While the Church in the United States faces the prospect of an autumn to make Chile’s seem tame and even idyllic by comparison, the grotesque spectacle of “he said / he said” continues at the highest levels of ecclesiastical governance. To call it enervating would be terrible understatement. Wretched as the business is, three things nonetheless emerge from Archbishop Viganò’s latest “testimony” that are worthy of note, not least because they offer some inkling of a way through this lamentable morass:
- Viganò’s claims are subject to verification (or falsification) of a documentary nature;
- Viganò concedes the semantic point regarding “sanctions” even as he reaffirms the substance of his allegation with regard to them, noting rightly that Cardinal Ouellet in his own letter confirms that specific allegation’s substantial correctness;
- Viganò abandons his call for Pope Francis to renounce the See of Rome.
It may well be that the best we dare hope in the way of a resolution is the “documentary review” Pope Francis has promised. Viganò’s affirmations in these regards tell us what we know ought to be there, on file. If the documents he has indicated are there, they will either bear him out, or not. If they should not be forthcoming, a full investigation will be inevitable. This provides a frame for the issues, which does not rely on personality, character, or motive for their resolution.
The semantic concession likewise strikes an acceptable compromise and allows discussion to move past what is in any case a secondary, if not an ancillary point. It comes to an admission of poorly chosen language. An outright apology for such a poor choice of words would perhaps have been preferable, but the perfect ought never be the enemy of the good. After all, the former nuncio did receive substantial vindication on this and several other matters of substance.
As far as resolution of the impasse is concerned, the third point is the most important, for it speaks directly to the principal cause of the Pope’s recalcitrance and entrenched refusal to investigate Archbishop Viganò’s claims: the plausible charge of rebellion.
In his original letter, Archbishop Viganò concluded with a call for Pope Francis to resign — his word — for the good of the Church. That appeal was premature and deeply misguided. It framed the controversy in starkly political terms, and put Francis on the defensive, precisely when Francis needed to be persuaded of the practical political advantages in full disclosure.
In short, Archbishop Viganò exposed himself to being cast, rightly or wrongly, as the Pope’s enemy — a mitred Catiline — when he needed to be a Cicero (if he could not be a Damian).
If Viganò’s allegations are correct, it is difficult to avoid his conclusion. We must avoid it, nonetheless. Another renunciation would cripple the Papacy in a manner far more severe and lasting than would a few more years with a morally crippled Pope on the throne. Francis must reign when he breathes his last.
Archbishop Viganò now professes something like loyal opposition. “I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion,” he writes. “Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing.” Viganò goes on to say:
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).
That is still a hard thing for Pope Francis to hear, and might not strike him as perfectly fair. Nevertheless, it is a very different tune, and one that ought not be disagreeable to a leader graced with a moment’s magnanimity.
Archbishop Viganò’s closing paragraphs, however, represent a return to provocative — if not rebellious — form. In essence, he tells his brother bishops they have a choice between keeping silence or saying what they know. That is true, though Viganò places the matter in a way that equates silence with more-or-less willing complicity in wicked conspiracy. Said simply, that is unjust to men, who have sworn an oath to keep the secrets of their offices.
Archbishop Viganò believes his violation of his own oath justified by circumstance. He may well be right. Nevertheless, to hear him describe as cowards men who keep their oaths, without considering that they might do so honorably, or for reasons blameless if not praiseworthy, cannot fail to distress the candid observer.
Pope Francis could put an end to this whole debacle, by ordering an investigation worthy of the name. Archbishop Viganò has taken steps — small steps, but determined and measurable — toward the very reconciliation to which Cardinal Ouellet called him. The longer the good of the whole Church is held hostage to a clash of personality, the more, and more lasting damage will she suffer. Today, as yesterday, Pope Francis holds all the power to right the ship.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Viganò’s claims are subject to verification (or falsification) of a documentary nature;”
Unlesss someone has been busily destroying the documents; and how terrible is it that I have to consider that as a possibility.
“In essence, he tells his brother bishops they have a choice between keeping silence or saying what they know. That is true, though Viganò places the matter in a way that equates silence with more-or-less willing complicity in wicked conspiracy. Said simply, that is unjust to men, who have sworn an oath to keep the secrets of their offices.
“Archbishop Viganò believes his violation of his own oath justified by circumstance. He may well be right. Nevertheless, to hear him describe as cowards men who keep their oaths, without considering that they might do so honorably, or for reasons blameless if not praiseworthy, cannot fail to distress the candid observer.”
If those who are keeping silence are doing *something* to stop the evil, then yes, they could be blameless. If they are doing nothing – not so much.
Even Philip Lawler (no Francis booster is he) says the Holy Father resigning would be bad even if Vigano is fully vindicated.
I am starting to warm to that view.
Are we to expect the corrupt entourage of this pontificate to hand over documents that corroborate the Vigano testimony? My sources tell me that the Roman equivalent of Staples has had a run on shredders for the past month, all charged to Vatican accounts!
How could a papal resignation be any worse than what we have endured for the past five years, with the prospect of another ten or even fifteen years (think of the age of Leo XIII at his death!)?
As a post-script, I would add that I did not see that Abp Vigano retracted his call for the Pope to resign. He simply said that he was not leading an effort to topple the papacy.
Father – is it assured that another papal election after another resignation will give the Church a better pontificate? I would hope so, but can we be sure that it might not be worse? Are we entering into a period of pontificates similar to the Davidic decline of kingship? I don’t mean to relate the two inherently, however corrupt societies seem to get corrupt leadership; divided leadership seems to perpetuate divided institutions. I do wonder if we are in this for a while before the rescue.
It seems the mistake of the last conclave was that it focused more on finding a manager who could reign in the Vatican bureaucracy than on finding a shepherd with an intellect. I suspect the next conclave will focus more on finding a leader with spiritual gravitas.
I think the situation was far more grave than that.
The evidence is overwhelming that the major problem of the last conclave was the illegal (according to conclave rules established by St. John Paul II) practice of proactive lobbying by a faction established to bring off the election of a specific papal candidate of its choosing.
St. John Paul II also prescribed the penalty for doing so as automatic excommunication. This penalty might invalidate the votes of each cardinal who was an intentional participant in the efforts of this illicit cabal. The ranks of the conspirators include our present Pope Francis, who was asked in advanced if he would agree to serve if the lobbying effort was successful, so it appears he was complicit in the
plans of the other conspirators.
Their arrogance was so great that they gave themselves a nickname as an inside joke: the San Gallen Mafia, named after the university which has hosted their group meetings, even to this day.
Enough details to assure their collective guilt were inadvertently publicized in a book by well-known Church progressive Austin Iverleigh, who apparently was unaware of the illicitness of these maneuvers. Later, in his own book, the ultra progressive Cardinal Daneels of Belgium added more damning evidence as he could not contain his impulse to do some gloating – or else he too was ignorant of the conclave rules.
Thanks Steve. I appreciate the comment. However, I am inclined to ask how such a selection of a new pope can be made in a climate where even more cardinals have been named in the image of Pope Francis. Further, I fear that a Pope Emeritus Francis might not be as silent as Benedict and the progressive factions would still claim his as a voice to counter the actions of a new pope. Ultimately, I do believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome all this and that under the Spirit’s mighty counsel even a selection for the wrong reasons can become a blessing for the Church (through conversion – and I do agree that a properly disposed intellect is necessary). But I see only problems with one pope and two emeritus popes sitting at opposite sides in the background.
“In his original letter, Archbishop Viganò concluded with a call for Pope Francis to resign — his word — for the good of the Church. That appeal was premature and deeply misguided. It framed the controversy in starkly political terms,”
In political terms? Hardly. More in terms of malfeasance or negligence.
