A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label The Viganò Testimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Viganò Testimony. Show all posts

Tuesday 14 January 2020

Viganò calls out Bergoglio for his crimes against God, Mary and the Church!

Originally posted on December 23, I have reposted today because it deserves repeating given the rats that are coming after Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah.


ChiefsPlanet - U.S. Issues Vatican to Replace Diplomat Who ...


Thus says God, the Lord,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread forth the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it,
and spirit to those who walk in it…

“I am the Lord, that is my name;
my glory I have given to no other,
nor my praise to graven images…

The Lord goes forth like a mighty man,
Like a man of war he stirs up his fury;
he cries out, he shouts aloud,
he shows himself mighty against his foes.

For a long time I have held my peace,
I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in travail,
I will gasp and pant.
I will lay waste mountains and hills,
and dry up all their herbage;
I will turn the rivers into islands,
And dry up the pools…

They shall be turned back and utterly put to shame,
who trust in graven images,
who say to molten images,
“You are our gods.”

Who gave up Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to the robbers?
Was it not the Lord, against whom we have sinned,
in whose ways they would not walk,
and whose law they would not obey?

So he poured upon him the heat of his anger
and the might of battle;
it set him on fire round about, but he did not understand;
it burned him, but he did not take it to heart.

(Isaiah 42:5-24)

MARY IMMACULATE VIRGIN MOTHER

ACIES ORDINATA, ORA PRO NOBIS

“Is there in the heart of the Virgin Mary anything other than the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ? We too want to have only one name in our hearts: that of Jesus, like the Most Blessed Virgin.”

The tragic story of this failed pontificate advances with a pressing succession of twists and turns. Not a day passes: from the most exalted throne the Supreme Pontiff proceeds to dismantle the See of Peter, using and abusing its supreme authority, not to confess but to deny; not to confirm but to mislead; not to unite but to divide; not to build but to demolish.

Material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry, superficiality of every kind: the Supreme Pontiff Bergoglio never ceases stubbornly to humiliate the highest authority of the Church, “demythologizing” the papacy — as perhaps his illustrious comrade Karl Rahner would say. His action seeks to violate the Sacred Deposit of Faith and to disfigure the Catholic Face of the Bride of Christ by word and action, through duplicity and lies, through those theatrical gestures of his that flaunt spontaneity but are meticulously conceived and planned, and through which he exalts himself in a continuous narcissistic self-celebration, while the figure of the Roman Pontiff is humiliated and the Sweet Christ on earth is obscured.

His action makes use of magisterial improvisation, of that off the cuff and fluid magisterium that is as insidious as quicksand, not only flying at high altitude at the mercy of journalists from all over the world, in those ethereal spaces that can highlight a pathological delirium of illusory omnipotence, but also at the most solemn religious ceremony that ought to incite holy trembling and reverent respect.

On the occasion of the liturgical memorial of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Pope Bergoglio once again gave vent to his evident Marian intolerance, recalling that of the Serpent in the account of the Fall, in that Proto-Gospel which prophesizes the radical enmity placed by God between the Woman and the Serpent, and the declared hostility of the latter, who until the consummation of time will seek to undermine the Woman’s heel and to triumph over her and her posterity. The Pontiff’s intolerance is a manifest aggression against the prerogatives and sublime attributes that make the Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother of God the feminine complement to the mystery of the Incarnate Word, intimately associated with Him in the Economy of Redemption.

After having downgraded her to the “next door neighbor” or a runaway migrant, or a simple lay woman with the defects and crises of any woman marked by sin, or a disciple who obviously has nothing to teach us; after having trivialized and desacralized her, like those feminists who are gaining ground in Germany with their “Mary 2.0” movement which seeks to modernize Our Lady and make her a simulacrum in their image and likeness, Pope Bergoglio has further impugned the August Queen and Immaculate Mother of God, who “became mestiza with humanity... and made God mestizo.” With a couple of jokes, he struck at the heart of the Marian dogma and the Christological dogma connected to it.

