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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Canvas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Vigano actually lists the supposed sanctions imposed by Benedict XVI in the letter. Aside from restrictions on travel, none of them applied to this event.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t the “gotcha” you are making it out to be.
 
Last edited:
WRONG!

From Vigano’s letter:

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then:

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
WRONG!

From Vigano’s letter:

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then:

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which of those sanctions, aside from travel (which could have been up to the discretion of the Nuncio at any rate) is being violated here?
 
I think getting an award at a gala event would probably violate strict censures imposed by the Pope.
 
Do not participate in public meetings, the obligation to dedicate his life to prayer and penance…

I think getting awards from the Pontifical Mission Societies at a gala event where Cardinal Dolan was a speaker kind of implicitly violates a strict censure on activity from the Pope.

According to Vigano:

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis
 
Last edited:
Yes, we have that confirmation and we have the confirmation the McCarrick did move out if the seminary in early 2009. When he moved into a parish rectory, one priest said it was sudden and the rumor was he could no longer be allowed to live at the seminary. These two fact, that he mived and that at least one event was cancelled, along with the Register’s report that in late July Benedict confirmed some level of censored should put this issue to rest.
 
It was a private penalty imposed and it was largely left up to McCarrick to obey. This is not difficult to understand. When then Cardinal Tatzinger first imposed a penalty on Fr Marciel, it was also private and the same thing applied (and Marciel also did not obey)
 
All of us want to see an investigation. But without numerous bishops speaking out in favor, and without the US Bishops conference requesting it, it likely would not happen.

I find their statements of character witness very convincing, considering the numbers. And there is no one I respect more than George Weigel, and his statement is also convincing.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
. I’d prefer to see an actual investigation.
Click to expand...
This illustrates the value of Vigano’s letter, two weeks ago when the Open Letter From Young Catholics was published, you never came out in support of their call for an investigation. You simply thought we had protections at the parish and diocesan level to handle these matters:

An example:

"Feel free to be cynical, but I don’t see how that helps when the parishes and dioceses seem to be putting measures in place. "

Note: to be fair, those were your words about the letter as a whole, not about the specific call for an investigation into the McCarrick affair.
 
I have no problem with an investigation.

It also makes sense to me that they would say the nuncio has a good character. I would certainly hope he has been a man of generally good character, as he was the nuncio and we certainly don’t want to see people of bad character in that spot.

Whether his allegations are all correct is completely apart from his character. There are men of good character who have shown poor or misguided judgment or otherwise made mistakes. The investigation should shed more light on all this.

However, I don’t think calling for an investigation as the only practical way to get to the bottom of all this means that all the bishops supporting an investigation necessarily buy into Vigano’s view.
 
It is important to step back and look at what is being alleged and why instead of focusing on discrepancies you perceive. We can’t possibly know the whole story so if we find gaps we might be tempted to disregard the whole thing. But Is there any truth to the testimony? If so, the serious problems need to be addressed! Taken in its totality, a clearer picture can emerge.

When I read the following: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...francis-of-failing-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse it helped to create in my mind the scenarios leading to the shocking testimony. It also helps explain away some of the apparent inconsistencies (such as the photo you posted).

Arch Vigano and his 2 predecessors, Montalvo and Sambi, (premature death) had attempted on numerous occasions to have McCarrick’s acts addressed……since at least 2000! But he was protected by those in high places: Secretaries of State, Sadono and Bertone, among others are implicated. It was only when Sipe wrote PERSONALLY to Pope Benedict that any action was taken….the sanctions that are now being contested.

There is a paper trail of memos Vigano and others wrote….or maybe there USED to be! Also, that McCarrick disobeyed and perhaps even flaunted should come as no surprise if you’ve read any of the testimonies of those who were preyed upon.

When Vigano informed Pope Francis of the thick dossier and no action was taken, what recourse did he have? It is now 18 years since McCarrick and the culture that covers-up should have been corrected. When McCarrick’s acts started to become public knowledge and various cardinals claimed “shock” and “ignorance” Vigano decided to break the silence as an attempt to correct the root cause of the problem. As he related to Aldo Maria Valli, “the web of complicity, silence, cover-up, and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.”
When questioned “Why?” (he felt need to release testimony knowing the damage it would inflict upon Catholics)……
The response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.” https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2018/...iale-ed-ecco-perche-ho-deciso-di-pubblicarlo/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top