CARDINAL MULLER CONFIRMS SEX ABUSE INVESTIGATION AGAINST UK CARDINAL WAS STOPPED.

MURPHY O CONNOR

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has confirmed that the Vatican investigation into sexual abuse by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was not completed, but instead was stopped for lack of the Pope’s approval.

Cardinal Müller was asked if Pope Francis had indeed halted the investigation into Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, who passed away in 2017.

MULLER

Müller was until recently the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican body tasked with investigating sex abuse cases. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was accused of abusing a girl when she was 13 or 14 during the 1960s.

Cardinal Müller said he was “bound by Pontifical Secret,” but said that “the Pope’s approval is required for investigations” of a Cardinal.

Journalists informed Müller that some news reports were suggesting he had completed the investigation, rather than the investigation having been interrupted and prevented from continuing.

Journalists also asked the cardinal if he would at least go on the record to indicate that the investigation was stopped, rather than completed, and he agreed, “yes.”

‘The Pope wants to speak to you’

Rather, the original report focused on the fact that the investigation into the allegations did not follow proper Church protocol, and Archbishop Viganò mentioned the halting of the investigation in the context of the Pope’s larger record on sex abuse cover-up.

VIGANO

The bizarre circumstances around the Pope stopping the investigation were revealed by named Vatican reporter Marco Tosatti. From a source close to Cardinal Müller, Tosatti learned that the Cardinal, when he was Prefect of the CDF, was interrupted by a phone call from the Pope while saying Mass in June 2013 at the Church of Santa Monica (next to the CDF building) for a small group of German students.

As Tosatti put it in an article for First Things last year:

His secretary joined him at the altar: “The pope wants to speak to you.” “Did you tell him I am celebrating Mass?” asked Müller. “Yes,” said the secretary, “but he says he does not mind—he wants to talk to you all the same.” The cardinal went to the sacristy. The pope, in a very bad mood, gave him some orders about a dossier concerning one of his friends, a cardinal.

CUF – COVER UP FRANK

In a report last week, Tosatti revealed for the first time, via a source close to Cardinal Müller, that it was the CDF’s investigation of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor that Pope Francis nixed during that urgent phone call.

The allegation, and failed investigations

From a source in England close to the Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor case, it was learned that the lady around 2009 accused Murphy-O’Connor of involvement in her abuse. She had been, as a young teen in the 1960s, a victim of notorious pedophile priest Michael Hill. She asserted around 2009 that there were several priests involved in her abuse at the time, with Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor being one of them.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor later infamously transferred the known abuser Hill to be the chaplain at Gatwick airport despite warnings that he would offend again. (He did indeed offend again.) The lady in question is an acknowledged victim of Fr. Hill and was paid at the beginning of the 2000s a £40,000 settlement by the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton for the abuse she suffered.

While the left-leaning Tablet in England has claimed that the woman’s allegations against Murphy-O’Connor were investigated by police and the Church and found lacking in credibility, a source in England provides needed clarification.

Our source notes: “The police did not decide that she was not credible, but that they did not have corroborating evidence.”

The source added that, had the police not found the victim a credible source, “they would not have investigated the case.”

Rather, the source said, the police took the case so seriously that they interviewed Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor himself “under caution,” which means that they made it clear to him that his answers could be used against him in court. Moreover, the source says the police never closed the case, but put it aside awaiting corroborating evidence.

The Tablet author Christopher Lamb omits in his description of the history of the case that the Archdiocese of Westminster altogether refused to investigate the allegations of the female victim according to Church protocols.

As has been reported, it was not the Archdiocese of Westminster, but two other dioceses – Portsmouth and Northampton – which filed a case directly with the CDF in 2011.

A well-placed source in England has affirmed, it was not Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster since 2009, who instigated the CDF investigation.

Only in 2011 – that is, three years after the lady started to claim Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor abused her – Nichols finally had his diocesan officials meet with her in person. Still, they did not open an investigation.

According to a source in England, Bishop Crispian Hollis (of Portsmouth, now retired) and Bishop Peter Doyle (Northampton) both knew the female victim for years and found her a credible person.

“All people involved [i.e., police, as well as the English bishops filing the case with the CDF] found that the female victim is a credible witness.”
The Tablet reports on a CDF investigation in 2011 of the case under then-CDF head Cardinal William Levada. That investigation apparently determined there was no case. However, our English source states that the

CDF’s investigation in 2011 was not thorough, inasmuch as the victim herself was not even personally interviewed by the

CDF officials.

As The Tablet so ambiguously puts it, the need to restart the case then in 2013 was due to an “administrative gap.” Of what that “administrative gap” could be, our source commented: “The CDF itself had not followed protocol.”

That is the very reason why, in 2013, Peter Doyle – the Bishop of Northampton who originally worked in Portsmouth and who knows the victim personally – together with Portsmouth “complained to Rome” and urged Nichols to restart the CDF investigation in 2013, according to our English source. But once Cardinal Müller finally got the 2013 CDF investigation underway, Pope Francis put a stop to it.

Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, notes that there were “some English bishops” who were “unhappy at Westminster breaking rules.” Speaking of The Tablet article, he wrote on Twitter September 30: “This report is basically accurate. I believe in ++Cormac’s innocence.

But this isn’t the whole story. Some English bishops unhappy at Westminster breaking rules; the CDF intervened. ++Mueller knows the truth.”

“Cardinal Nichols should explain precisely how he handled the Cormac allegations,” Thompson wrote on Twitter September 26. “They may have lacked credibility, but there’s no indication that the Church’s abuse procedures were properly implemented. Far from it.”

Viganò vindicated

On Twitter, The Tablet’s Lamb and Austen Ivereigh, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s former assistant, suggested that The Tablet’s report discredited Archbishop Viganò.

Viganò listed in his recent follow-up testimony Pope Francis’ “halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor” as one example of the pontiff’s complicity in sex abuse cover-up

The discrediting of Viganò would vindicate Pope Francis, not only with regard to his role in the Murphy-O’Connor case, but in the face of larger cover-up accusations surrounding the ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick debacle.

Cardinal Muller’s confirmation that the CDF’s investigation of Murphy-O’Connor was indeed halted would seem to vindicate Viganò, though.

Murphy-O’Connor had been the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton from 1977 until 2000, when he was appointed Archbishop of Westminster.

He was also a member of the St. Gallen Group that tried to get Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) elected, first in the 2005 conclave, and then again in 2013.

In his biography of Pope Francis, Ivereigh wrote that days prior to the conclave, which began March 12, 2013 in Rome, Murphy-O’Connor was tasked by the St. Gallen “mafia” to inform Jorge Bergoglio of a plan to get him elected.

According to Ivereigh, Murphy-O’Connor was also tasked with lobbying for Bergoglio among his North American counterparts as well as acting as a link to those from Commonwealth countries.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor recounted in his memoir An English Spring that when Pope Francis met the English cardinal in July 2013, the Pope told him, “You’re to blame!”

PAT SAYS

Now, look at what we have.

One cardinal abusing a 14 year old girl!

One cardinal been told to call off the investigation!

A pope rewarding a cardinal for his vote and for promoting him to the papacy by calling off the investigation into his paedophilia!

A pope interrupting the celebration of the Eucharist to save his friend’s neck!

Murphy O Connor supporting his fellow paedo Father Hill!

Its rotten from the very top to the very bottom.

Sex with kids, sex in seminaries, sex in the Confessional, etc.

Money, power, sex and God knows what else.

And all IN THE NAME OF GOD!

Lifesite News

58 thoughts on “CARDINAL MULLER CONFIRMS SEX ABUSE INVESTIGATION AGAINST UK CARDINAL WAS STOPPED.

  1. Cesspit cesspit cesspit

    Like

  2. I have just finished reading the IICSA report on Ealing Abbey, and while it is not surprising, because I have been following that case for some time, the thing most striking to me is that apart from some individual monks and teachers nobody looks good in the report. At various points the police, lawyers, safeguarding professionals, the Vatican, all messed up and missed chances to prevent further abuse.
    I am beginning to suspect that rather than the Catholic church being corrupt it should have a health warning that any contact with it will cause bizarre behaviour and a total lack of adult thinking.

    Like

    1. You’re very fond of long sentences

      Like

      1. Anon@ 4:07: While pithy can be good and necessary when appropriate, sometimes longer sentences may be necessary to convey complex matters. Unfortunately some people with short attention span fail to follow and understand such matters. I’m sure that doesn’t apply to you though.

        Like

  3. On a separate note altogether. I see that bishop bling has given the go ahead for the purchase of the former Presbyterian church around the corner from his salubrious mansion for some of his cronies. This at a time when his churches are half empty.
    On the above blog is it any surprise that the Latino would seek to protect his mates

    Like

  4. Haven’t you posted this article before? Also CMOC had no vote as he was over 80 at the conclave.

    Like

    1. The report comes from Lifesitenews — a Francis-hating organization.

      Like

  5. As a child , I was A victim of Michael Hill During his time in Gatwick Airport.
    That Bast..d Murphy O Connor knew all about him and when I contacted his office , I never ever got a response.
    I met the same red hat in Lourdes one evening, many years later , around 11pm as he made his way alone from the grotto . I confronted him – he was like jelly on a plate. Therefore I am assured he will melt in the fires of hell.

    Like

    1. Good for you.
      And best wishes.

      Like

  6. Dirty, Romanist…………….
    Bishop Pat is too gentle to publish what needs to be said about this institution and is, therefore, a MAJOR part of the problem.😕

    Like

    1. The bishop can be very hard on Miss Turtle at times mind.

      Like

  7. ah I don’t believe that

    Like

  8. Fly on Th Wall 26th Oct 2019 — 7:21 am

    Dulux or Durex that’s the question hi

    Like

    1. 7:21 am

      Hello hi fly,
      Begorra fly, what class of job are you at… t’all at all?
      Don’t try mix and match.
      If yer using dulux or durex do it in a duplex…. or else.

      Bye bye fly hi.

      Like

  9. Och Pat, do you what I miss? When all the wee Scotties were on here day and daily, a wailin’ and a weeping’, greetin’ their wee lamps out, over all the carry on up prairies and down dales, oer moor and fen, och aye the noo the noo.

    Inspector Hamish McTavish, och aye Pat, do ye mind him and his big magnifying glass and all his portfolios?

    He was on ta somethin ye ken? He was was definitely on ta somethin was old Hamish. Tis’ sad indeed, och aye – a cautionary tale, Pat, the noo.

    Didye nae hear what happened poor Hamish? Och aye. Set out one night on a haggis hunt up the prairie o’ Lourdes. Was found stiff as a board, kilt up over his heed, Pat, very undignified way to go.

    But he died happy, Pat, och aye tis true the noo. A bonnie wee laddie found him but twas too late. He’s awaa Pat, he’s awaa. And all his wee secrets awaa wi’ im.

    Och those were the days Pat, will tha no come back agin?

    Like

  10. Pat, can you please cite the source of this article (and of every article you post). Otherwise you are practising plagiarism.
    Knowing the provenance of a document is essential when making a judgement about its veracity.

    Like

  11. Bishop Pat, why is Elsie getting away with this?

    Like

  12. Whatever the truth about CMOC, which should be clarified by a transparent investigation, the shocking thing about this whole saga is the interference of very senior people in a process that should have had an objectivity and momentum of its own, run according to the the protocols in place at the time. And, if that were the case, then some kind of thorough, proper, and eventually conclusive investigation would have been done. But, interference by very senior people frustrated this – Nichols, Francis included. That is shocking. Well done to Northampton and Portsmouth for doing what they could to ensure that the matter was raised and investigated, even though frustrated eventually. They will have had to put up with the cold fury of Nichols, no doubt, supposedly their brother bishop and the leader of their episcopal conference. Brave men.

    I think that Nichols is due back before IICSA in the near future for a second grilling, and it might be instructive for IICSA to delve in to this matter of the CMOC investigation and try to throw some light on it. It is crucially important that matters like this are not left unresolved, because it just continues to undermine the credibility of the Church and its trustworthiness, and sets up double standards of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Let me tell you, that if the accusation had been about me, or another priest, it would have had devastating consequences whether it was true or not, and a priest would have been suspended, furloughed, sent packing, vilified, sidelined and his whole future cast in to doubt and probably ruined. That’s what would happen to ‘us’. We know, evidently, what happens to ‘them’ .

    Like

    1. Excellent and crystal clear comment.

      “You make me Pope and I’ll make sure you are not investigated or prosecuted – but interred in a tomb of glory in a cathedral”.

      CMOC should be removed from that timber and cremated and his ashes scattered in a wilderness.

      This is the final straw for me with regard to Frankonio.

      He is simply evil!

      Like

    2. Hollis of Portsmouth (ex) I see mentioned. Of course Lang in Clifton and Doyle in Northampton are also Portsmouth men. The most liberal bishops in the whole of the UK. Nobody has anytime for them. That’s why Rome appointed Egan to teach them some manners. One extreme to another. Shrewsbury got another kick up the arse with the appointment of Davies.

      Like

  13. Pat, why is this not the subject of the inquiry? There seems to be a cover up here. Some petty minded person has accused you of using this article before but I think people need reminding. It’s uncomfortable reading for some and so it deserves repeating.

    Like

    1. Exactly why I did it.

      Like

    2. Sadly the reality is that IICSA does not have unlimited resources and time and they have had to inquire into a sample.
      I do think that an opportunity was missed when the nuncio and Vatican’t refused to give evidence since they have diplomatic immunity. I feel this should have been pursued, even to the extent of it becoming a diplomatic incident. I also think the UK would have been justified in breaking diplomatic relations with the Vatican – what are they going to do, bomb us? It’s a bit difficult to see the Vatican having any sanctions more damaging than what they have already done in the way of protecting abusers.

      Like

      1. What surprises me about the IICSA is tthat they didn’t quiz Nichols about the 3Cs. Clonan in Coundon in Coventry.

        Like

  14. Strange, Bp Pat, I would’ve assumed CMOC preferred his… well, let’s just say, shopping dropped off round the back.

    Like

  15. Could the problem with the RCC be that they only keep the ones who are willing to keep their mouths tightly shut about serious things and sling out the ones that speak-up about serious things?
    But one must ask: if one is content on not speaking-up about serious things, what kind of culture and unhealthy playing-ground has this produced?
    … Are we seeing the consequences of such a culture, today?

    Like

  16. Pat, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. What a dirty, sordid lot !!

    Like

  17. Though cover up is the name of the game in the RCC, I am uneasy that suspicion so readily sticks to dead Cardinals that it rapidly comes to define them. Any search of Spellman of New York for example throws up the information that he was a rapacious homosexual, yet I have never seen any evidence to support that. Likewise it is now assumed that John Charles McQuaid was a pedophile based on one unsupported anecdote in a journalist’s biography of him some years ago. Given the false but long widely accepted slurs by the now totally “Nick” against major British establishment figures, I think we might be a little more careful. These allegations against CMOC have been aired before, so by repeating them it is as if they are being substantiated. There was similar stuff about the last but one Archbishop of Cardiff, John Aloysius Ward.

    Like

    1. I knew McQuaid and visited him weekly in 1072 and 1973.

      Never once did he display any sexual behaviour.

      However he did have a very sexualised way of speaking and touching and I formed the opinion that he was a repressed homosexual with an interest in older youth and young men.

      The evidence to date, that was ever involved in sexual acts is rather weak.

      Like

      1. I feel sure that your impression was correct, Pat, and indeed you have just described virtually the entire body of Roman Catholic clergy.

        Like

      2. And, I liked McQuaid personally. I did not like the political interferer I later learned he was.

        He was a man of his time and a product of French and Irish late 19th century and early 29th century Catholicism.

        Like

    2. The real issue here, @ 2:00pm, is not whether these allegations are true or not, but whether the correct procedures and protocols were followed once they were raised. It seems as though they were truncated / frustrated by the likes of Nichols and Francis. If the RCC is to have even the slightest credibility, then it needs to be consistent and transparent about the way the it deals with all accusations of wrongdoing, particularly clerical sexual abuse, and be seen to investigate without fear or favour, no matter who is the accused. To do anything otherwise is to simply undermine the RCC’s credibility and integrity.

      I do agree with you that some accusations seem to be made spuriously, but it precisely by following the procedures and protocols to the letter that such spurious accusations can be seen to be so. To do anything else, as seems to have been the case in the matter of CMOC, is simply to invite continuing speculation because the issue was not dealt with properly and transparently from the outset.

      Like

      1. Quite right, Pat. Like Spellman, McQuaid had outstanding qualities, and both were capable of great personal kindness. For better or for worse, we shall not see their like as bishops again. Cowderoy of Southwark was another sacred monster of that period. it is pitiful to see pygmies such as Davies and Egan, or some of the American bishops, sounding off edicts as if anyone were going to take notice of them today. Too many younger clergy dream of the pomp of the past, which makes them look even more ineffectual and ridiculous.

        Like

      2. Anon@2:13: “undermine RCC credibility…..?”
        Is that possible?
        I mean: Can it get ANY lower?

        Like

    3. It’s not only dead church men who are fodder for smearing but also dead politicians like Ted Heath — https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/05/ted-heath-would-have-been-questioned-over-seven-abuse-claims-police-say — and indeed any dead celebrity. Fame is a thoroughly poisoned cup. The Carl Beech scandal should be a wake-up call, but it’s been forgotten already: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10221005/carl-beech-22-liars-taxpayers-cash/

      Like

  18. What is the source of this article, Pat? It seems highly implausible that the Pope would demand that Mass be interrupted to take his phone call. That just does not add up. I suspect the source of this article is some crowd of ding bats who hate Francis – like Vigano himself.

    Like

    1. There are witnesses to the Mass interruption.

      Like

      1. Really? Who? Has that been substantiated? Have those witnesses to the Pope’s demanding that Mass be interrupted (a grave sacrilege) made statements that are verifiable?
        Please provide evidence. And what is the source of this report you are so taken with, which has convinced you, beyond doubt, that Francis is “evil”?

        Like

  19. 3.11: We’ve heard all this crap abiut McQuaid and you all too often. Did you enjoy sitting on his knees when you visited him. As for McQuaid’s political interference – a little bit like your interference in the Catholic affairs of Catholics….you are a class act hypocrite.

    Like

    1. I never sat on his knee and he never asked me too.

      The world wide corruption of the RCC is a matter of universal interest and a perfect topic for a catholic blogger of vast experience to comment on.

      Go suck a zube 😈

      Like

      1. Knee? I hope not, he was 78 at the time!

        Like

  20. The Catholic Herald Newspaper ran this story on 4th October last year. Many media outlets also ran this story.

    Like

  21. Francis is a greasy South American gangster who was in league with a corrupt government.

    Like

    1. I don’t think you’re in any position to talk father Buckley

      Like

      1. lol @ 6:03, and you can say that again

        Like

  22. Kent Police investigated the allegation and found it had no substance.

    Like

    1. No they did not. They said the allegation was credible but evidence missing.

      They interviewed CMOC UNDER CAUTION!

