Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Ravasi's vice-president in deep trouble

The Pontifical Council for Culture, headed by Cardinal Ravasi since 2007, has had its own vice-presidential figure (called "Delegate") since 2011: Ravasi managed to have this new position created, and who was named to the spot established especially for him was Bishop Carlos Azevedo, former auxiliary of Lisbon, Portugal.

And just today Portuguese weekly Visão published an exposé that makes it quite confusing to understand why Azevedo was called to Rome to be the second man in Ravasi's Council. From La Stampa's Vatican Insider - notice that not even the local episcopal conference is willing to actually stand up in defense of Ravasi's VP:

Portuguese magazine “Visão” has reported that complaints have allegedly been made against Bishop Azevedo, a delegate of the Pontifical Council for Culture, about sexual abuse committed in the 80's

The Catholic hierarchy is in the thick of a new sex abuse storm and this time the Roman Curia's in the eye of it. Portuguese bishop Carlo Azevedo, 59, previously Auxiliary Bishop of Lisbon who coordinated the Pope's visit in 2010, he is now a delegate of the Pontifical Council of Culture and is being accused of allegedly molesting a seminari[an]. Portuguese magazine Visão reported the news, dedicating its front page to the report filed against the bishop in 2010 at the Apostolic Nunciature in Lisbon.

According to the print edition of the magazine on news stands today, the abuse was committed during the 80's. A priest who is currently in charge of coordinating hospital chaplains reported Azevedo three years ago. Visão magazine writes that the case was looked into and the Catholic hierarchy collaborated in this, but the outcome is as yet unknown.

In November 2011, the bishop who is believed could be the next successor to Lisbon's patriarch, Cardinal José Policarpo, left Portugal and was nominated delegate of the Pontifical Council for Culture, a role which was not part of the Curia dicastery system but was a role created ad hoc, especially for the occasion, by Vatican leaders. It was believed the bishop may have been transferred to Rome because he did not see eye to eye with Patriarch Policarpo.

Bishop Azevedo strongly denies all accusations against him, he denies that he was questioned on the subject by the Nunciature in Lisbon and he also denies any canonical procedures being taken against him on the grounds of his alleged involvement in sex-abuse cases.

The spokesman of the Portuguese Bishops' Conference, Fr. Manuel Morujão, issued a statement a few hours ago recognising that Azevedo “has been accused of indecent behaviour which is inconsistent with the dignity and responsibility of the priesthood.”

The Bishops' Conference has stated it “cannot make judgements on the truth of the accusations.” “All members of the Church are expected to act as examples – the statement reads -. Especially those who have taken a vow to live in priestly celibacy.” The statement ends by assuring the Conference's prayers for the bishop but it does not appear to defend him in any way.

This is yet another event that has come to stir the waters even further in the period ahead of the Conclave and leaves many questions unanswered. Did the Holy See nominate the bishop when the accusations against him had not been brought to light yet?Or was he nominated after the accusations were found to be inconsistent? [Tip:reader]


  1. Benedict Carter9:23 PM

    It's all falling apart completely, isn't it?

    Hermeneutic of homosexuality, anyone?

    May God have mercy on us all and bring us to eternal life.

  2. We have been told so often in recent years that the problem is being more effectively managed but, in all honesty, it is out of control. How can it be otherwise when there is no internal discipline?

  3. benedict carter

    You have it there - homosexuality rules. The church is reaping what it was sowing after The Councils. The darnel and the weeds have choked what was once good. This is liberal modernism - we must never forget this.

  4. Jason C.9:37 PM

    A priest who is currently in charge of coordinating hospital chaplains reported Azevedo three years ago.

    Funny how the best priests always get sent to the hospitals and nursing homes. Kind of a blessing, really--I don't want some namby pamby goon when I'm on my deathbed. God allows the persecutors to feel smug in having banished an orthodox priest, but He knows where His best good men are needed.

  5. Prof. Basto9:37 PM

    Prof. de Mattei's article on Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini's creature, Cardinal Ravasi:

  6. D. Carlos Azevedo is an historian and was once an university professor and vice-dean of the portuguese catholic university.

    Apparently someone wanted to get rid of him before he had the chance to become Patriach of Lisbon. (On this count, many thanks to the people who planted the story).

    The Visão article states that in the Oporto Diocese his "inappropriate behaviour" was not exactly a secret.

    Nevertheless, during the vetting process his proclivities didn't come up and he ended up as a successor to Apostles. D. Carlos Azevedo was the last bishop to be nominated by John Paul II.

    We haven't been very lucky with the bishops that Rome has been sending our way, lately.

    Dear Pope, Nuncio and Congregation for Bishops,

    Our lives are already difficult as it is; we don't need this kind of "distractions".

    We don't ask for much. Could we get heterosexual orthodox bishops from now on?

    Thank you.

  7. Benedict Carter10:12 PM


    Totally agree, and also with your comments on the previous thread.

    The true nature of the Satanic attack on the Church is being unveiled before all our eyes.

    To give him great credit, blogger Mundabor has been aware of, and discussing, this hideous problem for years, and was banned from Damian Thompson's UK "Telegraph" blog for so doing. The only earlier commentator on this that I know of was Fr. Malachi Martin and the journal "Christian Order".

    The militant homosexual cleric is Satan's storm-trooper.

    Let those see who have eyes to see.

  8. This is all historically similar to the time of St. Catherine of Siena. She wrote that you can always tell that there is a need for a reform of the clergy when priests become effeminate. That can be read as a nice rebuke for "French royal court morality."

    Again. None of this is surprising. This just means that the faithful need to be radically faithful to the Church as we work for reform.

  9. Wake up England11:07 PM

    At a time like this what we do absolutely NOT need is loss of nerve at the top. Please Holy Ghost send us a strong new Pope.

  10. Bombshell article on Benedict's resignation.

  11. GQ Rep1:24 AM

    This is the fruit of Vatican II, and the "New Springtime" so praised by a late Pope who is largely to blame but who I won't mention because he still (unfortunatly) is so popular and none of the blame proper to him sticks to him, as it should.

  12. GQ Rep1:25 AM

    That's the end of Ravasi's hopes and dreams to be Pope!! Hooray!!!

  13. GQ Rep said..."This is the fruit of Vatican II, and the "New Springtime" so praised by a late Pope who is largely to blame but who I won't mention because he still (unfortunatly) is so popular and none of the blame proper to him sticks to him, as it should."

    My best guess is that the above does not apply to Pope John Paul I. If that is the case, then that leaves Pope Blessed John XXIII, Pope Venerable Paul VI and Pope Blessed John Paul II.

    By the way, I have found it interesting that as the Church collapsed rapidly from the 1950s (actually, prior to that) to date, we have had a run of Blessed, Venerable and Saint Popes.

    The above includes Pope Venerable Pius XII as despite his efforts, the impending collapse gained tremendous momentum during his reign.

    He was unable to rout the modernists. The same could be said of Pope Saint Pius X.

    Certain folks have denounced the attachment of Venerable to Pope Paul VI and Blessed to Pope John Paul II as they rated each Pope as having produced an "unsuccessful" Pontificate.

    But when the Pontificates of Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Venerable Pius XXII and Blessed John XXIII are examined in light of their unsuccessful attempts to rout the modernists who shipwrecked Holy Mother Church, we are left then with the following:

    As Angelo Cardinal Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, noted: The personal holiness of Pope Blessed John Paul II (or any Pope), and not any historic assessment of his Pontificate, is responsible for the beatification of the Pope Blessed John Paul II.


  14. "This is the fruit of Vatican II, and the "New Springtime" so praised by a late Pope who is largely to blame..."

    How did the late Pope in question facilitate the alleged activity of the man in question?


