The "Declaration of Truths" of Catholic Prelates

“The Church of the living God - the pillar and the bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)

Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time

The Fundamentals of Faith

1. The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).

2. “The meaning of dogmatic formulas remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the Church's infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration “Mysterium Ecclesiae” in defense of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day, 5).

The Creed

3. “The Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conforms herself to the things of this world, or that she lessens the ardor of her longing of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 27). The opinion is, therefore, erroneous that says that God is glorified principally by the very fact of the progress in the temporal and earthly condition of the human race.

4. After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).

5. Muslims and others who lack faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, even monotheists, cannot give to God the same adoration as Christians do, that is to say, supernatural worship in Spirit and in Truth (see Jn 4:24; Eph 2:8) of those who have received the Spirit of filial adoption (see Rom 8:15).

6. Spiritualities and religions that promote any kind of idolatry or pantheism cannot be considered either as “seeds” or as “fruits” of the Divine Word, since they are deceptions that preclude the evangelization and eternal salvation of their adherents, as it is taught by Holy Scripture: “the god of this world has made blind the minds of those who have not faith, so that the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not be shining on them” (2 Cor 4:4).

7. True ecumenism intends that non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses in virtue of the prayer of Christ, always heard by His Father, “that they may be one” (John 17:11), and which she professes in the Symbol of Faith, “I believe in one Church.” Ecumenism, therefore, may not legitimately have for its goal the establishment of a Church that does not yet exist.

8. Hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice (see Mt 25:46). Not only fallen angels but also human souls are damned eternally (see 2 Thess 1:9; 2 Pet 3:7). Eternally damned human beings will not be annihilated, since their souls are immortal according to the infallible teaching of the Church (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 8).

9. The religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and the only Savior of humankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity of nations, so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions.

10. “Our [Christian] religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53).

11. The gift of free will with which God the Creator endowed the human person grants man the natural right to choose only the good and the true. No human person has, therefore, a natural right to offend God in choosing the moral evil of sin, the religious error of idolatry, blasphemy, or a false religion.

The Law of God

12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).

13. “The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God, the Creator and Lord. Love of God and of one’s neighbor cannot be separated from the observance of the commandments of the Covenant renewed in the blood of Jesus Christ and in the gift of the Spirit” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis splendor, 76). According to the teaching of the same Encyclical the opinion of those is wrong, who “believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the Divine and natural law.” Thus, “these theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition” (ibid.).

14. All of the commandments of God are equally just and merciful. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that a person is able, by obeying a Divine prohibition - for example, the sixth commandment not to commit adultery - to sin against God by this act of obedience, or to morally harm himself, or to sin against another.

15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium, vitae, 62). There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).

16. A woman who has conceived a child within her womb is forbidden by natural and Divine law to kill this human life within her, by herself or by others, whether directly or indirectly (see John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 62).

17. Procedures which cause conception to happen outside of the womb “are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 14).

18. No human being may ever be morally justified to kill himself or to cause himself to be put to death by others, even if the intention is to escape suffering. “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 65).

19. Marriage is by Divine ordinance and natural law an indissoluble union of one man and of one woman (see Gen 2:24; Mk 10:7-9; Eph 5:31-32). “By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 48).

20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

21. Natural and Divine law prohibits “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 14).

22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

23. Two persons of the same sex sin gravely when they seek venereal pleasure from each other (see Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7). Homosexual acts “under no circumstances can be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357). Hence, the opinion is contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation that says that, as God the Creator has given to some humans a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, so also He has given to others a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and that God intends that the latter disposition be acted on in some circumstances.

24. Human law, or any human power whatsoever, cannot give to two persons of the same sex the right to marry one another or declare two such persons to be married, since this is contrary to natural and Divine law. “In the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, 3).

25. Unions that have the name of marriage without the reality of it, being contrary to natural and Divine law, are not capable of receiving the blessing of the Church.

26. The civil power may not establish civil or legal unions between two persons of the same sex that plainly imitate the union of marriage, even if such unions do not receive the name of marriage, since such unions would encourage grave sin for the individuals who are in them and would be a cause of grave scandal for others (see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, 11).

27. The male and female sexes, man and woman, are biological realities created by the wise will of God (see Gen. 1: 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369). It is, therefore, a rebellion against natural and Divine law and a grave sin that a man may attempt to become a woman by mutilating himself, or even by simply declaring himself to be such, or that a woman may in like manner attempt to become a man, or to hold that the civil authority has the duty or the right to act as if such things were or may be possible and legitimate (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297).

28. In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4; Pius XII, Address to Catholic jurists on December 5, 1954).

29. All authority on earth as well as in heaven belongs to Jesus Christ; therefore, civil societies and all other associations of men are subject to his kingship so that “the duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2105; see Pius XI, Encyclical Quas primas, 18-19; 32).

The Sacraments

30. In the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, a wonderful change takes place, namely of the whole substance of bread into the body of Christ and the whole substance of wine into His blood, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation (see Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1; Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 4). “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 25).

31. The formulations by which the Council of Trent expressed the Church’s faith in the Holy Eucharist are suitable for men of all times and places, since they are a “perennially valid teaching of the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15).

32. In the Holy Mass, a true and proper sacrifice is offered to the Blessed Trinity and this sacrifice is propitiatory both for men living on earth and for the souls in Purgatory. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that the sacrifice of the Mass consists simply in the fact that the people make a spiritual sacrifice of prayers and praises, as well as the opinion that the Mass may or should be defined only as Christ giving Himself to the faithful as their spiritual food (see Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 2).

33. “The Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 24).

34. “The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. (…) The faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. The conclusion, however, that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been Divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, 92).

35. The sacrament of Penance is the only ordinary means by which grave sins committed after Baptism may be remitted, and by Divine law all such sins must be confessed by number and by species (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 7).

36. By Divine law the confessor may not violate the seal of the sacrament of Penance for any reason whatsoever; no ecclesiastical authority has the power to dispense him from the seal of the sacrament and the civil power is wholly incompetent to oblige him to do so (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 1388 § 1; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1467).

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).

38. According to the constant Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who deny any truth of the Catholic faith by formally professing their adherence to a heretical or to an officially schismatic Christian community (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 915; 1364).

39. The law by which priests are bound to observe perfect continence in celibacy stems from the example of Jesus Christ and belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. For this reason, this law should not be abolished in the Roman Church through the innovation of an optional priestly celibacy, either at the regional or the universal level. The perennial valid witness of the Church states that the law of priestly continence “does not command new precepts; these precepts should be observed, because they have been neglected on the part of some through ignorance and sloth. These precepts, nevertheless, go back to the apostles and were established by the Fathers, as it is written, ‘Stand firm, then, brothers and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’ (2 Thess. 2:15). There are in fact many who, ignoring the statutes of our forefathers, have violated the chastity of the Church by their presumption and have followed the will of the people, not fearing the judgment of God” (Pope Siricius, Decretal Cum in unum in the year 386).

40. By the will of Christ and the Divine constitution of the Church, only baptized men (viri) may receive the sacrament of Orders, whether in the episcopacy, the priesthood, or the diaconate (see John Paul II Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4). Furthermore, the assertion is wrong that says that only an Ecumenical Council can define this matter, because the teaching authority of an Ecumenical Council is not more extensive than that of the Roman Pontiff (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 11; First Vatican Council, sess. 4, c. 3, n. 8).

Explanatory note

In our time the Church is experiencing one of the greatest spiritual epidemics, that is, an almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation, which is a seriously contagious danger for spiritual health and eternal salvation for many souls. At the same time one has to recognize a widespread lethargy in the exercise of the Magisterium on different levels of the Church’s hierarchy in our days. This is largely caused by the non-compliance with the Apostolic duty - as stated also by the Second Vatican Council - to “vigilantly ward off any errors that threaten the flock” (Lumen gentium, 25).

Our time is characterized by an acute spiritual hunger of the Catholic faithful all over the world for a reaffirmation of those truths that are obfuscated, undermined, and denied by some of the most dangerous errors of our time. The faithful who are suffering this spiritual hunger feel themselves abandoned and thus find themselves in a kind of existential periphery. Such a situation urgently demands a concrete remedy. A public declaration of the truths regarding these errors cannot admit a further deferral. Hence we are mindful of the following timeless words of Pope Saint Gregory the Great: “Our tongue may not be slack to exhort, and having undertaken the office of bishops, our silence may not prove our condemnation at the tribunal of the just Judge. (…) The people committed to our care abandon God, and we are silent. They live in sin, and we do not stretch out a hand to correct.” (In Ev. hom. 17: 3. 14)

We are aware of our grave responsibility as Catholic bishops according to the admonition of Saint Paul, who teaches that God gave to His Church “shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4: 12-16).

In the spirit of fraternal charity, we publish this Declaration of truths as a concrete spiritual help, so that bishops, priests, parishes, religious convents, lay faithful associations, and private persons as well might have the opportunity to confess either privately or publicly those truths that in our days are mostly denied or disfigured. The following exhortation of the Apostle Paul should be understood as addressed also to each bishop and lay faithful of our time, “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6: 12 - 14).

Before the eyes of the Divine Judge and in his own conscience, each bishop, priest, and lay faithful has the moral duty to give witness unambiguously to those truths that in our days are obfuscated, undermined, and denied. Private and public acts of a declaration of these truths could initiate a movement of a confession of the truth, of its defense, and of reparation for the widespread sins against the Faith, for the sins of hidden and open apostasy from Catholic Faith of a not small number both of the clergy and of the lay people. One has to bear in mind, however, that such a movement will not judge itself according to numbers, but according to the truth, as Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said, amidst the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis, that “God does not delight in numbers” (Or. 42:7).

In giving witness to the immutable Catholic Faith, clergy and faithful will remember the truth that “the entire body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith, when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 12).

Saints and great Bishops who lived in times of doctrinal crises may intercede for us and guide us with their teaching, as do the following words of Saint Augustine, with which he addressed Pope Saint Boniface I, “Since the pastoral watch-tower is common to all of us who discharge the office of the episcopate (although you are prominent therein on a loftier height), I do what I can in respect of my small portion of the charge, as the Lord condescends by the aid of your prayers to grant me power” (Contra ep. Pel. I, 2).

A common voice of the Shepherds and the faithful through a precise declaration of the truths will be without any doubt an efficient means of a fraternal and filial aid for the Supreme Pontiff in the current extraordinary situation of a general doctrinal confusion and disorientation in the life of the Church.

We make this public Declaration in the spirit of Christian charity, which manifests itself in the care for the spiritual health both of the Shepherds and of the faithful, i.e., of all the members of Christ’s Body, which is the Church, while being mindful of the following words of Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians: “That there might be no division in the body, but the members might be mutually careful one for another. If one member suffers any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12: 25 - 27), and in the Letter to the Romans: “As in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; or ministry, in ministering; or he that teaches, in doctrine; he that exhorts, in exhorting; hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honor preventing one another. In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord” (Rom. 12: 4 - 11).

The Cardinals and Bishops who sign this “Declaration of the truths” entrust it to the Immaculate Heart of the Mother of God under the invocation “Salus populi Romani” (“Salvation of the Roman People”), considering the privileged spiritual meaning which this icon has for the Roman Church. May the entire Catholic Church, under the protection of the Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God, “fight intrepidly the fight of the Faith, persist firmly in the doctrine of the Apostles and proceed safely amidst the storms of the world until she reaches the heavenly city" (Preface of the Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary “Salvation of the Roman people”).

May 31, 2019 Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga Tomash Peta, Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Why Did the Octave of Pentecost Go?

I just came across this quote by Loius Bouyer on the incomprehensible and regrettable suppression of the Octave of Pentecost.

"I would rather say nothing, or close to nothing, on the new calendar, the work of a maniac trio, suppressing without any serious reason Septuagesima and the Pentecost Octave, and flinging three-quarters of the saints to no matter where, according to their own ideas."

"Je préfère ne rien dire ou si peu que rien du nouveau calendrier, oeuvre d’un trio de maniaques, supprimant sans aucun motif sérieux la Septuagésime e l’octave de Pentecote, et balançant les trois quarts des saints n’importe où, en fonction d’idées à eux". (Mémoires, Paris 2014, 199-200.)

P.S. Pentecost Saturday is an Ember Day, a traditional day of penance. Do prayers and penance for the sanctification of the clergy! "[The Ember Days] are days of fasting for the special sanctification of the four seasons and for obtaining God's blessing on the clergy, for whose ordination the Ember Saturdays are specially set apart." TAN Saints Calendar

The Homo-Heresy in the Church: Viganò Complete Interview

The Washington Post

VIGANÒ: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to your questions. I have done so as carefully as I can and out of love for the Church, which is going through one of the most turbulent moments in her history. My detailed answers are found after each of the questions, save those bearing on my personal situation, which I consider irrelevant to the serious problems facing the Church.

What are your thoughts on the outcome of February's four-day Protection of Minors in the Church summit?

Together with many authentic, loving Catholic faithful, deacons, priests, bishops, and cardinals, I was praying intensely for the success of the February summit, and I would have rejoiced greatly had it been successful. The initiative of calling all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the world for a meeting in Rome, a first-time event in the history of the Church, gave many people hope that the severe problems facing her would finally be addressed forthrightly. Unfortunately, that initiative turned out to be pure ostentation, for we saw no sign of a genuine willingness to attend to the real causes of the present crisis. Indeed, Pope Francis’s choice of Cardinal [Blase] Cupich, [archbishop of Chicago,] as a leader of the event was itself disturbing. Cupich, you will recall, had stated that focusing on the sex abuse crisis was a “rabbit hole” the Church should not go down, and that Pope Francis had a “bigger agenda” and needed to “get on with other things,” such as “talking about the environment, and protecting migrants.” This, from the man handpicked by the pope to deal with the crisis! Cupich’s comments created negative publicity, and he eventually apologized for them, but only after his charge that the interview was unfairly edited proved groundless. I see no evidence that he is committed to cleaning up the mess and exposing coverups.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Cupich specifically referred to Viganò’s August testimony as a “rabbit hole.”]

The press conferences during the summit were also discouraging. Journalists, especially some courageous women of great experience and professionalism, including some from the secular media, tried in vain to get answers that might have offered a minimum of credibility to the summit. To cite just one example, Archbishop [Charles] Scicluna, was caught by surprise with a question about the pope covering up in the scandalous case of Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta — “How can we believe that this is in fact the last time we’re going to hear ‘no more coverups’ when at the end of the day, Pope Francis covered up for someone in Argentina who had gay porn involving minors?” — uttered these embarrassing words: “About the case, I’m not, I’m not, you know, I’m not authorized . . . ” Scicluna’s inept response gave the impression that he needed to be authorized — you may wonder by whom — to tell the truth! Vatican interim press office director Alessandro Gisotti quickly intervened to assure the reporters that an investigation had been launched, and that once it was completed they would be informed of the results. One may be forgiven for wondering whether the results of an honest and thorough investigation really will be released and in a timely fashion. Gisotti added that questions about specific cases were not permitted. There is a certain irony here: This exchange happened while Cupich and Scicluna were discussing what they themselves called transparency.An especially serious problem is that the summit focused exclusively on the abuse of minors. These crimes are indeed the most horrific, but the recent crises in the United States, in Chile, in Argentina, in Honduras and elsewhere have to do mostly with abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only, nor mostly, against minors. Indeed, if the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood were honestly acknowledged and properly addressed, the problem of sexual abuse would be far less severe.[At Vatican summit, Pope Francis calls for ‘all-out battle’ against sexual abuse but is short on specifics]

Do you see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse? If not, what is missing?

The signs I see are truly ominous. Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse, he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers. Just to cite one example: Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl, who covered up the abuses of [then-Cardinal Theodore] McCarrick and others for decades, and whose repeated and blatant lies have been made manifest to everyone who has been paying attention, had to resign in disgrace due to popular outrage. Yet, in accepting his resignation, Pope Francis praised him for his “nobility.” What credibility has the pope left after this kind of statement?

In February, former cardinal Theodore McCarrick was dismissed from the clerical state. What is your assessment of this punishment? And what do you think of the way the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith handled the McCarrick case in the months after your testimony? Lastly, do you think there were any concrete effects (positive or negative) from your testimony?

McCarrick’s degradation from office was, as far as it goes, a just punishment, but there is no legitimate reason why it was not exacted more than five years earlier, and after a proper trial with a judicial procedure. Those with authority to act (i.e. Pope Francis) knew everything they needed to know by June of 2013. Yet my testimony of last August almost certainly accelerated this punishment, which shifted public focus onto McCarrick and away from those who long knew of his crimes and profited by his patronage. Even after the publication of the statement on McCarrick by Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan on June 20, 2018, there was plenty of time for a trial, but it would have been too damaging for many prominent members of the Curia and of course for Pope Francis himself. So, instead of a proper judicial procedure, after more than seven months of total silence, an administrative procedure was deliberately chosen. It is hard to avoid concluding that the timing was designed to manipulate public opinion. Condemning McCarrick as a scapegoat with an exemplary punishment — it was the first time in Church history that a cardinal was reduced to the lay state — would support the narrative that Pope Francis was firmly determined to fight against clergy sexual abuse.According to a statement issued by the Press Office of the Holy See on Feb. 16, 2019, McCarrick was found guilty by the CDF of “solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment” with both minors and adults, with “the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.” The penalty imposed was laicization, which Pope Francis confirmed as “definitive.” In this way McCarrick, who has always declared himself innocent, was deprived of any opportunity to appeal the sentence. Where is the due process? Is this how justice is done in the Vatican?Moreover, having made the sentence definitive, the pope has made it impossible to conduct any further investigation, which could have revealed who in the Curia and elsewhere knew of McCarrick’s abuses, when they knew it, and who helped him to be named archbishop of Washington and eventually a cardinal. Note, by the way, that the documents of this case, whose publication had been promised, have never been produced.The bottom line is this: Pope Francis is deliberately concealing the McCarrick evidence.I repeat it firmly before God: Pope Francis learned about McCarrick from me on Sunday 23 June 2013, 40 minutes before the Angelus. I told him of McCarrick’s abuses after the pope himself, on his own initiative, asked me about McCarrick. But let us consider the far more important spiritual dimension, which was completely absent from any declaration about McCarrick or any press conference at the summit. The most important purpose of penalties in the canonical order is repentance and conversion: “Suprema ratio est salus animarum” (the supreme law is the salvation of souls). I believe, therefore, that the mere “reduction to the lay state” is completely inadequate, because it does not provide a remedy and does not express the concern for the most important purpose of punishment, namely, the salvation of McCarrick’s soul.Indeed, unless it is accompanied by other measures, a simple laicization could be considered an expression of contempt for the lay state. The idea that a prelate who misbehaves is punished by being “reduced” to the lay state smacks of clericalism. As Professor Scott Hahn argues, it undermines the meaning of the universal call to holiness.I believe, and I am not the only one, that the penalty of excommunication — from which he can be absolved at any time — should also be imposed on McCarrick. As an appropriately dosed medication, it would be imposed to induce him to take responsibility for his sins, to repent, to be reconciled with God, and thus to save his soul.

Separately, there have been tensions between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Holy See. Last November, the U.S. bishops were preparing to vote on measures to possibly hold bishops more responsible in their oversight of abuse cases. The Vatican stopped this vote. Do you have any thoughts on this intervention, whether it was appropriate, and why it might have happened? How would you evaluate the actions of the nuncio? 

Had interference not occurred, the November meeting of the USCCB would unquestionably have examined the problems of episcopal corruption, episcopal coverups and mendacity, episcopal sexual misdeeds, both with minors and adults — any of which would intolerably implicate and embarrass the Holy See. The shutdown was wholly unjustified in itself but proceeded from panic. The American bishops were exercising their legitimate duties and responsibilities, and one wonders how a pope who calls for “synodality” could carry out such an intrusion.

After you released your testimony, Pope Francis made multiple references to "attacks from the devil" — remarks that many interpreted as a reference to yourself. How did it feel to be cited in this manner by your pontiff?

In the Gospel we read: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Mt.10:24-25). I am the servant of my master.

There has been a notable lack of denials from the Vatican about the specifics of your testimony, and Pope Francis has yet to respond. How do you interpret this silence?

No one has plausibly denied the facts I stated in my original testimony because no one can deny the truth. The cardinals and archbishops I named do not want to be caught lying, and they apparently think they are so powerful as to be untouchable if only they stay quiet and lie low. The real question is, why are journalists letting them get away with this?Not only have my testimonies not been denied, but some of the facts they contain have been independently confirmed. To cite just two examples, the letter of [then-Archbishop Leonardo] Sandri to [New York] Father [Boniface] Ramsey confirmed my assertion that Vatican officials knew of the McCarrick allegations as early as 2000, and Cardinal [Marc] Ouellet, in his open letter to me, confirmed that he told me in person and then put in writing the restrictions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick. As for Pope Francis, his answer to my testimony was “I will not say a single word about this.” Would he have said that if he knew my testimony were false? Is it not, rather, precisely what a person says who knows but does not want to admit that testimony is true? Is it not what you Americans call “taking the fifth?” By responding as he did, the pope is essentially admitting that he is unwilling to be transparent. Still, the facts remain. McCarrick was a personal friend of Francis for decades before he was elected pope. Francis knew of his crimes, yet rehabilitated him, made him his personal envoy and trusted adviser, and appointed bishops and cardinals who are well-known proteges of McCarrick. Yet he will not say one word about this. Is it surprising that many have interpreted the pope’s answer as manifesting contempt for both the victims and those who want the coverup to end? Ironically, however, the pope’s persistent silence, which has become more and more deafening, ultimately bears witness to the truth of my testimony.One might point out, to take an analogous case, that Theodore McCarrick has been and remains totally at liberty to speak on any subject to any audience throughout the whole affair. The only reason for him not to speak is that, by doing so, he would make himself worse off than he is already. As a matter of human temperament, neither McCarrick nor Pope Francis have a reputation as men of few words.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Viganò added this after Francis discussed the accusations last month in an interview]

VIGANÒ: It is immensely sad to read Pope Francis’s answers about the McCarrick case, not to mention everything else. He first says that he has already replied many times; second, that he knew nothing, absolutely nothing about McCarrick, and third, that he forgot about my conversation with him. How may these claims be affirmed and sustained together at the same time? All these three are blatant lies.First, for nine long months he did not say a word about my testimony, and even bragged and continues to do so about his silence, comparing himself to Jesus. So, either he spoke or he kept silent. Which is it?Second, everybody knew about McCarrick’s lifelong predatory behavior, from the youngest seminarian in Newark to the highest-ranking prelates in the Vatican.Third, I repeat in front of God what I stated in my testimony from last August: On June 23rd, 2013 Pope Francis himself asked me about McCarrick, and I told him that there was a huge dossier about his abuses at the Congregation of Bishops, and that he corrupted generations of seminarians. How could anybody, especially a pope, forget this? If he really knew nothing until that day, how could he ignore my warning, and continue to rely on McCarrick as one of his closest advisers?We are in a truly dark moment for the universal Church: The Supreme Pontiff is now blatantly lying to the whole world to cover up his wicked deeds! But the truth will eventually come out, about McCarrick and all the other coverups, as it already has in the case of Cardinal Wuerl, who also “knew nothing” and had “a lapse of memory.”

In his letter in October, Cardinal Ouellet portrayed you as being motivated by bitterness over your own career. Is that true? How would you respond to that?

I can only ask impartial persons to examine the decisions that marked my career to see if they smack of ambitious careerism and lust for promotion. By the same token, impartial persons might ask who most profits from dismissal of the Viganò testimony on the grounds of unseemly motivation?

Allow me to repeat this one more time. I am an old man and will be appearing in front of the Good Judge before too long. My silence would make me complicit with the abusers and lead to yet more victims. I know that I am motivated by these concerns, and God knows it. I cannot worry about what others think about my motivation.In any case, my motivation is not the point, and questions about it are a distraction. The truly important question is whether my testimony is true. I stand by it, and I urge investigations so that the facts may appear. Unfortunately, those who impugn my motives have been unwilling to conduct open and thorough investigations.

Overall, how do you feel the media has covered the story of your testimony? Do you feel outlets have been willing to investigate without bias the accusations you levied?

I am saddened that the major news media are not insisting that Pope Francis and other prelates answer my charges, and I cannot imagine that they would have been so timid had the pope in question been John Paul II or Benedict XVI. It is difficult to avoid concluding that these media are reluctant to do so because they appreciate Pope Francis’s more liberal approach to matters of Church doctrine and discipline, and do not want to jeopardize his agenda. Yet what we are talking about here are very serious crimes, often involving minors and allegations of coverup. With few exceptions, and those belonging to peripheral organs, the media have failed to tackle the “crime behind the crime” and put the obvious questions to the obvious people: Where are the archives with documents of the type pertinent to Viganò’s claims? Who has access and authority to publish the documents? Who has in fact examined them and when? What did they find or fail to find? What efforts at corroboration have been made and by whom? Who is coordinating the investigation of McCarrick? Have McCarrick’s proteges Cupich and [Cardinal Joseph] Tobin been included in the investigation — if not, why not? This is just the beginning.In short, journalists should be digging for the facts, interviewing the victims, following the money and promotion trails, and uncovering the corrupt networks. There are so many cases to go after. Just to cite one: Have you read the recent book by Martha Alegria Reichmann, about the misdeeds of Cardinal [Oscar Andrés Rodriguez] Maradiaga, chosen by Pope Francis as a trusted senior adviser, in fact the head of the C-9 council? Have you thought of interviewing her? Of investigating her claims? Of requesting an interview with Maradiaga to ask him about all the accusations that have been leveled against him? Of asking Pope Francis why he picked such a man as his adviser?

Your testimony makes it clear that you feel that homosexuality — and the failure of the Vatican to respond to it — is a core part of the Church's current problem in dealing with abuse. Can you explain, with as much clarity as possible, how homosexuality as you view it is correlated with abuse?

Let’s keep two arenas distinct: (1) crimes of sexual abuse and (2) criminal coverup of crimes of sexual abuse. In most cases in the Church today, both have a homosexual component — usually downplayed — that is key to the crisis.As to the first, heterosexual men obviously do not choose boys and young men as sexual partners of preference, and approximately 80 percent of the victims are males, the vast majority of which are post-pubescent males. Statistics from many different countries regarding sexual abuses committed by clergy leave no doubt. Horrific as the cases of abuse by true pedophiles are, the percentage is far smaller. It is not pedophiles but gay priests preying on post-pubertal boys who have bankrupted the U.S. dioceses. One of the most recent and reliable studies, “Is Catholic clergy sex abuse related to homosexual priests,” was conducted by Father Paul Sullins, PhD, of the Ruth Institute. In its executive summary, the Sullins study reports, among other things, the following:

●“The share of homosexual men in the priesthood rose from twice that of the general population in the 1950s to eight times the general population in the 1980s. This trend was strongly correlated with increasing child sex abuse.”

●“Estimates from these findings predict that, had the proportion of homosexual priests remained at the 1950s level, at least 12,000 fewer children, mostly boys, would have suffered abuse.”

The preponderance of these cases of abuse is overwhelming. I do not think anyone can dispute this. That homosexuality is a major cause of the sexual abuse crisis has also been stated by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in his recent essay, “The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse.” From his long experience as president of the CDF, he recalls how “in various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries.” Given the overwhelming evidence, it is mind-boggling that the word “homosexuality” has not appeared once, in any of the recent official documents of the Holy See, including the two Synods on the Family, the one on Youth, and the recent Summit last February. As to the second arena, the “gay mafia” among bishops is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest in protecting and advancing one another professionally and sabotaging all efforts at reform. In his aforementioned essay, Pope Emeritus Benedict noted that a Vatican investigation of seminaries, including the problem of homosexual cliques, “brought no new insights, apparently because various powers had joined forces to conceal the true situation,” and his observation lends credence to my testimony that a powerful network of prelates has, for decades, covered up the abuses. Is there a single active bishop in the United States who admits he is actively homosexual? Of course not. Their work is constitutionally clandestine.

Did your time in the United States affect your view on homosexuality? Were your positions hardened in any way by spending time in a country with a very strong and defined subculture of church conservatism/traditionalism?

My stay in the United States and the presence of a “very strong and defined subculture of church conservatism/traditionalism,” as you put it, have nothing whatsoever to do with my view on homosexuality. My view has been and will always remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, which is aptly summarized in the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law” (CCC, 2357). The Catechism goes on to say that the inclination to engage in such acts (rather than the persons themselves, who should not be defined by this inclination) is “objectively disordered” and “constitutes for most of them a trial.” The Church does not respond by condemning them. Quite the contrary, she teaches: “They must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (CCC, 2358)The Catechism insists that those who experience this inclination are, like everyone else, called to chastity. This is a beautiful teaching, for the Church affirms the dignity of those who experience same- sex attraction precisely by affirming that by cultivating virtue, they can attain inner freedom and, with the help of genuine friendship, prayer, and sacramental grace, “resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC, 2359).

The Vatican in October promised its own archival investigation into the McCarrick case. The findings of such an investigation still have not been made public. But if and once they are, what do you think will be revealed?

To this date, there are no indications such an investigation has even begun. I know for a fact that the results of an honest investigation would be disastrous for the current papacy, and those responsible for initiating the work know this as well. I can only conclude that the assurance of an appropriate archival investigation was an empty promise.Though the Vatican has not released its own findings about the McCarrick case, some church historians feel that the details of how McCarrick was protected — once they are revealed — could damage the reputations of Benedict XVI and, even more so, Saint John Paul II.

Do you feel that either Benedict XVI or John Paul II could have done more to properly handle McCarrick?

I sincerely wish that all documents, if they have not already been destroyed, would be released. It is entirely possible that this would harm the reputation of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, but that is not a good reason for not seeking the truth. Benedict XVI and John Paul II are human beings, and may well have made mistakes. If they did, we want to know about them. Why should they remain hidden? We can all learn from our mistakes.I myself regret not having spoken publicly earlier. As I already said, I had truly hoped against hope that the Church could reform itself from within. But when it became clear that the successor of Peter himself was one of those covering up the crimes, I had no doubt that the Lord was calling me to speak up, as I have done and will continue to do.

Do you think there is a risk of schism in the American Church?

A schism is the most terrible affliction that the Church, the body of Christ, can endure, and as the history of the Church teaches, it can have lasting consequences. We should pray that such a catastrophe never again befall her. A formal schism (involving mutual excommunication of validly ordained bishops and subsequent lay realignment) seems unlikely at the moment. However, there is already a de facto schism based on acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution. And there is a risk is of formal schism, which could be provoked by an act of grotesque papal irresponsibility (e.g., if he were to answer the long-ignored dubia about the teaching of Amoris Laetitia in a manner contrary to previous Church teaching).

In the aftermath of the release of your testimony, have you felt in moments like the spiritual leader of a rebellious movement? And if so, how do you handle that? Whether you feel a leadership role, how would you describe this movement — in terms of size and geographic reach?

Jesus is the only leader of the Church. He is the head of the Church, which is His body. All of us, the pope included, have just one Lord. Regarding my role, as a Christian and bishop I have the duty to witness to the truth without fear, and like Timothy “to preach the gospel in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4: 2). No pope can dispense from that duty, and if a man faithfully fulfills it, he cannot be rebellious in any but an honorable sense. Dishonorably rebellious are those who presume to break or change the perennial tradition of the Church.

In the aftermath of the release of your testimony, how has the magnitude of those actions changed your life? How free are you to live life as you please?

n/a

If you could redo events, would you still ask for the Pope Francis's resignation? Do you think asking for the pope's resignation took attention away from your message?

I did the best I could with my testimony, and the Lord asks no more than that. I stand by that testimony. Still, I am far from perfect, and I can see, in retrospect, how certain points might have been better stated. I can see that it would have been better to address the matter you ask about in the following way, beginning with a point I included in my third testimony: “I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).” I would have pointed out that Saint Peter himself denied Christ three times, but then wept bitterly and repented. Then I would have said what I say now: May Pope Francis imitate St. Peter! But if Pope Francis refuses to admit his mistakes and ask for forgiveness, so he can carry out the mandate he received from Christ, he should resign.

How does it feel to be following these major Church developments — the McCarrick defrocking; the abuse summit — from afar? Do you feel saddened, in a way, to be at a distance from the Catholic Church at this critical moment?

My feelings, in a matter of this gravity, are of no consequence. I spoke what I believed needed to be spoken, lest the falsehoods go unchallenged and harm my soul and the souls of others.

Are you able to state the country, or even the continent, where you are right now?

n/a

Roughly how many people know of your whereabouts? How many people do you have in-person contact with on a daily basis?

n/a

Can you provide a description of your daily life?

I answer this question with reluctance, as this puts the focus on me rather than on what is important. My life has not changed very much. Of course, I have to be more careful about whom I meet and what I say, but I have been blessed with a large family, and many friends who have been supportive. I see them regularly and their closeness is a source of great consolation for me. Perhaps the biggest change after my first testimony is the incredible outpouring of support that I receive daily from all over the world. There are thousands of Catholics who are praying for me and with me for the conversion of Pope Francis and for the healing of the Church. All in all, very little has changed. I am doing what I have been doing all my life: Since I have been ordained a priest I have been trying to serve the people of God, in obedience, wherever I was asked to go. I am just a simple person who is trying to do his best, and I have been blessed to receive very good examples from holy and dedicated priests during my whole life.

Do you say Mass?

