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


Dan said...

Vigano gives me hope.

Islam_Is_Islam said...

Benedict is Pope. He never resigned. His announcement on Feb 11, 2013 made in Latin only officially declared his inability to "rightly administer" two of the powers of the Petrine Office, namely, governing and teaching. He was unable to administer them because of the disobedience of the networks. The precise English translation clearly shows that the 2013 Conclave was unnecessary because Benedict never resigned ANYTHING. Ask yourself, who had/has control of the official translations that were promulgated?

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Archbishop Vigano speaks with great clarity and power.

Liars in the Church can't see that we can easily tell the difference between them and an honest man of God.

This is to be expected. The explanation is in the words: intrinsically disordered. How could one engaging in sodomy, something extremely disgusting and disorderly, and not as horrible self-inflicted torture, but for pleasure, discern anything? For such a man to tell the Holy Mass or to hear confession, is beyond what I can contemplate. He must be soulless - like a swine, but worse, because a swine never had a soul.

Tom A. said...

Abp Vigano's opposition to Francis does not automatically make him a friend of Tradition. Would trads please stop canonizing the guy already.

Anonymous said...

Someone is going to howl at Casa Santa Marta till all the surrounding pigeons and seagulls drop dead...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I see the power of almighty God, I see the strength bestowed on St Michael when God gives him a mission to wage war against the serpent, I see the feet of the great mother of God coming down on the serpent's head, how do i see this power...through just "one" saint of a man, one man against an army of demons that were given 100 years to destroy the mystical body of Christ on earth. Vigano has been given the shield of faith and the sword of truth by Christ. The final battle has begun and Vigino will win this war. Blessed be this Holy man the lord has sent to cast out the demons inside the Vatican starting from the very top C Bergolio! Vigano+ Vigano+ Vigano+

Anonymous said...

I have always wondered why straight priests do not speak out en masse?

My conclusion has been a lousy formation from the time of their own childhood catechetical program indoctrination.
Obedience to homosexual Prelates appears to have trumped all common sense as to the welfare of the souls and bodies of children and Faith of the laity.
Vatican 2 and it's now canonized "saint" of the Council marches on.
They have gamed the system's legalities and processes and truly Our Lady said at LaSalette , "Rome will become the Seat of the AntiChrist".

Kathleen1031 said...

Tom A. You could be right, I do that myself. It's probably desperation that fuels it. I know I'm tired, scanning the horizons for a Catholic leader. No one ever shows up.
I do think there is no doubt he is doing something remarkable for the right reasons. Looking at the facts, and considering what he is saying, and how beautifully he writes it, it seems impossible not to find something more than just an eloquent man. There is something about what he says and how he says it. It rings true and courageous, deeply sincere.
Dear God, please help us not to lose our heads but see truth clearly.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love those Youth Festivals.
"Julieta Añazco was one of those victims at the [Argentinian] Provolo Institute. She says she was first abused by Father Ricardo Giménez, who worked at the institute. He first attacked her when she was just seven years old, she says, when the two were in a tent being used as a confessional at a Catholic youth festival. The abuse went on for three years before her parents found out and filed a complaint. Giménez was then transferred by the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, under the direction of then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis.

In other words, Pope Francis knew about the sexual abuse, but did nothing to prosecute the criminals. He simply transferred the child raping priests to a new location. According to the report, victims from the Provolo Institute repeatedly asked for a meeting with the then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis. However, Bergoglio refused to meet with the victims.

In 2013 Añazco and other victims from the Provolo Institute sent a registered letter of protest to Pope Francis, reminding him that he had ignored the reports of abuse. Pope Francis has not replied.

Father Giménez is still an active priest.

Bottom line: As a Cardinal in Argentina Pope Francis was told that priests were raping deaf children but did nothing to punish the predatory priests.
Report: Pope Francis Implicated In the Sexual Abuse Of Deaf Orphans In Argentina (Image via YouTube)

Lynda said...

Yes, of course. Everything must be assessed according the immutable objective principles of Faith and reason. There is so much politics and personal power-playing covering up truth. Even reason has been much corrupted. It's fundamental, for instance, that there is no such thing as a "homosexual" or a "heterosexual" "orientation" God gave us all true nature of man, male and female. It is false and obviously absurd to say any person is naturally given to sexual perversion (and this involves not just physical acts of sodomy, sexual touching between persons of same sex, but any attitude in thoughts, words and deeds which tend more or less to put persons of the same sex in a romantic or sexual way of relating (inherently evil) in an aping of the relations between a man and woman). And there are only two sexes, no genders! God bless.

Also, much greater evil is wrought to souls in the support and promotion of heresies and inherent evils than the carrying out of personal grave sins no matter how great, and their coverup. The flourishing and increase in extent and gravity of the latter is the result of the deliberate rejection of fundamental tenets of the Holy Faith and the natural moral law given us by God.

Brian said...

Would I be exaggerating to say that Vigano is showing some Lefebvre like courage?

Neofito said...

Vigano seems to be modernist...

He is acting based on the OBVIOUS sins against the 6th. Commandment

but, not a word against the sins that JB & cia. commit against the 1st. Commandment

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

@ Lynda

Separation of heresies and unnatural behaviors seems unnecessarily artificial.

Sodomites in the Church promulgate heresies not because they seek God, they do it because they have given themselves to the devil.

They do not engage in rational debate in order to confirm God's natural law, they reject rationality and objective truth in order to pleasure the flesh.

I used to sincerely hold views which were in contradiction to natural law, when I supported artificial birth control. Because I am mostly honest, I hope, I left the Church rather than seeking to corrupt it from within.

Church sodomites insist on staying in the Church they despise. They have offered us an explanation in their many free-masonic writings, the final goal being the destruction of the Catholic Church. Note: They said they knew that they could not achieve it through heresy, but only through infiltration by sodomites and communists.

These sodomites used their intrinsic disorderliness to create for the gullible a false narrative of who God is, to overthrow (as though it were possible) the natural order given to us by Him.

Sincere doubt, sincere searching and straying away, is not half as harmful to the integrity of the faith as blatant rejection of God's commands.

The insistence on honoring practicing sodomites without demanding that they would reject that which God hates, promoting sodomy as a unique gift to the Church, is perhaps not heresy, but it is a full-blown, in-your-face mockery of God.

Which is worse?

I am suggesting, I am surprised to discover, that we have reached a stage beyond heresy - an open rejection and mockery of God in the name of God.

As all of this is going on, some (rigid ad they are) still cling to the hope that material/formal (I suggest that it does not matter which at this point, because we are far beyond such concerns) heresy has not been committed.

What did Rosica claim before the whole world with pleasure? - That his... pope can overthrow the Word of God and Church Tradition at will.

Johnno said...

Tom A. -

Given that Louie had to shut the comments down on akacatholic due to the fact that some sedevecantists are no different than narcissistic fags when it comes to inserting themselves and their pay-attention-to-me pet causes into every discussion, regardless of whether or not it has to do with the topic, however subtly they paint it...

Might I please recommend giving it a rest? Pretty please...?

Especially given that Vigano has absolutely nothing to do with nor is any position whereby he may be placed to affect the Church's teachings nor the sacraments at any time in the future?

If anything actually related to Vigano's views on VII etc. turns up, then feel free to go whole hog in the comments of those articles.

Though as I've told you before - sedes who accept Charles Darwin and Heliocentrism and reject Genesis as poetical fiction and ignore Trent and the Church Fathers when it's convenient, are in no position to talk about who is a friend of Tradition. Especially when even many rightly labelled modernists like Benedict XVI are themselves more inclined towards defending Tradition on these topics than the majority of sedevacantists.

Tom A. said...

I am not a total sspx supporter, but Abp Lefebrve stood up against the destruction of the Catholic Faith. Abp Vigano is standing up for the human decency that young boys shouldnt be raped by older men and not the Catholic Faith. Most of humanity shares Abp Vigano's disgust at the predator priests and their enablers. Scant few seem to care about the Catholic Faith even amongst so called Catholics.

Anonymous said...

He who is not against us is with us.

Peter Lamb said...


I'm not with you on this one. It is very unfair to imply that Tom, or I, or any sedevacantists are" narcissistic fags when it comes to inserting themselves and their pay-attention-to-me pet causes into every discussion,..."

I assure you this is not the case. Tom and I and sedes in general are motivated by their intense love of and total belief in the Holy Catholic Faith. We are zealous to DEFEND THE FAITH and bugger the cost!!! We get frustrated to death by semi-trads who simply refuse to recognize that these judeo-masonic heretics are not Popes; that their satanic church is not the Catholic Church and that they are leading good people very astray.

What is more important - to stick to the topic, or to hammer home defense of the Faith at every opportunity? Vigano has made a good stand against sodomites. Great! What has Vigano said - loudly before the world - about the blatant heresies of VII? What has he loudly decried about the heresies of the masonic "popes"? What has he said about the invalid "masses" and "sacraments" of the novus ordo? What evil is he promoting by continuing to say the NO mass? Has he renounced his allegiance to heretic bergoglio? He has said and done NOTHING! He is a novus ordite making some orthodox noises to reassure poor conservative novus ordites in their perpetual confusion and thus to keep them in the ambit of the NWO church - perpetually writing letters and making petitions to satanists. Fellay, Schneider, Burke all play the same pathetic, devious game. To hell with them all!

The Catholic Faith is absolute, clear, plain and logical. A heretic cannot be Pope. The NWO church is a judeo- masonic strategy to destroy the Catholic Faith! See it. Recognize the obvious and well recorded facts and be done with them all!

Tom A. said...

Johnno, its an old adage that what you accuse others of, is probably something you are guilty of yourself. In your latest post you accused me of inserting myself and my pay-attention to me pet causes into every discussion. Yet it is exactly you who have done that here by yet again bringing up your pet cause of heliocentrism and darwinism. Who is the real narcissist fag? My comments on this blog and others dealing with Vignano have been about Vignano, on topic. I am sure many people do not like having their hopes dashed everytime someone inside the NO sect stands up against Bergolio, but the truth is that the conservative modernists are no friend of tradition. We trads should not put our trust in them even if we agree with them on the morality issues. They have abandon true Catholic doctrine decades ago. As Peter Lamb wrote above, Vigano has not spoken out once against the heresies of V2 and the NO.

TLM said...

Kathleen and Tom A........correct, we are not to canonize Arch. Vigano, but he is the only prelate willing to 'help right the wrongs' that have been happening in the Church of Christ. Of course he has a past that is most likely a tad tainted, but God is still able to use such men. I keep going back to the old saying: "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." Arch. Vigano has nothing to gain by doing what he's doing, and has EVERYTHING to loose. That tells me everything.

Tom A. said...

It tells me he is brave to stand up to the lavender mob and he is disgusted with predator prelates covering up their crimes. There are plenty of non-Catholics who share his disgust. My point in these discussions is to keep Abp Vigano's crusade in perspective and to remember that he is going out on a limb here for an issue of morality and not faith. The trad movement began as a reaction to the modernists destruction of the Catholic Faith. It is only decades later that the modernists are now getting around to the destruction of Catholic Morality.

Justina said...

So, to review--Johnno points out what has happened with Verrechio's comboxes, asking those who self-identify as sedevacantist to respect the conventions of combox commenting rather than derail every conversation into their own favored channels.

And in response, the "sedes" disagree with Johnno, bolstering their argument by derailing this conversation into their own favored channels.

XXXXXXX said...


Not everything is about "Tradition." The problem with sedevacantism is that it encourages Catholics to leave the Church, and to have nothing but animosity for it, and not work for change within the Church, but instead to just "write it off" as hopeless. Sedevacantism is a church unto itself, with no hope and no pope. Many of us are not going to go that route.

M Ray

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Does anyone really think that Jesus Christ looks at us as sedevacantists or traditionalists within the NO? Does anyone believe that Christ looks at a person and says: this one abandoned faith but not morals, and that one abandoned morals but not faith?

I think that His mind is laser-sharp (so to speak), and all our labels and human rules are as though non-existent in its purifying light. He sees our loves, the direction of our prayers. He knows without asking and reading our best dissertations and treatises or stupidest blog comments, what we are all about.

If a person has a living faith, this faith finds its expression in the choices he makes. What he believes about the source and purpose of his life, drives his thoughts, desires and actions. These actions constitute his morality.

In this sense, it is impossible to judge two different people's lives by applying the exact same measure to them. In only this sense Bergoglio's hm... pastoral approach could be seen as just. No two people are exactly the same, everyone starts with a unique set of gifts and challenges. Some are born in traditionalist families, others christen their children and lay their parents to rest with the help of a NO priests.

Yet God speaks straight to our hearts in both situations. Bergoglio's method of pastoral care is clearly evil, because he refuses to condemn all sin as an offense against God, an offense which separates us from God. Reasons to sin are different (ignorance, abusive parents, mental illness, depraved culture), but despite a vast array of reasons, sin is always objectively equally evil.

Because Bergoglio refuses to stop offending God, he can no longer hear Him - provided that he ever could. He told us much about his irreverence even as a small altar boy.

When I listen to Archbishop Vigano, I find clarity and truth in his words. I do not ask - do you say the NO Mass? - to decide whether I should trust and respect him.

Yet, when I listen to Bergoglio or Rosica... really, I can no longer listen to them. It makes me almost physically ill. I force my mind to calm down, and I continue (it is not just to judge a person without knowing what he is saying) at a great expense to my peace.

The NO produced many holy men, despite the evil plans of those who introduced it. God told us that He can and will use evil for good.

Those of us who care about Christ's Church, should stop bickering among ourselves, so that we are able to recognize who is with Him, and who is not.

When Bergoglio accuses us of legalism and rigidity, he is correct. I am not sure that there is anything else in this world that he is correct about.

I appreciate Vox and most of his visitors here very much. I even think that you help me stay sane. No matter the differences between you, you love Truth, you desire Truth, Goodness and Beauty. God bless You, dear people.

Michael Ortiz said...

Dorota, beautiful commentary. God bless!

Bring Back St Pope Pius V said...

Tom is an apostate, as are all those who have been poisoned by the deathly venom of the sedevacantist cult and its damnable and heretical lies. They are all deceived by Satan and his imps, lost in a mad vortex of scalding bitterness and galling hatred, having abandoned and forsaken the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and its Supreme Pontiff, who reigns from the imperishable Throne of Saint Peter in the Holy See of Rome, as the sole Vicar of Christ on this earth.

They must all repent and be healed of the miasma of their cancerous rebellion and the vile canker of their invincible stubbornness, and return unto Holy Mother Church, the Barque of Peter, against which Our Lord, who cannot lie, guaranteed that no work or wickedness of hell stands a chance to prevail.

Leave your long, hopeless and self-imposed exile in the pagan and idolatrous lands of Babylon, come out from the desert of damnation and despair. Come back Tom, to the protective bosom of Our Most Blessed and Immaculate Lady, Queen of Redemption, Bane of Heresies and Terror of Demons. Veil yourself under her merciful Mantle, that she might restore unto you the Joy of your Salvation. Fall humbly and contritely at the feet of the Bride of Christ and turn from your malevolent and seditious ways. And the TRUE CHURCH, who alone holds the TRUE FAITH will receive you with gladness and with open arms, and grant you forgiveness and cleansing from your many and manifold sins....or prepare to burn in the deepest, most intense fires of hell for all eternity.

Vox Cantoris said...

Stop attacking one another or I’ll delete your comments!

Don’t push me,

Anonymous said...

Lord Have Mercy !

This is what soured Louie's blog comment section and I hate to see the same folk repeating the same banter here!
Mrs Engel has written some excellent investigative articles on Vigano.
One thing that stood out to me was that he worked in the same office with Ninestadt for five years, so he had to know what he was all about.

I am also reticent concerning the red hat list being put together by wealthy Catholics. I do not care for the fact that certain individuals of wealth have formed organizations of financial interests to profit off the Church institution and the popularity of any individual Pope. Legatus is one such investment group that was mainly Regnum Christi members whose individual companies were worth at least a million. Now their profits have dropped due to the scandals and the direction of the Church so they are holding their annual tithe to he Vatican in escrow.
NAPA institute clearly has opus dei members and they are close to Vigano so I certainly wonder about his timing. Every single clerical abuse case crossed his desk as it did with Richard Sipe when he worked in the Nunciature under Cdl Laghi . Sipe got very disgusted pretty fast and tried to educate the Bishops . Vigano seems to have taken more time to get fed up.

Tom A. said...

This article is about Abp Vigano. I made my comments warning others to realize that Abp Vigano may be fed up with the abuse crisis and is now speaking up, but we must not assume that this means he is a friend of Tradition. Others here have countered in a civilized manner that we should cooperate and support Abp Vigano to some degree. This crisis has splintered the Catholic Church as never split before. In the old days, the Rule of Faith would be the Pope. Today, it is obvious we cannot follow Francis. So what does that leave us? It leaves us orphaned with only memories of former times to guide us. There is no one to unite and rally around. Then along comes a Burke or a Vigano and us orphans sit up and yearn for leadership. We need to be wise however that we dont abandon one false teacher (Bergolio) for another (Vigano).

Anonymous said...

Apostasy from the Truths of the Catholic Faith happened before Vatican Two. In fact , it heralded in the ambiguity of said Council.
Orphans Tom? I suggest the Church deliberately orphaned us by giving us INVALID priests.
How can a homosexual who enters the seminary and places himself in the near occasion of sin be a true penitent?
Think of your Act of Contrition.
Should an recovering alcoholic become a bartender?
Should a ssa male live with other men in a seminary or a rectory?
Is there Proper Intention for the validity of the y Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Sacramental Marriages are Annulled for lack of Proper Intention
But active homosexual priests more often than not remain priests, even after the have either admitted to pederasty or have been proven guilty.
Homosexual attacks on seminarians mean nothing. The perps are even elevated to higher clerical status.
Why are Faithful Catholics required to continue to support these men with their donations?
All sacraments require Proper Intention for validity. There can be no Proper intention when someone places themselves willingly into the Near Occasion of Sin , because there can be no firm amendment of contrition.
No ssa persons should present themselves as a candidate for the priesthood.
What does this mean for us, the poor laity?

Anonymous said...

WOW............and Our Holy Mother said ,"Rome will become the Seat of the AntiChrist"

Anonymous said...

In one of her prophetic messages for the Church in the future Bl Anna Kate Emmerick urged people to pray that the church of Darkness leaves Rome.

Irenaeus said...

God bless him.