by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
Why
am I mentioning this here? Anyone who thinks that all we need now is just to remove Francis and his friends then things will become perfectly okay in the Church is simply deceiving himself. The scandals confronting the Church are deeper even than Francis' pit of scandals!
In the following “Testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò—a very good one indeed—he, however, like Jeff (and indeed all adherents of Vatican II), gives the impression that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were good popes. The “Testimony” is simply a fearless exposition of the impostor called “Pope” Francis—but the Archbishop messes it up by saying the following (among other things):
 |
| Francis and McCarrick |
When, two weeks ago, we were discussing Francis’
attack on the Church’s teaching on Death Penalty, I pointed out that John Paul
II and Benedict XVI were equally guilty of the same attack, Jeff Cassman, FB friend,
responded quickly asking me to be “precise”. When I asked how he meant he said:
“...by
precision I mean the understanding of words with exactness and accuracy. So
when Benedict XVI says it is his opinion that "in some places and at some
times, the death penalty is no longer necessary", he is not saying
"the following is binding on all the faithful: the death penalty is no
longer possible in any place or time.”
Then
I responded: “Oh, you seem to think it
doesn't matter if a pope or theologian expresses his "private
opinion" on any matter (which though may sound heretical) provided he does
not intend it to be binding on all the faithful? Sorry, that's a modern
understanding, which is wrong. I refer you to Pope Honorius I who didn't even
go as far as Benedict XVI and co – yet was condemned by the Church. As I wrote:
"For example, 42 years after his death, Pope Honorius I was condemned by
the Third Council of Constantinople (680 AD) for aiding and abetting heresy,
precisely for supporting the doctrine of “one will in Christ”, and that
condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II in 682, (who stated that Honorius
“allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” by teaching not “in accord with apostolic
tradition.”) and repeated by later popes. Note, however, that Pope Honorius
wasn’t even a manifest heretic, yet he was anathematized. He wasn’t the
originator of the heresy. The heretics were the Monothelites—Sergius and co—and
Honorius was condemned together with them. And why? The anathema of the Third
Council of Constantinople read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and
with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all
things.” Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state,
“And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of
God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of
what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he
followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session
adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic,
anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”
I continued: “Carefully note the words: "...because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." Quite unlike Honorius, Benedict XVI and John Paul II—enforcers of Vatican II errors and deadly heresies—did more than merely "following someone's view"! (See, for instance, Benedict XVI’s heresies in The Teachings of Benedict XVI vs. the Teachings of Prior Popes).
I continued: “Carefully note the words: "...because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." Quite unlike Honorius, Benedict XVI and John Paul II—enforcers of Vatican II errors and deadly heresies—did more than merely "following someone's view"! (See, for instance, Benedict XVI’s heresies in The Teachings of Benedict XVI vs. the Teachings of Prior Popes).
While
still trying to defend Benedict XVI, Jeff even referred me to “the Catechism”
(I mean that famous documentation of the errors of John Paul The Great!)
 |
| Viganò |
In the following “Testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò—a very good one indeed—he, however, like Jeff (and indeed all adherents of Vatican II), gives the impression that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were good popes. The “Testimony” is simply a fearless exposition of the impostor called “Pope” Francis—but the Archbishop messes it up by saying the following (among other things):
1.
He refers to the same imposter as “Pope Francis”, ignoring (or just ignorant of?)
Francis’ manifest heresies which already place him outside the Church.
2. He gives the impression
that “Pope Francis” is going against Benedict XVI – obviously ignorant of (or
just wilfully ignoring?) Benedict XVI’s statement months ago that “there is
interior unity” between his pontificate and that of Francis, his “successor”.
Recall that Benedict XVI had, in his letter presented by its recipient, Msgr
Dario Edoardo Viganò, during a press conference presenting “The Theology of
Pope Francis,” a series of 11 books written by 11 different authors and
published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, held in Sala Marconi in the
headquarters of Vatican Media, said:
“I
applaud this initiative...It contradicts the foolish prejudice of those who see
Pope Francis as someone who lacks a particular theological and philosophical
formation, while I would have been solely a theorist of theology with little
understanding of the concrete lives of today’s Christian.” Benedict XVI expressed his gratefulness to have received the
set of 11 books edited by Roberto Repole, President of the Italian Theological
Association, and added that these volumes “reasonably
demonstrate that Pope Francis is a man with profound philosophical and
theological formation and are helpful to see the interior continuity between
the two pontificates, even with all the differences in style and temperament.”
 |
| Benedict XVI and Francis |
3. He believes that John Paul II (“canonised”
by a manifest heretic, and even by the same Francis who must now resign because of his current scandal!) is a saint! He writes: “Let us heed the
most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance: Do not be afraid! Do not be
afraid!”
4. He shamelessly
quotes a female theologian, writing: “The homosexual networks present in the
Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at
the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot
be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by
bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within
the clergy which must be eradicated.” ”
Good statement, of course. But
unfortunately, in the Catholic Church we know, women are not to be teachers in
the seminaries, or “catechists” as can be witnessed in many dioceses around the
world today—something which they do now in the spirit of modern atheistic democracy which preaches "equality" with a vengeance!
St. Paul is very clear about this in his Letters to Timothy and to the
Corinthians, and for a bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church not to be aware
of this—for him to quote a female “theologian” even with pride is indeed
another terrible sign of the times we’re living in. Soon the likes of Archbishop
Viganò will also protest against women ordination currently being championed by
Francis, blind to the fact that it
was this kind of madness—women “leaders” in the Church or women studying full-time in Catholic
seminaries or women professors of theology, etc.—that gave rise to the scandal. The
fact that women are now among those who form modern priests is also one of the
reasons why we witness unimaginable scandals among the “clergy” in the world
today. (Note: to say this is not to "marginalise" women but simply to say that it is not their natural role to play, just as, for instance, it isn't the natural role of men to be midwives). A dramatic increase has been reported in the number of women enrolled in
seminary and divinity school programmes around the world (See: Women in Seminary). As
the article here shows, “Many of these
women are not content to be channeled into traditional roles but are studying
along with men in disciplines leading to the Master of Divinity, Doctor of
Ministry, or Doctor of Philosophy degrees. They are thus earning qualifications
which lead directly into the field of church leadership”). Janet Smith, a Professor of Moral Theology just quoted by Archbishop Viganò, is just an example of those who have been successful.
For St. Paul’s teaching on
this subject, see my article: A “Feminized” Catholic Church?
Finally,
the only thing I find praiseworthy in the “Testimony” is Archbishop Viganò's unambiguous
call for Francis’ resignation. He thunders:
“I want
to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the
many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and
sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore
McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and
by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon
the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August
12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done
and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to
intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who
oppose evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to
be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much
graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not
only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he
knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be
a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil
done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing
to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!
“Francis is abdicating the
mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his
action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to
continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.
“In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”
The “Testimony”:
“In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”
The “Testimony”:
by
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
In this tragic moment for the Church
in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia,
etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of
the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope
Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North
American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them,
to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the
lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ,
the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Bishops and priests, abusing their
authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful,
minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the
Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be
perpetrated.
To restore the beauty of holiness to
the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many
abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp
into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of
secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down
the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected
themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in
the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of
silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever
you have said in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk.
12:3).
I had always believed and hoped that
the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources
and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself.
That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided
making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so,
in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking
prelates of the Roman Curia. But
now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my
conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking
case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which
I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II,
as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope
Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October
19, 2011 until end of May 2016.
As Delegate for Pontifical
Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not
limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman
Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the
episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those
regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the
Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.
To dispel suspicions insinuated in
several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in
the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely
deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they
learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and
priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface
Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of
the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a
professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until
1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the
Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend
the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain
number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the
Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared
a bed with the Archbishop.
The office that I held at the time
was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were
brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was
Secretary of State.
Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to
the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum
against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte,
who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two
documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of
sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and
seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his
Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial
authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very
likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a
prompt intervention by the Holy See.
In writing up a memo[1] on
these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical
Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal
Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed
to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke
bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and
that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of
seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people,
derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions
in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these
depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests
after committing such acts.
In my memo, which I delivered on that
same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I
proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:
- Given
that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a
cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the
United States,
- and
that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can.
1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”;
- I
proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that
could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent
victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who
despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.
I added that it would be salutary if,
for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities
and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could
have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so
many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil
authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the
Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from
abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.
My memo of December 6, 2006
was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any
actual decision by the superiors on this matter.
Subsequently, around April 21-23,
2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual
abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the
internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the
Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month
later, on May 24, 2008.
The following day, I delivered a new
memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of
December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with
this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach
Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated
Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of
the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are
similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If
Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that
about which I have spoken.”
I ended my memo by repeating to my
superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by
removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be
subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also
provide for reduction to the lay state.
This second memo of mine was also
never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my
superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal,
and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my
first memo in December 2006.
But finally I learned with certainty,
through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the
desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick
sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was
to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass]
in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with
the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.
I do not know when Pope Benedict took
these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the
meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just
as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do
not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the
corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate
had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men
with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first
collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored
promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to
managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.
In any case, what is certain
is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and
that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United
States, Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first
Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires a.i. 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.”
Pope Benedict’s same dispositions
were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my
departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same
Congregation to the new Nuncio.
In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal
McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal,
muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the
mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house,
but he said this as if it had no importance.
The faithful insistently wonder how
it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and
they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds.
It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the
Roman Curia.
Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006:
all information was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent
him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father
Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by
McCarrick.
It is known that Sodano tried to
cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in
Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to
cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who
was willing to collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue
a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that
is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered
closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was
found guilty and irrevocably condemned.
Was McCarrick’s appointment to
Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already
very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but
I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently
went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano
had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have
done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to
influence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect
of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the
Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which
Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that
McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.
Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the
attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of
State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were
also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the
Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate
candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of
Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later
removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and
manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.
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. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front
page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf
of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal
Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were
still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any
reply!
The same can be said for Cardinal William
Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo
Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops,
and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the
same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the
sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.
Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando
Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of
the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal
McCarrick.
Nor could Cardinals Giovanni
Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for
Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial
meetings with the Secretary of State.
As far as the Roman Curia is
concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates
in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such
as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop
Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of
subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in
1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic
Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin
Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also
belong to the same current, albeit with a different ideology. Others belonging
to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
Now to the United States. Obviously,
the first to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was
McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl,
whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations
regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.
It is absolutely unthinkable that
Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and
explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about
it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several
occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was
immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in
particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized
that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an
announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the
priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal
Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about
that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to
state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures
taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?
His recent statements that he knew
nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation
for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly
and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.
Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on
another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the
academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the
attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent
letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things
properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying
letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it.
However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what
he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had
taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it!
Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the
continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on
him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to
reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians
at risk.
Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John
Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in
their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny
it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all
responsibility regarding this matter.
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also
said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by
McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one
can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about
Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that
he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of
Christ?
Regarding Cardinal Sean
O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick
case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and
credibility.
* * *
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.
In the last months of his
pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic
nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions.
The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope
Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to
Rome from Washington. It was my first meeting with the new Pope elected only
three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.
On the morning of Thursday, June 20,
2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues
who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick,
who wore the red-trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always
done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: “The
Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”
At the time I knew nothing of his
long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played
in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at
Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic
Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in
the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been
able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not
immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had
communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately
following.
The next day the audience with Pope
Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly
delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In
single file, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just
had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately
assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops
in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!”Of
course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his
words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a
book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days
earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to
Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed
myself from that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation.
At the end of the audience the Pope
announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited
to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I
naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope
intended to tell me.
On Sunday June 23, before the
concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in
charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if
he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned
to Washington without having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end
of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor
Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The
Pope told me to ask if you are free now!” Naturally, I replied that I
was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me immediately.
The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: “We
have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”
I began the conversation, asking the
Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I
greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly,
almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the
United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the
Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of
the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be
left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when
I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the
correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I
added nothing else.
Immediately after, the Pope asked me
in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I
answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great
naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick,
but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about
him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict
ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope
did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did
not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the
matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what
was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal
McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of
McCarrick or not.
Back in Washington everything became
very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days
after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took
possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first
Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that
same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor
Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking
him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in
Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized,
they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was
astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis
had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before
by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop
of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been
a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion
of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had
manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them
Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and
Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent
appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.
Not happy with the trap he had set
for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months
later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a
second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal
Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like,
is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not
tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They
are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral
carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and
the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the
priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any
reaction.
It was also clear that, from the time
of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt
free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort
with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for
appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to
advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how
one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope
replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after
he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington
was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. In addition, he
appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great
friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of
the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals,
promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of that department to
Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position!
The appointments of Blase
Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were
orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked
pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other
two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago
and Newark.
Regarding Cupich, one cannot
fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies
the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were
committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of
authority over their victims.
During the speech he gave when he
took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative
of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new
Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to
remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down,
blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America
Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been
President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of
the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by
clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting
attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this
thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at
the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he
“candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied
by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of
sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J.,
Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre
for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the
Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in
most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”
The appointment of McElroy in San
Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to
me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for
McElroy.” McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be
seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.
These characters are closely
associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the
Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a
cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only
consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to
the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father
Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land
O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic
identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted
that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also
participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the
formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was
with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.
Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in
particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor
of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist who promotes the
LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin
for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that
deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.
Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for
total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia.
The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary
manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes
committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.
In any case, the Pope learned about
it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take
into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him
his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.
The latter [Maradiaga] is so
confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the
heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write
to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the
seminary.
By now the faithful have well
understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save
himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of
mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial
disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of
Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy
See.
In the case of the former Auxiliary
Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian]
weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the
newspaper Avvenire: “It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who
asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to
much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made
public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any
possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.
In the name of the transparency so
hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides
Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must
be made public.
Finally, the recent appointment as
Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected
with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña
Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for
Pontifical Representations I received worrisome information about him.
In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the
one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal
Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop
Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against
the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then,
only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and
faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had
been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but
continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.
Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick,
Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013
that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt
man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice
his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of
the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a
minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding
McCarrick] to save his image in the media.
Now in the United States a chorus of
voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined
by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence,
covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their
career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should
resign.
But this will not be enough to heal
the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and
priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of
chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the
misuse of the Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be
fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The
homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet
Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in
Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote,
“cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less
so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks
within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks,
which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc.,
act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus
tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are
strangling the entire Church.
I implore everyone, especially
Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so
widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and
civil authorities.
Let us heed the most powerful message
that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance:Do not be afraid! Do not
be afraid!
In his 2008 homily on the Feast of
the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had
been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and
resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a
history of fidelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the
part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant,
signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint
Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy
and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained
with sin.
I want to recall
this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people
who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior
of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting
and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many
pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many
ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these
words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did
not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene
where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose
evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a
serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the
Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose
evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply
corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus
multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by
McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop
up in their active destruction of the Church!
Francis is abdicating the mandate
which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he
has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to
tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.
In this extremely dramatic moment for
the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the
proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the
first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up
McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.
Even in dismay and sadness over the
enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well
know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with
fidelity and dedication.
It is in moments of great trial that
the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy
available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and
sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church
to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance.
Let us all pray for the Church and
for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!
Let us all renew faith in the Church
our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”
Christ will never abandon His Church!
He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit!
Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for
us!
Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the
King of glory, pray for us!
Rome, August 22, 2018
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Official translation by Diane
Montagna
Source: lifesitenews.com
Source: lifesitenews.com
[1] 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.
