Article: Why we should be skeptical about the latest accusations against Pope Francis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? It seems to be right up their alley. Anyway, I hope this does not evolve into: lets just paint anyone who wants answers as anti-gay.
 
I’m not that surprised given that Slate is a progressive outlet that has been praising Pope Francis ever since his “Who am I to judge” comments years ago…they have a definite interest in seeing the status quo preserved since they know that there is a good chance that a new Pope might not be as progressive as the current Pope (not that I have any delusions that Pope Francis would ever consider resigning). They also are not going to be friendly towards Archbishop Viagno due to his outspoken stances against gay marriage, abortion, etc.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t get that sense from the article.

It did point out that Francis is doing more firing and other actions than his predecessors (true), and that Vigano has an axe to grind (I read that a few other places too) and timed this for impact.

I guess I expected Slate to be more cynical towards the Pope.

I hope Chaput doesn’t jump into this mud puddle.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself. You realize you just used a secular publisher (“Slate” of all things) to trash a Bishop of the Church predicated on a claim that Pope Francis himself has not even denied !

From your “Slate” article . . . .
Viganò’s specific claim is that Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, punished McCarrick by refusing to allow him certain privileges and that Francis later reversed Benedict’s decision.
Click to expand...
The Pope himself has just spent the last week and a half calling for more open and honest discussion and TRANSPARENCY.

Why are you doing this (posting an article that attacks Bishop Vigano’s integrity)?

Why not let the process play out?
 
So… their source is Massimo Faggioli? The same guy who is criticizing “Civil War Catholics” yet seemed perfectly fine with calling Archbishop Vigano a “terrorist”?

I’m willing to wait and see how the events play out, but as far as this goes – I’ll pass.
 
You . . . On an article attacking Archbishop Vigano . . .
there’s no rule against posting it.
Click to expand...
But I didn’t bring it to your attention due to “rules”.

It is just plain the wrong thing to do.

Remember Pope Francis has NOT DENIED this.
 
Last edited:
Well, we have a difference of opinion on wrong thing to do vs reasonable post to make. Discussion would be pretty boring if we all agreed all the time on everything.
 
It is not “reasonable” to put up an article trashing the reputation a bishop who said something that as far as we still know, is true.

I just got done talking with a priest-friend of mine.

Archbishop Vigano is going to be subject to a LOT MORE reputation besmirching publicly.

We will see an enormous amount of this.

Don’t be a part of it.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the pope’s response was insufficient, but it’s worth noting that Vigano’s letter isn’t as clear as it might seem. He says that Francis lifted the sanctions on McCarrick, yes, but he does not say that Francis was fully aware of what McCarrick had done. That matters a great deal. It doesn’t look like there was a written record of these sanctions, who knows what Francis was told (and by whom).
 
vigano posted 11 pages trashing a Pope,

whats fair game here, are we only to have one side with no criticism
 
Roseeurekacross . . .
vigano posted 11 pages trashing a Pope,

whats fair game
Click to expand...
Did you read the document Roseeurekacross?

You don’t get to besmirch someone as “fair game”!

(What kind of thinking is that??)

Remember. The Pope has NOT DENIED these occurrences.

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume has already corroborated what Archbishop Vigano has said regarding the McCarrick issues.

Just quit attacking someone who is telling the truth (the Archbishop) as far as you know.

It is inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
CNN now reporting, via Crux, that Vigano reportedly destroyed evidence to stop the St. Paul, Minnesota abuse investigation. 🍿
A 2014 memo shows that Vigano himself demanded that evidence be destroyed in an attempt to end an investigation against a former archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, according to CNN Vatican analyst John Allen.
Click to expand...

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...arrick-cover-up-charges-against-pope-francis/
 
Last edited:
Cruciferi said:
He could also not be telling the truth.

We’re free to question his motives and behavior.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I did read the letter, and a lot of it read like gossip and innuendo and a “settling of accounts”. Moreover we don’t know precisely what sanctions Pope Benedict imposed on McCormick, but we do know he showed up in Benedict’s presence, in apparent defiance of the sanctions. You’d think Pope Benedict would have intervened somehow.

Benedict himself doesn’t quite remember what the sanctions were.

None of this would stand up under a good lawyer in any court of a fair justice system.

But then the damage that I’m sure Vigano was trying to do isn’t legal. It was to launch a media storm that would permanently tarnish the Holy Father’s reputation. Even if Vigano himself isn’t squeaky clean, it doesn’t matter. He no longer has career ambitions. He wants Francis’s hide. He may very well have gotten it. Once the media bite into a bone like this one, they won’t let it go.
 
The secular media in USA likes the Pope though. Unless there’s a really huge smoking gun in his closet, they’d like to see him come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top