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

Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
I don’t find conspiracy theory to be a useful term. Conspiracies happen all the time. In the US plenty of people are in prison for them. In fact conspiracies seem to be almost the norm.
Click to expand...
FWIW it’s the term used by John Allen in his op-ed piece in Crux.
 
I did read it. There is not a whole lot to go on and what I find strange is I can’t find that story anywhere else. Maybe it is out there, I just coudn’t find it, at least at credible Catholic websites.

The disclaimer I added in my previous post is what I found at the bottom of the Deacon’s blog post.

Not knowing who this German report is or where it was said, it remains dubious to me.

I did read though that Archbishop Georg Gänswein also works for Pope Francis.
 
Die Tagespost, which the Slate article links to, is a German language, Catholic newspaper/news site.
How reliable it is I don’t know. I did a quick survey and it didn’t seem too secular.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
I did read it. There is not a whole lot to go on and what I find strange is I can’t find that story anywhere else. Maybe it is out there, I just coudn’t find it, at least at credible Catholic websites.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Personally, I have no reason to disbelieve this article. The claim made in the National Catholic Register that Ratzinger remembered sanctions but not the specifics was a bit odd in how it was presented, so I find this new information credible.

This would be a case of poor journalism on the part of NCR, however, and doesn’t undercut Vigano’s letter in any way. He didn’t make the claim, NCR did.
 
exnihilo said:
You would think so. But the Church is a huge institution. I don’t know how much a pontiff gets into details. That seems to be part of the problem.

Also Benedict is pretty old. At that age certain types of memories can be really faint.
Click to expand...
I would expect that the common sense practice would be for Benedict to clear everything he says in public with the office of Francis beforehand.
 
OraLabora said:
Indeed. I did read the letter, and a lot of it read like gossip and innuendo and a “settling of accounts”.
Click to expand...
There was something off with the style. It was difficult to believe that a Nuncio could write something like that. And that " finale" sounded so staged…

He may have approved of it ,certainly,but he didn t write it himself.

This is the presentation of the Testimony


Translated
https://translate.googleusercontent...700201&usg=ALkJrhj0tJB8seUplu3dfZHi9P-Dj3LXVg

This blog is originally in Italian.
It is the blog of the man who wrote the previous " "presentation " ( while he was at the same time the writer of the Testimony also …)

www.marcotosatti.com

STILUM CURIAE

Una voce libera
www.marcotosatti.com www.marcotosatti.com

And this is what he says in the blog( translated)

www.marcotosatti.com

VIGANÒ. ARTICOLI CHE MI RIGUARDANO, INTERVENGO PER FATTO PERSONALE. CONTRO EQUIVOCI E STRUMENTALIZZAZIONI.

Marco Tosatti Interveniamo per fatto personale. Un amico mi ha segnalato, provvidenzialmente, questo articolo, che riproduciamo. “Sarebbe stato Marco Tosatti, il vaticanista de La verità, a …
www.marcotosatti.com www.marcotosatti.com

Both would be original.sources.
Marco Tosatti explains how he ended writing the Testimony.
Mons. Vignano isn t apparently around to confirm this.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic to OraLabora . . . .
And with nothing to back it up (this non-sense) . . .
Benedict himself doesn’t quite remember what the sanctions were.
Click to expand...
. . . . OraLabora has no idea what “Benedict” remembers or doesn’t remember.
Click to expand...
My apologies on this point of mine.

You were correct (on this point).

I am sure you saw this (and I did not).

From the National Catholic Register . . . .
. . . . Much is being made on social media today about Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s comments in which he said it is “fake news” to suggest that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI confirmed Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony on abuse cover up in the Vatican.

What Archbishop Gänswein said is entirely accurate: Any assertion that the Pope Emeritus had seen the entire testimony, and confirmed it, is untrue.

The Register also never reported this.

What we did report, given by an inside source close to Benedict in July, was that Benedict had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but was unable to remember their precise nature. . . . .
Click to expand...
(bold mine)
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
Anybody who has actually read the letter, with an open mind and at face value, can appreciate its tone and probable motivations.

The tone, innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories in the letter are very revealing.
Click to expand...
I don’t care if his intentions were as black as night, I only care about whether they are true. About that, it is too soon to know, and too soon to form an opinion. The charges are serious and require a serious response. We’ll just have to wait and see where this goes.
 