Forgive me for being surprised by this question but . . . why would I not say Mass? We’re speaking about the Bread of Life! Of course I celebrate Mass, every day, like any other priest in good standing.Do you pray for the pope? I have never ceased praying for the pope; I never will.

Do you believe your safety is under threat, and if so, why? Have you received outright threats?

n/a

What precautions do you take to protect yourself?

n/a

Since the release of your testimony, have you been contacted by the Holy See? If so, what did they say?Apart from the open letter from Cardinal Ouellet, to which I have already responded, no one has contacted me about anything.Are you aware of being canonically investigated? If so, for what charges? Under any circumstances, would you "surrender" to Vatican authorities?As I said, there is nothing I am aware of. Would it not be amazing if the whistleblower ended up being investigated, instead of the prelates who cover up abuse?

Unfortunately, an alarming percentage of people experience abuse early in their lives, when they are most vulnerable. In your testimony, it was clear that you felt empathy for victims and felt a great personal responsibility to act. Did you ever witness abuse yourself? Or were you ever the victim of abuse?

I have never been abused or personally witnessed abuse, thank God. But any decent human being, victim or not, would empathize with and desire to help the victims.

What convinced you to come forward with your testimony? What was the "final straw"?

I have already answered this above and in my previous testimonies.

Are you in contact with loved ones? If so, what do they think about your actions?

n/a

Are you lonely?

I am not. The Lord is my constant companion.

Did you realize, when you released this testimony, that your life would change so drastically? How did you feel during those days in late August 2018 when you were about to cross the Rubicon?

My conscience has always been clear about this: The truth makes us free.

When you decided to act, were you inspired by Saint Thomas More, or by any other historic figure?

I was inspired by Blessed Cardinal Newman who said, “if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, I shall drink — to the pope, if you please — still, to Conscience first, and to the pope afterwards,” and by Saint John Fisher, the sole bishop of the Catholic Church in England who did not bend to Henry VIII. These his words are so appropriate for our time: “The light of good example is extinguished in those who ought to shine as luminaries to the whole world, like watchtowers and beacons on the mountains. No light, alas! comes from them, but horrid darkness and pestilent mischief, by which innumerable souls are falling into destruction.” (Blessed John Fisher, by Rev. T.E. Bridgett, London (1888), p. 435)

Have you been recognized in public? If so, what was the reaction and what was your reaction?

n/a

When you go out, are you in disguise?

n/a

Do you think that at some point you will be able to lead a "normal" life again? What would have to happen before that is possible?

My life is quite normal, thank you for asking.

Do you think there could ever be a reconciliation with Francis? Do you hope for one?

The premise of your question is incorrect. I am not fighting against Pope Francis, nor have I offended him. I have simply spoken the truth. Pope Francis needs to reconcile himself with God, and the entire Church, since he covered up for McCarrick, refuses to admit it, and is now covering up for several other people. I am grateful to the Lord because He has protected me from having any sentiments of anger or resentment against Pope Francis, or any desire for revenge. I pray for his conversion every day. Nothing would make me happier than for Pope Francis to acknowledge and end the coverups, and to confirm his brothers in the faith.

How do you look back on your many years of service in the church? Do you wish you had spoken out earlier? And do you feel that you erred in devoting your life to that institution?

I served the Holy See for 43 years with great joy and full dedication, with spiritual and human satisfaction. Of course with my many limits, but trusting in my superiors who were always good and appreciative of my collaboration. Sometimes I accepted risky missions, such as those in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. I had excellent relations with superiors, colleagues, and lay co-workers. Cardinal Bertone, after being appointed secretary of state, found a way to get rid of me because I refused to approve unworthy candidates that he was pushing to be made bishops: He offered me the position of secretary general of the governorate. It was certainly not a promotion, but I accepted gladly. There are no reasons why I should regret having served the Holy See. I have always tried to follow the will of God through obedience. I never asked for a promotion, and I do not regret having turned down the proposal of Pope Benedict, who offered me a position of cardinal in the Curia. Those who plotted my departure from Rome thought they were going to get rid of me. Little did they know that the Lord was using them to put me in a position to speak out about the McCarrick scandal.

In your testimony, you provided many details, but there was no additional documentation — which would prove helpful in corroborating your testimony. Do you have any of the documents and letters you reference in your testimony? And, do you have any additional documentation that would show the Vatican's preexisting knowledge about McCarrick's behavior? If you are in possession of such documents, can you please share them with us, as they would be immeasurably helpful.The time has not yet come for me to release anything. I suggest you ask Pope Francis and the prelates I named in my testimony to release the relevant documentation, some of which is quite incriminating, assuming they have not yet destroyed it.

Specifically, do you have the letter you wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI are still in place? If so, could you please share it with us?

See the previous question.

VIGANÒ: In conclusion, I wish to point out that the current crisis is not a power struggle between progressive and conservatives, between left and right. Neither is it primarily about the sexual misbehavior of the clergy, or the prevalence of active homosexuals in the clergy, though these grave problems, which are perennial in the Church, are especially severe now. The crisis is about the fact that a corrupt “mafia” has taken control of many institutions of the Church, from the top down, and is exploiting the Church and the faithful for its own immoral purposes. As I noted above, this coalition is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest in protecting and advancing one another professionally and in sabotaging every effort to reform the sexual corruption. Yet the members of this alliance, and those who fear its wrath, are the only ones with the authority to correct the problem through proper judicial procedures, the imposition of discipline and the reaffirmation of sound teaching.This is causing an institutional paralysis that is immensely demoralizing for the faithful. That said, we should be neither entirely surprised nor overly disturbed by this desperate state of affairs, given the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise to come again and establish his definitive kingdom. I conclude by quoting a sobering passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which seems to be verified in our own age:Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. (CCC, 675)

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio

May 2, 2019 Feast of St. Athanasius Bishop and Doctor of the Church

Reason's Role in Contemplation, Evangelization, Logos

Jacob Jordaens, Christ with Mary, Martha and Lazarus

Human reason possesses a creative power that is encouraged by evangelization, overcoming both prerational myth and rationalistic ideology. It allows the human person to encounter God's being. It is the engagement with God as Logos that enables human beings to set the proper priorities in their lives. This encounter with God in a manner previously deemed impossible is earth shattering. Thus, there exists a primacy of contemplation, contemplation centered on the always-antecedent divine self-revelation, over and against the active life. Evangelization is an invitation to such a life that lives from the Logos and leads to ethos. Against the Faustian thesis "at the beginning was the deed" [Goethe], Christianity insists on the primacy of the Word. It is not activity, but contemplation, not morality but metaphysics, not effort but adoration that enjoys preference. Evangelization means: "Who has seen me, has seen the Father...nobody comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:9, 14:6). Christian existence is participation in Christ's salvation. Beyond Augustine's emphasis on justification--which, taken in isolation, is a rather petty, self-centered concern--God not only liberates humankind from sin but turns humans toward his grace and enables them to access the hidden nature of God, which remains inaccessible even to angels. This is achieved by way of a spiritual Christology: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). The Son, coessential with the Father, is the key.

