FrancisChurch Living On Borrowed Euro Time…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So today the most talked about topic on Catholic Twitter is whether Francis will RESIGN or not RESIGN.

And as my dear and loyal readers know, this even more humble blogger is of the opinion that Francis, the dictator of Rome will not go voluntarily. He will need to be “nudged”.

What is also clear at present is that Francis has been able to “reconcile” with the #fakenews legacy media, who have “dialed back” on the anti-Francis narratives that arose after the initial Failing NY Times article that set off the l’affair Uncle Ted.

Furthermore, Francis after an initial period of PANIC, has appeared to regain his composure and is back to his old, arrogant, dictatorial and “humble” self. An example of this “rejuvenated” Francis is what he did to the US contingent that came to him with a request to allow for a transparent investigation into the afore mentioned l’affair Uncle Ted. 

So we are back to business as usual.

But are we?

To conclude this post, once again a reminder of what we on this blog are watching and what this humble blogger thinks will be the “force” that will drive the proverbial stake through the heart of FrancisChurch.

And that “force” will be the disintegration of the Euro currency!

And just to remind everybody about this mechanism, here it is in quasi-mathematical notation:

German Media Foundations -> German Government -> German ‘soft power” diplomacy -> German Bishops’ Conference -> KIRCHENSTEUER -> FrancisChurch.

As as has been mentioned ad nauseum on this blog, it is the KIRCHENSTEUER that is providing Francis and FrancisChurch with the funding to do what it is that Francis and FrancisChurch do: destroy the Institutional Church and turn it into a secular non-governmental organization.

So naturally, if the funding is pulled, FrancisChurch goes bust.

And the only way the funding will be pulled is if there is a problem in Germany with the German economy, which directly translates into the proceeds taken into the KIRCHENSTEUER.

Nota bene: As per video, one way to interpret Francis telling the US contingent to take a long walk off a short peer is that: Francis don’t need no stinking American money!

But I digress…

And the Germany economy presently is enjoying a period of prosperity due to having an undervalued currency, i.e. the Euro as its national currency. This allows the Germans to export their goods and services at a rate that is so competitive that no other country in Europe (and most of the world) can compete.

Hence the trade surplus, resulting economic boom and the resulting KIRCHENSTEUER DOSH (larger annual gross receipts from a shrinking payer pool) flowing into the FrancisVatican.

And just to provide a more detailed explanation of this mechanism involved, below is a great post that appeared at the always reliable Zero Hedge website (see here) which explains in detail just this mechanism.

Furthermore, the post also provides an analogy to another system from days gone by that is very similar to this existing German construct. The important thing to note is that the demise of this German monetary “experiment” will proceed along the lines of that experiment that was known as the “transfer ruble”.

And finally, the note on which this humble blogger would like to leave off this post is to once again stress that: FrancisChurch is living on borrowed time.

*****

All Euros Gravitate To Germany

 

The Euro has been around for almost 20 years. The Russian transfer ruble survived 25 years. As GEFIRA explains, the two currencies have something in common: they were and are not a success story…

The introduction of the transfer ruble was intended to enable free trade between the countries of the Eastern bloc. The creation of the common clearing system led to the exchange rates for the East German mark, zloty, forint, lev, and even the Mongolian tugrik being arbitrarily fixed by the Soviet Union, regardless of the purchasing power of the national currencies. In the 1960s, the Bulgarian lev was 20% undervalued and the Polish zloty about 45% overvalued. Since the transfer ruble was not yet convertible into Western currencies, it remained an illusion and a means by which the Soviet Union could enrich itself and save its budget at the expense of its satellite states: the Russians bought raw materials, goods, food for convertible currencies in the West and sold them to their “socialist friends” for transfer rubels. The international bank for economic cooperation, which sat in Moscow and handled all transactions in the transfer ruble, swept the real trade surpluses and deficits under the carpet. With the political change the common settlement currency came to to an end, and it turned out that the Soviet Union owed huge sums to its “brothers”.

The situation with the euro is a bit different these days. There are certain similarities to the red dollar (that’s how some people called the transfer rubble).

Firstly, all countries and citizens of the euro zone are constantly told that the euro is good for them all, which is not true. (The facts can be found in our other articles.

Secondly, the euro favours the trade balances of some countries (Germany, France) but damages those of others (PIGS countries).

Thirdly, the euro, as a transfer currency, contributes to the growth of mountains of debt.

Fourthly, the euro zone has been artificially extended – fortunately not to Mongolia – but Italy and Greece did not and do not fulfil the Maastricht criteria. This was the reason for financial crises and will continue to be so in the future.

There are also differences between the red dollar and the EU’s common currency.

Firstly, the euro is not just a currency for accounting purposes, it is the only currency in force in the countries of the fraternal EU community. The dream of the communists has come true and the central banks of the eurozone members have become zombies that are supposedly allowed to participate in decision-making.

Secondly, the mountains of debt are growing elsewhere – not the issuer/manager of the currency is in debt, but the “beneficiaries” who join the euro zone.

Greece’s debt was handled in such a way that the country received a huge injection of money from the ECB; Italy’s and Spain’s debt will soon cause sleepless nights for decision-makers in Rome, Madrid, Brussels and Berlin.

The counterpart of the Soviet transfer rouble in the EU is, to be precise, not the euro, but Target 2.

It is a payment system in which banks process cross-border payments in real time. In Target 2, surpluses or deficits arise when money flows from one eurozone country to another. During the aggravation of the last euro debt crisis in 2011 and 2012, capital from particularly affected countries like Spain and Italy fled through the Target 2 banking market to countries like Germany and Luxembourg, which were considered safe havens. Germany’s claims against the poorer southern European countries reached 700 billion euros at the time (see chart below).

The situation only returned to normal when ECB President Mario Draghi made it clear that, if necessary, he could adjust the balance sheet by printing additional money. Target 2 prevented the countries from collapsing. If Spain had stayed with Peso and Italy with Lira, they would have collapsed. Target 2 protected them from bankruptcy at the expense of German, Luxembourg and Dutch citizens. Since 2015 we have been observing the flight of capital to the north again, at a time when the money printing machine in Frankfurt am Main is working like crazy. This time, however, the capital flight is the result of Draghi starting QE in 2015 and the Bundesbank starting to buy back bonds on the market.

The Italian central bank is dependent on the ECB and has to buy Italian government bonds. German investors have to exchange these bonds for euros in Italy and transfer the money via Target 2 to their German bank. The growing differences in the Target 2 balance sheets therefore result from this:

  1. that the Germans, who own the Italian bonds, dissolve them in Italy and transfer the money thus obtained to Germany. It is the consequence of the earlier problems with trade balances: Italians bought German products with their bonds in the past. Germany therefore has more debt claims than any of its neighbours.
  2. that Italians liquidate their bonds and send their money abroad – a usual flight of capital.

So again enormously high debt claims arose on the German side. This year they have already reached a trillion euros, i.e. a huge amount of 25% of German GDP.

The immense German Target 2 claims are not covered by any securities. If Italy or Spain withdraw from the euro zone, the Germans will be left to their own devices. There is still no unrest in Germany over this, because confidence in the Bundesbank is well known in Germany. Jaques Delors once said: “Not all Germans believe in God, but all believe in the Bundesbank.”

Everyone probably believes in the ECB and Mario Draghi. At his press conference on 26 July this year, he wanted to have a calming effect when he spoke about Target 2: “It has nothing to do with the movement of capital from country to country”. In fact, it is only the clearing balances that can be overdrawn as long as no one leaves the euro zone.

So Italy must not leave the euro zone. It is “too big to fall”: its debt amounts to 2.3 trillion euros (!), liabilities in Target 2 rose in June 2018 from -164.5 billion euros in 2015 to -481 billion euros. This means that Banca d’Italia owes the Bundesbank almost half a trillion euros!

On the one hand there is Draghi, the Italian who uses his position to save his country, and on the other there are many German economists who criticise Target 2. Professor Hans Werner Sinn, for whom Target 2 is a cheque that cannot be cashed, is particularly well known. In one of his articles he describes the situation in Spain and Italy as follows:

In these countries radical socialists rule who don’t want to know anything about budgetary discipline, in Italy the old parties were swept away. The radical government of Five Stars and Lega wants to take out much more credit under the protection of the other euro countries than it is taking anyway and threatens to leave the euro if the EU refuses to do so.”

Draghi takes a different view:

“The euro is indispensable because it is strong, because societies want it (!), and it is in no one’s interest to doubt the sense of its existence. It is not worth discussing the abolition of what is inevitable (!). That can only do harm.”

Comrade Draghi, of course, you are right, our transfer ruble is untouchable, and it is not worth discussing the existence of our (socialist?) community and currency. It will continue to exist for another 1000 years!

In 1990, Russia owed Germany 6.4 billion transfer rubles (7.4 billion euros) on account of its foreign trade balances. Schröder gave Putin 7.1 billion, and Russia only paid back 500 million euros. How much will Merkel give away to the south if something goes badly?

Advertisements

The USChurch Getting Ready To Sort Itself Out…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday was the 17th Sunday after Pentecost. Sitting through yesterday’s Holy Gospel reading (Matt. 22:34-46) and subsequent homily, which incidentally lasted 30+ minutes, our good Father focused on the first part of the Gospel, as one can say is the custom.

Yet this humble blogger, with the above embedded Fr. Rutler clip playing in his cranium and triggered by the Gospel reading, had this lingering “sensation” for the entirety of the homily, that a great opportunity was being missed.

Here is the passage: (see here)

Notice the second part of the Gospel reading deals with something very near and dear to our hearts, and something that has been noted on the pages of this blog quite frequently.

This “something” could be termed as the Francis’2+2=5’Church.

Specifically, what we see in Our Lord’s question to the Pharisees has a logical construct at its base. Here is that syllogism:

If the Pharisees make the claim that Christ is the son of David, while David makes the claim that Christ is his Lord, how could it be that Christ is the son of David?

And how did the Pharisees respond to Our Lord?

They did not ask Him any further questions “from that day forth”

What we can observe in this above passage is that the Pharisees, at this point had arrived at the logical conclusion of their thought process and simultaneously have reached the LIMIT of their ability to reason.

In other words: their reasoning was WRONG!

Being reasonable therefore… bah, being SERIOUS people, and not having access of a contemporary Fr. “2+2=5 Spadaro” at their disposal, the Pharisees decided to do what the French would term: “didn’t miss another opportunity to stay quiet”.

Which brings us to the Fr. Rutler clip embedded at the top of this post.

First observation. Notice that the book Calm in Chaos, has at its core a very Petersonian theme.

Moving on, Fr. Rutler puts this moment in time into historical perspective. Identifing major crises that occur every 500 years, Fr. Rutler labels them as follows: Fall of Roman Empire, Byzantine Schisms, Protestant Revolt and the unnamed “current one”.

And even if Fr. Rutler didn’t want to name this crisis by name, we can infer that what he meant was: the crisis brought about by “the spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II”.

Now this “current crisis” according to Fr. Rutler, is much more heinous than the previous ones. The reason is that this one, unlike the previous ones “challenges the integrity of the Faith”.

