Friday, 19 October 2018

The Viganò Testimony: Part the Third

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.

On the Feast of the North American Martyrs

To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so.  But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved.  Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge — “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” — what answer could I give?
I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed.   I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed.  I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives.  Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop's charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty.  Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own.  Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier.  If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that.  This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.
I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony.  To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible.  Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine.  When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke.  For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large.  With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope.
Let me restate the key points of my testimony.
  • In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
  • In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual  behavior with yet another priest.
  • In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal.  This memo received no response.
  • In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick's sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him.  This second memo also received no response.
  • In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance.  The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope's orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
  • In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope's restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
  • On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy.
  • On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com'è (Cardinal McCarrick — what do you make of him)?” — which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick.  I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.
  • Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
  • McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favor with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.
  • Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.  
I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false.  Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole
  • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick's situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
  • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
  • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
  • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.
What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?
  • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation.  But this was not my testimony.  My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.
  • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony.  My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents –  irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation.  And I confirm this again.
  • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned.  But this was not my testimony.  My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
  • Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.
In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.
There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote.  The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.
In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy.  As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel.  This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers.  It is not a matter of politics.  It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy.  This is about souls.  Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.
As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons.  It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality.  It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.
Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large.  But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved.  Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds — whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.  
It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage.  But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry.  It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.
Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church.  I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion.  Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy.  I am urging no such thing.  I pray every day for Pope Francis — more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross.  Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).
In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt.  You too are faced with a choice.  You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption.  You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning.  You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
On the other hand, you can choose to speak.  You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking.  I urge you to consider which choice — on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge — you will not regret having made.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico
19 Ottobre 2018, Feast of the North American Martyrs

Friday, 12 October 2018

Donald Wuerl has "touched us" and he has "entered our lives" according to Tom Rosica

Oh when will Tom realise that blocking one on Twitter does not mean one cannot read his Twitter.

Tom has a problem. He has a terrible lack of judgement. 

How many times has he praised a clericalist only to find it blow up in his face? 

Think here of his ebullient praise for the ebullient praise of Uncle Teddy McCarrick long since bleached away. Or how about his reference to Canada's child porn bishop as a "kind and gentle pastor." And of course, one cannot forget the sycophantic worship of the notorious homosexual priest and corrupted Vatican II peritus, Gregory Baum

The fawning interview with Donald Wuerl was a real act of poor judgement given the facts that were emerging at that time.

Bergoglio accepted Wuerl's two years ago resignation by appointing him now as Administrator.

Now he praises Wuerl.

This is going to look pretty bad when the rest of the truth comes out about the pervert protecting Wuerl.

As for Wuerl's humility, it is to laugh. The man is a clericalist and a bully, ask George Neumayer.

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Francesco, "CocoPuff" Coccopalmerio was present and a participant in drug-fueled homosexual orgy - and Bergoglio knows - Report!

John-Henry Westen and Maike Hickson are reporting on LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Coccopalmerio was at that cocaine-laden, homosexual orgy where numerous persons were arrested, including Monsignor Luigi "Cocaine" Capozzi. We have written on both of these perverts at the following links:

The report indicates that Bergoglio knows of Coco's presence.

As hard is it is to bear this, this is really great news. All this writer would add is that those who report this who fear being found out must find the courage to come into the light and make their names public to lend credibility to the reports. The time to remain fearful has long since past.

Let these filthy, Christ-hating perverts be exposed.

All of them.

Source: Vatican cardinal was at drug-fueled homosexual party, and Pope knows it 

Featured Image
ROME, October 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis, was present at the homosexual drug-fuelled party raided by the Vatican police in the summer of 2017 at which his secretary, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, was arrested.

A highly-placed Vatican source with direct knowledge, who must remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, tells LifeSite that the Pope himself knows of Coccopalmerio’s presence at the party. The party took place in an apartment in the building of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Coccopalmerio was head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts until his retirement in April.

The same Vatican source spoke in more depth in a private meeting this summer with a group of priests, three of whom spoke to LifeSite about it.

One of these priests told LifeSite that according to the Vatican source, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, 80, was not only an attendee. The source said “in fact, that he ‘was presiding’ over it when the Vatican Gendarmes broke in, and that they instructed him to absent himself before they started making arrests,” according to the priest.

Another priest who was at the private meeting said the Vatican source “stated clearly to me and a number of others that, when the police raided the apartment and arrested Capozzi, Cardinal Coccopalmerio was actually present at the orgy.” He was then told by the police to leave “immediately.” This priest added that the source “gave us to understand that Coccopalmerio is a practicing homosexual.”

Read the rest at:

Sunday, 7 October 2018

Marc Cardinal Ouellet Writes Open Letter of Threat and Intimidation to Archbishop Viganò

Image result for cardinal ouelletMarc Cardinal Ouellet has issued a response to the most recent letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò calling on Ouellet to tell what he knows about McCarrick. What spin. What abuse, what open threats.

Typical of the Bergoglian Peronist regime.

I can imagine the next response from Viganò will be ground-breaking and provide even more evidence of the corruption of these prelates. He did not come into this, unarmed.

“Dear Brother Carlo Maria Viganò,

In your last message to the media, in which you denounce Pope Francis and the Roman Curia, you urge me to tell the truth about facts that you interpret as an endemic corruption that has invaded the hierarchy of the Church to its highest level. With due pontifical permission, (We can see that this is a set-up and a professionally drafted response. Bergoglio is not smart enough himself to provide the right spin, you can bet that this has been written by Greg Burke, Spadaro, Rosica and others. Ouellet is playing fast and loose,) I offer here my personal testimony, as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, on the events concerning the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington Theodore McCarrick and his alleged links with Pope Francis, which are the object of your vehement public denunciation as well as of your demand that the Holy Father resign. I write this testimony of mine on the basis of my personal contacts and the documents in the archives of the above mentioned Congregation, which are currently the object of a study to shed light on this sad case.

Allow me to tell you first of all, in all sincerity, by virtue of the good relationship of collaboration that existed between us when you were nuncio to Washington, that your current position seems to me incomprehensible and extremely reprehensible, not only because of the confusion that it sows among the people of God, but because your public accusations seriously damage the reputation of the Successors of the Apostles. I remember a time when I enjoyed your esteem and confidence, but I observe that I have lost in your eyes the dignity you placed in me, for the mere fact of having remained faithful to the directions of the Holy Father in the service that he entrusted to me in the Church. (How far will Ouelette go in being "faithful" to the Pope? We already know. He will endorse heresy as he did in his vocal support of Amoris Laetitia.) Is not communion with the Successor of Peter the expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and supports him with His grace? (This should be considered a threat, he is accusing Viganò of fomenting schism and is a shot across the bow at the same time as welcoming real excommunicated schismatic, bishops of the Communist Church in China.) My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you complain about, is inscribed in this fidelity to the living tradition, of which Francis has given us an example with the recent modification of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty. (A complete heresy to equate capital punishment with an intrinsic evil. Ouelette, right here, endorses Bergoglio's latest heresy.)

Let's get to the facts. You say you informed Pope Francis on 23 June 2013 about the McCarrick case in the audience he granted to you, as well as to many other pontifical representatives he then met for the first time on that day. I imagine the enormous amount of verbal and written information he had to gather on that occasion about many people and situations. I strongly doubt that McCarrick interested him to the extent that you believe, since he was an archbishop emeritus of 82 years and seven years without a post. (Why should it matter how old McCarrick was or is or that he was no longer the Ordinary? Were the "rumours" true or were they now? Why was there no investigation? Why no public denouncement? Does Bergoglio not care about perverted clerics and homosexual predators in the priesthood? Does he not care about the hundreds of thousands of suffering victims?) In addition, the written instructions prepared for you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your service in 2011 did not say anything about McCarrick, except what I told you about his situation as an emeritus bishop who had to obey certain conditions and restrictions because of rumours about his behaviour in the past. (Then why did Ouellete as Prefect not demand further action? Shame on Marc, an embarrassment to Canada.)

Since June 30, 2010, when I became prefect of this Congregation, I have never taken the McCarrick case to an audience with Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis, (Then that is a convictioin of Ouellet as a failure and someone willing to cover up the perverts. He has disgraced himself with this sentence.) except in the last few days, after his fall from the College of Cardinals. The former cardinal, who retired in May 2006, was strongly urged not to travel, nor to appear in public, in order not to provoke further rumours about him. (But Ouellet failed to investigate the rumours.) It is false to present the measures taken against him as "sanctions" decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After reviewing the archives, I note that there are no documents in this regard signed by either Pope, (Where are they then, were they destroyed as part of the whole cover-up?) nor a note of an audience of my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, which would have given a mandate to the archbishop emeritus McCarrick to live a private life of silence, with the rigor of canonical penalties. The reason for this is that, unlike today, there was not enough evidence of his alleged guilt at the time. (This is a lie, payouts were made by two dioceses, if there was no guilt why were there payouts?) Hence the position of the Congregation inspired by prudence and the letters of my predecessor and mine reiterated, through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then also through you, the exhortation to live a discreet life of prayer and penance for his own good and for that of the Church. His case would have been the subject of new disciplinary measures if the nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us with recent and decisive information about his behaviour. I hope, like so many others, that out of respect for the victims and the need for justice, the investigation underway in the United States and the Roman Curia will finally give us a critical, overall view of the procedures and circumstances of this painful case, so that such events do not recur in the future. (Ouellet is simply lying, the so-called rumours were reported as early as 2001 by Father Boniface Perry. John Paul II was Pope and Oulette was in Quebec. The perversion of McCarrick and his crimes were not properly investigated, they were covered up.)

How can it be that this man of the Church, whose inconsistency is known today, has been promoted on several occasions, to the point of holding the highest positions of Archbishop of Washington and Cardinal? I myself am very surprised by this and recognize the shortcomings in the selection process that has been carried out in his case. But without going into detail here, it must be understood that the decisions taken by the Supreme Pontiff are based on the information available at that precise moment and that they constitute the object of a prudential judgment that is not infallible. (The information was known, at least rumours, they were not investigated, or they were and covered up. It is disingenuous to deflect fault elsewhere. The dicastery for Bishops was responsible and they put the recommendation forward to a sick and suffering Pope.) It seems unfair to me to conclude that the persons in charge of prior discernment are corrupt even though, in the concrete case, some clues provided by the testimonies should have been further examined. The prelate in question knew how to defend himself with great skill from the doubts raised in his regard. (It seems unfair to Catholics that prelates such as Ouellet continue to deflect, obfuscate and manipulate.) On the other hand, the fact that there may be people in the Vatican who practice and support behaviour contrary to the values of the Gospel in matters of sexuality does not authorize us to generalize and to declare this or that, and even the Holy Father himself, unworthy and complicit. (And what, pray tell, are you doing about it Marc, and where is that dossier?) Should the ministers of truth not, first of all, guard themselves against slander and defamation? ((The Truth shall set you free," DNJC, and "It is better for scandal to rise than truth to be suppressed," St. Gregory the Great, Pope.)

Dear pontifical representative emeritus, I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered up with full knowledge of the facts this alleged sexual predator and therefore of being an accomplice of the corruption that is spreading in the Church, to the point of considering him unworthy of continuing his reform as the first pastor of the Church, is incredible and unlikely from all points of view. (What about the coverup in Argentina? Shall we talk about his appointment of Barros in spite of the evidence? How about Don "Mercedes" Inzoli, come on Marc, the facts do not support this statement.) I can't understand how you could let yourself be convinced this monstrous accusation could stand. Francis had nothing to do with McCarrick's promotions in New York, Metuchen, Newark and Washington. (True, but in the matter of releasing him from the "sanctions" you do not know the private conversation between Bergoglio and Viganò and Bergoglio has lost all credibility based upon his past behaviour.) He removed him from his dignity as a Cardinal when a credible accusation of child abuse became apparent. I have never heard Pope Francis allude to this self-styled great adviser of his pontificate in relation to [episcopal] nominations in America, even though he does not hide the trust he gives some prelates. I sense these are not your preferences, nor those of your friends who support your interpretation of the facts. However, I find it aberrant that you take advantage of the sensational scandal of sexual abuse in the United States to inflict on the moral authority of your Superior, the Supreme Pontiff, an unprecedented and undeserved blow.
I have the privilege of meeting Pope Francis for a long time each week, to discuss the appointments of bishops and the problems that affect their government. I know very well how he treats people and problems: with much charity, mercy, attention and seriousness, as you yourself have experienced. Reading how you end your last, seemingly very spiritual message, making light of yourself and casting doubt on his faith, seemed to me really too sarcastic, even blasphemous! (One can only blaspheme God, is Marc equating Bergoglio with God? Has the disease of Rosica, that we know longer need scripture or tradition because we have Francis spread to Ouelett?) This cannot come from the Spirit of God. (Truth comes from God, Ouellet is calling Viganò a liar.)

Dear Brother, I would really like to help you rediscover communion with him who is the visible guarantor of the communion of the Catholic Church; (He insinuates that criticism of a Pope and calling out error is schism. This is abuse, this is a threat, and it is wrong.) I understand how bitterness and disappointment have marked your path in service to the Holy See, (A disgraceful attack on the motives of Viganò and another attempt to discredit him.) but you cannot end your priestly life in this way, in an open and scandalous rebellion, which inflicts a very painful wound on the Bride of Christ, whom you claim to serve better, worsening division and bewilderment in the people of God! What can I answer your question if I don't tell you: come out of your hiding place,  (So we can arrest you or even have you murdered.) repent of your revolt (I guess Jesus making a whip of cords and beating the prelates of his day out of the temple was a sin too?) and return to better feelings towards the Holy Father, instead of exacerbating hostility against him. How can you celebrate the Holy Eucharist and pronounce his name in the canon of Mass? How can you pray the Holy Rosary, Saint Michael the Archangel and the Mother of God, condemning the one she protects and accompanies every day in his weighty and courageous ministry? (How can Marc do the same on a daily basis with a pontiff who promotes heresy?)

If the Pope were not a man of prayer, if he were attached to money, if he favored the rich to the detriment of the poor, if he did not show an untiring energy to welcome all the poor and give them the generous comfort of his word and his gestures, if he did not multiply all the possible means to proclaim and communicate the joy of the Gospel to everyone and to all in the Church and beyond her visible borders, if he did not reach out to families, to abandoned old people, to the sick in soul and body and especially to the young people in search of happiness, perhaps someone else could be preferred, according to you, with different diplomatic or political attitudes. But I, who have known him well, I cannot question his personal integrity, his consecration to the mission and especially the charism and peace that dwell in him by the grace of God and the power of the Risen One.

In response to your unjust and unjustified attack, dear Viganò, I conclude therefore that the accusation is a political set-up without a real foundation that can incriminate the Pope, and I reiterate that it deeply hurts the communion of the Church. (Sorry Marc, heresy is worse than schism, you are both the real heretics and the real schismatics. This "political set-up" comment is defamation and deflection, it is you and your Peronist Pope who have created the problem.) May it please God that this injustice is quickly remedied and that Pope Francis continue to be recognized for what he is: an outstanding pastor, a compassionate and firm father, a prophetic charism for the Church and for the world. May he continue with joy and full confidence his missionary reform, comforted by the prayer of God's people and by the renewed solidarity of the whole Church with Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary.

Marc Cardinal Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,

Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, October 7, 2018.”

Thursday, 27 September 2018

Archbishiop Viganò again accuses Bergoglio of a cover up - calls out Cardinal Marc Ouellet

Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)

Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
(Psalm 103:33-34)


It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.

Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.

Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?

The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.


Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).


To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile, the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

The Lord is in full control of the boat!

May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
September 29th, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel

Monday, 24 September 2018

Bergoglio blocked investigation of abuse against a Cardinal who was his promoter!

Image result for cormac murphy o'connor

Mon Sep 24, 2018 - 3:30 pm EST

Source: Pope blocked investigation of abuse allegations against cardinal who helped elect him

September 24, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis told Cardinal Gerhard Müller in 2013 to stop investigating abuse allegations against British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, according to a highly-placed Vatican source who spoke to Marco Tossati. Murphy-O'Connor, as a member of the “Sankt [St.] Gallen mafia,” played a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope in 2013.
A source from England with inside knowledge of the case told LifeSiteNews that a woman alleges the cardinal had himself been involved in abusing her when she was 13 or 14 years old and that she was the reason for the investigation by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Tosatti and LifeSiteNews have worked together on this joint story for some weeks now. We have shared our findings with each other.
Tosatti had previously revealed what he learned in September 2013 from a high-ranking Vatican source – “an extremely good source, who was then in the government of the Curia,” and he adds that his source has “learned [it] from those directly concerned.” – that Cardinal Müller, then Prefect of the CDF, was interrupted by the Pope while saying Mass at the Church of Santa Monica (next to the CDF building) for a small group of German students. But now Tosatti reveals that the reason for the interruption was to demand that an investigation into Cardinal O’Connor be halted.
Read the rest at:

Sunday, 23 September 2018

Come on now Blase, don't be a cupich

You know about this, right? 