The Marian dogmas are the seal placed on the Catholic truths of our faith, defined at the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon; they are the unbreakable bulwark against Christological heresies and against the furious unleashing of the Gates of Hell. Those who “mestizo” and profane them show that they are on the side of the Enemy. To attack Mary is to venture against Christ himself; to attack the Mother is to rise up against her Son and to rebel against the very mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The Immaculate Theotokos, “terrible as an army with banners” (Canticle 6:10) — acies ordinanata — will do battle to save the Church and destroy the Enemy’s unfettered army that has declared war on her, and with him all the demonic pachamamas will definitively return to hell.

Pope Bergoglio no longer seems to contain his impatience with the Immaculate, nor can he conceal it under that seeming and ostentatious devotion which is always in the spotlight of the cameras, while deserts the solemn celebration of the Assumption and the recitation of the Rosary with the faithful, who filled the courtyard of St. Damascene and the upper loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica under St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

Papa Bergoglio uses the pachamama to rout the Guadalupana. The enthronement of that Amazonian idol, even at the altar of the confession in St. Peter’s Basilica, was nothing less than a declaration of war on the Lady and Patroness of all the Americas, who with her apparition to Juan Diego destroyed the demonic idols and won the indigenous peoples for Christ and the adoration of the “Most True and Only God,” through her maternal mediation. And this is not a legend!

A few weeks after the conclusion of the synodal event, which marked the investiture of pachamama in the heart of Catholicity, we learned that the conciliar disaster of the Novus Ordo Missae is undergoing further modernization, including the introduction of “Dew” in the Eucharistic Canon instead of the mention of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

This is a further step in the direction of regression towards the naturalization and immanentization of Catholic worship, towards a pantheistic and idolatrous Novissimus Ordo. The “Dew,” an entity present in the “theological place” of the Amazonian tropics — as we learned from the synodal fathers — becomes the new immanent principle of fertilization of the Earth, which “transubstantiates” it into a pantheistically connected Whole to which men are assimilated and subjugated, to the glory of Pachamama. And here we are plunged back into the darkness of a new globalist and eco-tribal paganism, with its demons and perversions. From this latest liturgical upheaval, divine Revelation decays from fullness to archaism; from the hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit we slide towards the symbolic and metaphorical evanescence proper to dew which masonic gnosis has long made its own.

But let us return for a moment to the idolatrous statues of rare ugliness, and to Pope Bergoglio’s declaration the day after their removal from the church in Traspontina and their drowning in the Tiber. Once again, the Pope’s words have the scent of a colossal lie: he made us believe that the statuettes were promptly exhumed from the filthy waters thanks to the intervention of the Carabinieri [Italian police]. One wonders why a crew from Vatican News coordinated by Tornielli, and Spadaro of Civiltà Cattolica, with reporters and cameramen from the court press, did not come to film the prowess of the divers and capture the rescue of the pachamamas. It is also unlikely that such a spectacular feat did not capture the attention of a few passers-by, equipped with a mobile phone to film and then launch the scoop on social media. We are tempted to pose the question to the person who made that statement. Certainly, this time too, he would answer us with his eloquent silence.

For more than six years now we have been poisoned by a false magisterium, a sort of extreme synthesis of all the conciliar misconceptions and post-conciliar errors that have been relentlessly propagated, without most of us noticing. Yes, because the Second Vatican Council opened not only Pandora’s Box but also Overton’s Window, and so gradually that we did not realize the upheavals that had been carried out, the real nature of the reforms and their dramatic consequences, nor did we suspect who was really at the helm of that gigantic subversive operation, which the modernist Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Catholic Church.”

Thus, over these last decades, the Mystical Body has been slowly drained of its lifeblood through unstoppable bleeding: the Sacred Deposit of Faith has gradually been squandered, dogmas denatured, worship secularized and gradually profaned, morality sabotaged, the priesthood vilified, the Eucharistic Sacrifice protestantized and transformed into a convivial Banquet...

