Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Alone it is Bishop Gracida against Francis & the Greatest Church Crisis in History

We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church because we appear to have a pope and his pro-gay bishops network who make the immoral Borgia popes and their inner circles look like choir boys.

As a priest recently said even if we can get the Church or state to remove all the bad men, Francis is only going to replace them with worse men.

Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis's immoral pro-gay bishops network, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators.

There is only one bishop in the Church actively working toward the removal of Francis.

He is Bishop Rene Henry Gracida.

Whether he acknowledges it or not, Bishop Gracida is our St. Athanasius.

Athanasius virtually alone, except for the faithful laity, lead the resistance against the Arian heresy in the fourth century even when the Pope excommunicated him.

They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.

The Bishop became like Athanasius when he explicitly said Amoris Laetitia is in error and to resist sacrilege Communions.

On December 2, 2017, Bishop Gracida became the only bishop to resist the Amoris Letitia sacrilege on his official website declaring Pope Francis is teaching error:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

We have a humble yet heroic man to lead us in the resistance against heterodoxy and those who have created the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.

Bishop Gracida was a courageous WWII airman, monk, friend of Pope John Paul II and the "Savior of EWTN" as Raymond Arroyo called him in his book (see post below) who at 95 looks like his is in his 70's, is mentally sharper than most men 30 years younger than him and looks by a large margin younger than Pope Benedict XVI or Francis.
[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/01/11/airman-monk-priest-bishop-an-interview-with-bp-rene-henry-gracida/]

We have leading us in Gracida a real life hero who makes every other living bishop in the whole world look like a midget by comparison.

We have a 95 year old retired bishop with the heart of a lion leading us: Rene the Lionhearted.

I'll say it again:

They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.

I know he will not be happy that I said this. He told me by email that it would be prideful to think of himself as a Athanasius.

But for better or worst that appears to be the role God has given him in this crisis.

Since most of the clergy apparently have abandoned us, what can we the faithful laity do to assist Bishop Gracida against the world?

First pray for him.

Then please read, pray and share the following open letter with cardinals, bishops, clergy, canon lawyers and the laity so clarity and the action that is within God's will can result from the letter.

The laity need to force people like Cardinal Raymond Burke and others to answer the theologically sound, clear and precise arguments put forward and either clearly and precisely counter them or put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was "never validly elected" the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

If Burke and others do not act they are putting their immortal souls in danger because they are denying the Petrine office of Pope John Paul II who made binding law for the 2013 conclave in Universi Dominici Gregis.

The open letter of Bishop Gracida is a analysis of Pope John Paul Il's Universi Dominici Gregis which appears to establish the "legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff"  and calls the Cardinals to "Address... [the] probable invalidity":

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE



AN OPEN LETTER
TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL
IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.

Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. 

So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.  If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.  

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead.  This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.]

This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.  Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

 This is so because:

1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;

2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,

3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:
each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  

These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”

Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]   

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. 

 Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.

Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony:   “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  His Holiness made an exception for simony.  Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

 The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.

While it is not necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis in order to construe or to interpret its plain meaning, the first source to which one would look is the immediately prior constitution which Universi Dominici Gregis abrogated or replaced.  Pope John Paul II replaced entirely what Pope Paul VI had legislated in the immediately previous Constitution on conclaves, Romano Pontfici Eligendo, but in so doing, Pope John Paul II used Romano Pontfici Eligendo as the format or pattern for His new constitution on conclaves.  Making obvious changes, nonetheless, Pope John Paul II utilized the content and structure of his predecessor’s constitution to organize and outline Universi Dominici Gregis.  Therefore, while it is not legally necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis, the primary reference to an extraneous source of construction would entail an examination of Romano Pontfici Eligendo, and that exercise (bolsterd by the use of the key word “scienter” in the Promulgation Clause) would reinforce the broad principle of invalidity.


Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:

Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:
Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]
       
Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.  Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error.


        It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013.

Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. 

 Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different than Orthodox Christians.

In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum.
This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. 

 This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its
Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”]  the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”.
So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. 

 They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely.

In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.)

In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.  
       
May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Will Wuerl be the next McCarrick when the 300 "Predator Priests" Report is Released?

Cardinal Donald Wuerl's former diocese of Pittsburgh is the most populated of the six dioceses covered in the grand jury report about 300 "predator priests" to be released next month according to the American Conservative.

Wikipedia says Wuerl was the Pittsburgh bishop from 1988 to 2006.

