Disturbing corroboration for ++ Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
  • people are innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...
Well strictly speaking, if you do something wrong you are guilty regardless if it is ever proven. Just saying.

Just as we shouldn’t ascribe guilt to someone based solely on accusations, we also shouldn’t ignore the accusations either. How many assault victims were ignored for years because they didn’t have immediate proof?

I don’t know who’s lying, misunderstood, or is telling the truth. All I know is that ignoring allegations is exactly how we got to where we are now.
 
@CilladeRoma you’ll notice the original article just glues together slander from various media outlets.

What is noteworthy? It is that the article was written by a priest, who probably being a commendable person and good religious isn’t able to critically dismiss the mass slander media.

The entire sad subject is well beyond the average man’s grasp requiring simultaneous comment on forensic psychology, politics in mass media, church governance/history, and the legal system both civil and canonical.
 
joeybaggz said:
I don’t think his action was in any way, sanctioning McCarrick’s abusive behavior, which would be actionable in the court having proper jurisdiction over his actions. Besides, I believe McCarrick’s abuse was with seminarians,
Click to expand...
If McCarrick forced himself upon any one that would be in a boss/employee role. That is illegal in most states if not all states in the USA. If Frances knew and covered it up that too is illegal in the states. McCarrick needs to face his day in a court of state law in which he may have committed these crimes. If found guilty he need to be placed in jail.
 
This is going to be the new narrative, “I was abused” so somehow they and only they are uniquely qualified to to determine how everyone is to react. Sorry, but god gave me a brain to use that think with, these men need to face legal justice for their crimes. The sooner the better for the church
 
philipl said:
This is going to be the new narrative, “I was abused” so somehow they and only they are uniquely qualified to to determine how everyone is to react.
Click to expand...
Please provide, with quotes, where I said that “I and only I am uniquely qualified to to determine how everyone is to react”.

You know NOTHING about me or my experiences. You are hugely inappropriate and border on abusive in your comments. You appear ready to use any angle of attack, to take advantage of anything, in order to be the “winner” of the argument. You are interested in yourself, and your feelings, far above anyone else’s. Good luck with that.
 
CilladeRoma said:
The Devil is alive & well in the Curia and he is playing a dangerous political game.
Click to expand...
…not that we want to be judgemental or anything…
No novelist ever went broke depicting sinister intrigue in the Curia.
 
Last edited:
Why is it ok for Vigano et.al. to be judge & jury when it comes to those who have a different political bent?
I don’t see too many here at CAF rushing to defend the Holy Father, just a lot of people spewing the same baseless narratives.
 
philipl said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
I don’t think his action was in any way, sanctioning McCarrick’s abusive behavior, which would be actionable in the court having proper jurisdiction over his actions. Besides, I believe McCarrick’s abuse was with seminarians,
Click to expand...
If McCarrick forced himself upon any one that would be in a boss/employee role. That is illegal in most states if not all states in the USA. If Frances knew and covered it up that too is illegal in the states. McCarrick needs to face his day in a court of state law in which he may have committed these crimes. If found guilty he need to be placed in jail.
Click to expand...
Yea, except when McCarrick was abusing others, Francis was the bishop/archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina. He had no jurisdiction over McCarrick. Somebody please get the facts straight !!
 
I am not talking about abuse allegations, I take those quite seriously.

I am talking about priests & Bishop’s who are using their own personal agendas against other priests & Bishop’s who don’t think like them to further a political divide in the American church.
 
The mistake you made in your post is a logical fallacy. Appeal to authority. There are whole books devoted to logical Fallacies.

You write that I know nothing about you, then write two or three sentences about me. Seems that knowing nothing about me doesnt stop you in the least.

I am very willing to offer these men mercy and forgiveness. What I am unwilling to do is to allow them to avoid punishment for their crimes. These men have used their position of power over others to both abuse them and then avoid punishment. We have the rule of law in this country, all laws should apply the same to all people.
 
Except that once Francis became pope he remove all restrictions on McCarrick. It is claimed that he was told that McCarrick was an abuser. I have no problem if they extradite Benedict to stand trial if there is enough proof to bring charges. I am unwilling to allow the church leaders to continue to cover up these crimes. Showing mercy isnt the same as not allowing justice to have its day in court. This is going to keeep growing until the church release all documents on these crimes.
 
anon64350612 said:
We can argue all day over whether he actually knew every detail. As the head of the church, he is responsible. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Click to expand...
Yes, however, the pope is not the “capo di tutti, capo” Each bishop is responsible for his own diocese. The pope can remove a bishop, true, but the structure of the church is each bishop is independent and responsible for his diocese. If, as has been the case since 2002 and the Dallas conference, the bishops are not tolerating such situations and have taken steps to remedy the problem at home, there is no reason for the pope to interfere. Benedict XVI was not pontiff when McCarrick was abusive; certainly not Francis, and as to what JP II knew, that is problematic. Again, McCarrick’s abuse wasn’t pedophilia but rather something that didn’t really come to light until late in JP II’s term, and at a point where he may not have had the facilities to make a clear judgment. We will never know that.

So, should the Pope remove abusing bishops, yes, when one is found to be doing so on his watch. Not a situation with either Benedict or Francis.
 
philipl said:
It is claimed that he was told that McCarrick was an abuser
Click to expand...
Yes, second hand knowledge. I’ll say it again, Francis was archbishop/bishop of Buenos Aires when McCarrick was active, Francis was not responsible for McCarrick’s actions or in a place to sanction him. Your statement that Francis removed all restrictions is false. Francis simply restored McCarrick to a clerical post in the curia. If he did remove all and sent him back to where he could continue his abuse, I’d agree 1000% with you . But that is not the case. Francis made an ecclesial decision of an administrative nature within the hierarchy of the church, something not actionable in a court of law, anywhere.
 
Interesting article, thank you for the link.

I believe Viganò.
 
joeybaggz said:
Francis simply restored McCarrick to a clerical post in the curia.
Click to expand...
Youre splitting hairs. If the church leaders dont do a lot more to see these priest punished for their crimes the church is going to suffer even longer for their action. Both Wuerl and McCarrick need to be in a court of law and if found guilty need to see the inside of a jail cell.
 
ABP Vigano also alleged ABP McCarrick also was advising the Pope on crucial decisions, like cardinal appointments. Is that true? If so, was he also a US contact prior to Francis becoming Pope? Did McCarrick have connection to some who got appointed?
 
philipl said:
Youre splitting hairs. If the church leaders dont do a lot more to see these priest punished for their crimes the church is going to suffer even longer for their action. Both Wuerl and McCarrick need to be in a court of law and if found guilty need to see the inside of a jail cell.
Click to expand...
No I’m not. I agree that leaders of the church, if found to be either committing or aiding and abetting criminal behavior should be removed from office and prosecuted both in civil and church courts. What I am responding to is this nonsense that Francis should be brought up on charges for something that didn’t happen on his watch, and when it did happen, he had neither authority or jurisdiction. He was the archbishop of Buenos Aires at the time! These irrational posts demanding the head of pontiffs who had nothing to do with the actionable offenses of others are defamatory at best. Again, possibly Francis’ decision to restore McCarrick to a clerical post might be a bit politically tone deaf, but in no way did he reinstate him to a position where he could continue his abuse. Look, you could defrock McCarrick and he still might abuse (though at 85, I doubt it would be “serious”) as a layman.
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
But right now he is being tried in the court of public opinion, and that is a very tough jury to convince of innocents.
Click to expand...
True, and there is a whole cadre of people, Catholics included, who seem to want every priest, bishop, and pope removed from office because of the actions of others. EVERYONE’S GUILTY, THE CHURCH IS A CORRUPT INSTITUTION OF ABOMINABLE PESTILENCE, AND OFF WITH EVERYONE’S HEAD. I happen not to agree with that sentiment.

The abusers have been recognized and dealt with. Again, it is the responsibility of the local bishop to deal with an abusive priest. It is not the pope’s responsibility. I agree with you about McCarrick but I think if you are going to have to go after a pope on that one, you’ll have to dig up JP II. The liberal media would probably love that. Unfortunately so would a whole h**luva lot of Catholics I’m afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top