A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Monday, 16 November 2020
Friday, 13 November 2020
Raymond Arroyo interviews Carlo Maria Viganò
https://www.ewtn.com/tv/shows/world-over
Raymond Arroyo: Here to respond to the report, we’re pleased to be joined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who joins us via phone. Your Excellency, thank you for being here. The report claims you did not come forward. That’s the quote to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry. Were you asked to provide information for this McCarrick report? Did anyone reach out to you?
Archbishop Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having presented myself to testify in this Vatican inquiry of Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of the canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process.
Raymond Arroyo: So, Archbishop, they never reached out to you then to ask you to contribute to the report, to interview you?
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, it is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify, but even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. Let it not be said to me that I have made myself untouchable, because the secretary of state has my personal email address, which is still alive and never has been changed.
Furthermore, it is also significant to me that James Grein — the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestation who had the courage to denounce him publicly — does not appear in the report and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would also have reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s.
Raymond Arroyo: Hmm, interesting.
Archbishop Viganò: From public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly ordained priest — coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meeting of the conspirator of the so-called “Saint Gallen Mafia.” And according to the declaration deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio, both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI.
Then Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the general congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few months earlier.
I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that had such an obvious conflict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused.
How can [Pope] Bergoglio, and the Secretariat of State that
depends on him, pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican
with an abnormal frequency? When, in June 2013, he was tasked with making that
diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated
attempts to cover up and denial of their responsibility, are the cause of the
systematic effort to discredit me as a witness in order not to bring to light
their complicity in circumstances that exist between them and the guys
themselves?
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the Pope, according to the report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick's activities or restrictions on McCarrick in June of 2013. The Pope was certain that you as nuncio “never told him that McCarrick had committed crimes against any person, whether adult or minor, or described McCarrick as a serial predator.” Your response?
Archbishop Viganò: This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testify in my 2018 memoir, I answer him with complete frankness: “Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops, there is a dossier this thick about him. The corrupt generation of seminarians and priest and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”
The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time and he immediately change the subject. But then, what was the purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not, of course. It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience on the 23rd of June and that Bergoglio had authorized him to go to China.
What was then the point of asking me for an opinion when Bergoglio already had McCarrick in the highest esteem? And in May 2014, I learned from The Washington Times of a tweet made by McCarrick to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State.
Beginning in 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American
cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events.
For this reason, I asked, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, if the sanction against
McCarrick was still to be considered valid? That I had received no response
whatsoever.
Raymond Arroyo: And Your Excellency, you saw the report says there’s no documentation of this. They don’t have documentation, so therefore they dispute it. You would say what to that?
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I didn’t… I was not able to go all along the 400 pages in all the documents, but, you know, it’s interesting that they didn’t produce, in order to cover up also Cardinal Parolin, who didn’t answer to me. And from the report, I learned that McCarrick’s continued assignment and travels abroad were considered — this is stated in the report — they were considered by Archbishop Wuerl (Cardinal Wuerl) and even by Nuncio Sambi “as a sufficient form of removal” between quotation. That amazes me.
So the report continues, and I quote: “the indications were not ‘sanctions;’ they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick ‘the obligation’ of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio,” as they stated. So, it means that despite the cardinal’s reprehensible conduct the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measure against McCarrick, which confirms my demonstration of the corruption of the Curia.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report goes to great pains to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3 in 2012. Now the Vatican says you brought the concerns of this priest, who claimed he was abused by McCarrick, you brought those concerns to the Holy See, to Cardinal Ouellette, who instructed you to investigate them, but then he claims he never heard back from you. Did you avoid placing yourself, as the report says, “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3?” They said you never contacted the priest, the vicar general of Metuchen or the bishop as instructed. Your reaction?
Archbishop Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandal to light. And that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed nuncio to the United States.
In the report I am accused, as you’ve said, of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusation made by Priest 3 — do not mention his name. This is absolutely false. It is the writers of the report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they had concocted in order to strike and discredit me. In fact, in another place of the same report, it says that on June 13, 2013, I wrote to Cardinal Ouellette, sending him both the letter that Bishop Bootkoski had written to me as well as the letters he sent to Priest 3. I informed him that the civil case of Priest 3 had been dismissed without the possibility of appeal. And Bishop Bootkoski, of Metuchen, characterized the accusations of Priest 3 as false and slanderous.
I would like to emphasize one aspect in particular: Those who accuse me of not having sent a written communication to Bishop Bootkoski, the ordinary of the Priest 3 and bishop of Metuchen, know very well that this depends on the precise direction of the Secretariat of State.
They know equally well, as the report confirms, that there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I in turn informed Cardinal Wuerl.
It should not be forgotten that in those years there were lawyers who were not content to bring dioceses to judgment for crimes committed by priests, but who wanted to demonstrate that the Holy See itself — like the headquarters of a multinational company — held the ultimate responsibility for giving compensation to victims of molestation. The lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, who probably has worked very hard for this report.
Raymond Arroyo: This is fascinating and we’ll have to… I wish we had more time to explore this, but I do recall reading that reference that you make to the communication with Cardinal Wuerl, but I didn’t connect the two, and I imagine most people reading the report wouldn’t either. But that makes sense. There is a footnote, Your Excellency, that repeats your testimony, where you maintain in 2006 and 2008 you asked your superiors “to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal's hat and reducing McCarrick to the lay state” in the full memorandum that they published. They claim you added, “if the allegations are true and proven.” Now, the report attempts to use this to undermine your testimony as some are maintaining. Your response to that? Does this in any way undermine your testimony that you qualified the penalty by saying, “if the accusations are proven true?”
Archbishop Viganò: Well, the accusation that were brought to
my attention, and previously to my predecessors, they proved that there was a
number of seminarians that were well known that had denounced the abuses of
Cardinal McCarrick. So for that, when I wrote in my report for 2006 and 2008 to
my superior, the secretary of state, I have no doubt, no doubt that there was
the case to proceed immediately after, of course, a due procedure, that was a
corresponding to the authority of the Pope himself to take very strong,
exemplary measures against Cardinal McCarrick. In fact, what I suggested in
2006 and 2008 has been accomplished. Ten years later, or more, 11 years later.
So that was proof that my judgment was absolutely correct on the situation.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, before I let you go, I’d like your reflections on the report placing the lion’s share of the blame for McCarrick’s rise in the Church at the feet of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And when you read the report, as I did, it’s clear that there was a network of bishops here that remain unnamed who protected McCarrick, either through patronage or personal contacts — or perhaps they were fellow travelers, but this network seems to be firmly in place.
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I mean, the intentions of the ones who drafted the report are clear: to pass off responsibility for the promotion of McCarrick to his predecessors. One of whom is deceased and canonized (John Paul II) and the other is so old and weak (Benedict XVI). The former cannot defend himself from the grave.
The disturbing thing is that, within the report itself, obviously put together by many hands, there are numerous contradictions. Enough to make the argument the report has little credibility. I wonder then who convinced John Paul II and then Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted so that they could gain an advantage in terms of power and money? Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated following the model of the skeleton operation that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who oppose the regime.
In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was definitely Cardinal Sodano. He was secretary of state until September 2006. All information came to him. In November 2000, he already had received information from Nuncio Montalvo for this report of the accusation of grave abuse committed by McCarrick. Let us not forget that in this period, the scandal of Father Maciel broke out, which Sodano sought to cover up by falsifying a statement of Benedict XVI.
I was present to that in which it was said that the pope considered the case closed. Benedict XVI called a plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Arinze, who was a member of that congregation at that time, succeeded in having Maciel condemned despite the opposition of the secretary of state. And after that, the name of Cardinal Sodano also appears in connection to a scandalous real estate speculation in the United States.
With regard to Benedict XVI, they want to have very direct access to the Pope where the secretary of state, Bertone, and the substitute Sandri were able to control and filter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father.
Regarding the situation of Pope Benedict, the report speaks for itself. The one — and it is stated in the report — the one who presented the question directly, of McCarrick, directly to Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Bertone. Who, contrary to what I have repeatedly proposed — namely, that the very grave and detailed accusations against McCarrick required an exemplary canonical process leading to his removal from the cardinal college and his reduction to the lay state — led Pope Benedict to decide that no canonical process should be undertaken, nor should any canonical sanctions be proscribed, but that instead, and I quote, “a simple appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit” would be made.
And here yet another flagrant contradiction appears evident. How is it possible to reconcile a simple appeal to conscience with a form of instruction that was given both to the Nuncio Sambi and to me, according to which McCarrick could not reside in the seminary where he was living, could not participate in public activities, could not travel and had to lead a retired life of prayer and penance?
Raymond Arroyo: Mm-hmm.
Archbishop Viganò: The corruption at the highest level of the Vatican is so evident that it may want to consider the report as an unworthy attempt to make Bergoglio appear absolutely alien to the manipulation of the Curia — indeed, as a sort of implacable persecutor of the corrupt, while the evidence of the facts demonstrated the opposite.
Yes, I would like to also to note that the fact of blaming John Paul II for the appointment of McCarrick, despite the negative opinion of the Congregation for Bishops and its Prefect Cardinal Re, could be applied also to Jorge Bergoglio himself. About whom the Superior General of the Jesuits expressed strong reservatiosn. If Wojtyla made a mistake with McCarrick, and for this reason is considered implicitly responsible for the scandals that occurred, what happened? What prevented this judgment from also being extended to the promotion of Bergoglio as Bishop of Buenos Aires and then as a cardinal?
Let us remember that in the consistory of 2001 — and this is something really very suspicious — in addition to McCarrick and Bergoglio, other leading members of the Saint Gallen Mafia received the red hat.
Raymond Arroyo: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, we thank you for being here tonight and for your insights into this report, which are quite unique, and you had a front row seat to so much of what we’re seeing unfold. I thank you for being here. I hope you’ll come back again.
Archbishop Viganò: Thank you very much, Raymond. I’m very
pleased to be part of your program. Thank you.
"Pope" Francis congratulates and blesses "President-elect" Biden
Tell us, Your Holiness; when you gave your blessing to Mr. Biden, did you counsel him or admonish him on his position on the murder of innocents in the womb?
Joe Biden is an openly dissenting Catholic and an illegitimate president.
Wednesday, 11 November 2020
Bergoglio and his scum blame Viganò? May God in heaven send his wrath and judgement upon these evil men!
The long delayed report on the sodomite pervert, rapist and criminal Theodore McCarrick has been released. Dr. Taylor Marshall questions the timing of the release - when America is so preoccupied with the issue of a fraudulent election and a literal globalist coup, the demonic Bergoglio and his minions release the report which they trust will be ignored due to overwhelming information. Dr. Marshall's job, the job of those at LifeSiteNews, my job, your job, is to ensure that this does not happen.
I have not and will not read the report. We have trusted people such as Dr. Robert Moynihan, Dr. Marshall and Dorothy Cummings McLean and others have and will provide erudite commentary and disclosure.
What we do know is this. It is an exercise in obfuscation and cover-up and blame. Bergoglio is the hero when in fact, he is a fraud and guilty of cover-up. They blame John Paul II for not acting. I do too. He refused to believe that Maciel was the monster he was and the excuse of these matters tainting his view due to his familiarity with communist tactics does not fly with me. He knew, he did not act. The same people that declared him a Saint did the same to Giovanni Montini and Angelo Roncalli.
Saints? Bullcrackers!
 |
| Never forget this picture of these bosom buddies. |
Bergoglio and his rats have tried to turn the tables to blame Archbishop Viganò, the man who is in hiding, the man who has clearly made amends for any sin of omission, a man who has shone light on this Vatican filth.
Here is his response. Expect more from him. He knows much and as with President Donald John Trump, these men are heroes who have not yet finished their work. Get your popcorn, the outing of the Deep State and the Deep Church is going to be biblical, literally!
Today the official Report of the Holy See regarding the McCarrick case has been made public. Before I express myself on its merit, I will take time to analyze its content.
However, I cannot fail to note the surreal operation of mystification regarding who are the ones responsible for covering up the scandals of the deposed American cardinal, and at the same time, I cannot help expressing my indignation in seeing the same accusations of cover-up being made against me, when in fact I repeatedly denounced the inaction of the Holy See in the face of the gravity of the accusations concerning McCarrick’s conduct.
An unprejudiced commentator would note the more than suspicious timing of the report’s publication, as well as the attempt to throw discredit upon me, accused of disobedience and negligence by those who have every interest in delegitimizing the one who brought to light an unparalleled network of corruption and immorality. The effrontery and fraudulent character shown on this occasion would seem to require, at this point, that we call this suggestive reconstruction of the facts “The Viganò Report,” sparing the reader the unpleasant surprise of seeing reality adulterated once again. But this would have required intellectual honesty, even before love for justice and the truth.
Unlike many characters involved in this story, I do not have any reason to fear that the truth will contradict my denunciations, nor am I in any way blackmailable. Anyone who launches unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of public opinion will have the bitter surprise of finding that the operation conducted against me will not have any effect, other than giving further proof of the corruption and bad faith of those who for too long have been silent, made denials and turned their gaze elsewhere, who today must be held accountable. The Vatican fiction continues.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop November 10, 2020
Tuesday, 10 November 2020
Monday, 9 November 2020
Mr. President: Drain. The. Swamp. Now!
There is much going on in my mind and thoughts about President Donald John Trump and the election in the United States, so much so, it could take numerous blog posts. I am thinking though of only one with brief commentary on a variety of topics.
Briefly, I believe that massive fraud occurred swinging this election. Trump warned of it for months, it happened. What I know as a Canadian of the American political system and constitution is that this is far from over. The actions necessary, while legal, will be without precedent.
Today, I refer you to a blog post at The Last Refuge which includes this tweet by Donald Trump, Jr. which says everything that I have been thinking and saying over the last week to my wife and a few friends. Donald Trump must immediately release everything. Declassify everything. Those who refuse his order must be removed, immediately. If the son is saying this publicly, you can count on the fact that not only is he and his father discussing it, it is coming.
It must be without mercy as to the consequences. Not doing so will lead to the end of America as we know it.
Holy Trinity, One God; send forth Thy power and grace upon Donald John Trump and protect him from all his enemies. Guide him, O Lord, in thy mercy, that light may shine on those of darkness who seek to destroy the nation, and that the fullness of your light truth may engulf him with the dew of the Holy Spirit; we pray this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.
Saturday, 7 November 2020
Cardinal Collins - Why is a "Gay" defrocked priest and former seminary Dean of Studies quoted in your newspaper and active in a parish "ministry?"
The photo below is of an article in the Toronto Archdiocese owned Catholic Register. It features information on AIM, a lay group with outreach at the Jesuit parish of Our Lady of Lourdes in Toronto. If features a quote from one, Gordon Davies.
But just who is, Gordon Davies?
A "gay" man ordained in the Archdiocese of Toronto who rose to the rank of Dean of Studies at St. Augustine's Seminary and eventually left the priesthood and was defrocked.
Friday, 6 November 2020
Bergoglio: Not only a pervert protector but a malfeasant crook!
The most despicable man ever elected to the papacy has not only spent seven years upending Catholic doctrine, he has protected perverts, promoted deviants, surrounded himself with compromised men and backed a financial criminal exercise.
What a stinking monster. Vicar of Christ my foot.
Vicar of Satan is more like it.
Thursday, 5 November 2020
Vox's fan mail from "faithful Catholics"
Hey Vox, the same kind of attitude that you represent. Getting a taste of your medicine? How does it feel? Now you are so sensitive. Cry me a river.
You are a hypocrite. You criticize viciously and are nasty towards the pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests. Suddenly you are woke. Give me a break.
You are the one who needs confession and a psychiatrist.
Anonymous said...
Vox, you're a douchebag. Masks don't work you pathetic loser.
Anonymous said...Hey Vox, lose some weight.
Anonymous said...You're a selfish fool Vox.
Anonymous said...You're such a beta man Vox. Shame on you for having a fetish for the mask. Grow up you loser.
Anonymous said...Hey Vox, the masks are sin. 100% no to masks.
Anonymous said...Hey Vox, you're insane for falling the stupidity of the masks. Do some research and due diligence. I can't believe you are so dumb.
Wednesday, 4 November 2020
Tuesday, 3 November 2020
Living rent-free in "Reverend" Michael Coren's brain.
Monday, 2 November 2020
Pope Francis: The Predator and Abuser!
A very important column by Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness. We are not going anywhere!
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/2020/10/pope-francis-predator-and-abuser-how.html