      Like

      1. and decided to take it no where and the case was closed. you’re mad for trouble Buckley.

        Like

      2. MournemanMichael 26th Oct 2019 — 6:28 pm

        +Pat: The official caution is an essential protocol required under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act), so that any information volunteered by the person being interviewed may then/subsequently be used as evidence in court. Otherwise, it can’t, no matter how informative relevant or damning it is. So being cautioned before interview is not necessarily an indication that police have already got strong or indeed any evidence.
        The caution is: “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do no mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
        The caution is preceded by informing the person that he/she is NOT under arrest; not obliged to remain (in interview), and may seek legal assistance.
        MMM

        Like

      3. I understand MMM.

        What I’m saying is that up until relatively recently an archbishop of Westminister would not be interviewed at all!

        Like

  23. @6:39, that’s your opinion and not fact 🙂

    Like

  24. McQuaid was certainly an intellectual. However his interference in Irish politics lead to appropriate unease amongst northern unionists. The term Rome rule for the Irish republic is in a large part due to his interference. His interference instilled fear from both northern and southern Irish people alike. De Valera, the wannabe priest, was the perfect companion for him. Their handiwork in the framing of the Irish constitution led to untold misery and abuse amongst citizens. Because of them both, abusers were protected and the vulnerable were punished. The Roman Catholic Church has been exposed for what it is: nothing more than a Mafia organisation. The concept of justice does not feature in their thinking . It’s all about protecting the brand and the money making machine. Christ is only a cover story for them. I had high hopes for Pope Francis but he has let down the faithful, let down Christ and protected abusers. How he can be called a descendant of St Peter is beyond me. He is merely the head of a corrupt mafia masquerading as a servant of Christ. As others have said, his organisation is a cesspit

    Like

    1. Does anyone on this blog remember when Eamon came over the border? It was rare.

      Like

      1. It was Newry I think. Dev only crossed a few times.

        Like

  25. 6.39: Pat, you only understand what suits your anti Catholuc bias, hatred and venom. MMM is right. You shoukd be in pissesdion of all relevant information before you make definitive judgments. How you just thrill in the downfall of others. While Jesus calls us to name and own iscwrongdoing and sinfulness and allbthatis contrary to God, he didn’t bury people in their wrongdoing. He may have used challenging language but He didn’t delight in permanently condemning others by throwing slabs of concrete on their already damaged reputations. “Do not judge…do not condemn…love your enemy, do good to those that hate you.. “. Either we believe these words, live by them or be a fake Christian instead.

    Like

    1. MournemanMichael 27th Oct 2019 — 1:21 am

      Anon@ 8:57: By saying that I’m right, I think you may be referring to my pointing out to +Pat that to interview under caution is not, de facto, an indication of guilt or culpability. Pat’s subsequent response does not seem to acknowledge that fact, nor to accept, that by his previous reference @ 6:10pm to CMOC’s interview UNDER CAUTION (his capital letters in his comment), he was thereby, whether intentionally or not, significantly inferring a considerable degree of guilt/culpability.
      I have no knowledge of the facts nor weight to be given to any allegations made. What I am pointing out,, and which you acknowledge, is that +Pat is all too prone to use dubious unconfirmed data to support his perceptions. In fact I tend to support his perception that the RCC is a “cesspit” of intrigue, corruption and worse. I think however that being more careful in articulating an analysis of wrongdoing adds credibility and weight, while any perception of hasty unsupported opinion increases potential for ridicule of bias.
      MMM

      Like

  26. Maybe too late for this blog.
    RE: Cardinal MoC: Who knows?
    Cardinal Muller, George Stack, Archbishop, Cardiff, Mark O’Toole, Bishop Plymouth, former private secretary, Bishop John Arnold (now Salford), who attended police interview with Kent Police. (And Fr Michael Hill, with the abused girl and some members of her family).

    Like

  27. Actually there is a significant difference once the police caution you – from there on they are thinking of a possible prosecution.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close