Friday, March 22, 2019
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Saturday, September 29, 2018
(Rome) Ex-Cardinal McCarrick, who is at the center of an abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, now lives in a Capuchin monastery in the state of Kansas. This was announced by the Archdiocese of Washington.
Theodore McCarrick was Archbishop of Washington and previously Archbishop of Newark. He is accused of having lived a gay double life for decades and of having aberrosexual relationships with subordinates and seminarians.
On August 26, Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, revealed that when Pope Benedict XVI learned of the incidents, he imposed sanctions on McCarrick at the end of his term. Apparently, this was never really implemented till the pope's resignation. Rather, Pope Francis rehabilitated the cardinal and, according to the Vatican diplomat, made him one of his closest confidants.
It was not until the New York Times revealed the Cardinal's double life in July in two articles that the pope's confidant, officially at his own request, lost the cardinal status. The former Apostolic Nuncio in Washington accuses Pope Francis of covering up and covering the cardinal's "perverse and diabolical" behavior, and calls for Francis's resignation.
In a press release from the Archbishopric of Washington, it is now reported that the now 88-year-old McCarrick "now lives the permission of the Provincial Superior, Christopher Popravak, responsible for the monastic Franciscan Community and the Bishop of Salina, Gerald Vincke, in St. Fidelis Monastery in Victoria in State of Kansas. "
"Out of consideration for the peace of the community of St. Fidelis-Kosters, we are asked to respect the privacy of this agreement."
The transfer to the monastery became necessary after Pope Francis in late July McCarrick prohibited any public exercise of his office. At the same time he imposed house arrest against him in a place to be assigned to him. [Notorious priests under restriction in Collegeville, are right there next to a high school and a university. They are also allowed to travel, some as far as Europe and cushy vacations.]
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Archdiocese of Washington (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred email@example.com
Friday, August 31, 2018
The case of Julio Cesar Grassi -- Cardinal Bergoglio Refused to See the Victims to Protect them From Murder Threats
The case of Julio César Grassi has been holding Argentina under his spell for 25 years now.
Julio César Grassi (born 1956) was ordained a priest in 1981. As part of Liberation Theology and post-conciliar, humanitarian social engagement, he was particularly involved in social work and "pastoral accompaniment" for poor children and disabled people from deprived backgrounds in Argentina.
The decade-long economic decline of Argentina, the political turmoil, the impoverishment of large parts of the population and the chronic recurrent disappointed hopes with deep frustration of the poor population strata, formed an excellent [hunting] ground for the activities of Grassi.
Under Grassi's leadership, a large complex of social welfare institutions and homes for the care and support of children and adolescents from precarious conditions emerged.
Grassi promoted everything with a great media hype through television and radio, with publications and with very complex and opaque financial transactions.
Grassi excelled in tying politicians and wealthy, well-known personalities to his activities and facilities. Especially in the Peronist milieu (or in the political leadership caste of Peronism at the end of the 20th century), he found many sympathizers.
At the same time, his ability to raise funds for his facilities was very great, and he became widely known through television appearances.
One focus was the establishment of Felices Los Ninos ("Happy Children") for children and adolescents with problems.
The center of activities was the Argentine diocese of Morón, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.
In 1992, a lawsuit was filed against Grassi on behalf of children and adolescents at the Felices los Ninos in a local court.
The case was not pursued and the proceedings suppressed.
In 1995, the world public was shaken by many cases of severe and widespread and institutionalized sexual abuse of children and wards in the Catholic Church in North America.
Pope John Paul II wrote extensively to the bishops of North America.
At the same time, the sexual abuse of children and the disabled in Church institutions in Belgium came to light, in addition to abstruse advertising for pedophilia in local diocesan newspapers and religious books (affair Barzin , affair Roeach3 , case Anneke ).
At the turn of the millennium, the tremendous extent of child abuse was perceived in the ecclesial context of Western Europe and North America; it was discussed in great detail in the media.
The Church establishment responded in 2005 mainly with cover-up, beautification, attempts at deescalation and slick financial compensation.
The number of trials became Legion, the convictions increased rapidly and the compensation payments reached astronomical heights in the US.
In 2002, the Argentine TV station Telenoche reported in a sensational report that a lawsuit had been filed against Grassi for pedophile abuse.
The news struck like a bomb: huge popular upheaval, broad media interest, loud defiance of Grassi, and spirited complaints from angry family members.
