for bad things which are happening; they are guilty and should fear the attention of outsiders; the abuser loves them and protects them; and terrible things would happen if he were removed from the scene.

 

Those who have internalised this message can go to astonishing lengths to protect the person who is making their lives hell, and to maintain the situation in which his behaviour can continue.

 

An added factor, particularly when we move from families to larger institutions, is when the abuser is able to promote favoured victims to the status of co-abuser, or give them other privileges which depend upon the continuing existence of the abusive system.

 

It is worth emphasising that I am talking about abuse, not what the secular press likes to call “consensual relationships with adults.”

 

Abuse does not stop being abuse when the victim turns 18, but the pattern of behaviour I am describing has little in common with, say, a seminarian having an affair with a fellow seminarian, or a woman outside the seminary, serious as that would be.

 

Nor am I principally concerned with sexual orientation: the pattern of behaviour can equally be displayed when the underlying abuse is not sexual at all, but psychological.

 

My interest here is the relationship between what we might call the core abuse and the penumbra of unhealthy attitudes and patterns of behaviour which come to be displayed by those around the abuser, even by people who don’t take part in the core abuse.

 

For these attitudes and patterns of behaviour in the circle around the abuser are themselves abusive.

 

Imagine a family or institution at whose apex there is a classic abuser.

 

He has surrounded himself with people who permit, facilitate, and cover up the abuse, and placed them in positions of privilege.

 

Beyond this inner circle there will be people who have not been completely conditioned by the abuse, for example because they are newer on the scene, or younger.

 

Most of them will have much more contact with the inner circle than with the abuser himself.

 

It is the inner circle who will do much, or perhaps even all, of the direct work of bullying and brainwashing these outer-circle people, who will be looking to them for guidance.

 

Consistently turning a blind eye to abuse, refusing to talk about it, becoming angry when certain topics are broached: these are powerful tools, if applied consistently to a captive audience over a long period of time.

 

They train the junior members of the institution or family in the behaviour which is expected of them.

 

This is a training in patterns of thought and behaviour which are unhealthy: which are harmful to mental health.

 

They are gaslighting them.

 

This will work most profoundly in a closed institution like a cult, but it can work in families, seminaries, dioceses, the whole Church, and indeed in a whole society.

 

The more open the institution the harder it will be for a culture of abuse to distort members’ sense of justice and of what is normal, but it can still work to a large extent.

 

This is how totalitarian states can continue to exist.

 

The most important thing for abuse-facilitators to do is to keep a lid on the exchange of information and dissent.

 

This is a very pronounced principle in many cults, and of course in repressive states.

 

In institutions and families which have limited coercive measures to employ against members, social pressure is the key to this.

 

People who speak out internally or seek to attract the attention of outsiders are subjected to vilification and ostracism.

 

Abusive institutions are generally also on the look-out for scapegoats to blame for their poor functioning, so hysterical attacks on whistleblowers can serve a double purpose.

 

The people attacking the whistleblowers are, to repeat, not necessarily the top-level abusers in the institution.

 

They are people who are both abused and abuser: who are inflicting on others what they fear will happen to themselves.

 

At the limit, we might want to absolve them from blame altogether: they may be too terrified and pyschologically damaged to think straight.

 

But my concern is not with Maoist China; I’m talking about something at the milder end of the range.

 

The Church is a dysfunctional family, not a death-cult.

 

The unbalanced attacks on Archbishop Viganò, the desperate attempts to change the subject, are not being carried out by brain-washed zombies.

 

They are being carried out by people who have got into a habit of protecting the institution regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

 

Talking of tiers of abuse may seem a rather extreme approach to analysing a simple problem of over-zealous loyalty to the Church, but remember, we now know that we are dealing with the institutional manifestation of widespread sexual abuse.

 

The question I am probing is: given that we have had an endemic abusive system at the heart of the institution for fifty or more years, at the level of the episcopacy, the seminaries, and even the Roman curia, what effect on the overall culture of the Church has it had?

 

The answer is that it will have done its best to draw into its distorted mind-set as many people involved with the Church as possible.

 

It will have done its best to inculcate in them the abusive assumptions that the system is not, really, bad; the victims are guilty; and it would be terrible if the system is exposed: whistleblowers are traitors.

 

We know how ruthlessly men too strong, too healthy, to bow to this set of attitudes have too often been treated.

 

We know the kind of weak and weaselly individual who too often has found preferment in this system.

 

Thank heaven, there are exceptions.

 

I am not making a generalisation about bishops or priests, so much as an observation of the direction in which things have been pushed, a direction we would not have gone in at all had it not been for the poison of abuse eating away at the good sense of good people in the Church over many decades.

 

This problem will not quickly be cured.

 

Removing the chief abusers and their chief enablers is obviously urgently necessary.

 

Making it clear to the next rank down, to people who have consciously or half-consciously been aiding abuse and its cover-up, that this is unjust and continues and spreads deeply damaging attitudes and behaviours — that it is itself abusive — is the next step.

 

===============

 

A letter from a friend

 

 

I received this email from a friend.

 

Dear Friends:

 

In my opinion, Pope Francis and the Cardinals at the Vatican are doing enormous damage to their credibility by remaining silent about Vigano’s fundamental charges — which, one would assume, they could easily demolish if they were all a pack of lies — and by evading reporters or issuing non-denial-denials.

 

Rod Dreher goes overboard sometimes, but in this post below, I fear that, as much as we need to vigorously follow the principle of innocent until proven guilty, the way the Vatican is acting makes them look extremely suspicious — if not much worse — to many ordinary observers who have no ideological agendas, and many who have been sympathetic to Francis, but who are now beginning to have serious doubts about his honesty and integrity.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name)

 

So, my friend thinks the Vatican has been too silent for too long, and that this makes them look “extremely suspicious.”

 

And here is the essay which he refers to by Rod Dreher, an American Catholic convert who then converted to Orthodoxy, (so, he is not another Catholic writer criticizing the Vatican and the Pope, he is Orthodox) where Dreher dismantles the problem, which is that “stonewalling silence” gives the impression of…. “complicity.”
Stonewalling Silence = Complicity With Sex Abuse (link)

 

By ROD DREHER • September 1, 2018, 8:37 PM
Credit where credit is due: The New York Times (link) called every curial cardinal accused by Vigano in his letter, asking them for comment. Here’s what happened:

 

Following the pope’s lead, the Vatican has gone on lockdown.

 

Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, whom Archbishop Viganò also accused in the letter of covering up sexual misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick, rushed a reporter off the phone on Thursday evening.

 

“Look, I’m not in my office. Good evening. Good evening,” he said. And he was the most talkative.

 

The Times reached out to every cardinal and bishop said by Archbishop Viganò to have known about the alleged sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick by Benedict. More than a dozen of them declined or did not answer requests for comment.

 

Remember what Francis said about the Vigano letter on the plane earlier this week, speaking to journalists?:

 

I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good.

 

But he is not doing the one thing he could do to help journalists do the work he says he wants them to do: tell the cardinals to answer journalists’ questions.

 

The Catholic philosopher Francis Beckwith, who returned to the Roman church after many years as an Evangelical, writes about the current mess (link):

 

But when given the opportunity to stem the tide of confusion — to offer a word of solace, comfort and hope to the long-suffering Catholics he is obligated by his office to shepherd — Pope Francis announced, in response to a question from the press, that he had taken a vow of silence on these matters, though nevertheless encouraging the press to investigate for themselves and to make up their own minds. Because I have never been a bishop, let alone a pope, I have no idea whether this sort of answer is wise or foolish. But from the vantage point of a layman who has only been back in the Church for a mere 11 years, the Holy Father’s answer seemed tantamount to saying, “Who am I to ‘pope’?”

 

Yet, after some reflection, I am willing to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t abdicating his fatherly role to lead the flock through this challenging time. For in order for members of the press to do their jobs and investigate these matters — to confirm or disconfirm the claims in Archbishop Viganò’s testimony — they must have complete and total access to the evidence mentioned in the letter’s lone footnote: “All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C.” As we know from the Pennsylvania attorney general’s report as well as the McCarrick scandals, the Vatican has the power, if ordered by the Pope, to lift any veils of secrecy that do not permit the press to view these materials.

 

Consequently, if the media make the request to examine the documents and memos cited in Archbishop Viganò’s testimony, the Holy Father cannot refuse without undermining his credibility and by default his papacy. Even the Pope knows that a “Who am I to ‘pope’?” answer will not suffice when the hope and faith of millions hangs in the balance.

 

Meanwhile, the Catholic actress Patricia Heaton tears into one of Francis’s more clericalist courtiers:

 

Patricia Heaton
✔@PatriciaHeaton

Your arrogance is quite bold. The laity is the church. They have sacrificed finances to give their children a Catholic education, have tithed, followed church tradition, looked for guidance. To have any moral authority, @Pontifex must release any reports of abuse. Period.

 

Austen Ivereigh@austeni
Replying to @PatriciaHeaton @Pontifex
I think you may be confusing the pope with the CEO of a corporation who has justify himself to shareholders. The Holy See is a sovereign state; it doesn’t “release records”. Nor does the pope respond to lobbies or pressure groups. Keeping some things private is not “covering up”.

 

That is the kind of courage that is eventually going to force the truth out of this stonewalling pope and hierarchy. The stone-cold nerve of these men, thinking they don’t have to be accountable for their behavior, which has cost the Catholic Church in the US over $3 billion, and immeasurable sums of moral authority. These lords of the manor prey on the children of the laity — including their sons in seminaries — and cover up for each other when they’re caught.

 

If this pope, and these cardinals, are not guilty of Vigano’s charges, then why can’t they come forward and say so? Why are they afraid of the truth? Is it that they are afraid to lie, because they don’t know which documents Vigano has in reserve that will show them up to be frauds?

 

===========

 

And now there are the beginnings of a popular movement.

 

This suggests that the problem is growing beyond the bounds of the “chattering class” — authors of emails and blogs and newsletters, like this one — and actually reaching into the hearts and minds of the ordinary “people in the pews.”

 

‘We deserve answers now’: 5,000 Catholic women pen letter to pope (link)
Vatican City, Aug 30, 2018 / 01:21 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A group of lay Catholic women have written an open letter to Pope Francis, demanding that he answer the questions raised by the recent allegations in the letter from former U.S. nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

 

In the opening of their letter, the women recall a quote from Pope Francis on the role of women in the Church: “You have said that you seek ‘a more incisive female presence in the Church,’ and that ‘women are capable of seeing things with a different angle from [men], with a different eye. Women are able to pose questions that we men are not able to understand.’”

 

“We write to you, Holy Father, to pose questions that need answers,” the letter notes.
Specifically, they are seeking answers to the questions raised in Vigano’s recent letter, which accused Pope Francis and other members of the Church hierarchy for covering up sexual abuse allegations against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

 

The women’s questions for Pope Francis include if or when he was made aware of any sanctions allegedly placed on then-cardinal Theodore McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and whether he brought McCarrick back into public ministry despite knowing about these sanctions and accusations.

 

Asked these questions by journalists on his return flight from the recent World Meeting of Families in Ireland, Pope Francis responded by saying he “will not say a single word on this” and instead encouraged journalists to study the statement themselves and draw their own conclusions.

 

“To your hurting flock, Pope Francis, your words are inadequate,” the signers of the letter say, addressing the Pope’s response. “They sting, reminiscent of the clericalism you so recently condemned. We need leadership, truth, and transparency. We, your flock, deserve your answers now.”

 

“Please do not turn from us,” they ask in the letter. “You’ve committed yourself to changing clerical ways in the Church. That a cardinal would prey on seminarians is abhorrent. We need to know we can trust you to be honest with us about what happened. The victims who have suffered so greatly need to know they can trust you. Families, who will be the source of the Church’s renewal, need to know we can trust you, and thus trust the Church.”

 

The women who have signed the letter serve in a variety of positions and vocations within the Church, in both private and public life. They describe themselves as “deeply committed to our faith and profoundly grateful for Church teachings, the Sacraments, and the many good bishops and priests who have blessed our lives.”
They are “wives, mothers, single women, consecrated women, and religious sisters. We are the mothers and sisters of your priests, seminarians, future priests and religious. We are the Church’s lay leaders, and the mothers of the next generation. We are professors in your seminaries, and leaders in Catholic chanceries and institutions. We are theologians, evangelists, missionaries and founders of Catholic apostolates.”

 

“In short, we are the Church, every bit as much as the cardinals and bishops around you,” they say.

 

The letter is signed, “With love for Christ and the Church.”

 

Some prominent signers of the letter include Mary Rice Hasson, the Kate O’Beirne Fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Professor Janet E. Smith, the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary; Leah Darrow, a Catholic speaker, author and evangelist; Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow at The Catholic Association; Kathryn Jean Lopez with the National Review Institute; and Obianuju Ekeocha, the founder and president of Culture of Life Africa.

 

Other signers include professors and faculty from Catholic institutions including Notre Dame, The Catholic University of America, and the University of St. Thomas, as well as women who are mothers of seminarians, homeschooling mothers, business owners, philosophers and psychologists.

 

The letter, dated August 30, 2018, is described as the personal initiative of the original signatories and was not organized or sponsored by any group or organization.

 

It had 5,300 signatures as of press time [August 30, 2018].

 

=============

 

The Letter now has 26,620 signatures.

 

=============

 

Letter to Pope Francis from Catholic Women (link)
26,620 signatures
Sign the Letter (link)
NOTE: This letter reflects the personal initiative of the individual Catholic women signing this letter, and is not sponsored by any group or organization.

 

August 30, 2018

 

His Holiness, Pope Francis
Vatican City

 

Your Holiness:

 

You have said that you seek “a more incisive female presence in the Church,” and that “women are capable of seeing things with a different angle from [men], with a different eye. Women are able to pose questions that we men are not able to understand.”

 

We write to you, Holy Father, to pose questions that need answers.

 

We are Catholic women deeply committed to our faith and profoundly grateful for Church teachings, the Sacraments, and the many good bishops and priests who have blessed our lives.

 

Our hearts are broken, our faith tested, by the escalating crisis engulfing our beloved Church. We are angry, betrayed and disillusioned. The pain and suffering of the victims never ends, as each news cycle brings more horrific revelations of sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, cover-ups, and deceit—even at the Church’s highest levels.

 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s recent statement impels us to reach out to you directly for answers. His testimony accuses you, Holy Father, and highly placed cardinals of turning a blind eye to former Cardinal McCarrick’s egregious behavior, and promoting this predator as a global spokesman and spiritual leader. Is this true?

 

These are devastating allegations. As USCCB President Cardinal Daniel D. DiNardo recently stated, “The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence.” We agree.

 

Several crucial questions raised by Archbishop Viganò’s statement, however, require neither lengthy investigations nor physical evidence. They require only your direct response, Holy Father. When reporters questioned you recently about Archbishop Viganò’s charges, you replied, “I will not say a single word on this.” You told reporters to “read the statement carefully and make your own judgment.”

 

To your hurting flock, Pope Francis, your words are inadequate. They sting, reminiscent of the clericalism you so recently condemned. We need leadership, truth, and transparency. We, your flock, deserve your answers now.

 

Specifically, we humbly implore you to answer the following questions, as the answers are surely known to you. Archbishop Viganò says that in June 2013 he conveyed to you this message (in essence) about then-Cardinal McCarrick:

 

“He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”

 

Is this true? What did Archbishop Viganò convey to you in June 2013 about then-Cardinal McCarrick?
When did you learn of any allegations of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct with adults by then-Cardinal McCarrick?
When did you learn of Pope Benedict’s restrictions on then-Cardinal McCarrick? And did you release then-Cardinal McCarrick from any of Pope Benedict’s restrictions?
Holy Father, in your letter to the People of God on the scandals, you wrote: “An awareness of sin helps us to acknowledge the errors, the crimes and the wounds caused in the past and allows us, in the present, to be more open and committed along a journey of renewed conversion.”

 

That’s why we expect you, our Holy Father, to be honest with us.

 

Please do not turn from us. You’ve committed yourself to changing clerical ways in the Church. That a cardinal would prey on seminarians is abhorrent. We need to know we can trust you to be honest with us about what happened. The victims who have suffered so greatly need to know they can trust you. Families, who will be the source of the Church’s renewal, need to know we can trust you, and thus trust the Church.

 

Please do not keep us at arm’s length on these questions. We are faithful daughters of the Church who need the truth so we can help rebuild. We are not second-class Catholics to be brushed off while bishops and cardinals handle matters privately. We have a right to know. We have a right to your answers.

 

We are wives, mothers, single women, consecrated women, and religious sisters.

 

We are the mothers and sisters of your priests, seminarians, future priests and religious. We are the Church’s lay leaders, and the mothers of the next generation.

 

We are professors in your seminaries, and leaders in Catholic chanceries and institutions.

 

We are theologians, evangelists, missionaries and founders of Catholic apostolates.

 

We are the people who sacrifice to fund the Church’s good work.

 

We are the backbone of Catholic parishes, schools, and dioceses.

 

We are the hands, the feet, and the heart of the Church.

 

In short, we are the Church, every bit as much as the cardinals and bishops around you.

 

Holy Father, we are the “incisive presence” the Church needs, and we need your answers.

 

With love for Christ and the Church,

 

*affiliations for identification purposes only

 

Mary Rice Hasson, JD
Kate O’Beirne Fellow in Catholic Studies
Director, Catholic Women’s Forum
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Sarah Bartel
Consultant for Marriage and Family Life
Archdiocese of Seattle
Author, Speaker, Radio Show Host
Kari Beckman
Executive Director and Founder, Regina Caeli K-12 Programs
Executive Director and Founder, Veritatis Splendor Consortiums
Mary Beth Bonacci
Catholic Author and Speaker
Founder of Real Love, Inc.
Pamela Bradley
Madeline Bradley
Mother
Maria Buonforte
Business Owner
Anne Husted Burleigh
Writer
Marjorie Murphy Campbell, JD, LLM, JCL
NewFeminism.co
Catholic writer
Grazie Christie, MD
The Catholic Assocation
Senior policy advisor
Margot Cleveland
Adjunct Instructor
University of Notre Dame
Teresa S. Collett
Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas
Marilyn E. Coors, PhD
Associate Professor
Center for Bioethics and Humanities
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
Lisa Cotter
Author, Evangelist
Maria Cunningham
Mother, Teacher
Leah Darrow
Evangelist, Catholic author/speaker
Alexandra DeSanctis
Staff writer
National Review
Catherine A. Dowling, MD
University of Michigan
Obianuju Ekeocha
Founder & President, Culture of Life Africa
Theresa H Farnan, PhD
Philosopher
Maureen Ferguson
The Catholic Association
Jennifer Fulwiler
Radio Host and Author
Carrie Gress, PhD
Author and Philosopher
Pontifex University
Arina Grossu
Bioethicist
Ann Gundlach
Couple to Couple Family League
Editor, Family Foundations
Mary Hallan FioRito
Cardinal Francis George Fellow in Catholic Studies
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Dr. Patricia Cooney Hathaway
Professor of Spirituality and Systematic Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI
Mary Healy
Professor of Sacred Scripture
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Michele Hill
Business owner
Meg Kilgannon, FCP
Creighton Model Natural Family Planning
Parish NFP Coordinator
Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS
Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery
Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, NJ
Linda Loch
Teacher, Hospital Ministry
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Senior Fellow
National Review Institute
Ashley McGuire
The Catholic Association
Author
Melissa Moschella, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
The Catholic University of America
Suzanne Mulrain
PhD candidate
John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies
Eva Muntean
Co-Chair, Walk for Life West Coast
Mary Anne Novak
Catholic Author
Carol Nyce
Mother of Seminarian
Former parish Director of Religious Education
Founding member, ParentAndChild
Mary O’Callaghan, PhD
Psychologist
Catherine R. Pakaluk, PhD
Assistant Professor of Social Research and Economic Thought
The Catholic University of America
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer
Legal Advisor
The Catholic Assocation Foundation
Natalie Robertson
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Kathryn Rombs, PhD
University of Dallas
Founder, Catholic Mother’s Retreat
Deborah Savage, PhD
Professor of Philosophy and Theology
St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity
Elizabeth R. Schiltz
John D. Herrick Professor of Law
Co-Director, Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought
Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Susan Selner-Wright, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary
Luma Simms
Fellow
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Professor Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI
Teresa Tomeo
Syndicated Catholic Talk Show Host
Hilary Towers
Psychologist and Author
Kathryn Vestermark
Professor of Theology
Kelly Wahlquist
President & CEO of WINE: Women In the New Evangelization
Jeanne White
Mother and businesswoman
Luanne D. Zurlo
Executive Director
Seton Education Partners
View All Signatures (link)

 

==============================

 

And now we have a “rumor” out of Rome…

 

That the Vatican is “soon” going to respind to Vignao’s “Testimony” with a statement.

 

The news comes from…. Il Sismografo… (link)

 

===============================

 

The Seismograph
SUNDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2018
Vatican
Probable Vatican declaration to respond to Viganò’s accusations (link)
(by editors “The seismograph”)

 

(LB = Luis Badilla) The rumor that the Vatican will respond to Carlo Maria Viganò has been increasingly insistent since Friday [August 31], and it will do so, perhaps, in the coming days.

 

Obviously, they say, it will not be a declaration-response from the Holy Father Francis at neither from the Pope emeritus who — according to experts — would be unwise to enter into a direct controversy with an individual such as the “Savonarola of Varese” [that is, with Vigano, who comes from Varese in northern Italy].

 

With regard to the content of the probable communication, the Holy See could make several clarifications as well as refute the main accusations of the former Nuncio.
The two texts [the Itatlian is “papyrus,” two “papyruses”] of Viganò now total 16 pages that call into question dozens of people with almost a hundred situations and circumstances to be verified.

 

It is not easy to answer this kind of document that we have called papyrus right from the start because jurists using this word in cases like this want to underline the hieroglyphic complexity to be deciphered.
From the immediate mediatic point of view it is only possible to address the central issues that may then indicate the path toward separating lies from the truths in this operation.
In any case, an official document of the Holy See, with the seals of the Secretariat of State, is absolutely necessary because in this story the “Vatican narrative” is missing once again.

 

We only know that the Pope on Sunday evening on the plane returning from Ireland, questioned about the papyrus of Viganò by a journalist, said rightly: “I read this morning, that statement, I read it and I sincerely have to tell you this, to You and all those of you who are interested: read the statement carefully and make your own judgment, I will not say a word about this, I believe the statement speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust: when some time has passed and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak, but I would like your professional maturity to do this job: it will do you good, really.”
In a few days, between 22 and 25 September, Pope Francis will visit the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) in the course of his 25th International Pilgrimage, and certainly he will be questioned by journalists on the Viganò matter when he returns on the plane.

 

A previous declaration by the Vatican would help the Pope to address the issue without having to go into details and instead offer a general reflection on the matter.
The moment makes the experts believe that an answer in the next few days is absolutely necessary and timely, even knowing that Viganò will return to action.

 

In all probability, with the help of his journalists, he will write another papyrus.

 

The man is like that, and he is not well.

 

===============

 

So, that is the mood in Rome right now, among those who regard themselves as the most reliable supporters of Francis: that Vigano is mentally ill, that a Vatican statement will come soon, and that that statement will help Francis to make his own statement on September 25, three weeks from now, when he is on the plane flying back from a visit to the three Baltic countries.

 

In this regard, a comment: sometimes in a court, when the King has been isolated from the truth of a situation — as, for instance, in the case of a set of new clothes, when his evil tailor has clothed the King in garments made of nothing at all, and he is totally naked without realizing it — the best friends of the King are those who dare to speak the truth to him, because they truly care for him, while those who continue to tell him his non-existent clothes are “quite lovely, Sire,” are the ones doing him the most profound harm of all…

 

=========================

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHY DID POPE BENEDICT RESIGN?  WATCH THIS VIDEO AND LEARN MORE ANSWERS THAN JUST THOSE THAT ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION.
CLICK ON THE CC BUTTON TO TURN ON THE CLOSED CAPTION TEXT OF WHAT THE SPEAKER IS SAYING.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Knowing the Whole Story
Sermon for 2 September 2018________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Where is the Holy Catholic Church we once knew? Today the Church is beset by scandal and
confusion as accusations of homosexuality within the ranks of the priests and bishops increase.
Worse than that, many priests and bishops are being called sexual predators, or are said to be
covering up the abuse of minors by their subjects. These accusations are reaching even up to the
highest levels at the Vatican, where “Papa” Bergoglio has a history of covering up for his predatory
bishops and cardinals.
Those who are suffering from such abuse deserve our deepest compassion and our prayers, because
the damage done to their minds and souls can last a lifetime. The betrayal of the innocent is a grave
sin and a horrible crime, as Our Lord Himself points out:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him to
have a great millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
(Mt.18:6).
As a result of these stories of abuse being published by the media, it appears to the general public
that the Catholic Church is an evil institution which has no right to exist. They allege that the
Church by its very nature encourages predatory behavior. No doubt we will witness a backlash of
hatred and violence against the Catholic Church.
But there is more to be told about these things, and we must be aware of the rest of the story. The
Church has always been hated by the world. Its first enemies were the Jews who refused to accept
Jesus Christ as their Messiah. They persecuted the Apostles and threw our first pope, St. Peter, into
prison.
Throughout the centuries the enemies of the Church have sought for a way to destroy her. Their
usual method has been to attack the Church from outside her walls. In more recent times, however,
they devised a more effective way. They would infiltrate the Church by entering the seminaries,
and then becoming priests, bishops, and cardinals, and even popes.
A prominent French Freemason, Yves Marsaudon, wrote that as of 1908 the goal is no longer the
destruction of the Church but rather to make use of it by infiltrating it (Ecumenism as Seen by a
Traditional Freemason). In the 1920’s, the seminaries were infiltrated by homosexuals and
Communists.
Freemasonry being the “Mother,” as Pope Pius XII called it, Communism was a “spin-off” of what
had happened earlier in France. In the year 1936 orders were issued from the Communist Party in
Moscow that suitable young men be secretly prepared to enter seminaries and monasteries to be2ordained as priests. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America gave
the following testimony in 1953 to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC):
“The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this
country would have to adapt itself to American conditions… In the earliest stages it was
determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to
concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the
Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist
minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist
purposes… This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our
Communist expectations.”
An apostate priest named Canon Roca wrote at the end of the 1800s:
“The liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a
transformation at an ecumenical council… the Papacy will fall; it will die under the
hallowed knife which the Fathers of the last Council will forge. The papal Caesar is a host
(victim) crowned for the sacrifice” (Bishop Rudolph Graber, Athanasius and the Church of
Our Time, p. 35).
Mrs. Bella Dodd, also a prominent member of the Communist Party, was converted to Catholicism
in 1952, and began to reveal the tactics of the Party a dozen years before Vatican II began:
“In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church
from within… Right now they are in the highest places in the Church.” She said that in the
future, “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.”
I personally knew one of these false priests who ruined the Canadian division of the Order to which
I belonged, and had considerable influence over the Church in Canada. A short time before he died,
he boasted in a television interview about his secret homosexuality, although I don’t think he was a
predator. He was an advisor to a Canadian bishop at Vatican II, where he played an influential role.
Such was his notoriety that he was once pictured on the cover of Time Magazine. If only a fraction
of the Church’s infiltrators were as successful as he was, it’s no wonder that the Novus Ordo
“church” would no longer resemble the Holy Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Is the Catholic Church an evil institution? Certainly not! How could it be, since it was founded by
the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, who was born into this world as the Son of the Holy and
Immaculate Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church is the One, True Church, and there is no other. The
“church” of the predators is not the Catholic Church. Even now it is falling to ruin, and will soon
be exposed for what it is.
The Psalms are the voice of the true Church in these evil and difficult times:
“Much have they oppressed me from my youth, let Israel say, much have they oppressed me
from my youth; yet they have not prevailed against me. Upon my back the plowers plowed;
long did they make their furrows. But the just Lord has severed the cords of the wicked”
(Ps.128:1-4).
Father L.C.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Saturday, September 1, 2018, #2
“Some enemy has done this.” —Jesus, telling the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, in Matthew 13:28. The expanded version: “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them.’ In our case, this parable relates to the story of Bella Dodd

 

====================

 

Day #8: Tobin, McCarrick and Bella Dodd

 

The following report (below) has just appeared in the New Jersey Record, a newspaper in northern New Jersey, near the Catholic archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, where former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was archbishop, and where Cardinal Joseph Tobin is presently archbishop.

 

The account is fascinating, disturbing, and — for those who want a fuller picture of what has been going on — it deserves to be read.

 

It is also, however, extremely disappointing for Catholics to read such accounts about our bishops — so if you do not want to be disappointed, skip it.

 

But if you wish to catch a glimpse into what has been happening in our Church for the past 30 or 40 years — years of widespread cover-ups of abusive and immoral actions and activities — then this article is a good starting point.

 

How did this happen? An element for a thesis

 

Clearly, the recent Popes have all been in a situation which has been terrifically complicated and compromised, as the traditional teaching and discipline of the Church on these matters has diminished and unraveled.

 

There were many cases of abuse under Paul VIJohn Paul II, and many under Benedict, which are now being revealed under Francis. So this did not all begin with Francis. In fact, the Church sowed the wind, and is reaping the whirlwind.

 

In seeking the remote causes of the present crisis, we should not forget the role of organized human actors.

 

That is, some of this is the result of a general “malaise,” an epochal apostasy from the faith, or of individual acts of corrupt individuals acting one by one out of various individual motives and compulsions — “miserie umane” they say in the Vatican — “human miseries.”

 

But there are indications of another strand in the fabric, a strand which is intentional and corporate.

 

That is — hypothetically — indications that there as been an intentional infiltration into the Church: an enemy of the Church, or a group of enemies, have acted according to a precise plan.

 

Is there really any serious evidence of this?

 

Yes.

 

There is an affidavit that many people doknow of, but one perhaps that many of you have never heard of, that is relevant: the testimony of a woman named Bella Dodd(1904-1969 — so, she died at the age of 65 almost exactly 50 years ago; Bella Dodd lost one of her legs in a tram accident in New York City when she was about 19 or 20, so she was a person profoundly familiar with human suffering; by the way, though she came to Amerca, she was born in Italy — “She was born in Picerno, Basilicata, Kingdom of Italy, in 1904 and baptized Maria Assunta Isabella“).

 

And Bella Dodd’s testimony in that signed affidavit is that, under instructions from the American Communist Party, of which she was a passionate and high-ranking member for many years, she had headed up a special operation to place 1,200 young men in seminaries, all of whom were agents of the Communist Party.

 

And this is what she said:

 

“In the late 1920s and 1930s, I personally put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to weaken the Catholic Church from within.

 

“The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops…

 

“Right now they are in the highest places where they are working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism.

 

“These changes will be so drastic that you will not even recognize the Catholic Church.

 

“Of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.

 

“The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion.

 

“Something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.

 

“Once the faith was destroyed, there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church… to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.

 

“This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.” (taken from Dr. Bella Dodd, lecture at Fordham University in 1953)

 

Other Communists theoreticians of Dodd’s time, such as the brilliant Italian, Antonio Gramsci, also had the idea to weaken the Church as an effective fighter against communism.

 

This meant taking a slow path to infiltrate the Church and get Catholics to lose the faith little by little.

 

This plan was eventually called “Operation Outstretched Hand.”

 

More specifically, it was to promote a pseudo-religion, a fake Catholicism but with enough look and feel to seem real.

 

This plan would then introduce a guilt complex so that the Church would apologize for past activities, and then embrace other religions’ ideas as a way to get along.

 

Dr. Bella Dodd, before her conversion to Catholicism — she was converted in 1952 by Archbishop Fulton Sheen — helped get communist men to infiltrate the priesthood to move this plan along.

 

In this audio link, you will hear Dr. Dodd, a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930’s and 1940’s. She explains what she did while working as a communist in the lecture from 1953 at Fordham University. (Note: the useful part of the video ends at the 8:30 mark; I find the rest of the video vulgar and do not recommend it.)
In 2000, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel published a book entitled The Venona Secrets — Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, published by Regnery Publishing, Inc., An Eagle Publishing Company, One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Their research turned up archial material that confirmed the existence of an operation “Outstretched Hand” which included the infiltration of Communists into Roman Catholic Seminaries.

 

Now, Bella Dodd gave her testimony in the 1950s. It was the time of McCarthyism. There was a certain political fever that developed, an unreasoning fear of Communists “everywhere” which led to excesses like the “black-listing” of innocent people on unproven charges.

 

So, we may need to be a bit cautious about Bella Dodd and her testimony.

 

But we should at least know about it.

 

She testified under oath that she had placed these agents inside of the Church structure. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand — who is still alive in her 90s in New York City — has shown me personally the affidavit that Bella signed, saying that these statements were true. Dr. Hildebrand has told me that she and her late husband Dietrich von Hildebrand believed her testimony to be true.

 

So what are we to make of this?

 

Well, at the very least, it gives us a possible “element of interest” in order to trace back the “etiology,” the originating pathway followed by the “de-sacralizing” worldview that entered into the Church, at least in America, through Dodd’s work starting in the mid-1930s, whch, by various twists and turns, has brought us to the present moment of crisis, when this feverish disease must either be thrown off, or break the thermometer and kill the life of much of the Church, as occurred in North Africa after the Muslim conquests.

 

Here again is a link to the 1953 Fordham talk by Bella Dodd(link). I do not think you can begin to have a proper undestanding about what has been happening without listening to this video.

 

The real issue is, is there a will and a desire to change? To return to the older ways, and teachings — the traditional faith and practice of Catholicism?

 

Or not?

 

================

 

Tobin and McCarrick

 

And here is the article about the situation Cardinal Tobin faces in Newark, the archdioces where Theodore McCrrick was archbishop in the 1990s, before being promoted to Washington.

 

The story is a sad one, almost impossible to believe. But here it is.

 

The secret life of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and reports of sex abuse (link)
By Mike Kelly, North Jersey Record

 

Published 8:00 a.m. ET Aug. 31, 2018 | Updated 3:56 p.m. ET Aug. 31, 2018
In these days when we are learning about all manner of shocking secrets within the Catholic Church, here is one from Newark’s Cardinal Joseph Tobin.

 

When Tobin arrived in Newark nearly two years ago to lead the city’s sprawling Catholic archdiocese — one of America’s largest with roughly 1.3 million parishioners — no one bothered to tell him that church lawyers had secretly arranged to pay $180,000 to settle two claims of sexual abuse against one of his predecessors, Theodore McCarrick.

 

Tobin said he learned of the settlements just before they were revealed in media reports in June.

 

“It’s embarrassing,” Tobin told me in a phone interview the other day. “I was really shocked.”

 

That’s an understatement.

 

Roman Catholicism was born amid secrets. The gospels are filled with numerous examples of Jesus telling his followers not to spread the news about him healing sick people or bringing the dead back to life. And during the church’s early years, keeping secrets about the identities of priests or meeting spots for worship became necessary for survival amid persecutions by Rome’s collection of self-indulgent emperors.

 

Those days are long gone. Today, the vast majority of Catholics no longer worry about being crucified, beheaded or burned at the stake for practicing their faith. But secrecy is still a guiding force in the church — especially now when it comes to the criminal scandals of sexual abuse by priests.

 

This is what Tobin is trying to fight. And if recent events are any indication, he faces a monumental task, starting with why he was never told about the legal settlements by two of McCarrick’s alleged victims.

 

In recent months, several men have come forward to say that McCarrick abused them as boys, mostly in New York. What concerns Tobin now is McCarrick’s alleged abuse of seminarians or even newly ordained priests in the Newark Archdiocese.
What McCarrick reportedly orchestrated was a classic power-sex set of relationships.

 

The seminarians or young priests were all beholden to McCarrick for their future careers, possibly even good assignments as priests at graduate schools.

 

Think of now-disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinsteinmanipulating young actresses into sleeping with him in order to gain roles in films, and you’ll get an idea of how this sort of creepy relationship works.

 

The key difference between McCarrick and Weinstein is that McCarrick was posing as a holy man who was a leader in a church that proclaimed a set of firm morals. Weinstein was just another Hollywood jerk.

 

Morals were little more than chess pieces in a game of life.

 

For years, McCarrick would reportedly invite seminarians to his beach house in Sea Girt — usually just five at a time.

 

The problem was that the house had only five beds in three bedrooms.

 

Two of the bedrooms were furnished with twin beds — enough for four visiting seminarians. The master bedroom had just one, double bed.

 

McCarrick slept on one side and ordered the fifth visiting seminarian to climb into bed next to him.

 

By the late 1990s – only years before McCarrick was promoted to the high-profile post of archbishop of Washington, D.C., where he was also made a church cardinal — the sleeping arrangements with seminarians had become a tawdry open secret among North Jersey’s Catholics.

 

Some priests and nuns apparently regularly discussed the rumors of the archbishop’s strange sleeping relationships with his favored seminarians.

 

One priest even phoned this columnist in 1998, asking for The Record to investigate McCarrick.

 

I remember responding by saying something like: “The archbishop is sleeping with seminarians? You’ve got to be kidding me.” I even added a colorful expletive, too. (Readers: feel free to use your imagination.)

 

This 1974 photo provided by a man who agreed to be identified only by his first name, James, shows him in California with Theodore McCarrick (on the left), a Roman Catholic priest who eventually became a cardinal. James says he was sexually abused for about two decades by McCarrick, who was removed from public ministry June 2018 over separate child abuse allegations.

 

(Photo: Family photo via AP)
McCarrick was seen as a savvy, articulate church leader.

 

He traveled the world and became closely tied to a variety of U.S. and international political leaders.

 

How could someone who seemed so smart be so stupid as to force seminary students to sleep with him?

 

Wasn’t McCarrick afraid of being caught?

 

Apparently not. With several reporters at The Record, I tried to check out the story – and promptly ran into the brick wall of silence.

 

It was akin to investigating the mob.

 

No seminarians would talk. Certainly McCarrick would not talk. Nor would any priests with direct knowledge of the escapades at the beach house.

 

Now that shocking, you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me story is back in the news — with firm confirmations from Catholic leaders who apparently knew about McCarrick for years but never told their flocks.

 

It turns out that after McCarrick left Newark for Washington in 2000, at least two former seminarians filed legal claims against him. But those claims were settled in secret. Ordinary Catholic parishioners, who regularly drop cash into church collection baskets, were never told. Nor were front-line priests and nuns who have been valiantly serving the archdiocese for years.

 

After McCarrick was forced by the Vatican in June to resign his cardinal’s status and was barred from participating in public church services, Tobin says he was finally told about the secret legal settlements.

 

To his credit, Tobin ordered his staff to remove the cloak of secrecy and tell the general public.

 

But in announcing the news of the settlements, Tobin has re-focused attention — and legitimate questions — on the church’s penchant for secrecy whenever it is confronted with a sex abuse problem.

 

Tobin, 66, grew up in Detroit, the oldest of 13 children.

 

After joining the Redemptorists order of priests, who specialize in missionary work in non-developed nations, he spent much of his career traveling around the world.

 

When he was tapped to be a bishop, Tobin, who speaks five languages and has been known to spend his free time in lifting weights in a gym, quickly earned a reputation as something of a maverick reformer.

 

He led efforts to block Vatican conservatives who tried to crack down on American nuns who were showing their independence from old-line customs by shedding their bulky, medieval style of dress, returning to college and earning graduate degrees and then engaging in such radical, un-Christian pastimes as working with the poor, new immigrants and single moms.

 

A few years later, after being named archbishop of Indianapolis, Tobin defied then-Gov. Mike Pence’s anti-immigrant policies and helped Syrian war refugees resettle in Indiana.

 

When Tobin took over the Newark Archdiocese in 2017 as a newly appointed cardinal by Pope Francis, he was cast as a friendly, far more humble replacement for the retiring archbishop, John Myers.

 

For more than a decade, Myers was largely viewed as a dour, out-of-touch conservative who seemed more intent on condemning gay marriages than caring for Newark’s poor.

 

Myers, who replaced McCarrick in 2001 and reportedly preferred to be called “Your Grace” by priests, retired in 2016 to a lavish, 7,500-square foot mansion in Hunterdon County with $500,000 in renovations that included a whirlpool.

 

Tobin now has his own image problem to fight.

 

With the shocking news about McCarrick, who was Newark’s archbishop for 14 years before moving to Washington as a cardinal, Tobin has been thrust into the vortex of the church sex abuse crisis.

 

But the problem for Tobin is not that he tried to cover up sex abuse – an allegation that other church leaders now face, including Pope Francis.

 

For Tobin, the question is why he did not know about the misdeeds of McCarrick.

 

Was Tobin naïve? Out of touch? Too trusting of his aides?

 

In his phone conversation with me the other day, Tobin outlined his predicament, pausing often and punctuating many sentiments with exasperated exhaling.

 

Not only was he kept in the dark about the legal settlements on McCarrick’s behalf, but no one even bothered to sit him down and explain McCarrick’s alleged sleeping arrangements with the seminarians.

 

This is astonishing.

 

Imagine a new CEO taking over a corporation and not being told of a legal quagmire involving one of his predecessors.

 

Tobin told me that soon after arriving in Newark, he heard “rumors” about McCarrick’s beach house.

 

But he never bothered to check them out. He says he thought the story was too “incredulous” to believe.

 

“Shame on me that I didn’t ask sooner,” he now says.

 

Tobin is far too hard on himself.

 

Yes, he should have asked about the rumors of McCarrick’s beach house.

 

Yes, it’s hard to believe that as a high-ranking Catholic prelate that he never heard about those rumors before arriving in Newark.

 

And, yes, he should have been more savvy and curious about the secrets of church bureaucracy.

 

But why didn’t anyone in that church bureaucracy tell him about McCarrick?

 

At least one priest, the Rev. Boniface Ramsey, spoke up — or tried to.

 

Ramsey taught church art and history at the archdiocesan seminary at Seton Hall University during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

After seminarians told him about McCarrick’s beach house, Ramsey tried to investigate.

 

“It took me a while to digest it,” Ramsey told me when I telephoned him recently at St. Joseph’s church in Manhattan where is now pastor. “I talked to a priest friend. Everybody knew about the beach house.”

 

But Ramsey could never confirm the rumors.

 

Nonetheless, he said he complained about McCarrick in a 2000 letter to the Vatican ambassador in Washington, D.C.

 

He never got a response.

 

He complained again to New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan in 2004.

 

Ramsey said Egan brushed him off.

 

In 2015, Ramsey wrote to Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who had been tapped by the Vatican to look into Catholicism’s sex abuse scandal in America.

 

But Ramsey was never told if O’Malley looked into the matter.
Meanwhile, McCarrick is not talking. He reportedly is living in seclusion in the Washington area.

 

Looking back, Ramsey wonders now why people now seem so shocked about McCarrick.

 

“All you had to do was talk to me,” Ramsey said. “But this was suppressed.”

 

Tobin won’t go so far as to say the allegations about McCarrick were covered up. But he shares Ramsey’s sense of frustration.

 

“All I keep hearing is everybody knew,” Tobin said. “But if everybody knew, why didn’t someone speak up?”

 

Since then, Tobin said several priests have come forward to talk about McCarrick.

 

But if McCarrick was regularly inviting groups of five seminarians to his beach house during his tenure in Newark, it stands to reason that scores of seminarians had direct knowledge of what took place.

 

It also stands to reason that a large number of those seminarians became priests and are now serving parishes in North Jersey.

 

Why haven’t they spoken up? It’s time to break the code of silence.

 

Tobin said he plans to launch an internal investigation into why he wasn’t told about McCarrick’s alleged antics.

 

To help in this effort, he said he recently hired Kinsale Management Consultants, an investigative firm run by former FBI official Kathleen McChesney, to examine all of the archdiocesan files on sex abuse to determine if there are landmines.

 

For now, Tobin says he is trying deal with the imploding crisis that not only involves McCarrick but other reports of sexual abuse from a Pennsylvania grand jury report.

 

He promises transparency – surely a notable goal in a church that has lived with far too many secrets for too many years.

 

But Tobin knows what he faces.

 

“It’s a bit like being in the boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back and a blindfold over your eyes,” he said. “You’re not sure where the next punch is coming from.”

 

Tobin’s first task is to remove that blindfold of secrecy from his church.

 

After 2000 years, it’s time Catholicism opened its eyes.

 

Email: kellym@northjersey.com

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The One About WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN

Originally penned and posted on January 19, ARSH 2013

I was planning for this to be the last essay I ever wrote, and since we’re into “any day now” territory, and since I’ve had just about enough of these lesbian pagan witch nuns and their “female ordination” horse diarrhea, I’m dropping the bomb. And yes, it’s a bomb. I’ve delayed on writing this particular essay because it is really, really hardcore. Very, very advanced stuff. At least it is today. Five hundred years ago it was probably common knowledge, but today I don’t think there are very many people who understand this concept. I explained it to a traddy-inclined seminarian recently, and even he didn’t know. And, all of the essays I see around the blogosphere being written about “female ordination” (there’s no such thing) never get anywhere near this concept, instead relying almost exclusively on the “Our Lord only ordained men in the Upper Room” argument, which is true, but it is lacking. WHY did Our Lord only ordain men? A two year old sees the need for that corollary to be answered. You can’t just leave it hanging. WHY is the ordained priesthood, now and forever, exclusive to men?

Not only does this question have an answer, it is an incredibly beautiful answer that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops in this time like never, ever before. The answer involves the concepts of gender, marriage and sexuality; the very areas of culture under profound, direct demonic attack; the very areas of culture upon which civilization lives or dies. And the answer resides, as it has for 1980 years, in the Mass. First, let’s talk about gender.

God, in Himself, contains both masculine and feminine. GASP! God contains a feminine nature? Of course He does. Goodness. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Well, you might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Let’s define masculinity and femininity with two axioms:

The essence of masculinity is INITIATION.

The essence of femininity is RESPONSE.

In all aspects of life, from sociology to courtship to sexual intercourse itself, men are vocationally the initiators – or at least they SHOULD BE. Men lead. Men make decisions. Men command armies and wage war. Men initiate courtship. Men are the head of the household. Even the male anatomy is initiatory. The man introduces his body into that of his wife.

Females are the receptors and responders in human existence. Females listen, and respond. Females follow. Females render assistance and are responsive helpmates. Females respond, in the affirmative or the negative, to the courtship advances of men. Females receive the love of their husbands and respond by submitting themselves to their husbands. The female anatomy is a physical receptacle for the body of her husband, which then returns to him from the same physical space the fruit of their mutual love – a child.

God the Father gives Himself fully to God the Son. God the Son fully receives the love of God the Father and then fully returns it. This intercourse of infinite love being perpetually given, received and returned yields a third – God the Holy Ghost. Thus, God, in His infinite capacity as both INITIATOR and RECEIVER/RESPONDER within Himself, clearly contains BOTH masculine and feminine nature. God isn’t like men and women. Men and women are like God – created in His image, both male and female.

So why do we call God “He” exclusively? Because in the God-man relationship, God is the INITIATOR and mankind is the RESPONDER. The relative disproportion here is so great that it can be said to be practically infinite. God created and perpetuates in existence the entire universe JUST SO MAN CAN EXIST. God became incarnate JUST SO THE BROKEN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND MAN COULD BE RESTORED. God died on the Cross JUST SO HIS LOVE FOR MAN COULD BE MANIFESTED TO THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE EXTENT. God comes to us in the Eucharist SO THAT WE NEED NEVER BE SEPARATED FROM HIM. Initiation, initiation, initiation.

Every man’s life is nothing more than responding to desperate, pleading love overtures and nuptial initiation of God. We either say yes, or we say no. And like the Gentleman He is, He never coerces. He is there, infinitely powerful, infinitely virile and infinitely reaching out to us, but at the same time infinitely meek (meekness is power under control, remember), infinitely gentle and patiently persistent in His advances.

BUT, there is exactly ONE MOMENT wherein God, so utterly consumed and infinitely condescending in His love for mankind, actually goes so far as to permit man to take the role of initiator (masculine), and God Himself voluntarily, for just a moment, RESPONDS TO THE INITIATING ACT OF MAN. Yes, God makes His feminine nature manifest before mankind. That moment of total condescension of God to man is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, specifically at the moment of consecration of the Host and the Chalice.

In the traditional, pre-Vatican II rites, such as the Tridentine, Ambrosian, and Dominican rites, at the moment of consecration, when the priest, in an act of masculine initiation, is calling God to the altar, both at the consecration of the Host and at the consecration of the Chalice, the priest MUST bend over the altar, stare intently at the Host or the Chalice, and rest his elbows on the altar. In this posture, and this posture only, does the priest then say the words that actually effect the change of the bread and the wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I was received into the Church at Easter 2007 in a Novus Ordo parish. I found and attended a Tridentine Mass for the first time in July of 2008. At the first Tridentine Mass I attended I was lost had my nose in the missal and missed the consecration. I didn’t see it. I was looking down, and only looked up at the elevation when the server rang the bell. At the SECOND Tridentine Mass I attended, I resolved to LOOK and SEE the Mass and not worry so much about the missal that Sunday. When I saw the priest bend over and put his elbows down on the altar, hoo boy, I was never looking back. By the grace of God I instantly recognized what was happening, and a whole lot of Catholic theology fell squarely into place.

The priest puts his elbows down on the altar because the altar is A MARRIAGE BED, and the act of consecration is the consummation of the nuptial union between God and man, but in that moment the condescension of God is so utterly complete that God becomes, just for a moment, the feminine responder to the masculine initiating action of man who says the words of consecration. The priest lovingly holds the Host in his hands beneath him atop the supernatural marriage bed of the altar, leans over, looks intently at the Host and whispers, “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM / This is My Body,” and then with the Chalice, “HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI / For this is the Chalice of My Blood.” And then, in the hands of and lying completely vulnerable to man in the supreme act of loving response, is Our Lord, physically present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

So, for the sake of clarity, YES, the consecration of the Host and Chalice in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a direct analogue to sexual intercourse between husband and wife. There. I said it. That wasn’t so difficult, now was it? Goodness. In fact, the consecration is the GREATER REALITY, and the marital act between husband and wife is the LESSER REALITY which reflects and points to the greater reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And, it works both ways. After the consecration, Our Lord goes right back to being the masculine initiator and the priest and the faithful become the normal relative feminine in relation to God in our nature as human beings as we RECEIVE Our Lord by taking Him physically into our bodies in the Eucharist, of which the marital embrace is also an image, only with the gender roles the other way. The nuptial nature of the Mass was known immediately to the Apostles at the Last Supper. In the ancient Jewish tradition, at marriage feasts, the husband and wife would each take a piece of bread, and each would take turns holding the bread up, saying, “Eat this. This is my body,” and then hand-feeding the piece of bread to the spouse. Where do you think the tradition of the bride and groom feeding each other a piece of the wedding cake at the reception comes from? Thus when Our Lord said, “This is My Body,” the Apostles all instantly understood the mystical nuptial act that was going on, because they had seen it before at their own weddings and/or weddings they had attended.

Do you now see why sexual morality is so utterly, critically important, and why the Church has always, and must continue to always preach the extreme importance of sexual morality? Do you now see why sexual perversion is so damaging to mankind? Do you now see why marriage is truly, truly SACRED and not a mere point of civil contract law? Do you see why divorce is evil? Do you see why divorce and remarriage is intolerable? Do you see why sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful? Do you see why masturbation is gravely sinful? Do you see why sodomy and all of the other sexual perversions are so evil that they literally destroy entire civilizations? Do you see why contraception is evil?

Sex between a husband and wife is so incredibly important, so incredibly beautiful and so incredibly sacred not solely because it is the means of creating new life, but first because it is the mystical image of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of God’s infinite love for man. It is one of the most important ways by which humankind can understand the Trinity, and understand the mystical union between God and His Church, and between God and men as individuals.

Oh, and do you now see why the priest must, must, must be a man? In order for this moment of loving condescension of God to man to happen, the human initiator must be a man, leaning over and atop his God who responds and lays in perfect receptivity upon the altar. There must always be that contrast, that juxtaposition of masculine and feminine. If God is going to condescend all the way to the feminine in that moment, then there cannot be a female at the altar, because a woman cannot be the image of the masculine, no matter how tight she wears her crewcut, or how butch her comportment.

Do you think I’m making this up? Take a look at this picture. This is the Baldachin over the Papal Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. Many large basilicas and cathedrals built before the Church was infiltrated in the 20th century have baldachins. Do you know what a baldachin is? A baldachin is a bed canopy. And sure enough, there it is, right over the Altar – the marriage bed of God and man.

Baldachin

Now for you Catholics who go to a Novus Ordo or “new Mass” parish. Watch your priest at Mass. Watch him at the consecration. Does he put his elbows down? Nope. What is he doing with the Host, and with his eyes? In the last Novus Ordo Mass I saw, the priest held the Host out in front of him, waving It (Him) like he was offering It (Him) to the people, did NOT look at the Host, but rather looked OUT AT THE PEOPLE in full Broadway performance mode as he said the words of consecration. That is like a man who is in the midst of the marital act with his wife talking on the phone to someone else whilst looking at himself in a mirror. Are you squirming? Good. You should be, because it is absolutely awful. If a man doing such a vulgar and narcissistic thing to his wife is disgusting, think how much more disgusting it is when these priests do this to Our Blessed Lord in these Novus Ordo Masses.

The rubric of the elbows-down posture was intentionally stripped from the Mass by the Communist-homosexualist infiltrators in the 1960′s because they hated Our Lord, His Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, His Real Presence in the Eucharist, and specifically because of the connection to the marital act. The infiltrators had as a goal the total destruction of sexual morality, because that is the fastest and surest way to demoralize and then destroy a culture. The Communist-homosexualist infiltrators of the Church wanted to convince everyone that sex was no big deal, and if sex is no big deal, then it really can’t be connected to the concept of “sin” , and thus DO WHAT YOU WANT! Contracept! Sleep around! Be a sodomite! Abuse yourself! Hey, it’s not like what you do in private behind closed doors actually matters, right? Wrong. Our entire civilization is going to crash and burn first and foremost because of what people have done “in private behind closed doors” , namely making a complete mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Your Novus Ordo priest almost certainly knows nothing about any of this because he was never taught the theology of the Mass in seminary. In fact, as far as I can tell, today’s Novus Ordo priests aren’t taught much of anything in seminary aside from Marxism and pop psychology. The good ones have to self-teach, and even sneak around in order to learn the Traditional Rites. The Novus Ordo priests today are taught a load of Protestant nonsense about the Mass being a MEAL, wherein WE gather around THE TABLE and WORSHIP OURSELVES by eating a symbolic MEAL. Wrong, Father Jazzhands. The altar isn’t a table. It’s a bed, complete with bed linens. And it is NOT SYMBOLIC. The meal aspect is deeply subordinated first and foremost to the SACRIFICIAL aspect, followed by the nuptial aspect. The meal motif is, by far, the least important – but then non-important, pedestrian and even trivial is EXACTLY what the infiltrators want the Mass to be.

If you try to explain this to Father Jazzhands, good luck. You will get a very odd look, and then be dismissed. He doesn’t want to hear anything about this, because it messes with his narcissistic Communist-homosexualist neo-pagan worldview. Same with the Superfun Rockband Church™ denizens and their for-profit macchiato-sipping insipidity. And the lesbian pagan witch nuns? Those sick broads are so far gone, they aren’t even in the same galactic cluster. The vast majority of them self-excommunicated themselves decades and decades ago. I just wish that Rome would make it official.

Finally, to the idiots who read me just because they hate me so much. I delayed writing this piece for YEARS because of you. I would think to myself, “I can’t talk about that, because if some Jimmy Swaggart-cultist drooling mouth-breather reads it, he’ll say that I said that Catholicism is a sex cult or some slack-jawed imbecility like that.” Well, I’m done letting the slack-jawed mouth-breathers dictate the level of discourse. I’m sick of having to not discuss lofty ideas because we all have to pander to the lowest common denominator, which in this culture is about as low as humanity can possibly go. How would I feel if someone said to me, “I have some incredible information that could potentially change your life and make the difference between heaven and hell for you, but I can’t tell you because a stupid person might overhear and misunderstand it.” If that was the standard, the world would be silent.

Nope. No more. You stupid people, by all means, send me as much hate mail as you would like. Tell me what a nympho-pervert, or an under-sexed harpy I am. Go ahead. I’ll cherish every one.

To the priest and seminarian readers, put your elbows down, gentlemen, and take good care of Him up there.

And you MUST explain this to people. Like the Ethiopian with St. Philip, how will they ever know unless someone explains it to them? Stop being afraid and TELL THEM.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About

It is a bizarre tale.

I was born outside of Kansas City in ARSH 1976.  I dropped out of public high school after being skipped two grades because I feared for my safety and the “education” was a complete joke.  I graduated from Kansas State University in ARSH 1997 with a degree in Animal Husbandry (beef cattle production) with an emphasis in Agricultural Economics.  Again, the education wasn’t much to write home about, especially the economics which was 105% Keynesian agitprop, but it served its purpose.

After graduating I immediately moved to Denver and became a commodity broker, specializing in cattle and grain hedging – PURE hedging, as in forward contracting actual cattle and actual grain for farmers and ranchers.  I was NEVER a “money manager” or a so-called “hedge fund”.  I was a pure, old-school commercial agricultural hedge broker.  In ARSH 2004 one of my clients, a salty and brilliant old-timer, trained me in the art of cash cattle marketing and cash market arbitrage, and I began teaching cattlemen this lost skillset.  This was my most important professional achievement.  I am a good teacher, and I loved teaching, and I especially loved being able to teach such good people as there are in the North American cattle industry.

In ARSH 2006 I opened my own Independent Introducing Brokerage, which consisted of just me – a one-man shop.  It became very successful very quickly.  I considered hiring other brokers and expanding, but never did.  Thank God.

After years of reading and research, trying earnestly to disprove or discredit it, and despite the fact that the Kennedy family is Roman Catholic, I was received into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on April 7, ARSH 2007.  As this was before Summorum Pontificum, I was unaware of the Latin Mass parish in Denver, and thus entered the Church in a Novus Ordo parish, through the “RCIA” program.  Novus Ordo Masses, while illicit, are indeed (mostly) valid, and Our Lord is physically present therein.  I know this for a metaphysical certitude.  I am NOT a sedevacantist.  It is precisely because the Novus Ordo Masses are valid that the sacrilege built into the Rite by Bugnini and the other infiltrators matters, and why the Novus Ordo Rite MUST be exterminated as quickly as possible.  There will be no civilizational recovery so long as the Novus Ordo remains.

On April 3, ARSH 2011, after seeing Sen. Lindsey Graham advocate for Sharia Law and the punishing of American citizens who “disrespected” the islamic political system and its manifesto, the koran, I rebutted Graham’s remarks and then burned a koran – bookmarked with raw bacon – and concluded by announcing my address and inviting all musloid and/or FEDGOV comers to come and get a piece of me.

My actions were … appreciated.  The two videos went viral instantly and have been mirrored countless times.  A translation and subtitling project was begun, and the videos were translated into at least ten languages.  The Arabic version was done by Egyptian Copts, some of whom may already be martyrs, and is the most-viewed version with over 650,000 views, most of which were in Egypt.  My Arabic-subtitled koran burning video stood instantly as proof of the lie of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack motivation, as my video had hundreds of thousands more views in North Africa than the video that was lyingly blamed as the motivation.

Despite going uber-viral and giving my address, I was never contacted by either the mainstream media or law enforcement, excepting my local police department, who called and visited, offering their support and compliments.  The media wants to portray any anti-musloid speech as the domain of ignorant rednecks – hence the breathless coverage of Terry Jones.  Intelligent, eloquent, moderately attractive people – much less a person acting with manful courage in the face of evil – will never be covered.  The lack of contact by the FBI and other FEDGOV entities, in direct contrast to the Molly Norris situation, indicates that the FEDGOV only reacts when the reaction can be used to engender fear and intimidation in the populace.  “Look!  This girl floated an idea about drawing cartoons of mohammed and we had to put her in the witness relocation program!!!  Ooooh!  Be SCARED!  Fear your musloid masters!”

Six months later, after having my reading audience skyrocket, I sounded the warning on commodity futures clearing house MF Global and publicly recommended that all MF Global clients get their money out on October 26th ARSH 2011, citing a parabolic increase in their bond yields and hearing anecdotal evidence of wire transfers and checks coming out of MF Global bouncing.  I never imagined that what happened next could happen.  I watched as it came to light that Jon Corzine had swept the MF Global customer accounts, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange cooperated in the theft and refused to fulfill its fiduciary duty and existential purpose and backstop the company, despite having over $8 billion in their emergency slush fund, which could have backstopped Corzine’s $1.6 billion theft multiple times over.  Even more unthinkable was the CME’s freezing of the MF Global victims’ accounts, refusing to even allow them to liquidate their positions – WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE FOR OVER A WEEK.

This made it perfectly clear that the financial markets as we had known them no longer existed.  The Rule of Law was dead.  There was no recourse or way to protect of defend oneself or one’s clients from the brazen theft of the oligarchs.  Contracts were worth less than the paper they were printed on.  This was no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men.  On November 15th and 16th ARSH 2011, I contacted and systematically liquidated every account on my books.  I could have sold my customer book to another broker for a small fortune, and this is the general “retirement plan” for commodity brokers.  I could not do that.  I could not simply throw my clients to the wolves while I lined my pockets and snuck out the back door.  My priority was keeping them safe and making certain that what happened to the MF Global customers did NOT happen to my customers.

On November 17, ARSH 2011 I posted my “Going Galt” letter announcing publicly the closure of Barnhardt Capital Management.  It was picked up and reposted in full by ZeroHedge.com within a matter of minutes, and quickly went on to be the 6th most-viewed story on ZeroHedge for 2011.  Within 90 minutes, Rush Limbaugh was reading excerpts of my letter on the air.  The next morning, Glenn Beck dedicated an entire segment to it on his radio program.  I went uber-viral again, especially in the financial community.

Now partially “early retired”, I continued to blog on various topics and subjects.  I stopped paying federal taxes shortly thereafter and openly encourage others to likewise declare a tax strike.  The IRS swept my normally drawn-down bank account on October 27, ARSH 2012 after having a settlement wire from a real estate sale catch their attention.  Unable to provide a tax return for “bank compliance”, my mortgage was foreclosed upon on December 28, ARSH 2012.  Resolved and resigned to the fact that it was impossible for me to function in the now-overthrown United States of America, I commenced a total estate liquidation and vacated my home in the spring of ARSH 2013.

I will continue to educate and sound the warning via this website for as long as possible.  I am living off of the dwindling remains of my estate liquidation.  Being 38 years old, I will obviously need to find some way to earn money so that I can live.  I aspire to janitorial work, but keep being told at every turn that I am overqualified, not meant for janitorial work and should be using my intellect to earn a living.  Sadly, people of intellect and morality are disqualified and even attacked when society is under the control of a tyranny backed by the mob.  Don’t ask where all of the smart people are.  Don’t ask where all of the leaders of men are.  We are sitting in the back, watching in silence, because the mob wants to be ruled by psychopaths and imbeciles.  So long as that is the case, we cannot help you, even if we wanted to.

Despite all of this, I am happier than I have ever been in my life, and would change nothing.  If none of these things had happened, if I was still sitting on a vast wealth and tremendous business success, I wouldn’t be where I am today, and that is a truly intolerable thought.  While it felt awful at the time, I now see and understand that it was all necessary to get me to where I am now.  In the second chapter of the book of Joel, God promises to give back to us the years that are taken from us by “the locusts”.  He will, and He does.  Hang in there.

And so I sit, and watch, and pray, trusting in God and His Mercy, imploring Him to make me His good girl, and to let me do some little bit of good, and never to be a burden on anyone.

“This is the Lord’s doing: and it is wonderful in our eyes.” -Psalm 117:23

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Antipope Bergoglio a Sodomite? I Dunno, But His Child-Pimping Boyfriend Sure As Hell Is.
Let’s do a little review, shall we?
BY ANNE BARNHARDT
February 14, ARSH 2017, I wrote in this space under the title, “Don’t Be Dumb. Obedience Has Nothing to Do With IT.  THEY’RE ALL BLACKMAILABLE”:
Antipope Bergoglio is a diabolical narcissist psychopath who is now, and always has been about one thing: PERSONAL POWER. He rules through FEAR, and in Rome EVERY PRIEST, BISHOP, MONSIGNOR and CARDINAL WITHOUT EXCEPTION IS BLACKMAILABLE.
 
The infiltration of the Church by Freemasons/Communists, who then recruited and promoted ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY SODOMITES for over fifty years now is so intense, that absolutely EVERY PRELATE IN ROME IS BLACKMAILABLE. EVERY PRELATE has sodomite connections, even for the very, very rare prelate that isn’t a sodomite himself. The faggotry is EVERYWHERE, on both the “left” and the “right and the “far right”.
And folks, where there are faggots, children are being abused. Period. There is no such thing as a “harmless faggot”. Scratch a faggot and you’ll find either an active child predator, a developing child molester, or someone who has turned a blind eye to child molestation to protect “friends”. The code of omertà among faggots is every bit as strong, if not stronger than the code of omertà in the Italian Mafia.
Folks, the Vatican is now, for all intents and purposes, a bathhouse. And I am not speaking figuratively. Cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, security guards, lay employees, Vatican Museum tour guides, it is a massive, massive network of sodomites, and the code of silence transcends political or ideological sides – or at least it used to. The reason that Bergoglio wields so much illegitimate power is because he, although probably a sodomite himself (I’ve received new information out of Buenos Aires – his private life was a deplorable scandal), is now willing, for the sake of his own lust for power, to leverage sodomitical and child abuse activity and blackmail people without hesitancy. This is a change, and THIS is why the Curia hates him. He isn’t observing the code of sodomitical Omertà, and they are all, every one of them, TERRIFIED that he will expose them, even though Bergoglio himself is also a pervert with a criminal past. And remember, even for the few prelates left that are not sodomites, they have all, every one, “not done enough” with regards to priests that were under their jurisdiction at one point or another.
 
We’ve all had beaten into our heads for our entire lives that “what people do behind closed doors is their business…” Now we are seeing why that is such a pernicious lie. The filthy, disgusting faggots, by doing their execrable deeds “behind closed doors” have constructed the very matrix of coercion and blackmail that is now being used to DESTROY THE CHURCH AND CAUSE COUNTLESS SOULS TO GO TO HELL. I remember well being haughtily lectured by a man that turned out to be one of the most notorious sodomites in the Vatican today, a man whose b**w**bs are called “a Vatican institution”, that it was mortal sin to even SUSPECT someone of sodomy or being a sodomite without – get this – videographic evidence. How convenient, so long as there is no video, AND the code of Omertà holds.
Then on July 6, ARSH 2017 I wrote in this space under the title, “Handful of Remaining Catholics in the Vatican Have Essentially Given Up”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The past two years or so have been EXTREMELY illuminating on this topic. The sodomites are EVERYWHERE in the Vatican, transcending all “right-left”, “liberal-Traditional” and all other categories and spectra. In fact, many of the most diabolical and sacriligious sex perverts inside the Vatican, of which actual, real, practicing Satanists are a subset, hide not only amongst leftist groups such as the Jesuits, but so many are hiding among what are branded as “conservative” groups such as Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ, which are actually two of the most powerful and wealthy organized crime syndicates today. There are also, as we have discussed, many sodomites amongst people, both clerics and laity, attached to the Traditional Rites, both the Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rite in Rome. Remember folks, for sodomites, the top priority is the sodomy. For them, sourcing sex partners/victims and the code of silence, or “omertà” which perpetuates the paradigm, trumps everything, including politics, and certainly any liturgical paradigms or preferences. This is why “tribalism” is so spectacularly dangerous.
Which brings us to the sad truth. I have very high-level and unimpeachable sources in Rome who have recently said that among the handful of remaining Catholics in the Curia, including senior-level officials (that category could literally be counted on one hand – do the math), there is now a resignation to the fact that the infiltration of sodomites and Freemasons (that Venn Diagram has a massive overlap) is so severe that it is not humanly possible to remove the infiltration. This can ONLY be solved by supernatural means, which all understand means a Sodom and Gomorrah type event, except on a much, much larger scale. Massive destruction, with many, many people dying on a level never before seen by mankind, just as the Blessed Mother has warned so many times, particularly over the past century.
Think about it. If there are literally just a handful men in the Vatican, which is a massive, bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, that are NOT Freemasons and/or sodomites, that implies that in order to purge the infestation well north of NINETY PERCENT of the people in the Vatican would have to be permanently expelled. And what of the entire college of bishops? FAR North of 90% of them would need to be fired and purged. And what of the priesthood? Same. And what of the staffs in the chanceries all over the world? Same.
Then, on February 9, ARSH 2018, I published in this space under the title, “TOLDYA: Faggot Omertá Has Broken Down In Vatican – Antipope Bergoglio Exposed as Conscious Protector of Boy Rapists”
As I have explained in this space, on those rare occasions when the sodomite code of omertá (that is, mafia silence) breaks down, woo-boy, look out. It makes a piraña feeding frenzy look positively genteel by comparison. There is nothing in this world so nasty and spiteful as a faggot. Remember, Diabolical Narcissists are the human analogue to demons, and the demons hate everyone and everything with an unquenchable spite, and all sex perverts are, by definition, Diabolical Narcissists to one degree or another.
Which leads to the question, what do they have on Antipope Bergoglio?  Why hasn’t Antipope Bergoglio thrown these faggots under the bus yet?  Why the “no comment” in the Snakes on the Plane Presser?  Why hasn’t Donna Wuerl’s pro forma resignation been accepted?  Why is ChurchMilitant reporting that Antipope Bergoglio and the Vatican are desperate to get Wuerl out of the U.S. and onto Vatican City territory because if the U.S. Department of Justice or FBI get a hold of him, he will sing like a bird to stay out of prison?
With regards to Bergoglio himself, yeah, he’s not only a faggot, but one of his number one boyfriends from Buenos Aires is a notorious CHILD PROSTITUTE PIMP.
My information is that Antipope Bergoglio’s sodomite boyfriend, GUSTAVO VERA, heads up an NGO in Argentina called “La Alameda”, which does some LGBT advocacy, militant feminist crap, but primarily focuses on child labor, specifically in the garment industry and in child sex trafficking.  GUSTAVO VERA also drifts in and out of official government positions, as so many people in NGOs do.
Now wait, you might say.  This Gustavo Vera works AGAINST child sex trafficking!  GUSTAVO VERA has, while in government, executed raids on child prostitutes and female “escorts” working out of nightclubs.
Uh, yeah.  In order to suppress his competition.  Apparently GUSTAVO VERA is a rentboy PIMP that has a monopoly on BOY PROSTITUTES working inside the gay bars of Buenos Aires. So what GUSTAVO VERA does is use his power and influence to have the freelance boy prostitutes that are working on the streets outside the gay bars, and in gay bars which his pimping syndicate does not have a foothold, cleared out in police raids which he orchestrates, thus maintaining his monopoly.  He also executes vendettas against female prostitution rings and pimps.
FURTHERMORE, GUSTAVO VERA is said to use his “advocacy” for child sweatshop workers to enable him to procure child prostitutes, both already in Argentina, AND traveling to high Andean mountain villages in Bolivia to essentially buy children for his sex trade down in Buenos Aires.
GUSTAVO VERA and Jorge Bergoglio were known in Buenos Aires to be a sodomite couple, and the relationship continued after Antipope Bergoglio usurped the Petrine See.
The real reason that Antipope Bergoglio – known both in Rome and in Argentina as “the bishop who never smiles” and who would sit in the back corner of the dining room of the Via della Scrofa residence in Rome when he stayed there as a Cardinal, scowling and glowering and being conspicuously miserable and anti-social – was so insistent upon living not in the Apostolic Palace, but rather spending some $3,000,000 to take over and completely remodel the entire second floor of the Casa Santa Marta luxury hotel residence in the Vatican, WAS SO HE COULD ENSCONCE HIS SODOMY PARTNER, GUSTAVO VERA in the hotel.  It had nothing to do with “wanting to be around people”.  Bergoglio is profoundly anti-social.  Lessons were learned from Paul VI having his sodomite sex partner, Paolo Carlini, running the halls of the Apostolic Palace at 4:00am and drawing very conspicuous attention to his “sleepovers”.  Gustavo Vera had no problem moving around the Casa Santa Marta – a functioning hotel.
Up until last year when Antipope Bergoglio and Gustavo Vera had a fight and broke up, Gustavo Vera would travel from Buenos Aires to Rome MONTHLY. After the big fag fight, Antipope Bergoglio had the Swiss Guards go into Vera’s suite in the Casa Santa Marta, pack his bags for him, and then they met him as he was walking through the Vatican returning to the Casa Santa Marta, handed him his bags, and escorted him off the Vatican premises.
So, does the Lavender Mafia have blackmail material on Bergoglio himself?  OH, HELL YES THEY DO.
Do we honestly believe, even as powerhungry as Bergoglio is, that anyone would have as many close connections to sodomites that Bergoglio has, and do as much to protect and even promote sodomites, if Bergoglio were not a sodomite himself – and a sodomite with intimate connections to sex trafficking and the systemic rape of children and TEENAGED BOYS?
Now, someone needs to do the serious journalistic research on all of this, because I am handicapped in this in that I don’t speak Spanish, much less the Argentinian dialect, which is quite different and uses different terms and slang than the Mexican/Puerto Rican Spanish that we were all taught in high school.  Also, I’m not a journalist.  Someone needs to go down to Buenos Aires and talk to the people down there who know all of this stuff and can help all of this come to light.
“If it could only be like this always – always summer, always alone, the fruit always ripe…”
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on August 31, ARSH 2018 by Ann Barnhardt.
And furthermore I consider that islam must be destroyed.
Post navigation
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Courtesy of Francis J. Beckwith)
COMMENTARY |  SEP. 1, 2018
Who Am I to ‘Pope’?
COMMENTARY: The Vatican has the power, if ordered by Pope Francis, to lift any veils of secrecy that do not permit the press to view these materials alluded to in Archbishop Viganò’s testimony.

Months after Pope Francis’ election, I had the privilege of meeting the Holy Father. When I approached him, I presented a copy of my book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. In my left hand, I was clutching rosary beads, purchased in Rome by my parents in 2000 and blessed by Pope John Paul II. The rosary had been my parents’ gift for my Italian grandmother, Frances Guido (1913-2002) and later became for me a treasure of my Catholic heritage. She did not live long enough to see me return to the Church in 2007, but, as I later learned, she had sought counsel about my ecclesial estrangement from a former professor of mine at Fordham (Dominic Balestra). As Dom conveyed to me in 2009, “I told her that I found you to be a true Christian and that in time grace will bring you back to our Church.”

Indeed it did, though these days I am sometimes not so sure about how Christian my countenance is. The seemingly endless stories of clerical evil revealed over the past several months — including the McCarrick scandals, the Archbishop Viganò testimony and the Pennsylvania grand jury report — do not incline the heart to charity toward the Church and those who are the successors of the apostles.

I confess that my general impression of bishops, archbishops and cardinals, with some notable exceptions of course, is that they are company men, who prize loyalty, reputation and power over faith, hope and charity. I know that is unfair. But it’s very difficult to know who to trust anymore.

My reflex, which I am sure others share, is to err on the side of self-protection than to risk a broken heart. And yet, I know that is not what it means to be a Christian or what the Gospel demands.

As St. Paul tells us, in words that many of us have read scores of times, “[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). But in order to ensure that the endurance does not outpace the charity and the hope, when I read those words now, what comes to mind is not the Pope, the cardinals or the bishops, but the image of my sainted grandmother praying for her prodigal grandson’s return to Rome on the very rosary beads that were brought back to Rome by that grandson.

The Holy Father surely knows that there are millions of Catholics around the world who harbor similar thoughts. They have heard about all the salacious revelations and have seen the different factions within the Church digging in their heels, imputing the others’ motives and suggesting that political affiliation or theological predilection is an adequate proxy for discovering the truth.

Although they do not know who in the hierarchy to trust, they have, like many of us, witnessed in their lives exemplars of true Catholic piety and have been drawn back to Christ’s Church by it. So they continue to plumb from those pockets of grace what they can summon from memory, encounter in the present or uncover through the Church’s literary reservoir.

But when given the opportunity to stem the tide of confusion — to offer a word of solace, comfort and hope to the long-suffering Catholics he is obligated by his office to shepherd — Pope Francis announced, in response to a question from the press, that he had taken a vow of silence on these matters, though nevertheless encouraging the press to investigate for themselves and to make up their own minds. Because I have never been a bishop, let alone a pope, I have no idea whether this sort of answer is wise or foolish. But from the vantage point of a layman who has only been back in the Church for a mere 11 years, the Holy Father’s answer seemed tantamount to saying, “Who am I to ‘pope’?”

Yet, after some reflection, I am willing to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t abdicating his fatherly role to lead the flock through this challenging time. For in order for members of the press to do their jobs and investigate these matters — to confirm or disconfirm the claims in Archbishop Viganò’s testimony — they must have complete and total access to the evidence mentioned in the letter’s lone footnote: “All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C.” As we know from the Pennsylvania attorney general’s report as well as the McCarrick scandals, the Vatican has the power, if ordered by the Pope, to lift any veils of secrecy that do not permit the press to view these materials.

Consequently, if the media make the request to examine the documents and memos cited in Archbishop Viganò’s testimony, the Holy Father cannot refuse without undermining his credibility and by default his papacy. Even the Pope knows that a “Who am I to ‘pope’?” answer will not suffice when the hope and faith of millions hangs in the balance. The Frances Guidos of the world would expect nothing less.

Francis J. Beckwith, is the professor of philosophy and Church-state studies and

associate director of the graduate program

in philosophy at Baylor University. He is the author of

Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2009).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE  CATHOLIC MONITOR
Thursday, August 30, 2018

Vigano, Benedict’s Resignation, the Gay Lobby and the Francis Papacy

On August 27, author and philosopher Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube in “Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity” summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and Pope Francis’s papacy:

If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has “reinstated and promoted” all those who brought about the resignation.

Marshall stated:

“First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering.”

“Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal.”

“Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals.”

“Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity.”

“This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”

“And it seems the powerful cardinals within Vatican City wanted it to happen fast because they don’t want the 300 page dossier released to the public because there is moral scandal in those pages.”

“That binder was left with Pope Francis, but nothing has been done. And what we see is that those who were oppose to Benedict XVI theologically, but also on administration, have been reinvolved, reinstated and promoted.”

On The Sydney Morning Herald verified Marshall’s explanation of why Pope Benedict XVI resigned:

“Pope Benedict XVI resigned after an internal investigation informed him about a web of blackmail, corruption and gay sex in the Vatican, Italian media reports say.”

“Three cardinals were asked by Benedict to verify allegations of financial impropriety, cronyism and corruption exposed in the so-called VatiLeaks affair.”

“On December 17, 2012, they handed the pontiff two red-leather bound volumes, almost 300 pages long, containing “an exact map of the mischief and the bad fish” inside the Holy See, La Repubblica said.”

“‘It was on that day, with those papers on his desk, that Benedict XVI took the decision he had mulled over for so long,’ said the centre-left newspaper.”

“… La Repubblica quoted a man described as “very close” to the authors as saying the information it contained was “all about the breach of the sixth and seven commandments” – which say “thou shalt not commit adultery” and ‘thou shalt not steal.'”

“The cardinals were said to have uncovered an underground gay network, whose members organise sexual meetings in several venues in Rome and Vatican City, leaving them prone to blackmail.”

“The secret report also delves into suspect dealings at the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the Vatican’s bank.”
(The Sydney Morning Herald, “Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation,” February 22, 2013)

On January 26, 2012, the Business Insider verified Marshall’s narrative showing that the Vatican insiders removed Vigano for attempting to clean up those involved with “financial irregularity” who were the gay lobby:

“The show “The Untouchables”, on private television network La 7 Wednesday night showed several letters that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the erstwhile deputy-governor of Vatican City, sent to superiors, including Pope Benedict, in 2011 about the corruption.”

“… As deputy-governor of the Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, Vigano was the No. 2 official in a department responsible for maintaining the city-state’s infrastructure.”

“Soon after his appointment, Vigano discovered corruption, nepotism and cronyism, especially in the awarding of contracts to outside companies at inflated prices, which he sought to remedy.”

“The TV program interviewed a member of the bankers’ committee — whose face was blurred and voice changed to protect his identity — who said Vigano had a reputation as a “ballbreaker” among companies that had contracts with the Vatican, because of his emphasis on transparency and fair competition.”

“… While Vigano turned Vatican City’s budget from deficit to surplus during his tenure through cost-cutting, it made him some enemies, who had unsigned articles criticizing him as inefficient published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale in 2011.”

“On March 22, 2011, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone removed Vigano from his position for reasons identical to those published in an anonymous articles published against him.” [https://www.businessinsider.com/carlo-maria-vigano-vatican-corruption-2012-1]

On June 11, 2013, The Telegraph revealed that even Francis verified Marshall’s report that there was a gay lobby tied to “financial irregularity”:

“The Pontiff supposedly made the claim during an audience last Thursday at the Vatican with a group of Latin American priests and nuns.”

“‘Yes, it is difficult,’ he reportedly said. ‘In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption, also there is, it is true … they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there … we will have to see what we can do.'”

“… In his audience, Pope Francis allegedly promised to reform the Vatican but said it would be ‘difficult’ and that he could not carry out the reforms himself because he was ‘disorganised’. He reportedly said he would be relying on the commission of eight cardinals he appointed in April to organise reform of the Curia, which is due to meet in October.”  [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10113779/Gay-lobby-in-the-Vatican-says-Pope-Francis.html]

Unfortunately, what The Telegraph didn’t reveal or know is that Francis had been surrounded by a gay lobby as a cardinal in Argentina and surrounded himself with the gay lobby in the Vatican and in his “commission of eight [later nine] cardinals… to organise reform of the Curia” which is called the C9.

The Telegraph didn’t know as Marshall put it that Francis “reinvolved, reinstated and promoted” the Vatican gay lobby:

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted “Unmasking Bergoglio”:

“Bergoglio always had the “gay agenda” among his plans… It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests.”

“… Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate… of the Argentine Episcopal Conference… “[had a] “star”… of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian… of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone].”

“Until… in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man… Pope Benedict XVI… immediately removed [him from his]… position [as bishop].”

“The reaction of Bergoglio”

“By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness… And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office.”

“… Bergoglio… issued a statement in which he expressed his ‘gratitude’ to the former bishop [Maccarone].”

“… The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say… the [sex] video corresponded to “the private life of Bishop Maccarone.”

Jimmy Burns in his book “Francis, Pope of Good Promise” after referencing that “Maccarone resigned” because of the “videotape showing the bishop having ‘intimate relations'” wrote:

“Bergoglio’s own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone’s political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop’s defense claiming he had been set up.”

“… Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]… ‘This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt… It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'” (Pages 231-232)

Francis’s Vatican inner circle and C9 was largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:

Business Standard, September 19, 2017:

Francis’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for “complicity in alleged cover-up” of paedophile priest.

The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:

“Pope’s [Francis’s] ‘eyes and ears’ in Vatican bank [allegedly] ‘had string of homosexual affairs’… [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope”

LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:

Francis’s closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda “accused of ‘abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'”

National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:

Francis’s close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal “Errazuriz [and his]… successor… [Cardinal] Ezzati” “Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups” of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.

The Remnant, September 12, 2017:

Francis’s confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:

“Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco ‘Positive Realities of Homosexuals’… [Coccopalmerio’s Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy.”

New York Times, April 30, 2018:

“Cardinal George Pell, the [Francis] Vatican’s third-highest-ranking official, will stand trail… of sex abuse.”

BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:

Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod “Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence.”

The Week, January 3, 2017:

“Pope Francis and his cardinal allies… known to interfere…  on abuse cases… Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli… Francis returned him to the priestly state.”

Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:

Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.

Chiesa, December 16, 2016:

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.”

Caucus99percent.com, 02/02/2018:

“Pope Francis’ continuous aiding and abetting of sexual predators and his officials who protect them.”

“Although he was personally informed of the accusations against them, Pope Francis protected these sexual predators: Fr. Mauro Inzoli (the pope later defrocked Inzoli but he is still a free man) Luis Fernando Figari, Archbishop Anthony Apuron, Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, Fr. Don Corradi and Archbishop Josef Wesolowski.”

“After Pope Francis did nothing to stop Corradi, the priest and four others were arrested in November 2016 and charged with raping and molesting at least 22 children. More reports poured in and ‘it’s now thought that as many as 60 children fell victim to abuse.’”

“Wesolowski was put under Vatican house arrest 14 months after the pope judged him to be guilty only after ‘there was a serious risk that [he] would be arrested on Italian territory at the request of the Dominican Republic authorities and then extradited,’ as reported by Corriere della Sera. The archbishop was found with more than 100,000 computer files of child pornography, a “key ingredient” in sex trafficking. Wesolowski continued to possess child pornography even under Vatican house arrest.”

“Kamil Jarzembowski, a former student at the Vatican’s preseminary, wrote a letter about the sexual abuse of minors in the school and handed it directly to Pope Francis. The pope did nothing to stop it.”

“Pope Francis had ordered an investigation of Honduran Bishop Juan José Pineda by an Argentine bishop who was “shocked” by “accounts of sexual abuse perpetrated against priests and seminarians …. So far the only action that has been taken has been to send Bishop Pineda to stay with Jesuits in Madrid on a short retreat,” wrote veteran Vatican reporter Edward Pentin.”

“Pope Francis promoted Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department that judges cases of clergy sexual abuse. While Ladaria held the second highest position in the CDF, he found Fr. Gianni Trotta guilty of sexually abusing minors in 2012 but failed to inform the Italian authorities. Trotta, already convicted of sexual violence against an 11-year-old and sentenced to eight years in prison by a civil court, is now standing trial for nine other alleged cases of sex abuse against boys that occurred in 2014. Ladaria, himself, will stand trial in April, accused by French authorities of “complicity in the alleged cover-up” of Fr. Bernard Preynat.”

“A month after his election, the pope appointed a Council of Cardinals to help him govern the Church. Three of the eight initial members had protected pedophile priests: George Pell, Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga who he named as head of the council.”

Moreover, The Telegraph didn’t know that the head of Francis’s C9 was involved in “financial irregularity” and that as Marshall outlined it “something funny” went on with the Vatican Bank and apparently with the gay lobby that was the Obama administration.

Obama’s NSA spied on Benedict and Francis “before, during and after the Conclave” according to the website Eye Witness and the head of Francis’s C9 called the “Vice Pope” was involved in “financial irregularity”:

Ganesh Sahathevan is a Fellow at the (American Center for Democracy) ACD’s Economic Warfare Institute.

The ACD/EWI team specializes in economic warfare, purposeful interference in civilian infrastructure, including the financial markets, transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. ACD fellow Sahathevan said Pope Francis’s closest collaborator has “an illegal slush fund financed by George Soro”:

“Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, the so-called “Vice Pope” given his close association with Pope Francis, has refused to answer questions concerning his work with a number of NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros.Cardinal Oscar has also refused to answer queries concerning any funding he, or entities associated with him, may have received from Soros…”

“… It does appear as if the “Vice Pope” is on some campaign to change the Vatican from within, and that he is doing so with what amounts to an illegal slush fund financed by George Soros.” (realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “‘Vice Pope’ Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the ‘Catholic Spring’ movement ,”February 9, 2017),[https://acdemocracy.org/ourteam/], [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscar-rodriguez.html?m=1]

Financial expert Sahathevan, also, reported that the most powerful official in Francis’s Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, apparently knew that funds not appearing on official balance sheets” could be illegal and he may be covering up illegal slush funds and asked Francis & Parolin to “come clean”:”As reported yesterday”

“Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the “Catholic Spring ” movement

“In the above story it was concluded that Oscar appears to be in charge of a slush fund financed by George Soros, which is intended to be used for purposes Oscar sees fit, which may include financing of a ‘Catholic Spring.'”

“While that story was the result of an independent investigation by this writer it does seem that the Vatican’s Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, Cardinal George Pell, may have uncovered the existence of similar financial structures, even if he did not quite understand what it is he had uncovered.”

In late 2014 Pell announced that he had ‘discovered that … some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts (of departments within the Vatican ) and did not appear on the Vatican’s balance sheet.’

“What was even more interesting than that revelation was the reaction of the Vatican’s Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J, presumably acting under instructions from the  Vatican;s Secretary Of State  Cardinal Pietro Parolin [another C9 cardinal]:”

‘It should be observed that Cardinal Pell has not referred to illegal, illicit or poorly administered funds, but rather funds that do not appear on the official balance sheets of the Holy See or of Vatican City State, and which have become known to the Secretariat for the Economy during the current process of examination and revision of Vatican administration…'”

“This statement was curious for Pell did not actually say that the accounts were ‘illegal.’ If anything Pell seemed not to understand that financial entities of any sort often have secret reserves, In fact, Pell concluded with some satisfaction that his discovery meant that the Vatican was well able to finance its activities…”

“..It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar, that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task  near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean.”

(realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar’s Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?,”February 14, 2017), [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscars-soros-funding_14.html?m=1]

Sahathevan could have predicted that Francis’s chief adviser later in 2017, again, would be accused of financial corruption as reported by Edward Pentin:

“One of Pope Francis’ chief advisers on Church reform has rejected allegations of financial corruption made in an Italian publication this week, but questions remain over diocesan accounting procedures…Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga… The documents, which the Register has obtained, show general figures denoting gross income for the archdiocese and spending running into millions of dollars, but with no particulars.”

“One source with a detailed knowledge of the issue told the Register the documentation omits $1.3 million that the Honduran government gave the archdiocese to be spent on Church projects.”[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-maradiaga-denies-financial-allegations-but-questions-remain-unansw#.WnVUC3OIYwh]

What financial expert Sahathevan apparently didn’t know was that Parolin and Pell were in a power struggle when he reported the above. Cardinal Pell was suppose to reform the Vatican corruption including the Secretary of State’s finances.

Parolin according to the Catholic Herald in a “series of power struggles” ended the outside audit and Vatican financial reform “even before” Pell was forced to return to Australia on old sex-abuse allegations. (“How Cardinal Parolin won the Vatican civil war,” November 9, 2017)In the Pell power struggle shady and suspicious actions were taken by a employee of Parolin (Archbishop Angelo Becciu) on former Auditor General Libero Milone. The Auditor suspecting that he was being spied on brought in a external contractor who “determined” his computer was “infected with file copying spyware” according to LifeSiteNews.com in its September 28, 2017 article “Former Vatican auditor accused of spying says ‘shady games’ going on in Rome.”

The website The Eye Witness reported on shady and suspicious spying done on Pope Benedict and Pope Francis “before, during and after” the last conclave:

“It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave.  Is such a thing possible?  Here is one of many reports:”

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_30/Nothing-is-sacred-to-US-NSA-snoops-on-Pope-7540/…”

“In another report, from Al-Jazeera we read:
 
“Bergoglio ‘ had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks’ it said.”

“The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: ‘leadership intentions’, ‘threats to financial systems’, ‘foreign policy objectives’ and ‘human rights’, it claimed.”

“Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest.  Still it is curious to say the very least…”

“…But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn’t we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry.” [http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html?m=1]

One reason why the NSA could reasonably have been spying on Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio who would become Pope Francis at that conclave could be that the spy agency was corrupted by the Obama administration.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the pro-gay administration wanted Bergoglio to replace Benedict.

Benedict’s agenda put anti-gay and moral pro-family issues as top priorities while Francis gives lip services to those issues, but sees them as secondary to his agenda which is almost identical to the pro-gay Obama administration and Soros agendas on issues such as the gay agenda, global warming and unrestricted mass immigration (See: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-dark-lord-soros-his-servant-white_27.html?m=1).

Zero Hedge shows that NSA became a servant of the Democrat’s agenda and it’s FISA abuses:

“Donald Trump must veto reauthorized NSA spying powers which passed both the House and the Senate yesterday without a single reform, in light of an explosive four-page memo said to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.” [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-19/snowden-trump-must-veto-reauthorized-nsa-spying-powers-light-fisa-memo]

Another reason is related to the first reason for the spying is that the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are funded by Soros who is pushing unrestricted mass immigration:

“There does indeed seem to be a “hidden Soros Slush Fund” in the Democratic Party’s official platform, as commentator Michelle Malkin recently pointed out… Malkin suggests that Obama’s rival for the White House, John McCain, hasn’t criticized the slush fund proposal because his Reform Institute received $150,000 from the Open Society Institute.” [https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-hidden-soros-slush-fund/]

The final reason for the spying, and the word could needs to be stressed, could be Democrat slush funds and financial improprieties in the Vatican Bank if the following report is true which can’t be verified which brings us back to Sahathevan’s call to Parolin and Francis to “come clean” as was attempted by Benedict:

“The following was reported by Bob Chapman in the International Forecaster blog. Chapman has been around forever and is well respected in many circles. He does not mention his source for the information…”

“On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury.”

“Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals.”

“Big money was found in each of the accounts. The longer the beneficiaries have been in office, the greater the account balances were found to be. They range from a few million USD to more than a billion USD in the case of John Roberts. The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700.” [https://m.facebook.com/notes/jonas-clark/slush-fund-accounts-of-major-us-politicians-identified-and-seized-at-vatican-ban/491500200958/]

Akacatholic.com reported that evidence points to financial blackmail possibly being involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication who appeared to be attempting to uncover “financial improprieties” despite the Chapman report claim that Benedict had a “covert Vatican account” which can’t be verified:

“An article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet is making the rounds alleging that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2012.”

“According to Blondet:

There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church…”

“…It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank.”

“I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards.”

“This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place.”

“Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received.”

“In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal.”

“Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive.”

“It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him.”

“Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate.”

“Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns.” [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]

All Catholics need to know the answers to the following questions asked to President Donald Trump in a open letter about the conclave of Pope Francis and if financial blackmail possibly was involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication and Francis’s election:

“With all of this in mind, and wishing the best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following questions:

– To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis? [6]

–  What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

–  Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?  [7]

–  International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict.  Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this? [8]

–  Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence? [9]

–  What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?

– What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

–   What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory? [10]

We believe that the very existence of these unanswered questions provides sufficient evidence to warrant this request for an investigation.

Should such an investigation reveal that the U.S. government interfered inappropriately into the affairs of the Catholic Church, we further request the release of the results so that Catholics may request appropriate action from those elements of our hierarchy who remain loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church.Please understand that we are not requesting an investigation into the Catholic Church; we are simply asking for an investigation into recent activities of the U.S. Government, of which you are now the chief executive.

Thank you again, and be assured of our most sincere prayers.Respectfully,David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired)
Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant
Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.)
Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren”1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6293
2.http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pope-francis-became-the-leader-of-the-global-left-1482431940
3.http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2198-the-year-of-mercy-begins
4.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/
5. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-response-to-the-pope
6. http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html
7. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi
8. http://www.maurizioblondet.it/ratzinger-non-pote-ne-vendere-ne-comprare/
9. https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/
10. http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2013/03/soros-funded-catholic-groups-behind-african-socialist-as-next-pope.html [https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church. Please pray an Our Father for Liz Yore who with her heroic leadership and kindness to me has inspired much of my writings and this article in this great Church crisis that is the Francis papacy.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Vigano, Benedict’s Resignation, the Gay Lobby and the Francis Papacy

On August 27, author and philosopher Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube in “Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity” summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and Pope Francis’s papacy:

If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has “reinstated and promoted” all those who brought about the resignation.

Marshall stated:

“First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering.”

“Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal.”

“Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals.”

“Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity.”

“This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”

“And it seems the powerful cardinals within Vatican City wanted it to happen fast because they don’t want the 300 page dossier released to the public because there is moral scandal in those pages.”

“That binder was left with Pope Francis, but nothing has been done. And what we see is that those who were oppose to Benedict XVI theologically, but also on administration, have been reinvolved, reinstated and promoted.”

On The Sydney Morning Herald verified Marshall’s explanation of why Pope Benedict XVI resigned:

“Pope Benedict XVI resigned after an internal investigation informed him about a web of blackmail, corruption and gay sex in the Vatican, Italian media reports say.”

“Three cardinals were asked by Benedict to verify allegations of financial impropriety, cronyism and corruption exposed in the so-called VatiLeaks affair.”

“On December 17, 2012, they handed the pontiff two red-leather bound volumes, almost 300 pages long, containing “an exact map of the mischief and the bad fish” inside the Holy See, La Repubblica said.”

“‘It was on that day, with those papers on his desk, that Benedict XVI took the decision he had mulled over for so long,’ said the centre-left newspaper.”

“… La Repubblica quoted a man described as “very close” to the authors as saying the information it contained was “all about the breach of the sixth and seven commandments” – which say “thou shalt not commit adultery” and ‘thou shalt not steal.'”

“The cardinals were said to have uncovered an underground gay network, whose members organise sexual meetings in several venues in Rome and Vatican City, leaving them prone to blackmail.”

“The secret report also delves into suspect dealings at the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the Vatican’s bank.”
(The Sydney Morning Herald, “Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation,” February 22, 2013)

On January 26, 2012, the Business Insider verified Marshall’s narrative showing that the Vatican insiders removed Vigano for attempting to clean up those involved with “financial irregularity” who were the gay lobby:

“The show “The Untouchables”, on private television network La 7 Wednesday night showed several letters that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the erstwhile deputy-governor of Vatican City, sent to superiors, including Pope Benedict, in 2011 about the corruption.”

“… As deputy-governor of the Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, Vigano was the No. 2 official in a department responsible for maintaining the city-state’s infrastructure.”

“Soon after his appointment, Vigano discovered corruption, nepotism and cronyism, especially in the awarding of contracts to outside companies at inflated prices, which he sought to remedy.”

“The TV program interviewed a member of the bankers’ committee — whose face was blurred and voice changed to protect his identity — who said Vigano had a reputation as a “ballbreaker” among companies that had contracts with the Vatican, because of his emphasis on transparency and fair competition.”

“… While Vigano turned Vatican City’s budget from deficit to surplus during his tenure through cost-cutting, it made him some enemies, who had unsigned articles criticizing him as inefficient published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale in 2011.”

“On March 22, 2011, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone removed Vigano from his position for reasons identical to those published in an anonymous articles published against him.” [https://www.businessinsider.com/carlo-maria-vigano-vatican-corruption-2012-1]

On June 11, 2013, The Telegraph revealed that even Francis verified Marshall’s report that there was a gay lobby tied to “financial irregularity”:

“The Pontiff supposedly made the claim during an audience last Thursday at the Vatican with a group of Latin American priests and nuns.”

“‘Yes, it is difficult,’ he reportedly said. ‘In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption, also there is, it is true … they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there … we will have to see what we can do.'”

“… In his audience, Pope Francis allegedly promised to reform the Vatican but said it would be ‘difficult’ and that he could not carry out the reforms himself because he was ‘disorganised’. He reportedly said he would be relying on the commission of eight cardinals he appointed in April to organise reform of the Curia, which is due to meet in October.”  [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10113779/Gay-lobby-in-the-Vatican-says-Pope-Francis.html]

Unfortunately, what The Telegraph didn’t reveal or know is that Francis had been surrounded by a gay lobby as a cardinal in Argentina and surrounded himself with the gay lobby in the Vatican and in his “commission of eight [later nine] cardinals… to organise reform of the Curia” which is called the C9.

The Telegraph didn’t know as Marshall put it that Francis “reinvolved, reinstated and promoted” the Vatican gay lobby:

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted “Unmasking Bergoglio”:

“Bergoglio always had the “gay agenda” among his plans… It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests.”

“… Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate… of the Argentine Episcopal Conference… “[had a] “star”… of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian… of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone].”

“Until… in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man… Pope Benedict XVI… immediately removed [him from his]… position [as bishop].”

“The reaction of Bergoglio”

“By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness… And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office.”

“… Bergoglio… issued a statement in which he expressed his ‘gratitude’ to the former bishop [Maccarone].”

“… The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say… the [sex] video corresponded to “the private life of Bishop Maccarone.”

Jimmy Burns in his book “Francis, Pope of Good Promise” after referencing that “Maccarone resigned” because of the “videotape showing the bishop having ‘intimate relations'” wrote:

“Bergoglio’s own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone’s political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop’s defense claiming he had been set up.”

“… Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]… ‘This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt… It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'” (Pages 231-232)

Francis’s Vatican inner circle and C9 was largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:

Business Standard, September 19, 2017:

Francis’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for “complicity in alleged cover-up” of paedophile priest.

The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:

“Pope’s [Francis’s] ‘eyes and ears’ in Vatican bank [allegedly] ‘had string of homosexual affairs’… [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope”

LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:

Francis’s closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda “accused of ‘abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'”

National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:

Francis’s close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal “Errazuriz [and his]… successor… [Cardinal] Ezzati” “Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups” of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.

The Remnant, September 12, 2017:

Francis’s confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:

“Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco ‘Positive Realities of Homosexuals’… [Coccopalmerio’s Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy.”

New York Times, April 30, 2018:

“Cardinal George Pell, the [Francis] Vatican’s third-highest-ranking official, will stand trail… of sex abuse.”

BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:

Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod “Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence.”

The Week, January 3, 2017:

“Pope Francis and his cardinal allies… known to interfere…  on abuse cases… Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli… Francis returned him to the priestly state.”

Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:

Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.

Chiesa, December 16, 2016:

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.”

Caucus99percent.com, 02/02/2018:

“Pope Francis’ continuous aiding and abetting of sexual predators and his officials who protect them.”

“Although he was personally informed of the accusations against them, Pope Francis protected these sexual predators: Fr. Mauro Inzoli (the pope later defrocked Inzoli but he is still a free man) Luis Fernando Figari, Archbishop Anthony Apuron, Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, Fr. Don Corradi and Archbishop Josef Wesolowski.”

“After Pope Francis did nothing to stop Corradi, the priest and four others were arrested in November 2016 and charged with raping and molesting at least 22 children. More reports poured in and ‘it’s now thought that as many as 60 children fell victim to abuse.’”

“Wesolowski was put under Vatican house arrest 14 months after the pope judged him to be guilty only after ‘there was a serious risk that [he] would be arrested on Italian territory at the request of the Dominican Republic authorities and then extradited,’ as reported by Corriere della Sera. The archbishop was found with more than 100,000 computer files of child pornography, a “key ingredient” in sex trafficking. Wesolowski continued to possess child pornography even under Vatican house arrest.”

“Kamil Jarzembowski, a former student at the Vatican’s preseminary, wrote a letter about the sexual abuse of minors in the school and handed it directly to Pope Francis. The pope did nothing to stop it.”

“Pope Francis had ordered an investigation of Honduran Bishop Juan José Pineda by an Argentine bishop who was “shocked” by “accounts of sexual abuse perpetrated against priests and seminarians …. So far the only action that has been taken has been to send Bishop Pineda to stay with Jesuits in Madrid on a short retreat,” wrote veteran Vatican reporter Edward Pentin.”

“Pope Francis promoted Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department that judges cases of clergy sexual abuse. While Ladaria held the second highest position in the CDF, he found Fr. Gianni Trotta guilty of sexually abusing minors in 2012 but failed to inform the Italian authorities. Trotta, already convicted of sexual violence against an 11-year-old and sentenced to eight years in prison by a civil court, is now standing trial for nine other alleged cases of sex abuse against boys that occurred in 2014. Ladaria, himself, will stand trial in April, accused by French authorities of “complicity in the alleged cover-up” of Fr. Bernard Preynat.”

“A month after his election, the pope appointed a Council of Cardinals to help him govern the Church. Three of the eight initial members had protected pedophile priests: George Pell, Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga who he named as head of the council.”

Moreover, The Telegraph didn’t know that the head of Francis’s C9 was involved in “financial irregularity” and that as Marshall outlined it “something funny” went on with the Vatican Bank and apparently with the gay lobby that was the Obama administration.

Obama’s NSA spied on Benedict and Francis “before, during and after the Conclave” according to the website Eye Witness and the head of Francis’s C9 called the “Vice Pope” was involved in “financial irregularity”:

Ganesh Sahathevan is a Fellow at the (American Center for Democracy) ACD’s Economic Warfare Institute.

The ACD/EWI team specializes in economic warfare, purposeful interference in civilian infrastructure, including the financial markets, transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. ACD fellow Sahathevan said Pope Francis’s closest collaborator has “an illegal slush fund financed by George Soro”:

“Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, the so-called “Vice Pope” given his close association with Pope Francis, has refused to answer questions concerning his work with a number of NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros.Cardinal Oscar has also refused to answer queries concerning any funding he, or entities associated with him, may have received from Soros…”

“… It does appear as if the “Vice Pope” is on some campaign to change the Vatican from within, and that he is doing so with what amounts to an illegal slush fund financed by George Soros.” (realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “‘Vice Pope’ Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the ‘Catholic Spring’ movement ,”February 9, 2017),[https://acdemocracy.org/ourteam/], [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscar-rodriguez.html?m=1]

Financial expert Sahathevan, also, reported that the most powerful official in Francis’s Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, apparently knew that funds not appearing on official balance sheets” could be illegal and he may be covering up illegal slush funds and asked Francis & Parolin to “come clean”:”As reported yesterday”

“Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the “Catholic Spring ” movement

“In the above story it was concluded that Oscar appears to be in charge of a slush fund financed by George Soros, which is intended to be used for purposes Oscar sees fit, which may include financing of a ‘Catholic Spring.'”

“While that story was the result of an independent investigation by this writer it does seem that the Vatican’s Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, Cardinal George Pell, may have uncovered the existence of similar financial structures, even if he did not quite understand what it is he had uncovered.”

In late 2014 Pell announced that he had ‘discovered that … some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts (of departments within the Vatican ) and did not appear on the Vatican’s balance sheet.’

“What was even more interesting than that revelation was the reaction of the Vatican’s Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J, presumably acting under instructions from the  Vatican;s Secretary Of State  Cardinal Pietro Parolin [another C9 cardinal]:”

‘It should be observed that Cardinal Pell has not referred to illegal, illicit or poorly administered funds, but rather funds that do not appear on the official balance sheets of the Holy See or of Vatican City State, and which have become known to the Secretariat for the Economy during the current process of examination and revision of Vatican administration…'”

“This statement was curious for Pell did not actually say that the accounts were ‘illegal.’ If anything Pell seemed not to understand that financial entities of any sort often have secret reserves, In fact, Pell concluded with some satisfaction that his discovery meant that the Vatican was well able to finance its activities…”

“..It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar, that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task  near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean.”

(realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar’s Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?,”February 14, 2017), [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscars-soros-funding_14.html?m=1]

Sahathevan could have predicted that Francis’s chief adviser later in 2017, again, would be accused of financial corruption as reported by Edward Pentin:

“One of Pope Francis’ chief advisers on Church reform has rejected allegations of financial corruption made in an Italian publication this week, but questions remain over diocesan accounting procedures…Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga… The documents, which the Register has obtained, show general figures denoting gross income for the archdiocese and spending running into millions of dollars, but with no particulars.”

“One source with a detailed knowledge of the issue told the Register the documentation omits $1.3 million that the Honduran government gave the archdiocese to be spent on Church projects.”[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-maradiaga-denies-financial-allegations-but-questions-remain-unansw#.WnVUC3OIYwh]

What financial expert Sahathevan apparently didn’t know was that Parolin and Pell were in a power struggle when he reported the above. Cardinal Pell was suppose to reform the Vatican corruption including the Secretary of State’s finances.

Parolin according to the Catholic Herald in a “series of power struggles” ended the outside audit and Vatican financial reform “even before” Pell was forced to return to Australia on old sex-abuse allegations. (“How Cardinal Parolin won the Vatican civil war,” November 9, 2017)In the Pell power struggle shady and suspicious actions were taken by a employee of Parolin (Archbishop Angelo Becciu) on former Auditor General Libero Milone. The Auditor suspecting that he was being spied on brought in a external contractor who “determined” his computer was “infected with file copying spyware” according to LifeSiteNews.com in its September 28, 2017 article “Former Vatican auditor accused of spying says ‘shady games’ going on in Rome.”

The website The Eye Witness reported on shady and suspicious spying done on Pope Benedict and Pope Francis “before, during and after” the last conclave:

“It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave.  Is such a thing possible?  Here is one of many reports:”

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_30/Nothing-is-sacred-to-US-NSA-snoops-on-Pope-7540/…”

“In another report, from Al-Jazeera we read:
 
“Bergoglio ‘ had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks’ it said.”

“The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: ‘leadership intentions’, ‘threats to financial systems’, ‘foreign policy objectives’ and ‘human rights’, it claimed.”

“Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest.  Still it is curious to say the very least…”

“…But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn’t we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry.” [http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html?m=1]

One reason why the NSA could reasonably have been spying on Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio who would become Pope Francis at that conclave could be that the spy agency was corrupted by the Obama administration.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the pro-gay administration wanted Bergoglio to replace Benedict.

Benedict’s agenda put anti-gay and moral pro-family issues as top priorities while Francis gives lip services to those issues, but sees them as secondary to his agenda which is almost identical to the pro-gay Obama administration and Soros agendas on issues such as the gay agenda, global warming and unrestricted mass immigration (See: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-dark-lord-soros-his-servant-white_27.html?m=1).

Zero Hedge shows that NSA became a servant of the Democrat’s agenda and it’s FISA abuses:

“Donald Trump must veto reauthorized NSA spying powers which passed both the House and the Senate yesterday without a single reform, in light of an explosive four-page memo said to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.” [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-19/snowden-trump-must-veto-reauthorized-nsa-spying-powers-light-fisa-memo]

Another reason is related to the first reason for the spying is that the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are funded by Soros who is pushing unrestricted mass immigration:

“There does indeed seem to be a “hidden Soros Slush Fund” in the Democratic Party’s official platform, as commentator Michelle Malkin recently pointed out… Malkin suggests that Obama’s rival for the White House, John McCain, hasn’t criticized the slush fund proposal because his Reform Institute received $150,000 from the Open Society Institute.” [https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-hidden-soros-slush-fund/]

The final reason for the spying, and the word could needs to be stressed, could be Democrat slush funds and financial improprieties in the Vatican Bank if the following report is true which can’t be verified which brings us back to Sahathevan’s call to Parolin and Francis to “come clean” as was attempted by Benedict:

“The following was reported by Bob Chapman in the International Forecaster blog. Chapman has been around forever and is well respected in many circles. He does not mention his source for the information…”

“On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury.”

“Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals.”

“Big money was found in each of the accounts. The longer the beneficiaries have been in office, the greater the account balances were found to be. They range from a few million USD to more than a billion USD in the case of John Roberts. The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700.” [https://m.facebook.com/notes/jonas-clark/slush-fund-accounts-of-major-us-politicians-identified-and-seized-at-vatican-ban/491500200958/]

Akacatholic.com reported that evidence points to financial blackmail possibly being involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication who appeared to be attempting to uncover “financial improprieties” despite the Chapman report claim that Benedict had a “covert Vatican account” which can’t be verified:

“An article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet is making the rounds alleging that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2012.”

“According to Blondet:

There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church…”

“…It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank.”

“I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards.”

“This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place.”

“Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received.”

“In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal.”

“Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive.”

“It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him.”

“Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate.”

“Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns.” [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]

All Catholics need to know the answers to the following questions asked to President Donald Trump in a open letter about the conclave of Pope Francis and if financial blackmail possibly was involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication and Francis’s election:

“With all of this in mind, and wishing the best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following questions:

– To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis? [6]

–  What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

–  Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?  [7]

–  International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict.  Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this? [8]

–  Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence? [9]

–  What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?

– What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

–   What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory? [10]

We believe that the very existence of these unanswered questions provides sufficient evidence to warrant this request for an investigation.

Should such an investigation reveal that the U.S. government interfered inappropriately into the affairs of the Catholic Church, we further request the release of the results so that Catholics may request appropriate action from those elements of our hierarchy who remain loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church.Please understand that we are not requesting an investigation into the Catholic Church; we are simply asking for an investigation into recent activities of the U.S. Government, of which you are now the chief executive.

Thank you again, and be assured of our most sincere prayers.Respectfully,David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired)
Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant
Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.)
Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren”1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6293
2.http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pope-francis-became-the-leader-of-the-global-left-1482431940
3.http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2198-the-year-of-mercy-begins
4.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/
5. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-response-to-the-pope
6. http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html
7. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi
8. http://www.maurizioblondet.it/ratzinger-non-pote-ne-vendere-ne-comprare/
9. https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/
10. http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2013/03/soros-funded-catholic-groups-behind-african-socialist-as-next-pope.html [https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church. Please pray an Our Father for Liz Yore who with her heroic leadership and kindness to me has inspired much of my writings and this article in this great Church crisis that is the Francis papacy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Vigano, Benedict’s Resignation, the Gay Lobby and the Francis Papacy

On August 27, author and philosopher Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube in “Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity” summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and Pope Francis’s papacy:

If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has “reinstated and promoted” all those who brought about the resignation.

Marshall stated:

“First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering.”

“Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal.”

“Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals.”

“Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity.”

“This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”

“And it seems the powerful cardinals within Vatican City wanted it to happen fast because they don’t want the 300 page dossier released to the public because there is moral scandal in those pages.”

“That binder was left with Pope Francis, but nothing has been done. And what we see is that those who were oppose to Benedict XVI theologically, but also on administration, have been reinvolved, reinstated and promoted.”

On The Sydney Morning Herald verified Marshall’s explanation of why Pope Benedict XVI resigned:

“Pope Benedict XVI resigned after an internal investigation informed him about a web of blackmail, corruption and gay sex in the Vatican, Italian media reports say.”

“Three cardinals were asked by Benedict to verify allegations of financial impropriety, cronyism and corruption exposed in the so-called VatiLeaks affair.”

“On December 17, 2012, they handed the pontiff two red-leather bound volumes, almost 300 pages long, containing “an exact map of the mischief and the bad fish” inside the Holy See, La Repubblica said.”

“‘It was on that day, with those papers on his desk, that Benedict XVI took the decision he had mulled over for so long,’ said the centre-left newspaper.”

“… La Repubblica quoted a man described as “very close” to the authors as saying the information it contained was “all about the breach of the sixth and seven commandments” – which say “thou shalt not commit adultery” and ‘thou shalt not steal.'”

“The cardinals were said to have uncovered an underground gay network, whose members organise sexual meetings in several venues in Rome and Vatican City, leaving them prone to blackmail.”

“The secret report also delves into suspect dealings at the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the Vatican’s bank.”
(The Sydney Morning Herald, “Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation,” February 22, 2013)

On January 26, 2012, the Business Insider verified Marshall’s narrative showing that the Vatican insiders removed Vigano for attempting to clean up those involved with “financial irregularity” who were the gay lobby:

“The show “The Untouchables”, on private television network La 7 Wednesday night showed several letters that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the erstwhile deputy-governor of Vatican City, sent to superiors, including Pope Benedict, in 2011 about the corruption.”

“… As deputy-governor of the Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, Vigano was the No. 2 official in a department responsible for maintaining the city-state’s infrastructure.”

“Soon after his appointment, Vigano discovered corruption, nepotism and cronyism, especially in the awarding of contracts to outside companies at inflated prices, which he sought to remedy.”

“The TV program interviewed a member of the bankers’ committee — whose face was blurred and voice changed to protect his identity — who said Vigano had a reputation as a “ballbreaker” among companies that had contracts with the Vatican, because of his emphasis on transparency and fair competition.”

“… While Vigano turned Vatican City’s budget from deficit to surplus during his tenure through cost-cutting, it made him some enemies, who had unsigned articles criticizing him as inefficient published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale in 2011.”

“On March 22, 2011, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone removed Vigano from his position for reasons identical to those published in an anonymous articles published against him.” [https://www.businessinsider.com/carlo-maria-vigano-vatican-corruption-2012-1]

On June 11, 2013, The Telegraph revealed that even Francis verified Marshall’s report that there was a gay lobby tied to “financial irregularity”:

“The Pontiff supposedly made the claim during an audience last Thursday at the Vatican with a group of Latin American priests and nuns.”

“‘Yes, it is difficult,’ he reportedly said. ‘In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption, also there is, it is true … they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there … we will have to see what we can do.'”

“… In his audience, Pope Francis allegedly promised to reform the Vatican but said it would be ‘difficult’ and that he could not carry out the reforms himself because he was ‘disorganised’. He reportedly said he would be relying on the commission of eight cardinals he appointed in April to organise reform of the Curia, which is due to meet in October.”  [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10113779/Gay-lobby-in-the-Vatican-says-Pope-Francis.html]

Unfortunately, what The Telegraph didn’t reveal or know is that Francis had been surrounded by a gay lobby as a cardinal in Argentina and surrounded himself with the gay lobby in the Vatican and in his “commission of eight [later nine] cardinals… to organise reform of the Curia” which is called the C9.

The Telegraph didn’t know as Marshall put it that Francis “reinvolved, reinstated and promoted” the Vatican gay lobby:

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted “Unmasking Bergoglio”:

“Bergoglio always had the “gay agenda” among his plans… It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests.”

“… Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate… of the Argentine Episcopal Conference… “[had a] “star”… of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian… of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone].”

“Until… in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man… Pope Benedict XVI… immediately removed [him from his]… position [as bishop].”

“The reaction of Bergoglio”

“By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness… And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office.”

“… Bergoglio… issued a statement in which he expressed his ‘gratitude’ to the former bishop [Maccarone].”

“… The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say… the [sex] video corresponded to “the private life of Bishop Maccarone.”

Jimmy Burns in his book “Francis, Pope of Good Promise” after referencing that “Maccarone resigned” because of the “videotape showing the bishop having ‘intimate relations'” wrote:

“Bergoglio’s own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone’s political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop’s defense claiming he had been set up.”

“… Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]… ‘This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt… It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'” (Pages 231-232)

Francis’s Vatican inner circle and C9 was largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:

Business Standard, September 19, 2017:

Francis’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for “complicity in alleged cover-up” of paedophile priest.

The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:

“Pope’s [Francis’s] ‘eyes and ears’ in Vatican bank [allegedly] ‘had string of homosexual affairs’… [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope”

LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:

Francis’s closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda “accused of ‘abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'”

National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:

Francis’s close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal “Errazuriz [and his]… successor… [Cardinal] Ezzati” “Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups” of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.

The Remnant, September 12, 2017:

Francis’s confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:

“Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco ‘Positive Realities of Homosexuals’… [Coccopalmerio’s Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy.”

New York Times, April 30, 2018:

“Cardinal George Pell, the [Francis] Vatican’s third-highest-ranking official, will stand trail… of sex abuse.”

BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:

Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod “Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence.”

The Week, January 3, 2017:

“Pope Francis and his cardinal allies… known to interfere…  on abuse cases… Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli… Francis returned him to the priestly state.”

Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:

Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.

Chiesa, December 16, 2016:

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.”

Caucus99percent.com, 02/02/2018:

“Pope Francis’ continuous aiding and abetting of sexual predators and his officials who protect them.”

“Although he was personally informed of the accusations against them, Pope Francis protected these sexual predators: Fr. Mauro Inzoli (the pope later defrocked Inzoli but he is still a free man) Luis Fernando Figari, Archbishop Anthony Apuron, Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, Fr. Don Corradi and Archbishop Josef Wesolowski.”

“After Pope Francis did nothing to stop Corradi, the priest and four others were arrested in November 2016 and charged with raping and molesting at least 22 children. More reports poured in and ‘it’s now thought that as many as 60 children fell victim to abuse.’”

“Wesolowski was put under Vatican house arrest 14 months after the pope judged him to be guilty only after ‘there was a serious risk that [he] would be arrested on Italian territory at the request of the Dominican Republic authorities and then extradited,’ as reported by Corriere della Sera. The archbishop was found with more than 100,000 computer files of child pornography, a “key ingredient” in sex trafficking. Wesolowski continued to possess child pornography even under Vatican house arrest.”

“Kamil Jarzembowski, a former student at the Vatican’s preseminary, wrote a letter about the sexual abuse of minors in the school and handed it directly to Pope Francis. The pope did nothing to stop it.”

“Pope Francis had ordered an investigation of Honduran Bishop Juan José Pineda by an Argentine bishop who was “shocked” by “accounts of sexual abuse perpetrated against priests and seminarians …. So far the only action that has been taken has been to send Bishop Pineda to stay with Jesuits in Madrid on a short retreat,” wrote veteran Vatican reporter Edward Pentin.”

“Pope Francis promoted Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department that judges cases of clergy sexual abuse. While Ladaria held the second highest position in the CDF, he found Fr. Gianni Trotta guilty of sexually abusing minors in 2012 but failed to inform the Italian authorities. Trotta, already convicted of sexual violence against an 11-year-old and sentenced to eight years in prison by a civil court, is now standing trial for nine other alleged cases of sex abuse against boys that occurred in 2014. Ladaria, himself, will stand trial in April, accused by French authorities of “complicity in the alleged cover-up” of Fr. Bernard Preynat.”

“A month after his election, the pope appointed a Council of Cardinals to help him govern the Church. Three of the eight initial members had protected pedophile priests: George Pell, Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga who he named as head of the council.”

Moreover, The Telegraph didn’t know that the head of Francis’s C9 was involved in “financial irregularity” and that as Marshall outlined it “something funny” went on with the Vatican Bank and apparently with the gay lobby that was the Obama administration.

Obama’s NSA spied on Benedict and Francis “before, during and after the Conclave” according to the website Eye Witness and the head of Francis’s C9 called the “Vice Pope” was involved in “financial irregularity”:

Ganesh Sahathevan is a Fellow at the (American Center for Democracy) ACD’s Economic Warfare Institute.

The ACD/EWI team specializes in economic warfare, purposeful interference in civilian infrastructure, including the financial markets, transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. ACD fellow Sahathevan said Pope Francis’s closest collaborator has “an illegal slush fund financed by George Soro”:

“Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, the so-called “Vice Pope” given his close association with Pope Francis, has refused to answer questions concerning his work with a number of NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros.Cardinal Oscar has also refused to answer queries concerning any funding he, or entities associated with him, may have received from Soros…”

“… It does appear as if the “Vice Pope” is on some campaign to change the Vatican from within, and that he is doing so with what amounts to an illegal slush fund financed by George Soros.” (realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “‘Vice Pope’ Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the ‘Catholic Spring’ movement ,”February 9, 2017),[https://acdemocracy.org/ourteam/], [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscar-rodriguez.html?m=1]

Financial expert Sahathevan, also, reported that the most powerful official in Francis’s Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, apparently knew that funds not appearing on official balance sheets” could be illegal and he may be covering up illegal slush funds and asked Francis & Parolin to “come clean”:”As reported yesterday”

“Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the “Catholic Spring ” movement

“In the above story it was concluded that Oscar appears to be in charge of a slush fund financed by George Soros, which is intended to be used for purposes Oscar sees fit, which may include financing of a ‘Catholic Spring.'”

“While that story was the result of an independent investigation by this writer it does seem that the Vatican’s Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, Cardinal George Pell, may have uncovered the existence of similar financial structures, even if he did not quite understand what it is he had uncovered.”

In late 2014 Pell announced that he had ‘discovered that … some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts (of departments within the Vatican ) and did not appear on the Vatican’s balance sheet.’

“What was even more interesting than that revelation was the reaction of the Vatican’s Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J, presumably acting under instructions from the  Vatican;s Secretary Of State  Cardinal Pietro Parolin [another C9 cardinal]:”

‘It should be observed that Cardinal Pell has not referred to illegal, illicit or poorly administered funds, but rather funds that do not appear on the official balance sheets of the Holy See or of Vatican City State, and which have become known to the Secretariat for the Economy during the current process of examination and revision of Vatican administration…'”

“This statement was curious for Pell did not actually say that the accounts were ‘illegal.’ If anything Pell seemed not to understand that financial entities of any sort often have secret reserves, In fact, Pell concluded with some satisfaction that his discovery meant that the Vatican was well able to finance its activities…”

“..It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar, that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task  near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean.”

(realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, “Vice Pope” Cardinal Oscar’s Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?,”February 14, 2017), [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscars-soros-funding_14.html?m=1]

Sahathevan could have predicted that Francis’s chief adviser later in 2017, again, would be accused of financial corruption as reported by Edward Pentin:

“One of Pope Francis’ chief advisers on Church reform has rejected allegations of financial corruption made in an Italian publication this week, but questions remain over diocesan accounting procedures…Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga… The documents, which the Register has obtained, show general figures denoting gross income for the archdiocese and spending running into millions of dollars, but with no particulars.”

“One source with a detailed knowledge of the issue told the Register the documentation omits $1.3 million that the Honduran government gave the archdiocese to be spent on Church projects.”[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-maradiaga-denies-financial-allegations-but-questions-remain-unansw#.WnVUC3OIYwh]

What financial expert Sahathevan apparently didn’t know was that Parolin and Pell were in a power struggle when he reported the above. Cardinal Pell was suppose to reform the Vatican corruption including the Secretary of State’s finances.

Parolin according to the Catholic Herald in a “series of power struggles” ended the outside audit and Vatican financial reform “even before” Pell was forced to return to Australia on old sex-abuse allegations. (“How Cardinal Parolin won the Vatican civil war,” November 9, 2017)In the Pell power struggle shady and suspicious actions were taken by a employee of Parolin (Archbishop Angelo Becciu) on former Auditor General Libero Milone. The Auditor suspecting that he was being spied on brought in a external contractor who “determined” his computer was “infected with file copying spyware” according to LifeSiteNews.com in its September 28, 2017 article “Former Vatican auditor accused of spying says ‘shady games’ going on in Rome.”

The website The Eye Witness reported on shady and suspicious spying done on Pope Benedict and Pope Francis “before, during and after” the last conclave:

“It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave.  Is such a thing possible?  Here is one of many reports:”

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_30/Nothing-is-sacred-to-US-NSA-snoops-on-Pope-7540/…”

“In another report, from Al-Jazeera we read:
 
“Bergoglio ‘ had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks’ it said.”

“The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: ‘leadership intentions’, ‘threats to financial systems’, ‘foreign policy objectives’ and ‘human rights’, it claimed.”

“Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest.  Still it is curious to say the very least…”

“…But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn’t we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry.” [http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html?m=1]

One reason why the NSA could reasonably have been spying on Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio who would become Pope Francis at that conclave could be that the spy agency was corrupted by the Obama administration.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the pro-gay administration wanted Bergoglio to replace Benedict.

Benedict’s agenda put anti-gay and moral pro-family issues as top priorities while Francis gives lip services to those issues, but sees them as secondary to his agenda which is almost identical to the pro-gay Obama administration and Soros agendas on issues such as the gay agenda, global warming and unrestricted mass immigration (See: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-dark-lord-soros-his-servant-white_27.html?m=1).

Zero Hedge shows that NSA became a servant of the Democrat’s agenda and it’s FISA abuses:

“Donald Trump must veto reauthorized NSA spying powers which passed both the House and the Senate yesterday without a single reform, in light of an explosive four-page memo said to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.” [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-19/snowden-trump-must-veto-reauthorized-nsa-spying-powers-light-fisa-memo]

Another reason is related to the first reason for the spying is that the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are funded by Soros who is pushing unrestricted mass immigration:

“There does indeed seem to be a “hidden Soros Slush Fund” in the Democratic Party’s official platform, as commentator Michelle Malkin recently pointed out… Malkin suggests that Obama’s rival for the White House, John McCain, hasn’t criticized the slush fund proposal because his Reform Institute received $150,000 from the Open Society Institute.” [https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-hidden-soros-slush-fund/]

The final reason for the spying, and the word could needs to be stressed, could be Democrat slush funds and financial improprieties in the Vatican Bank if the following report is true which can’t be verified which brings us back to Sahathevan’s call to Parolin and Francis to “come clean” as was attempted by Benedict:

“The following was reported by Bob Chapman in the International Forecaster blog. Chapman has been around forever and is well respected in many circles. He does not mention his source for the information…”

“On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury.”

“Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals.”

“Big money was found in each of the accounts. The longer the beneficiaries have been in office, the greater the account balances were found to be. They range from a few million USD to more than a billion USD in the case of John Roberts. The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700.” [https://m.facebook.com/notes/jonas-clark/slush-fund-accounts-of-major-us-politicians-identified-and-seized-at-vatican-ban/491500200958/]

Akacatholic.com reported that evidence points to financial blackmail possibly being involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication who appeared to be attempting to uncover “financial improprieties” despite the Chapman report claim that Benedict had a “covert Vatican account” which can’t be verified:

“An article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet is making the rounds alleging that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2012.”

“According to Blondet:

There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church…”

“…It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank.”

“I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards.”

“This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place.”

“Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received.”

“In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal.”

“Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive.”

“It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him.”

“Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate.”

“Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns.” [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]

All Catholics need to know the answers to the following questions asked to President Donald Trump in a open letter about the conclave of Pope Francis and if financial blackmail possibly was involved in the Pope Benedict XVI abdication and Francis’s election:

“With all of this in mind, and wishing the best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following questions:

– To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis? [6]

–  What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

–  Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?  [7]

–  International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict.  Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this? [8]

–  Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence? [9]

–  What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?

– What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

–   What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory? [10]

We believe that the very existence of these unanswered questions provides sufficient evidence to warrant this request for an investigation.

Should such an investigation reveal that the U.S. government interfered inappropriately into the affairs of the Catholic Church, we further request the release of the results so that Catholics may request appropriate action from those elements of our hierarchy who remain loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church.Please understand that we are not requesting an investigation into the Catholic Church; we are simply asking for an investigation into recent activities of the U.S. Government, of which you are now the chief executive.

Thank you again, and be assured of our most sincere prayers.Respectfully,David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired)
Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant
Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.)
Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren”1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6293
2.http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pope-francis-became-the-leader-of-the-global-left-1482431940
3.http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2198-the-year-of-mercy-begins
4.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/
5. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-response-to-the-pope
6. http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html
7. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi
8. http://www.maurizioblondet.it/ratzinger-non-pote-ne-vendere-ne-comprare/
9. https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/
10. http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2013/03/soros-funded-catholic-groups-behind-african-socialist-as-next-pope.html [https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church. Please pray an Our Father for Liz Yore who with her heroic leadership and kindness to me has inspired much of my writings and this article in this great Church crisis that is the Francis papacy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

Francis the Backslider. He Didn’t Just Cover Up For McCarrick

Ricca

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

“I have read it, and I will not say a word. You [journalists] read it, and make up your own minds. When a bit of time has gone by and you have drawn you conclusions, maybe then I will speak.”

This is how Pope Francis responded – on the evening of August 26, on the flight back from Dublin – to those who asked him about the indictment leveled against him that same morning by the former nuncio to the United States, Carlo Maria Viganò.

A very elusive reply. On a par with other previous reactions of his, every time he has seen himself attacked. As in the case of the “dubia” on his doctrinal correctness raised in 2016 by four authoritative cardinals, whom he never wanted to receive or to dignify with a clarification.

This time, however, the object of the accusation is not a doctrinal controversy “ad intra,” with little impact on secular public opinion, but a question of sex, or rather of homosexuality practiced for decades, with dozens of partners, by an American churchman of the highest rank, who went on to become archbishop of Washington and a cardinal, Theodore McCarrick.

In essence, Viganò accuses Pope Francis of having been informed by him about McCarrick’s misconduct as early as June 23 of 2013, but of having done nothing as a result, or rather of having kept the reprobate close to him as his chief adviser in the appointments that are reshaping the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, promoting his proteges. Only this year, following charges that he also abused a minor, did the pope decide to sanction McCarrick and strip him of the cardinalate.

The accusation is of unprecedented gravity and is difficult to contest in its substance, in part because of the key roles that Viganò once occupied in the curia and in diplomacy. But sure enough, in this case as well Pope Francis has chosen not to react. He has left the task of judging  to media professionals. Sure that many will speak out in his defense, as has already happened with the “dubia,” where in effect the subsequent battle in fact played out in his favor.

But that victory will smile on him again remains to be seen.

The McCarrick case is not the only one of its kind that has gotten Jorge Mario Bergoglio into trouble. There is another one that looks like its exact twin. It concerns Monsignor Battista Ricca (in the photo), director of the Casa Santa Marta selected by Francis as his residence, whom he promoted on June 15, 2013, at the beginning of his pontificate, as prelate of the IOR, meaning the pope’s contact at the Vatican “bank,” with the right to attend all of the board meetings and to access all of the documentation.

During the second half of that month of June, 2013, the ambassadors from all over the world had gathered in Rome. And it was on that occasion that Viganò, nuncio in Washington at the time, met with Francis and told him about McCarrick’s misconduct.

But even the appointment of Ricca as prelate of the IOR, which had taken place a few days before, had created quite a bit of distress among a good number of the nuncios, who had known him as a diplomatic adviser in Algeria, Colombia, Switzerland, and then Uruguay, everywhere displaying conduct that was anything but chaste, especially at his last destination.

In Montevideo, between 1999 and 2001, Ricca cohabited with his lover, former Swiss army captain Patrick Haari, who had followed him there from Bern. And he also frequented cruising spots with young men, getting beaten up one time and another getting stuck in an elevator at the nunciature with an eighteen-year-old already known to the Uruguayan police.

Ricca ended up being removed from diplomatic service in the field and recalled to Rome, where miraculously his career became a success all over again, turning him into a diplomatic adviser of the first class within the structure of the secretariat of state, and above all director of the three Vatican residences for cardinals and bishops visiting Rome, including that of Santa Marta, with the opportunity to establish excellent relationships, including friendships, with churchmen of half the world, including Bergoglio, who as soon as he was elected pope admitted him into his most intimate circle, where he still remains today.

So then, among the nuncios gathered in Rome during that month of June, 2013, there were also those who knew about Ricca’s scandalous background and thought that Francis was not aware of it, considering his promotion of this character, a few days before, to nothing less than prelate of the IOR.

So there were those who, during those days, wanted to put Francis on guard by informing him about Ricca’s record.

Not only that. Among the numerous witnesses of Ricca’s scandalous conduct in Montevideo were some of the Uruguayan bishops, one of whom, after Ricca was appointed prelate of the IOR, felt it his duty to him write an anguished letter in which he asked him, “for the love of the pope and of the Church,” to resign.

And in effect Francis wanted to see clear documentation of Ricca’s record while he was at the nunciature of Montevideo. He had it sent to Rome through his own personal channels, without going through the secretariat of state.

In the meantime, in L’Espresso, a very detailed article on Ricca had come out. Who did not react at all publicly, while in private he dismissed as “gossip” all those facts reported against him, and made sure to make it known that the pope, with whom he had met, also considered it “gossip” devoid of any foundation.

Interviewed in July of 2013 by the Uruguayan and Argentine press about the prelate’s fate, the nuncio to Montevideo at the time, Guido Anselmo Pecorari, limited himself to this laconic statement: “I maintain that the question is in the hands of the Holy See. And surely the Holy Father, in his wisdom, will know what to do.”

The fact is that at the end of the month of July, during the press conference on the flight back to Rome from Rio de Janeiro, where he had gone for world youth day, Pope Francis was in effect questioned by a Brazilian journalist on the Ricca case and the “gay lobby.” And this was his actual reply, transcribed as such in the official bulletin of the Holy See:

“About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response. But I wish to add something else: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for ‘sins from youth’, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, ‘I have sinned in this’, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with ‘gay’ on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: ‘no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society’. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question.”

Three observations about what Pope Francis said here:

1. In maintaining that he had found nothing worthy of blame in the “investigatio” preceding Ricca’s appointment as prelate of the IOR, Francis confirmed that the personal dossier on him that was kept at the secretariat of state had been carefully scrubbed of his scandalous past. But in the preceding weeks Francis also had available to him the accusatory documentation kept at the nunciature of Montevideo, incontrovertible documentation, seeing that on the basis of it the secretariat of state had withdrawn Ricca from diplomatic service in the field. And yet he ignored it.

2. Francis applied to Ricca the typology of those who have committed “sins of youth” and then have repented. But this is never the image of himself that Ricca has presented, rather that of one who has always rejected as baseless “gossip” the accusations against his conduct.

3. And it was in reference to none other than Ricca that Francis pronounced the famous phrase that has become the trademark of his pontificate: “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” With this phrase, Bergoglio reversed completely to his favor in world public opinion an affair that otherwise could have seriously undermined his credibility.

This is the feat that Pope Francis is again attempting today, after the McCarrick affair has been laid bare by ex-nuncio Viganò.

This time as well Bergoglio has refrained from judging. He has put the ball back in the media’s court. Where pedophilia is not admitted, but homosexuality is. No matter if it is committed by churchmen who in practicing it completely violate the commitment of chastity that they took on publicly with the sacrament of orders.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that I welcomed and fully endorsed the courageous letter published by Archbishop Vigano in which he indicted the regime of Francis the Merciful for promoting the shameful and disgraced Cardinal McCormick to positions of prominence and importance in his pontificate giving him power in proposing Cardinals Cupich and Tobin for appointment to their Sees.
– Bishop Rene Henry Gracida
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Featured Image
Lisa BourneLisa Bourne

NEWS,

 

EXCLUSIVE: Viganó doubles down: McCarrick was restricted under Benedict, but ‘he didn’t obey’

SIGN THE PLEDGE: Support and pray for Archbishop Viganò. Sign the petition here.

 

August 31, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick continued making public appearances after Pope Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions upon him because “he didn’t obey” the Holy Father, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview.

The former papal nuncio to the U.S. responded to efforts in the media to question his testimony that Pope Francis covered-up for McCarrick while knowing of his reputation for sexual abuse of seminarians and priests. Viganó reiterated in the interview that he had spoken with McCarrick about the restrictions Benedict had put upon him, but that as nuncio he did not have authority to enforce those restrictions.

“I was not in the position of enforcing,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews, “especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict.”

Viganó said Pope Benedict made McCarrick’s sanctions private, perhaps “due to the fact that he (McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey.”

But, McCarrick, “certainly he didn’t obey,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews.

Various media outlets have published reports attempting to cast into doubt Viganó and his detailed testimony released August 25 implicating Pope Francis and other top prelates in covering up for McCarrick despite knowing he was a serial sexual abuser of seminarians and priests.

One of the elements of Viganó’s testimony being questioned is whether Benedict, in fact,  had put restrictions on McCarrick after learning about the allegations against the former Washington D.C. archbishop.

An August 29 video produced by the US Bishops’ Catholic News Service (CNS) casts uncertainty on whether Benedict had placed sanctions on McCarrick sometime between 2009 and 2010, as Viganó had said in his testimony.

The video shows clips of McCarrick testifying before Congress in March 2011 on behalf of the USCCB, a January 2012 ad limina visit at the Vatican during which McCarrick concelebrated Mass and met twice with Benedict, and another May 2012 event sponsored by the Pontifical Mission Societies honoring McCarrick at which Viganó had spoken.

Viganó told LifeSiteNews he had already spoken to McCarrick at the time of the latter video clip, repeating the measures that had been taken to him by Pope Benedict, which his predecessor the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi had done as well.

Viganó, nuncio from October 2011 to April 2016, explained he was just beginning his role as the Pope’s representative at the time when each of the events in the various video clips edited together by CNS took place, and just learning the culture and hierarchy of his new assignment in the U.S.

Aside from just beginning in his mission, he said, the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior. Such an enforcement would belong to someone in the position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and McCarrick successor, said Viganó.

Another clip from the CNS video showing McCarrick attending an ad limina visit in Rome and meeting Pope Benedict, seems to suggest that the cardinal had no sanctions placed on him. Viganó explained that once again, McCarrick was not obeying the restrictions placed on him and that it was inconceivable for Benedict to take the issue up with the cardinal right then and there with all the other bishops present.

“Can you imagine Pope Benedict, as mild a character as he was, saying, ‘What are you doing here?’ in front of the other bishops,” Viganó said.

Another clip from the CNS video showing Viganó attending the Pontifical Mission Societies gala along with McCarrick seems to suggest that McCarrick had no sanctions and that Viganó was not anxious in the cardinal’s presence. Viganó told LifeSiteNews that he could neither forego attending the event, nor did he have an opportunity during the event to remind the cardinal of the sanctions.

“I could not say, “What are you doing here?” he said. “Can you imagine? Nobody knows (about the sanctions), it was a private meeting (when they were levied by Benedict). So this video didn’t prove anything.”

Proof of sanctions levied against McCarrick during Benedict’s papacy is not confined to Viganó’s testimony.

A June 2014 Washington Post piece headlined, “Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84, and working harder than ever,” highlighted just how ubiquitous McCarrick was after Francis was elected. The report confirmed he’d been sidelined by Benedict, only to re-emerge under Francis.

“McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI,” the Post piece states. “But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever.”

The article also includes the previously reported exchange between Francis and McCarrick in which Francis was reported to have joked that the devil wasn’t ready for McCarrick in hell.

The Washington Post story uses the exchange as an introduction to “the improbable renaissance that McCarrick (was) enjoying” under Francis. It says:

“I guess the Lord isn’t done with me yet,” he told the pope.

“Or the devil doesn’t have your accommodations ready!” Francis shot back with a laugh.

McCarrick loves to tell that story, because he loves to tell good stories and because he has a sense of humor as keen as the pope’s. But the exchange also says a lot about the improbable renaissance that McCarrick is enjoying as he prepares to celebrate his 84th birthday in July (2014).

Detailing a handful of McCarrick’s international visits after Francis’s March 2013 election, the Washington Post article stated:

“Sometimes McCarrick’s travels abroad are at the behest of the Vatican, sometimes on behalf of Catholic Relief Services. Occasionally the U.S. State Department asks him to make a trip.”

“But Francis, who has put the Vatican back on the geopolitical stage, knows that when he needs a savvy back channel operator he can turn to McCarrick, as he did for the Armenia trip,” it added.

McCarrick, named a cardinal in 2001, retired in 2006, the Post article recounted, “and was sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed.”

Later in the piece, McCarrick lauds Benedict, and infers that if he’d been asked, he would have done what Benedict wanted “to bring the church back to where he thought it should be”:

“Pope Benedict is a wonderful man, and was a good friend of mine before he became pope,” McCarrick said. “But he was anxious to bring the church back to where he thought it should be, and I guess I wasn’t one of those who he thought would help him on that. I would have obviously done what he asked.”

Editor’s note: John-Henry Westen and Pete Baklinski contributed to this report. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MAIKE HICKSON

Featured Image

Vatican Source: Pope dismissed Cdl. Müller for following Church rules on abuse cases

August 29, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A highly placed Vatican source told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with his much-experienced three CDF priests, were dismissed by Pope Francis because they all had tried to follow loyally the Church’s standing rules concerning abusive clergymen. In one specific case, Müller opposed the Pope’s wanting to re-instate Don Mauro Inzoli, an unmistakably cruel abuser of many boys; but the Pope would not listen to Müller. In another case, the Pope decided not to give a Vatican apartment to one of Müller’s own secretaries, but to the now-infamous Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, in spite of the fact that someone had warned the Pope about Capozzi’s grave problems. The Vatican source also said that it was known to several people in the Vatican that some restrictions were put on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and he thereby confirms Viganò’s own claim.

When LifeSiteNews reached out to this very trustworthy and well-informed Vatican source, asking him about the then-breaking Viganò story and the archbishop’s allegations that Pope Francis knew of McCarrick’s habitual abuse, he answered: “Cardinal Müller [as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)] had always decidedly and most sharply followed up on these abuse cases, and that is why he was dismissed, just as his three good collaborators [the three CDF priests] were also dismissed.”

In my follow-up with this source, he again explained that Cardinal Müller, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had always been loyally following the Church’s laws with regard to abuse cases, for the handling of which the CDF is responsible. According to the source, Müller also “resisted” Pope Francis in 2014 when he wanted to re-instate the serial molester of boys, the Italian priest Don Inzoli, allowing him to perform some functions of the priesthood. In opposition to Müller, “the Pope decided differently,” the source continued. That is to say, Pope Francis did not follow Cardinal Müller’s advice.

In 2012, Inzoli had been found guilty by an ecclesiastical court of abusing boys as young as 12 even in the confessional. He was then suspended a divinis, barring him from all priestly functions. The historian Henry Sire says in his book The Dictator Pope that in 2014, the Pope “followed an appeal by Inzoli’s friends in the Curia, Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Vito Pinto” and he reduced the priest’s penalty to a “lifetime of prayer.” Inzoli, however, was then also ordered “to stay away from children, [while] giving him permission to celebrate Mass privately.” In 2015, however, as Michael Dougherty reported, Inzoli was already participating again at a conference on the family in Lombardy, Italy. This scandalous case only came to public because an Italian court tried and sentenced Inzoli to four years and nine months in prison, a grave public fact that the Vatican could not responsibly ignore. Inzoli was found guilty, in 2016, of more than “a hundred episodes,” explains Henry Sire. In response to this shocking news, “the Vatican initiated a new canonical trial.”

As Dougherty also commented, it is obvious that the Pope bypassed the CDF, and with it Cardinal Müller, when dealing with abuse cases: “In any case, on abuse, the justice dealt out by Müller’s CDF seems to be too harsh for the pope and his allies. And so, the pope hopes to render the CDF irrelevant in these cases.”

It is interesting to note that Cardinal Müller himself was dismissed by Pope Francis without any advance notice at the end of June 2017, only one month after the cardinal had for the first time publicly criticized the Pope. In a 25 May interview with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, he had confirmed publicly an earlier report which first was published by Marco Tosatti, according to which the Pope dismissed three of Müller’s best CDF priests, and this again without any prior notice or explanation. “And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave,” are the Pope’s explicit words as reported by Tosatti.

Müller himself commented on 25 May upon this sudden dismissal of some of his best collaborators with the words: “This is true that I am in favor of a better treatment of our officials in the Holy See, because we cannot only speak about the social doctrine and we must also respect it, and the Pope himself said we (have) some old behaviors of the courts and I am absolutely against this treatment.” The German cardinal added that “we can dismiss only people if they make a mistake and the criteria for our collaborators in our Congregation must be the orthodoxy and the integrity of moral and priestly life and the competence in the matter and other ‘criterias’, must speak Italian or we need people of different languages and cultures.”

It was the first time that Cardinal Müller publicly rebuked the Pope, and it was not about himself, but about the sudden dismissal of three of his best collaborator-priests at the CDF.

Henry Sire comments in his book on this event, as follows:

It was rumored that Francis intended to revert competence for sex abuse cases from Cardinal Müller at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Rota and Congregation for Clergy. Instead, Francis merely changed personnel. He summarily removed two Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith staffers in charge of handling sex abuse cases (declining to give any reasons to Cardinal Müller) and then dismissed  Müller himself as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 2017.

Quoting Associated Press’ Nicole Winfield, Sire shows that Inzoli was not the only case where Pope Francis showed mercy toward grave offenders:

Winfield wrote that “two canon lawyers and a church official” told her the pope’s emphasis on “mercy” had created an environment in which “several” priests under canonical sanctions imposed by the CDF had appealed successfully to Francis for clemency through powerful curial connections. The unnamed official noted that such appeals had rarely been successful with Benedict XVI, who had removed over 800 priests from ministry.

The above-mentioned well-placed source in the Vatican also confirmed that there were several curial members in high-ranking places who knew about the restrictions placed on McCarrick under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. So, if they knew, Pope Francis himself also knew.

Lastly, let us consider a story that came to LifeSiteNews from another well-informed source in Rome. This source wrote to LifeSiteNews a few days ago as follows:

Cardinal Müller tried to get an apartment for one  of his secretaries at the Palazzo del Sant’Ufficio where the Congregation for the Faith is also located. There was an appartment free, and the cardinal put in a request for his secretary. But then there came from the guest house Santa Marta, from the pontifex, a note personally informing Cardinal Müller that this apartment is not available for his secretary because Cardinal Coccopalmerio needed it for his secretary Luigi Capozzi. And that is how it happened.

As the source candidly continues, “that was the same apartment which – in the summer of 2017, and after complaints from neighbours – was raided by the police, in order to end a homo party with large amounts of cocaine, which Capozzi himself – at the Palazzo del Sant’Ufficio – had organized for his homosexual friends.”

This source thus tells us that it was Pope Francis himself who made sure that a homosexual secretary of his friend Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio would obtain a privileged apartment in the Vatican. As LifeSiteNews had reported at the time, it was this same Cardinal Coccopalmerio who, in 2014, had spoken about the “positive elements” in homosexual relationships.

As our other well-placed source in the Vatican assures us, “Pope Francis had been informed by someone about Luigi Capozzi’s problems, but he gave him anyway the apartment.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Circumstantial Catholicism
AUG 30

CIRCUMSTANTIAL CATHOLICISM

On August 30, 2007 I answered a basic but important question: who has the authority to interpret Scripture and establish doctrine? I was received into the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Everything I learned from the Bible and history pointed to Apostolic Authority as Jesus’ intended continuation of His authority and mission. I had concluded that the Church was and is the fullness of the teachings of Jesus. It was and is the Church he founded.

In the years prior to that, I was an Evangelical Protestant who became well-acquainted with the theology surrounding the “fallen nature of Man.” I saw it often played out in scandals, both big and small, involving tele-evangelists or local pastors or church staff or ministry leaders as they were caught in a variety of compromising situations. I was grieved but stopped being surprised early on.

Later it became almost predictable when I saw clergy and ministry leaders succumb to a kind of “exceptionalism,” believing that they were exempt from the teachings they expected everyone else to follow. Their giftedness in ministry led them to conclude that they were special and deserved their secret self-indulgences as a kind of reward for their hard work. Or, sadly, they believed God would not allow their secret sins to go public because of the great ministries they had built for Him. Some of these leaders were enabled by their followers – some willfully, some naively or ignorantly. But they ended the same way.

With each scandal I lamented our fallenness. I prayed for those involved to find healing, just as I pray for healing with my own sinfulness. Each scandal, I determined, was simply our sinfulness colliding with the righteousness He called us to – sometimes in the most terrible ways.

I also reasoned that the Bible was one story after another of God using sinful people to accomplish His work. After Adam and Eve’s indiscretion, there was no other plan. In the midst of it all, I never thought that somehow God or Jesus or His teachings were the problem. Our Human Condition and its inherent weaknesses didn’t change the Truth of God. Terrible behavior didn’t mean we as Christians believed lies – even if some of us were living lies.

In many ways, what I believed as an Evangelical Protestant, set me up perfectly as a Catholic. I knew all about the apostle Peter, who proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God in one moment and in another denied Him three times. Peter’s later denial did not negate the truth of Peter’s affirmation of faith. Jesus was no less the Son of God because Peter had failed to follow Him in the darkest hours of His Passion. So, for me, the Roman Catholic Church was no less the full embodiment of Christ’s truth though its leaders often failed to follow Him.

When I was received into the Catholic Church, I determined that I would not be a Circumstantial Catholic. I would not allow heinous behavior, misguided opinions, a misapplication of liturgy, bad music, or the worst examples of the fallenness of Man within the Church to put me off. I clung to the truth of Christ, as delivered to His Church, regardless of the bad witness the members of the Church might sometimes give of that truth. Circumstances be damned.

That’s why, in spite of these sickening scandals, I remain Catholic.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Friends in Christ the King:This is truly outrageous!  Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, has joined the effort to “shoot the messenger” — Archbishop Vigano — after he made credible accusations of massive sexual abuse and cover-ups against Catholic prelates.

That the president of a tiny university in South Florida would take it upon himself to dismiss credible charges of sexual abuse leveled, not by some anti-Catholic hack, but by a Vatican nuncio — taken seriously by everyone from EWTN to Fox News to even the New York Times– is as arrogant as it is dangerous.

What about the victims? Why is AMU not calling for a full investigation to make absolutely certain that Vigano is not telling the truth and to clear Francis’s name? Why are they trying to cover this up by shooting the messenger?

Until the President of Ave Maria retracts his statement and publicly apologizes to both Cardinal Burke (also attacked in this hit piece) and Archbishop Vigano, we who have supported Ave Maria enthusiastically in the past will cease to endorse AMU as a Catholic option for higher learning, similar to Christendom College, Franciscan University, Thomas Aquinas College, Wyoming Catholic, etc. 

Zero tolerance, President Towey. Remember? Either apologize or resign!

Please help us put a stop to this insanity now. Share this article with friends, family andN social media.

In Christo Rege,
Michael J. Matt

I share Michael Matt’s outrage at   President James Towey’s attack on Nuncio Vigano’s denunciation of the corruption of the regime of Francis the Mercyfull.  I have known James Towey ever since he was a student at Florida State University in Tallahassee back in the 1970’s.  His selfless work in India with Saint Theresa of Calcutta stands now in sharp contrast with his support of the corrupt regime of Francis the Merciful.  By his statement of support of Francis the Merciful he has lost the support of all who regard this papacy as illicit and immoral. – Bishop Rene H. Gracida 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Letter #41, 2018: Valli’s tale

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

“If I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”—Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, on why he fought financial corruption inside the Vatican over many years, making many enemies

=============================

A Story about How Archbishop Viganò’s “Testimony” Came to Be

The text below was published yesterday, in Italian, by Italian Catholic journalist Aldo Maria Valli on his blog (link).

Valli tells us that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, came to visit him twice this summer before publishing his 11-page report on Church cover-ups of sexual abuse.

Valli reports near the end of his story that Viganò, meeting with him at his home in Rome, told him he had “already purchased an airplane ticket” to leave Italy, and cannot tell Valli where will be going.

“I am not to look for him,” Valli writes. “His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.”

And, as American Catholic writer Steve Skojec, who has published an English translation of Valli’s story on his onePeterfive website, writes (link), in a video interview on EWTN, Catholic journalist Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register confirms that Viganò may fear for his safety, that his life may even be in danger. (link)

“A former apostolic nuncio, widely respected for his professionalism and decency, forced to go into hiding at age 78 for simply telling the truth about his fellow apostolic successors,” Skojec observes.

Then he adds: “There is perhaps more wisdom in this than there appears to be at first glance. Viganò’s colleague, Monsignor Jean François Lantheaume, whose job it was to inform then-Cardinal McCarrick of the news that Pope Benedict XVI had levied sanctions against him because of his abuses, wrote on his Facebook page earlier this week, after confirming the veracity of the Viganò report (evidently citing a French comedian’s monologue, so, not entirely seriously): “These may be the last lines I write… if I am found chopped up by a chainsaw and my body sunk in concrete, the police and the hacks will say that we have to consider the hypothesis of suicide!!!” (link)

Here is the text of this story.

=====================

This is how Archbishop Viganò gave me his memoir. And why I decided to publish it

By Aldo Maria Valli

“Doctor, I need to see you.”

The tone of the voice is calm, but indicates a note of apprehension. On the phone is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States.

I do not hide my surprise. We have met several times at various public convocations, but we can hardly say that we know each other.

He explains to me that he is one of my most assiduous readers, who appreciates my courage and my clarity, often united to irony. I thank him and I ask, “But why do you want to see me?”

He responds that he cannot tell me on the phone.

“All right, then, let’s meet up, but where?”

Naïvely I suggest at my office, or at the coffee shop down the street, which is my second office.

“No, no, please. As far as possible from the Vatican, far from all indiscreet eyes.”

By nature I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can tell that the archbishop is seriously worried.

“All right, how about at my house? For dinner? I warn you that my wife will be there and also some of my children.”

“At your house will be perfect.”

“Shall I come to pick you up?”

“No, no, I will come in my car.”

And so he came.

When the archbishop arrives, on a warm summer evening, I see a man who is older than I remembered. He smiles, but immediately one can tell that something is burdening him. He has a weight on his heart.

After introducing my wife and children, and after he blessed the meal, in order to ease the tension a little bit we joke about our common roots in Lombardy (he is from Varese, while my family is from Rho). The archbishop arrived at the agreed upon hour, not a minute late: in Rome this a very rare occurrence.

Then Viganò immediately begins to talk.

He is worried for the Church, afraid that at its highest levels there are persons who do not work to carry the Gospel of Jesus to the men and women of our time, but rather intend to create confusion and yield to the logic of the world.

Then he begins to talk about his long experience in the Secretariate of State, as head of the Vatican City Governatorate, and as nuncio both in Nigeria and in the United States. He drops many names and speaks of many situations.

Even I, who have been a Vatican journalist for more than 20 years, find it hard to follow him at times.

But I do not interrupt him because I understand he needs to talk.

My impression is that he a man who is alone and sad because of what he sees happening all around him, but not bitter.

In his words there is never one ugly word directed toward any of the many people he speaks about.

The facts speak for themselves.

At times he smiles and looks at me, as if to say, “What should I do? Is there a way out?”

He says he called me because, although he does not know me personally, he esteems me, above all for the courage and freedom I demonstrate.

He adds that my blog is read and appreciated in the “sacred palaces,” even if not everyone can say so openly.

I ask him something about his experience at the Governatorate, and he talks about how he succeeded in saving the Vatican’s coffers a lot of expenses by enforcing the rules and putting order into the accounts.

I comment, “Well, Monsignor, after that clean-out, you certainly did not make any friends!”

He smiles again and responds, “I know! But if I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”

He is a man with a profound sense of duty. At least so it seems to me.

After just a few minutes, there is a harmony established between us.

My wife, who is a catechist at our parish, and my daughters remain literally speechless as they listen to certain stories. I always say, only half-joking, that good Catholics should not know how things function in the highest levels of the hierarchy, and this evening’s conversation confirms that.

However, I do not for a moment regret having invited the archbishop to my house.

I believe that the sorrowful testimony of this man, of this elderly servant of the Church, is telling us something of importance – something which, even in the midst of pain and confusion, can help our life of faith.

The archbishop says, “I am 78 years old, and I am at the end of my life. The judgment of men does not interest me. The one judgment that counts is that of the good God. He will ask me what I have done for the Church of Christ, and I want to be able to respond to him that I defended her and served her even to the end.”

The evening passed in this way. We have the distinct feeling that His Excellency never even noticed what he had on his plate. Between one mouthful and another, he never stopped talking.

When I accompany him to his car, I ask myself, “But, in the end, why did he want to see me?”

Out of respect for him, and because of a lack of confidence, I do not ask him, but, before he says goodbye, he says to me, “Thank you. We will meet again. Don’t call me. I will contact you.”

And he gets in his car.

I am a journalist, and so in these situations my first impulse is to go to my computer and write down everything he told me, but I refrain.

The archbishop did not forbid me from writing anything. Actually, he didn’t say anything about it. But it is out of the question that he made some revelations to me.

And so I understand that the encounter was a sort of test.

The archbishop wanted to see if he could trust me.

More than a month passes, and he calls me again.

The request is the same as last time: “Can we meet together?”

“Yes, of course. Would you like to come to my house again?”

I warn him that this time, one more daughter will be there, my eldest, as well as her two sons, our grandchildren.

“It doesn’t matter,” says Viganò. “The important thing is that at a certain point we have some space to speak together, just the two of us.”

And so His Excellency the former nuncio to the United States returned to see us.

And this time he seemed a bit less tense. You could tell he was happy to be with this big, somewhat rowdy family.

At a certain point, his cell phone rang. A video call from the United States. It’s his nephew: “Oh, sorry, Uncle, I didn’t mean to interrupt you!” Viganò smiles in amusement and shows with his cell phone the whole crowd at the table, including the grandchildren. “What beautiful company!” says his nephew. And then, speaking to me, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect you.”

The tension is dissolved. Our three-year-old grandson buzzes around the archbishop and calls him Carlo Maria. Viganò is amused, and it seems that for a few moments, he forgets his worries.

But once again, after saying the meal blessing, the archbishop is an overflowing river. So many stories, so many situations, so many names.

But this time he focuses more on his years in America. He speaks of the McCarrick case, the ex-cardinal known to be guilty of the most serious abuses, and he makes it clear that everybody knew, in the USA and in the Vatican, for a long time, for years. But they covered it up.

I ask, “Truly everybody?”

With a nod of the head the archbishop responds yes: truly everybody.

I want to ask other questions, but it is not easy to insert myself into the uninterrupted flow of dates, memos, meetings, names.

The heart of the matter is that Pope Francis also knew, according to Viganò.

And yet he allowed McCarrick to circulate undisturbed, making a joke of the bans imposed on him by Benedict XVI.

Francis knew at least since March 2013, when Viganò himself, responding to a question asked by the Pope during a face-to-face meeting, told him that in the Vatican t,here is a large dossier on McCarrick, and he needs to read it.

With respect to our previous encounter, there is the new development of the findings that have emerged from the grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania, and Viganò confirms that the image created by the findings is correct.

The sexual abuses constitute a phenomenon more extensive than anyone could imagine, and it is not correct to speak of pedophilia, because the overwhelming majority of cases deal with homosexual priests who go hunting for teenage young men.

It is more correct, says the archbishop, to speak about ephebophilia, if anything.

But the main point is that the web of complicity, silence, cover-up, and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.

We sit there, once again, stunned.

Because of my work, we had a sense that there was some of this, but for Catholics like us, born and raised in the womb of Mother Church, it is truly difficult to swallow such a mouthful.

My question is thus the most naïve of all: “Why?”

The response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.”

I realize that we have not yet had a moment to speak alone, face to face, as the archbishop had requested. He has spoken in front of everyone.

I ask him if he would like go into another room with me, without my wife, daughters, and grandsons, but he says no, it’s okay just like this. It is understood that he is content as we are. For us it is a bit like listening to a grandfather tell us tales of far off worlds, and we so wish that at a certain point, he would say that it’s all fiction.

But instead, the world of which he is speaking is our world. He speaks of our Church. He speaks of our supreme pastors.

There remains basically only one question: why is the archbishop telling us all this? What does he want from me?

This time, I ask him, and the response is that he has written a memoir in which he recounts all of the circumstances of which he has spoken – including the meeting of June 23, 2013, with the pope, when he, Viganò, informed Francis about the dossier on McCarrick.

And so?

“And so,” he says to me, “if you will permit me, I would like to give you my memoir, which demonstrates that the pope knew and that he did not act. And then you, after evaluating it, may decide whether to publish it or not on your blog, which is widely read. I want this to be known. I do not do this with a light heart, but I think it is the only way left to attempt a change, an authentic conversion.”

“I understand. Will you give it only to me?”

“No. I will give it to another Italian blogger, to one in England, to an American, to a Canadian. Translations will be made into English and Spanish.”

Also, this time, the archbishop does not ask me for confidentiality. I understand that he trusts me. We therefore agree that, at his request, we will meet again, and he will give me his memoir.

After a few days he calls me back, and we make arrangements. I cannot say where we met each other, because I gave my word.

The archbishop shows up with sunglasses on and a baseball cap. He asks that my first reading of the document be done in his presence, right in front of him, so that, he says, “if something does not convince you, we can discuss it immediately.”

I read the whole thing. There are eleven pages. He is amazed at how quickly I read it, and he looks at me: “Well?”

I say: “It is strong. Detailed. Well-written. A dramatic picture.”

He asks: “Will you publish it?”

“Monsignor, do you realize this is a bomb? What should we do?”

“I entrust it to you. Think about it.”

“Monsignor, do you know what they will say? That you want revenge. That you are full of resentment for having been dismissed from the Governatorate and other things. That you are the crow who leaked the Vatileaks papers. They will say that you are unstable, as well as a conservative of the worst kind.”

“I know, I know. But that doesn’t matter to me. The one thing that matters to me is to bring the truth to the surface, so that a purification can begin. At the point that we have reached, there is no other way.”

I am not anguished. Deep down inside me, I have already made the decision to publish it, because I feel that I can trust this man.

But I ask myself, “What effect will this have on the simplest souls? On good Catholics? Is there not the risk of doing more good than evil?”

I realize that I have asked the question aloud, and the archbishop responds: “Think it over. Make a calm evaluation.”

We shake hands. He takes off his dark glasses, and we look each other straight in the eye.

The fact that he does not force me, that he does not appear anxious to see me publish everything, makes me trust him even more. Is this a maneuver? Is he manipulating me?

At home I speak with Serena and the girls. Their advice is always very important for me. What should I do?

These are days of questions. I re-read the memoir. It is detailed, but of course it is Viganò’s version of events. I think readers will understand it. I will propose the archbishop’s version, after which, if anyone has contrary arguments, he will propose other versions.

My wife reminds me: “But if you publish it, they will think that, by the very fact of publishing it, you are on his side. Are you okay with that?”

Yes, I am. Will they judge me to be biased? Patience. After all, I am biased.

When I am a reporter, I report the news, and that’s enough. I try to be as aseptic as possible. But in my blog, I am already clearly taking a position, and the readers know well what I think with regard to a certain turn that the Church has taken in recent years.

If afterwards somebody will presents me with documents that prove that Viganò is lying, or that his version of the facts is incomplete or incorrect, I will be more than happy to publish these as well.

I call the archbishop on the phone. I tell him my decision. We agree on the day and the hour of publication. He says that on the same day at the same hour the others will publish it as well. He has decided on Sunday, August 26 because the pope, returning from Dublin, will have a chance to reply to it by answering questions from journalists on the plane.

He alerts me that the daily newspaper La Verità has now been added to the list of those who will publish it.

He tells me he has already purchased an airplane ticket. He will leave the country. He cannot tell me where he is going. I am not to look for him. His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.

And so it happened. Not that the doubts inside me are over.

Did I do good? Did I do evil? I continue to ask myself this.

But I am serene.

And I re-read the words that Archbishop Viganò wrote at the conclusion of his memoir:

“Let’s all pray for the Church and for the Pope, remembering how many times he has asked us to pray for him.

“Let’s all renew our faith in the Church our Mother: I believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!

“Christ will never abandon his Church!

“He has generated her in His Blood and he continuously reanimates her with His Spirit!

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary Virgin Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!”

–Aldo Maria Valli

=============================

Tosatti’s role

And then there is this news story about another Italian journalist, Marco Tossati, who has just revealed that he in recent days helped Vigano to make the final edits on his 11-page “Testimony.” Tosatti has covered the Vatican since the 1980s.

Here is that story, just out today from the Associated Press (link):

Italy journalist says he helped pen bombshell against pope

August 28, 2018

ROME (AP) — An Italian journalist who says he helped a former Vatican diplomat pen his bombshell allegation of sex abuse cover-up against Pope Francis says he persuaded the archbishop to go public after the U.S. church was thrown into turmoil by sex abuse revelations in the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

Marco Tosatti said he helped Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano write, rewrite and edit his 11-page testimony, saying the two sat side-by-side at a wooden table in Tosatti’s living room for three hours on Aug. 22.

Tosatti, a leading conservative critic of Francis, told The Associated Press that Vigano had called him a few weeks ago out of the blue asking to meet, and then proceeded to tell him the information that became the basis of the testimony.

Vigano’s document alleges that Francis knew of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct starting in 2013 but rehabilitated him from sanctions that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed. The claims have shaken Francis’ five-year papacy.

Vigano called for Francis to resign over what he said was complicity in covering-up McCarrick’s crimes. There is ample evidence, however, that the Vatican under Benedict and St. John Paul II also covered up that information, and that any sanctions Benedict imposed were never enforced.

Vigano has kept largely quiet since the bombshell testimony Sunday, and his whereabouts are unknown. As a result, Tosatti’s reconstruction provides the only insight into how the document came about.

Tosatti, a longtime correspondent for Italian daily La Stampa but who now writes largely for more conservative blogs, said after their initial meeting a few weeks ago, Vigano wasn’t prepared to go public.

But Tosatti said he called him after the Pennsylvania grand jury report published Aug. 15 alleged some 300 priests in six Pennsylvania dioceses abused more than 1,000 children over the past 70 years, and that a sequence of bishops had covered it up.

Tosatti said he told Vigano: “I think that if you want to say something, now is the moment, because everything is going upside-down in the United States. He said ‘OK.’”

The two then met at Tosatti’s Rome apartment.

“He had prepared some kind of a draft of a document and he sat here by my side,” Tosatti told the AP from behind his desk, pointing to the wooden chair to his right. “I told him that we had to work on it really because it was not in a journalistic style.”

Tosatti said he persuaded Vigano to cut claims that couldn’t be substantiated or documented “because it had to be absolutely water-proof.” They worked for three hours.

Tosatti said he was well aware of the implications of the document and what it took for a Holy See diplomat to reveal secrets he had kept for years.

“They are brought up to die silent,” Tosatti said of Holy See diplomats. “So what he was doing, what he was going to do, was something absolutely against his nature.”

But he said Vigano felt compelled to publish out of a sense of duty to the Catholic Church and to clear his conscience.

“He enjoys a good health but 77 is an age where you start preparing yourself … he couldn’t have a clear conscience unless he spoke,” Tosatti said.

Document in hand, Tosatti then set out to find publications willing to publish it in its entirety: the small Italian daily La Verita, the English-language National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews, and the Spanish online site InfoVaticana.

All are ultra-conservative media that have been highly critical of Francis’ mercy-over-morals papacy.

The English and Spanish publications translated the Italian document and all agreed on a Sunday morning embargo, coinciding with the second and final day of Francis’ trip to Ireland, where the Catholic church’s sex abuse and cover-up scandal dominated his trip.

Tosatti said Vigano didn’t tell him where he was going after the article came out, knowing that the world’s media would be clamoring to speak with him.

As Tosatti accompanied Vigano to his door, he bent down to kiss Vigano’s ring — a sign of respect for Catholic bishops.

“He tried to say ‘No.’ I told him ‘It’s not for you, it’s for the role that you (play) that I do it,” Tosatti said. “He didn’t say anything. He went away, but he was crying.”

=======================

“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” —Blaise Pascal (French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and writer, 1623-1662)

Letter #41, 2018: Valli’s tale

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

“If I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”—Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, on why he fought financial corruption inside the Vatican over many years, making many enemies

=============================

A Story about How Archbishop Viganò’s “Testimony” Came to Be

The text below was published yesterday, in Italian, by Italian Catholic journalist Aldo Maria Valli on his blog (link).

Valli tells us that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, came to visit him twice this summer before publishing his 11-page report on Church cover-ups of sexual abuse.

Valli reports near the end of his story that Viganò, meeting with him at his home in Rome, told him he had “already purchased an airplane ticket” to leave Italy, and cannot tell Valli where will be going.

“I am not to look for him,” Valli writes. “His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.”

And, as American Catholic writer Steve Skojec, who has published an English translation of Valli’s story on his onePeterfive website, writes (link), in a video interview on EWTN, Catholic journalist Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register confirms that Viganò may fear for his safety, that his life may even be in danger. (link)

“A former apostolic nuncio, widely respected for his professionalism and decency, forced to go into hiding at age 78 for simply telling the truth about his fellow apostolic successors,” Skojec observes.

Then he adds: “There is perhaps more wisdom in this than there appears to be at first glance. Viganò’s colleague, Monsignor Jean François Lantheaume, whose job it was to inform then-Cardinal McCarrick of the news that Pope Benedict XVI had levied sanctions against him because of his abuses, wrote on his Facebook page earlier this week, after confirming the veracity of the Viganò report (evidently citing a French comedian’s monologue, so, not entirely seriously): “These may be the last lines I write… if I am found chopped up by a chainsaw and my body sunk in concrete, the police and the hacks will say that we have to consider the hypothesis of suicide!!!” (link)

Here is the text of this story.

=====================

This is how Archbishop Viganò gave me his memoir. And why I decided to publish it

By Aldo Maria Valli

“Doctor, I need to see you.”

The tone of the voice is calm, but indicates a note of apprehension. On the phone is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States.

I do not hide my surprise. We have met several times at various public convocations, but we can hardly say that we know each other.

He explains to me that he is one of my most assiduous readers, who appreciates my courage and my clarity, often united to irony. I thank him and I ask, “But why do you want to see me?”

He responds that he cannot tell me on the phone.

“All right, then, let’s meet up, but where?”

Naïvely I suggest at my office, or at the coffee shop down the street, which is my second office.

“No, no, please. As far as possible from the Vatican, far from all indiscreet eyes.”

By nature I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can tell that the archbishop is seriously worried.

“All right, how about at my house? For dinner? I warn you that my wife will be there and also some of my children.”

“At your house will be perfect.”

“Shall I come to pick you up?”

“No, no, I will come in my car.”

And so he came.

When the archbishop arrives, on a warm summer evening, I see a man who is older than I remembered. He smiles, but immediately one can tell that something is burdening him. He has a weight on his heart.

After introducing my wife and children, and after he blessed the meal, in order to ease the tension a little bit we joke about our common roots in Lombardy (he is from Varese, while my family is from Rho). The archbishop arrived at the agreed upon hour, not a minute late: in Rome this a very rare occurrence.

Then Viganò immediately begins to talk.

He is worried for the Church, afraid that at its highest levels there are persons who do not work to carry the Gospel of Jesus to the men and women of our time, but rather intend to create confusion and yield to the logic of the world.

Then he begins to talk about his long experience in the Secretariate of State, as head of the Vatican City Governatorate, and as nuncio both in Nigeria and in the United States. He drops many names and speaks of many situations.

Even I, who have been a Vatican journalist for more than 20 years, find it hard to follow him at times.

But I do not interrupt him because I understand he needs to talk.

My impression is that he a man who is alone and sad because of what he sees happening all around him, but not bitter.

In his words there is never one ugly word directed toward any of the many people he speaks about.

The facts speak for themselves.

At times he smiles and looks at me, as if to say, “What should I do? Is there a way out?”

He says he called me because, although he does not know me personally, he esteems me, above all for the courage and freedom I demonstrate.

He adds that my blog is read and appreciated in the “sacred palaces,” even if not everyone can say so openly.

I ask him something about his experience at the Governatorate, and he talks about how he succeeded in saving the Vatican’s coffers a lot of expenses by enforcing the rules and putting order into the accounts.

I comment, “Well, Monsignor, after that clean-out, you certainly did not make any friends!”

He smiles again and responds, “I know! But if I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”

He is a man with a profound sense of duty. At least so it seems to me.

After just a few minutes, there is a harmony established between us.

My wife, who is a catechist at our parish, and my daughters remain literally speechless as they listen to certain stories. I always say, only half-joking, that good Catholics should not know how things function in the highest levels of the hierarchy, and this evening’s conversation confirms that.

However, I do not for a moment regret having invited the archbishop to my house.

I believe that the sorrowful testimony of this man, of this elderly servant of the Church, is telling us something of importance – something which, even in the midst of pain and confusion, can help our life of faith.

The archbishop says, “I am 78 years old, and I am at the end of my life. The judgment of men does not interest me. The one judgment that counts is that of the good God. He will ask me what I have done for the Church of Christ, and I want to be able to respond to him that I defended her and served her even to the end.”

The evening passed in this way. We have the distinct feeling that His Excellency never even noticed what he had on his plate. Between one mouthful and another, he never stopped talking.

When I accompany him to his car, I ask myself, “But, in the end, why did he want to see me?”

Out of respect for him, and because of a lack of confidence, I do not ask him, but, before he says goodbye, he says to me, “Thank you. We will meet again. Don’t call me. I will contact you.”

And he gets in his car.

I am a journalist, and so in these situations my first impulse is to go to my computer and write down everything he told me, but I refrain.

The archbishop did not forbid me from writing anything. Actually, he didn’t say anything about it. But it is out of the question that he made some revelations to me.

And so I understand that the encounter was a sort of test.

The archbishop wanted to see if he could trust me.

More than a month passes, and he calls me again.

The request is the same as last time: “Can we meet together?”

“Yes, of course. Would you like to come to my house again?”

I warn him that this time, one more daughter will be there, my eldest, as well as her two sons, our grandchildren.

“It doesn’t matter,” says Viganò. “The important thing is that at a certain point we have some space to speak together, just the two of us.”

And so His Excellency the former nuncio to the United States returned to see us.

And this time he seemed a bit less tense. You could tell he was happy to be with this big, somewhat rowdy family.

At a certain point, his cell phone rang. A video call from the United States. It’s his nephew: “Oh, sorry, Uncle, I didn’t mean to interrupt you!” Viganò smiles in amusement and shows with his cell phone the whole crowd at the table, including the grandchildren. “What beautiful company!” says his nephew. And then, speaking to me, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect you.”

The tension is dissolved. Our three-year-old grandson buzzes around the archbishop and calls him Carlo Maria. Viganò is amused, and it seems that for a few moments, he forgets his worries.

But once again, after saying the meal blessing, the archbishop is an overflowing river. So many stories, so many situations, so many names.

But this time he focuses more on his years in America. He speaks of the McCarrick case, the ex-cardinal known to be guilty of the most serious abuses, and he makes it clear that everybody knew, in the USA and in the Vatican, for a long time, for years. But they covered it up.

I ask, “Truly everybody?”

With a nod of the head the archbishop responds yes: truly everybody.

I want to ask other questions, but it is not easy to insert myself into the uninterrupted flow of dates, memos, meetings, names.

The heart of the matter is that Pope Francis also knew, according to Viganò.

And yet he allowed McCarrick to circulate undisturbed, making a joke of the bans imposed on him by Benedict XVI.

Francis knew at least since March 2013, when Viganò himself, responding to a question asked by the Pope during a face-to-face meeting, told him that in the Vatican t,here is a large dossier on McCarrick, and he needs to read it.

With respect to our previous encounter, there is the new development of the findings that have emerged from the grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania, and Viganò confirms that the image created by the findings is correct.

The sexual abuses constitute a phenomenon more extensive than anyone could imagine, and it is not correct to speak of pedophilia, because the overwhelming majority of cases deal with homosexual priests who go hunting for teenage young men.

It is more correct, says the archbishop, to speak about ephebophilia, if anything.

But the main point is that the web of complicity, silence, cover-up, and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.

We sit there, once again, stunned.

Because of my work, we had a sense that there was some of this, but for Catholics like us, born and raised in the womb of Mother Church, it is truly difficult to swallow such a mouthful.

My question is thus the most naïve of all: “Why?”

The response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.”

