Our culture did away with the concept of sexual morality and now we have no way of dealing with, or even describing, all of the sexually immoral behavior we see around us. We lump it all together under the umbrella of 'rape' and 'abuse' because consent is the one remaining moral rule governing our sex lives. We say that sex is only immoral if it lacks consent, but this is false and confusing. A properly ordered sex life requires a lot more than just consent.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I don't know if you've been able to follow the latest news revolving around the church sex abuse scandal over the last couple of days.
I know there's been a lot of big news out there, but this is This development is truly massive.
It is breathtaking.
Words really fail to describe it.
I'm going to do my best to unpack this and to kind of break it down for you, and then I'll give a few thoughts of my own.
But my main point here, the main thing I want to do is just kind of give you the basics of this because it's kind of hard to follow along.
So, Pope Francis has been accused of personally When he was Pope, personally covering up sexual abuse.
This accusation comes from an Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who's a former papal nuncio to the United States.
That's basically an ambassador for the Vatican.
So this is a high-ranking person.
This is not some random nobody, okay?
This is a person with intimate knowledge of what's going on, with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the church and the hierarchy.
This isn't a conspiracy theorist on a blog somewhere.
This isn't a guy ranting in his car, okay, because why would you want to listen to somebody like that?
This is one of the guys who has been in the upper echelon of the church hierarchy, and now he's spilling his guts, which is absolutely incredible.
The allegations revolve around Cardinal McCarrick.
Who was one of the most powerful, was one of the most powerful Catholics in the United States, in the world, really.
And it's recently been revealed that Cardinal McCarrick is a serial pervert and an abuser.
He's been accused of many accusations against him.
He's been accused of molesting two children.
But the lion's share, and that's the only reason that we're finding out about Everything involving McCarrick is because of those accusations.
But the lion's share of his alleged sins have to do with his behavior with young priests and seminarians.
He's been accused of groping, assaulting, abusing young priests and seminarians.
He's been accused of using seminaries as as if they're, you know, some kind of gay prostitution house where he would come in and select his own little harem of of homosexual seminaries or and seminarians and priests, and he would take them back to his beach house or whatever and they would have gay orgies and all these kind of things.
I mean, this is just just, he was a deviant pervert abuser.
And this apparently, like with Weinstein in Hollywood, this was an open secret for many years.
Although the secret was not open or known among average lay Catholics, this was a secret openly known by many bishops and cardinals, and if you believe Vigano, the Pope as well.
Vigano discharged his accusations in a stunning 11-page document.
I cannot begin to summarize everything that he says, but But again, I emphasize this is somebody who has—I think he's 77 years old now.
He's been in the church. He's been in the hierarchy of the church for many, many years.
He has seen a lot of things.
He's heard a lot of things. He has documentation for a lot of things.
He's been involved in many conversations.
And now he is just pouring it all out and saying, look, this is what I know.
And he's putting it all out there. He essentially drops—so it's worth reading the entire report if you haven't done that— He essentially drops an atomic bomb on the entire network of cowards and perverts in the church.
He names names. He calls out some of the highest ranking people in the church, accuses them of lying, conspiring, covering up or of actually being homosexual predators themselves.
He tells a story about an actual conspiracy of homosexuals and homosexual defenders in the church who have worked in tandem together to keep men like McCarrick in positions of power. This is something that little old people like myself and many others have been saying exists in the church, an actual high ranking powerful network of homosexual predators.
We've been saying this for a long time, that that exists.
And now you have someone who's in the know, who has seen it for himself, and he is saying, yes, that exists.
And this is not just a crackpot making up accusations.
This is the equivalent of...
This will be like if Nikki Haley came out and made accusations against the Trump administration.
That's what it would be like.
About halfway through the document, so he spends the first half calling out one after another, naming names, a lot of names that most of us have never heard before, although these are powerful people in the church.
But he's one after the other, he's calling people out.
He's putting their names out there.
About halfway through, Vigano talks about Francis and he alleges that Pope Francis knew personally about McCarrick's abuses.
He says that he, Vigano, personally had a conversation about McCarrick with Francis.
So that's how he knows that Francis knew because he spoke with him about Francis.
So he knows this isn't something he got secondhand.
He knows it personally.
Let me, here's how he recounts a conversation he had with Francis about McCarrick.
He says, and I'm quoting from him now, he says, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way, what is Cardinal McCarrick like?
Now, the reason he says that this was deceitful is because Vigano alleges that Francis already knew about McCarrick.
He knew all about him. And yet he was asking this question, pretending like he didn't know.
So he asks me, what is Cardinal McCarrick like?
I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naivete.
Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the congregation for bishops, there is a dossier this thick about him.
He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests, and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.
The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine.
It did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject.
Later on, Vigano says he had a similar conversation with Cardinal Worrell about McCarrick, yet Worrell has since pretended that, and Worrell was the bishop in In Pittsburgh, he's been accused of covering up sex abuse crimes.
Worrell has pretended, ever since the information came out about McCarrick, Worrell has said, oh, I had no idea about this.
I'm so shocked and horrified and saddened by it.
But Vigano says that Worrell, quote, lies shamelessly.
He called him a shameless liar, saying he knew about it because I talked with him about it.
As to the Pope, it is alleged that Francis, even after Vigano established that Francis knew about the abuses, and he had talked to Francis about it, Francis still kept McCarrick in positions of power and visibility, allowing him to continue in his predations forever.
Took no action against him until a few years later when the public found out about McCarrick and then he took actions against him.
What's more, Vigano says that Pope Benedict, before Francis, eventually found out about McCarrick when he was Pope.
He didn't find out sooner, even though People had made an effort to let Benedict know about what McCarrick had been up to, and Vigano himself had sent memos to the Vatican to alert Pope Benedict as to the situation.
But according to Vigano, there were people high up in the Vatican who were keeping that information from Benedict.
But he did find out eventually.
He sanctioned McCarrick, forbidding him from serving the church in any kind of public way, requiring him to go into seclusion, into a life of penance and fasting.
And the guy who alleges that Francis actually lifted those sanctions and reinstalled McCarrick, despite knowing that McCarrick is a predator deviant.
He lifted the sanctions and put him back in public life where he could continue doing what he'd been doing.
Vigano then calls for Francis to step down, which is, everything about this is incredible.
But to have someone in his position calling for the Pope to resign is, it just, it does not happen very often.
This is the kind of thing that hardly ever happens.
So that's the summary of the report.
What else has happened since then?
Well, one of the men mentioned in Vigano's report, a Monsignor Jean-Francois, Has corroborated the report.
Vigano says that Jean-Francois told him about the sanctions that Benedict placed on McCarrick, and now Jean-Francois has given a two-sentence statement to the media saying, Vigano said the truth, that's all.
So that's a corroboration.
Also, a bishop from Texas and Cardinal Burke have both come out, said that they think that the report, that the accusations are credible, and that there needs to be a full investigation into them.
On the other side, defenders of the Pope have made a few points.
Number one, they've claimed that Vigano himself covered up sexual abuses years ago, and they indicted his credibility by saying that, hey, you know, if he knew about all this stuff, why didn't he come out earlier and say it?
Why is he waiting till now?
Now, I don't know if the first thing is true or not.
I don't know if he's guilty of his own cover-ups.
But both of these points really do nothing to absolve Francis.
Because, in fact, Vigano said himself in his report, he tells us why he's coming out now.
And he says it's because he's an old man.
And he's looking to clear his conscience.
He knows he's going to be standing before God before long.
And he doesn't want to go to God with all of this on his conscience.
So he's letting it out now.
now. He's trying to do the right thing now, near the end, before he has to face God.
So, how guilty or innocent he personally is, it's kind of irrelevant.
Number two, they have poked holes in the claim that Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, pointing out that McCarrick was still celebrating Mass, was still going to other functions and everything under Benedict.
Maybe this means that the sanctions never occurred.
Maybe it means they did, but McCarrick defied them.
The whole thing about the sanctions, that's one of the only things in Vigano's report that he got secondhand.
He heard about them, and he says he heard about them from this Monsignor Joan Francois, who has since corroborated it.
Most of the other stuff, it's not secondhand.
He's saying, these are conversations I personally had with the Pope and with others in the church.
So, Does that mean that the sanctions never happened?
I don't know. But whether there were sanctions or not doesn't actually matter.
The real question is, did Francis know about McCarrick?
That's it. That's the question.
Did Francis know about McCarrick before all of this came out in the media?
Because if he did, then we know he's guilty of covering for him because we know that he took no action against McCarrick until all this came out and that he did.
He had McCarrick in a position of power and visibility where he had access to priests and seminarians and everything else.
Whether he was restored to power or simply allowed to remain in power is irrelevant, actually.
All that matters is whether Francis knew that McCarrick was a predator and a deviant, and yet allowed him to continue.
That's what matters. Finally, Pope Francis, on the plane, on the way home from Ireland, was asked about this report.
And Now, you would think, put yourself in Pope Francis' shoes.
You're the Pope, okay?
And you've just been accused of this stunning accusation has just been leveled against you by someone who was high up in the church and someone who wrote an 11-page report detailing not just accusations against you, but against many members of the hierarchy and people that are around you.
And that accusation comes out.
If it weren't true, if it was all fake and made up and false, because that's what it would have to be.
That's the situation that we're in.
Either it's true, or Archbishop Vigano is a desperate liar who, at the age of 77, has concocted this whole story out of whole cloth, and for some reason, and is You know, is putting it out there, even though he stands to gain absolutely nothing from it whatsoever.
But if that were the case, you know, and you're the Pope and somebody just invented the story, and you're given the chance to clarify things, you would think you'd be very eager to say, no, this is false.
It didn't happen.
It is simply false.
But that's not what the Pope said.
The Pope on the plane, he was asked by CBS about this, and this is what he said, he said, I will respond to your question, but I would prefer that we first speak about the trip and then other topics.
This morning, I read that statement, I read it, and I will say sincerely that I must tell you all this, you, CBS, and all you who are interested, read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment.
I am not going to say a word about this.
I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions.
It is an act of trust.
When a little time goes by and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it.
But I would like your professional maturity to do this work.
It will do you all good, really.
What? What?
I mean, this is incredible.
Francis was asked directly if he knew about McCarrick, if he lifted sanctions.
These are simple yes or no answers.
It's not complicated.
There's no nuance to it.
You either knew about him or you didn't.
If you didn't, then you just say, no, I didn't know about him.
There's absolutely no reason to refrain from saying, no, I didn't know about him.
I didn't know it. It's not true.
And if you didn't lift sanctions, then again, no, that's crazy.
That never happened.
But instead, he refuses to answer the question and even encourages people to make up their own conclusions.
What? And then he even chides the media and says it'll be a character-building exercise for them To draw their own conclusions, which is exactly what they're not supposed to do.
In fact, the news media is not supposed to draw its own conclusions about things like this.
They're supposed to do what they did, which is go to the Pope, go to the source, and ask him, did this happen?
Get both sides of the story.
And Pope Francis is saying, I'm not going to give you my side of the story.
Now, there are only two ways to interpret this from Francis.
Only two ways. One, he's guilty.
Two, he has so much disdain for the faithful in his church and so much hubris that he doesn't think he owes an explanation.
Now, it's possible that both of these explanations are true at once, or maybe one of them, but there is no flattering interpretation for Pope Francis here, refusing to answer the question.
Either way, this is a despicable response from Pope Francis.
He's being accused of a very serious infraction, and people are calling on him to step down in disgrace from the papacy, which, again, never happens.
And he doesn't even bother to respond?
What? You don't even give a response?
And not only that, but, I mean, forget about the media, forget about Vigano or any other bishop or cardinal, whoever.
