Major Archbishop: Pope Francis Covered Up Sex Abuse, Must Resign

An interview with the author of The Dictator Pope

By John Zmirak Published on August 28, 2018

You’ve probably seen the blockbuster reports. The Vatican’s former ambassador (“nuncio”) to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, has broken the silence around Pope Francis’ tolerance of sex abuse. In a blistering letter released on Saturday, Viganò named names. He showed us where the bodies are buried.

Viganò testified that Pope Francis knew that former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had molested seminarians. He explains how, where, and when Pope Francis was told of it. And as he did in previous abuse cases, Pope Francis did nothing, even siding with the accused. (Recall that one of Francis’ big boosters in his rise to the papacy was the scandal-befouled Cardinal Danneels of Belgium. Francis plucked him out of disgrace after taking power.)

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Viganò notes that former Pope Benedict XVI learned of McCarrick’s crimes — and slapped McCarrick with harsh sanctions. Pope Francis took office, and lifted them. Viganò also points to a cabal of pro-gay clerics advanced by Pope Francis. They likewise had to know about McCarrick’s sins and crimes, but said nothing. In fact, they became his allies. Viganò names cardinals Francis minted. They include Kevin Farrell (of Dallas, now at the Vatican), Blase Cupich of Chicago, and Joseph Tobin of Newark. Also complicit was Francis ally Francis Wuerl of Washington, D.C.

Wuerl is now under pressure to resign. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s report exposed his shuffling of sex abusers. Likewise his payment of hush-money to a molester priest in a kiddie porn ring.

We urge you to read the letter yourself. In a church known for secrets and collegiality, it’s a shockingly candid cry from the heart by a long-time high-ranking bishop. And it culminates with Viganò’s unprecedented call for Pope Francis himself to resign.

Pope Francis, consulted by reporters about the letter, was uncharacteristically quiet. He said he would not comment on its contents, inviting people to judge for themselves.

For insight, The Stream interviewed papal biographer Henry Sire (“Marcantonio Colonna”), author of The Dictator Pope


Which of Pope Francis’ actions, as Viganò reported, do you consider morally most troubling and why?

Abp Viganò’s indictment is so wide-ranging. It is difficult to pick out points. Perhaps the one we most need to pay attention to is the way Pope Francis, after his election, made Cardinal McCarrick his trusted adviser. Alongside, of course, with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga. Abp. Viganò makes clear the truly evil regime that Cardinal Maradiaga is running in his own archdiocese. Aside from that, Viganò’s accusation of Francis himself is unequivocal. He speaks of “the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis.” He asks, “How many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!”

Henry Sire

Henry Sire

Can you tell us about Abp. Vigano? Do you know him — can you speak to his reliability as a witness? What does he risk by saying all this?

I don’t know Abp Viganò personally. But I would point out that he suffered as early as 2011. Then he was Secretary of the Governorate of Rome. He was dismissed when his efforts to reform the Roman bureaucracy proved inconvenient to his superiors. His appointment as papal Nuncio in the United States was a form of exile to punish him. Both those posts gave him an unrivaled position to see from the inside the abuses he is exposing. He is now retired and therefore able to speak out freely. But there is no knowing what retaliation he may suffer.


How credible do you find these accusations? It appears that former Pope Benedict has confirmed the key assertion, regarding McCarrick.

Abp. Viganò is saying what those who watch Church developments have been observing for a long time. But he adds invaluable insights of his own. I wish that Pope Benedict would see it as his duty to confirm the other things that Abp. Viganò says, so that we may hear the truth from the highest authority.

Pope Francis has deliberately surrounded himself with morally weak people because of the hold it gives him over them.

Pope Benedict, late in his reign, ordered a massive investigation of homosexual networks in the Vatican. He received the 300+ page dossier, read it, and shortly afterward resigned. Does Vigano’s testimony throw any light on his likely reasons?

The dossier you mention related to the situation in the Curia. Abp. Viganò is concerned more with that in the United States. Suffice it to say that Pope Benedict resigned in the hope that his successor would clean the Augean Stables. In fact the opposite has happened: Pope Francis has allied himself precisely with the most corrupt elements in the clergy, both in Rome and in the whole world.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Isn’t the Vatican obligated to lift the veil of secrecy and make that dossier public, if it ever wants to regain our trust?

If we have a genuine reformer as the next pope — and if we don’t the Church is headed for utter disaster — his first priority must indeed be to let in the light of day on this and all the other aspects of the corruption with which the Church is riddled.


It seems that many of the leading cardinals whom Francis appointed or advanced — Tobin, Cupich, Farrell, Wuerl — are tied to McCarrick. How plausible is it that all of them — as they are claiming — were ignorant of his record as a molester?

Totally impossible, as Abp Viganò says quite clearly. He explicitly accuses Wuerl and Farrell of lying shamelessly.

Francis is now reaping the fruits of his own methods. The more tricks he tries, the more he enmeshes himself. A wholly unscrupulous man in the Chair of Peter may survive for a while, but in the end he will bring himself down.

It appears that at around the same time Pope Francis was lifting all penalties against Cardinal McCarrick for molesting seminarians, he was also preparing a document that condemned air conditioning as sinful. A week after the McCarrick revelations, Francis announced that he was changing Church teaching on capital punishment. What should we think of such a pope?

That, to use Abp Viganò’s words, he “is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to St Peter”. As I argue in The Dictator Pope, Pope Francis has staked his whole pontificate on playing for popularity with the secular media. He tells them what they want to hear. So they praise him unreservedly. It is a slick, cynical strategy. But unfortunately for Pope Francis, he has now run into an area in which the media are capable of turning against him.


Many were scandalized when, back in May, Pope Francis reportedly told a young man that God had “made him gay.” But this young man had been molested at a formative age by a priest — a priest whose protectors and enablers Pope Francis had promoted, scorning the testimony of victims, including that young man. What do you think Pope Francis should say to the young man whom Cardinal McCarrick baptized with his own hands, then later molested?

To say that God makes anyone sexually perverted is as misleading as to say that He makes people alcoholics or kleptomaniacs. The Church’s teaching on this subject has been subverted by false pastors, and by no-one more than Pope Francis in his repeated pronouncements on the topic.


dictator pope2_

If they’re verified, how do these papal actions by Francis fit the personal style you described (in The Dictator Pope) going back decades?

As I have described, Bergoglio throughout his career has followed a consistent policy of inaction when cases of clerical corruption are reported to him, and he has deliberately surrounded himself with morally weak people because of the hold it gives him over them. That is why the revelations made by Abp Viganò are completely in character.


What are the prospects that Pope Francis will resign, as Abp. Vigano called on him to do? If he doesn’t, what actions should we expect? What would be in character for him?

It will certainly not be in character for Pope Francis to go easily. We can expect him to look for a way of deflecting the scandal, as he did in the case of the Chilean bishops, who resigned en masse for a blunder that was his alone. But we need to realize that Francis is now reaping the fruits of his own methods. The more tricks he tries, the more he enmeshes himself. A wholly unscrupulous man in the Chair of Peter may survive for a while, but in the end he will bring himself down.


Do you think that cardinals implicated in this scandal should be permitted to vote in the next papal conclave? Should the conservative Italian government ban them from Italy to prevent that appalling scandal?  

Many of the College of Cardinals are morally discredited, but I don’t see any likelihood of their being excluded from the next Conclave. Let us pray that the majority of the cardinals are responding to this disaster with the shame and the desire for reform that any decent person would feel. Shame at having elected Bergoglio in the first place, and desire for a reform which he was elected to introduce and which he has so signally failed to deliver.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Greeny

    Whatever the episcopate does to deflect or obfuscate the reality is the real probability that the laity will vote with their feet and pocket books. What’s the current number-is it only about 30% of Catholics in the U.S. who regularly attend Sunday Mass? Unless there is real reform that number will only decrease.

    • Jacob Miller

      If Pope Francis really is a dictator, as Henry Sire claims, I’d like to see him immediately fire all the bishops. Make them take vows of poverty and spend the rest of their lives running food kitchens for the poor. This would be the best thing fro their souls.

      Then, he should put lay women in charge of all the churches. They seem to be the ones least involved in these scandals.

      The priests and other clergy would be directed by the laity. Parishes and diocese would be run democratically rather than top-down. Salaries of the priests would be tied to the salaries of church janitors and secretaries.

      OK — I know I’m being ridiculous. But this is what real reform would look like even if it surely won’t happen.

      • Patmos

        So what troll factory do you work for? And how does your mother hide her shame?

        • That troll factory is the “charismatic” sect of protestantism, which I think is “reform” calvinism.

          This one is espousing views no different front he iconoclasts of 500 years ago who used to burn down Churches, rape nuns, and then dig up graves of past nuns to desecrate the skeletons.

          They REALLY hate nuns for some reason.

          • Ken Abbott

            “Charismatic” refers to the second-blessing, so-called spiritual gifts (particularly glossolalia), and is more a feature of certain fundamentalist or pentacostal churches. However, there was–and remains, if I recall correctly–a charismatic strain in some segments of Roman Catholicism that started up in the 1960s.

            I am unfamiliar with the term “reform” Calvinism. There’s Calvinism and there are the Reformed Churches, which significantly overlap but are not exactly coterminous. In neither instance is there any significant charismatic phenomenon active.

          • Todd19731950

            Their purity?

      • So you want to destroy Apostolic Succession, destroy the only connection man will ever have to God, bring about the end of the world in the process… all so these Bishops can do what they do of their own volition anyways?

        The Church spends 99% of its money on those soup kitchens you speak of already. The other 1% is operating cost. The Church has no money, and that is on purpose.

        It seems you look at the beauty of Churches, which is supposed to force people to look outside of themselves, and instead feel hatred and greed. First hatred out of the capital sin of pride (which is believing you have usurped the Divine Will) because you want to look inward and not outward. Second by way of the capital sin of greed, which is believing you are more worthy of something than the person who actually owns it.

        you want the gold and marble in your personal possession to glorify you, as opposed to it being in Churches to point to beyond this world. That impulse you have is demonic.

        Then I read further and see you want to completely spit on God by putting women in charge of the Church to completely preclude Apostolic Succession, and then make Churches be run like a commune totally fixated on the worship of mankind via marxist “social justice.”

        Have you always served the anti-Christ and wished for the anti-Church?

      • ArthurMcGowan

        What makes you think priests’ salaries are higher than a janitor’s?

    • Then let the faithless and weak cull themselves away.

      Does anyone really want near them people who apostatize at the first sign of conflict?

      • Matt Robinson

        Aggiornamento itself was and is apostasy writ large. Totally bankrupt, man made agenda. Why do you think Our Lord keeps cursing that fig tree? Can’t see the forest for the trees. No one buys that bs anymore. We know they are not Roman Catholics.

        • Ken Abbott

          But was not aggiornamento the brainchild and policy of Saint John XXIII?

          • The300

            He was a liberal, no?

          • Ken Abbott

            Roncalli a liberal? Not theologically, I don’t think so, although Vatican II did lead to a number of changes regretted by many of the Roman Catholic faithful. But I did think it odd that Matt would term that pope’s policy apostasy considering he is now considered a saint.

          • ArthurMcGowan

            All saints have made mistakes. Any infallibility Roncalli enjoyed was on account of his being Pope, not on account of his being a saint.

          • Ken Abbott

            “Apostasy” is one darn big mistake…and aggiornamento led directly to Vatican II, an ecumenical council with all that entails.

            Matt’s term, not mine. I’m just curious how all of this squares.

          • Matt Robinson

            The man who served Fr. Roncalli’s first Mass was none other than his close friend Ernesto Buonaiuti one of the worst modernist heretics. A priest excommunicated no less than three times, the last and final time by the Pope himself. When he was John XXIII he waxed nostalgically about him with fondness. Fr. Roncalli went on to be accused of teaching heresy during his first months at the Lateran in 1925. After a brief term, he was hauled before the Holy Office. Apparently his inquisitor knew he was lying when he said he had never read or taught certain heretical works (even his biographers admit he lied). The result was him being exhiled for the next 20 years. Think about it they sent him to Bulgaria—-a country with no Catholics, and even created an emissary position to get him out of Rome (there hadn’t been a papal emissary to Bulgario for 600 years). They then sent him to Turkey (again no Catholics there). In Turkey and later Paris, he became chums with the Freemasons. He became good friends with Yves Marsaudon, a 33rd Degree Freemason leader, and even made him head of the Order of Malta in France. Marsaudon in his own words made it clear that ecumenism, Vatican II, Nostra Aetate ect were all done with their agency, direction, and approval and the goal was to tame the Catholic Church and to put and end end its “divisive” Divine claims. This had been the overarching goal of Freemasonry since its founding in London in 1717. (See Leo XIII encyclical on the Freemasons….remember he was the one who had the appalling vision that inspired the St. Michael Prayer—read the original LONG version to get an idea what his vision was! The Freemasons wanted the Church to abandon its claims, especially the claim to be the True Faith and Church founded by Christ. Other contemporary high ranking Freemasons are on record that this was the goal, and that Roncalli was a naturalist, “their Pope” and not a believer. They were all very pleased with what “Good Pope John” accomplished. I haven’t even gone into his disgraceful trashing of the 3rd Secret of Fatima in 1960….

          • Micha_Elyi

            You’re a sedevacantist, aren’t you, Matt Robinson?

          • Matt Robinson

            Only where Francis is concerned. Otherwise just a Catholic historian. Anything you dispute?

          • Matt Robinson

            He was never, nor shall he ever be a canonizable Catholic Saint. He’s an aggiornamento saint for sure, since canonization has deteriorated into nothing more than a lifetime achievement award for EVERY single Vatican II Pope. He was also canonized by you know who, whose entire pontificate and any legitimacy it had, currently hangs by a mere thread.

          • Matt Robinson

            Yes and John XXIII was the proto Francis. I can tell you all about his grave betrayals, heresies, and disgraces. He is the Godfather of this abominable mess.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Dial the calendar back 70 years, Matt Robinson, and you get 1948 not 1958. That fact torpedoes your “proto Francis” claim.

          • Matt Robinson

            Please make sense.

        • Todd19731950

          Maybe a little over the top, Matt. You can end up sounding like a Protestant, only throwing stones from the other side of the Church edifice.

          • Matt Robinson

            Then find fault in what I say? Do you know what the term means? “Updating” to whose standards? The world’s of course…..John XXIII’s entire mission was based on the “Church must get the times” mantra. Look at the all evil that has flowed ceaselessl since then. Catholics are gravely ignorant of not knowing who these men were/are, where they came from and what their ultimate goal was. It is incontrovertible now after 50+ years that they staged an rebellion against Christ the King and set up man as the new idol. Palace coup d’etat and we have reaped the bitterest of fruits as a result.

  • Jacob Miller

    I’ve heard non-partisan sources already refuting some of Vigano’s claims. (And, of course, “dictator pope” is just sensationalist.) Some see Vigano as an anti-gay activist rather than a defender of children

    But who can rule anything out? What we’ve learned already is shocking beyond belief.

    • Patmos

      More promotion of perversion. Go away troll, you have been exposed.

    • The scandal was sodomites grooming young men as sodomites do daily as they cannot occur naturally.

      This is an issue of sodomy, not of the Church. The reason you project onto the Church is to cover for what sodomites are and what all sodomites do, by blaming the Churchfkr something the Church explicitly rejects.

      So apparently on top of your marxism and satanic anti-Church ambitions, it appears you support sodomy too.

      • James E..

        And Jacob Miller is a firm supporter of abortion as well. And why does he come to Christian sites? Obviously to sow division, and to conduct his own little war on the faith. He regularly spews nonsense not even remotely connected with Christianity, the church, or the Bible. Troll of all trolls.

  • Patmos

    Reeks of self inflicted destruction from Francis, a man who has shown little interest in the Gospel of Christ. All the dirty pervs are in God’s sights, including pathetic minions like the troll here “Jacob Miller”. Not sure what they think they’re getting away with. That always baffles me: The sheer stupidity of the prideful.

  • Andrew Mason

    Not my dog, not my fight but I am curious about the implications. if Francis is proven to be supporting sodomy, or at least priests who practice it against their parishioners what impact will that have? How can Roman Catholics square their notion of apostolic succession with a hierarchy that unequivocally practices a lifestyle at odds with Scripture? And is there any means of removing a pope who is promoting a faith that directly contradicts God’s Will? Will it simply be a case of parishioners having to make a choice as to whether they will serve God or man?

    • The office of a Priest/Bishop is separate from anyone in that office. They are still valid Priests and Bishops, a human cannot change what God established.

      Seems you are now dipping deep into the donatist heresy, which claims if a Priest/Bishop is personally non-virtuous then his orders must be invalid. No. Holy Orders are a Sacrament given by God and are therefore above mankind. God performs every Sacrament, and Priests/Bishops merely act In the Person of Christ to facilitate the transaction. The Priest and Bishops have no personal power, just what Sacred Power God gives to them.

      It will be a case of whether Catholics are weaklings who will apostatize into serving man’s own ego like in prot heresy or any other form of gnosticism, or whether they will be unaffected by such worldly nonsense and remain in the One True Faith. I personally have little qualms with the weak being culled out into the ranks of gnostics, but I pity you for having to accept them into your ranks and them deal with them yourself.

      • Andrew Mason

        Curious. I ask several hypothetical questions in the interest of getting a Roman Catholic view and instead I get a diatribe, but I’ll bite.

        God didn’t establish the offices of Roman Catholicism. As such any changes are fine.

        Nope not arguing Donatism, however there is a critical difference between being human and thus fallible, and choosing to pursue a lifestyle directly at odds with Scripture. Sacraments are a Roman Catholic concept, and one not universally accepted. Many denominations see things in terms of ordinances, with the practices being a matter of faithfulness not about attaining grace.

        Which is which regarding weakness though? Given the hypothetical above, are the weaklings those who embrace apostasy and choose to stay in a church that defies God, or those who cling to God even though it requires them to walk away from the church they’ve known and loved their entire lives?

        • No you got an answer, and you rejected it like a 2 year old because it wasn’t an answer you liked.

          God established the Church as Christ during His mission and God founded the Church at Pentecost where the Apostles were consecrated as the first Bishops of the Church. God is also at the head of the Church and controls the Church.

          Those who leave the Church reject God. What is happening now is a test to see who is real and who isn’t.

          • David Quelle

            “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?”
            Matthew 7:15‭-‬16 NASB

            Office means nothing if it is not accompanied by good fruit. What we are looking at it bad fruit which originates from bad soil. One should should head Jesus warning here in Matthew and follow good fruit.

          • Like everything the Church is responsible for? Civilization, the sciences, the only substantive thinking humanity will ever have, everything you take for granted, all of the good culture in the west.

            The Office was established by God, and you nor any man can take that away inside or out of it. Please inform this to your dark master.

          • Andrew Mason

            Are you so blinded by Satan that you can’t even answer Bryan’s question?

            As for everything Roman Catholicism is responsible for, that list would be relatively short. It was Protestant Britain that brought civilization and modernity to North America for instance. It is Protestant William Wilberforce that is credited with the abolition of slavery, at least within much of the globe. It is Protestant Britain that sparked the industrial revolution. It is Protestant Britain where modern democracy was first practiced, and it is primarily Protestant America that we think of today when considering democracy. By contrast Roman Catholic nations adopted democracy later, and it has proven far far more fragile. It is also Roman Catholicism that convicted Galileo of heresy. Oh I’m not saying RCism is entirely anti-science – they did found universities etc during the medieval era, however you have such a supremely one eyed view of things that I doubt even this will make much of a dent in your invincible ignorance.

            Again the offices you describe were not established by God. Amongst the requirements for bishops and deacons is that they be married to one womanwifelady. RCism has perverted this and insists priests cannot be married. God decreed, and men disagreed.

          • Who? No one in this string has that name.

            The Church banned slavery since 1400 when the modern trade started. The Church Farhers all spoke out against slavery regularly.

            democracy is mob rule and liberalism is gnosticism and freemasonry institutionalized. The devil has no reason to attack countries that already serve him.

            The Church founded all of civilization and everything you take for granted. Anything the prots have, was leftover from the Church and you have been living off of fumes for centuries.

            galileo could not do math so he tied to use scripture to conclusively prove a longstanding theory. When rebuked, galileo became a proto-freemason.

            The sciences cannot be justified outside of the Church.

          • Bryan

            Nigel, Andrew asked specific questions (hypothetical sure but specific) and it seems for the most part you ignored them. That’s not rejecting an answer one doesn’t like, that’s closer to asking for bread and being given a stone.
            Let’s say that you are correct that at Pentecost the Holy Spirit consecrated the first Bishops of the Church. And I agree with you that the office of Priest/Bishop is separate from the person who inhabits it for a time. You were arguing that sometime ago with me and I agree with you then as well. Though you chose to feel attacked at the time.
            So let’s ask the basic question Mr. Mason seems to be asking again and see if we can get an answer that doesn’t involved condemning the heretical Protestants. Who knows? Maybe if you actually give a reasonable answer, we’ll renounce our heretical ways and join the Church so we can be saved.
            What, if any, mechanism exists within the structure of the Church to remove a facilitator from the office of Priest or Bishop or Cardinal or even Pope when it is demonstrated that they are pursuing a sinful lifestyle, such as sodomy? Does the case Jesus lays out in Matt 18:15-17 work for the officers of the Church? If not, why not?
            Again, I’m just asking because I’m curious. I’m not trying to sabotage the Church or subvert it.

          • So you deny that the Church was founded at Pentecost?

            The office is inseparable from a Priest or Bishop, so insulting a Priest or Bishop is always a mortal sin as you are attacking their office. The individual Priest or Bishop’s actions cannot affect the office or the vows, as both the Sacrament of Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession are granted by God and are outside of the person in the office.

            Committing a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance excommunicates you automatically. That said, since a Priest or Bishop (nor does anyone) have any power outside of God, therefore the Sacraments given are not affected by the Priest/Bishop performing them. Even an excommunicated Priest/Bishop sacraments are valid if the people receiving them are not aware.

            My job is to inform. If the Holy Spirit finds you worthy enough to pull you out of your suburban, lazy, wide path of self-determinist heresy, then that will have nothing to do with me.

          • Bryan

            “So you deny that the Church was founded at Pentecost?”
            No. I agree with that. I do not find that the Office of Bishop is created in the record of Acts. However, I’ll grant the point for the sake of argument.
            You still seem to refuse to directly answer the question. I am not saying that a wayward Priest cannot administer the Sacraments. I am not questioning the authority of the office or saying that as soon as a priest sins, they are no longer worthy of being a priest.
            But you said “committing a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance excommunicates you automatically”. Ok I understand that. I think what you’re saying is similar to when Jesus says that on the day of judgement, there will be those who say Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name and perform signs and wonders in your name and Jesus will say to them Depart from me, I never knew you. Surely, you believe this is the fate of every Protestant (or most of them) but are you saying this would also apply to a priest who commits a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance? Are you also saying that, apart from a priest resigning his office, or the Pope directly requesting that priests resignation (similar to the mass resignation of the cardinals in South America), there is no other recourse to remove a priest who has committed such a sin? That is the question I have asked, Mr. Mason has asked, and that you seem to continue to dodge.
            As for you last sentence, I am eternally grateful that my salvation isn’t dependent on you but on the Holy Spirit.

          • A Latae Sententiae excommunication means someone is automatically excommunicated from the Church by the weight of their crime alone. Priests/Bishops can be removed and are all the time.

          • Bryan

            Your opinion or Church teaching: should that happen in the case of Cardinal McCarrick or to any of the living Priests, Bishops, or Cardinals in the PA AG finding?
            The other question is, does knowing about the homosexual abuses committed by other Catholic clergy count as a Latae Sententiae offense?

          • No, there are about ten things that excommunicate someone by weight of the law. One of them is committing sins that Cry to Heaven for vengeance, another one is promoting heresy and so on.

            I really don’t care what you ghouls want or think. The man is pushing 70-80 and your dark master will take any trophy he can get at this point, even one that is his own servant.

