Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies

Thank God I am not a Cardinal or Bishop at the moment; all these people will have to give an account to a very angry God at the Judgement Seat one day for all this. Many of them will excuse their cowardice in the name of Prudence, but I am sure God would prefer even a heretic to a coward. Better to blow hot or cold as Jesus said.

 

Cardinal Wuerl blasts Viganò testimony as ‘not faithful to the facts’
Dorothy Cummings McLean
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...vigano-testimony-as-not-faithful-to-the-facts

October 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Donald Wuerl had a few choice words to say regarding Archbishop Carlo Viganò when he was interviewed by a liberal Catholic magazine yesterday.

In a long and laudatory article published by America magazine today, the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C. – and its apostolic administrator until his replacement is named – denied Viganò’s allegation that the cardinal lied about knowing of sanctions against disgraced former cardinal Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.

“In my read of that testimony, particularly the part that touches me, it is not faithful to the facts,” he told America’s Vatican correspondent Gerard O’Connell.

“In his testimony, Archbishop Viganò clearly says that there were secret sanctions in some form. But he also says himself that he never communicated them to me. Yet this should have been his duty,” Wuerl continued.

Wuerl said he found it difficult to accept that the Vatican whistleblower holds him responsible for implementing sanctions he says Viganò never told him about. He also does not accept what he called Viganò’s “gratuitous insult” that Wuerl lies when he says that he never received these secret sanctions.

“Certainly I would never have guessed that there were sanctions against Cardinal McCarrick from all the times I encountered him at receptions and events hosted by Archbishop Viganò at the Apostolic Nunciature. The gap between what he says and what he did and his easy calumny call into question for me the real intent and purpose of his letter,” Wuerl said.

The Cardinal added that there is “something radically wrong with any document that doesn’t provide proof for accusations of that gravity.”

Wuerl, who succeeded McCarrick as the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., repeated his claim that nobody had ever told him about his predecessor’s predatory sexual behavior.

“I have clarified over and over again that during the 12 years that I served as archbishop of Washington no one ever brought me any allegation of misconduct, sexual misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick,” he said.

Viganò: ‘Unthinkable’ Wuerl wouldn’t have known of McCarrick sanctions
In his original testimony, Archbishop Viganò said that it was “unthinkable” that his predecessor as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States would not have informed Wuerl of Pope Benedict’s sanctions against McCarrick.

“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,” he continued.

“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,” Viganò recollected.

He said that he had telephoned McCarrick, who replied that he had known nothing about the meeting, but 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?” the whistleblower demanded.

Viganò said that Wuerl’s statements that he knew nothing about the abuses or the sanctions were “laughable.”

“The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well,” he said.

Viganò also called Wuerl one of Pope Francis’ “protégés,” and alleged that the pontiff had set a “trap” for him by asking for his opinion of the American archbishop. The former Apostolic Nuncio said that he would not tell the Pope if Wuerl was “good or bad” but instead told him of two occasions in which the then-Archbishop of Washington had been pastorally careless.

As the McCarrick scandal, the criticism of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, and Viganò’s allegations continued to rage through the Church in the United States, Wuerl asked Pope Francis in September to accept his resignation, which he’d tendered two years ago when he turned 75. Pope Francis did so in an admiring letter post-dated to today.

Wuerl ‘moved’ by letter he received from Pope Francis
Yesterday, Wuerl told O’Connell that he was “moved” by themes the pontiff had mentioned in his letter.

“I was very moved that [the pope’s letter] highlights what is so important to me, namely that the shepherd’s first responsibility is to his flock, is to the people entrusted to his pastoral care and that the unity of the flock is so important,” Wuerl said.

The cardinal said that to “serve that unity” as Archbishop he would have had to concentrate on defending himself, which would “have taken us in a wrong direction” instead of “trying to do the healing and unity as quickly as possible.”

“That’s why I asked the Holy Father to accept my resignation so that a new and fresh leadership did not have to deal with these other issues,” he continued.

Wuerl appreciated that Pope Francis did not think that he had covered up abuse but had merely made “mistakes.”

“I made errors of judgment when we were dealing with all those cases before the Dallas Charter,” he told O’Connell, referring to the U.S. bishops’ 2002 guidelines on handling priestly sex abuse cases. “Some of those errors in judgment were based on professional psychological evaluations, some of the errors were based on moving too slowly as we tried to find some verification of the allegations. Those were all judgmental errors, and I certainly regret them.”

Wuerl continued to defend his record in Pittsburgh, saying, “I think it is also worth noting that all those priests who were faced with allegations in my time there, if there was any substantiation for them they were removed from any ministry that would put them in contact with young people.”

Wuerl said that “a careful reading” of both the Pennsylvania grand jury report and the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s response shows that he acted in “a very responsible way” to remove priests guilty of sexual abuse.

When asked if he had any regrets about his actions as Bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl would not say yes or no.

“It’s a hard question to answer because in those early years of my ministry, that was before the change in canon law, before the Essential Norms, there were a lot of things that I did that went in the direction of trying to get some proof of allegations,” he told O’Connell.

He contrasted current norms, in which Church personnel are put on leave as soon as an allegation is made today, with the canonical norms he said were “operative” when he began ministry in Pittsburgh.

“Then we were required to have some modicum of proof before moving out the person,” he explained.

 

Wuerl was promoted. He has admitted no wrongs, only that procedural guidelines and lack of information were to blame and now he goes on the attack against Vigano. Big surprise.

 

Sacked but not sacked. If I did what he did I would expect to find myself in prison and people spitting at me, or worse, in the streets.

Righteous anger appears to have gone out one door and False Mercy come in the other.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/cardinal-wuerl-resignation/index.html

 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-of-mccarricks-wrongdoing/?platform=hootsuite

Viganò tells Ouellet: Yes, the Vatican had detailed proof of McCarrick’s wrongdoing
by Dan Hitchens
posted Friday, 19 Oct 2018

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2014 (CNS)
Archbishop Viganò says the Vatican had documentary evidence, but that officials either failed to act or were prevented from doing so

In a third letter on the Archbishop McCarrick affair, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has named key documents which, he says, show that Vatican officials had detailed knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual corruption.

It is two months since Archbishop Viganò, the former Vatican representative (nuncio) to the US, accused Vatican officials of failing to act against McCarrick. Viganò even alleged that Pope Francis had known about McCarrick’s offences and nevertheless brought the American prelate into his inner circle.

Viganò claimed that he had told Francis in June 2013 that McCarrick had “corrupted generations of seminarians”.

He further claimed that, while Benedict XVI had imposed restrictions on McCarrick, these had been lifted by Pope Francis, who made McCarrick a “trusted counsellor”.

The Pope has not directly responded. But Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, denounced Viganò’s letter two weeks ago, calling it “unjust” and “abhorrent”. Addressing Viganò as “Dear brother”, Cardinal Ouellet said that, until recently, the Vatican had not been fully aware of McCarrick’s true character.

“Unlike today,” Ouellet wrote, “there was not sufficient proof of [McCarrick’s] alleged culpability”. Rather than having “recent and definitive information”, according to Ouellet, the Vatican knew only “rumours” .

But in his new letter, Viganò claims that “the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof”, but officials failed to act or were prevented from doing so.

He names several documents which, he claims, the Vatican had in its possession, most of them from the time of Benedict XVI. These include a letter from an American priest, Fr Boniface Ramsey, describing what he had heard about McCarrick; records of civil settlements which two US dioceses had reached with McCarrick’s alleged victims; and a 2008 letter from the psychotherapist Richard Sipe offering to detail McCarrick’s offences.

Viganò also says that he, as well as his two predecessors as nuncio, Archbishops Montalvo and Sambi, had informed the Vatican about McCarrick.

The documents, Viganò says, are kept in the “appropriate archives” of the Vatican. They “specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts”.

Addressing Ouellet, the former nuncio asks: “Are all these just rumours? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy.”

Viganò also says Ouellet’s letter confirmed that Benedict imposed restrictions on McCarrick. “Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims,” he writes.

The archbishop concludes by appealing to other Vatican officials to give their own testimony.

The full text of Archbishop Viganò’s letter is here.

 

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/10/19/vigano-risponde-al-card-ouellet-la-terza-testimonianza/

On the Memory 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, 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, or signed by the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.

Cont..

 

• 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 condemn the abusre, 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, anw 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.

October 19, 2018
Memory of the
North American Martyrs

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

 

God bless this brave incredible man

 

New statement from Archbishop Vigano: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vigano-to-mccarrick-repent-for-the-sake-of-your-soul-67100

Vigano to McCarrick: Repent, for the sake of your soul
Vatican City, Jan 14, 2019 / 04:05 am (CNA).- A former papal representative to the U.S. has written an open letter to Archbishop Theodore McCarrick that urges the archbishop to repent publicly of the sexual abuse and misconduct of which he stands accused.

“You, paradoxically, have at your disposal an immense offer of great hope for you from the Lord Jesus; you are in a position to do great good for the Church. In fact, you are now in a position to do something that has become more important for the Church than all of the good things you did for her throughout your entire life,” wrote Archbishop Carlo Vigano in a Jan. 13 letter to McCarrick.

“A public repentance on your part would bring a significant measure of healing to a gravely wounded and suffering Church. Are you willing to offer her that gift? Christ died for us all when we were still sinners (Rom. 5: 8). He only asks that we respond by repenting and doing the good that we are given to do.”

Read the rest at the above link.

Meanwhile back in denial land:
Wuerl denies prior denials denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...knowledge-of-mccarrick-seminarian-abuse-76353

 

God Bless Archbishop Vigano and everyone praying for the Church and those who stand for the truth in this matter.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...4296-vigano-speaks-vatican-cover-up-continues

Yesterday a fourth document was released by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. The document is a beautiful open letter to Archbishop Ted McCarrick, urging him to repent.

Remnant Editor’s Note: The more the Vatican attempts to discredit Archbishop Viganò and pretend the problem is not homosexuality in the priesthood but rather clericalism, abuse of power, and whatever else the Vatican can think of, the more Archbishop Viganò emerges as a hero of practicing Catholics everywhere and history’s last man on earth who had the courage to stand and resist the Vatican's reign of spiritual and moral terror. As The Remnant has maintained since this story broke in August 2018, we stand with Archbishop Viganò and insist that the Vatican take his most credible charges seriously without delay. A failure to do so on their part will thoroughly discredit the pontificate of Pope Francis not only in the here and now but in the pages of history itself. And if no action is taken and the coverup continues, we at The Remnant will do all in our power to make sure that happens. V is for Viganò. MJM

 

Amen!

 

Thank your for p

Thank you for posting!

I hope all that abused repent before they die....it will go so much better for them in eternity if they do....as it will for everyone.

 

Speaking of repenting and our mortal decline Justice Ginsburg could probably really use our prayers. I hope that she converts before her demise and I have a feeling that she is not long for the world.

 

Archbishop Vigano acts like a Spiritual Father with a care for souls. Not like a politician on the go like many others.

Our first duty a Catholics is simply to save our souls from hell. Our second to help save others by our prayers and example. By living a good life.

If we don't save ourselves we will save no one else