[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?
No comments:
Post a Comment