Preview our new Print edition HERE
Don't miss this Remnant Exclusive:
Archbishop Lefebvre's Prophetic Address from The Remnant Archive, 1973...
“Where anything touching the Church is concerned, it is the priest who suffers the consequences. It is for this reason that today the priest is in the most dramatic, the most tragic situation imaginable. How can children truly preserve their faith in the Real Presence? How can they respect a priest who has ceased to respect himself?”
--Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, The Remnant, 1973
This issue also includes:
Michael J. Matt: VINDICATED - Pioneer Traditional Catholics Were Right!
Father Celatus: VIGANÒ in HIDING: The Penalty for Crossing a Merciful Pope
Hilary White: The Oath Against Modernism: A Template for Action
AND MUCH MORE!
Subscribe to the oldest Traditional Catholic Newspaper in the world!
Archbishop Viganò has released a new, powerful statement necessitated by the peculiar reaction of Pope Francis to the Aug 22 Testimony.
Many thanks to our friends at LifeSiteNews, especially Diane Montagna, for the following translation and release of the follow-up testimony from arguably the most courageous prelate in the Church today—Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
The former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States has, as they say, doubled down. Far from backing-away and making excuses for his early actions, as we’ve all become so accustomed to seeing in these rare cases where a hierarch breaks ranks, Archbishop Viganò is digging in with a 4-page bombshell that restates his initial accusations of abuse cover-up against Francis and other powerful members of the hierarchy, and even concludes with a suggestion that Francis is beginning to act as a “substitute of our Lord.”
Read the Archbishop’s words for yourselves and note well the ring of truth that resonates in every sentence. This is clearly the testimony of an honest man who has only the good of the Church in his heart—a modern-day Athanasius standing against something so much worse than Liberius.
Friends, let us pray for Archbishop Viganò. He is standing alone now, and not only against the most dangerous pontificate in history, but also the forces of hell itself—forces which will do all in their power to silence this voice crying in the wilderness.
Make no mistake about this: Archbishop Viganò is fighting for the very survival of the human element of the Catholic Church. He is standing against corrupt men in high places who cannot be trusted to do what is best for souls, for the Catholic faithful or indeed for Holy Mother Church herself.
The enemy is not only at the gates but has now made their way to the thrones of power and the seats of the Apostles. God help us.
It goes without saying that we here at The Remnant not only stand with Viganò but we thank God for him every day, we pray the Rosary for him every day, and wish him every blessing and heavenly consolation as he undergoes this passion for the sake of the Master he serves so well.
God bless you, Your Excellency, and Mary keep you. We are with you! MJM
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)
Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.
“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.
My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.
Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.
Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?
The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.
Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.
Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.
I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.
Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.
“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).
To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).
The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.
Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?
The Lord is in full control of the boat!
May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
LifeSiteNews is reporting that the founder of U.S. Catholic publishing house Ignatius Press has called for Pope Francis to answer Archbishop Viganò’s allegations that he knowingly promoted an American cardinal accused of abusing seminarians and priests. Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, told CNN that he finds the pontiff’s refusal to give an answer “deplorable”. In recent weeks, commentators have interpreted Pope Francis’ homilies about “the Great Accuser” and Christ’s “silence” as coded commentary on the Vatican whistleblower’s testimony and the pontiff’s own reluctance to answer it.
“He’s attacking Viganò and everyone who is asking for answers,” Fessio told CNN. “I just find that deplorable. Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions,” he added. READ MORE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: God bless Father Fessio, a fellow Jesuit, for demanding that Francis do the right thing.
By now it should be abundantly obvious to everyone who is not Mark Shea that this is not "traditional Catholic" crepe hanging. Father Fessio is hardly a "rad trad". Catholics everywhere--those still bothering to go to Mass on Sunday, at any rate-- know that the very future of the Church is on the line.
Francis is out of control, and by refusing to answer the charges he is discrediting the papacy and running the Catholic Church into the ground. Catholics thus have a sacred duty before God to resist this man to his face.
His pontificate is already a massive scandal, and the only way to undo the damage he's done (if indeed he wants to) is for Francis to stop with the endless self-promotion, cease and desist with the school-marm lecturing of faithful Catholics, drop the whole "humble pope" routine, and answer the damn...ing charges.
