At this point, there are only four possible explanations for what happened to a crucial letter
“How bad is it?” That was the question a friend put to me, à propos the leadership crisis in the Catholic Church. Pope Francis precipitated the crisis by levelling repeated accusations of calumny against survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by a prominent Chilean cleric, Fernando Karadima, who was convicted of his crimes by a Vatican court in 2011. Karadima’s victims claim one of their abuser’s protégés, Juan Barros – ordained bishop in 1995 and appointed by Pope Francis to head the diocese of Osorno, Chile, in 2015 – witnessed the abuse they suffered at Karadima’s hands, covered for his mentor and enabled his abusive behaviour. Put just like that, it is bad enough.
It gets worse.
Pope Francis first accused the victims of calumny in a heat-of-the-moment exchange with a reporter in a press gaggle at the gate of the Iquique venue where he was heading to say Mass on the last day of his recent visit to Chile. News of the Pope’s “hot takes” overshadowed the final, Peruvian leg of his South American tour. The Pope then used his in-flight press conference – days later – on the return trip to Rome, to double down on his accusations of calumny, saying he has not received any evidence of Barros’ alleged wrongdoing, and that the victims had never brought their case to him. “You [reporters], in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward,” Pope Francis said.
Even at the time Pope Francis made it – again, during the in-flight presser en route to Rome from Peru, days after his impromptu response had garnered the attention of the press – the assertion was, to say the very least, problematic.
The accusations against Barros have been before the public since at least 2012. Victims have given testimony to Chilean prosecutors regarding the matter. It appears, therefore, that the Pope’s assertion can save itself only if it rests on a hyper-technicality: that he had no direct, personal acquaintance with the accusations. Upon hearing the Pope’s claim, however, the abuse survivor and former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, Marie Collins, made it known that she had delivered an 8-page letter to the Pope describing life in the Chilean institute where their abuse took place and detailing Barros’s alleged role in their abuse. The letter, Collins explained to AP, was from Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of Karadima and Barros’s most outspoken accuser. Collins claims she delivered the letter in 2015, through the Pope’s own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters (and president of the Commission for the Protection of Minors), Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston.
About the letter and its delivery, Marie Collins told the Catholic Herald: “It was at the time a private letter [written in Spanish] from Juan Carlos Cruz to the Holy Father.” Collins went on to explain: “As well as I can recollect it was sealed when given to Cardinal O’Malley. It was in a simple plain envelope. I did have a general idea of its content as [Mr Cruz] had also sent a detailed explanation of events in English.” Asked specifically about Cardinal O’Malley’s confirmation of delivery, Collins told the Herald: “He said he had given the letter directly to the Holy Father and that at the same time he had discussed our concerns about Bishop Barros with him.”
At this point, there are four possibilities: Collins and Cruz are both lying about the letter; Cardinal O’Malley gravely misrepresented the diligence with which he discharged his promise to deliver it directly to Pope Francis (though Collins has expressed full confidence in him on several occasions); Pope Francis received the letter and did not read it; Pope Francis received it and read it, only to forget about it.
If O’Malley did not deliver the letter directly into the hands of the Pope, he needs to say so. If Pope Francis did receive the letter, only to put it aside without reading it, he needs to say so, and explain why he did not read it. If the Pope did receive it, and read it, then the only way to save him from an accusation of deliberate untruthfulness is to admit he is relying on another hyper-technicality: that he received nothing submitted specifically and explicitly as evidence in an open judicial process, or that he received no new evidence – i.e. evidence about which he had no prior knowledge of any kind in any capacity – or that he received no evidence of Barros’s wrongdoing as a bishop, such as would warrant investigation and possibly trial under pertinent law.
As Fr Robert Gahl, who teaches ethics at Rome’s Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, told Catholic News Agency in a story that ran earlier this week, “[Barros’s] alleged failure to report did not constitute episcopal negligence and yet his being somehow an accessory, at least insofar as he is accused of not having stopped a crime from taking place, would constitute the negligence of someone who is now a bishop.” The accusations against Barros arguably come to more than failure to report abuse. In any case, the point is that Pope Francis appointed Barros to the See of Osorno in 2015, years after the accusations against Barros were public knowledge.
The appointment of Barros was also over and against the objections of the bishops of Chile, who wrote to Pope Francis about the matter. The Holy Father responded to the Chilean bishops with his own letter, in which he explained that he had in fact asked Barros to resign the post in which he found himself at the time (when Barros was appointed to Osorno he was bishop of the Chilean forces). The Pope also asked Barros to take a year’s sabbatical, before being considered for any other post. The AP story detailing the exchanges reports that the Apostolic Nuncio to Chile, Archbishop Ivo Scapolo, who acted as go-between, also told Barros that two other bishops who came up under Karadima were being given similar requests, and reportedly also told Barros to keep the news to himself. Barros, however, decided to give the names of the two other bishops in a letter he wrote announcing his renunciation of the military see. At that point, instead of sending Barros into retirement as damaged goods, or rejecting him as insubordinate, Pope Francis decided to make Barros the head of the Church in Osorno.
Quite apart from the legal cavils, the question is: what was Pope Francis thinking?
In various public and private conversations about the crisis, a few people have suggested that Pope Francis may have read and then forgotten about the letter. The details of the published excerpts alone make that highly unlikely. An AP story published last Sunday contains lurid particulars. “[W]e were in Karadima’s room,” the story quotes Cruz’s letter, “and Juan Barros – if he wasn’t kissing Karadima – would watch when Karadima would touch us – the minors – and make us kiss him, saying: ‘Put your mouth near mine and stick out your tongue.’ He would stick his out and kiss us with his tongue.” If Pope Francis could read those sentences and forget he had, then there is reason to suspect that he is not in full possession of his faculties.
If the letter was intercepted after Cardinal O’Malley delivered it, and before Pope Francis had a chance to read it, then the Holy Father is a victim of a grave and likely criminal disservice that has damaged his credibility. If he is a victim of such a disservice, he must nevertheless own his dismissal of the general public claims registered in the letter, and account for his part in the creation of a working environment in which such miscarriage was possible. He must also apologise to the persons whose names and reputations he has injured.
Even if the outstanding questions regarding Pope Francis’s handling of the Barros affair are clarified – as they must be – the crisis of leadership in the Church will nevertheless remain.
The known facts of this case and others constitutive of Pope Francis’s record in these regards bespeak a style of governance in which the man at the top is more inclined to listen to fellow clerics, than to victims: to believe bishops – ones with skin in the game, to boot – over laity who bring credible allegations of clerical misbehaviour; to trust his own “gut instinct” even when it is informed by the opinion of interested parties, and to compound this imprudence with the self-delusion of self-reliance in these regards; to believe he can manage the crisis of clerical sexual abuse by way of gimmicks like the powerless Commission for the Protection of Minors he set up between 2014 and 2015 before ignoring it and allowing it to expire; to blame underlings and hide behind cavils of law, rather than face the filth in the Church squarely and fight it without ruth or stint.
How bad is it? It is very bad indeed. If the manner in which the crisis as it has heretofore unfolded in the worldwide Church, and especially in the US and Ireland, is any lesson, then a candid mind would not be incapable of concluding that Pope Francis is not only part of the problem, but that he is the problem.
WILL BLOG ABOUT THE DROMORE FATHER FINNEGAN BBC SPOTLIGHT PROGRAMME TOMORROW.
WILL BLOG ABOUT THE DROMORE FATHER FINNEGAN BBC SPOTLIGHT PROGRAMME TOMORROW.
I think as a matter of fairness I must respond to a comment posted here yesterday which stated that the pretend Magna Carta doesn't have a day job. In fact he does and both his old Ma and their lordships the bishops and archbishops of England and Wales are very proud of him.
ReplyDeleteWhat he crosses the sea to do is perform the psychological assessments on candidates for priesthood and religious life. The bishops had previously been confused by psycho-babble in the reports, so sacked their psychologist and advertised for someone else. Maggie landed the job after only reading a copy of 'How to Control Problem Drinking' in the public library and set about it with gusto.
The bishops were amazed at the clarity of his descriptions in the reports. What would previously take pages to say was now reduced to single words: 'moron', 'imbecile' and 'pharisee' are amongst his favourites. He did once go overboard and describe one man as a 'tw*t', and he is now a Monsignor.
This sh*te is becoming more tedious by the day and somewhat unbearable. This blog is slowly going down the pan as a result of it because Pat insists on allowing this total crap to continue. How can you expect anyone to take this blog seriously when they read this codswallop.
Delete6.57: Take a few deep breaths before you publish your silly, meandering nonsense. Pat - you are allowing this nutcase abuse your blog. Remove his trivializing of serious issues. But Magna, more relevantly - go see a counsellor.
DeleteRude. I love reading the two Magnas. Magna 2 has reduced Magna 1's obnoxiousness and done us all favour. The only thing which should be stopped is the continual whingeing from people like you. If you don't like what Pat allows in his blog, start your own.
Delete12.31 You are very much in the minority liking those two imbeciles. The vast majority on here detest them and their idiotic behaviour, if you regularly read the blog you would have seen the many comments of complaint. If you love reading their drivel then I pity you because you must have such a sad life.
Delete12.31 - you obviously do not possess a high intelligence level that you find the 2 magnas interesting. They are both offensive and as for magna black (6.57) - he belongs in the trailer trash department of commentary.
DeleteI completely agree with you, poster 13.48 - -
DeleteThe Magnas are at best boring, smutty and inane and at worst (--in Magna Blue's case) extremely nasty and offensive. Yesterday was very much a case in point No wonder we are all so fed up with them and the myth that Magna Blue is "intelligent" just because he copies out reams of the internet!!
I agree. They should both be banned.
DeleteThe two or three Magnas are great craic. They contribute to the boisterous/anarchic nature of this blog which makes it a daily read in every presbytery/parochial house.
DeleteTwo or three. Speaking as a Magna Carta myself, I think at least five people are posting under the name lol. Ignore the blue one btw. He misunderstood the meaning of Ash Wednesday and snorted the contents of his ash tray, which has set him off wrong for the whole day.
DeleteYes, Pope Francis got it wrong in his judgment and bad judgment as we know is responsible for the grave hurt inflicted on so many and on their continued hurt. Carelessness with words compiunds the hurt and betrayal. On this Ash Wednesday I'll be remembering all who were hurt, are still hurt, the many whose lives are shattered and broken because of abuse, particularly by church personnel. But I will also pray for Pope Francis thst his mercy will be pure, unequivocating and real. He too needs our prayers. Many of us will receive ashes on our foreheads today. Let us not forget the personal call given to all who follow Christ - "Turn away from your sins, repent and believe the good news". A powerful calling and challenge, when lived is life giving and enriching. The "metanoia" (complete turning around) is apt for all of us today. At least can we let it be so for Ash Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteWhat Pope Francis needs is an investigation...of himself, of Vatican protocol and procedure, and of his publicly wronging those Chilean survivors of sexual abuse.
DeleteYou sound like the latest in a very long line of apologists for clerical injustice.
Who cares what you think, M C! You disgraced yourself completely yesterday ..
DeleteInteresting that at least you appeared to notice that there was "a very long line" of people who understand the Pope's difficulties and appreciate his efforts . That's a faint sign of progress and maybe even normality. You have still a long way to go though.. There wwil be relapses and outbursts but keep at it!
Delete8.42 I think your post is a deflection. The church has some very serious problems which must be sorted out. You can't pretend it isn't happening by concentrating on Ash Wednesday. It won't go away.
DeleteAt the moment I have more faith in Jordan Peterson than the Pope.
DeleteMagna, 14.28, In your response to my post at 8.42, as always you never fail in our expectations of you. I am not an apologist, never was, never will be, for any individual who abuses, or who is complicit in abuse of any kind. I find clerical abuse reprehensible and repugnant. But that won't prevent me for praying for Pope Francis. Hate him if you wish but I won't follow you on your hate journey. You are an asshole of a specimen, always insulting, deliberately ignorant and self deluded.
