VIGANÒ RESPONDS TO THE CARD OUELLET. THE THIRD TESTIMONY. POPE VIGANÒ BLAMES GAY PRIESTS FOR ABUSE
On the Memory of the North American Martyrs
Decision for me, and remains so, to bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. One who knows how to be an actor, one who knows how to be a man, and one who fears him. A judge, even in his infinite mercy, will make every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. "What can I do?" - what answer could I give?
I testify that I have worked and prayed. I know many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expect you to do my turn. Most of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop's charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and serious neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would be so many at risk, and would certainly be damn my own. I have been denounced the truths of being I reported before. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that.
I have been accused of creating confusion and division into the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most observers, however, will be aware of the successor of the principle of Peter and his success in the principle of the principle of doctrine. When he exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke. This is the conspiracy of silence that has gone to the great harm in the Church - to many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. I have taken in conscience before God, I am willingly accepting every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope.
Let me stay the key points of my testimony.
• In November 2000 the US announced Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
• In December 2006 the new US announcement, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual behavior with yet another priest.
• In December of 2006 I myself wrote to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal . This memo received no response.
• In April 2008 he was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, holding further accusations of McCarrick's sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response.
• In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope's orders to McCarrick in a voice heard on the corridor of the nunciature.
• In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the Pope's restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
• On June 21, 2013, to the end of the official assembly of the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the US episcopacy.
• On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face, "Cardinal McCarrick, how is it (Cardinal McCarrick - what do you make of him)? "- which I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to be a life of prayer and penance.
• Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special interest of Pope.
• McCarrick was part of a network of homosexual bishops who enjoyed the favor of Pope Francis promoted episcopal appointments to protect themselves from justice and strengthen homosexuality in the hierarchy and in the Church in general.
• Pope Francis himself has been colluded in this corruption, and he knows what he does, he is failing to oppose it and uproot it.
I invoked God and I have been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has been writing for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such serious accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole .
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick's situation prior to my departure for Washington.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he has been in writing for the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions to McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the announcement Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.
What does Cardinal Ouellet disputes?
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have been interested in. But this was not my testimony. Theodore McCarrick, then the archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. In the archives key documents - irrespective of provenance - incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up concerning his situation. And I confirm this again.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of "audience memos", imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card. Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, or signed by the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as "sanctions" decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. They are not technically "sanctions" but provisions, "conditions and restrictions." To quibble if they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. They are exactly the same thing.
In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did not do and disputes claims I do not make and never made.
There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of "rumors," which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I was not aware of the fact that he was prevented from doing so. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick's of the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.
I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second reason is the victims of the priesthood and in the hierarchy. It is a dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to the victims of the procession as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians can evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are now now imperiled of their eternal salvation.
As to the second silence, this very serious crisis can not be properly addressed and resolved. This is a crisis to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy condemn the abusre, homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to acknowledge that this scourge is a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy.
Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover their misdeeds - whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.
Homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is in fact the main motive.
Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows you to meet with the best spheres of the Church. I am not paying attention to the plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis - more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to the successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls into the following. Let him admit his errors, repent,
In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence. You can make excuses, compromises and justifications that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourself with the falsehood and the delusion that will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, "I will not be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice - on your deathbed, and then just before the Judge - you will not regret having made.
October 19, 2018
Memory of the
North American Martyrs
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana