THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI

Once more, I find I am completely unable to put myself in the shoes of those who call the shots at the Bergoglio Vatican. I fully expect the pope's internal (obviously handpicked)
investigators to shred into never-existence any documents that might tend to substantiate Mons. Vigano's claims about the McCarrick case. And that blame would be laid in spades
on John Paul II for having made McCarrick Archbishop of Washington and then cardinal, and on Benedict XVI for not having disclosed what he learned about McCarrick. But
certainly not that they would try to concretize the blame they assign to JPII by digging up what it seems they have dug up. Even if Church Militant is openly super-militant indeed
about exposing, reporting and investigating on the sexual abuse and cover-up aspects of THE PRESENT CRISIS in general, the details in this report are too many to suspect them of
making it all up...

October 10, 2018

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 on the pope 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's direct involvement to that of John Paul speculated involvement.

But that narrative deliberately masks 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 [for all intents and purposes] 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, a 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.

It appears McCarrick had befriended Tymieniecka as soon as he discovered she was a close personal friend and had the Pope's ear, so he decided to launch a 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.

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.

[What follows seems to me openly slanderous unless CM has reasonable proof - other than long-circulated rumors - about what is alleged regarding Dsiwisz.]

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.

[Will Cardinal Dziwisz reply to all the above??? It seems to elevate what was always on the level of rumor to fact. Though as we know from the McCarrick case, it could very well turn out to be so.]

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, Maciel threw a grand party in Rome, thus opening speculation regarding one portion of the highly placed homosexual current within the Vatican itself - Maciel and McCarrick, both known sexual predators,s 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.

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 even told the truth about McCarrick. There is no doubt that Pope Francis was told, and revived his career anyway.


In the following article, which I post belatedly, Phil Lawler notes all the self-evident errors in the Vatican's two 'own goal' blunders recently regarding the McCarrick case, but has a very powerful concluding paragraph...

On McCarrick scandal,
Vatican responses are tardy
and not at all reassuring
By Phil Lawler

October 8, 2018

Finally there is some movement. This weekend the Vatican began responding to the dismay of the laity over the McCarrick scandal. The responses are certainly tardy, and still not terribly reassuring. But they are responses, at least; the “stonewall” approach is breaking down.

The first response, issued by the Vatican press office on October 6, was a notice that Pope Francis, “aware of and concerned by the confusion that these accusations are causing in the conscience of the faithful,” was taking further steps to investigate the scandal.

Confusion? Who is confused? The statement attributes the “confusion” to the “accusations regarding the conduct” of McCarrick. Actually there is very little confusion on that score; there is now a good deal of testimony about the former cardinal’s behavior. And the public responses to that testimony is not so much confusion as outrage: righteous anger.

If there is confusion about the case, it is due to the conflicting claims over how the Vatican responded to the revelations about McCarrick’s misconduct.
- The Vatican statement feeds any such confusion, by creating the impression that the problem first came to light a few short weeks ago.
- There is no acknowledgment that in fact the Vatican was made aware of McCarrick’s homosexual escapades at least 15 years ago.
- Nor is there an acknowledgment that before Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to remove himself from public life, Pope Benedict XVI had already issued the same sort of order, only to see it flouted by the American prelate and then (if Archbishop Vigano’s charge is accurate) rescinded by Pope Francis.

For that matter, the October 6 statement never mentions the basic complaint against McCarrick. The word “homosexual” does not appear. There are a few references to abuse and to cover-ups — and, in keeping with the current vogue [a 'vogue' initiated by this pope and parroted endlessly and mindlessly by his minions], to “clericalism” — but the word “homosexual” does not appear. So the statement immediately fails the test of candor.

The main thrust of the statement is the promise that Pope Francis has authorized a “further thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick.” That is a small step in the right direction.
- But who will conduct this study?
- And when, and under what conditions?
- If the investigation will be done by the same people who are accused of covering up the evidence initially, lay Catholics have every right to remain “confused.”

Just two weeks earlier, we learned — by inference, not thanks to any forthright announcement — that Pope Francis had apparently declined a request from the American bishops for an apostolic visitation, a sort of investigation that would have carried the clout necessary to turn up all the available evidence.

Now we learn the Pope is due to meet with the leaders of the US bishops’ conference again this week. Could the October 6 statement indicate that he might reconsider the American request? That, too, would be a step in the right direction — particularly if, following the advice from the American contingent, he took some steps to ensure that the work was done by reliable, independent investigators. [Though it seems, from the Church Militant report above, that the change of heart may have come about because the pope's agents obtained the files of private correspondence between John Paul II and a Polish-American friend whom McCarrick apparently used shamelessly to gain traction with the Polish pope at the time of his first episcopal nomination to Newark. In other words, because Bergoglio now feels he can scapegoat the deceased and defenseless Wojtyla and distract attention from his failings in re McCarrick.]