On Sunday, the initial defense against Vigano’s letter was a flood of reports saying Benidict never sanctioned McCarrick, just look at how he continued public ministry. That has been completely debunked. So now the defense has been solely to attack Vigano’s character and motivation. That’s is not working either, as one respected Bishop after another (in addition to such lay people as George Weigel) is testifying to the man’s integrity. This is the latest:


Based on this, in addition to other details of the letter that have been independently corroborated, one cannot help but draw the conclusion that the letter is likely spot on, in perhaps all aspects except calling for the Pope’s resignation.

As one Bishop said, the letter is a great starting point for the investigation that was called for before the letter ever appeared. An investigation that needs to be done, that I pray will be done in the most transparent fashion, and that is more likely to occur due to Archbishop Vigano’s letter. We should all be thankful to the man for that.
 
I don’t find a bunch of bishops with who knows what motivations and ambitions taking sides to be particularly convincing. I’d prefer to see an actual investigation.
 
This picture is interesting. It is from May, 2012 and is from an event in NYC where then Cardinal McCarrick received an award. Also in the pic with McCarrick: Archbishop Vigano. I am assuming Vigano was enforcing sanctions to prevent McCarrick from getting too many awards. :roll_eyes:

McCarrick in the middle, Vigano on far right.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Here’s what Coakley says in his letter:
While I lack any personal knowledge or experience of the details contained in his “testimony,” I have the deepest respect for Archbishop Viganó and his personal integrity. His claims, yet to be investigated or substantiated, confirm the urgency of a thorough investigation of Archbishop McCarrick’s advancement through the ecclesiastical ranks given his history of alleged abuse, involving seminarians and young people. I lend my voice and support to that of Cardinal DiNardo, President of the USCCB, and so many of my brother bishops in asking for such an investigation.
Click to expand...
It basically says Coakley doesn’t have a clue and is joining DiNardo in asking for an investigation. It’s non-committal, obviously because the bishop does not know anything about this or how it will come out until an investigation is done. How this stuff is getting spun as support of Vigano is beyond me.
 
McCarrick was sanctioned so much that Archbishop Vigano, serving in the capacity of nuncio for Pope Benedict XVI, posed for a group pic with him after McCarrick received an award in May 2012.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

below: article about the event which mentions both then Cardinal McCarrick and Archbishop Vigano, who apparently decided not to enforce any super top double secret sanctions on McCarrick that night:

www.cny.org

Recalling ‘Pagan Babies’ and the Sense of Mission They Inspired - Catholic New York

They were called “pagan babies,” certainly not the most sensitive appellation and one that would never be used today. When Father Andrew Small, O.M.I., asked who remembered them at the inaugural World Mission Dinner May 2 at the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan, a few hands went up, mostly belonging to...
www.cny.org www.cny.org
 
Last edited:
Gee, if Cardinal McCarrick was under sanctions from Pope Benedict, you’d think Archbishop Vigano would have objected to this, or at least to participating in it. 🤔
 
Last edited:
You would think he wouldn’t pose for a group picture with him either. Or maybe the sanctions were so secret he would have blown the cover by trying to enforce them!
 
angel12 said:
Gee, if Cardinal McCarrick was under sanctions from Pope Benedict, you’d think Archbishop Vigano would have objected to this, or at least to participating in it. 🤔
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The event didn’t involve getting up close and personal with seminarians, and wasn’t a public meeting. Vigano never said that the sanctions applied to such events at any rate.

What’s more, we already have confirmation from the Diocese of Washington that events that were covered by the suppossed sanctions were indeed cancelled by Bishop Wuerl at the request of the Nuncio, so there certainly was enforcement.
 
Last edited:
According to Vigano, the sanctions imposed by Benedict XVI were similar to the ones imposed by Pope Francis. Obviously, this is a ridiculous claim based on all the evidence that has come out.

Francis stripped him of his title, and very publicly imposed strict penance on him, forbidding him from acting in public. Whatever censure placed on him before that were obviously not nearly as strict, because he was still a Cardinal, they were not enforced, and nobody seems to have known about them other than Vigano.

Also: I don’t think any serious accusation that McCarrick abused a minor was made until 2018.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top