Vatican City, Nov 10, 2020 / 10:30 am (CNA).- The Vatican’s report on Theodore McCarrick released Tuesday includes a letter written by an American cardinal in 1999, who objected to McCarrick’s potential appointment to higher office, on the basis of existing allegations of misconduct, including incidents involving sharing a bed with seminarians at a New Jersey beach house.
On Oct. 28, 1999, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York wrote a letter to the U.S. apostolic nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, after the cardinal learned that McCarrick was under consideration to be appointed his successor as archbishop of New York. That letter was shared with Pope John Paul II shortly thereafter, the Vatican’s McCarrick Report states.
“With deep regret, I would have to express my own grave fears and those of authoritative witnesses cited above, that should Archbishop McCarrick be given higher responsibility in the United States, particularly if elevated to a Cardinatial See, seem[] sound reasons for believing that rumors and allegations about the past might surface with such an appointment, with the possibility of accompanying grave scandal and widespread adverse publicity,” O’Connor wrote.
He added that “while charity must prevail and the benefit of the doubt always given to the ‘accused,’ the good of souls and the reputation of the Church must be seriously considered and the potential for scandal given equally serious consideration.”
“I can not, therefore, in conscience, recommend His Excellency, Archbishop McCarrick for promotion to higher office, should this be the reason for your inquiry concerning him at this time. On the contrary, I regret that I would have to recommend very strongly against such promotion, particularly if to a Cardinatial See, including New York.”
O’Connor wrote in 1999 that authoritative sources had told him that stories about McCarrick frequently arranging for seminarians to visit a New Jersey beach house circulated in the dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, specifically that “the arrangement was for seven seminarians, six of whom shared the guestrooms and one of whom shared the bed with the Archbishop.”
He said that a key authority had informed him that he believed “that some problem did occur involving at least one person, perhaps a priest, and that Bishop Hughes handled that personally and secretly.”
O’Connor said that he had personally asked a priest psychologist of New York archdiocese to speak with the psychiatrist who was treating a priest involved.
“Both the priest psychologist and the psychiatrist seem convinced that the priests or priests (sic) in treatment were victimized, willingly or unwillingly, in their inappropriate relationship with the then Bishop McCarrick, while Bishop of Metuchen,” O’Connor wrote in the letter. He added that he did not find these findings “definitely persuasive,” but could not dismiss their findings “because of the gravity of the allegations.”
O’Connor also raised concerns about McCarrick’s “seemingly incessant need to travel outside of the archdiocese to different parts of the world,” saying that he questioned whether there could be “any relationship between this seeming need to travel outside the archdiocese and his apparently having put his former alleged inclinations behind him.”
Cardinal O’Connor led the Archdiocese of New York from 1984 until his death on May 3, 2000. He was a major figure of American Catholicism and an outspoken defender of the faith and Catholic moral teaching.
The report notes that O’Connor conducted “the first known inquiry related to concerns over McCarrick’s conduct.” In the early 1990s, O’Connor investigated anonymous complaints against McCarrick ahead of a potential papal visit to Newark. He concluded that allegations of possible misconduct with adults would not present an issue if the pope were to visit Newark.
In 1997, McCarrick was being considered to lead the Archdiocese of Chicago. While he was generally praised as a strong candidate, O’Connor questioned whether he would provide the “firmness necessary to ‘compensate’ for the prevailing permissiveness” following the tenure of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the report said. However, it added that O’Connor “admitted” that McCarrick could be effective in addressing theological abuses. McCarrick was ultimately not selected for the role.
The 1999 letter from O’Connor is included in the 449-page McCarrick Report on pages 131-140. The report indicates that “it is reasonable to infer” that Bishop James T. McHugh, the former auxiliary bishop of Newark, and Bishop Edward T. Hughes, the bishop emeritus of Metuchen, were O’Connor’s sources of information regarding these allegations.
