The Bishop Deposed in Paraguay. the Defense Speaks

By Sandro Magister
Chiesa
October 2, 2014

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350884?eng=y


It is rare for a pope to depose a bishop. It is even more outlandish for a Jesuit pope to kick out a bishop of Opus Dei.

And yet this is what has happened in Ciudad del Este, the diocese of Paraguay overlooking Iguazu Falls on the border with Brazil and Argentina, in the territory that from three to four centuries ago was civilized and Christianized by the Jesuit missionaries of the “Reductions.”

Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, the bishop whom pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio has deposed, had been in Rome for a few days when on September 25 he received the news that he had been removed.

He was told over the telephone by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the congregation for bishops, at the very same time as the nuncio was making it public in Paraguay, shortly before the official Vatican statement.

In a note accompanying the statement, the press office of the Holy See attributed the removal of Livieres to the results of the apostolic visitation conducted in Ciudad del Este during the preceding months.

Pope Francis had sent as the visitor a cardinal in his trust, the Spaniard Santos Abril y Castello, nuncio in Argentina from 2000 to 2003 and today the president of the cardinalate commission of oversight for the IOR.

Abril y Castello is said to have found in the behavior of Bishop Livieres - according to the Vatican note - a threat to “the unity of the Church of Ciudad del Este and to the episcopal communion in Paraguay.”

Not a line, however, of the incriminating file compiled by the apostolic visitor was shown to the deposed bishop. And although he was already in Rome, he was not allowed to meet with Pope Francis.

Livieres had been asked repeatedly to resign. But he didn’t bend. Removed from authority, he has accepted this decision in obedience and has encouraged his faithful to do the same, although he judges it “without foundation and arbitrary,” the fruit of “ideological persecution,” as he explained in a letter to Cardinal Ouellet written in a flurry on the very day of his removal:

> "Eminencia Reverendisima…"

This absence of clarity on the real reasons for the removal of Livieres has also induced the media all over the world to associate it with the sensational arrest two days earlier at the Vatican, “at the express behest of the pope,” of the former nuncio Jozef Wesolowski. Just as for him the charge was one of serious sexual abuse against minors, so also for Livieres the fault emphasized by the media was that of having “covered up” similar wrongdoing by one of his priests whom he welcomed into his diocese and promoted as his vicar.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, Interviewed by the “New York Times,” denied that this was “the central problem” behind the removal of Livieres. but in the media this has remained the main explanation of the sanction inflicted by Pope Francis on the bishop of Ciudad del Este.

All that remains is to hear his side, to get the most balanced picture possible of what happened.

What follows is Bishop Livieres’ version of events, published on the website of the diocese of Ciudad del Este shortly before his removal.

In civil justice, every guilty verdict is accompanied by the publication of its justification.

In the case of Ciudad del Este, the sentence has come down but the justification hasn’t. In the anticipation of a weighing of both sides, here is the startling self-defense of the condemned.

__________

IN DEFENSE OF THE TRUTH. EXPLANATORY COMPENDIUM OF THE APOSTOLIC VISIT

Officially, the apostolic nuncio in Paraguay, in a public conference of 2 July 2014, announced that the Diocese of Ciudad del Este would receive an imminent apostolic visitation "in order to offer an assistance for the good of that particular Church".

Informally, the mass media said it was about a true "intervention in the diocese" i.e. of a process that would end up either with the resignation or with the deposition of our bishop, and would stop the work which has been going on.

We present now an explicative summary that frames the milestone of this juncture with its facts and supporting documents. We do it in the plain and direct style of God's people, and with the transparency and honesty to which Bishop Rogelio accustoms us.

1. LUGO AND LIVIERES

The most famous Paraguayan bishop, with no doubt, is the "father-bishop" Fernando Lugo, the republic's ex-president. He took on the presidency in August of 2008, after being dispensed of obligations as a consecrated bishop and reduced to the lay state.

He was deposed in 2012, after a political judgment in the congress.

Lugo and the minuscule but intelligent left of the country would have never reached power and overridden the Colorado Party without their alliance with the strongest minority of the country, the Liberal Party, and the massive support (expressed or tacit) of the hierarchical Church. For decades in Paraguay there has been a systematic effort to select as bishops only candidates opposed to the Colorado Party and steeped in the ideology of liberation theology.

Like every rule, it had its exception: Bishop Livieres raised his voice (very publicly) to disagree with Lugo's candidacy, becoming in this way the only defender of the Vatican’s stance. The criticisms that he pointed out were of two types. On the one hand, he disagreed with the fundamentalist confusion between religion and politics that was responsible for Lugo and many other clergy withdrawing from their evangelical commitments to get involved in politics. On the other hand, he pointed out the moral and administrative irresponsibility of the candidates, covered up by many ecclesiastics and religious, even though “everybody knew.”

2. "ECCLESIAL COMMUNION"

The controversy surrounding Lugo was not the first time that Bishop Livieres had shaken up the bishops’ conference. The accusation of “having broken ecclesial communion" began even before he set foot in the diocese, before he could "make a mess of it." Indeed, the episcopal conference wrote to St. John Paul II expressing its disagreement with the appointment of a new brother who had not even been on the shortlist of candidates, having been "imposed" by Rome. Some secular leaders echoed these protests as well. The Holy See did not give up. And then, against all wind and the tide, like the boat of the Gospel, it supported the new bishop in his position.

But the episcopal conference wasn’t really so objectionable. Bishop Livieres of Opus Dei certainly represented an orientation different from the dominant ecclesial model. In all truth, it must be recognized that he never intended to impose his pastoral guidelines on other bishops. He did not have an attitude of opposition but of enriching complementarity in the Church. (Very often, the authentic “ecclesial communion” of union in faith and love is mistaken for “imposed uniformity”.)

A particularly difficult moment for episcopal coexistence came with the leak of a confidential and personal letter that Bishop Rogelio delivered into the hands of Pope Benedict XVI, at the request of His Holiness during his visit "ad limina". As happened some time later with the "Vatileaks", the letter was leaked to the press from the Vatican itself (some agents who sought to harm the Pope emeritus?). The letter insisted on the need, if there was really the desire to overcome the crisis in the Church, to elect future bishops from among the best candidates from the point of view of the life of faith and liturgical aptitude, wisdom and governance; and not from among those "accepted by all" to maintain the status quo.

The bishop of Ciudad del Este, a worthy son of his father exiled six times by the military government of Stroessner, proved to be a tireless fighter for religious freedom and that of his followers.

3. THE RELIGIOUS

Disagreements were also raised in the Conference of Religious of Paraguay. These were not due to a misunderstanding about the religious life, which was clearly fostered by Bishop Rogelio in his diocese, but rather to a deep crisis of discipline and identity suffered by many communities, especially those of European origin.

Many religious identified on the national level with Lugo’s policies. Also, when there were cases of acute social crises, like the slaughter in Curuguaty in this diocese, which precipitated the political fall of the former bishop, they issued statements and took positions with a certain dissonance with the faith. Quoting canon law Livieres forbade, on pain of sanctions, the political or ideological instrumentalization of social pastoral practice. He also objected to the false "indigenous pastoral approach” which, in contrast with the missionary saints of centuries, wants to deny natives their right to hear the Good News of the Gospel.

The numerous priests, seminarians, religious and laymen whom the bishop had mobilized during natural disasters and social crises had worked energetically, but always strictly keeping to a humanitarian and spiritual stance. The basic principle is simple: "to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's."

4. THE CLERGY

Several of the 16 diocesan priests whom Bishop Livieres found at his arrival had reservations about the new pastoral guidelines and the renewal of Church discipline. The misunderstanding came to the point that, with the support of some bishops, 10 of these priests wrote to Pope Benedict XVI asking for an "intervention". A few months later, some 150 priests from the rest of the country, mostly religious, did the same. It was the Archbishop of Asuncion, a fine and distinguished opponent of Bishop Rogelio, who took the protest to Rome. The pope, however, did not respond and instead suggested to Bishop Livieres that it was necessary to "educate a new clergy." The proposal was wise advise: the vast majority of the now young and numerous diocesan clergy (just over 70), see the bishop as their father and shepherd and share his pastoral outlook.

As for the local laymen, only a small group, but vociferous and sustained from outside the diocese, maintained a critical attitude, especially a certain Javier Miranda, of whom we will speak at the end. Apart from a few exceptions, the laymen and leaders of both approved national or international movements and the many which were recognized, promoted, and guided by Bishop Rogelio during his ministry, all supported and support their bishop, who gave them so much freedom and range of action to "shake things up" and advance with the evangelization and continental mission of Aparecida.

5. NEW SEMINARIES FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM

When on October 3, 2004 Bishop Livieres took over as bishop of Ciudad del Este, he soon discovered the biggest challenge awaiting him: he had just over 70 priests (including religious and diocesan) to attend spiritually ta population of around 1,000,000 souls, i.e., one shepherd to more than 10,000 sheep. The future outlook was even worse, with just a dozen seminarians formed at the National Seminary of Asuncion.

No need explain the seriousness of the situation for those who recognize with "theocentric" humility that the Church founded by Jesus 'lives by the Eucharist', meaning by those sacraments in which He "is with us every day, until end of the world " and whose faithful administration has been entrusted to the priests.

With no funding or feasibility studies, the bishop immediately made the strategic decision to take as the first priority of his ministry that which was assigned to him by the board for bishops and the Code of Canon Law: he approved the opening of his own diocesan seminary.

It was soon clear why the owner of the vineyard had chosen Father Rogelio as bishop: He had attracted and cultivated many vocations for Opus Dei. He did the same thing in his diocese, where the pastoral care of vocations is not delegated. Every Sunday, with the cooperation of a lively group of trainers, the bishop receives in his own house all those interested in considering a priestly vocation. A bit of sport, a formation chat, spiritual direction and confession, adoration and the prayer of the Rosary, a gathering with questions "point blank," and a welcome snack bring the magical result of 130 young men interested each year, from among whom an average of between 30 and 40 are admitted. The secret to this success, besides the direct and personal interest of the bishop, is the enthusiasm with which these candidates and seminarians go fishing for vocations among their friends, relatives, and acquaintances (viral marketing...).

San Jose Major Seminary has been positively assessed by the Holy See in many letters, and has ordained more than 60 priests after 10 years. But Bishop Rogelio, concerned about improving the quality of his catches and about the crisis of the general education system, created in 2012 the San Andres Minor Seminary. At the same time, seeking a more radical application of the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar documents on priestly formation, he started the San Ireneo de Lyon institute of priestly formation. Currently this house of formation functions only in its preparatory phase based on teaching of the classical liberal arts and seminar-class discussion of the great books of Western culture.

6. THE STUMBLING BLOCK

The decision to form his own seminarians as a father raises his children was a surprise for the Church of Paraguay. The bishops wanted to have nothing to do with this outlandish idea, because it would break (and broke) the monolithic system of priestly formation (both diocesan and religious) that had been agreed with the creation of the national seminary and its theology institute last century.

It was in vain that the Holy See reminded them of the law and the desirability of each bishop having his own seminary when possible. "Why a new seminary, if there has always been one?" say those who still does not seem to have reflected on guideline #33 of Evangelii Gaudium: “ abandon the complacent attitude that says: ‘We have always done it this way.’”

7. FATHER CARLOS URRUTIGOITY

A separate chapter in this history of opposition to our bishop Livieres and to the new seminary in Ciudad del Este is, without a doubt, the attack against Father Carlos Urrutigoity. He arrived in the diocese in 2005 together with other priests and laymen who would later establish the Priestly Communities of Saint John. Father Urrutigoity came to the diocese recommended by some cardinals with roles in the Vatican (one of whom was elected the successor of Peter a few days later). Father Carlos was carrying on his back the burden of a long and harsh defamation campaign in the U.S. full of calumnies, about which Bishop Livieres wrote a detailed letter clarifying matters.

From the beginning, Father Carlos proved to be a close collaborator of the bishop, and due to this his case was used as a battle cry to question everything the bishop achieved pastorally in the diocese, especially concerning the formation of a new clergy. This was particularly because Father Carlos was intimately involved in setting up the new seminary. He later left this activity to help with the diocesan curia.

The bishop's continual refutations notwithstanding, a repetitive and self-referential press continued to quote itself again and again, on matters of alleged “accusations of pedophilia” which, in reality, never existed. These defamation campaigns have been generally headed in Paraguay by the same newspaper that, prior to this time, had forced the resignation of another bishop with the surname Livieres. (The courts of justice in that case showed as well the falsity of the accusations, all made by paid witnesses involved in a political maneuver to force the resignation of the bishop). At the same time, the press has been fueled by the same Paraguayan ecclesiastical opponents already mentioned above, who have influential contacts in the U.S. and Rome, with whom they share the same lobbies and political tendencies.

These sources came up with all sorts of things, except, of course, proofs of pedophilia. This was due to the simple fact that there were no accusations from any victims at all. All that could be repeated was a rehashed series of calumnies made by interested third parties. Consequently, there was no criminal process, nor any condemnatory judgments in any court of law whatsoever of any country, nor of the Holy See. To top it all off, Father Carlos' heterosexuality was confirmed professionally by two independent psychological evaluations, one of which was conducted in the U.S. and the other in Canada. These evaluations discarded any possibility of psychopathies or personality disorders.

Neither was it true that new accusations came up over time (always without any proof). All accusations made can be reduced to a stubborn and evil repetition of those invented years ago, not by alleged victims, but by two ideological persecutors of Father Carlos. These acted separately from their respective countries, fueling different campaigns at different times: one sustained a “cloister” campaign and the other an internet and mass media campaign. The first persecutor was a “sedevacantist” Argentine priest who is of the opinion that no pope since John XXIII has been legitimately a pope, and who, in addition, had himself “consecrated as a bishop” outside of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. The second detractor is an American, a disgruntled ex-employee of the religious community founded by Father Carlos. He was disgruntled because he was removed from an educational project by Bishop Timlin of the diocese of Scranton, after the employee tried to illegally take over the project for his own purposes.

The sole accusation presented against Father Urrutigoity before the criminal courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the U.S. (under the name of an adult by the name of Michael Prorock) was dismissed in limine (from the beginning) by two independent investigations by two state district attorneys in two separate counties of the State of Pennsylvania.

From the above two things appear as strikingly clear: First, that the accusations against Father Carlos Urrutigoity did not imply cases of pedophilia, since in the year 2000, the year of the alleged acts, the accuser was an adult; and second, that due to the district attorneys' dismissal of any charges against Father Carlos, there was never a criminal indictment in the U.S. With respect to the Church's canonical tribunals, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith denied any possibilities of starting a criminal process against Father Carlos for the same reason: there were no existing accusations of pedophilia.

This failure before the criminal courts seriously damaged the detractors' lawyers' case before the civil courts, diminishing any chances to obtain a judgment granting them a large monetary compensation, as is usual in American courts. These detractors began a civil case against the Society of Saint John, founded by Father Carlos, but in it they included for good measure and to assure deep pockets, the bishop of Scranton, the Diocese of Scranton, the Fraternity of Saint Peter, and the Academy of Saint Gregory.

To those not familiar with the ins and outs of legal cases in the U.S., it should be noted that in that country one may initiate at the same time and for the same cause a case before the criminal as well as the civil courts. Success in civil court means large monetary judgments to be paid by the defendant. Such success is substantially diminished where the criminal courts dismiss the complaints as without merit to be judged criminally. Yet, in the United States, it is still worth pursuing a civil case, even if in the criminal courts the parties have not reached the stage of trial due to lack of relevant facts or proofs. There, the possibilities to obtain monetary damages in a civil trial remain high. The cost of defending oneself and going to civil trial is so high that many times complainants continue the case to force a large monetary settlement. On average, a diocese may spend over US $2,000,000 in attorneys and costs to defend a case all the way to the end. It remains typical in the system that parties, in order to avoid these large defense costs, reach an early monetary settlement with the judge's approval.

The Society of Saint John refused, on principle, to negotiate a settlement. Yet, it was forced to join as a party to a settlement agreement entered into by Bishop Martino, the new bishop of the diocese of Scranton, for a total of US $450,000. Of that amount the Society of Saint John had to contribute only US $55,000, an insignificant amount considering the usual amounts paid in these types of cases. This is explained by the fact that the accusing attorneys lacked any minimally solid proofs against the Society in order to demand any more from them, or to refuse a settlement and try to go to trial in civil court.

The Society of Saint John imposed as a condition to sign the settlement agreement that it be stated in writing that the accused were innocent of all charges and the accuser, for his own part, would renounce any subsequent campaign of accusations and any other civil action.

It seems that it holds true everywhere that “money talks,” without any concern about deceiving the public or discrediting innocent people. Coming back to our actors of Ciudad del Este, on the 23rd of this month of July, 2014, in case 2014-6130 before the Juzgado Penal de Garantias No. 6 (Criminal Court No. 6) of the department of Alto Parana, the district attorney in charge, Ms. Maria Graciela Vera Colman, requested the total and complete dismissal and filing away for lack of any proofs, of the accusations “filed” before such a court by a radio station in Asuncion, Paraguay, against Father Urrutigoity, by telephone, of all means! The accusations were the old “alleged sexual abuse of children, not mentioning any names of victims... on top of not identifying... address and/or date or place in which such deeds allegedly occurred.” All accusations began from the diatribes made – and recorded – on a radio program of Radio Union from Asuncion, by the well-known serial accuser Javier Miranda, who, when cited by the district attorney to appear in court to give his “sworn declaration,” never appeared but instead valiantly disappeared stage left, showing his undeniable acting ability.

Being a shepherd and not a mercenary who flees from the wolves, Bishop Livieres always remained adamant in defending the innocent. In the case of Father Carlos, Bishop Livieres did the same even against those who, while recognizing the justice of the case, still found it imprudent to receive Father Carlos in the diocese and then promote him to various positions, arguing that such actions may compromise the bishop’s own image and his “ecclesiastical career”. However, the bishop judged it more appropriate and realistic to take advantage of the concrete human resources that Providence had placed in his hands.

Despite the occasional media uproar and clerical protest, the Vatican respected the decision of the bishop. After a prudent waiting time and accumulation of experience in the new diocese, the Vatican authorized through the apostolic nuncio, and with the consent of the excardinating bishop, the incardination of Father Carlos in Ciudad del Este. That same year, the Vatican issued the laudatory letter consenting to the elevation of the Priestly Communities of San Juan as a Society of Apostolic Life. Meanwhile, seminarians, priests, religious and laity of the diocese in their vast majority supported and continue to support the bishop and Father Carlos because they are witnesses to their ministry in the diocese and to their human qualities and moral honesty. These supporting statements are not assumed. They are clearly manifested in written and signed statements available for anyone who wants to see. And when it came time to appoint a new vicar general for the diocese, the priests and lay leaders consulted almost unanimously proposed Father Carlos as the candidate of their choice.

It should finally be noted that when Bishop Livieres faced real corruption or violations of priestly celibacy in any form, he did not hesitate to proceed according to canon law, even under great pressure, and to proportionally and medicinally punish the guilty.

8. ARCHBISHOP PASTOR CUQUEJO

The Archbishop of Asuncion joined in with a new wave of public attacks against Father Carlos, by saying before the press that his case was not clear and that he could, with the power of a metropolitan archbishop, ask the new administration in Rome to reopen the investigation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith closed in limine under Benedict XVI because of the absence of accusations by minors.

Indignant, Bishop Livieres answered him on the grounds on which he had spoken out as archbishop. He did this because the repeated accusations were openly discredited and because it went against all justice to request the reopening of an investigation having no new accusations or new elements of judgment. The stone thrown by Archbishop Cuquejo was aimed to cast doubt not only upon Bishop Livieres' uprightness, but even upon the Holy See itself.

