I think backslider is inappropriate to describe Jorge Bergoglio in the context of the Ricca and McCarrick stories, and of his known record in Argentina of protecting a known homosexual bishop and a convicted homosexual priest. (And who knows what others we do not yet know about?) Though not involved in homosexual liaisons (not as far as anyone knows so far), he is a serial offender just as much as McCarrick and Ricca were.. One tends to believe that the reports of his protective and tolerant treatment of the bishop and priest in question are not inaccurate at all, else we would have heard denials from the Vatican already. (Or maybe the Bergoglio Vatican does not consider a story public and worth denying or refuting until it is picked up by all the media, not just by a few outlets).
Bergoglio the backslider
His apparent dismissal of earlier information about McCarrick's misconduct
recalls his dismissal of derogatory information about Mons Ricca
whom he named his personal representative to the IOR in 2013
August 31, 2018
“I have read it, and I will not say a word. You [journalists] read it, and make up your own minds. When a bit of time has gone by and you have drawn you conclusions, maybe then I will speak.”
This is how Pope Francis responded - on the evening of August 26, on the flight back from Dublin - to those who asked him about the indictment leveled against him that same morning by the former nuncio to the United States, Carlo Maria Viganò.
A very elusive reply. On a par with other previous reactions of his, every time he has seen himself attacked. As in the case of the “dubia” on his doctrinal correctness raised in 2016 by four authoritative cardinals, whom he never wanted to receive or to dignify with a clarification. [Nor even a simple answer acknowledging receipt of their letter! That's simply boorish and something no well-educated person would do, much less if he were Pope! What would his grandmother say if she were still alive and aware of such bad manners - insult really, because these four cardinals were his peers before he became pope, and suddenly, they are ignored as if they were non-entities?]
This time, however, the object of the accusation is not a doctrinal controversy
ad intra, with little impact on secular public opinion, but a question of sex, or rather of homosexuality practiced for decades, with dozens of partners, by an American churchman of the highest rank, who went on to become archbishop of Washington and a cardinal, Theodore McCarrick.
In essence, Viganò accuses Pope Francis of having been informed by him about McCarrick’s misconduct as early as June 23 of 2013, but of having done nothing as a result, or rather of having kept the reprobate close to him as his chief adviser in the appointments that are reshaping the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, promoting his proteges. Only this year, following charges that he also abused a minor, did the pope decide to sanction McCarrick and strip him of the cardinalate.
The accusation is of unprecedented gravity and is difficult to contest in its substance, in part because of the key roles that Viganò once occupied in the curia and in diplomacy.
But sure enough, in this case as well Pope Francis has chosen not to react. He has left the task of judging to media professionals. Sure that many will speak out in his defense, as has already happened with the “dubia,” where in effect the subsequent battle in fact played out in his favor.
But that victory will smile on him again remains to be seen.
The McCarrick case is not the only one of its kind that has gotten Jorge Mario Bergoglio into trouble. There is another one that looks like its exact twin. It concerns Monsignor Battista Ricca, director of the Casa Santa Marta selected by Francis as his Vatican residence, whom he promoted on June 15, 2013, at the beginning of his pontificate, as
prelate of the IOR, meaning the pope’s contact at the Vatican “bank,” with the right to attend all of the board meetings and to access all of the documentation.
During the second half of that month of June, 2013, the ambassadors from all over the world had gathered in Rome. And it was
on that occasion that Viganò, nuncio in Washington at the time, met with Francis and told him about McCarrick’s misconduct.
But even the appointment of Ricca as prelate of the IOR, which had taken place a few days before, had created quite a bit of distress among a good number of the nuncios, who had known him as a diplomatic adviser in Algeria, Colombia, Switzerland, and then Uruguay, everywhere displaying conduct that was anything but chaste, especially at his last destination.
In Montevideo, between 1999 and 2001, Ricca cohabited with his lover, former Swiss army captain Patrick Haari, who had followed him there from Bern. And he also frequented cruising spots with young men, getting beaten up one time and another getting stuck in an elevator at the nunciature with an eighteen-year-old already known to the Uruguayan police.
Ricca ended up being removed from diplomatic service in the field and recalled to Rome, where miraculously his career became a success all over again, turning him into a diplomatic adviser of the first class within the structure of the secretariat of state, and above all director of the three Vatican residences for cardinals and bishops visiting Rome, including that of Santa Marta, with the opportunity to establish excellent relationships, including friendships, with churchmen of half the world, including Bergoglio, who as soon as he was elected pope admitted him into his most intimate circle, where he still remains today.
So then, among the nuncios gathered in Rome during that month of June, 2013, there were also those who knew about Ricca’s scandalous background and thought that Francis was not aware of it, considering his promotion of this character, a few days before, to nothing less than prelate of the IOR.
So there were those who, during those days, wanted to put Francis on guard by informing him about Ricca’s record.
Not only that. Among the numerous witnesses of Ricca’s scandalous conduct in Montevideo were some of the Uruguayan bishops, one of whom, after Ricca was appointed prelate of the IOR, felt it his duty to him write an anguished letter in which he asked him, “for the love of the pope and of the Church,” to resign.[
And in effect Francis wanted to see clear documentation of Ricca’s record while he was at the nunciature of Montevideo. He had it sent to Rome through his own personal channels, without going through the secretariat of state.
In the meantime, in L’Espresso, a very detailed article on Ricca had come out. Who did not react at all publicly, while in private he dismissed as “gossip” all those facts reported against him, and made sure to make it known that the pope, with whom he had met, also considered it “gossip” devoid of any foundation.
Interviewed in July of 2013 by the Uruguayan and Argentine press about the prelate’s fate, the nuncio to Montevideo at the time, Guido Anselmo Pecorari, limited himself to this laconic statement: “I maintain that the question is in the hands of the Holy See. And surely the Holy Father, in his wisdom, will know what to do.”
The fact is that at the end of the month of July, during the press conference on the flight back to Rome from Rio de Janeiro, where he had gone for world youth day, Pope Francis was in effect questioned by a Brazilian journalist on the Ricca case and the “gay lobby.” And this was his actual reply, transcribed as such in the official bulletin of the Holy See:
“About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response. But I wish to add something else: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for 'sins from youth', for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins.
But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, 'I have sinned in this', the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely.
In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with 'gay' on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: 'no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society'. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question.”
Three observations about what Pope Francis said here:
1. In maintaining that he had found nothing worthy of blame in the
investigatio preceding Ricca’s appointment as prelate of the IOR, Francis confirmed that
the personal dossier on him that was kept at the secretariat of state had been carefully scrubbed of his scandalous past. But in the preceding weeks Francis also had available to him the accusatory documentation kept at the nunciature of Montevideo, incontrovertible documentation, seeing that on the basis of it the Secretariat of State had withdrawn Ricca from diplomatic service in the field. And yet he ignored it.
2. Francis applied to Ricca the typology of those who have committed “sins of youth” and then have repented. But this is never the image of himself that Ricca has presented, rather that of one who has always rejected as baseless “gossip” the accusations against his conduct.
3. And it was in reference to none other than Ricca that Francis pronounced the famous phrase that has become the trademark of his pontificate: “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” With this phrase, Bergoglio reversed completely to his favor in world public opinion an affair that otherwise could have seriously undermined his credibility.
This is the feat that Pope Francis is again attempting today, after the McCarrick affair has been laid bare by ex-nuncio Viganò.
This time as well Bergoglio has refrained from judging. He has put the ball back in the media’s court. Where pedophilia is not acceptable, but homosexuality is. No matter if it is committed by churchmen who in practicing it completely violate the commitment of chastity that they took on publicly with the sacrament of orders.
Meanwhile, Irish book author and journalist John Waters, who has probably been the only one among his fellow Irish mediamen to stand up in the past 2-3 decades for Catholicism and its beliefs, writes this article that jibes perfectly with Father Z's interpretation of Bergoglio's 'coded' reply to the newsmen on board the papal flight when asked about the Vigano expose.
SUBTITLE: Why he continues to be Teflon-clad and simply
sheds off negative publicity like water off a duck's back
Three questions to begin:
1. Why did the World Meeting of Families, which took place in Ireland last week, all but exclude from its panels and speakers people who had been active in recent Irish referenda relating to family and children?
2. Why did virtually every panel of commentators covering the World Meeting of Families and papal visit on Ireland’s national radio and television station comprise at least 50 percent LGBT activists?
3. Why did the Irish media play down the explosive intervention of the former Vatican diplomat Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò until Pope Francis was preparing to leave Ireland on Sunday afternoon?
The answer to the first question has two parts.
One is that the Irish Church hierarchy, having more or less avoided involvement in three referenda — 0n (so-called) children’s rights (2012), same-sex marriage (2015), and abortion (2018) — seek to ensure that those who tried to do the job they abandoned become non-persons within the Irish Catholic world.
More and more, the Irish bishops appear to wish to curry favor with those who despise the Church, and to dismiss and disparage those who defend Christ’s proposals for humanity. [Simply taking the cue from YOU-KN0W-WHO!]
I was one of just three people who fought prominently in all three referenda on the side that the Catholic Church might have been expected to lead. Though I had gained a reputation as an arch-apologist for the Catholic Church,
I was not invited to speak at the World Meeting of Families or even to attend it, and so I watched and listened from a distance.
To the second question:
Media panels are stuffed with LGBT activists in order to protect the dominant narrative concerning clerical sex abuse in the Church. That narrative insists that sex abuse was perpetrated by pedophiles; that the main cause was clerical celibacy; and that the coverups were conducted by Church leaders to protect the Church from bad publicity.
We have known since the John Jay Report published by the US bishops in 2004 that the overwhelming majority of abuse in the Church was carried out against teenage boys.
The levels of pedophilia in the Church are shown by this report to be below those of the general population — whereas the levels of homosexual abuse were many multiples of the general situation.
In Ireland, anyone who tries to state this case is immediately attacked by both journalists and LGBT activists. For this reason, the truth has never been fully reported, nor has its significance been absorbed even by the Church at the official level.
Most Irish people have no sense of the true meaning of the child abuse scandals, and both the media and much of the Church’s priests and leadership seem anxious to retain the narrative that implies the victims were all “little ones.”
The first child-abuser priest to be exposed in Ireland was a man called Brendan Smyth, a classic pedophile who clearly was psychiatrically ill. When being led into or out of court hearings, he would put on a show of demonic face-pulling for the cameras, providing perfect cover for those who wanted to conceal the true nature of the problem.
Hence, the vast majority of Irish people are unaware that Smyth was an aberration among abusers, and that
the problem arises in large part from the invasion of the priesthood in the 1970s and 1980s by unprecedented numbers of gay men, devoid of vocations, who now seek to undermine Church teaching on all sexual questions and who —rightly or wrongly — have come to see Pope Francis as an ally. This fifth column, the peel masquerading as the fruit, is the chief agent of the coverups of the abuses its own members have perpetrated.
When you think about it, the situation is absurd: Irish Christians are not permitted to hear any kind of discussion in the media about their faith, other than the gripes of people who seek to place gay sex at the heart of Christian and Western culture. But it is essential if the goal is to protect the narrative.
Most people are terrified of being labeled homophobic, so the presence of LGBT proxies on broadcast panels ensures that nobody dares approach the truth.
The answer to the third question feeds into all of the above.
It is often unclear whether the confusion Pope Francis leaves behind him is a deliberate strategy or the consequence of a chaotic thinking process, but in any event he has long given succor and comfort to those who hate the Church, while causing dismay to many of those who love her.
Almost from the beginning, the media — who have otherwise sought at every turn to bury the Church — have adopted Pope Francis as their champion, creating an entirely bogus, indeed asinine, good pope–bad pope dichotomy between Francis and his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.
This is why Archbishop Viganò’s statement was not widely reported in the Irish media (or indeed elsewhere) until late in the day last Sunday, and then only grudgingly, with the reports laced with innuendo about Viganò’s motivation and timing.
The pope’s exchange with journalists on the plane back to Italy must rank as one of the strangest episodes of mutual avoidance in the history of journalism.
An issue that journalists have prosecuted with extreme vigor for a quarter-century had finally arrived at the door of a pope: a direct and concrete accusation that, in a specific instance, he had protected a serial sexual abuser. Yet the omertà of the day continued into the early exchanges of the press conference, with several questions from Irish journalists making no reference to the matter.
Then Anna Matanga of CBS — the first mainstream platform to cover the Viganò story on Sunday — asked: “This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behavior of and the sexual abuse by former–Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true. I also wanted to ask something else: The archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church. May I ask you whether these two things are true?”
The pope replied:
“I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last—first we speak about the trip, and then other topics. … I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good.”
To the uninitiated, this seems like a desperate prevarication mixed with feeble flattery, a playing for time. But if it was a prevarication, it turned out to be an effective one:
The pope’s refusal to answer the question was meekly accepted by the journalists present, who would surely have brought the plane down had the pontiff’s name been Benedict or John Paul.
The Viganò story has since gained little traction in the mainstream, except for the purpose of discrediting the archbishop. It was as through the pope’s weak waffle was absorbed by some invisible padding of the plane’s walls.
Even yet, Archbishop Viganó's intervention is being treated by the Irish media as some kind of outrageous exercise in party-pooping, revealing — if anyone was in any doubt — that
the abuse scandals have chiefly been regarded by media people as an opportunity to prosecute an agenda rooted in other matters.
And when you read the pope’s response again in light of what has happened — or not happened — in the several days since, it acquires an ominous tenor, inviting a stab at a new translation. Here is mine:
Read the statement in the knowledge of the relationship you and I share: We are men and women of the world and like-minded on what is important. We know where we stand on matters like homosexuality and homosexual priests.
But be careful how you handle this Viganò business— a wrong word could undo all we have achieved. I have faith in you to figure out who this man is. Do your work well and there will be no need for me to risk my position. Once you have defused the situation, I will deal with Viganò for the record.
We are all adults here. I know I can count on you. I need your help on this, but we have an understanding that has worked well so far. Trust me.
Which was what Father Z said last Sunday in fewer lines:
In my cynicism... what the Pope said is along the lines of: “You, the press, have been on my side till now. If you think about it for a while, you should still be on my side. If you weigh the alternatives you will remember that I am your guy.”
Here is what I think he said, without saying it. The Pope is calling on the press to do the necessary work to make this go away.
Washington DC's conservative newspaper is obviously not among Bergoglio's media Praetorian Guard...
Pope Francis normally won't stop talking -
He's picked a funny time to go silent
by Becket Adams
August 30, 2018
For a guy who loves to talk, Pope Francis sure has picked a funny time to be silent.
The Holy Father dodged questions this weekend about an 11-page document alleging he knowingly enabled and empowered sexual predators in the Catholic Church.
The New York Times weirdly characterized the pope's non-response as taking “ the high road,” but it's hard to reconcile this description with the role Francis is supposed to play for the Catholic faithful around the world.
The accusation, penned by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, alleges a conspiracy of child sexual abuse spanning the globe. It alleges a conspiracy of silence and complicity within the Vatican. It also alleges Francis personally empowered known abusers, granting them the ability to handpick bishops in the United States.
It’s serious stuff, and it deserves a serious response from the Vatican. But so far, Francis has opted not to address any of it.
“Read the statement attentively and make your own judgment,” the pope told journalists on Aug. 26, according to a Catholic News Service report.
"I will not say a single word on this," he added. "I think this statement speaks for itself, and you have the sufficient journalistic capacity to draw conclusions. When some time passes and you have your conclusions, maybe I will speak. But I would like that your professional maturity carries out this task."
This is an abdication of responsibility, and it is testing Catholics' faith. Francis is not acting like the shepherd of the people of God. He is acting like a feeble politician who is looking to buy time while using the press’s deep-rooted prejudices against his critics.
In contrast, Vigano, who national newsrooms have tried very hard to paint as a vindictive, homophobic, and conspiratorial lunatic, participated in a lengthy interview this week, answering several questions regarding the veracity of his letter. That's more than any Vatican official can say.
Pope Francis’s non-response this weekend is especially frustrating, considering his penchant for sloppily expressed public positions that routinely lead to misleading and poorly informed news cycles.
When it comes to climate change, immigration reform, priestly celibacy, same-sex marriage, weapons manufacturers, etc., Francis is often willing to rush in, as critics might put it, without too much circumspection.
In fact, in the very same press conference this weekend where he refused to comment on the Vigano letter , Francis was quick to answer a question about what parents should do should they learn their child is gay.
"What would I say to a parent whose son or daughter had that tendency? I would say first, pray. Don't condemn. Dialogue, understand, make room for that son or daughter, make room so he can express himself," Francis said. "
I would never say silence is a remedy … [and] to ignore one's son or daughter who has a homosexual tendency is a failure of fatherhood or motherhood."
Hey, Father, speaking of silence never being the remedy: Were you aware in 2013 that former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick sexually abused male seminarians and minors? What did you know about former Cardinal George Pell, the Vatican’s third-most powerful official? What about the 31 Chilean bishops who tendered their resignations this year?
Francis’s titles include “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles,” and “Servant of the servants of God.” He is the shepherd to a flock that numbers in the billions.
Now would be a good time for him to step up and act like it.
From a moral-historical perspective,
this crisis is much worse than you think
[Paging Cardinals Wuerl and Parolin and all who are downplaying it]
by Benjamin Wiker
August 20, 2018
Contrary to Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s early and oft-quoted assessment, the Catholic Church is in fact facing a “massive, massive crisis.” Greater clarity about the nature of this crisis can be had by looking at the larger moral-historical perspective.