Emery de Gaál, The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI: The Christocentric Shift, New York: Palgrave, 2010, 219.

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. John 6:28-29

"Who are "The Elite?'"

Enjoy below the 2019 commencement address at Providence Christian College by Dr. Matthew Peterson of The Claremont Institute, alumnus of Thomas Aquinas College. True elitism is the achievement of true human excellence and selfless service in leadership. The goal of elitism, in that original positive sense of the term, is the foundation and true meaning of higher education in our society.  True elitism in America is the result of an intellectual and spiritual formation which is classical, christian and American.

Daily Spiritual Exercise for Priests

Here is a daily horarium recommended for parish priests, beginning in the seminary, as contained in my Regula cleri, Avenione: Merande, 1757, 17-18. Find it also here.

Exercitia
Pro ipsa recollectionis Die.
Ordo Diei

Hora 5. surges.

Semiquinta, oratio, meditatio, Prima & Tertia.

Hora 7. praeparatio ad confessionem totius mensis praeteriti, & ad missam aut communionem.

Hora 9. dispositio testamenti, Sexta & Nona, prandium & recreatio.

Hora 1. post meridium, examen particulare, rosarium, & consideratio de angustiis in hora mortis.

Hora 2. Vesperae, Completorium, acceptatio mortis, actus religionis, & aliqua pro defunctis oratio.

Hora 3. meditatio, Matutinum officium pro crastina die.

Semiquarta, consideratio ad crucifixum, aspirationes ad felicem mortem postulandam, spiritualis administratio Extremae-unctionis, protestationis, & visitatio Sanctissimi-Sacramenti.

Post coenam & recreationem, commendatio animae, scriptio fructus recollectionis, & lectio documentorum pro eo conservando.


Below are two previous posts on the same topic. I have followed this schedule since Summorum pontificum, 2007, and find it very well adapted to my spiritual needs as a parish priest.

Easy Horarium for Parish Priest Breviary (pre-1962)

Accomplishing the Hours of the Extraordinary Form (1962 Breviary)

If you love the ancient liturgy of the Church, there is nothing stopping you from praying that ancient liturgy with Her every day of your life on earth, in anticipation for your participation in the eternal liturgy of heaven.

Purchase your copy of the Breviarium Romanum, 2 vols., here.

Interview With Producers of "The Divine Plan" the Movie

thedivineplanmovie.com

Spiting Poland’s Communist Bastards: Two June anniversaries — from 1979 and 1989 — that mustn’t be overlooked.
by PAUL KENGOR June 9, 2019, 4:19 PM

“I came here to do glory to the mother of God and also to spite those bastards.”

It wasn’t exactly what Jesus might have said, but one can sympathize with this sentiment from a Polish citizen long repressed by the jackboot of atheistic Soviet communism. This particular Pole is quoted in the new film documentary on Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, The Divine Plan, directed by Robert Orlando (I’ve co-authored the companion book to the film).

This Polish gentleman in June 1979 attended one of the massive rallies that greeted Karol Wojtyla, by then Pope John Paul II, the first Polish pope, the first Slavic pope, the first non-Italian pope in four and a half centuries.

The Pole spoke to a bemused Western reporter interviewing those basking in the almost surreal, once-unthinkable glow of a Polish pope coming home to shake the foundations of the Marxist-Leninist state. Millions of jubilant Poles joined their suddenly famous native sonin open defiance of the communist authorities. “Why are you here?” the reporter had asked. He got his answer: Giving glory to the heavens meant shaking your fist at the ideological brutes who denounced the heavens.

This June 2019 is a good time to remember this. Last week the world remembered the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. And yet, just hours after Tiananmen, something else of major historic importance happened, and it happened in Poland: the people there held free and fair elections. The first round came on June 4, immediately after the Tiananmen protests. The second round would follow on June 18. These were, finally, the elections promised long ago at Yalta but had never happened.

The communists that June didn’t win a single seat. Mikhail Gorbachev knew what that landslide rejection meant. He said the “chaos in Poland” threatened an “ensuing break-up of the entire Socialist camp.” With those groundbreaking elections, a fuse was lit that would run all the way to the base of the Berlin Wall.

They were the first free and fair elections in the Communist Bloc. Solidarity candidates won 99 of the 100 contested seats, with an independent candidate winning the other. The communists were completely skunked. They paved the way for the presidential election of Lech Walesa a year later.

And that’s not the only anniversary for Poland this June 2019, which brings me back to that Pole giving honor to the Blessed Mother and spiting the communist thugs. That historic moment had come 10 years before those Polish elections, and in fact was a catalyst for those elections. It came June 1979, when Karol Wojtyla returned home as a (peaceful) conquering hero. He would launch what has been called nine days that changed the world.

The Polish pontiff arrived home on June 2, 1979. Church bells rang throughout the nation, further infuriating the authorities. And still worse for communists, the pope chose for his platform Warsaw’s historic Victory Square. The choice could not have been more powerfully symbolic. As secret police pressed in from all around the perimeter of the massive crowd, the Polish shepherd exhorted his flock to “Be not afraid.” He also stated definitively: “there can be no just Europe without the independence of Poland marked on its map.” The crowd was ecstatic.

My friend Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, today a Polish scholar and historian, was among those who made sure he didn’t miss the hometown boy that June.

Marek’s family had dealt with political goons all their lives. He’s the only male member of his family inthree centuries not sent to jail, to Auschwitz, to Siberia, or wounded or killed on the battlefield. The women of his family have been equally tough. Marek’s grandmother was tortured by the Gestapo, the Soviet NKVD, and the Polish communist secret police.

“I come from a long line of freedom fighters, people who die for the cause,” says Marek. “So, I was raised not afraid and I, when I was a child, would challenge my teachers. I would tell them things against communism when I was 12 years old — when I was chuckedout of school for the first time.”

Marek was 16 years old in June 1979 when he played hooky from high school to watch it all: “John Paul II was scheduled to make his first ever visit to Poland as pontiff, and we were told at school, don’t go.” They were informed that attending the rallies would be tantamount to cutting school. When that threat was shrugged off, the government’s teachers and administrators tried to scare students. Maybe a threat of being stampeded by a crazed mob would work. “We were then told, don’t even entertain a thought because it’s going to be like Mexico,” recalls Marek. “There will be a stampede like a bullfight, and they’ll scrape you off the wall. My teacher told me that.”

The communists were doing their damnedest at every level to undercut the pope’s visit. The regime sent a directive to schoolteachers instructing them how to characterize the papal visit to students. “The Pope is our enemy,” exclaimed the directive. “Due to his uncommon skills and great sense of humor he is dangerous.… Besides, he goes for cheap gestures in his relations with the crowd, for instance, puts on a highlander’s hat, shakes all hands, kisses children…. It is modeled on American presidential campaigns.”

Poles rejected such absurdities and intimidation. They could not have been more inspired and were openly defiant of the regime. They looked to spite those bastards.

“Of course, I cut school with a couple of friends,” recalls Marek. “The weather was beautiful and what I saw was a million-strong crowd. The best behaved, the best self-policed mass of human beings I have ever encountered. It was simply incredible. There was kindness, which was publicly surprising because communism also meant churlishness. There was love. There was expectation of a miracle, and the miracle came. A dude in a white suit and a little yarmulke, John Paul II. We loved it.”

Though fear theretofore had been everywhere, in everyone’s eyes, John Paul II told the Polish people to “fear not.” It was that, Marek said, that for him and for the million people he saw in Warsaw that day, and then millions more who would see the pope elsewhere during that trip, “was astonishing and incredible. For me, it was gratifying. It was just a miracle.”

In fact, Lech Walesa, Solidarity’s leader, would say of John Paul II’s visit: “He comes to Poland, and the twenty who followed me were suddenly ten million. It was a greater multiplication than the loaves and the fishes.”

In terms of sheer numbers, it was indeed.

The communists stared in horror as the crowd chanted not “we want Marx” but “we want God!” That was the Gospel they wanted, not what John Paul II and Ronald Reagan called “the false faith” of Marxism-Leninism. And it was that Gospel, proclaimed without fear by John Paul II, plus the stoic efforts of the likes of Ronald Reagan, of Margaret Thatcher, of the Solidarity movement, and more, that tore open the Iron Curtain.

Alas, that will bring us to another anniversary coming this fall, which the world will be acknowledging soon: the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Much of the focus will be on that wall, but we must know and remember that its toppling was precipitated by the elections in Poland in June 1989 and by the visit of Pope John Paul II to Poland in June 1979. We must not forget those events nor the damage done by the ideological gangsters that were defeated and spited.

Vatican Radio Weekly News Bulletin in Latin, Launched Today!

Here is the podcast of the first installment of the Weekly Vatican News Bulletin in Latin, "Hebdomada Papae," broadcast Saturdays at 6:32 AM Rome time. It is a service of the Italian branch of Vatican Radio, Radio Vaticana Italia. That Weekly News Bulletin is also followed by a cultural program, in Italian, on the Latin language, "Anima latina."

Below is the Vatican Radio announcement of those new programs.

‘Hebdomada Papae’: News in Latin on Vatican Radio

Saturday, 8 June, sees the launch of “Hebdomada Papae, notitiae vaticanae latine redditae” (The Pope's week in review: Vatican news bulletin in Latin), on Vatican Radio.

By Linda Bordoni

Starting on Saturday, 8 June, a 5-minute weekly news bulletin in Latin will be broadcast to the world on Vatican Radio frequencies through the Italian language audio channels. Of course you will also be able to follow it on our web portal and listen to it on podcast, and it will soon be available on the English-language audio frequencies as well.

The bulletin goes to air thanks to the collaboration of the Vatican’s Latin Letters Office, a department of the Secretariat of State where Church documents are written in or translated into Latin. The bulletin will be edited by veteran Vatican Radio journalist Alessandro De Carolis.

A challenge for the future

Vatican Radio’s Editorial Director, Andrea Tornielli, describes ‘Hebdomada Papae’ as a real, informative  news bulletin.

“We did not conceive it with a nostalgic look to the past, but as a challenge for the future,” he said.

Noting that Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, he said Latin already “resonates daily on the frequencies of Vatican Radio, which every morning broadcasts Mass in Latin.”

This weekly initiative, he explained, aims to breathe new life into the language.

‘Anima Latina’

Straight after the news bulletin, Vatican Radio Italy, whcih broadcasts news and other programmes on the frequencies dedicated to the Italian language, will also provide an in-depth programme entitled “Anima Latina, radio colloquia de lingua ecclesiae.”

“Anima Latina”, dedicated to the rediscovery of the value and beauty of the Latin language, will feature Father Waldemar Turek, Director of the Latin Letters Office.

The Fruits of Pentecost

Six reasons the Holy Spirit was sent.

1. To console the disconsolate.
2. To give life to the dead.
3. To sanctify the unclean.
4. To establish love among the discordant and those divided by hatred.
5. To save the just.
6. To teach the ignorant.

Cf. The Golden Legend, New York: Longmans, 1941, 298.

Catholics, and all Men of Good Will, Should Boycott "'Gay' Pride"

"A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ 'Pride Month' events held in June. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. They are especially harmful for children."

--Bishop Tobin, Providence Rhode Island, June 1, 2019 Tweet

These are true and timely words by a shepherd of Christ's flock. Homophiles are in denial and object that priests have been abusing minors too, but they omit one very significant fact, priest abuse of minors has been overwhelmingly homosexual abuse! man on man. They affirm that the Bishop is right. If you hate the abuse of minors you must hate the homosexual license which promotes it. Homosexuality is ugly and profoundly sinister.

Furthermore, that a Catholic bishop's condemnation of homosexualism should receive so much attention shows the gross neglect of the Church and all believers in openly condemning this evil which is repugnant to God Himself.

"The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse" --Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

Ascension: Nine Fruits and Benefits

1. The bringing down of divine love: "For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7

2. Better knowledge of God: "If you loved Me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28 As Augustine says: "Therefore I take away this form of a slave, in which the Father is greater than I, in order that you may in another manner see God the Spirit."

3. The merit of faith. As Saint Leo says: "Then a more enlightened faith begins to march with the stride of the spirit toward the Son in His equality with the Father, and no longer needs to handle Christ in His corporeal substance, in which He is less than the Father."

4. Our confidence. Christ ascended to be our advocate with the Father: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, and He is the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 2:1-2

5. Our own dignity. By the ascension our own nature is irrevocably exalted above all creation, even to the stature of the right hand of God.

6. Firmness of our hope. Saint Leo says: "Christ's Ascension is our exaltation; and whither the glory of the Head hath gone before, thither the hope of the body tendeth also."

7. Pointing out the way. "He shall go up that shall open the way before them." Micah 2:13

8. Opening of the gates of Heaven. "Tu devicto mortis aculeo, Thou, having conquered the sting of death, hast opened the Kingdom of Heaven to them that believe!"

9. Preparation of our place in Heaven: "I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:3 Augustine says: "Lord, prepare what Thou preparest; for Thou preparest us for Thyself and Thyself for us, when Thou preparest a place for Thyself in us and for us in Thyself."

Cf. The Golden Readings of the Saints

Cf. The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine, Part One, London: Longmans, 1941, 292-294.

Bishop Barron on the Ascension

According to Scripture, Heaven and Earth are not Two Separate Metaphysical Spaces