Bishop Strickland’s Public Statement to the Diocese

[Cathoholic]

1Lord1Faith . . .

But others who have already had their minds made up about Francis

Nobody here at CAF (that I have seen anyway) has said Pope Francis is guilty of KNOWING about McCarrick and removing his prohibitions etc. yet. Nobody.

And even if he is, Pope Francis MAY have had some good reason for overturning this interdict or sanction (or whatever it would be called). Someone MAY have lied to Pope Francis and said McCarrick is innocent of all of this from within the Vatican or some other good reason.

Nobody here has Pope Francis guilty of anything.

But people here DO WANT THE ISSUE addressed transparently!

And we have just got done hearing the Pope talk about this type of thing the last week and a half.

I want the issue addressed directly and open and honestly.

As do our Bishops (many if them)!

Pope Francis himself just got done telling us (via CBS) to do our own research and draw our own conclusions.

WHY are you not on-board with Pope Francis’ adminition?

Have you learned nothing about transparency from the 2002 Priest crisis?

It is time to call for the SAME transparency with the 2018 Bishop crisis (ex-Cardinal McCarrick and allegedly others).

This issue needs to be addressed and will be addressed. And the sooner, the better.

 

[Cathoholic]

Details on this stuff WILL come out.

God can do it within the Church, or from outside (lawyers, grand juries, money trails, leaked documents, etc.).

Let’s hope and pray for a holy and appropriate lasting solution from within.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I think they are doing their duty as holy men and Shepard’s of their flock. There job is to lead and protect their flock.
Strickland is calling for investigations which is what any good man or woman should be doing under these circumstances. He is calling on catholic lay people to demand the truth and not settle for cover ups and sweeping things under the rug like the church has shown it has been doing for the past several years.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I know, wasn’t meant as chiding your post, if it seemed that way. I agree with you.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I know, wasn’t meant as chiding your post, if it seemed that way. I agree with you.

No worries. I took it for what it was.

 

[Cathoholic]

Pope Francis has been calling for TRANSPARENCY for quite some time.

This from the Washington Post back in 2015 . . . .

Pope Francis wants ‘absolute transparency’ as he pushes Vatican reform​

By David Gibson | Religion News Service Washington Post

February 12, 2015

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis called for a Vatican that operates with “absolute transparency” as he gathered more than 165 cardinals in Rome for high-level meetings aimed at tackling one of the toughest challenges of his reformist papacy: overhauling the dysfunctional bureaucracy of the Roman Curia.

The goal, Francis told a lecture hall filled with the “princes of the church,” is to encourage “greater harmony” among the different church offices in a bid to foster “absolute transparency that builds authentic … collegiality.”

“Reform is not an end in itself, but a means of bearing a powerful Christian witness,” Francis said.

That was a nod to the scandals that overshadowed the waning years of Benedict XVI’s papacy and undermined the Vatican’s credibility with the public and the dismayed churchmen who had to deal with the fallout. . . .

(emphasis mine)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...560f3918d4b_story.html?utm_term=.25302317d6cb

 

[Cathoholic]

Others have seen Pope Francis as transparent in the past too . . .

Now for someone like me a conversation between the leaders of religious orders and Pope Francis might be naturally inviting, but I’m sure that’s not universally true. So, why am I making a big fuss about this here at TJP instead of just gushing over beers in my community rec room? Because this document shows how Pope Francis is actually practicing one of the most challenging and important things he calls for: transparency. Throughout this conversation he discusses, dialogues, and, rather than allowing his answers to be hidden behind bureaucratic procedures or dodging the difficult questions, Francis responds honestly. It’s great to see.

(Bold original)

Worth Reading: The Transparent Pope Francis - The Jesuit Post

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s amazing to me that so many people seem to buy into what a retired Archbishop is saying. If what he has is so important, why didn’t he release it years ago? Is he implicating himself in his own silence up until now?

Those are certainly two very good questions that also need to be answered.

Archbishop Vigano’s letter has definitely struck a chord, though. With all the stuff coming out about McCarrick, and certain people and priests speaking about how they were trying to raise the alarm about McCarrick for decades, but it never seemed to go anywhere. The information stalled at some point on its way up the hierarchical ladder.

Vigano’s statement explains how that happened. That’s why you see it resonating with so many people. Now, I agree that we shouldn’t buy into it whole hog without any due reflection. But it certainly bears looking into. Vigano was in the position to know these things.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This name calling seems somewhat extreme.

How’s this then: Archbishop Vigano’s actions are cowardly, and come across as being self righteous.

 

[Cathoholic]

1Lord1Faith . . .

How’s this then: Archbishop Vigano’s actions are cowardly, and come across as being self righteous.

How is it?

I think it is inappropriate. At least it is inappropriste to say publicly.

If you think that interiorly, you think it.

But I think for now, don’t impugn Archbishop Vigano.

You CAN support BOTH Pope Frsncis AND Archbishop Vigano.

It is not mutually exclusive.

Archbishop Vigano has revealed what he knows, much of it personally.

Coming from someone in his position, this NEEDS to be recognized as “credible”. Not necessarily “true” but “credible”.

Pope Francis has NOT DENIED knowing about Cardinal McCarrick.

Maybe BOTH Archbishop Vigano AND Pope Francis are in the right and it was a misunderstanding.

What if a bishop lied to Pope Francis and said the accusations that they MUST have known about concerning Cardinal McCarrick were false? Then Pope Francis in good conscience COULD have released any sanctions against McCarrick.

But still have been wrong.

And Archbishop Vigano (who approached Pope Francis personally several times about McCarrick) would be right too.

Vigano would have to approach Pope Francis about ALL the Bishops in the US as delegate to the Apostolic See.

It would be non-sense to think McCarrick or ANY Bishop did not come up in conversations with the Pope.

Why not just prayerfully support BOTH Pope Francis AND Archbishop Vigano for now?

And if you think one or the other was “self-righteous” keep it to yourself until MORE is known.

There are a LOT of Bishops supporting the credibility of Archbishop Vigano.

Pope Francis has, as of yet, not addressed this scandal (of McCarrick’s known abuse if priests, seminarians, and children yet McCarrick still rose to the proverbial top of the Vatican chain of command–HOW did THAT happen. People want to know and deserve to know in light of McCarrick’s history).

Nor has Pope Francis DENIED Archbishop Vigano’s assertions.

The head of the USCCB is flying to Rome to attempt to urge Pope Francis to deal with these issues promptly and transparently.

A transparency by the way, that Pope Francus has called for repeatedly.

Many Bishops have released statements urging the Pope to deal with these issues.

I think for now any talk of “self-righteousness” against our clergy (Pope Francis or Archbishop Vigano) should be reserved until later.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

How is it?

Cowardly because he has issued this statement now. Now is a very easy time to issue a statement like this. I’m sure he thinks he will get the least amount of blowback now, not to mention the fact that he is also retired. Why didn’t he go to the media years ago? His explanation for that is not very convincing, nor does he ever apologize for not coming forth to the public sooner.

Self-righteous because he takes no personal responsibility for the failures that he accuses others of, even though by his own admission, he was immersed in the system which made all this mess possible. There is lots of finger pointing in his statement, but there is no indication that he realizes that he is part of the hierarchy too, not just a bishop who has no responsibility here.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Cowardly because he has issued this statement now . Now is a very easy time to issue a statement like this. I’m sure he thinks he will get the least amount of blowback now, not to mention the fact that he is also retired. Why didn’t he go to the media years ago? His explanation for that is not very convincing, nor does he ever apologize for not coming forth to the public sooner.

What, exactly, would he have revealed years ago? That there were rumors and accusations about a Bishop having sex with of-age seminarians? These rumors and reports have been public for years. If the sanctions against him were indeed private (or at least discreet), and all claims are that they were, then it would not have necessarily been appropriate to air all of these things publicly.

What has changed in the past few weeks is that more unsettling criminal allegations against McCarrick have become public, and the Pope publicly punished McCarrick. The wake of the current scandal is precisely the time such whistle-blowing efforts are most effective and important. Had Vigano said years ago what he said now, there would be no grounds for taking it seriously and having an impact. Now, with eyes on the Vatican and the cover-ups, we have the perfect opportunity for these types of allegations to receive the attention they deserve.

In short, this is precisely the time to reveal these private, shady goings on; these were matters of private penance before, but now that we know the full extent of the crimes we have to shine full light on the corruption that we all know has been going on. Whether the Pope is guilty of anything at all remains to be seen, but now is certainly the appropriate time to bringing these things out.

In fact, I would argue that had these matters been brought public years ago you would have much stronger grounds for accusing Vigano of sour grapes and character assassination, as he would have been making public a discreet matter of quiet sanctions regarding sinful, unethical (but not illegal) behavior by a Bishop.

 

[13pollitos]

Is there a place that all bishop responses that have been issued have been listed? That would make it so much easier to access the various responses to read and share with people from all the different diocese.

 

[Cathoholic]

What, exactly, would he have revealed years ago? That there were rumors and accusations about a Bishop having sex with of-age seminarians? These rumors and reports have been public for years . If the sanctions against him were indeed private (or at least discreet), and all claims are that they were, then it would not have necessarily been appropriate to air all of these things publicly.

What has changed in the past few weeks is that more unsettling criminal allegations against McCarrick have become public, and the Pope publicly punished McCarrick. The wake of the current scandal is precisely the time such whistle-blowing efforts are most effective and important. Had Vigano said years ago what he said now, there would be no grounds for taking it seriously and having an impact. Now, with eyes on the Vatican and the cover-ups, we have the perfect opportunity for these types of allegations to receive the attention they deserve.

In short, this is precisely the time to reveal these private, shady goings on; these were matters of private penance before, but now that we know the full extent of the crimes we have to shine full light on the corruption that we all know has been going on. Whether the Pope is guilty of anything at all remains to be seen, but now is certainly the appropriate time to bringing these things out.

In fact, I would argue that had these matters been brought public years ago you would have much stronger grounds for accusing Vigano of sour grapes and character assassination, as he would have been making public a discreet matter of quiet sanctions regarding sinful, unethical (but not illegal) behavior by a Bishop.

Excellent post Ghosty1981!

A large group of Catholic men in my community and I will be meeting later this week about how we are going to approach this in the community.

Hope you don’t mind, but I am going to proverbially swipe a lot of these points you made.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What, exactly, would he have revealed years ago? That there were rumors and accusations about a Bishop having sex with of-age seminarians? These rumors and reports have been public for years .

I don’t know how to respond to this. I’m sorry but most of your post doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I’m missing something.

But it’s a fairly simple premise to understand that Archbishop Vigano could have put this statement out before he retired. The fact that there was no criminal activity involved only makes it more compelling that he should have blown his whistle before his retirement.

I think it is obvious that Archbishop Vigano’s timing is suspect. Also, his statement is trying to feign shock at actions that the Archbishop was apparently very familiar with. I don’t buy his pearl clutching, and his own motives are anything but transparent.

 

[Ghosty1981]

But it’s a fairly simple premise to understand that Archbishop Vigano could have put this statement out before he retired. The fact that there was no criminal activity involved only makes it more compelling that he should have blown his whistle before his retirement.

We don’t “blow the whistle” on eachother’s private sins and penances. Until a few weeks ago McCarrick was known in certain circles as a man of extremely questionable moral character, but he was not known to be a predator in the criminal sense. Was Vigano supposed to reveal this man’s sins to the world so he could make an example of him? If the Pope kept McCarrick in confidence, and removed the previously imposed private sanctions (just assuming for the sake of argument that these allegations are true), then what would going public accomplish other than to give scandal?

I think it is obvious that Archbishop Vigano’s timing is suspect. Also, his statement is trying to feign shock at actions that the Archbishop was apparently very familiar with. I don’t buy his pearl clutching, and his own motives are anything but transparent.

What has changed is that McCarrick’s sins are now widely known outside the hierarchy, and even worse we now know that his sins included molestation of youth. McCarrick’s sins went from private indiscretions with “consenting” adults, to public charges of sexual abuse. To use a personal example, I know of many sins of others, including sexual activity by priests. I don’t make a public spectacle of it because I have not seen evidence that they are dangerous, only that they are morally perfidious. Were I in a position to advise their Bishops against appointing them to certain positions, I would do so (I have no position that would allow this), but I’m not about to name names and reveal their sins to the world as they aren’t criminals, just gross sinners like many of us. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out the sins of others, especially when your knowledge comes from second-hand sources.

When McCarrick’s sins were personal and hidden, it would have been quite questionable to reveal them. Once they became public, and included violent assaults on the young, Vigano felt he had to speak out about the fact that McCarrick was known to be an unrepentant sinner, and that private admonitions and sanctions first had no effect, and then were removed by the very man who is now calling for transparency and public accountability. This doesn’t make Vigano a noble crusader, and it doesn’t mean he has no axe to grind. It just means that what was once reasonably kept private is now out in the open, and there are implications about McCarrick’s activities that reach all the way to the Papacy.

Now is precisely the time to reveal what was going on behind closed doors, because the doors are part-way open and some potentially bad-actors are in a position to walk away without correction.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We don’t “blow the whistle” on eachother’s private sins and penances.

This is where your premise fails. This has nothing to do with confession or anything deserving of privacy. I’m not going to read the rest.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Allow me to use a personal example to illustrate my point. I know a man who was a member of a religious order. This man revealed to me privately that he is under private sanctions because of his homosexual activities while living with the order. This man gently solicited me, I believe, for a “closer relationship”. I have seen him similarly giving a lot of attention to other young adult men. I don’t know of any sexual crimes committed by him, only about his sexual proclivities and sanctions that he revealed to me himself.

I will not reveal this man to the world for scrutiny, that is not my place. His sins are his own, as is his penance. If, however, I found out that he hurt children yet was kept in a position in the community, and his activities became publicly known, I would certainly reveal what he told me if I felt that his superiors had covered for a predator and put others at risk.

As of now I won’t reveal the details because for all I know this man is merely a troubled sinner, but not a predator. Up until a few weeks ago that is what most thought McCarrick was, too.

 

[graciew]

Now is precisely the time to reveal what was going on behind closed doors, because the doors are part-way open and some potentially bad-actors are in a position to walk away without correction.

Where is Arch. Vigano now?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Where is Arch. Vigano now?

How should I know? He has said his piece, responded to certain allegations, and may speak some more in the coming days. It doesn’t matter where he is at the moment.