  15. Anonymous3:18 AM

    It is distressing indeed, and were it not for faith in divine providence, despair-inducing. The percentage of priests who are afflicted with same-sex-attraction, including those who are orthodox, chaste, and even notably holy, must be very much higher than is usually publicly estimated; if someone should say more than half of the presbyterate, I should not rebuke him. This cannot be a good thing. It would not be a good thing even if all these men were "orthodox, chaste, and even notably holy," and they are not. I don't like to dwell on how many may not be so. Pray for these men and the faithful committed to their care. Storm heaven, with Our Lady as our commander.

  16. Benedict Carter4:24 AM



  17. Steve Daly6:17 AM

    If this means that Ravasi is not only currently shielding a bishop credibly accused of sexual abuse but also that he created a position to protect him in the first place, not only can he not be pope but he should be sacked himself.

  18. "Did the Holy See nominate the bishop when the accusations against him had not yet been brought to light, or was he nominated after the accusations were found to be inconsistent?"

    Further, we wonder whether this will end up as one more thing Rome won't be clarifying any time soon.

  19. GQ Rep10:46 AM

    I think that the root of the blame, at least during 10 years of John Paul II's reign lies not so much with JP II, but with Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the radical dissenting liberal who JPII put in place as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, and who pushed through so many liberals in his 10+ year term. Also the man immediatly before him too (I don't remember who that was).

    But there has not been a solidly Catholic Prefect in any other Department other than the CDF(when Ratzinger ran it), since Cardinals Silvio Oddi ran the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, and Giuseppe Casoria ran the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments....Casoria was the only Prefect that I can remember that openly condemned "liturgical dance".

  20. benedict carter

    Indeed, agreed. My parents I owe an immense debt of gratitude as they supported The SSPX at the beginning frequently warning me that the church was sinking into complete depravity and to be prepared for it. It takes time and research with ample prayer to be able to absorb each shocking revelation. Paradoxically, by this time, I am no longer surprised but anticipate worse, even now. We are not at the bottom yet by a long march.
    I was so relieved that The Society did not succumb. hey must not. We need them where they are. Archbishop lefebvre was a marvellous man of God who knew what was taking place. He needs to be read at source once more - not the snaitised and reductionist versions of his writings.

  21. Benedict Carter2:14 PM


    Once again totally agree.

    I am 49 now, and like you am blessed by having holy Catholic parents.

    I was asked here recently how my parents reacted to the Revolution?

    With grief
    With shock
    With incomprehension
    With anger
    With outrage

    and finally

    With DISGUST

    They turned in the early 1970's to heroic priests who said Mass for tiny numbers in dusty old flats and houses, and later to the SSPX. I remember being blessed by Archbishop Lefebvre at the age of ten in London after a Mass said in a cinema.

    I see in my parents a pre-Vatican II wisdom entirely lacking in the younger generation of Catholics.

    The difference lies in their humble acceptance of the invisible world as the true reality of their entire existence.

    This is summed up for me by the nine children they had, in obedience to the laws of the Church, and by my mother, who, whenever she left a church building, turning to face the Tabernacle to which she bowed. making the Sign of the Cross before leaving.

    This made a profound impression on me at the age of four or five.

    The ONLY other people I have seen do that are the Russian Orthodox (I worked in Russia for 13 years).

    The modern Church is an utter disgrace in so many ways that if a Catholic is NOT angry at what these iconoclasts and heretics have done, these Modernist destroyers, I fail to see how that person can truly be on the side of Christ in the great cosmic battle with the devil that characterizes the times in which we live.

  22. The reality is that this sort of funny business has nothing to do with the Council. The nefarious forces were already at work since the mid-to-late 1800s.

    Now, the "Spirit of Vatican II" stuff is united to this larger, older problem. Because of the decades of work that the Holy Father has done we are finally seeing the scum float to the surface. The publication of this sort of Curial decadence is the fruit of the beginning of an authentic reform of the Curia.

    Yeah, it scandalizes the faithful. But, as I like to remind people, this is nothing new in the Church. Christ is faithful even if we mess things up.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!