The new 'excuse' from Cardina-liar Donald Wuerl about his knowledge of at least one specific sexual misconduct accusation against his mentor and predecessor as Archbishop of Washington is so patently UNBELIEVABLE one cannot believe he even used it - but he did in a January 15 letter to the priests of his archdiocese. After having said again and again that he had not heard anything - not even rumors- about McCarrick's misconduct, and then making the distinction later he meant he had not heard that he had been abusing minors, not seminarians - as if somehow that made McCarrick's sins pardonable. No, he wasn't abusing minors, only seminarians! CNA which broke the story yesterday about Wuerl's latest lie has an update.
Who believes Wuerl's latest lie???
[And why is he still heading the Archdiocese of Washington?]
by Ed Condon
January 17, 2019
The man who made a 2004 accusation of misconduct against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick said Wednesday he is in disbelief after Cardinal Donald Wuerl told him he forgot about the allegation sometime after becoming Washington’s archbishop in 2006.
In a January 15 letter, Wuerl wrote to Washington, DC priests, saying that
“when I was asked if I had any previous knowledge of allegations against Archbishop McCarrick, I said I did not. Only afterwards was I reminded of the 14-year-old accusation of inappropriate conduct which, by that time, I had forgotten.” [If you were an archbishop who was given documentation that your former diocese had paid out a settlement to a McCarrick victim, would you be likely to forget that at all? Especially if, as Wuerl claimed, he also turned over the information to the Nuncio at the time! In 2004 Wuerl was only 64 - too early for Alzheimer's.]
In a previous letter to priests, sent on January 12, Wuerl did not mention forgetting the allegation - instead he said he was bound by confidentiality not to mention it, and that when he denied hearing rumors about McCarrick’s misconduct, he meant only that he had not heard rumors that McCarrick had sexually abused minors. [Oh, so he had an earlier version of his current 'explanation! Maybe Wuerl is senile already - no one in his right mind would be giving out all the different lies he has been peddling, each one increasingly more preposterous. And this is the man Pope Francis praised for his overall handling of sexual abuse cases after Wuerl was forced to submit his resignation as Archbishop of Washington following the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report. Just as shamelessly brazen as Wuerl's lies, of course, was the fact that Bergoglio nonetheless chose to keep him on as Apostolic Administrator of DC and obviously has not moved a finger to name a proper replacement.
What better microcosm of the messed-up morals of the man who is now pope and of his pontificate than the Wuerl saga - in many ways analogous to Bergoglio's 'non-handling' of the McCarrick case and just as emblematic. What next? Another Bergoglio effusion in praise of Wuerl despite all this???
The 2004 complaint was made by laicized priest Robert Ciolek.
In 2004, Ciolek went to Wuerl, who was then Bishop of Pittsburgh, to relay an accusation of sexual abuse at the hands of a Pittsburgh priest. At the same time, he reported to Wuerl that McCarrick had, as Bishop of Metuchen, shared a bed with seminarians at a New Jersey beach house, pressuring Ciolek to do the same. Wuerl presented those accusations to the apostolic nuncio in Washington.
Ciolek told CNA he spoke with Wuerl by telephone on Jan. 15, and that the cardinal told him personally what he later said in his letter: that he had had “a lapse of memory” regarding the 2004 allegation.
When Wuerl told him that, Ciolek said, he asked the cardinal if he had already forgotten the accusations by the time he arrived in Washington as McCarrick’s successor in 2006, only two years after he reported the allegation. He told CNA that he also asked Wuerl if he had taken any steps to see whether the same behavior was being repeated in Washington.
He said that Wuerl told him:
“I did think about that when I arrived in Washington, but because I had never heard any other allegation or rumor, or heard back from the nuncio, I didn’t feel it was something I needed to concern myself with in Washington at that time.”
Ciolek said he found it difficult to understand how Wuerl could have forgotten the substance of his accusations in the ensuing years, especially after recalling them as he arrived in Washington to replace McCarrick.
“It’s unfathomable to me that he has forgotten, I don’t believe it for one second.”
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington declined to comment on Ciolek’s account of the conversation between him and Cardinal Wuerl, telling CNA that “the cardinal considers this a private conversation and will be respecting that.”
Ciolek told CNA that during their Jan. 15 telephone call, Wuerl also offered personal apologies for the abuse he had suffered, along with an apology for a “lapse of memory” regarding his 2004 allegation.
“I did not believe him when he said he did not remember,” Ciolek said, adding that the apology “wasn’t making sense to me in the light of his statement last week.”
In his Jan. 12 letter to Washington, DC priests, Wuerl wrote that when he offered multiple denials about hearing rumors regarding McCarrick, he meant them more narrowly than they were perceived, saying he spoke “in the context of the charges of sexual abuse of minors, which at the time was the focus of discussion and media attention.”
“While one may interpret my statement in a different context, the discussion around and adjudication of Archbishop McCarrick’s behavior concern his abuse of minors,” Wuerl added last week.
Ciolek also told CNA he felt that Wuerl’s recent statements have sought to “minimize” the allegations by referring to them as “inappropriate conduct.
He also told CNA that he disliked having to discuss his abuse and experiences publicly, but considered it a necessary contribution towards reform.
“I saw this conversation as an opportunity for Wuerl to say ‘enough is enough,’ and finally own his own actions. Sadly that hasn’t happened yet.”
He said he told the cardinal Tuesday “while it was nice to hear all you’ve expressed, your last comments about your own forgetfulness about these things is actually causing me more pain than I’ve already endured.”
“I don’t want any seminarian to endure what I did at the hands of a bishop again. I think the only way anyone can have hope that will happen is not just needed process changes, but ripping the band-aid off and exposing the wounds. People will be more willing to trust and believe [in reforms] if real honestly is part of the process,” Ciolek said.
“I’m sorry, if Cardinal Wuerl says he can’t remember…, there is only one conclusion [I can draw] and that is he is not being honest. He knew, he knew.”
JUST UN-BE-LIEV-ABLE! Imagine the lies the other McCarrick protege so favored by Bergoglio, Archbishop 'Nighty-night' Tobin of Newark, could be concocting or would have already concocted about his knowledge of McCarrick's misconduct... Yet if one looks at each and every cardinal in Bergoglio's privileged coterie of personal pets each one seems to be completely unsuitable for their red hats and high offices in view of their moral turpitude.
Why don't Catholic leaders
who fall short
simply say they're sorry?
[I think because they really are not and
think they've done or said nothing wrong]
by Mike Goggin
January 15, 2019
Recent days have seen calls for greater accountability from top-ranked U.S. Catholic clerics. First, a former priest revealed that Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocse fo Warshingon has been untruthful about what he knew of sexual misconduct allegations against his predecessor as archbishop, Theodore McCarrick.
Then on Monday, there were new calls for McCarrick himself to publicly repent for alleged abuse of youths and adults.
These past few days have prompted a basic question: Why can't these clerics just say they're sorry?
It's a particular conundrum for those of us who are Catholic. The sacrament of reconciliation provides us with the opportunity to confess our sins to a priest, apologize for them, make amends and resolve to do better.
When many of us prepared to practice the sacrament for the first time as children just reaching the age of reason, we were taught that lying was a sin. As we moved into adolescence, we learned that any sexual activity outside of marriage was likewise a sin. So why are our confessors finding it so hard to apologize for these very same basic sins?
Having worked for the Catholic Church for the past 25 years, I think it may have something to do with the dramatic change in the status of religious leaders in my lifetime.
Growing up in the Boston of the 1970s and early 1980s, where neighborhoods were still divided along the parish boundary lines despite a growing presence of non-Catholic immigrants from around the world, great respect and even reverence were directed toward the parish priest and his assistant clergymen.
- These men could do no wrong.
- They were arbiters of grace, and their Sunday evening visits for family dinners demanded the use of the best china.
- The church itself taught that the members of the clergy are in their very being different because of their ordination (in the church we use the term "ontological").
- While they look like any layperson, there is a fundamental difference in their being.
The church still teaches this today.
I remember the shock I felt when, as a teenager, I first encountered a priest who swore, or told an off-color joke, or smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol.
- In the end, it really was not that hard to find all of these peccadilloes in the priests I encountered in my parish or my Jesuit high school, but the result was a certain diminishment of the clergy in my eyes.
- The image of a superman was tarnished. As we now know, there were many much more serious sins and crimes being committed by Catholic clergy in that same place and time, but I had no personal experience of that.
Fast-forward to 2019, and one would be hard-pressed to find a lay Catholic who puts his or her priest on such a pedestal.
- We have been jaded by the scandals of the church in Boston, and now we are experiencing a crisis of leadership locally.
- Keep in mind that McCarrick was ordained to the priesthood in 1958 and Wuerl in 1966, and so their respective climbs to become princes of the church took place in the "Father Knows Best" milieu of an earlier time in this country.
Sure, institutional fear of costly litigation enters in, and perhaps that is really what is preventing Wuerl from being as candid as he might like.
- But it is also true that we might be asking both Wuerl and McCarrick to do something that priests and bishops of their time were never expected to do.
- If Father was always right, an apology was never needed - especially not if you wielded the additional power and authority of a bishop.
Bishops will tell you that their power and authority come to them through the Scriptures and the tradition of the church.
None of us will ever be in a position to know or judge the private prayer lives of these men, the sins they themselves confess as they do penance nor the things they discuss with their spiritual directors and companions.
We are left to hope that Wuerl, in receiving the sacrament of reconciliation himself from a brother priest, did not leave his knowledge of McCarrick's actions completely unvoiced. Should his confessor have suggested public disclosure of the same? Well, Scripture does tell us that the truth will set you free.
Time and again, we have seen examples of Americans being willing to forgive people who have let them down.
This week, a spokesman for the Catholic community Opus Dei made an unusually frank - for a faith group - admission of guilt and shame, after it was forced to publicly confirm
it paid nearly $1 million in a sex misconduct suit for celeb-priest John McCloskey and covered it up - leaving him in the same District of Columbia assignment for a year after the victim came forward before removing him quietly.
"The reality is he was around for a year after we were informed," spokesman Brian Finnerty said. "That's the reality. It's not good. But we may as well own it. . . . It's an argument that is no longer tenable - this
'let's quiet things over so priests can continue to do good'".
Within the past few years, some local Catholic institutions, most affiliated with the Jesuit religious order but not exclusively so, have looked at their own sad involvement in the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries and have apologized publicly for their complicity.
My alma mater, Georgetown University, in 2017 stripped the names of two Jesuit leaders who traded in slaves in 1838 off some of the newest buildings on campus and renamed them for the first slave named on the university's bill of sale (Isaac Hawkins) and a black educator who founded a girls' school in the Georgetown neighborhood in that era (Anne Marie Becraft). The university also invited more than 100 of the slaves' descendants to the renaming ceremony and offered them scholarship opportunities to study at the school.
At the ceremony, the Rev. Timothy Kesicki spoke directly to these men and women as resident of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States: "Today the Society of Jesus, who helped to establish Georgetown University and whose leaders enslaved and mercilessly sold your ancestors, stands before you to say that we have greatly sinned. We pray with you today because we are profoundly sorry."
Simple words spoken with great conviction - not a burdensome expectation, really.
Goggin was assistant director for the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington for nine years and is now the regional director of the Ignatian Volunteer Corps.
An earlier CNA story is a spine-chiller of a different sort...
Pope Francis: What to expect in 2019
By the end of 2019, the Roman Curia and College of Cardinals
might have been completely remade made in Bergoglio's image.
Vatican City, Jan 15, 2019 (CNA) - The finalization of a Curial reform process, a reshuffle in some Vatican positions, and an eventual consistory to “refill” the College of Cardinals might be among Pope Francis’s key moves in 2019.
As all eyes are set on the Vatican anti-abuse meeting, to be held Feb. 21-24, Pope Francis is in fact engaged in ongoing to reshape the Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals.
The first of the pope’s likely key moves has to do with the College of Cardinals.
After the death of Cardinal Jean Louis Tauran, there is no cardinal camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church. The camerlengo is chosen by the pope only, and holds is a very delicate position, especially during a sede vacante in the papacy.
When the pope dies, or renounces his seat, “the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church has the duty of safeguarding and administering the goods and temporal rights of the Holy See, with the help of the three cardinal assistants, having sought the views of the College of Cardinals, once only for less important matters, and on each occasion when more serious matters arise,” according to the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus.
In general, the camerlengo oversees an office of the papal household that administers the property and revenues of the Holy See.
If the pope doesl not appoint a camerlengo, the cardinals will elect one at the beginning of the sede vacante.
However, Pope Francis might refrain from appointing a new camerlengo before he promulgates a long-awaited apostolic constitution on Vatican governance, Predicate evangelium, which is expected to reshape the offices of the Roman Curia.
There are rumors, in fact, that Pope Francis is going to abolish the pontifical household, including its office within the first section of the Secretariat of State.
According to a CNA source familiar with the subject, the idea has been suggested, though the shutdown of the pontifical household does not appear to be imminent.
The abolition of the pontifical household will bring some issues to be solved, since all the competencies of the pontifical household might be divided into other offices: the Sistine Chapel choir would go under the administration of the office for liturgical celebrations, the management of state visits would be placed under the protocol of the Secretariat of State, and so on. It is yet to clarified.
However, the decision would mark a major break with the past. The pontifical household is the direct legacy of the pontifical court, and its presence recalls the religious meaning behind any papal activity.
The rumors about the pontifical household also involve Archbishop Georg Ganswein, the prefect. Ganswein was appointed to the position in 2012 by Benedict XVI. He is now in his second 5-year term at the helm of the prefecture, while maintaining his position as particular secretary to the Pope Emeritus Benedict.
However, discontinuing the prefecture would prompt Pope Francis to find Ganswein a new position. One of the more widespread rumors is that Ganswein will be appointed secretary of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, to replace Archbishop Marcello Bartolucci. Bartolucci will turn the retirement age, 75, in April.
Ganswein could also be eligible to take a position within the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is noteworthy that Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect, will end his five-year mandate in November, and it is possible the composition of the congregation’s top ranks will be reshuffled at that time.
Another key move in the Roman Curia might be the shutdown of the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei. Established in 1988 by St. John Paul II in order to carry on a dialogue with traditionalist parties, the commission was reformed by Benedict XVI with a 2009 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, linking the commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Pope Francis may shut down the commission, making it an office within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
If the shutdown takes place, the pope will have to find a new post for Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the commission’s president.
The shutdown of both the pontifical household and Ecclesia Dei would be part of the wider project for Curia reform.
At the moment, Praedicate evangelium, that is, the new constitution that will regulate tasks and competencies of Curia offices, is being finalized. Pope Francis will likely want to make an overall revision of the text.
However, most of the structural reforms are already in place: Pope Francis has established the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, merging there the Pontifical Councils for Laity and Family and a part of the competency of the Pontifical Academy for Life; he established the dicatery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, that absorbed the Pontifical Councils for Justice and Peace, Migrants, Cor Unum, and for Health Care Workers.
Under Pope Francis, the Secretariat for the Economy and the Council for the Economy have been set up, while the reform of the communication department led to the establishment of the Secretariat for Communication, now a dicastery.
It seems that, at the moment, the other curial offices will not be touched. Cardinal Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is 76 now, so he has surpassed the usual retirement age. Pope Francis, however, confirmed him at the helm of the dicastery until his 80th birthday. No changes are to be expected there, then.
The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue is without a leader since Cardinal Jean Louis Tauran, the president, died in July 2018. It is still uncertain whether the pope will appoint a new president or will merge the pontifical council with another Curia office.
While undergoing these major structural changes, it likely Pope Francis will hold another consistory for the creation of new cardinals during this year.
Cardinals are eligible to vote in a conclave when they are under 80. At the moment, there are 124 cardinals who are eligible to vote in a conclave. Out of these, 59 have been created by Pope Francis in five consistories, an average of one consistory per year.
During this year, there will be 10 cardinals that will turn 80, and will not be eligible to vote in a papal conclave anymore. Out of these 10, three were made cardinals by Pope Francis.
The cardinals aging-out are: Alberto Suarez Inda, Orlando Beltran Quevedo, Edwin O’Brien, Stanislaw Dzwisiz, John Tong Hon, Sean Baptist Brady, Laurent Mosengwo Pasinya, Zenon Grocholewski, Edoardo Menichelli, and Telesphore Placidus Toppo.
By October there will be only 114 cardinals eligible to vote in a conclave, six less than the maximum permitted number of voting cardinals, which was set at 120 by St. Pope Paul VI – Pope Francis made an exception to this number at the last consistory.
All odds say that Pope Francis will hold another consistory, naming new cardinals during 2019. Who will receive new red hats is not foreseen.
It is noteworthy that Archbishop Filippo Iannone, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, are the only heads of dicasteries without red birettas.
And it is noteworthy that Ireland’s only living representative in the College of Cardinals will age out of voting eligibility. So, the pope might consider another Irish cardinal.
However, it is also possible the pope will reward some of the periphery Churches, sticking to the point that all the Church must be represented in the College of Cardinals.
So by the end of 2019, the Roman Curia and College of Cardinals might be completely made in Pope Francis image. And it would be the first time since the beginning of his pontificate.
This pope may choose to ignore all the online petitions and open letters sent to him in the past six years, not to mention the daily commentaries (by professional journalists and commentators, as well as by the ranks of amateur bloggers, and their numberless indefatigable combox commentators) exposing and analyzing his many and varied 'failings and faults' - and blatant lies. But the fact remains that - in the Internet age - all of this is on record, and barring some cosmic cyberspace catastrophe, will forever be in cyberspace as part of recorded history.
It is safe to say that he is the first pope in the media age to have been the subject of so much protest and controversy as to merit all that tsunami of verbiage. Even all the post-DEPUTY black propaganda and 'backlash' against Pius XII, or perhaps in second place, the post-Humanae Vitae 'backlash' against Paul VI, pale in comparison.
Here then is the latest major petition sure to be completely ignored by Bergoglio and his Vatican - who have never even acknowledged all previous petitions, much less acted on them at all. It's the 'Bergoglio dubia reflex': If you ignore it, it did not happen at all. Except, there is all of that record in cyberspace to belie him..
Among the first signatories and promoters of te initiative are: John Smeaton, The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (UK); Markus Büning (Germany);
Riccardo Cascioli, editor of
La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana (Italy); Christian Spaemann (Germany); Pedro L. Llera (Spain); Anna Silvas (Australia);
Donna F. Bethell (USA); and Peter A. Kwasniewski (Stati USA).
Add your name to the petition at
https://proecclesia.ch/petition/
Meanwhile, OnePeterFive has taken belated note of Aldo Maria Valli's post last week about the effusive gratitude of Freemasons to the reigning pope for his Christmas message on universal fraternity, echoing the well-known Masonic slogan about 'the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man' (the Masons believe in a Supreme Creator they call God for convenience).
Freemasons thank the pope
for his Christmas message
In 2017, OnePeterFive published a three-part series examining all the support that Pope Francis has received from Freemasons around the world since his election. At the time, we presented a compilation of 62 examples of public support from various Freemasonic figures or lodges for the 266th pope — an almost impossible thing to imagine happening less than a century ago.
From the Italian journalist Aldo Maria Valli, we present a new example from the Masons of the Grand Orient Lodge of Spain, who have praised Francis for his Christmas message, in which he expressed “a wish for fraternity” among “individuals of every nation and culture,” among “people with different ideas, yet capable of respecting and listening to one another,” and “among persons of different religions.”
This message has been interpreted by the Freemasons of Spain as compatible with their own values, despite a long enmity between the Church’s ideals and those of the Freemasons...
And so, the daily litany and chronicle of Bergoglio 'apostasies' and wrongdoings by his pet cardinals grind on... Here's the latest:
This was first brought up last year when an Italian daily came up with this headline and story in Sept 2018:
at which time, 1P5 posted this report:
A 'new bomb' at the Vatican?
Italian daily runs teaser on a possible Farrell dossier
by Steve Skojec
The Italian traditionalist blog
Messa in Latino has reported that its own “internal sources” at the Vatican have confirmed a report by the Italian daily
Il Fatto Quotidiano on September 4, indicating that there is a possibly soon to be revealed dossier on the American cardinal Kevin Farrell.
Farrell, picked by Pope Francis as the prefect for the new Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life, is the highest ranking prelate from the United States.
- He is also a former Legionary of Christ – under the tenure of their founder, the monstrous abuser Fr. Marcial Maciel – and
- one of those closest to the disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
- Farrell served as McCarrick’s vicar general and auxiliary in Washington, D.C., living in the same residence with McCarrick until his retirement in 2006.
Farrell claimed, at the time revelations of McCarrick’s abuse began to be made public earlier this year, that he had no knowledge of McCarrick’s abusive activities.
- “Never once did I even suspect” McCarrick, said Farrell to the Associated Press (AP) in July 2018.
- In another, earlier interview, he told Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service (CNS),
“I was a priest of Washington, D.C. I worked in the chancery, in Washington. And never. No indication. None whatsoever.”
The video of that CNS interview came immediately under scrutiny because Farrell’s facial expressions betrayed none of the emotions – such as shock – that he claimed to be feeling over the revelations.
Claims of new information from Francesca Fagnani of
Il Fatto Quotidiano may bring light to Farrell’s involvement in what has rapidly become the most high-profile abuse case in the Catholic Church.
- The Italian report, translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino for OnePeterFive, says there is a “violent and unprecedented civil war” in the Church that now involves even the pope. F
- ollowing Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s bombshell testimony about cover-ups of the abuse of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick that included Pope Francis, Fagnani says that “soon another bomb could break out.”
“According to reliable sources close to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” says Fagnani, “there may be a similar dossier on Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell.”
“Farrell was specifically nominated as Auxiliary Bishop of Washington,” writes Fagnani, “because Cardinal Theodore McCarrick wanted him as his assistant, and these two men became part of Pope Francis’ ‘magic circle.’ Farrell and McCarrick also lived together for years, sharing the same apartment. How could Farrell possibly not know all about McCarrick’s sexual behaviors?”
Fagnani then asks the obvious question without providing a specific answer:
- What is contained in this new dossier on Farrell? The Pope and the Secretariat of State know about every single new thread of every investigation that is opened by the Tribunal of the CDF, so how could they possibly now know about this?
- Did Farrell’s nomination to such a high post precede or follow the opening of this investigation?
- The historian Roberto de Mattei, among the most knowledgeable of Vatican experts, known for his traditionalist positions, adds this little comment: “The link between the two prelates [McCarrick and Farrell] was known but never clarified. There may be something else behind the silence of Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin.”
And what exactly might that “something” be?
“I know Vigano personally. He is an honest and prudent man. I am certain that everything he says is true. He probably knows more. We know that the famous ‘report of the three cardinals’ [from Herranz, Tomko, DiGiorgi in 2012] exists on the moral and other corruption within the Roman Curia, which was given to Ratzinger prior to his resignation. This report has been seen by Francis and select number of others. What would happen if it was published?”
This report of the three cardinals, said to comprise 300 pages, was delivered to Pope Benedict XVI in December 2012 and kept under pontifical secret.
It was this document that some believe influenced the former pope to abdicate his position.
According to a report published at Rorate Caeli in February 2013:
For the largest Italian daily La Repubblica, the key part of the “300-page” cardinalatial report (“relatio“) on the Vatican leaks (“in two red hardbound tomes”) … was the identification of a hugely powerful and highly influential “homosexual underground” in the Curia and in the universal Church.
This same report was mentioned by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in a follow-up interview last week after the release of his his testimony:
I spoke because now more than ever, corruption has spread to the highest levels of the hierarchy of the Church. I ask the journalists: why are they not asking what happened to the cache of documents that, as we all saw, were delivered at Castel Gandolfo to Pope Francis from Pope Benedict? Was that all useless? It would have been enough to read my report and the transcript that was made of my deposition before the three cardinals charged with the investigation of the Vatileaks case (Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi) in order to begin some cleaning up in the Curia.
If indeed a dossier similar to that of McCarrick exists on Cardinal Farrell, another of the pope’s handpicked men, it will truly be explosive. Even more stunning would be the revelation of this long buried report uncovering the working of the so-called “Lavender Mafia” within the Church.
That was in September 2018 - and no Farrell bomb has yet been detonated. As prefect of the dicastery in charge of coordinating and supervising World Youth Day, Farrell ought to be in the thick of things now for the next WYD in Panama later this month - which promises to be the least attended of all WYDs. Could it be that those who have his dossier, if there really is one which is damaging, have decided to detonate their bomb - assuming it is genuine - just on the eve of the Panama WYD?... BTW, without McCarrick's recommendation and endorsement, how could Bergoglio have plucked the till-then fairly unknown Farrell to head one his new super-dicasteries???
And BTW, the whole world saw the box containing the report and supporting documents from the three cardinals Benedict XVI commissioned to study the 'gay' problem on the Roman Curia, when he handed those to his successor the day Bergoglio visited him in Castel Gandolfo on March 21, 2013.
- If the report contained significant information that required action, did Bergoglio do anything at all? Because if he did, why has the Vatican not said so?
- The same report was said to have been provided to each of the cardinal electors before the 2013 Conclave. Is it not remarkable that not one of them has ever commented on it at all, if only to say, "The report really found nothing significant", which is news by itself?
- Could we say that everyone has been silent on it because the report did contain disturbing information about which this pope and those around him choose to be in a state of denial, when they could well have used such information to their advantage at the time the McCarrick exposes ignited the Present Crisis into the uncontrollable forest fire it has become?
- i.e., more unconscionable and futile covering up???
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/01/2019 21:58]