Posted on 08/27/2018 8:06:12 AM PDT by dangus
See my comments below
...Cardinal Cupich released a statement on Sunday calling the letter “astonishing” and correcting what he said are factual errors. He points to Archbishop Viganò’s claim that he was appointed to the Vatican body that chooses bishops “right after he was made a cardinal,” but notes he was appointed to the Congregation for Bishops in July 2016 and that he was not named a cardinal until October. He called for a “thorough vetting” of the claims made in the letter....
... Others say that one of the central claims of the letter, that Pope Benedict placed sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick, which were kept secret, that were later lifted by Pope Francis, does not hold up. According to Vigano, who says he learned about them from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the sanctions were placed in 2009 or 2010. Initial reporting by the National Catholic Register said that the retired pope remembers ordering the sanctions but not their exact nature. But Cardinal McCarrick continued to keep a public profile during Benedict’s pontificate....
Vigano claims Pope Francis made Cdl. McCarrick a "kingmaker" in the American Catholic church, despite being warned that McCarrick was leader of a circle of predators. Vigano does not say that he knew, or told anyone, that McCarrick was a pedophile. He refers, instead, to McCarrick pressuring adult seminarians for sex, black masses, and orgies. [my terms for what he describes in much more detail]
ONE: Vigano said that Cdl. Cupich was named to a vatican panel "just after" he was "named" as a cardinal. Cupich tries to rebut this by pointing out he was made a cardinal AFTER he was appointed to the panel. Keep in mind (1) such decisions take a LONG time to go from decision to formal action and (2) Vigano would have part of the decision-making process. So it's likely that Vigano thought of Cupich being "named" as a Cardinal when the decision was made, not necessarily when it was announced publicly. This tiny mental slip -- if that's what it is -- says nothing to the accusations, and it's amazing that it's being used to discredit the "factuality" of Vigano's claim.
TWO: Vigano claims that Pope Benedict quietly sanctioned McCarrick, forbidding him from public ministry. This is a stickier issue with Vigano's claims; indeed, as I read Vigano's report, I immediately wondered why Benedict didn't make the sanction public. The reports Vigano made have to do with black masses and orgies. Without a criminal complaint, lawsuit, or admission of guilt, perhaps Pope Benedict felt such a private sanction was the most he could impose?
America takes McCarrick's actions which would be in violation of such a sanction as proof that such sanction did not exist. But Pope Benedict resigned precisely because he felt unable to reform the Church or his curia. And Vigano names as enablers the very curia members who would have been the ones responsible to implement Benedict's edicts. So America only exposes that Benedict was far weaker than Vigano would like to see him as. They do not refute Vigano's assertions of what he wrote to Pope Benedict and what Pope Benedict wrote back. Vigano claims these documents are made available for inspection. America editors: Are they there or not? Are you journalists?
The Jesuit order has had to be suppressed before...
Vigano’s testimony made it abundantly clear what he thinks of today’s Jesuits, especially their faithless showboat leaders. They are now returning the favor.
What’s the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant?
The Protestant admits that they are not Catholic.
The Jesuits are at the center of the homo cabal.
And masters of obfuscation. It’s their calling card.
Well, no. They're circling the wagons to protect their fellow Jebbie, The Holy Father. This is war between the faithful and the tight cadre of homosexuals and other Progressives who are the entire cause and substance of the priest sex scandals. America is all about Mario Cuomo's Catholic morality, which is to say, socialism and sin--but I repeat myself.
Cupich and Newark's Tobin, not recommended by Vigano and appointed by the Pope, are both notorious dissenters and poof-enablers--as was McCarrick himself, notoriously and for decades.
As for
America's fact-checking, it certainly strains out the gnat and ignores the beam. But that's them.
I read that it was the duty of Bertone (at that time Vatican Secretary of State) to formally inform McCarrick of the sanctions. However, Bartone didn’t do so immediately, and when BXVI found out, Bertone did inform McCarrick - but never enforced the sanctions.
I think his betrayal - in this and many other situations - by Bertone was one of the things that crushed Benedict.
The Jesuit order is dominated by homosexuals. The homosexuals will not easily be purged from the Church. Pope “who am I to judge” Francis is not the sort of man to resign gracefully or voluntarily cede power. The Jesuits will do all they can to protect their fellow Jesuit. The order has devolved into a perverse abomination and should be disbanded.
What a great way to separate the sheep from the goats. Hope someone starts and keeps a list of the attackers. At least some of the "hidden ones" will out themselves.
Please do not state that Archbishop Vigano’s letter specifically refers to “black masses.” Unless you can otherwise point out that exact phrase in the text of the letter, it DOESN’T EXIST. “Sacrilegious Eucharist” refers, most likely, to celebrating Mass with people one has absolved for violating the 6th Commandment with oneself, which is an extremely serious delict. This is especially in light of the fact that that is what that part of the letter is about.
The charges are horrible enough. False assertions about them blunt their impact.
I see many correlations between them and Islam. Both are highly destructive groups that work to deflect attention from the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
Cardinal “Cupcake” Cupich is the ringleader of the current church corruption scandal. When reporters start digging into his background, he will suddenly be “retired”.
“ONE: Vigano said that Cdl. Cupich was named to a vatican panel “just after” he was “named” as a cardinal. Cupich tries to rebut this by pointing out he was made a cardinal AFTER he was appointed to the panel.”
There is a note following the official translation on lifesite.com that this extremely minor (laughably minor) error was made by the translator and it is not present in the original. It has since been corrected.
The National Catholic Register has reported that it “has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.”
Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C., has said that the former nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, told “the truth.”
Thus it would seem that doubts about Pope Benedict’s sanctions against McCarrick can be dismissed.
The sanctions aside, it is crystal clear from the Archbishop’s testimony that the Vatican received reams of allegations about McCarrick over the course of a decade.
By the way, I encourage everyone to read the Archbishop’s full statement rather than rely upon the media’s quotations from it. It is easily readable by one and all and has a lot more to it than the situation with Mr. McCarrick. Its real focus is on the homosexualist clique that has taken over the hierarchy.
““Sacrilegious Eucharist” refers, most likely, to celebrating Mass with people one has absolved for violating the 6th Commandment with oneself, which is an extremely serious delict.”
How could one celebrate Mass with someone who has committed suicide? Maybe I misunderstand your reference.
The Jesuits haven't been Catholic for decades. Now our heretic pope is a Jesuit.
>> “Sacrilegious Eucharist” refers, most likely, to celebrating Mass with people one has absolved for violating the 6th Commandment with oneself, which is an extremely serious delict. <<
I did feel it necessary to point out that the term was mine, not Vigano’s. But what Vigano describes seems to be a “sacrilegious eucharist” as a ritual part of the perverse activity. Did you interpret it differently? Perhaps as a canonically flawed attempt at reconciliation?
By Catholic counting, the 6th Commandment is: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Homosexual acts fall under that rubric.
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.