Vatican City, Aug 26, 2018 / 07:05 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s Aug. 26 in-flight press conference from Dublin to Rome:
Greg Burke: Holy Father, thanks for this time you’re dedicating to us after two intense days. Certainly, there were difficult moments. In Ireland, there was the matter of abuses, but also very beautiful moments: the Festival of Families, testimonies from families, the meeting with the young couples and the visit to the Capuchins, but maybe you want to say something else first…
Pope Francis: To say thank you, because if I am tired I think of you who have work, work, work… I thank you so much for your effort and your work. Many thanks.
Greg Burke: The first question, as usual, comes from a journalist of the [host] nation which is Tony Connelly, RTE.
Tony Connelly, RTE: Your Holiness, you spoke on Saturday about the meeting you had with the minister for children. You talked about how moved you were by what she said about the mother and baby homes. What exactly did she tell you? Were you shocked because it was the first time you had heard of these homes?
Pope Francis: The minister first told me something that didn’t have too much to do with mother and children (Editor’s note: mother and baby homes). She told me, and she was brief: “Holy Father, we found mass graves of children, buried children, we’re investigating… and the Church has something to do with this.” But she said it very politely and truly with a lot of respect. I thanked her to the point that this had touched my heart. And, this is why I wanted to repeat it in the speech… and it was not at the airport, I was mistaken, it was at the president’s. At the airport, there was another lady minister and I made the mistake there.
But, she told me, “I’ll send you a memo.” She sent me a memo and I haven’t been able to read it yet. I saw it was a memo, that she sent me a memo. She was very balanced in telling me, “There’s an issue, the investigation has not yet finished.” But, she made me understand that the Church has something to do with this. For me, this was an example of constructive collaboration, but also of, I don’t want to say the word “protest” … of complaint, of complaint for that which at one time maybe the Church was of help to do. That lady had a dignity that touched my heart, and now I have the memo there that I will study when I get home.
Greg Burke: Now, another Irishman, exchanging places, which is Paddy Agnew, who is from the Sunday Independent, a resident in Rome but an Irish journalist.
Paddy Agnew, Sunday Independent: Holy Father, thanks and good evening. Yesterday, Marie Collins, an abuse victim that you know well, said that you are not favorable to a new tribunal for Vatican inquiries on the issue of abuses, new inquiries on the problem of sexual abuse, and in particular on a so-called tribunal of inquiry on bishops, bishop accountability. Why do you think this is not necessary?
Pope Francis: (speaking over the last part of the question) No, no, it is not like this. Marie Collins is a bit fixated on the idea that came up. I esteem Marie Collins so much. At times, we call her to give Vatican conferences. She is fixated on the idea, the idea of the “madre amorevole” (editor’s note: The motu proprio, “As a loving mother”), in which it is said that to judge bishops, that it would be good to have a special tribunal. Then, we saw this wasn’t practical and it also wasn’t convenient for the different cultures of the bishops that had to be judged.
You take the recommendations of “madre amorevole” and you make the “giuria” (Editor’s note: a special commission of bishops) for each bishop, but it’s not the same. This bishop is judged and the Pope makes a “giuria” that is more capable of taking that case. It is a thing that works better and also because not all bishops are able to leave their dioceses. It’s not possible.
In this way, the tribunals, the “giurias” change. And that’s what we’ve done up until now. Rather many bishops have been judged. The latest is that of Guam, the Archbishop of Guam, who appealed. And, I decided – because it’s a very difficult case – to take the privilege that I have of taking on the appeal myself and not sending it to the council of appeal that does its work with all the priests. I took it upon myself. And made a commission of canonists that are helping me and they told me that when I get back, after a maximum of a month, a recommendation will be made so I can make a judgment. It is a complicated case, on one hand, but not difficult because the evidence is clear. I cannot pre-judge, I await the report and then I will judge. I say that the evidence is clear because there is this evidence which led the first tribunal to the condemnation.
This is the latest step. Now, there’s another and we’ll see how it ends. But, of course, I told Marie that the spirit and also the recommendation of “as a loving mother” is being done… a bishop is judged by a tribunal, but it isn’t always the same tribunal, as it is not possible. She did not understand that well. But, when I see her, sometimes she comes to the Vatican, I will explain it more clearly. I love her.
Greg Burke: Now, the Italian group. Holy Father, Stefania Falasca from Avvenire is coming.
Stefania Falasca, Avvenire: Good evening, Father.
Pope Francis: Good evening.
Falasca: You said also today that it is always a challenge to welcome migrants and the foreigner. Well, precisely yesterday a painful matter was resolved, that of the Diciotti ship. Is your hoof behind this solution? What was your involvement?
Pope Francis: The paw of the devil.
Falasca: Yes, then the second question: many in Europe see extortion on the backs of these people. What do you think?
Pope Francis: The welcoming of migrants is something as old as the bible. It’s in Deuteronomy, in the Commandments. God commands welcoming the migrant, the foreigner. It’s so old that it is in the spirit of revelation but also in the spirit of Christianity. It’s a moral principle. I spoke about this. Then, I saw that I needed to bit a bit more explicit because it’s not a welcoming with the “Belle etoile,” no! It should be a reasonable welcoming. That’s why Europe is all in this. And when did I realize how this reasonable welcome must be? When there was the terrorist attack in Zaventem (Editor’s note: the Brussels Airport), that that young men, the guerillas that made the attack on Zaventem were Belgians, but sons of migrants, not integrated, from ghettoes! That is, they were received by the country and left there, and they made a ghetto. They were not integrated. Then I remembered when I went to Sweden, and Franca (Editor’s note: Franca Giansoldati, Vatican correspondent for il Messaggero) in an article mentioned this, of how I explicitly made this though and when I went to Sweden, I knew it, I spoke about integration, as it was, because I knew because during the dictatorship in Argentina, from 1976 to 1983, many, many Argentinians and also many Uruguayans escaped to Sweden and there the government would integrate them immediately. It taught them the language, gave them a job and integrated them. To the point that, this is an interesting anecdote, a Minister who came to bid me farewell at the airport in Lund was the daughter of a Swedish and an African immigrant. This African migrant was so integrated to the extent that his daughter became a minister. Sweden was a model. But in that moment Sweden was beginning to have difficulties, not because it did not have the good will for this, but because it didn’t have the possibility of integration. This was the reason for which Sweden stopped for a bit. (After this step of integration) And then, I spoke during the press conference among you about the virtue of prudence, the virtue of the government. I spoke about the prudence of peoples, about the number or the possibility. A people that can receive but does not have the means to integrate [migrants], it’s better not to receive them. There, there is the issue of prudence. And I believe that this is the real core of the dialogue today in the European Union. We must continue to speak. Solutions will be found.