Until that happens we pledge to dedicate the rest of our lives to making sure that his arrogant dereliction of duty and endangerment of children remain front and center in the minds of historians and the Catholic faithful for years to come.
Francis is an old man; the Catholic press will soon take control of his legacy. And that's not going to be pretty. So this is Francis's last chance to, quite frankly, get over himself. The "humble pope" schtick is not only tiresome, it's offensive.
It's over, Francis! To quote Father Fessio: "Be a man. Answer the charges!"
Over at FirstThings, several more sincere young clergy members manifest a comforting level of true Catholic instinct. God bless them, and may many more follow their example:
Reverend Synod Fathers,
On our ordination days, each of us was asked by his ordaining bishop: “Do you promise respect and obedience to me and my successors?” Each of us answered in the affirmative, confident not in his own merits, but in the grace of God, who called each of us to priestly ministry in his Church. We are young Catholic clergy, and so we answered this question only a short time ago—some of us within the past year. And it is in the same spirit of respect and obedience that we write today. We wish to express our concern about the unfolding crisis of sexual abuse in the Church, especially the Church in the United States. Specifically, we are concerned about how this crisis relates to the Synod on the Faith, Young People, and Vocational Discernment, which is to take place in Rome in October.
The secular media was alive with it!
It was broadcast in Times Square!
Millions watched as the People's Pope unveiled his fine papal portrait...
Have a look for yourself:
Yeah, lots of vibes going on there... you got the Fabio-esque mood lighting, the 80s-style brush strokes, the 70s collage craze, the "let's pretend children love him" pose, the God complex, the flattering weight loss, and the um... rainbow over the Vatican?
What audience is falling for this?
Check out some official portraits of previous popes:
(That look is the reason this is one of the most famous papal portraits of all time.)
Even, although cheesy, this one... Benedict XVI
Here are images of popes on their throne, looking every inch the ruler, as they should be. They are not, however, making themselves out to be Jesus Christ Himself.
Francis the Humble didn't commission a portrait at all. What he has is a propaganda mural taken seriously by only the blindest sycophants.
Just compare those portraits once more: Which popes look more secure in their legacy?
It's no wonder that spoofs of this papal vanity shot are already crowding cyberspace:
As LifeSiteNews recently reported:
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, appointed by Pope Francis to head the Vatican's life and family dicastery, told young people during a televised youth forum that aired Sunday that the Pope wants to hear the voice of young people to bring about change in the Church.
“We really need to let our voice be heard, if not, life will go on as before. And that is not the way we want it to be. We need the Church to be more involved with the young people of the world, and you, my dear people, are the ones who are going to tell us how to do that,” he said.
Young people, he said, must say “how the Church needs to change its ways of doing things so we can be more attuned to the voice and to the hearts of the young,” he added later during the show.
The show was organized by Canada’s Salt and Light and co-hosted by Vatican consultant Fr. Thomas Rosica.
Faithful Catholics have raised concern that just as the recent Synods on the Family were used to undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage and the Eucharist, so too do they fear that the Youth Synod will have an analogous agenda.
By the way, the guy in charge of the Synod, Cardinal Farrell, was disgraced child predator (and former papal advisor) then-Cardinal Ted McCarrick's roommate for six years. He recently claimed to be "shocked and overwhelmed" by revelations of Teddy's Krueger-esque penchant for terrorizing kids and seminarians.
Meanwhile, back at the Circle O (Opus Dei, that is), it's business as usual:
Yes, that's right-- the "conservative" "watchdog of orthodoxy", Opus Dei, our sentry at the gate, is still keeping the sheeple in the dark about what's really going on here. As a friend recently noted, "They will not only go along with, but boldly champion whatever the man in white says, no matter what. They willfully ignore all problems--including heresy, approving adultery, banning death penalty, not answering credible sex abuse cover up allegations--the whole nine yards. As long as they have their pristine place in the Church with tons of money and are left alone, they will cheerlead whatever The Argentinian says."
St. Josemaria, protect us from Opus Dei
On September 15, an article quietly appeared on the Society of St. Pius X website which acknowledged, for the first time, what some are calling the Scandal of the Century—new and devastating revelations of the full extent of the clerical sex crisis which has been rocking the Church for decades.
Though this article commented in depth on the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, oddly enough it makes no mention of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s bombshell 11-page testimony which in many ways stole the thunder of the Pennsylvania report, and I can’t figure out why they omitted this.
On the Vatican’s reaction to the revelations in Pennsylvania, the Society report quotes Greg Burke’s defense of Francis, claiming that, “Victims should know that the Pope is on their side.”
Pope and his PR man, Opus Dei's Greg Burke
To my knowledge, the author of this Society brief is among only a handful who still take the affidavits and assurances of the Vatican’s damage control agent, Greg Burke, at all seriously.
The Society report is useful since it collates the reactions of others to this biggest crisis since the promulgation of the New Mass. For example, it mentions that “in the US, over 140 theologians, educators and lay directors called for all the American bishops to resign” in an open letter of provocation. But then it also highlights Pope Francis’ (the “Sovereign Pontiff”) words in his Letter to the People of God:
“In his letter, the successor of Peter considered that one of the sources of these ‘ecclesial wounds’ is a ‘peculiar way of understanding the Church’s authority.’ ‘Clericalism’, he accused, ‘supports and helps to perpetuate many of the evils that we are condemning today,’ such as ‘the thirst for power and possessions’ and spiritual corruption.’” (Whether or not the SSPX concurs with this papal diversionary tactic is not obvious to the reader.)
The report moves on into the general reaction to the Pope’s letter, citing the issues raised by journalist Aldo Maria Valli, LifeSiteNews, unavox.it, and Carlos Esteban, a Spanish journalist. But the report does not here add any of its own critique, which I find frustrating since the Society should be in a position to hold a hard line on this. Confusion and ambiguity are tools of the Vatican. Let’s not do that.
In the final section, entitled: The Hypocrisy of the World and the Statistical Reality, the Society report states: “The fact that men invested with the priestly dignity could have committed such acts is indeed a shame.” And then moves on to suggest that much of this is the work of anti-Catholic media:
“The media attacks the Church furiously while pretending to forget that these cases, as scandalous as they may be, are only a tiny minority compared to the abuse committed by adults on children in schools, sports activities, or stepfamilies, not to mention the shady circles of fashion, the show business and the media.”
The report then lists stats which appear to show a higher number of abuse cases in families and among peers than those which originate from priests and religious. No doubt, this may be the case. But what is the Society report getting at?
To my thinking, for even just one Catholic priest to abuse a child or engage in homosexual acts is infinitely worse than for a hundred pagans who don’t know better to do something similar. And the fact that so many dioceses have lost lawsuits and had to pay out millions of dollars is itself proof that this problem cannot be dismissed as mostly the concoction of Catholic-bashing media.
The report continues: “As serious as it may be, it remains a marginal reality, much more marginal, in any case, than the media, always ready to pounce on an opportunity to dishonor the Church, would have it.” And…? The fact that it’s happening at all is the ugly story here.
Closing line: “The Church intercedes for her wounded children, not for this hypocritical and corrupt world for which Christ refused to pray (see Jn. 17:9).”
As a member of the Society faithful, I’m grateful that the SSPX has now addressed the clerical sex abuse crisis in the Church. As a woman living in the world, I appreciate priestly guidance on this issue so that I can be prepared to answer the many questions that are put to me at work about this scandal and how to separate it from the spotless Bride of Christ.
That said, I sincerely hope to hear more from the Society in the future, since to my view they neglected to mention the game-changer in all this, i.e., Archbishop Viganò, and further developments since the month-old PA Grand Jury incident. What does the Society think of the bombshell everyone else is talking about: Archbishop Viganò’s Testimony and the implication of members of the hierarchy, up to and including Pope Francis, in a massive coverup scandal?
Especially since it appears to many that Archbishop Viganò, in choosing to stand alone for morality, is a heroic figure not unlike Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was. The ‘deep state Church’ on which Archbishop Viganò shines his torch could be said to represent the ultimate vindication of Archbishop Lefebvre.
The parallel at least is interesting: Viganò stands alone for Catholic moral theology just as, thirty years ago, Archbishop Lefebvre had stood alone for Doctrine and Liturgy. I would think the Society—more than anyone else—would want to point to this parallel precisely because Archbishop Viganò’s testimony fulfills Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophesy of dire moral consequences if the Church leadership did not stand for traditional doctrine and liturgy after Vatican II.
The great Archbishop Lefebvre knew that when the Church began stripping away the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the priesthood would quickly cease to have a purpose and would degenerate into the evil thing we have today—a twisted and perverse caricature of its former self. This abandonment of doctrinal and liturgical tradition is the state of emergency to which Lefebvre was alluding, is it not? And therefore, he kept his Society aloof from a mainstream Church fraught with spiritual and moral corruption.
Why then, does the Society report close with what appears to be an attempt to minimize the clerical abuse crisis in the Novus Ordo? Is the Society investigating the hundreds of charges against Novus priests to assess credibility, or is there some other method of determining that rampant immorality in the priesthood does not, in fact, follow doctrinal and liturgical laxity? Why does the Society feel the need to champion the Novus Ordo all of a sudden? And is the Society in a good position to even know what’s really going on in the Novus Ordo?
The Society have been removed from the seminaries and dioceses for decades, thank God; but perhaps this make us less apt to know the full extent of the rot than would, say, the priests and bishops who have boots-on-the-ground experience at the diocesan level—conservative and tradition-friendly Novus Ordo priests who are not, by the way, questioning the fact that homosexuality and child abuse are rampant in the new Church. Rather, the response of 20 to 30 honest bishops has been to nod, cringe, and side with Archbishop Viganò, even if some priests may in fact have been falsely accused. The reality is or at least seems to be that sexual abuse has reached crisis proportions in the Novus Ordo. And yet, curiously, the Society seems to be suggesting otherwise, even in the face of diocesan priestly testimony:
Why do this, when the well-meaning diocesan priests and bishops apparently recognize Viganò’s testimony as a way to finally begin to root out the corruption they know exists? You have men such as Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, for example—a man friendly to the Society in the past—nevertheless calling these horrific revelations a “purification” of the Church; Archbishop Chaput admitted that, based on this Pennsylvania report, a synod on “youth” would be painfully ironic right now; Bishop Paprocki and others are organizing public penance.
Cordileone, Chaput, Paprocki
Does the SSPX not want to get behind these men? If not, why not? What am I missing here? Again, as someone who’s attended SSPX chapels for many years, I’m trying to understand why the Society is taking this course of action, especially since this horrific situation is the ultimate vindication for everything Archbishop Lefebvre did, as well as grounds for the “state of urgency” provisions under which I’ve been receiving absolution from Society priests for the past fifteen years.
Is this not an opportunity for our dear Society to lead boldly and compassionately; to support good prelates in their quest for truth, to encourage their Catholic sense and to commiserate with their anguish and that of the victims and their families? This approach seems more conducive to healing than does quibbling over the precise numbers of the PA Grand Jury and telling us that the “sovereign pontiff” and Greg Burke have it all under control—something that beggars belief, quite frankly.
The Church needs our Society now more than ever. This is not meant to be a criticism, but rather an encouragement. If we lose the Society as defenders of the fort, I fear many of us will not fare well.
It’s been a month of misses for The People’s Pope, no matter what Cupich would have you believe. As his popularity falls drastically (according to this poll), he continues to nail the lid on the coffin of what remains of his positive credibilty:
Preview our new Print edition HERE
Subscribe to the oldest Traditional Catholic Newspaper in the world!
Don't miss the new Ferrara Blockbuster: Can the Church Defend Herself Against Bergoglio? Some Surprising Answers...
"These lessons of history should suffice to dispel the pious fable that every Pope is chosen by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church. This theological error, which Bergoglio has exploited to the hilt, is a key element in the related error of papalotry, which elevates the person of the Pope above the office he occupies and makes of him the leader of a personality cult, rather than a custodian and defender of the Deposit of Faith." --Chris Ferrara
Michael J. Matt: The War to Stop Francis
Father Celatus: Bishops in White and Now a Red Heifer
Hilary White: Advice for Women considering vocations