Ricca Scandal: Why Bishop Francis Is In Deep Trouble.

Here, Monsignor Ricca is seen expressing in tangible way his appreciation to the Bishop of Rome.

Here, Monsignor Ricca is seen expressing in tangible ways his appreciation to the Bishop of Rome.

From the very beginning of his pontificate, Bishop Francis showed a rather unusual single-mindedness in his behaviour and decisions about his appearance and style of conduct. The idea was of one who knows what he wants, and goes on in its pursue without looking left or right.

This is very good if your name is Pacelli, but it spells disaster if it is Bergoglio.

When the Bishop of Rome had his outing about the “gay lobby”, I commented on this, because I did not like the attitude a bit. The Pope's words were as follows:

And, yes… it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true… The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…

From that blog post I read today:

What is surprising, is that instead of using words like “we will have to eradicate this problem fast”, or “we must absolutely act on this”, he says “we need to see what we can do”, as if … there were things a Pope cannot do to tackle the problem. This is surprising from a Pope for whom “to do things” seems to be the first priority, and who had just told to the present(and I quote)“I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…”

Basically, a Pope Bishop of Rome who says to everyone they should “do” without caring of the consequences, provided their heart is oh so pure, becomes suddenly timid when the acting is required in something so unspeakably evil as a bunch of homos infiltrating the Vatican, and who knows what else. “We need to see what we can do” is very much a downplaying of the problem, and indicates the Bishop might conclude “there's not much we can do”, or “there's not much we should do”, or “let us not make of this a priority and let us focus on … my Ford Focus instead”.

How seriously the Bishop takes the matter ( = not much; and I am being charitable; very charitable) emerged in the last two days. First, the Italian magazine “L'Espresso” threw a bomb concerning not only the homosexual tendency, but the continued, scandalous sodomitical conduct of Monsignor Ricca, the man Bishop Francis provisionally put at the top of the Vatican Bank. This man also emerged as the one running three hospitality structures at the Vatican – in one of which Pope Francis actually resides – which allowed him to spin a net of useful accomplices. The very idea of a homosexual running three “hotels” for clergy lets one's blood freeze.

What happened afterwards was even more instructive. Father Lombardi issued the usual embarrassing dementi, but he made (or was made to make) two very big mistakes:

1. He did not say “we are looking into it”. He said that Bishop Bergoglio knows everything, and thinks no action should be taken (= thinks the allegations are unsubstantiated). Not even a suspension waiting for the man to be cleared was decided. Every priest accused of impropriety by a hysterical mother would be immediately suspended. A prelate in an extremely important position within the Vatican, heavily accused by a rather professional magazine in front of the entire planet – a magazine that exposes itself to legal action if slanderous – is left at his place undisturbed. Ah, this really looks like “reform”.

This isn't smart. This is plain stubborn. No, let me rephrase it. This is plain freaking stupid. No, let me rephrase it again. This is typical of Bishop Bergoglio's “humble” attitude.

2. Father Lombardi went so far as to say “L'Espresso” uses sources that are “untrustworthy”. Now please reflect. This is big. The magazine states names, places and circumstances very clearly. They expose themselves to obvious legal retaliation if they have made such a huge mistake. They are unlikely to do this, because to avoid such mistakes is journalism 101. Punctually, the magazine puts itself very squarely and very aggressively behind Sandro Magister, with tones that even in a blunt country like Italy show the defiance of those tired to have to deal with amateurs: this text is in Italian, but “L'espresso” states they stay behind Magister “punto per punto”, “in every single point”.

Magister himself quips about Lombardi (and the Bishop of Rome), stating “poor Father Lombardi, what things they make him say”, clearly indicating the person behind this genial initiative is driven around in a humble Ford Focus.

What will happen now, is easy to imagine: the Italian press has smelled the blood, and it is becoming increasingly more clear that those who seek shall find. I expect a series of such revelations in the months to come, and make no mistake that no one will be spared, not even the Bishop of Rome.

