Pope Francis involved in cover up for McCarrick?

Amazingfun

"The Latest: Pope Francis declines to confirm or deny claims by the Vatican's retired U.S. ambassador that he briefed the pope in 2013 about sexual misconduct allegations against disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick."

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1033848065025875968


https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4784141/TESTIMONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

NIMAN

Nothing would surprise me.

Peregrinus

Washington Post with a bit of background and context on this story.

DChancer

No surprise there.

Sandor Clegane

He then had the Gaul to come out with the usual tropes during his speech.

The hard truth is there is too much damage done, there is no redemption for the church, he can pray and beg for forgiveness till the cows come home but at the end of the day mass abuse and scandal is so far embedded into the church it's now as routine as murder is to the mafia.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Washington Post with a bit of background and context on this story.

He’s not exactly a saint hinself- I call bullsh1t on his claims. He’s massively right wing anti-gay etc


1. The letter from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was recalled from his D.C. post in 2016 amid allegations that he’d become embroiled in the conservative American fight against same-sex marriage, was first reported by the National Catholic Register and LifeSite News, two conservative Catholic sites.

2. Viganò, 77, was the Holy See’s apostolic nuncio, or ambassador, in Washington from 2011 until 2016. He has been a lightning rod within the Vatican who lost a power struggle in Rome under Benedict, emerged as a Francis critic and reportedly ordered the halt of an investigation into alleged sexual relations between an archbishop in Minnesota and seminarians.


He’s also provided no evidence to his claims so far but essentially his memo reads like a “rant”

Interesting article here from a theologian giving some more background on the situation -

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/pope-francis-vs-carlo-maria-vigano-explained.html

It should be noted that there are a number of both right wing and left of Centre websites in the USA each taking a “side” on this issue.

In the interests of balance, here’s what the right wing side are coming out with
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

He’s not exactly a saint hinself- I call bullsh1t on his claims. He’s massively right wing anti-gay etc

Being a right wing homophobe makes him an unpleasant character who should also be subject to scrutiny. That doesn't in and of itself invalidate his arguments or claims, which should be subject to similar scrutiny.

branie2

I hope not

Amazingfun

E Michael Jones :

Thinkingaboutit

Amazingfun wrote: »

"The Latest: Pope Francis declines to confirm or deny claims by the Vatican's retired U.S. ambassador that he briefed the pope in 2013 about sexual misconduct allegations against disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick."

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1033848065025875968


https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4784141/TESTIMONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Yes.

His aggressive and belligerent defence of Bishop Barros, whom he transferred to Osorno from the Chilean Army who wanted rid of him, over loud protests, in spite of strong evidence of direct collusion with the pedarast Karadima (not just a standard modern-day cover-up), and many other instances, suggests Francis has form in that regard. PF is utterly clerical, in spite of his me so humble act, with his contempt and insults reserved for reverent Catholics. McCarrick is strong posited as a lobbyist, but look to the second from the right of Francis, who but Godfreid Cardinal Danneels, who personally urged a victim not to report abuse by his uncle, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe? Danneels admitted to being part of the Sankt Gallen Mafia, a lobbying which is against the rules of Papal elections.



Benedict did a good deal to institute proper procedures for dismissing pervert priests (which Francis for a time stymied as in the case of Inzoli or 'Don Mercedes' and others), but privately asking a known sexual predator to quietly retire, sounds a wretchedly stupid idea, and there is evidence that that was done, which places questions against Benedict. It should be independently investigated whether McCarrick was a lobbyist for PF, but I suspect that won't happen, in spite of multiple petitions from laity and statements from senior churchmen. Francis doesn't do questioning or self examination.

Remember this heavily relates to bishops or superiors preying sexually on seminarians (contra Francis booster Austin Ivereigh that many of those might have been gay doesn't make it any less appalling), and we had in Ireland Michéal Ledwith (who now lives in the US expounding his pantheist junk in some out of the way place, not in prison) as Maynooth College President preying on seminarians. A mix of a toxic culture of sexual predation, plus appalling formation, makes it very representative of so many seminaries.