A final observation about that October 6 statement: the Vatican warned that the results, when they are released, might show “that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues.”

On one level that is a considerable understatement; we already know that “choices were taken” (notice the passive voice, skirting the question of who made those choices) that were irresponsible and indefensible. But the reference to a “contemporary approach” is particularly noisome. Again there is a hint that until recently, Catholic bishops could not have been expected to know that the serial molestation of seminarians was a moral failing. St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) would disagree.

If there is a serious investigation into Vatican files pertaining to the McCarrick scandal, the bulk of the evidence would likely be found in the archives of the Congregation for Bishops. So it is noteworthy — and I wonder, is it coincidental? —t hat the second major Vatican announcement of the weekend came from the prefect of that dicastery, Cardinal Marc Ouellet.

And if the October 6 announcement left key questions unanswered, the Ouellet statement actually added to the “confusion” of the laity —that is, the mounting suspicion that the Vatican in general, and Pope Francis in particular, had handled the McCarrick affair very, very badly.

In a Wall Street Journal news story [that I could not post because the WSJ has a paywall,] Francis X. Rocca captured the essentials in his opening sentence:

---

A senior Vatican official on Sunday denounced what he called the “monstrous accusation” that Pope Francis ignored reports of sexual misconduct a favorite U.S. cardinal, but he also confirmed that the cardinal had already been under disciplinary measures when the pope took office.

---

Cardinal Ouellet was responding to a public challenge from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who had urged him to confirm that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions on McCarrick, ordering the American cardinal to withdraw from public life.

Although he denounced the Vigano testimony as “monstrous” and “blasphemous” and “extremely deplorable,” Cardinal Ouellet essentially confirmed the essential point that Archbishop Vigano had asked him to make.

On the surface, the Canadian cardinal seemed to deny that point, writing:

---

After re-examining the archives, I can ascertain that there are no corresponding documents signed by either Pope, neither is there a note of an audience with my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, giving Archbishop Emeritus McCarrick an obligatory mandate of silence and to retire to a private life, carrying canonical penalties.

---

However, a careful reading of that long sentence reveals that Cardinal Ouellet had inserted several conditions. The key question was whether or not McCarrick had been ordered out of public life. Whether such an order appeared over a papal signature, or carried formal canonical penalties: these were secondary issues.

As to the primary issue, Cardinal Ouellet allowed that McCarrick had been “strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public.” The cardinal even admitted that he had told Archbishop Vigano that McCarrick “was supposed to obey certain conditions and restrictions.” So even if “sanctions” is not the proper term, there were restrictions in place.

Cardinal Ouellet then went on to deplore Archbishop Vigano’s complaint that McCarrick had remained in office, and even gained power and influence, long after charges against him had been brought to the attention of Vatican officials.

Cardinal Ouellet wrote that “at that time, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged guilt.” In a revealing sentence, he continued, “It seems unjust to me to conclude that the persons in charge of the prior discernment are corrupt even though, in this concrete case, some suspicions provided by witnesses should have been further examined.”

Here Cardinal Ouellet betrayed the symptoms of the very problem that created this scandal. He acknowledged the existence of rumors about McCarrick, but argued that no action was required since there was no proof of the American prelate’s guilt.
- Wouldn’t a more responsible approach have been to investigate the rumors, to ascertain whether there was a cause for concern?
- How often have Vatican officials dismissed charges of clerical misconduct, classifying them as “rumors,” rather than taking them seriously? Has this lesson still not sunk in?

A charge, a report, or a rumor is not sufficient reason to dismiss a priest or a bishop. But a serious charge is sufficient reason to think twice about promoting that cleric. And when the reports multiply, as reports about McCarrick multiplied, that is ample reason to question whether the object of those charges should be given greater influence. T

hese questions were not raised, in McCarrick’s case, and that failure to respond to obvious signs of trouble is a sign of negligence — or something worse than negligence.

Cardinal Ouellet concluded his open letter with several paragraphs of fulsome, cloying praise of Pope Francis, paired with a round denunciation of Vigano’s “open and scandalous rebellion.”

It is remarkable that the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who in this very letter cautions against questioning the motivations of other bishops, does not hesitate to say that Archbishop Vigano is suffering from “bitterness and delusions” that have led him to inflict “a very painful wound on the Bride of Christ.”

Until very recently it was rare to see one bishop engage in such open criticism of another. No doubt Archbishop Vigano realized that he would be bringing such criticism on himself, when he dared to raise public questions about the leadership of Pope Francis.

But isn’t it revealing that the bishop who has become the target for the most vituperative public criticism is not the bishop who preyed on his seminarians, nor the bishop who used diocesan funds to pay for the silence of an old lover, nor any of the bishops who lied to aggrieved parents, but the one bishop who, by telling inconvenient truths, put himself outside the protection of the clerical club?