Aboard the papal plane, Mar 8, 2021 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Baghdad, Iraq, to Rome, Italy on March 8, 2021.
Pope Francis: First of all, thank you for your work, your company, your fatigue. Then, today is Women’s Day. Congratulations to the women. Women’s Day. But they were saying why is there no Men’s Day? Even when [I was] in the meeting with the wife of the president. I said it was because us men are always celebrated and we want to celebrate women. And the wife of the president spoke well about women, she told me lovely things today, about that strength that women have to carry forward life, history, the family, many things. Congratulations to everyone. And third, today is the birthday of the COPE journalist. Or the other day. Where are you?
Matteo Bruni, Holy See press office director: It was yesterday.
Pope Francis: Best wishes and we should celebrate it, right? We will see how we can [do it] here. Very well. Now, the word is yours.
Bruni: The first question comes from the Arabic world: Imad Atrach of Sky News Arabia.
Imad Abdul Karim Atrach (Sky News Arabia): Holiness, two years ago in Abu Dhabi there was the meeting with the Imam al-Tayyeb of al-Azhar and the signing of the document on human fraternity. Three days ago you met with al-Sistani. Are you thinking to something similar with the Shiite side of Islam? And then a second thing about Lebanon, which St. John Paul II said is more than a country, it is a message. This message, unfortunately, as a Lebanese, I tell you that this message is now disappearing. Can we think a future visit by you to Lebanon is imminent?
Pope Francis: The Abu Dhabi document of February 4 was prepared with the grand imam in secret during six months, praying, reflecting, correcting the text. It was, I will say, a little assuming but take it as a presumption, a first step of what you ask me about.
Let’s say that this [Ed. meeting with al-Sistani] would be the second [step] and there will be others. It is important, the journey of fraternity. Then, the two documents. The Abu Dhabi one created a concern for fraternity in me, Fratelli tutti came out, which has given a lot. We must… both documents must be studied because they go in the same direction, they are seeking fraternity.
Ayatollah al-Sistani has a phrase which I expect to remember well. Every man… men are either brothers for religion or equals for creation. And fraternity is equality, but beneath equality we cannot go. I believe it is also a cultural path.
We Christians think about the Thirty Years’ War. The night of St. Bartholomew [Ed. St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre], to give an example. Think about this. How the mentality has changed among us, because our faith makes us discover that this is it: the revelation of Jesus is love, charity, and it leads us to this. But how many centuries [will it take] to implement it? This is an important thing, human fraternity. That as men we are all brothers and we must move forward with other religions.
The [Second] Vatican Council took a big step forward in [interreligious dialogue], also the later constitution, the council for Christian unity, and the council for religious dialogue — Cardinal Ayuso accompanies us today — and you are human, you are a child of God and you are my brother, period. This would be the biggest indication. And many times you have to take risks to take this step. You know that there are some critics who [say] “the pope is not courageous, he is an idiot who is taking steps against Catholic doctrine, which is a heretical step.” There are risks. But these decisions are always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice, in reflection. They are not a whim and they are also the line that the [Second Vatican] Council has taught us. This is his first question.
The second: Lebanon is a message. Lebanon is suffering. Lebanon is more than a balance. It has the weakness of the diversity which some are still not reconciled to, but it has the strength of the great people reconciled like the fortress of the cedars. Patriarch Rai asked me to please make a stop in Beirut on this trip, but it seemed somewhat too little to me: A crumb in front of a problem in a country that suffers like Lebanon. I wrote a letter and promised to make a trip to Lebanon. But Lebanon at the moment is in crisis, but in crisis — I do not want to offend — but in a crisis of life. Lebanon is so generous in welcoming refugees. This is a second trip.
Bruni: Thank you, Your Holiness. The second question comes from Johannes Neudecker of the German news agency Dpa.
Johannes Neudecker (Deutsche Presse-Agentur): Thank you, Holy Father. My question is also about the meeting with al-Sistani. In what measure was the meeting with al-Sistani also a message to the religious leaders of Iran?
Pope Francis: I believe it was a universal message. I felt the duty of this pilgrimage of faith and penance to go and find a great man, a wise man, a man of God. And just listening to him you perceived this. And speaking of messages, I will say: It is a message for everyone, it is a message for everyone. And he is a person who has that wisdom and also prudence… he told me that for 10 years, “I do not receive people who come to visit me with also other political or cultural aims, no… only for religious [purposes].” And he was very respectful, very respectful in the meeting. I felt very honored; he never gets up even to greet people. He got up to greet me twice. A humble and wise man. This meeting did my soul good. He is a light. These wisemen are everywhere because God’s wisdom has been spread all over the world.
It also happens the same with the saints, who are not only those who are on the altars, they are the everyday saints, the ones I call “next-door saints.” Men and women who live their faith, whatever it may be, with coherence. Who live human values with coherence, fraternity with coherence. I believe that we should discover these people, highlight them, because there are so many examples. When there are scandals in the Church, many, this does not help, but we show the people seeking the path of fraternity. The saints next door. And we will find the people of our family, for sure. For sure a few grandpas, a few grandmas.
Eva Fernandez (Radio COPE): Holy Father, it is great to resume the press conferences again. It is very good. My apologies, but my colleagues have asked me to ask this question in Spanish.
[In Spanish] During these days your trip to Iraq has had a great impact throughout the world. Do you think that this could be the trip of your pontificate? And also, it has been said that it was the most dangerous. Have you been afraid at some point during this trip? And soon we will return to travel and you, who are about to complete the eighth year of your pontificate, do you still think it will be a short [pontificate]? And the big question always for the Holy Father, will you ever return to Argentina? Will Spain still have hope that one day the pope will visit?
Pope Francis: Thank you, Eva, and I made you celebrate your birthday twice — once in advance and another belated.
I start with the last question, which is a question that I understand. It is because of that book by my friend, the journalist and doctor, Nelson Castro. He wrote a book on [the history of] presidents’ illnesses, and I once told him, already in Rome, “But you have to do one on the diseases of the popes because it will be interesting to know the health issues of the popes — at least of some who are more recent.”
He started [writing] again, and he interviewed me. The book came out. They tell me it is good, but I have not seen it. But he asked me a question: “If you resign” — well, if I will die or if I will resign — “If you resign, will you return to Argentina or will you stay here?”
I said: “I will not go back to Argentina.” This is what I have said, but I will stay here in my diocese. But in that case, this goes together with the question: When will I visit Argentina? And why have I not gone there? I always answer a little ironically: “I spent 76 years in Argentina, that’s enough, isn’t it?”
But there is one thing. I do not know why, but it has not been said. A trip to Argentina was planned for November 2017 and work began. It was Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. This was at the end of November. But then at that time there was an election campaign happening in Chile because on that day in December the successor of Michelle Bachelet was elected. I had to go before the government changed, I could not go [further].
So let us do this: Go to Chile in January. And then in January it was not possible to go to Argentina and Uruguay because January is like our August here, it is July and August in both countries. Thinking about it, the suggestion was made: Why not include Peru, because Peru was bypassed during the trip to Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and remained apart. And from this was born the January trip between Chile and Peru.
But this is what I want to say so that you do not create fantasies of “patriaphobia.” When there are opportunities, it must be done, right? Because there is Argentina and Uruguay and the south of Brazil, which are a very great cultural composition.
About my travels: I make a decision about my trips by listening. The invitations are many. I listen to the advice of the counselors and also to the people. Sometimes someone comes and says: What do you think? Should I go or not? And it is good for me to listen. And this helps me to make the decision later.
I listen to the counselors and in the end I pray. I pray and I think a lot. I have reflected a lot about some trips, and then the decision comes from within. It is almost spontaneous, but like a ripe fruit. It is a long way, isn’t it? Some are more difficult, some are easier, and the decision about this trip comes early.
The first invitation of the ambassador, first, that pediatrician doctor who was the ambassador of Iraq, very good. She persisted. And then came the ambassador to Italy who is a woman of battle. Then the new ambassador to the Vatican came and fought. Soon the president came. All these things stayed with me.
But there is one thing behind my decision that I would like to mention. One of you gave me a Spanish edition [of the book] “The Last Girl.” I have read it in Italian, then I gave it to Elisabetta Piqué to read. Did you read it? More or less it is the story of the Yazidis. And Nadia Murad tells about terrifying things. I recommend that you read it. In some places it may seem heavy, but for me this was the trasfondo of God, the underlying reason for my decision. That book worked inside me. And also when I listened to Nadia who came to tell me terrible things. Then, with the book… All these things together made the decision; thinking about all the many issues. But finally the decision came and I took it.
And, about the eighth year of my pontificate. Should I do this? [He crosses his fingers.] I do not know if my travel will slow down or not. I only confess that on this trip I felt much more tired than on the others. The 84 [years] do not come alone, it is a consequence. But we will see.
Now I will have to go to Hungary for the final Mass of the Eucharistic Congress, not a visit to the country, but just for the Mass. But Budapest is a two-hour drive from Bratislava, why not make a visit to Slovakia? I do not know. That is how they are thinking. Excuse me. Thank you.
Bruni: Thank you, Eva. Now the next question is from Chico Harlan of the Washington Post.
Chico Harlan (Washington Post): Thank you, Holy Father. I will ask my question in English with the help of Matteo. [In English] This trip obviously had extraordinary meaning for the people who got to see you, but it did also lead to events that caused conditions conducive to spreading the virus. In particular, unvaccinated people packed together singing. So as you weigh the trip, the thought that went into it and what it will mean, do you worry that the people who came to see you could also get sick or even die. Can you explain that reflection and calculation. Thank you.
Pope Francis: As I said recently, the trips are cooked over time in my conscience. And this is one of the [thoughts] that came to me most, “maybe, maybe.” I thought a lot, I prayed a lot about this. And in the end I freely made the decision. But that came from within. I said: “The one who allows me to decide this way will look after the people.” And so I made the decision like this but after prayer and after awareness of the risks, after all.
Bruni: The next question comes from Philippine de Saint-Pierre of the French press.
Philippine de Saint-Pierre (KTO): Your Holiness, we have seen the courage and dynamism of Iraqi Christians. We have also seen the challenges they face: the threat of Islamist violence, the exodus of Christians, and the witnesss of the faith in their environment. These are the challenges facing Christians through the region. We spoke about Lebanon, but also Syria, the Holy Land, etc. The synod for the Middle East took place 10 years ago but its development was interrupted with the attack on the Baghdad cathedral. Are you thinking about organizing something for the entire Middle East, be it a regional synod or any other initiative?
Pope Francis: I’m not thinking about a synod. Initiatives, yes — I am open to many. But a synod never came to mind. You planted the first seed, let’s see what will happen. The life of Christians in Iraq is an afflicted life, but not only for Christians. I came to talk about Yazidis and other religions that did not submit to the power of Daesh. And this, I don’t know why, gave them a very great strength. But there is a problem, like you said, with emigration. Yesterday, as we drove from Qaraqosh to Erbil, there were lots of young people and the age level was low, low, low. Lots of young people. And the question someone asked me: But these young people, what is their future? Where will they go? Many will have to leave the country, many. Before leaving for the trip the other day, on Friday, 12 Iraqi refugees came to say goodbye to me. One had a prosthetic leg because he had escaped under a truck and had an accident… so many escaped. Migration is a double right. The right to not emigrate and the right to emigrate. But these people do not have either of the two. Because they cannot not emigrate, they do not know how to do it. And they cannot emigrate because the world squashes the consciousness that migration is a human right.
The other day — I’ll go back to the migration question — an Italian sociologist told me, speaking about the demographic winter in Italy: “But within 40 years we will have to import foreigners to work and pay pension taxes.” You French are smarter, you have advanced 10 years with the family support law and your level of growth is very large.
But immigration is experienced as an invasion. Because he asked, yesterday I wanted to receive Alan Kurdi’s father after Mass. This child is a symbol for them. Alan Kurdi is a symbol, for which I gave a sculpture to FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. It is a symbol that goes beyond a child who died in migration. He is a symbol of dying civilizations, which cannot survive. A symbol of humanity. Urgent measures are needed so that people have work in their place and do not have to emigrate. And also measures to safeguard the right to emigrate. It is true that every country must study well the ability to receive [immigrants], because it is not only about receiving them and leaving them on the beach. Receive them, accompany them, help them progress, and integrate them. The integration of immigrants is key.
Two anecdotes: Zaventem, in Belgium: the terrorists were Belgians, born in Belgium, but from ghettoized, non-integrated Islamic immigrants. Another example: when I went to Sweden, during the farewell ceremony, there was the minister, of what I don’t know, [Ed. Alice Bah-Kuhnke, Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy from 2014 to 2019], she was very young, and she had a distinctive appearance, not typical of Swedes. She was the daughter of a migrant and a Swede, and so well integrated that she became minister [of culture]. Looking at these two things, they make you think a lot, a lot, a lot.
I would like to thank the generous countries. The countries that receive migrants, Lebanon. Lebanon was generous with emigrants. There are two million Syrians there, I think. And Jordan — unfortunately, we will not pass over Jordan because the king is very nice, King Abdullah wanted to pay us a tribute with the planes in passage. I will thank him now — Jordan has been very generous [with] more than one and a half million migrants, also many other countries… to name just two. Thank you to these generous countries. Thank you very much.
Matteo Bruni: The next question is in Italian from the journalist Stefania Falasca.
Stefania Falasca (Avvenire): Good morning, Holy Father. Thank you. In three days in this country, which is a key country of the Middle East, you have done what the powerful of the earth have been discussing for 30 years. You have already explained what was the interesting genesis of your travels, how the choices for your travels originate, but now in this juncture, can you also consider a trip to Syria? What could be the objectives from now to a year from now of other places where your presence is required?
Pope Francis: Thank you. In the Middle East only the hypothesis, and also the promise is for Lebanon. I have not thought about a trip to Syria. I have not thought about it because the inspiration did not come to me. But I am so close to the tormented and beloved Syria, as I call it. I remember from the beginning of my pontificate that afternoon of prayer in St. Peter’s Square. There was the rosary, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. And how many Muslims with carpets on the ground were praying with us for peace in Syria, to stop the bombing, at that moment when it was said that there would be a fierce bombing. I carry Syria in my heart, but thinking about a trip, it has not occurred to me at this moment. Thank you.
Matteo Bruni: Thank you. The next question comes from Sylwia Wysocka of the Polish press.
Sylwia Wysocka (Polish Press Agency): Holy Father, in these very difficult 12 months your activity has been very limited. Yesterday you had the first direct and very close contact with the people in Qaraqosh: What did you feel? And then, in your opinion, now, with the current health system, can the general audiences with people, with faithful, recommence as before?
Pope Francis: I feel different when I am away from the people in the audiences. I would like to restart the general audiences again as soon as possible. Hopefully the conditions will be right. I will follow the norms of the authorities in this. They are in charge and they have the grace of God to help us in this. They are responsible for setting the rules, whether we like them or not. They are responsible and they have to be so.
Now I have started again with the Angelus in the square, with the distances it can be done. There is the proposal of small general audiences, but I have not decided until the development of the situation becomes clear. After these months of imprisonment, I really felt a bit imprisoned, this is, for me, living again.
Living again because it is touching the Church, touching the holy people of God, touching all peoples. A priest becomes a priest to serve, to serve the people of God, not for careerism, right? Not for the money.
This morning in the Mass there was [the Scripture reading about] the healing of Naaman the Syrian and it said that Naaman wanted to give gifts after he had been healed. But he refused… but the prophet Elisha refused them. And the Bible continues: the prophet Elisha’s assistant, when they had left, settled the prophet well and running he followed Naaman and asked for gifts for him. And God said, “the leprosy that Naaman had will cling to you.” I am afraid that we, men and women of the Church, especially we priests, do not have this gratuitous closeness to the people of God which is what saves us.
And to be like Naaman’s servant, to help, but then going back [for the gifts.] I am afraid of that leprosy. And the only one who saves us from the leprosy of greed, of pride, is the holy people of God, like what God spoke about with David, “I have taken you out of the flock, do not forget the flock.” That of which Paul spoke to Timothy: “Remember your mother and grandmother who nursed you in the faith.” Do not lose your belonging to the people of God to become a privileged caste of consecrated, clerics, anything.
This is why contact with the people saves us, helps us. We give the Eucharist, preaching, our function to the people of God, but they give us belonging. Let us not forget this belonging to the people of God. Then begin again like this.
I met in Iraq, in Qaraqosh… I did not imagine the ruins of Mosul, I did not imagine. Really. Yes, I may have seen things, I may have read the book, but this touches, it is touching.
What touched me the most was the testimony of a mother in Qaraqosh. A priest who truly knows poverty, service, penance; and a woman who lost her son in the first bombings by ISIS gave her testimony. She said one word: forgiveness. I was moved. A mother who says: I forgive, I ask forgiveness for them.
I was reminded of my trip to Colombia, of that meeting in Villavicencio where so many people, women above all, mothers and brides, spoke about their experience of the murder of their children and husbands. They said, “I forgive, I forgive.” But this word we have lost. We know how to insult big time. We know how to condemn in a big way. Me first, we know it well. But to forgive, to forgive one’s enemies. This is the pure Gospel. This is what touched me the most in Qaraqosh.
Matteo Bruni: There are other questions if you want. Otherwise we can…
Pope Francis: How long has it been?
Bruni: Almost an hour.
Pope Francis: We have been talking for almost an hour. I don’t know, I would continue, [joking] but the car… [is waiting for me.] Let’s do, how do you say, the last one before celebrating the birthday.
Matteo Bruni: The last is by Catherine Marciano from the French press, from the Agence France-Presse.
Catherine Marciano (AFP): Your Holiness, I wanted to know what you felt in the helicopter seeing the destroyed city of Mosul and praying on the ruins of a church. Since it is Women’s Day, I would like to ask a little question about women… You have supported the women in Qaraqosh with very nice words, but what do you think about the fact that a Muslim woman in love cannot marry a Christian without being discarded by her family or even worse. But the first question was about Mosul. Thank you, Your Holiness.
Pope Francis: I said what I felt in Mosul a little bit en passant. When I stopped in front of the destroyed church, I had no words, I had no words… beyond belief, beyond belief. Not just the church, even the other destroyed churches. Even a destroyed mosque, you can see that [the perpetrators] did not agree with the people. Not to believe our human cruelty, no. At this moment I do not want to say the word, “it begins again,” but let’s look at Africa. With our experience of Mosul, and these people who destroy everything, enmity is created and the so-called Islamic State begins to act. This is a bad thing, very bad, and before moving on to the other question — A question that came to my mind in the church was this: “But who sells weapons to these destroyers? Because they do not make weapons at home. Yes, they will make some bombs, but who sells the weapons, who is responsible? I would at least ask that those who sell the weapons have the sincerity to say: we sell weapons. They don’t say it. It’s ugly.
Women… women are braver than men. But even today women are humiliated. Let’s go to the extreme: one of you showed me the list of prices for women. [Ed. prepared by ISIS for selling Christian and Yazidi women.] I couldn’t believe it: if the woman is like this, she costs this much… to sell her… Women are sold, women are enslaved. Even in the center of Rome, the work against trafficking is an everyday job.
During the Jubilee, I went to visit one of the many houses of the Opera Don Benzi: Ransomed girls, one with her ear cut off because she had not brought the right money that day, and the other brought from Bratislava in the trunk of a car, a slave, kidnapped. This happens among us, the educated. Human trafficking. In these countries, some, especially in parts of Africa, there is mutilation as a ritual that must be done. Women are still slaves, and we have to fight, struggle, for the dignity of women. They are the ones who carry history forward. This is not an exaggeration: Women carry history forward and it’s not a compliment because today is Women’s Day. Even slavery is like this, the rejection of women… Just think, there are places where there is the debate regarding whether repudiation of a wife should be given in writing or only orally. Not even the right to have the act of repudiation! This is happening today, but to keep us from straying, think of what happens in the center of Rome, of the girls who are kidnapped and are exploited. I think I have said everything about this. I wish you a good end to your trip and I ask you to pray for me, I need it. Thank you.
[…]
Has the author of this article ever seen or heard of the infamous homoerotic mural commissioned by, and depicting, Archbishop Paglia himself? Does it “approach slander” to identify Paglia as a gay lobbyist, or approach willful disconnection from reality, not to? I do agree that, in the heat of the moment, we all ought to be careful not to overstep the boundaries of charity and of factuality. But for this author–well known for giving Pope Francis many benefits, even when there is no doubt–to fault the ex-nuncio for something this minor smacks of reluctance to deal with reality rather then of careful adherence to right reason.
The author has lived in Italy for two decades, so he very likely has seen the mural. You are not being fair to his analysis here, or to his other pieces. Giving the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt is not a flaw, but a basic standard of decent thinking and acting.
God bless you, Mr. Olson.
I appreciate your fine commentary and your courage in allowing a diversity of opinion to be expressed here.
Yes, we should give people the benefit of the doubt. We should also take very seriously the words of Christ:
• Bergoglio has generated endless confusion, in stark contrast to the teaching of St. Paul that “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace …” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
• Respected prelates have asked for clarification of Bergoglio-generated confusion in the form of dubia that Bergoglio refuses to respond to.
• Bergoglio is now making modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty that have — no surprise here — generated massive confusion.
• Under Bergoglio Fr. Martin, a Jesuit priest who blatantly advocates a homosexual priesthood, is a keynote speaker at an international Church event, the World Meeting of Families.
• Bergoglio’s Vatican has invited flaming advocates of population control via coercive abortion policy to speak at Vatican events, thereby bestowing upon them a legitimacy they in no way deserve.
• Bergoglio has criticized Catholics who are open to life and faithful to Church teaching as people who “breed like rabbits.”
• Judging from the comments of the anti-Catholic crowd on secular web sites, Bergoglio has given them more ammunition than they know what to do with and has increased hostility to the Catholic Church dramatically as well as the size of the anti-Catholic crowd.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Where is the good fruit in all this? Can we deny that there has been bad fruit? When does giving Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt become aiding and abetting the harm he is doing? When does it become ignoring the words of Christ about how to determine that there is a wolf in our midst disguised as a member of the flock?
It is much more difficult to believe Vigano would make up such allegations than it is to believe that he is sincerely telling us what he knows, regardless of how lawyerly he is being as he does so. Being very lawyer-like is what one attempting to deceive would do.
Having said all that, I take the position of Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who finds Vigano’s testimony credible and thinks it calls for a thorough investigation. See his remarks on the situation here:
Bishop Strickland’s Public Statement to the Diocese
God bless you, my friend.
Very well said.
The benefit of the doubt means that it is entirely possible that Bergoglio is cleansing our Church the only way he can do so and survive the exceptionally dangerous deed, by using secular sources to do so, even if it means sacrificing himself.
While I also disagree with Bergoglio’s appointments and support of those on the left (bad) in our Church, while he also oppressed or opposed those on the right on our Church, it is entirely possible that this was the only way to reveal the evil left that had taken hold of our Church while removing the good (right) in our Church from the crosshairs, and true danger, to themselves and other righteous.
It is entirely possible that Bergoglio is sacrificing himself and his papacy (i.e legacy) so as to assuage the left, who love him, and lull them into a false sense of complacency, while he sets them all up like sitting ducks, and he then, brilliantly uses the leftist msm to shoot them down, along with themselves and their errant ideology.
This pope isn’t stupid. He has purposefully brought our Church to this crisis event as a supposed ‘friend and supporter’ of the left, just so that the filth can, finally, be cleansed from our Church, and using the leftist msm as an unwitting ally.
I cannot erase Bergoglio’s almost ‘prophetic’ words from inside my head, soon after he assumed the papacy- he asked that we pray for him as he takes on this papacy- which might also mean the death of him, or his residency as pope. Bergoglio was and still is a friend to Ratzinger- who abdicated due to his inability to successfully the filth head on. I suspect the two hatched this plan to take the Church back from the evil that has held it since the 60s.
Since almost nothing Bergoglio says (oftentimes, intentionally misinterpreted or misconstrued) appears to make sense to observers, especially in light of his actions, I will take the position that His Holiness is attempting to drive out the vipers from our Church, the only way he knows how to do so, and that we must trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding him in these very troubling and dangerous times.
Loved your comment
It is time for the Vatican and Pope Francis to accept responsibility. This cycle of discovery and a vague “mea culpa” have to stop. There is a constant pattern of cover-up. That cannot be denied. I believe Vigano. Who cannot remember the outrage Francis caused in Chile with his behavior over the sex abuse scandal when the people of Chile were expecting him to behave as a proper Pope instead of covering up as usual.
This is complete BS. No one covered anything. Please, people do not believe and be so naive about this. The reason why Vigano was posted to the States, because he was “expelled” from the Vatican for his misdeeds. And this is now his personal vendetta against Francis. one or 3 cases of molestation does not make it a sea. It is rather peculiar that “the massive cover up” happens in USA, where Vigano was posted, as opposed to Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia. We must be doing then a very heck of a job covering crimes here in the Baltics
“No one covered anything. Please, people do not believe and be so naive about this.”
That’s an interesting juxtaposition of statements…
Thank you for these important, not so well known facts.
Perhaps the Bergoglio’s hostility toward the Church stems from his deeprooted Marxist beliefs.
Bergoglio praised Ms Emma Bonino, a notorious Italian back-street abortionist, as one of Italy’s great ones.
Bergoglio bestowed on Ms Lilianne Ploumen, a notorious Dutch abortion promotor, a Pontifical Order.
Bergoglio denied the existence of Hell.
Bergoglio reinstated the pedophile priest Fr Inzoli in his priestly functions after he was defrocked a few years earlier by Pope Benedict.
Bergoglio shuts down the Pontifical Institute of Life.
Bergoglio reboots the John Paul Institute on marriage and family.
Bergoglio demotes Cdl Müller and Burke from the Vatican.
Bergoglio discourages the monastic and silent lifestyle.
Bergoglio equates Islamic terrorists with Catholic fundamentalists.
Bergoglio suppresses orthodox Catholic religious orders.
And we could go on.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected.”
This statement alone is enough to separate oneself from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
“The benefit of the doubt” comes with an expiration date, though — probably one no later than Wednesday night. Pope Francis MUST address these allegations in a forthright way if he expects anyone to believe he takes the crisis in the Church seriously and is a true servant of the Church. This, not the color of his shoes, will be the true test of his humility.
The crimes of priests and bishops that are now being revealed will be used for CENTURIES to attack the Church. Pope Francis has a short time in which he can shape how he will be remembered alongside these crimes — as someone who acted vigorously to cleanse the Church, or as someone who stuck his head in the sand and hoped it would all go away by tomorrow.
Very well said.
How much “benefit” of what sort of doubt? A process theologian pope who doesn’t give God the benefit of the doubt when he insists God is still learning how to be God? A pope who aids and abets the abortion holocaust by rehabilitating the most notorious abortionists in the world? A pope who blesses homosexual unions? A pope who blesses cohabiting couples? A pope who trivializes the sacred meaning of the Eucharist? A pope who hysterically defends moral relativism and condemns the very concept of God given moral absolutes? A pope whose concept of mercy is limited to attacking the gift of God given guilt while sustaining mercilessness towards the victims of sin?