One Francis advisor Maradiaga dismissed a petition from fifty seminarians about sexual predation in his seminary in Honduras as gossip.

There is a better way of forming men as priests, and keeping out deviants. Do what was once done again.

This accusation is leading towards probably one of the most fascinating insights into the Catholic Church senior leadership “team” and internal politics that we have seen played out in public in hundreds of years.

I believe how this plays out will impact the future of the Catholic Church worldwide forever. But question is- how much of it will we see and how will it be quashed, if it goes that route?

Irish Kings

Just shows you a lot of Catholics inside and outside of Church management are far more interested in Church politics than actual Catholic spirituality.

I think there will be another large split in the western Catholic church again. I can see it happening from parish to parish level in Ireland. Some local Catholic churches will become media pc trendy pro LGBTI, abortion, divorce, and run by women priests etc etc, a few others will remain traditionally Christian, and depending on their political views, Catholics will then travel to services of some type in their own preferred local Catholic church depending on who's running it. And it's unlikely to be an official priest as there won't be any left.

kneemos

Can't expect priests to live the way they do and be well adjusted.

The hierarchy as in any organisation will only promote good company men,the pope included.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Being a right wing homophobe makes him an unpleasant character who should also be subject to scrutiny. That doesn't in and of itself invalidate his arguments or claims, which should be subject to similar scrutiny.

Never said it did

Cabaal

Irish Kings wrote: »

I think there will be another large split in the western Catholic church again. I can see it happening from parish to parish level in Ireland. Some local Catholic churches will become media pc trendy pro LGBTI, abortion, divorce, and run by women priests etc etc,

media trendy?
:rolleyes:

because equality is only the trendy thing to do?

Next you'll be saying we'll be having those black priests, or priests that aren't Irish.

a few others will remain traditionally Christian, and depending on their political views, Catholics will then travel to services of some type in their own preferred local Catholic church depending on who's running it. And it's unlikely to be an official priest as there won't be any left.

Says it all really,
You're saying the "media trendy" church's will have women priests.
But you're saying traditionally Christian church's are unlikely to have any priest as there won't be any left.

Even you can see how disinterested people are in the church because of its out of date ways

Thinkingaboutit

The question whether Theodore McCarrick had a major input into senior US Church appointments has to be answered, but do I hear the noise of crickets?

I quite liked an article by the chairman of the UK based Latin Mass Society, Dr Joseph Shaw on Attacking the whistleblower: the abuse-enabling culture is alive and well which discusses the culture context supporting an abuser. He considers the Viganò claims highly credible and deserving of investigation.

Anyhow, Pope Francis rails against clericalism, but there is no one more clericalist than him. His worries on Sunday about plastics in oceans was rather surreal. He might attend to matters he controls first. The New York Times, Austin Ivereigh or the Jesuit America journal won't make his Viganò (or more specifically his Theodore McCarrick and crew) problems go away.

Archbishop Viganò suggested Frs Rosica and Lombardi as well as the other Francis partisans are are living in their imagination with counter-claims attacking his credibility on abuse. The counter-claims don't even directly answer the charge of a cover-up of McCarrick's deed, or that he acted as an influencer of US appointments under Francis, basically playing the man, not the ball.

hinault

I said it in 2013 that there was a coup d'etat at the Vatican, namely that Pope Benedict's papacy had been sabotaged.

I have disregarded everything that the current papacy has ever advocated because I do not accept that Pope Benedict resigned of his own free will - and I believe that the current papacy is illegal and largely immoral in many of it's pronouncements.

Thinkingaboutit

hinault wrote: »

I said it in 2013 that there was a coup d'etat at the Vatican, namely that Pope Benedict's papacy had been sabotaged.

I have disregarded everything that the current papacy has ever advocated because I do not accept that Pope Benedict resigned of his own free will - and I believe that the current papacy is illegal and largely immoral in many of it's pronouncements.

There were weird things like the Vatican City being frozen out of one of the international payments system (Swift I think) only for the freeze to end when he resign, although there were and are, major problems with the IOW / Vatican Bank. They are said not to get on, to barely talk, contrary to public appearances, and what is notable is how careless Francis is with words when Benedict was and is so careful.

Thinkingaboutit

+Viganò has again asked why the lack of response:


Scio Cui credidi (2 Tim i, 12)

Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

The last mentioned saw Cardinal Mueller having to interrupt a Mass he was saying for visiting German students, in order to take a sudden phone call from Francis, who angrily demanded he halt the investigation of claims that Murphy O'Connor had molested a young girl of about 13 or 14. It was not brought to trial, but Francis felt agitated enough this threat to the reputation of a key member of the Sankt Galllen Mafia (the term given to this alliance of 'Spirit of V2' Cardinals by the appalling Cardinal Danneels) to pull the then head of the Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith away from offering a Mass.

In respect of Grassi, the then Archbishop Bergoglio commissioned a series of books to defend this onetime establishment charity activist priest, even when decency and commonsense required distance.

Supposedly a response is being prepared, while PF vowed silence, yet Francis has certainly not being silent likening the newest cohort of seminary #metoo and teenaged male complainants / critics to Satan, and himself to Jesus Christ.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-viganos-third-testimony

ROME, October 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò today has issued a third explosive testimony, in response to an open letter from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

Here below we publish the official English text of Archbishop Viganò’s third testimony, dated October 19, the liturgical Feast of the North American Martyrs.

On the Feast of the North American Martyrs

To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge – “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” -- what answer could I give?

I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own. Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that. This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.

I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Therefore I spoke. For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church -- harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the Pope.

Let me restate the key points of my testimony.

• In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
• In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with yet another priest.

• In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response.
• In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response.
• In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
• In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
• On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy.
• On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com'è (Cardinal McCarrick -- what do you make of him)?”-- which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.

• Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
• McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favor with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.
• Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.

I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.

• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.

What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?

Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.

• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confirm this again.

• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.

• Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.

In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.

There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.

In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.

It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.

Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis -- more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).

In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.

On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice-- on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge -- you will not regret having made.


+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico

19 Ottobre 2018
Feast of the North American Martyrs

Good summary and response to a letter in which the pathetic, powerless Québécois Cardinal seems to catch himself in a basic lie when he merges different meeting into one, confirming the major contention of measures against McCarrick, refuting claims never made, and moreover seems at points to almost deify his master. I suppose, it is how things roll at the Bergoglian court where Fr Rosica, another toadie, suggests Francis is bound neither by Scripture nor Teaching of the Church.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

I said it in 2013 that there was a coup d'etat at the Vatican, namely that Pope Benedict's papacy had been sabotaged.

I have disregarded everything that the current papacy has ever advocated because I do not accept that Pope Benedict resigned of his own free will - and I believe that the current papacy is illegal and largely immoral in many of it's pronouncements.

I would agree with you on all points made except the "illegal" one. How is Pope Francis' election illegal. I'm not trying to defend him though, I think he should be ousted because he's caused an unmitigated disaster in the Church.

Thinkingaboutit

kelly1 wrote: »

I would agree with you on all points made except the "illegal" one. How is Pope Francis' election illegal. I'm not trying to defend him though, I think he should be ousted because he's caused an unmitigated disaster in the Church.

The illegality would come from claimed collusion between members of the Sankt Gallen Mafia, a name given by once disgraced (he personally urged a nephew of a paedophile bishop to not report him but appeared alongside Francis on the balcony after his election, albeit somewhat in the shadows) Cardinal Danneels. That is explicitly against the rules of Papal election as last revised by JP2. However, it is a more complex as historically Popes who gained office in a not wholly orderly way were taken as legitimates as they came to be universally regarded as Popes. Benedict has repeatedly said he resigned of his own free will. Now given that he lives in a little room in garden of the Vatican, some might contend his words are those of an elderly and vulnerable old man, but there have been no indications of any compulsion.

Yet Francis has been utterly disastrous. There are the continually ambiguous and troubling statements and actions, most recently betraying the Church in China to persecuting Communist authorities. Abp Carlo Viganò covered the Bergoglian rehabilitation of the predator McCarrick, who now lives near a school. There is the astonishingly bad record with child abuse. Consider his insulting defence of Bishop Barros of Osorno, Chile, which involves calumny against the victims. Later he reversed course, but in such a way as spread blame, and obscure his discreditable performance.

Perhaps some of the worst of his record are things for which he had responsibility. While the Salesian turned diocesan priest, child molestor Julio Cesár Grassi was on trial for abuse of orphans, the then Cardinal Archbishop Bergoglio commissioned a two volume study attacking the accusers, the victims which was given to the judges. Fortunately this effort to interfere with a trial amounted to nothing. That said, the lawyer for the victims Juan Pablo Gallego called it a 'scandalous instance of lobbying and exerting pressure on the Court.' A full log of relevant articles on this disgusting debacle have been compiled by BishopAccountability.org.

The great worry is that the hypocrite Francis might be happy to retire as soon as he has found a protégé, who mixes his great cunning with a more nimble intellect. He has made quite an effort to appoint as many Cardinals of his mind as possible, not like his predecessors who mixed their own choices with candidates preferred by local bishops, even if they might hold opposing views on some matters. The best realistically is that like Pope Honorius he can be posthumously condemned, and we should pray that an end will come to this present shambles.

kelly1

Well said, Thinkingaboutit.

Amazingfun

This might be of interest to some. Have to say, Milo is about the last person I expected to see on a religious podcast, especially with Voris -and his homosexual past-, hosting.

Peregrinus

Amazingfun wrote: »

This might be of interest to some.

Milo Yiannopoulos? I think that's very unlikely.

The video's more than an hour long. I have to wash my shoelaces, or something. Can you give us the gist of anything interesting it it?

Amazingfun

Oh it's Milo alright.

As for the "gist", the title of the vid and the term "homomafia" pretty much capture that, imo.
Maybe wash your shoelaces while you listen if so inclined

Thinkingaboutit

OnePeterFive have a short piece translated from Marco Tosatti's blog which gives a neat and short run through of the terrible company Francis keeps. One close friend, bishop Zanchetto facing credible allegations of personal dishonesty, sexual predation (towards seminarians) and incompetence, all which could have had courtroom or career consequences in Argentina, happily (for him) finds himself promoted to a newly created Curial post over the Vatican properties.

Pope Francis’s Parade of Embarrassing Friendships
Marco Tosatti January 22, 2019

The least we can say is that the figure of Pope Bergoglio is embarrassing. Perhaps not so much for who he is as a person in himself – but then again… But more so for the people whom he obviously favors, protects, and defends. Or for those who actively contributed to his election.

Let’s begin with this last group. Among them there are Cardinal Danneels, immortalized as the one standing next to the pontiff on the loggia on the night of his election. Danneels covered up a bishop who had abused his own nephew, and a petition from laypeople had in fact requested that he not participate in the Conclave. But Danneels was then invited by the pope to be part of the Synod on the Family. Those who worked to elect Bergoglio also included McCarrick (he said so himself) and Mahony of Los Angeles, who a judicial investigation revealed had covered up dozens of abuser priests and who was ordered to lead a secluded life of prayer by his successor, Archbishop Gomez (who, strangely, was never made a cardinal, perhaps because he did not have any skeletons in his closet and is a member of Opus Dei…). Mahony was supposed to go to an important event last year as a pontifical representative despite the ban on his presence at public events, but a protest of laypeople prevented him. Yet Roger Mahony is scheduled to speak this coming March at the Los Angeles Education Congress – an evident sign of papal favor persisting despite abuse and cover-ups. Then there was – may he rest in peace – Cardinal Murphy O’Connor. He had transferred a serial abuser priest (later found guilty) from one place to another, where he had repeatedly abused. O’Connor was particularly favored by the pope: the pope interrupted Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during the middle of the celebration of Mass and angrily ordered him to close the investigation of Murphy O’Connor for abuse. And then there is Cardinal Errazuriz Ossa in Chile (who covered up the notorious sexual abuser Father Fernando Karadima), and probably we are still forgetting some others.

The past is the past, you will say. However, the problem is that the present, the current mess, appears to be not at all different. Let’s leave aside the case of the Chilean bishop Juan Barros, who was given charge of a diocese despite justified protests and the lies spoken by the pontiff regarding the victims. Let’s look at the case of Bishop Juan José Pineda, right-hand man of Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras, forced to resign by a letter from seminarians accusing him of sexually molesting them. Pineda had lived with his one of his lovers in Maradiaga’s villa in Tegucigalpa. Is it possible that the Honduran cardinal, himself the right-hand man and great inspirer of the pope, seeing a handsome young man at breakfast in his house, did not ask, “Who is this?” Monsignor Ricca, whose diplomatic career was swept away by a homosexual scandal, was nominated by the pope as director of the Vatican Bank (IOR). Now we have the case of Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta of Argentina, who was not only taken in at the Vatican after fleeing Argentina, but also had a position created just for him that previously did not exist, as assessor of APSA, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, the treasury of the Holy See. This despite the financial scandals that had taken place in his diocese of Oran (to say nothing of the sexual ones). The accusations and suspicions do not even exclude the new Sostituto of the Secretariate of State, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra of Venezuela, close friend of Pineda (see above) and of Maradiaga.

And then there is case of the United States. The latest news we hear is that Archbishop Kevin Farrell, a man of the McCarrick line, named by the pope as prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity and the Family (in 2016), was investigated by the Dallas Police Department for an accusation of abuse when he was bishop there. Farrell was named vicar general of Washington by McCarrick, and for six years he lived in the same apartment with McCarrick and never noticed any misconduct – or so he says. And the latest news of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, of his cover-up of McCarrick and his unsettling excuses that he “forgot” about the accusation against McCarrick that he himself had sent the nuncio to the United States – oh, really?! – and of the most recent lies he has told. And then there is Cardinal Joseph Tobin with his strange messages sent on Twitter to – he says – his sister. Tobin has declared that he did not investigate the rumors in Newark about McCarrick because he thought they were unbelievable. He was also made a cardinal (by McCarrick), as was Farrell.

Within a framework like this, it appears ridiculous that Cardinal Kasper is speaking of a “plot” against Papa Bergoglio based on charges of abuse. As they say in Rome, you had better throw yourself forward so as not to fall back. Because certainly the list of abuse scandals – especially those regarding Argentina – is not exhaustive. Can anyone explain why, six years after his election, this pope has never – let’s say that again: never – thought of returning to his homeland? Strange, no? What is he afraid of? That other cases of abuse will emerge? Such as that of Father Julio Grassi, condemned to jail, for whom Cardinal Bergoglio prepared two tomes of defense to send to the judges of the appeal process? A fact that he then denied, lying about it on French television? Bergoglio was the spiritual father of Grassi, as he was of Zanchetta, and of others we are not mentioning, all of whom who are Argentines and who had careers within the Church marred by less than exemplary sexual conduct.

And then there is the silence of the pope, which has now lasted since August 26, on McCarrick. The pope was informed by Archbishop Viganò about McCarrick’s malfeasance a few months after his election, but nevertheless, he used McCarrick as his more or less official envoy, and also as his counselor for nominations of bishops and cardinals in the United States (see above). Did he know? And if he knew, why did he choose to use a person so – at the very least – questionable?

The fact that McCarrick may not be an isolated case leads us to think that the pontiff chooses or prefers people who have a past, and at least one skeleton in their closet. Who is more obedient and more faithful than men who are afraid? Is this a pope who governs, not with the Gospel, but rather with dossiers? It is difficult to dispel this suspicion. And Kasper speaks about “plots.” Oh, please!

This article was translated from Italian by Giuseppe Pellegrino. The original can be found at Marco Tosatti’s blog.