Oct. 19th: Feast of the North American Martyrs, Arch. Vigano is not as polished in his phrases as perhaps others are but with the outbreak of so many accusations of sexual and financial corruption through the Church he has done a good thing to open all this up. There is absolutely no doubt that there is financial corruption taking place at the Vatican – Cardinal Pell came close to exposing it when he was sent away because of allegations against him. Huge sums of money were taken from Parishes for payouts on behalf of abusive Cardinals and Priests. Many of those Cardinals and Bishops involved in sexual and/or financial abuse are still in place going about with no concern for their future (even as Arch. Vigano` must hide in fear) – there is something amiss about all this – it is also obvious that Pope Francis has dismissed ‘conservative/traditional’ Cardinals and Bishops with no explanation – he wanted them gone and poof – they’re gone. And many of those he has brought in and surrounded himself with are not there to hold the Church and her teachings together. I read much of what Pope Francis says and he has always been a proponent of ‘mercy’ – and that is as it should be; but mercy without justice is enabling the sin to continue and not helping the sinner to repent and to be restored to wholeness. It’s so hard to judge or even to understand this whole situation. Is it ‘mercy’ that prompted Pope Francis to name men who have been part of homosexual cover-ups or who have even been engaged in homosexual activity themselves. Yes, Christ ate and moved about with sinners – but, as He said to Mary Magdalen: Go and sin no more! He did not allow sinners to remain in their sins. Is Pope Francis protecting those he has chosen for his close collaborators or is he trying to ‘convert’ them, to bring them back to purity of life and purpose? But where is the ‘mercy’ for those he dismissed, those he discharged from the posts without any explanation so he could put his person in? I do not think Pope Francis is acting in a malicious way – I think that he wants to show mercy…but it is kind of out of balance in that he skewers some and rejects them while bringing close others who do not seem to be fit for the post he assigns to them. We just have to keep praying but many are discouraged and don’t see a way through this. We don’t know who is telling the truth, who we can trust or … where to turn. Actually, we can turn to Christ and His Bride, the Church and remain in her as in a refuge and a place of nurturing…especially through the Mass and the Eucharist. Let us pray that the truth is revealed soon and that there is reparation and expiation for all who have chosen to betray Christ, His Church and His people.
I disagree with you. I believe Pope Francis IS acting in a malicious way. His actions and words the past 5 years bear this out.
But WILL he “right the ship?” As an indicator, the current Synod and what it doesn’t say or teach, with papal approval, give me very little hope.
Christopher Altieri is a noble thoughtful soul with the best interests of Church and papacy in mind. One could rightly argue diplomacy and advice is the better course for preservation of the papacy. Argument can be made that preservation of an institution if placed above a salient issue such as the salvation of a multitude of souls is misplaced priority. None of us know whether papacy and Church will actually survive if diplomacy fails and the Pontiff continues his course of radical change of doctrine. All indication to date is that he will continue. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò more likely than not has set the irreproachable standard for the salvation of souls. Particularly clergy. And for the survival and unity of the Church, a Church that will continue to dismember if kept on its present course of contradictory remarks by the Pontiff that obscure the path to salvation. The integrity and very existence of the Mystical Body requires witness to the Truth that is Christ.
Addendum: Mistaken or not no one can force the Pontiff to resign. That in effect is a moot issue. He would necessarily have to freely decide to resign, of which their is precedent. The issue is openly speaking out against this Pontiff’s errors.
>None of us know whether papacy and Church will actually survive if diplomacy fails and the Pontiff continues his course of radical change of doctrine.
With all due respect Father the Pope hasn’t technically changed a single doctrine. At worst he has issued ambigious teachings that have been interpreted in a heterodox manner by the usual suspects but we have yet to see a clear teaching on his part that contradicts the faith. Indeed the virtue of true heretics is they are more often then not clear in their profession of error. This virtue is clearly lacking in the Holy Father.
>Argument can be made that preservation of an institution if placed above a salient issue such as the salvation of a multitude of souls is misplaced priority.
That is a bit of a false dicotomy. It’s like saying “Saving the ship is more important then maintaining hull integrity”. If you let the later slip you will sink the ship. The Papacy is what we have as Catholics to guarantee unity and doctrinal integrity. Indeed the present Pope’s inability to clearly teach error is evidence of the divine providence of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Church from formal error.
What needs be done and should be done is to pray for the Holy Father and for orthodox laity and clergy to engage him directly as sons exhorting their Father.
So you will forgive me Father if I think Chistopher has the right idea here.
With all due respect (right back at’cha), Jim the Scott, I don’t buy any of that for one second. The M.O. utilized by Francis is a deft public slight of hand combined with a heavy dose of ambiguity in both his spoken and written word. He has enforced his will quietly and privately by crushing blows dealt to those he understands are obstacles to his reform agenda. One example is his ruthless suppression of several traditionalist religious orders; another is a much broader imposition of a new rule on monastic life, commanding a fundamental end to traditional emphasis on silence and community prayer combined with work. Too often it seems these actions were imposed in situations to which others most likely called his attention along with a request for a favor.
There’s oh so much more but you get the idea. This pope may be clever enough to avoid drawing attention to such moves (with the exception of Amoris Laeticia), but his recent but unnoticed granting magisterial authority to a synod and his previously shutting down and silencing those whose understanding of the faith seems to place them in opposition to his intentions to “reform” the Church would indicate he knows exactly what he needs to do to avoid being the target of accusations like the suggestions you seem intent on refuting.
So we have our Luther. Not the Luther of theological error, but the Luther willing to stand against authority and condemn corruption inside the Church. Luther’s actions, and the publication of the reasons behind it (which became the most widely read documents in European history heretofore)encouraged others to also stand. Luther always claimed he did not intend to break the Church – that took place when the corrupt leadership of Leo X denied the charges of sinful policies at the top of the Church and responded with blind suppression. The result was schism – one that stunned the faithful. How could the Holy Spirit allow it? The result was also the Council of Trent, the foundation of the original Jesuit order of spiritual warriors (presently betrayed by Francis and Father General Sosa) and vigorous reform.
Luther’s movement is called the Reformation. In truth it developed into a revolt with tragic consequences. What is needed today is a true Reformation. Archbishop Vigano has taken his stand. Pray that others around him who have love for 2,000 years of transcendent truth will follow his example and bring the Church out of this dark period. If Vigano is abandoned ultimate schism will be the least of the Church’s problems. Francis, Sosa, Marx, Maradiaga, Parolin and others that seek full accommodation with decadent 21st century secularism will send their faction of Mother Church down the road already followed by the Anglicans and other mainstream Protestant denominations that have sacrificed the challenging message of Christ for “relevance.” The road leads to complete irrelevance and ultimate extinction. A blind man can see it. Pray for Vigano. Pray for the Church.
Darkness. What a dark article…what happened to the Light of the Beloved….μάρτυρας…..mártyras
I don’t think so. The debacle Vigano is raising the alarm about is a raging fire. Church historians will spend centuries investigating it and analyzing how it began and how it was allowed to continue for so long. The current task is to put the fire out.
Think about Vigano’s assertions:
The raging fire is that “homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy.” Not sinless, chaste homosexual orientation, but mortally sinful homosexual fornication as a secret, hidden life. Does anyone think Bergoglio has any intention of putting this fire out? Does anyone think he even considers it a problem? He unceasingly signals his approval of it by promoting and/or surrounding himself with the arsonists. He provides them with gasoline by putting them in positions of power and influence.
He speaks the truth!
We must pray and support archbishop Vigano.
We should boycott and not give a penny to these corrupt U.S archdioceses until they clean up their act! Repent and come back to Jesus who is Truth incarnate.
Catholic World Report do you know where we can send our financial donations to Archbishop Vigano? Or write a letter to him?
I am 70, and from my youth I have heard people say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I have always noted that Scripture does not say that. In more recent years, I have seen the claim that she was the adulteress, which is also not supported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture does not actually say she was anything but holy and righteous. There is no statement saying she committed any sin, even though, as a human being, we can conclude she was not sinless. Scripture does say that Jesus drove seven demons out of her, but having demons and being sinful are two different things. Until someone produces some evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, I am, I suppose, on a one-man crusade to persuade people to stop casting aspersions on Mary Magdalene’s character.
The traditional (small t) understanding of St. Mary Magdalen in the Latin Church has long been that three women mentioned in the Gospels are the same person: mary Magdalen, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the sinful woman who bathed Our Lord’s feet in the house of Simon the Leper. The Eastern Rite Churches have seen them as different women. Personally, I follow that view since I find it fits better with what is written in the Gospel of John.
Concerning demonic possession, the Church distinguishes between obsession and oppression on one hand, and possession on the other hand. Oppression (physical harassment by demons) and obsession (psychological/spiritual harassment) correspond to what you write in your comment: there is no sin necessarily involved. Demonic possession on the other hand, involves some wilfull cooperation with the demonic on the part of the possessed person. There is no need to “cast out” demons with obsession and oppression. There is that need with possession, and the Gospel says that seven demons were cast out of Mary Magdalen. This only makes her subsequent cooperation with grace all the more impressive to my mind. I hope this helps.
Resigning would protect the rotten legacy of bergoglio including his appointments. The brother bishops ought instead to annul this papacy due it’s misbegotten inception.
Perhaps vigano is the stalking horse for Francis graceful escape.
Fraternal correctio has been a part of religious life virtually since the beginning. It has always been very carefully delimited. No religious an presume to correct another. No one takes on the role of monitor or monitrix of themselves. This duty is assigned by the superior. The reason for this is that few things can so destroy a community as fraternal correction which is not administered under obedience. It is spiritual nitroglycerin, dangerous for the community and even more dangerous for the one who wields it, for fraternal correction is a very heady temptation! I know, for I have been and am presently monitrix in our community. Study the lives of the saints, and you will see that the ones who administered fraternal correction under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were at the same time the most obedient to their superiors.
Sr. Gabriela, in your congregation, who offers fraternal correction to the monitirx or to the superior of the community? And are you implying that no Catholic has the authority to provide fraternal correction to a pope should he be mired in sin or in errors that gives scandal?
Dear Father, I am a Discalced Carmelite, and in our tradition, every nun has the responsibility to inform the Prioress of any serious infraction of the Rule and Constitutions. it is the duty of the Prioress to correct the Nuns directly, including the monitrix. If it is the Prioress who is guilty of a serious infringement, then the nuns should inform the Visitator during the canonical visitation. Any nun is also free to write to the Holy See and to the Nuncio at any time. St. Teresa was well aware of the danger of fraternal correction. I don’t know how you handle such matters in the Dominicans.
As for your second question: I see a difference between a lay Catholic and a priest or religious. A lay Catholic does not make a vow of obedience, while a priest or religious does. Both Archbishop Vigano and Cardinal Ouellet are priests and they are bound by their vow of obedience and their oath of secrecy. A lay Catholic is not bound in this way. However, when I study the history of the Church, I see that those who have corrected members of the hierarchy under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were subjected by God to a thorough purification before they were sent on their mission of fraternal correction. I believe St. Catherine of Siena had her first vision at the age of 5? How many years was it before she went and told the Pope to return to Rome, and what did she experience during those years?
I hope this answers your questions.
Sr. Gabriela, thanks for the clarification. Yes, fraternal correction in the Dominican tradition is handled very differently. As to the vow of obedience, this is the singularly most important vow that a Dominican takes; all others are subsumed under it. However, the limits of obedience are also clearly delineated, including what no superior may ask of us. We are not to comply with immoral commands. Also, we are not to grant submission of the intellect to error even if we normally follow the misguided but legitimate command for the sake of good order (in contrast to some religious traditions). Dominican superiors are obliged to listen to the objections of the brethren even if, rightly or wrongly, they decline to change their minds or their final decision. If, say, a pope were to issue an encyclical or apostolic exhortation containing statements that can lend themselves to a heretical interpretation, all such interpretations are to be rejected in favor of interpretations continuous with Scripture and Tradition. Heretical interpretations are to be automatically denied magisterial authority NO MATTER WHOM may say otherwise.
Amen Father. Could not have put it better myself.
Dear Fr. Seid, Certainly there are limits to the obligations of the vow of obedience. I know of at least one case where a subject quite rightly disobeyed a direct command from a superior because the superior showed definite signs of dementia, which is a clinically verifiable condition. The subject informed the legitimate authorities (not the media) and the situation was rectified. When it is a question of an interpretation, it seems to me that the best response is to witness and proclaim the true understanding of the faith. I put witness first because as we read last night in the reading from St. John of Capistrano, “Truly the unclean, immoral cleric is trampled underfoot like worthless manure. He is saturated with the filth of vice and entangled in the chains of sin. In this condition he must be considered worthless both to himself and to others. As Gregory says: ‘When a man’s life is frowned upon, it follows that his preaching will be despised.'” If course, when it is a question of witnessing, that puts the responsibility on oneself.
As a P.S. to my previous comment about proclaiming true doctrine, I would like to add this statement about St. Thomas Aquinas: “Though he constantly wrote on controversial topics, there is a remarkable serenity in his work; for he made a point of not writing in the first person, thus avoiding the word ‘I’, and he never mentions contemporaries by name, but simply states the various opinions currently held on the matter under discussion.”
Archbishop Viganò is a stand-up guy in a Vatican full of spineless Jesuit-speak fog.
Stay well hidden, Archbishop. Francis plays for keeps. But you know that, of course.
I thank you and pray for you.
Vigano is only talking about silence that is indeed complicity in wicked conspiracy. I am sure that Vigano is fully aware of the difference between sinfully revealing the sins of others when it serves no legitimate purpose to do so, and the obligation to speak out when doing so is necessary to prevent grave harm, even when an unintended, secondary result of doing so will mean the revelation of the sin of another.
In 2005 Catholic commentator Matt C. Abbott reported on whistleblower priest Father James Haley’s accusations of McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians. McCarrick was Archbishop of Washington at the time. I am not sure how large Abbott’s audience was back then, but it was no doubt large enough that word of this got to the hierarchy of the Church in the U.S. and spread like wildfire among its prelates.
