Pope Francis covered for his favored pedophile cardinal?

From my twitter feed. Long, detailed, and, it feels to me, worthy of both attention and trust.

Ex-Nuncio accuses Pope Francis of failing to act on McCarrick’s abuse reports.

In other words, Pope Francis is a hypocrite, only covering for his misdeeds and “setting things right” when press attention makes it necessary.

In short, from the article’s conclusion:

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

“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,” wrote Viganò.

The former U.S. nuncio wrote that Pope Francis “is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren,” and urged him to “acknowledge his mistakes” and, to “set a good example to cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”

And yet, here is the author’s  final paragraph. 

“The people of God have the right to know the full truth also regarding their shepherds,” he said. “They have the right to be guided by good shepherds. In order to be able to trust them and love them, they have to know them openly, in transparency and truth, as they really are. A priest should always be a light on a candle, everywhere and for all.”

Huh? It’s hard for me to imagine how or why anyone would remain in the Catholic Church, given the pedophile claims there that have dominated the news for so long. Isn’t it about time that We the People realize that we don’t need any so-called “shepherd” to come between us and our experience of the divine?

I remember saying that to my pious father, then a Deacon in the Catholic church. He scoffed, of course. On another occasion, my mother asked me why I stopped going to church. “Nature is my church,” I replied. “Oh, I’ve heard that one before!” she said dismissively.

But that was before. At the end, when Dad died, he had in his final days, turned away from the Church! I wonder if the pedophile claims are what started to erode his life-long “faith.” I can remember, after the Boston scandal, him saying, “The hierarchy is not the church, the congregation is the church.”  That distinction must have held for years — until just before his death. I wonder if he was afraid to die, knowing that if he was wrong, and his God did exist, he would banish him to hell for becoming a disbeliever.

I guess I’ll find out when I die, if I too “go to hell” for talking like this! Ah, “to hell with it!” — I’ll say whatever I want here, and I hope everybody else starts saying whatever they are really thinking as well. Especially those who identify with patriarchal religions. It’s about time for all of us to stop pretending like Pope Francis was pretending. Time to get real. Stand up and speak our truth, each of us, no matter what the cost. 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Pope Francis covered for his favored pedophile cardinal?

  1. yes, unforunately (or, perhaps, fortunately) the Francis Saga is just a bit more “nuanced” than simply dismissing him as “hypocrite” and leaving it at that.

    the “coverage” of this story in the “liberal” Main Flush Media is, as always, just a starting point –for instance, what does the coverage in the Main Stream (or even, oxymoronically, “Liberal”) Catholic media look like?

    i have no idea.

    i don’t monitor those sources/outlets.

    perhaps worth taking a look at, for starters, are these NYT pieces




    it seems clear –not just from those stories, but from good ole Common Sense– that the real issue here is not at all priestly pedophilia (nor even the consistent/persistent episcopal enabling of it), but rather the on-going “civil war” within Wholey Mother Church herself.

    will the “conservatives” triumph and WMC continue her precipitous decline (certainly in the “first” world, though not perhaps in the increasingly poverty-infested rest of the planet), to the point where we shall see the Bishop of Rome saying mass over a planet-wide satellite hookup to a mere handful of remaining (all male, of course) priests?

    (an idea, btw, which was put in my head by a former Notre-Dame [Indiana] religion professor, harassed out of his job by the “conservatives” in the early 1980s –to become the owner of the best used book store in South Bend, Erasmus Books.)

    obviously, Priestly Pedophilia is not “the” problem.

    at best, it is only a symptom.

    of a much, much larger –putrefying– Malaise.

    the question is, can Francis

    1) find his Hind Legs and follow what seem to have been his initial instincts (e.g., taking on this whole issue –ignored by all previous Bishops of Rome, including the “saint” among them; taking on the Vatican Bank –how is it that he is still alive??; the idiocy and pathetic hypocrisy of “doctrine” on issues like divorce, and even abortion)

    and, even if he does,

    b) can he *survive* –much less prevail– in the face of the entrenched opposition of the “conservatives” who are hell-bent (as it were) on preserving the increasingly catastrophic Status Quo.

    that this guy Viganò –who seems like a pretty Odious character himself– would use the issue of Francis’ “covering up sexual abuse and giving comfort to a ‘homosexual current’ in the Vatican” to call for his “resignation” (now, note, a “conservative” position) is, of course, an irony of nearly Trumpian proportions.


  2. “Why is Vigano ‘odious’?”


    you’re right, Ann.

    perhaps a hasty judgement, since, shucks, i don’t know the guy very well at all –and i even wrote that before i had even read that second NYT article.

    “odious” has become one of my very favorite words –to describe the odoriferous putrefaction which seems to be such a common element around us, these daze.

    my judgement (which, perversely, i will stand by) is based primarily on 1) my reading of what the nature of the present “civil war” in WMC is really about and b) a rather high opinion about Francis which i have had ever since the beginning of his reign –his supposed “hypocrisy” noted but notwithstanding.

    i’m just inclined to give the present occupant of the Chair of St. Peter the Benefit of the Doubt; and my sympathy for him is, at this point, nearly without limit.
    i certainly Wish him Well.

    poor bastard.

    a tough incarnation, at the very least (hey, rather like your feelings about The Trumpster, come to think on it).

    i take issue with the statement in the Times article that his [Viganò’s] “allegations have touched off an ideological civil war” –aux contraire, ma frere, the War has obviously been going on for many, many decades, centuries perhaps (remember, i am a medievalist, and thus have a somewhat broader view of the history of WMC than most ordinary folks, even –or perhaps especially– those brought up in Her loving embrace).

    when the [then thought to be] “massive” Boston pedophilia outbreak was exposed a few years ago –under the reign of the Hapless Ratsinger– a rather naïve but good-hearted Catholic younger friend of mine who had come under the enchanting spell of some Franciscan Brothers who have a priory west of Bloomington, responded to my expression of simple Outrage at the fact that Enabling Cardinal Archbishop Law was living out a comfortable life, safely ensconced in Vatican City (thanks to the Enabling of “Saint” JP2): “Hey, all men are sinners, man.”

    i took that line to have come directly from those black-frocked, fresh-faced young fellows, whom i had met on one occasion, and failed to be impressed by –having met in my life two or three genuinely “saintly” Catholics, who gave me a sense of what the Real Thing (a “Buddha field”) actually looks and feels like, in the flesh (hint: all tingly).
    somehow –purely a gut feeling– i don’t think that meeting this Viganò guy would leave me all tingly.
    could be wrong, of course.

    among lot’s of others, there’s a rather extraordinary statement in the Times article, “As the papal ambassador, or nuncio, in the United States, Viganò sided with conservative culture warriors and used his role in naming new bishops to put staunch conservatives in San Francisco, Denver and Baltimore.”

    one wonders what an examination of the record of those “staunch conservatives” guys re Enabling might turn up?

    or was the situation in PA just an anomaly?


    does that begin to cover it?

    i only know what my nose tells me.


    • Ann Kreilkamp says:

      Interesting, how different people, equally “bright” and “informed,” can have such distinctly different noses! So much for Oneness, eh? I’ve never trusted the present pope, though I know plenty of people whom I respect, who do, now including yourself!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *