Although there is probably little need to continue to write about the now accomplished fact of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “canonization” of two Modernists, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, on Low Sunday, April 27, 2014, there is an aspect that, though touched upon briefly in some previous articles, requires just a little bit of discussion before attention is turned to other matters, including the always repetitive follies of naturalism.
Some fully traditional Catholic commentators, focused understandably on the “Saint John Paul II’s” heresies, blasphemies, apostasies and sacrileges that make it impossible for any true pope to proceed with any kind of canonization for a man such as Karol Wojtyla, have overlooked the fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II engaged in a systematic effort to protect, indemnify and, at least in a few instances, promoted “bishops” and priests/presbyters who were guilty of moral crimes, both natural and unnatural, in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The fact that Wojtyla/John Paul II served as enabler of men guilty of such heinous acts, committed against children, teenagers and adults alike, makes his “canonization” unthinkable even if he had not been a serial killer of souls.
Yet it is that none other than the man who was the Vatican spinmeister between 1984 and 2006, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, contends that the “Polish Pope” did not cover-up the crimes of “bishops” and priest/presbyters, that the supposed “purity” of his mind would not permit him to believe that clerics were capable of such crimes:
Joaquin Navarro-Valls, former Director of the Press Office of the Holy See: “The Pope was very concerned. One needs to to understand the purity of his thoughts, so to speak. To accept the situation was remarkably difficult, but he did accept it. Naturally he began to make decisions. He called for all of the American cardinals to come to Rome, he could not bring all of the bishops from United States because there were too many, but all of the cardinals came. I was at that meeting. He spoke clearly of the abuse cases and began to understand and make decisions, decisions that were of a legal nature”.
Sitting on a bookshelf in my office is a red leather-bound copy of the Code of Canon Law. This isn’t just any copy of the church’s rulebook. It was signed by Pope John Paul II for me at the request of my former boss, the late Cardinal Pio Laghi. It is dated 6-6-1983 in the late pope’s own hand. I was definitely a fan in those days.
On Sunday after John Paul is promoted to sainthood, it will become a second-class relic. I will not venerate it, nor will I join the cheering crowds.
The past 30 years have led me to the opinion that his sainthood is a profound insult to the countless victims of sexual assault by Catholic clergy the world over. It is an insult to the decent, well-intentioned men and women who were persecuted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during his reign, and it is an insult to the memory of Pope John XXIII, who has the misfortune being a canonization classmate.
This soon-to-be relic is a symbol of the shame and the failure of the book’s content, the collection of church rules, and of the pope who autographed it. People more eloquent than I have publicly stated the many reasons why this is so. I won’t repeat their words here. However, I believe it is important to clarify some of the bizarre statements John Paul’s two main cheerleaders have been making.
George Weigel claimed there was an information gap between the United States and the Holy See in 2002. This is nonsense. There was no gap then, and there was no gap in 1984, when the abuse issue boiled to the surface of public awareness. I was working at the Vatican embassy in 1984 and have firsthand experience of the transmission of information to the Vatican.
The papal nuncio, Laghi, then an archbishop, received a letter in the summer of 1984 from the vicar general of Lafayette, La., telling him that a couple whose little boy had been violated by Gilbert Gauthe was suing Gauthe, the bishop, the diocese, the archbishop of New Orleans, the papal nuncio and the pope. Soon after, the nuncio received the official complaint. From then on, there was a constant flow of information from Lafayette to the nuncio and from another diocese that popped onto center stage for the same reason — Providence, R.I.
I was the conduit for most of the information and prepared daily memos for Archbishop Laghi. The usual procedure would have been to prepare a report for the Holy See, but that didn’t happen at this stage. Laghi was on the phone to various officials in the Vatican, including the Secretariat of State, which is as good as going directly to the pope. In our conversations about the problem, and there were many, he frequently made statements such as, “I have talked to my superiors in Rome” or “My superiors in Rome” have said such and so.