DeleteMags ay 14.28: What mighty tomes are you reading today to impress us with? Yesterday, you were just disgusting, obnoxious,smutty and so juvenile. Your world is a pathetic world. God help you!
DeleteThank you for that inspirational post today, poster 8.42
ReplyDeleteThe Bishop McAreavey Crisis: How Bad Is It?
ReplyDeleteBishop McAreavey is fine.. Continuing as normal with his busy Ash Wednesday.
DeleteI have come to the conclusion that the church, behind the scenes is like a boys boarding school and it does not consider sexual abuse as wrong. It's all part of the fun.
ReplyDelete12.22 Have to agree about the boarding school. Seems a right playground scuffle today
DeleteIt has to be the biggest cover up.
ReplyDelete2 down now and us keeping them .
Brady and Mc Areavy....shame on both of you.
Can we not give up the boring Magnas for Lent?
ReplyDelete@ 14.56
DeleteThat is an excellent suggestion!
We could do with some normality and some nice inspirational posters instead!
😆
DeleteLol this is funny today - all these Christians moaning, backbiting, bitching... You want to be inspired but you're not very inspirational yourselves.
DeleteOr could it possibly be that people come here because they want to be shocked at scandal?
Some posters are interesting and genuinely inspirational and some are at the top of their professions.
DeleteYet they take time to write some posts for here, simply ignoring the chaff and negativity. I often think, in many instances, it's a case of pearls before swine ...
But you also get those who are hungry for scandal and they will admonish Pat if there are no gutterpress items. Not hard to know what their aim is...
It would appear that Rome has given up the Pope for Lent. The Ash Wednesday General Audience attracted the lowest attendance of this Pontificate so far.
ReplyDeleteYou’re fixated in a Freudian way on the number of bums on seats at the GAs. The complexity of reasons, including ICT and Francis’ own views about the cult of personality and the shallowness of camera clicking have been adequately explained here to you and elsewhere. That he is the most popular pope in history must be difficult for you to accept.
DeleteWho's he popular with? Lapsed Catholics and non-Catholics. The vertiginous decline continues as one Latin American country after another turns Protestant and church closures continue (Wrexham for example announced recently the closure of twenty churches).
Delete18:26 what about that letter?
DeleteCult of personality? Rofl. Virtually ever article on the new expensive Vatican News website is about Frankie. Unlike his predecessors he has a public Mass every morning in which his strangulated homilies are reported on slavishly by the Vatican press machine.
DeleteAre your ears itchy?
Deletehttp://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm
Look at Vatican News. It's all Frankie. Jesus doesn't get a look-in. I'd be tolerant of these post-Vatican II James if they were successful in inculcating faith. The lapsed members of my family just say "about time too" when Francis automatically conforms doctrine, but not one has returned to the faith because of it.
DeleteAnd my two adulterous brothers, who wrecked marriages and deprived young children the company of their natural father, are delighted that Francis has told them that they can now receive Holy Communion. The wives and children will have to make their own arrangements.
@16.37
DeleteI am not sure where you got that idea from! It is very far from the reality of the busy Ash Wed.that the Pope has spent, with a full basilica for the traditional ashes ceremony and then the annual ritual of the church slowly emptying and the congregation filing out and going in procession to Mount Sabina etc
It is very different in character from his Easter Sunday appearance in the Square. His homily today would maybe have been helpful to you .. He mentioned the sad reality of "cold hearts".
He certainly got that right!
You, poster @ 21.00 need to pay much more detailed attention to the content of Pope Francis' words, both in his frequent homilies and in his writings. It is so embarrassingly obvious that you are slating him from a hearsay position of ignorance. (I would hate to think that your information may have been gleaned from one of the "fake news" channels which are anti-Church by design but it could be something to consider)
DeleteLook at the Eponymous Flower blog, he charts the declining General Audience figures.
DeleteYou, poster 22.27 surely know better than to rely on the information in spurious websites.
