Skip to main content

Chronicle: What the Pope Knew - Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

+
JMJ


Steve Skojec was busy a couple of weeks ago, but he did make a post on August 20 in which he felt that this was the calm before the storm.

Well, yet another storm has broken - a Testimony by an Archbishop that the Pope knew about Cardinal Carrick and did ... wait for it ... nothing.

The irony is how swift Rome has been to stomp on Traditional Orders (FFI, Canons of St. John Cantius), but lead footed when it comes to homosexual predators within the hierarchy.

Here are some key links that have been tracking this aspect of the Crisis of the Church:

Lifesitenews: Former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction
Lifesitenews: Cardinal Burke responds to former us nuncios letter
Lifesitenews: Texas bishop urges thorough investigation
Lifesitenews: Pope Francis "i-am-not-going-to-say-a-word-about-archbishop-viganos-statemen"
Lifesitenews: Cardinal Wuerl from denial to dead silence


Rorate Caeli: Explosive: Former Nuncio to the US - "Pope Francis knew it all. He must resign."
Rorate Caeli: Texas Bishop: "I find the Viganò allegations to be credible."
Rorate Caeli: OP-ED - "The McCarrick Affair: The Pope knew. Here is why he must resign."

1P5: Pope Refuses to Answer
For this last one I'm going to quote Steve Skojec:

It’s an act of hubris so stunning, I can’t say I’ve ever seen anything like it.
 Ok, I'll grant that this is perhaps the biggest act of hubris in the last while, however I would posit that deciding to make up a Mass is perhaps an even bigger act of hubris. 
Confronted on the plane back from Ireland by a reporter from CBS News who wanted a simple true or false answer about whether the pope could confirm allegations that former apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò had personally told him about McCarrick’s sexual abuse in 2013, Francis dodges the question and redirects it back at the journalist in the most unconvincing, condescending way imaginable.
I think that Pope Francis' reaction, based on past performance, was predictable.
“I will respond to your question,” says the pope in a video of the plane presser translated by LifeSiteNews. “But I would prefer that we first speak about the trip, and then other topics … This morning I read that statement. I read it, and I will say sincerely that I must tell you all this — you [CBS] and all of you who are interested: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this. I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions.”
 So his response is a non-response.
“It is an act of trust,” he continues. “When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it, but I would like your professional maturity to do this work. It will do you all good, really.”
Ok, so I think that the Pope just got caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
Available from Walmart
But really, what are we to expect but 'hubris' from the people who brought you the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass? 

No, I mean really, did you expect something good to come from them on purpose?

It has been stated that the corruption in the Church goes all the way to the top of the hierarchy - the Pope.

Traditional Catholics have known this for decades as we've seen Modernist and Liberal agendas promoted to the detriment of the Faith.

So, please don't fall into the "ain't it awful" trap.

It is what it is - a crisis brought on by hubris - pride. That is the core issue with modernism and the liberals.  They shirk off responsibility and say: I know better.

This latest episode changes nothing about the reality of this crisis, in the end it will be yet another footnote.

So, pray, do penance and be patient, that is how you will survive and how to help the Church.

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

SSPX / DICI: Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.

+ JMJ The following is the communiqué of the SSPX regarding the Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure. As a follow-up to this article ,  I would like to highlight the rationale for denouncing the consecration. Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure. On March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.(1) The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had c...

Bishop Huonder, SSPX in Schism? - Nope, Consecration of Holy Oils - Update 1

 + JMJ  So Bishop Huonder is in the news for two reasons.  First, his 'Testimony' concerning Pope Francis etc. This was received as a nice reinforcement by Trads (SSPX and others).  Of course, there are those that now are demanding an apostolic investigation.  Yawn, been here before.  This was predictable as other bishops who have followed the same path came to the same conclusions.  It is the way. Second, he celebrated the Chrism Mass and blessed the Holy Oils for use in the SSPX's European chapels and ceremonies.  This caused a stir amongst some Trads who are locked in one or the other statements made by either Archbishop Lefebvre or others. I received two versions of a question regarding this event: Hi Tradical Do you have any comments about doubtful oils in SSPX europe by +Huonder (NO Bishop not conditionally consecrated)? God Bless Hi Tradical Any thoughts on Huonder oil, not conditionally ordained and consecrated by SSPX bishops? God Bless M...