          • Bryan

            “The man is pushing 70-80 and your dark master will take any trophy he can get at this point, even one that is his own servant.”
            So are you saying that because Cardinal McCarrick is old/on his way out, that his “sins that Cry to Heaven for vengeance” should be left to Heaven and no action should be taken by the Church to remove him from his office? I know that God will deal with the Cardinal because sins that cry to heaven for vengeance do not get overlooked by God. He works in his own timing, not mans. Yet, it seem hollow for the Church to essentially excuse his actions on the basis that God will take care of it. Defrocking him and removing him from the office of Cardinal, seem like the least that should be done to him. Of course that is the opinion of a Protestant, not a member of the Catholic Church.

          • I mean this attack is pointless. All of the sodomites involved in these scandals are either long dead or pushing 80. you don’t want to hunt them down, you just want any gateway from which you could attack the Church.

            he should be defrocked, but that’s not up to me. Technically he is excommunicated already.

          • Bryan

            “he should be defrocked, but that’s not up to me. Technically he is excommunicated already.”
            Fair enough.
            Actually, I don’t want to attack the Church. I want the men who have used the Church as cover to abuse others (sexually or otherwise) to be found out and removed from their position so they can’t continue to abuse. I want them to reconciled back to God and, for those automatically excommunicated, to be brought back into the Church. I want those outside the Church to see that even if those in the Church still struggle with their flesh, they can be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.
            I believe there are legal issues that need to be addressed and I think that the Church should not protect those who have egregiously violated the laws of the land from whatever consequences those laws require. This is an opportunity for the Church to be the Bride of Christ, to love justice and show mercy. As much pain there is from these scandals, this is where the Church can shine as an even brighter light to the world because of how this is handled, not by circling the wagons, but by exposing darkness to light so it can be cleaned.

          • Todd19731950

            Hit the nail on the head, Nigel. Prots have no understanding of what is happening here. The are so removed from God’s Church, though still joined, somehow, by God’s mercy.

          • Joined by ignorance excusing their mistakes to a point. Their blasphemy cannot be excused by ignorance.

      • John A.

        Your comment may square with Catholic tradition and teaching, but I can’t square it with Scripture at all. Then again, I can’t tell from it if you are advocating that pedophiles remained in office, so I could be wrong.

        • The Church wrote the New Testament. The scandal had to do with sodomites and young men.

          • John A.

            Not exactly… “For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit wrote all Scripture, including the NT, through certain men chosen by God. Regardless, I’d not be following a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope that sexually abused anyone. They ought to be in prison.

          • Then you would be in luck as priests are the least likely to do anything of the sort. Most likely are teachers and police.

            What you really don’t want, is for God Himself to get in the way of your ego that you pretend is God.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Sometimes Protestants blank out from their minds (or never learned) that the Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. Whatever authority rests in the Bible descends from the authority Jesus the Christ gave to His Church that he set upon the Rock of Peter. Every time a Protestant bellows about what’s biblical or points to Scripture, she’s implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church, the Catholic Church.

          • If they did not attack the Church, they would not be able to distract from how they have no foundation.

          • Jesus-in-the-City

            The Bible came through the anointing of the Holy Spirit. It started with God, not man.

    • James

      Scripture will be reinterpreted to fit the new view.

      We eat shellfish, use credit cards, and think nothing of tattoos. We’ll get used to it.

      • Andrew Mason

        Have you forgotten Peter’s vision? God Himself repealed the shellfish law. As for credit cards, where are they mentioned in Scripture? I also disagree with you about tattoos. Some people think nothing of them, others continue to see them as problematic.

        • James

          Credit cards: Lending money at interest.

          • Andrew Mason

            Depends how you operate them. Some have a service fee but only charge interest if you fail to pay off the balance.

    • Jay W. Richards

      Nothing follows from this, any more than the fact that the apostles themselves all fled on Holy Thursday, Peter denied Jesus three times, only John was at the foot of the cross on Good Friday, and Judas (one of the twelve) betrayed him. The faith doesn’t hinge on the integrity of individual shepherds. If it did, the Church would have ceased to exist in the first century.

      • Andrew Mason

        I agree Christianity doesn’t hinge on the integrity of individual shepherds, but does that hold true for Roman Catholicism? Individual failures are regrettable but not insurmountable however this article doesn’t appear to be about that but rather efforts which have the potential to radically reshape Roman Catholicism. Can it survive being led by a false teacher, an anti-Christ, and one who places his preferred candidates in positions of power to ensure that his successor continues in his footsteps? And what about its effect on confession? As I say, not my dog not my fight, but I am curious about the implications should this be the case.

    • Micha_Elyi

      Just say “Catholics”, Andrew Mason, unless you specifically intended to exclude the many other rites of the Church–in which case “Western” or “Latin” is the correct adjective.

      • Andrew Mason

        Other rites?

  • James

    Air conditioning as sinful?

    It takes less energy to cool Atlanta in the summer than to heat Chicago in the winter. Air conditioning allows people to take advantage of the mild winters of warm climates without sweltering in the summer.

    • ArthurMcGowan

      That’s interesting! (About Atlanta and Chicago.)

      Air conditioning gets bashed simply because it hasn’t been around as long as heating, and therefore can be stigmatized as a privilege of “the rich.”

      When there was a huge heat wave in France a few years ago, tens of thousands of elderly people died. Lack of the “luxury” of air conditioning.

      • James

        Heat has been around since humans discovered fire. It’s simple and easy to understand.

        Air conditioning is new and complicated.

        But the simple truth is that it takes less energy to cool 20 degrees F (95 to 75) than to heat 50 degrees F (15 to 65). In fact many Southern homes are heated by running the air conditioner backwards as a heat pump, cooling the great outdoors and heating the house.

  • Fyodor D

    The part of the story that doesn’t make sense to me is the claim that Pope Benedict learned of a homosexual network in the Church…and then resigned?!? Instead of uprooting this heretical, destructive group himself, he would roll the dice and hope that his successor would take on this cabal?!?

    No one who loved the Church would do this, in my opinion…and Benedict certainly loved the Church.

    • Jay W. Richards

      The best (non-conspiracy) explanation I’ve heard of this is that Benedict realized curial officials simply weren’t following his orders, and were in fact preventing him from even receiving outside correspondence. He felt so old and infirm that he didn’t think he could deal with it himself. He hoped a younger successor would be able to deal with it. Unfortunately, he couldn’t see the future, and probably didn’t imagine it would turn out as it did.

      • ArthurMcGowan

        He should have sacked all those who weren’t following his orders. He should have published the now-famous dossier.

        And he should have gone to the window over St. Peter’s Square and told the world that he was being held prisoner, and named names, and appealed for assistance.

        But that’s just not how things are done in Rome. Yet.

  • BTP

    There is no solution to this that does not involve the Swiss Guard taking some sort of action that seems very much like a coup. Francis is the product of a corrupt curia & has surrounded himself with more of the same. He won’t resign, which means that, if he is to go, there will have to be some other process to make it happen.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

    • SophieA

      You are correct. Sadly as I understand, no mechanism or process exists to remove a Pope who refuses to resign.

      We must trust God.

    • Micha_Elyi

      You’re wrong, BTP.

    • the_joey_o

      disqus_mgZQropIID I agree

  • Placeboshotgun

    I am saddened by the comments I see on this article. Gentlemen, is this really what we want to be doing at this time? Tearing into eachother? Demanding that our particular branch of Christianity is the only true one and all others are illegitimate and hell-bound? Must we fight another 100 years war?

    Surely now is a time when Christians of good faith of all branches should come together to mourn these grievous revelations and consider what we might do to support one another, and particularly the Catholics in this difficult time. Are we not to be known for our love for eachother?

    • The problem is that heretics really have no foundation for anything, so they subsist entirely on attacks against the Church. Would they stop that, they would have nothing to talk about.

      • Aliquantillus

        Yea, and you are the big boy who knows best.

        • I’m the only one calling out laity who are whipping themselves into a pitchfork mob.

          • Aliquantillus

            This is not a pitchfork mob, although in my eyes the bishops deserved one. It is simply the laity taking their Christian responsibility in a time when clerical corruptions cries to heaven. The anger of the laity is based on reliable reports and testimony, and joined by reliable members of the clergy, such as Card. Burke, Abp. Schneider. In the US six bishops now have voiced their support to Abp. Vigano about the homosexual culture in the clergy.

          • Chip Crawford

            He speaks from the lowest ebb of degeneracy and tyranny – vilifying the victims, impugning their
            honest cries for relief. Despicable.

          • No. Two users on here yesterday admitted it is out of fear. Hoping they can sacrifice some sodomites to he mob to hope the mob stops attacking the Church. It’s pathetic and the antithesis of Catholics.

          • Aliquantillus

            You should consult reliable sources, and not “two users here yesterdag”. Fi donc!

          • It was something I long saw in the intentions of the people looking to appease the world. They hair admitted what I already knew.

  • The300

    I’ve been wondering why God would allow a man like Pope Francis to gain the chair of Peter. I see why now. He was put there to expose the rot in the Church. Unwittingly, this liberal pope’s bad decisions may lead to a better stronger, more Catholic Church. Once he’s gone.

    • Ken Abbott

      Perhaps this also explains the elevation of Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici.

    • Chip Crawford

      Absurd. Catholics left God out of their affairs ages ago. He doesn’t butt into men’s affairs; he must be asked. Unlike men, when he gives something like free will, he does not go back and attempt to reconstruct. God has been trying to get back in the Catholic Church for the same ages. He deals in affairs when and where men’s hearts open to him and give him place, thus in your sect, only to a scattering degree. Your foolish crumbling dynasty and leaders are of fallen men’s doing, not God’s. To indicate God has a passive, permissive involvement in the RCC is close to blasphemy. Again, he has not been consulted by prayer or by his word in any degree in these matters almost from the inception. They will need to humble themselves and repent before him from the heart and then truly follow him as Lord. Thus far, none have been willing to actually do this.

  • GLT

    Being a Protestant I have, for the most part, been indifferent when it comes to the Pope. However, when it comes to Francis my feelings are quite negative. I do not have the sense he is an honest man of God. Instead I have the sense of a scheming politician whose actions are motivated by expediency rather than integrity.

    • Micha_Elyi

      Avoid using your feelings or emotional “sense” as if they are tools of cognition, GLT.

      As for “scheming politician”, ever read an historically thorough and accurate biography of Martin Luther? There’s your scheming pol. I’m glad that the Church didn’t follow him! So, why are you Protestant? Are you somehow under the impression that baptism makes you indefectible and unable to sin? That’s a spin on the once saved always saved heresy, you know.

      • Kathy

        Before throwing stones, you need to become a little more familiar with Protestant doctrine and not rely solely on speculation.

      • Ken Abbott

        On historically thorough and accurate biographies of Martin Luther, the work that is still widely recognized as the best is Roland Bainton’s “Here I Stand.” I read that last year in preparation for a Sunday school class and for the general observations surrounding the 500th anniversary of the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses. It deserves its status as a modern classic. I also read Oxford historian Lynn Roper’s new biography that came out last year, but found it in the same vein as E. Erickson’s old psychoanalyzing book; she did well enough when she stuck to the historical facts, although I ended up learning more about early 16th century mining in Germany than I cared to. James Kittleson wrote a very comprehensive life of Luther that I have read mostly in parts, again in preparation for last year’s class. Herman Selderhuis had a very well-regarded Luther bio published late last year that I have not yet gotten around to. Then there’s been a smattering of books by Steve Nichols, Steve Lawson, and R. C. Sproul that have proven accessible and useful.

      • Bryan

        Hasn’t the church incorporated many of Luther’s Theses? I don’t think it sell Indulgences anymore.

      • GLT

        “Avoid using your feelings or emotional “sense” as if they are tools of cognition, GLT.”

        I appreciate your sentiment but I don’t think I need your advice, thank you anyway. If you believe I am wrong you’re welcome to demonstrate that fact. However, I don’t believe I am.

        “As for “scheming politician”, ever read an historically thorough and accurate biography of Martin Luther?”

        That another individual may be guilty of the same problems plaguing Pope Francis is more than irrelevant. In the matter of morals, two wrongs do not make a right.

        “Are you somehow under the impression that baptism makes you indefectible and unable to sin?”

        Not even remotely, those are simply accusations hurled in an attempt to discredit those you do not agree with and not becoming of one claiming to be a Christian.

  • Chip Crawford

    The Pope’s skirts aren’t clean. Interpret that however you like.

    Many successionists likely perceive the office and office holder above the law – any law.

  • Bill

    The Church has had a clear and simple teaching for over 2000 years. All sexual relations that are not between a man and woman who are married to one another, are sinful. This Pope, many bishops and cardinals, and many priests, do not agree, and their behavior has demonstrated this. Gay clergy have taken over the Catholic Church, in particular, its hierarchy. This has been decades in the making and there appears no easy solution. Hopefully, God will intervene. We could use a miracle.

    • Micha_Elyi

      You’re wrong about the Pope and you hide behind the word “many” in your digs at “bishops and cardinals… and priests”. “Many”, Bill, is not a number. It cannot form a percentage nor an estimate. You are using “Many” as a substitute for empty hand-waving. Your claims fail.

      • Bryan

        While many is a vague term, it is equally vague to not counter with numbers or statistics yourself, is it not? I agree with you on the Pope, but many seems apt at this time.

  • Caitie

    I would like to see John’s rebuttal to the Catholic Leagues “debunking” attempt. I could only get through a few paragraphs as my husband related to me the story of a childhood friend who grew up and entered a catholic seminary oh so many decades ago was according to what he heard rejected after a time only to commit suicide. I can’t help but think this wasn’t in a school, a sports team nor anyplace other then the one place young men should feel the safest as they are taught …and mentored to devote their life to the service of Christ …and his followers and unbelievers as well. I do believe their is such goodness still within the church who must be so grieved over this and hoping for resolution. My own cousin a Jesuit for decades working to help underprivileged children find a good education. Sacrificing everything even warm coats his mother would send him or glasses when he had his held together by tape. This Catholic League response has me just shaking my head.

  • raphaelheals

    I sometimes wonder if it isn’t Francis who places morally weak men around him in order to hold something over them but the “St. Gallen’s mafia” and the masonic and homosexual infestation in the highest ranks, who intentionally placed a weak Francis there in order to control him, to do their bidding and to keep their depraved and corrupt agenda going.

Is Your Heart Heavy? God Knew It Would Be
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us