
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.
[…]
Perhaps Trump should send Pope Leo the remaining piles of steel wall so he can shore up our previous pontiff’s heavy fines, incarceration penalties for any interloper migrants who violate Vatican privacy.
Apparently Ukraine should also follow Leo’s advice and tear down its security barriers to keep out those otherwise friendly Russian troops.
I was thinking we should invite the Pope to LA to quell the violence there.
At least he’s trying to return the Church to normalcy even if he’s an open border quack. I say quack because it’s proved entirely destructive everywhere.
Otherwise his contradiction of Pope Francis on marriage, who called it an ideal, Pope Leo says it’s not. Furthermore, the Vatican news media has removed Rupnik’s artwork and replaced it with beautiful mediaeval for today’s votive Mass Mary Mother of the Church. Amy Welborn posted it on X.
Masterfully said Father. At the least, it saved me from posting less articulate expressions of my growing discontent with the “give him time” voices.
Holy ghost fire
Our beautiful faces are aglow with the Holy Spirit. Happy feast of the Pentecost.
At any rate, the United States has many other internal and exterior problems it needs to face before blowing its brains out trying to exclude 10 million “illegal” Catholics. This is, at least, one own-goal that won’t happen, though the whole team might break up trying to mark it.
It’s funny how leftists play language games.
Enter Mexico without authorization, see how that goes for you.
Try posting without being trite and insipid.
It’s doubtful you’d know a leftist from a tortilla. Mass illegal immigration of US citizens permitted the violent occupation of Texas, California etc. In 1848. It’s unamerican to cry about border hopping now.
Some people are still fighting the War Between the States, some are still fighting the Mexican American War…
🙂
Mexico has it’s own laws re. residency & immigration which they enforce. Mutual respect for borders is what’s needed today & taking away the power of the human smuggling cartels that cause so much violence & bloodshed in Mexico.
I’m guessing from your spelling that you do not live in the US & perhaps are unfamiliar with the real situation at our border. It takes two sides to make a smuggling operation successful. We play our part & the cartels play there’s.
I agree about borders in general. The US border is a bit special though because of the history and because it’s the only Westwrn border that’s been crossed by a mass migration that is Westwrn, Christian, in the best sense -and not by Muslims and pagans. In Europe, open borders means the end of Europe. In the US it means historical continuity for half of it, and more young people of Christian culture. As for those who cross illegally, remember that this is a misdemeanour by US law, and hardly comparable to murder or drug trafficking. It does take two sides for people smuggling to happen.The side you forgot to mention is the huge, half century long demand of US businesses for labour at any price. It seems highly unjust to kick out then million Catholics who’ve been working so well for decades. I think it’s dangerous that Trump’s provocations will now expose so many many young Hispanics to the hard care Left. They will learn just how to confront the state. Trump started this, as all will remember. Nobody will thank him from rhe WASP side in 12 months, probably.
I mentioned the part the US plays in the border smuggling operations, Mr. Cervantes. We receive the human smuggling and contraband and launder the profits. It’s a two way street. No one’s hands are clean.
I’m very familiar with the US/Mexico border and have family who live there.
Miguel: No, it’s ILLEGAL for certain. Miguel, try entering any country without a passport…just try it once and you’ll quickly learn the meaning of “illegal.”
In engaging with His Holiness Pope Leo XIV’s recent statements, it’s vital to consider the nuances of the language employed, particularly concerning terms that carry significant contemporary resonance. The phrase “open borders” appears to be one such example that, while perhaps intended to convey a spirit of radical Christian charity, can inadvertently obscure the complexity of the issue.
There’s a substantial distinction between the theological imperative for an open heart within individual disciples of Jesus and the geopolitical reality of open borders for a sovereign nation. The former speaks to an interior disposition of boundless compassion and welcome toward all humanity, reflecting the core Christian call to love one’s neighbor. This is a profound spiritual challenge directed at personal transformation and interpersonal relationships.
Conversely, the concept of a nation with truly “open borders” describes a policy framework that could, by its very definition, undermine the fundamental structures and capabilities of a state. Nations, by their nature, possess a responsibility to manage their territorial integrity, civic order, and the well-being of their citizens. This responsibility often necessitates regulated entry and exit.
To foster a more fruitful dialogue, particularly within a secular and politically charged environment, it may be beneficial for papal pronouncements to clarify the distinction between these two concepts. Emphasizing the spiritual ideal of an open heart, while simultaneously acknowledging the practical and prudential considerations of national governance, could lead to a more effective reception of the Church’s message regarding migration and human dignity.
Sure, open borders except for the Pope’s realm: Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/