If Mike Ference at the Betti & Associates law blog can be believed then Wuerl might be the next McCarrick:

"Southwestern PA has the nation's 18th largest Catholic population per capita... That was reason enough for Donald Wuerl to cover the offenses of sexually abusive priests. But how could such a thing be done?"
(bettiandassociates.com, "Who is in Donald Wuerl's Back Pocket, and Why?, May 27, 2010)

At Rapevictimsofthecatholic church.wordpress.com in a press release, Ference stated that he had personal experience with Wuerl's lack of empathy for victims when his son was "shot in the back of the head and then treated as an impediment to Wuerl's rise to power."
(Press Release titled: "A sunrise broken by gunfire on a school bus. An investigation as to the root cause of the gunfire suffocated. Wuerl let it be suffocated," Contact: Mike Ference, 412-233-5491, mike@ferencemarketing.com)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Is Fr. Z's "Niceness" showing True Charity to McCarrick & his Pro-Gay Bishop's Network Destroying the Church?

Fr. Z recently compared faithful Catholics fighting to save the Church to the pro-homosexual dissenter Michael Winters because they were not being nice to Cardinal McCarrick and his pro-gay bishop's network who cover-up sex abuse and are trying to destroy to Church.

Apparently, Fr. Z thinks the best way to end the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is to be nice.

According to him, it appears that it's nice to call for less money to be given to McCarrick's pro-gay bishops network who cover-up sex abuse, but apparently he doesn't think it's nice to call for their removal from the episcopate or to be laicized.

Fr. Z even thinks it might be nice for Pope Francis, which the Catholic Monitor and others have presented evidence which strongly suggests he has been involved in cover-up, to appoint a canonical Special Prosecutor who would be under Francis's influence.

He probably doesn't think it's nice for McCarrick's pro-gay bishop network to be legally prosecuted as apparently might happen in Pennsylvania and for bishops to be jailed for sex abuse cover-up and other crimes.

Scholar Fr. Chad Rippinger, P.hD., in "Introduction to the Science of Mental Health" explains what charity to our enemies or sinners means:

"[C]harity is not divorced from supernatural prudence, not only for our sake but also for the sake of our enemies or sinners. At times, the most charitable thing that can happen to a sinner is to be cut off from certain effects or manifestations of charity so that he may come to his senses about his sinful life. Extending certain effects of charity may confirm him in his sin, and thereby do him harm."

"From this we understand that charity is not merely being nice, rather niceness is the effect of charity which is extended to people based on prudential judgment. This avoids a spirit of falsity which we find in certain people who are always nice, even when their niceness is out of place, unsuitable or even false." (Page 379)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Pope Francis's own McCarrick was ABP. Maccarone from 2005

It appears that if Cardinal McCarrick had been under then Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina in 2005 when his sex scandal was finally fully publicly exposed he might have been given a letter of "gratitude" for his work for the poor.

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted "Unmasking Bergoglio":

"Bergoglio always had the "gay agenda" among his plans... It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests."

"... Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate... of the Argentine Episcopal Conference... "[had a] "star"... of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian... of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone]."

"Until... in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man... Pope Benedict XVI... immediately removed [him from his]... position [as bishop]."

"The reaction of Bergoglio"

"By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness... And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office."

"... Bergoglio... issued a statement in which he expressed his 'gratitude' to the former bishop [Maccarone]."

"... The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say... the [sex] video corresponded to "the private life of Bishop Maccarone."

Jimmy Burns in his book "Francis, Pope of Good Promise" after referencing that "Maccarone resigned" because of the "videotape showing the bishop having 'intimate relations'" wrote:

"Bergoglio's own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone's political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop's defense claiming he had been set up."

"... Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]... 'This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt... It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'" (Pages 231-232)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Friday, July 27, 2018

Are Pope Francis or those who Control him to Blame for the McCarrick Scandal & possibly for Pope Benedict's Resignation?

Pro-gay journalist Michael Sean Winters wrote that "[b]ecause their longtime nemesis Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been accused of unspeakable crimes and because they think they can use this crisis to attack Pope Francis. It is deplorable."[https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/distinctly-catholic/conservatives-distort-mccarrick-scandal-attack-francis]

Winters by deplorable means that those who attack Francis because of the McCarrick scandal are deserving of strong condemnation.

This is the opposite of the truth.

The McCarrick scandal is the responsibility of Francis and those who control him.

Wikiwand.com reported that Pope Benedict XVI put McCarrick "out to pasture," more than likely, for the same reason he fired Cardinal Angelo Sodano from the position of Secretary of State for scandal.

