Monday, October 8, 2018

THE OIL OF OUELLETT? WAS HIS DIATRIBE ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF VIGANO BUT BT STEALTH?

We are in Schism. What’s Worse … This is a “Stealth Schism.”

WE ARE IN SCHISM. WHAT’S WORSE … THIS IS A “STEALTH SCHISM.”

This comment by MaryH at Fr. Z's blog is exactly what I thought when I read Cardinal Ouellett 's diatribe. What do you think?

Well, if you ignore all the opinion and exhortations, Cardinal Ouellet has confirmed Viganò’s testimony.
McCarrick was under direction from Pope Benedict not to travel and to stay out of the public eye because to avoid further rumors about him caused by his behavior in the past. We already know that these were not canonical sanctions. Ouellet’s written testimony confirms that there were indeed “noncanonical sanctions” or directions or whatever against McCarrick, and that it was because of rumors caused by McCarrick’s *behavior* in the past.
Frankly, that is a very useful corroboration of Vigano, since the “unofficial” nature of the sanctions means there can be no “official”, signed documents about them.
Next, Ouellet confirms that Vigano could very well have told Pope Francis about McCarrick. It is only Ouellet’s opinion that the Pope probably didn’t remember it because of all the information he was receiving, and because McCarrick was not important enough.
Next, he admits that there WAS evidence against McCarrick, because he says Vigano should have provided more recent and decisive evidence. Apparently, the old, less decisive evidence was enough for Pope Emeritous Benedict to put him under “unofficial sanctions”, but not enough for Pope Francis to maintain them. This begs the question of what it means to say there was not sufficient evidence of McCarrick’s guilt before this year.
I wonder whether the purpose of the diatribe is to confirm Viganò’s testimony without attracting the retribution of Pope Francis.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jack here...

No, that was not my first reaction to the read; mine was more point-by-point analysis, with an overall reaction that I posted yesterday.
I particularly meshed with Fr. Z’s points to the following:

Ouellette: “Reading how you end your last, seemingly very spiritual message, making light of yourself and casting doubt on his faith, seemed to me really too sarcastic, even blasphemous! This cannot come from the Spirit of God.”

Fr. Z: “Blasphemy? I suggest that blasphemy is really about detraction against God, not against any human being, no matter what his role.”
...and this....
“With due respect to the Cardinal, this is a little over the top, especially in a time when everyone is supposed to respect everyone else’s conscience.]”

Anonymous said...

Jack here...

Sorry, spelling error: I should have said “Marc Cardinal Ouellet”

Mark Thomas said...

Archbishop Viganò claimed that formal, strict, canonical sanctions had been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick — canonical sanctions lifted supposedly by Pope Francis.

Archbishop Viganò claim in question is false.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

MT.. might be more accurate to say that Vigano's claims have been denied. Outside of the 'insiders' may never know.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, you said yesterday: "I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE HOLY FATHER, POPE FRANCIS, IS SPEAKING THROUGH CARDINAL OUELLET."

Father, today you characterized Cardinal Ouellette's "diatribe" as supportive of Archbishop Vigano.

Father, do you mean that Pope Francis, speaking supposedly through Cardinal Ouellett, supports Archbishop Vigano's false claims against His Holiness.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."This comment by MaryH at Fr. Z's blog is exactly what I thought when I read Cardinal Ouellette 's diatribe. What do you think?"

MaryH, (posted to Father Zuhlsdorf's blog) said..."Well, if you ignore all the opinion and exhortations, Cardinal Ouellet has confirmed Viganò’s testimony. McCarrick was under direction from Pope Benedict not to travel and to stay out of the public eye because to avoid further rumors about him caused by his behavior in the past.

"We already know that these were not canonical sanctions."

=====================================================================================

MaryH's comment is flawed deeply as she said that "we already know that these were not canonical sanctions."

Archbishop Vigano declared that the sanctions in question were canonical.

However, Archbishop Vigano's declaration, that the sanctions were canonical, is 100 percent false.

It was reported widely, from Archbishop Vigano's own testimony, that the sanctions were canonical.

Example:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction

Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies (OFFICIAL TEXT)

ROME, August 25, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — What you are about to read is an explosive testimony of the former apostolic nuncio to the United States, implicating Pope Francis and several senior prelates in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s alleged sexual abuse of seminarians and priests.

In an extraordinary 11-page written statement (see official English text below), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77, claims that Pope Francis knew about

********strict canonical sanctions********

imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them."

======================================================================================

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

MT- why not BOTH? That is, PF using Card. Ouellette in order to discredit Vigano, while not being intelligent enough to realize that the 'diatribe' actually lends support to Vigano's claims.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."MT.. might be more accurate to say that Vigano's claims have been denied. Outside of the 'insiders' may never know."

Archbishop Viganò testified originally that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed strict

*******canonical*******

sanctions upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Reporters such as Edward Pentin, and Cindy Wooden, then learned that the sanctions were not canonical.

When Archbishop Viganò's false claim in question had collapsed, he changed his story in regard to the supposed "sanctions." Archbishop Viganò then claimed that the sanctions were "private."

============================================================================

Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were 'private'

By Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service

September 1, 2018

ROME (CNS) -- Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former nuncio to the United States who called on Pope Francis to resign for allegedly lifting sanctions placed on Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, now says those "sanctions" were "private" and neither he nor now-retired Pope Benedict XVI ever was able to enforce them.

======================================================================================

It is an absolute fact that Archbishop Viganò testified falsely against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Cardinal Oulett's unsworn statement confirms, yet again, more of Archbishop Vigano's sworn statements.

1. Oulett acknowledges that there were sanctions imposed against McCarrick by Pope Benedict. Those sanctions were not followed by Pope Francis.

2. Oulett acknowledges that Vigano met with Pope Francis in June 2013, which is when the archbishop relates that he told the pope about McCarrick's outrageous behavior and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict.

Vigano's statements continue to be vindicated by Vatican officials themselves.

Dan said...

MT, as you know, Vigano says that the canonical sanctions were 'private' 'perhaps due to McCarrick already being retired and that Pope (Benedict) thought McCarrick would obey.'

For me, the whole thing stinks... there is likely no paper trail that will ever be revealed, but MT, this doesn't make them angels.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."there is likely no paper trail that will ever be revealed, but MT, this doesn't make them angels."

Dan, again, below is Archbishop Viganò's original testimony — utterly false testimony — in which he claimed falsely that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed official, canonical sanctions upon then-Cardinal Mccarrick.

The folks at LifeSiteNews, who cooperated with Archbishop Viganò to defame the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, reported the following (their emphasis) "OFFICIAL TEXT", which featured Archbishop Viganò's false claim about canonical sanctions:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction

Archbishop Viganò, in his official testimony, declared that "what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick..."

******* "...canonical sanctions..." *******

1. It is undeniable that Archbishop Viganò's claim in question is 100 percent false.

2. It is undeniable that when his false claim about official, canonical sanctions had collapsed, Archbishop Viganò then changed his story about the sanctions.

3. When his claim about canonical sanctions was exposed as false, Archbishop Viganò then changed his story to...the sanctions were "private," rather then canonical.

Again...

Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were 'private'

By Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service

September 1, 2018

ROME (CNS) -- Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former nuncio to the United States who called on Pope Francis to resign for allegedly lifting sanctions placed on Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, now says those "sanctions" were "private"...

====================================================================================

Undeniable fact: Archbishop Viganò had testified falsely against His Holiness Pope Francis.

Archbishop Viganò needs to get his story (stories) straight.

He needs to apologize for his having testified falsely against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

MT. Why do you obsess over the real and perceived inconsistencies in the statements of everyone except Francis? It’s almost like you expect everyone to be infallible except the only persron alive with that charism (when speaking on faith or morals)?

When Francis says something good, then the rest of his confusing words are irrelevant. But everyone else must answer for every jot, tittle and comma (including whether they skipped the Oxford comma as i just did).

Dan said...

MT, your blind worship disgusts me.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."MT. Why do you obsess over the real and perceived inconsistencies in the statements of everyone except Francis?"

In regard to this thread, the only thing about which I'm "obsessed" is Archbishop Viganò's undeniably false testimony against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Archbishop Viganò declared that canonical sanctions (lifted supposedly by Pope Francis, which proved false) had been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.

In particular, haters of His Holiness Pope Francis then pounced upon Archbishop Viganò's false testimony in question to spew venom at the Vicar of Christ.

When his false claim was exposed, Archbishop Viganò then changed his story...the "sanctions" were "private"...and never enforced by Pope Benedict XVI.

However, all the venom was spewed at an innocent man — Pope Francis.

Archbishop Viganò's "testimony" against Pope Francis, as well as additional Churchmen, has collapsed.

Those who had thrown in with Archbishop Viganò against Pope Francis, as well as additional Churchmen, defamed innocent men.

Anonymous, are you bothered by Archbishop Viganò's false testimony in question?

Perhaps you should "obsess" over Archbishop Viganò's lies and rebellion against Holy Mother Church and Her Pope.

We need to pray for Archbishop Viganò, as well as those who employed his lies to defame Pope Francis (as well as additional Churchmen).

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."MT, your blind worship disgusts me."

Okay, Dan.

