Vatican City, May 3, 2018 / 04:01 pm (CNA).- On Wednesday, three Chilean survivors of clerical sexual abuse held a press conference to discuss their meetings with Pope Francis about the circumstances surrounding their abuse.
Juan Carlos Cruz, along with James Hamilton and Jose Andres Murillo, were sexually abused by Fr. Fernando Karadima, who in 2011 was found guilty by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of sexually abusing minors during the 1980s and 1990s. Karadima was sentenced to a life of prayer and solitude.
Karadima’s abuse has drawn recent attention because of long-rumored reports that his one-time friend, now-Bishop Juan Barros, helped to cover up the abuse, or was a participant in it. Barros was appointed to lead the Diocese of Osorno in January 2015, despite considerable protest in Chile, and despite objections from some of Chile’s bishops. Barros’ appointment has been a matter of serious controversy over since.
In January of this year, Pope Francis visited Chile and publicly defended Barros, saying that accusations against him were “calumny,” and that he had seen no proof of the bishop’s involvement in Karadima’s abuse. Those remarks drew serious rebukes, including one from Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, chair of the pope’s commission on sexual abuse, and the pope apologized for the tone of his remarks, while insisting on the innocence of Barros.
After Francis visited Chile, he sent Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta, a highly regarded canonical expert in clerical sexual abuse, to investigate the claims against Barros.
Shortly after Scicluna was dispatched to Chile, the Associated Press reported that in February 2015, Cruz had sent Francis a letter detailing accusations that Barros was complicit in Karadima’s abuse. Barros was installed as Bishop of Osorno in March 2015, a little more than a month after Cruz’ letter was sent. O’Malley was said to have delivered the letter to the pope in April 2015.
After his visit to Chile, Scicluna filed a 2,300 page report on the matter, which has not been made publicly available.
On April 11, Francis sent a letter to Chile’s bishops saying that he had made “serious errors in judgement regarding the matter,” which he attributed to “a lack of truthful and balanced information.”
The pope invited the three abuse survivors to meet with him, and summoned Chile’s entire episcopate to meet with him in the Vatican; that meeting will take place later this month.
During their May 2 press conference, the abuse survivors said Francis had apologized to them for “being part of the problem,” and they said the pope was “very attentive, receptive, and very empathetic” while they spoke “frankly and respectfully” with them.
Cruz told reporters that “it was clear that the pope was misinformed.” The survivors mentioned that Archbishop Ivo Scapolo, apostolic nuncio to Chile, was part of the problem, along with Cardinal Francisco Errazuriz, Archbishop Emeritus of Santiago and a member of Pope Francis’ council of cardinal advisers.
Hamilton told reporters that Errazuriz failed to act on abuse reports, saying that the cardinal “was covering up for more than 5 years the criminal of Karadima and all of his acts.”
It is is possible that at the time Francis appointed Barros to Osorno, he was indeed misinformed, especially if Errazuriz and Scalpo failed to adequately inform the pope of any credible reports against Barros.
But the lingering question is whether, and how, Pope Francis remained misinformed after Cruz wrote a letter to the Pope.
In the first place, it is possible that O’Malley did not deliver the letter to Pope Francis.
In April 2015, Marie Collins, then a member of the pope’s sexual abuse commission, delivered to O’Malley Cruz’ letter, and asked him to the deliver it to Pope Francis.
The Archdiocese of Boston declined to comment on this matter to CNA, referring questions to the Vatican. The Vatican’s press office declined to answer questions on the letter.
However, the Associated Press reports that O’Malley later told both Collins and Cruz that he had delivered the letter to the pope and communicated their concerns about Barros.
In February, Boston Globe columnist Joe Cullen also said that O’Malley’s spokesman, Terry Donilon, “did confirm to me that O’Malley, in fact, delivered to the pope a letter from Juan Carlos Cruz in which Cruz accused Barros of knowing that a notorious priest named Francisco Karadima routinely molested boys, including Cruz himself.”
O’Malley’s credibility on sexual abuse matters is unimpeachable, and he seems to have communicated to Cruz, Collins, and Donilon that he delivered the letter. To Cruz and Collins, he also seems to have confirmed conveying their concerns to Pope Francis. It is unlikely that the letter went undelivered.
What is not clear is how O’Malley delivered the letter: whether he handed it directly to Pope Francis, and summarized the contents, or whether he delivered it to an aide.
If O’Malley delivered the letter to an aide, or if Francis passed it on to an aide, it is possible that it never made its way back to the pope. In that case, serious questions would need to be answered about whether someone on the pope’s personal staff was protecting Barros, or shielding Francis from bad news. Such things would not be unprecedented; but in a matter as serious as this, they demand accountability.
It is also possible, and perhaps most probable, that although Francis says he was misinformed, he did read the 2015 letter from Cruz. It seems likely that, after reading it, Francis would have consulted with Errazuriz, his close adviser and a Chilean. Given that Errazuriz is already alleged to have discounted allegations involving Barros, he might have discredited Cruz’ account.
Francis had previously blamed criticism of Barros on Chile’s “leftists.” It is possible that Errazuriz, Scalpo, or others convinced the pope that Cruz’ allegations were rooted in a political attack on the Church, or on Barros. Throughout his pontificate, Francis has shown little patience for Latin American “leftists.” If that scenario is the case, the mistake was accepting the narrative discrediting Cruz, instead of investigating the matter.
Francis has made mistakes before regarding sexual abuse, most notably in the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli, an Italian removed from ministry by Benedict XVI, restored to ministry by Francis in 2014, and then dismissed from the clerical state by Francis in 2017, after he was sentenced in 2016 by a civil court to a prison term for eight counts of sexually abusing children. Francis blamed his initial reversal on being new to his office, and not understanding the case fully. Some clerics close to the pope say that Francis was persuaded to restore Inzoli to ministry after pontifical advisers made a personal plea to the pope. It is possible that, in matters of sexual abuse, Francis trusts advisers without sufficiently investigating circumstances himself.
Nevertheless, Francis has long advocated a position of “zero tolerance” for clerics who commit abuse, and taken a hard line on bishops who fail to take abuse allegations seriously. In 2015, he accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert Finn, then Bishop of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, who was convicted of a misdemeanor after failing to report allegations that a priest was in possession of child pornography. Ironically, some of Finn’s decisions in that affair were attributed to trust placed in advisers who turned out to be wrong.
After meeting with the Pope, Karadima’s victims told reporters that they are “waiting for actions.” They’re not the only ones; how Francis acts now will likely be considered a barometer of how seriously he is willing to act on sexual abuse issues.
The pope is likely to accept the resignation of Bishop Juan Barros in the weeks to come. He will also have to decide who was responsible for misinforming him, and what the consequences will be. And he will have to consider carefully when to trust advisers, and when he is obliged to take matters into his own hands.
[…]
China will eat you.
This.
China already ate US, and is taking really huge bites in the past weeks. That US reality those that are suppose to be looking out the countries best interest, are too busy selling us out.. for their own gain.
Its the drum role of, is President Biden going to start looking our for the people, as Kennedy tried. Or continue to sell US out?
President biden sold out 47 years ago buddy. Put your head between you legs and kiss your a.. goodbye. You speak as if buden just entered politics. He has been selling the country out since the 70s. Wake up
I agree with his sentiment but someone forgot to mention the 500 giga tonne gorilla in the room – The hegemony of the United States of America whose sole goal is to rape the planet for anything and everything it can buy or sell. Good luck trying to convey your message of minimalism to that obese, excessive ignorant island.
“Rape the planet”, really? Do you drive a vehicle, do you own clothes, do you eat food, do you have a house, do you have a phone, do you’s can continue. Give up all of what you and your family consumes in the name of not raping the planet.
Right. Except that the United States isn’t an island, it’s part of a continent called North America. So who’s the ignorant one here?
Nothing better than the guy in the gold plated house lecturing about the poor. He should follow God’s word and sell his riches.
The pope, I trust you understand, does not own the riches of the Vatican, etc. In fact, in fairness to Pope Francis, he probably owns very little. Now, a more worthwhile line of criticism would be to ask, “What competence or expertise does Pope Francis have in economics?” And so forth.
Carl no one said that Pope Francis is an economist.
I do not think you would criticize Jesus for his Sermon on the Mount which called for social justice and looking out for the needy.
Isn’t that what a Pope is supposed to articulate.
Carl no one said that Pope Francis is an economist.(sic)
Yet he himself believes he is one as evidenced by that which he allowed to be published under his name in Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si’ as only two examples among many.
A yet more worthwhile line of thinking would be this:
Popes must be Catholic.
Francis is not Catholic.
Thus Francis is not pope.
Well, Francis has Jeffry Sachs to tell him how to use abortion to make sure we have fewer poor people in the world.
I do not think Pope Peter had access to the wealth and splendor that Pope Francis has. Not did our first Pope have body guards.
He probably did not even have rosary beads or a crucifix.
.
And that’s the issue. I personally may own much more than Pope Francis, but I don’t live in anywhere near the comfort. I have no security system, and if I come down with Covid or cancer, no hospital or doctor of note will leap at the chance to cure me.
.
They are not called “Princes” for nothing.
.
I do not begrudge him (them) their comforts, or would not, but they clearly have no clue how wealth is created, how poverty might be lessened.
Remember when Popes used to talk about Jesus and Mary?
You remember the simple tales Tod to you as a child. They are still told to children.
Now you are older you need to navigate the bigger more complex stories.
New world order pope . .give away the wealth of the catholic church first..
You first, Francis
What might be said—perhaps competently—about augmenting daily stock market data/quarterly progress reports with a wider-angle business perspective, sometimes referred to as the TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE: prophet, people, planet? A few (not all) tutors and their discussion points:
At least parts of mankind are demonstrably at risk of a self-inflicted “tragedy of the commons” (from ecologist GARRETT HARDIN, 1968). Today the personal ecological footprint involves a layered web of often distant resource uses—land, water, air, and food chains.
ST. AUGUSTINE connected expansive passions and a finite world: “the passions are more easily mortified finally in those who love God, than satisfied, even for a time, in those who love the world” (in Henry Paolucci, ed., The Political Writings of St. Augustine, 1962).
In his Liechentstein Address (1993), SOLZHENITSYN remarked on technological society and the need for “self-limitation”—“in an economic race, we are poisoning ourselves.”
Two years earlier, ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II also called for “important changes in established lifestyles, in order to limit the waste of environmental and human resources, thus enabling every individual and all the peoples of the earth to have a sufficient share of those resources.” (Centesimus Annus, 1991 n. 54).
What is the possible alliance for shared action among the three monotheistic world RELIGIONS? E.g., Christian and Jewish revelation—“[The LORD made the earth] not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in” (Isa 45:18). (See Michael A. Barkey, ed., Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant Wisdom on the Environment [Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, 2000]. Islam (a natural religion) proclaims—at least for the umma or House of Islam—the reality of the common good and of property as a shared good.)
In Mater et Magistra (1961) ST. POPE JOHN XXIII noticed that nature has only “almost inexhaustible productive capacity” (“almost”, not “inexhaustible” as under Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum). And, likewise, it was with an eye on rising per capita resource consumption, that ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II counseled “above all a change in lifestyle (and) models of production and consumption . . . (and) structures of power . . .” (Centesimus Annus, n. 58).
ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II and Ecumenical PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW issued a “Joint Declaration on Articulating a Code of Environmental Ethics” stressing five goals: (1) mindfulness of future generations, (2) the priority of Natural Law and the non-utilitarian use of science and technology [Veritatis Splendor! 1993], (3) stewardship and solidarity beyond exaggerated [!] ownership, (4) a variety of roles and [!] responsibilities, and (5) the need for trust beyond legitimate controversy (Origins, CNS Documentary Service, June 20, 2002).
What would a more reflective and robust market (solidarity and subsidiarity, both, with neither eclipsed by the other) actually look like—beyond (a) the narrow and short-term quantitative fixations prevailing today AND EQUALLY BEYOND (b) POPE FRANCIS’ countervailing and self-acknowledged “rhetorical poetry”?
It would make more sense for the Pope to encourage the poor to learn from economists instead, so they can pull themselves out of poverty.
A lot more. But that’s not Francis’ M.O. MT verbiage is. Reams of it. Worst Pope we’ve ever had.
Johann du Toit,
That sounds about right but it would have to be economists with good track records. Some economists fail as badly as the rest of us to see what’s coming next.
It’s ashame when religious leaders embrace fundamentally flawed and evil dogma and ideology, becoming useful idiots for the tyrants.
Alternative view on papal events: canon212 dot com.
To my concluding QUESTION: “What would a more reflective and robust market (solidarity and subsidiarity, both, with neither eclipsed by the other) actually look like…?”
With some adjustments, maybe the Mid-West DUST BOWL of the 1930s will not be repeated in the desertification of coral reefs (related to our food chains) in the 2030s, and in the less preventable Sub-Sahara?
Maybe Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics will not pull the rug out from under of family-wage jobs and FAMILIES (papal prayer intention for this November)?
And, happily, with a perspective of centuries and nod to the better side of INNOVATION (“Technocracy”?), open-pit copper mines already have been at least partly replaced by fiber optics and miniaturized/wireless communication. The short-lived buffalo hunter, beaver pelt and finite-coal mentalities offer additional clues.
And, likewise to be purified, maybe the extermination of miniature (!) UNBORN CHILDREN—the moral crisis of “preeminent” priority (USCCB)—as exploited by the Abortion Industry (another “AI”!), will itself be terminated? This, rather than subsidized by the government (!) and exported overseas by Planned un-Parenthood profiteers.
As for the “rhetorical poetry” of Laudato Si—maybe there can be better rhyme and coherence as to WHETHER we can “reverse” (n. 170) OR only “adapt to” (n. 175) our/or nature’s (?) climate change?
(In either case, between Ice Ages the sea level was 4-6 meters deeper than it is now, while both underdeveloped Bangladesh and overdeveloped New York City have an average elevation of only 10 meters above sea level.) Bishop Barron quotes the mythical Mother Nature of eons and eras past: “I have fed species greater than you; and I have starved species greater than you.” And “my oceans, my soil, my flowing streams, my forests—they all can take you or leave you.”
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/08/11/mother-nature-is-one-unreliable-lady/
Lapsing into planetary superlatives, what is the MORAL DIFFERENCE, if any, between short-term and direct genocide, and the long-term and indirect triage (stock market “economics”?) in marginal geographies of possibly vulnerable and “starved” populations?
Consumerism keeps everyone working.
Oh yes, isn’t needless toil and pursuit of “things” grand?
vs. what? Bored poverty and starvation?
Why hasn’t the Pope clarified his remarks about homosexuality? Please clarify the church’s stance on these sins that cry out to God.
Because he’s a coward and a liar.
The Poor are the real tabernacles where Christ resides. Economists have a lot to learn from the Christ residing in the poor.
I can’t believe this guy even sees the irony of telling his ‘flock’ to eschew the better things in life from…. The Vatican, that broken down old property of renown. Any shanty dwellings in there, Frank?
The pope seems to want a return to the middle ages where most people hated being alive.
I don’t know about that. Some of the Middle Ages sound pretty good to me. Some parts don’t ,but as I understand it they had many more days off work than we do today. Lots & lots of holy days observed back then.