In his 11-page “testimony”, Archbishop Viganò, a former Nuncio to the US, has stated:
“The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two,” he wrote. “Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.”
However, in a statement on the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich has replied:
“I consider these remarks astonishing. The only substantial conversation I have ever had about my appointment to Chicago with the former Nuncio was on September 11, 2014, when he called to inform me of the appointment. The former nuncio started the conversation by saying: “I call with news of great joy. The Holy Father has appointed you the archbishop of Chicago.” He then congratulated me upon hearing of my acceptance. That is the extent of any conversation I have ever had about this matter with the former Nuncio.”
But, in 2014, in an article entitled Behind the scenes of the Chicago Appointment, posted on the Catholic Citizens website, Mary Anne Hackett wrote that Pope Francis proceeded with his own personal consultation about the Chicago appointment, parallel to the process for the vetting and recommendation of Episcopal appointments carried out by the Congregation for Bishops, a Dicastery of the Holy See itself.
Nor did the Pope, she writes, consider the outlook of the American Bishops regarding Blase Cupich who found himself in 7th place in the voting for the presidency of the USCCB in 2013, months before his appointment to Chicago.
In fact, of the ten candidates for that office, Cupich was considered to be the most “progressive” among the group and, consequently, received only 10 votes.
In the two rounds of voting for the vice-presidency, Cupich was far from being elected, coming in 5th (out of 9) both at the first round, with 24 votes out of 236, and at the second, with 17 votes out of 235.
Clearly, Pope Francis did not take the outlook of the American episcopate into account, unlike for example what he did in Spain, where in Madrid he promoted Carlos Osoro Sierra, who as Archbishop of Valencia was elected vice-president of the Episcopal Conference in the first round, with 46 votes out of 79.
Nor did the Pope consider the recommendation of Cardinal Francis Geroge who had asked for a Priest from Chicago to be appointed Coadjutor Bishop (who would then have immediately succeeded the Cardinal upon the acceptance of his resignation by the Holy Father).
But in Sydney, Australia, Pope Francis did indeed appoint the Dominican Anthony Colin Fisher, the protégé of the outgoing Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, who recommended his appointment to the Holy Father.
In all three cases (Madrid, Sydney and Chicago), Pope Francis proceeded with the appointment without having it discussed first by the Cardinals and Bishops of the Congregation for Bishops, even though all of them were confirmed by him the previous year, with significant new additions and just as significant removals (the most sensational being that of United States Cardinal Burke), Ms. Hackett writes.
Remarkably, this 2014 article goes on to state: “The appointment of Cupich is thought to have been recommended to the Pope with particular enthusiasm by Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga and above all by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington.”
So already 4 years ago, the word was out that Cardinals Maradiaga and, especially McCarrick, had enthusiastically promoted the appointment of Blase Cupich to Chicago.
In my research, I have not uncovered any evidence to suggest that Ms. Hackett was considered to be a prescient observer of Vatican affairs or even a Vatican insider.
What she wrote about the appointment of Blase Cupich to Chicago was information commonly known and openly discussed within Episcopal circles a full 4 years ago.
And so, Cardinal Cupich’s reaction to Archbishop Vigano’s letter which claims that his appointment to Chicago was indeed promoted by Cardinal Maradiago and McCarrick is remarkable given that such was common knowledge at the time of the appointment itself.
Any reasonable person would be forced by these facts to conclude that Cardinal Cupich is being less than honest and candid in his reaction to the assertions which Archbishop Vigano has written in his now-famous letter.
Historical documents, such as this article, do not succumb to feigned astonishment.
What thinkest you?
No comments:
Post a Comment