Skip to main content

Cd. Ouellet says Pope Francis had No "Interest" in Zero Tolerance for Predator McCarrick

Pope Francis collaborator Cardinal Marc Ouellet in an open letter admitted that ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was under punitive restrictions before Francis took office and that the present pope took no "interest" in zero tolerance for McCarrick even after he was informed of credible sex abuse allegations against the then cardinal by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò"

On October 7, The Wall Street Journal reported that senior Vatican official Cardinal Ouellet, head of the Vatican's office of bishop, admitted that ex-Cardinal McCarrick was under punitive restrictions before Francis took office:

Cardinal Ouellet "called the 'monstrous accusation' that Pope Francis ignored reports of sexual misconduct by a key cardinal, but confirmed a key point of the accusation: that the cardinal had been under punitive restrictions when the pope took office in 2013."

"... Ouellet acknowledged that Cardinal McCarrick had been 'forcefully exhorted not to travel and not to appear in public'... on account of 'rumors'... [that] didn't amount to formal 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis."
(The Wall Street Journal, "Vatican Denounces Accusation Against Pope but Confirms Key Point," October 7, 2018)

Apparently, the senior Vatican official Ouellet is not only admitting that McCarrick was under punitive restrictions, but that Francis removed what he would call informal punitive restrictions on a serial sexual abuser and predator.

The senior Vatican official, also, admitted in his opinion that Francis wasn't "interested" that a senior Cardinal was a serial sexual abuser and predator. The pope, apparently, was so little "interested" in zero tolerance of clerical and bishop sexual abusers that he removed the informal punitive restrictions from the predator. The Wall Street article revealed:

"Archbishop Viganò has alleged that he informed Pope Francis about the U. S. cardinal's situation in June 2013... Ouellet didn't contradict the allegation, but replied: 'I strongly doubt that McCarrick interested [the pope]... he was an 82-year-old retired archbishop."

Finally, Ouellet is, apparently, incompetent or lied when he said "His [McCarrick's] case would have been the subject of new disciplinary measures if the nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us with recent and decisive information about his behavior."
(National Catholic Register, "Cardinal Ouellet writes Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò," October 7, 2018)

"Decisive information" about McCarrick being a serial sex-abuser and predator was received by the Vatican from whistleblower Fr. Boniface Ramsay in 2000 according to the Associated Press as posted in the UK Daily Mail:

"A 2006 letter from Cardinal Leonardo Sandi, a top Vatican official confirms that the Holy See received information in 2000 about the sexual misconduct of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick."
(Daily Mail, "Letter confirms Vatican KNEW about sex abuse claims against Cardinal McCarrick's in 2000, September 7, 2018)

If Ouellet is not incompetent or lying he must explain why he didn't know about the Ramsey letter received by Cardinal Sandi.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...