Father Kalcik, You are a priest forever, after the Order of Melchizedek. ThisCupich won't last, he's a bully, an effeminate, a rageful homosexualist and an unmerciful, uncharitable fraud and a disgrace to the priesthood and on top of all that, a pretty stupid man.

Be brave Father, Christ has your back.

There are many faithful, no doubt, who will be there with you.


Image result for Fr. Kalchik

ImageCHICAGO ( - Church Militant confirmed Saturday that Fr. Paul Kalchik, pastor of Resurrection Parish in Chicago, has fled his parish and gone into hiding, one day after two chancery priests threatened him that if he did not get psychiatric treatment, Cdl. Blase Cupich would ensure he'd be taken away by police.
"The full frontal attack took place this evening, and the attack resulted in me not saying the evening Mass, nor leading the Rosary Benediction," Fr. Kalchik told Church Militant Friday night about the confrontation with Msgr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas, both vicars for priests.

Displaying cupich letter.jpg_large

Rick Stick, Bishop of Knoxville chastises Michael Voris for his past shriven sins. What sins lurk in the heart of the unmerciful and judgmental Bishop Rick?

Bishop Rick Stika has been proving to one and all on Twitter that he is the back end of a mule and about as smart. I had a little post about him a few weeks back. He blocked me on Twitter but did leave a smarmy comment on the blog.

The man has no mercy, no charity, no humility and knows nothing about repentance and redemption.

He is a stinking fraud.

Michael Voris repented long ago for his sins and for his "past."

How dare this man raise the sins of Michael's past that have been erased by the Lord Jesus Christ?

Does Rick Stika think he is holier than Christ?

Who is he to judge?

Has he no mercy?

Rick Stika is a fraud.

Someone must know something about little Ricky and the Diocese of Knoxville. How many perverts is this episcopal fraud protecting?

Is he one of them?

Saturday, 22 September 2018

Pope Francis: "Ice cold, sly Machiavellian, and, what is worse – he lies’

It looks like George is going to have a rough weekend in the Baltics.

Featured Image

Cardinal: Pope is ‘ice cold, sly Machiavellian, and, what is worse – he lies’

September 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the German magazine Der Spiegel, one of the most influential political magazines in Europe, published a report on the failures of the papacy of Francis. LifeSiteNews already summed up the parts of this report about the involvement of Pope Francis in a cover-up of abuse cases in Argentina. But the Spiegel authors also make a report from their conversations with unnamed prelates in the Vatican who spoke quite critically about Pope Francis.

According to the magazine, one cardinal not only called the Pope effectively a liar, but he also said: “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” The Spiegel's own comments on this papacy, as we shall see, are no less strong.

Read the rest by Maike Hickson at LifeSiteNews.

National Shrine's Rossi - I'm so pretty, Oh so pretty, I'm so pretty and witty and wild

Image result for msgr rossi shrine

Rossi drives from the mansion to his cordoned off parking spot at the Basilica in a fancy Lexus. He is notorious for “ruling by fear,” as one archdiocesan source put it. “He is the meanest, most un-Christian person I have ever met in my life.” Where other bosses might commit random acts of kindness, Rossi is famous for his random acts of meanness, popping into offices to berate staffers for minor offenses. He is particularly exacting with respect to the Basilica’s floral arrangements. “He won’t let anyone touch his flowers,” says the archdiocesan source.
He is far less fastidious about his body. According to Catholic University alumni, Rossi would proposition them. “He insinuated that he would be up for a threesome,” recalled one CUA graduate, who had a gay roommate with whom Rossi was overly familiar. “It was gay sexual harassment.”

Bergoglio sells out the Chinese Catholics - Satan has taken control of the visible Church!

There is little which I can write about this latest horror from Bergoglio. The complete and utter sell-out of the faithful Church in China for a schismatic church with bishops appointed by the communist government. An affront to the faithful, a betrayal of the Martyrs.

There is this important historical summary.

The Catholics of China have been handed over to the communist dragon by the communist Pope.

Of Parolin, the Secretary of State who negotiated this sell-out, Cardinal Zen said:

“I don’t think he has faith. He is just a good diplomat in a very secular, mundane meaning, he should resign, it’s a complete surrender, I have no other words.”

Image result for catholics china

Image result for catholics china


Bono's good friend is not only Bergoglio but Uncle Teddy "Predator Pervert" McCarrick

It is said that a picture speaks a thousand words. A video, even more.

The same week that abortion advocate Bono, who has made hundreds of millions of pounds, dollars and shekels from capitalism, condemns capitalism along with the Peronist Pope Bergoglio, this little gem emerges.

"This goes out to my old friend, Cardinal McCarrick." (about 2:38)

Uncle Ted McCarrick was the founder of the Papal Foundation, The Papal Foundation became more well-known earlier this year when a scandal erputed as certain cardinals manipulated the Board to provide funds on behalf of Bergoglio for a dermatological hospital in Rome caught up in malfeasance. 

The abortion advocating Bono and his globalist-laden charity One, is now providing funds for Bergoglio. 

What is the connection between the globalist funding network, the homosexual pervert and predator McCarrick, the coverup by Bergoglio, the deflective visit and financial collusion with Bergoglio and the world of child sex trafficking, abuse, blackmail and pornography, the Podesta Group and the WikiLeaks of the need for a "Catholic Spring" and the revelations by Dr. Henry Sire in The Dictator Pope of funding from Peter's Pence for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the reported rage that Bergoglio flew into upon the election of Donald J. Trump?

Image result for bono pope francis

Nothing to see here.

Marc Ouellet proves himself a coward and an episcopal fraud

He cares nothing about the truth.

French Canadian coward.

Cardinal Marc Armand Ouellet – b. 1944, created Cardinal by St. John Paul II (2003), formerly Primate of Canada, Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops since 2010; Viganò says he must have known about sanctions on McCarrick. LifeSiteNews

The Synod is no longer a Synod, but a Politburo - It is not Catholic, it is not of the Holy Spirit

Thursday, 20 September 2018

Was Father Joseph Moreno of Buffalo murdered?

Image result for father joe moreno buffalo

Was this priest of Buffalo, Father Joseph Moreno, whose death was framed as a suicide actually murdered? 

Was Father Moreno silenced due to his knowledge of a network of homosexual pervert priests?

Bergoglio meets and smiles with hair-dying, communist, abortion advocate Bono

It was only a few months ago, that the ageing, hair-dying rocker of U2 known as Bono was in Ireland advocating for the killing of babies. Yesterday, he was in the Vatican to meet with the Bishop of Rome.

It is two years since the Dubia was issued and two of the Cardinals are dead, Bergoglio has still not responded or met with those two remaining regarding the matter. 

Bergoglio likes to meet with celebrities such as Bono and Leonardo DiCaprio and abortionists such as Emma Bonino, he does not like to meet with Catholics. Bono says that they spoke about the "wild beast of capitalism" and that Bergoglio is "aghast" over the sexual abuse crisis, saying, "You can see the pain in his face, and I felt it was sincere," and that they spoke about Bergoglio's "feelings" over the crisis. 


Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an evil man. He hates you, he hates me, he hates Our Lord  Jesus Christ. If he did not hate us and Christ, he would not do that which he does. By meeting with Bono, he has caused scandal amongst the faithful and those Catholics, particularly in Ireland now, who have so long worked to prevent or end the scourge of abortion. 

The man is evil.

May God in his great mercy rid us of this filthy man soon and send us the pope we need, not the one we deserve.

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

Bergoglio: Known by the friends he keeps

Well, what do we have here?

Clutching hands with Bergoglio is Michael Bransfield, ex-bishop of Wheeling, WV accused of "inappropriate conduct with adults"—media-speak for gay sex, along with Donna Wuerl looking downright thrilled, and Uncle Teddy McCarrick lurking in the background.

H.T to @Patrick_Coffin