Leaked McCarrick correspondence confirms Vatican restrictions | Catholic Herald

  • Thread starter Thread starter Weserthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vigano was always going to be vindicated, it was only a matter of time before someone leaked something vital to the press and the truth came out. These restrictions were actually first confirmed by Cardinal Ouellet awhile back when he wrote that open letter to Vigano. Now there is hard evidence. People will still try to make Vigano out to be a liar to advance their agenda even as more evidence supporting his testimony comes to light.

The main thing left to be confirmed is if Pope Francis knew about these restrictions, and why he brought McCarrick back into the spotlight at the beginning of his papacy. To be sure, Pope Benedict doesn’t look too good either as a result of this since McCarrick essentially ignored the restrictions from the beginning. But Pope Francis just said in an interview released today that he knew nothing about McCarrick. Vigano says that he told him personally. At this point, Pope Francis’ denials are starting to look more and more dubious.
 
If part of Vigano’s allegations are now being confirmed, this calls for a closer scrutiny of his other allegations. I for one would like to know more about McCarrick’s possible involvement in screening/nominating the archbishops of Chicago and Newark. It is known the normal channels were bypassed by Pope Francis.

It is troubling that these prelates lobbied against the USCCB recommending any action, follow up to Vigano, when the appropriate action would have been to recuse themselves from that debate.
 
Last edited:
I read this interview today, and Pope Francis said a couple of interesting things in it. The main piece where he directly addresses the allegations against McCarrick is this:
“I knew nothing about McCarrick, obviously, nothing, nothing. I said this several times; I knew nothing, [I had] no idea. And when [Archbishop Viganò] said that he spoke to me about this on that day when he came…I do not remember if he spoke to me about that. Is it true or not? I have no idea! But [you reporters] know that about McCarrick. I knew nothing. If not, I would not have remained silent.”
Click to expand...
Firstly, Pope Francis claims that he said several times that he knew nothing. But did he? As I seem to recall he never directly addressed Vigano’s claims until now. Here is what he said when he was asked about this on the Papal plane when Vigano’s testimony was first released:
“I will respond to your question. This morning I read that statement. I read it, and I will say sincerely that I must tell you all this – you and all of you who are interested: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this. I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions.”
Click to expand...
As far as I know, he never directly addressed the allegations; he has not outright denied them until now, coincidentally (or not) on a day when this new evidence comes to light.

Secondly, another thing I will point out is what Pope Francis said about Vigano telling him about McCarrick’s situation. He actually doesn’t deny that Vigano told him, but rather that “…when Archbishop Viganò said that he spoke to me about this on that day when he came…I do not remember if he spoke to me about that. Is it true or not? I have no idea!”

Pope Francis seems to be following closely the template that both McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl followed when questioned about the allegations. Here is what McCarrick’s statement when the news of his transgressions was first publicized:
While I have absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse, and believe in my innocence, I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people.
Click to expand...
And Cardinal Wuerl’s response about a priest in Pittsburgh that had reported abuse against McCarrick when he was bishop of Pittsburgh:
As I have indicated to you in the past, I believe that I had acted responsibly and hearing nothing more of the matter which at the request of the survivor involved was to be kept confidential, I did not avert to it again. Thus, 14 years later when I was asked if I had any previous knowledge of allegations against Archbishop McCarrick, I said I did not. Only afterwards was I reminded of the 14-year-old accusation of inappropriate conduct which, by that time, I had forgotten. Nonetheless, it is important for me to accept personal responsibility and apologize for this lapse of memory. There was never the intention to provide false information.
Click to expand...
Lots of faulty memories in the upper echelons of the Church hierarchy, it seems.
 
I believe Pope Francis knew. But at this point what does it matter. If he knew, that’s horrible. But if he didn’t, as Pope that too is horrible.

Example after example where the most charitable view of the Church is that there is rampant incompetence.

Absolute zero confidence that the Church has a handle on this and it is “just a thing of the past” as so many claim.
 
commenter . . . .
I for one would like to know more about McCarrick’s possible involvement in screening/nominating the archbishops of Chicago and Newark. It is known the normal channels were bypassed by Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
This is a great question commenter.

I would also like to know the (name removed by moderator)ut McCarrick had on ANY episcopal appointment AND rejection of appointments.

Mr. McCarrick should be in a Vatican jail cell.
 
‘leaked’ That right there gives pause for uh huh. Who verified this ‘leak’ is accurate.
 
Last edited:
GiftofMercy . . .
Who verified this ‘leak’ is accurate.
Click to expand...
Monsignor Anthony J. Figueiredo who may or may not be suspect due to his history of alcohol abuse.
(He presents salient portions from correspondence which should be easy enough to refute if these are false documents. I will be watching closely the developments here.)

.

From Msgr. Figueiredo himself . . .
The former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick ordained me to the priesthood 25 years ago today. I served as his personal secretary in the Archdiocese of Newark (September 1994 – June 1995) and also assisted him in a secretarial capacity during his many visits to Rome in my 19 years of ministry there.After long consideration, I have made the decision to place in the public domain some of the correspondence and other information related to McCarrick that I possess in my many years of service to him. I have spent time in prayer and discernment about the moral basis for revealing these. My decision follows attempts since September 2018 to share and discuss these with the Holy See and other Church leaders. . . .

. . . It is my firm hope that this information will help the Church as she further endeavors to create a culture of transparency. This report, which may form the first of others, is a contribution to the wish of Pope Francis and the Holy See “to follow the path of truth wherever it may lead” in terms of the ongoing McCarrick investigation (Pope Francis, Philadelphia, USA, September 27, 2015; Press Statement of the Holy See, October 6, 2018). It aims to help the US Bishops in their promise last August to “pursue the many questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick’s conduct … we are determined to find the truth in this matter” (Statement of Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President, USCCB, August 1, 2018). What Archbishop Wilton Gregory expressed for his local Church, upon his appointment to the Archdiocese of Washington, I wish to do for the Universal Church: “The only way that I can serve this Archdiocese is by telling the truth” (Press Conference, April 4, 2019).

In the subsequent sections, I present facts from correspondence that I hold relevant to questions still surrounding McCarrick. These facts show clearly that high-ranking prelates likely had knowledge of McCarrick’s actions and of restrictions imposed upon him during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. They also clearly show that these restrictions were not enforced even before the pontificate of Francis. It is not my place to judge to what extent the fault lies . . .
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

http://thefigueiredoreport.com/
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
I would also like to know the (name removed by moderator)ut McCarrick had on ANY episcopal appointment AND rejection of appointments.
Click to expand...
BTW, when Pope Francis became pope, he soon removed Cardinal Burke as a member of the Vatican commission that screens potential bishop appointments, and replaced him with Cardinal Wuerl. The congregation was and is headed by Cardinal Ouellet.

But candidates are supposed to also be screened by the US Conference of Bishops, and ABP Vigano’s (then) office, which were bypassed for Newark, Chicago, and other sees.
Well, was McCarrick the alternative US screening process?
 
Last edited:
Here is the story at the NCRegister:


I find this section particularly enlightening:
“McCarrick was very good at exploiting the left and right hands not speaking [to one another],”an official at the Congregation for Bishops said.

“[Cardinal] Re could tell [McCarrick] ‘No appearances, no living here,’ and then [McCarrick] would go to Bertone and present himself as being available for discreet use, ask to travel somewhere and use the conflicting instructions to slip through the cracks,” the official said.

Another official close to the Congregation said that McCarrick exploited a curial culture that resisted plain speaking.

“He would talk and write about needing to keep a low profile, about having to change residence, but never explicitly say why. Those that knew didn’t need it to be spelled out, those that didn’t but suspected were smart enough not to ask,” he explained.
Click to expand...
This seems to me a pretty reasonable explanation as to how McCarrick could have flown under the radar for so long. It seems like a lack of communication which resulted in no single individual having the complete picture.
 
I am not sure I buy that explanation. McCarrick was far from low key in anything he did. He was very visible. If he were going all over the place like he was, someone “in the know” is bound to have seen it. We all did! Why was it not made known to everyone in a position to be approached by him? At least after the first or second or third violation?

Either way it shows a huge incompetency within the hierarchy. One that needs to be admitted and rectified. Until that is done, these same problems will continue to repeat.
 
Last edited:
Damage control at Vatican. New York post is now reporting the Vatican website is leaving out the denial and going with the “I cant remember card” whatever the truth the Vatican PR machine couldn’t look any worse. This is scary.
 
commenter said:
I for one would like to know more about McCarrick’s possible involvement in screening/nominating the archbishops of Chicago and Newark. It is known the normal channels were bypassed by Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
If we are being honest with ourselves, we need to question the screening and nominating process for Church leaders going back a very long time. Remember Marcial Maciel? The problem goes back a lot farther than the current Church leaders, or even their recent predecessors.
 

“Uncle Ted” and Me…​

As for the defining abortion issue, McCarrick was never regarded as a serious pro-life leader by serious pro-life leaders, and his advocacy of behalf of the unborn was typically wrapped in a seamless garment of other issues (not least when he presided over the burial of Senator Edward M. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery).
Click to expand...
Theodore McCarrick fooled a lot of people over the course of his career. And the greatest of his false-flag operations was to successfully sell the notion that he was another fifty-yard-line guy, when in fact his feet were firmly planted on the ten-yard line, just outside the goal line marking the field’s left end zone.
Click to expand...
But however nonsensical it is, the notion that Theodore McCarrick was some sort of moderating centrist whose analysis of the condition of the Church in the United States was both correct and important has now leapt the Atlantic. And it is doing grave damage in Rome, and beyond.
Click to expand...
 
It continues to appear that Vigano’s letter was completely accurate. He was wrong to call for the Pope’s resignation, but all of the disputing of his claims should cease.
 
We were told by the Holy Father that reporters should do their job. That has taken longer, as files have never been released by the Church. But it gets done slowly. We still should know, throughout McCarrick’s career, who knew what and when. Transparency has been promised, it still matters. If the talk if transparency is true, the tell us more than “I can’t remember”. Are there files in the US Nuncio’s office, or the Vatican, which shed light? Yes or no. If yes, either release them or provide a reasonable justification for not doing so.

All of which would go a long ways towards building some credibility.

Oh, and while at it, various Bishops who attacked Vigano’s character and credibility publicly should apologize publicly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top