LifeSite 
says:
Pope dismissed Cdl Müller for following Church rules on abuse cases
August 29, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A highly placed Vatican source told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with his much-experienced three CDF priests, was dismissed by Pope Francis because they all had tried to follow loyally the Church’s standing rules concerning abusive clergymen. In one specific case, Müller opposed the Pope’ wanting to re-instate Don Mauro Inzoli, an unmistakably cruel abuser of many boys; but the Pope would not listen to Müller. In another case, the Pope decided not to give a Vatican apartment to one of Müller’s own secretaries, but to the now-infamous Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, in spite of the fact that someone had warned the Pope about Capozzi’s grave problems. The Vatican source also said that it was known to several people in the Vatican that some restrictions were put on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and he thereby confirms Viganò’s own claim.
When LifeSiteNews reached out to this very trustworthy and well-informed Vatican source, asking him about the then-breaking Viganò story and the archbishop’s allegations that Pope Francis knew of McCarrick’s habitual abuse, he answered: “Cardinal Müller [as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)] had always decidedly and most sharply followed up on these abuse cases, and that is why he was dismissed, just as his three good collaborators [the three CDF priests] were also dismissed.”
In my follow-up with this source, he again explained that Cardinal Müller, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had always been loyally following the Church’s laws with regard to abuse cases, for the handling of which the CDF is responsible. According to the source, Müller also “resisted” Pope Francis in 2014 when he wanted to re-instate the serial molester of boys, the Italian priest Don Inzoli, allowing him to perform some functions of the priesthood. In opposition to Müller, “the Pope decided differently,” the source continued. That is to say, Pope Francis did not follow Cardinal Müller’s advice.
[…]
There’s more of that article available.
Loading ...
Unbelievable, but “who am I to judge” this so-called pope. There is no statute of limitations for abuse of minors any longer in the US. If this pope covered for even one sex offender he could be indicted for harboring a criminal after the fact.
And I’m not even kidding: I was a Senior Trial Prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General and FBI Special Agent. I would cut off the head of the snake, that might cleanse the Church, and quickly.
It’s amazing how the media here in Australia are very quiet about all these revelations and accusations. They went quite rabid when the Cdl. Pell trial was happening (there has been no evidence produced in over 5 years that Pell did anything wrong, but that’s beside the point). But on the latest, including the Grand Jury in Pennsylvania, not a peep from the anti-Catholic hostile Left media here.
It is monstruous that this should be the “reason” why Cardinal Müller was fired — it would seem to suggest that the Pope has not been just covering up, but actively facilitating the evil activities of the homoheretics and the homosexual abusers.
Quite apart from being a crime :
Francis, motu proprio As a Loving Mother : Article 1 — § 1. The diocesan Bishop or Eparch, or one who even holds a temporary title and is responsible for a Particular Church, or other community of faithful that is its legal equivalent, according to can. 368 CIC or can. 313 CCEO, can be legitimately removed from this office if he has through negligence committed or through omission facilitated acts that have caused grave harm to others, either to physical persons or to the community as a whole. The harm may be physical, moral, spiritual or through the use of patrimony..
… his actions and inactions constitute in his own words a facilitation of sacrilege :
Francis : “It is like a sacrilegious cult, because these boys and girls had been entrusted to the priestly charism in order to be brought to God. And those people sacrificed them to the idol of their own concupiscence.
“There is no place in the church’s ministry for those who commit these abuses, and I commit myself not to tolerate harm done to a minor by any individual, whether a cleric or not.”
But : Can. 1368 A person who commits perjury while asserting or promising something before ecclesiastical authority is to be punished with a just penalty.
… and given, should they be demonstrated to be true, the clear and blatant incompatibility of such alleged actions and inactions by the Pope with Catholic Doctrine :
Catechism of the catholic Church : 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
… then the Pope has potentially made himself guilty of heresy and schism by seemingly having established or accepted or allowed the practical existence of circumstances whereby such approval has been granted, and :
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ? can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ? can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
and possibly even —>>
Can. 977 The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.
Can. 1378 §1. A priest who acts against the prescript of ? can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
—
It would seem to me that a sitting Pope incurring a latae sententiae excommunication for having committed such crimes could only have the excommunication remitted by the Roman Pontiff, and so de facto could only be considered as no longer being the Pope, as he would be unable to provide himself with his own remission for the sin.
—
In any case, it is abundantly clear that there are many prominent priests and Bishops who should be subjected to such penalties in these present times, and so may God have Mercy upon the Church and provide her with the necessary means and the necessary strength to root out these evils and the evil men who commit or permit them, as well as the weak men who simply prefer to look the other way instead of acting towards the proper condemnation of such things.
Whoa. This, coupled with the McCarrick revelations, sure makes the mercy-themed Pope Francis pontificate seem mostly merciful towards abusive priests and prelates.
For their victims? Not so much.
Don’t forget about Bergoglio’s apparent assistance and/or cover-up of Fr. Grassi, which is currently being reported on another website. There is a growing list of “birds of a feather” which Bergoglio has apparently aided and abetted (whether explicitly or by way of complicit silence) in one way or another.
And, didn’t Bergoglio “cover-up” the contents of the 300-page dossier which exposed the Lavender Mafia? One has to wonder, was McCarrick, Maradiaga, et. al. mentioned in the 300-page dossier, too?
And, on a bit of a side note, what about those 3 Cardinals which produced the 300-page dossier? According to one source, these 3 Cardinals are Spanish cardinal Julián Herranz, Cardinal Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and the Slovak cardinal Jozef Tomko. Aren’t they also “covering up” for the contents of that dossier? (Maybe not – maybe they have already anonymously exposed its contents to journalists; that is a possibility.)
Is it reasonable to ask whether the “election” of Bergoglio was done with at least the partial intent of protecting “birds of a feather” mentioned in the 300-page dossier?
And as for physical evidence of oddities associated with Bergoglio, all one needs to recall is his affinity for public audiences with the so-called “circus”. One should read St. John Marie Vianney’s discussions on clothing for an example of how a real man and authentic priest would rebuke such filth exhibited by the “circus”.
Two comments.
1. It seems to me that Francis’ preference and advocacy of “discernment”over following principles has now been thoroughly discredited. It seems to me that Pope Francis couldn’t discern his way out of a wet paper bag.
2. With respect to the house cleaning of bishops advocated by some… Well maybe a total house cleaning, i.e. sweeping away a whole conference is a bad idea. But maybe sweeping away those appointed by Pope Francis and especially those most heavily implicated in his election and in subsequent activities would not be a bad thing at all. We could start with Cupich, Mcelroy and Tobin. And maybe reinstating some of those who have been dismissed by Pope Francis to their previous posts would be a good thing too. Too bad there is no mechanism for doing this.
A very side note.
My sister texted me yesterday, stating that she was feeling quite grumpy, as things seem to be spiraling out of control with all these revelations. I told her to get away from the news and social media for a while. It’s not good to let these things get under your skin …… too much.
I also reminded her that God is still in control and that all will still go in accordance with His ultimate plan. Lastly, I reminded her that we are witnessing some pretty remarkable history being made.
the papal motto is long, but i wonder if even at that it is missing part. “Miserando atque eligendo” meaning “by having mercy and by choosing”. the extension would be “to keep perverts in influential positions”
So much has happened on a daily basis since March 13, 2013 it is impossible to keep track of all the puzzle pieces. Cardinal Müller had dropped off my screen. This piece sure looks like it fits. Perhaps keeping mum and admonishing adult journalists while in mommy mode to do their work and arrive at their own conclusions will have something of an adverse consequence.
The truth always comes out.
Maybe some of us are missing the gorilla in the room–that Christ told us that He left evil in the world that he could make even a higher good out of it. He used Judas to bring salvation to mankind and remember, even though he knew that Judas–his hand-picked bishop–would betray Him, He still sent him forth to heal and preach. So perhaps we need to view our scandalous clergy in the hierarchy as present day Judases, double down on our faith, do good, reject their evil, and wait for the Good Lord to do what He will.
These latest incidents answered two questions I have had about Francis. How could he (and his lackeys) wink at doctrine related to sexual morality while still conscientiously addressing cases of priest predation of young adolescent boys?
The only answer I could come up with was that he’s a Jesuit, and post modern Jesuits are often not consistent. Although he had accepted liberal objection to doctrine on sexual morality but had drawn a line on clerical behavior.
Now it appears that he has been consistent, and no line was drawn. He has been AWOL on the sexual morality of priests, covering and ignoring cases.
The second question I had was how Justice fit into his approach to Mercy. Mercy without Justice is the mother of dissolution. And Justice without Mercy is cruelty.
More and more, it seems that with Francis the dyptich is not Mercy/Justice but Mercy/Ventetta.
September will be very interesting.
Wow. Even more prior disappointments of this papacy seemingly explained by….the Pope’s ongoing mission to abet gay abusers…
My first thought was, is that whose job our good Fr Tait is filling in the CDF? I walked just behind him in our Corpus Christi procession this year when he was home visiting. He just seemed to have so much weight on him. I was praying for him while we followed Jesus around the block. Now I feel much more, what a difficult position to be in.
I doubt that Francis really cares one way or another about sexual morality, drug use, etc, if it comes from someone useful to him. He does not seem like the sort of person with sexual vices, so there is nothing personal.
The crime for him is to stop being useful. If you can raise money or provide political help, you can do what you like. If you interfere with his chosen course of action, you are out of luck.
So the question is, how can one get his more disgusting allies to be thrown under the bus? Can pressure by laypeople be kept meaningful enough?
No one expects the Francis Inquisition, but it could happen if it became more politically useful than the cover-up.
By the way I remember EXACTLY how Fr Tait looked and sounded telling laity just a little plaintively, before heading off to Rome to start studies for his JCD degree “I just wanted to be a pastor.” May God bless him.
As we spelunk further down into the warren of these wascally wabbits, one might notice that
“I will not say one word…”
is quite similar to
“Who am I to judge?”
Not to disparage Dr Maike Hickson, but there is no source other than her for this.
It is not entirely implausible that Francis could face civil or criminal charges; a lawyer over at Rorate Caeli has a few suggestions: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/downfall-not-so-hypothetical-legal.html
Also, a sitting pontiff has been named in suits: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-resignation-immunity/pope-will-have-security-immunity-by-remaining-in-the-vatican-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215
I loved Benedict (and still do), and he did take positive steps to stop abusers, whereas Francis lifted sanctions against abusers. Big difference. Plus, if Francis retires to his native Argentina, we do have an extradition treaty with them, and he could find himself in an American prison.
Fr. Z and readers:
Please read and publicize the awesome response of pro-life faithful Catholic actress Patricia Heaton, taking down “the barking dog” Massimo Faggioli of Villanova.
Story at American Conservative (Dreher).
The current narrative is that the “conservative media” wants to “take down” Pope Francis.
Oh, boy….
@Joe in Canada
Agreed. This story may be true or it may not be, but I’m about done with stories based on anonymous sources.
Suburbanbanshee says:
I doubt that Francis really cares one way or another about sexual morality, drug use, etc, if it comes from someone useful to him.
You’re onto something, but let’s broaden it a bit.
The pope was formed in a moral theology that emphasizes why (chur) something is done at the expense of what is done (quid). And the “why” is often, and perhaps more than often, identified as an unreachable ideal.
According to the above approach the distinction between mortal and venial sin tends to dissolve because its basis, the gravity of the matter, depends on the “what” rather than the “why”.
Maybe we are reading Pope Francis wrong. When you put together Amoris Laetitiae, the death penalty change, the rehabilitation of McCarrick, the dismissal of Muller and many other odd bits, you see a pope who is determined to be the most merciful pope evah towards people in the most difficult situations: the divorced and remarried, those condemned to death, homosexual predators. He is being Jesus to Mary Magdalen, the forgiving father to the prodigal son, etc. . . .or so he thinks.
It reminds me again of that book by Martin Olavsky, The Tragedy of AmericanCompassion, and I just picked up a book with a similar title this morning: Toxic Charity. In many places in the traditional blogsphere I see people accusing him of deliberately promoting evil. That probably gets it wrong. He accepts the idea of the homosexual person and is showing the rest of the Church how merciful one can be to homosexuals by surrounding himself with them in the curia ( per Vigano’), by giving them the benefit of the doubt when they are accused, by accepting that they can be rehabilitated and returned to ministry. His is the very model of merciful pontificate (Gilbert and Sullivan, where are we now that we need you?) . . .or that is the idea, at any rate.
All this is dreadfully mistaken, and a cause of grave scandal, but like many people of liberal bent he finds the world very harsh and judgmental in contrast to his own particularly understanding, soft and tender heart. This is a man who is passing judgment on what he finds to be a very judgmental Church and probably takes the blowback as the price one pays for being Christlike. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.
In any case, he is not the anti-Christ, the anti-pope or any of the other evil characters whom I have seen him associated with. He is a woefully mistaken man in a position of great power, that is all.
On August 30, 1568, Pope St. Pius V issued the bull ‘Horrendum Illud scelus’ (‘That Horrendous Crime’ i.e. clerical sexual abuse). We present it now, in Latin and English, today on its four hundred and fiftieth anniversary: https://thejosias.com/2018/08/30/horrendum-illud-scelus/
People in places like the LifeSite comboxes continue to be just fine with anonymous tips and comments made on background. They seem to think some magical time will come when everyone will be able to come in and give their testimony in an orderly fashion and be protected from any ramifications.
That is not going to happen. If people want to say what they know, they need to say it now, and they need to say it on the record. An informational vacuum only serves the status quo, and delay only benefits those who have something to hide. It’s not like there were ever going to be many documents supporting the the most damning claims, and every day that goes by likely sees more of what evidence there is located and put down the memory hole.
It’s odious to give Beans credit, but some of the dynamics here are not unlike those of a coup. (Not that the scenario is a coup, by any stretch, but the situation with respect to information has some similarities.)
I fear LeeGilbert is probably closer to the mark, at least as far as sodomites and unchaste clerics. Personally, his history suggest he’s always been polarizing and vindictive to his opponents. He’s perhaps well intentioned on the mercy angle but his biggest problem is his most vocal supporters, who are either corrupt, sycophantic, heretical, or perverted, if not a combination of all of the above. The worst part is that he could solve this with a word: simply appoint a cardinal, ideally Burke or Sarah, someone who won’t appear to be one of his partisans, and instruct them to release the pertinent files of the Nunciature and CDF regarding McCarrick. If this exposes him, or others, so be it. Ideally, those cardinals and bishops still holding offices would submit resignations and discreetly retire to a monastery (ideally on a remote island as Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald wanted to do so many years ago with degenerate un-chaste clerics).
Then re-empower the CDF with additional powers to go cross diocesan boundaries seeking out any and all unchaste clerics for canonical trials, deposing bishops and superiors to join the above cardinals & bishops.
Then accept the resignation of Cardinal Wuerl and appoint Cardinal Burke to replace him in DC.
Your Holiness, is it mercy or license?
Simple question from a simple pew dweller. You “may” think you are being merciful, when the abusers think “Ah, I am still free to do as I please, and with his approval”. Are you actually giving tacit approval of evil?
I pray the Holy Spirit cleans this tarnished Church.
St Catherine of Siena pray for us.
Has this been corroborated? The sheer volume of stories and claims coming out at the moment is disorienting and depressing. I would like to see evidence based corroborated claims with evidence before passing judgement. It’s becoming a feeding frenzy and the truth is getting lost and distorted with it.
let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
Hmmm, as a person who has SSA and struggles, this last sentence of that Bull just rubs me the wrong way. So the Church, in those days, condoned the murder of sinners rather than try to rehabilitate them. Where is the good in that? I just don’t get it.
I knew history books were unlikely to be kind to Pope Francis, but this is getting well beyond what even I could’ve imagined…
@LeeGilbert:
*
To me it appears that Pope Francis is more interested in fixing tickets than in fixing sinners. Ticket fixing is much easier and less time consuming than sinner fixing. I wonder if he should be called Franky the fixer?
Crjs1: “It’s becoming a feeding frenzy and the truth is getting lost and distorted with it.”
Yes, I would agree to an extent …and yet. The evidence is coming out that is verifying things. Example. When cdl Burke was removed from the Signatura, immediately upon the Pope settling down, I thought that PF needed someone in there that would skirt church rules and I suspected that PF knew Burke wouldn’t do his bidding. My intuition on that is starting to becoming better into focus. My suspicion back then may have been wrong, I did not write or comment on the move at that time —but now with the Mueller thing? I gave the Pope my trust for years (I took my family to philly to cheer him!) These revelations are in part a feeding frenzy but they also are revelations as well. It’s like extracting a bad tooth.