What happened with the Diciotti? I didn’t put my “paw” there. He who did the work with the minister of the interior was Fr. Aldo (Editor’s note: Fr. Aldo Bonaiuto, member of the Association “Giovanni XXIII”), the good Fr. Aldo that continues the work of Fr. Benzi, who the Italians know well, who work of liberating prostitutes, those that are exploited… The Italian Bishops’ Conference also was part. Cardinal Bassetti was there, but at the telephone, he guided everything by way of one of his two under-secretaries, Fr. Maffeis (Fr. Ivan Maffeis, director of communications) negotiated with the minister. And I believe that he went to Albania. Albania, Ireland took a number. Montenegro, I think not. I’m not sure. The others were picked up by the Conference, I don’t know if under the umbrella of the Vatican or not, I don’t know how it was negotiated there, and they’re going to a better world at Rocca di Papa (Editor’s note: an Italian town near Rome). They will be welcomed there. The number I believe that it is more than 100 and there they will begin to learn the language and to do that work that is done with integrated migrants. I’ve had an experience that was very gratifying for me. When I went to Roma Tre (University), there were students that wanted to ask me questions and I saw a student that “I know this face.” (Nour Essa, see story here, editor note), and it was one that had come with me among the 13 I brought back from Lesbos. And that girl was at the university because Sant’Egidio from the day after at school, to study, had integrated her at a university level. This is the work with migrants. There is an openness of heart for everyone, suffering, then integration as a condition for welcoming and then the prudence of those who govern for doing this. I have seen a clandestinely made film of the things that happen to those who are sent back. They are taken by the traffickers. Painful, the things that they do to the men… the women and the children, out! They sell them. But to the men, they do the most sophisticated torture. There was one there that was capable, a spy, of making that film that I sent to my two under-secretaries for immigration (Editor’s note: Fr. Michael Czerny and Fr. Fabio Baggio, undersecretaries of the Migrants and Refugees Section). For this, to send them back you have to think well. Then, one last thing: there are these migrants that come, but there are also those who are tricked at Fiumicino. They are tricked. “We give you work, they give you documents.” And they end up on the sidewalk enslaved, under threat from traffickers of women. That’s it.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Let’s go to the question from the English-speaking group. Anna Matranga from the American television, CBS.
Anna Matranga, CBS: Good evening, Holy Father. I’ll return to the subject of sex abuse about which you’ve already spoken. This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behavior of and the sexual abuse by former-Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true. I also wanted to ask something else: the Archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church. May I ask you whether these two things are true?
Pope Francis: I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last first we speak about the trip, and then other topics. I was distracted by Stefania, but I will respond.
I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good. (inaudible)
Matranga: Marie Collins said that after she met you during the victims gathering, that she spoke with you precisely about ex-Cardinal McCarrick. She said you were very tough in your condemnation of McCarrick. I want to ask you, when was the first time that you heard talk about the abuses committed the former cardinal?
Pope Francis: This is part of the statement about McCarrick. Study it and then I will say. Yesterday, I had not read it but I permitted myself to speak clearly with Marie Collins and the group, it was really an hour-and-a-half, something which made me suffer a lot. But, I believe it was necessary to listen to these 8 people and from this meeting came the proposal. I made it, the others accepted and they helped me to do it, to ask forgiveness today in the Mass. But, in concrete things. The last thing. I had never heard about those mothers, they called it the women’s laundry, when an unmarried woman got pregnant she went to the hospital, I don’t know what the school was called, and the sisters said that and then they gave the child away in adoption to people. There were two sons from that time, they tried to find their mothers, if they were alive. And they would tell them that it was a mortal sin to do this, and to the mothers who called for their children also it was a mortal sin. For this reason, today I finished by saying that this is not a mortal sin but it’s the fourth commandment. And the things that I said today some I didn’t know (before). It was painful for me but I also had the consolation of being able to help clear these things up. I await your comment on the document, I would like that. Thanks.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holy Father. Now, Cecile Chambraud of Le Monde.
Cecile Chambraud, Le Monde: Good evening, Holy Father. I hope you don’t mind if I pose my question in Spanish. I ask you to reply in Italian for all of the colleagues. In your speech in Ireland, you refer to your recent letter to the people of God. In that letter, you call all Catholics to take part in the fight against abuses in the Church. Can you provide details for us what concretely Catholics can do each in their place to fight against these abuses and on this theme, in France, a priest has started a petition for the removal of Cardinal Barbarin accused by victims. Does this initiative appear adequate to you or not?
Pope Francis: If there are suspicions, proofs or half-proofs, I do not see anything bad in making an investigation, but always that is done according to the fundamental juridical principal of “nemo malus nisi probetur” – No one is evil until it is proven. But many times there is the temptation not just to do the investigation but to publish that there is an investigation and why he’s culpable and so some media – not yours, I don’t know yours – to create a climate of culpability. I will tell you something that happened to me in these days that can help with this… because for me it is important how you proceed, how the media can help. Three years ago, more or less, the problem of the so-called “pedophile priests” started in Granada, involving 7, 8 or 10 priests accused of abuse of minors and of having festival or orgies and this kind of thing.
I received the accusation myself, directly, a letter made by a young 23-year old, according to him he was abused, he gave his name and everything, a young man who was working in a prestigious college of Granada, and the letter was perfect. And he asked me what to do to report this. I told him to go to the archbishop of Granada and tell him this, and the archbishop will know what to do. He did, and the archbishop did all that he should do. Then it also went to the civil tribunal and so there were two processes. But then the local media began to speak and speak (about this), and three days later, they wrote “in the parish, three pedophile priests” and so on, and in this way the consciousness was formed that the priests were criminals.
Seven were interrogated and nothing was found. On three, the investigation went ahead and they stayed in jail, for five days, two of them and one, Fr. Romani, the parish priest, was in for 7 days. For almost three years and more, they suffered hate, slaps from the whole town… “criminals!” They couldn’t go outside. They suffered humiliations made by the “giuria” declared to prove the accusations of the boy, that I don’t dare repeat here. After three years, meanwhile, the “giuria” declares the priests innocent, all innocent, but most of all these three, the others were already out of the case and the accuser was then denounced because it was seen that he had a vivid imagination. He was very intelligent and he worked in a Catholic college, he had this prestige and gave the impression of telling the truth.
He was condemned and had to pay the expenses. These men (the priests) were condemned by the local media before justice was done. For this reason, your work is very important, you must accompany the investigation but there must be the presumption of innocence, not with the legal presumption of culpability. There is a difference between the informer who provides information on a case, who isn’t playing for a foreseen condemnation, and the one who investigates, who acts like Sherlock Holmes and presumes that everyone is guilty, When we read the technique of Hercules Poirot, for him everyone was guilty, but this is the work of the investigator. They are two very different positions: but those who inform must start from the presumption of innocence, but saying their admirations, but this is a bit special, but why, to say doubts, but without making condemnations. This case that happened in Granada for me is an example that it will do us all good in our work.
Greg Burke: In the first part, you asked what could the people of God do about the issue…
Pope Francis: When you see something, speak immediately. I will say another thing that’s a little nasty: many times there are parents that cover up the abuse of a priest. Many times. You see it in the condemnation. “No, but…” they don’t believe… They are convinced that it’s not true and the boy or the girl remain like that. I by method receive every week one or two, but it’s not mathematical. And I’ve received a person, a woman, that for 40 years suffered this scourge of silence because her parents didn’t believe: she was abused at 8 years old. Speak! This is important. It’s true that for a mother to see it is better that it wasn’t, seeks that the child maybe is dreaming… speak! And speak with the right people, speak with those who can start a judgment, at least an preliminary investigation. Speak with a judge, with the bishop and if the parish priest is good speak with the parish priest, this is the first thing the people of God can do, this should not be covered up. A psychiatrist told me time ago, but I don’t want that this be an offense for the women, that for sense of maternity, women are more inclined to cover the things of the child than men. But I don’t know if it’s true, but… speak!
Greg Burke: Holy Father, we’re moving… the Spanish group. There’s Javier Romero, of Rome Reports.
Javier Romero, Rome Reports: Holiness, excuse me but I’d like to pose two questions. The first is the that the Prime Minister of Ireland, who was very direct in his speech, is proud of the new model of family different from that which traditionally the Church has proposed up until now: I mean homosexual marriage. And this is perhaps one of the models that generates more battles, and I thought in the case especially of a Catholic family , when there is a person of this family that declares themselves to be homosexual. Holiness, the first question that I’d like to pose you is: what do you think, what would you say to a father whose son says he is homosexual, that he would like to go live with his… this is the first question. And the second that you also in your speech to the Prime Minister spoke about abortion, and we saw how Ireland has changed so much in recent years and that it seems that the Minister was satisfied at these changes. One of these changes was abortion, and we saw that in recent months, in recent years abortion has come out in many countries, Argentina among others, your country. How do you feel when you see this is an issue of which you speak often and that in many countries it’s put in…
Pope Francis: Alright. I’ll begin from the second, but there are two points. Thanks for this. There are two points that are connected to the matter that we’re speaking about, on abortion you know what is thought. The problem of abortion is not religious. We are not against abortion for religion, no! It’s a human problem and it should be studied anthropologically. To study abortion, beginning with the religious fact is to skip over thought. The problem of abortion should be studied anthropologically. There is always the anthropological problem of the ethics of eliminating a human being to resolve a problem. But this is already to enter into the discussion. I just want to underscore this: I will never allow that the discussion on abortion begins on the religious fact. No, it’s an anthropological problem, it’s a human problem. This is my thinking.
Second. There have always been homosexuals, people with homosexual tendencies. Always. Sociologists say, I don’t know if it’s true, that in times of epochal changes, some social, ethical phenomena increase; one of them would be this. This is an opinion of some sociologists. Your question is clear: what would I say to a father who sees that his son or daughter has that tendency? I would say first to pray, pray! Don’t condemn. Dialogue, understand, make space for son and the daughter. Make space so they can express themselves.
Then, at what age does this restlessness of the child express itself? It’s important. One thing is when it shows itself in a child. There are many things to do with psychiatry, to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests itself after 20 years of age… But I’ll never say that silence is a remedy. To ignore a son or daughter with homosexual tendencies is a lack of paternity and maternity. You are my son, you are my daughter as you are! I’m your father, mother. Let’s talk! And if you, father and mother aren’t up to it, ask for help, but always in dialogue because that son and that daughter have the right to a family and that family of not being chased out of the family. This is a serious challenge, but that makes paternity and maternity. Thank you for the question! Thanks!
Greg Burke: Thanks to you, Holy Father.
Pope Francis: And then I would like to say something for the Irish that are here. I found so much faith in Ireland. So much faith. It’s true, the Irish people have suffered for the scandals. So much. But there is faith in Ireland. It’s strong. And also the Irish people know how to distinguish. And I cite what today I heard from a prelate: the Irish people know how to distinguish well between the truth and half-truths. It is something that they have within. It’s true that it’s in a process of elaboration, of healing from these scandals. It’s true that positions are being opened that seem to distance themselves from any faith. But the Irish people have a deep rooted faith. I want to say it because it’s what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard, of which in these two days I’ve been informed. Thanks for you work. Thanks a lot. And pray for me please.
Greg Burke: Thanks to you. Have a good dinner. Rest well!
[…]
Very careful and balanced assessment of the report. Thank you.
Accroding to our correspondent – no one knew – “the extensive documentation in the McCarrick Report should put paid to the mantra that has been chanted since McCarrick’s 2018 downfall: Everyone knew. That is simply not true. Not only did “everyone” not know; no one knew with certainty about McCarrick’s serial predations ”
does this declaration apply to those who were molested as well. Quite a trick!
Thank goodness that the only difficulty in the episcopate was McCarrick.
George, how can you assert that the allegation that “everyone knew” is not true. Firstly, you provide no substantiation for this because it would be impossible to do so. Secondly, “everyone” knew does not mean that literally everyone knew. It simply implies that enough clerics knew and that, if they had chosen to do the honorable thing (as John O’Connor did), it could have spared the victims, spared the Church and perhaps even spared McCarrick himself from the possibility of hell as no man is beyond redemption. Lastly, it is wholly inadequate for the Vatican to lay this at the doorstep of systemic factors. While this is not to dismiss the rotten culture of hierarchical clericalism, individuals need to be named who probably knew or actually did know and chose to do nothing. In fact, I as a then-layperson was told about McCarrick’s peculiarities by a priest who resided with him in Newark such that my eyebrows were raised. You can be assured that the Catholic Church is a whispering mill beyond belief and, if I had a sense that this guy was suspect, many others on the inside knew a lot more than they’re admitting. Why, even my 20-something blonde haired son reported to me that when he attended midnight Mass at St. Matthew’s in D.C., he felt very uncomfortable with the way McCarrick was obviously staring at him throughout the homily.
My question is this: Did the Vatican send a copy of the Report to McCarrick? After all, it would be the most charitable thing for them to do.
