Pope Breaks Silence on McCarrick: ‘I Knew Nothing, Nothing, Nothing’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

Pope Breaks Silence on McCarrick: ‘I Knew Nothing, Nothing, Nothing’​

Thomas D. Williams Ph.D. 28 May 2019 Breitbart News

Pope Francis has finally broken his silence regarding accusations leveled last August that he had known of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s serial homosexual abuse and yet reinstated him to a position of influence in the Vatican.​

“About McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing,” the pope told Mexican reporter Valentina Alazraki in a lengthy interview released Tuesday by Vatican News.

“But you know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, or I wouldn’t have kept silent, would I?” he asked.

Last August the former Vatican nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, released an 11-page report in which he declared he had personally informed Pope Francis about McCarrick’s misdeeds in 2013 but that Francis had restored him to a position of trust, consulting him regarding the naming of future U.S. bishops.

Pope Francis “knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator,” Viganò stated, and yet, “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.”

Last August the former Vatican nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, released an 11-page report in which he declared he had personally informed Pope Francis about McCarrick’s misdeeds in 2013 but that Francis had restored him to a position of trust, consulting him regarding the naming of future U.S. bishops.

Pope Francis “knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator,” Viganò stated, and yet, “although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end . . . .

. . . When journalists confronted Pope Francis about these allegations two days after the Viganò report was published, the pope refused to confirm or deny them. . . .

. . . “I said it several times, that I didn’t know, that I had no idea,” Pope Francis told Alazraki.

In the interview, the pope said that he had not answered the question immediately because he had wanted to imitate the silence of Jesus during his passion, and because he had placed his trust in journalists to find out for themselves what had happened. . . .

. . . Regarding the 2013 meeting with Viganò, the pope said, “I don’t remember whether he talked about this with me, whether it’s true or not. No idea!”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy . . .
Pope vs vigano…
I must say his rhetorical question in the denial is concerning.
Click to expand...
.

Here is almost certainly the rhetorical question Hoosier-Daddy is referring to here (please correct me if I am wrong Hoosier-Daddy).

Translation of Pope Francis in his interview a matter of hours ago . . .
“But you know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, or I wouldn’t have kept silent, would I?” he asked.
Click to expand...
Here is the Vatican news source (in Spanish) . . .


It was sourced . . .
28 mayo 2019, 14:33
Click to expand...
.

My comment?

Right now I will just try to dispassionately watch as developments unfold. And they almost certainly WILL unfold in the near future. I will have more to say as more developments bring light on the situation.
 
Last edited:
Probably what the title was trying to evoke.

The Holy Father probably spoke in Italian or Spanish.
 
According to the New York post. The nothing nothing nothing part hS been replaced by the Vatican with " I dont remember" yikes! That doesnt look good.
 
We really need to have all of the Vatican and US Nuncio’s files released on the case.
 
How exactly would that work?
Released to whom? The general public?
 
Ideally it would have been to an independent committee charged to review the case, alongg the lines of the original proposal that was made by the US Bishops conference. But that was rejected by the Holy Father. Now, it needs to be to the general public, through the Vatican News Service. I thought at one point the Holy Father said it was all being investigated internally, but that seems to have gone quiet. Results of an internal Vatican investigation would likely not satisfy our desire for transparency at this point. The Holy Father did promise transparency. How would you propose him to fulfill that promise?
 
Pope says he cant remember if he was told. Vigano says that is not true because the Pope specifically asked him about it…
Personally I dont like the way the Pope came at this.
  1. His rhetorical question in his response seems oddly combative.
  2. The I dont remember if I was told is probably one of the most alarming statements that there is.
 
If it was concerning some random bishop, perhaps I could see him forgetting… the Pope carries the weight of the world and there are thousands of bishops. But McCarrick was one of his go to guys.

I still want to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt as much as I can. I consider it possible that he knew McCarrick had engaged in gay relationships, but didn’t know, or didn’t believe, that he was also a predator.
 
twf said:
If it was concerning some random bishop, perhaps I could see him forgetting… the Pope carries the weight of the world and there are thousands of bishops. But McCarrick was one of his go to guys.

I still want to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt as much as I can. I consider it possible that he knew McCarrick had engaged in gay relationships, but didn’t know, or didn’t believe, that he was also a predator.
Click to expand...
It has been alleged, not admitted, that McCarrick was one of Pope Francis’ go-to guys. The fact that the pope is not addressing this allegation (including that McCarrick pushed through the selection of the archbishops of Newark and Chicago) strongly suggests it is true.

Those prelates should be asked if McCarrick contacted them to sound them out or discuss about possible promotion. If Vigano and USCCB were bypassed, then who did?

I can believe the pope can forget some things. But I can’t believe he wouldn’t write things down on a topic so controversial as this.

Why can’t he refer to his notes? Does the Vatican PR staff think people will just forget about things if you stall them long enough?
 
Last edited:
Pope Francis in August of 2018 (about the McCarrick homosexual abuse behavior). . . .
I am not going to say a word about this"
Click to expand...
.

Pope Francis earlier this week . . .
“About McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing,” . . . “But you know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, or I wouldn’t have kept silent, would I?”
Click to expand...
.

We know there are SOME who DID know of McCarrick.

The question arises now that we know Pope Francis was unaware of Mr. McCarrick’s homosexual predatory behavior . . . .

. . . What is to be done with the Bishops who did KNOW,
but did NOT INFORM Pope Francis?

Are those Bishops given a pass?
Are they to be transparently exposed?
Are they to be “retired”?
Is the Pope going to get to the bottom of WHY these Bishops/priests FAILED to inform him?
If so, will there be transparency (as Pope Francis has openly called for multiple times) there too?
The Pope did not “forget” about this, or at least there is nothing to suggest this.
Could the Pope have misread a document (like with the Chile issue that Cardinal O’Malley informed him of in-person AND in writing–see some of that here)?
Something else?

This also raises questions about archbishop Vigano who claims he DID INFORM Pope Francis at least somewhat, about then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Is the Pope aware of the charges against Bishop Zanchetta’s alleged homosexual predation against vulnerable adults (seminarians under his power)? (These have been made quite public.)
Internal documents of the Church show that authorities of the institution, including Pope Francis, knew the allegations of sexual abuse . . .
Click to expand...
40.png
New Zanchetta case documents complicate the Church Catholic News
From El Tribuno (with Google Translate) New Zanchetta case documents complicate the Church FEBRUARY 21, 2019 - 03:11 Indicate that the Vatican knew the denunciations against the ex-bishop before giving him a charge. The religious is accused of abuses and economic mismanagement with “endorsement” of the Pope. Misuse of State and Church funds Silvia Noviasky Internal documents of the Church show that authorities of the institution, including Pope Francis, knew the allegations of sexual abuse…
Click to expand...
40.png
Former vicar: Vatican already knew about sexual abuse allegations against Argentine bishop Catholic News
Former vicar: Vatican already knew about sexual abuse allegations against Argentine bishop Buenos Aires, Argentina, Jan 20, 2019 / 12:38 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In an exclusive report from the Associated Press, the former vicar to Argentine Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta said that the Vatican had had information about sexual abuse allegations against Zanchetta for several years. This contradicts a Vatican statement made just weeks ago in which they said that they had only gained knowledge of sexu…
Click to expand...
40.png
Survivors of priest abuse say Vatican summit fell short Catholic News
Joe_5859 . . . Although the shuffling priests around and hiding things certainly did happen in the past, I don’t think it’s happening anymore. I think for the most part you are right Joe. (Some allegedly abusive priests ARE still being moved around but that has improved). But this improvement concerns priests and not abusive bishops who, in the U.S., have exempted themselves from their own Dallas Charter, changing the wording from “clerics” to “priests” before the final draft. Eksewhere b…
Click to expand...
Is the Pope even aware of the Bishop Zanchetta homosexual predation allegations?
(The Pope’s longstanding silence (If Pope Francis knew . . . “I wouldn’t have kept silent, would I”?) on this matter, suggests Pope Francis was then . . . .
. . . and to some extent even now, still could be unaware of the Zanchetta alleged predation! Because he hasn’t said anything publicly about THAT either.)
“But you know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, or I wouldn’t have kept silent, would I?”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
twf said:
. I consider it possible that he knew McCarrick had engaged in gay relationships, but didn’t know, or didn’t believe, that he was also a predator.
Click to expand...
Someone who engaged in gay relationships is not necessarily “also” a predator by the World’s feeble standards. (Why should we e bound by the World’s low standards?)

Even by that low bar, even the secular world would consider the power differential, for a priest, or BISHOP to be a predator in any sexual “engagement”.
Any physical activity that goes against the Natural Law is predation.
 
Last edited:

‘Follow the Path of Truth Wherever it May Lead’​

By Monsignor Anthony J. Figueiredo​

May 28, 2019

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. . . .

. . . . From the outset of this report, I pledge my unswerving affection, loyalty and support for Pope Francis and his Magisterium in his tireless ministry as the Successor of Peter, as I manifested also to Pope Benedict XVI, grateful for their paternal solicitude and efforts to address the scourge of abuse. Indeed, my actions in releasing this report at this time are encouraged by the Holy Father’s motu proprio “ Vos Estis Lux Mundi ” (“ You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden .” Mt 5:14), based on the overriding principle that it is imperative to place in the public domain, at the right time and prudently, information that has yet to come to light and impacts directly on allegations of criminal activity, the restrictions imposed on my now laicized former Archbishop, and who knew what and when.

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 . . . .
Click to expand...
http://thefigueiredoreport.com/


https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-declaration-on-mccarrick-investigation-16052
 
This, I think, is a prudent response and course of action for the moment. All should remember not to jump to conclusions based on fragmentary evidence, especially regarding collusion of a pope in covering up a cardinal’s predatory behavior. The truth of the matter may very well be different from what some people might suspect. As our U.S. President often warns us (in somewhat more blunt language), be careful of media reporting. Let me remind Americans of the case of Richard Jewell during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, GA and the rush to judgment which destroyed him, as well as the Central Park Five in NY. Very different cases, of course, but a similar principle: let the facts of the case emerge without passing judgment beforehand.
 
meltzerboy2 . . .
All should remember not to jump to conclusions based on fragmentary evidence, especially regarding collusion of a pope in covering up a cardinal’s predatory behavior. The truth of the matter may very well be different from what some people might suspect.
Click to expand...
True enough.

That’s why I am withholding any final conclusions on this. For now at least and publicly here.
 
Last edited:
The institutional church as an organization assumes the management responsibilities of governance, Christ’s kingly attribute. While the particular case of the present pope’s actions or inaction regarding McCarrick is an open one, the general organizational issue of the lack of control and direction is not open. The pope cannot direct and control over 5,000 bishops when each within their episcopal see is like a feudal lord answerable only to the king.
 
o_mlly . . .
While the particular case of the present pope’s actions or inaction regarding McCarrick is an open one . . . .
Click to expand...
WHY is that issue “open” for you?

You DO believe the Pope don’t you? If the Pope would have just been aware, the Pope would NOT have been silent regarding then-Cardinal McCarrick.

(The Pope MUST have been unaware of men like Zanchetta too as he was silent there as well. WHY is our Pope NOT being informed by people that are supposed to inform him??)

Why not just believe Pope Francis?

You seem to think the Pope is being less than truthful here. Am I misreading you?

So just taking the Pope at his word (even if it admittedly SEEMS absurd) . . . .

The point in question is WHY did the Pope not know what was going on when so many others did? (So far at least, I am believing BOTH Pope Francis and archbishop Vigano).

.
The pope cannot direct and control over 5,000 bishops when each within their episcopal see is like a feudal lord answerable only to the king.
Click to expand...
He can transfer them to a titualar bishoprick (proverbial bishop of “Timbucktu”) and retire them to a monostary for a life of prayer and penance.

Why “worm-tongue” McCarrick had the Pope’s ear in the realm of “bishop-making”,
should be transparently looked at and discussed openly by the Church, so this governing mistake does not happen again.

There are a LOT of unanswered questions here so far.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top