DeleteIf you keep an eye on them for even as short a period as a few weeks, you will soon crack open their agendas when you spot how some of their news differs sharply with reputable sources. (Always always remember the importance of being very wary of your sources especially in these media-conscious days when virtually anyone can start a blog, or his own "channel")and then after sticking a ridiculous title on it, print what he feels will attract a readership.
So "buyer beware" !
Francis doesn't care. He has allowed the Commission for the Protection of Minors to lapse and he has neutered the CDF, which, finally under Benedict took the issue seriously. Benedict forcibly laicised over 800 priests; Francis looks the other way and denounces victims as slanderous.
ReplyDelete17:00 It’s difficult to identify the motivation behind your vitriol against Francis but it’s clear that it’s not truth or justice.
ReplyDelete18.18, whenever somebody categorically criticises the pope, along come contributors like yourself using words like vitriol, diatribe etc. But, your like never offer a rebuttal of the evidence. Why can you not address each criticism with facts, if its that clear cut to you?
DeleteTo poster 1933
DeleteNo thank you! Can you please remember that neither the Pope nor the poster are in the witness box and are not required to answer any "evidence", least of all, to you.
Exactly. St Paul corrected St Peter publically.
DeleteTo 20.45, actually, in the name of fairness,having used words like vitriol and diatribe, people like you are required to produce some facts, otherwise you become the vitriol and diatribe yourselves.
DeleteIs anything I said at 17:00 incorrect? Marie Collins deplored the fact that the Commission was starved of resources, including offices and staff; was denied any powers over bishops; and was allowed to lapse. Francis told a bare-faced lie when he said no representations had been made to him in the Barros case. Are these comments of mine just or unjust?
ReplyDeleteYou told the truth.
DeleteSome would rather promote fiction over truth. That's what priests have been doing for a very long time: promoting the fiction that they are holy, and reliable moral authorities rather than admit the sordid truth that they debased children and then strove to conceal it.
Magna, Please change the worn-out record . You SAID all that before and you never come back with anything refreshing, encouraging or new... So it's definitely thumbs down to you, mate!
DeleteYes, you're incorrect when you arbitrarily take on yourself to declare "Francis doesn't care"
DeleteWhat an impertinence
Magna Carta - Hebrews 13:8
ReplyDelete‘Jesus Christ the same (ould rubbish from you) yesterday, today and ever.’
Happy Valentine’s to you, Pat, and to all (not just many) who post here.
ReplyDeleteThank you, poster @ 19.48
ReplyDeleteHope you are having a happy Valentine's Day yourself too!
St Valentine's day is a racket. I paid £65 for 12 roses. They'll be in the compost heap this time next week.
Delete£65? They saw you coming.
DeleteSeriously it was your choice. Wouldn’t a single rose have done the job?
To poster 21.40
DeleteYou should have negotiated a better price on those roses, or walked out of the shop. Yes--I'm serious!
Under market forces of supply and demand, when the roses are still not sold late in the day, the orices have to drop sharply or the shop would suffer a lot of loss..
Remember the golden rule, if something is far too expensive DON'T BUY. You will find that if a shop thinks you'd pay that price, they will charge it!
Have you taken a vow of silence on here today Pat?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's good for Pat to be quiet and respectful todayt..
ReplyDeleteHe's always respectful, but rue the day he keeps us waiting for... scandal!
DeleteFrancis is from South America where favours are returned (or you're asking for trouble) - this is regarded as good business and an absolute assurance of assistance when needed. Who are the most powerful group in the Church? (hint - we keep hearing about this majority on this blog) and who is responsible for abusing altar boys and schoolboys? Well not heterosexuals that's for sure. We have to keep powerful minions on-side or be undermined fatally and maybe forced to resign like our predecessor. This is not about one bishop's appointment, it's about his clique and his supporters in the Vatican. Francis isn't going to upset them, that is a certainty. His great friend Maradiaga says that claims of sexual abuse are a 'Jewish conspiracy'! Yet he still keeps his position and close friendship with Francis. AKS WHY? AND THEN AGAIN AND THEN PUKE.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute rubbish!
ReplyDeleteYou have some imagination...