Another ridiculous commentary by Weigel that parrots the mythology of Francis’ innocence like this travesty of a whitewash investigation itself, which implicitly slanders the prophetic whistleblower Archbishop Vigano and doesn’t even mention the witness/victims, who publicly came forward, by name. Pope Francis has an established history of mendacity, charitably speaking, and it is a false exercise in the avoidance of calumny to pretend that this report, a blatantly corrupt exercise, provides any service to the Church despite whatever misplaced dressing of language Weigel wants to apply. The smoking gun has been the continuing exercise of cowardice among some Catholic commentators.
“…that parrots the mythology of Francis’ innocence…”
Huh? Weigel only mentions Francis once, in passing.
Have you read the Report?
In fact I have, over about eight cups of coffee, since I have personal sources that forwarded me an early copy. True it was a quick study needing a second and third read. Nonetheless, it is a travesty at first reading. What Weigel discusses is not the point. The title of the article “No Smoking Gun” implies what he fails to address and what Weigel has failed to address for seven and a half years. This is a Vatican that protects a foolhardy Pope at all costs, even when the costs are monumentally more evil than sexual abuse, even when the costs are persecuted Chinese Catholics and sledgehammers in the face of Marian statues, or suppressing outrage over children buried alive so not to offend his sensibilities about a utopian paradise in the Amazon, or the consequences of whatever his phony pretenses might be to upholding our faith’s pro-life values while he hugs the world’s most fanatical abortionists who advocate more mass exterminations.
The report claimed there was no documented evidence that Francis knew. Absolute baloney that Weigel implicitly upheld.
I’m less concerned with Pope Francis’ innocence than with St. John Paul II The Great’s innocence.
.
And Benedict’s, although I think it likely Benedict was/is innocent in all of this.
First I ask the question, What’s the point of issuing an article that simply paraphrases the report? Most of us can read. John Paul II was expectedly defended, the Pope similarly defended in a seeming appeasement tradeoff. Evidence in this case has no relevance to the adage of a smoking gun. That in itself is reliance on smoke and mirrors in an essay that omits the glaring fact of the Archbishop’s witness. An allegation that was not denied at the time and remains unanswered. What we have therefore is incriminating circumstantial evidence that is more akin to spent cartridges that match the accused’ silence, and counter allegations seeking to impugn the Archbishop’s character. “Attempt to throw discredit upon me, accused of disobedience and negligence by those who have every interest in delegitimizing the one who brought this to light is an unparalleled network of corruption and immorality” (Viganò) . Blatantly against the one person within the Church, and among journalist cognoscenti Archbishop Viganò who actually broke open the entire corrupt charade. And the effrontery to remain silent throughout first claiming no knowledge, now claiming insufficient knowledge. That is itself unparalleled corruption and immorality and to defend it is skirting reality. What is further troubling in this essay is an inexplicable omission of reference to the dossier the Archbishop alleges to have shown the Pontiff, and the fact that immediately following his elevation to the papacy Benedict XVI didn’t simply forbid McCarrick’s travels, Benedict canonically sanctioned McCarrick.
Perhaps I expected too much from G Weigel’s assessment of the Report. Considering such favorable testimony compiled in the Report on behalf of McCarrick, example Cardinal John O’Connor former US Navy chaplain, it’s understandable how many were unconvinced and reticent in following up on accusations. Nonetheless many of us expect more on this Report than its face value. Remember too the Archbishop wasn’t alone in his testimony, he had a credentialed corroborating witness. “Vigano’s accusations are serious and credible. He has everything to lose by making them public. He cited specific letters and documents that he and others sent to Rome – which he said are readily available in the files of the Holy See and the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington. The Vatican must now release them. And his account was backed on Monday by Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, who said ‘Vigano’ tells the whole truth. I am a witness'” (Marc Theissen Mercury News 2018). What happened to the alleged dossier file on McCarrick and why didn’t the report address this pivotal issue including the corroboration of Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume?
Edward Pentin NCR posted “A reading of the dossier published by the Secretariat of State containing documents and testimonies narrating the facts regarding the former cardinal archbishop of Washington dismissed from the clerical state by Andrea Tornielli, Vatican editorial director of the Dicastery for Communication”. It’s unclear whether this is the dossier and if so the complete edition referred to by Archbishop Viganò and Mgr Lantheaume.
I was struck by the way fellow bishops recommended McCarrick – they said he was an able administrator, a great fundraiser, a linguist, a tireless worker and a charmer. But nowhere did they say he was great at teaching the faith to his diocese. Nowhere did they say he was holy. Nowhere did they say he was Christ like. The charges that fly around about Bishops being mere administrators these days, with little real connection to a supernatural faith, may well be true. The trouble is we need more than mere administrators and fund raisers. We need people who can make sure the real Catholic faith is taught and taught and taught and taught, to everyone in the Diocese. Right now, most in Catholic school and in RCIA seem to tell us they are not taught anything. No wonder things are headed downhill. This administrator focus, rather than clericalism, may be the real problem we face.
‘ Every one did not know ‘ – can relate to that ..about the Divine Will revelations , a miraculous event that had been ongoing in The Church for many years , yet , still not known / grasped for what it is , by many , including myself , till very recently , in spite of having been enough of a ‘regular ‘ at glancing through a few ‘basic ‘ Catholic sites for our times 🙂
? That sense of something ‘lacking ‘ in the faith and its practice , as heard mentioned in one talk by Fr.Robert Young about an 83 Y.O holy nun saying just that , when she heard about the above ,as to how same helped to bring a deeper clarity to much ..
Pope Emer putting the large statue of st.Anibale Di.Francia , at the Vatican , in 2010 – ? an act of expressing the desire and commitment for more explicit focus at The Church level for the above and the Holy Father too , trying to convey same to the world at large in a manner that meets the level of the ‘children.’
Thank God that there are good smart priests now , who are too are there to help such that seminarians and others too can have easy access to the good revealed through same , to also gratefully see that there is no need for the fool’s gold of false power – whether as clericalism or in family relationships .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUNionX6o8
? God allowing the trials in other areas in our lives too , to move us and The Church ahead , to recognize and cherish the gift as it is meant to be , to help revive the faith as well as in helping the millions such as in China for whom the above might be the more effective means to take in the faith !
Those who have made efforts to share the faith , including the former
Cardl McCarrick , to be blessed and rewarded for the true intention of their hearts , regardless of the outcome and may The Lord spare any and all from the desire for vainglory and its related evils as being the motives in serving Him !
I tried to leave a comment here before and it went missing.
Steve Skojec identifies the basic weakness in Weigel’s argumentation: he simply trusts that Francis, Parolin, and in general the curia is going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Hasn’t he learned any lessons from observing Vatican politics in these past eight years?
As Skojec puts it: “He seems to be confused about the differences between point-scoring and accountability; systems may wind up broken, but the judgment of the men who govern those systems ultimately matter most. The Church is not some automated process that needs to simply be given a tune up. But Weigel is the sort of commentator so immune to healthy skepticism that he believes the fact that this report, produced by some of the very people most strongly accused of knowing about McCarrick and covering up for him, proves that those people didn’t know. Because, you know, they didn’t come right out and admit it within the report.”
https://onepeterfive.com/mccarrick-report-released-preliminary-notes/
The unintended subliminal message in the 450-page Report seems to be that just as there are “structures of sin” in the secular world, there are also “systemic failures” in the ecclesial world. Which is to imply that, in both cases, personal sins of commission and omission have been eclipsed by and are incidental to collective sin.
The filter of too-much “fraternal collegiality” (like secular-boardroom “plausible deniability”) is to be faulted, greatly, as are the euphemisms said to be mingled into the Report itself, namely McCarrick’s “improprieties” and “misconduct” which was, we are informed, “tragic” (not heinous, disordered and unnatural, or at least criminal?).
Regarding the actions of Pope John Paul II, we need not necessarily agree with one critic on these pages that he was “naive.” The campaign against bishops behind the Iron Curtain did include falsified sexual charges, and John Paul II was, himself, a victim of such and attempt. But, fortunately for him–and for the history of the 20th Century!–the scheme self-destructed. The perpetrator, a member of the Polish Secret Police, was so pleased with how he planted a forged diary involving a prostitute, that he went on a bender and crashed his car into a telephone pole, and then bragged about his exploit in the local police station. And, this information, of course, leaked out.
The event was unearthed in piles of formerly classified Secret Police records, by George Weigel, and summarized in his biographical “The End of the Beginning” (Doubleday, 2010, pp. 152-3). So, after this familiar pattern in the East, maybe the Polish pope was inclined to suspect similar intrigues in the morally-corrupt West as well.
Haven’t yet read the report, but my question will be whether the term “homosexual” has been studiously avoided….And, we may never see what was included in the single-copy, 300-page investigation of the Vatican, completed in early 2013 by three cardinals at the direction of Pope Benedict XVI, and then reportedly delivered to Pope Francis. At the time, it was speculated that the coupling (!) of homosexual infiltration with questionable Vatican finances (now finally in the open) was the compounded corruption that helped Pope Benedict, at his age and state of health, to discern that he was not the one to tear into the disordered and layered rat’s nest.
Now having read much (not all) of the Report, I add to my above remark (noting, too, that the term “homosexual” does in fact show up at least once [!] in 450 pages, also “crime”).
But, in short, the deeper and diabolic nature of Evil cannot be countered even by better information and management, and fewer missed connections…Instead, it is THE NATURE OF EVIL to first construct a fictive universe within which the “misconduct”/sins make permissive sense to the self-compromised “person” (self-evasion as in Genesis 3:12-13 “the woman gave me some fruit”, and then from Eve, “the serpent deceived me”). About which, in August 6, 2000 and in writing, McCarrick likewise declared himself innocent and swore that he had “never had sexual relations with any person, male or female, young or old, cleric or lay.” (As with President Clinton, “it all depends on what the meaning if ‘is’ is,” or here the meaning of “sexual relations”).
Well known is the fact that the homosexual subculture DEFINES “chastity” as only applying to sex between members of the opposite sex, just as “marriage” is redefined in 2015 by U.S. Supreme Court fatwa, or here “sexual relations.” Instead, the friendship of Uncle Ted. And in the McCarrick case, another part of the Big Lie is to balance his victimization with the Report’s hugely documented charitable works and countless and notably frenzied worldwide travels, all seemingly and in his mind for the Church. (But look at all the good he was doing!)
On this mathematical point, and of the embedded homosexual subculture, why is this reader again reminded of St. John Paul II’s forgotten (?) VERITATIS SPLENDOR (1993) with its exposure of deceitful bundling of good with evil (the fictive universe of “proportionalism” and “consequentialism”)? Also, “…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, BUT it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken” (n. 52).
Of the diabolical and metastasizing nature of Evil—it is said well by a non-Catholic and Quaker who converted from communism: “I want him [his young son] to understand that evil is NOT something that can be condescended to, waved aside or smiled away, for it is not merely an uninvited guest, but lies coiled in foro interno [that is] at home with good within ourselves. EVIL CAN ONLY BE FOUGHT [!]” (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, 1952).
“ Those beginning steps must be completed by a reform of the process by which potential bishops are identified. That reform should include the input of knowledgeable, shrewd, and discrete lay men and women; and in that process of identifying the bishops of the future, it must be made clear to priests that complete honesty is expected of them in evaluating a brother priest’s fitness for the episcopate.”
That is like getting members of the SS to police the SS, in order to rein in members of the SS. The hierarchy, from the papacy down, cannot be trusted to police itself. It must be policed by outsiders, not by members of the club. Has Weigel not heard of conflict of interest ?
“ That ought not diminish the shame Catholics will feel over the McCarrick affair,…”
Catholics are not the criminals here – they are the victims. Victim-blaming is a detestable practice.
I can’t stand it anymore. The Pope T John Paul II The Great juggernaut has become insufferable, and Weigel is its chief architect. Whatever happened, John Paul II was very much involved an an epic fail. It was his fault because managing the Cardinals was his job. Not jetting around the world, posing for photos, or even writing encyclicals. He was supposed to pastor pastors. And yet we got Maciel, McCarrick, and Schonborn, among many others. I have wanted to venerate him, like so many others, but it has become increasingly impossible. His Vatican was every bit as problematic as was Trump’s White House. Both accomplished good things, but were an unholy mess. Weigel here sounds like Kellyanne Conway.
Even taken at face value, this whitewash report radically undercuts the “santo subito” canonization of John Paul II and cries out for its re-examination. The office of Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington, D.C. is perhaps without question the single most important cardinalatial see in the entire modern world. What sort of “saint” negligently or recklessly ignores repeated highly credible reports that the prime candidate for the see is a notorious and inveterate sodomite? And this horrendous error of judgment only one among many horrendous errors of judgment, including Maciel, Daneels, Marx, and of course Bergoglio himself.
TDS
The idea that Pope Francis knew nothing, and “acted promptly” when he became aware of accusations against McCarrick when credible accusations became known (as the report states) is absurd. Firstly, Bishop Steven Lopes, one of the youngest prelates in the Church, stated that he was aware of McCarrick reputation, and anyone who said they didn’t is lying. Secondly, Francis has never been tough on sexual abusers his entire life. In fact his protection of Grassi, Inzoli, Zanchetta and Pena Parra shows him to be the exact opposite. And he made McCarrick’s former Auxiliary Bishop, who shared a home with the homopredator for six years, a Cardinal and Camaralengo.
I get the sense that the way McCarrick rose to the top was that most of the hierarchy just didn’t think sodomy (with adults) was all that bad. Certainly they did not view / treat it as a “sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.” Given that outlook, the rumors probably caused most of them to say “Meh, so what? Why should that disqualify someone?” Their biggest concern probably was not the moral depravity but the potential for scandal – or rather, for “bad press.” There was also a failure to realize / acknowledge that – at least as concerns Catholic clergy – a homosexual tendency also frequently includes a preference for underage boys.
…all the while maintaining the stance of not letting a divorcee who has re married have communion? Is there hypocrisy, here to be witnessed by a world watching on? Let the priest say the mass, abuse a child, move him on to the next parish to abuse again and again? That is our recent history. And the Popes by canon law demanded silence on the subject from all clergy where the abuse took place.
Here is the smoking gun: according to “this Vatican Report (however much you can believe people who tend to not always tell “ the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), just taking this Report at nothing more than face-value, this Vatican group says “the system” decided against McCarrick, and then McCarrick intervened and appealed to JP2, and then JP2 over-turned the original decision, and promoted McCarrick.
So on its face, (whatever merit this Vatican can be given) this report indicates Personal Failure of Leadership by JP2.
This is the VERY OPPOSITE of George Weigel’s narrative.
1st – As narrated in the Vatican Report, Pope John Paul II first decided against the promotion of McCarrick, on the unanimous written advice of Cardinal O’Connor of NY, the head of Congregation for Bishops in Rome, and the Papal Nuncio at the time, who all stated separately that the promotion was NOT recommended.
2nd – McCarrick found out (somehow) that O’Connor himself warned against McCarrick, so McCarrick sent a personal letter to JP2 declaring his innocence.
3rd – on the basis of that letter from McCarrick, JP2 restarted the evaluation process, and leaned the inquiry toward inquiring as to whether the accumulated information in the negative about McCarrick’s behavior might be re-evaluated as “unfounded.”
4th – the Vatican Report states that the final decision of John Paul II, reversing his original judgment against McCarrick, was made despite specially by-passing the requirement of a review and “no objection” by the Congregation for the Faith. The second irregular process was “mid-wifed” by Cardinal Sodano the Secretary of State, and now Cardinal Batista Re, then “the substitute” Secretary of State, who in the second decision managed the irregular process performed under control of the Secretariat of State, and not the Congregation for Bishops.
IN SHORT – according to this Vatican Report, the normal process first used rendered a judgment against McCarrick, and McCarrick personally intervened, and John Paul II then followed an abnormal process, by-passing the regular process, giving a new irregular review process over to the Secretariat of State, which, enablied JP2 to overturn the original decision and give the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington See to McCarrick.
The Vatican Report narrates THE VERY OPPOSITE of a “SYSTEM FAILURE” as insisted by George Weigel.
Instead: The Vatican Report indicates a personal failure to follow proper procedure by Pope John Paul II.
This is all of.course supposing that you can believe Cardinal Sidano and Cardinal Batista Re and the members of the Secretariat of State, whonunder aparolin and Francis, resurrected McCarrick and used him to seal the Secret China Accord.
NONE of the above, including Mr. Weigel’s spin, builds any confidence whatsoever.
But this much seems to be undeniable: the original decision by the regular process on McCarrick was NO. But that answer was unacceptable. So they did what they wanted, and violated the regular process.
The papal monarchy is above question, as is the Roman saint-making machine.
Weigl has written another deeply informed article, rich in research and thoughtfulness. Many DID know! I knew and am a mere layman from Toronto. I saw atrocious naked photos of McCarrick. The Bishops, priests , seminarians, countless lay people and the abused all knew. Many turned a blind eye. McCarrick is a perfect narcissist. They can fool anyone, and lying is how they survive. The McCarrick Report does not do justice to Francis’ inaction.. perhaps and likely that was deliberate. There is much more to this story. For example, the IVE community that McCarrick ordained is a strange disorganized community and no argentine bishop would ordain their candidate. I was in that Fulton sheen seminary. Only McCarrick would ordain them, having a cottage right beside many young and very vulnerable young men. I was there. It wasn’t about the IVE being just called to serve the hispanics. That wasn’t even being done. I was there. Some of the ‘men’ in that community were a mere 16 and 18 years old, with problems. Lots more to this lurid story. Gay predation has yet to be called out, no likely coming from P.Francis, and it will ransack the Church, as it has all others. That problem is far from over. Bishops and others have done evrything to protect gays and their activities, and indeed, they listen to no one who informs; they disdain you. I’ve been there. Great work , George!
One important fallout of this whole mess that is not discussed, but evident in the comments, is growing distrust of the Catholic leadership structure (bishops, cardinals and the vatican) by many faithful catholics. Here in Chicago Area, I do not know what to make of the Cardinal. This is sad!
Also, the corrupt Secretary of State Parolin continues his contemptuous practice of “not telling the whole truth,” and gives himself away by saying that he never employed McCarrick as “an official diplomatic agent.” You’re too clever for your own brief “Your Eminence.”
And on that note Pontiff Francis, why should we put any trust in a man who you just threw under the bus as unworthy of trust in financial matters?
Oh what a tangled web you weave…when first you practice to deceive…
Now you should all resign.
I listen for the dog which did not bark. How could a moral titan, like JPII let things slide, with McCarrick and Law, both occurring about the same time, late 1990s, early 2000s? I pose a possibility and request those, whose expertise is greater, to criticize.
I have known people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease. The common side effect of the neurological medicines is a gradual decline in the higher facilities, until little mental capability is left. Hard decisions are impossible, the penetrating mind is gone. JPII may have been a saint but his cross was different; his suffering lingered. This would profoundly influence his friend and successor to quietly put down the power when he sensed that his faculties were in decline. The pieces seem to fit. No decision is sometimes the worst decision.
If this is valid, there was a system failure, to protect the church from human frailty. Why did some courageous leader(s) not confront the disaster? Is every body a buracrat? The US altered its Constitution to handle a leader in decline. Does the Vatican need an Article 25 for the boss?
Monarchical habits die hard.
No smoking gun? The synopses I have read so far appear to be damning reports of moral failure of some of the bishop-members and perhaps the entire council of the USCCB.
There are but a few (one?) replies from women, so please allow a different perspective from a woman and mother of two, and wife of one.
When “Mother 1” was witness to her two sons seated on the lap of Mr McCarrick, massaging their inner thighs, and wrote her trove of letters to clergy in her Archdiocese, it should have immediately raised an alarm. Five of them. As the letters were penned anonymously, out of fear of reprisal, it hindered follow up. Add to this mother’s pain the pain she must have felt when her spouse did not support her thinking and could not acknowledge the horror in front of his very eyes. So very sad.
When the Mother Superior raised her concern regarding Mr Mccarrick, she was written off as someone who was merely out for money.
The first whistleblower was a woman, not listened to. Had someone pursued, somehow, her accusations, none of us would be here having this discussion. Women have a place at the Church table, whether they are of a religious order or not. Listen to them. Our perspectives, our insights, our intuition are different from men. Listen to us when we come forward with our views. Listen to us, please.
The sooner the Church realizes that women are a necessary, integral and important part of a conversation, and maybe even a long sought solution, the more fruitful those conversations will be and the more clear and concise, the solution.
Thank you.
Your point on Mother 1 is insightful and may reinforce the concept of a system failure. All subordinates must understand that an unsigned letter carries no weight to a decision maker. Pope JPII had experience with communists who attempted to destroy good priests with this technique, lies.
However the hard eye should be placed on a husband – father who permitted his son to be assaulted. A broken jaw and lost teeth might have ended a generation of horror. Ditto for McCarrick’s supervisor who read the letter.
The Marine Corps knows how to handle this problem, lots of pain. Our leaders have abandoned the struggle against evil; most bishops are soft, grossly overweight. The RC church has a distinct lack of disciplined men in positions of authority; strong men who would protect mothers who come to them with serious organizational problems.
I don’t know all the particulars of who knew what about McCarrick — and, frankly, I don’t care to know them.
It is enough to say that this scandal on top of all the other scandals — including most recently the USCCB congratulating the second quote-unquote “Catholic” US president — illustrates how debauched and degenerate our Church leadership has become. The stench has spread all around the world — from DC, to Rome, to Beijing, to Chicago.
Clearly, as samton indicated, too many of our bishops are technocrats who focus on administrative hobnobbery rather than the care and protection of their flocks.
By contrast, Jesus had contempt for their god, inertia, and refused to worship at its altar of efficiency/practicality/ROI.
The moneylenders need to be driven out of the temple once again.
We are in desperate need of another, simpler, truer-hearted kind of Francis.
With the Vatican’s report on McCarrick just out, with the preeminent role of JPII in the whole saga, this piece by Weigel is just pathetic. This essay is a masterpiece of a spin to deflect blame from and exonerate JPII. Weigel rationalizes that it was a system failure. But the author shamelessly stops the flow of logic. Who was in charge of the system? In a very embarrassing way, the Vatican report on McCarrick deprecates JPII’s legacy. His epic failure to address the clergy sex abuse scandal when it erupted during his papacy is rightly highlighted. The sex abuse scandal now infecting the worldwide church surged during his papacy. These cases of predominantly homosexual predation by priests and bishops were not forcefully confronted by JPII because these somehow went against the big ideas of his pet theological projects. These were the over-hyped and near cult-like idealization of sexuality (e.g., Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, etc.) and of the ministerial priesthood (e.g., Pastores Dabo Vobis, Gift and Mystery, etc.). By turning a blind eye to these developments, the gay mafia in the ranks of the bishops and priests grew in numbers and power and enabled this scandal to explode and its consequent cover-up. JPII promoted the global icon of this scandal, Theodore McCarrick, not just once but five times: Auxiliary Bishop of New York, Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, Archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal. The Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi founder, Marcial Maciel Degollado, another icon of this scandal who preyed upon his seminarians and priests and sired children, was favored by JPII with a preferential treatment and called him “a model of heroic priesthood.” George Weigel, in his hagiographical biographies of JPII (Witness to Hope, Lessons in Hope), tried defending this epic papal failure by rationalizing that JPII was disinclined to humiliate others which led him to misjudge others, even among bishops and priests. Weigel is either or both a big liar and/or just blinded by his hagiographical obsession. JPII humiliated, even crushed, a lot of bishops, priests, theologians he judged not toeing the line (picture JPII openly scolding Ernesto Cardenal at the tarmac of Managua airport). Weigel’s hero should never have been hastily beatified and canonized.
“JPII humiliated, even crushed, a lot of bishops, priests, theologians he judged not toeing the line (picture JPII openly scolding Ernesto Cardenal at the tarmac of Managua airport)”.
“[N]ot toeing the line”? Some lines ought to be toed. Ernesto Cardenal was a member of the Marxist/socialist Sandinista Party, AND Nicaragua’s first minister of culture (1979) And, therefore, was in violation of the Church’s prohibition of clerics actually serving in government positions.
Evangelization around the world gets messed up when the line between Church and state is blurred to this degree, anywhere. In the United States, the pro-abortion Congressman Robert Drinan from Massachusetts, also a priest and a Jesuit, withdrew from office when instructed to choose between the priesthood or a political career (1980). For today, “picture” Fr. James Martin, SJ, serving in Congress and thumbing his nose at the Church in matters of morality, or simply posturing the Church in complex/controversial policy matters involving prudential judgment.
George Weigel’s attempt to spin the report to somehow only condemn “the system” rather than the people managing it, is breathtaking, and will only serve to discredit Weigel as a damage-controller for an obviously corrupt ecclesiastical establishment. “Move along,” he tells us. “This is no one’s fault in particular, just a problem of the system, of a defective clerical culture.” Absurd! Systems and cultures are not subsistent entities — they have a subject, and the subject is the acting individual. Someone must take responsibility.
His insistence that the report isn’t a whitewash piles incredibility on incredibility — does he really not know that the whole financial dimension of this scandal was left untreated by the report? Are we to think that money played no role in the immunity of Theodore McCarrick, who exercised a massive influence on fundraising in the Church, particularly in the USA? Are we really to believe that this was just a bunch of innocent mistakes, that no one in particular was guilty of covering up, that there should be no personal accountability for decades of sexual abuse of seminarians and minors?
Weigel is right about the clerical caste system, but he ridiculously implies that only Poland and Latin America are suffering from a clericalist caste system today, as if many bishops in the USA and Europe don’t continue to sit behind a wall of bureaucracy, with no real contact with the laity and no real accountability to them, and as if the financial affairs of the Church do not continue to be hidden from the faithful. This was and is the terrible reality and must be dealt with.
In short, this article is arguably a symptom of the very problem it pretends to address, written by an establishment insider with a big personal stake in the matter. Distressing!
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
NOVEMBER 12, 2020 AT 8:29 PM
QUOTE [In short, this article is arguably a symptom of the very problem it pretends to address, written by an establishment insider with a big personal stake in the matter. Distressing!]
As was Mr Weigel’s several articles in defence of Cardinal Pell. And it needs to be said, how different the comment section has progressed with this article than those in response to writing on the Subject of Cardinal Pell .
Mr weigel developed a narrative that deliberately ignored the many troubling and verified situations in Ballarat and Melbourne relating to the wider issue of Clergy pedofile abuse. Mr Weigles commentary on the subject of Cardinal Pell, often verging on the hysterical, was a work of blatant manipulation obvious to anyone who has local knowledge of the Melbourne Diocese, the Ballarat Archdiocese and the widespread abuse that occured at the hands of a network of pedofile priests many operating in the knowledge of each other’s depravity. And I have been
often vilified in my attempts to communicate a wider picture.
About 90 percent of the iceberg lies below the surface. Hence the term — tip of the iceberg. So it is with the Church sandals. McCarrick is but the tip. This report (YES, I HAVE A COPY AND HAVE STUDIED VARIOUS PARTS) is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And that is the trick, really. So we have much spilled ink, or what shall I say: the wringing of hands; the rending of vestments; the pointing of fingers; the pronouncements of platitudes; the soothing voice of some fork-tongued unworldly creature.
Credibility is an attribute, once lost beneath the waves, is not easily raised from the depths again.
What I miss here, just as in many comments/ articles on Mc Carrick is one crucial word;
HOMOSEXUALITY. Mc Carrick belongs to the group of 86 percent of clergymen, some say even more, who have committed sex abuse in various forms against teenage boys and seminarians. That is, a vast majority of all victims are of male sex. And not children, although MSM and many Catholics, against their knowledge, against massive evidence, call this ” paedophilia “.
Like every person with his/her faculties intact and believing in simple basic biological facts, I disagree to 100 percent with those in the Church, including at least one American Cardinal, who has voiced his private opinion that the sexual abuses of teenage boys and seminarians are not necessarily of a homosexual nature, I wish that Mr Weigel ( and most other writers) would express without any hesitation what is so tragically obvious to everyone with eyes and ears open to the truth; the wide spread homosexuality among Carholic clergy; priests Bishops and Cardinals, is the main root cause that many thousands of lives of the most innocent have been ruined. Life long suffering. Young seminarians
full of enthusiasm and hope were brutally and cynically used by Mc Carrick. Parents, having raised their sons with much sacrifices, fostering a great love for the Church and for the priesthood, their trust gravely deceived and abused as well.
While it is true that there will always be pathological liars and abusers in the Church,maybe the worst thing to come to grips with is the despicable cowardly surrender by almost everyone who knew about Mc Carrick. The pathological fear. The lack of sympathy for trusting teenage boy. The many priests who either left the seminaries in droves because of homosexual predators like Mc Carrick. The few victims who did try to make their voices heard, were ignored and sidestepped.
I am convinced that Pope Benedict, a saintly and totally righteous man, thought that his restriction on Mc Carrick would be followed.I Goid pure and honest people are sometimes easier to deceive since they dont have darkness in their souls. It certainly looks as if both he and JPII were grieveoysky and cunningly deceived by many whom they thought they could trust. No doubt, Pope Benedict is a very saintly man who has devoted his whole life to serve Christ and His Church.
As did St JPII. One must bear in mind that it is only in the past 18 years that the terrible phenomenon of sexual abuse is discussed openly. The shameful nature of this kind of abuse, JPII:s own holiness and background in Poland must have made it very difficult, not to say almost impossible, to believe in such utterly evil acts, especially by an ordained priest or a Bishop. There is no doubt in my mind that both he and Benedict were gravely deceived by many they thought they could rely on.
Evil was facilitated by the many who saw and knew,over more than five decades, heard rumours of the abominable actions of this homosexual predator.
Several journalists and others have pointed at something very central; it was not until the abuse of a minor came to light that the Vatican reacted. One American Cardinal even denied that the massive percentage of male a use victims had any link with homosexuality. (!) Also,he mentioned so called “consensual sex” among adults. In other words, he and not so few in the Church hierarchy,seem to support the idea that sex between a priest/ bishop/ Cardinal and a seminarian is fine as long as it can be considered ” consensual “. What about chastity in general then?
Definitely not what I see anywhere in my Catechism, quite the contrary, chastity is praised and practiced homosexuality is called ” intrinsically evel”. Just as all kind of sexual activity outside of marriage is condemned.
Please allow me to add one thing; the laity, as well, have their share in this shameful and devastating culture of looking the other way, abandoning the victims.
They, too, were more interested in maintaining a good relationship with the clergy. Sadly,many among the laity are much too often prone to adulation and going along,under whatever circumstances.
Clericalism among the laity is often a problem created by themselves.
Cannon Law had a major role in maintaining secrecy and the non disclosure of sexual abuse by clergy since 1922. Look at Crimen Sollicitationis of 1922. So much discussion on the subject yet this Canon Law does not get mentioned. Why? Are all and sundry ignorant of the reality that since 1922 all clergy are to maintain this code of silence. This applied to such an extent that for cases of abuse within the diocese of Melbourne all paperwork pertaining to cases of abuse is now stored under lock and key in the Vatican vaults. This is a fact!
Finally I will give here a smoking gun from page 90 of the report. This concerns Monsignor Bottino’s testimony in the presnce of Bishops Smith, McHugh and McCarrick:
“After everyone sat back down, Monsignor Bottino observed McCarrick turn towards and begin speaking to Bishops Smith and McHugh about the consecration. In the same moment, Bottino saw McCarrick move his right hand to the young cleric’s {redacted by PRC} area.
According to Monsignor Bottino, Bishop McHugh “saw me looking down and so he too looked down.” In an interview, Bottino explained what happened next:
No sooner had we looked down nearly simultaneously, than we looked up, this time simultaneously because McCarrick was talking. I remember seeing and looking at McHugh first and then looking at the young man, terrified. “
Questions for Mr. Weigel: Do you think JPII suspected nothing? Why did he reverse his initial disinclination to appoint McCarrick to the DC see?
Here is the big fat giveaway that says “I am spinning yarn for the cattle in the Church.”
Finding of GW – GW has declared this is no one’s fault, but instead “massive system failure.”
Conclusion of GW – includes ZERO proposals to change the system of Church governance.
Reason – GW’s Finding is baloney, and he knows it, so no system changes are indicated.
Sloppy work GW.
If Catholic people think the way you do, there will be a 1000 year reign of homosexual sex abuse.