Tuesday, May 28, 2019


I personally know Father  Anthony Figueiredo as he was the head of the North American College's sabbatical program. Because of a number of factors in his own personal life, I truly believe, like Archbishop Vigano, the Holy Spirit is directing these men to come clean and help the Church Militant purify the Church of this post-Vatican II age of corruption. And purification will happen by the power of the Holy Spirit has we approach the celebration of Pentecost.

Press title for complete 10 page manifesto:

Report on Key Findings in Correspondence Concerning Theodore E. McCarrick1Follow the Path of Truth Wherever it May Lead 

 A brief excerpt from Fr. Anthony Figueiredo's  10 page manifesto:

May 28, 2019 The former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick ordained me to the priesthood 25 years ago today. I served as his personal secretary in the Archdiocese of Newark (September 1994 June 1995) and also assisted him in a secretarial capacity during his many visits to Rome in my 19 years of ministry there.  

After long consideration, I have made the decision to place in the public domain some of the correspondence and other information related to McCarrick that I possess in my many years of service to him. I have spent time in prayer and discernment about the moral basis for revealing these.  

My decision follows attempts since September 2018 to share and discuss these with the Holy See and other Church leaders.Realizing full well that the debate about McCarrick has become highly politicized, I wish only to present facts that will help the Church to know the truth. From the outset of this report, I pledge my unswerving affection, loyalty and support for Pope Francis and his Magisterium in his tireless ministry as the Successor of Peter, as I manifested also to Pope Benedict XVI, grateful for their paternal solicitude and efforts to address the scourge of abuse.  

Indeed, my actions in releasing this report at this time are encouraged by the Holy Father’s motu proprio Vos EstisLux Mundi(“You are the light of the world

 A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.”Mt 5:14),based on the overriding principle that it is imperative to place in the public domain,at the right time and prudently,information that has yet to come to light and impacts directly on allegations of criminal activity, the restrictions imposed on my now laicized former Archbishop,and w


Mark Thomas said...

The fact that "informal" restrictions had been placed upon Cardinal McCarrick isn't a new thing.

We knew thatlast year.

The Crux article said, "... it appears that senior Church officials, including the Vatican’s Secretary of State under Pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope’s ambassador in the U.S.,

"***were aware of the informal restrictions,"***

"and whatever their response may have been as McCarrick resumed his activities, it did not prevent him from doing so."

Again, the existence of "informal restrictions" against McCarrick was known last year.

Cardinal Ouellet, via his 2018 A.D. Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò, declared:

"The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him.

"It is false, therefore, to present those measures as “sanctions” formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis.

"After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties."

Again, Cardinal Ouellet acknowledged last year that McCarrick had been subjected to "informal" restrictions — "restrictions" that McCarrick had ignored.

Archbishop Viganò lied when he claimed that "canonical sanctions" have been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.


Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Archbishop Vigano has been vindicated yet again.

Luke 8:17: "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden that shall not be known and come abroad."

Dan said...

"After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor..."

Of course. One doesn't want to leave a paper trail after all. Or perhaps being careful of leaving evidence is merely a habit of "clericalism."

Doesn't really vindicate either Pope Benedict or Francis in my opinion.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."Doesn't really vindicate either Pope Benedict or Francis in my opinion."

Ahhh...Pope Benedict.

In union with certain vicious, right-wing, anti-Popes Francis media forces, Archbishop Viganò last year attempted to defame the Vicar of Christ.

Archbishop Viganò claimed that Pope Francis waved off strict "canonical sanctions" that had been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.

We know that the above claim is false.

But as Dan mentioned Pope Benedict XVI...

Father McDonald last year stood almost alone, as far as I have recalled, in having noted that if Archbishop Viganò "testimonies" were true, then Pope Benedict XVI was every bit at fault, if not at greater fault than Pope Francis, in regard to the McCarrick Saga.

1. Why did Pope Benedict XVI refuse to enforce the "restrictions" that had been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.

2. Did Pope Benedict XVI attempt to enforce said restrictions?

3. If he did, then he failed badly as then-Cardinal McCarrick waved off said restrictions.

If Archbishop Viganò's are truthful in regard to his claims about Cardinal McCarrick, then Pope Benedict XVI permitted a sexual predator (McCarrick) to roam the world disregard said restrictions.

Archbishop Viganò has made Pope Benedict XVI look bad, weak, and incompetent.

That is the real story in regard to Archbishop Viganò's "testimonies."

Pope Benedict XVI is real "villain"...if we are to believe various claims issued by Archbishop Viganò.


Mark Thomas

Dan said...

They're all villains these days....

rcg said...

Mark, you are dissembling. Pope Francis is my Pope and I love him, too. But goodness gracious it is disrespectful of this audience to occupy so much column space defending Pope Francis against accusations made elsewhere. It also slaps the eternally patient cheek of FRAJM to intentionally hijack his thread.

The document condemns McCarrack and mounds dirt on his place in history. Pope Benedict at least took the action and in the soft collegiality of the Vatican had expectations, naively, that McCarrack would prayerfully consider and eventually comply. So much for mean ole Ratzinger. Pope Francis seems to think arrogant stupidity is part of the discernment process. But he, at least, kicked the latch. As outdone as I sometimes get with the Holy Father I also can believe that he was fooled as much as anyone but that he was made vulnerable to the ruse by his own scheming.

Anonymous said...

"N.J. priest who advised Pope sent home after drunk-driving crash with pregnant woman. A priest from the Archdiocese of Newark who advised the Pope has been ordered back to the U.S. following his arrest in England for crashing into a pregnant woman's car while driving at the twice the legal limit for alcohol. Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo, 54, had worked closely with the Pope, advised cardinals and was a former spiritual adviser to student priests in Rome, according to the Daily Mail."

If the Holy Spirit is directing Msgr. Figueiredo, then maybe the Spirit should direct him away from alcohol.

Or maybe something else is directing him...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I witnessed his alcoholism first hand but also know the events you describe has helped him into recovery. Coming clean about what he knows is more than likely a part of his recovery. And God only knows how McCarrick might have contributed to his problems. I will cut him slack and will say he is an honest man despite his problems.

Victor said...

Mr Thomas:
I see you are desperately trying to make pope Benedict look worse than Francis. That will not do because the facts do not support it. It was Benedict who finally imposed restrictions on McCarrick. But here is what then happened:

"The correspondence also shows that despite the restrictions, McCarrick gradually resumed traveling and playing prominent diplomatic roles under both Popes Benedict XVI and, to a greater extent, Francis, including talks with China that may have helped shape a controversial 2018 deal between Rome and Beijing over the appointment of bishops." Crux, 28 May 2019

Note the phrase "to a greater extent."

Should Benedict have sent the Swiss guards to arrest McCarrick in USA at some point when the "gradually resumed travelling" became too much?

But with Francis, sins of below the belt simply require mercy, not punishment or restrictions. Allowing McCarrick input in this China deal under Francis just made the deal more perverse, because it will send more faithful Catholics to the lions, for everyone knows that China does not honour its agreements for very long with anyone outside of China.