Whatever speaking out on the part of American prelates took place, it wasn’t enough to prevent McCarrick, in his retirement, from residing for a period at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary of the Archdiocese of Washington, and then living with the Institute of the Incarnate Word community at St. John Baptist de la Salle where he had young priest and seminarian assistants. See this CNA article:
Cardinal McCarrick reportedly lived on IVE seminary property during retirement
I think silence in matters such as this is what Vigano is talking about. There is absolutely no excuse for it. Prelates should have spoken out as loud and as long as was required to prevent the endangerment of young priests and seminarians. They didn’t.
We need more prelates like Vigano.
Mr Altering states Archbishop Vigano’s sharp criticism of bishops who don’t speak out despite their oath of secrecy cannot fail to disturb the candid observer.
I hope that I am a candid observer and what greatly bothers me is that more bishops haven’t had the courage to speak out as Archbishop Viganò.has.
As a cradle Catholic with 19 years of education in Catholic schools, I had never before heard of an oath of secrecy binding bishops. But whateverthe nature of that oath, it surely cannot mandate silence in the face of moral corruption in the Church.
Executives and Board members of US public companies have a fiduciary duty not to disclose
material inside information. But if they become aware of serious misconduct with their companies, they have an overriding duty to disclose it or ensure it is disclosed. US corporate law encourages and, in appropriate circumstances, rewards whistle blowers.
The parallel may not be exact but it nonetheless fairly applies to the present horrible situation in the Church. One of the few Bishops who have spoken out, Bishop Robert Morlino, has identified the deviant homosexual subculture in the ranks of the clergy.as the root cause of our current crisis.
The Church is in desperate need of fundamental reform to remove this moral virus. We need more Viganos and Morlinos stepping up to make that happen. St. Peter Damien pray for us.
Ironically, Pope Francis won’t be going anywhere soon. If you follow the prophecies of the Catholic Church for the last few hundred years, you will see, according to St. Malachy, that this pope is the last Pope predicted for this 5th Church age. Malachy states: “In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church, will be occupied by ‘Peter the Roman’, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven-hills (Rome) will be destroyed and the formidable Judge will judge the people. The End.” Is This Pope Francis? It seems so. A judgment will take place in the 2030s but is not the end.
According to prophecies, this age is “coming to a close”, after 10 events unfold that Mary, Mother of Jesus has predicted at some of the major apparition sites throughout the world. This information also comes from canonized saint’s prophecies. This is not the end of Popes though. Popes will continue into the 6th Church age of peace. There are 7 Church ages for the Church.
A spiritual storm has begun that is growing with intensity. Pope John Paul II had visions of the future while convalescing after an attempt on his life and was aware of a great storm on the horizon. He stated: “Precisely at the end of the second millennium, there accumulates on the horizon of all mankind enormously threatening clouds, and darkness falls upon mankind.” An awakening is coming!! Pope John Paul talked about the Lamb (Jesus Christ), who is the only one able to open up the seven seals: “That scroll contains the whole series of divine decrees that must be accomplished in human history to make perfect justice prevail. If the scroll remains sealed, these decrees can be neither known nor implemented, and wickedness will continue to spread and oppress believers. Hence, the need for authoritative intervention: it would be made by the slain and risen Lamb…to take the scroll and to open its seals.” Pope Benedict is aware of what is coming as well and changed some of the odious words in the Mass, back to the original intent.
A book and web site called, “After The Warning To 2038,” has many prophecies from credible, Catholic sources that are predicting many more future events including the next unique Pope.
Abbot Werdin D’Otrante (1200’s) states: “The Great Monarch and the great Pope will …(rise up) The nations will be at war for four years (2030s) and a great part of the world will be destroyed. The Pope will go over the sea, carrying the sign of Redemption on his forehead. The Great Monarch will come to restore peace, and the Pope will share in the victory. Peace will reign on earth.” “The Pope will cross the sea in a year when the Feast of St. George (April 23) and St. Mark’s feast (April 25) falls on Easter Sunday…”(2038). That priest has a visible cross on his forehead and is known today.
Pope Francis is undeniably a member of the McCarrick establishment, he is a man of their making, hand-picked by the arch abuser and liar McCarrick and the homosexual abuse coverup artist Danneels of Belgium. To these men and their ilk, and whatever it is that they actually believe in (perhaps, like McCarrick and Danneels, merely the Church as an end for themselves) he owes his papacy.
