| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 32.279
Post: 14.365 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
Does anyone at the Vatican realize that with every half-truth and lie they try to foist on the public, they are just digging themselves deeper into the stonewell (rather than stonewall) of denial - which is how they have chosen to deal with Mons. Vigano's factual accusations? I realize Cardinal Ouellet may have chosen to abandon (or at the very least, to compromise) his core principles as a priest and theologian when he consciously - and most gladly, it appears - chose to cast his lot ten times over with Jorge Bergoglio as pope, but did Ouellet abandon all common sense as well when he allowed himself to be the patsy for the open letter sent out in his name to 'refute' Vigano? (A letter sent out 'with papal permission', as Ouellet informs us, but which I like to believe was written by someone like Fr Antonio "2+2=5" Spadaro who simply ignores elementary logic and common sense.) For Ouellet, Mons. Vigano's 'J'accuse!' number-3 must be an embarrassing reminder of everything that was wrong with 'his' letter....
Viganò tells Ouellet: Yes, the Vatican
had detailed proof of McCarrick’s wrongdoing
[In short, Ouellet and others in the Vatican who received any information
in this regard but did nothing are complicit in covering up for him]
by Dan Hitchens
Deputy Editor
Friday, 19 Oct 2018
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 there were letters containing information that should have been investigated but were not. Not to mention the settlements made by three New Jersey dioceses with some of McCarrick's victims!]
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:
On the Memorial Feast Day 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 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.
[One must ask
- why the letter was relayed only to Cardinal Bertone and not to the addressee himself, Benedict XVI.
- Or was the pope given a copy of the letter, too?
- How eventually did he come to learn of the accusations against McCarrick to the point that he decided to impose 'restrictions' on him?
I understand they had to be 'private' because no canonical trial was ever called for McCarrick, and that this, in turn, was out of consideration for his age (he was 78 in 2008). As much as I love B16, I think he missed a great opportunity here to highlight a cardinal's misconduct, and erred seriously in not ordering an investigation of the charges by the CDF. Consideration for McCarrick's age was surely secondary to arriving at the truth, given the weight of the accusations and that the Vatican could have easily found out about the settlements by the NJ dioceses with McCarrick, if it did not already know about them by then. Yes, it would have been very messy, but it would have been the only course of action consistent with Joseph Ratzinger's otherwise unblemished record of dealing with clerical sex abuses. If this had all come out in the open then, we would not have McCarrick to 'kick around' anymore, because all the 'kicking' would have been done if the Vatican had investigated him in 2008.]
• 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. [Obviously, this was Benedict's response to information that finally reached him about McCarrick - probably Sipe's letter and Vigano's memorandum from 2008. Why else would he have imposed those specific restrictions including 'a life of prayer and penance'?] Nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice [that witnesses said could be] 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 feigning 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 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.
• 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 which 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 was 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 making.
October 19, 2018
Memorial Feast Day of the
North American Martyrs
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio[
Steve Skojec gives Vigano his due:
How Mons Vigano has become the kind of hero
that the Church is desperately looking for
by Steve Skojec
October 19, 2018
It is striking the way in which Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has become, in many ways, the kind of hero the Church is so desperately looking for.
Today, on the occasion of the Feast of the North American Martyrs — Jesuits who, unlike many of the modern-day variety, gave their lives for the salvation of souls — he has released a third testimony. And with each iteration he becomes more resolute, and the force of his accusations grow stronger.
He is a man who speaks with the authority of one who has foregone earthly accolades and benefits in a genuine concern for the answers he will have to give at his particular judgment. It is a theme he has referenced before, and does so again, more forcefully, in his opening paragraph:
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 who, 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?
While promises of a formal correction from Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller have fizzled and faded, and talk of a self-deposing pope have disappeared from their public commentary, Viganò’s clear, firm voice has become like a clarion call: the pope must “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 his latest testimony, Viganò principally dissects the public response he received from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, affirms what most commentators have already observed — that Ouellet “concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made” — and repeats his call for the Canadian cardinal, and any who have the documentation that would help make the facts known, that they can choose to continue in falsehood, or “trust Him who told us, ‘the truth will set you free.'”
“I do not say it will be easy,” concludes Viganò, “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.”
Viganò also re-iterates that his claims are “not gossip from the sacristy” but that “official correspondence” exists — documents that “specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts.”
“They are kept in the appropriate archives,” writes Viganò. “No extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.
He also adds his voice to the chorus saying that we are in
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 to condemn the abuse, 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.
We urge the reader to consider, once again, that Viganò has given up all earthly security to make his claims known.
- There is no fund filling up with cash on his behalf from grateful members of the faithful. [Fortunately, he has private means as he comes from a family that made its fortune in industry and has inherited his share of it.]
- He has given up what life the Church would have provided for him in retirement in exchange for the life of a fugitive, a hunted man, unable even to finish out his remaining years in the country of his birth.
What possible motive do his detractors think is animating him to repeat his claims?
“This is not a matter,” he seems to thunder, “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.”
His is a voice that rings with the unmistakable note of truth; he is the one man — the only shepherd in the Church — who has taken the example of St. Paul in Galatians 2:11 and rebuked Peter to the face, because he is to be blamed.
Please continue your prayers for Archbishop Viganò, as well as for the intention that the facts of the matters he describes herein will be brought to light swiftly, and that justice will be served.
'THE VIGANO CASE: The dossier that has revealed the greatest scandal within the Church'
In Aldo Maria Valli's brief report on Mons. Vigano's third testimony, he announces he has just published a little book on
THE VIGANO CASE, which does not, of course, include the Oct. 19 testimony.
[...Precisely in these days my little book IL CASO VIGANO has been published
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/book/il-caso-vigano/
including all the articles I have written about it on my blog, from the time the monsignor consulted me about his first testimony and I made it public. Obviously, the book does not include this third document which has just reached me.
But I believe that reading the preceding two testimonies along with the one today, which is the memorial feast day of the North American Jesuit martyrs (St Isaac Jogue and companions), will allow the reader to have an exhaustive idea of a situation from which no baptized person nor any person of good will should turn his eyes away...
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/10/2018 00:29] |