There will now be intensive scrutiny of the key players behind Bergoglio, both in his actual position and in Buenos Aires, and perhaps even before that. The links between the Argentinian, Brazilian, and other South-American key players will be examined with the magnifying glass. What the three Cardinals under Pope Benedict could uncover (and Bishop Bergoglio has obviously put in the fridge; please do not insult your intelligence by maintaining anything else) will not escape, in time, the attention of motivated investigative journalists. The hotels surrounding the Vatican will be put under observation to see who goes in and out, the sodomitical establishments around the Vatican will be put under strict control; the very many within the church who, no doubt, are disgusted with the current situation and want the filth to emerge now know whom they have to speak to.

Every aspect of his papacy, of his past, of the past of his men, will be thoroughly examined. If he has any connection – knowingly or unknowingly – with the gay lobby, he is in trouble.

The age of cover-ups because of the special position of the Pontiff are gone. The Bishop is one of us, has a Focus, plays the humble, and ignores grave scandals exposed by the press. He will get no discounts, and if he thinks he can shrug all off him by just being stubborn and doing as he pleaseth, he will fall very hard. Similarly, no “humble” Pope is above criticism of his conduct as Pope, and he can be buried under scandals as every other head of State. The time of silence is gone. Ask “L'Espresso”.

I obviously believe L'Espresso worked thoroughly on the story of Monsignor Ricca, but I do not think whether the story is proven or not is really decisive here. The Homo Mafia within the Vatican has caught the popular imagination, and the press sees a huge banquet approaching. They could find plenty of information concerning a person in one of the highest echelons in a matter of weeks after his appointment. Can you imagine what treasure trove lies in front of them? Can you imagine them deciding not to pursue this bonanza to protect the integrity of a man so insistent on wanting to be seen as “one of us”? Should people who have been a pain in the neck of Berlusconi for 20 years (“L'espresso” belongs to “Repubblica”; they have been at loggerheads with Berlusconi for decades) be afraid of an Argentinian outsider unable to make three steps in a row without some huge blunder? Don't bet your pint.

Bishop Bergoglio thinks he is still in Buenos Aires and can behave like a wheelchair-loving, Focus-driving caudillo without consequences. His rather arrogant style – as now transpiring on more and more occasions: the “Renaissance Prince” here, the thinly veiled sarcasm about the rosaries and the counting of them there, the continued posing himself as an alternative to the former Popes everywhere, and now even the decision to openly protect one clearly and unmistakeably outed – will soon leave him without many friends, and deservedly so. The one who has deprived the Papacy of sacredness like no other will be called to account like no other. The Vatican Press Office complained bitterly about the rumours of a scandal who then proved based on calumnies. It wasn't of great use, at least “L@Espresso” doesn't seem to have been particularly impressed, or cowed into silence.

Now, if the Bishop were a saintly, strong man of God, this would not be a problem at all. I remember reading that St Pius X's rather unusual, blunt, undiplomatic style also often left him misunderstood and even isolated. But this here is a man who cannot defend himself and has no obvious saintliness to speak for him; one who has no claim to anything else that his obsession with the poor, and with his own public image; and one who is demonstrably mediocre in everything he does: from his masses to his homilies; from his quasi-heretical off-the-cuff remarks to his cultural and intellectual stature; from his lack of respect for even the rules of the Church to his disregard for the reputation of his men and their offices (ask by the CDF to know more).

I get more and more the impression Bishop Francis has bitten more than he can chew, and has worked on his election (oh yes, he did!) thinking his Argentinian recipe made of Pinocchio Masses, poverty rhetoric, and show of humility would work just fine in Rome.

I have my doubts.


Posted on July 20, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.

  1. Seeing this peculiar picture of Monsignor Ricca I cannot help but recall the tune albeit with slightly tweaked lyrics, of that lovely Dusty Springfield song….the look of l___t is in his eyes, the look his heart cannot disguise….

  2. Well said, Mundabor. My own head cleared as I read this scandal yesterday (the larger one, that is, of the refusal to act), and the enigma of the Bishop’s persona seemed to resolve itself. As Cardinal Pell has been known to say, sometimes a boil needs to be lanced. The Vatican II patient has been malingering for 50 years. The nurse may well be on her way.

  3. The world twists and contorts and the Nice Church is oh, so accommodating. How beautiful the world presents to us the love of homosexuals only wanting to be together in wedded bliss, but how quickly they avert their gaze when they see the wickedness as it really is. Homophobia is a natural self-defense mechanism given to us by Nature against the intrinsic disorder of sodomite behavior. How awful will the judgment be for those men who harbor it in the Church!

    • I actually think “Christianity” is the appropriate name for homophobia, (“oh, you’re ho-mo-pho-bic!” “I? No, Christian”), but the disgust and revulsion for such abominations is actually normal. Only it’s not “phobia”, merely sanity.

      Noone would say of himself that he is “paedophile phobic”, would he now…


  4. Well done Mundabor, you have summed up my own opinion on this Pope very well. Personally, I have had more than enough of him already. If all goes as you say, the disasters flowing from the abdication of the Pope who chose writing three books instead of sorting out the Church will have seen in concrete terms.

  5. That picture is creepy. It looks as though Ricca is letting the pope know who owns whom.

  6. radjalemagnifique

    Mundabor :”Every aspect of his papacy, of his past, of the past of his men, will be thoroughly examined. If he has any connection – knowingly or unknowingly – with the gay lobby, he is in trouble.”

    Here’s another blog dealing with this question. Please see the final paragraphe, it sounds interesting.


    Radja le Magnifique

    • That is another excellent blog.

      L’Espresso is a weekly magazine. Leftist, but certainly not unprofessional.

      They belong to “Repubblica”, a very aggressive editorial group but with, again, no penchant for slanderous work.


  7. Another brief point, if I am allowed. The unmentioned scandal here of course is that in the brief duration of the Bishopric to date we have endured the fall to institutional sodomy of three of the great nations of Christendom (and the US has indeed fallen with the DOMA ruling), the installation of the child blood sacrifice cult in holy Catholic Ireland, and the imminence of the same in the redoubt of Catholic Brazil. Have there been 4 months (!) more wicked since the flood? And all of this without a whimper of resistance from the Bishop of Rome, let alone the terrifying call to (spiritual) arms which one should expect of Holy Mother Church. Even when presented with the travesty of satanic homo-episcopal counterfeit religion in the person of the arch-heretic of Canterbury, the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on Earth says nothing. Can this be excused, or rationalised away? At some point it becomes clear that these epochal and diabolical developments do not sufficiently trouble the Supreme Authority of Christ’s Church – which would be, at any other time, a nonsensical statement.

    But then neither do we hear from almost the totality of the “college” of bishops. In my own archdiocese, the newly appointed head of “faith education” – and that means little children – is an active sodomite, as is the headmaster of the parish school which our Latin Mass community has been given as home. And our bishop I would regard as being one of the good ones.

    These are desperate times. We can only take refuge in the Faith, and the Faith as it has always been. The rest will be worked out according to His will. May He have mercy on us.

    • Exactly so.

      The world is already much different from when it was in February, when Benedict resigned.

      In the meantime, the Pope cares about his choice of vehicles (or does much worse than that)…


  8. The Vicary of Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Mons. Joaquín Sucunza, was involved in divorce that demostrated he lived 6 years with a married woman before got bishop. Bergoglio knew that and any way consacred him.
    When the case was published in 2010, Bergoglio support Sucunza, that is until now Vicary here. Look:



    • Hhmm… can we imagine saintly Popes like John XXIII behaving in the same way? Even more stranger, because the Popes of the past were Renaissance Princes, with their Mozzetta and their sedia gestatoria, their Mercedes Landaulets and their Latin Masses…



  9. I am always extremely gratified, but not a little amused, when I read that I might be a priest.

    I have no theological formation, and no priestly vocation. I happen to be a man – though I say so myself – who thinks better than the present stupid generation, and writes better than most. I always had the gift of a strong faith, and was therefore naturally inclined toward religion, though the V II church I grew in the midst of always inspired contempt in me with her unmanly priests, and her desire to get along with the world.

    Even being a cradle Catholic, I only “discovered” Catholicism when I moved here to England and, shocked by the heathenism in the land, discovered a lot of pre-Vatican II books were accessible. Then I started attending Mass at the Oratory. The I started writing on “Homo Smoke”.

    The rest is, as they say, history.

    Believe me, fear for my professional prospects are more than justified even for a laymen. If not perhaps now, in five of fifteen years.

    Five is, if you ask me, more likely.


    P.s. I know, I know… If I were a priest who wants to remain anonymous, I would not say it. This is purely logical.

  10. A good point of reference is in your sidebar: G K Chesterton on Malice and Spite. No medium is going to go public with this magnitude of scandal unless it can be backed by substantiated evidence. The primary evidence can only have come from whistleblowers among the religious. You may be sure that the whole story has not been published and, should the Vatican continue its denial, more will be revealed. It wouldn’t surprise me if even now journalists have been despatched to do more digging in South America.
    Wasn’t Francis quoted to the effect that he wanted to do certain things but his “bosses” wouldn’t let him? Apart from the fact that he has only one boss, he makes the Vatican sound like the Mafia. Italian cardinals (48) have an over-representation at the College (203). With respect to you, Mundabor, at least three-quarters of them should be swept away for it seems to me that, as in some areas of Italian politics, there are those who are at the centre of a web of corruption and moral turpitude while their peers, knowing all, adopt the protocol of omerta.
    The picture at the top of your post is stomach-churning.

  11. Patrick JK Gray

    God spare us all – I really see no hope until Our Lord comes back, filth and obscenity, Rome still in an appalling Modernist stew while the world descends even deeper into the Modern Dark Age.

  12. Dear Mundabor, I think your analysis is deadly accurate and captures the catastrophe that will befall this papacy. It seems to be that before long Bishop Francis is going to be mauled and chewed up by the media he is so wants to court. The disastrous appointment of Ricca and even worse his reluctance to act decisively when confronted with scandalous situations indicates how this papacy will pan out. In truth he is not up to the task and as Western Civilization falls back into an even worse moral barbarism that it emerged from, it is true to say that he is part of the problem and this makes it a difficult and sad time for serious and faithful Catholics. And yet, I can see this “establishment novus ordo Church” coming apart at the seams and I see this speeding up with the coming of BF. As I survey the landscape around me for the most part I see a liturgical and doctrinal wasteland, that will soon be a desert for the Faith, and the only oasis, will be those that have held to authentic Tradition.
    (PS don’t you think that’s a creepy picture? Doesn’t the look on Ricca’s face say it all?)

    • Yes, I agree and yes, it’s a creepy picture.

      One could say after the fact one sees the photo and says “creepy”, but this here is caressing the Pope, and the Pope is allowing to be caressed by him.

      There’s a chap in the background with face partially covered, but it might be the face of the one who thinks “what the hell is going on here”.

      It can be the South-American cultures are different, but in Italy this gesture would be considered inappropriate.

      Still, Pope Francis picked him and, having to choose between the bad publicity of admitting a very bad choice and the worse publicity of not admitting it, chose to stick his head in the sand and hope people keep saying how humble he is.

      Already a precautionary suspension, accompanied by the usual attestations of esteem, would have been something. Then in time they could have said “we have reviewed everything, and we have made a mistake”.

      Nope. It would have required some humbleness.

      The gay lobby must have lobbied very hard on this one. Has the Pope started to think who supported Ricca, and make a note of the names? I doubt.


  13. I think that things will get better and that Francis has begun to be part of the solution, though unwittingly. He appears to be so naive but also so image conscious and determined that, if he thinks that this latest gaffe will harm his image, he will do reverse the appointment. It is also a useful reminder to him that he cannot trust those who are recommending people for senior appointments and that he will need to do more than ‘rubber stamp’ their suggestions. (Reading the Italian press – in Google English – I did see a comment (I have no idea of the source) that the Pope had expressed disappointment that he had not been informed fully about this man’s background and intended to ‘correct matters’.)

