Denver Newsroom, Nov 10, 2020 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- An undercover KGB agent tried to befriend ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick in the early 1980s, prompting the FBI to ask the rising churchman to exploit this connection to counter Soviet intelligence, according to claims in the Vatican’s report on McCarrick released Tuesday.
The Nov. 10 McCarrick Report offers detail on McCarrick’s church career and the sexual abuse his successful personality helped to conceal.
“In the early 1980s, a KGB agent who enjoyed diplomatic cover as the Deputy Chief of Mission to the United Nations for the Soviet Union approached McCarrick, apparently to attempt to befriend him,” said the report, released by the Vatican Nov. 10. “McCarrick, who was initially unaware that the diplomat was also a KGB agent, was contacted by agents of the FBI, who asked him to serve as a counterintelligence asset with respect to the activities of the KGB.”
“Though McCarrick believed it was best to decline such involvement (particularly because he was immersed in the organization of the new Diocese of Metuchen), the FBI persisted, contacting McCarrick again and encouraging him to allow a relationship with the KGB agent to develop,” the report continued.
McCarrick had been an auxiliary bishop of New York City from, and became the first bishop of the newly created Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey in 1981. He would become Archbishop of Newark in 1986, then Archbishop of Washington in 2001.
In January 1985, McCarrick reported the FBI’s request “in detail” to Apostolic Nuncio Pio Laghi, seeking the nuncio’s advice.
“Laghi thought that McCarrick should ‘not be negative’ about the possibility of serving as an FBI asset and described McCarrick in an internal note as someone who ‘knows how to deal with these people and be cautious’ and who was ‘wise enough to understand and not be caught’,” said the report.
The compilers of the McCarrick Report say the rest of the story is not known to them.
“It is not clear, however, whether McCarrick ultimately accepted the FBI’s proposal, and no record reflects further contact with the KGB agent,” said the report.
Former FBI director Louis Freeh said in an interview cited in the report that he was not personally familiar with the incident. However, he said that McCarrick would have been “a very high value target for any of the (intelligence) services, but particularly the Russians at that time.”
The McCarrick Report cites Freeh’s 2005 book, “My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Waging War on Terror,” in which he described Cardinal John O’Connor’s “great efforts, prayers and real help to dozens of FBI agents and their families—especially to me.”
“Later, Cardinals McCarrick and Law continued this special ministry to the FBI family, who revered both of them,” Freeh’s book said, referring to former Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Bernard Law.
In the Cold War era, prominent Catholic leaders in the U.S. tended to strongly back the FBI for its work against communism. Cardinal Francis Spellman, who ordained McCarrick to the priesthood in 1958, was a well-known supporter of the FBI, as was Archbishop Fulton Sheen, whom McCarrick came to know after Sheen’s 1969 retirement from the Diocese of Syracuse.
Years after McCarrick’s encounter with the KGB agent and the FBI request for assistance, McCarrick would refer to the FBI anonymous letters which alleged he was engaging in sexual misconduct. He denied these accusations, though his victims who later came forward have indicated he was sexually abusing boys and young men as early as 1970, as a priest of the New York archdiocese.
The McCarrick Report indicates that McCarrick would emphatically deny the allegations, while seeking law enforcement help to respond to them.
In 1992 and 1993 an unknown author or authors circulated anonymous letters to leading Catholic bishops accusing McCarrick of sexual abuse. The letters did not name specific victims or present any knowledge of a specific incident, though they suggested his “nephews”–young men McCarrick frequently singled out for special treatment–were potential victims, the McCarrick Report states.
An anonymous letter sent to Cardinal O’Connor, dated Nov. 1, 1992, postmarked from Newark and addressed to National Conference of Catholic Bishops members, claimed imminent scandal from McCarrick’s misconduct, which it alleged was “common knowledge in clerical and religious circles for years.” The letter claimed that civil charges of “pedophilia or incest” were imminent regarding McCarrick’s “overnight guests.”
After O’Connor sent the letter to McCarrick, McCarrick indicated he was investigating.
“You might want to know that I have shared (the letter) with some of our friends in the FBI to see if we can find out who is writing it,” McCarrick said to O’Connor in a Nov. 21, 1992 response. “I am afraid he is a sick person and someone who has a lot of hate in his heart.”
A Newark-postmarked anonymous letter, dated Feb. 24, 1993 and sent to O’Connor, accused McCarrick of being a “cunning pedophile,” without naming specifics, and also claiming that this had been known for decades by “authorities here and in Rome.”
In a March 15, 1993 letter to O’Connor, McCarrick again cited his consultations with law enforcement.
“When the first letter arrived, after discussion with my vicars general and auxiliary bishops, we shared it with our friends in the FBI and local police,” McCarrick said. “They predicted that the writer would strike again and that he or she was someone whom I may have offended or crossed in some way but someone probably known to us. The second letter clearly supports that supposition.”
The same day, McCarrick wrote to Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, saying anonymous letters were “attacking my reputation.”
“These letters, which presumably are written by the same person, are unsigned and obviously very annoying,” he said. “On each occasion, I have shared them with my auxiliary bishops and vicars general and with our friends in the FBI and the local police.”
The McCarrick Report said that the anonymous letters “appear to have been viewed as libelous attacks made for improper political or personal motives” and did not result in any investigation.
When Pope John Paul II was considering whether to name McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, Cacciavillan considered McCarrick’s report about the accusations to be a point in McCarrick’s favor. He specifically cited the Nov. 21, 1992 letter to O’Connor.
By 1999, Cardinal O’Connor had come to believe McCarrick might be guilty of some kind of misconduct. He asked Pope John Paul II not to name McCarrick as O’Connor’s successor in New York, citing allegations that McCarrick shared beds with seminarians, among other rumors and allegations.
The report depicts McCarrick as an ambitious workaholic and a cunning personality, at ease in circles of influence and establishing contacts with political and religious leaders. He spoke several languages and would serve on delegations for the Vatican, the U.S. State Department, and NGOs. He would at times accompany Pope John Paul II during his travels.
The new Vatican report indicates McCarrick’s networking included many law enforcement officials.
“During his time as ordinary of the Archdiocese of Newark, McCarrick made numerous contacts in state and federal law enforcement,” said the Vatican report. Thomas E. Durkin, described as McCarrick’s “well-connected New Jersey attorney,” helped McCarrick meet the leaders of the New Jersey State Troopers and the head of the FBI in New Jersey.
A priest who formerly served as a New Jersey police officer said McCarrick’s relationship “was not atypical since relations between the Archdiocese and Newark police have historically been close and cooperative.” McCarrick himself was “comfortable among law enforcement,” according to the McCarrick report, which said his uncle was a captain in his police department and later headed a police academy.
As for McCarrick’s encounter with a KGB agent undercover at the United Nations, the story is just one of many provocative incidents involving the influential churchman.
Monsignor Dominic Bottino, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, described an incident at a catering hall in Newark in January 1990 in which McCarrick appeared to ask his help in obtaining privileged information about bishops’ appointments in the U.S.
Camden’s then-new Bishop James T. McHugh, then-Auxiliary Bishop John Mortimer Smith of Newark, McCarrick, and a young priest whose name Bottino could not recall attended a small dinner in celebration of McCarrick’s consecration of Smith and McHugh as bishops. Bottino was surprised to learn that he had been selected to become an attache at the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations.
McCarrick, who appeared to have become inebriated from drinking, told Bottino that the Holy See’s Permanent Observer mission’s diplomatic pouch regularly contained episcopal appointments for U.S. dioceses.
“Placing his hand on Bottino’s arm, McCarrick asked whether he could ‘count on’ Bottino once he became the attaché to provide him with information from the pouch,” the Vatican report said. “After Bottino stated that it would seem that the material in the pouch needed to remain confidential, McCarrick patted his arm and replied, ‘You’re good. But I think I can count on you’.”
Not long after this exchange, Bottino said, he witnessed McCarrick grope the crotch area of the young priest sitting next to him at the dinner table. The young priest appeared “paralyzed” and “terrified.” McHugh then abruptly stood up “in a sort of panic” and said he and Bottino had to leave, perhaps only 20 minutes after their arrival
There is no evidence that Smith or McHugh reported the incident to any Holy See official, including the apostolic nuncio.