What makes this crisis into what Fr. Rutler terms as a perfect storm, is that we have corruption co-mingled with an attempt to “redress” the authentic Faith of the Church. This heresy goes under the slogan “development of doctrine”.

Aside, the perfect case in point of what is meant by the term “redress” is the analogous attempt by Anthony “2+2=5” Spadaro  to “redress” his “theological” theory as the “development of mathematics”.  Confirmation of this attempted “redress” is the recent “Fr.” Rosica quote that ‘this “pope” transcends Scripture and Tradition’.

So by logical extension, if Francis transcends Scripture and Tradition, why not the laws governing mathematics?

Or “redress” the doctrine pertaining to capital punishment for that matter?

But back to Fr. Rutler…

In this context, Fr. Rutler puts his finger exactly on the real battle that Francis, the magical thinker of Rome is waging against the Catholic Church: a battle with Natural Law.

And since FrancisChurch has deluded itself into thinking that FrancisChurch doctrine has “developed” to the point that it has “transcended” Natural Law, there is no LIMIT to what else they can imagine.

But that doesn’t mean that rest of us need to accept this gibberish.

Fr. Rutler and a large, sane part of the clerical class definitely don’t.

And he provides some evidence to this effect.

A bit further in the video, Fr. Rutler lays into what is being passed off as the results of “clericalism” and “elitism” by FrancisChurch. Fr. Rutler rightly makes the claim that it is in fact the result of the “lack of Faith”.

Here is one such passage:

I am a parish priest. I am in no position to fault or correct the “pope” who is the Vicar of Christ. I can only express what moral theologians would call ‘admiratio’ (?), that is astonishment at attributing to the pope,… imputing to the devil and exposure of the truth. No I… The devil is the prince of lies. The last thing he wants to do is to expose the truth. So if the truth is being exposed, that is not the devil’s work. That is the Holy Spirit.

Yes indeed. The syllogism constructs itself, and is as simple as that!

And then closing the interview, Fr. Rutler has this gem of an observation:

The other point I make in this book Calm in Chaos is that the real source of distress in the Church is not deliberate evil. There are not that many people who deliberately want to do evil.

The real problem is MEDIOCRITY. Our hierarchy, I think has suffered from that. We… how many times have you heard people say ‘how did so-and-so ever become bishop’? Or on the other hand, why isn’t so-and-so a bishop?

Why?

Because bureaucracy by its very nature  tends to perpetuate MEDIOCRITY. The company man. The man who doesn’t rock the boat. But that mediocrity is most dangerous. That’s what the Book of Revelation has Our Lord saying “I wish you were either hot or cold, but because you’re lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth”. 

And here is where the interview ended.

Concluding, a few observations.

First: the rank and file clerics are congnizent of the fact that MEDIOCRITY, i.e. INCOMPETENCE is a (if not the) major issue plaguing the contemporary post-conciliar church. Priests like Fr. Rutler are even writing books about this issue now.

Next, the rank and file clerics are cognizant of the fact that the real war that is being waged, on the theological level is a war against Natural Law. If this fact is being identified and noted widely and is appearing in books, it can be inferred that these same clerics recognize that the post-conciliar FrancisTheology is nothing more than MAGIC THINKING.

And finally, and by far the most important aspect of the above interview, if for only psychological reasons at present, is the realization, even though it is still unsaid at present, is that this major cyclical crisis that has come 500 years after the protestant revolt, has been created by the “spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II”

And finally, it can be inferred from Fr. Rutler’s interview that this “spirit of the new springtime” is not of the Holy Spirit but rather of the devil.

And how do we know this?

Because it is the “spirit of the new springtime” that has introduced the “chaos” into the Institutional Church that has allowed for a situation in where the TRUTH is confused with FALSEHOOD at the highest levels of the post-conciliar church hierarchy, namely at the level of the bishop of Rome.

And this above state of affairs leads this humble blogger to believe that the USChurch is getting ready to start sorting itself out…

 

The Poles Might Not Save Us, But Technology Definitely Will…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today this humble bloggers ventures closer to home.

Below is a republication of a post that appeared at the Rorate Caeli website. The subject matter of the said post deals with the application of technology to the crisis brought about by the “spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II”.

Specifically, the LifeSiteNews organization has just launched a portal that will track the “activities” of the clerical and episcopal class with respect to their utterances and their wider theological style. Please read for more information.

The wider significance of this initiative is that it is just another example of how technology is allowing the general population, i.e. “consumers” to track specific areas that are of interest to them, investigate the material and/or personalities that populate this area and make a better informed decision as to whether to participate in this activity.

One other example of the use of the new possibilities that technology is bringing to the general population is in the area of school selection. It would appear that online data bases are popping up that track individual schools, especially institutions of higher learning and allow parents who will be ultimately paying for the education of their children to make an informed decision about whether to send their child to that school or not.

Further, databases of college professors are coming online that will allow students to review the content and teaching “philosophies” of these individual professors and see if the course is something that these students want to pay for.

And the critics (Masons/Modernists/neo-Modernists/post-Modernists/Fabians/Marxists/Collectivists/et al) don’t like it one bit!

Taking this process one step forward, Dr. Peterson is in the process of creating an online university. Here is that clip:

Nota bene: Notice the power that this new technology will provide for the Faithful who have issues with degenerate, heretical clergy?

And just to continue to be constructive, this humble blogger has a suggestion for general topics that should appear on the new LifeSiteNews Portal:

Notice the universal characteristics of the above list?

Without drawing out this post, below is the republication of the Rorate Caeli post.

One parting thought before this humble blogger signs off for today and it is this:

when will the historicity of the destruction of the Sacred Liturgy be platformed on this new portal? 

Because once that Pandora’s Box is opened up, it will definitively bring on the death knell for the “spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II” sect.

 

So folks, if the Poles don’t save us, technology surely will!

*****

New Online Database Tracks Episcopal Fidelity, Including in Liturgy

LifeSiteNews, for which I am a daily columnist, has just launched an excellent initiative called Faithful Shepherds. It is an idea that I have heard people speculate about for years and wish would come true, without necessarily having the organizational resources to make it happen. Needless to say, it is extremely welcome at this critical moment in the life of the Church. From the official announcement:

Faithful Shepherds helps hold American bishops accountable by providing years, sometimes decades, of past tweets, public speeches, sermons, actions, pastoral letters, and diocesan guidelines. Faithful Shepherds currently gives evidence of where U.S. bishops stand on ten issues: Archbishop Vigano’s testimony, Amoris Laetitia, pro-life leadership, homosexuality, abortion politics, contraception, “LGBT” ideology, liturgy, marriage and family life, and education. More will be added as new evidence is gathered.

Like many other fine initiatives in our days, this one depends on user-submitted documentation, as there would be no other way for a small organization like LifeSite to collect the data necessary to make this database really useful and comprehensive.

Readers of Rorate will be interested in particular in the category of Liturgy, which bears the following summary text:

A return to reverence in the liturgy has been called for by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. The harm of liturgical abuse has destroyed much of the Church. Since liturgy is the primary means of prayer it of primary importance to get it right. A return to Gregorian chant, communion on the tongue while kneeling, and ad orientem Masses are needed. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document titled Summorum Pontificum, which allowed for a much wider use of the Traditional Latin Liturgy.

In these brief sentences, we see already some of the most important issues on the basis of which any Catholic bishop’s fidelity and reverence for the Real Presence of Our Lord must be assessed: true sacred music, proper reception of holy communion, eastward orientation, and provision of the traditional Latin liturgy.

I would strongly urge Rorate readers to submit evidence, particularly in the area of Liturgy [1], to help categorize all the American bishops, as there are still very many who, in this new database, are marked “unknown,” yet are very well known, for good or for ill, by their flocks. If there is one lesson we are learning, it is this: when the lay faithful do not take matters into their own hands and push very very hard for reform, it will never happen from above. Even if the Lord relents and gives us a good pope someday, the active, continual, relentless contribution of the lay faithful will still be necessary for decades to come, due to the deep institutional corruption we are facing.

So, please, check out this website and submit such evidence as you can, in the form of tweets, speeches, sermons, actions, pastoral letters, or diocesan guidelines.

NOTE:

[1] To give an example: Blaise Cupich, when bishop in Rapid City, locked traditional Catholics out of their church so that they would be unable to celebrate Triduum services, which they ended up celebrating outdoors.

Today We CALM the **** DOWN…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So the #Homoclericalists of the FrancisChurch of Accompaniment want everybody to CALM the **** DOWN!

So taking the above request to heart, today this humble blogger will CALM the *** DOWN.

And this humble blogger will also ask his dear and loyal readers to CALM the **** DOWN likewise.

But just for the period of time that it takes to read this post.

To be perfectly honest, it is in the interests of all concerned to CALM the **** DOWN, since introducing emotions into the analysis could be counter productive. Emotions tend to only cloud our judgement about what needs to be done and what the proper WAY FORWARD should be.

So in that spirit, this humble blogger will once again attempt to provide some constructive observations about what the WAY FORWARD needs to look like.

Therefore, today we will speak about COMPETENCE and COMPETENCE HIERARCHIES.

As we know from the work done by Dr. Jordan Peterson, human (and to a large degree mammal) society organize themselves in hierarchies. COMPETENCE HIERARCHIES to be exact.

And from Dr. Peterson’s research, it appears that the sole function of these hierarchies is to SURVIVE.

Into perpetuity…

The mechanism (PROCESS) through which these hierarchies perpetuate is through a continuous auto-assessment of its members (whether conscious or not). Specifically, the only function of members of any societal structure is to identify the most competent members and allow these members to advance to the highest leadership positions.

This mechanism, if executed competently, insures, as much a humanly possible, that these respective hierarchies will SURVIVE.

And from the empirical evidence that exists, the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH  is the most SUCCESSFUL COMPETENCE HIERARCHY in the history of mankind.

One thousand nine hundred and eighty three years to be exact!

Fast forward to the present, when looking at situation in the US Catholic Church, what is in fact playing itself out is that a CABAL of INCOMPETENT INDIVIDUALS, have high-jacked the leadership of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH and are trying to transform it into something that it is not.

A crypto-secular Non-Governmental Organization, to be exact!

When looking at the situation on this level, what is becoming plain to see, and is now being seen  by all concerned (now including the likes Church Militant, Patrick Coffin and Taylor Marshall just to name three), is that the opposition to Francis and his FrancisChurch is nothing more than a natural PROCESS through which the COMPETENCE HIERARCHY reasserts itself back into the leadership of the Universal Church.

And this PROCESS of reasserting a competence based hierarchy into the Universal Church is what is known as the RESTORATION.

If we take the above analysis and extend it into other sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium, we can identify the players who are pushing these analogous restorative PROCESSES in their respective areas, and we can identify those who are trying to stop them.

We can also identify the “intersectionality” of these interested parties.

Yet from where this humble blogger sits and from the evidence that is available in the public domain, RESISTANCE to the RESTORATION appears to be futile! (see HERE)

Therefore, everybody that has CALMED the **** DOWN while reading this post, please revert back to your EMOTIONAL STATES!

At least until the next post appears on this blog!

