Monday, October 8, 2018

Cardinal Oullet Stabs Archbishop Vignanò in the Back — Still Confirms His Story

Edit: Cardinal Marx Ouellet confirms Archbishop Carlo Vignanò’s principle charge and accuses himself. His description of the pope as merciful doesn’t coincide with his treatment of faithful bishops, notably Bishop Livieres Plano  who called out the homosexual Redemptorist Archbishop Eustaquio Pastor Cuquejo Verga and earned himself a summary dismissal without a hearing. When he went to Rome, he found the Pope’s mercy in a door slammed in his face.

While it’s encouraging to see Ouellet confirm Vignanò’s primary contention about McCarrick’s impunity, it’s disappointing to see how poor his judgement is. It’s hard not to say that his (and the Pope’s) benign indifference towards McCarrick’s degeneracy, turning a blind eye to McCarrick’s  public and hypocritical witness as a very liberal Cardinal (no doubt as a payoff thanks to his support of the St. Galen Mafia and Bergoglio’s illegal connivance at the Papal throne), is criminally negligent. This is the kind of malfeasance and hypocrisy that the press and overfed false brethren at Patheos love to sink their teeth onto, while it’s the true witness of the Church’s moral teachings and legitimate authority that are blamed, as everyone, including those who should know better, cry “clericalism”.

Looks like Oullet sent Pentin an open letter:
Dear brother Carlo Maria Viganò,
In your last message to the press, in which you make accusations against Pope Francis and against the Roman Curia, you invite me to tell the truth about certain facts that you interpret as signs of an endemic corruption that has infiltrated the hierarchy of the Church up to its highest levels. With pontifical permission, and in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I offer my testimony about matters concerning the Archbishop emeritus of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and his presumed links to Pope Francis, matters that are at the center of your public accusations and your demand that the Holy Father resign. I write my testimony based on my personal contacts and on documents in the archives of the Congregation, currently the object of study to clarify this sad case.
Out of consideration for the good, collaborative relation we had when you were Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, allow me to say, in all honesty, that I find your current attitude incomprehensible and extremely troubling, not only because of the confusion it sows among the People of God, but because your public accusations gravely harm the reputation of the bishops, successors of the Apostles. I recall a time when I enjoyed your esteem and your trust, but now I see that I have been stripped in your eyes of the respect that was accorded to me, for the only reason I have remained faithful to the Holy Father’s guidance in exercising the service he has entrusted to me in the Church. Is not communion with the Successor of Peter an expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and sustains him with his grace? My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you criticize, is grounded in this fidelity to the living tradition, which Francis has given us another example of by recently modifying the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty.
Let us address the facts. You said that on June 23, 2013, you provided Pope Francis with information about McCarrick in an audience he granted to you, as he also did for many pontifical representatives with whom he met for the first time that day. I can only imagine the amount of verbal and written information that was provided to the Holy Father on that occasion about so many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that the Pope had such interest in McCarrick, as you would like us to believe, given the fact that by then he was an 82-year-old Archbishop emeritus who had been without a role for seven years. Moreover, the written instructions given to you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your mission in 2001 did not say anything about McCarrick, except for what I mentioned to you verbally about his situation as Bishop emeritus and certain conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct.


Ana Milan said...

Meanwhile, +Viganò's Testimony lies waiting to be answered in the office of a US court official. Obviously +Viganò has much more up his sleeve to come out, but whether the court in question has any jurisdiction over these allegations is a matter of debate. The Catholic people will regard PF as morally responsible for turning over all documents to the proper authorities as not only the CC has been compromised but a huge amount of the Laity's donations have been used to silence the victims of abuse & appointments to high office within the CC have been apparently made on the suggestion of this deviant predator. The charges made are much too serious to be ignored.

Unknown said...

Useless Cardinal Oullet thanks for nothing....

JBQ said...

"Rumors about his past conduct" is a sad way to put it. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles had a payout for one bunch of cases which totaled 660 million somewhere around 2000. Are you kidding me? The laity are tired of carrying the hierarchy on their backs.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Ouellet should have just supported Vigano and been a man...if he had,that would have been unbelievable.. in affirming his position and in taking the left handed shots at the Vatican he probaly went as far as a terrified old man will go.. we must assume that none of these guys have faith..its a miracle he said the things he did..

Constantine said...

Here is why OUELLET has a vested interest in vinicating His UnHoliness.
OUELLET, as reported below gave up his support and votes at the last conclave to Bergoglio, in order to prevent cardinal Scola from winning.

Anonymous said...

The key sentences in Ouellet's letter: "My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you complain about, is INSCRIBED IN this FIDELITY to the LIVING TRADITION, of which Francis has given us an example with the recent modification of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty."

Ouellet is also implying that Vigano is faithful to 'living tradition' and goes along w/Pope Francis changing the 'tradition' on capital punishment (not to mention the VC2 changes to the mass and all the other sacraments, no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and the state being king versus Jesus Christ (and therefore abortion/euthanasia (murder), sodomy, contraception, etc. must be legal and the Chinese communists now choose Catholic bishops)) and then asking: why does he (Vigano) draw the line at sodomy?

"Living tradition" is straight Pascendi.

You all are swallowing the camel while straining out the gnat (McCarrick was removed for public revelation of pedophilia: since Rueda we have known bishops/dioceses/orders are using their seminaries (the priesthood) as their personal brothels).

Litacanaman said...

Pray for Ouellet ,he part of the Problems too.

Anonymous said...

Ouellet had, for some reason, among some "conservative Catholics" a good reputation as being fairly "orthodox". Judging from this letter against Vigano, and by past appointments approved by Ouellet for new bishops, this is probably misplaced trust.

However, he is in some degree more Catholic than Pope Francis, and would have made a better Pope. I read that in the beginning of the conclave of 2013, after Benedict XVI's cowardly resignation and exit, Ouellet was a close second behind the front-runner, the great Cardinal Scola of Milan (who should have been elected). Ouelett apparently urged his supporters to side with Bergoglio to cancel out Scola.
If this is true, he is partly to blame for the disaster in the Church and the disaster of a papacy we have been stuck with for the last nearly 6 years....Pope Francis.

Damian Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

It seems to me you might as well make scott hahn (or jp2) pope as to make either Scola or Ouellet pope.

"Following the lines of his previous work, the cardinal explicitly draws upon the writings of John Paul II and Hans Urs von Balthasar throughout The Nuptial Mystery. He has a book and numerous articles on Balthasar and taught at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome for twenty years...In the second part, the cardinal develops a theological understanding of the nuptial mystery, grounding human marriage not only in the union of Christ and the Church (99), but ultimately in the relations of the Triune God (102), despite the traditional resistance to this latter analogy."

"A Trinitarian Anthology of the Family. Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec and Primate of Canada, follows in the footsteps of Angela Scola's The Nuptial Mystery, previously reviewed in this column. Both books are in the Ressourcement: Retrieval and Renewal in Catholic Thought series."

What is wrong w/Scott Hahn?

What happened to the holy family? What happened to Mary--are they denying that Jesus Christ is both God and Man? Are they denying the Virgin Birth? Are they teaching that Mary and the Female Holy Ghost produced offspring? How foul stinking is everyone and everything connnected w/VC2!

What is equally foul and stinking is the whole entire conservative catholic blogosphere - who has a letter from Ouelett declaring point blank that he is faithful to a 'living tradition' and that Francis can change anything in the catechism or any teaching of the church on his own authority and they conclude that Ouellet has stabbed vigano in the back and they broadcast their 'party (lying) line' far and wide.

It is perfectly obvious that both Vigano & Ouellet agree that there were VERBAL sanctions that were NOT enforced against McCarrick. These bloggers know McCarrick was removed for pedophilia not consorting w/seminarians. And the corrollaries to be drawn are that VC2 accepts a sodomite priesthood and sexual activity including sodomy in its clergy (as long as it's legal in the country in which they reside). Yet these same lying stinking bloggers continue to insist that VC2 was sanctioning McCarrick and at the same time they ignore Francis propagating sodomy to children RIGHT NOW even as they blog about McCarrick! Are these stinking lying bloggers against pedophila? Are they against sodomy? Or like Adam and Eve are they simply grabbing FAKE FIG LEAVES to cover their own continuing to walk along w/VC2? Do they think God is mocked and that He cannot see through their lies?

Tancred said...

I’ve actually read Vatican II, and the more progressive the person “reading” it, the more they endorse things that aren’t actually in it, and the more fanatical they are in the name of Vatican II. Sedes are just as bad.

Anonymous said...

Could the reason for this be that Cardinal Ouellet’s brother Paul Ouellet is a convicted pedophile, also Cardinal Ouellet was an n favor of a rentry program for pedophiles!

Peter W said...

John Paul II mandated the 'therapeutic' solution for paedophile clergy that is, that a paedophile priest or religious could not be dismissed canonically simply because they were/are paedophiles. He effectively rejected the best psychological and medical advice that paedophilia is an incurable disease (advice delivered to Pius XII) so he simply held on to the view that these people could be 'treated' and returned to ministry. Bishops everywhere, including Ouellet, Bergoglio etc were bound by JP II's policies. Be careful who you blame.

JP II was responsible also for mandating a very restrictive canonical statute of limitation on reporting. This was only overturned after the US bishops requested a change in the law for the US. This was written into the Dallas Charter.

What needs to happen now is for the 'Pontifical Secret' to be excised from Canon Law enshrined in Paul VI's 'Secreta Continere.' This law requires bishops and religious superiors specifically not to report paedophiles to civil authorities unless the local law requires mandatory reporting. This Canon, in some shape or form, has been in effect since 1922 and it is still on the books.

Tancred said...

Everyone was treating these deviants medically instead of criminally, While in most parts of society, including certain progressive religious communities, preying on minors was considered a cavalier’s delict.

Anonymous said...

Tancred, What is the objective meaning of these sentences: "My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you complain about, is INSCRIBED IN this FIDELITY to the LIVING TRADITION, of which Francis has given us an example with the recent modification of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty."

I understand (as St. Pius X did and explained in Pascendi) that Ouellette is stating that he believes that the Pope can reverse church teaching on anything and from one day to the next because of something he calls the 'living tradition' and that in fact Francis has done that on sexual morality in Amoris Laetitia (communion for abortionists, organ harvesters, adulterers, fornicators and sodomites) the same way he did on capital punishment (which Vigano went along w/as w/all the VC2 changes (do you know what that means, Tancred, the VC2 CHANGES?)). Didn't VC2 change (reverse) the teaching on no salvation outside the church, the governing of the church (why exactly were no sanctions put on McCarrick unless he 'agreed' w/them?) and the sacraments (not to mention teaching on contraception and ends of marriage)?

Now you may have another explanation for why you are covering for these heretics and apostates and claiming that people are reading something into VC2 that isn't there -- and you will be explaining to Jesus Christ why you made excuses for pedophiles who were teaching your children that sodomy, transgenderism fornication, contraception, abortion and euthanasia were okay and instead of passing on the Faith, were dechristianizing them and their countries (legalizing abortion in every country in the world)--teaching them to mock Jesus Christ as a man (a prophet like Mohammed and Buddha) and instead teaching them to become communist abortionists and organ harvesters.

Maybe Jesus Christ knowing your heart will be more merciful to you, but I find your dishonesty more incredible than Pontius Pilate's.

Tancred said...

Who are you? Where do I sign up for your church?

Anonymous said...

Tancred, Who I am is not important--the question I ask you is important for salvation of your soul (and your readers souls). (Really, though, who are you, "Tancred"?)