In late February, I suggested to the archbishop that we ask the Holy Father to appoint a U.S. bishop to go to the Lafayette diocese as a special investigator to both see firsthand what was going on and to try to put some order into what was a rapidly growing chaotic mess. I suggested the late Bishop A.J. Quinn of Cleveland. Although my intentions were good, he was a mistake. Before long, it became obvious that he was part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Laghi agreed with my suggestion and asked me to prepare a report that would be attached to the request. The purpose of the report was to explain the situation in Louisiana. I quickly put together a report that was about 35 pages in length. It was detailed and factual, naming names and giving dates. It included the history of the cover-up as we knew it and a fairly graphic description of the harm done to the victims, a description based on some of the first medical reports I had received.
The nuncio told me that this was an urgent matter and for that reason, he wanted the report to go directly to the pope and not through one of the Vatican congregations. The late Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia, a close friend of the pope, was leaving for Rome the following Monday. My orders were to get the report, signed by Laghi, to Krol by Sunday night. He had spoken with Laghi and had agreed to put it directly into the pope’s hands. The report was sent by courier to Philadelphia. By Tuesday, it was before the pope, and by Thursday night, we had received a telex informing us that the pope had duly deputized Quinn as Laghi had requested.
From then on through the spring of 1985, I continued to prepare memos for Laghi, who continued to report to his superiors in the Vatican. There were some written reports sent over, but I don’t recall how many. Among the items sent was a copy of the now-infamous report prepared by the late Fr. Michael Peterson, Attorney Ray Mouton, and me. This was the same report that the officials of the bishops’ conference said they didn’t need because they knew everything that was in it.
Fast forward to June, bypassing the famous Collegeville, Minn., meeting at which the bishops spent an entire day in executive session hearing about clergy sexual abuse but apparently learning nothing given the long-range outcome. In mid-June, as I recall, the late Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited the nunciature. At the time, he was prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Oddi reminded me of the cartoon character “The Little King.” He had a cardinalatial ring with a stone as big as a golf ball.
He told Laghi that he wanted to hear about the sex abuse crisis. The nuncio told me to meet with the cardinal and brief him. I prepared a “briefing paper.” This was June, and a lot had transpired since February. The nuncio had become aware of many more reports of sexual abuse by clergy from a number of different dioceses. I prepared my report and knew enough to be factual and detailed and, in some areas, graphically explicit. Oddi sat for about two hours while I in essence read the report, with occasional diversions to add more detail.
Normally very affable, the good cardinal was clearly in a dark mood when I finished. He asked a number of pointed questions about both the abusers and the abused and wanted to know why the accused priests were not subjected to a canonical trial. I will never forget his closing comments. “I will speak of this to the Holy Father. We will have a meeting of the prefects of all the dicasteries [Vatican departments], and we will issue a decree!” Subsequent to his departure, I recall Laghi assuring me that something would be done because Oddi would report to the pope. Whatever happened is anyone’s guess. There was no decree, and even if there had been, it would have been useless.
This was in 1985, not 2002. It is hard to believe that this pope, who was supposed to be one of the smartest men alive at the time, could not have understood the gravity of significant numbers of priests raping and violating little children. The excuse that he did nothing because of his “purity of thought” is as ridiculous as the excuse that he wanted to preserve the priesthood for which he held such high esteem.
Joaquín Navarro-Valls, John Paul’s press officer, said Friday that he didn’t think the pope or anyone else understood the gravity of the crisis. Other than the fact that this assertion is also ridiculous, a number of people in the church did understand the gravity: the mothers and fathers of the children who were violated and even the general public, who were clamoring for action even back in the mid-’80s.
Navarro-Valls said after 2002, Pope John Paul immediately began taking action. Other than making nine recorded public statements, all of which were sufficiently nuanced to be innocuous, and calling a meeting of the U.S. cardinals to tell them what everyone already knew, he did nothing positive.
He did, however, do a few negative things. He was ultimately responsible for short-circuiting the investigation of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado. He refused to investigate the accusations against Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër of Vienna. He promoted the careers of some of the bishops and cardinals who intentionally inflicted horrendous damage on victims and expended vast amounts of donated money to stonewall the process of justice, e.g., Cardinals Bernard Law, Roger Mahony and George Pell, to name but a few. Perhaps the most egregious nonaction was completely ignoring the pleas of thousands of victims, many of whom wrote directly to him. Victims and victims’ groups bombarded the Vatican with letters and requested audiences or at least recognition by the pope, especially at the World Youth Day celebrations. Not only were their requests ignored, but not one ever even received an acknowledgement of the receipt of their communication. (Woytla could have intervened in abuse crisis, but did not do so. For a more detailed look at the Gilbert Gauthe case, see Jason Berry, The Tragedy of Gilbert Gauthe and Rev. Gilbert J. Gauthe-Assignment.)
I was studying at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, when the story of Father Gilbert Gauthe broke. It was big news. It was international news. It fit perfectly into a pattern that I had noticed while at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland in the Fall of 1981 (leaving just before my mother was diagnosed with cancer and I returned to teaching) the phenomenon of truly effeminate men studying that what they thought was priestly ordination. It had just been a year before my time at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary that four “ordained” transitional deacons were caught in the sin against nature, resulting in the expulsion of one, who later died of a particular disease associate with unnatural vice, while the other three were “ordained” as “priests” for what I came later to accept as the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Yes, the Gilbert Gauthe story fit perfectly into the pattern I had seen with my own eyes: the systematic recruitment, promotion and protection of highly effeminate men, some of whom were caricatures of those steeped the sin of Sodom, to the conciliar presbyterate. This was no secret in the conciliar structures.
Indeed, a diocesan vocations director told me in 1974 (at a time I was studying for my doctorate in political science at the then-named State University of New York at Albany, now called “The University at Albany) that there were dioceses “within two hundred miles of here that accept homosexuals,” explaining that this is the reason that he had to be very cautious in screening candidates. Even then, forty years ago now, the problem was very well known within clerical circles in the conciliar church.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew all about the facts. I knew too many true priests who went to Rome with the facts about various cases. Moreover, as has been reported on this site in the past, I used an American contact in the Congregation for the Bishops to seek the removal of the notorious abuser of his own clergy who paid for “favors” from “professional” men, “Bishop” Daniel Leo Ryan of Springfield, Illinois, in January of 1997 after the courageous founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., Mr. Stephen G. Brady, had written to Ryan in November of 1996 to demand his resignation after one of the “clerics” abuse came forth privately with his story. The conciliar Vatican refused to do anything even after the late Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J., met with the then prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Dario Castriollon “Cardinal” Hoyos, in February of 1997, although the presbyter in question was transferred to a different diocese.
Additionally, Francis “Cardinal” George, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago for the past twenty-seven years, admitted in January of 1998 to Stephen G. Brad that he, “Cardinal” George had known all about Ryan’s moral corruption of the then conciliar “bishop” of for years, urging Mr. Brady to “wait” before expose more evidence about Ryan in addition to the information that had been brought forth by Brady in February of 1997 and was reported by this writer in the pages of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment and More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case; these articles–and an editorial that I wrote that appears on the same page as the second article–were, of course, eight years before I, bright light that I am, finally concluded that the Catholic Church could be responsible for none of the outrages that I was criticizing). Ryan was allowed to resign in “good standing” in the conciliar structures in 1999, and it was not until 2003 that a commission appointed by George got around, quite belatedly, to admitting that the charges against Ryan were true all along. Steve Brady had been correct all along.
“Saint John Paul II” did not know about this?
Quite the contrary is true. The now “canonized” “pontiff” had quite an extensive intelligence network that he relied upon during the early years of his “pontificate” by which his aides were able to gather evidence about various “bishops” before they made their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visits to the Vatican. Some of this evidence was gathered by Father Hardon, who died on December 30, 2000. Other priests, including the late Monsignor George Kelly, who worked closely with John “Cardinal” Wright and Silvio Cardinal Oddi during their respective tenures as prefects of the Congregation for the Clergy, also sent information to “papal” aides that was used during the interviews that John Paul II had with various “bishops.”
One of those interviews took place with the late John Raymond McGann, who was the conciliar “bishop” of my home diocese, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, from 1976 to 2000 despite his record of ultra-progressivism that I documented so many times in The Wanderer, a little over thirty-one years ago, in April of 1983. Wojtyla/John Paul II questioned McGann closely as to why four parishes in his diocese did not schedule confessions during the recently-concluded Paschal Triduum. McGann responded by saying, “Well, you know, Your Holiness, our priests are very busy.” How do I know this? Because an auxiliary “bishop” of the diocese spoke about the “papal” interview publicly at a reception at Saint Gertrude Church in Bayville, New York, following his putative administration of the conciliar rite of confirmation. Anyone who says that Wojtyla/John Paul II did not have an intelligence network and/or that his aides “kept” information from him is the one living in a fantasy world.
Joaquin Navarro-Valls also failed to mention the little fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II rewarded the enabler of Father Paul Shanley, who cofounded an organization whose name is so repulsive that it will not be repeated here, Bernard “Cardinal” Law, by appointing him the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, where he served until 2012.
No place in the clergy for abusers?
Why did Wojtyla/John Paul II continue to reward the “bishops” who protected the abusers?
The rhetoric of the false “pontiff” in 2002 that was cited by Dr. Navarro-Valls was meaningless, backed up by no disciplinary actions against the “bishops.” This is why I wrote Time for Plain Talk in 2002, four years before I came to recognize and accept the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
Insofar as the Legionaries of Christ is concerned, it is no accident that its corrupt, venal founder maintained his “reputation” throughout John Paul II’s tenure even though I know for a fact that information was sent directly to the Apostolic Palace by former presbyters in the Legion about the problems there, including that the community’s founder, Father Marcel Maciel Degollado, had abused them physically and tortured them emotionally. The very man who is pushing for the “canonization” of John Paul II, the current conciliar “archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Stanislaw Dziwisz, who was Wojtyla/John Paul II’s personal secretary for many years, took bundles of cash from those with ties to the Legionaries of Christ:
The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.
According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. “That’s a pretty big resource,” explains one priest, who said the Legion’s work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. “Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution.”
The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries’ lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel’s way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors’ board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.
“Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz,” said the priest. “Two weeks later Pironio signed it.”
Dziwisz was John Paul’s closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz’s support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope’s private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. “Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops,” Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.
“When the guests came in (there were never more than 50),” Dziwisz wrote, “they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. … For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful.”
One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. “We arranged things like that,” he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope’s ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz’s book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.
“This happened all the time with Dziwisz,” said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.
Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries “would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household.”
Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: “You’re saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it’s good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita — ‘We’re making an offering for your works of charity.’ That’s the way it’s done. In fact you don’t know where the money’s going.” He paused. “It’s an elegant way of giving a bribe.”
Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. “I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel.”
What’s a bribe?
In terms of legal reality, does “an elegant way of giving a bribe” add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.
Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.
Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome “would qualify as a pious cause,” explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.
“That’s how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official’s personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported.”
Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.
“Maciel wanted to buy power,” said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family’s opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. “It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they’re lying and they know that you know,” he said. “They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it’s given.” (Money paved way for Maciel’s influence in the Vatican.)
Karol Wojtyla/ohn Paul II did not know any of this?
If he did not, he should have known. And that is what a real examination of a candidate’s cause for canonization would examine as this is, at the very least, dereliction of duty by acts of omission by failing to see that one’s trust in another is misplaced and is resulting in the wreckage of souls. The facts, however, speak to this being a case of protecting and indemnifying clerical abusers time and time again.
Mind you, this is not even to mention for the eighty-eighth thousandth time the number of ways that “Saint John Paul II” defected from the Catholic Faith, something that has been examined at length on this site and was explored in the context of the nature of infallibility in a very scholarly article written by “Athanasius” (who is not me; I write under my own poisoned name, thank you very much) at Novus Ordo Watch: The “Canonization of John Paul II: A Catholic Perspective.)
Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we enter into this month devoted to her honor, the month of May, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world as we make reparation for our own sins and those of the conciliar revolutionary whose life full of heresy and scandal has now been declared to “venerated” by all Catholics in the world by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Philip and James, pray for us.