  14. Here is what I find troubling. Aside from the complete lack of professionalism in the Vatican due diligence process. (Hey, you run a hotel, si? OK now you run a bank.)
    The Bishop of Rome became the Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1998. Ricci (and company) arrived in Uruguay in 1999. Montevideo is roughly a couple hundred miles from Buenos Aires as the crow flies. (Yes, guilt by proximity.) The scandal was known in religious circles in Uruguay as early as 1999 with Ricci’s arrival, and the dispatches started flowing to Rome in 2000 with the arrival of Nuncio Bolonek, and finally ended with Ricci’s transfer in 2004. I find it hard to believe that throughout these 4 years Nuncio Bolonek did not mention this “situation of Ricci’s cohabitation arrangements” to his fellow diplomatic corps colleague in Buenos Aires. And even if an iron curtain of information existed between the episcopates of Montevideo and Buenos Aires in official circles, I find it hard to believe that people didn’t gossip, and that this information didn’t reach the wider Buenos Aires church circles via the church confessionals. And we know who manned the confessionals and “specialized” in absolving penitents with a penchant for to spreading gossip.

    • I exclude information given under the seal of confession was used in any way.

      Far more probable is that the rumours had started spreading; but the then Archbishop might not have believed them; some people are not good at recognising perverts, because their own innocence is in the way (the late Pope JP II is an example, I think).

      What I find astonishing is that one puts another formally in charge of a bank because he appears to be good at inning three hotels and the two are lunch pals.


  15. From Robert Moynihan, today – I trust the added context justifies this large quote:

    “…During these years, Ricca got to know Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis. Bergoglio from time to time would visit Rome and stay in the Casa del Clero on the via della Scrofa, near Piazza Navona. During those visits, Bergoglio came not only to know Ricca, but to trust him.

    When Bergoglio became Pope, and decided to remain in the Domus Santa Marta, he turned to Ricca, with whom he often took his meals at the great central table in the dining room, to help him in his work of cleaning up and reforming the Roman Curia, one of the main things the cardinals asked for in the days leading up to the conclave.

    …It is not entirely clear what happened next. We know that just a few days later, the nuncios from around the world were called to Rome to meet with the Pope, and it has been reported that more than one of the nuncios used the occasion to speak against Ricca to the Pope. It has been reported that the Pope then asked for biographical material on Ricca, studied it, and concluded that the accusations were either unfounded, exaggerated, or no longer relevant to Ricca’s present role.

    And this set the stage for the second article of Magister, now famous: a series of very precise allegations… But once again, the Pope was not moved. He authorized Father Lombardi to deny the allegations, saying that Magister’s report was “not trustworthy,” and he did not ask for Ricca’s immediate resignation.”

    It certainly seems that Bishop Francis was well ahead of the game, well advised and not reacting in haste to a lone scandalous article this week. The decision to keep Ricca in place appears to have been taken some time ago. This hotel manager (and cafeteria confidant) must be an incredible Curia reformer.

    • I read the article and did not know whether to laugh or cry. Before we know, the “wolves” will be the ones who outed Ricca.

      This is modern Catholic journalism for you.

      Btw, I have just published another blog post which deals with the matter.


  16. Come on Mundator, Give Pope Francis a chance. Remember Blessed Pope John Paul was a very good friend of the founder of the Legion of Christ too and look at all the scandal involving Fr Marcial Maciel. Infinitely more ‘proof’ exists against Fr Marcial Maciel, and was admitted to by the Legion than is there against Bishop Ricca. If you ask me just another journalist trying to sell copy! And what if Pope Francis ‘had lunch often with Bishop Ricca’ what does that prove! As a Christian and Pope Francis is an exemplary example one ought to presume everyone as being ‘good’ and ‘Christ like’ unless the contrary is proven to be the case! To the purê of heart all things are purê!


    • UPDATE: I get the horrible suspicion the entire comment from you might have been ironic.

      If this is the case, apologies for the “German moment”…

      Erm, er…


      I have not taken one single chance away from Bishop Francis. When he starts behaving differently, I will obviously reflect this.

      You are right Pope JP II was blind to the filth. You must be an attentive reader of my comments, because I have just written it myself. But as I have made abundantly clear, the worst here is Bishop Francis’ stubborn refusal to remedy to the mistake, even after ample warning.

      The comment of “another journalist try to sell a copy” is not intelligent. The accusations are extremely grave, and L’Espresso is – take my word on this – extremely unlikely to have made a blunder of such proportion. You must look at reality as it is instead of taking refuge in fantasies. The reality is that a big editorial group, which may be sued for millions, has decided to launch an entire aircraft carrier against Monsignor Ricca.

      The lunch remark says again something I should not need to explain: to pick someone for a position like that because one has lunch with them shows a tragic lack of judgment even before every consideration about Ricca’s other problems. Again, I am astonished I have to waste my time explaining the blatantly obvious.

      Pope Francis is not an exemplary Christian by any standard of the word. From the Pinocchio Mass to washing feet to women and infidels on Maundy Thursday; from his neglect for canon law to the suggestion that the nuns ignore the warnings of the CDF; from the suggestion that atheists go to heaven if they “do good” to the veiled sarcasm against people who pray rosaries for him, he has abundantly showed he is much better at giving scandal than at being an “exemplary Christian”. Find me another Pope of the modern age who has caused such a mess in such a hort time, or please avoid wasting my time.

      As to your “presumptions”, there is avoiding rash judgment and there is the blindness of not wanting to see. I try to avoid the first, but I refuse to practice the second. You obviously disagree.

      As to the omnia munda mundis argument, I ask you to also apply it to me.


  17. An interesting article recently appeared in the Vatican Insider. Perhaps a copy should be sent to Williamson and Company.

    “Speaking to “Vatican Insider”, U.S. reporter Michael Winters said “the Pope wants to get rid of groups that cause division in the Church. Gays are often the most conservative”.

    Could it be the ‘kettle calling the pot black’ ! LOL’s


    • It is obviously stupid (and very “gay”) to say that homos are “conservative”; but I have not seen any evidence Bishop Francis really wants to tackle the problem.

      His lunch buddy is still at his place even after a worldwide read magazine accuses him of sodomy.

      What does this tell us about Bishop Francis’ will to fight the homo mafia within the Vatican?

      And by the by, what has happened of the famous super secret dossier given to Pope Benedict in December?


  18. Francis is only biting his time .He is the False Prophet of the bible and will in time change the whole Vatican into a New Age City.He himself is a new age Pope .He is the best actor of all and is playing a smart role.Wait and see.
    he will help the ant-Christ to sit in the chair of Peter and that is also the reason why he refuses to sit on it himself.

    • Well I am glad I am more optimistic than that…

      Woefully inadequate, I am sure. Stubborn and fake “humble”, granted. But I wouldn’t go further than that.


  19. I thoroughly enjoyed Mundabor. Giving Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. Something did irk me about him.and when I irk, Im usually right. His innaugeration Mass. Vice President Joe Biden arrived. I held my breath, thinking that Pope Francis was going to send him home, because of his stand on Abortion. No, he didnt. He sat down and let somebody else give him communion. That let the wind out of my sail. Irk Irk….

  20. Mundabor, I think you’ll be interested in these. First:

    Then the responses from an obvious friend of the likes of Ricca:


    • The second video does not work for some reason, but I commend the first.

      Is it you in the video?

      Los Angeles Cathedral is Bergoglio’s Papacy set in stone.


  21. Mundabor,

    The following will take you to the videos on Youtube, mentioned above, by a definite friend of Ricca and the lavender mafia:


  22. Most informed people know that the late Father Andrew Greeley outed the “lavender mafia” and reported on organized rings of pedophile priests as early as 1986. That is over 25 years ago.
    So much for the press “smelling blood.” Church Militant TV had a recent clip on the link between gays and the media, and why certain things are never reported. It appeared at the Remnant.
    The propaganda machine has a big conflict: everything referring to “gays” must be reported in a positive manner. All Catholic Priest articles must refer to pedophilia. No connection must be made between the fact that most American Catholic priests are gay, and the overwhelming majority of abuse was perpetrated by gay priests on pubescent males. That would undermine the first goal.
    I wouldn’t count on any consequences resulting from talk about a “gay lobby,” or the behavior of any single gay priest or bishop. How many abusing priests or bishops have actually been disciplined? Nothing so far in 25 years, I doubt anyone is worried.

    • The press isn’t one person, though, and the revelations on Ricca do show that the Press is smelling blood.

      Of course, neither of us can foresee the future; but the huge echo concerning Ricca shows “sodomy sells”. At least sodomy in a priest.


%d bloggers like this: