Priests who cover up sexual abuse are 'shit' says the Pope

Priests who cover up sexual abuse are 'shit' says the Pope August 26, 2018

Pope Francis referred to those who cover up abuse in the Catholic Church as ‘caca’ – the Spanish word for shit – during a meeting in Dublin with abuse survivors.
Which is a tad ironic given that the Francis himself stands accused of covering up the sexual abuse of seminarians and priests by Archbishop Theodore (“hide the handsome ones”) McCarrick.

According to this report, the “explosive” accusation was made in the US at the weekend by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77.

In an statement Viganò, above, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington DC from 2011-2016, said that Pope Francis knew about strict canonical sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.
Viganò says he personally spoke with Francis about the gravity of McCarrick’s abuse soon after his election in 2013. But he says that Francis “continued to cover him” .
Worse still, he made McCarrick “his trusted counselor” who helped him to appoint a number of bishops in the US.
Viganò said his “conscience dictates” that the truth be known because:

The corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy.

He ended his testimony by calling on Pope Francis and all of those implicated in the cover up of McCarrick’s abuse to quit.
In comments to LifeSiteNews on August 25, Viganò said:

The main reason why I am revealing this news now is because of the tragic situation of the Church, which can be repaired only by the full truth, just as she has been gravely injured by the abuses and cover-ups. I do this to stop the suffering of the victims and to prevent new victims, and to protect the Church: only the truth can make her free.

Viganò said the second reason he chose to write his testimony is:

To discharge my conscience before God of my responsibilities as bishop of the universal Church. I am an old man and I want to present myself to God with clean conscience.

In this report, Viganò is quoted as saying:

He [Pope Francis] knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. He knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.

Meanwhile, it’s reported here that Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said he is glad the Catholic Church is now less dominant in public life
Varadkar said:

I think in the past the Catholic Church had too much of a dominant place in our society. I think it still has a place in our society but not one that determines public policy or determines our laws.

Speaking ahead of the Pope’s two-day visit to Dublin and Knock, Varadkar said his predecessors in past decades would have consulted bishops about issues of public policy such as the health service, but that was no longer the case.

"Here's another one in case you haven't seen it yet:https://friendlyatheist.pat...Completely stark, staring bonkers!"

Brexit is God’s plan to crush ..."
"I think the citation that refers more accurately to POTUS 45, Jim Bakker, and all ..."

Donald Trump was sent by God ..."
"We used to visit Islay (Queen of the Hebrides) and enjoy tasting sessions. The peat ..."

Kristallnacht: Muslims extremists scream ‘death to ..."
"I think that is unfair. They should be giving the churches money to pay for ..."

New US tax law could extract ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Broga

    “which can be repaired only by the full truth,”
    Then start with the truth that the bible is not the word of God and has been cobbled together to justify incredible events in the distant past. Jesus did not perform miracles, the requirements of the word of God are savage in implementation (e.g. slavery) and are ignored apart from relating to gays and women. Celibacy is impossible for almost everyone and priests, cardinals and popes are not celibate. And so on….
    Frankie is a skilful PR necessity and his hypocrisy has been exposed many times. The crumbling and rotted supports of religion are sustained by news media, politicians and royalty for the same reasons slave owners made time for their slaves to hear preachers.

  • John

    There are still big questions to be answered about his role in suppressing dissent under the Argentin junta, leading to the imprisonments and possible deaths of two priests.
    See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-military-junta
    He may have a slick PR department at the Vatican but the truth really is out there….somewhere.

  • L.Long

    A preacher has its lips moving…he is lying!

  • Angela_K

    To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davis: “He would say that wouldn’t he”Frankie and mates will say anything to protect the brand and cash income.

  • andym

    His predecessor produced tears on a visit to the UK, 2010. They convinced only the gullible too.

  • Broga

    To become a priest you must be a liar intent on benefits not available elsewhere to a man or women with your limitations or a fool.

  • barriejohn

    The Pope might be greatly encouraged were he to peruse Bill Donohue’s excellent coverage of the sexual abuse allegations on his Catholic League site:
    https://www.catholicleague.org/church-reforms-are-working/
    No entity in America today, private or public, has more institutionalized mechanisms in place to check for the sexual abuse of minors than the Catholic Church…
    Yet the media continue to advance the invidious stereotype that the Church has an on-going problem.

    Do he and Frankie inhabit the same world?

  • AgentCormac

    As ever the RCC begs forgiveness for the ‘failings’ of its management. But have they put any procedures in place to stop it happening again? Not that I can see. Business as usual, and all those in Ireland who turned out to welcome the head of this most repulsive crime syndicate need a bloody good kick up the arse.
    A bit like this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hG6sOw34w&frags=pl%2Cwn

  • tonye

    In my short life span, (55 yrs) science has put man on the Moon, defined DNA knowledge with the genome project, developed the large Hadron Collider, the Voyager 1 and 2 space projects, discovery of objects by the Hubble space telescope, smallpox eradication…..
    At what point has religion, over that same timespan, bettered us by 1% than any of the above discoveries, to the betterment of humankind?
    Frankie, its a case of far too little, far too late.

