Disturbing corroboration for ++ Vigano

[StandUp4Truth]

20, 30 years ago, maybe. Today, after the Dallas Conference of 2002, no. If you want to wallow in your angst and it makes your hubris seem more “valid” go ahead. Prove to me that there are still abusive priests and bishops today covering up abuse, and I’ll buy your disagreement. If not, I’m tired of trying to shed some light on the fact that this was a problem 20 to 70 years ago and steps have been in place for the last fifteen years or so to see that it does not happen again on a wide scale. Will, there be isolated instances of abuse and poor judgment in handling them, yea, but not the ocean of crap we’ve been hearing about historically.

So wait, you say “prove to me that abuse and cover ups are still happening” in one sentence, but then go on to say “isolated instances” and cover-ups will still occur, so which is it? Sounds like you are unsure yourself.

Wait for the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska scandal, that will be the next shoe to drop. There will be more to come, which is why parishioners want to see the Church doing everything they can to cast out abusers ASAP.

I will concede that the steps in place since 2002 are reducing the occurrence of abuse, but can you agree that the Church is still not doing everything it can to prevent future abuse? They could be handing over records, excommunicating abusers, supporting civil trials and jail time, etc.

To understand why everyone else is so upset, you need to really listen to what Vigano is saying, because (if true) it means the culture of ignoring abuse goes all the way to the top - this should be deeply disturbing for all Catholics. I’m praying for the Holy Father and the Church to weather this storm, but the faithful need more from our leadership now than “silence and prayer” - that attitude is what got us into this mess!

 

[CilladeRoma]

you need to really listen to what Vigano is saying, because (if true) it means the culture of ignoring abuse goes all the way to the top -

That is a really big “if”.

I have seen more evidence that disproves what Vigano has said than corroborates it.
And, why should we believe him? He could have “come out” with his information 6 years ago, why did he wait until now?

 

[tafan2]

I have seen more evidence that disproves what Vigano has said than corroborates it.

Really? I have seen nothing that disproves anything he has said.

 

[philipl]

@philipl Our conversation is over. You have crossed a line. One thing I do not choose to do, for my own benefit, is to continue contact of any kind with someone who dismisses my experiences as an abuse survivor. This is the point at which I know this person is not reachable…at least not by me. Yes, you know NOTHING about me and yes, I DO perceive you as the things I have written.

You can continue to pray for our church leaders to do what ever you think it is they need to do. I will keep praying they see jail time if they are guilty of a crime. Nothing less will start to restore the church. These leaders have damaged the faith. 37 years is too long a time to wait for justice to take place. It is time for the courts to force the church to release all document on accused priest and what steps the church leaders took in protecting them. BTW, you know NOTHING about me either.

 

[CilladeRoma]

There is zero evidence of anything Vigano said. There is plenty of evidence that shows McCarrick at all sorts of functions in Rome, with Pope Benedict even.

If Benedict actually disciplined McCarrick, as Vigano states, why was he allowed to do anything while Benedict was still Pope?

In fact, there has been no evidence, period.
Just a lot of accusations by someone with an obvious dislike of Pope Francis.

 

[tafan2]

So your only evidence that disproves Vigano’s statements is that McCarrick’s activities.

 

[13pollitos]

McCarrick would not be the only person (even within the Church) to blatantly defy orders from a superior. It happens all the time.

For someone to see no evidence at all they would have to be blind. Perhaps intentionally. That is not going to help any of us moving forward.

I happen to have been very happy when Pope Francis was elected. It was an extremely happy day in my life. Over time I have been losing that joy. I want him to show us that he deserved the praise many of us reaped on him, and he deserved our many explanations and defenses when he spoke in ways that seemed to contradict the Church. I want him to provide us a clear picture of all that is being uncovered, plus whatever else is looming behind closed doors still unfound.

I don’t dislike Pope Francis at all. It’s my love for him and his office that makes me seek the truth. It is the only way to repair, rebuild, and grow stronger.

 

[tafan2]

I agree with everything you said. There is a modern day ultramontanism that in my mind is not healthy. During the reign of St JP II and Benedict XVI, it was assumed to have been on the conservative side of the church. But that was nothing compared to the version of it we see on the progressive side of the Church since Francis has been pope. It seems that anything except out right applause for every move the man makes implies we want him to resign. Certainly not the case.

 

[pnewton]

Even the post-2002 punishments enacted by the Church in many cases have been insufficient, parishioners want to see these predators cast out of the flock and sent to jail.

The Church cannot do that. That is not how jail works. There has been on case of criminal activity not being reported to the authorities

well, how many abusers have been excommunicated?

The Church also does not excommunicate people for sin they commit. Even if they did, the option is always open to lift the excommunication. This solution might work for a week or a month, but it does little.

why didn’t the Church get proactive about identifying and removing the abusers?

It has. Hunt them down??? You make it sound like one can tell a child abuser by looking at them, or asking them questions. The only possible hint you might get before a person (any person, this obsession with priests baffles me) is that they disregard child safety rules. That has already been proactively addressed through VIRTUS.

I pray this is not the case, but I agree with Fr Longnecker (OP’s article) that the Pope’s track record up to this point and current silence is not very encouraging.

Yes, I looked at that hit piece and decided it was garbage and unbecoming an intellect like Fr. Longnecker. You know what begging the question is, I assume. For one thing, it had zero to do with the allegations AB Vigano made. People like you with an opinion like yours about the Church will consider such things of value. People like me with opinions like mine will consider them worthless. That is why specifics are needed, like the letter literal not covering one point made in AB Vigano’s letter. Also, I looked into the first case and found it controversial. There was definitely more than one side to it. Like the fact that there is no record of Fr. Inzoli committing any sexual offence, or even having contact with children (opportunity), after Pope Francis became pope. He was convicted of sex offenses after the papacy, but those convictions were for cases before Pope Francis.

 

[joeybaggz]

So wait, you say “prove to me that abuse and cover ups are still happening” in one sentence, but then go on to say “isolated instances” and cover-ups will still occur, so which is it? Sounds like you are unsure yourself.

You can put every protection possible, vet every candidate for the priesthood, do backround checks on every person having anything to do with kids in the church back to the time they were being toilet trained, and somewhere in the future, there is going to someone who slips through the cracks. There are abusers everywhere. There probably will be another. But I doubt there will be 300/1000 like there were 50 YEARS AGO!!! That is human nature. Sin is sin and it doesn’t stop.
Personally I am sick and tired of the hand wringing of soft Catholics who believe the sky is falling, that the church leadership is corrupt, uncaring, and devious to the point of simply continuing the status quo of thirty years ago. IMO everyone who wants to continue to judge the present day by the sins of long dead abusers of 40, 50 or more years ago, should just walk out the door of their local Catholic church, and go join some fundamentalist joke. Leave the 2000 years of tradition, the presence of the Lord in the sacraments, and all the good the RCC does and go hold hands with those who are joyously having a field day at every faithful Catholic from Francis down to the last infant baptized today.

If wallowing in the mud is your cup of tea, go ahead and wallow. Just don’t invite me to your party.

And if in ten years, this crap is still going on, I will be the first one to join in the call for something to be done. The clergy is getting the last benefit of the doubt from me, and from anyone who is unwilling to join the bandwagon of believers that nothing has changed.

But it is getting the benefit of the doubt. Here’s hoping they keep their word. In my diocese, they are.

 

[kyrie03]

Yes, I looked at that hit piece and decided it was garbage and unbecoming an intellect like Fr. Longnecker. You know what begging the question is, I assume. For one thing, it had zero to do with the allegations AB Vigano made. People like you with an opinion like yours about the Church will consider such things of value. People like me with opinions like mine will consider them worthless. That is why specifics are needed, like the letter literal not covering one point made in AB Vigano’s letter. Also, I looked into the first case and found it controversial. There was definitely more than one side to it. Like the fact that there is no record of Fr. Inzoli committing any sexual offence, or even having contact with children (opportunity), after Pope Francis became pope. He was convicted of sex offenses after the papacy, but those convictions were for cases before Pope Francis.

Without seeing all of the evidence, how can you determine that Fr Longnecker’s wrote a worthless hit piece?

I’ve never read The Week. But when I researched the Fr Inzoli case, this is what I found…is it also garbage?

Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname "Don Mercedes." He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.

But Don Mercedes was "with cardinal friends," we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a "a life of humility and prayer." These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.

This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.

http://theweek.com/articles/670249/child-abuse-scandal-coming-pope-francis

Pope Francis seems to trust advisors such as Cd Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pinto. A brief research into these two reveals they’ve been involved in a number of controversies during Francis’ pontificate.

 

[pnewton]

Without seeing all of the evidence, how can you determine that Fr Longnecker’s wrote a worthless hit piece?

By “hit piece” I mean it was directed at the character of the Holy Father, while saying zip about the McCarrick incident. The argument is that the Holy Father could have done something bad because he does bad things - a hit piece.

A brief research into these two reveals they’ve been involved in a number of controversies

So was Jesus. Guilt by association is as fallacious as ad hominem (Don Mercedese, e.g.). This is why investigators research facts. Rumors and accusations can be the start of a trail to be followed, but they are useless otherwise.

There is no doubt that showing someone like him mercy needs to be done with prudence. Was it? All we know is there are no known repeat incidents.

 

[kyrie03]

So was Jesus. Guilt by association is as fallacious as ad hominem (Don Mercedese, e.g.). This is why investigators research facts. Rumors and accusations can be the start of a trail to be followed, but they are useless otherwise.

The problem with your analogy is that Christ addressed controversies or misinterpretations He faced. He didn’t remain silent when people asked for clarification of His doctrines and allow either his apostles or those embroiled in controversies to clarify His teaching.

Contrast Pope Francis -asked by simple faithful, numerous theologians, priests, bishops and even 4 Cardinals to clarify what the heck he was trying to teach. He refused to answer.

Instead we got Monsignor Pinto warn that the 4 Dubia Cardinals* “could lose their Cardinalate” for causing “grave scandal” by making the dubia public. Letter #67, 2016: The Silent Pope - Inside The Vatican

Cardinal Coccopalmerio (his secretary used his apartment and was arrestedby Vatican police at a drug fueled orgy) published a booklet “The 8th Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia” “Divorced and remarried, unmarried couples living together, are certainly not models of unions in harmony with Catholic doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. For which reason the sacraments of reconciliation and of communion ought to be given also to so-called wounded families and to those who even though living in situations not in line with the traditional canons on matrimony, express a sincere desire to draw closer to the sacraments after an adequate period of discernment.”

PopeWatch: Cardinal Coccopalmerio - The American Catholic

Father Z brings us the details on Cardinal Coccopalmerio's official or unofficial, response or nonresponse to the five dubia of the Four Cardinals: In the shallow, liberal, Italian Catholic weekly Panorama we are informed about a booklet now out over the name of Card. Coccopalmerio, Prefect of...

the-american-catholic.com

These 2 close advisors who presume to clarify for Pope Francis are the same 2 who advised rehabilitation of Fr. Inzoli. He was rehabilitated prior to the civil case found him guilty. The Vatican had information on Fr Inzoli that they could have shared much sooner with the civil authorities to have justice served in a more timely manner, according to article I linked.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with your analogy is that Christ addressed controversies or misinterpretations He faced.

I gave no analogy, but you are wrong about Jesus staying silent, as he did not always explain everything, publicly, at least, and even that does not account for how much of his ministry we do not know.

Wrong thread to get into the dubia again.

 

[kyrie03]

There is no doubt that showing someone like him mercy needs to be done with prudence. Was it? All we know is there are no known repeat incidents.

We PRESUME there were no repeat offenses. But as we see with PA Grand Jury Report and numerous other abuse cases, very often the abuse doesn’t come to light until many years later when the victim is able to cope with trauma. Sadly, many victims never do.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

The Church cannot do that. That is not how jail works. There has been on case of criminal activity not being reported to the authorities

How do you know that there’s been only one case not reported to authorities? Why should anyone trust the Church’s self-reporting after their spotty track record?

The Church also does not excommunicate people for sin they commit. Even if they did, the option is always open to lift the excommunication. This solution might work for a week or a month, but it does little.

How can you say excommunication wouldn’t be effective if it’s never been tried? Also, the Pope can excommunicate whoever he wants (living or dead) for any reason he deems valid - why hasn’t word gone out yet that all confirmed abusers will be excommunicated? This measure may help prevent potential abusers from turning down that dark road in the first place.

It has. Hunt them down??? You make it sound like one can tell a child abuser by looking at them, or asking them questions. The only possible hint you might get before a person (any person, this obsession with priests baffles me) is that they disregard child safety rules. That has already been proactively addressed through VIRTUS.

Yes “hunt them down”, it’s called a sting operation, have you ever seen NBC’s “To Catch a Predator”? Law enforcement has many tools to draw out and identify abusers or those with the intent to abuse, and the Church would do well to adopt these techniques before it is too late.
The “obsession” with priests is rooted in the CCC’s teaching that priests are to conduct themselves in the image of Christ, and these abuses constitute a desecration of the image of Christ.
How is it that after every one of these high profile scandals we learn that rumors were circulating long before it was in the news?
If the Church was being proactive about preventing abuse, it would investigate these rumors and take corrective action BEFORE it makes headlines.
I agree that VIRTUS is a step in the right direction, but it was not “proactive”, it was 100% REACTIVE!
Instituting the VIRTUS program brought the Church into the 21st century on the subject of abuse (to join other mainline denominations, schools, prisons, etc.). It’s a good program, but it was begrudgingly adopted, and there are still churches that don’t use it.

Yes, I looked at that hit piece and decided it was garbage and unbecoming an intellect like Fr. Longnecker.

It’s interesting that you would accuse me of bias while yours is so clearly on display in your response. As others have posted, Fr Inzoli’s debaucheries were well known and widely publicized. What say you about the Pope’s preferential treatment of the wayward clergy members identified in Fr Longnecker’s article, or do you choose to ignore that aspect as well?
If you have links which provide a counterpoint to the article shared by the OP, please share them. Unlike some on this forum, I’m willing to consider both sides of an argument in the pursuit of truth.

 

[pnewton]

We PRESUME there were no repeat offenses.

One should always presume innocence in the face of no information. I would hope that everyone here presumes I am not a thief, as there is no record of me stealing. At the same time, I assume nothing, which is why I worded my post precisely.

All we know is there are no known repeat incidents.

I also note there is no evidence he even had access to potential victims.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

One should always presume innocence in the face of no information. I would hope that everyone here presumes I am not a thief, as there is no record of me stealing. At the same time, I assume nothing, which is why I worded my post precisely.

Do you lead an organization with a 37+ year history of theft or covering up for thieves?
The public DOES have information, mountains of it, and none is favorable for the Church.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

You can put every protection possible, vet every candidate for the priesthood, do backround checks on every person having anything to do with kids in the church back to the time they were being toilet trained, and somewhere in the future, there is going to someone who slips through the cracks. There are abusers everywhere. There probably will be another. But I doubt there will be 300/1000 like there were 50 YEARS AGO!!! That is human nature. Sin is sin and it doesn’t stop.
Personally I am sick and tired of the hand wringing of soft Catholics who believe the sky is falling, that the church leadership is corrupt, uncaring, and devious to the point of simply continuing the status quo of thirty years ago. IMO everyone who wants to continue to judge the present day by the sins of long dead abusers of 40, 50 or more years ago, should just walk out the door of their local Catholic church, and go join some fundamentalist joke. Leave the 2000 years of tradition, the presence of the Lord in the sacraments, and all the good the RCC does and go hold hands with those who are joyously having a field day at every faithful Catholic from Francis down to the last infant baptized today.

If wallowing in the mud is your cup of tea, go ahead and wallow. Just don’t invite me to your party.

And if in ten years, this crap is still going on, I will be the first one to join in the call for something to be done. The clergy is getting the last benefit of the doubt from me, and from anyone who is unwilling to join the bandwagon of believers that nothing has changed.

But it is getting the benefit of the doubt. Here’s hoping they keep their word. In my diocese, they are.

Joey, many law enforcement experts who work abuse cases have gone on record stating that the Church is not doing enough to prevent abuse, and that there are many tools to combat this problem which the Church has yet to employ.
Why is that? Is it possible that the culture of ignoring abuse persists within the Church, even at the highest levels?<This is what Vigano’s testimony indicates.
Your continued focus on the abuse itself and when it occurred shows that you are missing the point entirely.
Did you read Fr Longnecker’s article (posted by the OP?)
Your efforts at hand waving and resorting to personal attacks smack of desperation.
Your wish for “soft Catholics” (presumably anyone who disagrees with you) to leave the Church is wishful thinking, faithful Catholics with eyes can see that reform is badly needed to restore accountability at all levels.

 

[pnewton]

Do you lead an organization with a 37+ year history of theft or covering up for thieves?
The public DOES have information, mountains of it, and none is favorable for the Church.

You are off the track with this. I was referring specifically with assuming a sex offender with no known access to children has re-offended when there is no evidence, accusation or even suggestion that he has.