This was last December.

VATICAN CITY—A little-known Vatican appeals panel established by Pope Francis has sharply reduced penalties meted out to priests convicted of sexual abuse under church law in more than a third of the cases that have come before it, drawing criticism from some bishops who favor a harder line.

The pontiff has promised a policy of zero tolerance against sex abuse, and critics say the decisions of the panel, composed of eight cardinals and bishops, undermine that message. In some instances, the panel has reinstated clerics expelled from the priesthood by other church authorities.

At a June 2017 meeting of top Vatican officials, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston complained about what he considered the panel’s excessive leniency, according to people familiar with the matter. And tensions over the issue have mounted since, those people said.

Now this today:

At the 2017 meeting:

“If this gets out, it will cause a scandal,” Cardinal O’Malley told Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, in effect the pope’s prime minister, and other Vatican officials, according to a person present. No action was taken to address the issue.

Predictably,

The Catholic Church’s handling of the long-running crisis over clerical sex abuse has exposed fissures within its hierarchy. Activists and some church leaders hoped the Vatican would take a tougher stance on abuse under Pope Francis—and thought a meeting next week at a global summit of bishops would make progress toward that goal.

Instead, the opposite has happened, deepening the gap between the Vatican and U.S. church leaders, who have pushed for a more stringent response. No clearer is the rift than in the relationship between Pope Francis and Cardinal O’Malley, a bearded Capuchin friar who likes to be called “Cardinal Sean.”

Now Cardinal Sean is on outside looking in:

The Boston cardinal’s influence has declined to the point where, in November, the pope excluded him from the organizing committee of next week’s summit, which had been Cardinal O’Malley’s idea.

A spokesman for the Vatican declined to comment.

Quite a souring of a once warm relationship:

Cardinal O’Malley “should be nominated for the Nobel Prize for common sense,” Cardinal Bergoglio told a mutual acquaintance in 2010.

That year, the American paid him a visit in Buenos Aires. In a meeting room adorned with portraits of past cardinals, down a hall from Cardinal Bergoglio’s spartan quarters, the two men surveyed church and local politics around Latin America, according to a witness.

Francis once endorsed what he considered O’Malley’s common sense zero-tolerance prescription. No more. It’s a grim situation that has the once-favored Franciscan now ignored. What is Francis thinking of?

more more more at this WSJ article . . .

This is voodoo. In a class with the evil eye or witch’s curse.

These people are on the same page.

“Near unanimity” among cops it’s a no-go.

I can’t recall a large crime story where there was a bigger gap between what the police and media are saying publicly, and what they expressing behind the scenes, than the saga involving the recent alleged hate crime against actor Jussie Smollett. Similarly, there may not be a story where you can tell more by what has not happened, in comparison to what actually has occurred.

Behind the scenes, however, based on conversations I have had with multiple people covering the story, there is a radically different take on what really did happen to Smollett. In short, there is near unanimity among police sources that Smollett’s story is very likely not true. And that even the media outlets still regurgitating the current “party line” don’t really believe it.

Later: The phone information was given to cops, but that’s a no-go so far.

. . . police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said on Monday that Smollett, 36, had not given enough proof that he was talking to [his manager] Brandon Z. Moore when he was jumped on January 29. ‘We continue to investigate but the records are insufficient to corroborate some of the information.

‘We appreciate the cooperation but will be following up for some additional data,’ Guglielmi told DailyMail.com.

What did they give to the cops?

TMZ reports that Smollett gave a redacted, PDF print-out of a bill but police would not confirm that detail on Tuesday morning.

They also would not confirm whether or not they planned to ask the cell phone company for the records they say he is withholding.

It comes a day after Smollett’s representative hit out at the department for revealing that he had not, until yesterday morning, handed over any phone records to support his story.

Later yet: Chi Trib has confirmed it:

Chicago police on Monday confirmed that representatives for “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett had turned over phone records nearly two weeks after he reported being assaulted by two strangers near his Streeterville apartment.

But a spokesman for police Superintendent Eddie Johnson by late evening said that the records “are not sufficient and do not meet the burden of a criminal investigation,” and that police may require more assistance from the actor.

The New York Post’s “Page Six” column first reported that phone records for Smollett and his manager, whom he told authorities he was speaking with during the attack, were turned over to Johnson’s chief of staff on Monday.

Investigators had sought Smollett’s phone records since shortly after he reported the attack Jan. 29 in the 300 block of East North Water Street.

But police described Smollett’s phone records as a heavily redacted document file and his manager’s records as a screenshot of phone calls that provide limited information to investigators. Chief police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said police were “appreciative” of Smollett’s cooperation in providing the records but said detectives will likely need additional data from Smollett to crack the case.

A representative for Smollett wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Whole thing very dramatic, I’d say.

Remember when protesters chanted “Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today”?

It’s what I think of when I see this kind of story, absent the LBJ part.

They are in town to uncover “dirt” on Cardinal Cupich, says his successor in Rapid City SD.

On Feb. 6, Bishop Robert D. Gruss of Rapid City, S.D., ordered a letter “[t]o be read from the pulpit at all Masses in the Diocese of Rapid City during the weekend of Feb. 9-10, 2019.”

An image of the letter can be seen below. In it, Gruss asserts that the mission of Illinois-based Roman Catholic Faithful, which has been working to oust Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, is “evil and guided by the Evil One.” The bishop goes on to praise Cupich as “an effective leader and shepherd, leaving a legacy that will long mark the ministry in our diocese.”

The group responds with challenge to debate Cupich, offering a bill of particulars, including this:

Also of note: In March 2018, Cupich removed Father C. Frank Phillips – founder and former superior of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius – as pastor of the world-renowned St. John Cantius Church, despite a review board’s finding that Phillips did not violate any criminal, civil or canon law after being accused of improper conduct with adult men. The archdiocese never publicly specified the allegations against Phillips, which he vehemently denied. (Source)

I am betting my wife and children that this debate never happens.

About time too. How to be spiritual when getting along without airplane rides and farting cows.

NC Reporter beats other papers to this. Congratulations.