“THE UNFORTUNATE REPLIED”. WHY THE POPE WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER TO KEEP THE SILENCE ON MCCARRICK.

30 Maggio 2019 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear Stilumcuriali, never the famous words of Alessandro Manzoni – but this time in the masculine – sounded more true (La sventurata rispose, the Unfortunate Replied).  We refer to the interview that the talented Valentina Alazraki made to Pope Bergoglio, trying to get answers to some – not all, obviously – obscure points of an embarrassing government.

(Our translation).

We propose the part of the interview concerning the testimony of Msgr. Viganò, and we ask you to accompany us on a precise examination, point by point. We will make considerations; which we hope will draw your attention. The bold is that of Valentina’s questions, and italics are the considerations of Stilum Curiae.

Ο

The McCarrick issue brings me to another issue that I wanted to address with you. She advised me on one of her last trips to read “Letters of Tribulation”: I read them, I did my homework. I very often met the word silence and the explanation of how sometimes silence is necessary. According to her, it’s almost like a moment of grace. But telling a journalist that silence is necessary … Do not laugh at Pope Francis, it is so. She remembers when they told her, eight months ago: there is a statement by former nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò who says he himself told her at a hearing at the beginning of his pontificate who McCarrick was, and she didn’t nothing, he just said: “I will not answer, judge you, I will answer in due time.” That silence has weighed a lot, because for the press and for many people, when one is silent, it is like between husband and wife, isn’t it? Becchi your husband and he doesn’t answer you and you say: “Here something is wrong”. So why the silence? The time has come to answer that question that we asked you on the plane, more than eight months have passed, Pope Francis.

– Yes, those who made Roman law say that silence is a way of speaking. This case of Viganò, I had not read the whole letter, I saw it a little … and I already know what it is, and I made a decision: I trust in the honesty of journalists. And I said to you: “Look, you have everything here, study and draw the conclusions”. And this you did, because you did the work, and in this case it was fantastic. I took great care not to say things that weren’t there but then gave them, three or four months later, a judge in Milan when he sentenced him.

 “He didn’t even read the whole letter,” he says. And he simply decided not to answer. Trusting in journalists. And he was right. Because apart from a couple of courageous colleagues, Anna Matranga and Cindy Wooden, there was no attempt by journalists to lock Pope Bergoglio on the questions that everyone asked themselves. Neither in that journey, nor in subsequent ones. But all or almost all have set out to support the character assassination against Viganò fielded by the team of journalists of the magic circle. All: from the Catholic and paracattolic media and funded directly or indirectly by the Church (including those who congratulate themselves now that the count of the days of silence of Stilum Curiae is over …), both the great newspapers and international agencies, voices of the left and the politically correct. Pope Bergoglio rightly calls their work “fantastic”; and I must say that if I were one of them, faced with that “fantastic” I would be ashamed as a thief. As one person who spent decades in the Curia pointed out to us, <mons Viganò was “sentenced” to give back money to his brother priest after he had used them for charity on the basis of a legacy from his parents, then refused by his brother. had to pay an additional interest to those already given. It is not a criminal action, it is a civil dispute and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MCCARRICK CASE. Mons Viganò was “sentenced” to give back money to his brother priest after he had used them for charity on the basis of a legacy from his parents, then refused by his brother>.

The question of the family, do you mean?

– Sure. I kept silent because I should have thrown mud. Let journalists find out. And you discovered it, you found that whole world. It was a silence based on trust in you. Not only that, but I also told you: “Hold on, study it, that’s all”. And the result was good, better than if I had started to explain, to defend myself.

And the mud he tries to throw it now. Again he congratulated the journalists, because they did not do their job; and they were forced, from stage to stage, to recognize (the Figuereido report is the most recent episode) that Viganò had not invented anything. I insist, I believe that an examination of conscience by many colleagues would be appropriate.

– You judge evidence in hand. There is another thing that has always struck me: the silences of Jesus. Jesus always responded, even to the enemies when they provoked him, “you can do this, that”, to see if he fell into provocation. And he answered in that case. But when Friday came the fury of the people,  he was silent. To the point that Pilate himself said: “Why don’t you answer me?”.  That is, in the face of a climate of fury it cannot be answered. And that letter was a fury, as you yourself have realized from the results.

He continues to seek the sympathy and complicity of journalists. It is not clear how a single document, to which he does not want to respond, may  represent fury, which presupposes repeated episodes. And he compares the refusal to give answers on a precise and documented fact to the silence of Jesus Christ … well if it is not at least disrespectful, if not even blasphemous, you can judge yourself.

– Some of you even wrote that it was paid, I don’t know, I don’t know though.

Still an insinuation, and objectively of a disqualifying genre for those who propose it. Just as it is truly clerical and pretense in the worst sense of the word the sentence is closed. I mention slander, and then I say that I have no proof.

There are some who keep thinking that it is true and that they keep wondering why, if he knew or did not know about McCarrick. In the press there is of course everything.

-Of McCarrick I knew nothing, of course, nothing. I said it several times, I didn’t know anything, I had no idea.

This statement might be judged shameless. “Several times”? To whom? When? Where? He never said anything public, or even private, later reported in public. An affirmation of this kind is either a pure lie, or it is the result of an umbalancement.

– And when he says he spoke to me that day, that he came … and I don’t remember if he told me about this, if it’s true or not. I have no idea!

On this point, Msgr. Viganò is very clear. Pope Bergoglio lies. It was the Pope who asked him about McCarrick, and he had an explosive, very hard, and very serious answer. In front of which he did not flinch. But pretending not to remember a series of such dramatic accusations, relating to a cardinal, on which you yourself had asked for information, is simply not credible. And it is an offense to the intelligence of your interlocutors. Always trusting, of course, in the sympathy and complicity of journalists, the organic and the subservient ones and those who have families.

– You know that I didn’t know anything about McCarrick, otherwise I would not have remained silent.

How do we know this? In other cases – Grassi, Inzoli, Murphy O’Connor, Barros, Maradiaga, Danneels, Zanchetta, to name but a few – silence and / or complicity have been the rule of behavior. In October, he promised that the McCarrick case documents in the Curia would be made public. We are almost in June, and the only documents on the case were provided by Msgr. Figueiredo. What trust can you have?

– The reason for my silence was first of all that the tests were there, I told you: “Judge for yourself”. It was really an act of trust. And then, for what I told you about Jesus, that in moments of fury one cannot speak, because it is worse. Everything goes against it. The Lord has shown us this path and I follow him.

What evidence was there? From August 2018 every new declaration and revelation has only confirmed the testimony of Viganò. Again Jesus is brought up to mask himself in silence. But on one thing perhaps the Pope is right in this case. That you can’t talk, “because it’s worse.” This interview with McCarrick proves it: he would have done better to keep quiet, so as not to bring to light the fabric of which his humanity is woven. It is not the Pope, the problem, or not only the Pope: he is the man, as one of his brothers said, Father Joseph Fessio, sj.

Ο

 Below is a passage from the testimony of Msgr. Viganò related to McCarrick and at the hearing on June 23, 2013 with Pope Bergoglio.

“On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013 I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were lodged there. As soon as I entered the hall I met with Cardinal McCarrick, who was wearing the threaded robe. I greeted him with respect as I had always done. He immediately told me with a tone between the ambiguous and the triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I go to China.”

I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played for his recent election, as McCarrick himself later revealed in a conference at Villanova University and in an interview with the Catholic National Reporter, nor did I have never thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and the role he had been able to have as a voter in that of 2005. I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but which would have become evident to me immediately following days “.

And here is the report of the hearing (40 minutes) of Sunday, June 23:

“I started the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to tell me with the words he addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, with a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, told me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the archbishop) must be pastors; and they must not be on the left – and added, raising both arms – and when I say left I mean homosexuals ”. Of course the logic of the correlation between being left and being homosexual escaped me, but I didn’t add anything else.

Immediately afterwards the Pope asked me with a captivating tone: “Card. McCarrick how is it? “I answered frankly and if you want with such ingenuity:” Holy Father, I don’t know if you know the card. McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a big dossier about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict forced him to retire to a life of prayer and penance”. The Pope did not make the slightest comment on those very serious words of mine and showed no expression of surprise on his face, as if it had already been known to him for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, with what purpose did the Pope ask me that question: “Card. McCarrick how is he? ” He evidently wanted to ascertain whether I was McCarrick’s ally or not. “

Condividi i miei articoli:

Tag: alazraki, carlo maria viganò, mccarrick, pope

Categoria: Generale