THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

A surprising editorial on the Vigano testimony came out in the Bergogliac Corriere della Sera - surprising because it does not dismiss the report outright, and in fact, considers it serious enough to have 'taken away the pope's credibility' on clerical sex abuse when he was in Ireland. It is also written by inveterate Bergogliac Massimo Franco, a sometime Italian diplomat, which does not make him a good journalist or cogent writer, as you will see in his many imprecisions and outright errors below. I am sure Vigano himself was the first to be surprised that he is described in the headline as 'leader of the conservatives'! I am translating the headline as is - typical of Italian newspapers, it is multi-layered.

Mons Vigano and the report that accuses the pope:
'He has been covering up abuses - now he must resign'.
The answer: 'Judge for yourself'
The ex-Nuncio to Washington, leader of the conservatives, says
'He knew of McCarrick's abuses since 2013 but did nothing'.
An echo of the Chilean case and the shadow of an account-settling.
Editorial by Massimo Franco
CORRIERE DELLA SERA
August 26, 2018

To ask for the resignation of Pope Francis for having covered up sex abuses by priests, bishops and at least one cardinal is more than just an attack. It has the makings of a provocation in the violent conflict that has been rending the Catholic Church.

But one cannot ignore its novelty, now that the pope himself is directly accused of complicity in the cover-up. A report by the former Apostolic Nuncio the United States, Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò, claims that Bergoglio chose to ignore the sexual abuses of now ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick since at least June 30, 2018.

On that day, Viganò says he personally spoke to the pope about McCarrick’s record of sexual predation that had been known for decades. Viganò implies that the pope played deaf to the denunciation because, among other things, McCarrick had been one of his pre-Conclave supporters to become pope. Though last July, he took away McCarrick’s cardinalate in an unprecedented decision. [Not exactly unprecedented, but the most relevant adjective for it is ‘forced’ – he would never have acted against McCarrick had not a New York archdiocesan investigation found ‘plausible’ an accusation that McCarrick had sexually abused a New Yorker when the latter was in his teens.]

The attack [Franco chooses to characterize the Vigano testimony as an ‘attack], published in the newspaper La Verita, casts a dubious light on the Vatican hierarchy. It does not serve anything to ask whether Vigano’s motives were nobile or nasty. He is considered one of the spokesmen of the conservative front that is hostile to this pope. [When did he ever speak out against Bergoglio until this expose???]

In Ireland, the Argentine pontiff was seeking to bank down the fires of Catholic rage against the Church for the new cases of clerical sex abuse that have come to light in glaring detail recently. But the Vigano report has taken away his credibility. [Franco uses the term pedophilia, instead of clerical sex abuse, but pedophilia has been the wrong word for this rampant crime, at least since the 2002 report on sexual abuses in the USA commissioned by the USCCB from the John Jay Criminal College in New York – which showed very clearly that majority of the victims of clerical sex abuse were not children but teenagers, and that the driving motivation for the crimes was homosexuality, not priestly celibacy.] that have come to light in glaring detail lately.

The report is made insidious not so much by the author, who is a controversial personality but who truly has a profound knowledge of the Roman Curia. The problem is that he has presented the image of a pope who was aware of many abuses – that of McCarrick among them – but who has been inclined to under-estimate them because of Realpolitik. [The word is ‘ignore’ not ‘under-estimate’, and he has chosen to ignore them precisely because he realizes the immense damage it does to his own image, in primis, as the supposed champion of zero tolerance for clerical/episcopal abuses in the Church.]

The report is all the more resonant because of what has happened in Chile in recent months. Bergoglio defended bishops guilty of sexual abuse, dismissing accusations against them as ‘calumny’. Then, in view of the reaction of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley [who reacted not as Archbishop of Boston but as Bergoglio’s pointman for ‘dealing’ with clerical/episcopal sex abuse], he admitted he was given the wrong information and sent a factfinding mission to investigate the supposed ‘calumny’. As a result of which all the Chilean bishops resigned en masse. [Though only a few resignations have been accepted, not including the current Archbishop of Santiago, Cardinal Ezzati, made cardinal by Bergoglio, who is now being investigated by Chilean courts for covering up for sex-abusive priests, and not including, most egregiously, the former Archbishop of Santiago, Cardinal Errazuriz, one of the pope’s advisers in his Council of Nine, and who has admitted that for years, he dismissed accusations against the infamous Karadima, and who was not among the bishops who resigned en masse - he obviously did not think the problem had anything to do with him! Nor did the pope apparently. Which goes to prove how much the whole Chilean ‘production’ was for show, because he sacked the small fry but left the big fish in place.]

But it has been made known that for at least 3 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led till June 2017 by Crdinal Gerhahrd Mueller, had presented written reports about the situation in Chile, which Bergoglio ignored, because he trusted the assurances of his pet Chilean cardinals.

But the Vigano report also casts blame on many others in the Vatican. Starting with Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone, who were Secretary of State, respectively, for John Paul II and Benedict XVI. With many others named in the cascade, confirming a sort of account-settling of scoundrels in the Roman Curia and in the episcopal hierarchy of the USA.

Beyond the possible desire for vengeance of a nuncio who was retired by Bergoglio [Vigano had reached 75 at the time he was replaced, which was also after he had helped organize what everyone considered a 'very successful' trip to the United States by Bergoglio], Vigano also raises the problem of how bishops are chosen. And of course, accused and accusers.


Few come out looking good in the report – above all Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, who sought to isolate McCarrick but without being able to impose his will on his own Curia and on the US bishops. Which perhaps leads us to ask again what were the real reasons for Joseph Ratzinger’s decision to resign the papacy in 2013.

[OK already – assuming without conceding that, as Franco implies, B16 felt he was unable to lead his own men to do what he wanted, so he chose to resign, will someone please present a credible step-by-step scenario of how this could have played out exactly, and who might have been the protagonists (persons as well as agencies or organziations)?

No one, not even the most ardent hidebound conspiracy theorist, has ever done this. In fact no one has gone beyond a single sentence to simply imply that Benedict gave up or gave in to forces – the gay mafia, masons in the Curia, Obama and Soros, what have you – who did not want to have him continue as pope.]

The New York Times presents this op-ed by Matthew Schmitz of First Things:

A Catholic civil war?
Traditionalists want strict adherence to church doctrine.
Liberals want the doctrine changed.
By Matthew Schmitz
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Aug. 27, 2018

Pope Francis must resign. That conclusion is unavoidable if allegations contained in a letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò are true.

Archbishop Viganò, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States from 2011 to 2016, says that Pope Francis knew Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had abused seminarians, but nonetheless lifted penalties imposed on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI.

No matter what Francis does now, the Catholic Church has been plunged into all-out civil war. On one side are the traditionalists, who insist that abuse can be prevented only by tighter adherence to church doctrine. On the other side are the liberals, who demand that the church cease condemning homosexual acts and allow gay priests to step out of the closet. [That's a strange misrepresentation and reductionism of the sides in this 'war', in which the attitude towards clerical-episcopal sex abuse is only one component of two opposing world views on faith and morals! The better simplistic and reductionist description would have been pro-Catholicism/anti-Bergoglianism and pro-Bergoglianism/anti-Catholicism because that is what the opposing poles represent.]

Despite their opposing views, the two sides have important things in common. Both believe that a culture of lies has enabled predators to flourish. And both trace this culture back to the church’s hypocritical practice of claiming that homosexual acts are wrong while quietly tolerating them among the clergy.

- As the liberal Vatican observer Robert Mickens writes, “There is no denying that homosexuality is a key component to the clergy sex abuse (and now sexual harassment) crisis.”
- James Alison, himself a gay priest, observes, “A far, far greater proportion of the clergy, particularly the senior clergy, is gay than anyone has been allowed to understand,” and many of those gay clergymen are sexually active.

Father Alison describes the “absurd and pharisaical” rules of the clerical closet, which include “doesn’t matter what you do so long as you don’t say so in public or challenge the teaching.”

The importance of not challenging church teaching is seen in the contrast of two gay-priest scandals of the Francis pontificate.

The first is the case of Msgr. Battista Ricca, a Vatican diplomat who, while stationed in Uruguay, reportedly lived with a man, was beaten at a cruising spot and once got stuck in an elevator with a rent boy. (In Uruguay, the age of consent is 15.) These facts were concealed from Pope Francis, who in 2013 appointed Monsignor Ricca to a position of oversight at the Vatican Bank. [Schmitz is simply wrong on this. Bergoglio insisted on more than one occasion that he had the allegations against Ricca investigated and found them unsubstantiated. One doubts whether an actual investigation was even done. By all accounts, Ricca's dossier at the Secretariat of State was scrubbed clean of his offenses, very likely by Ricca himself with the consent of his superiors, when he was recalled from the diplomatic service to work in the Vatican before Bergoglio became pope.]

After Monsignor Ricca’s sins were exposed, Francis chose to stand by him, famously saying, “Who am I to judge?” Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa suffered a less happy fate. The priest, who worked at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, announced in 2015 that he was gay and had a male partner, and asked the church to change its teaching. He was immediately fired. Both Monsignor Ricca and Monsignor Charamsa had sinned, but only one had stepped out of line.

The other rule of the clerical closet is not violating the civil law — or at least not getting caught. Francis defended Monsignor Ricca by distinguishing between sins and crimes: “They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different.” This distinction provides cover for sex abuse.

When countless priests are allowed to live double lives, it is hard to tell who is concealing crimes. Cardinal McCarrick was widely seen as “merely” preying on adult seminarians. Now he has been credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor.

Corrupt as this situation is, many Catholic leaders prefer it to the coming civil war. That seemed to be the attitude of Bishop Robert Barron when he called for an investigation that avoids “ideological hobby horses” like priestly celibacy and homosexuality. [How about just considering them for what they are, prima facie, and not labelling them?] Bishop Barron is right to insist that accountability comes first. This is why anyone implicated in cover-up — up to and including Pope Francis — needs to resign.

But even if all the men at fault are held accountable, the hypocrisy will continue. The real danger the church faces is not ideological challenge from left or right but a muddled modus vivendi that puts peace before truth.

In 2005 the Vatican attempted to address this problem by instructing seminaries to turn away men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” But several Catholic leaders immediately indicated that they would not abide by this rule. Because Pope Benedict did nothing to enforce the decree, it became yet another symbol of Catholic hypocrisy.

According to Catholic teaching, every act of unchastity leads to damnation. But many bishops would rather save face than prevent the ruin of bodies and souls. If the church really does believe that homosexual acts are always and everywhere wrong, it should begin to live what it teaches. This would most likely mean enforcing the 2005 decree and removing clergy members caught in unchastity. If the church does not believe what it says — and there are now many reasons to think that it does not — it should officially reverse its teaching and apologize for centuries of pointless cruelty.

Either way, something must change. Marie Collins, a sex abuse survivor, warned that the crisis in the church is bound to get worse: “More and more countries are going to come forward, and as victims find their voices, it’s going to grow bigger.”

Everyone who wants to end sex abuse should pray that the Catholic civil war does not end in stalemate. [??? If Bergoglio resigns - or however God wills to dispose of him - what we should pray for is not to get a Bergoglio 2.0.]


If the allegations against Pope Francis are true,
he is morally unfit and must resign
by Matt Walsh
THE DAILY WIRE
August 27, 2018

A former high ranking official in the Catholic Church, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, claims that Pope Francis personally helped cover up the abuses of degenerate predator Cardinal McCarrick.

Vigano spilled his guts in an 11-page report, which he says he is publishing now in order to "discharge his conscience" so that he can "present himself to God with a clean conscience." What follows from there is tantamount to a nuclear bomb dropped right on top of the whole network of cowards and perverts in the upper echelons of the Church.

Vigano spends the first half of his report accusing numerous cardinals and bishops by name. He reserves special (and deserved) scorn for Cardinal Wuerl, who covered up abuses in PittsburgH, saying Wuerl "lies shamelessly." He names a host of other top officials, indicting them as liars, conspirators, and deviants or defenders of deviants. Finally, he lands on Pope Francis himself.

He claims that Francis knew about McCarrick's abuses but took no action against him, and actually lifted sanctions that Pope Benedict had placed on him. Vigano says that he personally spoke with Francis about McCarrick, yet Francis still kept McCarrick installed as a public and powerful voice in the Church. In Vigano's version, Francis only moved against McCarrick once his misdeeds became public knowledge. Vigano called for Francis to "set a good example" and resign from his office.

In the couple of days since these stunning allegations were made, one person mentioned in Vigano's letter has come forward and corroborated his claims. Also, the National Catholic Register confirmed that Benedict did know about McCarrick and did level sanctions against him. Further, Cardinal Burke and a bishop in Texas have categorized the allegations as credible and called for a thorough investigation.

For his part, incredibly, Pope Francis chose not to respond to the allegations at all. In a deranged statement, he declared that he is "not going to say a word about this." He actually admonished the public to "draw conclusions" and "make your own judgment."

A few points about all of this:
1) There are no flattering ways to interpret Pope Francis'S non-denial. Either he is guilty as sin or he has so much disdain and hubris in his heart that he does not think he owes anyone an explanation.

I suppose a third possibility is that the man has gone completely senile. But until Vatican doctors testify to the latter option, we are left choosing between the first two or both combined. Whichever is true, Francis's answer is shameful.

Catholic faithful around the world had already been deeply distressed and heartbroken as they watched their beloved Church gasping and staggering under the weight of cowardice, debauchery, and corruption. Now that the Pope has been implicated, many Catholics have found themselves teetering on the edge of despair. In the face of such scandal and pain, Francis has nothing to offer but smugness. It is disgraceful.

The pontiff has no problem pontificating about "rigid" young Catholics who are too orthodox for his taste. He has no problem mocking Catholics who take seriously the Church's teachings about birth control, accusing them of breeding "like rabbits." He even has no problem upending millennia of Church teaching and the dictates of God Himself when it comes to issues like the death penalty. But suddenly he becomes shy when he is asked a simple question about his own conduct?

Well, we must note that Francis's silence is not unprecedented. When four cardinals sent him a letter expressing "grave concern" over his teachings in Amoris Laetitia, asking him to answer five simple questions in order to clear up the confusion created by the document, Francis ignored them. To this day, he has not answered the questions. This is Francis's long-established modus operandi: wreak havoc and sow confusion, then arrogantly refuse to clarify anything.

2) If the allegations are true, Pope Francis must resign. He would lack the moral capacity to lead even a local parish in North Dakota, let alone the entire Church. If he will not resign, then he must be pushed out. The message would need to be sent from every good Bishop, every good priest, and every good Catholic lay person, that they will not tolerate such abuses from anyone — even the Pope. Especially the Pope.

3) But that raises the central question: are the allegations true? They are certainly credible, as they come from a reliable and knowledgeable source and are well-detailed and documented. They have been corroborated by at least one witness and aspects of the story have apparently been confirmed by Benedict.

Many of the people implicated are known cowards and liars, so Vigano would seem to have the edge in a "he said/they said" debate. Vigano's story also sounds reasonable and fits into the overall puzzle. These factors do not remove all doubt, but they do remove a significant portion of the doubt.

In order to fully confirm Vigano's claims, or fully refute them, the following needs to happen:
1) All of the documents, letters, and memos Vigano mentions in his report, which he says will corroborate many of his claims, must be released to the public.
2) Every person in the Vatican hierarchy with any knowledge of the situation must come forward and speak.
3) A full investigation must be conducted.
4) Pope Francis must answer these charges personally, not through statements issued by Vatican lawyers.

If none of these measures are taken, Catholic faithful will have no choice but to assume that the cover-up is ongoing and Francis is involved in it. He will have left them no other option.

Pope Francis can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. If he allows the doubt to fester, then the benefit will go to Vigano. The time for blind acceptance is over. The men at the very top of the hierarchy must be humbled. They must explain themselves. They are not gods. They are servants of God. Now it is time for them to act like it.

Pope Francis once exhorted Christians to "answer for themselves." Now I exhort him to do the same. And there is no time to waste.