Now you’re justifying excuses to question the veracity of Vigano’s claims as though such things related to Francis are atypical, as though the Francis rehabilitation of the reputation of Cdl. Danneels did not even occur?
If the author does go easy on Pope Francis, he seems to show that even a “soft” interpretation of Viganò’s revelatory letter is still an atomic bomb for the pope and his role in all of this. That makes it all the more insidious, as far as I can tell. It shows you cannot escape implicating the pope in what’s going on just by “giving him the benefit of the doubt.”
Matthew a good point. His mo is evasion indirection suggestion never definitive committal. Circumstantial evidence can convict in criminal cases when direct evidence is lacking. Here we have a preponderance of circumstantial evidence.
The scary thing to me is that we are not seeing IMMEDIATE denials by the various accused, along with demands for proof and theats of demamation charges.
While I apologize for the typo (a word in my previous post should have been “than” rather than “then”), I stand by my perception that the article posted here–like others elsewhere since then–give the impression of having been penned by boiled Bergoglian frogs, length of overseas residence notwithstanding. Fairness isn’t always a matter of splitting the difference between two opposing viewpoints; would it have been “fair” for Herr Hitler to have attempted the extirpation of 49-51 percent of the European Jews, rather than all of them? Would it have been unbalanced, therefore, to call for him to halt the Holocaust entirely?
In the same way, there is nothing intrinsically objective about conservative Catholic commentators casting aspersions on Archbishop Vigano’s testimony (a word which calls for no scare quotes around it, either; we all know what a testimony is). What is needed is unflinching regard for the facts, not positioning ourselves as so overprotective of the putative pope that we are ready to shoot the messenger ourselves.
You (implicitly) ask whether I know as much as Chris Altieri; and I ask whether Chris Altieri knows as much as Archbishop Vignano. The Archbishop has proffered eyewitness testimony that has been corroborated by another eyewitness and by many character witnesses and facts. If that is not a sufficient standard of proof, what would be? The presumption of innocence outlives the bloody glove in the presence of prejudice alone.
Chris Altieri’s fine defense attorney analysis raises legitimate questions that I noticed in scanning thru the material. It included hearsay and “reading between the lines”. It reminds me of Dems seizing any possible shred of evidence however vague to impeach the President. He’s not going to be in good stead with those who adamantly want Pope Francis gone. What the former Apostolic Nuncio’s documents have going in favor is corroboration of chronology eminent witness and motive. Not the former Nuncio’s motive the Pontiff’s if the reader believes as many of us do that he has an agenda called the New Paradigm.
It is hard to fault Vigano for telling us what he thinks about things, what happened between the Pope and iim in private meetings, and giving his honest assessment of the existence of a hoomo mafia in the Vatican. He was simply telling us what he knew. He is telling us what he thinks. This is right and proper, and in the end, this is all anyone can do. He can witness to things as he knows them He knows full well that his document is just the beginning of a very broad expose of rot in the Vatican. Vigano’s take on things will be either supported or rejected by other testimony as it comes out. So I think he did us all a great service. Due to the secretive nature of the homosexual network, people are going to have to let us know their suspicions, their conclusions etc. His document is not the end. it is the start of a process of uncovering the truth.
Samton Diane Montagna’s explosive article on Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’s allegations is already being questioned as unsubstantiated hearsay and politically motivated by a dissenter. Cardinal Burke well familiar with canon law and the high bar for evidence of a crime recently urged we must nonetheless take Vigano’s allegations to heart. When in flight and confronted by a reporter’s questions the Pontiff reversed the question placing moral responsibility on the enquirer regarding the quality of the evidence. A kind of reverse discernment in which the enquirer is indebted to give the benefit of the doubt. Ingenious? Yes. It would be a rare find to identify evidence of the Pontiff having made a definitive committal to any of the allegations. It’s simply not his m.o. Nonetheless as said elsewhere in criminal proceedings circumstantial evidence can convict when direct evidence is unavailable. Here we have a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. No one can reasonably deny the damaging effect of this Pontificate to practice of the faith.
It also appears that the former nuncio has a very good reputation and absolutely no worldly motive to have released this statement.
A true and judicious assessment.
In 2002, the layman William Buckley broke the log jam on the Cardinal Law case – with an indictment titled: “Lawless in Boston.”
It is clear that this was a modest indictment.
What appears to be the case is, and has been for decades, that our Church is “Lawless in Rome.”
So now the attacks on Archbishop Viganó have begun, even here. Cries of “tu quoque” fill the writings of commentators. “His motive, his motive,” casting suspicion even though he has plainly stated his motive: to “discharge my conscience in front of God of my responsibilities as bishop for the universal Church,” adding that he is “old man” who wanted to present himself to God “with a clean conscience.” (https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/25/ex-nuncio-says-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-abuse-reports-failed-to-act/ ). But of course, Viganó must be the evil one, while the media-blessed Bergoglio is treated as an angelic being. Those who have followed Bergoglio’s dismay career in the papal office know how totally misguided that slanted view is.
Clearly, Viganó is acting on the dictates of conscience, while most likely Bergoglio’s defenders are acting out a cover-up. If it’s not a cover-up, then simply release all the documents Viganó refers to and show he’s wrong about them. But, bet on it, you won’t see any documents released.
The plan is to deflect attention from the truth of what Archbishop Viganó says to his “character.” Then the accusations themselves get short shrift, while personal attacks take center stage. “He slandered me!,” etc.
So expect Bergoglio to say nothing. It worked for him with the Dubia (Sept 2016), with the filial correction letter about Amoris Laetitia (Sept 2017), with the recent letter from “First Things” magazine about the death penalty changes in the Catechism (August 2018), and a host of other scandals that have plagued his papacy.
Maybe that’s because he believes in nada. Like Hemingway’s old waiter in “A Clean Well-lighted Place,” he has only nada inside.
Fiant dies eius pauci, et ministerium eius accipiat alter. (Psalm 109:8)
Very well said.
Dabit Deus ei quoque finem.
Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is a confirmation of what we all essentially understood. No one has observed the Danneels, Maradiaga, Pineda, Ricca, Barros, Ticona, et al, debacles over the past five years and did not know the depth of nepotism and corruption in the Bergoglian pontificate from its conception to now. Danneels, Murphy-O’Connor and McCarrick brazenly flaunted the genesis of the Bergoglian pontificate. God willing them and all the vast supporting cast of will now be the means to bring it to its termination.
God reward Archbishop Viganò.
Finally double-talk is cast aside
Excellent
What Vigano says fits into the known facts as put forth by Boniface Ramsey and Richard Sipe. One issue that could be easily settled, if Benedict would address it, is whether he restricted McCarrick.
