Turning my reflections away from the discomfort of Catholic news these days....
It’s been hot here in Arizona.
I know that’s not news and anyone living in the desert who complains about the heat ought to have his head examined.
Well, I’m not complaining (but explaining) and I confess my head has needed examining for decades!
But the heat has provided me with the opportunity of sitting indoors and watching both the funeral service conducted here in Phoenix for the late Senator John McCain (yesterday) and (this morning) the funeral of Aretha Franklin.
The proximity of the two events put into relief the stark contrast, the clash of generations, evidenced by the speakers at the two ceremonies.
On Thursday, speakers came forward and their remarks were generally about Senator McCain, his life, his challenges, his foibles and his virtues.
Listeners were given an insight into the character of this citizen-soldier, this military hero, this civil servant who they unanimously attested truly loved his country and served it well.
This morning, at the Franklin funeral, speakers came forward (younger relatives and acquaintances) and their remarks were generally about themselves and how this very talented lady touched their lives and how they were influenced or inspired, how they feel about her death.
One ceremony felt like a documentary.
The other like browsing Facebook.
But that is where we are, I think today.
Baby-boomers tend to think in terms of broad relationships and look at life from historical perspectives.
Millenials seem fixated on what is personally meaningful from strictly their association or experience.
I mention this not to insinuate that one ceremony was more authentic in expressing sadness or in mourning the loss of a loved one or dearest friend.
It’s just that the ceremonies reflected where we are as a society and culture these days. An outward perspective versus a "selfie".
In any case, God rest the souls of Senator McCain and Ms. Franklin. Forgive their sins, and all of ours. Grant them eternal rest in the Love of Christ. May we be worthy to join them and Our Beloved Savior when at last He calls us from this earthly life to Eternity.
Friday, August 31, 2018
CARDINAL WUERL'S LETTER TO HIS PRIESTS.....What a Great Idea!
I’ve read Cardinal Wuerl’s August 30th letter to Priests of Washington, DC.
And so, here’s my take away regarding what the Cardinal is asking of his Priests.
His Eminence states:
This Sunday in our churches all across this great archdiocese, I ask you please to let your people – the men, women and children – we love and minister to and hold in our pastoral care know that I do recognize and share their pain. Let them know I wish I could wipe it away even though that is simply not possible. I would give anything, as would all of us, to turn the clock around and have the Church do everything right. But I do join them in sorrow for all that has happened. I plead for their prayerful support as I with you and them try to do whatever I can to help move this Church closer to the pathway that leads us from this darkness.
Toward the end of the letter, Cardinal Wuerl writes:
Would you please let the faithful you serve know of my love, my commitment to do whatever is necessary to right what is wrong, and my sincere solidarity with you and them.
So, if I got this right -- and help me if I didn’t -- Cardinal Wuerl is asking the Pastors and Priests of the Archdiocese to go out there this weekend and, from the pulpits all around town, to fight the good fight by running interference between himself and the People of God he was appointed to serve as their Chief Shepherd.
That’s it, isn’t it?
Hey guys, go out there tell the folks how sorry I am, suffer the slings and arrows of their frustration and anger, listen to their laments and complaints...I’m right there BEHIND you!
Never mind that since the story broke and since a meager appearance on carefully selected news outlets defending my reputation, I have said little in the way of apology to people of the Archdiocese...
Never mind that I retained an elite and ridiculously expensive law firm to set up a failed website highlighting whatever positive steps I took in Pittsburgh but never directly responding to the most egregious allegations of cover up and complicity...
Never mind that I canceled a highly-publicized presentation I was scheduled to give at the World Meeting Families in Ireland...
Never mind that I have been all but invisible for the past 10 days and have said nothing about Archbishop Vigano’s letter or the shameful dismissive response of Pope Francis to its allegations about him personally and the Holy See...
Never mind all that... just go out there and tell the folks how contrite I am and ask them to forgive me.
It's kind of an apology............by proxy!
Wow!
If I could only have done the same when I was a Pastor.
Just asked the Associate Pastor, the Secretary, the Bookkeeper, even the Janitor to go to Confession and tell the Priest there how sorry I was for my sins and ask for my forgiveness!
Why didn’t I ever think of that?
Gee, Cardinal Wuerl, thanks for the idea and the marvelous example of personal responsibility.
I am retired from active ministry now. But maybe, just maybe, the fellow who tends to my landscaping monthly (who I hired for a very modest fee) will go to the local parish church around the corner and tell the Confessor my sins and carry back words of reconciliation.
Whaddayathink?
And so, here’s my take away regarding what the Cardinal is asking of his Priests.
His Eminence states:
This Sunday in our churches all across this great archdiocese, I ask you please to let your people – the men, women and children – we love and minister to and hold in our pastoral care know that I do recognize and share their pain. Let them know I wish I could wipe it away even though that is simply not possible. I would give anything, as would all of us, to turn the clock around and have the Church do everything right. But I do join them in sorrow for all that has happened. I plead for their prayerful support as I with you and them try to do whatever I can to help move this Church closer to the pathway that leads us from this darkness.
Toward the end of the letter, Cardinal Wuerl writes:
Would you please let the faithful you serve know of my love, my commitment to do whatever is necessary to right what is wrong, and my sincere solidarity with you and them.
So, if I got this right -- and help me if I didn’t -- Cardinal Wuerl is asking the Pastors and Priests of the Archdiocese to go out there this weekend and, from the pulpits all around town, to fight the good fight by running interference between himself and the People of God he was appointed to serve as their Chief Shepherd.
That’s it, isn’t it?
Hey guys, go out there tell the folks how sorry I am, suffer the slings and arrows of their frustration and anger, listen to their laments and complaints...I’m right there BEHIND you!
Never mind that since the story broke and since a meager appearance on carefully selected news outlets defending my reputation, I have said little in the way of apology to people of the Archdiocese...
Never mind that I retained an elite and ridiculously expensive law firm to set up a failed website highlighting whatever positive steps I took in Pittsburgh but never directly responding to the most egregious allegations of cover up and complicity...
Never mind that I canceled a highly-publicized presentation I was scheduled to give at the World Meeting Families in Ireland...
Never mind that I have been all but invisible for the past 10 days and have said nothing about Archbishop Vigano’s letter or the shameful dismissive response of Pope Francis to its allegations about him personally and the Holy See...
Never mind all that... just go out there and tell the folks how contrite I am and ask them to forgive me.
It's kind of an apology............by proxy!
Wow!
If I could only have done the same when I was a Pastor.
Just asked the Associate Pastor, the Secretary, the Bookkeeper, even the Janitor to go to Confession and tell the Priest there how sorry I was for my sins and ask for my forgiveness!
Why didn’t I ever think of that?
Gee, Cardinal Wuerl, thanks for the idea and the marvelous example of personal responsibility.
I am retired from active ministry now. But maybe, just maybe, the fellow who tends to my landscaping monthly (who I hired for a very modest fee) will go to the local parish church around the corner and tell the Confessor my sins and carry back words of reconciliation.
Whaddayathink?
MORE BISHOPS CALLING FOR PAPAL INVESTIGATION -- WAITING AND WATCHING AMERICAN CHURCHES THIS WEEKEND
Calls from Catholic Bishops, organizations, and media outlets for Pope Francis to be investigated are slowly but steadily increasing after the former Vatican ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, released an 11-page affidavit Saturday alleging that Pope Francis turned a blind eye to McCarrick’s behavior.
Archbishop Viganò specifically has claimed that Pope Francis lifted Pope Benedict’s “canonical sanctions” on the disgraced cardinal imposed between 2009-2010 that forbade him from interacting with the public in an official capacity, and further alleged Francis did this despite knowing of the serious allegations against McCarrick.
Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), released a statement Sunday calling for an impartial investigation into the allegations against Pope Francis.
“The recent letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò brings particular focus and urgency to this examination,” Cardinal DiNardo wrote in a statement posted Sunday on the USCCB website.
Other Bishops throughout the U.S. soon followed : Bishop Joseph Stickland of Tyler, Texas;Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin; Archbishop Salvatore Cordileno of San Francisco, Califoria; Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Isalndl; Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Pennsylvana.
All the bishops said the allegations from the former Vatican nuncio to the U.S. needed to be investigated because they were credible.
In addition, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, who serves as the Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and was formerly the prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, said in an interview with local Italian media that Viganò’s calls for Pope Francis’ resignation are “not wrong” and that an investigation into the allegations against the Pope is “necessary.”
So far the Pope has been resolute in his silence.
The weekend is coming up.
Pastors around the country and around the world will be able immediately to survey the impact of Archbishop Vigano’s letter and the defeaning silence of Pope Francis as they take note of the number of empty pews in their churches.
Many, too many, readers of this blogsite have commented (I don’t publish comments but rather refer to them or respond to them directly by way of articles) that they have firmly decided to stop contributing, but with this additional note.
In the wake of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, many had indicated they would continue to contribute to their parishes but not to Bishops’ or diocesan-wide appeals, and certainly not to USCCB national collections.
But since the Archbishop’s letter and Pope Francis’ dismissive attitude, they have decided (several emphatically so) to stop contributing altogether.
Perhaps when the US coffers (from which the Holy See benefits extraordinarily) begin to dry up, the Holy Father may “find his voice” again.
Given the anger which is so apparent in what I have read, it may be too late even then.
We shall see.
Archbishop Viganò specifically has claimed that Pope Francis lifted Pope Benedict’s “canonical sanctions” on the disgraced cardinal imposed between 2009-2010 that forbade him from interacting with the public in an official capacity, and further alleged Francis did this despite knowing of the serious allegations against McCarrick.
Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), released a statement Sunday calling for an impartial investigation into the allegations against Pope Francis.
“The recent letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò brings particular focus and urgency to this examination,” Cardinal DiNardo wrote in a statement posted Sunday on the USCCB website.
Other Bishops throughout the U.S. soon followed : Bishop Joseph Stickland of Tyler, Texas;Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin; Archbishop Salvatore Cordileno of San Francisco, Califoria; Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Isalndl; Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Pennsylvana.
All the bishops said the allegations from the former Vatican nuncio to the U.S. needed to be investigated because they were credible.
In addition, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, who serves as the Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and was formerly the prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, said in an interview with local Italian media that Viganò’s calls for Pope Francis’ resignation are “not wrong” and that an investigation into the allegations against the Pope is “necessary.”
So far the Pope has been resolute in his silence.
The weekend is coming up.
Pastors around the country and around the world will be able immediately to survey the impact of Archbishop Vigano’s letter and the defeaning silence of Pope Francis as they take note of the number of empty pews in their churches.
Many, too many, readers of this blogsite have commented (I don’t publish comments but rather refer to them or respond to them directly by way of articles) that they have firmly decided to stop contributing, but with this additional note.
In the wake of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, many had indicated they would continue to contribute to their parishes but not to Bishops’ or diocesan-wide appeals, and certainly not to USCCB national collections.