As Fr. Weinandy suggested in his open letter, this Pope was elected so that The Lord could reveal to the Church just how faithless and decadent and unworthy the Church as a people has become.
Every day with Pope Francis and “his team” (Austin Ivereigh’s very own words) is another day for the reign of the culture of death that pervades the Church.
This is the “Rev.Julio Grassi” pontificate.
A great fall from recent pontiff’s who believed in the Church as free men and women in Christ, living in the light of faith and reason.
“Archbishop Viganò believes his violation of his own oath justified by circumstance. He may well be right. Nevertheless, to hear him describe as cowards men who keep their oaths, without considering that they might do so honorably, or for reasons blameless if not praiseworthy, cannot fail to distress the candid observer.”
It is precisely this outlook which got us here in the first place. Apparently this standard/consideration (reserved for oath-keepers?) of “candor” does not apply to observers.
Is the speculated moral “distress” (as a gauge of an observer’s own candor/moral standing?) generated by Vigano describing men as “cowards” be greater than any associated with known acts/components of the sexual scandal/cover ups/ promotions etc?
There is no “rightious” oath of silence ( outside the confessional) that allows a priest to remain silent having learned of serious legal and moral crimes. When a priest, bishop or cardinal sexually abuses a minor (pedophilia ) or a seminarian ( homosexual predation), Christ requires a response- and the response in no way allows for silence or inaction.
With dues respect, I read Vigano’s new letter and nowhere did he abandon his demand that Pope Francis resign. He did ask him to be the good shepherd that he swore an oath to be when he became the successor to St. Peter, which is not exactly the same thing considering he still stands by his accusations regarding McCarrick, namely that he was placed under sanctions and later became an advisor to Pope Francis. Furthermore we must recall he called on the Holy Father to lead by example in his first correspondence (similar to what he is calling for now), and he specifically stated that doing so should entail resigning.
Vigano’s newest letter it is not a concession in any way; in fact he is doubling down, going into more specific details regarding his testimony and calling on other members of the Hierarchy to come forward with everything they know; especially since his claim that penalties were imposed McCarrick has now been confirmed to be true (and Vigano correctly noted that arguing whether or not they qualify as “canonical” sanctions is semantics).
Francis should indeed resign for the good of the Church. Our Lord is obviously using Arbp. Vigano to winnow the hierarchy and Francis’ sins are many and damning in all the homosexuals he has deliberately infested the Vatican and Church hierarchy with.
Francis should resign for a multitude of reasons. He is grossly unfit for the office. The lives of his many victims are more important than his ego. The purity of Catholic doctrine is more important than his ego. Francis has debased the very concept of mercy to be a sponge to alleviate guilt feelings while ignoring the victims of sin, like abandoned wives and children for example. He has capriciousl8y reversed an actual moral doctrine of prudential judgment, capital punishment, to an absolute, indicating to the world that there is no such thing as immutable moral truth. He has savagely mocked the moral absolutes of Jesus Christ, by implication, as rigidity, rather that the truth that sets us free. He has knowingly appointed depraved prelates as his functionaries as long as they agree with his agenda to Protestantize the Catholic religion. He has spoken favorably of process theology, a direct insult to the honor of God. He, and his Vatican, have embraced some of the world’s most notorious abortionists, which says to seven billion people, go ahead, have your abortion, Catholicism is no longer obsessed about objecting anymore. He has equated himself to Christ, and authors of criticism of him to Satan.
His culture of death victims are more important than he is. It is rather shallow to suggest he should not resign.
Very good comment.I hope Christopher Altieri will read it also.
If one accepts the dangers of mortal sin, and the existence of sin, than Vigano is not attacking other bishops, but is making clear that they have other, possibly more important vows to live up to. Do the vows of ecclesial office outstrip ordination vows? Feel free to answer Mr. Altieri.
I have to disagree that Vigano’ call for PF to resign necessarily merits a plausible charge of rebellion, is deeply misguided, has framed things in political terms or makes him an enemy to the pope as Mr Altieri seems to suggest. If what Vigano claims is true, than PF has certainly more reason to resign than Pope Gregory XI, to whom a certain Catherine from Siena wrote: “Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” The Church declared her a saint.
Amen. Rebellion would incur a denial of the legitimacy of the Pope. Vigano acknowledges Francis as our Pope, but he submits he is not living up to the responsibilities of his office.