O’Connor wrote that John Paul II had made clear to him in a meeting early in the summer of 1999 that he was considering appointing McCarrick to another diocese, potentially as O’Connor’s successor in New York.
After this, O’Connor expressed concern to the nuncio Montalvo in late July, saying that he was aware of “some elements of a moral nature that advised against” McCarrick’s consideration. Montalvo requested that O’Connor put his concerns in writing.
O’Connor’s letter is dated Oct. 28, only weeks after the cardinal’s release from hospital following surgery to remove a brain tumor. O’Connor died from this tumor the following May.
In the letter, O’Connor wrote that he was concerned by events related to him by “absolutely impeccable authorities as occurring in the Archdiocese of Newark during this past year.”
Among these is that “after Archbishop McCarrick was appointed as Ordinary, it was said that he would frequently invite male visitors for dinner and to stay overnight. Usually they shared a bed, although there were sufficient guestrooms … This did not become known outside the house, but it was a cause of concern for those who live there.”
Cardinal O’Connor also recommended to the nuncio several people that he could follow up with for further information regarding McCarrick, including Bishop McHugh and the attorney of the Archdiocese of Newark, Thomas Durkin, noting that the lawyer had “spoken with him [McCarrick] very forthrightly about rumors and allegations cited above.”
Upon receiving the letter, Montalvo forwarded it to the Congregation for Bishops and to the Secretariat of State. Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, at that time the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, informed Pope John Paul II of Cardinal O’Connor’s letter, according to the report.
Montalvo left it to Re to “inform the Holy Father as to the matter in the manner you deem appropriate,” according to a handwritten note sent to Re.
O’Connor’s letter was sent the day after a letter sent by Nuncio Montalvo to the Congregation for Bishops describing Washington Cardinal James Aloysius Hickey’s endorsement of McCarrick as his first choice for the New York see, and acknowledging concern from Cardinal Bernard Francis Law that “vague allusions are enough to damage the position of a person.”
At the request of John Paul II, in response to the allegations recorded in O’Connor’s letter, separate but “substantively identical letters” were sent to Bishops Vincent Breen and Edward Hughes of Metuchen, Bishop James McHugh of Rockville Centre, and Bishop John Smith of Trenton on May 12, 2000, asking for the truth about McCarrick.
“Three of the four American bishops provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the Holy See regarding McCarrick’s sexual conduct with young adults,” the report concluded.
The bishops presenting false information were Hughes, Smith, and McHugh.
The letter of Bishop Hughes, who succeeded McCarrick in Metuchen, told the Holy See that: “I have no factual information that would clearly indicate any moral weakness on the part of Archbishop McCarrick.”
Hughes’ letter dismissed the accounts of some priests who had reported to him being molested or abused by McCarrick, even when, in one case, a psychologist affirmed that the priest had been McCarrick’s victim. Hughes noted moral lapses on the part of the priests accusing McCarrick, while dismissing their claims against the archbishop.
In fact, the bishop’s letter did not mention at all some incidents of sexual abuse or coercion that had been reported to him by Metuchen priests, according to the report.
While in O’Connor’s letter written months before, O’Connor wrote that Hughes, then bishop of Metuchen, had handled the problem by the New Jersey beach house “personally and secretly.”
O’Connor added: “I, myself, recall talking with Bishop Hughes by telephone very privately, regarding this same case, which did in fact involve at least one priest, and perhaps two. As I recall, both where (sic) in psychiatric treatment.”
Smith, who had been an auxiliary bishop in Newark, told the nuncio that “I have never heard anyone make a substantiated accusation of immoral behavior against Archbishop McCarrick nor have I any evidence of ‘serious moral weakness shown by Archbishop McCarrick.’”
But according to the report, Smith himself had in 1990 witnessed McCarrick groping the groin of a young cleric during a dinner with several officials from the archdiocese of Newark. Smith’s letter made no mention of that incident.
McHugh, then auxiliary bishop of Newark, was present at the same 1990 dinner and also saw the groping, but he wrote in his letter that he “never witnessed any improper behavior on the part of Archbishop McCarrick.”
