Animal Farm: Why was Church Militant apparently Afraid to use this Headline: “The Pope [Francis] Covered Up Priest’s Abuse of My Son”?
Above, Beatriz Varela; below, son Gabriel Ferrini. Varela said: “Bergoglio was aware of this situation [the sex-abuse of her son] because no one can be installed in the Vicar’s House without the authorization of the Archbishop... This is Bergoglio’s [Francis'] compromise: He speaks against cases of pedophilia in the Church, but uses hypocrisy, lies and complicity."
On May 3, 2013, the digital newspaper based in Madrid, Spain called Público published an article with this headline “The Pope [Francis] Covered Up Priest’s Abuse of My Son.”
On August 4, 2018, on the same story, instead of the above headline, Michael Voris' Church Militant in an apparent attempt to lessening the gravity of the accusation against Francis used this headline "Mother Alleges Sex Abuse Cover-Up Under Cdl. Bergoglio."
Author Atila Sinke Guimarães, in the Tradition in Action blog, says that there was "probably" a media cover-up, "probably due to pressure from the Vatican," of Beatriz Varela's accusation that Francis was involved in a cover-up of a "paedophile priest" who abused her son, Gabriel Ferrini, in 2002:
"Marco Tosatti from La Stampa in Turin, Italy, posted an article on his website Stilum Curiae reporting the involvement of Pope Francis in a cover-up for a pedophile priest in Buenos Aires when he was Archbishop of that city. The article refreshed some little-known old data reported by the Spanish blog Publico. Soon after, however, Tossatti's article was removed from that site, probably due to pressure from the Vatican."
Again, Church Militant in an apparent attempt to lessening the gravity and slant the article against the mother and her accusation against Francis wrote the following on the mother's attempt to speak with Francis:
"At around this time, Varela tried to plead with the inter-diocesan ecclesiastical court in Buenos Aires. Varela claims she was kicked out of the waiting room by the court's president, Msgr. Jorge Rodé, who insisted she should report the abuser to the diocese of Quilmes. A priest in the waiting room offered to take her to the Metropolitan Curia to try to speak to the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cdl. Bergoglio. The cardinal's receptionist didn't give Varela an appointment because of her refusal to reveal the reason for the meeting. Varela still tried to leave Cdl. Bergoglio a note, but was then escorted out of the premises by security guards." [https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/mother-alleges-sex-abuse-cover-up-under-cdl.-bergoglio]
The Tradition in Action piece gave the mother of the victim's side. Varela was employed in a diocesan school of Quilmes when the abuse took place on August 15, 2002 so she knew who to contact to demand "justice" for her son. Guimarães documents what happened after she found out her son was abused:
""Since the Bishop delayed in punishing the priest, Beatriz Varela tried to communicate with Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio. However, he refused to receive her and ordered his bodyguards to prevent her from entering his residence. Symptomatically, at the same time the Archbishop of Buenos Aires was hosting the pedophile priest in a comfortable residence under his jurisdiction..."
"... The mother of the victim also went to the Archdiocese, the residence of Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio. He refused to receive her and sent his security guards to expel her from the property. Soon afterwards, she learned that Fr. Ruben Pardo was a guest at the Vicar’s House in the Flores neighborhood, directly dependent on the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. She observed: 'Bergoglio was aware of this situation because no one can be installed in the Vicar’s House without the authorization of the Archbishop.'”
Did Arch. Bergoglio not receive the mother of the sex-abuse victim?
According to the Tradition in Action article, Varela said:
“Bergoglio was aware of this situation [the sex-abuse of her son] because no one can be installed in the Vicar’s House without the authorization of the Archbishop... This is Bergoglio’s compromise: He speaks against cases of pedophilia in the Church, but uses hypocrisy, lies and complicity to cover them." [https://traditioninaction.org/bev/220bev06_29_2018.htm]
Whereas, the Church Militant piece only quotes her without the accusation that Francis was "aware" of "this" sex-abuse "situation," and without Verala saying he "speaks against cases of pedophilia in the Church, but uses hypocrisy, lies and complicity to cover them." Here is their only quote:
"Beatriz Varela resisted at first, saying she had "nothing to say" to him, but then emotionally said to the camera, "This is a message to Pope Francis: Do as you say you will do. Be sure to follow everything you say with actions. If the Church is to have zero tolerance towards abuse, all the priests you are aware of, whose names and addresses you know, must be gathered up and put in jail now. ... Do what God wants, for all of us.”
Church Militant's Voris knows, as all journalists know, that one can slant an article or narrative by the selective use of quotes and using the words "alleged" or "claims" in the descriptive paraphrase of a story instead of using a direct quote.
That said, here are some questions that need answers:
Was "Tossatti's article... removed from that site,... due to pressure from the Vatican"?
Did Church Militant slant the story in favor of Francis and against the mother of the victim?
Was there was a media cover-up "probably due to pressure from the Vatican"?
Why was Church Militant apparently afraid to use this headline: “The Pope [Francis] Covered Up Priest’s Abuse of My Son”?
Church Militant called Bishop Bernard Fellay a "big liar" who "needs to be expelled" for sex-abuse cover-up (which if true should happen), why don't you, Mr. Voris, and your collaborators such as Tim Gordon, Patrick Coffin and Steve Skojec call Francis a "big liar" who "needs to be expelled"?
Don't Voris and his collaborators really care about the victims and are they pedo-protectors when it comes to Francis cover-up victims?
Why don't Francis conservatives and Francis traditionalists support pedo exposure and removal of Francis?
Are Francis conservatives and Francis traditionalists in a mindless obedience cult that must protect Francis from removal at all cost despite his pedo-protecting of predators, his attempt to destroy the Chinese underground Church and his promotion of the sacrileges of Communion for adulterers as well as Pachamama pagan worship in the Vatican?
Is this like Animal Farm where some victims are more equal than other victims?