But, Francis has ultimately the sole responsibility for putting the scandalous McCarrick (and Sodano) "back in the mix" as Wikiwand.com revealed:

"A 2014 New York Times article identifies him [McCarrick] as "one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI," adding that after the election of Pope Francis he found himself put "back in the mix." [http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick]

Although ultimately the Pope is solely responsible, were those who control Francis, also, responsible for McCarrick being put back in the mix?

Who might control or dominate Francis?

Vatican expert Jerry Slevin asks and answers that question: "Does Sodano Dominate Pope Francis?" 

Slevin explains that Francis has put Sodano back in power by putting his "longtime protégée,  [Cardinal]Pietro Parolin.... [as] No. 2 as Secretary of State, and... likely... the next pope": 

"Sodano at times was “de facto” pope during John Paul II’s incapacity. He is still Dean of Cardinals and oversaw the election of Pope Francis. His longtime protégée,  Pietro Parolin, is now No. 2 as Secretary of State, and will likely be the next pope."

"... Just before Francis’ election, Jason Berry, a “non-brainwashed” Jesuit educated award winning investigative reporter, in the NY Times urged Pope Benedict XVI to right some of the wrongs of the recent past by forcing out Cardinal Sodano, in Berry’s words, as '… the man who, more than any other, embodies the misuse of power that has corrupted the church hierarchy. …'. Please see, here, New York Times ." [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/03_04/2015_03_29_Jerry_Catholicism_Does_It.htm]


So what does this have to do with McCarrick, Francis and those who may control him such as Sodano?

Chat Café.com reports Cardinal Bergoglio now Pope Francis in a power struggle with the Cardinal in the past and in the present lost to Sodano:

"According to Argentine news reports here and here, Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis... shut down the IVE (probably for the same reasons we decided to start this site.)  They stopped the ordinations, shut down the seminary, and put restrictions on the founder Fr. Buela and the other IVE priests. So when the Institute of the Incarnate Word tries to blame their Argentine problems on “liberals” and “left-wingers”, it’s the Pope they are blaming."

"What is also news to us is that Cardinal Sodano – the same Cardinal Sodano that 
got busted taking bribes from and supporting the Legion of Christ’s disgraced founder Fr. Maciel – is the person that helped Buela and the Institute get out of their problems with the Argentine Bishops."

"Again from 
Argentine Press:

In efforts which would not have been outside of (former Argentine President) Menem’s former ambassador to the Vatican and current gentleman of the Holy See, and Archbishop Aguer Esteban Caselli, Buela got the powerful Cardinal Angelo Sodano to protect him. Not only did the Vatican reverse the order closing its seminaries, but it managed moving the IVE headquarters to Italy, to the diocese of Velletri-Segni, 60 kilometers south of Rome, where since mid-2001 has its Generalate and Buela parent lives."
"In the words of the IVE, Sodano is “so close to our Institute.”  The Italian Bishop where they are based even clarifies that he made the decision to let the IVE in “with the continued support of His Eminence Cardinal Sodano…”  Sodano even helped them get the Novitiate opened in Chile."

'These moves by Sodano were a 
“great humiliation” and a “slap in the face” to the Argentine Bishops.  So much so that then Cardinal Bergoglio even traveled to Rometo meet privately with Pope Benedict and express his concern over influence that Ambassador Casselli (and his ally Sodano) still had in appointing Bishops (such as the lone Argentine supporter of the IVE, Bishop Hector Aguer.)  Like an excerpt from a Godfather movie, Casselli, Aguer, and Sodano coordinated together and the Sodano and Casselli families even had close economic ties. "

"As the saying goes, “Judge them by the company they keep.” If you judge the Institute of the Incarnate Word by the Cardinals that help them out, 
Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Sodano, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture." [https://www.google.com/amp/s/coffeachat.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-and-the-ive-institute-of-the-incarnate-word/amp/#ampshare=https://coffeachat.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-and-the-ive-institute-of-the-incarnate-word/]

Iveinfo.info.org shows McCarrick is another protégée of Sodano in terms of the IVE:

"As we mentioned at the beginning, the IVE says this was all just persecution for their faithfulness and orthodoxy by liberal bishops.  Even if this were the case, it's a bit far-fetched considering their benefactors are the scandal-plagued Cardinal Sodano and the uber-liberal and equally scandal-plagued Cardinal McCarrick.  Were there no faithful and orthodox Bishops available in the US or Italy to come to their aid?"

"... Cardinal Sodano

This is the guy that will ordain you if you go to the seminary in Italy.  The local bishops won't ordain IVE candidates any more.  If Sodano isn't available (or if he can't be troubled - eg. when there is only one person to be ordained deacon) the IVE have to search a bit before they find someone that will do ordinations for them."

"... Cardinal McCarrick

This is the guy that will ordain you if you go to the Seminaries in the USA or Argentina."  [http://www.iveinfo.org/p/founder-and-history-at-institute-of.html?m=1]


The Catholic News Agengy (CNA) reported that "Cardinal McCarrick reportedly lived on IVE seminary property during retirement":


"One source close to the Archdiocese of Washington told CNA that the cardinal had for a time an IVE brother in formation living in his residence, which was on the parish property but separate from the house of formation."


"An additional source also told CNA that McCarrick had young priest and seminarian assistants while living with the IVE, but did not comment on whether any seminarian resided with the cardinal."[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/cardinal-mccarrick-reportedly-lived-on-ive-seminary-property-during-retirement-86896#ampshare=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-mccarrick-reportedly-lived-on-ive-seminary-property-during-retirement-86896]


Was it Sodano who got Francis to put McCarrick "back in the mix?"


If Sodano doesn't control Francis why doesn't he now that he is Pope get rid of the Sodano protected conservative IVE since he experienced a “great humiliation” and a “slap in the face” by their continued existence at the hands of Sodano?

Francis's record shows he is not the forgiving type unless someone has power or control over him.

 Some other questions might be:

Is Francis another protégée of Sodano by way of the other Sodano sidekick Parolin?

Was Sodano responsible for Benedict's resignation and therefore responsible for Francis's opportunity to be Pope?

Vatican expert Italian journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi says Vatileaks caused Pope Benedict XVI to resign:

"The story of the gay lobby has... importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger." [\https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]


Who were behind the "Vatileak plot" that attacked Benedict's closest collaborator Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and eventually according to Fittipaldi caused Benedict to resign according to the Catholic Herald in 2012?:

"The Pope will stand by Cardinal Bertone. For the fact is that the conspiracy against Bertone is nothing less than a conspiracy against the Holy Father himself. Remember Andrea Gagliarducci’s words: 'in the last change of the papacy, the two head honchos of diplomacy and of the curia – Cardinals Sodano and Achille Silvestrini – were the ones most staunchly opposed to the election of Ratzinger, just as they later tried to block the appointment of Bertone'. The tensions inside the Curia are the same now as they were then: the difference is that the anti-Ratzingerians cannot expose themselves as such: they cannot openly oppose the Pope: so they oppose his closest collaborator." [http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/06/06/what-is-behind-the-vatileaks-plot-mainly-it-seems-its-a-conspiracy-against-the-popes-most-trusted-collaborator-so-we-should-pray-that-it-fails/]


Who worked the hardest for Francis to be Pope before the last conclave?

"But Sodano (and his forces) survived and at the Conclave of 2013, because of being dean of the College of the Cardinals, his duties included moderating the pre-Conclave discussions and presiding at the pre-Conclave Mass. It is widely conceded that once the voting got underway he had convinced a number of other cardinals to cast their ballots for Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ, the man who is now Pope Francis."

"It is not clear if Sodano delivered the determining votes for the Argentine pope’s election, but those tallies were essential nonetheless. And Francis was and remains well aware of that."

"He began his pontificate with full knowledge that Sodano still had considerable reach and influence over much that was happening in ecclesiastical Rome. He also had personal experience of the former Secretary of State’s steely will to promote and to punish, especially in the pope’s native Latin America where, at least since the 1970s, policy decisions and bishop appointments were rarely made without the Italian diplomat’s input."[https://international.la-croix.com/news/twilight-time-for-the-vatican-s-godfather/7013]


The old saying is "in the Vatican, nothing is accidental," so who appeared to know Bergoglio was going to be Pope before the last conclave?:

"Yet, when Sodano, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, celebrates the Missa Pro Eligendo Romani Pontifice (the Mass that precedes the opening of the conclave), the homily seems like an specific endorsement of Bergoglio’s character. Sodano took note of the prevailing winds and anticipated the cardinals’ move. Sodano spoke of mercy and of reaching out to the peripheries of the world. Looking back, each word – and in the Vatican, nothing is accidental – seems to be a clear endorsement of Pope Francis’ views." [http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/the-return-of-the-curia-of-the-old-days

Cardinal Joseph Zen believes that protégée of Sodano Cardinal Parolin is the puppet-master behind Pope Francis's plan to betray the underground Chinese Catholics to the Chinese Communist regime.
(LifeSiteNews, "Cardinal Zen rebukes the Vatican's Secretary of State over China: He [Parolin] is a 'man of little faith,'" February 6, 2017)

How long has Sodano protégée Parolin been behind the scenes with Francis pulling strings?

In the last decade, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was having problems with conservative Catholics, some linked to the Knights of Malta, lead by Argentina Vatican embassador Esteban Caselli who had attempted to block Bergoglio becoming a bishop.
(MondayVatican.com, "Pope Francis and the Order of Malta: A Key to Understanding this Pontificate?," January 30, 2017)

The conservative Catholics then blocked his selection of liberal bishops when he became a Cardinal for the country and finally attempted to remove him from Argentina by getting him sent to a "Vatican congregation."
(Crux, "How the pope's history with the Knights of Malta could be linked to the current row" January 13, 2017)

Bergoglio's path to the papacy was in great danger.

Who came to the rescue in his Argentina power struggle with the conservative Argentinian Catholics?

Pope Francis biographer Elisabeth's Pique tells us in Bergoglio's own words:

"I got to know [the Sodano sidekick] Parolin personally in 2006, in the middle of the conflict between the Argentine episcopate and a certain sector of the Roman Curia that, through the former Ambassador Esteban Caselli, had intervened in the nomination of bishops. I asked him to meet me so I could try to understand the position of the Vatican. Parolin accepted: he received me in his office of the Secretariat of State, was very courteous, and - obviously off the record - discussed the matter with me."
(Book.Google.com, "Pope Francis: Life and Revolution:A Biography of Jorge Bergoglio")

The rest is history.

The crafty Vatican "insider" Parolin who is the cohort of the powerful Sodano helped Bergoglio outmanoeuvred the conservative Catholics in the Vatican and Argentina. He became Pope and his collaborator as well as Vatican string puller became his Secretary of State.

Did Parolin as Secretary of State become the puppet-master of the papacy of Francis?

Before Bergoglio became Pope he was not known to be big on Muslim immigration into Europe to weaken its Christian foundation.

Might Parolin be the one who set him on this path?

According to The Guardian, Parolin was a trendsetter in wanting to weaken Europe's Christian foundation by bringing in Muslims:

"In 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger... spoke out against letting a Muslim State [Turkey] state join [the EU]..."

"The Vatican's acting foreign minister, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, responded by telling US diplomats that Ratzinger's comments were his own rather than the official Vatican position."

"...The US diplomat noted that Ratzinger "clearly understands that allowing a Muslim country into the EU would further weaken his case for Europe's Christian foundation."
(The Guardian, "Wikileaks cables: Pope wanted Muslim Turkey kept out of EU," December 16, 2010)

Before Bergoglio became Pope he was not known to be big on climate change and population control.

Might Parolin be the one who set him on this path?

According to Wikipedia, again, the Secretary of State was a trendsetter on climate change and population control. Parolin in 2007 at the opening of the United Nations said:

"The Holy See believes that applies also in the context of climate change. States have a shared 'responsibility to protect' the world's climate through mitigation."
(Wikipedia.com, "Pietro Parolin")

In case you're wondering what mitigation means here it is explained by a climate change/population control advocate:

"Mitigating some substantial percentage of the population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy."
(Vox, "I'm an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here's why," September 26, 2017)

Might the Francis Vatican's policy of bringing climate change/population control abortionists to lecture at the Vatican be the puppet-master Parolin pulling the strings?

Is Parolin the puppet-master behind Francis's betrayal of the Chinese Catholics, the Francis betrayal of the Christian foundation of Europe by the Muslim immigration invasion and the Francis betrayal of the most helpless, the murdered unborn babies, to Parolin's policy of protecting the "climate by mitigation," that is the population control abortionists invasion of the Vatican?


At one point I thought there might be there a behind the scenes war between Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin, but I now think Parolin controls Francis.

 -As Vatican expert Sandro Magister reported on May 20, Francis did not follow Parolin's Vatican Secretariat of State script or text against the Venezuelan regime provided for the press.

-The Spectator in December said that "some Catholic observers are speculating" it was Parolin's  "forces inside the Secretariat of State" who leaked the scandal reports on Francis's close collaborator Vice-Pope Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga.

-Gloria.tv says " the second man in the Vatican Secretariat of State" Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu "a blind follower of Francis" is rumoured to be in "conflict with his boss... Parolin" is in order to be made cardinal to "be removed."


 -Why was the close collaborator, personal theologian and reportedly the writer of most of Francis's major Pontifical documents, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, suddenly promoted to a major diocese in Argentina and removed from the face to face intimate informal inner circle of the Pope in the Vatican which is the way Francis reportedly makes most of his decisions?

-According to Vatican expert Ed Condon the "inner circle's monopoly is strengthened by Francis's impatience with long meetings. He prefers brief personal chats and informal briefings." ( Catholic Herald, "Five years on: the paradox of Francis's papacy," March 8, 2017)


 -According to a Gloria.tv headline in a February podcast from the Spectator Canon lawyer and Vatican expert Condon revealed "Parolin's Campaign to be Pope Desperate after China Fiasco."

-Parolin who apparently controls the Vatican communications apparatus it appears had a statement issued that said Francis stands behind his China disaster while the Pope told Chinese hero Cardinal Joseph Zen another narrative counter to the statement and had at that time never personally confirmed the Vatican statement.

-I thought there might be war between Pope and Secretary of State after Zen rebuked Parolin calling him a "man of little faith" and Francis had not come to the Secretariat of State's defense at the time, but that changed.

-According to en.news and Choosing-him.blogspot Vatican expert Condon in the Spectator podcast "refers to Parolin's" failure of Francis's "Apostlic Journey to Chile" which is the biggest public relations disaster of the papacy which at least one commentator has said smelled like a booby trap.

Francis probably is not too happy with Parolin over the Chile disaster, as spoken about by Condon, whether it was a trap or not set by the Secretariat of State who is reported to have the ambition to be the next pope.

It appears possible that Sodano protégée Parolin sometimes tells Francis to do sometimes and he doesn't do it as with Parolin's Vatican Secretariat of State script against the Venezuelan regime. But generally it appears that when Parolin tells Francis to jump his only question is how high. 

It appears Parolin may have send Francis to Chile to make a fool of himself and yet the Pope is still doing what he tells him to do on China when he could just keep his mouth shut and let Parolin's hope to be the next pope ship sink. Instead, recently he is personally defending the Parolin China policy.

Francis's record shows he is not the forgiving type unless someone has power or control over him.

That the Pope is going along with the policies of Parolin who is a creature of Sodano according to many authorities on the Vatican and Vatican expert Slevin appears to be strongly supported by the evidence.

Many other Vatican experts agree with Slevin that Parolin is a creature of Sodano (Google: Sodano Parolin protege).


Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and that Parolin is not the next pope.             

















 




Thursday, July 26, 2018

Pope Francis's Closest Advisor Maradiaga "had Protected a Pedophile Priest from Costa Rica" and said: ""I would be willing to go to Jail before Harming one of my [Accused Pedophile] Priests"

Italian journalist and Vatican expert Emiliano Fittipaldi in his book, Lussuria. Peccati scandali e tradimenti di una Chiesa fatta di uomini (Lust. Sins, Scandals, and Betrayal of a Church Made of Men) says that Pope Francis's closest advisor and “vice-pope" Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga “had protected a pedophile priest from Costa Rica, a fugitive from Interpol" according Fittipaldi in a interview with comunidadculturaearte.com which intmass media.com explains in detail:

"Few know that between 2003 and 2004, the cardinals were taken in one of the dioceses under the supervision of the Archdiocese of Tegucigalpa in Honduras, the priest, accused by the police of Costa Rica in sexual harassment. Hiding a criminal, don Enrique Vasquez (Enrique Vasquez) was wanted by Interpol since 1998: on the run between Nicaragua, new York, Connecticut, and a sanatorium for priests in Mexico, don Enrique a few months would be hiding in Guinope where he will get a parish, under the control of the Archdiocese of Maradiaga. Journalist Brooks Egerton (Brooks Egerton) says that at the time he was able to interview the Secretary of Maradiaga for the newspaper Dallas Morning News, which did not deny the presence of a pedophile, but minimized his role in the parish. In effect the cardinal, however, did not want to answer his questions. “How to tell the Interpol agent, who I interviewed, officials of the diocese realized that they had problems with don Enrique, and got rid of it,” suggests Eggerton."
[https://intmassmedia.com/2017/01/18/as-the-vatican-defends-priests-pedophiles/]


Francis's closest advisor Maradiaga said he opposes bishops turning in pedophile priests over to civil authorities for investigation and prosecution. "[I] would be willing to go to jail before harming one of my priests":