Same w/question of where is my church--question is where is Jesus Christ's church? Can Jesus Christ's church be with Ouelett and Francis (and all those who say and do what they do) and their "living tradition"? The Catholic Church (i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ) has condemned as heresy what Ouelett said and what he and Francis are doing. Can a Catholic attend the Lutheran church and call it the Catholic Church (it will be when it's reformed/it will be when it rejoins Rome (schismatics))? Hasn't the Catholic Church condemned that also?

Jesus Christ is the Truth, Tancred (do you believe that?). What is the objective meaning of these sentences: "My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you complain about, is INSCRIBED IN this FIDELITY to the LIVING TRADITION, of which Francis has given us an example with the recent modification of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty."

Tancred said...

Your claims are pretty big for an annonymous troll.

Anonymous said...

Tancred, You need to answer the question for the sake of your soul. Look what hanging about the lying N.O. is doing to you:

Considering that MOST cases involving predators involve degenerate clergy preying on minors of the same sex, is it WISE to continue promoting the OUTDATED but highly corrosive revolutionary sexual ideologies of the late 60s and the individuals, like Rosica, who are its fanatical proponents? [Imagine if John the Baptist or Jesus Christ spoke like you--who would understand what the hell they were saying? Surely the teachings of the catholic church on sexuality are older than those of the sixties--so aren't they outdated also? Are you making arguments for modernism/progressives w/out even knowing it or are you a modernist progressive? "Highly corrosive" does that mean mortal sin (is lightly corrosive okay)? "Fanatical"--should we ALL be mildly infected w/the revolutionary sexual ideologies of the 60s--just enough to like the beatles, contraception, mini skirts etc. etc.? You are not preaching Christianity nor passing on the Catholic faith. Hem hem haw haw - is that what a troll does?]

If I were a CANADIAN PARENT, I wouldn’t WANT Rosica anywhere near my children, or anyone else’s children. [Well, how 'bout if you're a martian from planet x, would you WANT Rosica near your or anyone's children? Is that what Catholicism/Jesus Christ is about: what we genderless, childless freaks WANT? No wonder you subscribe to the N.O.: whatever freaky perversion you want, VC2 accommodates YOU! (could you be any more tolerant and less condemnatory? Is that how Jesus Christ judges (death, judgment, heaven hell); is that how the Catholic Church speaks?)]

I’d go a step further and say that this initiative and the Vatican’s current endorsement of it is a sign of the absolute irreformability of Francis and his clique of aberrosexualist collaborators. [You'd go one(!) (tippy, tippy, teeny, tiny toe) step further -- and yet you tumble right into heresy w/your VC2 speak. What is the sign of Jesus Christ and what is His message? Repentance or reform? Reform is the language of Luther (and VC2 and Francis and Ouellett AND TANCRED) who want to re-form the Catholic Church to serve the kingdom of Satan. Isn't it a heresy to say that the Catholic Church needs to be reformed? Isn't it a heresy to say that people need to be reformed (when we are formed in God's image and likeness)? People need to repent (turn back to God) and it's a condemned heresy to say it is not possible for anyone to be able to do that. W/God's Grace everything is possible and Our Lady & Jesus and all His apostles have called on us to pray w/out ceasing and to do penance for the conversion of sinners. [But the objective of all you clinging to the N.O. is that you are staying there to reform those people (and now you are stating in your opinion they aren't reformable), but only time that has ever been recommended for Christians to stay w/non-Christians is when St. Paul said that one could stay married to a non-Christian in the hopes that they might be converted by the practicing Christian. However, a person who belongs to the N.O. is not a practicing Christian. How you all think that by going along w/heresy (at least lip service!), vast evil (like the rape and murder of children and giving approval to communist and secular regimes that rob, starve and murder their own people) and false worship you are somehow pleasing God is beyond belief. It is you who are keeping the N.O. going by staying there and losing your own souls in the process. [How twisted up (perverse) you are to think someone is trolling you by asking you to state the truth clearly and unambiguously.]