I have heard of McCarrick’s behavior for over twenty years, from Boniface, Sipe, and others. Sipe even published it on the internet. I do not believe the denials of Wuerl et al. The odd tilt of the Vatican toward normalizing homosexual behavior also could be explained by Vigano’s testimony.
As to Francis – his actions have been erratic, at best. Benedict had a better record, and John Paul II’s was worse – does anyone remember Maciel, the “infallible guide of youth”?
One also needs to keep in mind, when examining the crafting and tone of Archbishop Viganò’s testimony, just what it cost him to write it: he has essentially fallen on his sword. Retribution will be swift, beginning with a thoroughgoing assassination of his character.
He has kept quiet for decades about what he knew in the hopes that the hierarchy, of which he was such an integral part, would rectify the abuses itself. Now, in deference to a higher good (and certainly for no personal gain) he has turned against everything he was part of for all his life.
He doesn’t provide any documentation, but it you notice there is a footnote in Vigano’s testimony in which he states that “all the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.” It should be possible to check and see if he is lying, presuming he has kept copies of those documents he refers to.
Wasn’t it a supreme court judge who, in an attempt to define pornography, said that he knows it when he sees it (or something to that effect)? The reality is that most of us with some modicum of decency and a half ounce of brains see what’s been going on in the Church with the homomafia starting from the Pope on down. We don’t need an STD to figure out who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. My bet is with Vigano and I’d guess that he has a lot more information to spill if what he’s stated doesn’t get the resignations rolling in. My guess is, too, that he’s been smart enough to keep copies of documents. After all, he knows how the Catholic Church operates.
Considering Vigano’s experience and status, and considering the well-documented homosexualist sympathies of the men he mentioned, I find no reason to be skeptical.
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here” Captain Renault’s famous quote from the film “Casablanca”
is what comes to mind when reading Vigano’s “testimony”, as he’s portrayed himself as a victim/martyr here. McCormick was elevated to the See of Washington DC by Saint John Paul II & also elevated to the College of Cardinals by him. Isn’t it ever so slightly disingenuous of Vigano to throw Francis under the bus for this sordid mess?
Except that, if Vigano’s allegations are accurate Francis, with full knowledge of McCarrick’s behavior, reinstated him as an adviser and kingmaker. Of JPII, it could at least be said that he was in seriously declining health by the time he elevated McCarrick – although I also would agree that his track record of episcopal appointments was largely dismal. Francis, however, has no such fallback, and has now chosen to stonewall Vigano’s testimony. No wonder he’s been thrown under the bus.
POPE FRANCIS AND THE DECLINE OF THE WEST
Dennis Prager
Aug 9, 2016
Pope Francis made comments last week that reveal the most important single thing you need to know about the modern world: The most dynamic religion of the last hundred years has been leftism. Not Christianity, and not Islam, but leftism.
Leftism has taken over the world’s leading educational institutions, the world’s news media and the world’s popular entertainment, and it has influenced Christianity (and Judaism) far more than Christianity (or Judaism) has influenced anything.
On July 26, two Muslims slit the throat of a French Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 85, while he was saying Mass in his church.
Five days later, during his flight returning to Rome from World Youth Day in Krakow, Poland, Pope Francis gave a press conference. He was asked about the French priest and Islam by Antoine-Marie Izoard, a journalist with I.Media, a French Catholic news agency. Izoard said:
“Catholics are in a state of shock — and not only in France — following the barbaric assassination of Father Jacques Hamel in his church while he was celebrating Holy Mass. Four days ago … you told us once again that all religions want peace. But this holy priest, eighty-six years old, was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So I have two brief questions, Holy Father. When you speak of these violent acts, why do you always speak of terrorists but not of Islam? … And then, … what concrete initiative can you launch or perhaps suggest in order to combat Islamic violence?”
Pope Francis responded:
“I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence because every day when I open the newspapers I see acts of violence, here in Italy: someone kills his girlfriend, someone else his mother-in-law…and these violent people are baptized Catholics! They are violent Catholics…If I spoke about Islamic violence, I would also have to speak about Catholic violence.”
The pope of the Roman Catholic Church, when asked about Islamic terror and the slitting of the throat of a Roman Catholic priest by Islamic terrorists, responds that there is also Catholic terror — that a man who was baptized Catholic who “kills his girlfriend” is the moral and religious equivalent of Muslims who engage in mass murder in the name of Islam.
How can anyone compare:
–A person who happens to have been baptized Catholic as a child — and may have no Catholic identity as an adult — with an adult who affirms a religious identity?
–The murder of a girlfriend (most likely a crime of passion) with the ritual murder of a Catholic priest because he was a priest?
–Individual murders that have nothing to do with any ideology with mass murders committed in the name of an ideology?
Pope Francis then added:
“Terrorism is everywhere! … Terrorism … increases whenever there is no other option, when the global economy is centred on the god of money and not the human person, men and women. This is already a first form of terrorism. You’ve driven out the marvel of creation, man and woman, and put money in their place. This is a basic act of terrorism against all humanity. We should think about it.”
Terrorism grows “when there is no other option”?
The implication that Islamic terrorism is a desperate act arising from poverty is widely held on the left. But it is false. Most Islamic terrorists come from the middle class or above. In the recent case of the Bangladeshi terrorists, for example, nearly every one of them came from some of the wealthiest families in Bangladesh. And, as is well-known, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle- and upper middle-class families.
Islamic terrorism doesn’t come from economics; it comes from its theology.
Terrorism grows “when the global economy is centred on the god of money”?
The pursuit of money and terror have nothing to do with each other. Terrorism grows only when some ideology preaches it. All this statement does is provide an excuse for Islamist terror by blaming the “global economy” and the “god of money” instead of the terrorists and their god of death.
A “first form of terrorism” is when “the global economy is centred on the god of money”?
It is a bad thing when money becomes a god, but there is no comparison between the “god of money” and the horrors of Islamic terror. Yazidi women weren’t gang raped and burned alive because of the “global economy” and its “god of money.”
The only explanation for these statements is that Pope Francis has inherited his theology from Catholicism, but unlike his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, he has inherited much of his moral outlook from leftism.
The Western combination of Judeo-Christian morality and political liberalism — with its doctrine of moral accountability, moral absolutes, confronting evil, and political and social freedom — has produced the most moral societies in world history.
The pope of the Roman Catholic Church should be its greatest advocate. But because of leftism, he isn’t.