"Maradiaga... a year before the arrival of Vazquez in his diocese, in an open conference in Rome, he explained that even when dealing with a priest accused of pedophilia, it would “would rather go to jail than to harm one of my priests… For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of the pastor to the function of the police. We must not forget that we are pastors, not agents of the FBI or the CIA.”
[https://intmassmedia.com/2017/01/18/as-the-vatican-defends-priests-pedophiles/]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Pro-Gay Italian Journalist Fittipaldi admitted: “[Pope Benedict XVI]... sent away almost 600 [Pedophilia] Priests in a few years... Ratzinger made... War against Pedophilia... He just Started and Resigned" because of Gay Lobby

Pro-gay Italian journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi is one of two journalists charged in the Vatileaks 2 trial in the Vatican court for obtaining confidential Church papers. Obviously, he has sources in the Vatican who have given him information that was intended to be kept secret.

Even the pro-gay Fittipaldi admitted in an interview with comunidadeculturaearte.com:

“Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI]... was very traditionalist and conservative, and so the journalists did not like him, but he did important things. The things he did in relation to pedophilia, which was not much, but double the time for prescribing crimes in the Vatican, sent away almost 600 priests in a few years. The incredible thing is that Francis did a lot less." [https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]

Journalist Hilary White reported more accurately that Pope Francis (and his chief sex abuse advisor Cardinal Sean O'Malley) didn't just do "a lot less," but "all but completely dismantled" the "effective" reforms instituted against clerical sex abuse by Pope Benedict XVI:

"Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis... has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes... Benedict 'had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012'... His reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers... 'This Pope has removed two to three bishops per month'... These reforms - and - removals - have ceased entirely under Francis [and O'Malley]." (Remnant, "Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases, January 25, 2017)

The leftist Fittipaldi who considers Francis a man of "courage" says the Vatican gay lobby is "often composed" of "conservatives" who helped to cause Pope Benedict XVI to resign with the "war of documents" that was Vatileaks:

"The story of the gay lobby has... importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger."

"... [T]hey [the gay lobby] are often composed of the most conservative men in the Church. It is a paradox, but it is so. Certainly the doctrine [against homosexuality] has not been changed because the conservative homosexual and heterosexual world is in the majority. Francis, from this point of view, is considered a heretic. In this I very much support the courage of Francis, a visionary courage, because if the Church does not change and does not open to the world, it risks entering into an irreversible crisis."

"... Ratzinger made... war against pedophilia... [h]e just started and resigned."
 (Comunidadeculturaearte.com, "Emiliano Fittipaldi: For Francis paedophilia is a secondary issue," October 20, 2017) [[https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Pope Francis and Cardinal O’Malley have Mishandled the Sex Abuse Crisis

Pope Francis and Cardinal Seán O’Malley appear to handle the sex abuse crisis in the same way.

It appears that Francis and O’Malley don't receive letters when it's about sex abuse of minors.

Pope Francis's own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters and president of the Commission for the Protection of Minors Cardinal O’Malley personally gave a sex abuse victim letter to Francis that the Pope never acknowledged receiving.

Now, O' Malley received a letter from a priest which revealed that one of the most influential Cardinals in the United States was a sex abuser and he never received it.
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/cardinal-omalley-says-more-than-apologies-needed-in-cardinal-mccarrick-scan?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When%3A2018-07-24+22%3A24%3A01]

O' Malley's record as Francis's own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters shows according to
journalist Hilary White that Francis and O' Malley have "all but completely dismantled" the "effective" reforms instituted against clerical sex abuse by Pope Benedict XVI:

"Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis... has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes... Benedict 'had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012'... His reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers... 'This Pope has removed two to three bishops per month'... These reforms - and - removals - have ceased entirely under Francis [and O'Malley]." (Remnant, "Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases, January 25, 2017)

What is O' Malley's record in his diocese according the Bishop Accountability website (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm):

Six Ways Cardinal Sean O’Malley Has Mishandled the Abuse Crisis

March 13, 2013

When Cardinal O’Malley is described as papabile, his work on sexual abuse cases as a bishop is often cited.  While O’Malley has considerable experience as a “fixer” in the troubled dioceses of Fall River MA, Palm Beach FL, and Boston, his performance in that role raises concerns.  A close look at the cardinal reveals a career-long pattern of resisting disclosure of information, reinstating priests of dubious suitability, and negotiating mass settlements that are among the least generous in the history of the crisis.
See also a PDF of this Fact Sheet.

1. Cardinal O’Malley omitted at least 161 names from his published list of accused Boston priests.

As Boston archbishop, Cardinal O'Malley has disclosed minimal information about accused priests. He did not release a list of accused priests until August 2011, years after committing to do so, and then he re-packaged information that was already public: his list did not reveal the name of even one accused priest who was not already known. In fact, he admitted to withholding the names of 91 accused archdiocesan priests – even though the archdiocese had settled with some of their victims and regarded the allegations as ‘compelling and credible.’ [See O’Malley’s August 25, 2011 letter.]
And unlike at least 10 of more than 25 other US bishops who have released lists, O’Malley refused also to name accused religious order clerics. According to a Boston Globe investigation, at least 70 accused order clerics – including some who have gone to prison for child sexual abuse – are missing from the cardinal's list.

With only 159 names, O’Malley’s long-awaited list was far shorter than expected. In a secret report by the archdiocese's abuse delegate in 2000 – two years before the crisis broke in Boston – the archdiocese cited a total of 191 accused priests. In his 2003 report, Massachusetts Attorney General Reilly stated that 237 Boston priests had been accused.
           
2. Cardinal O’Malley has “cleared” a high percentage of accused priests – four times the national average.

According to a largely overlooked archdiocesan report released in April 2006, Cardinal O’Malley’s Review Board “cleared” 45% of priests (32 of 71) investigated for child sexual abuse from July 2003 through December 2005. In these 32 cases, the Board “did not find probable cause that sexual abuse of a minor had occurred.” The names of most of these cleared priests still are not known.
Cardinal O’Malley’s 45% clearance rate of accused priests is much higher than the national average. Catholic Church officials nationwide in 2005 deemed only 10% of allegations false or unsubstantiated.

3. Under O’Malley, the Boston archdiocese has a double standard for employees accused of sexual misconduct. Accused priests may remain in place; accused laypeople are suspended immediately.

The Archdiocese’s published policy indicates that the removal of a priest who is under investigation is not mandatory: “For the period of the preliminary investigation, the Archbishop may request that an accused cleric voluntarily refrain from the public exercise of sacred ministry …” However, if the accused is a lay employee, the Archdiocese’s response is unambiguous and strict: “[T]he supervisor will immediately place the accused person on administrative leave.”


4. Troubling questions remain about certain accused priests cleared by O’Malley.

Rev. Jerome Gillespie was accused in 2005 of soliciting oral sex from a woman and her 12-year-old daughter.  Although most charges against him were dismissed, the priest agreed to “sufficient facts” to a charge of annoying and accosting a member of the opposite sex, and a judge ordered him to be evaluated for sex offender treatment and to have no contact with minors for two years without first disclosing his case to guardians. In 2008, it was discovered that O’Malley had quietly returned Gillespie to ministry. After SNAP publicized Gillespie’s reinstatement, O’Malley again withdrew the priest from ministry.

Rev. Thomas Curran was removed from ministry by Cardinal Law in 2002 after a convicted child rapist accused Curran and Rev. Paul Shanley of raping him repeatedly as a boy.  In 2007, Cardinal O’Malley announced that Curran had been cleared of all charges and assigned “permanent disability” status. In 2010, another victim of Curran came forward, and the priest was placed on leave again.
Rev. James Power was accused in 1993 of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy in 1980. In 1996, the archdiocese settled with the victim for $35,000. In 2002, Cardinal Law removed Power from ministry and a second victim came forward. The priest's personnel file, made public in 2002, included an unsigned note, dated August 27, 1993, saying "100% positive other kids."  In 2009, Cardinal O’Malley announced the archdiocese was "unable to substantiate“ either allegation and that Power was removed from leave and assigned senior priest status.

5. As bishop of Fall River MA, O’Malley was accused by the local prosecutor of concealing offenders’ names until the statute of limitations had expired.

As Bishop O’Malley was leaving the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, in 2002, the local prosecutor, Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh, took the extraordinary step of publicly rebuking the bishop for a decade-long delay in submitting to him the names of 21 accused priests. “Why didn’t he release these names to us 10 years ago?” the DA said. By the time O’Malley gave DA Walsh the priests’ names in 2002, the time window for prosecuting had closed for all but one of the cases.

6. Compared to other bishops, Cardinal O’Malley has not been financially generous or fair to victims of clergy abuse.
In terms of per-survivor amounts, the mass settlements O'Malley negotiated in Fall River in 1992 and in Boston in 2003 have been ungenerous – both rank in the lower 50%.

Anne Barrett Doyle, BishopAccountability.org, barrett.doyle@comcast.net, 001 781 439 5208, or 001 (39) 781 439 5208
 [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.