Of course, media outlets are making much more of Cardinal Oullet’s remarks than they deserve. For, even as His Eminence characterizes Archbishop Vigano’s accusations and statements as “extremely immoral,” he does corroborate the Archbishop’s claim that McCarrick was under Vatican-imposed limitations and ordered (whether by way of canonical penalty or not) to refrain from public activity since as early as 2011.
His Eminence, methinks, protests too much in saying that the limitations were not “formal sanctions".
If Cardinal Oullet thinks his Olympian-effort at semantics is sufficient to contradict Archbishop Vigano’s assertions, he is much mistaken.
For His Eminence does indeed confirm that McCarrick had been encouraged -- always with reference to no one doing the encouraging -- to lead a “a life of discretion, prayer and penance" because of what the Cardinal describes as “rumors about his behavior in the past".
How convenient of Cardinal Ouellet to disregard the two letter Father Boniface Ramsey sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asserting McCarrick perverse actions with regard to seminarians.
So, Your Eminence, when you say there were only “rumors” about McCarrick, they were really accusations that the Holy See never bothered to investigate to either exonerate McCarrick or establish that his many perverse actions were factual.
The Cardinal’s attempted spin just doesn’t wash with the Ramsey complaints and the consistent silence from the Vatican in response.
His Eminence again wants to play shell game -- this time trying to hide the truth as he shuffles his words carefully. He goes to great lengths in his insistence that “there are not documents signed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis” regarding any “sanctions” decreed against McCarrick.
If true, it would suggest the “sanctions” were personally and discreetly imposed by Benedict XVI but were just as personally and discreetly lifted by Pope Francis.
Cardinal Oullet forgets, much to his eventual embarrassment, that Archbishop Vigano has provided the name of Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former First Counsellor at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington D.C., who was an eye-witness to the events Archbishop Vigano described in his letter and has stated that “everything the Archbishop has written is the truth.”
Any reasonable individual can discern what the “Oullet response” is all about.
In a second letter Archbishop Vigano wrote, he took Cardinal Oullet to task for keeping silent about the McCarrick scandal even though His Eminence was fully aware of the particulars.
Obviously, Cardinal Oullet was deeply offended and has struck back, using the tried-and-failed insinuation that Archbishop Vigano is carrying out some conservative-inspired vendetta against Pope Francis.
Sorry, Your Eminence, your gimmick won’t work.
But more disconcerting is that your letter confirms the suspicions that the Vatican has no intention of addressing the McCarrick scandal with honesty or integrity, but chooses to hide behind carefully chosen words that seem to have been written by attorneys rather than pastors of souls.
If this is an example of the “thorough study” the Vatican has promised to conduct into the McCarrick scandal, perhaps the Holy See should spare itself and the Church the embarrassment of half-truths and personal attacks.
What a shame that members of the hierarchy are appealing to public sentiment rather than a full exploration of the facts to resolve what has been a terrible wound inflicted upon the Body of Christ and the Office of Peter itself.
The Catholic faithful are in wonderment and bewildered as they witness these unseemly personal attacks by those who share the Priesthood of Jesus Christ and, by example, should be the epitome of Christian fraternity and unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment