Disturbing corroboration for ++ Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
judgemental refers to making a judgement on the status of another’s soul. Christ also spoke of recognizing the signs, and I agree with Bishop Barron that there is an element of the diabolical afoot. That is not saying anyone is possessed.
 
Vigano is neither acting as judge nor jury; he is acting as the whistleblower. and as Bishop Barron said, he should be questioned by a panel of forensic experts. If he is right, that should be brought forth; if he is wrong, that too should be clarified.
 
How about we start with Vigano?

Then Morlino on one side , Cupich on the other.

Then the author of this piece, Fr. Longernecker and on the other side Fr. Jim Martin.

Do you need more examples?
 
the reference to the Pope is about what he did or did not do, and what he was or was not told after he became Pope, as to McKarrick.
 
I think that by asking for Pope Francis to resign, without a shred of actual evidence of any wrongdoing is being a little judgemental.
But maybe that’s just me.:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
I think Vigano overestimates the awareness and promptness of the pontiff. Fact is, in any organization administration/CEO are only partially aware of what’s happening - and when they get news of something wrong it remains an unproven accusation that may very well be false. The quality of the social fabric is determinant in keeping sound practices and trust within an organization - normal modern procedure: mechanism need to be in place for anonymous complaining and due follow-up.

Again, Rome is an enormous human machine with tens of thousands of religious and functions reaching worldwide, it can’t be expected that they are all timely informed - and one single person, the pontiff, even less so. It boils down to making the church efficacious as an organization, and in any organization those changes require decades.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
the reference to the Pope is about what he did or did not do, and what he was or was not told after he became Pope, as to McKarrick.
Click to expand...
Then I have to ask, what was Francis told by Benedict after Francis was elevated to pope. I mean, EXACTLY what did he hear. We will never know. That was a private conversation between Benedict and Francis. Too many people are speculating the Francis knew every possible detail, from A to Z about McCarrick’s situation. I’m not ready to believe that. And again, Francis only allowed McCarrick to continue in a clerical position, not reinstate him to a position where he could continue his abuse.
 
No, I thought you were referring to American bishops, since you said the purpose was to further the divide of the American church
My bad.
 
Politics in the Church can be traced back a multitude of centuries. One may be “playing politics” and one may still be stating facts, or acting on them.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
CilladeRoma:
just a lot of people spewing the same baseless narratives.
Click to expand...
I am somewhat surprised to learn that the thousands of claims of sexual abuse of children and teenagers by Catholic clergy around the world are all baseless?
Click to expand...
@AlNg and I’m not surprised you continue going around throwing rhetorical questions in this specific instance taking a statement out of context. You do know detraction is a sin? And in this specific case you “sow discord” Proverbs 6:19 applies perfectly to you in what you wrote.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
Then I have to ask, what was Francis told by Benedict after Francis was elevated to pope. I mean, EXACTLY what did he hear.
Click to expand...
The documents that were handed over between them directly addressing the most urgent and pressing problems can be seen in the following picture:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
philipl said:
A bishop has no authority over the State or Federal Courts. No one is above the law. If JPII covered up abuse then those records need to be released. I think JPII was one of the best Pope in the last 500 years, but that doesnt excuse a cover up. When those men who are still alive and found able to stand trial, if a court of law finds them guilty and sentence, then justice will have been served.
Click to expand...
My post as to bishops having authority over abuse cases was in relation to the involvement of the Vatican and the Pope, It has nothing to do with civil authority. Of course I agree that civil crimes must also be handled by civil authorities in additional to ecclesial authority.
 
And again, what EXACTLY was said, and EXACTLY what was in those documents?
 
Jimmey said:
I am saddened so many people do not find this troubling.
Click to expand...
Jimmey, I think every Catholic finds this troubling. It is just that I don’t think many Catholics believe that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. To listen to so many posters, you get the impression that many believe that every priest, bishop, and pope is a abuse denying, aiding and abetting charlatan who all ought to be swept out of office. It’s ridiculous.
 
adgloriam said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
And again, what EXACTLY was said, and EXACTLY what was in those documents?
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to get at?
Click to expand...
There are multitudes of posts and opinions basing their “judgment” or “evidence” on simple speculation. So many are saying Francis was told by Benedict certain things pertaining to McCarrick. Who knows exactly what was said?
Those who hate the church are having a field day. Shouldn’t Catholics have all the facts before we hop in the same boat with them. To paraphrase Senator Baker, “what did the pope know and when did he know it?” Need a more definite answer than just speculation.
 
Did you see the picture he posted? That’s what he was referring to.
 
I reported this for being in the wrong forum, which is why I guess the OP chose to make up a fake title. The article does not corroborate one single thing AB Vigano said, but added additional accusations. While each one may be worthwhile, I always question those that do the old bandwagon thing of jumping on with new stuff at times like this. I would say it should be sufficient if the McCarrick situation be thoroughly investigated. To that end Fr. Longenecker added nothing.
 
Cruciferi said:
Did you see the picture he posted? That’s what he was referring to.
Click to expand...
Right, tell me EXACTLY what was in those documents, and EXACTLY what was said between the two men? Did Benedict possibly say that McCarrick was possibly falsely accused, or that his accusers were known homosexuals, or that… blah, blah, blah. WE DON’T KNOW. And therefore, I think we need to know all the facts before we should be calling for a man who had no authority or jurisdiction over McCarrick, to step down as pope, because he made an decision that allowed a man to fill a clerical role. YOU don’t know, and neither do I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top