[…]
The whole aspect of censors needs to be looked at especially the automatic enactment of excommunication! What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference? What about clergy who are terrified this has happened to them. WHAT ABOUT MERCY? Does discussion about the ssm blessing warrant a similar attack?
For the record, he was wrong about what he said but there should have been a formal warning and if that isn’t hedded then excommunication be enacted. Personally, I feel automatic censors should be scrapped or limited with formal warnings.
“According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
This was not a problem of the bishop not understanding the priest. The priest had moved out to join up with other sedevacantists and left the keys to the Church with a laywoman for the bishop to find. This wasn’t a priest who just let his mouth get the better of him.
Automatic excommunication doesn’t incur a punishment until the local ordinary imposes it. Given the number of heterodox priests we have, there’s probably a shortage of such impositions.
Thanks Amanda for the clarification! I can see that in the light of what you have said, the bishop did reach out only to get rejected! Prayers for all concerned,
Great additional information, Amanda. This needs to be in the original CWR article, because I can see a lot of people getting mislead and getting riled up perhaps unnecessarily.
Thank you, Amanda.
Not an accident or joke. And, about “automatic censors” or censures (?), the article reports that a formal warning was in fact given: “According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
Given a presumably honest bind of conscience, rather than silently discerning or even waiting in silence, the pastor then crossed the line by going very public, and to a captive audience within the Church. He knew the consequences. Yes?
The cleverer case is Bishop Batzing & Co. who couch their dissent as still always wanting to be “Catholic but in a different way.” This, for example, after the Magisterium (with foresight!) has spoken clearly about natural law and about moral absolutes. Three extracts from Veritatis Splendor (1993):
“The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT DUE TO THE INSISTENT DEMANDS OF THE PERSONAL DIGNITY OF EVERY MAN [italics], demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit WITHOUT EXCEPTION [caps added] actions which are intrinsically evil” (n. 90).
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment…” (n. 115).
And, ““The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
What a blessed mess!
Excommunicated by Bergoglio? Two possibilities:
1) Bergoglio is note the pope. If so excommunication is note valid.
2) Francisco is the Pope. If so Bergoglio has declared that you don’t need to be catholic to be saved.
One way or amother, no problema.
This might get sticky but it would be interesting to know what the basis was for this priest’s conclusion.
This is the other kind of scandal committed via Fiducia Supplicans. On the one hand are all the people who read it and decide that sodomy is OK now and gay marriages are around the corner. On the other hand are all the people who read it, are horrified, and flee the Church. Both totally predictable from reading the text with half an ounce of common sense.
I wonder what might happen to a member of the laity who said the same thing?
Juxtapose this against the evil misdeeds of Rev. Rupnick (former S.J) who coerced nuns under his influence to have sex with him and then forgave the penitent nun of her fornication with him in the Sacrament of Penance. What were his consequences? Oh, he became assigned to a bishop in Slovenia when he was kicked out of the Jesuits but reportedly is still working in Rome as a priest and producing “Church art.” But….let anyone say anything about dear old Bergoglio and he or she gets excomnunicated from the Church. George Bergoglio is laughable.
I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: Two wrongs don’t make a right?
I wasn’t excusing either one from culpability. I was simply comparing the consequences of each act. But, since you raised the issue, I’d have to say that Rupnick’s behavior was more egresiously offensive. If you don’t agree, I’d suggest you ask the nun(s) he violated.
Deacon Edward: Both actions are wrong for different reasons. You know that. Please don’t use silly rhetoric.
Andrew, once again I state that I am addressing myself to the CONSEQUENCES of the acts.
Keep making comments like you did and you will find out about being a layperson. If you’re going to call out the Holy Father by his given name (and it’s Jorge, by the way, not George), then you are basically saying he is not the Pope of Rome. If you are a Latin Rite deacon, I suggest you drop the title the next time you post. You give clergy a bad name.
Mr. Moon, that is your opinion. And, for your information, I wholeheartedly agree that Bergoglio is the Pope (and legitimately so). So don’t try to bait me. I just happen to think he’s a lousy Pope.
“What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference?” INTENT. If he aknowledges it was a JOKE then the offense is not an actual offense. A priest is in service to the Church and the Church is led by the Pope. You can’t attack the ceo.
The head of the Church is Christ, and nearly everyone in the Church attacks Him on a regular basis without getting kicked out. Jesus is meek and humble of heart.
The early Church Fathers tended to recognize sins, even mortal sins, as not removing you from the Church. But they also recognized heresy and schism as separating you from the Church. Rejecting the Faith by heresy or rejecting the Church by schism makes you no longer Catholic (although obviously this is solved by Confession, not by re-baptism).
Amanda: Sorry to say, but the early Church booted laity and clergy for all sorts of things. Things that today would be considered very small (for example, critiquing a secular ruler could get one excommunicated – Canon 84). Check out the Apostolic Canons from the 3rd century as a very early example of the many rules that could get one deposed and/or excommunicated.
Canon 55 might apply to the above article: If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for you shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.
I’m aware. I was speaking of the sins that the Fathers would consider to put you outside the Church, regardless of whether explicit excommunication followed. A heretic or schismatic is de facto not Catholic, regardless of whether a bishop has declared them excommunicate.
The disciplinary canons of 3rd century councils do not apply in the present day.
I know they don’t apply today. I was commenting on your assertion that the early Church Father’s were more lenient. They weren’t. A whole bunch of things could get you excommunicated or deposed and the penances to get back were long.
I wouldn’t say they were more lenient in terms of dishing out punishment, no. And St. Paul had a man shunned for sleeping with his father’s wife, which makes one wonder what he would do with the likes of Rupnik or McCarrick.
But the Fathers seem to have been pretty settled that, even entirely absent any actual punishment, heresy and schism put you outside the Church. Excommunication was a punishment by removal of the spiritual benefits of Catholicism, treated as a tax collector or sinner. Mortal sin meant you were spiritually dead. Heresy or schism meant you weren’t Catholic, not even a bad Catholic or a severely punished Catholic or a spiritually dead Catholic.
To not speak evil of an evil man who aids and abets crimes against humanity like Francis, is to be a coward of a man. As a material heretic, I submit he has forfeited the papacy. If this excommunicates me, so be it. At my final accounting, I will not be standing before Francis or Fernandez.
Many thanks, dear Edward J Baker. A sizeable proportion of informed, faithful Catholics are with you. Like Fr Ramon Guidetti, our focus is on Jesus, Mary, & Joseph & the mighty assembly of faithful saints & martyrs. It is they who will judge those who have been faithful to The Word of God.
Maybe some resourceful Catholics will initiate a holy order (with scapulae?) – perhaps called NEUA (‘non e un accessorio’) to distance ourselves, like Fr Ramon wanted to, from the errors of the current leaders.
‘NEUA’ might solve the conundrum of how faithful, ordinary Catholics, both clergy & lay, can spiritually distance themselves from the heinous errors currently emanating from Rome.
“We are fully authentically Catholic; but not accessories of bad leaders!”
Ever trying my best to love & follow The Lamb; blessings from marty
Well, at least he did not claim Pope Francis is a lizard person.
Terrible occurrence. Citing canon 751 it seems an excommunication a jure, by the law rather than an ab hominem sentence. Hope it can be resolved. Apparently the timing is related to the issuance of Fiducia supplicans.
Criticism of a Roman Pontiff from the pulpit should not reach the level of repudiating his papacy. Whether some believe Francis is not, the fact is he’s acclaimed by the Church as pontiff. Both Benedict and John Paul would agree with that assessment whether there was a question of an unlawful election. No one has presented indisputable evidence. Even if there were now found it would be a moot issue. Criticism couched in the form of brotherly correction is permissible.
Fr Thomas Weinandy’s OFM Cap letter of correction to Pope Francis was quite harsh and accusatory although it was in the form of an appeal. Clergy are more strictly bound than laity, although no one’s immune.
“Clergy are more strictly bound than laity,”
And this member of the laity wants to know why Theodore McCarrick was never excommunicated.
Canon law and justice is one thing, just application is another. We’ve seen that unjust pattern since 2013.
Many thanks, dear Fr Peter, for your loving of Truth above powerful men.
One now winces every time PF, in bright white robes, mouths Gospel truths that his actions prove he actually despises.
Matthew 23:27-28 – “Alas for you, scribes & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You who are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside . . . you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy & lawlessness.”
Yet, let’s believe the malodors in Rome, by God’s overcoming Grace, will activate millions of normally dormant Catholics to decide to show what it really means to be a sincere lover of & follower of King Jesus Christ.
Ever seeking to love & obey Jesus, our LORD; blessings from marty
The same ‘bully boy’ excommunication tactic was used by Australian Catholic hierarchs against another truth teller – now known as Saint Mary of the Cross Mackillop, who is our ONLY Aussie Saint and, by the grace of Jesus Christ, a mighty intercessor!
Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop, please pray for Father Ramon Guidetti.
Deacon Peitler – I think you would win more support for your views if you ceased your disrespectful naming of Pope Francis.
Just sayin’.
It seems like a concern of yours but I do not live my life motivated by the approval of people I do not even know. I don’t look for “upvotes” in life; I look to say what I believe to be true. I tend to give respect to those who I perceive to live with integrity.
If this priest actually believes these things then he is clearly not in communion with the Universal Pastor of the Church and as such no longer in communion with the Church that the Pope leads. It’s kind of a no brainer that he is automatically excommunicated.
Thank you Andrew, you’re spot-on. Even though Francis is pretty liberal, he’s still our Pope. That fact must be recognized by all bishops and priests who have taken their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as servants of the One True Church.
Tbe German Bishops, along with Fr James Martin, can crawl back into their pathetic hole of heresy, but so can Fr Altman and Fr Ramon Guidetti for that matter.
With the exception that Fr. Martin and those like him will not be excommunicated, eh?
How easy is that dear Andrew . . !
YET: if Fr Ramon Guidetti is a faithful Catholic in every way yet is honestly convinced that the current incumbent of The Chair of Peter is in many ways not a faithful Catholic, and, like so many of us is deeply scandalized by non-Catholic teachings by him & his clique, the good priest is just, before Christ, to question the legitimacy of the papacy of Jeorge Bergoglio.
If, historically, Jeorge proves to have been the prophesied ‘Man of Sin’ – he is by far the best candidate ever – those who supported his papacy & those who excommunicate truth-teller faithful will look pretty silly! Don’t you think?
Ever following King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
If those who are honestly convinced that the Pope isn’t the Pope are to receive sympathy, than I don’t think there’s room to laugh at those who honestly think he is, albeit a bad one, even in a hypothetical future where they are proved wrong.
Thanks, dear Amanda. But no one is laughing at the current debacle.
This article & all our comments hinge on what is meant by ‘a bad pope’. ‘Bad’ covers possibilities ranging from merely tardy to maliciously malfeasant to a Christ-defying demon counterfeiting as an angel of light.
The majority of good Catholics simply can’t believe that the processes of our lovely Church could allow someone really bad to get into leadership. To protect our sanity, too many of us aimlessly repeat: “The pope is the pope!”
Is their hope? YES! Let all the faithful thank God that our obedience to Christ is the rock that cannot be shaken (Matthew 7:24).
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
yet financial and sexual sins merit what?
the Church has bigger problems than what this priest said/proclaimed
Bishop Simone Giusti informed his diocese that Catholics are not to attend any Masses offered by the excommunicated priest or they would also “incur the very serious penalty of excommunication.”
Where in canon law does it hold that the laity would suffer such a penalty under those circumstances?
It doesn’t, unless you take attendance at such a Mass as clear and sufficient evidence of schism rather than, say, misplaced loyalty to one’s priest or anger at the Pope whom you agree is the Pope. Makes you wonder what he’d do with someone regularly attending Protestant services…
I’m pretty sure he’d have to declare those excommunications. You can’t be automatically excommunicated outside of what is specified in canon law, and while schism is specified, attending a non-Catholic Mass, or not attending a Catholic Mass, isn’t.
Fr. James Altman’s bishop has been extraordinary patient and charitable considering the priest’s prolonged behavior compared to this Italian priest’s one homily. Perhaps there is a lot more that we don’t know about. May God bless them all.
So he now has an “irregular” relationship with the Church? Just give him an impromptu blessing a la Fiducia Supplicans and everything is back to a-OK, eh, Tucho?
Bullseye! When you think about it, the Church is inundated with irregular relationships of all sorts. For instance, anyone who associates with and supports Joe Biden is in a very irregular relationship and would deserve a blessing from his parish priest.
(A) Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, with the exception of a few hot-tempered clergy, like Guidetti, all priests, bishops, cardinals, and religious superiors are afraid of Francis—including the Bishop Giusti. You can diddle boys or girls, and Francis will look the other way, but call out Francis, and it is off with your head, and they’ll label you schismatic. (B) That being said, I disagree with Guidetti on one point: I think Francis is pope. (C) But it’s hard to disagree with Guidetti on his other complaints: that Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.
Well put, dear Richard Cross: “Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.”
Only, Catholics au fait with The New Testament & The Catechism of the Catholic Church consider Francis’ usurping of our traditions to include flagrant anti-Apostolic disobedience to the clear instructions of our LORD Jesus Christ. Hence, the conclusion that he is not qualified to run a Sunday School class let alone Christ’s Church.
Ever striving to hear & follow The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
Deacon Peitler again – I agree that popularity and support for our viewpoints are not, in themselves, worthy motives. But respect and charity toward others (even when we think they deserve them) are.
Again, there is no disrespect or lack of charity in his responses. That is a false accusation. In supporting Francis, you are defending the indefensible.
Correction – even when we think they don’t deserve them.
He said Francis is not the Pope and meant it. Thus he is refusing submission and communion with the Chair of Peter.
He got what he deserved. Granted it is fair to complain Fr. Martin should get what he deserves too but that is neither here nor there.
But one still must ask whether Francis is in communion with his predecessors and the constant teachings that they’ve upheld. He is indeed the Pope, he simply doesn’t conduct himself as one.
Dear ‘Jim the Scott’: “He got what he deserved.”
What he deserved was an open & charitable mind on the part of his superiors – in the same spirit as synodality! Fr Ramon deserved to be listened to and to have his major objections addressed in detail by PF, as Jesus Christ himself has taught us.
Fr Ramon, with millions of other faithful Catholics, is deeply troubled by PF’s betrayal of our beloved Chinese Catholic brothers & sisters, by his erecting pagan idols in Rome, by his laxity in prosecuting clergy who have sexually abused children & vulnerable adults, by his unwillingness to speak clearly about events in Ukraine and Palestine, by his giving Holy Communion to public advocates of infanticide, by his fraternizing with producers of pornography, by his malice towards those who see matters differently to him, by his manipulation of the college of cardinals & the curial offices in Rome, by his promoting of friends to positions far above their talent or experience, by his obstinate & subtle advocacy for homosexuality & adultery, by his swinging incompetence in so many areas, AND by the evidence-based suspicion that his election to the papacy was engineered in ways that should, in all justice, automatically bar him from that office. And there’s a lot more!
As the leader of our enormous Church, PF should have set an example in transparency and accountability not in lashing out at those who are legitimately making their complaints known. His is an atrocious example. May there never be such a pope again.
This was likely not a wise move by this priest. On the other hand I was not aware that commenting about the legitimacy of a pope was an offense for which a priest could be excommunicated.
Imagine being a priest who was ordained promising blind obedience to their church superiors. Then imagine you see a pope going off the rails on a consistent basis saying and doing things in direct contradiction of everything you have been taught or known about church theology and law. Where, as a priest, does that leave you?? How do you square your vow to obey upper churchmen with unknown intent, and what your own conscience tells you is wrong?? Maybe you do what this priest did and express yourself to the sheep YOU are responsible for shepherding. Perhaps not a smart tactical move but one which you feel morally obligated to express.
Let us all pray the next pope is more orthodox, has a better grasp of Catholic theology, and ALSO has thicker skin. What would Jesus do? Probably NOT excommunicate a priest who is making his distress at the direction of the church publicly known.
Good points, and He knew Judas was an actual betrayer, not just a talker and yet he was allowed at the last Supper, right?
Judas was allowed at the Last Supper, and given Holy Communion, because his sin was not manifest. Only Jesus knew.
Even present canon law requires that a person in mortal sin be given Holy Communion even if the priest is aware of it – if the sin is not manifest or public. Canon law requires that the person be denied if it is manifest. You’ll notice Jesus didn’t invite the Sanhedrin to the Last Supper.
No priest promises blind obedience to his superior. Even religious, who take actual vows of obedience, do not agree to blind obedience. All obedience to a superior is ordered toward obedience to Christ, and where the superior orders things contrary to Christ, you obey Christ. That doesn’t mean your superior is automatically deposed or must have been invalidly elected, or that you are henceforth relieved of obedience.
The Pope going off the rails doesn’t mean he isn’t Pope. The office would be useless if we had to be forever ascertaining whether a Pope was validly elected based on whether his behavior was atrocious, or whether his non-infallible statements were clear, cogent, and orthodox.
I don’t know of any way in which this priest was being ordered to do something contrary to his conscience, unless you count acknowledging Francis as Pope while offering Mass. He wasn’t excommunicated for giving an explainer on FS that rejected it, or for refusing to bless a same-sex couple.
I have a lot of sympathy for this priest being scandalized by the Pope and the cardinals, but he was wrong, schismatic, and scandalous. And now no Pope or bishop, no matter how gentle and generous, can lift his excommunication without his repentance.
Dear Amanda, well-argued but divorced from two realities.
First, that many lower order clerics live in terror of hierarchs who can abolish their Church positions & reduce them to impoverished, homeless, unskilled has-beens. Only very courageous persons (such as Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop) can exercise the freedom to dissent that you say is theirs.
Second: Fr Ramon Guidetti was making public his refusal to be an ACCOMPLICE of the grievous offences of PF & entourage against Christ Jesus, His Blessed Mother Mary, and numerous faithful saints & martyrs (i.e. THE CHURCH sensu strictum). His ‘excommunication’ is unarguably null & voided by those circumstances (even on your own criteria).
Incidentally, when excommunicated & thrown out on the street by the Catholic hierarchy, Saint Mary Mackillop and her wonderful Catholic nuns were cared for by Jewish and by Presbyterian Australians.
Plenty for us Catholics to think about, if we truly face the injustices of these situations.
Always striving to hear & follow Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
They do indeed promise total obedience. I will assume the proper response at their ordination to the question of their obedience is “YES”.Yes is not a conditional response. Men being ordained do not respond that they will obey, “In so far as conscience allows me”. They say yes. Period.
If you follow the Catholic press at all you must be aware that Francis has given any number of statements which have been of major concern to the Catholic public. It is exactly because he has wandered far from Catholic orthodoxy that many catholics view the pope with concern.. The recent firing of conservative catholic clerics and his recent paper giving an “OK” to blessing those in gay relationships are but two among MANY reasons why this Pope has lost credibility.
Well put, dear ‘LJ”.
At ordination, I heard 2 new priests questioned by our Archbishop: “Will you respect & obey me and my successors?” I couldn’t hear their replies. Was praying that they would say: “I will respect & obey you, dear Archbishop, in accord with the instructions of our King Jesus Christ in The New Testament and in accord with the wisdom of our Catholic Saints & Elders in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Commenters are losing focus. Those who question this Pope’s legitimacy do not do so based on their view of his performance. I believe it harkens back to the resignation of Pope Benedict–the messiness and lack of clarity behind it. The fact that the papal approach and Vatican leadership took a major left turn with Pope Francis feeds the fuel for those who question whether Pope Benedict was pushed out.
Mom of 3,
I think there’s been a lot of unanswered questions ever since Pope Benedict resigned and conspiracy theories often have a grain of truth behind them. It’s the conflation of that which becomes a problem and a tool to cause division.
The Body of Christ needs to stick together and we should be faithful and vigilant, watching for any attempt to break us apart.
Mr. Ramon Guidetti is correct, so far as his words are concerned. But he is an advocate of Benevacantism. I know that Benevacantism is incorrect.
What is most important to any Catholic is making sure that he is following the pope, and not an antipope. It is a fact that at one point there were three people claiming to be the pope.