Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies

Plenty to read in Catholic World Report this week. In this piece Christopher Altieri makes a strange suggestion that Archbishop Vigano should be tried for whatever crimes he has committed by releasing his statements: https://www.catholicworldreport.com...nothing-in-the-way-of-substantial-refutation/
On first reading it appears that Altieri is attemping to provide some balance, but I wonder whether it is a clever way of telling those who attack Vigano to produce the evidence or admit that Vigano is telling the truth.

Anyway, sometimes the readers' comments section of Catholic media can be more informative or to the point than the reports/opinion pieces. This, for instance, posted by "James" on October 7:

Ouellet’s letter is an offense against faith, reason and human decency.
Reading it I find myself shocked – why I should any longer find myself shocked after the last five years is beyond me – but I am indeed shocked by Cardinal Ouellet’s “open” letter to Archbishop Viganò. It is a demonstration of clerical imperialism in its grossest form. One is left amazed at how the denizens of this pontificate continually and without respite characterize its critics with judgements most appropriately applied to itself. It is as if the subject regards itself in a mirror and attributes its identity to another. Is there a clinical term for such behavior?
There is absolutely no need for Ouellet to respond to Viganò publically. There is however a crying need for this pontificate to jettison the obtrufication and adopt a sincere honest engagement with the issues and the behavior Viganò brought to the attention of the Holy Father, and to do so officially, without rancor, and expeditiously.
One is left to wonder how the exercise of the responsibilities of the Archbishop in the defense of the Church and the faithful who compose the Mystical Body of Christ are challenged when there are legions of priests who preach heresy and live unambiguously immoral lives. For example, how does a James Martin still have priestly faculties and a Jesuit pillow to rest his head upon each evening? How does a bishop publically perceived in his own country as living in concubinage find himself elevated to the cardinalate? How does the Cardinal Archbishop of Tegucigalpa find himself still intimately involved in the workings of this pontificate without discipline? How does any bishop in our Church find it acceptable to distribute the Holy Eucharist to those living a bigamous existence?
Not going so far to say that everyone knew about Cardinal McCarrick despicable behavior, but if I knew about it during my monastic formation back in 2001, I think it’s safe to say that those who inhabit the rarified cocoon of the episcopate and cardinalate did. Information is the currency of choice in clergy circles. From my experience Archbishop Viganò remains the man standing in the room, despite Cardinal Ouellet’s vacuous protests and appeals to pious notions which obviously are only wheeled out when they can be weaponized.
We seem to have arrived at a moment of history that the only members of the episcopate who have credence are the ones who have their head on the block. But isn’t that what all those advocates of “reading the signs of the times” have been looking forward to for the past sixty years?
Our current problem far, far exceeds the scandal of sexual abuse. That is merely a symptom of the loss of faith which is at the core of this hideous epoch, not merely in civil society, but ever more gravely and demonically in the Church.​

Anyone in Illinois with a strong stomach might be interested in reading another article in CWR concerning a .......clericalism .....scandal in that diocese.

 

Cardinal vs Cardinal

We are right in the mix with regard to the Akita prophecy.

 

Yep.

 

Fr. Ripperger on the Abuse Crisis and the Theology of the Priesthood

 

Vatican Rigging the McCarrick Investigation
Pope Francis scapegoats John Paul II

by Church Militant • ChurchMilitant.com • October 10, 2018
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-rigging-the-mccarrick-investigation

Church Militant has learned that anti-Viganò forces in the Vatican are rigging the upcoming papal investigation into the McCarrick situation in an effort to shield the homosexual network in the Vatican.

The plan is to release a final report shifting as much blame as possible for McCarrick's rise to power onto Pope St. John Paul II.

The plan is to point to what will be called the undue influence of a longtime female friend, who herself had fallen victim to McCarrick's scheming, lavishing her with his charm and financial assistance, in an effort to gain her confidence.

In other words, the fix is in, and the final report will be nothing but a massive whitewash, misdirecting the public from Pope Francis' direct involvement to that of John Paul speculated involvement.

But that narrative deliberately masks over and ignores one very important and influential person very close to John Paul, who has direct involvement in the promotion of McCarrick.

As a quick review, some 80 U.S. bishops have been calling for a thorough and independent investigation into McCarrick's rise following Abp. Carlo Viganò's bombshell testimony that Viganò himself, while acting as papal ambassador to the United States, had personally informed Pope Francis of McCarrick's homosexual predation of seminarians and priests as early as 2013, shortly after Francis was elected.

Pope Francis brushed off Viganò's warning as well as the restrictions placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. Francis then elevated McCarrick to the status of close of papal adviser.

When the small U.S. bishops' delegation led by Cdl. Daniel DiNardo finally got an audience with the Pope last month after waiting nearly a month, they asked Francis to launch a full investigation into McCarrick's situation as well as Viganò's charges of a homosexual network.

The Pope flatly refused.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, this past Saturday, news suddenly broke that the Pope had reversed course and was now authorizing an investigation.

Here is a key quote from that Vatican statement, "a thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick."

But now Church Militant has learned from sources in both Rome and Poland who are all very close to the situation that part of the "entire documentation" to be examined by the Holy See is more than 30 years worth of private correspondence to Pope John Paul. The letters themselves were, in the past, the source of speculation and controversy about the relationship between St. John Paul and the author of them, longtime personal friend, the late Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, a Polish-born American philosopher who corresponded with the Holy Father throughout the course of their 32-year friendship.

The anti-Viganò Vatican operatives recently contacted the Polish National Archives in Warsaw and obtained the letters, a move that raised eyebrows with sources who immediately informed Church Militant.

In fact, there is now deep speculation that Pope Francis at first turned down last month's request of the DiNardo delegation for an investigation because details were still being worked out on how to make him appear as guiltless as possible.

The plan was hatched to try and pin it all on John Paul, and so the hunt was on for the letters to him from Tymieniecka, which were easily obtained and then scoured over. Once the letters were obtained, the approval was given for a go-ahead with the investigation whose outcome has already been determined, according to well-placed Church Militant sources. =

Those sources repeat and stress to Church Militant that the Vatican's goal in using the letters from Tymieniecka, is to lay as much blame as possible for the McCarrick scandal on the saintly pope.

Pope Francis at first turned down last month's request of the DiNardo delegation for an investigation because details were still being worked out on how to make him appear as guiltless as possible.Tweet
As a key point in all this, McCarrick befriended Tymieniecka as soon as he discovered she was a close personal friend and had the Pope's ear, his reason as stated earlier for his financial and charm offensive with her. Tymieniecka's letters to John Paul II are thought to have many glowing references to McCarrick who sought to ingratiate himself with her in hopes that she would speak favorably of him to the Holy Father.

The pre-determined outcome will then be presented as Tymieniecka clouded the judgment of Pope John Paul II, who then promoted McCarrick contrary to the evidence of his sordid behavior.

On the surface, scapegoating John Paul II may seem to have merit, as it was under John Paul II that then-Bp. McCarrick became archbishop of Washington, D.C. in November of 2000 and it was the same pope who made him a cardinal the following year in February of 2001.

(continues...)

 

However, again, according to sources, the whitewash investigation will leave out two very critical pieces of information.

Firstly, in 1991, the Holy Father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and by 2000 he was becoming increasingly impaired. That's an important point because, and this is the second point, as a result of his declining health, John Paul II had to rely ever more on his papal advisor, then-Msgr. Stanisław Dziwisz who was made bishop by John Paul in 1998 and a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006.

Multiple Vatican insiders knew that Dziwisz was the gatekeeper of all information going to Pope John Paul at the time, and was the power behind the throne, essentially, the de facto Pope.

It was Dziwisz, who had the complete trust and confidence of Pope John Paul, who multiple sources tell Church Militant he sold to the highest bidder.

Our sources tell us in fact that anyone who wanted to see the Pope had to pay Dziwisz $3,000 for him to arrange a private audience. It was passed off as a donation to the Holy See.

Sources tell Church Militant that Dziwisz was also regularly receiving large cash donations from McCarrick, who was infamous for regularly making quiet cash payments in envelopes to various members of the Curia during his multiple visits to Rome over the years.

Much of the secret cash payments made by McCarrick to Dziwisz were allegedly directed to the hospital that Dziwisz was building in Poland.

Further, our sources tell Church Militant that it was Dziwisz who called the D.C. nunciature in 2000 with the instructions to appoint McCarrick as its new archbishop in 2000.

Sources who were in the nunciature at the time that Dziwisz called and spoke with then-U.S. Nuncio Abp. Gabriel Montalvo, tell Church Militant Montalvo was greatly surprised by the request from Dziwisz.

Indeed, Abp. Viganò, who became nuncio in 2011, testified in August that Montalvo himself had urged Fr. Boniface Ramsey to blow the whistle on McCarrick the day after his appointment to D.C. — the very next day.

In his testimony, Viganò affirms that, "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."

Viganò further relates the contents of Ramsey's letter to the Holy See.

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.

Viganò also notes that then-Vatican Secretary of State Cdl. Angelo Sodano never informed the nunciature in Washington of any measures taken by the Holy See following Ramsey's letter, leaving open the question, was anything ever done at all.

It should be noted here too that Sodano, along with Dziwisz, were the men in the Vatican most responsible for protecting the notorious Fr. Marcial Maciel, the now-disgraced homosexual predator and founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who many fault John Paul II with not censoring.

Sodano and Dziwisz continually shielded Maciel from a torrent of revelations about his degenerate lifestyle.

To that point, when Dziwisz was made a bishop in 1998, it was Maciel who threw a grand party in Rome, thus opening speculation regarding one portion of the highly placed homosexual current within the Vatican itself, Maciel, McCarrick — both known homosexual predators and both extremely friendly with Dziwisz and Sodano.

All these men were trusted by Pope John Paul and worked in concert with each other to present the best possible picture of each other to the sickly saint. In getting McCarrick appointed to Washington, not only did Dziwisz call Washington's nuncio, then-Abp. Montalvo, in D.C, but also personally contacted the Congregation for Bishops in Rome.

There is a grave doubt whether St. John Paul was ever even told the truth about McCarrick. There is no doubt that Pope Francis was told, and revived his career anyway.Tweet
Church Militant has also confirmed that in the run-up to McCarrick's transfer from Newark to D.C., it was Dziwisz who picked up the telephone to tell the prefect of Bishops, then-Abp. Giovanni Battista Re, that "It would please the Holy Father" if McCarrick were to be translated from Newark to Washington.

Incidentally, Re, who initially opposed McCarrick's appointment to Washington in 2000 was made a cardinal along with McCarrick the following year in February of 2001.

John Paul has received a lot of criticism for his failure to act with regard to Maciel, who raped each of his own two illegitimate teenage sons — among many others, including multiple young children.

But what's important here is to note that the same dynamic was at play with McCarrick, which created a blind spot for John Paul. Homosexual predators aligned themselves with greedy powerbrokers in the Vatican and used their money and influence to buy protection and cover for their sexual evils.

Church Militant sources explicitly confirm the veracity of Viganò's statement that McCarrick had the "financial means to influence decisions."

So any final report of the investigation coming out from the anti-Viganò forces in the Vatican which tries to lay the blame for the McCarrick scandal at the feet of John Paul being unduly influenced by a longtime female friend will conveniently overlook and ignore the sinister activities of known homosexual predators and their allies very close to the Pope.

Our sources tell us any final report not revealing this bottom line will be a flat out lie.

And here's a final note: There is a grave doubt whether St. John Paul was ever eventold the truth about McCarrick. There is no doubt that Pope Francis was told, and revived his career anyway.

 

Phil Lawler’s Scorching Response to Cardinal Ouellet
Steve SkojecOctober 11, 2018
https://onepeterfive.com/phil-lawlers-scorching-response-to-cardinal-oullet/

Cardinal Ouellet is going to need a burn unit. Catholic author and journalist Phil Lawler unleashed an absolutely scorching response to the Canadian cardinal’s indignant demand to know how Archbishop Viganò can “celebrate Mass and mention his [the pope’s] name in the Eucharistic Prayer?”

“An excellent question,” writes Lawler. “It forces us to ask whether we have ever imagined that in praying for our shepherds we were thereby paying tribute to their rectitude and decency. Think of the faithful whose priests, over, say, the last 30 years, have invited them to pray for John Paul our pope, or for Benedict our pope …”

And then Lawler opens the flamethrower.

“… and for Rembert our bishop”—who used $450,000 of his flock’s contributions to buy the silence of his partner in sodomy.

“… and for Lawrence our bishop”—who throttled a male prostitute who was in the act of fellating him.

“… and for Thomas our bishop”—who struck a pedestrian with his Buick and drove off leaving him to die.

“… and for Patrick our bishop”—who outfitted his catamite with a beeper to summon him for sex.

“… and for Theodore our bishop”—who slept with priests and seminarians and fondled boys.

Lawler goes through four more names, four more accounts of bishops the faithful were asked to pray for in the Canon of the Mass as they did unspeakable things.

He then concludes, twisting the nozzle open to “kill it with fire”:

Now that you mention it, Your Eminence, “Francis our pope” fits into the roster with hardly any trouble at all.

This is one of those moments where only a meme can adequately sum things up:



Read the whole thing here.

 

Bang on the money.

The hierarchy continue with their heads in the sand trying to defend the indefensible.

Perhaps, we should pray for the civil authorities to have their way and put a few of these miscreants into prison!

Because it does not look like purification is going to come from within as the cover ups and false flags continue.

Looks like they just don't get it!!

 

Wow.

It's going to take tough talk to get through to these bishops. But with sodomy being protected in the MSM, very few will ever read/hear about this, so even tough talk may be futile.

I really need to pray more for Archbishop Vigano. He must feel very alone at this time.

 

God I think is going to have to lift the veil covering many peoples eyes to the truth of the sodomite but more pointedly anyone who falls under this diabolic narcissism that shows itself in its final fruits by acts of horrendous sexual depravity and hedonism.

We have been sold a bridge to nowhere. The agenda of anger, hate, envy, and spite is being carefully guarded by these people.

 

Did you know Cardinal Ouelett was a very strong contender to be made Pope at the last Conclave?

That says everything that needs to be said.

I have no words. You just run out of words and are just left speechless. Of course the Catholic Church in canda has pretty well apostasised for many years. But still a possible Pope.

Go figure.
Known as a Conservative? (archbishop Vigano was said to have a huge respect for him. Yet a hitman for Pope Francis? Baffling. Who knows?

(It's only by the way but I love the way French Canada carried France to the New World with them. Gorgeous)

 

No. That is news to me.

When Archbishop Vigano appealed to Cardinal Ouellet to release the relevant documents as proof of the authenticity of his statements, I got the impression that the cardinal was a 'good guy'. But then the cardinal disparaged Archbishop Vigano and backed PF, and I was left wondering what had happened

 

Yes it is very strange. We know a lot but there's so much we don't know and can only guess at. I have just no idea.

 

I just assumed that, under obedience (or the guise of obedience), Cardinal Ouellet responded the way Pope Francis told him to. I can only imagine the flurry of worried, anxious, and angry telephone calls after that second open letter was released.

Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall sometimes?

 

Cardinal Ouellet either is one of them or he fears for his life.

 

Interesting point

 

I suppose in Chrity we must think the best of these people when we are in doubt. I have to say that to me he does not seem like a man that would be afriad of very much. His record shows him not to be a Liberal at all but very much a Conservative in the mode of Pope St John Paul. It's a real puzzle. He's a very intelligent man no doubt so I would not suppose he has been duped.