I agree that Francis cannot be put on a railroad out of town on the basis of the Vigano testimony alone. But we would be seriously in error if we did not put the Vigano letter into a pattern of the Pope repeatedly employing men of very high rank who have carried a cloud of scandal – abuse and/or corruption – around them. Let’s start with Belgian Cardinal Danneels who publicly called for some kind of Church approved homosexual union that would not be considered marriage but would allow for homosexual sex between partners. More to the point, Danneels was the center of a wide variety of abuse rumors for years. Most importantly, he was up to his neck in the very ugly abuse scandal surrounding Belgian Bishop Roger Vangheluwe. (The case was complex – I urge interested readers to research it – it reads like a movie script.) Danneels, thanks to some overly aggressive Belgian policemen, escaped Belgian prosecution. In 2013 he was a member “St Gallen Group” of cardinals that supported Bergoglio. Danneels was with the new Pope Francis at his first public appearance. He was also invited to attend the Synod on the Family in 2014 – obviously a friendly voice for the Kasper proposal that appeared in Amoris Laetitia. Next up is Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras, chair of the Pope’s “Council of Nine” and a top confidant. Maradiaga has been personally charged with gross financial mismanagement of Church funds. Maradiaga’s top protoge Bishop Pineda was investigated by the Vatican over charges of abuse and financial mismanagement. Francis accepted Pineda’s resignation recently, although refused to say why. Edward Pentin of Catholic Register reported a letter by 50 unnamed seminarians who claimed of a sexually corrupt environment in the largest Honduran seminary – and claimed that no justice was possible because of Maradiaga’s protection of those in charge – just as he had protected Pineda for years. And we have Chile, where there are two serious cases. The Bishop Barros affair has been the Pope’s lowest public moment. Although the Chilean Church warned the Vatican that Barros should not be promoted because of his cover-up of the serial abuser Father Karadima (among others). Francis didn’t listen and accused those warning of abuse scandal of lying. When Vatican investigation proved Francis to be wrong, the Pope ate humble pie in public and received the resignation of every bishop in Chile. All except for Cardinal Errázuriz another member of the Council of Nine. Errazuriz is emeritus and hence did not sign the mass resignation. However while he was an active Cardinal in Chile he refused to meet with abuse victims; refused to intervene in the Karadima affair and was recently found to have collaborated with Chilean Cardinal Ezzati to prevent Juan Carlos Cruz, a Karadima victim and leading Chilean spokesman for victims to sit on a Vatican committee of abuse victims in 2015 – in other words, before the Barros affair. In the past few weeks Ezzati has been accused of And it happens that Cardinal Ezzati is now under legal investigation over a cover up of several cases of abuse by his assistant Rev. Toledo. And, at present, the journal Crux is examining at length the close connection between Errazuriz and the Peruvian lay leader, accused of serious sexual and psychological abuse. Anyone see a pattern?
Please CWR spread thisamong among other Catholic websites and the media. Dont ley this vanish as ussual.Make It news. The man is hidding, he knew allá this years What we all just knew. He need todo be hold acountable for his silence!
Those who are expecting a rapid conclusion to this crisis or this pontificate are in for a lot of frustration. Bergoglio will answer nothing, ridicule those who tell the truth, disparage his adversaries as evil gossipers, and so on. A few dozen bishops, maybe a handful of cardinals, will demand an investigation. It will not come. The Vatican machine, the establishment Catholic press (especially Catholic News Agency) and the secular media will defend Pope Francis against the “homophobes scapegoating good gay priests.” (It has already started in fact.) Bergoglio will continue with his project to remake the Church into something utterly unrecognizable. The question is: what next? My prediction: Bergoglio will live out his days as Pope, having seemingly destroyed the Church, and leaving behind a corrupted College of Cardinals that will elect someone even worse. It is at that point that a small group of faithful Cardinals will finally have the courage to do what has to be done: elect a real pope, and we will be back to rival claimants, possibly for centuries. Destruction is easy and quick. But It takes centuries to build or rebuild a Church and a civilization
In all honesty, can ANY educated, informed, practicing, faithful Catholic say they doubt the truth of what Viganò has written. Was his letter even necessary? With the Pope’s own statements, actions and appointments, was there ever any doubt about the faction to which he belongs?
A Francis resignation could be the “briar patch” exit that Francis has been adverting to for a while that his papacy would be short-lived. He has served his (NWO) purpose and this could be the ticket that gets him off the merry go round with a minimum of fuss. We should watch that we are not being distracted from forcing him out by an *annulment* of his pontificate (because of conclave fraud) rather than allowing him to resign.
The author, for having what appears to be an Italian last name, seems to have a weak grasp on how an impassioned old Italian man would write a letter at a single sitting, in order to clear his conscience. This letter was written Weds, and not a finely crafted legal brief written over the course of a month.
For a Catholic writer to so sloppily apply the word slander is also a mystery. You confuse American legalism with Church teaching. No prophet, nor did Jesus, wait until they had a bevy of documents under arm in brief case before denouncing sin. Likewise, you seem to think he shoukd have spent an entire career while decrying corruption in stealing documents in self preservation insurance.
It may come as a suprise, but honest people do not THINK that way. I realize you are trying to put yourself in the place of inquisitors in attacking the document, but, by doing so are olaying right into the hands of those who advise “wait for mature reflection, it will be good for you” doubt sowers.
You should be defending truth, not acting as an impartial judge swayed only by legalisms.
Today’s Gospel reading:
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
You lock the Kingdom of heaven before men.
You do not enter yourselves,
nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
You traverse sea and land to make one convert,
and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna
twice as much as yourselves.
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say,
‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing,
but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’
Blind fools, which is greater, the gold,
or the temple that made the gold sacred?
And you say, ‘If one swears by the altar, it means nothing,
but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.’
You blind ones, which is greater, the gift,
or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it;
one who swears by the temple swears by it
and by him who dwells in it;
one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God
and by him who is seated on it.”
Wolves in sheep skins are scattering the flock and the big bad wolf (Satan) and his pack of demons will pick them off one by one. A towering Babel will muddy the message. Is anything sacred anymore?
The prayers of the faithful are needed more than ever.
Every day another shoe drops. We ignorant, unwashed laity who fund everything, learn secrets about priests and the hierarchy, “which everyone knew, for decades”. Yet no one in a position to know the facts came forward and told us, the laity, the truth. If you knew that children were being raped and you, with the power to stop it, looked the other way, said noting, that is a mortal sin and a crime. Damn you!
I do not care what collar you wear, what color hat you wear. You are a liar, a gutless traitor to my nation, my church and my God. Obviously we have many lousy bosses, and sycophants, on both sides of the Atlantic.
God help us.
The powers-that-be, especially the pope, have certainly given passing thought to the possibility that one of their own might “flip”, might spill his guts to the Post or Times, etc, about all he knows from the last twenty five years, or so.
One of the pope’s lieutenants may, in the middle of a dark night, “get religion” and melt down…confess everything for the sake of his soul.
The brave Vigano is retired and an outsider to this Vatican. But if one of the Francis inner-circle breaks, well then, grab the popcorn ‘cause it will be worth the price of admission and then some.
Not only did he know he was a monster, he empowered him precisely because he was a monster
“Those claims — without respect to their merit or basis in fact — in the absence of explicit and detailed discussion of their specific pertinence to the narrative, approach slander.”
This makes no sense. By definition, slander must be false. If the allegations are true, there is no slander.