Now the Church is lifeless, covered with metastases and devastated. The people of God are groping, illiterate and robbed of their Faith, in the darkness of chaos and division. In these last decades, the enemies of God have progressively made scorched earth of two thousand years of Tradition. With unprecedented acceleration, thanks to the subversive drive of this pontificate, supported by the powerful Jesuit apparatus, a deadly coup de grace [death blow] is being delivered to the Church.

With Pope Bergoglio — as with all modernists — it is impossible to seek clarity, since the distinctive mark of the modernist heresy is dissimulation. Masters of error and experts in the art of deception, “they strive to make what is ambiguous universally accepted, presenting it from its harmless side which will serve as a passport to introduce the toxic side that was initially kept hidden.” (Fr. Matteo Liberatore SJ). And so the lie, obstinately and obsessively repeated, ends up becoming “true” and accepted by the majority.

Also typically modernist is the tactic of affirming what you want to destroy, using vague and imprecise terms, and promoting error without ever formulating it clearly. This is exactly what Pope Bergoglio does, with his dissolving amorphism of the Mysteries of the Faith, with his doctrinal approximation through which he “mestizos” and demolishes the most sacred dogmas, as he did with the Marian dogmas of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God.

The result of this abuse is what we now have before our eyes: a Catholic Church that is no longer Catholic; a container emptied of its authentic content and filled with borrowed goods.

The advent of the Antichrist is inevitable; it is part of the epilogue of the History of Salvation. But we know that it is the prerequisite for the universal triumph of Christ and his glorious Bride. Those of us who have not let ourselves be deceived by these enemies of the Church enfeoffed in the ecclesial Body, must unite and together face off against the Evil One, who is long defeated yet still able to harm and cause the eternal perdition of multitudes of souls, but whose head the Blessed Virgin, our Leader, will definitively crush.

Now it is our turn. Without equivocation, without letting ourselves be driven out of this Church whose legitimate children we are and in which we have the sacred right to feel at home, without the hateful horde of Christ’s enemies making us feel marginalized, schismatic and excommunicated.

Now it is our turn! The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary — Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces — passes through her “little ones,” who are certainly frail and sinners but are absolutely opposed to the members enlisted in the Enemy’s army. “Little ones” consecrated without any limit whatsoever to the Immaculate, in order to be her heel, the most humiliated and despised part, the most hated by hell, but which together with Her will crush the head of the infernal Monster.

Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort asked: “But when will this triumph take place? God knows.” Our task is to be vigilant and pray as St. Catherine of Siena ardently recommended: “Oimè! That I die and cannot die. Sleep no longer in negligence; use what you can in the present time. Comfort yourselves in Christ Jesus, sweet love. Drown yourselves in the Blood of Christ crucified, place yourselves on the cross with Christ crucified, hide yourselves in the wounds of Christ crucified, bathe yourselves in the blood of Christ crucified” (Letter 16).

The Church is shrouded in the darkness of modernism, but the victory belongs to Our Lord and His Bride. We desire to continue to profess the perennial faith of the Church in the face of the roaring evil that besieges her. We desire to keep vigil with her and with Jesus, in this new Gethsemane of the end times; to pray and do penance in reparation for the many offenses caused to them.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana

Apostolic Nuncio


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

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.



http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-ouellet-writes-open-letter-to-archbishop-vigano



“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.”

Saturday 1 September 2018

The Viganò Testimony - Viganò reveals what really happened when Pope Francis met privately with Kim Davis

Breaking overnight are new comments by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.  Viganò defends himself from previous actions by certain Church official which hurt his reputation and, if true, were outright lies. This is all in reference to the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, the American woman jailed for conscientious objection over the demand to perform a civil, so-called "marriage" between two men. Most are familiar with the story.

Briefly on this matter, during Pope Bergoglio's visit to Washington, he met with Kim Davis at the Nunciature. Carlo Maria Viganò was the Papal Nuncio at the time and had arranged the meeting. After the Pope was back in Rome, a media firestorm erupted in the secular media and pushed by the usual suspects, Thomas J. Rosica, CSB (who, if you are not aware, threatened to sue this writer, here, and the full history, here), and Antonio Spadaro, S.J. Very quickly, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was thrown under the bus and made to bear the shame of the media uproar.

Over the last seven days, the secular media and the broader Catholic media have made Carlo Maria Viganò the villain. Certain decisions that had been taken by him in his role as Nuncio, or public comments made in an official capacity as Nuncio have been used to discredit him. These range from an investigation into a former Archbishop in Minneapolis an apparent homosexual and accusations against him and a speech given in which "Uncle" Ted McCarrick was present. 

Whether Viganò acted correctly or incorrectly in his professional role is not the issue. He may have been wrong then, he may not have been. It is not Viganò's credibility that these minions should be examining, it is the report if the Testimony and the accusations contained within it. Yet, these media sycophants summoned to duty by Bergoglio on the flight back from Ireland would rather go after the messenger than determine the veracity of the message. There is a reason that President Donald J. Trump calls them the "fake news media" and he is right. The similarities between this and the lack of truth reported in the matters of Hillary Clinton, Russian dossiers and corruption are not lost on this writer.

These evil people would rather deflect than investigate the abuse and rape of thousands of boys and young men at the hands of sadistic, satanic homosexuals. Can the tin-foiled hat crowd be correct that there is a global paedophile/ebophile ring that is so powerful, so deeply entrenched that it controls through threats and blackmail everything from government to Hollywood to the Church? Homosexuality is the new god to these filthy scoundrels. 

Every priest who is a sodomite. Every bishop, cardinal or even this Pope must be outed. If you were abused and are a layman or woman or a priest, now is the time to come forward. 

Expose it all. 

Name them!

Now, let us get to the current matter with Kim Davis whom we have written about previously and Viganò in an exclusive from LifeSiteNews.

As you read Viganò's letter in response to words by Juan Carlos Cruz alleging what the Pope said to him as reported in the New York Times certain things come to mind?


  • Why would the Pope even raise the matter of Kim Davis with Juan Carlos Cruz; what would have been its possible relevance and if so, why would he state that he "fired that Nuncio?"
  • If he didn't state it to Cruz, then Cruz is lying, but why? It is absurd to think that Cruz, who by the way is a homosexual no doubt due to the clerical grooming, would make up such a storyline if the Pope hadn't said it, it is simply nonsensical to believe he would make it up.
  • The behaviour of Jorge Mario Bergoglio at the meeting in Rome with Viganò combined with the previous behaviour as articulated in The Testimony on how Viganò was questioned by Bergoglio on what McCarrick was "like" or if Wuerl were "good or bad," shows that Bergoglio is a psychopath. 

Someone is lying.

It doesn't seem to me to be Cruz or Viganò


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-vigano-reveals-what-really-happened-when-pope-francis-met-private



Here below is the official English text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s statement on Pope Francis private meeting with Kim Davis and what really happened. The English text may also be accessed in pdf form here, while a pdf of the Italian original may be read here. Emphasis not added.
***
Pope Francis met privately with Kim Davis: here is what really happened
by
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of di Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
On August 28, 2018, the New York Times reported part of a conversation that Juan Carlos Cruz, the most well known Chilean sexual abuse victim of Father Karadima and Bishop Barros, allegedly had with Pope Francis. Inexplicably, in his conversation with Cruz, the Pope is said to have spoken about his meeting with Kim Davis during his visit to Washington on September 24, 2015, and to have said that he knew nothing about the case before the meeting.
Faced with the Pope’s reported statement, I feel obliged to recount the events as they really unfolded.
At the end of the dinner, at the Nunciature in Washington, on the evening of September 23, 2015, I told the Pope that I needed him to grant me a half hour, because I wished to bring to his attention, and possible approval, a delicate and easily achievable initiative; that is, to meet personally and in a completely confidential way, out of the media spotlight, with Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, the first American citizen condemned and imprisoned for one week for having exercised her right to conscientious objection.
At the beginning of our meeting, on the evening of September 23, I gave the Pope a one-page memo summarizing the Davis case (here attached in Italian and English). The Pope immediately appeared in favor of such an initiative, but added that the meeting would have political implications, and said, “I don’t understand these things, so it would be good for you to hear Cardinal Parolin’s opinion.”
It was already 9:30 in the evening, so I went in person with two of the counselors of the Nunciature (an Italian and a Lithuanian) to the hotel not far away, where the Pope’s entourage was being hosted. Since I had called ahead to give advance notice of my arrival, His Excellency Archbishop Angelo Becciu (Substitute of the Secretary of State) and His Excellency Archbishop Paul Gallagher (Secretary for Relations with States, and Head of the Political Section of the Secretariat of State) were waiting for me in the hotel lobby. They immediately notified me that Cardinal Parolin had already retired to his room, and they did not consider it appropriate to disturb him, since they could easily make him aware of our meeting the following morning.
We then met in a small lounge of the hotel. As I said, there were five of us. I gave them the same memo that I had given to the Pope, setting forth its content and explaining the reason for my visit, which had been requested by the Pope. After considering the case, Archbishop Becciu was immediately in favor of the Pope receiving Davis privately before he left Washington for New York.
Archbishop Gallagher, while showing support for the idea given the importance of defending the right to conscientious objection, said that it was appropriate to verify from the point of view of common law whether there were any reasons that would render the meeting inadvisable; namely, whether the legal proceedings brought against Davis were concluded or were still open. I therefore had him speak by telephone with the canonist for the Nunciature, who before becoming a priest had been a judge in the American military courts and a professor of canon law. After the conversation with the canonist to clarify matters — he said there were no procedural obstacles — Bishop Gallagher gave an unconditionally favorable opinion that the Pope should receive Davis.
The following morning, after the Mass that the Pope concelebrated with us in the Nunciature, I informed the Pope of the positive opinion of his two principal collaborators, who had then told Cardinal Parolin about our meeting. The Pope then gave his consent, and I organized to have Davis come to the Nunciature without anyone noticing, by having her sit in a separate room. Everything was made much easier by the fact that Davis was already in Washington, where she was invited to receive a Cost of Discipleship Award from the Family Research Council.
Before the meeting took place, I alerted the photographer from L’Osservatore Romano that he should not release the photographs of the meeting without the permission of his superiors. He of course observed the orders, but took many photographs, which have never been published, and are currently kept in the photographic archive of L’Osservatore Romano. I also had Davis promise me in advance that she would not give any news to the media until after the Pope’s return to Rome, at the end of his pastoral visit to the USA. Davis faithfully kept her promise.
Early in the afternoon of September 24, before leaving for New York City, the Pope entered as planned into the sitting room where Davis and her husband were waiting for him. He embraced her affectionately, thanked her for her courage, and invited her to persevere. Davis was very moved and started crying. She was then taken back to her hotel in a car driven by a pontifical gendarme, accompanied by an American Monsignor and staff member of the Nunciature.
Once the Pope returned to Rome from Philadelphia after the World Meeting with the Families, the news of his meeting with Davis broke out in the media. An avalanche of phone calls, faxes and emails arrived at the Nunciature in Washington and the Vatican Press Office, many with insults and protests, but also many in favor of the Pope’s meeting with Davis. In an article of September 30, 2015, the New York Timesreported that “Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details.” The Vatican Press Office then issued a statement — without their superiors in the Secretariat of State ever consulting me — stating that the Pope had never received Davis in a private audience, and that at most he may have greeted her among many other people before departing for New York. Father Rosica and Father Lombardi increased added to the lies, and were quoted as follows in the October 2, 2015 editionof the New York Times: “But the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said on Friday that the office of Archbishop Viganò had extended the invitation to Ms. Davis and that the Pope was probably not briefed about her case. And the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the chief Vatican spokesman, depicted the meeting as one meet-and-greet among many.” This is the transparency of the Holy See under Pope Francis!
The next morning, at about 6:00 a.m. in Washington — I remember it well because I had just entered the chapel at the Nunciature — I received a frantic telephone call from Cardinal Parolin, who told me “You must come immediately to Rome because the Pope is furious with you!” I left as soon as possible and was received by the Pope at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, around 7 o’clock in the evening on October 9, at the conclusion of one of the afternoon sessions of the Second Synod on the Family.
The Pope received me for almost an hour, and was very affectionate and paternal. He immediately apologized to me for troubling me with coming to Rome, and he lavished continuous praise on me for the way I had organized his visit to the USA, and for the incredible reception he received in America. He never expected such a welcome.
To my great surprise, during this long meeting, the Pope did not mention even once the audience with Davis!
As soon as my audience with the Pope was over, I immediately phoned Cardinal Parolin, and said to him, “The Pope was so good with me. Not a word of reproach, only praise for the success of his visit to the USA.” At which point Cardinal Parolin replied, “It’s not possible, because with me he was furious about you.”
This is a summary of the events.
As mentioned at the beginning, on August 28, 2018, the New York Times reported an interview with Juan Carlos Cruz, in which Cruz reported that during his meeting with the Pope, in April 2018, the Pope told him about the Davis case. According to Cruz, the Pope said: “I did not know who the woman was and he [Msgr. Viganò] snuck her in to say hello to me — and of course they made a whole publicity out of it. And I was horrified and I fired that Nuncio.”
One of them is lying: either Cruz or the Pope? What is certain is that the Pope knew very well who Davis was, and he and his close collaborators had approved the private audience. Journalists can always check, by asking the prelates Becciu, Gallagher and Parolin, as well as the Pope himself.
It is clear, however, that Pope Francis wanted to conceal the private audience with the first American citizen condemned and imprisoned for conscientious objection.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop di Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
August 30, 2018
Feast of Saint Jeanne Jugan and Blessed Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster
Official translation by Diane Montagna 

