Wasn’t it Vigano that said that Ouellet was in a position to know?!
True. Point taken.
Posters on Fr. Z’s blog are condemning the Cardinal as another papal “crony” already. Everyone has already made up their minds on this issue. One poster went so far as to imply that the Holy Father is the anti-Christ - not sure if his comment was removed or not. Its getting pretty ugly.
This could also explain how Cardinal Weurl might not have been aware.
To be fair, His Eminence does confirm that McCarrick was asked to “keep a low profile” to avoid scandal and that rumors about him were known at the Vatican. This is not what +Vigano alleges, no, but it is something.
He also noted that Pope Francis didn’t “lift” or otherwise give McCarrick leave to travel around, etc. as Vigano charged. He also noted that there are not letters and memos confirming Vigano’s report at the Congregation of Bishops as Vigano claimed.
So in the end, we are still left with the fact that various people suggested that McCarrick lay low and he decided to disregard that advice.
Which can only be blamed on – McCarrick.
There is a small segment of the Church who has a very negative view of Pope Francis.
The internet gives these fringe groups a voice.
There is a segment, not that small now, that has trashed every Pope since 1958. The bishops too.
The fact that these fringees exist does not refute the many responsible Catholics, who fully support V2, who have major concerns about this Pope, and his appointees, and IMHO divisiveness.
For about 3 or 4 years I defended him, but I changed my mind. Yes I pray for him no matter what. Too many good church people (Burke etc) thrown out, too many crucial issues like abortion minimized, too much apathy about basic truths being destroyed by the secular culture.
Don’t lump me together with Church Militant, Lepanto, One Peter Five, etc.
Exactly! It is Vigano who asked for a response from Ouellet…
From the beginning of this issue, Vigano has been trying to impose a certain tone to lead answers in a certain direction, Ouellet took all of that into consideration in his response. As far as the answer to his accusations does not say ‘yes Pope Francis is guilty and complicit in covering up sexual abuse, yes he covered up McCarrick, yes he uplifted ‘‘canonical’’ sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Benedict, yes he even made McCarrick his close advisor who then influenced Pope Francis in making appointments of Bishops…’’ then no matter what else whoever says as a response to Vigano’s accusations will fall short of the expectations of Vigano’s supporters.
Vigano wrote the first letter of accusations when Pope Francis had already expelled McCarrick from the college of cardinals…so…honestly…Vigano did not reveal any hidden truth by mentioning that McCarrick was ordered to keep a low profile. Did the sanctions on McCarrick imposed by Pope Francis fall out from space or from nowhere?
God forbid that we actually start blaming sex abusers for sexual abuse.
The front page just changed. Cardinal’s letter was front page all week end into early Monday morning.
Cardinal Oullet’s open letter boils down to: there were verbal restrictions imposed on McCarrick but he can produce no paper trail to confirm. Following are some quotes from his open letter:
I strongly doubt that McCarrick was of interest to him to the point that you believed him to be, since at the moment he was an 82-year-old Archbishop Emeritus who had been without an appointment for seven years. In addition, the written brief prepared for you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your service in 2011, said nothing about McCarrick other than what I told you in person about his situation as an emeritus Bishop who was supposed to obey certain conditions and restrictions due to the rumors surrounding his past behavior.
That McCarrick was said to be molesting seminarians at his beach house were only rumors about past behavior? Didn’t NJ dioceses pay settlements in 2004 and 2007? Is there no paper trail for this? https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_catholic_dioceses_paid_at_least_180k_to_alleged.html
McCarrick had to follow verbal restrictions? Why didn’t the prefect for the Congregation of Bishops since 2010 see to it that the restrictions were written down when he communicated it to Vigano?
The former Cardinal, who had retired in May 2006, had been strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, so as not to provoke additional rumors in his regard.
Who strongly advised McCarrick not to travel or make public appearances? Was it Pope Benedict as Vigano says? And nobody wrote down anything? Why?
The reason for the restrictions/sanctions was to avoid “new rumors”? Really? Never mind that McCarrick has allegedly molested at least 2 seminarians, rumors/not alleged molestations are to be avoided.
It is false to present the measures taken in his regard as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and revoked by Pope Francis.
- Did Pope Benedict intend for restrictions/sanctions to be placed on McCarrick, or not? Why would reporters note that during Benedict’s pontificate, McCarrick was “put out to pasture” and under Pope Francis, is now “back in the mix and busier than ever?” http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/retired-cardinal-mccarrick-traveled-the-globe-during-francis-papacy
After re-examining the archives, I can ascertain that there are no corresponding documents signed by either Pope, neither is there a note of an audience with my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, giving Archbishop Emeritus McCarrick an obligatory mandate of silence and to retire to a private life, carrying canonical penalties. The reason being that at that time, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged guilt.
- Again, 2 settlements are paid out for “alleged guilt”? What happened to Fr. Boniface Ramsey’s letter received by Sambi in 2000? Has this paper trail also disappeared? http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2018/letter-confirms-vatican-officials-knew-of-mccarrick-allegations-in-2000.cfm
Hence, the position of the Congregation was inspired by prudence, and my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine, reiterated through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi, and then also through you, urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church. His case would have been the object of new disciplinary measures had the Nunciature in Washington, or whatever other source, provided us with recent and decisive information regarding his behavior. I hope like many others, out of respect for the victims and the need for justice, that the investigation underway in the United States and in the Roman Curia will finally offer us a critical, comprehensive view on the procedures and the circumstances of this painful case, so that such events are not repeated in the future.
- How can there possibly be a comprehensive and critical study of procedures and circumstances if the paper trail that should be there, is not. Did notes disappear or were they purposefully never recorded?
That Oullet cannot find a paper trail makes the whole McCarrick case even MORE troubling for the leadership of the Church. These same bishops who have failed to find, record, or adequately discipline a serial molester are the ones to be trusted to undertake the investigation?
The then-cardinal has said he is innocent.
You could have stopped this question at “why would reporters…” In this day and age, where we have bloggers, vloggers, internet news, network news, alternative news and a plethora of fake site, you have to ask the motivation of reporters?
Too many rely more on reporters than they do on they Church.
So what WAS the motivation of David Gibson from NCR, who in 2014 noted that McCarrick was rehabilitated under Pope Francis? I would guess he was pleased to see the vast capabilities of the energetic and well-liked McCarrick again put to use (McCarrick speaks several languages fluently and he seems to know everybody -John Boehner, key people in Middle East, Iran, China, Armenia, etc, and he seems to share Pope Francis’ vision for the Church to move forward).
Do you think he had a different motivation for writing the article? Is David Gibson reporting anything “fake”?
Honestly, Ouellet’s letter makes the most sense of anything I’ve read about this whole thing. It’s not far off from what I suspected. Some things Vigano said were true—at least for the most part. McCarrick was asked to commit to a life of prayer and penance back then. But it didn’t rise to the level of “sanctions” in the technical sense of that term from a canon law perspective. And Vigano’s interpretation of Pope Francis’ involvement was overblown.
It still seems to me that Vigano sincerely believes his interpretation of events. Perhaps his brain just incorrectly filled in the gaps in the narrative.
I don’t know if it is true, but I hoped it was. So far, there is nothing that supports the picture painted by him, and that which was hoped for by Catholics opposed to Pope Francis. Yet, I would never assume to believe ill will on the part of AB Vigano either, just poor judgement.