I realize that we have not yet had a moment to speak alone, face to face, as the archbishop had requested. He has spoken in front of everyone.

I ask him if he would like go into another room with me, without my wife, daughters, and grandsons, but he says no, it’s okay just like this. It is understood that he is content as we are. For us it is a bit like listening to a grandfather tell us tales of far off worlds, and we so wish that at a certain point, he would say that it’s all fiction.

But instead, the world of which he is speaking is our world. He speaks of our Church. He speaks of our supreme pastors.

There remains basically only one question: why is the archbishop telling us all this? What does he want from me?

This time, I ask him, and the response is that he has written a memoir in which he recounts all of the circumstances of which he has spoken – including the meeting of June 23, 2013, with the pope, when he, Viganò, informed Francis about the dossier on McCarrick.

And so?

“And so,” he says to me, “if you will permit me, I would like to give you my memoir, which demonstrates that the pope knew and that he did not act. And then you, after evaluating it, may decide whether to publish it or not on your blog, which is widely read. I want this to be known. I do not do this with a light heart, but I think it is the only way left to attempt a change, an authentic conversion.”

“I understand. Will you give it only to me?”

“No. I will give it to another Italian blogger, to one in England, to an American, to a Canadian. Translations will be made into English and Spanish.”

Also, this time, the archbishop does not ask me for confidentiality. I understand that he trusts me. We therefore agree that, at his request, we will meet again, and he will give me his memoir.

After a few days he calls me back, and we make arrangements. I cannot say where we met each other, because I gave my word.

The archbishop shows up with sunglasses on and a baseball cap. He asks that my first reading of the document be done in his presence, right in front of him, so that, he says, “if something does not convince you, we can discuss it immediately.”

I read the whole thing. There are eleven pages. He is amazed at how quickly I read it, and he looks at me: “Well?”

I say: “It is strong. Detailed. Well-written. A dramatic picture.”

He asks: “Will you publish it?”

“Monsignor, do you realize this is a bomb? What should we do?”

“I entrust it to you. Think about it.”

“Monsignor, do you know what they will say? That you want revenge. That you are full of resentment for having been dismissed from the Governatorate and other things. That you are the crow who leaked the Vatileaks papers. They will say that you are unstable, as well as a conservative of the worst kind.”

“I know, I know. But that doesn’t matter to me. The one thing that matters to me is to bring the truth to the surface, so that a purification can begin. At the point that we have reached, there is no other way.”

I am not anguished. Deep down inside me, I have already made the decision to publish it, because I feel that I can trust this man.

But I ask myself, “What effect will this have on the simplest souls? On good Catholics? Is there not the risk of doing more good than evil?”

I realize that I have asked the question aloud, and the archbishop responds: “Think it over. Make a calm evaluation.”

We shake hands. He takes off his dark glasses, and we look each other straight in the eye.

The fact that he does not force me, that he does not appear anxious to see me publish everything, makes me trust him even more. Is this a maneuver? Is he manipulating me?

At home I speak with Serena and the girls. Their advice is always very important for me. What should I do?

These are days of questions. I re-read the memoir. It is detailed, but of course it is Viganò’s version of events. I think readers will understand it. I will propose the archbishop’s version, after which, if anyone has contrary arguments, he will propose other versions.

My wife reminds me: “But if you publish it, they will think that, by the very fact of publishing it, you are on his side. Are you okay with that?”

Yes, I am. Will they judge me to be biased? Patience. After all, I am biased.

When I am a reporter, I report the news, and that’s enough. I try to be as aseptic as possible. But in my blog, I am already clearly taking a position, and the readers know well what I think with regard to a certain turn that the Church has taken in recent years.

If afterwards somebody will presents me with documents that prove that Viganò is lying, or that his version of the facts is incomplete or incorrect, I will be more than happy to publish these as well.

I call the archbishop on the phone. I tell him my decision. We agree on the day and the hour of publication. He says that on the same day at the same hour the others will publish it as well. He has decided on Sunday, August 26 because the pope, returning from Dublin, will have a chance to reply to it by answering questions from journalists on the plane.

He alerts me that the daily newspaper La Verità has now been added to the list of those who will publish it.

He tells me he has already purchased an airplane ticket. He will leave the country. He cannot tell me where he is going. I am not to look for him. His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.

And so it happened. Not that the doubts inside me are over.

Did I do good? Did I do evil? I continue to ask myself this.

But I am serene.

And I re-read the words that Archbishop Viganò wrote at the conclusion of his memoir:

“Let’s all pray for the Church and for the Pope, remembering how many times he has asked us to pray for him.

“Let’s all renew our faith in the Church our Mother: I believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!

“Christ will never abandon his Church!

“He has generated her in His Blood and he continuously reanimates her with His Spirit!

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary Virgin Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!”

–Aldo Maria Valli

=============================

Tosatti’s role

And then there is this news story about another Italian journalist, Marco Tossati, who has just revealed that he in recent days helped Vigano to make the final edits on his 11-page “Testimony.” Tosatti has covered the Vatican since the 1980s.

Here is that story, just out today from the Associated Press (link):

Italy journalist says he helped pen bombshell against pope

August 28, 2018

ROME (AP) — An Italian journalist who says he helped a former Vatican diplomat pen his bombshell allegation of sex abuse cover-up against Pope Francis says he persuaded the archbishop to go public after the U.S. church was thrown into turmoil by sex abuse revelations in the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

Marco Tosatti said he helped Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano write, rewrite and edit his 11-page testimony, saying the two sat side-by-side at a wooden table in Tosatti’s living room for three hours on Aug. 22.

Tosatti, a leading conservative critic of Francis, told The Associated Press that Vigano had called him a few weeks ago out of the blue asking to meet, and then proceeded to tell him the information that became the basis of the testimony.

Vigano’s document alleges that Francis knew of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct starting in 2013 but rehabilitated him from sanctions that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed. The claims have shaken Francis’ five-year papacy.

Vigano called for Francis to resign over what he said was complicity in covering-up McCarrick’s crimes. There is ample evidence, however, that the Vatican under Benedict and St. John Paul II also covered up that information, and that any sanctions Benedict imposed were never enforced.

Vigano has kept largely quiet since the bombshell testimony Sunday, and his whereabouts are unknown. As a result, Tosatti’s reconstruction provides the only insight into how the document came about.

Tosatti, a longtime correspondent for Italian daily La Stampa but who now writes largely for more conservative blogs, said after their initial meeting a few weeks ago, Vigano wasn’t prepared to go public.

But Tosatti said he called him after the Pennsylvania grand jury report published Aug. 15 alleged some 300 priests in six Pennsylvania dioceses abused more than 1,000 children over the past 70 years, and that a sequence of bishops had covered it up.

Tosatti said he told Vigano: “I think that if you want to say something, now is the moment, because everything is going upside-down in the United States. He said ‘OK.’”

The two then met at Tosatti’s Rome apartment.

“He had prepared some kind of a draft of a document and he sat here by my side,” Tosatti told the AP from behind his desk, pointing to the wooden chair to his right. “I told him that we had to work on it really because it was not in a journalistic style.”

Tosatti said he persuaded Vigano to cut claims that couldn’t be substantiated or documented “because it had to be absolutely water-proof.” They worked for three hours.

Tosatti said he was well aware of the implications of the document and what it took for a Holy See diplomat to reveal secrets he had kept for years.

“They are brought up to die silent,” Tosatti said of Holy See diplomats. “So what he was doing, what he was going to do, was something absolutely against his nature.”

But he said Vigano felt compelled to publish out of a sense of duty to the Catholic Church and to clear his conscience.

“He enjoys a good health but 77 is an age where you start preparing yourself … he couldn’t have a clear conscience unless he spoke,” Tosatti said.

Document in hand, Tosatti then set out to find publications willing to publish it in its entirety: the small Italian daily La Verita, the English-language National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews, and the Spanish online site InfoVaticana.

All are ultra-conservative media that have been highly critical of Francis’ mercy-over-morals papacy.

The English and Spanish publications translated the Italian document and all agreed on a Sunday morning embargo, coinciding with the second and final day of Francis’ trip to Ireland, where the Catholic church’s sex abuse and cover-up scandal dominated his trip.

Tosatti said Vigano didn’t tell him where he was going after the article came out, knowing that the world’s media would be clamoring to speak with him.

As Tosatti accompanied Vigano to his door, he bent down to kiss Vigano’s ring — a sign of respect for Catholic bishops.

“He tried to say ‘No.’ I told him ‘It’s not for you, it’s for the role that you (play) that I do it,” Tosatti said. “He didn’t say anything. He went away, but he was crying.”

=======================

“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” —Blaise Pascal (French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and writer, 1623-1662)

Letter #41, 2018: Valli’s tale

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

“If I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”—Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, on why he fought financial corruption inside the Vatican over many years, making many enemies

=============================

A Story about How Archbishop Viganò’s “Testimony” Came to Be

The text below was published yesterday, in Italian, by Italian Catholic journalist Aldo Maria Valli on his blog (link).

Valli tells us that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, came to visit him twice this summer before publishing his 11-page report on Church cover-ups of sexual abuse.

Valli reports near the end of his story that Viganò, meeting with him at his home in Rome, told him he had “already purchased an airplane ticket” to leave Italy, and cannot tell Valli where will be going.

“I am not to look for him,” Valli writes. “His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.”

And, as American Catholic writer Steve Skojec, who has published an English translation of Valli’s story on his onePeterfive website, writes (link), in a video interview on EWTN, Catholic journalist Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register confirms that Viganò may fear for his safety, that his life may even be in danger. (link)

“A former apostolic nuncio, widely respected for his professionalism and decency, forced to go into hiding at age 78 for simply telling the truth about his fellow apostolic successors,” Skojec observes.

Then he adds: “There is perhaps more wisdom in this than there appears to be at first glance. Viganò’s colleague, Monsignor Jean François Lantheaume, whose job it was to inform then-Cardinal McCarrick of the news that Pope Benedict XVI had levied sanctions against him because of his abuses, wrote on his Facebook page earlier this week, after confirming the veracity of the Viganò report (evidently citing a French comedian’s monologue, so, not entirely seriously): “These may be the last lines I write… if I am found chopped up by a chainsaw and my body sunk in concrete, the police and the hacks will say that we have to consider the hypothesis of suicide!!!” (link)

Here is the text of this story.

=====================

This is how Archbishop Viganò gave me his memoir. And why I decided to publish it

By Aldo Maria Valli

“Doctor, I need to see you.”

The tone of the voice is calm, but indicates a note of apprehension. On the phone is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States.

I do not hide my surprise. We have met several times at various public convocations, but we can hardly say that we know each other.

He explains to me that he is one of my most assiduous readers, who appreciates my courage and my clarity, often united to irony. I thank him and I ask, “But why do you want to see me?”

He responds that he cannot tell me on the phone.

“All right, then, let’s meet up, but where?”

Naïvely I suggest at my office, or at the coffee shop down the street, which is my second office.

“No, no, please. As far as possible from the Vatican, far from all indiscreet eyes.”

By nature I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can tell that the archbishop is seriously worried.

“All right, how about at my house? For dinner? I warn you that my wife will be there and also some of my children.”

“At your house will be perfect.”

“Shall I come to pick you up?”

“No, no, I will come in my car.”

And so he came.

When the archbishop arrives, on a warm summer evening, I see a man who is older than I remembered. He smiles, but immediately one can tell that something is burdening him. He has a weight on his heart.

After introducing my wife and children, and after he blessed the meal, in order to ease the tension a little bit we joke about our common roots in Lombardy (he is from Varese, while my family is from Rho). The archbishop arrived at the agreed upon hour, not a minute late: in Rome this a very rare occurrence.

Then Viganò immediately begins to talk.

He is worried for the Church, afraid that at its highest levels there are persons who do not work to carry the Gospel of Jesus to the men and women of our time, but rather intend to create confusion and yield to the logic of the world.

Then he begins to talk about his long experience in the Secretariate of State, as head of the Vatican City Governatorate, and as nuncio both in Nigeria and in the United States. He drops many names and speaks of many situations.

Even I, who have been a Vatican journalist for more than 20 years, find it hard to follow him at times.

But I do not interrupt him because I understand he needs to talk.

My impression is that he a man who is alone and sad because of what he sees happening all around him, but not bitter.

In his words there is never one ugly word directed toward any of the many people he speaks about.

The facts speak for themselves.

At times he smiles and looks at me, as if to say, “What should I do? Is there a way out?”

He says he called me because, although he does not know me personally, he esteems me, above all for the courage and freedom I demonstrate.

He adds that my blog is read and appreciated in the “sacred palaces,” even if not everyone can say so openly.

I ask him something about his experience at the Governatorate, and he talks about how he succeeded in saving the Vatican’s coffers a lot of expenses by enforcing the rules and putting order into the accounts.

I comment, “Well, Monsignor, after that clean-out, you certainly did not make any friends!”

He smiles again and responds, “I know! But if I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”

He is a man with a profound sense of duty. At least so it seems to me.

After just a few minutes, there is a harmony established between us.

My wife, who is a catechist at our parish, and my daughters remain literally speechless as they listen to certain stories. I always say, only half-joking, that good Catholics should not know how things function in the highest levels of the hierarchy, and this evening’s conversation confirms that.

However, I do not for a moment regret having invited the archbishop to my house.

I believe that the sorrowful testimony of this man, of this elderly servant of the Church, is telling us something of importance – something which, even in the midst of pain and confusion, can help our life of faith.

The archbishop says, “I am 78 years old, and I am at the end of my life. The judgment of men does not interest me. The one judgment that counts is that of the good God. He will ask me what I have done for the Church of Christ, and I want to be able to respond to him that I defended her and served her even to the end.”

The evening passed in this way. We have the distinct feeling that His Excellency never even noticed what he had on his plate. Between one mouthful and another, he never stopped talking.

When I accompany him to his car, I ask myself, “But, in the end, why did he want to see me?”

Out of respect for him, and because of a lack of confidence, I do not ask him, but, before he says goodbye, he says to me, “Thank you. We will meet again. Don’t call me. I will contact you.”

And he gets in his car.

I am a journalist, and so in these situations my first impulse is to go to my computer and write down everything he told me, but I refrain.

The archbishop did not forbid me from writing anything. Actually, he didn’t say anything about it. But it is out of the question that he made some revelations to me.

And so I understand that the encounter was a sort of test.

The archbishop wanted to see if he could trust me.

More than a month passes, and he calls me again.

The request is the same as last time: “Can we meet together?”

“Yes, of course. Would you like to come to my house again?”

I warn him that this time, one more daughter will be there, my eldest, as well as her two sons, our grandchildren.

“It doesn’t matter,” says Viganò. “The important thing is that at a certain point we have some space to speak together, just the two of us.”

And so His Excellency the former nuncio to the United States returned to see us.

And this time he seemed a bit less tense. You could tell he was happy to be with this big, somewhat rowdy family.

At a certain point, his cell phone rang. A video call from the United States. It’s his nephew: “Oh, sorry, Uncle, I didn’t mean to interrupt you!” Viganò smiles in amusement and shows with his cell phone the whole crowd at the table, including the grandchildren. “What beautiful company!” says his nephew. And then, speaking to me, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect you.”

The tension is dissolved. Our three-year-old grandson buzzes around the archbishop and calls him Carlo Maria. Viganò is amused, and it seems that for a few moments, he forgets his worries.

But once again, after saying the meal blessing, the archbishop is an overflowing river. So many stories, so many situations, so many names.

But this time he focuses more on his years in America. He speaks of the McCarrick case, the ex-cardinal known to be guilty of the most serious abuses, and he makes it clear that everybody knew, in the USA and in the Vatican, for a long time, for years. But they covered it up.

I ask, “Truly everybody?”

With a nod of the head the archbishop responds yes: truly everybody.

I want to ask other questions, but it is not easy to insert myself into the uninterrupted flow of dates, memos, meetings, names.

The heart of the matter is that Pope Francis also knew, according to Viganò.

And yet he allowed McCarrick to circulate undisturbed, making a joke of the bans imposed on him by Benedict XVI.

Francis knew at least since March 2013, when Viganò himself, responding to a question asked by the Pope during a face-to-face meeting, told him that in the Vatican t,here is a large dossier on McCarrick, and he needs to read it.

With respect to our previous encounter, there is the new development of the findings that have emerged from the grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania, and Viganò confirms that the image created by the findings is correct.

The sexual abuses constitute a phenomenon more extensive than anyone could imagine, and it is not correct to speak of pedophilia, because the overwhelming majority of cases deal with homosexual priests who go hunting for teenage young men.

It is more correct, says the archbishop, to speak about ephebophilia, if anything.

But the main point is that the web of complicity, silence, cover-up, and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.

We sit there, once again, stunned.

Because of my work, we had a sense that there was some of this, but for Catholics like us, born and raised in the womb of Mother Church, it is truly difficult to swallow such a mouthful.

My question is thus the most naïve of all: “Why?”

The response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.”

I realize that we have not yet had a moment to speak alone, face to face, as the archbishop had requested. He has spoken in front of everyone.

I ask him if he would like go into another room with me, without my wife, daughters, and grandsons, but he says no, it’s okay just like this. It is understood that he is content as we are. For us it is a bit like listening to a grandfather tell us tales of far off worlds, and we so wish that at a certain point, he would say that it’s all fiction.

But instead, the world of which he is speaking is our world. He speaks of our Church. He speaks of our supreme pastors.

There remains basically only one question: why is the archbishop telling us all this? What does he want from me?

This time, I ask him, and the response is that he has written a memoir in which he recounts all of the circumstances of which he has spoken – including the meeting of June 23, 2013, with the pope, when he, Viganò, informed Francis about the dossier on McCarrick.

And so?

“And so,” he says to me, “if you will permit me, I would like to give you my memoir, which demonstrates that the pope knew and that he did not act. And then you, after evaluating it, may decide whether to publish it or not on your blog, which is widely read. I want this to be known. I do not do this with a light heart, but I think it is the only way left to attempt a change, an authentic conversion.”

“I understand. Will you give it only to me?”

“No. I will give it to another Italian blogger, to one in England, to an American, to a Canadian. Translations will be made into English and Spanish.”

Also, this time, the archbishop does not ask me for confidentiality. I understand that he trusts me. We therefore agree that, at his request, we will meet again, and he will give me his memoir.

After a few days he calls me back, and we make arrangements. I cannot say where we met each other, because I gave my word.

The archbishop shows up with sunglasses on and a baseball cap. He asks that my first reading of the document be done in his presence, right in front of him, so that, he says, “if something does not convince you, we can discuss it immediately.”

I read the whole thing. There are eleven pages. He is amazed at how quickly I read it, and he looks at me: “Well?”

I say: “It is strong. Detailed. Well-written. A dramatic picture.”

He asks: “Will you publish it?”

“Monsignor, do you realize this is a bomb? What should we do?”

“I entrust it to you. Think about it.”

“Monsignor, do you know what they will say? That you want revenge. That you are full of resentment for having been dismissed from the Governatorate and other things. That you are the crow who leaked the Vatileaks papers. They will say that you are unstable, as well as a conservative of the worst kind.”

“I know, I know. But that doesn’t matter to me. The one thing that matters to me is to bring the truth to the surface, so that a purification can begin. At the point that we have reached, there is no other way.”

I am not anguished. Deep down inside me, I have already made the decision to publish it, because I feel that I can trust this man.

But I ask myself, “What effect will this have on the simplest souls? On good Catholics? Is there not the risk of doing more good than evil?”

I realize that I have asked the question aloud, and the archbishop responds: “Think it over. Make a calm evaluation.”

We shake hands. He takes off his dark glasses, and we look each other straight in the eye.

The fact that he does not force me, that he does not appear anxious to see me publish everything, makes me trust him even more. Is this a maneuver? Is he manipulating me?

At home I speak with Serena and the girls. Their advice is always very important for me. What should I do?

These are days of questions. I re-read the memoir. It is detailed, but of course it is Viganò’s version of events. I think readers will understand it. I will propose the archbishop’s version, after which, if anyone has contrary arguments, he will propose other versions.

My wife reminds me: “But if you publish it, they will think that, by the very fact of publishing it, you are on his side. Are you okay with that?”

Yes, I am. Will they judge me to be biased? Patience. After all, I am biased.

When I am a reporter, I report the news, and that’s enough. I try to be as aseptic as possible. But in my blog, I am already clearly taking a position, and the readers know well what I think with regard to a certain turn that the Church has taken in recent years.

If afterwards somebody will presents me with documents that prove that Viganò is lying, or that his version of the facts is incomplete or incorrect, I will be more than happy to publish these as well.

I call the archbishop on the phone. I tell him my decision. We agree on the day and the hour of publication. He says that on the same day at the same hour the others will publish it as well. He has decided on Sunday, August 26 because the pope, returning from Dublin, will have a chance to reply to it by answering questions from journalists on the plane.

He alerts me that the daily newspaper La Verità has now been added to the list of those who will publish it.

He tells me he has already purchased an airplane ticket. He will leave the country. He cannot tell me where he is going. I am not to look for him. His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.

And so it happened. Not that the doubts inside me are over.

Did I do good? Did I do evil? I continue to ask myself this.

But I am serene.

And I re-read the words that Archbishop Viganò wrote at the conclusion of his memoir:

“Let’s all pray for the Church and for the Pope, remembering how many times he has asked us to pray for him.

“Let’s all renew our faith in the Church our Mother: I believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!

“Christ will never abandon his Church!

“He has generated her in His Blood and he continuously reanimates her with His Spirit!

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary Virgin Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!”

–Aldo Maria Valli

=============================

Tosatti’s role

And then there is this news story about another Italian journalist, Marco Tossati, who has just revealed that he in recent days helped Vigano to make the final edits on his 11-page “Testimony.” Tosatti has covered the Vatican since the 1980s.

Here is that story, just out today from the Associated Press (link):

Italy journalist says he helped pen bombshell against pope

August 28, 2018

ROME (AP) — An Italian journalist who says he helped a former Vatican diplomat pen his bombshell allegation of sex abuse cover-up against Pope Francis says he persuaded the archbishop to go public after the U.S. church was thrown into turmoil by sex abuse revelations in the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

Marco Tosatti said he helped Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano write, rewrite and edit his 11-page testimony, saying the two sat side-by-side at a wooden table in Tosatti’s living room for three hours on Aug. 22.

Tosatti, a leading conservative critic of Francis, told The Associated Press that Vigano had called him a few weeks ago out of the blue asking to meet, and then proceeded to tell him the information that became the basis of the testimony.

Vigano’s document alleges that Francis knew of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct starting in 2013 but rehabilitated him from sanctions that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed. The claims have shaken Francis’ five-year papacy.

Vigano called for Francis to resign over what he said was complicity in covering-up McCarrick’s crimes. There is ample evidence, however, that the Vatican under Benedict and St. John Paul II also covered up that information, and that any sanctions Benedict imposed were never enforced.

Vigano has kept largely quiet since the bombshell testimony Sunday, and his whereabouts are unknown. As a result, Tosatti’s reconstruction provides the only insight into how the document came about.

Tosatti, a longtime correspondent for Italian daily La Stampa but who now writes largely for more conservative blogs, said after their initial meeting a few weeks ago, Vigano wasn’t prepared to go public.

But Tosatti said he called him after the Pennsylvania grand jury report published Aug. 15 alleged some 300 priests in six Pennsylvania dioceses abused more than 1,000 children over the past 70 years, and that a sequence of bishops had covered it up.

Tosatti said he told Vigano: “I think that if you want to say something, now is the moment, because everything is going upside-down in the United States. He said ‘OK.’”

The two then met at Tosatti’s Rome apartment.

“He had prepared some kind of a draft of a document and he sat here by my side,” Tosatti told the AP from behind his desk, pointing to the wooden chair to his right. “I told him that we had to work on it really because it was not in a journalistic style.”

Tosatti said he persuaded Vigano to cut claims that couldn’t be substantiated or documented “because it had to be absolutely water-proof.” They worked for three hours.

Tosatti said he was well aware of the implications of the document and what it took for a Holy See diplomat to reveal secrets he had kept for years.

“They are brought up to die silent,” Tosatti said of Holy See diplomats. “So what he was doing, what he was going to do, was something absolutely against his nature.”

But he said Vigano felt compelled to publish out of a sense of duty to the Catholic Church and to clear his conscience.

“He enjoys a good health but 77 is an age where you start preparing yourself … he couldn’t have a clear conscience unless he spoke,” Tosatti said.

Document in hand, Tosatti then set out to find publications willing to publish it in its entirety: the small Italian daily La Verita, the English-language National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews, and the Spanish online site InfoVaticana.

All are ultra-conservative media that have been highly critical of Francis’ mercy-over-morals papacy.

The English and Spanish publications translated the Italian document and all agreed on a Sunday morning embargo, coinciding with the second and final day of Francis’ trip to Ireland, where the Catholic church’s sex abuse and cover-up scandal dominated his trip.

Tosatti said Vigano didn’t tell him where he was going after the article came out, knowing that the world’s media would be clamoring to speak with him.

As Tosatti accompanied Vigano to his door, he bent down to kiss Vigano’s ring — a sign of respect for Catholic bishops.

“He tried to say ‘No.’ I told him ‘It’s not for you, it’s for the role that you (play) that I do it,” Tosatti said. “He didn’t say anything. He went away, but he was crying.”

=======================

“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” —Blaise Pascal (French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and writer, 1623-1662)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLeanDorothy Cummings McLean

NEWS,

BREAKING: Pope ignored warning from top Vatican cardinal not to reinstate defrocked serial abuser

VATICAN CITY, August 29, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis removed sanctions from a notorious clerical sex offender despite being warned and urged by the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not to do so, a highly placed Vatican source told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview.

That Prefect, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, was later dismissed from the Vatican’s top doctrine post. The source revealed that Cardinal Müller and his staff were dismissed by Pope Francis because they insisted on following the Church’s protocols concerning clerical sexual abusers.

Notably, Müller opposed the Pope’s plan to return the defrocked Don Mauro Inzoli, a serial abuser of boys as young as 12, to the priesthood.

Image
Mauro Inzoli

Don Inzoli, nicknamed Don Mercedes for his love of flashy cars and elegant living, had been accused to church officials of having molested boys, including in the confessional, and convincing them that his abuse of them was approved by God.

In 2012, an ecclesiastical court found Inzoli guilty, and he was then suspended a divinis, barring him from all priestly functions.

However, in 2014, Francis returned Inzoli to the priesthood, although according to the source, Cardinal Müller “resisted” the pontiff’s wish but Francis “decided differently,” i.e. he rejected Müller’s advice.

According to historian Henry Sire, author of The Dictator Pope, Francis had rehabilitated the pederast at the behest of Inzoli’s “friends in the Curia, Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Vito Pinto” and reduced his punishment to a “lifetime of prayer” and a course of psychiatric treatment.

Inzoli was also allowed to say Mass privately, but he was supposed to stay away from children. However, by 2015, Inzoli was participating in a conference on the family in Lombardia.

“[Francis’] leniency, however, backfired,” Sire wrote, “and after complaints from Inzoli’s home town of Cremona, police reopened the case against him.”

An Italian court found him guilty of “more than a hundred episodes” of molesting five boys aged 12 to 16. It sentenced the rehabilitated priest to four years, nine months in prison.

A new canonical trial was then arranged. After the priest’s second ecclesiastical trial, Pope Francis decided on May 20, 2017, to strip the convicted ephebophile of his priestly faculties.

Quoting Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press, Sire revealed that Inzoli’s was not the only case where Pope Francis showed so-called “mercy” toward grave offenders:

“Winfield wrote that ‘two canon lawyers and a church official’ told her the pope’s emphasis on ‘mercy’ had created an environment in which ‘several’ priests under canonical sanctions imposed by the CDF had appealed successfully to Francis for clemency through powerful curial connections. The unnamed official noted that such appeals had rarely been successful with Benedict XVI, who had removed over 800 priests from ministry.”

Francis is currently under fire from allegations that he removed sanctions from then-cardinal Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and made him one of his most trusted advisors despite knowing of his reputation for sexual misconduct towards seminarians and priests.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Okie Traditionalist


Okie Trad “Jumps Ship.” Absolutely No More Official Support of the “Institutional Church.” Shifting Gears.

Posted: 27 Aug 2018 02:21 AM PDT

Introduction:

Considering how deep the Rot really appears to go across the conciliar church establishment, not only on the level of modernism and liberalism, but in the grossest, most satanical way that is Universal, and because collectively the Bishops, and now we know especially Pope Francis himself, have been actively covering up for the clerical molestation crisis;  then that aspect of the “human element” in the Church, which was not instituted by Christ, that is which corresponds to the Vatican, Chancery, and Parochial System, what is commonly today referred to as the “institutional Church,” absolutely does not represent the Church of Jesus Christ.

Neither doctrinally, morally, legally, or on the level of basic humanity.  It is an apostate, satanic, child molesting, unprecendented world scandal, and false church.

And I can say that without any discouragement or despair.  I am not a sedevacantist.  I sympathize with sedevacantists when I’ve befriended them in the past, but that theory has way too many theological problems, and if it is incorrect (which I certainly believe it is), then objectively it is a formal schism from the Church.

Where then is the Universal Church to be found today?

Well, the position I hold, which was that of bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre (let’s make the distinction between his doctrinal positions and what you think of the current SSPX), which Texas Bishop Gracida today generally holds, for example, is that the diocesan structure on the organizational level is no longer synonymous with the Catholic Church.

The “institutional Church” has effectively apostasized.

Yet, I have to accept in principle, and in practice in so far as I am able to determine from in person experience, that the true Church resides only with those Prelates, priests, and laity who unequivocably hold to all the teachings of the Catholic Church.  If they demonstrate a religious praxis that clearly revolts against the doctrine of the Faith, then those men are probably not Catholic and therefore should be avoided as probable non-members.

Considering the state of apostasy throughout the Universal Church, i.e. INSIDE the Church, it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of diocesan bishops, and priests under them, are not Catholic members.  And the more they enable or protect the underground, homosexualist, pedophile, predator clerical establishment that is universal in the Church, the more they try to silence orthodox Catholics who reject their “Church of Nice,” the more likely they have already excommunicated themselves from the Church by the heresies that almost always correspond with those grave abuses.

My Local Diocese:

Therefore, until the Diocese of Tulsa, as with all the dioceses, once and for all properly, directly, and immediately starts to investigate the Presbyterate for homosexual-pedophile-pederast priests, to protect our children, and once and for all officially starts rooting out Catholic progressivism from the diocesan, clerical structure, which fuels them, then that organizational structure in my mind cannot be considered to represent the true Church at the local level.

Therefore, I am bound by conscience to avoid any material, financial, moral, or otherwise support, at the official level, of the diocesan structure per se.

That said, since Christ implicitly established different levels of the Church — i.e. a) the Universal Church, b) the local Church under a territorial Bishop, and c) the most local, public community of believers in one place, then I am required by divine and church law to support our Church at all levels.

At the level of the Church under my bishop, Bishop Konderla of Tulsa, I absolutely support in principle my bishop, and in practice give obedience to him only when not required to sin, or place myself in serious compromise, and I recognize all priests and laity under him, only if they are true, orthodox, Catholics.

How much I like them personally, or think they are progressive or modernistic, or are faithful shepherds, has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are true, valid, members of the Church.  To suggest otherwise is a red herring.

At this point, I have not heard anything formally heretical being promoted by our bishop (heterodoxy is a different form of sin against doctrine, that does not exclude one from the Church), but in my experience as a Tulsa Catholic for decades, most Tulsa diocesan priests and laity are actively rejecting certain Church teachings, and therefore placing themselves outside the Church.  Therefore, on that scale it is impossible to treat the Tulsa diocesan Presbyterate as a corporate body, or all those who collectively officially belong to diocesan parishes or claim to be Catholic, to really and truly be Catholic.

That means that as I look out across the landscape of my local Church, without necessarily judging individual laity and priests, I see that the vast majority are objectively, in the external forum (God judges the internal forum) in a state of heresy, schism, and excommunication.

On a practical level then, what that means as a traditional Catholic, is that I must disregard for now support of the diocesan/chancery structure, especially in view of the current clerical, sex abuse crisis, and hold ecclesial communion in my daily life only with those Catholics who demonstrate outwardly that they hold the Faith.  On a practical level then, I will only support those priests and laity who demonstrate clearly in the public life of their own parish community, as in their behavior during liturgical worship, devotional life, and public teachings, clear signs of professed Catholic orthodoxy.

My Local Parish:

Regarding my chosen local “parish,” in so far as it is in essence the most local, public community in the Church (the domestic home is considered a private, domestic church), which meets each Sunday under one pastor, subject to the local Bishop, gathered together around one particular altar for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I absolutely give it moral and spiritual support, and financial support if I am able to avoid any of it going to the “false church in crisis.”

I absolutely will maintain civility, friendship where reciprocated, and a gentlemanly demeanor to all in my local church, including the pastor.  If welcomed and supported, my family will offer our friendship, talents, times, and energies to building up this traditional Catholic parish church, both in numbers and in terms of holiness, first and foremost through our own personal example and prayers.

But until Bishop Konderla and the chancery makes decisive action against clerical pedophilia and the univeral progressivism that fuels it, then I refuse my Sunday collection donations going to the diocesan structure.  I will give otherwise in creative ways to my parish, per the precept of the Church, as tolerated.  That or put a case of altar wine or box of hosts in the sacristy when no one is looking, from time to time, and give Mass stipends.

It is one thing to be placed in the margins of the Conciliar Church, but another to be treated on the margins within Ecclesia Dei communities.  With exception, “hard-line” traditionalists generally have to suffer this way in the shadows.  So be it.

My Personal Approach:

1.  I will give $ to my trad parish’s building fund, which is not taxed by the diocese, donate to the sacristy, and give Mass stipends to support my pastor.

2.  I will formally refuse support of the parochial/diocesan aspect of my Latin Mass parish, in so far as the pastor and his parish council/leaders officially tolerate the “new religion” in the Church, and acquiesce in giving money without question, and a false respect to the diocese.  Their contradictory, more “conservative,” “anti-traditionalist” orientation to the diocese itself, while tolerating overt traditionalism within the parish as long as it remains quiet and servile, will not be tolerated.

Instead, we must respectfully protest to our local bishop, as the occasion arises, and ask for concessions.  There is a middle course between being seemingly schismatic or rebellious in orientation to our Bishop (which people constantly censor for), and a Stockholm Syndrome that takes a politically correct path of false peace, in fear of losing our Latin Mass, or traditional parish.

3. As for me and my family, we will only participate in the life of our parish community in so far as we are tolerated and treated civilly and openly, both as persons, and in so far as we are “hard-line” traditionalists.

Conclusion:

We must not be afraid, but be prepared with holy indifference to lose the Latin Mass and our approved traditional parishes to be shut down, if it comes to that.

God will provide.  Some will drive the long distance to another Latin Mass.  Others may decide to sit quietly in the back pew praying at the cathedral, until one day another faithful bishop supports the true Mass again.  Whatever the case, I am willing to accept that outcome, rather than be falsely obedient, false to myself, or to others.  One situation is a meritorious state of sorrow and hardship;  the other situation is a state of moral and doctrinal compromise, that is a grave occasion of sin.

If you Strongly Disagree with Me:

If you go to an approved Latin Mass, such as with the FSSP, and find my perspective and approach to be objectively offensive and contrary to the Catholic Faith, on a personal level I cannot oppose you.  The exact nature of this present ecclesial Crisis, and how to respond to it, has not been dogmatically and decisively resolved by the Universal Church.  Therefore, each person must study current Church history and events, and especially the traditional catechesis of the Church, to determine exactly which course to take, or what parish church to go to.

That said, on an objective level, you are in a state of grave error.  You are substantially supporting the Latin Mass as an “option” of personal preference.  You believe in false obedience and a servile posture to the Hierarchy.  You are treating Catholic tradition as something confined to personal enlightenment and private experience.

And that unfortunately is the de facto position and orientation of all Ecclesia Dei communities, since several SSPX priests approached Pope John Paul II to found the FSSP in 1988.

In the end, this is how that inverted, contradictory attitude plays out.  Sooner or later, the devotion to Catholic tradition gets watered down, with more compromises to the novus ordo religion, with more and more false capitulations to the diocesan structure.  The hard-liners get more and more marginalized.  And when the right bishop or presbyteral council is then in place, you/we are sitting ducks.  It is a matter of time before the modernist powers that be shut down the local, traditional apostolate.   And not because of a couple local trad bloggers, or “rad trads” causing problems for the bishop, but because the diocesan modernists hate your very existence.  They hate the very existence of what you are preserving in your parish church.

And they will take advantage of your deafening silence, politically correct group think, and Stockholm Syndrome, to one day snuff you out.

As is the case already here in the Tulsa diocese, since Bishop Slattery retired, in the case of
4 Tradition-minded Catholic communities (Doloran Fathers, Mother Miriam’s community, the Bishop Slattery’s 10 am Sunday Latin Novus Ordo community, and now soon, as reported, likely the one diocesan Latin Mass community still tolerated for now by chancery leadership).

But losing your Latin Mass and parish won’t be the real tragedy.  If, and I say IF, you fundamentally hate and oppose the views I am expressing here, your state of compromise and privatized preference for Sacred Tradition will eventually mean a crisis of faith and despair, when your Latin Mass is cancelled.  You are setting yourself up for a major spiritual let down by trusting the diocesan structure, no matter how “conservative” the diocese is portrayed.

What Me and Mine Will Continue to Do:

As I always have since I converted to Catholic Tradition nearly 20 years ago, I will absolutely put no solid faith in the “institutional Church.”  I will absolutely not place all my faith and trust in the “traditionalist movement” (SSPX, FSSP, or otherwise) as the “pure, innocent, shining savior of the Church.”   I absolutely will not compromise on a doctrinal or practical level to the New Religion, ever, not in one little tiny way, even if that brands me as crazy, weird, or backward.

I will instead place my trust in God, in Christ, in his divine Church, in principle the pope, bishops, and priests only if they are 100% orthodox, and therefore still Catholics.  I will maintain courage and hope, and constantly resist ecclesial discouragement or despair no matter the state of the Church, either Universal or in my own parish.

And I will, until the day I day, publicly and constantly promote, according to the limits and dictates of my state in life, the traditional Catholic Faith and Church.  I will not be afraid of those modernist powers in the “institutional Church.”  They can take away our weekly Latin Mass, they can take away our church, they can kick the FSSP out of the diocese, they can shut down every diocesan, motu proprio Latin Mass.

But in the end, we will have the Catholic Faith!

Lastly, Some Changes:

Likely we will stay within the small, reserved circle in our parish, and not actively participate on a regular basis in most of the parish activities, including the men’s group, Knights of Columbus, building committee, etc.  Trads tend to be insular, within enclosed cliques, even though in general I think people are individually well meaning.  A trad friend recently pointed out most trads are introverted, and since trad parishes tend to stay small, understandably tend not to be actively incorporating new members, beyond saying hello to them in the hallway or church parking lot.

I understand that, and mean good will to all in my local parish church.  But if our personalities, religious temperaments, and traditionalist views/background makes us a square trying to fit into a round hole, to the majority, then naturally there isn’t a fit.

If you know me in real life, you may have already suspected this, but in the general realm of commonality with like-minded, similar personalities in the traditionalist movement, many who likewise don’t “fit in” with the parish club,  will continue to carry on in our own little reserved space, offering our donations, prayers, moral support, and where prudent our very selves.

The petty disputes, incivility, insular coldness, intra-parish divisions must come to and end.  No Latin Mass parish is free of these problems, even ones like mine that are relatively friendly, communal, and united.  We must stick together, be patient, tolerate differences in opinion and perspective, and help each other get to heaven.

One Last Thing Before I Go to Bed:

Oh, and after reading this long post, be rest assured that such polemical posts regarding my local Church will be coming to an end.  No more reports on how the Diocese may be undoing Catholic Tradition here.  The flack and outright online (and in the flesh) threatening gestures I get for those kind of posts is just not worth the time and mental energy.

To all who I have told my non-blogging name, I did not definitely expose my real name.  So from here on out if someone approaches me in person and asks “Are you that Okie Traditionalist blogger,” unless they seem disposed to pat me on the back, I will not be sharing with people that I am the author of this blog.

I will be focusing my writing instead on the true Universal Church, the traditonal Catholic Faith, our personal life in Oklahoma, and the good, true, and beautiful, and all that interests me.

Starting tomorrow, I will be writing a series of 10 article about Catholic Medical Ethics.

According to Logic, and Pope Francis Himself, He is “Shit.” I’m Done with the “Institutional Church.”

Posted: 26 Aug 2018 11:03 PM PDT

I love syllogisms, for showing how facts and truths in the created world are connected and unfold.

If A = B,
And B = C,
Then A = C.

If, according to the highly credible source of Archbishop Vigano, former US Papal Nuncio/senior Vatican insider, Pope Francis (A) has been covering up clerical sexual abuse of minors (B), committed by one of the highest ranking Cardinals in the Church,

And if it is true in a recent statement of Pope Francis himself in Ireland, that those who cover up the clerical sexual abuse (B) are “shit” (C), his word,

Then it necessarily, logically follows, according to the structure of a syllogism, that according to Pope Francis, (A) he himself is “shit”(C).

The absurdity and irony of this proves just too much to tolerate.

After years of reflection, I have decided as of today, 8/26/2018, that from now on I completely withdraw my support of the “institutional Church” which is in a state of apostasy and universal, satanic corruption.  That includes the Vatican structure, the diocesan structure, and all parish structures in so far as they support the “institutional Church.”

Yet I reject discouragement and despair.  I claim my loyalty and support to my local traditional pastor, and my fellow local faithful Catholics, in so far as we bear witness to the true Catholic Faith, and gather around our local altar for the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Father L.C.

The Okie Traditionalist


Okie Trad “Jumps Ship.” Absolutely No More Official Support of the “Institutional Church.” Shifting Gears.

Posted: 27 Aug 2018 02:21 AM PDT

Introduction:

Considering how deep the Rot really appears to go across the conciliar church establishment, not only on the level of modernism and liberalism, but in the grossest, most satanical way that is Universal, and because collectively the Bishops, and now we know especially Pope Francis himself, have been actively covering up for the clerical molestation crisis;  then that aspect of the “human element” in the Church, which was not instituted by Christ, that is which corresponds to the Vatican, Chancery, and Parochial System, what is commonly today referred to as the “institutional Church,” absolutely does not represent the Church of Jesus Christ.

Neither doctrinally, morally, legally, or on the level of basic humanity.  It is an apostate, satanic, child molesting, unprecendented world scandal, and false church.

And I can say that without any discouragement or despair.  I am not a sedevacantist.  I sympathize with sedevacantists when I’ve befriended them in the past, but that theory has way too many theological problems, and if it is incorrect (which I certainly believe it is), then objectively it is a formal schism from the Church.

Where then is the Universal Church to be found today?

Well, the position I hold, which was that of bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre (let’s make the distinction between his doctrinal positions and what you think of the current SSPX), which Texas Bishop Gracida today generally holds, for example, is that the diocesan structure on the organizational level is no longer synonymous with the Catholic Church.

The “institutional Church” has effectively apostasized.

Yet, I have to accept in principle, and in practice in so far as I am able to determine from in person experience, that the true Church resides only with those Prelates, priests, and laity who unequivocably hold to all the teachings of the Catholic Church.  If they demonstrate a religious praxis that clearly revolts against the doctrine of the Faith, then those men are probably not Catholic and therefore should be avoided as probable non-members.

Considering the state of apostasy throughout the Universal Church, i.e. INSIDE the Church, it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of diocesan bishops, and priests under them, are not Catholic members.  And the more they enable or protect the underground, homosexualist, pedophile, predator clerical establishment that is universal in the Church, the more they try to silence orthodox Catholics who reject their “Church of Nice,” the more likely they have already excommunicated themselves from the Church by the heresies that almost always correspond with those grave abuses.

My Local Diocese:

Therefore, until the Diocese of Tulsa, as with all the dioceses, once and for all properly, directly, and immediately starts to investigate the Presbyterate for homosexual-pedophile-pederast priests, to protect our children, and once and for all officially starts rooting out Catholic progressivism from the diocesan, clerical structure, which fuels them, then that organizational structure in my mind cannot be considered to represent the true Church at the local level.

Therefore, I am bound by conscience to avoid any material, financial, moral, or otherwise support, at the official level, of the diocesan structure per se.

That said, since Christ implicitly established different levels of the Church — i.e. a) the Universal Church, b) the local Church under a territorial Bishop, and c) the most local, public community of believers in one place, then I am required by divine and church law to support our Church at all levels.

At the level of the Church under my bishop, Bishop Konderla of Tulsa, I absolutely support in principle my bishop, and in practice give obedience to him only when not required to sin, or place myself in serious compromise, and I recognize all priests and laity under him, only if they are true, orthodox, Catholics.

How much I like them personally, or think they are progressive or modernistic, or are faithful shepherds, has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are true, valid, members of the Church.  To suggest otherwise is a red herring.

At this point, I have not heard anything formally heretical being promoted by our bishop (heterodoxy is a different form of sin against doctrine, that does not exclude one from the Church), but in my experience as a Tulsa Catholic for decades, most Tulsa diocesan priests and laity are actively rejecting certain Church teachings, and therefore placing themselves outside the Church.  Therefore, on that scale it is impossible to treat the Tulsa diocesan Presbyterate as a corporate body, or all those who collectively officially belong to diocesan parishes or claim to be Catholic, to really and truly be Catholic.

That means that as I look out across the landscape of my local Church, without necessarily judging individual laity and priests, I see that the vast majority are objectively, in the external forum (God judges the internal forum) in a state of heresy, schism, and excommunication.

On a practical level then, what that means as a traditional Catholic, is that I must disregard for now support of the diocesan/chancery structure, especially in view of the current clerical, sex abuse crisis, and hold ecclesial communion in my daily life only with those Catholics who demonstrate outwardly that they hold the Faith.  On a practical level then, I will only support those priests and laity who demonstrate clearly in the public life of their own parish community, as in their behavior during liturgical worship, devotional life, and public teachings, clear signs of professed Catholic orthodoxy.

My Local Parish:

Regarding my chosen local “parish,” in so far as it is in essence the most local, public community in the Church (the domestic home is considered a private, domestic church), which meets each Sunday under one pastor, subject to the local Bishop, gathered together around one particular altar for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I absolutely give it moral and spiritual support, and financial support if I am able to avoid any of it going to the “false church in crisis.”

I absolutely will maintain civility, friendship where reciprocated, and a gentlemanly demeanor to all in my local church, including the pastor.  If welcomed and supported, my family will offer our friendship, talents, times, and energies to building up this traditional Catholic parish church, both in numbers and in terms of holiness, first and foremost through our own personal example and prayers.

But until Bishop Konderla and the chancery makes decisive action against clerical pedophilia and the univeral progressivism that fuels it, then I refuse my Sunday collection donations going to the diocesan structure.  I will give otherwise in creative ways to my parish, per the precept of the Church, as tolerated.  That or put a case of altar wine or box of hosts in the sacristy when no one is looking, from time to time, and give Mass stipends.

It is one thing to be placed in the margins of the Conciliar Church, but another to be treated on the margins within Ecclesia Dei communities.  With exception, “hard-line” traditionalists generally have to suffer this way in the shadows.  So be it.

My Personal Approach:

1.  I will give $ to my trad parish’s building fund, which is not taxed by the diocese, donate to the sacristy, and give Mass stipends to support my pastor.

2.  I will formally refuse support of the parochial/diocesan aspect of my Latin Mass parish, in so far as the pastor and his parish council/leaders officially tolerate the “new religion” in the Church, and acquiesce in giving money without question, and a false respect to the diocese.  Their contradictory, more “conservative,” “anti-traditionalist” orientation to the diocese itself, while tolerating overt traditionalism within the parish as long as it remains quiet and servile, will not be tolerated.

Instead, we must respectfully protest to our local bishop, as the occasion arises, and ask for concessions.  There is a middle course between being seemingly schismatic or rebellious in orientation to our Bishop (which people constantly censor for), and a Stockholm Syndrome that takes a politically correct path of false peace, in fear of losing our Latin Mass, or traditional parish.

3. As for me and my family, we will only participate in the life of our parish community in so far as we are tolerated and treated civilly and openly, both as persons, and in so far as we are “hard-line” traditionalists.

Conclusion:

We must not be afraid, but be prepared with holy indifference to lose the Latin Mass and our approved traditional parishes to be shut down, if it comes to that.

God will provide.  Some will drive the long distance to another Latin Mass.  Others may decide to sit quietly in the back pew praying at the cathedral, until one day another faithful bishop supports the true Mass again.  Whatever the case, I am willing to accept that outcome, rather than be falsely obedient, false to myself, or to others.  One situation is a meritorious state of sorrow and hardship;  the other situation is a state of moral and doctrinal compromise, that is a grave occasion of sin.

If you Strongly Disagree with Me:

If you go to an approved Latin Mass, such as with the FSSP, and find my perspective and approach to be objectively offensive and contrary to the Catholic Faith, on a personal level I cannot oppose you.  The exact nature of this present ecclesial Crisis, and how to respond to it, has not been dogmatically and decisively resolved by the Universal Church.  Therefore, each person must study current Church history and events, and especially the traditional catechesis of the Church, to determine exactly which course to take, or what parish church to go to.

That said, on an objective level, you are in a state of grave error.  You are substantially supporting the Latin Mass as an “option” of personal preference.  You believe in false obedience and a servile posture to the Hierarchy.  You are treating Catholic tradition as something confined to personal enlightenment and private experience.

And that unfortunately is the de facto position and orientation of all Ecclesia Dei communities, since several SSPX priests approached Pope John Paul II to found the FSSP in 1988.

In the end, this is how that inverted, contradictory attitude plays out.  Sooner or later, the devotion to Catholic tradition gets watered down, with more compromises to the novus ordo religion, with more and more false capitulations to the diocesan structure.  The hard-liners get more and more marginalized.  And when the right bishop or presbyteral council is then in place, you/we are sitting ducks.  It is a matter of time before the modernist powers that be shut down the local, traditional apostolate.   And not because of a couple local trad bloggers, or “rad trads” causing problems for the bishop, but because the diocesan modernists hate your very existence.  They hate the very existence of what you are preserving in your parish church.

And they will take advantage of your deafening silence, politically correct group think, and Stockholm Syndrome, to one day snuff you out.

As is the case already here in the Tulsa diocese, since Bishop Slattery retired, in the case of
4 Tradition-minded Catholic communities (Doloran Fathers, Mother Miriam’s community, the Bishop Slattery’s 10 am Sunday Latin Novus Ordo community, and now soon, as reported, likely the one diocesan Latin Mass community still tolerated for now by chancery leadership).

But losing your Latin Mass and parish won’t be the real tragedy.  If, and I say IF, you fundamentally hate and oppose the views I am expressing here, your state of compromise and privatized preference for Sacred Tradition will eventually mean a crisis of faith and despair, when your Latin Mass is cancelled.  You are setting yourself up for a major spiritual let down by trusting the diocesan structure, no matter how “conservative” the diocese is portrayed.

What Me and Mine Will Continue to Do:

As I always have since I converted to Catholic Tradition nearly 20 years ago, I will absolutely put no solid faith in the “institutional Church.”  I will absolutely not place all my faith and trust in the “traditionalist movement” (SSPX, FSSP, or otherwise) as the “pure, innocent, shining savior of the Church.”   I absolutely will not compromise on a doctrinal or practical level to the New Religion, ever, not in one little tiny way, even if that brands me as crazy, weird, or backward.

I will instead place my trust in God, in Christ, in his divine Church, in principle the pope, bishops, and priests only if they are 100% orthodox, and therefore still Catholics.  I will maintain courage and hope, and constantly resist ecclesial discouragement or despair no matter the state of the Church, either Universal or in my own parish.

And I will, until the day I day, publicly and constantly promote, according to the limits and dictates of my state in life, the traditional Catholic Faith and Church.  I will not be afraid of those modernist powers in the “institutional Church.”  They can take away our weekly Latin Mass, they can take away our church, they can kick the FSSP out of the diocese, they can shut down every diocesan, motu proprio Latin Mass.

But in the end, we will have the Catholic Faith!

Lastly, Some Changes:

Likely we will stay within the small, reserved circle in our parish, and not actively participate on a regular basis in most of the parish activities, including the men’s group, Knights of Columbus, building committee, etc.  Trads tend to be insular, within enclosed cliques, even though in general I think people are individually well meaning.  A trad friend recently pointed out most trads are introverted, and since trad parishes tend to stay small, understandably tend not to be actively incorporating new members, beyond saying hello to them in the hallway or church parking lot.

I understand that, and mean good will to all in my local parish church.  But if our personalities, religious temperaments, and traditionalist views/background makes us a square trying to fit into a round hole, to the majority, then naturally there isn’t a fit.

If you know me in real life, you may have already suspected this, but in the general realm of commonality with like-minded, similar personalities in the traditionalist movement, many who likewise don’t “fit in” with the parish club,  will continue to carry on in our own little reserved space, offering our donations, prayers, moral support, and where prudent our very selves.

The petty disputes, incivility, insular coldness, intra-parish divisions must come to and end.  No Latin Mass parish is free of these problems, even ones like mine that are relatively friendly, communal, and united.  We must stick together, be patient, tolerate differences in opinion and perspective, and help each other get to heaven.

One Last Thing Before I Go to Bed:

Oh, and after reading this long post, be rest assured that such polemical posts regarding my local Church will be coming to an end.  No more reports on how the Diocese may be undoing Catholic Tradition here.  The flack and outright online (and in the flesh) threatening gestures I get for those kind of posts is just not worth the time and mental energy.

To all who I have told my non-blogging name, I did not definitely expose my real name.  So from here on out if someone approaches me in person and asks “Are you that Okie Traditionalist blogger,” unless they seem disposed to pat me on the back, I will not be sharing with people that I am the author of this blog.

I will be focusing my writing instead on the true Universal Church, the traditonal Catholic Faith, our personal life in Oklahoma, and the good, true, and beautiful, and all that interests me.

Starting tomorrow, I will be writing a series of 10 article about Catholic Medical Ethics.

According to Logic, and Pope Francis Himself, He is “Shit.” I’m Done with the “Institutional Church.”

Posted: 26 Aug 2018 11:03 PM PDT

I love syllogisms, for showing how facts and truths in the created world are connected and unfold.

If A = B,
And B = C,
Then A = C.

If, according to the highly credible source of Archbishop Vigano, former US Papal Nuncio/senior Vatican insider, Pope Francis (A) has been covering up clerical sexual abuse of minors (B), committed by one of the highest ranking Cardinals in the Church,

And if it is true in a recent statement of Pope Francis himself in Ireland, that those who cover up the clerical sexual abuse (B) are “shit” (C), his word,

Then it necessarily, logically follows, according to the structure of a syllogism, that according to Pope Francis, (A) he himself is “shit”(C).

The absurdity and irony of this proves just too much to tolerate.

After years of reflection, I have decided as of today, 8/26/2018, that from now on I completely withdraw my support of the “institutional Church” which is in a state of apostasy and universal, satanic corruption.  That includes the Vatican structure, the diocesan structure, and all parish structures in so far as they support the “institutional Church.”

Yet I reject discouragement and despair.  I claim my loyalty and support to my local traditional pastor, and my fellow local faithful Catholics, in so far as we bear witness to the true Catholic Faith, and gather around our local altar for the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Tuesday, August 28, 2018
“If I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”—Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, on why he fought financial corruption inside the Vatican over many years, making many enemies

 

=============================

 

A Story about How Archbishop Viganò’s “Testimony” Came to Be
The text below was published yesterday, in Italian, by Italian Catholic journalist Aldo Maria Valli on his blog (link).

 

Valli tells us that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, came to visit him twice this summer before publishing his 11-page report on Church cover-ups of sexual abuse.

 

Valli reports near the end of his story that Viganò, meeting with him at his home in Rome, told him he had “already purchased an airplane ticket” to leave Italy, and cannot tell Valli where will be going.

 

“I am not to look for him,” Valli writes. “His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.”

 

And, as American Catholic writer Steve Skojec, who has published an English traslation of Vallis story on his onePeterfivewebsite, writes (link), in a video interview on EWTN, Catholic journalist Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Registerconfirms that Viganò may fear for his safety, that his life may even be in danger. (link)

 

“A former apostolic nuncio, widely respected for his professionalism and decency, forced to go into hiding at age 78 for simply telling the truth about his fellow apostolic successors,” Skojec observes.

 

Then he adds: “There is perhaps more wisdom in this than there appears to be at first glance. Viganò’s colleague, Monsignor Jean François Lantheaume, whose job it was to inform then-Cardinal McCarrick of the news that Pope Benedict XVI had levied sanctions against him because of his abuses, wrote on his Facebook page earlier this week, after confirming the veracity of the Viganò report (evidently citing a French comedian’s monologe, so, not entirely seriously): “These may be the last lines I write… if I am found chopped up by a chainsaw and my body sunk in concrete, the police and the hacks will say that we have to consider the hypothesis of suicide!!!” (link)

 

Here is the text of this story.

 

=====================

 

This is how Archbishop Viganò gave me his memoir. And why I decided to publish it

 

By Aldo Maria Valli

 

“Doctor, I need to see you.”

 

The tone of the voice is calm, but indicates a note of apprehension. On the phone is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States.

 

I do not hide my surprise. We have met several times at various public convocations, but we can hardly say that we know each other.

 

He explains to me that he is one of my most assiduous readers, who appreciates my courage and my clarity, often united to irony. I thank him and I ask, “But why do you want to see me?”

 

He responds that he cannot tell me on the phone.

 

“All right, then, let’s meet up, but where?”

 

Naïvely I suggest at my office, or at the coffee shop down the street, which is my second office.

 

“No, no, please. As far as possible from the Vatican, far from all indiscreet eyes.”

 

By nature I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can tell that the archbishop is seriously worried.

 

“All right, how about at my house? For dinner? I warn you that my wife will be there and also some of my children.”

 

“At your house will be perfect.”

 

“Shall I come to pick you up?”

 

“No, no, I will come in my car.”

 

And so he came.

 

When the archbishop arrives, on a warm summer evening, I see a man who is older than I remembered. He smiles, but immediately one can tell that something is burdening him. He has a weight on his heart.

 

After introducing my wife and children, and after he blessed the meal, in order to ease the tension a little bit we joke about our common roots in Lombardy (he is from Varese, while my family is from Rho). The archbishop arrived at the agreed upon hour, not a minute late: in Rome this a very rare occurrence.

 

Then Viganò immediately begins to talk.

 

He is worried for the Church, afraid that at its highest levels there are persons who do not work to carry the Gospel of Jesus to the men and women of our time, but rather intend to create confusion and yield to the logic of the world.

 

Then he begins to talk about his long experience in the Secretariate of State, as head of the Vatican City Governatorate, and as nuncio both in Nigeria and in the United States. He drops many names and speaks of many situations.

 

Even I, who have been a Vatican journalist for more than 20 years, find it hard to follow him at times.

 

But I do not interrupt him because I understand he needs to talk.

 

My impression is that he a man who is alone and sad because of what he sees happening all around him, but not bitter.

 

In his words there is never one ugly word directed toward any of the many people he speaks about.

 

The facts speak for themselves.

 

At times he smiles and looks at me, as if to say, “What should I do? Is there a way out?”

 

He says he called me because, although he does not know me personally, he esteems me, above all for the courage and freedom I demonstrate.

 

He adds that my blog is read and appreciated in the “sacred palaces,” even if not everyone can say so openly.

 

I ask him something about his experience at the Governatorate, and he talks about how he succeeded in saving the Vatican’s coffers a lot of expenses by enforcing the rules and putting order into the accounts.

 

I comment, “Well, Monsignor, after that clean-out, you certainly did not make any friends!”

 

He smiles again and responds, “I know! But if I had not done it, I would not have been able to respect myself.”

 

He is a man with a profound sense of duty. At least so it seems to me.

 

After just a few minutes, there is a harmony established between us.

 

My wife, who is a catechist at our parish, and my daughters remain literally speechless as they listen to certain stories. I always say, only half-joking, that good Catholics should not know how things function in the highest levels of the hierarchy, and this evening’s conversation confirms that.

 

However, I do not for a moment regret having invited the archbishop to my house.

 

I believe that the sorrowful testimony of this man, of this elderly servant of the Church, is telling us something of importance – something which, even in the midst of pain and confusion, can help our life of faith.

 

The archbishop says, “I am 78 years old, and I am at the end of my life. The judgment of men does not interest me. The one judgment that counts is that of the good God. He will ask me what I have done for the Church of Christ, and I want to be able to respond to him that I defended her and served her even to the end.”

 

The evening passed in this way. We have the distinct feeling that His Excellency never even noticed what he had on his plate. Between one mouthful and another, he never stopped talking.

 

When I accompany him to his car, I ask myself, “But, in the end, why did he want to see me?”

 

Out of respect for him, and because of a lack of confidence, I do not ask him, but, before he says goodbye, he says to me, “Thank you. We will meet again. Don’t call me. I will contact you.”

 

And he gets in his car.

 

I am a journalist, and so in these situations my first impulse is to go to my computer and write down everything he told me, but I refrain.

 

The archbishop did not forbid me from writing anything. Actually, he didn’t say anything about it. But it is out of the question that he made some revelations to me.

 

And so I understand that the encounter was a sort of test.

 

The archbishop wanted to see if he could trust me.

 

More than a month passes, and he calls me again.

 

The request is the same as last time: “Can we meet together?”

 

“Yes, of course. Would you like to come to my house again?”

 

I warn him that this time, one more daughter will be there, my eldest, as well as her two sons, our grandchildren.

 

“It doesn’t matter,” says Viganò. “The important thing is that at a certain point we have some space to speak together, just the two of us.”

 

And so His Excellency the former nuncio to the United States returned to see us.

 

And this time he seemed a bit less tense. You could tell he was happy to be with this big, somewhat rowdy family.

 

At a certain point, his cell phone rang. A video call from the United States. It’s his nephew: “Oh, sorry, Uncle, I didn’t mean to interrupt you!” Viganò smiles in amusement and shows with his cell phone the whole crowd at the table, including the grandchildren. “What beautiful company!” says his nephew. And then, speaking to me, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect you.”

 

The tension is dissolved. Our three-year-old grandson buzzes around the archbishop and calls him Carlo Maria. Viganò is amused, and it seems that for a few moments, he forgets his worries.

 

But once again, after saying the meal blessing, the archbishop is an overflowing river. So many stories, so many situations, so many names.

 

But this time he focuses more on his years in America. He speaks of the McCarrick case, the ex-cardinal known to be guilty of the most serious abuses, and he makes it clear that everybody knew, in the USA and in the Vatican, for a long time, for years. But they covered it up.

 

I ask, “Truly everybody?”

 

With a nod of the head the archbishop responds yes: truly everybody.

 

I want to ask other questions, but it is not easy to insert myself into the uninterrupted flow of dates, memos, meetings, names.

 

The heart of the matter is that Pope Francis also knew, according to Viganò.

 

And yet he allowed McCarrick to circulate undisturbed, making a joke of the bans imposed on him by Benedict XVI.

 

Francis knew at least since March 2013, when Viganò himself, responding to a question asked by the Pope during a face-to-face meeting, told him that in the Vatican t,here is a large dossier on McCarrick, and he needs to read it.

 

With respect to our previous encounter, there is the new development of the findings that have emerged from the grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania, and Viganò confirms that the image created by the findings is correct.

 

The sexual abuses constitute a phenomenon more extensive than anyone could imagine, and it is not correct to speak of pedophilia, because the overwhelming majority of cases deal with homosexual priests who go hunting for teenage young men.

 

It is more correct, says the archbishop, to speak about ephebophilia, if anything.

 

But the main point is that the web of complicity, silence, cover-up, and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.

 

We sit there, once again, stunned.

 

Because of my work, we had a sense that there was some of this, but for Catholics like us, born and raised in the womb of Mother Church, it is truly difficult to swallow such a mouthful.

 

My question is thus the most naïve of all: “Why?”

 

The response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.”

 

I realize that we have not yet had a moment to speak alone, face to face, as the archbishop had requested. He has spoken in front of everyone.

 

I ask him if he would like go into another room with me, without my wife, daughters, and grandsons, but he says no, it’s okay just like this. It is understood that he is content as we are. For us it is a bit like listening to a grandfather tell us tales of far off worlds, and we so wish that at a certain point, he would say that it’s all fiction.

 

But instead, the world of which he is speaking is our world. He speaks of our Church. He speaks of our supreme pastors.

 

There remains basically only one question: why is the archbishop telling us all this? What does he want from me?

 

This time, I ask him, and the response is that he has written a memoir in which he recounts all of the circumstances of which he has spoken – including the meeting of June 23, 2013, with the pope, when he, Viganò, informed Francis about the dossier on McCarrick.

 

And so?

 

“And so,” he says to me, “if you will permit me, I would like to give you my memoir, which demonstrates that the pope knew and that he did not act. And then you, after evaluating it, may decide whether to publish it or not on your blog, which is widely read. I want this to be known. I do not do this with a light heart, but I think it is the only way left to attempt a change, an authentic conversion.”

 

“I understand. Will you give it only to me?”

 

“No. I will give it to another Italian blogger, to one in England, to an American, to a Canadian. Translations will be made into English and Spanish.”

 

Also, this time, the archbishop does not ask me for confidentiality. I understand that he trusts me. We therefore agree that, at his request, we will meet again, and he will give me his memoir.

 

After a few days he calls me back, and we make arrangements. I cannot say where we met each other, because I gave my word.

 

The archbishop shows up with sunglasses on and a baseball cap. He asks that my first reading of the document be done in his presence, right in front of him, so that, he says, “if something does not convince you, we can discuss it immediately.”

 

I read the whole thing. There are eleven pages. He is amazed at how quickly I read it, and he looks at me: “Well?”

 

I say: “It is strong. Detailed. Well-written. A dramatic picture.”

 

He asks: “Will you publish it?”

 

“Monsignor, do you realize this is a bomb? What should we do?”

 

“I entrust it to you. Think about it.”

 

“Monsignor, do you know what they will say? That you want revenge. That you are full of resentment for having been dismissed from the Governatorate and other things. That you are the crow who leaked the Vatileaks papers. They will say that you are unstable, as well as a conservative of the worst kind.”

 

“I know, I know. But that doesn’t matter to me. The one thing that matters to me is to bring the truth to the surface, so that a purification can begin. At the point that we have reached, there is no other way.”

 

I am not anguished. Deep down inside me, I have already made the decision to publish it, because I feel that I can trust this man.

 

But I ask myself, “What effect will this have on the simplest souls? On good Catholics? Is there not the risk of doing more good than evil?”

 

I realize that I have asked the question aloud, and the archbishop responds: “Think it over. Make a calm evaluation.”

 

We shake hands. He takes off his dark glasses, and we look each other straight in the eye.

 

The fact that he does not force me, that he does not appear anxious to see me publish everything, makes me trust him even more. Is this a maneuver? Is he manipulating me?

 

At home I speak with Serena and the girls. Their advice is always very important for me. What should I do?

 

These are days of questions. I re-read the memoir. It is detailed, but of course it is Viganò’s version of events. I think readers will understand it. I will propose the archbishop’s version, after which, if anyone has contrary arguments, he will propose other versions.

 

My wife reminds me: “But if you publish it, they will think that, by the very fact of publishing it, you are on his side. Are you okay with that?”

 

Yes, I am. Will they judge me to be biased? Patience. After all, I am biased.

 

When I am a reporter, I report the news, and that’s enough. I try to be as aseptic as possible. But in my blog, I am already clearly taking a position, and the readers know well what I think with regard to a certain turn that the Church has taken in recent years.

 

If afterwards somebody will presents me with documents that prove that Viganò is lying, or that his version of the facts is incomplete or incorrect, I will be more than happy to publish these as well.

 

I call the archbishop on the phone. I tell him my decision. We agree on the day and the hour of publication. He says that on the same day at the same hour the others will publish it as well. He has decided on Sunday, August 26 because the pope, returning from Dublin, will have a chance to reply to it by answering questions from journalists on the plane.

 

He alerts me that the daily newspaper La Verità has now been added to the list of those who will publish it.

 

He tells me he has already purchased an airplane ticket. He will leave the country. He cannot tell me where he is going. I am not to look for him. His old cell phone number will no longer work. We say goodbye for the last time.

 

And so it happened. Not that the doubts inside me are over.

 

Did I do good? Did I do evil? I continue to ask myself this.

 

But I am serene.

 

And I re-read the words that Archbishop Viganò wrote at the conclusion of his memoir:

 

“Let’s all pray for the Church and for the Pope, remembering how many times he has asked us to pray for him.

 

“Let’s all renew our faith in the Church our Mother: I believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!

 

“Christ will never abandon his Church!

 

“He has generated her in His Blood and he continuously reanimates her with His Spirit!

 

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary Virgin Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!”

 

–Aldo Maria Valli

 

=============================

 

Tosatti’s role

 

And then there is this news story about another Italian journalist, Marco Tossati, who has just revealed that he in recent days helped Vigano to mke the final edits on his 11-page “Testimony.” Tosatti has covered the Vatican since the 1980s.

 

Here is that story, just out today from the Associated Press (link):

 

Italy journalist says he helped pen bombshell against pope
August 28, 2018
ROME (AP) — An Italian journalist who says he helped a former Vatican diplomat pen his bombshell allegation of sex abuse cover-up against Pope Francis says he persuaded the archbishop to go public after the U.S. church was thrown into turmoil by sex abuse revelations in the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

 

Marco Tosatti said he helped Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganowrite, rewrite and edit his 11-page testimony, saying the two sat side-by-side at a wooden table in Tosatti’s living room for three hours on Aug. 22.

 

Tosatti, a leading conservative critic of Francis, told The Associated Press that Vigano had called him a few weeks ago out of the blue asking to meet, and then proceeded to tell him the information that became the basis of the testimony.

 

Vigano’s document alleges that Francis knew of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick‘s sexual misconduct starting in 2013 but rehabilitated him from sanctions that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed. The claims have shaken Francis’ five-year papacy.

 

Vigano called for Francis to resign over what he said was complicity in covering-up McCarrick’s crimes. There is ample evidence, however, that the Vatican under Benedict and St. John Paul II also covered up that information, and that any sanctions Benedict imposed were never enforced.

 

Vigano has kept largely quiet since the bombshell testimony Sunday, and his whereabouts are unknown. As a result, Tosatti’s reconstruction provides the only insight into how the document came about.

 

Tosatti, a longtime correspondent for Italian daily La Stampa but who now writes largely for more conservative blogs, said after their initial meeting a few weeks ago, Vigano wasn’t prepared to go public.

 

But Tosatti said he called him after the Pennsylvania grand jury report published Aug. 15 alleged some 300 priests in six Pennsylvania dioceses abused more than 1,000 children over the past 70 years, and that a sequence of bishops had covered it up.

 

Tosatti said he told Vigano: “I think that if you want to say something, now is the moment, because everything is going upside-down in the United States. He said ‘OK.'”

 

The two then met at Tosatti’s Rome apartment.

 

“He had prepared some kind of a draft of a document and he sat here by my side,” Tosatti told the AP from behind his desk, pointing to the wooden chair to his right. “I told him that we had to work on it really because it was not in a journalistic style.”

 

Tosatti said he persuaded Vigano to cut claims that couldn’t be substantiated or documented “because it had to be absolutely water-proof.” They worked for three hours.

 

Tosatti said he was well aware of the implications of the document and what it took for a Holy See diplomat to reveal secrets he had kept for years.

 

“They are brought up to die silent,” Tosatti said of Holy See diplomats. “So what he was doing, what he was going to do, was something absolutely against his nature.”

 

But he said Vigano felt compelled to publish out of a sense of duty to the Catholic Church and to clear his conscience.

 

“He enjoys a good health but 77 is an age where you start preparing yourself … he couldn’t have a clear conscience unless he spoke,” Tosatti said.

 

Document in hand, Tosatti then set out to find publications willing to publish it in its entirety: the small Italian daily La Verita, the English-language National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews, and the Spanish online site InfoVaticana.

 

All are ultra-conservative media that have been highly critical of Francis’ mercy-over-morals papacy.

 

The English and Spanish publications translated the Italian document and all agreed on a Sunday morning embargo, coinciding with the second and final day of Francis’ trip to Ireland, where the Catholic church’s sex abuse and cover-up scandal dominated his trip.

 

Tosatti said Vigano didn’t tell him where he was going after the article came out, knowing that the world’s media would be clamoring to speak with him.

As Tosatti accompanied Vigano to his door, he bent down to kiss Vigano’s ring — a sign of respect for Catholic bishops.

 

“He tried to say ‘No.’ I told him ‘It’s not for you, it’s for the role that you (play) that I do it,” Tosatti said. “He didn’t say anything. He went away, but he was crying.”

 

=======================

 

He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” —Blaise Pascal (French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and writer, 1623-1662)

=========================================

 

 

Letter #40, Statements, from Monday, August 27, 2018

 

Note: Yesterday, due to a defct in my email program, I was able to send out Letter #40, but it only went to a few of the 20,000 names on my email list. So here below is that report from yesterday, for those who did not receive it. —Robert Moynihan

 

Day 3
Today was the second day after the release on Saturday, August 25, of the accusations by the long-time Vatican insider and now whistleblower, retired Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77.
Here for reference is the full text of Vigano’s “J’accuse!” (“I accuse!”)
A day of statements.
A day of positioning.
A day of assessing, strategizing, posturing.
A day of analyses by many different writers from many different perspectives, all reacting to Vigano’s allegations.
And most missing the main point.
Which is this: that this is not about Vigano, and not even about Pope Francis, but about the Church.
For Vigano is not simply denouncing one or two men — a cardinal here, an archbishop there, even a Pope — for allowing, even enabling, the sexual abuse of young people over decades, he is denouncing an entire culture of cover-ups and deceit in the Catholic Church.
Vigano is denouncing the existance in the Church today an influential, mutually supportive, self-protective network or “lobby” of Church prelates who, in alliance with groups outside of the Church, would like to revise perennial Church teaching about human sexuality.
Vigano’s statement is really a denunciation of massive eccesial corruption — and in this sense, it is not unlike Pope Benedict’s memorable denunciation of “filth” in the Church in 2005, just before he was elected Pope in April of that year (only to resign 8 years later), and little different, even, from Pope Francis’ denunciation of sexual abuse on many occasions in recent years.
The difference is, Vigano has named names.
He has broken the code.
He has accused his own fellow-Vatican officials of having done too little, too late.
Vigano is not suggesting that this global, ancient institution, the Church, is his institution to lead or guide, or even that it is Pope Francis’s institution (though Vigano clearly acknowledges that it is Pope Francis to whom the present leadership of the Church has been entrusted), and certainly he is not suggesting that it our institution — bloggers, writers, parents, fathers and mothers and children, simple believers — no, not ours, though we are part of it , we are in it, we draw our life from it… but that it is Christ’s institution.
Christ “instituted” the Church, that is, founded it, gave it life, and being, and spirit. His Spirit. It is His Church.
What Vigano has been crying out with great passion is that children have been abused and that the men entrusted with the leadership in our time of Christ’s Church have allowed it, enabled it, turned a blind eye to it — including Francis.
What Vigano has been crying out is that this is unworthy of Christ, unworthy of the founder of the Church, who gave all for the Church, dying for the Church.
And this present situation, which harms children and which makes a mockery of all of the fine words of Church leaders about their desire to protect children from abuse, cannot continue.
Something must change.
There must be true reform.
That is what Vigano is saying, essentially.
On this fundamental point, he is entirely, courageously, heroically right.
But that does not mean that his cries will not be discounted, and mocked as excessive, exaggerated, unbalanced, impolite, and so ignored, set aside.
Already there are efforts to set aside Vigano’s serious accusations through such means.
So the outcome of these recent events is still very much in the balance.
======================
In regard to the Vatican’s handling of sexual abuse cases over the past quarter century (during the time of Vigano’s own service in the Vatican and for the Vatican), Vigano’s claims are principally two: that high-ranking Church leaders have protected molestors and abusers of children, knowingly, and, that they continue to do so.
So, despite all the meetings, all the commissions, all the guidelines, the crisis has not been adequately addressed.
Children are still in danger.
Still, there is tonight no clarity about what the various actors will do.
And many pundits and spin-doctors are madly spinning this story to shift the main thrust from the abuse and molestation of young people to ecclesial infighting between “reformers” and “hardliners.”
Here are just a few of the “Statements” issued today. I include them here as a type of “Dossier” — regrettably incomplete — to allow you to glimpse what is taking place.
========================
Statements
(1) Vigano (link)
Vigano has been widely accused in the press of lacking credibility because he himself is allleged to have mishandled a case of alleged abuse in Minneapolis.
He is accused of blocking an investigation and of suggsting that correspondence be detroyed.
Today Vigano responded to that charge. He denied that he blocked the investigation, and he denied that he had asked for any evidence to be destroyed.
Here below is a piece from Catholic World Report on the matter. (link)

 

Archbishop Viganò responds to criticisms of handling of 2014 Nienstedt investigation

The former nuncio to the U.S. flatly denies assertions that he ordered a stop to an investigation of then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis

August 27, 2018

Carl E. Olson Features, Special Report

 

In an August 26th written statement seen by some media outlets, including Catholic World Report [Note: I also have seen the written statement, but have been asked not to publish it], Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to reports that he ordered a stop to an investigation of then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Viganò flatly denies these assertions, stating, “These accusations – that I would have ordered the two auxiliary bishops of Minneapolis to close the nvestigation on the life of archbishop Nienstedt – are false.”

The charges against Vigano have circulated for years but his recent criticism of an alleged Vatican and U.S. Catholic coverup of Archbishop McCarrick’s reported sexual misconduct have brought the charges back into general discussion.

According to veteran Vatican reporter John Allen, Jr., in an August 27th CRUX article, “Viganò arguably undercut his credibility by not dealing with his own record on the abuse issue.”

Allen then summarizes the central criticism:

According to a 2014 memo, first made public in 2016, Viganò as nuncio quashed an investigation – going as far as demanding that evidence be destroyed – into then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis, who was being investigated for misconduct with seminarians as well as cover-up of sexual abuse. In 2015, Nienstedt stepped down as head of the archdiocese.

Viganò, in his statement, says that in April 2014 he was given affidavits containing accusations that Nienstedt had an affair with a member of the Swiss guard while serving in the Vatican two decades ago.

Viganò says that an inquiry had been conducted by private investigators who were working for a Minneapolis law firm, Greene Espel, that was part of a pro-“homosexual marriage” coalition.

According to Vigano, the inquiry had been conducted in a manner he deemed “unbalanced” and with a “prosecutorial style”.

The investigators, Viganò says, wished to immediately investigate the pontifical Swiss guard without first interviewing Nienstedt.

Viganò says he suggested that Nienstedt be first heard out before further steps be taken: “To the bishops who came at the nunciature on April 12, 2014, I suggested to tell the Greene Espel lawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars – which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion.”

Viganò denies that he said the inquiry should stop or that any documents be destroyed: “I never told anyone that Greene Espel should stop the inquiry, and I never ordered any document be destroyed: any statement to the contrary is false.”

On July 20, 2016, the New York Times published a story by Laurie Goodstein and Richard Pérez-Peña that reported Viganò had “quashed an independent investigation in 2014 into sexual and possible criminal misconduct by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis and ordered Church officials to destroy a letter they wrote to him protesting the decision, according to a memo made public on Wednesday.”

The memo in question was written by Fr. Dan Griffith who, the Times reported, “wrote that the ambassador’s order to call off the investigation and destroy evidence amounted to ‘a good old fashioned cover-up to preserve power and avoid scandal.’”

Viganò, in his statement, says that Griffith was not present at the meeting at the nunciature, which included the archbishop and the two auxiliary bishops.

It was Griffith, writes Viganò, who had retained Greene Espel to investigate Nienstedt on behalf of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

The Times, in its 2014 report, stated, “The document offers a grave indictment of the conduct of the Vatican’s ambassador, and will probably put pressure on Pope Francis to discipline him and Archbishop Nienstedt.”

Viganò states that on July 21, 2016, the nuncio in Washington, DC, Archbishop Christophe Pierre—who had succeeded Viganò three months prior after Viganò had reached the traditional retirement age of 75—was ordered by Pope Francis, via Cardinal Parolin, to immediately open an investigation into Viganò’s alleged coverup.

Viganò says that an American lawyer, Mr. Jeffrey Lena, working for the Holy See, acquired documents from the Congregation for Bishops upholding Viganò’s account of events.

Mr. Lena delivered a report to Pope Francis, according to Viganò, but the Vatican did not make any statement refuting what was reported by the New York Times.

Viganò further says that a report was also given by the nunciature to Cardinal Parolin, and that report is on file at the Secretariat of State and at the nunciature in Washington, DC.

Viganò concludes by stating that he asked both Archbishop Pierre and Archbishop Hebda to correct Griffith’s memo: “On January 28, 2017 I wrote to both Archbishop Pierre and to Archbishop Hebda (who had succeeded Nienstedt) asking them to publicly correct the memorandum of father Griffith. In spite of repeated emails and phone calls, I never heard back from them.”

==================

 

(2) Mons. Jean-Francois Lantheaume (link)

 

Former nunciature official: ‘Vigano said the truth’

 

By Ed Condon, Aug 27, 2018, CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C., has said that the former nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, told “the truth” in his explosive statement released to the press on Aug. 25.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

A Cleansing Fire
Robert Royal on the letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò implicating the pope in the McCarrick scandal. Further stonewalling will make things even worse. 

As virtually the whole world now knows, Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to the United States, has published a blockbuster 11-page letter, naming names of people involved in sexual abuse and cover-ups in America, and their enablers in Rome, up to the very highest levels, including Pope Francis. He provides dates and details and information on where the relevant documents may be found; speaks of persons who can corroborate his story; and has called on everyone implicated, including the Holy Father (who already knew about McCarrick in 2013 and did nothing, he says), to respect the Church’s Zero Tolerance policy, become an example to others, and resign.

I knew Viganò somewhat in Washington and always liked him; he was the best Vatican ambassador we’ve had in recent years. My esteem had grown, even prior to this letter. At the Italian Marcia per la Vita (March for Life), bishops do not participate (the Italian bishops’ conference, displaying deeply misplaced faith, thinks it should work through elected politicians, not public demonstrations). At the last one, I saw Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider; as for other bishops – only Viganò.

Many call him as a man of honesty and integrity. This comes through clearly in passages from his letter such as this:

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.

Defenders of the pope have already raised questions about specific details of the letter. Those will all be settled in good time. But no one has disputed the overall picture, which can be easily confirmed – and probably will be, if there’s any real accountability.

The Vatican has so far been silent, as was Francis on the flight back to Rome from Dublin.

Click here to read the rest of Dr. Royal’s column . . .

Image: Catherine of Siena escorted pope Gregory XI at Rome on 17th January 1377 by Giorgio Vasari, c. 1550 [Sala Regia, Apostolic Palace Vatican]

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BP. ROBERT MCELROY, ALLIES PERSECUTE FAITHFUL SAN DIEGO CATHOLICS

NEWS: US NEWS

Print Friendly and PDF

 

by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  August 27, 2018    70 Comments

St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church co-opted by homosexualist cabal

SAN DIEGO (ChurchMilitant.com) – Faithful Catholics at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church (SJE) are suffering persecution by a homosexualist cabal stretching from their parish all the way up to San Diego Bp. Robert McElroy and Los Angeles Abp. José Gomez. The case offers a glimpse into how a homosexual network corrupts institutions at both the parish and diocesan levels.

Recently, Church Militant spoke with parishioner “Adrian Jesson” about the turmoil faithful SJE Catholics have endured under openly gay church staffer Aaron Bianco and homosexualist enablers inside two Southern California chanceries.

Bianco, Jesson explained, wields considerable power owing to his “very close” relationship with Bp. McElroy and his pro-gay auxiliary, John Dolan.

“Everyone in the diocese is scared of Bianco,” he said. “They all know that whatever he says, goes, due to his closeness to McElroy and Dolan.”

“People sarcastically call him Bp. Aaron,” Jesson added.

Bianco once worked as head of young adult ministry at St. Joseph Cathedral, seat of the San Diego diocese. But after the death of Bp. Cirilo Flores in September 2014, cathedral pastor Fr. Patrick Mulcahy dismissed Bianco, reportedly for using “alternate translations of Bible passages to fit an LGBT narrative.”

Image
Aaron Bianco, pastoral associate at SJE

Soon after pro-gay San Francisco auxiliary Robert McElroy was consecrated bishop of San Diego in April 2015, Bianco’s fortunes began to turn. In June, he secured a position as program outreach associate for Call To Action, a group founded in Detroit that promotes dissident causes like same-sex “marriage” and women’s ordination.

At that time, SJE was being pastored by Fr. William Dillard, a faithful priest who upheld Catholic teaching on homosexuality, even leading his parishioners in prayer for the conversion of San Diegans participating in the city’s annual gay pride parade.

But in 2016, Fr. Dillard was transferred away from SJE. With Fr. Dillard out of the way, that summer, Bp. McElroy installed Bianco at SJE as “pastoral associate.” The activist layman was soon followed by pro-gay priest, Fr. John Dolan.

Image
Auxiliary Bp. John Dolan, former pastor of SJE

Jesson speculates that Fr. Dillard was transferred specifically to make way for Dolan. On Dolan’s arrival, he told Church Militant, “Bp. McElroy and Aaron Bianco began grooming Fr. Dolan into becoming the champion of the LGBT community in San Diego.”

Under the activist duo’s administration, SJE took on a radical new character. As Dolan looked the other way, Bianco launched a propaganda campaign in support of dissident pro-gay group New Ways Ministry (NWM).

Suddenly, posters promoting NWM began popping up on church bulletin boards. Flyers advertising the group’s April 2017 symposium “Justice and Mercy Shall Kiss” appeared on vestibule tables. A pamphlet containing abortion information was found lying on a table in the sacristy.

St. John the Evangelist was deemed the main test church in the U.S. to focus on the LGBT community.Tweet

Appalled, concerned parishioners — including members of the parish chapter of the Legion of Mary — approached Dolan about his heterodox “pastoral associate.”

Image
New Ways Ministry poster on SJE bulletin board

The parishioners questioned Dolan about Bianco’s New Ways Ministry promotion; reportedly, Dolan responded by suggesting NWM is “approved by Bishops.” In fact, though personally backed by pro-gay bishops like McElroy, New Ways Ministry is not approved by the Holy See; it has been formally condemned by the Vatican for its promotion of homosexuality.

In spite of this, Dolan later participated in “Justice and Mercy Shall Kiss.” After learning of their pastor’s plans to attend, faithful SJE Catholics confronted Dolan about New Ways Ministry and its gay agenda. But Dolan was dismissive.

“There are bishops that will be there, so it’s OK,” he told them.

In March 2017, a concerned parishioner wrote a letter expressing her concerns over SJE’s direction under Dolan and Bianco. Aware of Bp. McElroy’s pro-gay worldview, she sent the letter to Los Angeles Abp. José Gomez, not knowing the official above McElroy is the papal nuncio.

Image
Abortion info left in SJE vestibule

“Lately under our new Pastor, Fr. John Dolan, we welcomed the gay community, a very commendable development, advertising the Church as a Welcoming Parish,” she told Abp. Gomez.

But, she continued, “The stance in our SJE Church now is seemingly acceptance without any serious attempt at conversion in the name of mercy.”

She noted that “mercy without truth is not mercy, it is not love, it is cruel and an abuse of extreme magnitude, abandoning our brothers and sisters to eternal punishment.”

“I have talked to three local priests and they informed me that this is the new thrust of our Diocese,” she explained.

Instead of replying to the parishioner or acting on her concerns, Abp. Gomez moved to protect McElroy, Dolan and Bianco; he contacted them to warn them about the letter.

Image
Abp. José Gomez of Los Angeles

Not long after, Bianco confronted the parishioner, saying, “I got that letter you sent to Abp. Gomez! He sent it to me! He’s my friend!”

Together, Dolan and Bianco launched a campaign of repression against faithful SJE Catholics, with devotees of the Blessed Mother targeted for special persecution.

Dolan kicked the Legion of Mary out of the parish, alleging its half-dozen members were not enough to justify their meeting on SJE property; meanwhile, Bianco’s “LGBT Bible study” group — with fewer members than the Legion of Mary chapter — was allowed to remain.

Dolan also ordered a statue of the Virgin Mary installed by Fr. Dillan (and used for parishioners’ house-to-house Rosary chain) to be removed from the church.

Image
Daily Rosary group locked out, praying in SJE parking lot

For his part, Bianco put an end to the Rosary before daily Mass, falsely asserting that parishioners were bothered by it. According to Jesson, those who arrived early for Mass were devotees of the Rosary; they arrived early specifically to pray the Rosary together.

To keep the Rosary group out, Bianco ordered a church volunteer to keep SJE’s doors locked until five minutes before daily Mass. Participants asked if they could pray the Rosary in the church cry room, but Bianco refused.

But the Rosary group refused to disband. For weeks, they met every afternoon outside the church to pray. Jesson told Church Militant that Dolan and Bianco “thought the daily Rosary people would go away, but they continuously showed up every day before Mass and prayed the Rosary in the parking lot.”

The devotees were not allowed to resume praying inside the church until Dolan’s successor was appointed.

Recent revelations by Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, suggest that McElroy (a leading Church liberal), was specially chosen to orchestrate the homosexual infiltration of the San Diego diocese.Tweet

In April 2017, Bp. McElroy promoted Dolan to auxiliary bishop of San Diego.

During Dolan’s transition to his new position, Jesson recalled, Bianco “was fully in charge” of SJE, even conducting communion services.

Once Dolan’s replacement, Fr. Kevin Casey, arrived at SJE, he noticed daily Rosary devotees praying in the parking lot in the afternoon, and realized that the church doors were locked until just before Mass. Father Casey questioned Bianco about the oddities, and within days, the church was re-opened to the Rosary group.

Image
“Theology on Tap” featuring Fr. James Martin

But Bianco’s gay advocacy has continued under Fr. Casey. In March, for example, he organized a “Theology on Tap” event at SJE featuring homosexualist Jesuit Fr. James Martin. The event fell through, but faithful SJE parishioners were nevertheless scandalized.

The McElroy-Dolan-Bianco-Gomez cabal illustrates how the homosexual network infiltrates and operates at the parish level. According to Jesson, he was told by an SJE insider that “St. John the Evangelist was deemed the main test church in the U.S. to focus on the LGBT community.”

The case also provides a glimpse into homosexualist maneuverings at the diocesan level and above.

Recent revelations by Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, suggest that McElroy (a leading Church liberal), was specially chosen to orchestrate the homosexual infiltration of the San Diego diocese.

According to Viganò, McElroy’s appointment came at the order of Vatican Secretary of State Cdl. Pietro Parolin who, along with Pope Francis and several of his advisors, covered up former Cdl. Theodore McCarrick’s history as a serial sexual predator.

Image
Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio

“The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above,” Viganò wrote last week, “with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: ‘Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy‘” [emphasis in original].

Once in power, as he quietly corrupted SJE through protégés Dolan and Bianco, McElroy promoted — and protected — the growing gay network in his own diocese and beyond. As Church Militant reported earlier this month, in August 2016, renowned clerical sex abuse investigator Richard Sipe informed McElroy that McCarrick had been sexually abusing young men and minors for decades. The bishop said and did nothing in response to Sipe’s warning.

McElroy, Dolan and Bianco remain at their respective posts, cultivating the homosexual network. Faithful Catholics are sounding the alarm that if they remain, San Diego will go the way of Albany, devastated by former Bp. Howard Hubbard and a generation of homosexualist rule.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

World Meeting of Families Attendees Demand an Apology

The Dublin World Meeting of Families (WMF) and Pope Francis’s visit to Ireland that just concluded was remarkable for what was NOT said. Unquestionably, the dominant news story from Ireland this summer was the result of the May 2018 Irish national referendum on abortion. The pro-abortion side won this vote by a large majority while the Catholic Church in Ireland only quietly objected to the proposed mass killing of preborn babies, and the Vatican was silent as a tomb. Since May, despite legal challenges alleging voter fraud and illegal manipulation of the campaign that are winding through the Irish court system, the Irish government has proclaimed their firm determination to legalize abortion-on-demand following the summer break.

Enter the World Meeting of Families organized by the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life of the Roman Curia and the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Pope Francis came to conclude the event with a large Mass and met with the Irish president, prime minister and other high government officials.

Could there have been a more heaven-sent chance for the Church to intervene and plead for legislators not to open the floodgates of slaughter for preborn children in the Republic of Ireland? Is there any doubt what Saint John Paul II or Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the champion defender of life and family as president of the Pontifical Council for the Family under John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, would have done or said?

Neither Pope Francis nor Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of Laity, Family and Life for the Holy See, took this golden opportunity. Abortion was a non-issue from the official microphones of the 2018 World Meeting of Families. Pope Francis, in his sermon, made one small reference to the “hard sayings” of Jesus including protecting the most fragile, the unborn and elderly as well as welcoming migrants and strangers. He did make a very lengthy apology for the sins of abuse by the Catholic Church in Ireland. One brave lector wore a pro-life hoodie with the “Love Both” message from the pro-life side of the Irish abortion referendum while reading one of the prayers of the faithful in Polish…

 

 

So what message was proclaimed during this World Meeting of Families and from Pope Francis? It boiled down to apologizing for the sins of the Church and voicing no clear objections to the recent national referendums approving same-sex “marriage” and abortion-on-demand. The WMF went out of its way to be “inclusive” of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, etc. (LGBT) activism. Three talks I attended either focused on fostering and implementing homosexual ministry that supports the “gay lifestyle” or included welcoming LGBT people as part of the message. Of course, the acronym LGBT is now hopelessly out of date. It leaves out the ever expanding alphabet soup such as LGBTQIAPK+ (Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual, Kink and more to come…). The United Nations and other entities like Facebook or New York City now “recognize” dozens of genders with no end to the “creativity” in sight.

One archbishop did, however, go off the dominant script quoting Pope Francis on the dangers of the Gender Ideology at a plenary weekday mass during the WMF. Some Irish said it could have been worse. They expected homosexual activist groups to be granted full access to the WMF exhibitor’s area, but it seems they were not allowed to set up shop alongside the many worthy Catholic apostolates represented.

One thing that was made very clear from interviews and statements by the press and protestors was that no amount of apologies will satisfy them. Their answer to the question what do you want is simply “more.” Once they obtain same-sex “marriage,” transgender rights move to the top of the agenda, then perhaps legalizing pedophilia and incest as certain groups are currently advocating in the USA, etc. No mention was made of homosexual priests abusing boys and teens, but some terrible stories of “Magdalen” homes and orphanages were given prominent attention by the press.

As Pope Francis got on the plane back to Rome the headlines on TV and news outlets were all variations of “Pope Asks for Forgiveness.” Of course, he himself refused to answer the latest personal allegations from the former papal nuncio to the USA, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, that he was briefed in 2013 about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual predator actions. Pope Francis unquestionably lifted the restrictions on McCarrick imposed by Pope Benedict XVI. Worse, it seems Pope Francis relied on McCarrick as a “trusted counselor” in nominating US bishops, particularly Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago and Joseph Tobin as Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey who were then made cardinals. Cardinal Wuerl of Washington DC did cancel his appearance at the WMF over the latest scandals, but Cardinal Cupich was an honored speaker at the Dublin WMF, although he kept away from the “Showing Welcome and Respect in our Parishes for ‘LGBT’ People and their Families” that Father James Martin S.J. headlined.

If one had to choose one word to describe the World Meeting of Families and papal visit from a mass communications standpoint, it would be “Fiasco.” The entire event was hijacked by hostile attacks and mea culpas. Almost nothing of the Church’s message about Life, Marriage or Family got through to the general public. There were, however, several good talks at the pastoral theological congress that received no coverage at all.

Many people made comparisons to the 1979 Pope John Paul II visit when a million people flocked to hear Catholic teaching boldly proclaimed. This time, only 300,000 people turned up to see Pope Francis at the closing Mass… Actually, church attendance in Ireland has fallen about two thirds, so this does seem to accurately reflect the “New Ireland.” Openly gay Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar went on the offensive when he met Pope Francis saying that the Catholic Church needed to play a smaller role in Irish society… Certainly gay “marriage” and abortion-on-demand seem to be hallmarks of modern Ireland as well as a dramatic decline in religious vocations and church attendance.

Faithful Catholics can only deplore the failure to proclaim the Gospel of Life and the Gospel of the Family by so many Church leaders from Ireland and the Vatican. The World Meeting of Families and papal visit were a unique opportunity that was badly flubbed. In this 50th anniversary year of Humanae Vitae, Christ’s message about marriage and family seems an embarrassment or something to relegate to the margins for important Church leaders. Interestingly, as I walked among those actually attending the WMF, most exuded faithful Catholicism with notably large numbers of small children… Many exhibitors who bought stands were pro-life groups and conservative religious congregations, and crowds flocked to them and not to the UNICEF or eco-spirituality exhibits. Perhaps the out of touch clerics in charge could have taken a cue from the faithful who wanted Christ and not squish. We demand an apology as well.

(Photo credit: Papal Mass in Ireland; Daniel Ibanez / CNA)

Joseph Meaney

By

Joseph Meaney is the Director of International Outreach and Expansion for Human Life International. Joseph completed his PhD in Bioethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome in 2015. His bachelors and masters degrees from the Catholic University of Dallas and the University of Texas Institute of Latin American Studies prepared him for an international career that has included lectures and investigative journalism missions on six continents and over 67 countries. He speaks French, Spanish, and Italian fluently.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vatican City Flag
Vatican City Flag (Andreas Duren/ CNA)
 |  AUG. 27, 2018
Former U.S. Nunciature Official: ‘Vigano Said the Truth’
Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the U.S. apostolic nunciature, confirmed to CNA Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony that sanctions were communicated to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

WASHINGTON — Msgr. Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counselor at the Vatican’s apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C., has said that the former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, told “the truth” in his explosive statement released to the press Aug. 25.

The 11-page document contains specific allegations that senior bishops and cardinals have been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick for more than a decade.

Archbishop Viganò also states that, in either 2009 or 2010, Pope Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on the disgraced cardinal “similar to those now imposed upon him by Pope Francis” and that then-Cardinal McCarrick was forbidden from traveling and speaking in public.

In his statement, Archbishop Viganò says that these were communicated to McCarrick in a stormy meeting at the nunciature in Washington D.C. by then-nuncio Archbishop Pietro Sambi. Archbishop Viganò directly cites Msgr. Lantheaume as having told him about the encounter, following his arrival in D.C to replace Archbishop Sambi as nuncio in 2011.

“Msgr. Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d’Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington —  and he is ready to testify to it —  about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that ‘the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.’”

CNA contacted Msgr. Lantheaume and requested an interview with him to discuss the account attributed to him by Archbishop Viganò. Msgr. Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, and said he had no intentions of speaking further on the matter.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.

The full text of Archbishop Viganò’s statement lists numerous senior curial cardinals, during the last three pontificates, as being aware of Archbishop McCarrick’s alleged predatory behavior but either failing to act, or in some cases deliberately acting to cover-up his alleged crimes.

The former nuncio names three Vatican secretaries of state — Cardinals Angelo Sodano (now the dean of the College of Cardinals), Tarcisio Bertone and Pietro Parolin — as having failed to curtail Archbishop McCarrick’s behavior, or positively acting to support him.

“Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents,” Viganò wrote.

Most controversially, Archbishop Viganò alleges that Pope Francis acted to lift the restrictions on Archbishop McCarrick shortly after his election as pope, in 2013.

Archbishop Viganò says that he met the former Washington archbishop in June 2013 and was told by the then-cardinal, “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”

In a subsequent meeting with Francis, Archbishop Viganò says he warned the Pope about the long list of allegations against Archbishop McCarrick but that the Holy Father did not respond.

Archbishop McCarrick is believed to still be residing within the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., under conditions of “prayer, penance and seclusion” imposed by Pope Francis.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monday, August 27, 2018

Gay Advocates Faggioli, Winters & Ivereigh are now Accomplices in Francis’s McCarrick Cover-up as Vigano’s Report Confirmed

The pro-gay Catholic media is now a accomplice in the Pope Francis cover-up of sex abuser ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick which the Vatican’s former Apostlic Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’s 11-page report revealed.

The pro-gay Catholic media “would [never] call “a bishop a ‘terrorist’ [‘,crude putsch’ or a ‘trafficker in conspiracy theories’] for sodomizing seminarians”:

After dropping the bomb, the terrorist Viganò days: ‘Silence and prayer are the only things that are befitting.'” 

Faggioli got this response:

“NubesPluantIustum @pluant Aug 26

One wonders if would ever call a bishop a ‘terrorist’ for sodomizing seminarians?”

[https://mobile.twitter.com/MassimoFaggioli/status/1033726167558352896 ]

– The pro-gay Austin Ivereigh said:

“Viganò is engaged in a “crude putsch” for ‘Team Burke’.”

– The notorious pro-gay Michael Sean Winters said:

“Viganò is the conservative Catholic Oliver Stone (!) – ‘a trafficker in conspiracy theories who mixes fact, fiction and venom…'”
[http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/08/vatican-source-news-of-archbishop.html?m=1]

Gay advocates Faggioli, Winters and Ivereigh will now go down in Church history as accomplices in Francis’s McCarrick sex abuse cover-up of possibly one of the most senior sinister Church sex abusers in history as the Archbishop Vigano’s report is confirmed by reliable sources:

The Catholic News Agency (CNA) obtained a brief statement from Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counselor of the nunciature in Washington confirmed Vigano’s report of Pope Francis’s covered-up of sex abuser ex-Cardinal McCarrick:

“’Viganò said the truth. That’s all,’ said Lantheaume, in a written response.”
[Pope Refuses to Answer Questions on Viganò Accusations as Another Former Vatican Diplomat Confirms ReportBy Steve Skojec on Aug 27, 2018 ] 

Fr. Carlos Martins, a priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit, with a trusted Vatican Curia contact, also, confirmed Vigano’s report of Francis’s covered-up of sex abuser McCarrick on his Facebook page :

“I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia. He said that the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb. Two things are universally noted regarding Viganò:”

“1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported. In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor. This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief.Viganò always had a reputation for being a combatant of internal Vatican corruption. In fact, during the Vatican leaks scandal, whistle-blowing reports that he authored were among the main documents that were leaked. This was an attempt by the persons he outed to pre-empt the report’s impact and suck the energy out of the attempt to investigate their claims. …”

“In the words of the Curial official I spoke with this afternoon, what Viganò has reported “makes the Borgia popes look like saints.” The feeling in the Curia right now is that the response of Viganò’s enemies will to try to discredit him personally, both because of the impeccability of Viganò’s character and the impossibility of his having interpreted the facts incorrectly. Their only hope will be to try to take energy away from the perversion and corruption that he uncovered. They will likely state that he is a bitter man who is seeking personal aggrandizement after having been exiled from Rome. When this occurs, don’t buy into it. Viganò is retired. He has nothing personally to gain from this.” [Pope Refuses to Answer Questions on Viganò Accusations as Another Former Vatican Diplomat Confirms ReportBy Steve Skojec on Aug 27, 2018 ] 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PODCAzT 167: Reflection of Bp. Athanasius Schneider about The Viganò Testimony

I received this Reflection on the Viganò Testimony by Bp. Schneider.

I read it aloud to help those who can’t always sit still to read on screens have access to the bishop’s reflection.

Reflection about the “Testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò from August 22, 2018

By Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider

It is a rare and an extremely grave fact in Church History that a bishop accuses publicly and specifically a reigning Pope. In a recently published document (from August 22, 2018) Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò testifies, that since five years, Pope Francis had known two facts: that Cardinal Theodor McCarrick committed sex offenses against seminarians and against his subordinates, and that there are sanctions, which Pope Benedict XVI imposed on him. Furthermore, Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God. There is, therefore, no reasonable and plausible cause to doubt the truth content of the document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

Catholics all over the world, the simple faithful, the “little ones”, are deeply shocked and scandalized about recently disclosed grave cases in which Church authorities covered and protected clerics who committed sexual offenses against minors and against their own subordinates. Such an historical situation, which the Church is experiencing in our days, requires absolute transparency on all levels of Church’s hierarchy, and in first place evidently on behalf of the Pope.

It is completely insufficient and unconvincing, that Church authorities continue to formulate general appeals for a zero tolerance in the cases of clerical sexual abuses and for a stop of covering such cases. Equally insufficient are the stereotyped pleas for forgiveness on behalf of Church authorities. Such appeals for zero tolerance and pleas for forgiveness will become credible only if the authorities of the Roman Curia will lay the cards on the table, giving the names and surnames of all those in the Roman Curia – independent of their rank and title –  who covered the cases of sexual abuse of minors and of subordinates.

From the document of Archbishop Viganò one can draw the following conclusions:

(1) That the Holy See and the Pope himself will start to cleanse uncompromisingly the Roman Curia and the episcopate from homosexual cliques and networks. (2) That the Pope will proclaim unambiguously the Divine doctrine about the grievously sinful character of homosexual acts. (3) That there will be issued peremptory and detailed norms, which will prevent the ordination of men with a homosexual tendency. (4) That the Pope restores the purity and unambiguity of the entire Catholic doctrine in teaching and preaching. (5) That there will be restored in the Church through papal and episcopal teaching and through practical norms the ever valid Christian ascesis: the exercises of fasting, of corporal penitence, of abnegations. (6) That there will be restored in the Church the spirit and the praxis of reparation and expiation for sins committed. (7) That there will start in the Church a securely guaranteed selection process of candidates to the episcopacy, who are demonstrably true men of God; and that it would be better to leave the dioceses several years without a bishop rather than to appoint a candidate who is not a true man of God in prayer, in doctrine and in moral life. (8) That there will start in the Church a movement especially among cardinals, bishops and priests to renounce any compromise and any flirt with the world.

One would not be surprised, when the mainstream oligarchical international media, which promote homosexuality and moral depravity, will start to denigrate the person of Archbishop Viganò and to let disappear the core issue of his document in the sand.

In midst of the spreading of Luther’s heresy and the deep moral crisis of a considerable part of the clergy and especially of the Roman Curia, Pope Adrian VI wrote the following astonishingly frank words, addressed to the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg in 1522: “We know, that for some time many abominations, abuses in ecclesiastical affairs, and violations of rights have taken place in the Holy See; and that all things have been perverted into bad. From the head the corruption has passed to the limbs, from the Pope to the prelates: we have all departed; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Ruthlessness and transparency in detecting and in confessing the evils in the life of the Church will help to