Anticlerical resentments, clerical protective reflexes, competition between media holdings, financial irregularities and political fronts additionally colored the Grassi case: a victim was very fiercely defended by a protagonist of the Montoneros (left-wing Peronists); at the same time, much of the Peronist nomenklatura was associated with the omnipresent Grassi on television.
Extensive police and financial investigations took place.
The complaints were examined very carefully; especially the cases "Gabriel", "Ezequiel" and "Luis" were very stressful.
The sealed-off structures of the facilities were screened, tons of little Christian material came to light, many co-workers testified, and not least the horrendous financial mismanagement and embezzlement came to light.
Grassi defended himself in a very strange way:
He did not respond to the allegations and substantiated very hard-backed complaints with exhaustive, substantive evidence and evidence, but threatened with very expensive lawyers, attacked the victims loudly, tingled through radio and television stations and railed against a media extermination campaign by the Argentine press group Clarin against him (Grassi) and his private broadcaster.
Grassi refused to comply with a subpoena in court, became fleeting and also gave an interview with the radio before the camera.
The matter escalated: In 2003 there were threats and attacks with firearms on witnesses and claimants.
The Grassi case has now become nationally known.
The Argentine episcopate was already aware of the explosive nature of the Grassi affair in 2003: the responsible Bishop of Morón, Justo Oscar Laguna, had immediately forwarded the case to the next higher instance, the Archbishopric of Buenos Aires, given the complexity of the case and the manifold additional interests.
The victims and the witnesses, intimidated and threatened with firearms, asked Cardinal Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires, for a meeting to stop the attacks on the victims and the witnesses.
The request for a conversation was denied.
By contrast, the plaintiffs and the witnesses were able to raise their concerns with Monsignor Justo Oscar Laguna (1929-2011), Bishop of Morón (1980-2004) and former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner.
From various sides much pressure was exerted on the judicial organs.
On 10 June 2009, the Tribunal N ° 1 of Morón sentenced Don Julio Cesar Grassi to 15 years' imprisonment for sexual abuse of minors and corruption.
In September 2010, the Second Chamber of the Court of Cassation of the Province of Buenos Aires rejected all appeals against this verdict.
On 27 November 2012, the Supreme Court rejected all recourses and confirmed in January 2013, the first instance imprisonment of 15 years.
However, Grassi then remained on the loose for a long time for unclear reasons.
He was arrested only on 23 September 2013 (according to the 2 + 1 rule in force in Argentina - the period of pre-trial detention is double and is counted towards the sentence - he would have been released in 2018).
In 2016, Grassi was sentenced to another 15 years in prison for financial fraud and tax evasion.
Theoretically, Grassi will remain in custody until 2033.
By the way: the word misericordia (mercy) did not even fit in this context.
- Wikipedia (Spanish edition): Julio César Grassi
- Federico Fahsbender: Cuatro libros encargados por el papa aseguran que el padre grassi es inocente.
- «Caso Grassi: la causa que desvela al papa Francisco» . Infobae
Image: Wikicommons / InfoCatolica
Trans: Tancred firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, April 20, 2018
Pope Francis has rceived Cardinal Sean in audience while a clear demand has come from Chile.
(Santiago de Chile) Twice yesterday, the case of Barros stood front and center: in Rome and in Santiago de Chile. Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati SDB, the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile, opened an extraordinary gathering of the Chilean clergy yesterday. In Rome, the most important critic of Pope Francis was received in audience.
The reason is Pope Francis' letter to the Chilean Episcopal Conference. With the letter, the Catholic Church leader responded to the report of his special envoy, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, on the sexual abuse scandal in Chile and around the ex-priest Fernando Karadima. The focus is Bishop Juan Barros Madrid. In spite of serious warnings, Pope Francis made him bishop of the diocese of Osorno in early 2015. Karadima victims and a group of faithful from the diocese of Osorno have since protested against this appointment. They accuse Msgr. Barros of covering Karadima's crimes.
For three years, Pope Francis dismissed any criticism as "defamation" and "instrumentalization" by circles hostile to the Church. Therefore, he refused to speak with Barros critics and listen to them.
After Francis maintained this attitude during his visit to Chile last January, the criticism became so strong that he finally had to react. The pope's visit in Chile took place mostly in more remote areas. The Chileans showed demonstrative disinterest. The Karadima case, as the Bishops' Conference noted, severely shook faith in the Church. Nevertheless, Pope Francis saw no reason to change his attitude towards the victims and Bishop Barros. Rather, he explicitly invited him to concelebrate with him publicly. The head of the Church evidently thought of silencing the critics with this gesture of demonstrative confidence in Barros. Instead, Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley OFM Cap of Boston joined the criticism. The cardinal is familiar with the case as President of the Pontifical Child Protection Commission.
At the same time, evidence was presented that Pope Francis since the spring of 2015 was informed about the allegations against Msgr. Barros. The pope had claimed otherwise on the return flight to Rome.
Course change - or not
Ten days after his return from Latin America, therefore, Francis made a course correction to curb the international expansion of criticism of his position. He appointed the Archbishop of Malta, Mgr. Charles Scicluna, Pontifical Special Envoy. Scicluna was commissioned to hear the Barros critics. He should do what Francis had refused to do for three years. In the second half of March, Scicluna presented more than 2,300 pages of reports after hearing more than 60 people in the US and Chile.
On April 11, the Vatican Press Office published a letter from Pope Francis to the Chilean bishops. He responded to the Scicluna report and spoke of the "pain and shame" he felt when reading the report.
In parallel, the Chilean Episcopal Conference issued a statement announcing the Pope's contrite attitude to the Chileans in order to restore their shattered confidence. Behind the scenes, the question was not settled.
Francis did not mention Bishop Barros in his letter. Rather, he issued an invitation to the bishops to come to Rome to discuss the matter. The bishops were silent in public. However, they knew that Francis was signaling that he would continue to cling to Barros, the stumbling block in public perception.
Barros himself had in the past submitted to the pope two resignations, which Francis rejected. A third request was to have Archbishop Scicluna together with his report at the papal desk. Barros himself denies this.
Clear signals from Cardinal Ezzati to FrancisThe fact is that the head of the Chilean Episcopal Conference wants to conclude the Barros case and therefore wants consequences. And not just since today, but already for three years. Francis was then also warned from the ranks of the Episcopal Conference against appointing Barros as Bishop of Osorno. The Pope, however, clings to him steadfastly. More and more often the question arises as to why.
Outwardly, the Chilean Episcopal Conference looks to be in good spirits. Yet behind the scenes there is considerable discord that Francis does not want Barros to give up his office.
The meeting called by Cardinal Ezzati yesterday in Santiago de Chile appealed to the whole clergy of the country to analyze the letter of Pope Francis. On the one hand, it is about the difficult task of regaining the lost trust among Chileans and, on the other, eliminating the causes. What Cardinal Ezzati imagines, he said very clearly and publicly afterwards. He expects Msgr. Barros to resign:
"I'm not a judge to decide if he's covered up something or not. For the good of the Church, however, he should take a step aside."At the same time the cardinal tried a difficult balancing act, with which he wanted to protect the reputation of the pope and at the same time wanted to build a bridge to accept the resignation Barros.
Cardinal Ezzati made it clear at yesterday's press conference that the Pope had to decide on his resignation. So far, Francis has rejected Barros' resignations. Ezzati, President of the Chilean Episcopal Conference from 2010-2016, assured the press that Pope Francis had been "deceived" as far as the information on the Karadima and Barros case was concerned.
Will Francis yield to this pressure from the Chilean Episcopal Conference?
Audience for Cardinal O'Malley in Rome
Yesterday, an event took place in Rome, even before the clergy meeting had begun in Santiago de Chile, which was likely to be directly linked to Chile.
Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley was received in audience by Pope Francis. It was noted in the Vatican's daily bulletin that the cardinal is chairman of the Pontifical Child Protection Commission . Nothing was known about the content of the meeting. However, it is believed that Cardinal O'Malley served as chairman of the Child Protection Commission at Francis and was speaking about the Barros case.
The meeting of Chilean bishops with Pope Francis in Rome is expected to take place in the third week of May. Until then, no decisions are likely to be made, as Francis has so far indicated no signs of wanting to change his position on Barros.
Has what Cardinal O'Malley said to him yesterday and what Cardinal Ezzati demanded yesterday, changed his mind?
The video with central excerpts from the press conference of Cardinal Ezzati yesterday in Santiago de Chile:
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Bild: Vatican.va/MiL (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred email@example.com
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
[ABC] The former head of the Australian Defence Force's Catholic diocese is yet to decide if he will resume his role in the military, after being cleared of child sex allegations.
Bishop Max Davis was on trial last week charged with six counts of being grossly indecent with boys at St Benedict's College in New Norcia between 1969 and 1972.
A jury found the 70-year-old not guilty on all charges, after about four hours of deliberation.