Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s 11 pages of accusations against Pope Francis and other church leaders have weaponized the church’s sexual abuse crisis, shifting the focus from listening to survivors to Vatican intrigues. Yet these new accusations amount to more of the same problem the church already had: priests, bishops and popes who, when they learned of abuse, protected each other rather than the victims.
The recommendations we made when the McCarrick case was first revealed, in July, and after the Pennsylvania grand jury report was released, in August, still stand: The church must prioritize listening to survivors of abuse and seeking justice for them. Clear public mechanisms to report abuse and misconduct and to discipline bishops who fail in their duties must be established. The church must undertake a comprehensive, transparent accounting of its tragic failures over the past decades and conduct and cooperate with any necessary investigations.
To achieve true reform, Pope Francis must give this crisis his full focus. His letter to the church and his statements in Ireland are a start, but he must follow through and make them concrete. Francis’ refusal to respond to the Viganò accusations may be an attempt to stay above the fray rather than dignify a venomous ideological attack. Nonetheless, the pope’s refusal is an insufficient pastoral response for a church that is deeply wounded. The best way for Pope Francis to respond to the attempt to use the sexual abuse crisis as a weapon in the culture war is to be honest and humble himself, as he ultimately was in his response to abuse survivors in Chile, and to lead the church in caring for those who are hurting the most.
Amazing that Vigano;s accusations are taken as gospel instead of as accusations from a Bishop who may have an grudge against the Pope and is against the Pope's reforms in the Church. But yes the recommendations should be carried out any way.
Vigano's letter has legs because the Church has not identified the cause of the crisis, nor has it taken appropriate measures to remove all of the perpetrators.
The Church has focused on clericalism as the problem, pointing to the bishops and the cardinals of facilitating the crisis. But without enough heads rolling and more and more abuses coming to light, a better scapegoat is needed: homosexuality. And, indeed, getting rid of all of the homosexual priests would have great impact on the number of boys subject to molestation.
How long must we wait for leaders that can’t reform themselves? How much more filth do we need to wallow in while we wait — this not anymore about time and reflection, and discernment. This is the witnessing of an absolute definitive cowardice that is now imperiling the teaching authority of the Church itself. Step down, resign, renew ,let go of your power.
At the rate of atonement is asked for, why not give every accuser, even without "proof", billions of all the wealth the Church has and even it is to the demise of the Catholic Church, who cares? The accusers that can 'never' provide evidence of years ago events, must be satisfied by ALL means. Even though homosexuality might have been the main factor, let homosexuality win and the Church lose, who cares? This Pope does not understand Homosexuality in totality. Even when the Church is brought down by it, he will say "who am I to judge?" He seems clueless about it. Homosexuals are saying to his face, I will NOT stop sinning and will continue doing it, who are you to judge what I will continue to do. Is this a logical decision to accept? NO.
@Kenneth, Regarding the "Who am I to judge" comment, most media don't want to tell the full story. The pope had just been asked about Monsignor Ricca's scandalous conduct. It was in the context of answering that question that he made that famous statement.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html
Monsignor Ricca was a confidant of Francis who was head of the residence where Francis lived, had a supervisory role at the Vatican Bank for a while and had several scandalous affairs, including a live in boyfriend and getting caught in a lift with an underage rent boy in Uruguay (at least underage by US standards, the legal age of consent is 15 in Uruguay).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10191600/Popes-eyes-and-ears-in-Vatican-bank-had-string-of-homosexual-affairs.html
I think the pope understands perfectly well the homosexual nature of the crisis. Read Vigano's letter. He lists several prelates whom he accuses of living duplicitous lives, and notes that they all live in the same house as Francis. Of course, this shouldn't surprise us. After all, the man in charge of the house where Francis move as a show of "humility" instead of the papal apartments was notorious for his live-in-boyfriend when in Uruguay. He got beat up at a gay bar and was caught in a lift with a teenage rent-boy when it broke down (the age of consent in Uruguay is 15). After all that, Francis gave him a supervisory job at the Vatican Bank, and as Francis said of Ricca when asked by reporters, after Ricca went to confession and had allegedly repented of his sins, "who am I to judge." Apparently, this applies to McCarrick and convicted child molester Inzoli, too, even though nobody in their right mind would trust them after hearing of their habitual, long term sins.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/21/gay-scandal-pope-francis-judgment
MR. Chang,
I do not think that you understand homosexuality in totality. The cause of sexual abuse is abuse of power, not sexual orientation. Would the sexual abuse of girls by priests be caused by heterosexuality? The Church also needs to review its teaching on homosexuality as it did with slavery. The Church needs to embrace gay sacramental marriage.
As per the sexual abuse, the Church needs to establish an open inquest to expose the bishops and other Church leaders who had supervisory responsibility of priests who have covered up sexual abuse and defrock them. These men have obstructed the investigation of crimes and gave de facto permission for these priests to assault again.
Anthony - of course the abuse by a man of a girl would be heterosexual abuse. It is the most common abuse in the world, because only 2-5% are homosexual. However, among priests homosexual abuse is by far more common (40-80 times). While most priests with homosexual tendencies do not abuse minors, most abuse of minors is by priests with homosexual tendencies. The scientific data is clear. The deniers are in the same box with the enablers. Change the subject and put the blame on a lack of sex because of celibacy.
MR. Chang,
I do not think that you understand homosexuality in totality. The cause of sexual abuse is abuse of power, not sexual orientation. Would the sexual abuse of girls by priests be caused by heterosexuality? The Church also needs to review its teaching on homosexuality as it did with slavery. The Church needs to embrace gay sacramental marriage.
As per the sexual abuse, the Church needs to establish an open inquest to expose the bishops and other Church leaders who had supervisory responsibility of priests who have covered up sexual abuse and defrock them. These men have obstructed the investigation of crimes and gave de facto permission for these priests to assault again.
"The best way for Pope Francis to respond to the attempt to use the sexual abuse crisis as a weapon in the culture war..."
I guess this is how America dismisses accusations of cover-up by their friends and allies. It reminds me of Fr. Martin's article after the disclosure of McCarrick's crimes against children, calling him a "complicated" person who did much good, refusing to go into details such as the ages of the children he abused. Fr. Martin even admitted that he knew about McCarrick's abuse, but that he didn't turn him in to authorities or change how he interacted with McCarrick because he had heard the accusations second hand and not from the mouths of actual victims.
If the pope was innocent, he would have come forward and said so. His dimissive, condescending response, telling the reporters that researching it would be good for their maturity, was not one of openness and honesty.
The biggest question right now is whether Vigano copied documents before he left his position as nuncio. It's clear that Francis isn't going to willingly disclose anything. One would guess that it would take a grand jury such as in Pennsylvania to force the Church to turn over documents. I hope one is convened.
Archbishop Vigano's honesty and credibility were thought unquestionably reliable until this weekend, when folks didn't like what he reported. His allegations require answer and investigation - does Pope Francis not realize that absent a defense, he will be presumed guilty? Then he will live out his pontificate with absolutely no credibility and no moral authority, while Holy Mother Church hemorrhages faithful believers who will indeed leave Jesus because of Judas. At some point he must put the good of Christ's Church (not his, mind you) above himself.
Two words: Kim Davis. I'm sorry, but I never thought of Archbishop Vigano as honest and credible.
Kim Davis is a hero. She’s A true Christian and Jesus and John the Baptist are proud of her for speaking truth to perverted Herod-like modern power!
It's funny - sad, yet so predictable that it makes one laugh - that anti-gays within the Church are *such* the hot thing right now that their efforts to twist Church teachings into a 1) actual legitimate and 2) theologically correct! justification for placing a religious test on a secular, non-religious, and public act of the American government - a civil marriage - is greeted by others who are **excited** that their government will now follow one religion's precepts and impose religious tests on the rights it gives out. :(
Possibly those most unAmerican thing I've ever heard of, but those who hate queers more than they love their country are about to pee themselves they're so happy. Sigh.
"Leave Jesus because of Judas..."
To leave the RCC isn't to "leave Jesus."
The important question is, has the member ever become a member of the Body of Christ while in the RCC?
If so, they remain sealed in the Body.
"Francis’ refusal to respond to the Viganò accusations may be an attempt to stay above the fray rather than dignify a venomous ideological attack." Was this sentenced properly edited? If yes, the bias of America's editors is astounding (if not surprising). Hint: the sentence could have been rendered evenhanded with the insertion of "what he [Francis] sees as" after the word "dignify."
The word "may" balances it out; if this, then that; "this;" venomous ideological attack, then "that"; not dignifying it with speaking about it. " What he sees as", is superfluous, for the " if this" [if it is venomous ideological attack] that means it is a political agenda containing an ideological bias [ no one has to address anyone's implicit bias except to expose it as that]. Francis treated it as such ; a venomous ideological attack by telling the reporters to go read it themselves.
And the sentence merely reflects a possible situation that explains Francis 's "go read it yourself" deflection.
Like had the editors made the same kind of sentence ["may be an attempt"; i.e., if this, then that] addressing an incident where a non English speaking person's response when being asked if they are illegal had been go figure yourself! The sentence was evenhanded in addressing what may have been the reason why Francis answered as he did; a responder is not obligated to respond to satisfy a biased question. The editors sentence merely acknowledges this possible explanation for Francis deflection. Or then again was he pleading the Fifth. Did God grant Francis a fifth amendment right?[lol]just kidding.
Not sure why these writers are so quick to denounce Vigano. Why assume the worst? Francis is the guy who busted McCarrick down only one rank, to archbishop. McCarrick should not even be allowed to be a priest, much less an archbishop. So I don't accept AT ALL that Francis' hands are clean.
Bill, he is no longer ministering publically, and we should probably wait for due process to work it’s way out. Conviction in the court of public opinion Is not the only kind.
While I agree that we need to focus on the victims, that will not lead us to a different future. It is evident that the hierarchy is incapable of addressing this issue behind closed doors. An outside group is needed to review, recommend and hold accountable. I grow impatient.
I’m not sure Francis wants to take the lead, eventually he did with the Chilean conference, but he seems content (perhaps too content) to let episcopal conferences take leadership roles. I would prefer to see his leadership on clerical Celibacy and Eucharistic hospitality also, But Francis has apparently punted on these issues. I wish I understood why. He also talks about expanded roles for women in leadership, but aside from a few isolated appointments, he has done very little on this issue.
Francis did take the lead in Chile. He appointed Barros bishop and called the those who accused him liars to the press. The man was totally rejected by his diocese which organized protests in the Cathedral during Barros' ordination, yet Francis stood by him. It was only after the international media attention didn't let up that Francis dismissed Barros. Only time will tell if Francis has truly learned his lesson in Chile. judging from his treatment of Ricca, McCarrick, and Inzoli, I'm wouldn't bet that Francis will do anything truly substantive to clean up Chile.
Just look at Cardinal Maradiaga. Pineda was notorious for his financial and sexual malfeance, yet Maradiaga stood by him for years, recently accepting his resignation, but offering no explanation for it (and thus hoping the issues go away). Recently, 48 of Maradiaga's seminarians wrote a letter complaining about the rampant sexual deviancy and abuse in the seminary there, which led to the recent suicide of one of their classmates. Maradiaga attacked the seminarians! These are the sort of people Francis surrounds himself with, and the laity are starting to wake up about it.
Maybe Francis, Maradiaga, and their defenders can dismiss the cries of help from people who have lost a classmate to suicide and are suffering in an abusive environment, but I won't dismiss them.
So now Francis wants silence. Is this the “leadership” for which the editors were hoping? I certainly hope not.
This whole thing has been very distressing to me as a priest, so I can only imagine what it is doing to our people. But I can’t help but think that it has taken a long and secretive time to get to this point, and it will probably take some time to undo or fix, if possible. One question that keeps bothering me though is this: why a call to penance being asked of those who are innocent of the crimes?
Because its witch hunt drag net hysteria already. But also if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem; that includes the laity who failed too, in reporting crimes and who took NDA's instead. What does that say; as long as I got mine, father can go molest someone else? Penance all around!
It is sheer Political Correctness - the same instinct that blames white Americans living today for slavery in the past, that refuses to see Isis as motivated by Islam or that assumes everyone is the same risk getting on an airplane. Share the blame and dilute the guilt.
It's a rare talent to be able to lie about/get wrong current events, civil rights progression in our country, religions, terrorism cells, and mass transit safety screenings.
Kudos, Tim. Never settle for being actually bigger/more than the smallest of men, what your actions have revealed you to be - keep failing downward, find a reason to inspire yourself to be smaller yet again.
🙄
I would advise the Bishops in the United States to Add Brian Camenker of Newton Massachusetts to any committee they may decide to form. Camenker has written a book which the bishops might find useful
@Joan Sheridan: You've got to be kidding. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Carmenker's organization as a Hate Group. Isn't there enough Hate in the world Joan? The Bishops do not need to be taken down the Hate Group path by Carmenker because they are already going there without Carmenker I recall my catechism that Jesus taught love, not hate? 🤔
Yes, Francis should lead. Benedict should have led. John Paul II - no saint at all - should have led. The USCCB Dallas Meeting was 16 years ago and that should have led somewhere. Your exhortation is lovely -- but the Church needs action. We are so far past words. What will be DONE and WHO will do it???? So far, Church officials have been playing the Mad Hatter -- looking very busy, talking a blue streak and doing nothing while Alice waits patiently for a freaking cup of tea. I think the Church has to be brought to ground and rebuilt -- if anyone cares enough -- in something more reflective of Jesus and less of Constantine. 1. Develop a scientifically based and compassionate and HUMAN theology of sexuality and bodies -- masturbation, pre-marital sex, family planning, divorce and remarriage. 2. Ditch all the satin, silk, lace, red beanies, miters, croziers, gemmed rings, etc. A simple linen robe and a simple wooden cross -- remember Jesus? - would suffice nicely. 3. Ditch the titles -- there are no "excellencies" in the Catholic Church. 4. Involve laity and regional priests in selecting bishops and maybe call them something else and have term limits like the orders do. Ditch the cardinals totally. 5. Ditch mandatory celibacy -- celibacy is a gift for and of the few. Ordain women. Have single priests, married priests, divorced priests, gay priest, straight priests. 6. Let the laity have a say in who becomes their priest. Have congregational committees that are active in the selection process. They also should have a voice in getting rid of a dud -- or worse. In other words, become Episcopalians, but even less regal!
Thank you, Mary Gail. I totally agree with what you said (maybe we need something like this in the form of a petition and then gather signatures). As for Pope Francis’ reply regarding Vigano’s letter, I think it made sense. It could not be properly handled with a short, spur-of-the-moment reply and asking the reporters to do some work would add to the strength (in my opinion) of a successful rebuttal. The article entitled “Viganò’s accusations: What we know and what questions they raise” was a start in that direction.
I did not like the first reaction that Pope Francis had to the Chile situation, but now that I think about it, maybe that influenced his Vigano reply. Regarding Francis’ somewhat slow actions on this and other matters, I believe it is influenced to some extent by the large number of Godlets (if I may humbly create a new word meaning much lesser gods😊 ) who still have power in the Vatican and want to preserve their status and destroy his.
Mary Gail,
Short and to the point, and well said. I agree with most of your suggestions as general overarching recommendations. I hope many of them will come to pass. Unfortunately, getting agreement and implementing all the things you suggest would only be possible if worldwide Bishops, the Pope, et al, conclude they will resolve the root causes of this sexual abuse crisis and the culture of clericalism. I don't believe they will do this.
IMO, the Bishops and the Pope are bewildered right now as to what to do, who will do it, and the appropriate, suitable and just punishment for who committed sexual abuse crimes, those who covered these crimes up (bishops), those who moved priests around only to sexually abuse more minor children (bishops), and those who knew of the sexual abuse accusations but ignored the evidence and even promoted some bishops to cardinal (3 popes). Let's hope that Pope Francis and the USCCB will do the right thing. Otherwise, the credibility of the hierarchy and the message of love and charity of the Catholic Church will be dramatically wounded for decades to come.
We should all be praying for Pope Francis, our Church and the victims who deserve justice.
I believe the answer rests in the hands of Survivors. We need healing centers by, for, and about Survivors. We need to marshal the necessary resources to make this happen. Why are we waiting for the Clergy to solve this problem, this Crisis? We do not need them. We should take care of ourselves and each other. Of course, they’re responsible for the damage, but we are responsible for our own healing.
Mary - St. John Paul II is certainly in heaven. The miracles prove it. But, the uncertainty remains for Pope Francis. Will he be like Pope Liberius (the 1st non-canonized pope who weakened under the dominant heresy of the day (the nature of God) or be like Pope Gregory VII, who reformed the Church and resisted the pastoral dissent of his day (sexual failure). Your #1 and #5 puts you against lots of clearly settled Catholic teaching, including infallible teaching, so I guess the "become Episcopalian" has already happened, for you and several who heartily agree with you. I though this was a discussion among Catholics. Like the song - "Who let the Protestants in?"
And when do we stop playing politics and get to the root of the problem? We are all outraged by the sexual abuse crisis in The Church, but as soon as many bishops, priests and seminarians point to an innately disordered sexuality that is incompatible with the priesthood as a constant in the predators, so many look the other way, close their ears, and start shouting witch hunt!
There is much talk about toxic masculinity, patriarchy, clericalism, celibacy, etc. But mentioning the most obvious culprit is considered taboo and hate speech by those that can write complete pages on the symptoms of the sex abuse crisis.
There is absolutely no correlation between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Pedophiles will abuse either gender -- it is a crime of opportunity. All things being equal, in fact, a child is safer with a homosexual man than with a heterosexual man. Most sexual predators, whatever the gender of their victims, are heterosexual. Scapegoating gay priests -- who comprise up to 50% of the priesthood -- is morally reprehensible and scientifically inaccurate.
No. Pedophiles have a sexual preference for the sex of their victim, pretending that they give either way is just an ideological talking point.
And of course a child is not safer with a homosexual man than with a heterosexual man. Sexual promiscuity is one of the main characteristics of gay culture: everybody knows it, but it is not politically correct to talk about it. Fifty percent of the priests are homosexual? Where do you get your numbers?!
Prototypes of the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, such as Theodore McCarrick and the deceased Marcial Maciel, are clear examples of pedophiles that are also predators of young adult men. As far as I know, not a single girl was abused by any of the two monsters.
Is sexual deviancy (homosexual parties, predatory behavior against heterosexual men, etc) in the Seminaries not a scandal as well? The Editors have decided to dodge the issue.
Carlos, yes, 50%. There are American priests on record stating the percentage of gay priests in their own diocese is at least 50%. It probably varies by diocese, but this would also describe the Society of Jesus in the United States. Having spent a few years studying at a Jesuit Theologate, I got the impression that most of the American's, who have had at least 12 years to grow into it, are actually celibate. I wish I could say that about the Africans, in some counties the cultural norms around celibacy are much different than in the U.S. The RCC's failure to enforce the discipline of celibacy is not a (gay) American problem. It is global, widespread and certainly not limited to homosexuals.
A,
can you link me to a study that backs the claim that 50% of Catholic priests are gay? I just cannot believe that number. That would be an extremely large percentage, it would be truly catastrophic and only divine intervention could straighten things out.
With respect to celibacy, I agree that many heterosexual priests are not without fault. It is always sad to hear about shortcomings of shepherds. However, the promiscuity of gay culture is completely incompatible with what is expected of a man that can exercise the sacraments. A priest should have a masculine, fatherly soul. Being a priest is a very difficult vocation, adding a distorted sexual orientation cannot help the priest or the Church on their mission.
This is the kind of happy talk that puts sexual license before children. It is contradicted by every study of child abuse in the Church to date. It is denied by every PC LGBTQIA... group. It seems the best way to avoid the connection is to define homosexual and only same-sex between adults, and the rest as heterosexual. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Bingo, Carlos! Vigano's letter points to what we have all suspected is the cause of the crisis (it's a repeat: See St. Peter Damian's "Book of Gommorah," circa 1051) , and everyone is focused on the Pope and McCarrick.
Mike,
I only learned of the "Book of Gommorah" a few days ago. History has answers to what appear to be new problems, but are truly very old. Surely in the Middle Ages the Church had an easier time identifying the source of so many of its problems: Gender Theory nor political correctness existed back then to obfuscate the minds of so many temporally in charge of the Church.
To the Editors - No doubt that Pope Francis needs to lead, and with a great deal more urgency than he has done so far. But I must confess being extremely disappointed by the Jesuits, and to a lesser extent the LCWR. I expected you to be out-front, demanding rapid change in light of the breakdown of church leadership, the 'filth' and 'culture of death' as Pope Francis has described. You guys are traditionally the conscience and rabble rousers of the church when the church needs it most. Where are you guys?
LCWR? You’re kidding, right? Those women are busy preaching the gospel with their lives, caring for the sick, the poor and the oppressed. It’s a miracle they survived the last Vatican visitation, I hardly think the bishops will let women reform the curia, how would they hold on to their power?
Jim, the Jesuits are working to reform the church, albeit not as rapidly as some expect. Their theologates are models of lay collaboration and probably also the prototype of seminary that Francis described in Veritatis Gaudium. Many also have the institutional memory of the trials of being surpressed. Not unlike women religious, they know that the people in the Vatican decide which groups are persecuted. Editors of magizines that push the envelope too far are replaced. Although the church would do well to imulate groups who elect their leaders for a fixed term.
Viganò's accusations would not be so credible if Francis didn't have such a bad track record on dealing with sex abuse ... Pell as his #2 man at the Vatican, refusing to extradite Jozef Wesolowski to Poland, forcing Barros on Chile, refusing to allow the arrest of the child porn Vatican diplomat, Carlo Alberto Capella, etc. The editors' strategy for fixing the abuse problem is all about damage control. The cause of the problem is what needs to be addressed instead.
Take you pick on cause -
1. Universal sinfulness - all fall short
1a. Lust, libido
2. Neglect of responsible use of power or abuse of power - power tends to corrupt
3. Superstition - sacramental power = magical power
4. Burden of unknown historical laws and strictures
Do you have a cause in mind which can be eliminated?
Mandatory celibacy and all male clergy.
The last words struck me, editors: "Those that are hurting the most"
The implication of these words are that
some hurt more than others. On a spectrum, who decides who is hurting more or less? Granted, sexual abuse victims hurt but other Catholics who are not sexual abuse victims are hurt in a multitude of ways by the church in every parish. This may be a partial explanation of why the pews are empty, I have an entire pew to myself, and I have to walk across the aisle to encounter another person for the Sign of Peace. Someone needs to write a book entitled something like "What Do You Do When The Church Hurts You?". The church is expert at hurting, not healing people.
What a travesty. Archbishop Vigano's letter is cast into doubt just by the degree of ad hominem invective included in his statements, particularly against homosexuals qua homosexuals. He may be trying to reform a Church gone wrong, but his bitterness belies any such purpose. This is no St. Francis of Assisi.
Perhaps the gates of hell have come under the cover of a palium.
The Editors have dodged the issue on the existence of gay culture in many Seminaries, addressed in the letter of the former nuncio to the United States. The accusation is not new and I have read stories on the subject for approximately a decade. Predators like Theodore McCarrick and Marcial Maciel were pedophiles AND predators of young men in their Seminaries. When do we stop pretending that there is no link between disordered sexual preferences?