
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.
[…]
So Radcliffe, the promoter of LGBTQ agenda, gets the red hat. Surprised Martin didn’t get one too. While Bergoglio talks an orthodox game about how gender theory is the biggest threat to humanity, his actions show his real convictions … and he is a threat to the unity and truth of the faith. Undoing the damage this man has done will take generations.
With God’s grace, Radcliffe is soon 80 and we need to pray that the pontiff’s health continues to deny that horrible possibility of ascending the See of Peter. The way these things go, Francis will probably have another one before Christmas, so Jimmy Martin is still in! What a horrible prospect!!!
Bergoglio will go down in Church history as a failed papacy.
And he has stacked the college with like minded men.
Reminds me of what happened to our Supreme Court! , human nature? 😂
Worse than that, Catullus.
His will go down in history as a perfidious papacy.
Perhaps the worst, most destructive ever.
The president of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has control over our nuclear arsenal. Only a fellow imbecile would vote for an imbecile as president.
Looks like homosexual advocate Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP managed to slip in. Or was he shoved?
What’s notable about Radcliffe’s appointment is not entirely the next consistory for the papacy. It’s the message it sends.
Apparently Radcliffe is 79.
I heard that also. Some of our Church troubles are generational. Young clergy and religious tend to be more orthodox.
The 1970s will eventually give way to the March of Time.
Radcliff will be 80 on August 22, 2025, so maybe his predictable vote will not be part of the next conclave.
Waiting, here, to learn more from bios on the others, and especially and hopefully wondering what to expect from those who are not coupled geographically with the Western apostasy from natural law…Japan, (a Belgian in) Iran, (a Ukrainian in) Australia, India, Peru, Indonesia, Argentina, Ecuador, Chile, Philippines, Serbia, Brazil, Ivory Coast, Algeria and Lithuania. Otherwise, geographically, Canada, United Kingdom (Radcliff), and three from Italy.
Now this profile from the National Catholic Register about the 21 new cardinals:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-latest-cardinal-picks
The one thing I see in this is the usual promotions of his Southern American buddies whose theological background is well known, the prefect dealing with travel????? And a 44 year old?!? But what is interesting is that there is a country that has more Catholic participation than any country in the western world and has been repeatedly been denied a red hat and it is Uganda! Why? Because it takes its theological and committment to values that is needed now in this world and in the Church! But the Pope is content to give out hats to youngsters of 44 years old and to his goucho buddies etc and sodomic life style promoters! Oh Lord Jesus, how hard and difficult thou Cross is and how sore our backs have become in its carrying! COME QUICKLY OH MASTER AND GIVE YOUR BRIDE THE PEACE SHE ULTIMATELY GRAVES!
Congratulations. It’s a fine blend of the young and the young at heart. Wishing the team of the 21 Eminences strength and stamina in their service to God’s people.
And Toronto’s Archbishop Frank Leo is only 53.
I noticed that there are no Americans among the new Cardinals. I live in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and we are the oldest Archdiocese in the US and have often had a Cardinal, but not anymore.
I also noticed that many are from South America or Asia. This new crop of Cardinals should have much influence on the next Papal conclave. Francis has appointed most of the Cardinals eligible to vote. Will he step down now? Perhaps not. He recently did a grueling, very long trip. Perhaps he might just stay on until the end?
“I want to have dialogue, which is why I’m putting all my boys in positions of power” -the great anticlericalist synodalist, Jorge Bergoglio
Oh, oh, oh, pick me to be a Cardinal. I promise not to mention Christ and keep the next Conclave a gay affair.
In the meantime, fly me to Rome for some all-inclusive Synodaling. I don’t even need a voice, since I’ll be a Bishop. I can help Cardinal Radcliffe spiritually sooth the feelings of the papal guests. Trust me, I won’t mention Fr. Aidan Nichols. Mercy alone is the message; all are welcome; blah, blah, blah, no problems here.
Have mercy! It is wrong to make me synodal alone like this.
I’ve read good things about Toronto’s Archbishop Francis Leo.
BTW, his predecessor, Cardinal Thomas Collins, was/is a strong voice in favour of palliative care versus our so-called Medical Aid in Dying.
The German church has a vast over-representation of cardinals for the paltry number of practicing Catholics there.
It all makes sense why Leo was/ is so silent on the scandal of the LGBTQ in his catholic schools. He wanted the red beanie !!