Disturbing corroboration for ++ Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CilladeRoma said:
However, Vigano is the one who is making claims with zero evidence, so it looks like he has an axe to grind. Therefore I will not give any credence to his claims unless and until he starts producing some proof.
Click to expand...
No true. He has released copies of memos that he had in his possession.

And he told us where to find other evidence, but he does not have access. Those that do could release the evidence or deny its existence, they have done neither.

Finally, he described conversations he had with others. Since he had the conversation, it is not hearsay, but considered evidence. Now, the other parties to the conversations could release their version, and that would be evidence also. So far, exception for one conversation about the Kim Davis affair, they have chosen not to do so.

You may think Vigano is not to be trusted St all, but you cannot say he has given us no evidence.
 
His recollections of conversation he had are not evidence.

It is up to Vigano to have evidence before he starts making accusations.

I can say I recall a conversation, but it will always be from my perspective, so therefore it is hearsay, until there is someone who is willing to back up my claims.

Don’t you find it strange that no one is actually doing this for Vigano?
 
Last edited:
One’s recollection of a conversation is always considered evidence. Not all evidence is necessarily accurate, but any court of law accepts a conversation as evidence if the person testifying was directly involved in the conversation.

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof.
 
If one is trying to prove that another has done something wrong, the evidence is the proof.

Since people are not banging on Vigano’s door to corroborate anything he has said, I find his “evidence” lacking.

And, if it were me, I would also keep silent, as to not give any credence to what was being said about me. If others want to believe the worst, that is on them.

I will say it again though, I find it very distasteful that there are so many people who consider themselves “traditional Catholics” that will so easily take the word of someone with obvious issues with Pope Francis and take every opportunity to bash the Holy Father because he has or has not done what they think he should.
 
kyrie03 said:
When the Church boldly speaks the truth, it naturally attracts those searching for the truth.
Click to expand...
This kind of begs Pilate’s question. The papacy of Pope Francis has focused on teaching us mercy. It may be this is the truth that Satan is trying to cloud by raising enemies, crying instead for vengeance. Or it may not. I can only say that one side sounds to me more like Jesus, lives more like Jesus, and preaches more like Jesus. The other side reminds me more of the Pharisees that opposed him. I could be all wet, but that is how I see it.

I understand the opposition on theological grounds to some of the things he taught, even if I disagree. I also would never judge those driven by pain to an anger that blinds the one to the mercy of God. At some point though, it is helpful to examine all sides of this issue, including mercy for those who have greatly sinned .
 
tafan2 said:
One’s recollection of a conversation is always considered evidence.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Then the jury would weigh the evidence. This works better in a courtroom than it does on the internet. We are not the jury. However, the USCCB has asked for a full investigation into the McCarrick affair.
CilladeRoma said:
If one is trying to prove that another has done something wrong, the evidence is the proof.
Click to expand...
Evidence is never proof. At some point both sides may have to accept that some things will never be proven either way. Somethings might be.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be saying that evidence and proof are the same thing. They are not.

As for people who take every opportunity to bash the Holy Father, I agree, people should not do that. I do not. But accepting that Vigano’s statement are credible and supporting the US Bishops in calling for a complete investigation into the McCarrick affair is not bashing Pope Francis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top