But since the Archbishop’s letter and Pope Francis’ dismissive attitude, they have decided (several emphatically so) to stop contributing altogether.
Perhaps when the US coffers (from which the Holy See benefits extraordinarily) begin to dry up, the Holy Father may “find his voice” again.
Given the anger which is so apparent in what I have read, it may be too late even then.
We shall see.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
CARDINAL WUERL'S LETTER TO PRIESTS OF WASHINGTON, DC
Cardinal Wuerl sent the following letter to the Priests of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. In an email to which the letter was linked, the Cardinal added: "In this time of so much stress and pain, I send you this letter in the hope that it might tell you of my desire to be close to you and the people entrusted to your pastoral care, particularly as you prepare for this weekend's Masses."
The letter reads as follows:
Dear Brother Priest,
I very much look forward to our time together on Labor Day, first in prayer and then in conversation. With all the disconcerting news and terrible revelations that have happened, and with such rapidity, I recognize that I have not been as close to you as I need to be to help you and me minister to the people we both love and serve.
Last Sunday at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, as so many of you did in your own parish church, I offered Holy Mass – a Liturgy focused on the spiritual context for so much of the pain, suffering, darkness and disillusionment brought on by the sexual abuse of children and young people by priests and its cover-up by bishops. Whatever our response to this spiritual crisis, it has to begin at the altar – and in prayer.
As so many of you did, we prayed first for the survivors – those who bear the scars of abuse. On too many occasions over these past three decades as a bishop, I have sat with survivors and their families to listen, to try to be present, to pray and often simply to cry together.
At the Cathedral, as I am sure you did, we also prayed for the whole Church – the Body of Christ – wounded by the shame and horror of these egregious actions. It is our people who also bear a deep hurt because they love their Church and do not know what is coming next. Thank you for being there with them, even when there is so little to say, other than prayer. Your, and I hope my own, ministry is the beginning of some healing.
My prayers and what I asked of those at Mass are also for you. Each priest – all of us – somehow bears the joys and sorrows of one another because we are all rightly seen as sharers in the priesthood. Your ministry is a precious gift to those you serve – to the Body of Christ. I want you to know my desire – even if I have not well expressed it – to be close to you. In the rush to get information to you, I failed to share fully with you my spiritual and fraternal care and offer you and our faithful people a strong sign of pastoral leadership. I hope this effort today and our Labor Day gathering will clearly show my great appreciation, not to say affection, for all of you, my brother priests and the recognition of your efforts to be pastorally present to our people in their struggles.
I ask you, as I did at the Cathedral, for prayers for me, for forgiveness for my errors in judgment, for my inadequacies, and also for your acceptance of my contrition for any suffering I have caused, as well as the grace to find, with you, ways of healing, ways of offering fruitful guidance in this darkness.
This Sunday in our churches all across this great archdiocese, I ask you please to let your people – the men, women and children – we love and minister to and hold in our pastoral care know that I do recognize and share their pain. Let them know I wish I could wipe it away even though that is simply not possible. I would give anything, as would all of us, to turn the clock around and have the Church do everything right. But I do join them in sorrow for all that has happened. I plead for their prayerful support as I with you and them try to do whatever I can to help move this Church closer to the pathway that leads us from this darkness.
At the Mass this Sunday that I shall celebrate, I hope to offer some thoughts on how we as a Church – all of us laity, religious and clergy – might begin with faith strengthened in prayer to discern that level of reform rooted in accountability and transparency that would permit the Church to enter a new era.
Finally, we need to hold close in our prayers and loyalty our Holy Father, Pope Francis. Increasingly, it is clear that he is the object of concentrated attack. At each Mass we pray for him by name. As we do so with our voices may we do so as well with our hearts.
Dear brother in the Lord, I hope you will sense something of my anguish for those who have suffered and my sorrow for any of my failures to be there for both the abused and all who now feel a sense of alienation. In my heart, I now ask myself what is the way I can best serve this Church that I, too, much love.
Would you please let the faithful you serve know of my love, my commitment to do whatever is necessary to right what is wrong, and my sincere solidarity with you and them.
Faithfully in Christ,Cardinal Donald Wuerl
Faithfully in Christ,Cardinal Donald Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
In commenting on the letter, I shall not utter a word.
Read it for yourself and you be the judge....I think I've heard that somewhere lately.
SPARE US, O LORD, LEST WE PERISH!
Who are these men who so flippantly cast off their responsibilities to shepherd and guide the Church?
The People of God have a right to expect that their Sacred Pastors will not only teach, sanctify and govern but that they will do so by their personal example.
Thus far, from the Holy Father himself and through the ranks of the Curia and Bishops around the world, that expectation has been totally unfulfilled, ignored and ridiculed.
Now comes the latest in a long line of failed leaders to moan and lament the great harm being done to the Church, while uttering not a whisper of reassurance or guidance to the Catholic faithful.
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Secretary of State, aped Pope Francis’ silence about accusations that the sex abuse crisis had implicated the Pope during a recent interview he gave to Italian newspaper La Stampa.
When asked to comment about Archbishop Viganò’s detailed 11-page testimony released last week, Cardinal Parolin said: “It's better not to go down into details on such things. I repeat that which the Pope says: you read it, and make your judgement. The text speaks for itself.”
Pope Francis told reporters on his return flight from Ireland this weekend that he was "not going to say a word" about allegations that he covered-up for ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
“Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this,” the Pope said.
Parolin said he is experiencing “great pain” right now.
Would that he truly were!
But as insulting as these remarks are, what is even more dumbfounding is his apparent lack of understanding regarding the crisis these allegations and reactions have brought to the faith and spirituality of so many among the faithful laity and Clergy.
Listen to what Parolin adds to his comments.
" I hope that we all work in the search of truth and justice, that these be the points of reference, and not other things. Certainly the situation is not worrying at all.”
Not worrying at all?
This situation would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
What is becoming clearer and clearer to me in these past few days is this: not only do the Bishops and Cardinals lack integrity, but perhaps more critical to the well-being of the Church, they lack intelligence and rationality.
Only a dunderhead could look at the sad state of affairs within the Body of Christ and say “the situation is not worrying at all”.
How long, O Lord, how long will you delay in rescuing Your Church from such incompetence and foolishness!
The People of God have a right to expect that their Sacred Pastors will not only teach, sanctify and govern but that they will do so by their personal example.
Thus far, from the Holy Father himself and through the ranks of the Curia and Bishops around the world, that expectation has been totally unfulfilled, ignored and ridiculed.
Now comes the latest in a long line of failed leaders to moan and lament the great harm being done to the Church, while uttering not a whisper of reassurance or guidance to the Catholic faithful.
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Secretary of State, aped Pope Francis’ silence about accusations that the sex abuse crisis had implicated the Pope during a recent interview he gave to Italian newspaper La Stampa.
When asked to comment about Archbishop Viganò’s detailed 11-page testimony released last week, Cardinal Parolin said: “It's better not to go down into details on such things. I repeat that which the Pope says: you read it, and make your judgement. The text speaks for itself.”
Pope Francis told reporters on his return flight from Ireland this weekend that he was "not going to say a word" about allegations that he covered-up for ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
“Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this,” the Pope said.
Parolin said he is experiencing “great pain” right now.
Would that he truly were!
But as insulting as these remarks are, what is even more dumbfounding is his apparent lack of understanding regarding the crisis these allegations and reactions have brought to the faith and spirituality of so many among the faithful laity and Clergy.
Listen to what Parolin adds to his comments.
" I hope that we all work in the search of truth and justice, that these be the points of reference, and not other things. Certainly the situation is not worrying at all.”
Not worrying at all?
This situation would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
What is becoming clearer and clearer to me in these past few days is this: not only do the Bishops and Cardinals lack integrity, but perhaps more critical to the well-being of the Church, they lack intelligence and rationality.
Only a dunderhead could look at the sad state of affairs within the Body of Christ and say “the situation is not worrying at all”.
How long, O Lord, how long will you delay in rescuing Your Church from such incompetence and foolishness!
WHY IS THIS MOMENT IN THE CHURCH WITHOUT PRECEDENT?
A dear friend recently sent me an email asking me to explain my oft-repeated comment that the Church finds itself in a circumstance and a moment that is without precedence in its history.
She asks this question in the context of his frustration over the fact that the Holy Father has allowed Bishops to resign rather than just removing them from their dioceses for their inept handing of cases involving the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergy.
As I explained to her in my response, an answer to her question has profound implications. Some will be surprising to many of the Catholic faithful.
Many are under the misimpression that the governing structure of the Church is very much like that of a large corporation. But, from all external appearances and the day to day administration, such a misimpression is easily understood.
The fact is that many people work within corporate institutions where there are distinct levels of managerial authority each responsible to higher authority. Accountability for work performance travels up and down the ladder of management’s authority. An obvious example: a worker is accountable for his job to his immediate manager, that manager to his immediate superior, and up the chain of corporate authority to the CEO himself.
Within this familiar framework, one can easily conclude the Church operates the same way, kinda, sorta.
The difference within the hierarchical structure of the Church is our understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
A Priest is, by virtue of his Ordination, configured to Christ and this new “ontological (substanital) character of Priesthood is perpetual and permanent.
A Priest may be reduced to the lay state (his canonical relationship to his Bishop and the Church terminated) but he remains a Priest. He cannot be “fired” from the Priesthood in the same way a person can be fired from his workplace.
An there are even much more profound differences between corporate hierarchy and Church hierarchy when it comes to the issue of authority itself.
A manager has authority by delegation, his responsibilities and obligations given him from the next higher level of administration.
Now, when it comes to the authority of a Bishop, Church teaching is quite emphatic.
Our understanding of Episcopal authority comes to us from the highest teaching authority of the Church: Ecumenical Councils.
The Council Fathers of Vatican II, in keeping with the consistent teachings of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, teach that a Bishop enjoys the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders (Lumen Gentium, 26) and is head of the local Church entrusted to his care.
A Bishop’s authority is not delegated. A Bishop does not exercise authority that is “borrowed” from the Pope.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law which universally governs the Latin Church states: "In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office."
Again, Vatican Council II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church teaches: “The pastoral office . . . is entrusted to Bishops fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term Prelates of the people whom they govern”. (Lumen Gentium, 27).
Every Bishop of a local Church governs his diocese in and by virtue of his own authority.
Bishops are not vicars of the Pope, but vicars of Christ in their own diocese. They do not have to get approval from higher authority to govern.
And so, when we hear people speak of Bishops being accountable to the Pope, we must understand that the horizons of that accountability are narrowly defined by Church teaching.
What adds to the complexity of the issue is the fact only the Pope can appoint Bishops and only the Pope can “deprive them office”.
Notice I use the word “deprive” and not “remove” from office.
Why?
Because the teaching and practice of the Church is very specific on this matter.
In general, the Code of Canon Law provides for removal from office (Canons 184, 192-195).
But, “removal” from episcopal office does not, strictly speaking, seem to be possible under the prescription of Canon 416.
Only “privation” from Episcopal office seems possible and only when a Bishop has been tried and found guilty of ecclesiastical crimes.
Only the Pope has authority to judge criminal cases involving Bishops (Canon 1405, 1) and such cases are conducted in strictest confidence (Canon 1455, 1).
As a result, most Canon lawyers agree that privation is a canonical penalty, and therefore is governed by the canons on penal law, as acknowledged in Canon. 196. Thus, when it comes to Bishops, the Code does not contemplate the case of deprivation for other than ecclesiastical crimes.
Since Bishops, as do all members of the faithful, have a fundamental right to defend themselves when accused, the criminal prosecution of alleged ecclesiastical crimes is both complex and lengthy.
A Pope, therefore, cannot simply “fire” or “remove” a Bishop for not managing his diocese properly or efficiently.
And yet, there is another complicating factor which must be considered.
If a Pope were to remove a Bishop from office, that would raise all kinds of theological and ecclesiological questions about the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and Bishops of local Churches. This would further raise issues regarding collegiality and communion with the Church.
The ecumenical implications are of enormous consequence.
Orthodox churches have been responding positively, yet cautiously, to overtures from Rome. Yet, Orthodox Bishops remain wary of Papal authority. They are defensive of their own independence.
A Pope who began “removing bishops from office” for non-performance reasons would cause much consternation and wonderment on the part of Orthodox Bishops regarding the legitimacy of the Bishop of Roman attempting to do so.
And, if the whole matter of the privation of Bishops from office was not a complicated as it is, add to the fact that the Pope himself has been implicated in recent scandals.
The Pope is subject to no one, neither ecclesiastical or secular. His judgments admit to no appeal by anyone, ecclesiastical or secular.
He truly enjoys Supreme Apostolic Authority as well as supreme authority over the secular State of Vatican City.
No one can deprive the Pope of his Office as Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
In the recent accusations of Archbishop Vigano, the credibility and the moral authority of this Vicar of Christ has been called into serious question.
The Church has never seen the likes of this before.
How it will be resolved is anyone's guess.
We are walking without firm foundation and there is no model or paradigm of resolution, no precedent the Church can call upon for guidance or direction.
I realize my response to my friend’s question is complicated. But so is the issue she raises and the frustration she expresses with the apparent inaction or resolve on the part of Pope Francis to harshly discipline those Bishops who appear to have failed egregiously in protecting minors within their local Church from sexual abuse by members of their Clergy.
In some small way, I hope this clarifies the issue for her and for other readers of this blogsite.
Her question is indeed the most difficult I have ever had addressed to me in my 44 years of Priesthood both as a Pastor and Canon lawyer myself.
I pray there are wiser jurists and historians who can shed some light on these critical issues facing the Church these days.
She asks this question in the context of his frustration over the fact that the Holy Father has allowed Bishops to resign rather than just removing them from their dioceses for their inept handing of cases involving the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergy.
As I explained to her in my response, an answer to her question has profound implications. Some will be surprising to many of the Catholic faithful.
Many are under the misimpression that the governing structure of the Church is very much like that of a large corporation. But, from all external appearances and the day to day administration, such a misimpression is easily understood.
The fact is that many people work within corporate institutions where there are distinct levels of managerial authority each responsible to higher authority. Accountability for work performance travels up and down the ladder of management’s authority. An obvious example: a worker is accountable for his job to his immediate manager, that manager to his immediate superior, and up the chain of corporate authority to the CEO himself.
Within this familiar framework, one can easily conclude the Church operates the same way, kinda, sorta.
The difference within the hierarchical structure of the Church is our understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
A Priest is, by virtue of his Ordination, configured to Christ and this new “ontological (substanital) character of Priesthood is perpetual and permanent.
A Priest may be reduced to the lay state (his canonical relationship to his Bishop and the Church terminated) but he remains a Priest. He cannot be “fired” from the Priesthood in the same way a person can be fired from his workplace.
An there are even much more profound differences between corporate hierarchy and Church hierarchy when it comes to the issue of authority itself.
A manager has authority by delegation, his responsibilities and obligations given him from the next higher level of administration.
Now, when it comes to the authority of a Bishop, Church teaching is quite emphatic.
Our understanding of Episcopal authority comes to us from the highest teaching authority of the Church: Ecumenical Councils.
The Council Fathers of Vatican II, in keeping with the consistent teachings of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, teach that a Bishop enjoys the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders (Lumen Gentium, 26) and is head of the local Church entrusted to his care.
A Bishop’s authority is not delegated. A Bishop does not exercise authority that is “borrowed” from the Pope.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law which universally governs the Latin Church states: "In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office."
Again, Vatican Council II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church teaches: “The pastoral office . . . is entrusted to Bishops fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term Prelates of the people whom they govern”. (Lumen Gentium, 27).
Every Bishop of a local Church governs his diocese in and by virtue of his own authority.
Bishops are not vicars of the Pope, but vicars of Christ in their own diocese. They do not have to get approval from higher authority to govern.
And so, when we hear people speak of Bishops being accountable to the Pope, we must understand that the horizons of that accountability are narrowly defined by Church teaching.
What adds to the complexity of the issue is the fact only the Pope can appoint Bishops and only the Pope can “deprive them office”.
Notice I use the word “deprive” and not “remove” from office.
Why?
Because the teaching and practice of the Church is very specific on this matter.
In general, the Code of Canon Law provides for removal from office (Canons 184, 192-195).
But, “removal” from episcopal office does not, strictly speaking, seem to be possible under the prescription of Canon 416.
Only “privation” from Episcopal office seems possible and only when a Bishop has been tried and found guilty of ecclesiastical crimes.
Only the Pope has authority to judge criminal cases involving Bishops (Canon 1405, 1) and such cases are conducted in strictest confidence (Canon 1455, 1).
As a result, most Canon lawyers agree that privation is a canonical penalty, and therefore is governed by the canons on penal law, as acknowledged in Canon. 196. Thus, when it comes to Bishops, the Code does not contemplate the case of deprivation for other than ecclesiastical crimes.
Since Bishops, as do all members of the faithful, have a fundamental right to defend themselves when accused, the criminal prosecution of alleged ecclesiastical crimes is both complex and lengthy.
A Pope, therefore, cannot simply “fire” or “remove” a Bishop for not managing his diocese properly or efficiently.
And yet, there is another complicating factor which must be considered.
If a Pope were to remove a Bishop from office, that would raise all kinds of theological and ecclesiological questions about the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and Bishops of local Churches. This would further raise issues regarding collegiality and communion with the Church.
The ecumenical implications are of enormous consequence.
Orthodox churches have been responding positively, yet cautiously, to overtures from Rome. Yet, Orthodox Bishops remain wary of Papal authority. They are defensive of their own independence.
A Pope who began “removing bishops from office” for non-performance reasons would cause much consternation and wonderment on the part of Orthodox Bishops regarding the legitimacy of the Bishop of Roman attempting to do so.
And, if the whole matter of the privation of Bishops from office was not a complicated as it is, add to the fact that the Pope himself has been implicated in recent scandals.
The Pope is subject to no one, neither ecclesiastical or secular. His judgments admit to no appeal by anyone, ecclesiastical or secular.
He truly enjoys Supreme Apostolic Authority as well as supreme authority over the secular State of Vatican City.
No one can deprive the Pope of his Office as Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
In the recent accusations of Archbishop Vigano, the credibility and the moral authority of this Vicar of Christ has been called into serious question.
The Church has never seen the likes of this before.
How it will be resolved is anyone's guess.
We are walking without firm foundation and there is no model or paradigm of resolution, no precedent the Church can call upon for guidance or direction.
I realize my response to my friend’s question is complicated. But so is the issue she raises and the frustration she expresses with the apparent inaction or resolve on the part of Pope Francis to harshly discipline those Bishops who appear to have failed egregiously in protecting minors within their local Church from sexual abuse by members of their Clergy.
In some small way, I hope this clarifies the issue for her and for other readers of this blogsite.
Her question is indeed the most difficult I have ever had addressed to me in my 44 years of Priesthood both as a Pastor and Canon lawyer myself.
I pray there are wiser jurists and historians who can shed some light on these critical issues facing the Church these days.
AND THE POPE SAYS NOTHING!
Pope Francis spoke publicly at the General Audience on Wednesday about his weekend trip to Ireland and the "pain" of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
But his words sounded shallow against the backdrop of his numbing silence regarding the explosive letter by Archbishop Vigano who claims the Pope himself was involved in covering up the abuses.
In his 11-page letter, Archbishop Viganò called for Pope Francis to resign. The former top Vatican diplomat served as its Nuncio to the U.S.
Archbishop Viganò's letter came in the wake of a Grand Jury Report that discovered 300 pedophile Priests and more than 1,000 victims in Pennsylvania.
That State’s Attorney General has state repeatedly that there are "facts, there is evidence that takes this cover-up and what occurred in Pennsylvania directly to the Vatican."
The director of the Holy See Press Office has said that "if the prosecutor is referring to something outside the report -- we'll have to wait for that before commenting."
Thus far, it appears the Holy Father is resolute in his decision to say “not a single word” about any of this”.
To many, his silence is having a damning effect upon his person, the Petrine Office and the Catholic faithful.
The “Pope of accompaniment and mercy” has left us to fend for ourselves at this dark and difficult moment.
Such behavior is cruel and inexcusable.
With each passing day, the anger of faithful Catholics is more and more palpable.
My concern: that anger will mitigate to utter disillusionment and abandonment of the Faith.
And the Pope says nothing!
But his words sounded shallow against the backdrop of his numbing silence regarding the explosive letter by Archbishop Vigano who claims the Pope himself was involved in covering up the abuses.
In his 11-page letter, Archbishop Viganò called for Pope Francis to resign. The former top Vatican diplomat served as its Nuncio to the U.S.
Archbishop Viganò's letter came in the wake of a Grand Jury Report that discovered 300 pedophile Priests and more than 1,000 victims in Pennsylvania.
That State’s Attorney General has state repeatedly that there are "facts, there is evidence that takes this cover-up and what occurred in Pennsylvania directly to the Vatican."
The director of the Holy See Press Office has said that "if the prosecutor is referring to something outside the report -- we'll have to wait for that before commenting."
Thus far, it appears the Holy Father is resolute in his decision to say “not a single word” about any of this”.
To many, his silence is having a damning effect upon his person, the Petrine Office and the Catholic faithful.
The “Pope of accompaniment and mercy” has left us to fend for ourselves at this dark and difficult moment.
Such behavior is cruel and inexcusable.
With each passing day, the anger of faithful Catholics is more and more palpable.
My concern: that anger will mitigate to utter disillusionment and abandonment of the Faith.
And the Pope says nothing!
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
POPE SILENT ABOUT VIGANO LETTER AT GENERAL AUDIENCE
At his first public audience since his visit to Ireland, Pope Francis spoke again about “the sufferings” caused in that country “by various forms of abuse” by Priests and Religious and by the fact that “the church authorities in the past” had not dealt with these crimes in an adequate manner, alluding to their cover-up by Bishops and Religious Superiors.
He made no reference, however, to the 11-page letter by the formal Papal Nuncio to the United States that was released during his visit there, which accused him of covering up the abuse of seminarians by the former cardinal archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and which called for his resignation from the Papacy.
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that sources close to the Pope said that “he has no intention of resigning.”
A source close to Pope Francis told America that he is “very tranquil.”
And the People of God, and men and women of good will, are left to figure out the truth for themselves?
Oh my!
He made no reference, however, to the 11-page letter by the formal Papal Nuncio to the United States that was released during his visit there, which accused him of covering up the abuse of seminarians by the former cardinal archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and which called for his resignation from the Papacy.
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that sources close to the Pope said that “he has no intention of resigning.”
A source close to Pope Francis told America that he is “very tranquil.”
And the People of God, and men and women of good will, are left to figure out the truth for themselves?
Oh my!
OF COURSE...NO OFFENSE INTENDED
Pope Francis told a reporter that parents should seek psychiatric help if their children had homosexual tendencies.
The comment in question was reportedly made as the Holy Father was flying back to Rome from Ireland on Sunday.
While Pope Francis has previously implied that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual (“Who am I to judge?”), this time he said that "a lot that can be done through psychiatry" no later than in childhood and added that ignoring such a child is "error of fatherhood or motherhood."
"When it shows itself from childhood, there is a lot that can be done through psychiatry, to see how things are. It is something else if it shows itself after 20 years," Pope Francis told reporters.
Curiously, that reference was not included in a transcript of the in-flight press conference published by the Holy See Press Office on Monday.
More curiously, the Press Office did not deny the alteration, saying that the quote had been erased to avoid confusion.
"When the Pope referred to 'psychiatry', it is clear that he was doing it to highlight an example of 'things that can be done'. But with that word he didn't mean to say that it [homosexuality] was a 'mental illness'," a Vatican spokeswoman stated.
Very curiously (to me at least) is the almost paranoid concern this Pontificate exhibits that the Church say or do nothing that might be considered “insensitive” to the homosexual community.
And it’s incidents such as this that make me wonder if Pope Benedict XVI’s assertion as well as the recent letter of Archbishop Vigano that the existence of a homosexual clique at the center of the Vatican is true.
Pope Francis has told the faithful: “Read...judge for yourselves.”
The more I read, though, the more convincing it is that allegations of homosexuals within the Vatican seizing control of the Church are plausible and true.
The lack of candor and clarity from this Pontificate is causing more and more damage to the very fabric and unity of the Church.
Would that the Holy Father and the Holy See understand and correct this terrible fault.
The comment in question was reportedly made as the Holy Father was flying back to Rome from Ireland on Sunday.
While Pope Francis has previously implied that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual (“Who am I to judge?”), this time he said that "a lot that can be done through psychiatry" no later than in childhood and added that ignoring such a child is "error of fatherhood or motherhood."
"When it shows itself from childhood, there is a lot that can be done through psychiatry, to see how things are. It is something else if it shows itself after 20 years," Pope Francis told reporters.
Curiously, that reference was not included in a transcript of the in-flight press conference published by the Holy See Press Office on Monday.
More curiously, the Press Office did not deny the alteration, saying that the quote had been erased to avoid confusion.
"When the Pope referred to 'psychiatry', it is clear that he was doing it to highlight an example of 'things that can be done'. But with that word he didn't mean to say that it [homosexuality] was a 'mental illness'," a Vatican spokeswoman stated.
Very curiously (to me at least) is the almost paranoid concern this Pontificate exhibits that the Church say or do nothing that might be considered “insensitive” to the homosexual community.
And it’s incidents such as this that make me wonder if Pope Benedict XVI’s assertion as well as the recent letter of Archbishop Vigano that the existence of a homosexual clique at the center of the Vatican is true.
Pope Francis has told the faithful: “Read...judge for yourselves.”
The more I read, though, the more convincing it is that allegations of homosexuals within the Vatican seizing control of the Church are plausible and true.
The lack of candor and clarity from this Pontificate is causing more and more damage to the very fabric and unity of the Church.
Would that the Holy Father and the Holy See understand and correct this terrible fault.
A BIT TOO MUCH!
I came across the following report, just last evening.
The NBC affiliate in Chicago (Channel 5) carried an interview with Cardinal Cupich.
In the course of the interview, His Eminence said the following: “The Pope has a bigger agenda than the sexual abuse scandal. The environment. Immigration.”
Frankly, I did not trust what I thought I had heard and so I replayed that statement a number of times.
I still find it hard to conceive that the Cardinal could be that obtuse and that insensitive to the suffering and pain of so many who personally or who have vicariously suffered from the horrific tales of violation and assault perpetrated upon the most innocent by Catholic Clergy.
His remarks are not only ridiculous but hurtful to the extreme.
But, he continued: “The Church is not going to go down the “rabbit hole" on this abuse scandal."
Of course, His Eminence is alluding to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. In so doing, the Cardinal is telling his listeners that the Church is not about to enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds.
Is that what the abuse scandal is to Cardinal Cupich? Just a strange problem so complex that it is not worth the effort to resolve it?
I must be living in a parallel universe where nothing makes sense, where the irrational is rational, where wrong is right, where lies are truth, where cunning is honorable and where evasion is accountability.
It’s all a bit much.
And when things get to be too much, I head for the pool!
Guess where I will be for the rest of the afternoon?
The NBC affiliate in Chicago (Channel 5) carried an interview with Cardinal Cupich.
In the course of the interview, His Eminence said the following: “The Pope has a bigger agenda than the sexual abuse scandal. The environment. Immigration.”
Frankly, I did not trust what I thought I had heard and so I replayed that statement a number of times.
I still find it hard to conceive that the Cardinal could be that obtuse and that insensitive to the suffering and pain of so many who personally or who have vicariously suffered from the horrific tales of violation and assault perpetrated upon the most innocent by Catholic Clergy.
His remarks are not only ridiculous but hurtful to the extreme.
But, he continued: “The Church is not going to go down the “rabbit hole" on this abuse scandal."
Of course, His Eminence is alluding to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. In so doing, the Cardinal is telling his listeners that the Church is not about to enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds.
Is that what the abuse scandal is to Cardinal Cupich? Just a strange problem so complex that it is not worth the effort to resolve it?
I must be living in a parallel universe where nothing makes sense, where the irrational is rational, where wrong is right, where lies are truth, where cunning is honorable and where evasion is accountability.
It’s all a bit much.
And when things get to be too much, I head for the pool!
Guess where I will be for the rest of the afternoon?
WHY THE BISHOPS AND POPE FRANCIS ARE FAILING TO RESTORE TRUST IN THE CHURCH AND THEMSELVES
Intimate relationships require a high level of integrity in order to thrive.
Perhaps, the most intimate of all relationships is that which people of faith establish with Almighty God.
For Catholics, that relationship is both founded and forged through the mediation of the Church believed to have been instituted by the Lord Himself as the instrument by which humanity and Divinity are united in a bond of redemptive love.
In every relationship, when a violation of trust (large or small) occurs, it is of critical import to examine the circumstances which caused that violation and to immediately begin to engage in a healing process that will restore confidence and goodwill to the relationship, if such is possible.
A betrayal of trust breaks the bond that is considered vital to the integrity of a relationship.
The capacity of a relationship to recover from such a betrayal has a lot to do with the responses, on the part of the betrayer to the situation. The more open and non-defensive they are, the more likely it is that a restitution of the relationship is possible.
When both parties are committed to this as an outcome, the likelihood increases exponentially.
Lies and denials that are used to cover-up a transgression can do much more damage than the violation itself. Even if the lie is never uncovered and the offense is not revealed, there can still be great harm done to the very foundation of the relationship.
Trust is inevitably sacrificed even when secrets go undetected.
Psychologists and counselors tell us that there are some actions which can facilitate the recovery process, though carrying through with them is no guarantee that healing and reconciliation will automatically follow.
1. Acknowledge the betrayal before it is discovered. The sooner the better. The longer the lied, the deeper the damage and the less likely any healing or restoration can take place.
2. Be honest. But, expect it will require additional, lots of additional evidence before trust and confidence is restored, if ever.
3. Answer questions. Don’t be defensive in responses. And don’t withhold anything. Even if the questions seem to be repetitive or unnecessary, they need answers in order to come to terms with the situation.
4. Be mindful of the emotional reaction to the betrayal. Feelings aren’t necessarily rational, but they are real.
5. Be patient. Resist the temptation to urge the wounded partner to “get over it”.
6. Take personal responsibility for your actions. Acknowledge the truth of the failing and avoid any explanations, rationalizations, excuses, or justifications for the behavior.
It appears to be a list of the very actions the Bishops and Pope Francis himself have failed to take.
This explains the deep fracture which has taken place between the Bishops and the Catholic faithful.
And as long as the Bishops continue on their course of evading responsibility and offer crude, insensitive and implausible explanations and excuses, they will continue to violate the trust so necessary for the People of God to maintain their relationship with the Church.
Rather than facilitating the restoration process, the Bishops by ignoring these healing actions have worsened the wound of betrayal by adding injuries to the insult.
Of course, being honest and true, being faithful in the first place, spares the anguish anguish of healing a betrayal.
But in those cases in which the damage is done, most of the time, recovery may not be possible.
The experience of widespread divorce and separation in the lives of married and unmarried couples provides more than sufficient proof that the restoration of trust and confidence is perhaps the most difficult, if not impossible, of burdens.
Love makes all things possible.
The Church needs that love -- in the Grace of the Holy Spirit -- to restore and reconcile the faithful to their Bishops.
Only time will tell if that trust is ever really restored in our lifetime or the future of the Church.
Perhaps, the most intimate of all relationships is that which people of faith establish with Almighty God.
For Catholics, that relationship is both founded and forged through the mediation of the Church believed to have been instituted by the Lord Himself as the instrument by which humanity and Divinity are united in a bond of redemptive love.
In every relationship, when a violation of trust (large or small) occurs, it is of critical import to examine the circumstances which caused that violation and to immediately begin to engage in a healing process that will restore confidence and goodwill to the relationship, if such is possible.
A betrayal of trust breaks the bond that is considered vital to the integrity of a relationship.
The capacity of a relationship to recover from such a betrayal has a lot to do with the responses, on the part of the betrayer to the situation. The more open and non-defensive they are, the more likely it is that a restitution of the relationship is possible.
When both parties are committed to this as an outcome, the likelihood increases exponentially.
Lies and denials that are used to cover-up a transgression can do much more damage than the violation itself. Even if the lie is never uncovered and the offense is not revealed, there can still be great harm done to the very foundation of the relationship.
Trust is inevitably sacrificed even when secrets go undetected.
Psychologists and counselors tell us that there are some actions which can facilitate the recovery process, though carrying through with them is no guarantee that healing and reconciliation will automatically follow.
1. Acknowledge the betrayal before it is discovered. The sooner the better. The longer the lied, the deeper the damage and the less likely any healing or restoration can take place.
2. Be honest. But, expect it will require additional, lots of additional evidence before trust and confidence is restored, if ever.
3. Answer questions. Don’t be defensive in responses. And don’t withhold anything. Even if the questions seem to be repetitive or unnecessary, they need answers in order to come to terms with the situation.
4. Be mindful of the emotional reaction to the betrayal. Feelings aren’t necessarily rational, but they are real.
5. Be patient. Resist the temptation to urge the wounded partner to “get over it”.
6. Take personal responsibility for your actions. Acknowledge the truth of the failing and avoid any explanations, rationalizations, excuses, or justifications for the behavior.
It appears to be a list of the very actions the Bishops and Pope Francis himself have failed to take.
This explains the deep fracture which has taken place between the Bishops and the Catholic faithful.
And as long as the Bishops continue on their course of evading responsibility and offer crude, insensitive and implausible explanations and excuses, they will continue to violate the trust so necessary for the People of God to maintain their relationship with the Church.
Rather than facilitating the restoration process, the Bishops by ignoring these healing actions have worsened the wound of betrayal by adding injuries to the insult.
Of course, being honest and true, being faithful in the first place, spares the anguish anguish of healing a betrayal.
But in those cases in which the damage is done, most of the time, recovery may not be possible.
The experience of widespread divorce and separation in the lives of married and unmarried couples provides more than sufficient proof that the restoration of trust and confidence is perhaps the most difficult, if not impossible, of burdens.
Love makes all things possible.
The Church needs that love -- in the Grace of the Holy Spirit -- to restore and reconcile the faithful to their Bishops.
Only time will tell if that trust is ever really restored in our lifetime or the future of the Church.
VICAR GENERAL OF WASHINGTON DC PUBLISHES LETTER AND DOCUMENTS SHARED WITH PRIESTS
The following is the text of a letter penned by the Reverend Monsignor Charles V. Antonicelli,
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC:
August 27, 2018
Dear Friends,
Earlier today, on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, I shared the following letter and materials with Priests of the Archdiocese of Washington. I thought you would find it helpful, and share the letter and materials below.
Over the past two weeks, I have shared several communications with you regarding the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. As Cardinal Wuerl noted at yesterday’s Mass for Healing at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew, all must know the Church’s contrition and remorse for these grave sins. Survivors of this great betrayal by priests must know of the prayers of the Church for healing and our steadfast commitment to protect all of those entrusted to our care.
That said, the report is also flawed. The grand jury process in Pennsylvania was not an evidentiary proceeding, and did not allow those named in the report the opportunity to provide evidence that would counter the claims in the report. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral argument in September about these very issues and has already noted in its preliminary rulings its concerns about the process.
Over the past ten days, there has not been an opportunity to share in a constructive manner a response regarding Cardinal Wuerl’s record as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006. The linked documents – a fact sheet and a timeline – are intended to start that process. These documents provide facts on Cardinal Wuerl’s record during his tenure in Pittsburgh that were either mischaracterized or simply not included in the report.
While there will always be context, the basic facts are incontrovertible. Cardinal Wuerl between 1988 and 2004 dealt with allegations against 32 Priests with claims of child sexual abuse against them.
18 Priests were removed from ministry.
13 Priests were either dead or removed from ministry when Bishop Wuerl arrived in 1988.
1 Priest had a claim against him that was nonphysical in nature and anonymous and not found to be credible.
There was never a policy or process to transfer priests with claims against them, and Cardinal Wuerl denied numerous requests by priests withdrawn from ministry to return.
In the end, while there may be individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today, Cardinal Wuerl did his best to do the right thing and always worked to ensure children were never harmed.
The facts confirm that he removed priests from ministry upon claims of abuse, was a leader in child protection and took significant steps to assist survivors.
As well, the Secretariat for Communications has placed a page on the Archdiocese of Washington website that has a number of documents and articles on these issues. The most important is Cardinal Wuerl’s statement to the grand jury, which provides greater details on many of the issues under discussion today.
Thank you for your service to God's people.
Sincerely in Christ,
Reverend Monsignor Charles V. Antonicelli
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia
Accompanying the letter are two documents. One is purported to be a fact sheet and the other a time line which Monsignor Antonicelli suggests is a response to the allegations made against him in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report.
Both documents are available online.
I find the Monsignor’s letter, the fact sheet and timeline woefully inadequate responses to the detailed allegations which are contained in the Grand Jury Report.
The Monsignor states that there are "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today".
It is those "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today" that remain the problem for Cardinal Wuerl.
Those "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently" demand an explanation for they are the very cases that constitute the most damning evidence against His Eminence.
Still, Monsignor Antonicelli suggests that the letter and documents are intended to "start the process" by which the Cardinal will respond to the charges that have been made against him.
I shall continue to follow the progress of that process as it unfolds and comment on it along the way.
I encourage the readers of this blogsite to read the documents and make their own judgments as to whether they are adequate responses to the shocking and shameful allegations which the Pennsylvania Report has made regarding Cardinal Wuerl’s actions while Bishop of Pittsburgh.
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC:
August 27, 2018
Dear Friends,
Earlier today, on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, I shared the following letter and materials with Priests of the Archdiocese of Washington. I thought you would find it helpful, and share the letter and materials below.
Over the past two weeks, I have shared several communications with you regarding the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. As Cardinal Wuerl noted at yesterday’s Mass for Healing at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew, all must know the Church’s contrition and remorse for these grave sins. Survivors of this great betrayal by priests must know of the prayers of the Church for healing and our steadfast commitment to protect all of those entrusted to our care.
That said, the report is also flawed. The grand jury process in Pennsylvania was not an evidentiary proceeding, and did not allow those named in the report the opportunity to provide evidence that would counter the claims in the report. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral argument in September about these very issues and has already noted in its preliminary rulings its concerns about the process.
Over the past ten days, there has not been an opportunity to share in a constructive manner a response regarding Cardinal Wuerl’s record as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006. The linked documents – a fact sheet and a timeline – are intended to start that process. These documents provide facts on Cardinal Wuerl’s record during his tenure in Pittsburgh that were either mischaracterized or simply not included in the report.
While there will always be context, the basic facts are incontrovertible. Cardinal Wuerl between 1988 and 2004 dealt with allegations against 32 Priests with claims of child sexual abuse against them.
18 Priests were removed from ministry.
13 Priests were either dead or removed from ministry when Bishop Wuerl arrived in 1988.
1 Priest had a claim against him that was nonphysical in nature and anonymous and not found to be credible.
There was never a policy or process to transfer priests with claims against them, and Cardinal Wuerl denied numerous requests by priests withdrawn from ministry to return.
In the end, while there may be individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today, Cardinal Wuerl did his best to do the right thing and always worked to ensure children were never harmed.
The facts confirm that he removed priests from ministry upon claims of abuse, was a leader in child protection and took significant steps to assist survivors.
As well, the Secretariat for Communications has placed a page on the Archdiocese of Washington website that has a number of documents and articles on these issues. The most important is Cardinal Wuerl’s statement to the grand jury, which provides greater details on many of the issues under discussion today.
Thank you for your service to God's people.
Sincerely in Christ,
Reverend Monsignor Charles V. Antonicelli
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia
Accompanying the letter are two documents. One is purported to be a fact sheet and the other a time line which Monsignor Antonicelli suggests is a response to the allegations made against him in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report.
Both documents are available online.
I find the Monsignor’s letter, the fact sheet and timeline woefully inadequate responses to the detailed allegations which are contained in the Grand Jury Report.
The Monsignor states that there are "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today".
It is those "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently today" that remain the problem for Cardinal Wuerl.
Those "individual cases that might have been evaluated differently" demand an explanation for they are the very cases that constitute the most damning evidence against His Eminence.
Still, Monsignor Antonicelli suggests that the letter and documents are intended to "start the process" by which the Cardinal will respond to the charges that have been made against him.
I shall continue to follow the progress of that process as it unfolds and comment on it along the way.
I encourage the readers of this blogsite to read the documents and make their own judgments as to whether they are adequate responses to the shocking and shameful allegations which the Pennsylvania Report has made regarding Cardinal Wuerl’s actions while Bishop of Pittsburgh.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
NY TIMES REPORTS POPE BENEDICT XVI CONFIRMED ARCHBISHOP VIGANO'S ACCOUNT BEFORE ITS PUBLICATION
Two weeks ago, Archbishop Viganò privately shared his plan to speak out with an influential American friend: Timothy Busch, a wealthy, conservative Catholic lawyer on the board of governors of the media network in which Archbishop Viganò ultimately revealed his letter.
“Archbishop Viganò has done us a great service,” Mr. Busch said in a phone interview Sunday night. “He decided to come forward because if he didn’t, he realized he would be perpetuating the cover-up.”
Mr. Busch said he believed Archbishop Viganò’s claims to be “credible,” and that he did not know in advance that the archbishop would choose to publish his attack in the National Catholic Register, which is owned by the Eternal Word Television Network, where Mr. Busch is on the board of governors.
Mr. Busch said leaders of the publication had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account.
Details and accuracy of that confirmation have not been externally verified.
Should those details and accuracy be indeed verified, the Church will find itself truly at a moment in its history that knows no precedent.
May all faithful Catholics join me in asking the Holy Spirit’s intervention at this dark and difficult hour.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
“Archbishop Viganò has done us a great service,” Mr. Busch said in a phone interview Sunday night. “He decided to come forward because if he didn’t, he realized he would be perpetuating the cover-up.”
Mr. Busch said he believed Archbishop Viganò’s claims to be “credible,” and that he did not know in advance that the archbishop would choose to publish his attack in the National Catholic Register, which is owned by the Eternal Word Television Network, where Mr. Busch is on the board of governors.
Mr. Busch said leaders of the publication had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account.
Details and accuracy of that confirmation have not been externally verified.
Should those details and accuracy be indeed verified, the Church will find itself truly at a moment in its history that knows no precedent.
May all faithful Catholics join me in asking the Holy Spirit’s intervention at this dark and difficult hour.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
Monday, August 27, 2018
CARDINAL CUPICH RESPONDS TO ARCHBISHOP VIGANO'S LETTER
[A personal disclaimer: Cardinal Cupich and I were contemporaries at the Pontifical North American College in Rome in the 70s. Mine, the class of 1974; his, the class of 1975. Other than sharing common seminary life (meals, Masses, and the like), we did not socialize much. I considered him to be an affable and kindly individual.]
Cardinal Cupich granted a brief interview at the Archdiocese of Chicago's offices Monday, one of about a dozen he conducted in response to Archbishop Vigano’s now famous letter.
Asked if he believed Archbishop Vigano was taking a shot at his credentials and qualifications, the Cardinal said he had a long record of accomplishments before he came to Chicago: “Let’s be honest. I’m not somebody who fell out of the sky.”
Really? And what were those accomplishments?
Archbishop Vigano, 77, who was the Holy See's Ambassador in Washington from 2011 until 2016, wrote “the appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, (Oscar Rodriguez) Maradiaga and (Donald) Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.”
Interesting that the Cardinal does not dispute the Archbishop’s claim that he was not among the suggested successors’ names submitted to Vigano by Cardinal Francis George when he retired.
So, how did he become Archbishop of Chicago if his name was not on the approved turnus (list) of candidates submitted to the Vatican through the Nunciature -- standard operating procedure?
He must have had a mentor or sponsor who advocated the appointment on his behalf.
Who might have that been?
Archbishop Vigano claims he knows and names them.
Cardinal Cupich believes he was such an accomplished Pastor of souls that his fame would have preceded him and the Pope could not have failed to consider him for this appointment.
As a defense, His Eminence does not present facts but chooses to impugn Archbishop Vigano because he has been critical of the Holy Father’s ideological agenda.
But that is no defense, is it?
How does a person’s ideology affect the truthfulness of evidence in the form of factual information which the Archbishop states is right there in the files of the Nunciature in Washington, unless there has been a few late night shredding parties no one yet has admitted.
Sammy the Bull was no angel but the evidence he offered to convict John Gotti was factual and corroborated by other witnesses. In the end, that testimony convicted Gotti, even though Sammy was a murderer and racketeer himself.
Ad hominem attacks upon the Archbishop as upon any witness are insufficient.
But the Cardinal does appear to have a penchant for ignoring facts and insinuating motives to the fact finders.
Cardinal Cupich claims that Archbishop Vigano has emerged as a leading critic of Pope Francis after losing a power struggle under Pope Benedict.
His personal attack continues, “ I was taken aback by, not just his (Vigano’s) words, but the derisive language and scorn behind them because that wasn’t anything close to anything I’d ever experienced with him,” the Cardinal said.
Archbishop Vigano stated in his letter: “Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims. During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine.”
Cupich said that references he has made related to clerical sexual abuse and homosexuality are based on the “Causes and Context” study by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, released in 2011, which showed homosexual Priests were not more likely to sexually abuse than heterosexual priests.
“If you say that this is about homosexuality, then in the end what you’re really saying is that people who are gay are more prone to abuse children than straight people are, and that’s an injustice,” Cardinal Cupich said.
“The research does not bear that out. And I’ve said that time and time again. Well, people are saying, ‘Well, you know you had so much of this abuse that was male-on-male.’ That’s true. But it was due not because homosexuals are more prone to injure kids, it was due to opportunity and also situational factors.”
It’s a clever dodge, but fails in the end.
Certainly, assaults on males took place in circumstances and situations that were fairly common and had to do with the lack of proper supervision.
But the context under which the assaults took place doesn’t undermine the fact that it was homosexual Clerics doing the assaulting.
The John Jay Report of 2011 does not contradict its original findings of 2004, but clarifies how the opportunities and environments which were exploited by predatory homosexual serial abusers were contributing factors to the abuse.
This has been pointed out by numerous psychologists and pyschiatrists who have studied the 2011 Report and found it wanting.
Still, Cardinal Cupich clings to his spin that homosexuality played absolutely no part in the serial predatory abuse of young males by Clerics.
The veneer of that position is much too thin for anyone, let alone a Prince of the Church, to use to deny the obvious.
So, why would the Cardinal remain so intransigent regarding this claim?
Archbishop Vigano offers an explanation to which the Cardinal has no retort other than a personal attack.
My thoughts on the matter. What thinkest you?
Cardinal Cupich granted a brief interview at the Archdiocese of Chicago's offices Monday, one of about a dozen he conducted in response to Archbishop Vigano’s now famous letter.
Asked if he believed Archbishop Vigano was taking a shot at his credentials and qualifications, the Cardinal said he had a long record of accomplishments before he came to Chicago: “Let’s be honest. I’m not somebody who fell out of the sky.”
Really? And what were those accomplishments?
Archbishop Vigano, 77, who was the Holy See's Ambassador in Washington from 2011 until 2016, wrote “the appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, (Oscar Rodriguez) Maradiaga and (Donald) Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.”
Interesting that the Cardinal does not dispute the Archbishop’s claim that he was not among the suggested successors’ names submitted to Vigano by Cardinal Francis George when he retired.
So, how did he become Archbishop of Chicago if his name was not on the approved turnus (list) of candidates submitted to the Vatican through the Nunciature -- standard operating procedure?
He must have had a mentor or sponsor who advocated the appointment on his behalf.
Who might have that been?
Archbishop Vigano claims he knows and names them.
Cardinal Cupich believes he was such an accomplished Pastor of souls that his fame would have preceded him and the Pope could not have failed to consider him for this appointment.
As a defense, His Eminence does not present facts but chooses to impugn Archbishop Vigano because he has been critical of the Holy Father’s ideological agenda.
But that is no defense, is it?
How does a person’s ideology affect the truthfulness of evidence in the form of factual information which the Archbishop states is right there in the files of the Nunciature in Washington, unless there has been a few late night shredding parties no one yet has admitted.
Sammy the Bull was no angel but the evidence he offered to convict John Gotti was factual and corroborated by other witnesses. In the end, that testimony convicted Gotti, even though Sammy was a murderer and racketeer himself.
Ad hominem attacks upon the Archbishop as upon any witness are insufficient.
But the Cardinal does appear to have a penchant for ignoring facts and insinuating motives to the fact finders.
Cardinal Cupich claims that Archbishop Vigano has emerged as a leading critic of Pope Francis after losing a power struggle under Pope Benedict.
His personal attack continues, “ I was taken aback by, not just his (Vigano’s) words, but the derisive language and scorn behind them because that wasn’t anything close to anything I’d ever experienced with him,” the Cardinal said.
Archbishop Vigano stated in his letter: “Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims. During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine.”
Cupich said that references he has made related to clerical sexual abuse and homosexuality are based on the “Causes and Context” study by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, released in 2011, which showed homosexual Priests were not more likely to sexually abuse than heterosexual priests.
“If you say that this is about homosexuality, then in the end what you’re really saying is that people who are gay are more prone to abuse children than straight people are, and that’s an injustice,” Cardinal Cupich said.
“The research does not bear that out. And I’ve said that time and time again. Well, people are saying, ‘Well, you know you had so much of this abuse that was male-on-male.’ That’s true. But it was due not because homosexuals are more prone to injure kids, it was due to opportunity and also situational factors.”
It’s a clever dodge, but fails in the end.
Certainly, assaults on males took place in circumstances and situations that were fairly common and had to do with the lack of proper supervision.
But the context under which the assaults took place doesn’t undermine the fact that it was homosexual Clerics doing the assaulting.
The John Jay Report of 2011 does not contradict its original findings of 2004, but clarifies how the opportunities and environments which were exploited by predatory homosexual serial abusers were contributing factors to the abuse.
This has been pointed out by numerous psychologists and pyschiatrists who have studied the 2011 Report and found it wanting.
Still, Cardinal Cupich clings to his spin that homosexuality played absolutely no part in the serial predatory abuse of young males by Clerics.
The veneer of that position is much too thin for anyone, let alone a Prince of the Church, to use to deny the obvious.
So, why would the Cardinal remain so intransigent regarding this claim?
Archbishop Vigano offers an explanation to which the Cardinal has no retort other than a personal attack.
My thoughts on the matter. What thinkest you?
MONSIGNOR LANTHEAUME CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF ARCHBISHOP VIGANO'S LETTER
Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former First Counsellor at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C., has said that the former Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, told “the truth” in his explosive statement released to the press on August 25th.
The 11-page document contains specific allegations that senior Bishops and Cardinals have been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse against former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for more than a decade. Viganò also states that, in either 2009 or 2010, Pope Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on McCarrick “similar to those now imposed upon him by Pope Francis” and that McCarrick was forbidden from traveling and speaking in public.
In his statement, Viganò says that these were communicated to McCarrick in a stormy meeting at the Nunciature in Washington, D.C. by then-nuncio Pietro Sambi. Viganò directly cites Lantheaume as having told him about the encounter, following his arrival in D.C to replace Sambi as nuncio in 2011:
“Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d’Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington - and he is ready to testify to it - about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that ‘the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.’”
Monsignor Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, but wrote in response to a request for an interview: “Viganò said the truth. That’s all!”
As additional Roman Curia officials begin to come forth to confirm or contest Archbishop Vigano’s letter, its contents will be either affirmed or denied.
So far, the ex-Nuncio’s allegations have remained unchallenged by evidence to the contrary and now seem to be confirmed in part by other witnesses.
One can only imagine what is taking place in Rome and dioceses around the world at this unprecedented moment in the history of our Church.
The 11-page document contains specific allegations that senior Bishops and Cardinals have been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse against former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for more than a decade. Viganò also states that, in either 2009 or 2010, Pope Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on McCarrick “similar to those now imposed upon him by Pope Francis” and that McCarrick was forbidden from traveling and speaking in public.
In his statement, Viganò says that these were communicated to McCarrick in a stormy meeting at the Nunciature in Washington, D.C. by then-nuncio Pietro Sambi. Viganò directly cites Lantheaume as having told him about the encounter, following his arrival in D.C to replace Sambi as nuncio in 2011:
“Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d’Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington - and he is ready to testify to it - about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that ‘the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.’”
Monsignor Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, but wrote in response to a request for an interview: “Viganò said the truth. That’s all!”
As additional Roman Curia officials begin to come forth to confirm or contest Archbishop Vigano’s letter, its contents will be either affirmed or denied.
So far, the ex-Nuncio’s allegations have remained unchallenged by evidence to the contrary and now seem to be confirmed in part by other witnesses.
One can only imagine what is taking place in Rome and dioceses around the world at this unprecedented moment in the history of our Church.
CARDINAL DINARDO'S LAME AND INEFFECTIVE PROPOSAL
The President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops demanded answers to questions raised by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s claims that Pope Francis empowered abusers.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo called for conclusive, evidence-based answers to the accusations that Viganò laid out in an 11-page letter, released Saturday, in which he accused Francis of empowering Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and by extension other alleged predator priests, while knowing about the accusations of abuse against him. DiNardo said earlier that he is eager to meet with Francis to gain his approval for a plan to thoroughly investigate the questions raised by allegations against McCarrick and his associates.
“The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past,” DiNardo said in a Monday statement.
A noble intention, Your Eminence.
Here’s the problem: an investigation such as that which you are proposing presupposes the appointment of investigators and prosecutors who MUST BE INDEPENDENT AND FREE of any interference or influence brought to bear upon them by the hierarchy.
Given the fact that Archbishp Vigano has called into critical doubt the integrity of the hierarchy and the Papacy, who will oversee such appointments?
A noble proposal, Your Eminence.
But (in the language of metaphor) you are not suggesting that the foxes investigate other foxes, are you?
A noble intention, Your Eminence.
But who is going to put any faith in an protocol and proceedings overseen by any Conference of Bishops in the world?
Truly, the moment of crisis has arrived for the Church.
Archbishop Vigano’s letter has painted the hierarchy into a corner from which it will find itself difficult, if not impossible, to escape.
That’s the unprecedented crisis Your Eminence’s lame and weak proposal does not reflect in its seriousness or efficacy.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo called for conclusive, evidence-based answers to the accusations that Viganò laid out in an 11-page letter, released Saturday, in which he accused Francis of empowering Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and by extension other alleged predator priests, while knowing about the accusations of abuse against him. DiNardo said earlier that he is eager to meet with Francis to gain his approval for a plan to thoroughly investigate the questions raised by allegations against McCarrick and his associates.
“The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past,” DiNardo said in a Monday statement.
A noble intention, Your Eminence.
Here’s the problem: an investigation such as that which you are proposing presupposes the appointment of investigators and prosecutors who MUST BE INDEPENDENT AND FREE of any interference or influence brought to bear upon them by the hierarchy.
Given the fact that Archbishp Vigano has called into critical doubt the integrity of the hierarchy and the Papacy, who will oversee such appointments?
A noble proposal, Your Eminence.
But (in the language of metaphor) you are not suggesting that the foxes investigate other foxes, are you?
A noble intention, Your Eminence.
But who is going to put any faith in an protocol and proceedings overseen by any Conference of Bishops in the world?
Truly, the moment of crisis has arrived for the Church.
Archbishop Vigano’s letter has painted the hierarchy into a corner from which it will find itself difficult, if not impossible, to escape.
That’s the unprecedented crisis Your Eminence’s lame and weak proposal does not reflect in its seriousness or efficacy.
HOMOSEXUALITY AT THE HEART OF THE ABUSE SCANDAL: Part Three - Conclusion
The real threat to the Church are cynical homosexual Clergymen who take advantage of their functions on their own behalf, sometimes in an extraordinarily devious way. The problem is indeed a very difficult one.
For the readers who still find such a claim too far-fetched, I offer the experience and the testimony of one who would have been in a position to fully know and appreciate the problem.
Pope Benedict came to be aware of cliques of homosexual Clergyman during his long years of work in Vatican.
He repeatedly stressed how shocked he was to learn the extent of the plague of homosexual abuses in the Church, the size of that underground and the terrible damage caused to youth and the Church as a whole.
It was mostly about such clergymen that he referred to while still a Cardinal during the famous Way of the Cross at the Colosseum in 2005, shortly before the death of Pope Saint John Paul II and his own election as the Vicar of Christ: “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the Priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! ... We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us”.
Beneict also said the greatest persecution of the Church was coming not from her enemies without, but has been rising from sin within the Church.
Unlike the present Pontificate, however, Pope Benedict took immediate and concrete actions to cleanse the Church of homosexually compromised Clergymen by removing them from office.
In addition, in the first few months following his election, he issued an instruction forbidding homosexuals from being Ordained. That instruction was preceded by a letter sent from the Holy See to Bishops around the world, ordering that Priests with homosexual tendencies be immediately removed from any educational functions in chanceries and seminaries.
Benedict XVI believed, and rightly so, that the best way of preventing future sexual abuse of minors was to prohibit the Ordination of homosexuals, thus preventing the rebirth of that community within the Church.
Pope Benedict clearly understood that homosexuality is irreconcilable with Priestly vocation. Consequently, he strictly forbade not only Ordaining homosexuals, but even admitting them to any position of authority or ministry within the Church.
In Benedict XVI’s Light of the World of 2010, we find as an afterword a very important passage about homosexuality and Priesthood. These words of the Holy Father are, in a way, a comment on the earlier documents of the Holy See. The Pope is quite explicit:
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken.
The importance of the matter for Pope Benedict and his Pontificate was emphasized by the fact that despite a great shortage of priests and new vocations in Western Europe and America, the Pope did not want the Church to admit such candidates to seminaries because, as the Pope observed, the grave abuses of homosexual clergymen have already caused too much evil, too many disasters, and have cost too much.
As we know, Benedict XVI eventually abdicated the Papacy.
In his memoirs, he states no-one pressured him to resign but alleges that a “gay lobby” in the Vatican had tried to influence decisions and resisted his effort to rid the Church of the plague of homosexuality at every turn.
In the book, entitled The Last Conversations, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a “gay lobby made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions."
Pope Benedict says he managed to “break up this power group”, but at the great personal cost of his mental and physical well-being.
Still, the former Pontiff cautions that many homosexuals hold positions within the Vatican and the Church and have have banded together to support each other’s careers and influence decisions in the bureaucracy.
Looking back on his Pontificate, the Pope emeritus admits that he lacked the ability and the resoluteness required to complete the task of ridding the Church of homosexual Clergy at every level of influence and authority.
What further need have we of evidence that there exists a significant and organized homosexual underground within the Church which is powerful, well-financed and resistant to any attempt to expose its existence as well as the predation of children and minors it has fostered.
What remains is for the Church to establish structures which provide an effective means of protecting minors from sexual abuse by Clergy and to provide a strict and universal protocol by which abusive Clergymen will be removed from Sacred Orders.
[Please note: This article which concludes the three-part series on this subject was written before the explosive letter of Archbishop Vigano, ex-Nuncio to the USA which was published last Saturday. Can anyone doubt that what Pope Benedict was saying is true? Can anyone doubt Archbishop Vigano's claims?]
For the readers who still find such a claim too far-fetched, I offer the experience and the testimony of one who would have been in a position to fully know and appreciate the problem.
Pope Benedict came to be aware of cliques of homosexual Clergyman during his long years of work in Vatican.
He repeatedly stressed how shocked he was to learn the extent of the plague of homosexual abuses in the Church, the size of that underground and the terrible damage caused to youth and the Church as a whole.
It was mostly about such clergymen that he referred to while still a Cardinal during the famous Way of the Cross at the Colosseum in 2005, shortly before the death of Pope Saint John Paul II and his own election as the Vicar of Christ: “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the Priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! ... We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us”.
Beneict also said the greatest persecution of the Church was coming not from her enemies without, but has been rising from sin within the Church.
Unlike the present Pontificate, however, Pope Benedict took immediate and concrete actions to cleanse the Church of homosexually compromised Clergymen by removing them from office.
In addition, in the first few months following his election, he issued an instruction forbidding homosexuals from being Ordained. That instruction was preceded by a letter sent from the Holy See to Bishops around the world, ordering that Priests with homosexual tendencies be immediately removed from any educational functions in chanceries and seminaries.
Benedict XVI believed, and rightly so, that the best way of preventing future sexual abuse of minors was to prohibit the Ordination of homosexuals, thus preventing the rebirth of that community within the Church.
Pope Benedict clearly understood that homosexuality is irreconcilable with Priestly vocation. Consequently, he strictly forbade not only Ordaining homosexuals, but even admitting them to any position of authority or ministry within the Church.
In Benedict XVI’s Light of the World of 2010, we find as an afterword a very important passage about homosexuality and Priesthood. These words of the Holy Father are, in a way, a comment on the earlier documents of the Holy See. The Pope is quite explicit:
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken.
The importance of the matter for Pope Benedict and his Pontificate was emphasized by the fact that despite a great shortage of priests and new vocations in Western Europe and America, the Pope did not want the Church to admit such candidates to seminaries because, as the Pope observed, the grave abuses of homosexual clergymen have already caused too much evil, too many disasters, and have cost too much.
As we know, Benedict XVI eventually abdicated the Papacy.
In his memoirs, he states no-one pressured him to resign but alleges that a “gay lobby” in the Vatican had tried to influence decisions and resisted his effort to rid the Church of the plague of homosexuality at every turn.
In the book, entitled The Last Conversations, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a “gay lobby made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions."
Pope Benedict says he managed to “break up this power group”, but at the great personal cost of his mental and physical well-being.
Still, the former Pontiff cautions that many homosexuals hold positions within the Vatican and the Church and have have banded together to support each other’s careers and influence decisions in the bureaucracy.
Looking back on his Pontificate, the Pope emeritus admits that he lacked the ability and the resoluteness required to complete the task of ridding the Church of homosexual Clergy at every level of influence and authority.
What further need have we of evidence that there exists a significant and organized homosexual underground within the Church which is powerful, well-financed and resistant to any attempt to expose its existence as well as the predation of children and minors it has fostered.
What remains is for the Church to establish structures which provide an effective means of protecting minors from sexual abuse by Clergy and to provide a strict and universal protocol by which abusive Clergymen will be removed from Sacred Orders.
[Please note: This article which concludes the three-part series on this subject was written before the explosive letter of Archbishop Vigano, ex-Nuncio to the USA which was published last Saturday. Can anyone doubt that what Pope Benedict was saying is true? Can anyone doubt Archbishop Vigano's claims?]
CARDINAL WUERL FAILED STRATEGY FROM CONTROL, TO DENIAL, TO SILENCE
On Saturday, ex-Nuncio to the USA, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano published an explosive which sent shockwaves throughout the Church.
Along with a host of accusations against the Holy Father himself, personages in the Vatican an Roman Curia, the Archbishop alleges that a goodly number of American Cardinals and Bishops knew of disgraced former Cardinal McCarrik but none of them from the top down said a word.
Contained in the same letter are the ex-Nuncio detailed exchanges had with Washington DC’s Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl regarding McCarrick’s scandalous sexual behavior.
“I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions,” wrote Archbishop Viganò, “and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it.”
The Cardinal’s “recent statements that he knew nothing about it,” said Viganò, “are absolutely laughable. He lies shamelessly.”
Viganò’s accusation follows on the heels of a similar accusation by Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro who, after leading a sweeping, two-year long Grand Jury investigation into sexual abuse by Catholic priests, accused Wuerl of “not telling the truth.”
Shortly after the grand jury report––in which Cardinal Wuerl’s name was mentioned over 200 times––was made public, the Archdiocese of Washington launched a public relations campaign, The Wuerl Record, which appeared to serve no other purpose than to defend the Cardinal.
After being met with public ridicule, the website vanished as quickly as it appeared.
Since the PR website failed, it appears the Cardinal has chosen not to control the narrative or even deny it.
Cardinal Wuerl has decided to remain silent.
Thus far, with a few notable exceptions of Bishops who are new to the Episcopacy or relatively unknown, the silence of the Church’s hierarchy has been defeaning.
Even the Holy Father responded to reporters questions about the ex-Nuncio’s accusations insisting, “I will say nothing about that!"
The Vicar of Christ challenged journalists (and their readers I suppose) to study the letter and “make up your own minds".
In that simple statement, Pope Francis personally destroyed the present and future of his Pontificate and sullied its legacy.
In this historic moment of direct challenge to the integrity Petrine Office itself, the Holy Father needs to speak clearly and truthfully, supporting his defense of himself and his Sacred Office with clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
The same holds true for the others -- all of them -- who have likewise been accused of complicity in the sordid McCarrick affair by their silence.
Silence in the face of evil is never an answer.
And in this circumstance, it is the silence of these failed and tarnished leaders which convinces.
Don’t any of them understand that.
Of course, there may be another reason why these men have chosen silence, and that may be because they simply have nothing to say in their defense for it just may be that Archbishop Vigano’s allegations are all true.
What a sad and tragic moment for the Body of Christ, for faithful Catholics -- laity and Clergy -- everywhere.
We are owed better.
Much better.
Along with a host of accusations against the Holy Father himself, personages in the Vatican an Roman Curia, the Archbishop alleges that a goodly number of American Cardinals and Bishops knew of disgraced former Cardinal McCarrik but none of them from the top down said a word.
Contained in the same letter are the ex-Nuncio detailed exchanges had with Washington DC’s Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl regarding McCarrick’s scandalous sexual behavior.
“I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions,” wrote Archbishop Viganò, “and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it.”
The Cardinal’s “recent statements that he knew nothing about it,” said Viganò, “are absolutely laughable. He lies shamelessly.”
Viganò’s accusation follows on the heels of a similar accusation by Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro who, after leading a sweeping, two-year long Grand Jury investigation into sexual abuse by Catholic priests, accused Wuerl of “not telling the truth.”
Shortly after the grand jury report––in which Cardinal Wuerl’s name was mentioned over 200 times––was made public, the Archdiocese of Washington launched a public relations campaign, The Wuerl Record, which appeared to serve no other purpose than to defend the Cardinal.
After being met with public ridicule, the website vanished as quickly as it appeared.
Since the PR website failed, it appears the Cardinal has chosen not to control the narrative or even deny it.
Cardinal Wuerl has decided to remain silent.
Thus far, with a few notable exceptions of Bishops who are new to the Episcopacy or relatively unknown, the silence of the Church’s hierarchy has been defeaning.
Even the Holy Father responded to reporters questions about the ex-Nuncio’s accusations insisting, “I will say nothing about that!"
The Vicar of Christ challenged journalists (and their readers I suppose) to study the letter and “make up your own minds".
In that simple statement, Pope Francis personally destroyed the present and future of his Pontificate and sullied its legacy.
In this historic moment of direct challenge to the integrity Petrine Office itself, the Holy Father needs to speak clearly and truthfully, supporting his defense of himself and his Sacred Office with clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
The same holds true for the others -- all of them -- who have likewise been accused of complicity in the sordid McCarrick affair by their silence.
Silence in the face of evil is never an answer.
And in this circumstance, it is the silence of these failed and tarnished leaders which convinces.
Don’t any of them understand that.
Of course, there may be another reason why these men have chosen silence, and that may be because they simply have nothing to say in their defense for it just may be that Archbishop Vigano’s allegations are all true.
What a sad and tragic moment for the Body of Christ, for faithful Catholics -- laity and Clergy -- everywhere.
We are owed better.
Much better.
PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF
And Jesus said to his disciples, “You will, no doubt, quote Me the proverb, ‘Physician heal thyself’”...do not rebuke or correct someone else for own faults or problems of which you are guilty yourself.
It’s an ancient Biblical wisdom Pope Francis seems to have very quickly forgotten in the wake of the explosive allegations which Archbishop Vigano made in a letter published on Saturday accusing the Pope himself of lying about his knowledge of disgraced former Cardinal McCarrick.
Pope Francis recommended parents seek psychiatric help for children who show homosexual tendencies, during a press conference on his plane taking him back to Rome from Ireland.
A journalist asked the pontiff on Sunday what he would say to parents who observe homosexual traits in their children.
"I would say first of all pray, not to condemn, to dialogue, to understand, to give space to the son or the daughter," he responded.
He emphasized that parents should not respond with "silence".
"Ignoring a son or daughter who has homosexual tendencies is an error of fatherhood or motherhood."
Silence, ignoring a problem is an error of fatherhood -- advice from the lips of the Vicar of Christ.
Yet when it comes to confronting and responding to what appears to be an unprecedented crisis within the Papacy and the Roman Curia, Pope Francis response: “I will not say one word.”
Physician heal thyself!
It’s an ancient Biblical wisdom Pope Francis seems to have very quickly forgotten in the wake of the explosive allegations which Archbishop Vigano made in a letter published on Saturday accusing the Pope himself of lying about his knowledge of disgraced former Cardinal McCarrick.
Pope Francis recommended parents seek psychiatric help for children who show homosexual tendencies, during a press conference on his plane taking him back to Rome from Ireland.
A journalist asked the pontiff on Sunday what he would say to parents who observe homosexual traits in their children.
"I would say first of all pray, not to condemn, to dialogue, to understand, to give space to the son or the daughter," he responded.
He emphasized that parents should not respond with "silence".
"Ignoring a son or daughter who has homosexual tendencies is an error of fatherhood or motherhood."
Silence, ignoring a problem is an error of fatherhood -- advice from the lips of the Vicar of Christ.
Yet when it comes to confronting and responding to what appears to be an unprecedented crisis within the Papacy and the Roman Curia, Pope Francis response: “I will not say one word.”
Physician heal thyself!
Sunday, August 26, 2018
THERE IS A WITNESS WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH ABOUT ARCHBISHOP VIGANO'S ACCUSATIONS. WILL HE COME FORWARD?
When asked by reporters whether or not the claims of ex-Nuncio Vigano that Pope Francis lied about his knowledge of former Cardinal McCarrick's perverted past and whether he lifted the sanctions placed upon the embarrassed and demoted Prince of the Church by Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope offered no comment.
Instead, the Pope challenged the press to figure the truth out for themselves.
As I wrote in the previous post, it is remarkable that the Holy Father has chosen such a response to the serious accusations against his character and the Sacred Office that he holds as the Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
If ex-Nuncio Vigano has not been honest in his allegations, the Holy Father needs, must deny these accusations and defend the honor and dignity of the Universal Ministry he holds as the Supreme Apostolic Authority of the Body of Christ.
If the ex-Nuncio is accurate in the presentation of the facts, the Holy Father needs, must respond and admit his failings of leadership, his less than honest claims of ignorance and must then decide if the continuance of his Pontificate serves the best interests of the Universal Church.
Truth doesn’t depend upon impressions and conclusions based upon speculations. Truth is one, absolute and universal.
Either the ex-Nuncio has sold his soul to the Devil and caused a great wound to be opened in the Body of Christ based upon lies and deceit or he is telling the truth.
The Pope is owed the right to defend his name and his Office. But he must claim that right by responding with the truth.
There is one person, whose character while holding the Office of Vicar of Christ is unassailable, who would know whether or not McCarrick’s perversions were known, whether sanctions had been placed upon him and whether those sanctions were removed or ignored by his successor. That person is Pope Benedict XVI and the delegates who served his Pontificate.
The crisis at hand is serious enough to seek the intervention of the former Pontiff so that he might provide evidence in support of his successor or in support of his accuser.
Indeed, ex-Nuncio Vigano named a number of Prelates whom he claims were complicit in the McCarrick affair.
These Prelates too need, must defend themselves and the dignity of the offices they hold.
If they are innocent, let them claim such and present evidence to that effect that is believable and beyond question or doubt and which refutes the clear and cogent evidence present by Archbishop Vigano in his letter.
The matter here and its consequence and effect upon the People of God is too critical for such a flippant and irresponsible retort to what are perhaps the most serious claims against a sitting Pontiff in the history of the Church.
The People of God are owed an answer.
They have every right before God Himself to demand that such and answer be forthcoming.
The Universal Church is waiting and watching at this critical moment in its history, but for how long is anyone’s guess.
How could the Church have come to this?
This must be the work of the Holy Spirit who we must pray will come to rescue the Church wounded by these terrible crimes of homosexual predation of our youngsters.
Only the Spirit can rescue the Church. The task is beyond any human power to do so.
Come, Holy Spirit, come at this dark hour in the Church entrusted to Your care by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Instead, the Pope challenged the press to figure the truth out for themselves.
As I wrote in the previous post, it is remarkable that the Holy Father has chosen such a response to the serious accusations against his character and the Sacred Office that he holds as the Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
If ex-Nuncio Vigano has not been honest in his allegations, the Holy Father needs, must deny these accusations and defend the honor and dignity of the Universal Ministry he holds as the Supreme Apostolic Authority of the Body of Christ.
If the ex-Nuncio is accurate in the presentation of the facts, the Holy Father needs, must respond and admit his failings of leadership, his less than honest claims of ignorance and must then decide if the continuance of his Pontificate serves the best interests of the Universal Church.
Truth doesn’t depend upon impressions and conclusions based upon speculations. Truth is one, absolute and universal.
Either the ex-Nuncio has sold his soul to the Devil and caused a great wound to be opened in the Body of Christ based upon lies and deceit or he is telling the truth.
The Pope is owed the right to defend his name and his Office. But he must claim that right by responding with the truth.
There is one person, whose character while holding the Office of Vicar of Christ is unassailable, who would know whether or not McCarrick’s perversions were known, whether sanctions had been placed upon him and whether those sanctions were removed or ignored by his successor. That person is Pope Benedict XVI and the delegates who served his Pontificate.
The crisis at hand is serious enough to seek the intervention of the former Pontiff so that he might provide evidence in support of his successor or in support of his accuser.
Indeed, ex-Nuncio Vigano named a number of Prelates whom he claims were complicit in the McCarrick affair.
These Prelates too need, must defend themselves and the dignity of the offices they hold.
If they are innocent, let them claim such and present evidence to that effect that is believable and beyond question or doubt and which refutes the clear and cogent evidence present by Archbishop Vigano in his letter.
The matter here and its consequence and effect upon the People of God is too critical for such a flippant and irresponsible retort to what are perhaps the most serious claims against a sitting Pontiff in the history of the Church.
The People of God are owed an answer.
They have every right before God Himself to demand that such and answer be forthcoming.
The Universal Church is waiting and watching at this critical moment in its history, but for how long is anyone’s guess.
How could the Church have come to this?
This must be the work of the Holy Spirit who we must pray will come to rescue the Church wounded by these terrible crimes of homosexual predation of our youngsters.
Only the Spirit can rescue the Church. The task is beyond any human power to do so.
Come, Holy Spirit, come at this dark hour in the Church entrusted to Your care by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)