The misinformation presented by those bishops was part of what may have informed Pope John Paul II’s decision to appoint McCarrick archbishop of Washington in November 2000, the report said.
[…]
Lord Jesus Christ preserve us for Your clemency.
My loyalty is with Vigano.
“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Corinthians 1:11-13
Paul wasn’t crucified, he was beheaded since he was a Roman Citizen.
Correct! And it is said that St. Paul ‘s head bounced three times on the ground before stopping. Nonetheless, there is never an excuse for schism.
Dear GF – that was a totally different situation.
Really?
Then maybe you and he should start your own church, like Luther.
As long as Francis is allowed by true Catholics, clergy and laity, to exercise the OFFICE of Pope, something he has clearly rejected by his words and actions, he will continue to make use of that Office to the detriment of the Church. As he has surrounded himself with modernists like himself, there is little hope that the present Vatican will do the right thing and remove him. That means that the Church Herself, outside of Her present “government” must do what is necessary. All through history, it has been the priests, good bishops and faithful laity that has served to keep The Church holy and in keeping with Christ’s commands.
You are SO right, dear Valerie.
As Jesus taught us, the littlest ones are greatest in His eyes.
“For those who defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.” Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Totally depends on how we define ‘rebellion’.
The fuse has been lit. At the very least, ecclesiastical history will now forever record that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been publicly charged in detail with heresy and apostasy by one of the most eminent prelates in the Vatican Curia.
Yeah, I think if anyone is to be on trial for schism, it isn’t AB Vigano.
FSSPX News website had said, unlike Archbishop Viganò, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the legitimacy of the Church. Although the following position published by Lefebvre 1974 is similar to what Archbishop Viganò has said:
“We adhere
with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and the traditions necessary to maintain it, and to Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and the new Protestant trend which was clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council in all the reforms which flowed from it” (Declaration Archbishop Lefebvre 1974).
Compare that with:
“I have no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity. I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void” (Statement Archbishop Viganò 2024).
Difference may be seen in Viganò’s direct refutation of Pope Francis from Lefebvre’s indirect reference to Pope Paul VI as part of the Modernist Church. What they have in common is the allegation of a faithful Church to which they claim allegiance and a false Church which they repudiate. This identifies a problematic dynamic within the Church, the distancing of one, Left or Right from the other among its members, the Right frequently questioning the legitimacy of the pope. It would be beneficial for those who disagree with specious policies, non binding doctrines like Fiducia Supplicans to resist the errors but refrain from accusations of the illegitimacy of this pontificate.
Otherwise from a justice standpoint, it could be added in defense of Archbishop Viganò, that as an insider, is his access to first hand information that we don’t possess. For example in the recent defense of Pope Francis, “Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick”, that report argued the Pontiff’s lack of knowledge of the McCarrick dossier, that report also confirmed several personal meetings [prior to the Archbishop’s allegation that Francis lied when he claimed no knowledge of the dossier] between Francis and Viganò of which Pope Francis says he remembers the meetings but nothing about the content.
Furthermore, there was the silence, a refusal to respond to the allegation that he lied in having no knowledge – but responded only when an accusation was made public of a prosecution case on Viganò’s family financial matters – the Pope remarking, “See! See!, That’s why I kept silent”. Anyone with intelligence can see through that response.
From Viganò’s conscientious perspective considering what he may have gleaned from personal contact he may possess what he honestly believes substantiates his accusations. We, lacking that presumed knowledge cannot place ourselves in his position nor can we say he lacks justification. Although it’s prudent to add that he may have had a greater influence in benefit of the Church on the allegations of errors and mismanagement if he followed the examples of Cardinals Raymond Burke and Joseph Zen.
Excellent points, Fr. Morello.
I think I remember reading an argument that Pope Francis is both the head of the true Church and a valid Pope, and also the leader of the false church. I can see that theory fitting what Archbishop Vigano has said, but he does not clearly state it.
As beloved Jesus Christ instructs us: “No one can serve two masters!”
Excellent comment.
Archbishop Vigano’s move ties the Church into proving one or more of the following, right at this time, or, as from this time:
1. heresy
2, apostasy
3. schismatic leadership
4. non-election
5. non-election by non-intent
6. non-election by non-eligibility.
Maybe there is more he has in mind and we can not surmise about it for the present.
It helps understanding to read universi Dominici gregis which are regulations regarding a Conclave and the biography of Godfried Danneels in which he openly states how he and his group violated them
Thus, we suffer illegitimate pronouncements & actions from an illegitimate pope.
Very helpful thank you. I’m bound to accept the election of Bergoglio since I personally do not know of any voiding defect.
In such a case if it should arise, that something arouses suspicion for me about that, still I must reserve judgment on it, or, finality of decision, or disservice of faith or prudence or impartiality or sound reasoning on my part, until it should be substantiated.
Bergoglio’s majority was well in excess of the required two-thirds margin. It suggests that if there were collusion but the number of individual electors involved does not reduce the voted majority below that margin, the election was not compromised. It would, however, then be up to the new Pope to deal correctly with the “now proven” problem, so uncovered. And also be for us to assess if the new Pope is being true resolving the issue in faith, rationality and prudence.
Right now it could possibly be a mere case that Archbishop has over-shot the issues. I would take no glee from it.
God bless.
‘ Benedict issued De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis on 11 June 2007 after two years as pope. In this five-paragraph document, Benedict denied the cardinal electors the options John Paul had allowed them and retained only John Paul’s determination that a change was required after many ballots had failed to produce a result. He restored the two-thirds majority rule. ….. Benedict resigned the papacy on 11 February 2013, effective 28 February. On 22 February he issued his second set of instructions on the papal election process, Normas nonnullas. Following his resignation, cardinals had questioned the rule that they delay starting the conclave until 15 days after the papacy fell vacant. Benedict allowed them to begin earlier “if all the Cardinal electors are present” while keeping their ability to delay the start until 20 days pass “for serious reasons”.He modified the oath of secrecy to be taken by all support personnel, making excommunication the automatic punishment (latae sententiae) for violations of the oath, which had previously been punished at the discretion of the new pope. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election_reforms_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI
During the 4th century, St. Athanasius found himself in a similar position as Archbishop Vigano. Athanasius was almost the lone voice against the Arian heresy held by the overwhelming majority of bishops. Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius who refused to accept the validity of the excommunication, as Vigano likely will do if he is excommunicated.
It was Athanasius against the world, and in the end, the almost lone voice of the excommunicated Athanasius was right.
Is the Church in that same position today?
Excellent reminder of another courageous bishop who spoke truth to power in defense of the Church; history has vindicated St A
No. Vigano is in open opposition to discipline and refuses to even submit himself before his superiors as is his duty. If he is to be excommunicated, he may only be vindicated by the Church, whom he has chosen in this event to cut his last ties with.
Dear ‘EENS’ that’s not the key issue.
In the opinion of many Catholic experts, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is far more obedient to our KING, Jersus Christ than the revisionist PF administration.
Also, the PF administration has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in proper jurisprudence but is openly biased against everyone who offers logical and factual criticisms. They use a loaded dice.
In PF’s Rome, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would not get a fair go.
In fact, his life could be endangered if he ventured into the dragon’s den.
Maybe Archbishop Vigano needs hip surgery. Certainly Rome has soom excellent medical doctors.
Dear Patrick – you must be thinking of how convenient it was for the PF lot when Pope Benedict and then Cardinal Pell (were) exited.
Agreed. St. Athanasius never hid. And Pope Liberius was never free, having an imperial sword on his neck. It cannot be said for sure that he freely acted to do anything.
Archbishop Vigano is paranoid, secluded and deluded. Cardinals Burke, Zen, Müller, et al., have not been disobedient or fomented schism. They are acting like St. Athanasius.
Dear GF, surely that is a very eccentric view of the actual circumstances?
Submission to superiors is never absolute. Any duty to submit is forfeited when superiors are spiritually and morally bankrupt. The faithful owe no duty to submit to a renegade pope.
Great point! When it comes to pope Francis, I’ve been suspicious about him for several years because he’s always given ambiguous answers to many subjects which, in the end, he ended up supporting!
It will be interesting how this works out. Will the Archbishop be excommunicated? Stripped of Episcopal and Priestly powers? Or basically just ignored? We shall see.
Here’s Archbishop Vigano on the verge of being excommunicated.
While Rupnik is free to indiscriminately desecrate the most sacred places and forcibly defile the most vulnerable of holy women.
It’s very clear. Bergoglio is the one who deserves to be booted.
Amen.
Two camps debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote. Bravo. There is hope for the Chruch with men like Vigano.
God bless Archbishop Viganò. He has been in hiding for good reason. If he showed up in Rome, he would probably be poisoned.
These Bishops need to remember they must obey the Pope because he is head of the Roman Catholic Church,
If a Latin Mass means so much to a Bishop, especially in the United States where Religious Practices are free, Let them start their own American Catholic Church, where all Mass are in Latin and they could even make Donald Trump a Bishop like evangelicals (60% of American Catholics support him more than fellow Catholic Joe Biden)
As for me, I’m a Roman Catholic and I stand by Pope Frances.
Pardon my laughter.
A devout and faithful Catholic can smell the rot of CINO-Biden’s hypocritical shell of Catholicism which would kill any baby the mother didn’t want though she enjoyed the conceiving of same.
No, the Latin Mass does not mean much to the American Catholic Bishops, witnessing the decreased numbers they’ve permitted under the rule of Francis.
Lastly, Trump is a married and divorced man. He has never attended seminary, has never received the sacrament of Ordination to Holy Orders, and he is not even a Catholic, so your imagination needs a bit of reigning in.
Francis is not a woman, so perhaps you may reconsider how you spell his name. Just remember this little mnemonic: Francis, egotist, narcissist–his “I” is greater than any other letter.
Brilliant!
As with any debate or disagreement, if certain of your position, recoiling or hiding should not be an option to strengthen your argument. If Viganò is right, he should have the courage to face the Curia, win or lose. This the vow he took.
Dear Henry,
If you’d had the horror experience I’ve had of going into a judicial process, with trust that the truth would prevail and then discovering that all those involved had coluded to use any means whatever to destroy me, you would not be urging Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to submit to PF’s ‘Star Chamber’, pseudo-legal process.
It would be the height of naivette to think justice is of any interest to PF & Co.
Sorry to say this; but still trusting in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Even Jesus walked through the crowd of his townspeople ready to throw him over the cliff. There is a time for every reason. Jesus’ time had not yet come, and Vigano’s may never come.
Staying away from the hands of Francis’ hench-hit-men is a justifiably reasonable and smart move.
May St. Michael the Archangel, through the power of God, protect and defend the good Archbishop if it be God’s will.
I’m not Catholic but this pope is the least Christian pope I’ve ever seen.
If Catholics really & truly knew what was going on behind closed doors of the Vatican, they would be dumbfounded. I understand Archbishop Viganò I find it sad that there are not more couragous bishops like him. I fully stand with Archbishop Viganò.There is much I could say, but I will leave it at that. God bless Carlo Maria Viganò.🙏🏼
Sedevacantism is courageous? Hardly.
If he doesn’t accept the authority of Vatican 2 and also Pope Francis as Pope, why has he been in the Church all these years? And if he doesn’t accept Vatican 2, then what about the Pope’s who came after Vatican 2? Paul 6th, Pope John Paul1st, Pope John Paul 2nd, Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis? Who does Vigano think he is to decide who is a legitimate Pope? And to decide on the authority of Vatican 2? Vigano is guilty of schism!!
Sorry, dear Joseph, that is not the actual situation at all.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote.
“He also said he has “no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity.”
We can know through both Faith and Reason, that by denouncing a schismatic who could not possibly be a Vicar of Christ, because prior to his election to The Papacy, he denied Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Himself Has Entrusted To His Church, Archbishop Vigano maintains communion with The Body Of Christ, which exists “Through Him, With Him, And In Him, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost(Filioque).
To denounce the election of Jorge Bergoglio to The Papacy, is to affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that “it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque). To affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to affirm the Papacy, and thus affirm every validly elected Vicar of Christ, and Magisterial Teaching grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Jorge Bergoglio, unlike every validly elected Pope, rejects The Office Of The MUNUS, grounded in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith That Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Is “Forever”, thus Pope Benedict could not have resigned The Office Of The MUNUS because for a validly elected Pope it remains “Forever”. Even if Pope Benedict was in error when he abdicated The Ministerial Office, who can deny, that by stepping aside, Pope Benedict XVI illuminated the fact that Jorge Bergoglio was not in communion with Christ and The Magisterium Of His Church and could not have possibly hold The MUNUS because he rejected The Deposit Of Faith, and thus Ecclesial Communion, and thus Sacramental Communion. For this is our Sacred Heritage: The Sacred Heritage of all human persons, from the moment of conception, Salvation Is Of The Jews, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
The pope should resign in order to preserve the RC church from to much liberal ideas .
To keep the traditions as they should be and start a new conclave in order to elect
a more traditional pope .
I humbly ask Pope Francis to consider all that he has done and said and resign for the goodness of the whole RC Church .
Praise be God .
I’m saddened that vigano does not support pope Francis ,at this point in time everybody should be on pope Francis side, with the world gone mad he needs all the support he can get 😇
Francis needs all the support he can get. Right. Would that be help covering for sexual predators, help meeting with homosexualist priests, help undermining the traditional Latin mass,and help dismissing conservative prelates? If that’s the case, the less help and support Francis gets, the better.
Archbishop Vigano would have done better to stick with his early and discrediting revelation that the McCarrick phenomenon was not new news in the Vatican…
A BRIDGE TOO FAR, now, to explicitly pronounce that the pope is not a pope, and to seem to reject Vatican II (but what he seems to say latest is only that the apostasy started there, not that the “real” (Benedict’s distinction) Council, by its very nature and Documents, was the definitive cause).
Archbishop Vigano should have posed his accusations as questions, about the Church cohabiting with the One World Order. The rhyming GNOSTICISM of inventing a script and then prohibiting all contrarian views as inadmissible or even “backwardist”.
Then, instead of surrendering the possible high ground to legal proceedings against a schism, the full spectrum within the Church could be asking, where is the real DIALOGUE? Still a remote possibility…and a remotely possible substitute for what is seen by many as a self-gratifying and self-ratifying “Synod-on-Synodality”. Say what??? A “couple” of synods…
In graduate school even at a secular university, TRUTH can still happen. Why am I reminded, here, of a penetrating professor who denounced research papers that engaged in wool-gathering without demonstrable conclusions worthy of readers outside the echo chamber? Papers larded up with self-referential purple prose and very selectively read references—”a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5).
WHEN is a synod a crypto-synod?…Accountable only to itself rather than, say, to the relevant particulars of the Council Documents (e.g., Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 with the Prefatory Note), or to the irreducible Apostolic Succession, or to the Magisterium and the explicitly incorporated Natural Law with its moral absolutes (the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor), or to the real Holy Spirit in union with the Son—“Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8)? Or, instead, in step with the 5,000-word Fiducia Supplicans and even cohabiting with the irregular “couples,” as such?
QUESTION: For the fatally overreaching Archbishop Vigano and the fatally self-ratifying synod-on-synodality, both (!), to what extent might the professor’s meme equally apply: “intellectual masturbation”?
Vigano for Pope! Strickland for Cardinal!