Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Archbishop’s shocking letter reveals scandal and priority schism in Catholic Church

Archbishop’s shocking letter reveals scandal and priority schism in Catholic Church

In a shock video, a cardinal responds: “The Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants…”

A shocking 11-page letter by a former apostolic nuncio (a papal diplomat) to the United States has rocked the Catholic world after it was widely released last week.

The testimony offered by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, accuses several senior church officials of complicity in covering up allegations of sexual abuse of minors and young men by former Archbishop of Washington D.C., Theodore McCarrick. Viganò also claims that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, chose to ignore those sanctions, and allowed McCaarrick to become a power-player in determining church appointments in this country.

The letter and its contents are now being discussed and debated throughout the country, especially among the Catholic faithful. As a Catholic, I would encourage everyone to read the 11 pages (link here), which are extremely detailed, and discern for themselves how to best address the matter of abuse, cover-up, and politicization within their own parishes and dioceses.

As the contents, their meaning, and the potential consequences are significant for many of us, I would like to break this discussion into 3 parts:

1) Specific items from Viganò’s missive concerning the extraordinary claims.
2) What are the repercussions are for Pope Francis and the Church?
3) Where do Catholics go from here?


Here is a brief introduction into McCarrick’s proclivities:

Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.

Therefore, Catholic Church officials knew in 2000 and did nothing about the activity until 2009, when Pope Benedict imposed non-public sanctions (e.g., McCarrick could not give Mass, could not travel, and had to spend time in penance and prayer). That all changed in 2013, when McCarrick was allowed by the newly elected Pope Francis to travel to China. When the Pope Francis asked Viganò for his thoughts on McCarrick, he indicated that his reply was:

I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “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. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests 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 changed the subject.

Finally, McCarrick became highly influential in making key appointments in the church in America.

It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with [Cardinal Donald] Wuerl and immediately appointed [Blase] Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture [the usual body in charge of assignments of this nature] in the appointment of bishops.

I would like to point out that there is a new video of Cardinal Blase Cupich out, in which he dismisses charges by saying, “The Pope has a bigger agenda”. The video clip (link HERE) provides a glimpse into the quality of McCarrick-influenced appointments in this country.

“The Pope has a bigger agenda,” Cardinal Cupich said. “He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”


Pope Francis responded to the letter with uncharacteristic silence, while some of his supporters assert Viganò is a conservative crank who has it out for the pope. However, another Vatican official said Viganò, told “the truth” and others describe the Archbishop as an “ecclesial straight shooter” and a “serious man.

Priests, deacons, and lay people throughout the country are clamoring for a full investigation. Many are demanding Pope Francis resign if Viganò’s claims are true. While many homilies on this topic were given this Sunday, I think one of the best had to be that from Father Anthony Saroki of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (link to podast, which is worth a full listen).

…We have to begin by acknowledging priest sex abuse is a diabolical evil. All sexual abuse is a grave evil, damaging the victim physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually that has led to life-long suffering, loss of faith and even suicide. The damage is exponentially worse when it is done by a man who was ordained to represent Jesus Christ. The victims need healing and justice.

The perpetrators need to be punished and prevented from hurting others. We have also learned how many bishops covered up the abuse and allowed predatory priests ongoing access to children. They, too, should be punished.

…Viganò says he personally told Pope Francis back in 2013 about McCarrick, and not only did he [Pope Francis] not do anything about it, but he welcomed McCarrick into his circle of advisors and gave McCarrick great influence in appointing bishops in the United States. If what Viganò asserts is true, I think Pope Francis should resign as well.

3) Where do Catholics go from here?

Father Anthony believes that the solution to the continuing cabal of cover-up must come from the lay church. In fact, many Catholics are voting with their pocket books already.

Part of the solution may be the lay church forcing a priority reformation in the hierarchy. The focus on climate change and Trump-bashing needs to shift to more spiritual concerns that are less divisive and actually based on the Holy Bible.

A deep priority schism has arisen. For example, some Church leaders promote social outreach and make choices that have now led to unintended consequences, such as homoerotic murals in churches and young men being groomed in seminaries. As Father Anthony notes, one of the most troubling developments in recent years has been the evolution of a “Lavender mafia”, an arrangement that protects priestly sexual secrets and supports mutually assured religious career success.

Father Anthony notes that a solution to that current cultural problem would be to ordain devout married men of proved virtue. The move would increase the number of priests, and would likely inspire more young men to consider a religious vocation, if they were protected from being targets of unwanted attention. Additionally, initiating a #MeToo movement to reveal all the abusers while defrocking priests (starting with McCarrick, who resigned from the Holy See in June but should not die as a priest) would be welcome steps in the right direction.

There is clearly no quick fix. However, attacking the whistleblower and telling your flock that the pope has other priorities are steps in the opposite direction…the one that leads to damnation.

For more analysis, check out the Canto Talk podcast featuring my discussion on this topic with fellow Catholic, Silvio Canto Jr.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


For things to change they have to WANT to change them.

The Catholic Church is clearly comfortable NOT changing.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Olinser. | August 29, 2018 at 7:13 pm

    ALL bureaucracies eventually come to represent bureaucrats’ interests, including religious organizations. The older and bigger they are, the worse they become.

The question is whether Viganò is telling the truth.

    From the Archbishop of San Francisco:

    “I came to know Archbishop Viganò well during the years he served as Apostolic Nuncio here in the United States. I can attest that he is a man who served his mission with selfless dedication, who fulfilled well the Petrine mission entrusted to him by the Holy Father to “strengthen his brothers in the faith,” and who would do so at great personal sacrifice and with absolutely no consideration given to furthering his “career” – all of which speaks to his integrity and sincere love of the Church. Moreover, while having no privileged information about the Archbishop McCarrick situation, from information I do have about a very few of the other statements Archbishop Viganò makes, I can confirm that they are true. His statements, therefore, must be taken seriously. To dismiss them lightly would continue a culture of denial and obfuscation. Of course, to validate his statements in detail a formal investigation will have to be conducted, one that is thorough and objective. I am therefore grateful to Cardinal DiNardo for recognizing the merit of finding answers that are “conclusive and based on evidence,” and I join my voice to that of other bishops in calling for such an investigation and for taking any corrective action that may be necessary in light of its findings.”

      “I knew Archbishop Viganò well during his service as papal representative in Washington, I feel obliged to speak about him, which I hope will help others consider his very, very serious claims thoughtfully.

      First, Archbishop Viganò is a courageous reformer, who was moved out of the Vatican by his immediate superiors because he was determined to confront financial corruption in the Governatorato, the administration of Vatican City State.

      Second, Archbishop Viganò is, in my experience, an honest man. We spoke often about many things, large and small, and I never had the impression that I was being given anything other than what he believed in his conscience to be the truth. That does not mean that he got everything right; a man of humility and prayer, he would be the first to concede that. But it does suggest that attempts to portray him as someone deliberately making false accusations, someone other than an honest witness to what he believes to be the truth, are unpersuasive. When he writes in his Testimony that he is “ready to affirm [these allegations] on oath calling on God as my witness,” he means it. And he means it absolutely. Archbishop Viganò knows that, in swearing such an oath, he would be taking his soul into his hands; which means he knows that if he were to speak falsely, he would be unlikely to find his soul again.

      Third, Archbishop Viganò is a loyal churchman of a certain generation and formation, bred to a genuine piety about the papacy. His training in the papal diplomatic service would instinctively lead him to make the defense of the pope his first, second, third, and hundredth priority. If he believes that what he has now said is true, and that the Church needs to learn that truth in order to cleanse itself of what is impeding its evangelical mission, then he is overriding his ingrained instincts for the gravest of reasons.

      What Archbishop Viganò testifies to knowing on the basis of direct, personal, and in many cases documentable experiences in Rome and Washington deserves to be taken seriously, not peremptorily dismissed or ignored.”

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 2:06 pm

      The letter mentions Cardinal DiNardo. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo is President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He has called for “prompt and thorough examination of questions surrounding Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.”

        I think one of the things we Catholics can do, then, is organize a letter-writing campaign to demand McCarrick’s defrocking….as a start.

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 2:23 pm

          That and to remember the scripture, Psalm 16:2. “I say to the Lord, ‘You are my Lord;
          I have no good apart from you.’”

          I would go so far to say are Catholics ready to humble themselves, to ask themselves if they have looked the other way concerning this matter. Also, to ask themselves, in order for a cleansing of the Church to occur, whether they would be willing to go without Mass every Sunday (have worship but without communion) because of a shortage of priests that might take place.

          And, of course, the best place to begin is in each parish and each diocese with “no” not an option.

          It’s something. Anything is better than doing nothing.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 9:26 pm

          “Defrock” McCarrick? Is that where it starts, Leslie?

          Start with casting out the current bishop of Rome, Red Francis, then rid the Church of Rome of every homosexual and pedophile masquerading as a priest.

          In true Roman unScriptural fashion, Canon 1394.1 and 1395.1 provide remedies for priests who try to marry or live unmarried with women. AFAIK, there is no canonical remedy for homosexual priests, but their punishment may be thought to fall under Canon 1395.1, while that of pedophile priests fall under 1395.2.

          In sum, forced laicization is the limp remedy of Rome under some nonsense rubric that once a priest always a priest because ordination is forever. The vow of ordination is a vow made to God, and the first time that man lies with another man or violates a child, he has broken his vow and is no more a priest.

          Prosecute McCarrick and all his butt boys to the fullest extent of the law. They have broken their oath to God and His Church, and they are clearly unrepentant. What the heck, stone them all for all the damage they have done to the children and to the Church.

      Vigano’s own words, in an interview following the letter’s publication:

    I get there are politics involved, but there is absolutely a rot of corruption in the Catholic Church that needs to be purged. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2018 at 3:00 pm

    Testimonials to Viganò’s honesty don’t answer the specific claim raised: that, contrary to his statement that Benedict had McCarrick confined to quarters and Francis let him out, in fact during Benedict’s papacy McCarrick was openly traveling wherever he liked, and performing public functions, including in Benedict’s own presence, and in Viganò’s presence.

    During Ratzinger’s last years of pontificate, McCarrick’s did not change his way of life: it is true that he left the seminary where he resided, but he celebrated diaconal and priestly ordinations alongside important cardinals of the Roman Curia close collaborators of Pope Ratzinger, he gave lectures. On 16 January 2012, he participated together with other US bishops in an audience with Benedict XVI in the Vatican and his name among the participants was indicated in the bulletin of the Holy See’s Press Office. On 16 April 2012, he met Benedict again at the audience of the Papal Foundation and celebrated the Pontiff’s birthday together with all those present. He traveled and returned to Rome in February 2013 to bid farewell to the Pope who had resigned and shook his hand with a smile (all immortalized by the cameras of Vatican TV).
    [Viganò’s] participation in public events with the harassing cardinal is documented, such as concelebrations in the United States or the attribution of an award to McCarrick (on 2 May 2012, Pierre Hotel in Manhattan), a ceremony during which Viganò appears anything but indignant or embarrassed to be photographed alongside the old cardinal harasser.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2018 at 10:08 pm

      You don’t understand the Church’s hierarchy. Vigano had no authority over McCarrick. Furthermore, being banned from performing priestly duties is not the same as being locked up. Benedict himself was likely under assault by the Lavender Mafia who were likely vigorously at work to end his bishopric, which they did and got one of their own as his replacement. Thus, Benedict old, sick, and under attack was not really in a position to do much to halt that lecher McCarrick other than what he had done.

      Given the presence and malevolence of the Lavender Mafia within the Vatican itself, it was likely Benedict had little support in ensuring that his edict concerning McCarrick was carried out.

      Wuerl (or someone else) was thought to have suggested to his fellow bishop McCarrick that, in light of his homosexual corrupt activities, that he not celebrate divine service, and McCarrick disregarded him. After all, Wuerl, Vigano, and McCarrick were all on the same level.

      So, then, what is Vigano to do in public, as a churchman? Was he aware that McCarrick would be at the event? Was he the one who offered the award?

      Therefore, Milhouse, what you deem proof of Vigano’s error is not proof of anything simply because you do not understand the church hierarchy and the power of the bishops, and you don’t know what other forces were operating to present events in a light that was likely far from reality.

    Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2018 at 11:33 pm

    The phrasing focuses on the speaker:
    “The question is whether Viganò is telling the truth.”

    The focus needs to be on how much and what is true, not on the speaker.

I spent four years in a Catholic seminary in the 1980’s and subsequently worked briefly in a Catholic Diocese. The abuse problem has been known for a long time and been addressed in earnest for 30 years. Problem is, the hierarchy is not at all serious about dealing with the problem once and for all. Nothing in Vigano’s testimony surprises me.

I’ve said before that the problem will get worse before it gets better. Post Vatican II, the Church ordained too many people that were risky — simply to keep the numbers up. Considering the battery of psychological testing that I went through in 1980 to be admitted to the seminary, then seeing the number of clearly disturbed men in there, I have to say that the testing was not much more than window-dressing. Some of these people did in fact get ordained, although most washed out. I have no idea why so many ever got in the door in the first place. It was clear to me as a college student that these people were disturbed. It wasn’t like they were going to get better.

I gave up on the institution years ago. Between finding out that priests I had known were turning up as predators or otherwise being involved in abuse matters, and seeing the lack of effective action by the Church, I walked away. As an insider (briefly), it was also clear that decisions were being made to ordain men who had no business being ordained — and in spite of clear warning signs.

I feel badly for men who have become priests and served in good faith, only to be tarred with this brush. Change will have to come from within and be driven by the laity (and mainly their wallets) in order for this to get made right.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to p1cunnin. | August 29, 2018 at 2:14 pm

    Having done some work with a consulting organization during the 80’s, one that worked with both Catholic and Protestant seminaries, I can affirm your report. While some of the Catholics demonstrated the intellectual capacity, they were also very naive and emotionally immature. With some of the Protestant ones, though perhaps a bit more mature, they were in seminary as part of the PC-movement, one supported by any number of clergy, bishops included.

As Father Anthony notes, one of the most troubling developments in recent years has been the evolution of a “Lavender mafia”, an arrangement that protects priestly sexual secrets and supports mutually assured religious career success.

“Recent years”?! This has been going on for centuries.

cf: Terence, Cardinal Cooke.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2018 at 2:33 pm

    When Martin Luther visited Rome (1510 A.D.), he was dismayed at the sexual immorality there among the priests, or I ought to say some. Moreover, it was reported that among there there were priests who prided themselves in their preference for women as opposed to those who did not.

“Telling the truth…”. Given the response of Anti-Pope Francis and his handlers this seems almost certain (barring reading minds or the development of time/place viewing AI). Instead of defending and providing evidence they gave a Leftist pro-pedophile answer that it is not important when compared with climate change, illegal aliens, and faux refugees. Which they expect the Leftist media to support and defend them and their priorities which is occuring as the MSM is now claiming the issue is right versus left with the right unfairly attacking the pope because they are upset he is focusing on important issues (above) also including LGBT+ and Pro-Socialism while he is also praying in mosques and promoting Islam.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Sunlight78. | August 29, 2018 at 2:28 pm

    There is no “Anti-Pope,” regardless of what you may think of Francis.

      Sunlight78 in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 3:35 pm

      I do think that Francis is not what he should be and he should be replaced. Pope Benedict could come out of retirement until it could be sorted out. There was a prophecy that Francis would be the last pope and i always thought it was BS and that the St Malachy had made it all up in the middle ages but given Francis appears to be playing for the opposite team it is looking more likely.

        DieJustAsHappy in reply to Sunlight78. | August 29, 2018 at 4:00 pm

        Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI would not be capable, according to the last reports on his health. In February of this year, he said, “I can only say that with the slow withering of my physical forces, interiorly, I am on a pilgrimage towards home.”

        We pray for him that the Lord would give him peace at the last.

          Sunlight78 in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 4:11 pm

          I did not realize Pope Benedict was so ill. Prayers for an easy journey and joyful reunions!

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 4:35 pm


          He is 91 years of age and has been a priest for 67 of them. His health was, in part, the reason for his vacating the See of Saint Peter. He had smoked cigarettes for a number of years.

          Sad. I think a truly under-appreciated Pope. It wouldn’t surprised if he is, some day, declared a Doctor of the Church.

          Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 6:23 pm

          It wouldn’t surprised if he is, some day, declared a Doctor of the Church.

          Assuming the Church some day corrects its path. The way it’s going now it wouldn’t surprise me if he is, some day, declared an incarnation of the Devil (that is, assuming Francis’s circle actually believe there is a Devil; it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t).

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 6:39 pm

          The exchange of comments refer to Pope Emeritus XVI, hardly “an incarnation of the Devil.” As for Pope Francis, remains to be seen what he knew when, about whom, and what he did or didn’t do. So, I hardly think it’s applicable to him, either.

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 29, 2018 at 6:40 pm

          Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI not “Pope Emeritus XVI”

          Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 30, 2018 at 1:33 am

          Yes, I know whom we’re discussing. You suggested that Benedict might one day be declared a Doctor of the Church. I pointed out that for this to happen the Church would have to correct its path, because the way it’s going now it’s more likely to declare him an incarnation of the Devil.

      “There is no anti-pope”

      My fraternity, Kappa Sigma, was originally founded in 1400 in response to an anti-pope. It’s not a new expression.

        DieJustAsHappy in reply to Fen. | August 30, 2018 at 5:05 am

        There is no other priest who is held to be the legitimate pope. Benedict XVI vacated the See of Saint Peter. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was properly selected by the conclave to be his successor, the next pope. This is the context of my statement.

Morning Sunshine | August 29, 2018 at 2:01 pm

I am reminded of Martin Luther, at least in the movie “Luther” starring Joseph Fiennes, “through the laws of the Pope and the doctrines of men, the consciences of the faithful have been miserably vexed and flayed.”

Sounds like not a lot has changed in 5 centuries?

    oldgoat36 in reply to Morning Sunshine. | August 29, 2018 at 2:10 pm

    Though I’m not sure Luther would be all that proud of what has become of the teachings he established. Most churches that stemmed off of Martin Luther’s work have been busy trying to rewrite God’s word to include it being fine for any sexuality you want, among many other concepts which don’t align particularly well with the Biblical teachings.

      Tom Servo in reply to oldgoat36. | August 29, 2018 at 2:17 pm

      The ELCA gave up on anything Luther actually taught long ago.

      It’s a whole lot like “Democrats” deciding that they actually hated real Democracy.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Morning Sunshine. | August 29, 2018 at 2:27 pm

    In sime ways, excluding the current crisis, the Catholic Church of today and Martin Luther are more closely aligned than some of the church bodies bearing his name.

This problem, corruption and hypocrisy by the powerful and enriched leaders of faith is nothing new. In fact, corruption and hypocrisy of the Pharisees was the reason Christ was crucified. The Catholic Church needs to do what Martin Luther did. Often it gets down letting go of the real estate and other funds that help the churches operate and trusting in God to move forward.

The Presbyterian Church did it back in the 70’s, split up and the older Presbyterian Church (USA) got to keep the buildings and money while the Presbyterian PCA congeregations started over from scratch. Today, the PCUSA churches are often not much more than that, *buildings* where social justice is king, and the congregations are nearly empty. The Presbyterian PCA churches have remained in the faith and are thriving. Eventually, when the money and power accumulates, they too will be tested.

    Yep, the Church became temporal upon surrendering to the Roman Empire under Constantine when the spiritual gave way to serving the empire. That is when the Church became the intermediary between us and God. We have since needed the approval of the Church before attaining salvation…. or so they proclaim. In other words, God doesn’t listen to our prayers unless the Church first signs off on them. The spiritual gave way to temporal. Corruption at its most fundamental level. The Church is our “shepherd”.

As Jordan Patterson says, clean up your own room before you go off to change the world.

But it’s hardly surprising to discover an org pushing climate change hysteria and supporting illegal immigration is corrupt.

Should we be shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment too?

    Who knew the Bloomberg Principle (with incompetent leaders, focus shifts to social justice antics during a real crisis) was also applicable to the Catholic Church?

      Tom Servo in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm

      I’m realizing that the Catholic Hierarchy is like a self righteous and incompetent clown-car version of the Mafia.

      tom_swift in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 4:40 pm

      was also applicable to the Catholic Church?

      It always is. All organizations—be they the FBI, Ford, the Boy Scouts, NASA, Woolworth’s, the Roman Republic, Sears Roebuck, the Church—have a limited effective lifetime, after which point they are characterized by mounting incompetence, waste, mismanagement, corruption, and slow decay, ending in a lingering, dramatically drawn-out death.

      Of course, determining exactly when that point is reached is the fun part.

        Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | August 29, 2018 at 6:25 pm

        This assumes, of course, that popes are not chosen by the Holy Spirit. If they are then one should not expect such laws to apply to the Church, and one should be surprised to find they do.

          elle in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2018 at 6:57 pm

          I’m no Bible expert, but I take it you’ve never read either the Old or New Testament to believe that those chosen to lead never got the boot.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 30, 2018 at 1:42 am

          We’re not talking about getting the boot. We’re talking about whether the “Bloomberg Principle” and other such rules describing the life-cycle of large organizations, apply to the RC Church. If the Holy Spirit is choosing the popes, then those rules ought not to apply. If one finds that they do then one must question whether the premise is correct.

          Immolate in reply to Milhouse. | August 30, 2018 at 10:58 am

          I think the point, Milhouse, to the extent there is one, is that all leaders are appointed by God, even the bad ones. As God used Joseph’s evil brothers to bring about the salvation of the family of Israel, he uses bad actors to institute his will. The RCC may be conflicted by the idea of a bad Pope, but the Bible isn’t. The seven years of tribulation foretold in Revelation doesn’t presage a healthy and robust Catholic (or any other) church in the end times.

          As a believer, I see efforts to “make the world a better place,” as well-meaning, but misguided–a form of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We should focus on getting people into the life boats instead, because the ship is going down.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 30, 2018 at 2:57 pm

          The Roman Church maintains that its popes are not just “appointed by God” the way all leaders everywhere are, and the way everything that happens is from God, but that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the electors. If this is so then we should expect the rules we’re discussing not to apply to that organization. If we see that they do, we should question the premise.

          elle in reply to Milhouse. | August 30, 2018 at 5:14 pm

          He uses bad actors to institute his will.well said, Immolate.

          Milhouse, my point remains: Just because the Pope was granted the position of Pope, it doesn’t mean that all of God’s people should just accept whatever the Pope says and does as being Godly. That you don’t grasp that fact implies you have never read either testament of the Bible, or even a children’s Bible for that matter.

          elle in reply to Milhouse. | August 30, 2018 at 5:23 pm


          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 31, 2018 at 2:24 am

          No, elle, nobody suggested that just because the Pope was granted the position of Pope, it means that all of God’s people should just accept whatever the Pope says and does as being Godly. That’s your own strawman. We are not discussing whether everything the Pope says and does is Godly, we’re discussing whether we should expect the rules that describe the life cycle of large organizations to apply to this organization too. If the Holy Spirit directly chooses popes, then we should expect those rules not to apply. If we observe that they do, we should draw the obvious conclusion.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 31, 2018 at 10:58 am


          “Weigh”? Or was that a typo for something?

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 29, 2018 at 6:34 pm

      ?? Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, for example. ?? Incompetent leaders??

    Sunlight78 in reply to Fen. | August 29, 2018 at 3:37 pm


    johlt in reply to Fen. | August 29, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    I was about to say the same thing. This should take precedence over any of “His Holiness”‘s social justice warfare. This is a serious scandal that affects the spiritual well-being of every Catholic. It was bad enough when it was the parish priests that were proven to be pedophiles, now we get this behavior from the bishops?

The Pope’s silence is deafening.

Be careful to not excuse the rest of the church. As I discovered re pedophiles in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism), it’s not the 10% bad apples, every organization has them.

The real problem is the other 90% that look the other way, the ones who know about the abuse and cover it up to protect the reputation of the organization.

We saw it with the Penn State football program, otherwise good and decent folk intimidating victims to silence them and sweep the abuse scandal under the rug.

We saw it with the Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer sex scandals, where #MeToo morphed into #TheyKnew.

We witnessed the same thing with the FBIs redactions of documents subpoenaed by congressional oversight committees.

Sounds like the modus operandi was “get on the proggies side, so they will leave us alone and let us hide our trangressions”

EBL, is correct: …”there is absolutely a rot of corruption in the Catholic Church that needs to be purged.” Unfortunately, what sunlight that has been shined has been screened by Church officials. The total carnage of abuse by the religious leaders is horrendous. Murder, physical and sexual abuse, destruction of lives, abuse that has led to drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide. Abuse that has rippled down generations. All of it, having been hidden from view by the church. We no longer need sunshine we need legal recourse, the church leaders who covered-up the scandals, need to go to jail. The Pope needs to be one of the first to be put behind bars. Perhaps a minor fine of say 100 billion dollars, might wake up the unholy See. The Pope has been a hypocrite for a long time. Condemnation of the U.S. because of the Wall, and the immigration policy. Yet, His wall is huge, and he does not allow unlimited immigration. His move toward anti-capitalism and rabid socialism certainly has not help his image in my mind. His ridiculous views on the global environment as ‘more important’ than pastoral duties of the clergies and avoiding the abuse of children is laughable. He drove me out of the Church. The disgusting degenerates he allows to continue to serve will keep me from ever going back.

Catholics need to stop giving to the diocese, and supporting the leadership ( bishops, archbishops, etc.). They will listen, and sooner, when it affects their wallet.

G. de La Hoya | August 29, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Pope Francis is of the Jesuit order. Present day Jesuit stereotypes fit well with Francis and his cumbaya rainbows. I am reminded of the Jesuits at Georgetown denying their Saviour by cloaking the reference to Christ for Obama. Cardinal Blase Cupich can go to hell 🙂

If this leftist Pope is more concerned with so-called “climate change” and “Migrants” than this TRUE crisis, the sooner he’s sent back to Argentina, the better.

In all of this, there has been scant mention of Christ. The podcast excerpt from Father Anthony Saroki is welcome reminder of what the church should be all about. Thanks for including that, Leslie.

time for a resignation and some white smoke going up a chimney.

georgia peach | August 29, 2018 at 6:47 pm

I think one should be very clear that what is being revealed is not a spate of pedophile priests (which there have been) but a clique of homosexual clergy, including cardinals, who abused their power,sexually engaged others in lesser positions and punished those not in the clique.Also promoted fellow homosexuals.The Lefties would love to tar this as “those pedophiles” and dismiss the greater problem of the sinful hierarchy. That is what the report tells me.

    Yes. Well said about a clique who abused their powers. I’d love to know how many school teachers have been arrested for sexual abuse of children and see how those numbers compare to the church. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they are much higher.

    Regardless, the entire system of public schools should likewise not be viewed as a cesspool of pedophiles or that the purpose of public education is a joke.

The corrupt bishop of Rome needs to be cast out of office. If he himself were not part of the Lavender Mafia, why would he make them his inner circle? Why knowing that McCarrick is a sodomite, would the bishop of Rome put him in a position of power to elevate other sodomites whom McCarrick himself has corrupted?

The situation of Rome is that she has spat in the face of her Lord and will be cast out if clergy and laity in good standing do not rise up and cast out the bishop of Rome and his Lavender Mafia.

Matthew 15:

“13But Jesus replied, ‘Every plant that My Heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by its roots. 14Disregard them! They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.’”

As a Catholic I will admit we have a lot of blind guides. I am however a Christian first, a Catholic second. If I could identify a denomination that was more faithful to the teachings of Christ I would join it.

“Inclusion Run Amok: A Muslim/Episcopal Priest”

But I can’t.

Umm kay. Nobody who has spent five minutes in the SF Bay Area is unaware of the sisters of perpetual indulgence.

Perhaps some of the gents who spent time in Catholic seminaries cam weigh in. What I’ve been told by former Seminarians is that, especially since Vatican II, the word went out that the priestly vow of chastity meant simply that you couldn’t get married. Other than that anything went. Especially gay sex with alter boys.

Here’s where I do my obligatory “not all” disclaimer.

Yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all gay men are members of NAMBLA. Not all heterosexual men indulge in sex tourism. What more do you need to know? And here’s the deal. Approximately five percent of Catholic priests are child predators. The vast majority keep their vows. It tears them apart that minority don’t and they all get hammered for it.

Here’s another proposed solution that has been floating around in these parts. Keep in mind that LA has yet to recover from its own Cardinal Don Corleoni Phony Baloney Roger Mahoney pedo/homo scandal and cover-up.

Clearly, the Catholic Church is incapable of fixing itself. It will take a big kick in the pants from the laity. Withholding money or quitting is far from enough.

This scandal is about more than evil, it is about institutionally protected CRIME. The Church should stop dragging its feet while wringing its hands about the future of the Church. There is only one course of action here and it to get on with purging its ranks of criminals and turning them over to “Caesar” to face the consequences of their crimes. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar”. Root these criminals out and turn them over EN MASSE!

The laity should be demanding from their own priests to sign affidavits swearing that 1) they are not now nor have they ever been involved in this criminal activity 2) that if they are/were, they will resign immediately and turn themselves over for criminal prosecution 3) and furthermore, that if they have any information that will lead to the prosecution of ANYONE else, clergy or lay, they will submit it to prosecutors. For the Church to survive, the Vatican itself would then have to embrace this and act or else lose its authority. No more “catholic” in Catholic.

It is pointless to change the rules to allow married men or women into a corrupt Church. We can have that discussion later once we can trust the Church to be our spiritual leader. Better to have a smaller but purified Church capable of performing its true Godly spiritual mission than a huge corrupt mafia hopelessly committed to temporal global politics as its main mission.

It’s up to us. Speak up! There are no innocent bystanders here. It’s been far too long in coming. Kick them in the pants as hard as we can!

At what point did Harry Potter die and the Death Eaters take over? From the sounds of it, it’s been a while.