Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...mer-us-nuncios-explosive-letter-about-pope-fr



Cardinal Burke responds to former US nuncio’s explosive letter about Pope Francis
carlo vigano, catholic, pope francis, raymond burke, sex abuse crisis, theodore mccarrick

ROME, August 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- “The corruption and filth which have entered into the life of the Church must be purified at their roots,” said Vatican Cardinal Raymond Burke in response to a LifeSite request for comment on the release of Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s testimony. The 11-page letter issued by the former papal representative in the United States released to LifeSiteNews and a few other outlets is filled with revelations of scandals within the hierarchy.

“The declarations made by a prelate of the authority of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be totally taken to heart by those responsible in the Church,” said Burke. “Each declaration must be subject to investigation, according to the Church’s time-tried procedural law.”

Read the full text of Archbishop Viganò's explosive letter here.

In addition to the main charges that Pope Francis knew of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s abuse and nevertheless lifted sanctions that Pope Benedict had secretly imposed on McCarrick, some of the other explosive declarations include:

• Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State under Pope Benedict XVI, “notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility.”
• Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State and thought to be the top contender to replace Francis, “was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick.”
• Cardinal Parolin ordered the reservation of the Diocese of San Diego for the notoriously left-wing Bishop Robert McElroy
• Pope Francis warned Viganò as nuncio that he did not want bishops in the United States like Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput: “They must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia,” he quotes the Pope as telling him.

“After the truth of each declaration has been established, then the appropriate sanctions must be applied both for the healing of the horrible wounds inflicted upon the Church and her members, and for the reparation of the grave scandal caused,” says Cardinal Burke.

Cardinal Burke called on “all good Catholics” to “insist upon knowing the truth” and added that they “must pray and sacrifice for the Church at this tumultous time.”

A purification, he said, “Such purification can only take place with the full and uncompromised respect for the truth.”

 

Yes, when I read the explosive testimony, I too thought of Bertone's part in the suppression of the 3rd secret of Fatima. Is it any wonder that the real 3rd secret was suppressed?

Also, I meant to check, but does anyone know offhand if Cardinal Solano also had some part to play in the suppression of the 3rd secret?

 

I thought about it too - Bertone even wrote a book to counter the very valuable info published by Antonio Sochi on Fatima.

Wasnt also Bertone who interviewed Sr Lucia a few times in the late 90s or early 2000’s ? Scary just to think about it...

One can also make sense of why pope JPII could not mention Russia in 84 consecreation - the possibility that there was a circle of very very evil people around him and then around Benedict begins to take concrete shape now after Viganó letter. For example, Cardinal Sodano, Viganó claims, was filtering and manipulating information being sent to JPII about Maciel - this would explain many things.

 

I get the distinct impression that PF didn't know how to defend himself, without help from his co-conspirators. So he buys time by saying that the press 'needs to do the work, that will be good for them'

 

I was at the Latin Mass yesterday in Still River Massachusetts and the Church was packed. Toward the end of his sermon the priest quoted a portion of the text of statements from Archbishop Vigano and encouraged everyone to read the entire text. He ended his sermon by saying it is time to drain the swamp.
This is a great video sermon I believe by Fr. David Nix

 

NOTHING coming from that author and/or that publication is valid. Their local bishop DEMANDED they cease and desist using the name “Catholic” decades ago, and they have been defiant and dissenting/heterodox ever since.

 

A Cleansing Fire

By Robert Royal

MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018

As virtually the whole world now knows, Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to the United States, has published a blockbuster 11-page letter, naming names of people involved in sexual abuse and cover-ups in America, and their enablers in Rome, up to the very highest levels, including Pope Francis. He provides dates and details and information on where the relevant documents may be found; speaks of persons who can corroborate his story; and has called on everyone implicated, including the Holy Father (who already knew about McCarrick in 2013 and did nothing, he says), to respect the Church’s Zero Tolerance policy, become an example to others, and resign.

I knew Viganò somewhat in Washington and always liked him; he was the best Vatican ambassador we’ve had in recent years. My esteem had grown, even prior to this letter. At Rome’s Marcia per la Vita (March for Life), bishops do not participate (the Italian bishops’ conference, displaying deeply misplaced faith, thinks it should work through elected politicians, not public demonstrations). At the last one, I saw Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider; as for other bishops – only Viganò.

Many call him as a man of honesty and integrity. This comes through clearly in passages from his letter such as this:

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.

Defenders of the pope have already raised questions about specific details of the letter. Those will all be settled in good time. But no one has disputed the overall picture, which can be easily confirmed – and probably will be, if there’s any real accountability. The Vatican has so far been silent; Francis declared that he would not say a word for nowon the flight back from Dublin to Rome.

Today, I’d intended to give a wrap-up of the papal trip to Ireland (I left as he was arriving because it’s actually easier to follow the pope’s movements via electronic media than in the mob). One Irish journalist was already lamenting before the pope even arrived that “this visit feels too much like a ceremonial procession.” Given the destruction that sexual abuse has caused not only to numerous individuals and families in Ireland, but Chile, America, Honduras, Australia, and many other nations, I suggested weeks ago that the World Meeting on Families should be canceled and a penitential procession, to be repeated annually, should take its place.

That all seems like ages ago now on a planet far away. Just Friday, at the alternative conference on the family sponsored by the Lumen Fidei Institute in Dublin, somewhat to my own surprise, I played the prophet and predicted that more major revelations, in addition to the McCarrick case, were going to erupt within weeks.

And it’s just at the beginning.

We are in for a long string of painful days now, but I believe it will become a “cleansing fire.” Many in the Church hierarchy, especially in Rome, are still under the delusion that they can manage this monstrosity. They can’t.

The American bishops took a while, but finally realized that they had to take at least some action after the McCarrick revelations. In his letter to American victims of abuse – and in remarks during his visit to Ireland – Pope Francis basically expressed his confidence that existing safeguards can deal with the various situations. No need to create special tribunals, etc. This is fantasy and will soon be widely seen as such, to the further detriment of the pope’s credibility if he doesn’t take serious, large steps. As one commentator put it: “Pope to U.S. Church: You’re on your own.”


*
Pope Francis already found in Ireland that expressing the Church’s sorrow and shame over failures placates no one. People want action – and answers. To begin with, Viganò says McCarrick was 14thon the list to become archbishop of Washington. Who in Rome moved him up to the top? Cupich and Tobin were not on the lists of bishops submitted to the Vatican for Chicago and Newark. Who promoted them? And why?

We also have to start asking the right questions about the mess as a whole. It wasn’t “the Church” that committed crimes and abused power. Neither was the problem a general “clericalism,” but the acts of specific individuals and others who protected them. Unless, as the anti-Catholics say, the Church is really a criminal syndicate, we want to separate the sheep from the goats now.

According to Viganò, McCarrick and Honduran Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga (himself under suspicion for financial misdealings and widespread scandal at his seminary), were instrumental in the appointments of Cardinals Cupich and Tobin (Newark), as well as Cardinal Farrell to the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life. And in the election of Jorge Bergoglio as pope.

At the very least, every one of those named now – and the list goes on – is under a cloud, given that the Catholic bishops themselves have, sadly, put in question their own right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. How for instance, was Cardinal Tobin just appointed by Pope Francis as one of his personal choices to participate in the upcoming Synod on Youth? Tobin, it should be recalled, said he knew nothing about payouts and settlements over McCarrick in the very diocese he currently heads. Same with Farrell. Same with Cardinal Wuerl, though Viganò provides convincing evidence and says Wuerl is lying shamelessly.

His whole letter is worth studying carefully. One episode I find quite revealing: when Viganò first met the Holy Father as Nuncio, Francis asked him in conversations about McCarrick and Wuerl, what they were like or whether they were good. (Francis also said American bishops must not be “ideologized” [sic] – neither right nor left, but he specifically mentioned “Philadelphia,” i.e., Archbishop Chaput.) Viganò only realized later that Francis was really asking whether he, Viganò, would support McCarrick and Wuerl, despite the damning information he’d just provided.

The pope had never been to America before his trip in 2015, knows little about us, and relies on figures like McCarrick and Maradiaga, and others like Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, who have expressed a quite laughable view that traditional Catholics and evangelicals have forged an “ecumenism of hate” in America. Even liberal Catholic outlets were embarrassed by that spectacle. In fact, if you put together the various names in Viganò’s letter, almost all of Francis’ closest advisors lie close to the heart of the problem, not its solution.

If there is a solution now, it’s going to come primarily from lay people and the few bishops – so far – willing to speak candidly and do something. All Catholics everywhere now must firmly keep pressing the Church to come clean. Completely. No one gets a partial or plenary indulgence. No one. Nothing else will do.

As for those who are compromised: it would be wise to be careful what you say and do next. The old days of deception and delay, even in Rome, have ended. People are watching who steps forwards and who doesn’t; who tries to spin obvious facts and hide behind pious platitudes; whether heads roll or it’s all talk.

Much of what was hidden – including any further lies or actions – will become known now. Stonewalling will only make the ultimate day of reckoning even worse.



*Image: Catherine of Siena escorted pope Gregory XI at Rome on 17th January 1377 by Giorgio Vasari, c. 1550 [Sala Regia, Apostolic Palace, Vatican]

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/

 

I knew Viganò somewhat in Washington and always liked him; he was the best Vatican ambassador we’ve had in recent years. My esteem had grown, even prior to this letter.

We are in for a long string of painful days now, but I believe it will become a “cleansing fire.” Many in the Church hierarchy, especially in Rome, are still under the delusion that they can manage this monstrosity. They can’t.

In fact, if you put together the various names in Viganò’s letter, almost all of Francis’ closest advisors lie close to the heart of the problem, not its solution.

As for those who are compromised: it would be wise to be careful what you say and do next. The old days of deception and delay, even in Rome, have ended. People are watching who steps forwards and who doesn’t; who tries to spin obvious facts and hide behind pious platitudes; whether heads roll or it’s all talk.

Much of what was hidden – including any further lies or actions – will become known now. Stonewalling will only make the ultimate day of reckoning even worse.

Robert Royal, from article above.

 

Reminds me of the later days of Watergate.

 

Cardinal Sodano's address on third part of Fatima secret

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...os-address-on-third-part-of-fatima-secret-987

(now consider the source on this next link since they relay that C. Sodano interpreted the third secret as "an attempt to kill the Pope" which, if so, sort of spins the attempt, unsuccessful, on JPII's life, as THE meaning of that "bishop in white" scenario of the visual portion. But I would assume that one should take what was given as it stands, not some kind of rewrite as if it has been ameliorated.)

Vatican Discloses the 'Third Secret' of Fatima

........
Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, explained that the one concealed part of the prophecies said to have been revealed to three Portuguese shepherd children by an apparition of the Virgin in 1917 was a vision of an attempt to kill a pope.

The ''bishop clothed in white,'' who is the pope, ''makes his way with great effort toward the cross amid the corpses of those who were martyred,'' Cardinal Sodano said as he described what he called an interpretation of the vision to 600,000 pilgrims gathered at the sanctuary where John Paul II had just beatified two of the shepherd children, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, and thanked the Virgin for saving his life on May 13, 1981. ''He too falls to the ground, apparently dead, under a burst of gunfire,'' the cardinal said. [Excerpts, Page 12.] (even his "apparently dead" is a bit of an addition)

.......
''On the solemn occasion of his visit to Fatima, his holiness has directed me to make an announcement to you,'' Cardinal Sodano said, adding that the pope ''wishes his pilgrimage to be a renewed gesture of gratitude to Our Lady for her protection during these years of his papacy.

''This protection seems also to be linked to the so-called third part of the secret of Fatima.''

The cardinal said the secret in its entirety would soon be published by the Vatican ''after the preparation of an appropriate commentary.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/14/world/vatican-discloses-the-third-secret-of-fatima.html

 

Much of what was hidden – including any further lies or actions – will become known now. Stonewalling will only make the ultimate day of reckoning even worse. (Robert Royal)

Maybe this is why the current pope has chosen to remain silent. No other course of action is possible.

 

↑
"and yet... Here is a valid question from a writer on the NCRonline website:

During the Benedict papacy, with my own eyes I witnessed McCarrick celebrate Mass in public, participate in meetings, travel, etc. More importantly, so did Pope Benedict! If Benedict imposed these penalties, he certainly did not apply them. He continued to receive McCarrick with the rest of the Papal Foundation, continued to allow him to celebrate Mass publicly at the Vatican, even concelebrating with Benedict at events like consistories.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/acco...no-letter-exposes-putsch-against-pope-francis


Click to expand...
NOTHING coming from that author and/or that publication is valid. Their local bishop DEMANDED they cease and desist using the name “Catholic” decades ago, and they have been defiant and dissenting/heterodox ever since."

No kidding! (much like a local "Catholic" Singles group which dropped Catholic 3 years ago but hasn't from their newsletter.) not helpful

 

Former nunciature official: 'Vigano said the truth'

CNA).- Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C., has said that the former nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, told “the truth” in his explosive statement released to the press on Aug. 25.

The 11-page document contains specific allegations that senior bishops and cardinals have been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick for more than a decade. Archbishop Viganò also states states that, in either 2009 or 2010, Pope Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on McCarrick “similar to those now imposed upon him by Pope Francis” and that McCarrick was forbidden from travelling and speaking in public.


In his statement, Viganò says that these were communicated to McCarrick in a stormy meeting at the nunciature in Washington D.C. by then-nuncio Pietro Sambi. Viganò directly cites Msgr. Lantheaume as having told him about the encounter, following his arrival in D.C to replace Sambi as nuncio in 2011.

“Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires ad interim 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.’”

CNA contacted Msgr. Lantheaume and requested an interview with him to discuss the account attributed to him by Archbishop Viganò. Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, and said he had no intentions of speaking further on the matter.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.

The full text of Viganò’s statement lists numerous senior curial cardinals, during the last three pontificates, as being aware of McCarrick’s alleged predatory behavior but either failing to act, or in some cases deliberately acting to cover-up McCarrick’s alleged crimes.

The former nuncio names three different Vatican Secretaries of State - Cardinals Angelo Sodano, Tarcissio Bertone, and Pietro Parolin - as having failed to curtail McCarrick’s behavior, or positively acting to support him.


“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,” Viganò wrote.

Most controversially, Archbishop Viganò alleges that Pope Francis acted to lift the restrictions on McCarrick shortly after his election as pope, in 2013.

Viganò says that he met McCarrick in June 2013 and was told by the then-cardinal, “The pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.” In a subsequent meeting with Francis, Viganò says he warned the pope about the long list of allegations against McCarrick but that the Holy Father did not respond.

Archbishop McCarrick is believed to still be residing within the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., under conditions of “prayer, penance, and seclusion” imposed by Pope Francis.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-nunciature-official-vigano-said-the-truth-38319

 

I feel a lot of frustration about how Archbishop Vigano's attempts to alert Pope Benedict about McCarrick's crimes were subverted by his superiors. I have written complaints to both Cardinal DiNardo and the Papal Nuncio. I urge others to do the same. Let's go over the spiritual damage that a few evil people have unleashed through their grave sins. Since McCarrick was archbishop of Washington D.C. in November 2000 and Wuerl in 2006, the spiritual capital of the United States where all policy and decisions are formulated and enacted, we have had the endless war on terror, human embryonic stem cell research approval, and same sex marriage approval. So for 18 years we have had grave sinners at the helm of this important archdiocese who have worked hand in hand with the secular government to enact immoral policies. I have contacted the rector of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception multiple times to request initiation of the devotion and enshrinement of Our Lady of America. He, too, is probably compromised. I feel a lot of disgust at the stumbling blocks that these secretaries of state sodano and bertrone and all the other losers have placed in our paths for far, far too long. I hope that we are breaking through the cement barrier to achieving the triumph of the immaculate heart of Mary. She said that alongside her priests, she will triumph.

 

From "The American Conservative".


Answering Vigano’s Critics
Posted on August 27, 2018, 9:05 AM Rod Dreher

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano at a 2015 pro-life rally (West Coast Rally For Life screengrab)

It has been only two days since Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano published his damning indictment of Pope Francis and some senior cardinals in the Catholic hierarchy. Below, in boldface, I offer defenses offered by Francis supporters, and reasons why these claims don’t hold up.

“Vigano’s statement is nothing but politics, and should therefore be dismissed.”

It is undoubtedly the case that Vigano is playing church politics with his statement. In fact, Vigano did himself no favors by framing his charges in terms that align with the civil war inside the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the truth or falsity of these claims does not stand or fall based on Vigano’s motives. Whistleblowers are rarely disinterested parties. One must separate Vigano’s motives from the substance of the claims themselves. This morning, a former nunciature official in Washington confirmed to Catholic News Agency that “Vigano said the truth.”

One of the first truths I learned in covering the abuse scandal in the early 2000s is that the left-right framework is fairly useless as a guide to understanding matters. Conservative prelates like Cardinal Law covered up, as did liberal prelates like Archbishop Rembert Weakland (who used church money to pay off his gay lover). If you decide that the only bad guys are those on the other side, you commit yourself to believing all manner of lies to maintain that fiction.

Michael Sean Winters, the Pasionaria of the US Catholic left, throws everything he has at Vigano in an ad hominem attempt to discredit him. This is crude, Trump-worthy obfuscation by a partisan who would stand by Francis even if the pontiff rogered a seminarian on Fifth Avenue while whistling “On Eagle’s Wings.” Nevertheless, there is one nugget of information worth pursuing here: “But why does Vigano fail to mention the key role played by Cardinal Stanislaus Dsiwisz (sic) in protecting McCarrick?” Dziwisz was John Paul II’s private secretary. I had not heard that he protected McCarrick, but if there’s merit to the charge, then it needs to be investigated without fear or favor. Recognizing the inherent political nature of Vigano’s allegations requires us to consider what Vigano may be leaving out for political reasons. But it by no means discredits the claims made in the document.

“Vigano can’t be believed because as Washington nuncio, he ordered a cover-up of an investigation into the alleged secret gay life of Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis-St. Paul.”

Yes, he did this. Shame on him. This makes Vigano a hypocrite, but not a liar.

“Vigano says that Benedict XVI put Cardinal McCarrick on a secret disciplinary plan around 2009 or 2010. If that’s true, then why was McCarrick seen in public ministry at that time?”

Because McCarrick defied the pope’s order. One main theme of the Vigano statement is that these curial cardinals and their allies (Wuerl, McCarrick, et al.) are laws unto themselves. In 2005, shortly after becoming Pope, Benedict reportedly pointed to the entrance to his office and told a visitor, “My authority ends at that door.” In one sense this is false. The Catholic Church officially teaches that the Pope has universal authority over the governance of the Church. Benedict was talking about de facto authority. He was talking about how he was, in reality, a figurehead. His 2013 resignation was said to have come about after he realized how thoroughly the pro-gay lobby within the Roman curia had seized the reigns of power.

