Cardinal O'Malley Rebukes Pope for Wanting Evidence Before Conviction

Many moons ago, Boston Catholics were relieved to hear Cardinal Sean O'Malley was appointed to the Boston see. Cardinal O'Malley had previously been assigned to the neighboring diocese of Fall River, whose reputation for faithfully catechizing its people was well known to us. We assumed teaching the practice of living every day in a state of Sanctifying Grace was done under the leadership of Cardinal O'Malley.

But, a few short years after Cardinal O'Malley's appointment to Boston, the catechesis was handed over to the dogs, the administration was filled with high-ranking Soros puppets from the DNC who surrendered Catholics schools and hospitals to apostates, forbade Catholic moral teaching and treated faithful Catholics shabbily.   

The Boston's Lavender Mafia finally received the traction and power Cardinal Law had been preventing. Cardinal O'Malley exhibited great hostility and contempt towards families who expected his administration to properly catechize the people we love.

He instituted a policy that priests would be removed upon ANY allegation of sexual misconduct, no matter how ludicrous.   Even if the accuser had no evidence and the accused had evidence exonerating himself.     The treatment of accused was vicious, malicious and violated civil, constitutional and canonical laws. The pastoral cruelty to accused was (and remains) exasperating.

(You may also recall that during the conclave to elect the Pope, the DNC's Soros puppets controlling Cardinal O'Malley arrived in Rome and began a public media campaign to pitch Cardinal O'Malley for Pope. It was a definite DNC politically-operated campaign in the media. The Holy See had to tell them to knock it off.)

I remember picking up the phone to call a few priests and lay leaders in Fall River to express my bewilderment at this 180 degree turnaround and asking them if Cardinal O'Malley had governed and shepherded Fall River to orthodoxy. I was consistently told that the orthodoxy had nothing to do with Cardinal O'Malley. It had preceded him. He was described as a weak bishop who would go along with the wind and it just so happened that the wind in Fall River was orthodoxy.

Given the kangaroo court Cardinal O'Malley put into practice and his treatment of accused priests, Boston Catholics were not happy to see his appointment to the Vatican's 'sexual abuse advisory board'. We had concerns Boston's kangaroo court would be instituted at the highest levels of Christ's Mystical Body. I haven't followed the internal politics of the 'sexual abuse advisory board', but a few years back when alleged victims placed on the board complained the Holy See would not implement their recommendations, I wondered if Boston's kangaroo court was getting resistance from just people in the Holy See.

When the malevolent and retaliatory allegations against Cardinal Pell manifested themselves, and Marie Collins, who quit "sexual abuse advisory board', responded by saying Cardinal Pell should have been removed years ago, my suspicions there was resistance to instituting Boston's Kangaroo Court in Rome were substantiated. Cardinal Pell had been exposing the financial corruption of malicious characters inside of the Holy See. Most educated and informed Catholics strongly suspect the allegations against Cardinal Pell were drummed up by the Lavender Mafia in Rome to obstruct justice and their removal. It fits the modus operandi of corrupt.  Frankly, he was lucky he wasn't dangling by his neck on a bridge. The people he was trying to expose are dangerous dudes.

Initial media reports on Cardinal O'Malley's influence in Rome suggested he served as one of Pope Francis top advisors. As this article notes, he and Pope Francis were in constant contact. Strangely, every time a faithful Catholic Bishop was accused of mismanaging sexual abuse complaints, Cardinal O'Malley fled into the public square to throw calumnies and slander about against the faithful Bishop.

This article also illustrates the associated but peculiar phenomenon of simultaneously defending spiritual abusers.

O’Malley was more direct in his comments on the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, calling it “a disaster.”

Investigating 50 years of allegations of spiritual misconduct made by victims of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious came to a screeching halt. The coven of unfaithful apostate nuns were immediately enabled to continue the spiritual abuse of the multitude.

But, something strange is doing down.

Over the course of the past few days, I smell badly burned toast around Cardinal O'Malley's influence in Rome and the relationship with the Holy Father.

Pope Francis apparently told Chilean Catholics that not a shred of evidence has been presented to incriminate Bishop Barros of knowing a priest in his diocese was sexually abusing children and refusing to do something about it. He said if there was evidence, he would act upon it. But after diligent review, these allegations appear to be calumny and slander.

As I was yelling "Good for him!!!", what to my wondering eyes should appear?

Cardinal O'Malley "rebuking" Pope Francis!

"It is understandable that Pope Francis' statements ... were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator," O'Malley said in the statement. "Words that convey the message 'if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed' abandon those who have suffered reprehensible criminal violations of their human dignity and relegate survivors to discredited exile."

Cardinal O'Malley thinks finding out if the accused is innocent or guilty and taking actions accordingly, can't be part of due process. The accused needs to be abandoned to suffer reprehensible violations of human dignity and relegated to discredited exile. This is his idea of justice.

This is definitely not a misunderstanding. This is how he operates.

As many Boston priests can attest, Cardinal O'Malley does not believe evidence of guilt or innocence should be part of the forum of justice inside of the Church. When a priest has evidence that exonerates him, the allegations are impossible - this is construed as a 'source of great pain' to the accuser making the false allegations. The priest must be robbed of his vocation, even when allegations can be proven to be false or there is absolutely no evidence to the incident took place.

Even one case of a substantiated and proven priest sexual abuser is too much. The Church ordained sexual abusers and mismanaged these situations, causing great pain and scandal. It was an abuse of power.

But the number of false and unsubstantiated allegations is overwhelming. It's over the top. And the treatment of these priests, their due process, is simply another manifestation of internal abuse of power.

It's possible I'm mistaken about the fractured relationship and power. All I can tell you is, when Cardinal O'Malley is challenged, he runs into the public square to throw you under the bus. When CJ and I, Boston Catholic Insider, Judie Brown and numerous other Catholics had to explain why he can't enter into a contract to outsource abortions or give the uncatechized the impression that a career of rabid advocacy of abortion does not obstruct one's salvation, Cardinal O'Malley took to the press to accuse us of "doing irreparable damage to the communion of the Church" and "doing a great disservice to the Church".

Rather than just admitting signing a contract to hire somebody to kill somebody else is "doing a great disservice to the Church", rather than going into the public square and saying politicians who use their power to advocate and advance killing certain groups of people "does "irreparable damage to the communion of the Church", he uses the media to accuse people exposing it.

Wasn't that the exact problem that led to protecting corruption?

Allegations must be substantiated and proven. Their credibility may not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but information gathering has to come to a conclusion that there is a likelihood that something screwy was going on. According to Pope Francis, upon review of facts, there is no evidence incriminating Bishop Barros of enabling the abuser. To what end would a Catholic Cardinal run to the press to announce that the Church's disposition of accused persons must not be predicated upon examining credible evidence?

I don't mean to be unkind, but does he realize how absurd this is?

It's a violation of canonical law, civil law, constitutional law and most importantly, you are asking the Church to bear false witness against the accused by omission and commission.

If finding out whether the accused is innocent or guilty hurts accuser's feelings, that has to be dealt with pastorally. We don't obstruct truth and justice and mistreat another human being.

Truly bad behavior.

Jesus help us. We're a mess. A stinking hot mess.