Dan, has Archbishop Viganò's false testimony against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, as well as additional Churchmen, "disgusted" you?

Anyway, we need to pray for Archbishop Viganò. He needs to acknowledge that he testified falsely. He needs to end his rebellion against Holy Mother Church and Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, you are correct. Vigano has been shown to be untruthful. Vigano, after being challenged, changed his "testimony" regarding the nature of the sanctions.

Pope Benedict, not Pope Francis, failed to follow up on and enforce his own decisions regarding McCarrick. Benedict, not Francis, should be the target of Vigano's wrath.

But your words will fall on deaf ears since they do not match up with the anti-Pope Francis sentiments of many in the audience here.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Pope Benedict, not Pope Francis, failed to follow up on and enforce his own decisions regarding McCarrick. Benedict, not Francis, should be the target of Vigano's wrath."

Anonymous, it is amazing as to how those who've attack Pope Francis have given Pope Benedict XVI a pass in regard to the Archbishop Viganò affair.

I will say the following in regard to Father McDonald:

As everybody spewed venom at Pope Francis, Father McDonald said...wait a minute. Pope Benedict is every bit to blame as is Pope Francis.

That said, I don't wish to attack either Pope.

What I know:

-- Archbishop Viganò lied about the "sanctions" having been "canonical."

-- Archbishop Viganò concelebrated Mass with "sanctioned" then-Cardinal McCarrick.

-- Archbishop Viganò honored then-Cardinal McCarrick at a gala.

He said of then-Cardinal, and "sanctioned" McCarrick:

“Distinguished guests, bishops here present, and guests being honored this evening as “Pontifical Ambassadors for Missions”, which is a nice title.

"First of all, His Eminence Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - “he is an ambassador” for quite some time already, as a priest, a bishop, as archbishop and cardinal and very much loved from us all…”.

===============================================================================

Archbishop Viganò's public words and actions had given us reason to believe that then-"sanctioned"-Cardinal McCarrick was in good standing with the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.

Good luck to those who've thrown in with Archbishop Viganò.

"V is for Viganò."

V is also for Veracity.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

MT... nah you won't attack the pope, or even consider the fact that a pope might be surrounded by people who would be willing to "pull a Kavanaugh" on anyone who might threaten the status quo, but you sure are willing to attack a man who has given his life to the Church and who was in a position to know things that would surprise all of us. Him, you would attack, and call a liar, discounting any possibility that he is following his conscience, and knows something terrible about this papacy.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan, do you deny that Archbishop Viganò lied when he claimed that Pope Benedict XVI placed canonical sanctions upon then-Cardinal McCarrick?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

MT, yes I do. I do not believe it was an intentional misrepresentation.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."MT, yes I do. I do not believe it was an intentional misrepresentation."

Dan, I feel sorry for you. You know that you're trapped. That is, you have pushed all your chips to the center of the table in support of the lies that Archbishop Viganò concocted to defame Pope Francis.

You are in so deep — you despise Pope Francis so deeply — that you refuse to acknowledge reality.

Archbishop Viganò's false testimony in regard to canonical sanctions was exposed as a lie. He then changed his story...suddenly, the "canonical" sanctions transformed into a "private" exhortation to then-Cardinal McCarrick.

In his original false testimony, Archbishop Viganò provided detailed information to "prove" that the sanctions were canonical.

Archbishop Viganò had gone so far as to have claimed the following:

=======================================================================================

"In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above *******canonical sanctions******* on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi."

========================================================================================

Archbishop Viganò claimed that Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio had summoned then-Cardinal McCarrick to inform him (McCarrick) as to the (non-existent) *******"canonical"******* sanctions in question.

However, when his detailed, elaborate story about canonical sanctions was exposed as a lie, Archbishop Viganò changed his story suddenly.

========================================================================================

Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were 'private'

By Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service

September 1, 2018

ROME (CNS) -- Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former nuncio to the United States who called on Pope Francis to resign for allegedly lifting sanctions placed on Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, now says those "sanctions" were "private"...

====================================================================================

Dan, you are in monumental denial.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you in regard to the undeniable lie that Archbishop Viganò promoted.

Take care, Dan.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

In my ethical considerations, one must be both aware of the truth AND purposefully conceal the truth, in order for a lie to occur. I do not think that this happened in this case.

Anonymous said...

"In my ethical considerations, one must be both aware of the truth AND purposefully conceal the truth, in order for a lie to occur. I do not think that this happened in this case."

If Vigano was not "aware of the truth" - that is, if he was guessing or unsure or acting on rumors - he should not have opened his mouth to make serious charges.

If he was not "aware of the truth" he is guilty of passing on rumors or gossip which he knew would be harmful. This is the sin of calumny. It is also a violation of Church law, "Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy."