PRESS TITLE FOR FULL, LONG ARTICLE FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:
‘It Will Cause a Scandal.’ The Pope and a Trusted U.S. Cardinal Clash Over Sex-Abuse Crisis
The once-warm relationship between Pope Francis and Cardinal O’Malley has become strained over the Vatican’s stance on sex abuse
These are excerpts:
VATICAN CITY—Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, chief adviser to Pope Francis on protecting children from sexual abuse, called a meeting with top papal aides in 2017, concerned the Vatican wasn’t living up to its promise of “zero tolerance.”
An appeals panel set up by the pope had reduced the punishments of a number of Catholic priests found guilty of abusing minors. In some cases, the panel canceled their dismissal from the priesthood and gave them short suspensions instead.
“If this gets out, it will cause a scandal,” Cardinal O’Malley told Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, in effect the pope’s prime minister, and other Vatican officials, according to a person present. No action was taken to address the issue.
-------
Today, interactions between the pope and the cardinal, previously friendly and spontaneous, have become noticeably formal and terse, says a person who has observed them together.
The Boston cardinal’s influence has declined to the point where, in November, the pope excluded him from the organizing committee of next week’s summit, which had been Cardinal O’Malley’s idea.
----------------
Cardinal O’Malley used his role in the new pontificate to push for stronger Vatican leadership on sex abuse. He persuaded the pope to create an advisory panel on child protection, led by himself, tasked with proposing changes to church policies and procedures.
In 2015, the panel recommended a special tribunal to try bishops who ignore or cover up abuse. At a Council of Cardinals meeting, Cardinal O’Malley won the pope’s agreement. The following year, the pope changed his mind.
Peter Saunders, a former abuse victim on the panel, asked Cardinal O’Malley what had happened to the tribunal plan. The visibly frustrated cardinal shrugged, rolled his eyes, and said: “I really don’t know the answer. I wish I did,” according to Mr. Saunders.
------------
On a trip to Chile in January 2018, the pope defended a local bishop accused of covering up sex abuse. The victims’ persistent allegations, he said, were “calumny” without proof.
ardinal O’Malley issued a public statement criticizing the pope—an unusual action for any cardinal to take, let alone one so close to the pope. “It is understandable that Pope Francis’s statements yesterday…were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse,” he said. “Words that convey the message ‘if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed’ abandon those who have suffered…to discreditable exile.”
The cardinal mitigated the chastisement by adding that Pope Francis was committed to zero tolerance of sex abuse. The pope, talking to reporters, seized on that part of the cardinal’s statement and thanked him for it.
The pope also repeated his view that allegations without evidence are “calumny,” and said the victims had never approached him.
The Associated Press soon reported that Cardinal O’Malley had handed the pope a detailed letter from a Chilean victim telling his story in 2015.
Pope Francis’ troubles grew last summer when a former Vatican diplomat accused him of ignoring earlier reports of sexual misconduct with adults by retired Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of Washington. The pope declined to respond to the allegations at news conferences last year.
16 comments:
I'm not so sure I see this as a bombshell so much as it is additional evidence to add to PF's growing and unfortunate dossier of missteps, sidesteps and questionable decisions.
MT - You certainly have your work cut out for you to defend this.
Perhaps you are right and that there are those the Holy Father surrounds himself with, that he listen to when he should not. I think those around him are into power plays and influencing him and Spadaro may be the biggest culprit and maybe the secretary of state. But who knows.
ByzRC,
MT will not be deterred, he will shower us with non sequiturs while attacking the right, aka Faithful Catholics. He still won't tell me what his hero did about the cocaine fueled gay sex orgies at the Vatican involving clerics.
The sex abuse problem is just one issue. There is also that pesky issue of the new and improved doctrine that can be interpreted in new and creative ways.
Finally, don't kid yourselves, Francis surrounds himself with people that thinks like he does. He marginalizes, denotes, ignores the others. Burke. Mueller anyone?
I had wondered about the specifics of the breakdown with Cdl. O’Malley. Thanks for the update.
I read this today in the Wall Street Journal online. This is significant. HFPF is alienating everyone. I thought about it and then recalled that this pattern has followed him his entire life as a Priest. He has a history of "going it alone". He was exiled, to a great extent, by his Jesuit Community in Argentina because I suspect, he was very polarizing. He has a unique way of projecting this angelic exterior demeanor while internally he is tearing people apart. This story is just another confirmation of all this in my mind.
To be fair, the article cites some legitimate issues being raised by the Vatican bureaucrats, that aren't aired out nearly often enough: the problem of possibly defaming priests when accusations are aired out publicly; and the broader issue of due process.
That said, it is intensely frustrating that the Vatican continues to stonewall. If the pope and his advisers have legitimate reasons for the stonewall, then TELL US. The way they are doing it now is intensely "clerical." We peons are not deemed to deserve explanation.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/europe/vatican-book-analysis/index.html
One of the more restrained stories about the new book due out next week.
The article based the supposed Pope Francis/Cardinal O'Malley rift upon the following:
"Today, interactions between the pope and the cardinal, previously friendly and spontaneous, have become noticeably formal and terse, says a person who has observed them together."
Wow! That must be true. A person who observed Pope Francis and Cardinal O'Malley together...wow!
That makes the claim in question unassailable. :-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Here are reason cited by the news article to demonstrate as to why Pope Francis/Rome is the bad guy, and Cardinal O'Malley is the good guy:
-- "When Cardinal O'Malley called for the worldwide adoption of US practice of publishing the names of accused priests, other Vatican officials condemned the practice privately as slander."
How many priests...how many Catholics overall...would agree with Cardinal O'Malley's above proposal?
Any priest accused...just accused...of being a sexual deviant would have his name dragged publicly through the mud. But Pope Francis/Rome is the bad guy for wishing to protect priests from defamation.
Okay. Sure.
==============================================================================
-- Last November in Baltimore, Rome informed the U.S. bishops to delay a vote on corrective measures until February 2019 A.D. — a vote in regard to the sexual abuse "crisis."
Pope Francis/Rome bad guys...Cardinal O'Malley/U.S. bishops good guys.
Well...Father McDonald's blog featured the following November 2018 A.D. interview with Cardinal Müller as to why "bad guy" Pope Francis/Rome was 100 percent correct in having halted the bishops' plan in question:
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2018/11/bombshell-interview-with-cardinal.html
LifeSite: "The U.S. bishops have just ended their fall assembly in Baltimore, where they were not permitted to vote on national guidelines concerning episcopal involvement in sexual abuse cases (either by commission or by omission or cover-up), because the Vatican told them not to do so."
Cardinal Gerhard Müller: "One has to make a strict distinction between the sexual crimes and their investigation by secular justice – in the eyes of which all citizens are equal (thus a separate lex [law] for the Catholic Church would constitute a contradiction to the modern, democratic state of law) – and those canonical procedures for clergymen in which the ecclesial authority determines the penalties for any misconduct that diametrically contradicts the priestly ethos.
"We need to keep a clear mind in the middle of the situation of crisis in the U.S.
"We will not succeed with the help of a lynch law and a general suspicion against the whole episcopacy or of “Rome.”
"I do not see it as a solution that the laymen now take control, just because the bishops (as some believe) are not capable of doing so with their own strength.
"We cannot overcome shortcomings by turning upside down the hierarchical-sacramental constitution of the Church."
=================================
How dare Pope Francis/Rome have defended the Church and Her priests against an unfair plan backed by certain bishops during last November's Baltimore gathering.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, you have a point about the potential misuse of tbe notification plan. But Pope Francis’ resistance to it does not advance his cause. The problem is that he has become an obstacle to progress on this matter rather than a bridge to success. It isn’t reasonable to expect the Holy Father to know what to do about it but it is reasonable to expect him to consult people who would know. Unfortunately he seems to rely on the people that have precipitated this mess for his advice.
rcg,
Notice how MT ( a left-winger, left-winger, left-winger) avoids the topic of a scandal within the walls of the Vatican: cocaine fueled gay sex orgy by clerics which PF has done nothing about. Until he answers that, I would not take him seriously.
Mark Thomas:
We've all been waiting for the Holy Father to keep his promise about giving a full account of the McCarrick affair. Waiting and waiting and waiting.
Tell me: when will the delay -- in your mind -- be too long? (Assuming you don't think it is already too long, as I do.)
I say they are stonewalling. What's your explanation?
Notice Francis has just appointed Cardinal Farrell (McCarrick buddy) to a Vatican post. Personally I believe these positions are being given by Francis to claim "diplomatic immunity" in case the law gets too close.
It just happened with Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta.
Father Fox,
You are a patient and kind man. MT will never answer anything that puts his golden calf into a bad light. I have been asking him for months about what PF did about the gay sex orgies at the Vatican. Crickets.
Sadly, PF is proving to be an unmitigated disaster for the Church.
Father Fox,
Notice how MT has not responded? This is his modus operandi, drop a ton of non sequiturs, and when asked to explain or defend, goes into hibernation. But he will be back at some point with more "bon mots" slobbering over his golden calf which rarely have anything to do with the question at hand.
Post a Comment