Just the faithful, okay, his flock, the faithful in the church, are reading about this stuff, and they are greatly distressed and troubled and...
I mean, there are plenty out there who are teetering on the edge of despair over all this stuff.
And this is Pope Francis' response.
Draw your own conclusions.
I won't respond.
As I said, it's despicable.
Here's what I'll say.
If these allegations are true...
Then Francis has to resign.
And if he won't resign, then he has to be pushed out.
There has to be an outcry so loud from every Catholic and every good bishop and priest that he has no choice but to resign in disgrace, if they're true.
Because then he lacks the moral capacity to hold the office that he holds, and he simply cannot continue holding it.
Are the allegations true is the next question.
Well, we know that they're from a credible source, and they're from a source who provides dates and quotations and says that he has further documentation.
We also know that he claims in the report that it will be corroborated by at least one other person.
It is corroborated by that person.
The allegations are, as I said, breathtaking, but not fantastical, not unbelievable.
They are perfectly reasonable allegations, and they fit with what we already know.
It doesn't make them true, but I think any time somebody comes out with allegations like this, you have to look and does it kind of fit in to the picture that we already...
It's like when you're putting together a puzzle and...
You know, you see there are a lot of blank spaces, and then you pick up a piece, and you can look.
It's like, does this piece even belong to this puzzle or not?
You should be able to at least tell that much based on what you've already put together.
And so in that sense, it does appear to be a piece of the puzzle that belongs to this puzzle.
So we know all that.
And we also know that the Pope refused to respond.
One other point about that.
Like I said, refusing to respond when you're accused of something like this.
It could be that you're guilty and so you don't want to say anything yet because you've got to go back and you've got to talk to your lawyers and you've got to talk to your PR people and you've got to talk to a whole team of people and craft what your response is going to be.
That's only if you're guilty.
Now, if you're innocent, then it's very...
If somebody comes up to you and says...
If police come up to you and say, you're accused of murdering so-and-so, did you do it?
And you didn't do it, then you don't, I mean, eventually you'll talk to, you'll get a lawyer as well if you're arrested, but right off the bat, you would say, no, I didn't do that.
Of course you would deny it if you didn't do it.
There'd be no reason to refuse to deny it if it didn't happen.
I think much of the time, the only time when you really refuse to say anything, even to issue a denial of something, of a very clear accusation, is if there's at least some truth to it.
And so you need to figure out how to craft it.
But then the other, as I said, the other explanation is that you...
Have disdain for the person asking the question, and you think that the accusations are so ridiculous that they aren't due a response.
Now that is, that's like, there's a video of Buzz Aldrin.
He was confronted a few years ago by a moon landing conspiracy theorist, one of these guys that thinks the moon landing never happened.
And Aldrin refuses to respond to him and then eventually just punches him in the face, which is great, by the way.
I just think that's awesome. Refuses to respond, just clocks the guy in the face.
Now, that is an appropriate response because the claim that you faked the moon landing is so stupid, so ridiculous, so beneath, so really contemptible that it is not due an answer except for a punch in the nose.
This doesn't fall into that.
Because we already know that there has been a far-reaching conspiracy within the hierarchy of the church to cover up sexual abuse.
We know that for a fact.
So this is not a moon landing conspiracy.
And when you're asked about it, it is your moral duty to respond.
And if it's not true, to issue that clarification and to give reassurance to the faithful and to all people around the world.
So, as I said, if it is true, then he has to resign.
Whether or not it is true, I guess we can't at this point say with 100% Say, you know, say with 100% certainty whether or not it is.
I think that they're credible.
And I will say that I'm inclined to, if I have to choose between believing somebody like Archbishop Vigano and believing the Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal McCarrick, and now Pope Francis contingent, I'm going to be more inclined to believe the former.
Either way, these are very troubling times.
And many more bishops, aside from just two of them, need to speak up and say, there has to be a full investigation into this.
We need a full investigation.
No more messing around with it.
And if there is any truth to these allegations, then Pope Francis has to go.