And below, an example of the battle with the COMPETENCE HIERARCHY that is taking place on the university campuses brought to you by Zero Hedge (see here)

It’s not just us folks!

Harvard Prof: Merit-Based Admissions “Reproduce Inequality”

A Harvard University professor claims in a new academic study that merit-based admission processes at elite universities “reproduce inequality.”

Harvard education professor Natasha Warikoo draws on interviews with 98 white, native-born students at Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Oxford in “What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality,” published in the journal Social Sciences.

During interviews Warikoo conducted between 2009 and 2011, these students were asked to sound-off on whether they felt their school had meritocratic admissions and if they supported affirmative action. Many answered the second question affirmatively and hailed the benefits of a diverse student body. 

But Warikoo seems concerned with students’ responses. Analyzing data from these interviews years later, Warikoo points out that students’ approaches to diversity suggest that they’ve “internalized” the tokenistic rhetoric of the school admissions office, even if they had disagreed with policies like athletic recruitment or legacy admissions before coming to campus.

“Unlike in other campus domains in which there is a history of social protest among college students, in the realm of admissions, students seem to agree quite strongly with their universities, and come to even more agreement rather than critique upon arriving to campus,” she writes. “They suggest that most actors in elite institutions espouse views that reproduce their elite status, rather than engaging in symbolic politics or protest.”

According to Warikoo, “US students espouse a collective understanding of merit,” but only “value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society.”

“They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups in society, as many scholars define multicultural state policies,” she elaborates.

Notably, Warikoo addressed the same issue in her 2016 book The Diversity Bargain, which criticizes white students for understanding “the value of diversity abstractly, but [ignoring] the real problems that racial inequality causes.” 

White students “stand in fear of being labeled a racist, but they are quick to call foul should a diversity program appear at all to hamper their own chances for advancement,” Warikoo claims in that book, asserting for instance that white students “reluctantly agree with affirmative action as long as it benefits them.”

Her new study, too, criticizes white students for believing in meritocracy and supporting affirmative action, suggesting that white students only support affirmative action for selfish reasons. 

One white student, Naomi, was criticized for saying “diversity is really how you learn here,” as Warikoo suggested that Naomi only valued diversity because it added to the “collective merit” of her cohort of students.

Warikoo also reports that “some students used the collective merit framework to express support for legacy admissions…even while lamenting the inequality legacy admissions engenders.”

She bemoans that, ultimately, the students she interviewed were more motivated by “self-interest” than a commitment to social justice.

“They value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society,” she writes. “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups.”

According to Warikoo’s interviews, students who attended elite high schools “no longer see a large number of their peers gaining admission to the likes of Harvard, Brown, and Oxford,” which they interpret “as evidence that the system is fair, even while ignoring the fact that students like them and their peers are vastly overrepresented at elite universities.”

The professor suggests that when the legitimacy of how they obtained seats at elite institutions gets called into question, students only become more convinced that they deserve to occupy those seats.

“This paper shows how admissions systems often reproduce inequality not only by how they select students, but also by defining ‘merit’ for admitted students in ways that will reproduce inequality in the future,” she concludes. 

Warikoo claims that schools have “unequal” admission processes because black, working class, and first-generation students are underrepresented in student bodies. To fix this, Warikoo recommends that elite universities employ an “admissions lottery,” which the schools would use to randomly admit students who meet certain minimum standards.

“An admissions lottery would shift the meaning of selection from an absolute sense of merit—the best of the best—to an understanding that admission is somewhat arbitrary,” she predicts.

Warikoo’s study was published in the journal Social Sciences, which boasts of a “rapid peer-review” system. While most articles take months if not a year to be accepted, Warikoo’s article was accepted by reviewers in 48 days. 

Though Warikoo initially agreed to answer a few questions by email, she ultimately did not respond to Campus Reform. Harvard University also did not respond. 

It’s On – The Christian Revolt Against The New World Order Underway…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s on…

First, above is one of the latest videos to come out from Church Militant. Once again, they are doing fantastic work following the #Homoclericalist “spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II” grooming gang scandal and reporting on it.

The most important piece of information that was presented in this video is that our Very Stable Genius and President Donald J. Trump told Francis, the grooming gang enabler of Rome that he will investigate the “spirit of the new springtime” sexual abuse scandal in the US Church. This information was given to the Coprophagian of Rome in a private meeting during President Trump’s initial visit to the Vatican City State.

What’s more, the information contained in the recent book Dictator Pope, pertaining to the FrancisVatican support for the Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary presidential campaign has been confirmed by Vatican sources.

If this information is correct, and given that our analysis (Ockham’s razor) indicates that it is, we are in fact at the beginning of the big clean up in the US Catholic Church, its satellite Churches in Central America and ultimately the FrancisVatican.

Aside, South America is funded by the KIRCHENSTEUER, the German Bishops’ Conference funding, which is in fact the German government soft power asset and in fact controlled by the large German media foundations. And there is trouble brewing there also. (see HERE)

But that’s not all.

It would appear as if the other Christian sects are also fed up with their hard earned money being used to finance the functional Marxist NEW WORLD ORDER. Below is a WND story to this effect.

Have a nice weekend…

 

Thousands of Christians defy own churches’ ‘social justice’ campaigns

A relatively unpublicized and unpromoted online statement for Christians to affirm that they are defying the “social justice” agenda of some American churches, and rejecting “values borrowed from secular culture,” is surging.

Introduced only days ago, by Thursday afternoon it had nearly 5,000 signatures from individuals and groups, including churches.

The Daily Wire said the “Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel” even is attracting opposition, such as the criticism from Ryan Burton King, of Grace Baptist in the United Kingdom, who charged that the signers are “not at all ‘getting’ what those whom it primarily addresses are saying.”

WND reported when the project launched that it came about in response to a move by churches, including evangelical churches, into social activism.

“We are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality,” declares the statement.

Among the initial signatories are John MacArthur of Grace Community Church, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Michael O’Fallon of Sovereign Nations, Voddie Baucham of VBM, Phil Johnson of Grace To You and Darrell Harrison of Rockdale Community Church.

“The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for ‘social justice,’” the leaders say.

You’re not being told the entire, glorious truth about the Bible’s contents. Learn Scripture on the spirit level as well as the physical level in the best-selling “Shocked by the Bible 2” — autographed at WND!

They warn: “If the doctrines of God’s Word are not uncompromisingly reasserted and defended at these points, there is every reason to anticipate that these dangerous ideas and corrupted moral values will spread their influence into other realms of biblical doctrines and principles.”

The Daily Wire pointed out that the statement addresses what the evangelical church believes, how secular culture has attacked, and emphasizes the value of each individual but rejects the “leftist concept of ‘white guilt.’”

“We affirm that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him,” the leaders says. “It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone,” the statement explains.

The leaders deny “that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching.”

#Homoclericalism’s Tough Times In D.C….

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Must watch!

Today, a NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ post.

Folks, some of the best reporting taking place on the #Homoclericalist Crisis in the US (Universal) Church is being done by Michael Voris and his Church Militant platform.

DEO GRATIAS!

Furthermore, it appears that the perversion within the USChurch clerical ranks was the straw that finally broke the proverbial camel’s back with respect to Voris “critisizing Francis” and he and his organization Church Militant have finally called for… wait for it… that:

FRANCIS MUST RESIGN!

Once again, DEO GRATIAS!

And now it is being reported by George Neumayr that the FrancisCardinal Wuerl has in fact traveled to Rome and Francis would not give him refuge.

And the bad news for Wuerl is that: The Cardinal Law option is not an option.

Which also gives us a massive SIGNAL about how solid Francis sees his position as the Administrator of Rome. Remember folks, there has not been a consistory of Cardinal held since the “Joy of Adultery” FrancisDocument has been promulgated. In other words, Francis fears a gathering of the Cardinals because they could remove him from his bishopric of Rome.

Back to D.C.

It would now appear that Francis told his FrancisCardinal and prominent member of TeamFrancis to fend for himself. It is being reported that Francis told Wuerl to gather his priests and try to do a vote of confidence.

Can’t make this stuff up folks…

And according to George Neumayr, the vote of confidence has not gone over too well.

Which means that #Homoclericalism is experiencing “tough” times in the Washington D.C. Archdiocese…

UPDATE 1: 12:00 5 September 2018

Other observers are also seeing a TeamFrancis meltdown…

And more confirmation that Francis told Wuerl to fend for himself:

And now, the “muh Russians” appear to be surfacing…

Can’t make this stuff up folks…

And now, priorities!

Francis always has time to accompany a #Homoclericalist who is experiencing issues…

UPDDATE 2: 01:35 5 September 2018

And now for something completely different: Another dossier…

And the archives are beginning to speak…

BREAKING: “Spirit Of The New Springtime” Attempting To Extract Cardinal WUERL From U.S. Jurisdiction… (w/Update)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will have more to say later…

Next:

And then there is this:

Just a reminder, the official position of the Deus ex Machina blog is the following: Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005.

It’s not your humble blogger, it’s the model!

UPDATE: The Feast of Pope St Pius X

So the #Homoclericalist FrancisCardinal Wuerl reappeared this past Sunday. Here is that clip:

With respect to the reappearance of FrancisCardinal Wuerl in the D.C. area, one of three possibilities exist:

  1. There was never an intention for FrancisCardinal Wuerl to flee the impending legal proceedings,
  2. The decision to flee would have encountered higher costs to Francis, the bishop of Rome, TeamFrancis and the FrancisAgenda, then by FrancisCardinal Wuerl stay in the US and “face the music”,
  3. The US side of TeamFrancis could not find a safe way to smuggle FrancisCardinal Wuerl not only out of the US, but also into the Vatican City. Remember, Vatican City does not have an airport, which means he would have had to go through Italian customs. Even diplomats have to physically go through customs.

UPDATE: There are reports that FrancisCardinal Wuerl could have traveled to Rome since his “disappearance”. If this turns out to be the case, then obviously option 3. is not relevant.

UPDATE 2: There now is confirmation that FrancisCardinal Wuerl traveled to the Vatican and met with Francis, the “grooming gang leader” of Rome. This would also imply that Francis thinks that a “fugitive” FrancisCardinal fleeing from the US Justice System would be a bit too “hot” at this time. So he is casting “Donna” to the wolves…

And here is an example which quite nicely captures the mood among the “conservative” wing of the US post-conciliar church:

And the #fakenews legacy media’s strategy is beginning to be called out by name:

Yes indeed! GASLIGHTING on massive and concerted scale!

Yet it doesn’t appear to be working. To be more specific, it would appear to be backfiring… and hugely!

And here’s another example of these public relations “geniuses” work at TeamFrancis:

And the response:

And more failure on the part of the TeamFrancis public relations efforts to save the FrancisCardinal Wuerl:

What’s more important to note is that Francis, the bishop of Rome is losing his composure. This comes from Fr. Z: (see entire post here)

Regardless of what to make of this, the overall picture is that the Francis SoapBubblePapacy™, no matter how hard the Internationalists (Globalists) try to keep it inflated, is losing air.

The Faithful are starting to see evidence to this effect!

And Francis and his Team not only know it, but are also acting like they know it.

This can’t end well for them…

 

Next Steps: Time For The Department Of Justice To Get Involved…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next steps…

Below is a great piece from Austin Ruse. I think his idea about the Trump Administration intervening at the Vatican level is a very good one.

Just as a reminder, there is evidence that the Obama Administration was involved in supporting the St. Gallen ‘mafia’ at the last conclave.

Further, the Trump Administration is cracking down on pedophilia and child porn pretty seriously. If this does not fit into that Department of Justice investigation and corresponding actions, I don’t know what does.

And finally, watching the reaction from the #Homoclericalist wing of the DISSENTER’S camp, it appears that they are not going to go quietly. Just two supporting pieces of evidence: Card. Cupich’s claim that racism is behind calling for Francis’ ouster and Card. Tobin has been announced as a delegate to the upcoming SexSynod for the Yoots™(Youth).

Therefore, what we Faithful Catholics have left to fight this depravity and FRAUD, outside of prayer and fasting that is, is the legal system and the political process.

Any ideas and actions in these areas that we Catholics can take, we now need to take.

It is all that is left.

But in the mean time, please don’t forget Principle #6 of the Lex Armaticus:

Stop giving these leftists money!

 

*****

How Donald Trump Could Help the Catholic Church

By Austin Ruse Published on August 28, 201813 Comments

Sometimes Caesar must act.

Sometime tomorrow Ambassador Callista Gingrich should march into the Vatican Secretariat of State in Rome. Then demand the release of all documents related to now-disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The former Archbishop of Washington, it’s widely known, molested teen boys and sexually preyed on seminarians.

Gingrich should tell Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin that the Vatican has one week to answer. If the answer is no, or if they are reluctant to answer, she should give them one month to reconsider. Then inform them on that day, she and her staff will leave for the United States. They won’t return until the issue is settled.

How High Does the Rot Go?

Read the 11-page memo prepared by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. He’s no crank or amateur gadfly, but the former papal nuncio (ambassador) to the United States. He claims, based on personal knowledge, that it was not just Americans who gave the nod and wink to the criminal sexual assaults of “Uncle Ted” McCarrick. He charges high-ranking members of the Roman Curia knew as well. And they allowed this behavior to continue by giving McCarrick promotions and cover for his behavior.

Viganò lists many high-ranking churchmen as knowing about McCarrick’s crimes:

  • Pope Benedict XVI (who tried to take action and was apparently thwarted and flouted by his own bishops).
  • Cardinal Angelo Sodano.
  • The aforementioned Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
  • Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
  • Pope Francis, who apparently revoked Benedict’s measures aimed at McCarrick, and made him a close advisor. (McCarrick had strongly supported him for pope.)

These and other Catholic prelates knew that Cardinal McCarrick was taking seminarians to his bed and molesting them. He did this for years, all the while receiving promotions, open-door access to the highest reaches of the Church. Also traveling high-wide-and-handsome on diplomatic missions for the Pope.

What Did Pope Francis Know and When Did He Know It?

Many questions have been raised by Viganò’s critics, some of them are fair. For instance, if Pope Benedict did restrict McCarrick, why was he seen all over the world? Appearing in official Vatican ceremonies and certainly not hidden away? Was there really an interdict imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict? Did Fr. Boniface Ramsey’s letter reach influential offices of the Holy See? Did Viganò really tell these tales to his bosses in Rome?

Vatican offices must produce the McCarrick Files for officials from the U.S. Departments of Justice and State.

Viganò is coming under severe criticism from certain so-called progressives. They are driving the narrative that he’s attempting a “putsch” against Pope Francis. Note the veiled accusation that Viganò is a Nazi in league with other Nazis. Some on the dissident left are practically pulling out their hair. The often-comical Michael Sean Winters says his team has 24 hours to save the Church, or something. Even sensible commentators, like Dawn Eden, are focusing their criticism and questions on Viganò instead of trying to learn what really happened. It seems that many are not interested in knowing if there was a cover-up in the Vatican to protect McCarrick.

Trump Can Demand the Documents

But no matter what the questions or criticism, they will not be answered. Not unless and until the Vatican produces the files that will tell the tale. Viganò says these files exist, in the Nunciature in Washington DC (and in various dicasteries in Vatican City — don’t hold your breath). These Vatican offices must produce the McCarrick Files for officials from the U.S. Departments of Justice and State. We must know if Vatican Cardinals knew about the sexual predator in our midst and let him proceed with his illegal, nefarious behavior.

We learned one thing in Pennsylvania. It will not be committees of laymen working with bishops who will bring these enormities into the light. No, it will be secular officials. It was an Attorney General who unveiled the crimes in Pennsylvania. It will be Attorneys General who will rip off the scab in Missouri and Illinois.

Protect Americans First

This is a legal and diplomatic crisis. We Catholics must convince President Trump of this. And that he should act. The United States must move to protect our young people who have come under assault from a Prince of the Church and who have been protected and moved around by other Princes of the Church in Rome.

Frank Keating, former FBI agent, former Governor of Oklahoma, famously left the US Bishops’ National Review Board because the Bishops were not willing to cooperate with the investigations of priest pederasty. As he was walking out the door, Keating said this was not the Church he knew. The Bishops acted more like La Cosa Nostra (the Mafia) with its code of omertà (silence).

On the plane coming from Ireland this week, Pope Francis said he would not answer any questions about the Viganò document. Talk about omertà. Perhaps losing the US diplomatic presence will loosen his tongue, and more important, the McCarrick Files located somewhere in the Vatican’s embassy in Washington, D.C.

It Could Not Have Ended Any Other Way…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This over at the Rorate Caeli Blog…

A must read!

6.If, in the course of a sexual predation, McCarrick has committed a crime between June 23, 2013, and today, what, if any, is the level of criminal exposure of the Archbishop, the Pope, or Jorge Mario Bergoglio individually?

*****

Downfall: A Not-So-Hypothetical Legal Exercise – What if Jorge Mario Bergoglio were to be sued in his individual capacity?

by E., Attorney-at-law

One can just imagine the panicked phone calls going out on Saturday morning, summoning annoyed associates and partners back to their cushy downtown law offices in New York, Boston, Chicago, and Washington. So many questions, such huge stakes, and now it’s not just money….. there are now criminal law issues hanging over what used to be strictly civil law files.

The partners and associates duly assembled in the big conference room at each of the firms, one can almost hear the urgent meeting starting something like this:

“Sorry to drag you down to the office on Sunday, but it’s an emergency. The Archbishop’s office called. We need complete research memos on state and Federal law on the following questions, and we need to have the on the desk of the Archbishop no later than 8 a.m. on Monday. Here are the questions:

1.Assuming the Vigano memo is largely correct, and that the Archbishop knew or should have known that McCarrick was an incorrigible sexual predator, does the Archdiocese have any defense against any seminarian who claims to have been propositioned or molested by McCarrick between June 23, 2013 and today?

2.Assuming, again, the Vigano memo is accurate, does Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in his individual capacity, have any defense against a civil action for conspiracy in commission of sexual harassment by any seminarian who claims to have been propositioned or molested by McCarrick between June 23, 2013, and today?

3.Assuming the veracity of the Vigano memo, did the Vatican expose itself to civil liability in the United States when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, either in his capacity as an administrator of the charitable institution known as the Roman Catholic Church, or in his capacity as head of state of Vatican City, chose to ignore credible warnings concerning a sexual predator and to, instead, place the predator in offices of responsibility where further predation was a virtual certainty?

4.Can a United States plaintiff in a civil case obtain jurisdiction over Jorge Mario Bergoglio through personal service upon him outside of the United States?

5.Can Jorge Mario Bergoglio be served in a United States civil matter if he enters air space controlled by the United States, if he is personally present on a United States-flagged vessel or air craft, or if he is physically present in an embassy of the United States?

6.If, in the course of a sexual predation, McCarrick has committed a crime between June 23, 2013, and today, what, if any, is the level of criminal exposure of the Archbishop, the Pope, or Jorge Mario Bergoglio individually? Would the Archbishop have had to know for a certainty that McCarrick was going to commit a crime to be criminally liable, or would general knowledge that McCarrick was highly likely to commit a crime suffice? How does the criminal standard vary from state to state?

7.If McCarrick, for purposes of sexual predation, induced a minor or an adult to cross state lines after June 23, 2013, could the Archbishop, the Pope or Jorge Mario Bergoglio have criminal exposure under the Mann Act?

8.To what jurisdictions did McCarrick travel after June 23, 2013? In which of these jurisdictions are local and state prosecutors more or less likely to attempt to file criminal actions against the Archbishop, the Pope, or Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

9.What settlements with sexual abuse victims has the Archdiocese executed since June 23, 2013? Do any of these settlements contain undertakings by the Archdiocese that it will cease and desist from permitting sexual predators to operate with impunity in the Archdiocese? What are the damages if the Archdiocese is found to have breached these undertakings?

10.Now we all know that we cannot permit our clients to say anything about the Vigano memo at this time because of criminal exposure, possible impeachment, and the chance of waiving our client’s rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. But, surely they can say something, right, as long as its non-substantive, does not address any facts, and is vague?

“I’ve taken a stab at a response; tell me what you think of this: ‘I read that statement this morning. For all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves. I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself and you have sufficient journalistic capacity to reach your own conclusions.’ That way, maybe we can get our friends in the media to find a way to discredit this memo so we don’t have to.

“In the meantime, we can do our legal research and get back to our clients with the results. Maybe we’ll come up with some options, but this doesn’t look pretty, does it? OK, everybody. You have your assignments. Get on Westlaw and Lexis and see what you can find out. We will meet back in this conference room in five hours to see where everyone is. I’ve already called in a catered dinner, so figure on staying through the night tonight and all day tomorrow.

“Also, keep track of all of your time on this and enter it right away. I want to get our bill to the Archdiocese this week — we need to get paid for this before anyone starts thinking about another bankruptcy filing…”

The Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò Statement

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republished from the Life Site News website and…

UPDATE

FOR THE RECORD

 TESTIMONY

by
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.

To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever you have said in the dark … shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3).

I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until end of May 2016.

As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.

To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.

The office that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State.

Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the Holy See.

In writing up a memo[1] on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.

In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:

  • Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the United States,
  •  and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”;
  • I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.

I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.

My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any actual decision by the superiors on this matter.

Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month later, on May 24, 2008.

The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken.”

I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state.

This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006.

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.

In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d’Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance.

The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick.

It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned.

Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.

Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any reply!

The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick.

Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretary of State.

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a different ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it!

Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?

Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.

* * *

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.

In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my first meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.

On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the red-trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”

At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.

The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!” Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation.

At the end of the audience the Pope announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me.

On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The Pope told me to ask if you are free now!” Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: “We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?”  I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.

Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction.

It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich, who was promptly made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position!

The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”

The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.” McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.

These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.

Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner.  He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.

In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.

The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.

By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.

In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: “It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.

In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public.

Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I received worrisome information about him.

In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.

Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.

Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should resign.

But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote.  “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.

I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.

Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance: Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!

In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin.

I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do … If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.

In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.

Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and dedication.

It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance.

Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!

Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”

Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit!

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!

Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!

Rome, August 22, 2018
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Official translation by Diane Montagna