In no uncertain terms, though perhaps with some excess, the bishop pointed out to the archbishop the inconsistency of bringin up a scandal and calling for public investigations when that same archbishop had been not only accused but also brought to trial for homosexual activity, and not by third parties but by those directly involved.

9. NEW COMMUNITIES

Just as parents with more than two children are often criticized, the number of priestly vocations and new local lay and religious charisms are being questioned, posing a false opposition between quantity and quality. Incredulously, some wonder if God may bless a diocese so generously, or if the multiplication is rather the result of neglect and statistics.

The tree is judged by its fruits. The people’s judgment of their new pastors is very positive and they are delighted with the varied services that are provided by the religious communities and lay movements. Clearly, one can always do more and better. The apostolic visitation will certainly provide suggestions and corrections that can help move things along even further.

But it is undeniable that Ciudad del Este, until recently known for smuggling and other trafficking, has increasingly become a center of spiritual vitality, religion and culture recognized in the country. It is difficult to walk the streets of the city without observing young people in cassocks and religious habits. Every weekend, there are about 2,000 people who leave their peripheries and human poverty to participate in retreats of conversion and formation, organized mostly by the laity accompanied by their chaplains. In addition there are many courses of formation for leaders on the Bible, liturgy, and catechesis with many attendees.

10. FINANCIAL ISSUES

We now turn to the allegations relating to finance. There are two positions in this area: the misuse of the donations given by Itaipu and the depletion of the property holdings of the diocese.

Itaipu donated a significant amount of money (about $ 300,000) that the bishop earmarked entirely to support the seminary. He was accused by Mr. Javier Miranda of embezzlement and fraud against the poor and needy in the region. Bishop Rogelio justified his decision by pointing out that future priests would be the most effective agents of social change and, therefore, it was the best way to serve the poor in the long run. The courts of Paraguay judged in favor of Bishop Rogelio at all levels, including the supreme court, acknowledging the reasons for his actions and verifying that every penny had been spent on meeting the needs of the Church, without deviations to individual pockets.

Always under the urgency of getting the funds to pay for the education of nearly 200 seminarians and for the development of an increasingly active and varied pastoral plan, in order to capitalize his diocese spiritually the bishop, without any funds available due to its very recent creation, proceeded to sell some properties that were not being used for any pastoral or financial purpose. So had his predecessors, even without having to maintain a seminary. Despite this, Mr. Miranda denounced it as a fraudulent and irresponsible maneuver.

In any case, in order to find a definitive solution to this financial uncertainty the bishop, following the recommendation he had received from the apostolic nuncio upon taking office, commissioned qualified laymen to study and implement projects that can produce income in the future so as to to cover at least 75% of the estimated operating costs.

11. JAVIER MIRANDA

The tragicomic note of this saga belongs to Javier Miranda, a political agitator not familiar with the rigor of truth. The self-proclaimed ‘President of the Laity of the Alto Parana.’ although followed by no lay movement, he has been stubbornly and contradictorily accusing Bishop Rogelio and his collaborators of the most varied crimes, arriving in his delirium to say to the press that he had verified evidence that the bishop had contracted at a casino in Uruguay a debt for millions of dollars (sic).

Although discredited by the facts – and even by the fallible human courts – he still remains a useful puppet of certain leftist groups and the permanent ecclesiastical opponents. Yet, with insignificant success and popular support.

12. LET'S NOT REPEAT HISTORY

The growth and strength of the People of God in Paraguay was cruelly maimed as a result of the unfair trial and suppression of the Jesuits missionaries in the late eighteenth century. They were also accused by questionable ecclesiastics in alliance with powerful lobbies and politicians.

Those who are betting that history is being repeated in our diocese may be surprised to discover that this time the bishop of Rome is an heir of those slandered and suppressed Jesuits, ready to write the story a new way.

__________

The same text in the original language on the website of the diocese of Ciudad del Este, together with, chapter by chapter, links to the relative documentation:

> Resumen explicativo…

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

__________

For more news and commentary, see the blog that Sandro Magister maintains, available only in Italian: