TESTIMONY

In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world â€" the United States, Chile, Honduras,Australia, etc. â€" bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United Statesof America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, thememorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and Iwith them, to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America,to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their
faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by theirsilence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.

To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so manyabominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she hasfallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths wehave kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests haveprotected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the worldrisks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one thatprevails in the mafia. 

"Whatever you have said in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops"(Lk. 12:3).

I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritualresources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though Ihad repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it wouldhave been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even byhigh-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the

Church†s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case ofthe Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the courseof the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19,2011 until end of May 2016.

As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limitedto the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions,informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases,including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal

Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic

Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not failto inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick†s gravely immoralbehavior with seminarians and priests. 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 NuncioMontalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newarkfrom the end of the †80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the 

2Archbishop "shared his bed with seminarians," inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him athis beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were laterordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shareda bed with the Archbishop.

The office that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after thosecharges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano wasSecretary of State.

Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an IndictmentMemorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who wasreduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, inwhich he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several otherpriests and seminarians. 

The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum toabout twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore calledfor a prompt intervention by the Holy See.

In writing up a memo1 on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for PontificalRepresentations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and theSubstitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity andvileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and thatthey constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedlyand simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the

Archbishop†s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in thesedepraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.

In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute

Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:• Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to beadded to the many scandals for the Church in the United States,• and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˨, "ipsiusRomani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi";• I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinalfunction, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for thefaithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.

I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civilauthorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored somedignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of somepastors. 

If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor withwhom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing hisauthority and continuing to destroy innocent victims. 
1 All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See orat the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.

3

My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any actualdecision by the superiors on this matter.

Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexualabuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On

April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, CardinalWilliam Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one monthlater, on May 24, 2008.

The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included myprevious one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe†s document, which ended with thisrespectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: "I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, butwith the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, adescription of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and asgreat now in the United States as they were then in Rome. 

If Your Holiness requests, I will personallysubmit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken."I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon aspossible by removing the cardinal†s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to thesanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state.

This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed atmy superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuinglack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006.

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of theCongregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe†s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desiredresult. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposedon him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he wasforbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel,with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010,because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do notknow who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, whoas Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of hispontificate had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deephomosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope†s first collaborator at the time, Cardinal TarcisioBertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and wasaccustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.

In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions onMcCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States,Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature inWashington and Charge d'Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told mewhen I arrived in Washington â€" and he is ready to testify to itâ€" about a stormy conversation, lastingover an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to theNunciature. 

Monsignor Lantheaume told me that "the Nuncio†s voice could be heard all the way out inthe corridor."4Pope Benedict†s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of theCongregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before mydeparture for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the newNuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. TheCardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake ofsleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had noimportance.

The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and asCardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It istherefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information wascommunicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him theaforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committedby McCarrick.

It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed theNuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel,and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the coverup.

Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood wasaffirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed.Benedict reacted, despite Sodano†s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocablycondemned.

Was McCarrick†s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul IIwas already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think hewas the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere,at all levels of the Curia. 

If Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why hewouldn†t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influencedecisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. 

At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, inwhich Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on thelist for Washington.

Nuncio Sambi†s report, with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary ofState. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumablyhanded over to him by the Substitute. 

As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistentlypresenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals â€" I cite only the well-knowncase of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removedbecause he was undermining his seminarians â€" and in filtering and manipulating the information heconveyed to Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeedsof McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions tovarious continents. 

In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick†s trip tothe Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, Iwrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were stillvalid. Ă*a va sans dire that my letter never received any reply!
5The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrineof the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri,former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari,current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctionsimposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat ofState, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick.

Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretariesfor Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretaryof State.

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of otherprelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as CardinalFrancesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current infavor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by CardinalJoseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to theBishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. 

Cardinals EdwinFrederick O†Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a differentideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to have been informed of the measures taken by PopeBenedict was McCarrick†s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation isnow completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, directand explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, Imyself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn†t need to gointo detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember inparticular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesanpublication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought theyhad a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. 

I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement andthat he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed byMcCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred tocompensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevailsupon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorizedby the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr.John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as tohandle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter Ihad written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. 

However, he failed to acknowledgereceipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event atGeorgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it! 

6Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctionsimposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope†s order, also allowed him to reside at aseminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark,covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of hisvictims. 

They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and allresponsibility regarding this matter.Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn†t have theslightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and nowRome, I think no one can honestly believe him. 

I don†t know if he was ever asked if he knew aboutMaciel†s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions ofresponsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?

Regarding Cardinal Sean O†Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick caseare disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.* * *

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning PopeFrancis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all thebishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirmthem under oath by calling on God as my witness.

In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolicnuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for theaudience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by hispredecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington.

It was my first meeting with the new Popeelected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagueswho were staying there. 

As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the redtrimmedcassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tonesomewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: "The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am goingto China."

At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part hehad played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at VillanovaUniversity and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the factthat he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had beenable to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaningof the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me inthe days immediately following.

The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read andpartly delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, Iremember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, "I am the Nuncioto the United States."

 He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: "TheBishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!" Of course I was not ina position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had 

7
upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O†Malley had sent me for the Pope afew days earlier, telling me "so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World YouthDay." I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting andembarrassing situation.

At the end of the audience the Pope announced: "Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday areinvited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae." I naturally thought of staying on toclarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me.

On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the personin charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive mesometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarified whatthe Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present,Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: "The Pope told me to ask ifyou are free now!" Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope†s disposal and that I thanked him forreceiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: "We have 40minutes before the Angelus."

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressedto me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almostaffectionate tone, said to me: "Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they mustnot be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of theArchbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing â€" and he added, raising both armsâ€" and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual." Of course, the logic of the correlation between beingleft-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: "What is Cardinal McCarrick like?" Ianswered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naivete: "Holy Father, I don†t know ifyou know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thickabout him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him towithdraw to a life of prayer and penance." 

The Pope did not make the slightest comment about thosevery grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had alreadyknown the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope†spurpose in asking me that question: "What is Cardinal McCarrick like?" He clearly wanted to find out ifI was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only afew days after my meeting with Pope Francis.
When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume,while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. 

When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside,told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: "the Bishops in the United Statesmust not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds...." I was astounded! Itwas therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. 

Also the Pope†s mention "not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia" could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreementbetween the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In hiscommunication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger whoprohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levadaand Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made byPope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.  

8Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only afew months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one forme, this time concerning a second of his proteges, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: "What isCardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?" I replied, "Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad,but I will tell you two facts." They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl†spastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by theArchdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Onceagain the Pope did not show any reaction.
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 CardinalRodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the UnitedStates, 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 Burkewith Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. 
With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. Inaddition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari â€" the great friend of his privateArgentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio â€" as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops andSecretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of thatdepartment to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position!The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W.
 Tobin to Newark were orchestrated byMcCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least ofcoverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature forChicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which hedenies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed againstyoung adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as arepresentative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop towalk on water. 

Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground andnot try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interviewwith America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of theCommittee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problemin the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way ofdiverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. 

In support of this thesis, Cupich "oddly" made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis inthe early 2000s, while he "candidly" ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied bythe subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, whichconcluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. 

In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J.,Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, andMember of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper LaStampa that "in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse."

The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encryptedperemptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: "Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy."McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick†s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by RichardSipe on July 28, 2016. 

9These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing ofthe Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern toPaul VI and subsequent pontiffs. 
We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was electedfour times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father VincentO†Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O†Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriouslycompromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. 

It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in thatinauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth,closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.

Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin,Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activistwho promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin forthe World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Societyof Jesus.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops andfaithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in anexemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed byMcCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.

In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. Hedid not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him histrusted counselor along with Maradiaga.

The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope†s protection that he can dismiss as "gossip" theheartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of themtried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.

By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga†s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie tothe bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Churchproperty, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador ofHonduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.

In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan Jose Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian]weekly L†Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: "It was my auxiliarybishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to â€~clear†his name after being subjected to muchslander." Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation hassimply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishopAlcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public.Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected withHonduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at theTegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I received worrisome informationabout him. 

10In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man,Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la CruzBarros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. Firsthe insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chileanvictims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed,causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean CardinalsErrazuriz and Ezzati.

Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis†s behavior was no different. He knew from at leastJune 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, hecovered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick†s advice his own, which was certainly notinspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report ofthe abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] tosave his image in the media.

Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recentlybeen joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered upMcCarrick†s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions,ambitions and power in the Church, should resign.

But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy:bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must berecovered in the clergy and in seminaries. 
Corruption in the misuse of the Church†s resources and of theofferings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must bedenounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professorof Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. 

"The problem ofclergy abuse," she wrote, "cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less soby bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which mustbe eradicated." These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries,religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles,and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence thatis so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civilauthorities.

Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance: Do not be afraid!Do not be afraid!

In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father†s plan ofsalvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ†s death and resurrection, but itneeds to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on God†s part andunfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of theNew Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote:the Church is "immaculata ex maculatis," she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey,she is made up of men stained with sin.

I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church†s holiness to the many people who have been sodeeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington,Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by theconspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so 

11many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: "Everyoneis guilty for the good he could have done and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it.We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evilwith good are lacking." If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for everybeliever, how much graver is it for the Church†s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not onlydid not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. Hefollowed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with hissupreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis stillcontinuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by hisaction he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart thesheep of Christ†s flock.

In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, inkeeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a goodexample for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick†s abuses and resign along with all ofthem.

Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well knowthat the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and dedication.It is in moments of great trial that the Lord†s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitlessmercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose toamend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to dopenance.

Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked usto pray for him!

Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolicChurch!"

Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives herwith His Spirit!

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!Rome, August 22, 2018

Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Official translation by Diane Montagna

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online