I’m pretty sure most of us are fed up with hearing about Lilianne Ploumen  and her award from the Vatican. I know I am. But there’s been a development that is just too amazing not to share.

And I’ll get to it, but I’m going to leave you hanging for just a minute because first I want to share some additional background from my colleague in Rome, Marco Tosatti. We’ve translated one of his reports from last week — before the latest development — and he brings some details and considerations (and amusing commentary) to bear that will help set the stage for what happened after. 

I’m only going to cite a portion of his article here, because some of it you’ll have already heard in our other reports. But permit me to share the majority of his piece, because it’s worth reading.

The following is a translated excerpt of a post on Stilum Curiae, the blog at MarcoTosatti.com. It has been translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino. 

The Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great is a chivalric order of the Holy See instituted by Pope Gregory XVI on September 1, 1831. In the official directions for the conferral of pontifical ecclesiastical and lay honors issued on May 13, 2001, it is foreseen that the large cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great will be conferred on “candidates distinguished for their service to the Church at the national and international level, at least 55 years old, and at least 10 years after the conferral of an honor of a lower degree.”

The list of those who have received this award includes the names of G.K. Chesterton, the writer Louis de Wohl, the economist Stefano Zamagni, and the musician Riccardo Muti.

The same document spells out the procedure for the conferral of the honors: “Diocesan Bishops may propose the conferral of a pontifical honor on both clergy and laity, as a sign of appreciation and recognition for the service they have rendered. A Vicar General may likewise request such an award, but he must explicitly declare that he is acting with the express authorization of his Bishop. The request, accompanied by the curriculum vitae of the candidate (age, profession, family and social condition, along with an accurate description of their merits with regard to their service to the Church), ought to be sent to the Apostolic Nunciature, which will in turn send it to the Secretary of State after giving it the required nulla osta. Those requests coming from territories subject to the oversight of the Congregations for the Oriental Churches and for the Evangelization of Peoples should first be sent to the competent Dicastery which will in turn see to its transmission to the Secretary of State.”

In the First section of the Secretary of State, which deals with General Affairs, there is an office, to tell the truth not a very important one, which deals with these types of matters of “merits”. There has been discussion many times in the past about the value of maintaining this office, which seems a bit antiquated. If I am not mistaken – correct me if I am – this office is occupied by the Egyptian secretary of the Pope and Monsignor Burgazzi.

The reactions to the news were very diverse and interesting. A few – including some among those commenting on Stilum Curiae – decried it as a hoax, as fakenews, and so on. The same reaction was seen on social media by those who are Bergoglio’s fans. And not just the “little people” as we used to say. Among those who sought to demonstrate – and verify – the hypothesis that the medal was bought for a few euros on the Internet there was also a friend of mine who holds an important role in communications at Pontifical university which specializes in communication… such is the power of love.

Strangely, the hordes of my Vaticanist colleagues showed no interest in the news.  And that, if you will permit me to say it, is strange. It would be as if the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem, or the University of Al Azhar, gave an honor to Citterio [Salami] or to San Daniele Prosciutto. But perhaps my colleagues wanted, and want, not to annoy the institutional Church. So I had to smile when on the plane a colleague asked the Pope whether he was afraid to speak with journalists. And why should he be afraid of anything – perhaps, I don’t know, of an embarrassing question?

I thought, erroneously, that surely some agency colleague in the Vatican Press Office, as is standard procedure in such cases, would ask for a clarification. But this did not happen, and so I thought it would be appropriate for me to write personally [asking for a clarification]. The following day a response was sent to me from the Holy See Press Office through the mouth of the Assistant Directress, the journalist Paloma Garcia Ovejero, whom I thank. Also because I know that other colleagues – Steve Skojec of OnePeterFive, for sure – did not receive any reply to their question.

“The honor of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great received by Ms. Lilianne Ploumen, former Minister of Development, in June 2017, during the visit of the Dutch royalty to the Holy Father, responds to the diplomatic practice of exchanging honors between delegations on the occasion of official visits of Heads of State or Government to the Vatican. Therefore it was not in the least a placet to the political action in favor of abortion and birth control which Ms. Ploumen has promoted,” wrote Paloma, thus confirming the news.

In the meantime Cardinal Eijk had issued a statement, saying that he did not know anything about the matter, and that he had not been consulted. Apparently the President of the Dutch Bishops’ Conference was not consulted either. But in order to have a complete clarification a few items are still lacking. Could it be that Lilianne Ploumen’s profile was effectively vetted without – incredibly – any objection? Was any bishop or cardinal of the Dutch Bishops’ Conference consulted or asked to give an opinion? From the response of the Holy See it would seem that a few of these honors, as standard procedure, are put on a little tray to be handed out during the course of the visit to anyone who is a part of the delegation. As one of my friends noted: “If that were the case, one could not exclude the possibility that any one of Dr. Mengele’s imitators received at the Vatican could find himself receiving one of these honors, without any expectation that such an action would be interpreted as an endorsement of experimentation on prisoners.”

Certainly, at least in theory, these medals are given out because of merits…if so, what sense would there be in showering them out like rain for the sake of diplomatic practice, without any verification of who is receiving them?

My friend asks himself: “Was it necessary and diplomatically unavoidable?” When Hitler was received in Italy on May 2, 1938 he was the Chancellor of Germany. Certainly his ideas were known, but he had not yet revealed himself to be the monster that he was; Kristallnacht would not occur until November 9 of that year and the deportations to the extermination camps would follow in due course, but already Pius XI was most firm: he would not receive the Chancellor of the Reich, he opposed decorating the Via della Conciliazione, he openly deplored the fact that the Celtic cross was displayed in place of the Cross of Christ in the decoration of the city of Rome, showing through all of his objections his pastoral zeal for the people. “But today,” my friend continues, “can diplomatic etiquette really take the place of the [Lord’s] commandment not to give scandal? What is more abject than the support for policies of exterminating innocent children? Is abortion no longer an ‘abominable delict’?”

These are important questions, especially important for millions of persons throughout the world, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who fight against abortion, even to the point of being imprisoned, such as the Canadian activist Mary Wagner. People who are pro-life and pro-family remain shocked by this fact; and my opinion is that the Holy See needed to give a much more profound and articulate response as to how and why such a colossal gaffe could have been possible. And do you not find it astounding that, out of seventy of my colleagues who greeted the Pope during his flight to Chile, not one thought to ask him a simple, simple question, like: “Your Holiness, why did you give a medal to an abortionist?”

When Marco wrote all this last Friday, of course, he did not know that the Vatican had one more clarification coming. Yesterday, the National Catholic Register‘s Rome correspondent, Edward Pentin, reported what he was told:

The Vatican currently has no plans to change the procedure of exchanging honors during historic official visits of heads of state to the Vatican, and believes that the responsibility for any subsequent abuse of such decorations rests with the visiting delegation.

Despite the outcry over giving militant pro-abortion Dutch politician Lilianne Ploumen a medal of Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great last summer, Vatican officials believe the statement issued about the honor last week by deputy spokeswoman Paloma Garcia-Ovejero was enough, and that Ploumen’s award was actually meant as a snub. [emphasis added]

I’m going to stop there for a second so you can finish laughing, maybe clean the coffee (or whiskey, not judging) off your keyboard and screen.

Everyone OK?

Good. Let’s continue:

In answer to a Register enquiry on Monday, an official would not say whether better vetting procedures would be implemented in the future to prevent it happening again, insisting instead this was “a very traditional procedure” for such an “historic occasion” and was really meant as a way of “honoring the king.” It is something that “has been done many times in the past for other visiting heads of state,” he said.

The source added the honor was no different to someone “going to visit someone else’s house as a guest, and who comes with companions: one shows a minimum amount of respect to whom he brings.”

The Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great medal is normally given in recognition of “personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church, through [the recipient’s] unusual labors, their support of the Holy See, and their excellent examples set forth in their communities and their countries.”

Ploumen will not be installed as a Dame of the Order, and in fact by giving her such a medal, the source said the honor was meant as a “slight” because a government minister normally receives a more distinguished decoration. The king, for instance, received “the Grand Collar,” an ornate chain worn about the neck to symobolize membership of a chivalric order.

Can you just imagine some Vatican bureaucrat rubbing his hands together manically or twirling his mustaches, saying, “I know how we’ll stick it to that militant abortion promoter! We’ll GIVE HER A PAPAL AWARD DESIGNATED FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE TO THE CHURCH!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! SHE’LL BE SO INSULTED!!!!”

Give. Me. A. Break.

I know the Vatican thinks we’re all indescribably stupid, but if there’s ever been a case of “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” it’s this.

And while their ridiculous excuse here is good for a laugh, or raging bellow at your screen, or both — at their expense — what’s tragic and inexcusable is the dishonor these disrespectful children in Rome are showing to those who have received the Order of St. Gregory in the past. They — and they alone — are the recipients of a “slight” or a “snub” from the Vatican here. As Marco Tosatti wrote, in a section of his post not included in the above excerpt, this pontifical decoration “signifies something more than an adhesive souvenir to attach to the refrigerator.”

I’ve heard from some of the offended — recipients of the Order of St. Gregory and their family members alike — since the story first broke. Individuals for whom their receipt of the award, or the award given to a family member, was a singular moment of honor in their lives. These decorations, far from being disposable trinkets, were handed down as precious heirlooms to descendants as reminders of the faithfulness of parents or grandparents who had gone before them.

One person who wrote to me about their Grandfather receiving the medal half a century ago said that the title that came with it was engraved on his tombstone: “Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great.”

“I feel like I’ve been kicked in the stomach,” the person told me. “This award has lost its special significance with its bestowal on this pro-abortion advocate.”

As if giving the award to an abortion extremist wasn’t enough, they have cast disgrace upon all previous recipients of the award over the better part of two centuries. The Vatican should be utterly ashamed.

The Diocese of Poitiers, France has published a pro-LGBT article in the latest issue of its diocesan journal. The article, entitled “Parents of Children who are ‘Different’, Homosexual” was written by “parents of homosexual children.”

They write:

We are trying to love our children, by not judging them, by trying to understand them and accept them as they are. Thanks to them, we have changed our attitude. They have taught us tolerance {of what? of sin?}, how to come out of our conformism, to be in the truth. They have opened us to the Spirit of the Word of Christ, “Love one another,” by accepting their differences. Our children have the right to live an ordinary life {is the gay lifestyle, which includes sodomy, part of an ordinary lifestyle?}. Just because they are different one must not imagine that they are to be treated differently {we must not judge the state of their soul, but we must judge their lifestyle}. Pope Francis shows the way, he who says, “Who am I to judge?” What matters most to us … is the happiness of our children.

The article continues by declaring categorically that the Church has not supported them:

Unhappily, the Church has not helped us, since its positions, especially its position on the law regarding marriage for all, has revolted us. Society has just taken a big step forward, and, yet again, many Christians are lagging behind this evolution. It is difficult to be comfortable in a Church which does not recognize one part of its members. Will she ever be able to recognize her past errors? { WOW! What a Syllabus of Errors!}

They say they are waiting for the day when other Christians will ask them to share their experiences and acknowledge how they have suffered because of the intolerance of other Christians.

When priests will remember that our children are loved by God, and that God is with us, as they proclaim in the Liturgy, ‘The Lord be with you!’ Less [sic] long sermons and more concrete steps!

The signatories invoke the oft repeated words of Pope John Paul II, “Do not be afraid!,” and ask that the Church become a place where every person will be welcome “without distinction, without judgment. We wish for our homosexual children what Jesus always did, he who welcomed Zaccheus, Mary Magdalene, the Good Samaritan, the lepers whom he held in his arms.” In order to accomplish this change, “it is enough to return to the sources of the Gospel, getting rid of the straitjacket of fear which gave birth to a rigid morality, petrified over the course of history. May our local communities not reproduce this schema of guilt and judgment, but instead, may their priority be openness, respect, listening, compassion – in brief, welcoming all.”

The article concludes by thanking the local bishop for having dared to open the door and “explode the straitjacket” (of traditional Catholic moral teaching).

The French website Riposte-catholique comments on this article, saying:

It seems unacceptable to read such an article in an official Catholic journal denigrating the actions of its brothers who mobilized themselves against the Taubira law [purporting to redefine marriage to include sodomitical pairs in France in 2013]; the LMPT movement [against same] had nothing scornful to say against homosexuals. The author of the article (“12 parents of  homosexual children”) voluntarily employs a rebel tone and considers himself, just like the action of the diocese, to be in rupture with the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church … and he is probably right.

There is manifest secularization in the Diocese of Poitiers that drifts toward a humanist conception of the Church adoring an impersonal god and relativized in a religion without any requirements, therefore without any sin. This diocese of Poitiers has been taken over by the left and is always living out the legacy of [former bishop] Joseph Rozier [1975-1994]; the last archbishops pursued the same politics.

The diocese now has almost no vocations. The few remaining candidates for the priesthood have for a long time preferred to go elsewhere for their formation, in order to receive a better quality of teaching.

Editor’s note: The material quoted herein was translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino.

It was arguably his most stunning statement to date as pontiff.

As I reported last week, while in Chile, the pope accused victims of clerical sexual abuse perpetrated by Fr. Fernando Karadima of “calumny” for alleging that his protege, papal appointee to the Diocese of Osorno, Bishop Juan Barros, of having either known of or even observed the abuse being performed.  “There is not one shred of proof against him.” Francis said.. “It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”

The most vocal accuser, Juan Carlos Cruz, offered a stinging rebuttal, saying, “As if one could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros standing next to him watching everything.”

Barros maintains his innocence, but Karadima, despite his crimes falling outside the legal statute of limitations, was ordered by the Vatican, following an investigation, to retirement and “a life of prayer and penance” and a “lifelong prohibition from the public exercise of any ministerial act, particularly confession and the spiritual guidance of any category of persons”. A judge in Chile also said that while she could not legally move the case forward, proof of Karadima’s crimes “wasn’t lacking.”

So, in a situation where both the state and ecclesiastical courts have found evidence of guilt, the pope effectively called one of the victims a liar because he cannot bring “proof” that his hand-picked bishop stood by and watched while the young man was abused.

There has been more pickup in the secular media than the last time Francis lashed out at the victims in Chile, calling them “dumb” or “stupid” (depending on the translation), but why isn’t every media outlet everywhere running this story? If pope Benedict had said this, they would have been digging up the most hideous pictures of him they could find and splashing them across front pages everywhere.

Meanwhile, the pope hasn’t learned his lesson. He was chastised in the most pusillanimous {almost apologetic} way by Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston over the weekend. O’Malley — who chairs the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM) — said in a statement that “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator”.

A good start, right? But O’Malley didn’t stop there:

What I do know, however, is that Pope Francis fully recognizes the egregious failures of the Church and it’s clergy who abused children and the devastating impact those crimes have had on survivors and their loved ones.

Accompanying the Holy Father at numerous meetings with survivors I have witnessed his pain of knowing the depth and breadth of the wounds inflicted on those who were abused and that the process of recovery can take a lifetime. The Pope’s statements that there is no place in the life of the Church for those who would abuse children and that we must adhere to zero tolerance for these crimes are genuine and they are his commitment.

Having sufficiently ameliorated {apologizing to the Francis for} his criticism, “Cardinal Sean” was allowed to remain a useful minion of the papacy, and the pope decided to use his comments as a teachable moment. A moment in which he could say he was sorry – and then double down on what he did wrong in the first place.

During today’s plane presser, the pope explained (full text link) how he had had the case of Bishop Barros “studied” and “investigated.” He went on:

I had it worked on a lot. And truly there is no evidence. I use the word evidence. Then I will speak about proof. There is no evidence of culpability, it seems that it will not be found.

He said he would follow the maxim of “no one is guilty until it is proven.” But he also admitted that

When the scandal with Karadima was discovered, we all know this scandal, we began to see many priests who were formed by Karadima who were either abused or who were abusers.

He then discussed how Barros had tried to resign more than once, but Francis had turned him down, saying it would make him look like an admission of guilt. He then continued:

I will pass to a third point, that of the letter I explained clearly: what those who have been abused feel. With this I have to ask forgiveness because the word “proof” wounded, it wounded many people who were abused, but I must go to look for the certificate, I have to do that — a word on translation, in the legal jargon, I wounded them. I ask them for forgiveness because I wounded them without realizing it, but it was an unintended wound. And this horrified me a lot, because I had received them. (But) in Chile I received two [abuse victims] as you know, I met others that I kept hidden. In every trip, there is always some possibility. The ones in Philadelphia were published, three (meetings) were published, then the other cases no… And I know how much they suffer, to feel that the Pope says in their face ‘bring me a letter, a proof.’ It’s a slap. And I agree that my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think, and I understand how the Apostle Peter, in one of his letters, says that the fire has been raised. This is what I can say with sincerity. Barros will remain there if I don’t find a way to condemn him. I cannot condemn him if I don’t have — I don’t say proof — but evidence. And there are many ways to get evidence. Is that clear? [emphasis added]

Note that he is not apologizing for accusing them of “calumny” (or “slander”, depending on the translation) but for insisting on “proof” instead of “evidence.” And note that he is only apologizing for the offense, not for the belief he still holds that caused it.

So we have a known victim of sexual abuse by a Chilean cleric — a cleric whose abuse, the pope admits, produced subsequent abusers, as is often the case — and that victim also accuses one of that abuser’s proteges of standing and watching while the crime takes place. And the pope accuses the man of making it all up to slander a man.

It is certainly a possibility that the pope is right. In the absence of evidence, accusations like these have been used to destroy reputations before.

But if it is true, what proof can possibly be brought forward? What evidence? What does the man have to gain by saying it? And what benefit did the pope derive from appointing such a controversial figure in the first place over the protest of his would-be diocese — protests that have made him unable to effectively lead his flock? Why would the pope continue to leave him in place after all of this?

Marie Collins, the abuse survivor who quit the PCPM in 2017 over obstacles to its mandate that included limitation of resources and curial interference, said at the time of her resignation that she believed “the pope does at heart understand the horror of abuse and the need for those who would hurt minors to be stopped.”

She tweeted some quite different messages this morning:

The Pope is reported as unconcerned by the month long delay in member appointments to PCPM, the proposed names are being vetted by the Roman Curia. These facts says all that is needed to be said about the priority being given to this Commission and this issue in the Vatican #PCPM

[…]

I have been asked by media to comment on the words of the Pope today on the Commission for Protection of Minors and Barros “evidence”. Why comment? It’s a pointless waste of effort. Sorry for such a negative non comment it’s just the way I feel right now.

Even though this story isn’t showing up as broadly or in as damning terms as one might expect were Francis an orthodox Catholic, for some, his papacy has more than lost its luster.

Notice the editorializing language in the Reuters piece I cited above. It shows how serious a stumble this has been for a man who has been a non-stop media rock star:

“the pope replied in a snippy tone”

Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018.

When Pope Francis slandered victims of sexual abuse, ironically by accusing those very victims of slandering a Chilean bishop who was complicit in that abuse, he confirmed what some critics have said all along, what I have always resisted embracing: Pope Francis is a company man, no better than his predecessors when it comes to siding with the institutional Roman Catholic Church against any who would criticize it or those, even children, who have been victimized by it.

I offer my hearty congratulations to His Holiness, His Eminence, or whatever self-regarding, officious title that his legion of coat holders, admirers, apologists, and enablers insist we, the great unwashed, call him. Because he has revealed himself like no one else could.

By saying he needs to see proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the abuse perpetrated by the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Francis has shown himself to be the Vatican’s newest Doubting Thomas. And it’s not a good look.

“He has revealed himself like no one else could.” Indeed he has. And now the narrative is beginning to fall apart.