What this scandal reveals (among other things) is a core crisis in governance of the Catholic Church. Five years ago, Jose Gomez, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, publicly rebuked his predecessor, Cardinal Mahony, for his unspeakable behavior in the child sex abuse scandal, and restricted his public ministry. Mahony, one of the lavender mafiosi, is still out and about. These are lawless men.

Back in 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, sent a letter to US bishops saying that they are to deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. Right or wrong, that was the order from Rome. But Cardinal McCarrick, who was in charge of communicating that directive to the American bishops, lied about it, and misled the American bishops. He faced no sanctions from Rome for having done so.

Though his was an improvement on his predecessor’s, Pope Benedict’s governing style was weak. It is a matter of speculation as to whether that was a matter of recognizing painful realities (“My authority ends at that door”), or whether it was a case of personal weakness — in particular, a fear of giving public scandal by challenging prelates publicly.

The point is, McCarrick’s public activities during which time he was supposed to be restricted from public ministry do not put the lie to the claim that Benedict restricted him. They may only testify to the fact that McCarrick was defiant.

Benedict should speak on the record to clarify this matter. Admirers of Benedict XVI — including me — should not be afraid to concede that he does not come out of this affair looking great.

“We shouldn’t believe Vigano because he’s obviously pursuing a personal vendetta.”

It is undeniable that Vigano has personal motive to strike out at his enemies within the Curia. Benedict XVI had put Vigano in charge of governing the Vatican, including cleaning up the scandal-plagued Vatican Bank. When Vigano started uncovering corruption and making a stink about it, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the No. 2 figure in Benedict’s Vatican, had Vigano removed and exiled to Washington, against his will. Benedict accepted this decision (the Guardian‘s Paul Vallely tells that story here). Bertone is an archvillain in the Vigano statement of the weekend. There can be no question that Vigano is striking back at him — but again, motive is beside the point. Are the allegations true?

“Vigano calls on the Pope to resign. He’s pursuing a coup to advance his own career in the Vatican. Who can believe him?”

Vigano is 77 years old, and retired. His career is over. Whatever he stands to gain from this statement, career advancement is not among them.

 

(cont. from above)

“Unless Vigano produces evidence to back up his claims, I’m going to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt.”

From 1998 to 2009, Vigano was in charge of the Vatican office overseeing all the Vatican nunciatures (embassies) around the world. From 2011 to 2016, he ran the Washington nunciature. He claimed in his statement:

All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Vatican or the DC nunciature to release those documents. Still, keep in mind that Vigano was a senior Vatican diplomat who was in a position to have all this knowledge, and to see the documents. His extraordinary claims in the statement over the weekend ought to be investigated, but to say you won’t credit him until and unless he hands over documents is defense not from a position of strength, but from weakness. If he had been a low-level functionary, such a stance would be more plausible. But he was at the heart of the Vatican’s office that dealt with such matters.

Besides, if these Vigano claims were false, it would have been very easy for Pope Francis to have denied them. Instead, on the papal plane back from Dublin yesterday, he issued a weird statement claiming that he wouldn’t have a single word to say about it, and calling on reporters to read Vigano’s document and to exercise their “journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions.”

Again: if the allegations are false, you say, “They’re false.” But that’s not what the Pope said. At all. If the Pope thinks he can ignore Vigano as he has ignored the dubia cardinals, he is gravely mistaken.

In fact, all of these prelates named by Vigano should respond to his extremely serious charges. When charges as explosive as these are leveled by a man who was in Vigano’s senior position within the Vatican apparatus, they cannot be ignored. Silence speaks volumes.

Posted in Christianity. Tagged Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Pope Francis, Archbishop Vigano. 27 comments

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/

 

Boy, I could spend way TOO MUCH time on this forum today and not get much work done....

 

I concur ! News overdose is a serious risk for our souls right now.