[Cardinal Parolin's money quote (from yesterday) was "Certainly, the situation is not worrying at all!" after assuring everybody that Bergoglio was 'serene' amid it all. How much more deaf and dense can the pope and his Bergogliacs be to treat the whole escalating abuse scandal so cavalierly?
Do not forget that the Vatican also assured us that this pope did not intend to do anything more about the scandal after writing his 'letter to the people of God' - that was before the Vigano expose, but apparently, Bergoglio will continue to act as if everything was 'same old, same old'.
God have mercy on him first, because he needs to change which will be a mercy to us all. Maybe what Bergoglio seriously needs, to begin with, is an all-out no-holds-barred whistles-and-bells EXORCISM by any and all qualified exorcist priests who should converge on Casa Santa Marta to drive away Satan.]
There is only one reason why pedophilia is even a moral issue today: historically, the Catholic Church made it one. Sex with boys and girls, but especially boys, was an accepted part of ancient Greek and Roman culture, the culture into which Christ Himself, and hence the Church, was born.
Christianity rejected this common pagan sexual practice as a distortion of sexuality, and evangelized accordingly. If it were not for the success of Christianity’s evangelical efforts, the laws against pedophilia still on the books today would never have been there at all.
To give this historical sketch some important details, the most desirable age for men seeking sex with boys in ancient Greece and Rome was the 12-18 year old range, when the boys were blossoming into sexual maturity on their way to becoming men. In short, homosexual activity was defined primarily by pedophilia. There were no artificial distinctions between homosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia (sex with someone between 12-14) and hebephilia (sex with someone 15-18).
There was simply the culturally commonplace desire of men to have sex with boys from ages 12-18.
Moreover, pedophilia with boys was not confined to a few perverted individuals with exclusively homosexual orientation. The great majority of men engaged in it as an accepted part of Greco-Roman culture, whether they were (as we would designate them) homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, pedophilia was not a moral issue, but a cultural practice engaged in by most men. (This is an important point that I’ll take up in a future article, because it means that our current attempt to fix a definite homosexual “percentage” in the population, say 2 percent or 10 percent, doesn’t take into account that
homosexuality and pedophilia can spread to the majority through a deformed culture.)
That was precisely the situation in ancient pagan Greece and Rome.
Then came Christ. Christianity made pedophilia a moral issue. As Christianity slowly evangelized the pagan Roman Empire, the widespread acceptance of men having sex with boys was replaced by widespread moral revulsion (and the appearance of anti-pedophilia laws that followed upon it). The same is true as well for homosexuality, sexual slavery, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. They became moral issues, rather than accepted pagan social practices, only because of Christian evangelization.
Here are the lessons we must learn from this history.
- The sole reason that there are still secular laws on the books that prohibit and punish pedophilia is that Christianity came to dominate culture in the West through evangelization.
- The only reason that we have accepted homosexuality in culture and in law is the increasing de-Christianization of the culture in the West.
- As we become even more secularized (i.e., re-paganized), pedophilia will soon be accepted, just as homosexuality, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia have already been embraced.
This is a massive, massive crisis in and for the Church because a deeply-embedded worldwide homosexual network among our priests, bishops, and cardinals is actively engaged in bringing about the full de-Christianization of the world by preying on boys between 12-18, literally recreating Greco-Roman sexual culture in our seminaries and dioceses. If you want to know what it was like in the sordid sexual days of ancient Greece and Rome, just read the Pennsylvania Report.
That’s a rather horrible irony, isn’t it?
The very men most authoritatively charged with the evangelization of all the nations are full-steam ahead bringing about the devangelization of the nations. In doing so, these priests, bishops, and cardinals at the very heart of the Catholic Church are acting as willing agents of re-paganization, undoing 2,000 years of Church History.
To be even more pointed,
these priests, bishops, and cardinals are the chief agents of devangelization, de-Christianization, repaganization. There is nothing, nothing, that undermines the moral and theological authority of the magisterium more quickly and thoroughly than the devilish marriage of scandal and hypocrisy. It destroys the ability to evangelize.
And note that I say both moral and theological.
Why should anyone now take anything the magisterium has to say seriously, whether it’s the Church’s teachings about pedophilia and homosexuality, or its teachings on the Most Holy Trinity?
Is that massive, massive enough of a crisis for you, Cardinal Wuerl? Could you imagine it being any more massive?[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 01/09/2018 16:13]