Sunday, August 26, 2018

CARDINAL CUPICH RESPONDS

My only comment in red below:

Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich in Response to the “Testimony” of Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States Carlo Maria Viganò

August 26, 2018

The former nuncio makes a number of references to me in his “testimony.” The first is in the sentence: “This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal.”
The former nuncio is confused about the sequence of these events. In fact, I was appointed to the Congregation for Bishops on July 7, 2016, and was named a cardinal on October 9, 2016.

The second reference to me is in the sentence: “The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.”

I consider these remarks astonishing. The only substantial conversation I have ever had about my appointment to Chicago with the former nuncio was on September 11, 2014, when he called to inform me of the appointment. The former nuncio started the conversation by saying: “I call with news of great joy. The Holy Father has appointed you the archbishop of Chicago.” He then congratulated me upon hearing of my acceptance. 

That is the extent of any conversation I have ever had about this matter with the former nuncio. Moreover, the former nuncio personally participated in my installation ceremony in Chicago in November 2014 and personally presided at the imposition of the pallium the following summer, and on both occasions offered only supportive remarks and congratulations. As to the issue of my appointment to Chicago as well as the question of episcopal appointments in general, I do not know who recommended me for the Archdiocese of Chicago, but I do know that Pope Francis, like his predecessors, takes seriously the appointment of bishops as one of his major responsibilities. Pope Francis has made it clear that he wants pastoral bishops, and I work each day to live up to that expectation in collaboration with many fine lay and religious women and men, my brother priests and brother bishops. I am proud to serve the church in Chicago and I am grateful for the help I receive.

The third and fourth references to me deal with my statements on the causes of clerical sexual abuse as it relates to homosexuality. Any reference I have ever made on this subject has always been based on the conclusions of the “Causes and Context” study by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, released in 2011, which states: “The clinical data do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity or those who committed same-sex sexual behavior with adults are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than those with a heterosexual orientation or behavior.” John Jay researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing many studies on the topic. Their scholarly work is not to be dismissed out of hand. (The study is true for the general population. But we are not speaking of the general population, but a subset in the Catholic priesthood where the abuse of minors and an active homosexual cabal is primarily homosexual, not just clericalism but active homosexuality compounded by the priestly status that affords trust to the active, preying homosexual. Cardinal Cupich conveniently omits this fact.)

As for the rest of the “testimony,” a thorough vetting of the former nuncio’s many claims is required before any assessment of their credibility can be made.

9 comments:

Rood Screen said...

The JJCCJ "Causes and Contexts" report concluded that the reason most victims were boys was only because altar servers were all boys (back then). The researchers inexplicably believed priests are either saying Mass all day long, or are never around any children other than altar boys.

It's like a researcher saying the 9/11 victims were mostly Americans for no other reason than because Americans just happened to be in the buildings at that time.

Anonymous said...


Cardinal Cupich

"Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal.” The former nuncio is confused about the sequence of these events. In fact, I was appointed to the Congregation for Bishops on July 7, 2016, and was named a cardinal on October 9, 2016."

-Ok, it was not * immediately* but come on, not that much time had elapsed.


Cardinal Cupich:

"I consider these remarks (that his appointment was orchestrated by Card. McCarrick) astonishing. The only substantial conversation I have ever had about my appointment to Chicago with the former nuncio was on September 11, 2014, when he called to inform me of the appointment. The former nuncio started the conversation by saying: “I call with news of great joy. The Holy Father has appointed you the archbishop of Chicago.” He then congratulated me upon hearing of my acceptance".

"the former nuncio personally participated in my installation ceremony in Chicago in November 2014 and personally presided at the imposition of the pallium the following summer, and on both occasions offered only supportive remarks and congratulations."

-What else would you expect a nuncio to do? Risk incurring the displeasure of Pope Francis by treating you uncharitably?

Cardinal Cupich:

"The third and fourth references to me deal with my statements on the causes of clerical sexual abuse as it relates to homosexuality. Any reference I have ever made on this subject has always been based on the conclusions of the “Causes and Context” study by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, released in 2011, which states: “The clinical data do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity or those who committed same-sex sexual behavior with adults are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than those with a heterosexual orientation or behavior.”

-The Pennsylvania Grand Jury report indicates something entirely different. The authors of the John Jay study were quite possibly protecting themselve from the wrath of the homosexual lobby.

Robert Kumpel said...

I believe Archbishop Vigano.

Michael A said...

Now the statement, “who am I to judge” makes much more sense. Liberals can point to it as an exculpatory statement given by Francis and argue that he’s already addressed any claims of what he knew and when he knew it. He’s simply ignorant about homo-pedophilia and promoted corrupt liberal buddies with tons of skeletons in their closets because it’s much more important to respect their body of liberal work than to cast aspersions on them because of some quirky sexual appetites they might have.

Pope Francis has never been able to move beyond being a liberal South American bishop where he was able to get away with sloppy theological arguments and protecting those who agree with him and making life uncomfortable for those rascals wearing their black robes. As pope it’s not as easy to say foolish things and play fast and loose with the facts.

rcg said...

My questions concern the assumption, or at least the appearance, that the bishops were either helpless or disinterested. What were they doing in an attempt to address the situation besides or in addition to relocation of the offending priests? Did they assess and share information on its effectiveness? Why would they need a ‘study’ such as this to define anything? What sort of person is approved to molest children of (In those days) either gender? I believe the homosexual activists are at the heart of this as leaders for a collection of deviant and paralyzed leadership, but really, why do we care what the name is when it is a significant part of the problem in any case?

Anonymous said...

I think it's the beginning of the end for Cupich, Wuerl and others involved in this major cover-up and promotion of homosexuality in the Church. Certainly the comments of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland calling for an investigation of Abp Vigano's statement signify the opening of a large split.

Jan

Robert said...

I am with Archbishop Vigano as well.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at August 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM said, "I think it's the beginning of the end for Cupich, Wuerl and others involved in this major cover-up and promotion of homosexuality in the Church."

I don't know. They are very powerful and influential. They have operated with impunity for a long time, and mostly it's business as usual. It's like a corporate culture that has become corrupt because of the corrupt leadership - after a while rooting it out becomes very difficult, because the players (not just the high positions, but all throughout the organization) have a lot to lose if they are ousted. In the business world, often you will see a company go out of business before the leadership would choose to change.

So the guilty will do everything to muddy the waters, counter the claims by Bishop Vigano, (as we have seen in the swift response by Cupich) and destroy Vigano and others like him before they will allow themselves to be brought to account and lose their positions.

Remember, the world has no dog in this fight, except maybe molestation of children and sexual harassment. What do they care about the inner struggles of the Church? The issue is sexual sin, and homosexual sexual sin at that, which the world does not believe is wrong. So the Pope's comment of "reporters should do their job" is a dodge and a clever ploy...it is telling us we should rely on the worldly to investigate!!

God's will be done.

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

Makes me wonder when it comes to appointments. When the nuncio says the pope wants ABC to be bishop of XYZ, how does the pope really know that ABC is the best candidate for the position? Does he study the diocese (like statistics on baptisms, weddings, converts and the like)? Does he interview the candidates? If he does not, then who does? Or is it basically a "who knows who, bureaucratic" process? I am beginning to think it is the latter, like deciding if John Doe gets to join the country club.