Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 26th August,
2018.
TESTIMONY
by
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
In this tragic moment for the Church in various
parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. —
bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the
United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict
XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American
Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to
follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands
of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the
Way, the Truth and the Life.
Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have
committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors,
innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by
their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.
To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the
Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and
if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has
fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and
publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the
conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves
at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of
the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not
so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever you have said
in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3).
I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy
of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and
strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That
is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided
making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so,
in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by
high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has
reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I
reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop
Emeritus of Washington, D.C.,
Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the
course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for
Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until
end of May 2016.
As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the
Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic
Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions,
informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the
examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops,
that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by
the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.
To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent
articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United
States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not
fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop
McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed,
according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s
letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio
Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the
diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that
there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed
with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his
beach house.
And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of
whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been
invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.
The office that I held at the time was not informed
of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio
Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of
State.
Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal
Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against
McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was
reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents
from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse
by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The
Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about
twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police
and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news
would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the
Holy See.
In writing up a memo[1] on these
documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical
Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal
Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed
to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke
bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and
that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of
seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people,
derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions
in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these
depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests
after committing such acts.
In my memo, which I delivered on that same December
6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the
following considerations and course of action to my superiors:
Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular
gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals
for the Church in the United States,
and that, since this matter had to do with a
cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontificis
dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”;
I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken
against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses
against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the
faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.
I added that it would be salutary if, for once,
ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if
possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have
restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many
abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority
would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had
already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his
authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.
My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my
superiors, and was never returned to me with any actual decision by
the superiors on this matter.
Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008,
the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse
crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at
richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the
Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month
later, on May 24, 2008.
The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new
Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6,
2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this
respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach Your
Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter
Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the
condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar
and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your
Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about
which I have spoken.”
I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I
thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the
cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the
sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for
reduction to the lay state.
This second memo of mine was also never returned to
the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the
inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the
continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December
2006.
But finally I learned with certainty, through
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,
that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired
result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar
to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the
seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public,
to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation
of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.
I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures
against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been
transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who
was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was
Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present
in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate had already taken a
firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep
homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first collaborator at
the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting
homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing
the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.
In any case, what is certain is that Pope
Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were
communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro
Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the
Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires a.i. 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.”
Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also
communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal
Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for
Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation
to the new Nuncio.
In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my
first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely
comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping
in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as
if it had no importance.
The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible
for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every
right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore
my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.
Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of
State until September 2006: all information was communicated to him. In November
2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned
letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses
committed by McCarrick.
It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father
Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo
Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in
his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to
collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to
the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope
Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict
reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and
irrevocably condemned.
Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as
Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not
given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was
the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made
friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had protected Maciel,
as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for
McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence
decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the
Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in
Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re
disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th
on the list for Washington.
Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the attachments, was
sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two
above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also
presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the
Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate
candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of
Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later
removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and
manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of
State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had,
after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions
to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a
front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on
behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to
Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope
Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never
received any reply!
The same can be said for Cardinal William
Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for
Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the
same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the
sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.
Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and
Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail
the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick.
Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and
Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with
States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the
Secretary of State.
As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the
moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are
well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal
Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to
the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on
homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in
the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons.
Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato
Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a different
ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus
Sanctae Marthae.
Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to
have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s
successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation
is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior
as Bishop of Pittsburgh.
It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who
was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of
being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I
myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I
certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me
that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I
had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan
publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting
young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with
Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his
surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and
that he would cancel it.
If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of
the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how
can his answer be explained?
His recent statements that he knew nothing about it,
even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims,
are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his
Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.
Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another
occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities
of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President,
Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to
the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of
them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter
I had written. The Cardinal
told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge
receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently
learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the
Cardinal knew nothing about it!
Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses
committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope
Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a
seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.
Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen,
and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses
committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his
victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal
every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed
by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses
committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I
think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he
knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him
given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the
Legionaries of Christ?
Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would
simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting,
and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.
* * *
My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that
I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic
significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops
for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state
here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.
In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict
XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and
St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience
with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made
by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my
first meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the
resignation of Pope Benedict.
On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to
the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there.
As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the
red-trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He
immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and
triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to
China.”
At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship
with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent
election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova
University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor
had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary
meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a
cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp
the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but
that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.
The next day the audience with Pope Francis took
place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered off the
cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, I
remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say
to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with
a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States
must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!”Of course I was not in a
position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the
aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in
Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier,
telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for
World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from
that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation.
At the end of the audience the Pope
announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to
concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I naturally
thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to
tell me.
On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with
the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house
helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me
sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without
having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope
was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his
Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The Pope told me to ask if you
are free now!” Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and
that I thanked him for receiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first
floor in his apartment and said: “We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”
I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he
intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him
the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost
affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must
not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of
Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the
Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing —
and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean
homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being
left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.
Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful
way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete
frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know
if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops
there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of
seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of
prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about
those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on
his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he
immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in
asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He
clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.
Back in Washington everything became very clear to
me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting
with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the
Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor
Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an
international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told
me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told
him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the
Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be
right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore
clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June
21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also
the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be
traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the
two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In
his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of
then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew
how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to
McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict,
for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.
Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June
23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the
audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for
me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He
asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or
bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or
bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already
mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the
aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by
the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting
with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction.
It was also clear that, from the time of Pope
Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to
travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort
with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become
the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States,
and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama
administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation
for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately
appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments
the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of
bishops.
In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus
Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian
Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of
the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple
official of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented
for such an important position!
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. Their names were
not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.
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.
Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of
the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the
USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by
clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting
attention from the real problem which is clericalism.
In support of this
thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at
the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he
“candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied
by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse,
81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector
of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child
Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of
Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most
cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”
The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also
orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by
Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.” McElroy
was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to
him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.
These characters are closely associated with
individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of
Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of
serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only
consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the
House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion;
or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters
of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised
the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It
should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of
Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so
harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely
associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.
Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people
mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy,
appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist
who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon
gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent
example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.
Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total
transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act
with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him
in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned
about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians
and priests.
In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on
June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the
sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted
counselor along with Maradiaga.
The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s
protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of
his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried
to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.
By now the faithful have well
understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself,
lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement
in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even
against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro
Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.
In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José
Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last
February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: “It was my
auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name
after being subjected to much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda the only
thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been
accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish
into nowhere.
In the name of the transparency so hailed by the
Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto,
delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made
public.
Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute
of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that
is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at
the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I
received worrisome information about him.
In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile
is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez
Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la
Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice
of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he
was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did
he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been
misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but
continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.
Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope
Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that
McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he
covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own,
which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the
Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor,
again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding
McCarrick] to save his image in the media.
Now in the United States a chorus of voices is
rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by
several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence,
covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their
career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should
resign.
But this will not be enough to heal the situation of
extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of
conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be
recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the
Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be fought against.
The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced.
The homosexual
networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of
Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently
wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved
simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic
directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy
which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread
in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment
of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent
victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.
I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up
in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to
report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.
Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John
Paul II left us as an inheritance:Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!
In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany,
Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully
revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it
needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on
God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The
Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood
of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church
is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her
earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin.
I want to recall this indefectible truth
of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized
by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of
Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct
of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who
are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the
Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these
words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do
... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where
evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil
with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a serious
moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s
supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but
associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt.
He
followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying
exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how
many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active
destruction of the Church!
Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave
to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them,
led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the
sheep of Christ’s flock.
In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal
Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed
principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a
good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and
resign along with all of them.
Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what
is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great
majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and
dedication.
It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s
grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all;
but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose
to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her
sins, to convert, and to do penance.
Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let
us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!
Let us all renew faith in the Church our
Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”
Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated
her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit!
Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!
Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory,
pray for us!
Rome, August 22, 2018
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary
