Posted on 09/07/2018 1:16:00 PM PDT by sitetest
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A top official from the Vatican Secretariat of State acknowledged allegations made by a New York priest in 2000 concerning Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, according to a letter obtained by Catholic News Service.
Father Boniface Ramsey, pastor of St. Joseph’s Church Yorkville in New York City, told CNS Sept. 7 that he received the letter dated Oct. 11, 2006, from then-Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, the former Vatican substitute for general affairs, asking for information regarding a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark who studied at Immaculate Conception Seminary and was being vetted for a post at a Vatican office. He made the letter available to CNS.
Then-Archbishop Sandri wrote to Father Ramsey, “I ask with particular reference to the serious matters involving some of the students of the Immaculate Conception Seminary, which in November 2000 you were good enough to bring confidentially to the attention of the then Apostolic Nuncio in the United States, the late Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnstopstories.com ...
Ping.
John Paul 2? Really?
John Paul II was criticised by representatives of the victims of clergy sexual abuse[310] for failing to respond quickly enough to the Catholic sex abuse crisis. In his response, he stated that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young."[311] The Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees[312] and, because a significant majority of victims were boys, disallowing ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[313][314] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[312][315] In 2008, the Church asserted that the scandal was a very serious problem and estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent' " (or 5,000) of the over 500,000 Catholic priests worldwide.[316][317]
In April 2002, John Paul II, despite being frail from Parkinson's disease, summoned all the American cardinals to the Vatican to discuss possible solutions to the issue of sexual abuse in the American Church. He asked them to "diligently investigate accusations". John Paul II suggested that American bishops be more open and transparent in dealing with such scandals and emphasised the role of seminary training to prevent sexual deviance among future priests. In what The New York Times called "unusually direct language", John Paul condemned the arrogance of priests that led to the scandals:
Priests and candidates for the priesthood often live at a level both materially and educationally superior to that of their families and the members of their own age group. It is therefore very easy for them to succumb to the temptation of thinking of themselves as better than others. When this happens, the ideal of priestly service and self-giving dedication can fade, leaving the priest dissatisfied and disheartened.[318]
The pope read a statement intended for the American cardinals, calling the sex abuse "an appalling sin" and said the priesthood had no room for such men.[319]
In 2002, Archbishop Juliusz Paetz, the Catholic Archbishop of Poznań, was accused of molesting seminarians.[320] Pope John Paul II accepted his resignation, and placed sanctions on him, prohibiting Paetz from exercising his ministry as bishop.[321] These restrictions were lifted in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI.[322][323]
In 2003 John Paul II reiterated that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young."[311] In April 2003, a three-day conference was held, titled "Abuse of Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious", where eight non-Catholic psychiatric experts were invited to speak to near all Vatican dicasteries' representatives. The panel of experts overwhelmingly opposed implementation of policies of "zero-tolerance" such as was proposed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. One expert called such policies a "case of overkill" since they do not permit flexibility to allow for differences among individual cases.[324]
In 2004 John Paul II recalled Bernard Francis Law to be Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major in Rome. Law had previously resigned as archbishop of Boston in 2002 in response to the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases after Church documents were revealed that suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[325] Law resigned from this position in November 2011.[319]
John Paul II was a firm supporter of the Legion of Christ, and in 1998 discontinued investigations into sexual misconduct by its leader Marcial Maciel, who in 2005 resigned his leadership and was later requested by the Vatican to withdraw from his ministry.
It would be valuable to find documentary evidence of whether he was informed or not. By 2000, John Paul II was already in badly failing health. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2001. It is unsurprising that he found himself unable to fight the vermin in the curia.
But he either knew, should have known, or should have resigned because he was unable to find out, or act on it.
It all makes sense with the chronology as it unfolded:
- Vatican knew in 2000. [Archbishop Vigano’s testimony is proved true on this point.] JP II too sick to know, or to act on it.
- Top folks in curia, especially the satanic secretary of state indicted by Archbishop Vigano’s testimony, cover-up for mccarrick.
- JP dies in 2005.
- Benedict XVI becomes pope, and consolidates what little power he has against satanic curia.
- Benedict imposes [weak] private sanctions against mccarrick. Satanic curia knows the cause (they have the letters from 2000).
- Benedict, who was already in failing health when elected, resigns because he realizes he can’t deal with the enormity.
- bergoglio elected through homo conspiracy with satanic curia (many of whom are part of the homo demonocracy).
- bergoglio instantly rehabilitates the demon Mmcarrick.
- Bergoglio either knew (as per Vigano’s testimony), or satanic curia, including satanic secretary of state, managed to hide the biggest open secret in Rome from the stupidest cardinal/pope in Church history.
BXVI had just become pope at the time of this letter, but these things were known about McCarrick under JPII. For some mysterious reason, JPII protected abusers. These wold be people such as Fr Maciel of the Legionaries, where there was no question of his guilt for everything ranging from homosexual and heterosexual youth molestation to general sexual immorality (he had several children) to homosexual harassment of seminarians to drug use. He was also being pursued by the civil criminal justice system. Why he was protected by JPII I do not know.
When BXVI got in, the first thing he did was remove Maciel. He also tried to sanction and stop McCarrick under the provisions of canon law (which were not strict enough) that ordered that a person with the rank of McCarrick should be privately informed, forbidden to present himself as a representative of the Church at any event or live in Church housing (such as a seminary), and withdraw to a life of silence, penitence and reparation.
McCarrick simply didn’t do it and BXVI wasn’t effective. At one time, BXVI famously responded to a question about his authority by pointing at his door and saying, “my authority stops at my office door.” That was because he, like Trump, was being undermined at every point by the Vatican deep state that had flourished under the weak JPII.
Mind you, I don’t think JPII was personally involved in or sympathetic to any of this. His own project was being a mega-star pope and, while I didn’t like it, I think he probably believed that making the pope into a rock star enhanced the position of the Church. Maybe yes, but mostly no - because it let evil grow since JPII didn’t want to do the hard stuff. JPII protected evil hierarchs only because he himself was kind of a company guy and thought it would be more upsetting if he removed them than if he tolerated them. But he was certainly wrong on that one.
BXVI tried to get a grip on it, but he was way too weak. And also, I suspect that one of the reasons he resigned after receiving the famous dossier in December of 2012 is that he finally saw how great the corruption had become during the pontificate of JPII (when Ratzinger was head of the CDF and obviously tried to keep JPII on the straight and narrow doctrinally and even made JPII rewrite a particularly fuzzy “ecumenical” document so that it would be at least slightly Catholic). I think BXVI felt personally responsible for this and thus imposed on himself the punishments that should have been imposed on the evil hierarchs and even lower clergy who had flourished under JPII, and one of those punishments was removal from office.
But that’s water under the bridge. JPII is dead and BXVI may as well be so. But Francis is still out there, not only protecting homosexual sexual predators and financially corrupt members of the hierarchy who usually manage to tie sex and money together, but simply pointing a scornful fat finger at all of us who object to this. So don’t be distracted by what JPII may or may not have done.
The problem now is Francis, who has not only brought in his own new cabal of compromised people, but has revived and reinstated those that BXVI removed. BTW, BXVI laicized something like 800 priests and removed close to 50 bishops worldwide during his pontificate.
Bill Donohue is arguing against all the hysteria. Any thoughts? I respect Bill as a common sense New Yorker. He was up in arms during the 90s.
Bill should take a long walk off a short pier.
He’s covering for the homoclergy demonocracy.
I'm tired of ad hominum attacks. I'd really like to know what educated, careful people think of his push-back.
It’s not an ad hominem attack.
It describes his actions. He is focusing on the ugliest symptom: abuse of minors [and the latest addended victim group: “vulnerable adults”].
But he is closing his eyes to the deeper cause: a clergy that is wholly taken over by a network of homosexuals, some of whom who wish to change the doctrine of the Church, some of whom are willing to at least pay it lip service, some of whom enjoy an active homosexual lifestyle, some of whom at least try to be chaste. but all of whom enjoy the luxury, power, status, and easy life, and all of whom are scared to death that their evil network will be exposed. and their world will be destroyed in one big explosion of mutually-assured-destruction.
Walking off a short pier is an intellectual/non ad hominum response?
Only on FR does that pass for intelligent discourse.
I will ask others who actually read the Catholic League blog what they think.
CM did a write up on him several years ago. As you mention, he seems to have a history.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bill-donohue-establishment-lapdog
similar IMO of what happened with Joe Paterno....I doubt he realized how serious the Penn state situation was afterall coaches described what happened as "horseplay".
It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a recommended course of action.
I’ve read Donahue on the recent scandals, and criticisms of Donahue, as well, including statements to the effect that he knows on which side his bread is buttered, which would give some motive for his actions.
But in his case, although it would be easy to impute motives ranging from nefarious to even worse, I’m not very concerned with motive.
I see what he writes. Like many other defenders of the indefensible, he has focused on the abuse of minors [and, now, of “vulnerable persons”] and said, “but abuse is down!”
However, he ignores the proximate cause studiously. So, what he has to say becomes irrelevant, because he’s no longer addressing the real problem. I’ve seen a lot of this. There’s james martin, massimo fagioli [a rough translation of his name is “maximum beans”], that austen guy. They also decry the further “abuse of minors [and the newly-described category of vulnerable persons]” but either ignore or actually denounce as “homophobia” the identification of the deeper cause.
indeed, many things seem to be overblown and embellished by a money hungry lawyer class.
I think the time for hysteria is way past, and there’s got to be some action: the sacking of a number of Cardinals and bishops, and the resignation of the Enabler in Chief, aka Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio. He was hated in Argentina for his corruption and hasn’t returned to his “native land” since his election. He’s entirely of upper middle-class Italian immigrant parentage, and didn’t speak Spanish until he entered school at the age of 5 or 6 and has always despised Spanish speakers unless they were useful to him.
As for Bill Donohue, I think he (like JPII) is trying to ignore the corruption in order to protect the institution because he thinks it does more good than harm. That is probably true, but faith in the institution has been so seriously undermined that it’s only by stepping outside and demanding a total re-do that the institution will revive. BXVI, who laicized 800 priests and quietly removed something like 50 bishops, tried to challenge the model but he wasn’t strong enough and was under total assault from all sides and was driven out. Not encouraging and maybe Bill Donohue, like BXVI, is just too old to be able to pick up his sword and shield and go back to fight the dragon.
I am in charge of a non-profit associated with an historic site under the local cathedral in a majority Protestant or, actually, atheist town, and frankly, I’m not even sure how we’ll fundraise or exist anymore. The Church is such an object of ridicule here that I don’t even want to connect our group with it.
In this diocese we had fairly limited public scandals. That’s because some of them may not yet be known except to insiders but probably will be known soon, since the state AG is starting investigations.
I know that our (archdiocesan) seminary was considered a “pink palace” and good candidates were kicked out or their ordination was delayed as much as possible. The only thing that may protect us is that this happened under liberal (that is, arm-chair lefty) bishops and nobody in the press wants them to look bad. But I know the storm is heading our way.
I think that explains a lot, especially in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. But it’s getting late in the game for that.
Maybe it lets John Paul II off the hook. A little. Benedict seems to have taken action, though weak. But it leaves bergoglio out in the cold. By 2013, we were all hyper-sensitized to this stuff. As Bishop Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate in Texas has written publicly, “We ALL knew.” Everyone in the hierarchy from seminarians to the pope, knew mccarrick was a homosexual. And even though they knew he was systematically, continuously violating his vows, they did and said nothing. Even though he was having sex with seminarians (what a power differential), they all looked the other way.
And now we know that the Vatican knew specifics as early as 2000.
You don’t have to join - I never have; his website is open and free for all.
In fact, one thing that ha struck me (in a dismaying way) about the recent revelations via Vigano, is how little these apparatchiks actually communicate with each other.
Each "deparment" seems to run like a little kingdom, no oversight, and t'hell with what civil law, canon law, the pope or God has to say about it. "L'Eglise, c'est moi."
In some ways analogous to a certain President facing a certain seetheing, alligator-infested Deep State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.