Pope Benedict has to speak. He will either confirm or deny this and also this doesn’t make him look good either. Why didn’t he sack McCarrick or punish him publically then no furture Pope would dare bring him back?
If Pope Francis is guilty then it is even more imperitive for Benedict to speak otherwise some might spin this as a phony coup by “conservatives”. So he must speak.
Go online to find National Catholic Register’s August 25th article titled “Ex-Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Failing to Act on McCarrick’s Abuse”. There you will find this damning paragraph:
The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.
I read that. My wife showed it to me earlier today in the NCReg. My one problem with that citation is thus “Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.”
That is not helpful or clear. He doesn’t remember? Not good. Also the Pope Emeritus should go on record, directly & in public. Don’t we have anything better then this?
Maybe something better will come tomorrow? it is kind of a start…kind of…..
Re: “a candid reader must nevertheless admit that, unless Archbishop Viganò is weaving the story up out of whole cloth, it is impossible for Pope Francis to claim he had no knowledge of McCarrick’s behavior prior to this past June, when the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York deemed an accusation McCarrick committed numerous acts of sexual assault on an altar boy over a period of years…“credible and substantiated”.”
I don’t think the conversation actually establishes much. Viganò claims to have told the Pope that McCarrick, “corrupted generations of seminarians and priests.” How? By teaching them to worship Satan instead of God? Or, more plausibly, by teaching them that homosexuality is not a sin? There are lots of ways to read this, but reading it as an accusation of child abuse is a major stretch. The implication, as I read it, is that McCarrick is an unfit leader, not that he’s a criminal.
The Catholic Church has been covering up sexual abuse for so many years that it would hardly be surprising if church leaders, like organized crime bosses, developed euphemisms to talk about criminal activity. So “corrupted” could be a euphemism for “had sex with them when they were children,” but that’s just a possibility. Viganò, who reports the conversation, doesn’t say.
Normally, if a high ranking church official tells the Pope something, we can safely assume that the Pope knows the thing that he has been told, but not in this case. I suspect that the Pope heard some accusations against McCarrick and concluded they were malicious slanders made up by McCarrick’s enemies. When he asks Viganò about McCarrick, he is not actually seeking information about McCarrick; he’s trying to learn whether Viganò is one of the people spreading lies about McCarrick. Once he hears Viganò’s answer, he knows (or thinks he knows) where Viganò fits in Vatican politics and goes onto another topic.
I have no guess about what the accusations against McCarrick were, other than that they would be something that could be referred to as “corrupted generations of seminarians and priests,” and would likely be false. So it was something other than child abuse, which fails on both counts unless we assume that Viganò was talking in Mafia-like euphemisms.
My interpretation is similar to Viganò’s interpretation of the conversation, except that Viganò assumes that the Pope concluded that the allegations against McCarrick were true rather than false. That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s particularly likely. The Pope would be unnecessarily putting himself in an awkward spot if he solicited true information about McCarrick that he had no intention of acting on.
“I don’t think the conversation actually establishes much. Viganò claims to have told the Pope that McCarrick, “corrupted generations of seminarians and priests.” How? By teaching them to worship Satan instead of God? Or, more plausibly, by teaching them that homosexuality is not a sin? There are lots of ways to read this, but reading it as an accusation of child abuse is a major stretch. The implication, as I read it, is that McCarrick is an unfit leader, not that he’s a criminal.”
In the conversation, the archbishop references the dossier kept by the Congregation of Bishops. The information he alludes to is surely found in that dossier. So, a particular conversation may not go into specific details, but if the conversation refers to a document that does indeed contain specific details, then that document, and the details contained therein, becomes part of the conversation. If I were to say, “Look at X, and you will see what I mean,” that particular statement seems rather innocuous. But if X contains damning evidence, then that particular statement is not innocuous at all.
I know another old man who might want to clear his conscience before facing his judgement and who could clear up everything. He needs to speak. Now. He still retains a certain title which obligates him to help guard the flock.
In the sixteenth century, the laity were sold indulgences for a few coins, maybe dimes, and this early ripple triggered a bit of push-back and then somewhat of a problem. The eventual Reformation thingy split the Church on both sides of the Alps. And today a gang of infiltrators and enablers, this time, would sell the entire Church for, what? A paradigm [pair o’ dimes!] shift?
Where are the loyal and un-intimidated Luther-types when we need them? Listen to what the Protestant historian J. H. Merle d’Aubigne reveals about an early moment in dejas-vu history in his encyclopedic History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (1850).
“Luther was one day seated in the confessional of Wittenberg. Many of the townspeople came successively, and confessed themselves guilty of great excesses. Adultery, licentiousness, usury, ill-gotten gains [….] He reprimands, corrects, instructs. But what is his astonishment when these individuals reply that they will not abandon their sins?…….Greatly shocked, the pious monk declares that since they will not promise to change their lives, he cannot absolve them. The unhappy creatures then appeal to their letters of indulgence; they show them, and maintain their virtue. But Luther replies that he has nothing to do with those papers, and adds: ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish’ [….] Such is the fact that was, not the cause, but the first occasion of the Reformation” (vol. 1, column 1, p. 94).
When Pope Francis was elected he humbly volunteered that he was “naïve,” and he asked for prayers for this sinner. When he soon pardoned McCarrick from Pope Benedict XVI’s censure, was he fully complicit with the embedded lavender mafia, or can this act be chalked up as a catastrophically naïve blunder and cheap sale of “mercy”—not a simple or simplistic thing?
Today the equivalent to “letters of indulgence” is the approval of our co-opted civil society with its ratification of active homosexuality—through the voter-approved oxymoron of gay “marriage” and big-tent gender theory.
Whatever the final outcome for Pope Francis, following the Cardinal Vigano testimony, his head in a basket is not the needed healing for the current Reign of Error. By itself, this would serve as a deflection for the tribe of well-established barbarians still inside the gate.
Along the way the Pope has said that he wanted “to make a mess of things”—but with the hope that the Holy Spirit then would sort things out….
“In the sixteenth century, the laity were sold indulgences for a few coins, maybe dimes, and this early ripple triggered a bit of push-back and then somewhat of a problem.”
You might want to look up what an indulgence actually is. It can’t be applied if you have an unabsolved mortal sin on your conscience.
And the last thing we need are hereiarchs.
Leslie,
Tetzel was the rogue salesman. You are technically correct about indulgences, but that is not the history of indulgence salesmanship in early sixteenth-century Germany.
So Luther, instead of explaining and correcting whatever errors Tetzel was teaching and reporting him to his superiors for correction and discipline, made a statement that didn’t explain or teach anything and decided that all indulgences, and the entire Church, were wrong and he would create his own religion in which he would tell God what He was and was not allowed to do.
We do not need any more Luthers or any other heresiarchs (and I apologize for my previous typo).
My wallet is locked down until Miters roll. We bought the “clean up” in 2002 but as the old song by The Who says, “We won’t get fooled again”.
Was it not predicted that this was going to be the last pope?