Zoom

Tuesday 28 August 2018

To Blase Cupich, clarity and truth on child molesting perverts is a "rabbit hole" - the "environment and migrants" are more important

In a stunning and shocking comment, Blase Cupich, the Bergoglian Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago who owes, according to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, his appointment to the Chicago See to the disgraced homosexual predator Theodor McCarrick, has said that Pope Francis has more important things to do than address the Testimony of Viganò. "We're not going down a rabbit hole on this," said Cupich.

Cupich is a disgrace. 

He needs to resign.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cupich-dismisses-vigano-claims-as-a-rabbit-hole-76667

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-pope-bigger-agenda_Chicago-491855581.html

Monday 27 August 2018

The Viganò Testimony - Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, “Viganò said the truth. That’s all,”


I have confirmed the above comment with the recipient, M. Louis Paul Arnaud on Facebook as being genuine. I am grateful to M. Arnaud for granting me permission to publish it here so that the world may come to know the depth of the evil and the danger to those who speak out. The whole conversation below is confirmed as genuine and is translated from the original French.

Louis Paul Arnaud
Is what he says true? His accusations against the Pope are very serious.

Jean François Lantheaume
All say the whole truth. I am a witness. The nuncio Vigano is the most honest Prelate that I know in the Vatican

Julien Fafart
That’s terrible, pray, the storm will be terrible

Jean François Lantheaume
Worse than you think Juju. Ready yourself…

Charly Blainville
You’re not reassuring us, dear Father!

Jean François Lantheaume

My goal is not to reassure you, but to tell the truth! Bishops are neither unscathed nor untouchable: they are all just as much sinners as are others !!! let it be said once and for all… they do not enjoy papal infallibility…! But of course as soon as one tries to tell the truth, you have your head cut off, or you “have a bad spirit”…. it’s been over twenty years since I said what I had to say…. now believe what you want, but I can tell you as being the direct witness that Vigano is telling the truth: I was the direct witness! these may be the last lines I write… if I am found chopped up by a chainsaw and my body sunk in concrete, the police and the hacks will say that we have to consider the hypothesis of suicide !!!



 Image result for Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume

“Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington —  and he is ready to testify to it —  about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the  Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that ‘the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.’”

CNA contacted Msgr. Lantheaume and requested an interview with him to discuss the account attributed to him by Archbishop Viganò. Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview and said he had no intentions of speaking further on the matter.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.