Interview of Abp. Viganò with Washington Post - June 2019
Jun 13, 2019 14:09:25 GMT
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2019 14:09:25 GMT
He called on the pope to resign. Now this archbishop is in an undisclosed location.
[A reminder that the Washington Post is a liberal, secular news outlet.]
[Interview below this article.]
June 10
ROME — In the instant he became one of the most controversial figures in modern Catholic Church history, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò went dark.
The retired Vatican ambassador to Washington wrote a bombshell letter last summer calling on Pope Francis to resign on the grounds that he had tolerated a known sexual abuser. As that letter was published, Viganò turned off his phone, told friends he was disappearing and let the church sort through the fallout.
Nine months later, in his first extended interview since that moment, Viganò refused to disclose his location or say much about his self-imposed exile. But his comments indicate that, even in hiding, he is maintaining his role as the fiercest critic of the Francis era, acting either as an honorable rebel or, as his critics see it, as an ideological warrior attacking a pope he doesn’t like.
Viganò corresponded by email with The Washington Post over two months, writing 8,000 words in response to nearly 40 questions. He was blistering in his criticism of Francis, saying “it is immensely sad” that the pope is “blatantly lying to the whole world to cover up his wicked deeds.”
On Feb. 16, the Vatican announced it had defrocked ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick after finding him guilty of sexual abuse while in the priesthood. (Reuters)
The Vatican has had little official response to Viganò. A communications official declined to comment for this article. But Francis last month responded for the first time to Viganò’s letter. The pope said he knew “nothing, obviously nothing” about the misconduct of then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and could not remember whether Viganò had warned him about McCarrick in 2013. Viganò said he told Francis that McCarrick had “corrupted generations of seminarians and priests.”
“How could anybody, especially a pope, forget this?” Viganò wrote to The Post.
McCarrick was defrocked in February, after the allegations exploded into public view and he was found guilty in a Vatican proceeding of “sins” with minors and adults.
[Former Vatican ambassador says Popes Francis, Benedict knew of sexual misconduct allegations for years]
In his correspondence with The Post, Viganò offered detailed thoughts about church dealings, but he resisted personal questions — and he declined requests to meet in person. Viganò wrote that he has become “more careful about whom I meet and what I say.” He said questions about him were “irrelevant to the serious problems facing the Church.”
“My life is quite normal, thank you for asking,” he wrote.
Viganò wrote “n/a” in response to questions about where he is living, whether he believes his safety is under threat and how his actions in August have otherwise altered his life.
He wrote that the Catholic Church has not contacted him since several conservative church news outlets initially published his accusations. He described himself as an “old man” who “will be appearing in front of the Good Judge before too long.”
Viganò, 78, was two years into his retirement when he came forward with his letter, a stunning break for a lifelong church representative who had held major bureaucratic posts inside the Vatican and represented the Holy See in several countries as a diplomat.
“My silence would make me complicit with the abusers, and lead to yet more victims,” he said.
Viganò, the Vatican’s then-ambassador to the United States, listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual meeting in 2015.
Although Viganò’s letter focused on one case — McCarrick’s — it became a touchstone for a wider and fierce struggle over internal corruption, the role of homosexuality in abuse and whether Francis is leading the church astray.
Viganò wrote last year that both Benedict XVI and Francis had known about McCarrick’s misconduct. But he portrayed the former pope as attempting to take quiet disciplinary action against the then-cardinal and Francis as patently ignoring those sanctions.
Last month, private letters disclosed by a former McCarrick aide supported Viganò’s claim that the Vatican had told McCarrick to retreat from public life during Benedict’s papacy. But it is also clear that McCarrick swiftly ignored his orders from Rome, even while Benedict remained pope. No documents have surfaced showing whether Francis knew of the sanctions against McCarrick by the time he became pope in 2013.
[Despite denials, D.C. Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew of sexual misconduct allegations and reported them to Vatican]
Viganò said the “truth will eventually come out” for Francis, as it had for Cardinal Donald Wuerl, a former archbishop of Washington who portrayed himself last summer as being unaware about complaints against McCarrick — a claim that documents subsequently proved false. Viganò suggested to The Post that Francis is covering up other cases, “as he did for McCarrick.”
For Catholic traditionalists — a group that includes some bishops and cardinals, as well as pundits, journalists and everyday members of the faith — Viganò has become a revered symbol, although an absent one.
“He’s certainly acquired a very strong moral leadership in the Catholic world,” said Virginia Coda Nunziante, president of Italy’s March for Life committee.
Viganò frequented conservative church conferences and antiabortion events before the release of his testimony; now, he is a no-show. He keeps in touch with people only on his own terms, calling them from a Skype account that does not resemble his name.
Many in the Catholic world think that Viganò — long known for his hot temper and inner-Vatican rivalries — is neither credible nor interested in stopping sexual abuse. They note that documents show he tried to quash an investigation of a Minnesota archbishop accused of misconduct, an accusation Viganò denies. They also say that his testimony last summer was a barely veiled attack against gays in the upper ranks, and that his real goal was to weaken Francis rather than to help the church.
“There is an element of Machiavellian exploitation” with Viganò, said Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer.
Even before his public criticism of Francis, Viganò was a figure of controversy. As ambassador to Washington, he took heat for arranging a meeting between Francis and Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky. He was recalled from the post in 2016, amid allegations that he had become entangled in the conservative marriage fight in the United States.
Viganò was among the senior clerics to have received money from Michael J. Bransfield, a West Virginia bishop accused in a mass corruption scandal revealed this month by The Post. Viganò said aides told him it would be an affront to decline the money, so he donated it to charity.
Viganò, in his responses to The Post, made it clear that he is watching even smaller moments inside the Vatican. He cited an exchange from a Vatican news conference in February in which a journalist asked Archbishop Charles Scicluna, who has handled church sex abuse cases, about a case in Argentina. Scicluna began to answer, and the Vatican spokesman cut in, saying the news conference — held during a landmark abuse summit — was
As far as the McCarrick case, the Vatican pledged in October to conduct a “thorough” study of its archives and reveal what it finds out about who knew what. The church has since said only that an investigation is ongoing.
“The results of an honest investigation would be disastrous for the current papacy,” Viganò wrote to The Post. He also acknowledged that such an inquiry may harm the reputations of more traditionalist pontiffs, Benedict and John Paul II, who presided over McCarrick’s rise.
“But that is not a good reason for not seeking the truth,” Viganò said. “Benedict XVI and John Paul II are human beings, and may well have made mistakes. If they did, we want to know about them. Why should they remain hidden? We can all learn from our mistakes.”
Viganò did not respond directly to a question about whether he has documents to back up his claims.
“The time has not yet come for me to release anything,” Viganò said, instead calling on the pope and other Vatican officials to release documentation, “assuming they have not yet destroyed it.”
Viganò also spoke in detail about one of his most contentious beliefs: that the sexual abuse crisis would be “far less severe” if the “problem of homosexuality in the priesthood were honestly acknowledged and properly addressed.”
The question of whether homosexuality has anything to do with abuse has divided the Vatican hierarchy. Studies show that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and the likelihood to commit abuse. Francis has emphasized not homosexuality, but the vast power chasm that priests take advantage of when abusing younger victims. But people such as Viganò raise the point that 80 percent of clerical abuse victims are male, and that the majority of those are 14 and older.
“Given the overwhelming evidence, it is mind-boggling that the word ‘homosexuality’ has not appeared once, in any of the recent official documents of the Holy See” on events dealing with abuse and youth, Viganò wrote.
He said a “gay mafia” among bishops, intent on protecting themselves, was “sabotaging all efforts at reform.”
Viganò referenced only two regrets about his letter last summer. He said that he wished he had spoken out sooner. He also said that, “in retrospect,” he would have softened the call for Francis to resign — a demand that even Viganò’s supporters said was far-fetched and distracting.
Viganò now leaves open the possibility that Francis could repent, and says the pope should step down “if he refuses to admit his mistakes and ask for forgiveness.”
+++
'Pope Francis has to reconcile with God and with the whole Church'
by INFOVATICANA | June 13, 2019
In his first and extensive interview since, last August, he asked for the resignation of Pope Francis , whom he accused of covering up a sexual abuser, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has maintained an email correspondence with The Washington Post for two months, writing 8,000 words to answer about 40 questions. Here we present that exchange. Some passages containing unverified allegations have been removed. Others have been slightly edited for clarity. The conversation took place in English.
VIGANÒ: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. I have done it with the greatest care possible and with love for the Church, which is going through some of the most turbulent moments in its history. My detailed answers can be read after each question, except those related to my personal situation, which I consider irrelevant to the serious problems facing the Church.
What do you think about the outcome of the four-day summit that took place in February on the protection of minors in the Church ?
I prayed intensely with many faithful Catholics, deacons, priests, bishops and Catholic cardinals who were full of affection for the success of the February summit, and I would have been very happy if I had had it. The initiative of convening all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the world for a meeting in Rome, the first time of a similar event in the history of the Church, gave many people the hope that, finally, they would be addressed in a direct and frank manner, the serious problems facing the Church.
Unfortunately, the initiative turned out to be pure ostentation, because we saw no signs of a genuine desire to address the real causes of the current crisis. Of course, Pope Francis's decision to appoint Cardinal [Blase] Cupich, [archbishop of Chicago], as a leader of the summit, was worrisome. If you remember, Cupich had declared that focusing on the crisis of sexual abuse was, for the Church, getting into the rabbit hole and that Pope Francis had a "more important agenda" and needed to "continue with other things" such as "talking on the environment and the protection of migrants ». This, said by the man chosen by the Pope to deal with the crisis! Cupich's comments created bad publicity; he had to apologize, but he did so only after his accusation that the interview had been unfairly edited proved to have no basis. I do not see evidence that he is committed to clarifying the situation and exposing the concealers.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Cupich expressly referred to Viganò's testimony, last August, as "the rabbit hole."]
The press conferences during the summit were disappointing. Journalists, especially some women with great experience and professionalism, including some of the secular media, tried in vain to get answers that could give a minimum of credibility to the summit. To give an example, the archbishop [Charles] Scicluna, caught by surprise with a question about the pope related to his cover-up of the scandalous case of Argentinean bishop Gustavo Zanchetta - "How can we believe that this is, in fact, the last time we are going to hear 'no more cover-ups' when at the end of the day, Pope Francisco covered up someone in Argentina who had gay porn involving minors? "- he uttered these ashamed words:" About the case, I'm not, I'm not, you know, authorized ... ». The inept response of Scicluna gave the impression that he needed to be authorized - we can ask ourselves by whom - to tell the truth! The ad interim director of the Vatican press room, Alessandro Gisotti, intervened quickly to assure the reporters that an investigation had been launched, and that once it had been completed, they would be informed of the outcome of the investigation. I hope you will forgive me if I wonder if you will really be informed, and in a timely manner, about the results of an honest and in-depth investigation. Gisotti added that questions about specific cases were not allowed. There is a certain irony in this: this exchange occurred while Cupich and Scicluna argued over what they called transparency.
A particularly serious problem is that the summit focused exclusively on child abuse. These crimes are, of course, terrible, but the recent crisis in the United States, Chile, Argentina, Honduras and other countries has to do, above all, with the abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only against minors. Of course, if it were honestly acknowledged that there is a problem of homosexuality in the priesthood that must be addressed adequately, the problem of sexual abuse would be much less serious.
In his first and extensive interview since, last August, he asked for the resignation of Pope Francis , whom he accused of covering up a sexual abuser, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has maintained an email correspondence with The Washington Post for two months, writing 8,000 words to answer about 40 questions. Here we present that exchange. Some passages containing unverified allegations have been removed. Others have been slightly edited for clarity. The conversation took place in English.
VIGANÒ: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. I have done it with the greatest care possible and with love for the Church, which is going through some of the most turbulent moments in its history. My detailed answers can be read after each question, except those related to my personal situation, which I consider irrelevant to the serious problems facing the Church.
What do you think about the outcome of the four-day summit that took place in February on the protection of minors in the Church ?
I prayed intensely with many faithful Catholics, deacons, priests, bishops and Catholic cardinals who were full of affection for the success of the February summit, and I would have been very happy if I had had it. The initiative of convening all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the world for a meeting in Rome, the first time of a similar event in the history of the Church, gave many people the hope that, finally, they would be addressed in a direct and frank manner, the serious problems facing the Church.
Unfortunately, the initiative turned out to be pure ostentation, because we saw no signs of a genuine desire to address the real causes of the current crisis. Of course, Pope Francis's decision to appoint Cardinal [Blase] Cupich, [archbishop of Chicago], as a leader of the summit, was worrisome. If you remember, Cupich had declared that focusing on the crisis of sexual abuse was, for the Church, getting into the rabbit hole and that Pope Francis had a "more important agenda" and needed to "continue with other things" such as "talking on the environment and the protection of migrants ». This, said by the man chosen by the Pope to deal with the crisis! Cupich's comments created bad publicity; he had to apologize, but he did so only after his accusation that the interview had been unfairly edited proved to have no basis. I do not see evidence that he is committed to clarifying the situation and exposing the concealers.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Cupich expressly referred to Viganò's testimony, last August, as "the rabbit hole."]
The press conferences during the summit were disappointing. Journalists, especially some women with great experience and professionalism, including some of the secular media, tried in vain to get answers that could give a minimum of credibility to the summit. To give an example, the archbishop [Charles] Scicluna, caught by surprise with a question about the pope related to his cover-up of the scandalous case of Argentinean bishop Gustavo Zanchetta - "How can we believe that this is, in fact, the last time we are going to hear 'no more cover-ups' when at the end of the day, Pope Francisco covered up someone in Argentina who had gay porn involving minors? "- he uttered these ashamed words:" About the case, I'm not, I'm not, you know, authorized ... ». The inept response of Scicluna gave the impression that he needed to be authorized - we can ask ourselves by whom - to tell the truth! The ad interim director of the Vatican press room, Alessandro Gisotti, intervened quickly to assure the reporters that an investigation had been launched, and that once it had been completed, they would be informed of the outcome of the investigation. I hope you will forgive me if I wonder if you will really be informed, and in a timely manner, about the results of an honest and in-depth investigation. Gisotti added that questions about specific cases were not allowed. There is a certain irony in this: this exchange occurred while Cupich and Scicluna argued over what they called transparency.
A particularly serious problem is that the summit focused exclusively on child abuse. These crimes are, of course, terrible, but the recent crisis in the United States, Chile, Argentina, Honduras and other countries has to do, above all, with the abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only against minors. Of course, if it were honestly acknowledged that there is a problem of homosexuality in the priesthood that must be addressed adequately, the problem of sexual abuse would be much less serious.
Do you see signs that the Vatican, with Pope Francis, is taking the right steps to deal with the serious issue of abuse ? If you think not, what is missing?
The signs that I see are really sinister. Not only is Pope Francis doing almost nothing to punish those who have committed abuses, but he is not doing anything at all to expose and bring to justice those who, for decades, have helped and concealed the abusers. To give an example: Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl, who covered up the abuses of [the then Cardinal Theodore] McCarrick and others for decades, and whose continuous and blatant lies have been manifested for all who paid attention, had to resign shamefully due to public outrage. However, by accepting his resignation, Pope Francis praised him for his "nobility." What credibility can the Pope have after these types of statements?
In February, former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was reduced to lay status. What is your assessment of this punishment? And what do you think of how the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith handled the McCarrick case in the months after his testimony? Finally, do you think there were concrete effects (positive or negative), the result of your testimony?
McCarrick's degradation of his office has been, in this sense, a just punishment, but there is no legitimate reason why he should not be imposed five years before, or more, after an adequate trial and judicial procedure. Those who have the authority to act (for example, Pope Francis) knew everything they needed to know as early as June 2013. However, surely my testimony of the month of last August accelerated this punishment, moving the focus of attention to McCarrick and deviating from those who had known, for a long time, of their crimes and took advantage of their protection. Even after the publication of Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan's statement on McCarrick on June 20, 2018, there was enough time for a trial, but this would have caused great harm to many prominent members of the curia and, of course, to the own Pope Francisco. Therefore, instead of an adequate judicial procedure, after more than seven months of silence, an administrative procedure was deliberately chosen. It is difficult not to conclude that times were chosen to manipulate public opinion. Condemning McCarrick as a scapegoat with an exemplary punishment - this is the first time in the history of the Church that a cardinal is reduced to the lay state - supported the thesis that Pope Francis was firmly determined to fight against sexual abuse by part of the clergy.
According to a statement issued by the Press Office of the Holy See on February 16, 2019, McCarrick was found guilty by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of "solicitation in the sacrament of Confession and of sins against the sixth commandment" both with minors and with adults, with the "aggravating factor of abuse of power". The sentence imposed was the reduction to the lay state, which Pope Francis confirmed to be "definitive." In this way McCarrick, who has pleaded not guilty, has been deprived of any opportunity to appeal the sentence. Where is the process fair? Is this how the Vatican administers justice?
In addition, as the final sentence, the Pope has blocked any possibility of further investigation, which could have led to reveal who in the Curia and elsewhere was aware of the abuses of McCarrick, when they knew and who helped him to be appointed archbishop of Washington and, after a time, cardinal. By the way, he had made a promise to publish the documents in this case, something that has not yet been done.
The bottom line is this: Pope Francis is deliberately hiding the evidence from the McCarrick case.
I repeat it firmly before God: Pope Francis learned about McCarrick, through me, on Sunday, June 23, 2013, 40 minutes before the Angelus. I told him about the abuses committed by McCarrick after the pope, on his own initiative, asked me about the cardinal.
However, let us now consider the most important dimension by far, namely: the spiritual one, totally absent from any statement made about McCarrick or any press conference of the summit. The most important purpose of the penalties in canon law is repentance and conversion: Suprema ratio est salus animarum (the supreme law is the salvation of souls). I believe, therefore, that the mere "reduction to the lay state" is totally inadequate, because it does not provide a solution and does not express concern for the important purpose of punishment, namely: the salvation of McCarrick's soul.
Unless it is accompanied by other measures, mere reduction to the lay state could be considered an expression of contempt towards this state. The idea of punishing a prelate who behaves badly by "reducing" the lay state smells of clericalism. As Professor Scott Hahn argues , it undermines the meaning of the universal call to holiness.
I believe, and I am not the only one, that the penalty of excommunication must also be imposed on McCarrick, from which he can be acquitted at any time. As a properly dosed treatment, it would be imposed on him to take responsibility for his sins, repent, be reconciled with God and, thus, save his soul.
There have also been tensions between the United States Episcopal Conference and the Holy See. Last November, the bishops of the United States were about to vote on measures to make the bishops more responsible for supervising cases of abuse. The Vatican stopped this vote . Do you have something to say about this intervention, if it was adequate, and why did it happen? How would you rate the nuncio's actions?
If there had been no such interference, the November meeting of the US Episcopal Conference would have undoubtedly examined the problems of episcopal corruption, cover-ups and episcopal mendacity, sexual crimes, both with minors and with adults; all this would have implied and intolerably embarrassed the Holy See. The intrusion was totally unjustified, but it was caused by panic. The American bishops were exercising their legitimate tasks and responsibilities. I wonder how a pope who appeals to "synodality" has been able to carry out such interference.
After the publication of his testimony, Pope Francis has referred on numerous occasions to "attacks of the devil", comments that many interpret as a reference to his person. How does it feel to be cited in this way by your pontiff?
In the Gospel we read: "A disciple is no more than his teacher, nor a slave more than his master; It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher and the slave as his master. If the owner of the house has been called Belzebú, how much more to the servants! "(Mt 10, 24-25). I am the slave of my master.
The Vatican has not denied the details of his testimony and Pope Francis has not yet responded. How do you interpret this silence?
No one has plausibly denied the facts I have stated in my testimony because no one can deny the truth. The cardinals and archbishops that I name do not want to be caught lying, and apparently think that they are so powerful that they are untouchable if they remain silent and with a low profile. The real question is: why do journalists let them get away with it?
Not only has my testimony not been denied, but some of the facts have been confirmed independently. I give two examples: the letter from [the then archbishop Leonardo] Sandri to the father [Boniface] Ramsey [from New York], confirms my statement that Vatican officials were aware of the accusations against McCarrick since the year 2000; and Cardinal [Marc] Ouellet, in the open letter he sent me, confirmed that he had personally told me, and then in writing, the restrictions that Pope Benedict had imposed on McCarrick.
Regarding Pope Francis, his response to my testimony was: "I will not say a single word on this matter." Would I have said this if I had known that my testimony is false? Is it not rather what a person who knows but does not want to admit that the testimony is true would say? Is not that what you, Americans, call "take refuge in the Fifth Amendment"? In answering how he did it, the pope is fundamentally admitting that he does not want to be transparent. However, the facts remain. McCarrick has been Francisco's personal friend for decades, before he was elected pope. Francisco knew about his crimes, however he rehabilitated him, made him his special envoy and trusted advisor, and appointed bishops and cardinals who are McCarrick's protected acquaintances. However, he will not say a single word about this. Is it surprising that many have interpreted the pope's response as a manifestation of contempt both for the victims and for those who want the cover-up to end? Ironically, however, the continued silence of the pope, who is increasingly deafening, attests to the truth of my testimony.
One could point out, considering a similar case, that Theodore McCarrick has had, and continues to have, total freedom to speak on any topic to any audience throughout the whole affair. The only reason he does not speak is that by doing so, he would make the opinion about him even worse. Speaking of temperament, neither McCarrick nor Pope Francis have a reputation for being men of few words.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Viganò added this part after Francisco spoke about the accusations last month in an interview]
VIGANÒ: It's really sad to read Pope Francis' responses to the McCarrick case, not to mention anything else. First, he says that he has already responded on several occasions; second, that he knew nothing, absolutely nothing about McCarrick; and third, he did not remember the conversation he had with me. How can you affirm and sustain all these things at the same time? All three are blatant lies.
First, for nine long months he did not say a single word about my testimony, and even boasted, and continues to do so, about his silence, comparing himself to Jesus. Therefore, either he spoke or he fell silent. Which of the two?
Second, everyone knew of McCarrick's long predatory behavior, from the youngest Newark seminarians to the Vatican's highest-ranking prelates.
Third, I repeat before God what I stated in my testimony last August: on June 23, 2013, Pope Francis asked me about McCarrick and I told him that in the Congregation for Bishops there was a voluminous dossier about his abuses, and that he had corrupted generations of seminarians. How can someone, especially a pope, forget about this? If he really did not know anything about this matter until that day, how could he ignore my warning and continue to trust McCarrick as one of his closest advisers?
Actually the universal Church is going through a very dark moment: the Supreme Pontiff is blatantly lying to the whole world to cover up his evil actions! But the truth about McCarrick and all the other cover-ups will come to light over time, as has already happened with Cardinal Wuerl, who also "knew nothing" and had a "lapse of memory."
In his October letter, Cardinal Ouellet portrayed him as a person motivated by the bitterness of his own career. It is true? How do you respond to this?
All I can do is ask impartial people to examine the decisions that have marked my career so they can see if they were motivated by career ambitions and the desire to promote. For the same reason, impartial people may wonder who would benefit the most from rejecting Viganò's testimony on unworthy grounds.
Let me repeat this one more time. I am an old man and it will not be long before I appear before God Judge. My silence would have made me an accomplice of the abusers and would have increased the number of victims. I know that I am motivated by this concern, and God knows it. I can not worry about what others think about my motives.
In any case, my motives are not the important thing here, and the questions about them are a distraction. The really important question is whether my testimony is true. I remain firm in him and I urge to investigate so that the facts come to light. Unfortunately, those who contest my motives have been reluctant to conduct an open and thorough investigation.
In general, how do you think the coverage of your testimony has been from the media? Do you think that the news channels have been willing to investigate without prejudice the accusations that you have launched?
I feel sad because the main media do not insist that Pope Francis and other prelates respond to my accusations, and I do not think they would have been so restrained if the pope in question had been John Paul II or Benedict XVI. It is difficult not to conclude that these media outlets are reluctant because they appreciate Pope Francis' more progressive approach to matters of Church doctrine and discipline, and do not want to jeopardize his agenda. However, what we are talking about here is very serious crimes, which often involve minors, and with accusations of cover-up. With some exceptions, which belong to secondary communication organs, the media have failed because they have not faced the "crime behind the crime", raising the obvious questions to obvious people: where are the files with the case documents? relevant to Viganò's claims? Who has access and authority to publish the documents? Who has examined them and when? What have they found in them, or what was missing in them? What efforts have been made to corroborate the findings and who has done them? Who is coordinating the investigation into the McCarrick case? Have the proteges of McCarrick, Cupich and [Cardinal Joseph] Tobin been included in the investigation? If the answer is no, why not? And this is just the beginning.