  • StephenJP

    Strange that Vicano has chosen this moment to reveal what he says he said to Papa Frankie in 2013; and that, funnily enough, there are no written records. It looks like internal Vatican politics are, as so often, taking precedence over admitting the truth and dealing with it.
    @tonye, too right; and indeed the churches have been on the wrong side of social progress for the past 250 years. Those who talk about this country’s “Judaeo-Christian heritage” are in denial about how threadbare this assertion actually is, and how damaging its remnants still are.

  • Broga

    Frankie was asked on the plane about the cover up of the sexual abuse of the South American visit (I didn’t get the details.) He said, “I am not going to respond to that.”
    The BBC interpretation, which its usual religious objectivity was, “The implication was that he would not dignify the question with a response.” (World Service in the night.)
    Some not in thrall to religion might be that he had no answer.

  • Brian Jordan

    Time for a Chexit – of the flock.
    Mind you, I did read somewhere that the increased focus within the church on abuse was a result of infighting between conservatives and, I suppose, ultra-conservatives.

  • John

    Broga: or that he does not want to admit his responsibility/complicity in it.

  • John

    Brian Jordan: it seems there has been a lot of Vatican infighting around this pope. Wasn’t there some sort of anonymous poster campaign against him at one time? His predecessor – still alive – threw in the towel rather than carry on trying to change things in the Vatican. It seems even popes have limits to their earthly powers.

  • AgentCormac

    @tonye
    Not only has religion failed to do anything to advance humanity, it has actually had the opposite effect. With its archaic, entrenched positions on everything from contraception and abortion to homosexuality and the ordination of women, people like Frankie have done everything they possibly can to impede progress and stop people from thinking. Add to this the despicable actions of those in its ranks who have committed the vilest of crimes and/or covered up for them, and all you’re left with is a worthless institution that has nothing to offer and everything to be ashamed of.

  • AgentCormac

    @Broga
    That is turning into a really interesting story. What Frankie said is, ‘Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves. I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself.’
    Now, you can read that in two very different ways. Either Frankie is saying ‘read the letter and you’ll see it’s worthless,’ or, ‘read it because I’m too ashamed to say it for myself’.
    Archbishop Vigano, the author of the letter Frankie is referring to, says the pope knew about allegations of sex abuse by a prominent US cardinal for five years before accepting his resignation last month. Vigano also claims he told Frankie in 2013 that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had faced extensive accusations of sexually abusing lower-ranking seminarians and priests and that the pope ‘knew from at least June 23 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator.’ Adding that the pope ‘knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end.’
    ‘Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them’, the letter says.
    I have a feeling this one will run and run.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45318100

  • Stephen Mynett

    Slightly OT but a thought. We have been saying for a long time how the internet has helped in exposing church criminality and giving us a better ability to communicate with each other about it.
    Perhaps something almost as significant has happened and although we have applauded it we may not given it the credit it fully deserves. The people of Eire told the RCC where to go with the abortion vote but it was more than that, a nation that had been oppressed by Catholicism from its beginning has stood against it and shown everyone it is OK to question and disagree with the church.
    It will take a long time for the likes of the BBC and other fawning organisations and governments follow but many normal people and journalists are now asking questions they would not have dared to before, a lot was before the Eire vote but much after. Perhaps unwittingly but some of us have been emboldened by the stand made by the Irish. Let us hope in continues and grows.

  • John

    We have to be aware of the historical role of the church in Ireland.
    For many centuries it was a repository of Irish/Gaelic culture.
    This role continued right up until quite recently.
    Ireland has now become much more multi-cultural and diverse, and – as a modern nation – the Irish no longer need the church to act as a repository of their culture.
    Technologies such as the internet have come to replace the church as a repository of Irish culture.
    Its ability to reveal to a mass audience the abuse of power exercised by the church has also undermined the church.
    And a good thing too!
    I note the numbers attending the pope’s visit were measured in the hundreds of thousands, unlike the millions who attended his predecessor’s visit.
    Also, there was a visible presence of protestors on this occasion, which would have been unthinkable previously.
    I see the church in Ireland going the same way as all the other national churches in the British Isles.
    Nowhere!

  • Broga

    That the BBC will provide anodyne propaganda opportunities for RC priests and deny a voice to atheists, while keeping their hand in their pockets for the licence fee, is arrogance and contempt for their listeners that is, in the overworked adjective of their crap and overpaid football bores “unbelievable.”
    Yes, I know that much of the BBC is the best there is – Radio 4 and the World Service – and many commentators detest what is happening and would like to be let loose to question the smug, protected religious types. The irony is that it is the quality of those who are not allowed question the Bullshit Bores, now recognised as representing a trade infested by paedophiles, that allows the BBC to preserve its reputation.
    The Brits have grown servile and it shows. But they have had a long and persistent training in responding to a posh voice or a title like Pavlovian dogs.

  • John

    Broga: with respect – truly – I suspect it is something else.
    There is a cozy little estalishment in this country which is absolutely determined to have things their way – and that includes controlling the mass media; in particular, an organ like the BBC.
    They still cleave to some of the Reithian values; in particular, that it should support the British State and – in particular – act as a form of social control.
    Propaganda is much cheaper than policing and religious output is just another part of the mind-washing attempts by the British State.
    This is supplemented by a Behavioural Analysis Unit in 10 Downing Street, exercising the so-called “nudge” factor.
    How else to explain the sheer determination of the British State to ram religion down the throats of everyone, starting with our education system.
    The fact that they are failing does not stop them from continuing to pursue the same failed strategies.
    Einstein defined such behaviour as being insane – but that will not stop them from continuing to try it on.
    The truth is that the entire superstructure of the British State is corrupt and rotten to the core.
    They are all clinging on to it with every muscle they possess.

  • Broga

    John: You give a good analysis.
    Meanwhile the voters are happy looking at cooking lessons, voting for dancing competitions and are obsessed with football. So many couldn’t read a book, even junk, and intellectual curiosity is disappearing with the lower finance given to education.

  • StephenJP

    John and Broga: you’re both right, of course; but remember that, according to the most recent Social Trends survey, fewer than half the population even consider themselves as having religious beliefs. (Of course a far smaller percentage ever practice any form of religion).
    I have long thought that, one of these days, one of the political parties might work out that there could be votes in proposing to eliminate religious privilege in this country. It is unlikely to happen just yet; but when it does, I think it will be sudden, complete and devastating.

  • andym

    @ StephenJP. If ever a “centre” party got off the ground, it would be a golden opportunity to show centre doesn’t mean bland. Many liberal secularists are realising Corbyn’s labour doesn’t really want them.

  • StephenJP

    andym: agreed.

  • John

    Attempts to create a new “centre” party – in the form of the SDP in the 1980s – did not work out well.
    Even now, the Liberal Democrats standing in the polls is poor.
    The reason is the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system which both Labour and the Conservatives insist on retaining.
    The reason for that is because it delivers majority power on a minority of votes.
    Since 1945, not one single government has been elected with at least 50 per cent of the vote.
    On occasions, some governments have been formed on less thatn 40 per cent of the vote.
    With a system such as this, it is highly unlikely that either Labour or the Conservatives will want to change it.
    Therefore, a successful “centre” party remains a mirage.
    It has one benefit: under a proportional electoral system, there could have been 90 UKIP MPs in Westminster.
    Need I say more?

  • Vanity Unfair

    To John:
    That is merely one absurdity of the British democratic system. The United Kingdom also has a head of state appointed without a single, solitary vote being cast in her favour. Her term is for life and her successor is already impatiently waiting for his accession to the title. Nobody has voted for him, either. What is the qualification necessary for this post? Being the eldest child of the previous incumbent.
    We can add to that the fact that the head of government is also not elected but appointed by the unelected head of state and can be replaced without reference to the electorate. The head of state has unrestricted access to the head of government, who is summoned to account for her actions weekly. No record of these meetings is published.
    Could this be a reason why Equality Act, 2010 S9(5) has not yet been decisively amended to outlaw caste discrimination? (I am aware of Chandok v. Tirkey)

  • Broga

    Labour has been tamed by the easy privileges they were expected to extirpate. We still have a House of Lords and a non elected Head of State and a shameless family who deserve ridicule and not adulation. No Keir Hardy any more who cause outrage in the fawning in the Commons over a “puking babe” while ignoring a mining disaster.

  • StephenJP

    I agree with all the above. My point was that if one of the two parties with a chance of forming a Government were to tumble to the fact that there might be votes in proposing to eliminate religious privilege, they could be in for a landslide.
    But of course the Tories would never go down this route; and the prospect of a Corbyn Government is ghastly for so many other reasons (no, I don’t want to debate that assertion at the moment, thanks!). Moan groan!

  • John

    I agree largely with everything that Broga says.
    The only problem is just what would happen if people inside the Labour Party tried to get policy adopted to abolish the unelected head of state and unelected second chamber in one go: it would lead to outright civil war inside the party.
    Not forgetting one of the worst media in the world and their billionaire owners’ attitudes towards such policies!
    Such policies really would constitute “the longest suicide note in history”
    In Britain, change comes about at a seemingly glacial pace of reform.
    It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
    It would be necessary to reform the second chamber to the point where it is either wholly elected or abolished.
    Pesonally, I would prefer a unicameral outcome.
    Only after that would it become possible to move on to the subject of the unelected head of state.
    There are those who question whether or not we would really have wanted a President Thatcher or President Blair?

  • barriejohn

    John: The role of president here would, as in Ireland, be largely symbolic, so I would have no real objection to a President Blair (for four years), or even a President Charles Windsor or Simon Cowell. I might just draw the line at Presidents Camilla or Ant & Dec (if they are still speaking to each other), and after the Boaty McBoatface fiasco almost anything is possible!