Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò listens to remarks at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting on Nov. 16, 2015, in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Catholic donor denies he consulted on Viganò allegations against Pope Francis

(RNS) — Timothy Busch, a conservative Catholic lawyer and donor, is denying claims he was consulted on a letter written last month by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò alleging, among other things, that Pope Francis ignored accusations of sexual abuse by a prominent cleric in Washington, D.C.

Viganò's 11-page letter alleges Francis rescinded sanctions placed on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, by Pope Benedict XVI following allegations of sexual abuse of adult seminarians. Many have noted that if McCarrick was, in fact, under sanctions, he clearly defied them regularly under Benedict, who did not appear to enforce them publicly.

The letter by Viganò, a former Vatican diplomat who has been openly critical of Francis, has been received as the most public breach in a long-brewing culture war within the Catholic Church over the abuse crisis, as well as issues such as tolerance of homosexuality in the church and the status of divorced Catholics.

Timothy Busch. Photo courtesy Catholic University

The letter was distributed by conservative-leaning outlets such as the National Catholic Register and was allegedly written with the assistance of prominent conservative Catholic businessmen and writers.

An Aug. 27 report by The New York Times claimed that Viganò “privately shared his plan to speak out with” Busch, a Californian known in Catholic circles as a prominent funder. He is a co-founder of the Napa Institute, a group described by National Catholic Reporter as embracing “a mix of conservative theology and libertarian economics.”

But in an email obtained by Religion News Service and addressed to “constituents” of the Napa Institute, Busch refuted reports he personally consulted Viganò on his letter.

“Contrary to some erroneous media speculation, I did not preview a copy of or in any way participate in drafting Archbishop Vigano’s testimony, nor was I consulted in any capacity about his testimony,” Busch wrote on Sept. 5.

“I was in touch with Archbishop Vigano several weeks ago to inquire about his involvement in the 2014 Saint Paul-Minneapolis investigation referenced in the shorter statement he released on August 27, 2018, a couple days after his 11-page testimony," it continues. "Our discussion did not involve the contents of the 11-page testimony that he released on August 25, 2018.”

Busch’s denial is notable given that the National Catholic Register is owned by the Eternal Word Television Network — an organization where Busch sits on the board of governors. According to The New York Times report, Busch claimed the publication's leadership personally assured him that Benedict XVI had confirmed Viganò's account.

Busch did not repeat that claim in his email. Instead, he argued that “although I cannot validate any of Archbishop Vigano's personal experiences recited in his testimony, I can confirm that, in my interactions with him, I have found him to be an honest man.”

He also expressed strong support for an investigation and discussed a proposed laity-led commission to probe sexual abuse in the church.

Cautioning in his email that "the governance of the Church does not empower a group of laity to investigate anything on their own behalf," Busch stressed the importance of knowing who would be authorized by the Vatican or the U.S. bishops to serve on the proposed commission. "Any laity who are selected to participate in such an investigation," he wrote, should be "professionally competent, intellectually honest, morally upright, and deeply committed to Christ and His Church."

Busch then called on recipients to participate in the Napa Institute's forthcoming conference on "authentic lay led reform."

RNS reached out to the Napa Institute to speak with Busch, but did not immediately receive a reply.

Comments

  1. Welp, then. Meanwhile, there’s this:

    A top official from the Vatican Secretariat of State acknowledged allegations made by a New York priest in 2000 concerning Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, according to a letter obtained by Catholic News Service.

    https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/09/07/vatican-officials-knew-mccarrick-allegations-2000-letter-confirms

    The Viganistas really cooked their own goose when they drew attention to what St. John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI did with McCarrick and the abuse situation. By seeking to make Francis solely responsible for the abuse horror show and for mistakes made by his two predecessors, they of course have drawn attention of people who care about the truth and the facts to the records of those two previous popes.

    And the picture is not pretty.

  2. No one tried to “make Francis solely responsible”.

    What was pointed out was that he was essentially do nothing to correct the problem.

    The allegations of 2000 are widely known and documented, as was their intercept and nullification by the bureaucracy.

    What is going to come out of this – IMHO – is an end to the efforts to make same sex physical congress, divorce and remarriage sans annulment, and the other attempts to regularize the irregular “teaching”.

    Francis blinked, lost sight of the ball, and it’s all over but the shout.

  3. Calling the middle-of-the-road National Catholic Register “conservative-leaning” must be in comparison to the National Catholic Reporter.

  4. What’s the story here? Busch isn’t part of this story. Author playing distraction game.

    As each day passes there is more and more evidence that Vigano was telling the truth.

  5. What’s not a pretty picture is homosexual McCarrick, Farrell, Tobin (maybe Cupich, by association, just look at him, come on), and at least protector Wuerl, if not gay himself.

    The more they self-protect the more they look the same. And the pope has sadly been drawn into the gay vortex himself.

    His pontificate may not be over yet, but its force is (so happily) flaccid.

  6. Remember the folks logging in here to claim that Pope Benedict surely did “sanction” McCarrick — but secretly, as (so they maintain) canon law dictates? Have a look at the valuable graphic of the timeline of the McCarrick scandal shared by Polycarpio in this tweet:

    pic.twitter.com/xlI9xAFY6T

    Mind you, facts don’t matter to the fake-news, truth-is-not-truth crowd — who have been abundantly represented in the Catholic community for some time now by cults like Opus Dei, who make a vocation out of lying for the Lord.

  7. Polycarp….the real one…”away with the atheists”.

    And indeed away they are going.

  8. What the timeline conveniently doesn’t graph are the “world tours” that McCarrick did under Pope Francis.

    What a silly, contrived graphic.

    But it makes the people with room temperature IQs move.

  9. What is it about immoral, duplicitious, secretive men?

    McCarrick, Farrell, Maciel, Charlie Rose, Bill Cosby.

    They start looking like each other.

  10. So we now know that

    1) After Viganò claims he knew McCarrick’s history and claims Benedict sanctioned him, he appeared at various events embracing and lauding McCarrick — and doing nothing to blow the whistle on a man he claims was committing sexual improprieties and even crimes, when they involved minors.

    2) Benedict’s personal secretary Georg Gänswein says that not only has Benedict not confirmed Viganò’s tissue of lies, but that they are “fake news.”

    3) Viganò’s own family members have challenged his motives and credibility.

    4) Not only did Viganò show zero concern about the homosexual improprieties of Nienstedt, but he tried to squelch that investigation and called for documents to be destroyed.

    Can someone explain to me, please, why people continue to promote this tissue of discredited lies from a discredited witness?

    Oh, wait, I think I know. This never has been about helping victims of sexual abuse and protecting others from being abused. It’s about something else altogether — above all, about destroying a papacy that the people involved in this conspiracy-mongering detest because this pope is perceived to be stressing Catholic social teaching, which calls for everyone to have access to healthcare as a human right, for the poor to be protected and assisted, for immigrants to be welcomed, for capital punishment to be recognized as barbaric and morally inadmissible, for the judging and exclusion of queer people to stop masquerading as Christianity, for white ethnonationalist movements to be resisted.

    A lot of American Catholics, where the attack on the current pope is most perfervid, will not hear that gospel.

    They prefer the one on the markdown table called cheap grace.

  11. This does appear to be about “destroying a papacy”.

    Francis seems to be capable of doing that all by himself.

    Nor does it involve “stressing Catholic social teaching”, unless the marital union, intercommunion with those without the Catholic Faith, and single-handedly purporting to overturn the settled Catholic teaching on capital punishment are somehow “Catholic social teaching”.

  12. I read your opening sentence and thought you were going to fess up.
    But no such luck.

  13. Have you noticed how sad and creepy these fellows are?

    I think sodomy takes the dignity out of people. Makes them odd, angry, bitter, but persistent.

  14. “…odd, angry, bitter, but persistent.”
    Man, you’re describing yourself.
    To a T.

  15. “No one tried to ‘make Francis solely responsible'”.
    Yes they did.
    Likely you didn’t bother to read Viganò’s “testimony”.

  16. And you would know that how, exactly?
    Just because you enjoy sodomy doesn’t bless you with magic powers, Mark.

  17. “And you would know that how, exactly?”
    That’s an easy one, Jeff.
    I know it because I’ve read some of ThomasA’s comments.

  18. Seriously. Look at Mccarrick or Farrell and that’s what years of sodomy will do to person.

    It takes the dignity and nobility away from a person.

  19. It’s interesting that you believe that the democratic party’s platform is the priority of the church. The installation of modernism and it’s twin sister social justice is NOT the purpose that the RCC exists.
    The purpose of the church is to teach the catechism, worship God and Christ and ensure that the souls of the faithful are prepared so that they may enter heaven.
    Anything other than that is simply window dressing.

  20. how about we blame all three and rip the lid off of this? Who cares anymore who did what. JPII is dead, Benedict is close and Francis is the guy holding the bag that isn’t doing shit to clean it up.
    You liberal atheists will go to great lengths to defend a pope of a faith of a God you don’t believe in just because he is covering up for the homosexual priesthood.

  21. You say that it is easy to tell a person’s character from his appearance.
    Therefore, you must also believe that John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Viganò (amongst others) were wrong and stupid to promote and honor Cardinal McCarrick throughout his life.
    Not sure where your ‘logic’ is taking you on this one…
    But probably there is none.

  22. I believe you are misapprehending your correspondent:

    https://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965

    Rather than an atheist you’re talking to an “enlightened Catholic” who has campaigned for the better part of his life for endorsement by the Church of same sex physical congress, among other innovations.

    Obviously he is rather disturbed watching the left wing of the Church take on water and begin to sink, taking with it the last Great White Hope of the Spirit of Vatican II contingent: Pope Francis.

    Once these folks die off, and they’re dying off, there is no second or third generation of “Spirit of Vatican II” to take their places.

  23. Got it.
    The more these disordered priests come to light; and the more the media and internet make mention of the cover up; the more the faithful Catholics get pissed off.
    They realize it is men that are ruining the church – yet they will stand with the church after they (the wicked men) are gone.
    Two interesting items of note in my part of the world – mass attendance ebbs and flows, but churches that are beginning to incorporate a bit more Latin and a bit more of the traditional elements of the rubric are seeing higher attendance. The only church that offers the Latin mass has 4 masses per weekend and is pretty full. Second, in my novus ordo parish, many more people are beginning to receive the host on their tongues- a very visual rebuke of VII and the return to the sacred.
    Nothing major that will change anything overnight; but observations.

  24. It takes generations.

    The damage is severe, but not fatal.

  25. A very good question from Father Kevin O’Higgins on Twitter:

    – Pope John Paul II appointed McCarrick Archbishop of Washington, November 21, 2000

    – Nuncio Montalvo informed by Ramsey on November 22, 2000

    – McCarrick formally installed on January 3, 2001

    – On February 21, 2001, made cardinal

    -> why wasn’t installation halted & why cardinal?

    https://twitter.com/kevinohigginssj/status/1038152684879142913

    Why, indeed, was McCarrick made a cardinal in 2001 — by Saint John Paul II — AFTER the Vatican had been informed by Father Ramsey about McCarrick’s moral lapses?

    Inquiring minds would surely like to know.

  26. It’d be nice to know – since he’s still living and can’t be pilloried in the grave – why Francis allow McCarrick to go all over the world representing the Church given the Vatican’s dossier on McCarrick.

    Inquiring minds would surely like to know.

  27. What is it that the lavendar lobby likes about McCarrick and Francis that they are willing to dismiss mounting evidence of a hierarchical coverup.

    These are the same people who hate the hierarchy!

  28. What a sad little distraction the thrust of this article is.

    No one has said or substantiated that what Vigano wrote is a lie.

    They’ve simply made efforts to disparage his intentions and/or his own handling of past matters.

    What’s that? Nothing, but attempts to distract.

    Each day of faux-heroic silence by Francis undercuts his ability to continue his progressive/modernist errors.

    I’m very happy either way. Blunting modernism, or a beginning of its undoing in the Church. Praise God.

  29. “Inquiring minds would surely like to know.”

    You’re asking on behalf of others?

  30. I guess your hatred caused you to miss the phrasing connection to the poster I was commenting to.

    Hatred blinds the intellect and then it softens it. You’re at stage 2.

  31. Yup. The goalposts continue to move. There is no God. The RCC is corrupt. There is an awful scandal in the church that must be investigated. Clerical abuse.. no wait; homosexuals and pedophilia? Bishops that knew and covered it up? It’s JPII and Benedict’s fault… the traditionalists are trying to ruin Francis….

  32. Why the continued attacks on JPII? Does it matter that he may have allowed homosexuals and pedophiles to run rampant in the church?
    The point is that it has been brought to light and the faithful demand Francis address the problem.
    Stop attacking a straw man.

  33. Francis ruined himself by taking a big toke of modernism when he was ordained in 1968!

  34. So it’s OK for the two previous popes to ‘have allowed homosexuals and pedophiles to run rampant in the church’ because it was all in the dark and it doesn’t matter that the Vatican actively worked to keep it in the dark. Now that it’s been brought to light under Francis, he’s solely responsible. Poor man should have worked a lot harder at keeping it in the dark.

  35. “So it’s OK for the two previous popes to ‘have allowed homosexuals and pedophiles to run rampant in the church’ because it was all in the dark and it doesn’t matter that the Vatican actively worked to keep it in the dark.”

    Well, it is certainly history at this point, one is dead and the other is nearing incapacitation.

    While it might be fun to drag out the JPII and B16 voodoo dolls ala Bilgrimage, it is a bit hard to see the utility in doing so.

    Francis appears to be dead man walking.

    Real solutions are going to have to wait until he is gone.

  36. Bill Lindsey has a list of people he really really hates.

    St. John Paul II is near the top.

    In addition he is extremely interested in trying to salvage Pope Francis, the Great White Hope for the superannuated and rapidly dying out Spirit of Vatican II generation.

    Unfortunately it’s too late. Francis should have been nicer to the people he needs now before things blew up.

  37. NO; it is not all right.
    It doesn’t help the victims, the church nor the faithful to try to assign blame to any one individual.
    Blame them ALL.
    Blame modernism that crept into the church in the 60’s.
    Blame the apostates in the priesthood and Curia who didn’t adhere to their vows and turned their back on God.
    Blame them ALL; and then let’s purge the church of anyone who committed or covered up any act against their vows to God, the church and the faithful.

  38. I think it was the whole of the church – not just Francis.

  39. No there are far more humble happily struggling priests and lay persons….building communities and families, drawing strength from the Sacraments than there are clerics who do sodomy and coverups.

  40. Wrong again. I didn’t ‘miss the phrasing connection’.
    Instead, I was pointing out that the phrase obviously doesn’t apply to you.

  41. Re: “No one has said or substantiated that what Vigano wrote is a lie.” 

    Nor has Viganò substantiated his claims. So it’s a case of “he said, he said.” Disappointing, to be sure, but Busch’s denial is merely one more raw assertion that, likewise, hasn’t been substantiated, and likely never will be. 

    The most significant failures in the Vatican’s handling of McCarrick took place in 2000 and 2001, in the lead-up to his elevation to archbishop of Washington and to the title of Cardinal. His proclivities were known, even at that time (what with financial settlements having been paid out to at least two of his victims, by then). McCarrick’s promotion, obviously, happened on Pope John Paul II’s watch. Pope Francis wasn’t involved, and I’m not sure Benedict XVI was, either (I assume his being head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time didn’t necessarily involve him in such promotions, but that might not be the case). 

    So Viganò going off on Francis primarily and Benedict secondarily, with regard to McCarrick, doesn’t make much objective sense, given that other people had to have been responsible for his elevation back in 2001. As an outside observer of the R.C. Church, what John Paul and his functionaries knew, or didn’t, about McCarrick — and how and why he was elevated when he was — are of much greater interest to me. But, despite all the recent hoopla, that has yet to be addressed. Viganò and his zealously anti-gay pals pitching fits over Francis and Benedict are largely irrelevant, in light of that silence. 

  42. How does one not drag in JPII and EPBXVI given the timeline of McCarrick’s rise to the red? Francis is the one who canned him and took his red hat. The point that’s being missed is no pope acted against McCarrick until there was a credible accusation of sexual abuse with a minor. What does that say? That young seminarians are fair game for predatory superiors? Where is that mentality coming from? I will give Benedict some credit in that he sanctioned Cardinal Keith O’Brien for predatory behavior with subordinates, but he left him a member of the college of cardinals.

    The hierarchy’s strange code of ethics when it comes to sexual predation is much deeper than Francis…..or Benedict, or JPII. Scapegoating one pope or multiple popes does not get to the heart of the matter.

  43. “How does one not drag in JPII and EPBXVI given the timeline of McCarrick’s rise to the red?”

    It is remarkably simple.

    St. John Paul II is deceased.

    Benedict XVI is doddering.

    We have a problem now.

    Focus, focus, focus.

    You’ve spent too much time at Bilgrimage playing “The Blame Game”.

  44. Your strategy is remarkably self serving and shallow. Yes, let’s just forget the two popes who knew all about McCarrick and did nothing but promote and honor him while we crucify the pope who actually disciplined him and took away his red hat. Talk about a ‘blame game’.

  45. “how about we blame all three and rip the lid off of this? Who cares anymore who did what.”
    Well, Viganò obviously cared ‘who did what’. He cared very much. For his “testimony” is worded very carefully (and, as it transpires, very mendaciously) – to exonerate JP2 and Benedict XVI, so as to cast full blame on Francis.

    Now why would he have done that?

  46. He’s submitted several pieces of correspondende and he also pointed to other docs and their last known location.

  47. Your “strategy” is non-existent.

    It consists of jawboning about history, wishing the “Spirit of Vatican II” had triumphed, keeping lists of who you believe was naughty or nice, and like a bunch of old Trotskyites jawboning about “crucifying” the Weasel whose passive-aggressive approach alienated the very people he needs to correct the situation.

    The man will be 82 in December. He has accomplished basically nothing. It is too late for him – he blew his chance.

    Fixing this mess will require bishops now in their 50s with clean hands, future bishops yet to be consecrated, an orthodox Catholic community dedicated to the Faith rather than handicapping the winners and losers.

    Fortunately the Spirit of Vatican II folks failed to reproduce, failed to raise their children Catholic, don’t support their parishes, and won’t have a say in it. The young families with four to seven kids who show up every Sunday will do the job.

    I won’t live long enough to see, nor will you.

  48. Ok. You got them – guilty as charged. Now what? How do you want to proceed? Are you going to actually do something, or just point fingers at a dead guy and an almost dead guy?

  49. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you? 

    Viganò said he had letters (plural) that proved his claim that Francis knew about McCarrick. One letter does not constitute those letters (plural) Viganò claimed to have had. 

    Second, a letter written in 2006 about information known in 2000 does not tell us anything about what Pope Francis knew, almost a decade later. He was not in the Vatican in 2000 or in 2006 — he was half a world away, in Argentina. This letter does not in any way support Viganò’s beef with Francis. It simply does not. 

    Look, I get that you love Viganò. Really. I do. I get that you don’t want to think ill of him, nor do you wish to concede he made claims he cannot back up, such as his raw assertion of having letters (plural) that specifically show what Francis himself knew. 

    But … that’s not what’s here. At all. Either you have the maturity to admit it, or you don’t. Whether nor not you do, however, the fact remains that Viganò has yet to provide the “proof” of what Francis knew, and when, that he said he possesses. He simply hasn’t. 

    And that’s not my fault, so whining at me about it isn’t going to help you. Go whine to your idol Viganò and ask him why he hasn’t yet produced the letters (plural) he said he has. OK? 

  50. How about blaming the pedophiles and abusers that actually committed offenses rather than “the homosexuals that run rampant in the church”, the vast majority of whom, according to no lesson authority then Saint Bob Arnzen, committed no offenses whatsoever?

  51. You’re conflating two issues, and you appear to be conflating them on purpose.

    There should be zero homosexuals in the Catholic clergy because the ordination of homosexuals has been prohibited by Canon Law and by specific guidance for longer than any clergy have been alive.

    As a matter of justice, those in the clergy should be employed, but not in pastoral positions.

    The issue that Parker12 points out is that the goal is to eliminate abuse. One of the key components of a program to accomplish that is to the extent possible eliminate candidates for ordination who are less than mature, less than stable.

    Despite the fact that the DSM has dropped homosexuality, from the standpoint of natural law a same sex orientation is an abnormality. On average those afflicted with it have greater difficulty adjusting and are less stable which exhibits in

    https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community

    a greater propensity for certain behaviors incompatible with an ordained ministry.

    The fact that 80% of abuse was male-on-male cannot be explained away with “availablility”, your shtick, or misquoting and misusing the John Jay Report, monicadeangelis’ attempted magic trick.

    So, while I may not agree with Parker12 in every detail, we wind up in the same place.

    You seemed to be hot and bothered about abuse in the Catholic Church, aren’t Catholic, know darned little about it, and therefore should not have a dog in this hunt nor any reason to oppose anything which would prevent abuse.

    Unless, of course, your real issue is NOT abuse but some other agenda for which this is just a stalking horse.

  52. Yes, the ‘smaller purer Church’ which has a lot of strings attached on any Mercy for anyone other than the ‘smaller purer’ Church members. You can have the rules and regulations and telling God who is and who is not saved, I prefer the Catholic Church that says ‘all are welcome’ at the table of the Lord.

  53. Mercy does not involve endorsing error, sin, or anything like that.

    It is no mercy to assist people in either going to hell or violating the moral law.

    Jesus did not forgive the unrepentant.

    The Catholic Church says that all are welcome, but it does NOT say that all are saved.

    The church you’re describing is the Episcopal Church, which is on a death dive to becoming a smaller impurer church.

    The Church is NOT going to approve same sex physical congress, abortion, euthanasia, or the rest of the laundry list at National Catholic Reporter, Bilgrimage, et al.

    That approach created the problems and won’t solve them.

    But since most of the folks advocating that approach aren’t in the pews, they are not going to have a vote in any case.

  54. Any priest that does not believe in the catechism of the church should be gone. Straight or gay.

  55. She does not want to blame them all.

    She wants to blame the people she dislikes, even if they are dead.

  56. All sinners are welcome. Just show up. Just make sure you are their to worship the creator – not yourself.

  57. “…settled Catholic teaching….”

    you are mixing your thoughts on u.s. constitutional law, where “settled” is often a term used, with catholic theology .

    capital punishment was never a dogma .

    “Francis seems to be capable of doing that….”

    which is to say he does not agree with you . imagine my surprise .

  58. “… social justice is NOT the purpose that the RCC exists”

    to the degree that concepts of social justice mirror the justice called for by the law and the prophets, and by jesus — and they often call for such justice — then it is the purpose for which the catholic church exists .

  59. “…just look at him, come on….”

    this is the level that the debate on the future of the church has fallen to ?

  60. We need to face starker and more uncomfortable truths.

    We can’t let homosexual predators run wild in our seminaries while we lapse into a PC stupor blind to the injury these men are doing by chasing young men.

    Frankly we also need men in the seminarians who are strong enough to clock creeping predators in the nose and send them humiliated back to their porn shacks.

  61. interesting that many who bent over backwards to defend john paul ii and benedict xvi on how they handled or didn’t handle abuse in the catholic church are now ready to throw francis under the bus .

  62. The level of debate is apparently “silence” from the Pope, stonewalling requests for answers and details.

    that’s where we are.

  63. Yes. There is one pope who really, really dropped the ball when it came to sexual abuse. And it isn’t Francis (or even Benedict.)

  64. the uncomfortable truth is that you miss the point .

    we cannot let any predators run wild anywhere . “predator” names the evil that must be stamped out .

    sexual words are a distraction, adult consenting behavior can be handled by regular church discipline on celibacy .

  65. asking and receiving resignations from the chilean bishops is not stonewalling the abuse problem . you are picking and choosing events to make a case .

  66. for reasons i cannot understand john paul ii believed that abuse by priests was a uniquely american problem . and he couldn’t get his mind around the idea that the normal glacial pace of churchaction would not be acceptable on this problem .

  67. you conservative holier than the church types more often than not defended the papacy long after it became clear that the church response was at best too little, too late .

    now you want to take out a pope who is making progress and is open to being moved to more progress .

  68. Please remember the details. Accusations and data were brought to the pope’s attention..he ignored them…..in public…blamed the victims…Omalley stepped in…pope backtracks.

  69. There’s nothing distracting about the “80%++” elephant that the homosexual lobby would love to sweep under the rug called “pedophilia”!!

    Take the homosexual priest abusers out of the numbers…and you’ll find the Catholic Church has an abuse problem FAR FAR FAR FAR smaller than any public school system in the US.

  70. latin masses are now, ironically, a fad . the parishes that do them are getting traffic because the Tridentine/vatican i masses i are comparably rare, and most want to experience them .

    not being able to understand them will not be an encouragement to stay with them long term . i suppose parishes could offer latin as a living language course . people would flock to those i am sure .

  71. it does take generations . true . the damage caused by the dissension of the traditionalists will not cause the church to fail . indeed the gates of hell will not prevail against the church . the holy spirit — which led us to this church’s council, legally called, and the documents, legally promulgated — is giving us a church more living in the spirit of god in witnessing to the world .

  72. No, I think people who regularly attend Latin masses understand the difference between the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins and that of sitting around the table – the change in orientation of the mass that was instituted with Vatican II is a big deal.
    I agree with the language part; the church would be better served if the “Latin mass” were said in the local language – which is what was supposed to happen with Vatican II; but the church got too cute for its own good.

  73. What progress do you desire us Catholics make on your behalf?

  74. The purpose of the church is to shepherd souls to heaven. Nothing more, nothing less.
    A part of that may be helping the poor, etc; but that is not the primary purpose.
    It does no good for the church to focus on the environment when the majority of Catholics don’t even know the catechism.

  75. Yes. Why worry about the dead guy?
    How about the guy in charge do something now? That’s what we care about – right?
    I’m all about turning over stones to find what’s hiding – aren’t you?

  76. apparently there is . you keep repeating it as if there is something to it .

    the fact also is that 100% of the abuse involves immature men preying on those available and subject to their control .

    root out those who prey . don’t use a dragnet to harass those who do not and would never prey .

  77. more than o’malley stepped in . the chileans involved made the outcry .

    the pope thought that as one from the neighborhood, he had a feel for the situation . he obviously didn’t .

    when the facts were clearly presented to him he acted swiftly and took out all involved .

  78. the level of debate comment i made was to your childish “just look at him, come on” as if you or i or anyone can tell from looking at a person their orientation .

    you can’t defend the comment by changing the subject .

  79. it is likely enough that we catholics welcome you with open arms .

  80. The pope’s first reaction was to rebuff the story…then he later promoted the cleric to a bishop.

  81. There’s no reason to dart your eyes away from the truth that homosexual priests have caused more than 80% of the problems…and yet make up a proportionately low % of the priests.

    You may not have a Ph.D. in statistics to understand the significance. I would think a room temperature IQ would be enough.

  82. i just find it amusing that those who defended john paul ii to the end, now find disparaging him a good and useful thing to do now .

    and the next pope could be actually bad on the issue of abuse and many would support him if he were, say, someone like burke .

  83. except it is not true . you are confusing a anatomically reality with a mind and spiritual reality .

    there is no evidence that any psychologically mature person abused regardless of the orientation .

    solve the problem . don’t just trash people you don’t care for .

  84. Huh? I’m staring at multiple years worth of data that show priestly abusers are going after post-pubescent boys, in the 80% 90% rate.

    And oh by the way the Pennsylvania report accumulated 70 years worth of data showing the same thing.

    that’s a reality the “agenda” people can’t stomach..and so they drop into various defensive modes such as using gobbledegook…”confusing a anatomically reality with a mind and spiritual reality .”

    A worm has eaten their frontal lobe.

  85. Again, how about not being amused and agree that they are ALL responsible.
    Then, they can go after every priest involved in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and the pedophiles.
    The problem is, you want to point fingers and stop there. You really don’t want to uncover what is really going on; that is individuals who entered the priesthood not to save the souls of the faithful; but to live the lavish, worldly lifestyle of the flesh.
    The more this is investigated, the more it will become uncomfortable for the liberals in the church.

  86. “…but the church got too cute for its own good.”

    nicely patronizing .

    there was nothing particularly holy or needful to have the priest’s back to the people . there is certainly nothing bad, but much good for the prayers and the order of the mass to go back to earlier forms of the mass . vatican ii did an excellent job at orienting the church in the 20th century by anchoring the mass is traditional forms that predate the middle ages .

    the vatican perhaps could have done better in presenting it to the people . and i do think that the church moved from the tridentine mass to the vatican revised form way too quickly . it should have been done over a generation .

    but your first paragraph is theological nonsense . there is nothing present in the tridentine mass not present in the new . nor vice versa . there is certainly difference in one’s preference : a matter of taste, yes . but no substance .

  87. i was responding to your “us Catholics make” separating you from me, and
    traditionalists from catholics in favor of some change . i will admit
    that above i came did a bit of the same and i apologize for that .

    but like it or not if you are a catholic and i being a catholic are all in this one church together . and if we cannot “fight” civilly and with love, we will never be able to take jesus’ message to the whole world .

  88. perhaps you need to learn the difference between vatican ii which was led by the holy spirit and “modernism” which was a laundry list of different theological statements current in the late 1800s, which as a body. were condemned by a pope .

  89. what you wrote and i was responding to was specifically ” (maybe Cupich, by association, just look at him, come on) ” . he was not in a line-up nor to our awareness has done anything deserving of that comment .

  90. we agree on the initial situation . but the pope publicly admitted to making a mistake and then acted to correct it .

  91. thank you for your concern about my frontal lobe . it is, however, fine .

    huh? indeed . the statistics you give are not, have never been, in dispute .

    what i and others say is that you can keep all with homosexual orientation out of the clergy and you will have about the same problem in the future .

    the problem is sexually immature men, and post-pubescent boys available to the abuser . rarely are there girls present without other adults in such a situation . orientation is not the issue .

    the issue is immaturity and a vulnerable group present for the abuser to target .

  92. “ahhhhh; got it.”

    yes, you do have a bogeyman .

    witnessing to god was my reference . sorry you can’t follow that because of your mental bogeys .

  93. “…the more it will become uncomfortable for the liberals in the church.”

    talk about pointing fingers and not solving problems .

    few priests “live the lavish, worldly lifestyle of the flesh.” perhaps some bishops and cardinals . not the average priest .

    i agree that all abusers should be charged, punished and removed from the clergy .

    but the point is that suddenly many who were defending the hierarchy when it was perceived as conservative are now trashing it because francis is seen as liberal . francis has been moving slower than i would like but he is moving at the speed of light compared to what came before .

    i want the abused problem solved so that we can get back to the mission of teaching all the world, i don’t want to be a part of a political game that could tear the church apart .

  94. I think that you are being very nice to him. I think that it has to do with money myself. Maciel’s abuse was ignored because of all the money he raised for the Vatican. The same is true of McCarrick.

  95. 1. putting mccarrick and francis in the same sentence discredits your argument .
    2. few are dismissing that the church engaged in cover-ups for years .
    3. there are some commenters that “hate the hierarchy” i suppose, but what is your point ?
    4. “the truth is…” that you only repeat data out of context and bend it to prove something that cannot be proven . it has been known for decades that the abusers in the clergy target those available and that is about 75 to 85 % boys . that statistic tells you nothing about the psychology of the abuser . only that they are not normal .
    5. francis has done more to deal with the problem than any other yet . is there more to do ? yes . but simply trashing the one guy moving on the issue is absurd .
    6. sad that you are too unsure of what you write that you have to hide your history .

  96. It doesn’t discredit anything.

    It’s now been revealed that Francis made a joke to McCarrick overheard by others some number of years ago about McCarrick’s own reputation (“Satan may be preparing a place for you” that was the sick joke by Francis…).

    This undercuts “Francis didn’t know…”

    Saying that the Church engaged in coverup for years..doesn’t let Francis off the hook at all, it adds to the burden.

  97. In 2002 then Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, at the bishops’ meeting which adopted the so-called guidelines, suggested that the bishops commission a study to determine the role of homosexuality in the abuse debacle. His diocese had been consistent in applying proscriptions in Canon Law against ordaining homosexuals.

    He was voted down.

    The opposition was led by a contingent spearheaded by none other than Theodore McCarrick.

  98. where did you read this “sick joke” . i want to read the source and the context .

  99. i really do want to know where you got the “sick joke” reference .

  100. the reason i find your position hard to understand is how jesus responded in mark 12: “28 One of the scribes … asked him, ‘Which is the first of all the commandments?’ 29 Jesus replied, ‘The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! 30 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    loving one’s neighbor as oneself is a tad more than “A part of that may be helping the poor, etc…” jesus is joining the second to the first : loving god totally and in every part of your being, and then loving others as much as yourself means doing everything possible to raise them up, physically as well as spiritually, as one does for oneself . it is a stiff standard, and i know i rarely reach it, but there it is .

    god call the church to do work for the salvation of all, and that is working for the good the body and the good of the soul .

Leave a Comment