In short, journalists should be digging for facts, interviewing victims, following money and promotions and exposing corrupt networks. There are so many cases to investigate. To name just one: have you read the recent book by Martha Alegria Reichmann about the misdeeds of Cardinal [Oscar Andrés Rodriguez] Maradiaga, elected by Pope Francis as senior adviser of his trust, and in fact head of the council of the nine cardinals, the C-9? Have you thought about interviewing her? In investigating your affirmations? In requesting an interview with Maradiaga to ask him about all the accusations that have been launched against him? In asking Pope Francis why he chose a man like him as his advisor?
His testimony makes it clear that homosexuality - and the failure of the Vatican to respond to this issue - is at the center of the Church's current problem in dealing with abuses. Can you explain to us, as clearly as possible, why homosexuality, as you see it, is related to abuse?
Let us keep a distinction between two scenarios: (1) crimes of sexual abuse and (2) criminal concealment of crimes of sexual abuse. In most cases in the Church today, both have a homosexual component -which is usually minimized- and that is the key to the crisis.
Regarding the first scenario, heterosexual men clearly do not choose either boys or young men as their sexual partners, and approximately 80 percent of the victims are men; in fact, the vast majority are post-pubescent males. The statistics of the different countries on sexual abuse committed by the clergy leave no doubt. And although they are as terrible as the cases of abuses committed by pedophiles, the percentage is much lower. They are not pedophiles, but gay priests who abuse post-pubescent boys and have ruined the dioceses of the United States. One of the most recent and most reliable studies has been conducted by Father Paul Sullins , PhD, of the Ruth Institute. In its executive report, the Sullins study states, among other things, the following:
● »The rate of homosexuals in the priesthood increased twice in relation to the general population of the 1950s, and up to eight times in relation to the general population of the 80. This trend is strongly related to the increase in child sexual abuse» .
● »Estimates of these findings predict that, if the proportion of homosexual priests had remained at the level of the 1950s, at least 12,000 children, mostly boys, would not have been abused».
The prevalence of these cases of abuse is overwhelming. I do not think anyone can discuss it. That homosexuality is the main cause of the crisis of sexual abuse is something that also the pope emeritus Benedict XVI has declared in his recent essay The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse . From his long experience as president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he recalls how "in several seminars homosexual cliques were established that acted more or less openly, significantly changing the atmosphere of seminars".
Given the overwhelming evidence, it is amazing that the word "homosexuality" has not appeared only once in any of the recent official documents of the Holy See, including the two Synods on the Family, the Synod on Youth and the February summit.
Regarding the second scenario, the "gay mafia" among the bishops is linked not to a common sexual interest, but to a common interest that aims to protect and promote each other from the professional point of view, sabotaging all reform efforts. In the aforementioned essay, Pope Benedict observes that a seminar investigation carried out by the Vatican, which included the problem of homosexual cliques, "did not provide new information, supposedly because several powers joined forces to hide the real situation"; His observation lends credibility to my testimony that a powerful network of prelates has covered up abuses for decades. Is it possible to find a single bishop in the United States who admits that he is an active homosexual? Of course not. His work is constitutionally clandestine.
Did the time you spent in the United States have any effect on your view of homosexuality? Did your position harden in any way by spending time in a country with a very strong and defined conservative / traditionalist ecclesial subculture?
My stay in the United States and the presence of "a very strong and defined conservative / traditionalist ecclesiastical subculture," as you say, has nothing to do with my view of homosexuality. My vision has been and will always remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, suitably summarized in the Catechism:
"Relying on the Sacred Scripture that presents them as serious depravations, Tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'" (CCC, 2357). The Catechism also says that the inclination to perform such acts (and not the persons themselves, which should not be defined by their inclination) is "objectively disordered" and "constitutes for most of them an authentic proof". The Church does not respond by condemning it. On the contrary, it teaches: "They must be received with respect, compassion and delicacy" (CCC, 2358).
The Catechism insists that those who experience this inclination are called, as everyone else, to chastity. It is a beautiful teaching, because the Church affirms the dignity of those who experience attraction to the same sex affirming, precisely, that by cultivating virtue they can attain inner freedom and that, with the help of genuine friendship, prayer and sacramental grace , "Can and must gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC, 2359).
In October, the Vatican promised to carry out an investigation in the archives on the McCarrick case . The results of this investigation have not yet been made public. But if one day they were, what do you think they will reveal?
There is no data, to date, that this investigation has not even begun. I am sure that the results of an honest investigation would be disastrous for the current papacy, and those responsible for initiating this work know it very well. I can conclude that the guarantee of a thorough investigation of the archives has been an empty promise.
Although the Vatican has not published its findings on the McCarrick case , some church historians believe that the details of how McCarrick was protected, once revealed, can damage the reputations of Benedict XVI and, even more, that of St. John Paul. II. Do you think that Benedict XVI or John Paul II could have done more to properly manage the McCarrick case ?
My sincere wish is that all the documents, if they have not been destroyed, be published. It is entirely possible that this will damage the reputation of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II, but it is not a reason not to seek the truth. Benedict XVI and John Paul II are human beings and may have made mistakes. If they have, we want to know. Why should they remain hidden? We can all learn from our mistakes.
I myself regret not having said anything publicly before. As I have just said, I hope against all hope that the Church can reform from within. But when it became clear to me that the successor of Pedro was one of the cover-ups of these crimes, I had no doubt that the Lord was calling me to say what I knew, as I have done and will continue to do.
Do you think there is a risk of schism in the American Church?
A schism is the most terrible pain that the Church, the body of Christ, can endure, and as the history of the Church demonstrates, it can have lasting consequences. We must pray that this catastrophe will not happen again. A formal schism (involving the mutual excommunication of bishops ordained in a valid way) does not seem likely at the moment. However, there is a de facto schism based on the acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution. And there is a risk of formal schism, provoked by an act of absurd papal irresponsibility (for example, if the pope responded to the dubious, long ignored, teaching in Amoris Laetitia in a manner contrary to the earlier teaching of the Church).
After publishing your testimony, have you ever felt the spiritual leader of a rebellion movement? If so, how did you manage it? If you feel that you have a leadership role, how would you define this movement, in terms of size and geographic scope?
Jesus is the only leader of the Church. He is the head of the Church, which is His body. All of us, the included pope, have a single Lord. Regarding my role, as a Christian and as a bishop I have the duty to witness the truth without fear, and like Timothy I must "proclaim the word, in time and in time" (2 Tim 4: 2). No pope can dispense from this duty, and if a man faithfully fulfills it, he can only be rebellious in an honorable sense. The ignominious rebels are those who presume to break or change the perennial tradition of the Church.
After publishing your testimony, how has your life changed the magnitude of this action? What freedom do you have to live your life as you want?
n / a
If I could remake events, would I still ask for the resignation of Pope Francis? Do you think that by requesting the resignation of the Pope the attention of his message was diverted?
I did everything I could with my testimony, and the Lord does not ask for more than this. I stand firm on him.However, I am far from perfect and, a posteriori , I believe that certain points could have expressed them better. I realize that it would have been better to address the question that you ask me in the following way, starting with a point that I have included in my third testimony:
"I am asking, in fact, fervently begging the Holy Father to face the commitments he assumed when he accepted his position as Peter's successor. He accepted the mission of confirming his brothers and of guiding all souls in following Christ, in spiritual combat, in the way of the cross. That he admits his errors, that he repents, showing his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, to confirm his brothers (Lk 22, 32) ».
He would have stressed that St. Peter denied Christ three times, but then he wept bitterly and repented. Then I would have said what I say now: I wish Pope Francis imitated St. Peter! But if Pope Francis refuses to admit his mistakes and ask forgiveness to continue carrying the mandate received from Christ, he should resign.
How does it feel to follow from afar the development of these important facts of the Church, such as the reduction to the lay state of McCarrick and the summit on abuses? Do you feel sad to be, somehow, away from the Catholic Church at this critical time?
My feelings, in matters of such gravity, do not matter. I said what I thought I had to say; otherwise, the falsehood would not be questioned and would damage my soul and the soul of others.
Can you tell us the country, or the continent, where you are right now?
n / a
Approximately, how many people know his whereabouts? How many people do you have daily contact with?
n / a
Can you describe what your daily life is like?
I am reluctant to answer this question, because it focuses attention on me and not on what is important.
My life has not changed much. It is obvious that I have to be more careful with who I am and what I say, but I have been blessed with a great family and many friends who support me. I see them regularly and their closeness is a source of consolation for me.
Perhaps the biggest change after my first testimony has been the incredible support I have received daily from all over the world. There are thousands of Catholics who pray for me and with me for the conversion of Pope Francis and the healing of the Church.
Altogether, few things have changed. I do what I have done all my life: since I was ordained a priest I have tried to serve the people of God, in obedience, wherever they have asked me to go. I am just a person who is trying to do the best, and I have been blessed all my life with very good examples of holy priests and with great dedication.
Do you celebrate Mass?
Sorry to surprise me with this question but ... why should not I celebrate Mass? We are talking about the Bread of Life! Of course I celebrate the Mass, every day, like every good priest.
Do you pray for the pope?
I have never stopped praying for the Pope, and I will never stop doing it.
Do you think your security is threatened? And if so, why? Have you received clear threats?
n / a
What precautions do you take to protect yourself?
n / a
Since the publication of your testimony, has the Holy See contacted you? If so, what have you been told?
Apart from Cardinal Ouellet's open letter, to which I have responded, no one has contacted me.
Do you know if he is being investigated canonically? If so, what are the accusations? Under any circumstances would he "surrender" to the Vatican authorities?
Like I said, I'm not aware of any of this. Would not it be incredible if the whistleblower was investigated and not the prelates who covered up the abuse?
Unfortunately, an alarming percentage of people suffer abuse early in their life, when they are most vulnerable. In your testimony, it shows that you feel empathy for the victims and feel a great responsibility and want to act. Have you witnessed any abuse directly? Or have you been the victim of abuse?
Thank God, I have never been a victim of abuse nor have I personally witnessed abuse. But any decent person, victim or not, would empathize with the victims and would like to help them.
What made you take a step forward and publish your testimony? What was the straw that broke the camel's back?
I have already answered this before and in my previous testimonies.
Are you in touch with your loved ones? If so, what do you think of your actions?
n / a
Do you feel lonely?
No. The Lord is my constant companion.
Was he conscious when he published his testimony that his life would change drastically? How did you feel during those days at the end of August 2018, when you were about to cross the Rubicon?
My conscience has always been calm about this: the truth sets us free.
When you decided to act, were you inspired by Saint Thomas More or another historical figure?
I was inspired by Blessed Newman who said: "Should I be forced to talk about religion in a toast after dinner, I will drink 'For the Pope!' with pleasure, but first 'By Conscience!' and, later, 'For the Pope!' ", and in St. John Fisher, the only bishop of the Catholic Church in England who did not bow to Henry VIII. These words of yours are very appropriate for our time: "The light of a good example is extinguished in those who wish to shine as luminaries for all the world, like watchtowers and beacons in the mountains. Unfortunately, no light comes from them but terrible darkness and pestilential damage, by which innumerable souls fall into destruction "(Blessed John Fisher, by Rev. TE Bridgett, London (1888), 435).
Have you been recognized in public? If so, what has been the reaction and what has been your reaction?
n / a
Does it disguise itself when it comes out?
n / a
Do you think that at a certain moment you can lead a "normal" life again? What has to happen to make this possible?
My life is quite normal, thanks for asking.
Do you think there can be a reconciliation with Francisco? Do you want it?
The premise of your question is incorrect. I'm not fighting against Pope Francisco, I have not offended him either. Quite simply, I have told the truth. Pope Francis has to reconcile with God and with the whole Church, since he covered up McCarrick, refuses to admit it and is now covering up other people. I am grateful to the Lord because he has protected me from having feelings of anger or resentment against Pope Francis, or desires for revenge. I pray every day for his conversion. Nothing would make me happier that the Pope recognize and end these cover-ups, and confirm his brothers in the faith.
How do you see your years of service in the Church? Would you like to have spoken before? Do you think he's wrong to dedicate his life to that institution?
I have rendered my service in the Holy See for 43 years with great joy and full dedication, with spiritual and human satisfaction. Of course, with my many limits, but trusting my superiors who have always been good and appreciated my collaboration. Sometimes I have accepted risky missions, like the ones I carried out in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. I have had excellent relationships with my superiors, colleagues and lay colleagues. Cardinal Bertone, after being appointed Secretary of State, found a way to get rid of me because I refused to approve invalid candidates that he supported to be named bishops. He offered me the position of general secretary of the governor. Certainly, it was not a promotion, but I accepted happily.
There are no reasons why you should be sorry for having served in the Holy See. I have always tried to follow God's will through obedience. I have never asked to be promoted, and I do not regret having rejected the proposal of Pope Benedict, who offered me a position of cardinal in the curia. Those who plotted for me to leave Rome thought that they were liberating themselves from me. They did not know that the Lord was using them to put me in a position where I could speak clearly about the McCarrick scandal.
In your testimony you have given many details, but there is no attached documentation, which would be useful to corroborate your testimony. Do you have any of the documents or letters referred to in the testimony? Do you have additional documentation that would show that the Vatican was aware of McCarrick's behavior? If you are in possession of such documentation, could you share it with us, as it would be very useful?
The time has not yet come for me to deliver anything. I suggest that you ask the pope and the prelates I have named in my testimony to deliver the relevant documentation, part of which is very incriminating; this if they have not destroyed it yet.
In particular, do you have the letter you wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI were still in force? If so, could you share it with us?
See the previous question.
In conclusion, I want to point out that the current crisis is not a power struggle between progressives and conservatives, between the left and the right. Neither is it fundamentally about the sexual misconduct of the clergy, or the prevalence of homosexuals active in the clergy, although these serious, perennial problems in the Church are now especially serious. The crisis is about the fact that a corrupt "mafia" has taken control of many institutions of the Church, from top to bottom, and is exploiting the Church and the faithful for their immoral purposes. As I said before, this coalition is united not because they have a common sexual interest, but because they protect and promote each other professionally and sabotage any effort to end sexual corruption. The members of this alliance, and those who fear their wrath,they are the only ones with the necessary authority to correct the problem through proper judicial procedures, the imposition of discipline and the reaffirmation of a healthy teaching.
This is causing an institutional paralysis that is immensely demoralizing the faithful. That said, this desperate state of affairs should neither surprise us nor worry us, given the lasting presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ's promise of his new coming and the establishment of his final kingdom. I conclude by quoting a sobering passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which seems to be happening in our time:
"Before the advent of Christ, the Church must go through a final test that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies his pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious imposture that will provide men with an apparent solution to their problems through the price of the apostasy of truth "(CCC, 675). .
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop of Ulpiana, Apostolic Nuncio
May 2, 2019, Feast of St. Athanasius, bishop and doctor of the Church
Published in The Washington Post.